The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdministrative Regulations re: common types of alterations to be reviewed and approved by city manager 1-5-2000 MEMORANDUM January 5, 2000 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Planner SUBJECT: Approval as to substance of Administrative Regulations identifying common types of alterations that may be reviewed and approved by the city manager (staff) pursuant to Section 10-13-14(a)(2), B.R.C., 1981. BACKGROUND On January 19, 1999 City Council amended Section 10-13-14 of the Historic Preservation Code to allow staff level review and approval of certain common types of alterations: 10-13-14(a)(2) The above notwithstanding, the manager may review without the two landmarks board designees any application that seeks only approval of certain common types of alterations that have been identified by the board through a regulation as being very familiar to the manager; and, if the manager determines that there would be no significant impact or potential detriment from the alteration, then the manager shall issue a certificate to the applicant and shall notify the city council and the applicant of such issuance. The purpose of this code amendment was to alleviate the Design Review Committee's weekly workload and to streamline the process for applications which are minor in nature. On August 4, 1999, the Landmarks Board approved the following common types of alterations for staff level approval: Re-roofing; paint colors; restoration of existing historic features; landscaping; rear or side yard fences that are less than S' high and have a minimum of I "spacing between the pickets. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this item is to add to this list of alterations that can be approved at a staff level. Specifically, the proposal is to allow the following alterations in the Downtown Historic District to be approved at a staff-level: patio extensions (outdoor railings), awnings, and signs. These alterations typically require approval by the Downtown Management Commission (DMC), and the Board has discussed streamlining the process for applicants so that they need only go before the DMC. The preservation planner and planning/ sign code staff will attend the DMC meetings so that applicants could get all of their approvals at a single meeting. This idea was discussed at the time that the initial administrative regulation was approved, but the Board felt it wanted a bit more experience reviewing these types of alterations to see if it would be comfortable including them in the staff-level approval list. Since that time, staff has coordinated with the Downtown Management Commission in reviewing and approving these types of alterations and feels comfortable that these alterations are easy to review and determine whether they meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. PROCESS The first step is to approve the rule as to substance and for the City Attorney to approve the rule as to form, which is the purpose of this agenda item. Following this meeting, the proposed rule will be published and public comment will be solicited. At the Board's February meeting, staff will return for a formal public hearing and adoption of the rule. FUTURE ITEMS TO CONSIDER The Board also agreed to, in the future, add items such as handicap ramps at such time that the committee has had ample experience in reviewing these requests. If the Board has other items that should be considered, staff recommends that you bring them up at the January meeting so that we can keep a list for future consideration. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Regulation Identifying Common Types of Alterations That May Be Reviewed and Approved Unilaterally By the City Manager Pursuant To Paragraph 10-13-14 (a)(2) B.R.C. The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board hereby identifies the following common types of alterations that are very familiar to the City Manager and that may be reviewed and approved unilaterally by the City Manager pursuant to Paragraph 10-13-14 (a)(2), B.R.C. 1981: the following alterations in the Downtown Historic District: patio extensions (outdoor railings), awnings, and signs. APPROVED by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board as a regulation this day of 12000. Ruth McHeyser Secretary to the Board Proposed rule approved as to form and legality by the City Attorney's Office on January 5, 2000, by David Gehr, City Attorney. Proposed rule approved prior to publication by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board on January 5, 2000. Three copies of the proposed rules filed with the City Clerk on January 12, 2000. Date of publication of notice in the Daily Camera, January 13, 2000. Approved by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board without change after considering public comment on , 2000, by Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Adopted rules filed with the City Clerk and effective on 2000. A:\STAFFLEV.M3 This is a Patch T type separator sheet. IIIIIII I I 11111111 Form Type = "B&C" CODE128 type baroode CD °o ryryU y~ W N c a m ~ II l (Q QN ~O Q F O U N N U Portrait Feed s New Form Follows... Printed on 11/27/2007 2:44:17 PM N a m .N N .C H ~ Vl 3 Q~ ^ Q~ °v Q. ~ o U II 0 C Cu y a` J City of Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Minutes CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1777 Broadway December 1, 1999 7:00 p.m. Board Members in Attendance Michael Holleran, Chair Sharon Rosall Rory Salance Lisa Egger Mark Ruzzin, ex-officio Planning Board member Board Members Absent Leslie Durgin, on leave Staff in Attendance Ruth McHeyser, Preservation Planner Alan Boles, City Attorney Sarah Myers, Landmarks Board Secretary Mr. Holleran called a quorum at 7:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted: 1. Citizen Participation for Items not on the Agenda No one from the public spoke. 2. Report on Landmark Alteration Certificates/ Demolition Permits Issued and Pending There were no questions. 3. Review and Approval of the Minutes of the November 3, 1999 meeting Ms.. McHeyse said she will include these in the January meeting packet. 4. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a request for individual landmark status for the property located at 2517 Broadway. Applicants: Stephen Sparn and Scott Sarbaugh. 1 Mr. Boles- explained the procedures for a quasi-judicial hearing. He asked for board members to reveal any ex-parte contact they may have had regarding this item. No board members had any ex-parte contacts. Mr. Boles- swore in those persons who are going to speak to this item. Staff Presentation Ms. McHeyser- went over the memorandum for the board and then showed slides of the property. Applicant Presentation Steven Spam of Sparn/Sarbaugh Developers, 15th St.- said he was happy to be able to contribute to preservation of this structure. Public Hearing Mr. Holleran - opened the public hearing and, seeing no one who wished to speak to this item, closed it. Motion Ms. Rosall- made a motion to recommend to City Council that the property located at 2517 Broadway be designated an individual landmark, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of the board. Ms. Rosall- said she thinks this is a noteworthy house as a residence and for its architecture. The board has always acknowledged that the simple vernacular homes are just as important as larger mansions in the area. Ms. Egger- said she sees that the structure meets the criteria and she will be supporting the motion. Mr. Salance- will be supporting the motion. He thinks the board should save as many vernacular buildings as possible. This one meets the criteria very well. Vote The board voted unanimously to support the motion, 4-0, Ms. Durgin absent. Ms. Rosall- thanked the applicant for having the foresight to do this. 2 5. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application for the structure located at 1143 Portland Place pursuant to Section 10-13-23 for buildings over fifty years or recognized as structures of merit. Applicant: Rudolph W. Harburg. Mr. Boles- asked for disclosure of any ex-parte contacts. Mr. Salance- saw the project in the design review meeting. Mr. Holleran- saw the project in the design review meeting. Ms. Rosall- did a site review. Ms. Egger- had none. Mr. Boles- swore in those who wished to speak to this item. Staff Presentation Ms. McHeyser- presented the staff memorandum and showed slides of the property. Mr. Salance- asked if there was actually a foundation or not. Ms. McHese- reviewed the slides again and agreed that it appears there is no foundation. Applicant Presentation Rudy Harburg, 1020 Mapleton Avenue- said the foundation is there but is very weak for the building's weight. The repairs would be very expensive. He said he has a lot of experience with restoring buildings and knows that this structure needs more work than he can afford. Also, the building was not well built to begin with and so he believes that trying to retain this structure is not a very good idea. Mr. Salance- said that from what he could see, much of the structure is sound. He also believes that replacing a foundation does not necessarily have to be such a daunting task. Mr. Harburg- said that the cracks will eventually open up, and the foundation is almost completely gone. Mr. Salance- said he just wanted to know how many option have been explored. Ms. Rosall- asked if he would consider restoring it. 3 Mr. Harbors- said he would not because of the poor workmanship to begin with. Public Hearing Mr. Holleran- opened the public hearing and, seeing no one who wished to speak to this item, closed it. Motion Ms. Rosall- made a motion to recommend that the City Manager issue a demolition permit for the building located at 1143 Portland Place, if all other requirements of the permit process are met, adopting the following findings by the Board: Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall provide: 1) black and white photographs of the interior and exterior of the building; 2) existing site plan showing building location relative to other structures on the lot and property lines; and, 3) scaled drawings of each elevation of the building, calling out details and materials. This documentation shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. Ms. Egger- seconded the motion. Board Discussion Ms. Rosall- said the decision was hard to make, but the ordinance makes it clear that the board's duty is not to save every old building in the city but rather to have a balance between private property rights and public historic interest. Thus, with this building, which is in bad repair and has been altered too much to meet the significance criteria adequately, demolition seems to be an appropriate action. Ms. Egger- said she agrees and thinks that the demolition won't detract significantly from the city's resources. Mr. Salance- said he is against the motion. He believes the building is still restorable, despite the crumbling foundation. He thinks the small neighborhood it's in is benefiting from its presence. Mr. Holleran- said he agrees the building is not unsalvageable, but he thinks the context and the shape it's in are enough for it not to meet the criteria. Therefore, he will support the demolition request. Vote The motion to recommend demolition passed 3-1, Mr. Salance against. 4 6. Public and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a request for designation of a portion of the Grandview Terrace area, as shown on the map below, as a historic district under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Code. Applicant: Colorado Arts and Crafts Society. Mr. Holleran- asked Mr. Boles to go over the procedures for a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Boles- explained the procedures and then he asked board members to reveal any ex-parte contact regarding this item. Mr. Salance- Said he is on the Mapleton Hill steering committee and attends monthly meetings. At each meeting where Grandview Terrace was brought up, he just let the neighbors know about important issues without taking sides on the matter. He said he also talked with Estella Cole in general about the issue. Her advise to him was: "Do the right thing." Mr. Holleran - Said that he had had a lot of ex-parte contacts on this matter. He disclosed that he is a tenured member of the faculty of the University of Colorado at Denver, which is a sister institution to the University of Colorado at Boulder. As a tenured member of the faculty, he believes that he is able to make an objective decision on this matter. He thinks any reasonably prudent person familiar with the university tenure system in this country and with the roll of university faculty in the civic life of the city of Boulder, would not expect him to make a decision other than an objective decision and therefore by the definitions in the code of the city of Boulder he has no conflict of interest in this matter. Stating that he was acting purely as a personal favor to his friends in the City Attorney's office, Mr. Holleran left the room. Mr. Holleran asked Ms. Rosall to take over as the Vice Chairperson. Ms. Rosall said she had no ex-parte contact on this item. Ms. Eeeer - had no contact. Mr. Boles- suggested to Ms. Rosall that the board ask any people in the room if they want to examine Mr. Salance about his ex-parte contacts. Ms. Rosall asked the audience. No one had questions. Mr. Boles explained that the applicant has the right to ask have the board postpone a hearing if there are only three members present. Ms. Rosall asked the Colorado Arts and Crafts Society if they want to postpone the hearing. 5 Cynthia Shaw-Mclauelin from the Arts and Crafts society came forward and told the board she would like to proceed tonight. Mr. Boles stated that the opponents cannot request a postponement. Staff Presentation Ms. McHeyse - for the record, corrected an error in the memo as to the date the planning department received the Arts and Crafts Society application. The date should be listed as October 28th. She submitted an article from the Boulder Daily Camera that verified this date. She then explained how the criteria in the code that relate to historic district designation and the Administrative Regulations that the board has adopted to interpret the criteria in a more specific way. She quoted from these significant criteria. Last, she presented the staff memorandum and showed slides. Ms. Rosall- asked Mr. Boles how best to do the cross examination. Mr. Boles- recommended doing it witness by witness. Paul Tabolt, Vice Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder- asked if Ms. McHeyser could go through and show which buildings in the Grandview Terrace neighborhood the University proposes to keep intact and in place. Ms. McHeyser- went though the slides as requested. She showed the buildings on the perimeter that the university plans to retain as well as up to four on the interior. She and Chancellor Tabolt described each property by address for the audience. Edgar Locke, partner with Tlingit and Co., 340 Lafayette Street, Denver, CO- explained that his firm holds the title for the Josephine M. Ladner Trust, sole owner of the property at 1302 Grandview Avenue. He asked whether the designation pre-supposes that the city will gain control of university owned properties. Mr. Boles- said it is hard to answer that question and that it is a legal matter that needs to be dealt with in another forum. Mr. Boles- asked Ms. McHeyser about the Boulder Daily Camera article she was quoted in. Ms. McHeyser- explained the Boulder DailyCamera article on October 29. The headline was "Grandview Proposed for Local Landmark." She said she was interviewed the day before it was published. In the article, she simply explains that the department had received the application and then goes on to describe the process of designating an area as a local historic district. Ms. Rosall- asked the applicant to come forward and give some background on what the organization's interest is in preservation. 6 Applicant Presentation Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin, founding member and current board member of the Colorado Arts and Crafts Society- explained that the Arts and Crafts Society is a non-profit organization founded in 1987 and has about 100 members. the Society's mission statement contains the phrase: "...to study the history of the Arts and Crafts movement." Therefore, preserving Grandview Terrace serves to meet the mission. She said she personally has had a relationship since 1992 with the Grandview Terrace neighborhood when she first helped to do a survey of buildings over 50 years old in Boulder. Also, she led a walking tour in May 1999, funded by Colorado Historical Society that included the Grandview neighborhood. She ended by saying that the Arts and Crafts Society views the neighborhood like a collection of rare books that are worth more as a set than individually. They want to be responsible stewards for maintaining a sense of Boulder's original context. This includes the landscape and streetscape, both of which are full of examples of this style in the purest sense. She said the society wants the buildings to stay together, intact. Ms. Rosall- asked if members of the opposing side have cross-examination questions. Clela orex, Corporate Treasurer of the Native American Rights Fund at 1506 and 1522 Broadway- asked if the Arts and Crafts Society has funds available if the Native American Rights Fund finds itself being required to make certain changes to its building, should the area be designated. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- said there is money available, but she can't speak for the whole Arts and Crafts membership tonight. Mr. Bo es- explained that application for district designation must be verified, meaning the applicant must swear that the application is true. He asked Ms. Shaw-McLauglin if she could verify this. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- said yes. Mr. Bo es- said that the Preservation code specifies that in order to designate an area as a district, it has to constitute a distinct section of the city. He then asked Ms. Shaw-McLauglin why she thinks it indeed qualifies as this. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- said the boundaries in the application go back to the survey done in 1992. She thinks that at that time, those were the boundaries that marked what was considered valuable in the neighborhood. She said it's possible that the boundaries in the application could be downsized so that the district is made up entirely of bungalow and Craftsman style buildings. Mr. Bo es- asked her if she could consider the present boundaries to delineate a district of some kind. 7 Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- said yes. Paul Tabolt, Vice Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder- asked if the boundaries on the application are based on the 1992 survey. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- said yes. Chancellor Tabolt- asked if the changes the university has made since then, including ADA compliance, etc., have been documented in the nomination. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- she said they are not specifically. Chancellor Tabolt- asked if she is aware that 44 of the buildings surveyed in 1992 were determined to have no individual landmark significance. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- she said she is. Ms. Rosall- for the sake of the audience, she explained that the Board has, over time, written grants that commissioned work to be done to document particular areas of the city. She said this survey was part of that ongoing effort. Rav Irmarez, corporate officer of the Native American Rights Fund at 1506 and 1522 Broadway- asked why buildings not qualifying as individual landmarks have been included in the boundaries proposed. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin- explained that these structures are considered to be contributing. When the survey was started, it didn't focus specifically on any one style. As the survey continued, it because obvious that these were the dominant style. Commercial buildings or not, it did not matter. Ms. Rosall- asked for a presentation from the opposing side. Opponent's Presentation Paul Tabolt, Vice Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder- explained that the University has had plans to acquire property in the Grandview Terrace neighborhood for over 38 years. Over time, the university has bought structures with an intent to expand the university's facilities. He traced the history of the university's master plan that included the Grandview Terrace area. He said that the university's regents believed a compromise for the development was reached on August 5, 1999 with Historic Boulder. He said the compromise was to preserve four of the most significant structures. Addressing why the university objects to this district designation, he said there were a few different reasons. One is that the University simply does not have to comply with district 8 guidelines that might be put in place. He then stated that the owners of 34 properties within the district signed individual affidavits against the designation citing concerns including costs for renovating buildings to comply with district guidelines, expenses for making sure the buildings are compliant, fire issues, and concerns that the buildings will not be affordable as housing. He said the university has discussed how best to maintain the essence of neighborhood while allowing the university to do what it needs to do on this property. Furthermore, the Regents have agreed to make the structures available to public. Finally, he stressed that the university needs to grow. The proposed structures will allow for more research to be done that will ultimately benefit our whole society. Mr. Boles- asked specifically when the university plans to do its redevelopment and demolition in the area. Chancellor Tabolt- said that as per the compromise made in August, they first plan to relocate some structures. By January 1, 2000, they will vacate 8 structures and they would like to start relocation then. By May 15, 2000 demolition would start if relocating hasn't been possible by then. Mr. Boles- asked if the this plan correlates with the National and State Register processes. Chancellor Tabolt- he doesn't know when the process will happen, so can't answer this. Mr. Boles- asked if the university has any contractual agreements with the Native American Rights Fund. Chancellor Tabolt- said he doesn't know of any. Mr. Boles- asked if the university sold any property to them. Chancellor Tabolt- said he doesn't believe so. Mr. Boles- asked if the University has any contractual relations with Tlingit and Co. Chancellor Tabolt- said no. Ear Locke, 340 Lafayette St, Denver- has owned one of the properties since 1969. Spoke against the application for district designation. He said he didn't want to be restricted in what sorts of changes he can make to the property. He told the board that it is his understanding that if a majority of owners oppose the designation, then the area cannot be listed on the register, only found to be eligible. He was also concerned that if the area is designated, he and other non- University related owners will find themselves having to comply with things that the university is exempt from. That would create a tough situation. Mr. Boles- asked if Mr. Locke if he, himself, prepared the affidavit he submitted. 9 Mr. Locke- said he received it by fax from the university, but then revised it to reflect his own personal feelings. He said the first time he talked to someone from the university was today. Clela Rorex, Corporate Treasurer of the Native American Rights Fund at 1506 and 1522 Broadway- said the organization is opposed to any designation. They are dependent on credit from the bank in case there are problems with the structure. She submitted a letter from a VP of Norwest Bank that said that if a structure is commercial, the property often goes down in value if it is made a historic landmark. She specifically requests that the boundaries be changed to remove her organization from it. Ms. Rosall- opened the public hearing. Public Hearing Betty Chronic, 4705 Shawnee Place- spoke in favor of the designation. She implored the board to stick to their simple charge, which is: "Does the district meet the significance criteria?" In addition, she has more background information about the residents who have lived in the area, and she said she has a tape of a conversation with one long-time resident which she would be happy to have the board listen to at some time. Karl Anuta 2406 Regis Drive- spoke in favor of the designation. He said he is a former chair of the Landmarks Board and was a member for 10 years, as well as serving as past president of Historic Boulder. He is currently president of the Boulder Country Preservation Board. He asks the board to stick to their charge- whether the area meets the significance criteria. He also said that from his experience, the property values do not decrease. He objected to the legalese being used and the to extremely formal, courtroom-type procedures in order tonight. Paul Levitt, 1610 Hillside Rd.- spoke in support of designation. He said that if the houses are moved, they lose context. Bill Chronic, 4705 Shawnee Place, Boulder- Board of Directors of Historic Boulder- spoke in support of the designation. He believes the criteria have been met. Bob Hohfelder, 2521 16th, professor of history at the University of Colorado, Boulder- spoke in favor of the designation. He said he thinks the University is being arrogant and he wants to protect this area from demolition. Kris Christensen, 910 16th Denver, representative from Colorado Preservation, Inc- spoke in favor of the designation. She said the area clearly meets the criteria. Estella Cole, P.O. Box 19707, Boulder-said she is a former chair of the Landmarks Board. She spoke in favor of the designation. She said the area clearly meets the criteria. 10 Katherine Barth, 2940 20th St.- spoke in favor of the designation. She said that keeping the houses together is the best way to maintain a sense of history. Alan Hafer, 1997 Greyden St., Superior, Executive Director of Historic Boulder- spoke in support of the designation. Lynn Sepal, 3182 7th St.- spoke in favor of the designation. She thinks Boulder is a relatively new town in the country and needs to preserve its history. Sarah Massey-Warren, Communications Coordinator for Historic Boulder- spoke in favor of the designation. She wants to save it partially because it contributes to the surrounding area that contains other significant features like the University of Colorado arboretum. Jane Greenfield, 1770 Lambert Drive- spoke in favor of designation. She cited a portion of the Preservation Code from section 10-13-1 that says that one of the purposes of the Landmarks program is to enhance property values. She said that if the University decides to put parking lots into the Grandview Terrace area, the property values of some of the surrounding neighborhoods could go down. The board should consider this when it makes its decision. Cynthia Shaw-McLaughlin, applicant- asked if she could see the affidavits that were submitted by property owners who are against the designation. Mr. Boles- said she could see them. Ms. Rosall- called for a 5 minute recess. Ms. Shaw-McLaughlin examined the affidavits. Ms. Shaw-McLaughlin- requested that the board not admit the affidavits into the record because she believes they may not be valid. The board decided to allow the affidavits to remain in the record. Frances Dahlberg, 959 Grant Place and property owner in the proposed district- spoke in favor of the designation. She thinks it meets the criteria and wants it to be a district. Doug Canarroe, 513 E. Elm St., Lafayette, President of Historic Boulder- stated that, during its discussion and eventual compromise with the University Regents, the Board of Directors of Historic Boulder never prioritized the bungalows, but simply decided that it was interested in a reserve. Mr. Salance- asked if Historic Boulder had rescinded its compromise with the University. Mr. Canarroe- said no. Ms. Rosall- closed the public hearing. 11 Board Motion and Discussion Motion Mr. Salance- made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the application to designate Grandview Terrace as a historic district under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Code, citing the staff memorandum as findings of the board. Ms. Egger- seconded the motion. Mr. Boles- recommends that the board incorporate into its motion a finding of fact that the Colorado Arts and Crafts Association is a body that has a recognized interest in historic preservation, and also that the motion include a correction of the date on which the application was received. Mr. Salance- agreed to add this to his motion. Ms. Egger- also agreed to this addition. Mr. Salance- stated very simply that the area obviously meets all the significance criteria for designation as a historic district. Ms. Egger- agreed that the area obviously meets the criteria. She said she knows she must put politics and legal issues aside and focus on her charge, which is to check the area against the criteria. Ms. Rosall- agrees with her fellow board members. The three areas have been met. Vote The board voted unanimously (3-0, Holleran and Durgin absent) to recommend to City Council approval of the application to designate Grandview Terrace as a historic district under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Code, citing the staff memorandum as findings of the board. Mr. Holleran- rejoined the meeting. Ms. McHeyser- told members of the public about the next steps for the Grandview Terrace area. On December 16, Planning Board will consider the land use implications of the application at a public hearing; the City Council's first reading will be on January 4--that will not be a public hearing; the second reading and public hearing will likely be on January 18. 12 Mr. Holleran- Two more Grandview related items, neither of which appear in the published agenda: First, a Matter from the Board in the form of resolution on the National Register nomination, the second is the board's review of a portion of the city's response to the CU Master Plan. 7. Matters from the Board Mr. Holleran- moved that: 1) The board encourage the state Historic Preservation Office to do whatever it needs to do in order to bring the proposed Grandview Terrace National Register Historic District within the framework of federal and state preservation regulations. We particularly encourage listing the district on the National Register of Historic Places and thus on the state register. 2) If this cannot be accomplished for the district as originally delineated, we encourage the state Historic Preservation Office to recommend a smaller district consisting of the craftsman bungalows alone, omitting the structures along the periphery on the west and south. This smaller district embodies the essential qualities that contribute to the district's significance. Mr. Salance- seconded. Mr. Salance- thought this was the appropriate way to go. Mr. Boles- had no objection. Ms. Egger- had no other comments. Ms. Rosall- thought it was a good idea. Mr. Holleran- noted that private property owners had expressed concerns about being subject to regulations, about the cost of meeting those regulations, and about the possibility that the university would not be subject to similar regulations. He noted that the university would be subject to regulation by the state if the district were listed on the national register, but that owners, through their objections, might prevent that. He noted that state historic fund grants and tax credits would be available to offset the costs of restoration if the district were listed on the National Register, but that owners, through their objections, might prevent that, too. Then he asked whether objecting owners were sure they were acting in their own interest. Vote Unanimous, 4-0. 13 8. Matters from the Planning Department (This item resequenced) Ms. McHeyser - distributed to the board the first draft of staff comments on CU's micro-master plan for Grandview Terrace. She proposed that the board reference its comments to the principles adopted by City Council. Ms. Rosall - thought the draft looked excellent. Wants more precise use of `bungalow'. Mr. Holleran - wants more detail in response--especially to commend the University for the good points in the plan. He would like to see clarification of several issues related to CU master plan posted on the University's web site. He also criticized their short comment period. Ms. Rosall - Questioned whether coming out against the parking structure get us more surface parking. Ms. McHeyser - is hoping to work with the University to find locations that serve both their interests and the city's. 9. Matters from the City Attorney's Office Mr. Boles - proposed a limited revision to the landmarks ordinance concerning penalties for tearing down a building over 50 years old that has not been subject to review by the board. Recently, a property owner demolished a structure over 50 years old without board approval and received a deferred sentence conditional on not committing a similar offense. Ms. Rosall - Wanted him to be fined. Asked if she should we write a letter to the judge. Mr. Boles - Explained that it isn't the judge. It was the Municipal Court Prosecutor acting within normal sentencing guidelines. Mr. Holleran - noted that property owners who have stays of demolition put on their buildings may suffer losses in the thousands of dollars. Ms. Rosall - said that the penalties were raised years ago. Mr. Boles - Thought there were two issues: Should this action be subject to the $5000 penalty the board thinks it is; second, is plea-bargaining in this sort of case appropriate. Mr. Holleran - said that the board will review the proposed ordinance and comment on the policy. Also, he will contact Joe DeRaismes, City Attorney, about the plea-bargaining policy. Mr. Boles - stated there is no reason why, as a home-rule city, we can't raise the fine. 14 Mr. Holleran - Speaking for the board, wanted to simply say: Correct the defect and plug the hole. Mr. Boles - noted that the memo regarding the unpaid use tax by the contractor for the presbyterian church renovation is not yet complete. Complicating the issue is his discovery that it has been the policy of Building Inspection to waive use taxes whenever an Alteration Certificate was attached to a permit. 10. Matters from the Board Ms. McHeyser - Neil is busy issuing stop-work orders. This is Sarah's last meeting. Mr. Holleran - The Civic Center Master Plan Update group will be meeting on December 9 and he cannot attend. Will someone from the board be able to attend? Ms. Rosall - Volunteered to attend in Mr. Holleran`s place. Ms. McHeyser - gave the board a depot update: Rob Fauvre is doing a feasibility analysis for the depot. Various sites are under consideration. The Board will receive copies of the final report. 11. Old and New Business Ms. McHeyser - asked for board participation with interviews for new preservation planner. Mr. Salance - will attend. Tape 4 ends abruptly in mid-sentence. s:\plan\data\comdev\hist\minutes\' 99fnl\ 12-1-99f min 15 This is a Patch T type separator sheet. I~IIIIVIIIIIIII{II Form Type = "B&C" CODE128 type bamode (D u t ma N m Q II Q1 m ~uN Q ~o G U m iL Portrait Feed s New Form Follows... r Pnnted on 11/27/2007 2:44:17 PM f0 a m N N 's H ~ 3a O L o II 0 ^ N n U it C U) C m J City of Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Minutes CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1777 Broadway November 3, 1999 7:00 p.m. Board Members in Attendance Michael Holleran, Chair Sharon Rosall Rory Salance Lisa Egger Mark Ruzzin, ex-officio Planning Board Member Board Members Absent Leslie Durgin, on leave Staff in Attendance Ruth McHeyser, Preservation Planner Alan Boles, City Attorney Sarah Myers, Landmarks Board Secretary Mr. Holleran- called a quorum at 7:07 p.m. and the following business was conducted: 1. Swearing in of new board member, Lisa Egger Ms. Egger was welcomed to the board and sworn in by Ms. Myers. 2. Citizen Participation for items not on the agenda No one from the public spoke. 3. Report on Landmark Alteration Certificates/ Demolition Permits Issued and Pending Ms. MCHeyse - apologized for having no report, due to the fact that the long-range planning division is in the process of moving to a new building and files were difficult to access. She said she would provide the report for the next meeting. 4. Review and Approval of the Minutes of the September 15, 1999 meeting The minutes were approved with one amendment. Mr. Holleran asked that the following comment at the top of page 6 be deleted because it is not particularly relevant: I Mr. Holleran- explained that it is the state's choice whether or not they ask for the Landmarks Board's opinion about the property. 5. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a request for individual landmark status for the property located at 817 Pearl Street. Applicant: Brad Schell Mr. Boles- explained the procedures for a quasi judicial hearing and asked the board members to reveal any ex-parte contact they may have had regarding this item. Mr. Salance- said he went to the design review meeting and did a site visit. Mr. Holleran- said he went to design review. Ms. Rosall- said she attended meetings a year ago concerning demolition. Ms. Eeeer- said she did an initial design scheme for the Coburn development. Mr. Boles- asked for details. Ms. Eeeer- said the applicant hired Coburn for an earlier project, but it was not built. Staff Presentation Ms. McHeyse - gave an overview of the memorandum and showed slides of the property. Mr. Holleran- asked for clarification on teh proposed landmark site Specifically, he questioned whether the measurement from the street is correct since it wouldn't extend to the back ofthe building. Ms. McHeyser- said she thinks he is correct. She said she would check this. Ms. Rosall- asked that, in the future, the board have a more detailed description of the building's architecture which includes all features of the exterior. Applicant Presentation Brad Schell, 1815 Mapleton- said the distance between the back wall and the street is proposed to be about 43 feet. The board said this would be fine. Ms. Rosall- asked for more details about the brick on the structure. She said she hopes that the bricks will not be painted. 2 Mr. Schell- said it's possible that a light stain will be applied in order to unify the colors of all the bricks. He said they will try to do what's best for the bricks, taking the advise of experts along the way. Mr. Holleran- opened the public hearing and, seeing no one who wished to speak, he closed it. Motion Mr. Salance- moved to recommend toCity Council approving the request for individual landmark status for the property located at 817 Pearl Street, adopting the staff memorandum as findings of the board. Mr. Holleran- seconded the motion. He changed the motion to clearly state "The east 28 feet and south 93 feet of the lot as described in Exhibit A" rather than saying only: "As further described in Exhibit A." Mr. Salance- accepted the amendment. Discussion Mr. Salance- commended the applicant and architect on making the project work. He said it will be a great addition to the community. Mr. Holleran- agreed fully. Vote The board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the motion. Ms. Rosall- said the original German House was built in 1877 and this one was built in 1882. Thus, she would like both buildings to be remembered in the name. She suggested the name "German House, Building #2." She asked the other board members for their opinion. She said she wants to make sure that future historians doing research realize there was originally an older structure which was a hotel. After a short discussion, the board agreed to work this out later. The board skipped to Item 7 because no one was present to speak to Item 6 yet. 6. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a request for individual landmark status for the property located at 1240-44 Pine Street. Applicant: Pine Street LLC Mr. Holleran- asked board members to reveal their ex-parte contacts relative to this item. 3 Mr. Salance- saw the project at the design review meeting. Mr. Holleran- saw the applicant's signs but no sign of the applicant. Ms. Rosall- had none. Ms. Egger- had none. Ms. Mme- swore in Ms. McHeyser. Staff Presentation Ms. McHeyser- showed the board a map and slides. Because there was no one from the public present, she did not review the staff memorandum. The board discussed changing the name of the property and decided to wait. Applicant Presentation There was no applicant present. Public Hearing Mr. Holleran- opened the public hearing, and seeing no one who wished to speak, he closed it. Motion Ms. Eeeer- made a motion to make a recommendation to City Council concerning a request for individual landmark status for the property located at 1240-44 Pine Street. Ms. Rosall- seconded the motion. Board Discussion Ms. Egger- said she thinks it's a wonderful building and it meets the criteria for individual landmark status. Ms. Rosall- agreed and added that the level of detail and number of features was especially significant. Vote The board voted to pass the motion unanimously, 4-0. 4 7. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application for the structure located at 2521 Broadway, pursuant to Section 10-13-23 for buildings over fifty years or recognized as structures of merit. Applicant: Stephen Sparn and Scott Sarbaugh. Mr. Holleran- asked that the board members reveal any ex-parte contacts they may have had about this property. Mr. Salance- went to the design review meeting for this property. Mr. Holleran- went to the design review meeting for this property. Ms. Rosall- only drove by the site. Ms. Egger- had no contact. Staff Presentation Ms. McHeyser- showed slides of the property. She then gave an overview of the staff memorandum and routinely reminded the board that their purview is to look only at the demolition request and not at what may or may not be replacing the structure. Ms. Rosall- pointed out that the front porch posts may not be original. Ms. McHeyser- agreed. Mr. Holleran- asked about option 3 outlined inthe staff memo. He wants to hear what the time line is for landmarking the property at 2517 Broadway. Ms. McHeyser- said it would take until mid-February for the structure to be landmarked by City council. Applicant Presentation Steven Spam, 1731 15th St.- asked about the scaled drawings required as a condition of demolition application approval. He wondered if this was a standard request and whether there was another way of doing this. He said it is rather labor intensive. The board members said they would discuss this. Mr. Ruzzin- asked what might be put in place of this building. Mr. Sparn- said it will be a Victorian office unit. 5 Mr. Holleran- asked about the timetable for demolition. He wonders if waiting until January to demolish would be feasible. Mr. Spare- said that that would be possible. He asked the board if he might receive an extension on the six month expiration of the permit. The board said they discussed the matter and decided that he could receive a six-month extension from the building department at the time of issuance of the permit. Mr. Ruzzin- asked the applicant if he had considered a residential use for the property at 2517 Broadway. Mr. Sparn- said they had considered it, but the demand for the office seemed very strong, and getting residential allocations can be time-consuming. Ms. Rosall- asked Mr. Spam if it would have made a difference if there had been a way to circumvent the complicated residential approval process. Mr. Spam- said the office plan has not yet been completely decided. Ms. McHese- said these questions by the board are merely out of curiosity and are not a part of what the board must decide upon tonight. Public Hearing Mr. Holleran- opened the public hearing and, seeing no one who wished to speak, he closed it. Motion Mr. Holleran- made a motion to direct the City Manager to issue a demolition permit if all other conditions of the permit process are met, adopting the findings in the staff memorandum as findings of the board, with the following additional findings: 1. That this structure may have value to the historic character of the neighborhood which might justify a stay of demo to explore alternatives 2. That the historic character of the neighborhood will be better served by the preservation of 2517 Broadway than by this building 3. That this demolition request is part of a development proposal that will help to facilitate landmarking and accomplish the preservation of 2517 Broadway And that therefore, the goals of the preservation ordinance will be best served by issuing this permit subject to: 6 1. Staff approval of photographs and drawings to be provided by applicant 2. Before issuance of the permit City Council shall have taken final action on a landmark application for 2517 Broadway Finally, that the board acknowledges that this project may take more than 180 days and that the board directs the Design Review Committee to approve a renewal of demolition permits for another 180 days, if the committee's approval shall be required, for properties at 2519, 2523 Broadway (which have already been issued); and for 2521 Broadway, provided conditions are met. Ms. Rosall- seconded the motion. She made a friendly amendment to add "and facilitate landmarking of 2517" to condition 3. Mr. Holleran- agreed to this friendly amendment. Mr. Holleran- said he thinks that the proposal the applicants have made- to allow them to demolish this structure, while maintaining the much more historically significant structure at 2517 Broadway- is a good compromise. Ms. Rosall- agreed with Mr. Holleran's comment. Mr. Salance- wonders whether the "significant alteration" to the building happened over half a century ago. He stated that we are starting to lose the vernacular and he said he thinks that 2517 Broadway is not really in danger, whereas this one is. Although he thinks he will vote in favor of the motion, but wants to require of the applicant scaled drawings. He wishes someone from the public had come to speak. Ms. Rosall- said that she, too, wishes historic structures could be integrated into new projects, rather than starting from scratch. Recognizing their talent as architects, she implored the applicant and architect to consider trying to use this building rather than demolishing it, Ms. Rosall- wants to add that the demolition ordinance states that the purpose of a stay of demolition is not limited to whether or not the structure could be landmarked, but also if more research seems to be needed. Vote The board voted unanimously (4-0) to pass the motion as stated above. 8. Matters from the City Attorney's Office Mr. Boles- warned the board that there have been instances in the past where the sales tax credit has been mistakenly made at 100%. 7 The board discussed why these kinds of misunderstandings take place and how they can be prevented. Ms. McHeyser- asked that the board to provide her with specific information about times when there have been misunderstandings between board members and the building permit department. Ms. Rosall- asked Mr. Boles about whether the board has purview on the Grandview Terrace properties. Mr. Boles- said this is a question that his division is discussing. The board continued to discuss what might happen procedurally with the Grandview Terrace property. 9. Matters from the Planning Department There were none. 10. Matters from the Board Ms. Rosall- said that Crystal Gray called about the board giving input to her newsletter for Whittier. She said she would be pleased if the board would do something. The city covers the cost of the newsletters, so cost is no problem. She talked toCrystal about themes, and came up with 1) housing styles in Whittier, 2) landmarks in Whittier with pictures, 3) detail on incentives for landmarking and or being in a district. Ms. Rosall said the opportunity will always be there. Mr. Holleran- asked Ms. McHeyser if there was an update on staffing. Ms. McHeyser- said interviews were scheduled for December 3 for the new preservation planner. Ms. Rosall- asked that the request for a half time person be clear in stating that architects, etc. may apply as well as planners. Ms. Myers- said she will be leaving the planning department and December will be her last Landmarks Preservation Board meeting. The board thanked her for all of her work and said they would miss her. Motion by the Board Mr. Holleran- made a motion to nominate Ms. Egger as an alternate member to the design review committee. 8 Vote The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. 11. Old and New Business There was nothing. 9 This is a Patch T type separator sheet. 11111111111111111 Form Type = "B&C" CODE728 type barcode m ~ Ua (D ° u N mn 0 Q II ~ (Q QN fl F O £U N - (D LL Portrait Feed s New Form Follows... +V+ Printed on 11/2712007 2:44:17 PM (0 a m .N N t H a) Na LL N ~O Q 8 iz: (0 U II N 0= C m J 2a City of Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Agenda CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1777 Broadway Wednesday, January 5, 2000 7:00 p.m. Revised Agenda 1. Citizen Participation for items not on the agenda. 2. Report on Landmark Alteration Certificates/ Demolition Permits Issued and Pending. 3. Review and Approval of the Minutes of the November 3 and December 1, 1999 meetings. 4. Approval as to form of administrative regulations identifying common types of alterations that may be reviewed and approved by the city manager (staff) pursuant to Section 10-13-14(a)(2), B.R.C., 1981. This proposal would allow the following alteration certificates in the downtown historic district to be approved at a staff level: awnings, patio extensions, and signs 5. Matters from the City Attorney's Office. 6. Matters from the Planning Department. a. Historic Context Project: Modern Architecture in Boulder b. Landmark Names for 815-817 Pearl & 1240-1244 Pine Streets c. Depot Update d. Grandview Terrace Update e. Other Items 7. Matters from the Board. 8. Old and New Business. For further information contact Ruth McHeyser in the Planning Department at 441-3270. January 5, 2000 LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES AND DEMOLITION PERMITS ISSUED AND PENDING November 25, 1999 - December 29, 1999 ALTERATION CERTIFICATES: STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL: ISSUED: Trilogy Wine Bar sign 2017 13th Street Axis Mundi Arts sign 1021 Pearl Street Pedestrian Shop sign 1425 Pearl Street Roger and Jill Pomainville Remodel pool house 1002 Mapleton Ave. Ann Shusterman Vent cover 2133 5th Street Paul, Mary and Mike Tagliola Porch restoration 814 Spruce Street Pearl Street Trust Renovation/addition 815'817 Pearl Street Pat Young Revised LAC (new brick,'paint and porch) 2424 5th Street PENDING: Carlos Garcia Rear Addition/remodel 2227 8th Street Boulder Day Nursery Side Addition/remodel 1518 Spruce Street Ward King Replace brick porch wall 1145 Grandview Rawls Residence Rear Addition 744 Spruce Janique Esrey Additional bedroom 504 Maxwell City of Boulder Canopy/ Shed !01^ A rora Nancy Shapiro Garage 706 Pine Stephen Tebo Addition 1590 Broadway BVSD Retaining W311 Mapleton Elementary John Carter Garage Addition 731 Pine Dick Blumenhein Addition/ Windows 1117-23 Pearl J. Midyette Storefront Remodel 1412 Pearl Matt Dyroff Balcony Rail 1305 Pine Sweeney Window Replacement 703 11th Street Paul Whiteside Window Alterations/ Deck 410 Highland Paige Blackburn Paint Brick 2420 10th Street Historic Boulder Fire Escape 646 Pearl Kathy McClurg Rear addition/dormers 835 Pine (per 4/7/99 hearing) Spencer & Leslie Dietrch Rear Addition 410 Pine (per 7/7/99 hearing) Patrick & Shannon Long Demolition/ New Construction 1505 Pearl Joseph Brettl Demolition/ New Garage 1 112 Maxwell Mike & Paul Tagliola Rear Addition 806 Spruce 8th Street Owners Street paving 8th & Spruce Street Laurie Carlucci Rear addition/dormers 620 Concord Tom Ellison Accessory building 437 Highland John Gooding Fence 2439 6th Street Mike Cameron Rear addition/Annex 800 Arapahoe Lou Novak Rear addition/Site work University Hill School William Chronic Stair lift/elevator 1543 Pearl Street Todd Nelson Paint colors/porch rail 445 Canyon Chris Centeno Front Steps/ Rear porch 505 Maxwell Brandt Liebman Rear addition 428 Highland Blake Catlin Window replacement 437 Mountain View Ralph Hart Addition 735 Pine Mountain Parks Ranger Cottage expansion Chautauqua Park Dina Elder Front porch 531 Maxwell Scott Coburn Revision (without prior approval) 435 & 439 Canyon 1 I I I Maxwell Homeowners Octagon windows 1111 Maxwell Chris McClosky Porch base/ Front door/ Flashing 1726 Walnut Allison Cliffton Code compliance issues 1645/ 1649 Canyon First Presbyterian Church Fence 1820 15th Street Bob Minor Fence/ Porch rail 818 Maxwell Chautauqua Association Parking/ Playground equipment Chautauqua Park Sandy Litchfield Shed 903 Pine Betsy Lehndorff Brick wall stabilization 512 Concord Dave Rich Demolition of attached garage 2453 7th Street Baker/ Lefkoff New garage 429 Concord Jennifer Wells Addition 421 Highland Ben Lipman Solar panels/ Shed 302 Pearl Bob Netterstrom Rear addition 630 Pine Lois Graves New construction 18th & Walnut Eugene Levvine Porch roof 1005 Spruce Chautauqua Association Entry and directional signs 900 Baseline WITHDRAWN: Mike & Paul Tagliola Rear Addition 814 Spruce DENIED: MISCELLANEOUS (potential buyers, non-landmarked buildings, etc): Coburn Development Renovation/ Addition 2018 18th Street (Carey. Hotel) DEMOLITION/ MOVING PERMITS: ISSUED: 60 DAY STAY ISSUED: 180 DAY STAY ISSUED: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: 800 Grant Place Primary structure Rusty Conner and Alan McConas 2420 Bluff Primary structure Gary Fehr PENDING: WITHDRAWN: s\plan\data\comdev\hist\gen\altcerts\altcert.lst