Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 10/26/2006~lp~3r~~ed,~anucir} ~1,2Utt7 CITY OF BOULDER JOINT PLANNING BOARD AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD ACTION MINUTES October 26, 2006 Lobby, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audlo aze 81SO avatlable on the Web at: ht[p://www.ci.boulder.co.us/planning/planningboard/agendas PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Elise Jones, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair John Spitzer, left 9:00 Phil Shull, absent Adrian Sopher Claire L.evy Richazd Sosa LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Plass, Chair Leland Rucker, Vice Chair, left 9:00 Kirk Watson Nancy Kornblum, left 9:10 Leonard May STAFF PRESENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director David Gehr, City Attorney Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager Robert O. Cole, Cunent Planning Manager Elaine Mclaughlin, Planner James Hewat, Preservation Planner Chris Meschuk, Preservation Planner Michelle Allen, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER Co-chair, E. Jones declared a quorum at 6:Olp.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Betty Chronic, 4705 Shawnee Pl., Boulder spoke in favor of the city adopting conservation districts and guidelines to help prevent the unnecessary demolition of historic resources and erosion of neighborhood character. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1) District designation a. Historic preservation plannine obiectives A number of issues were raised including: the inherently reactive nature of district designation, that consideration of district designation should be limited to the merits of the proposed district, and that designation of districts is often seen as a method by which to regulate demolitions and inappropriate additions to existing buildings. The point was raised that historic districting results in the imposition of a number of additional regulations and that steps might be taken to better inform the public as to the benefits and responsibilities of district designation. b. Land use implications of historic districtinQ Several Planning Board members expressed the opinion that there are often broader implications to historic district designation than generally acknowledged by staff and questioned the rationale of designating small districts. Historic district designations are similar to other forms of land-use regulation and that consideration needs to be given to what restrictions may occur in the future as a result of designation. District Designation discussion summary points: a. A healthy spectrum of concerns were expressed b. The Planning Boazd considers staff's interpretation of `9and use implications" too narrow. c. Dis[ricts should be considered on the basis of inerit, not motivation. d. Upfront support for district designation should be sought. e. More flexibility might be considered in the relationship of old and new. f. The two boards have little knowledge of what the other does. 2) Site Review process - Planning Board and Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board "overlap " During the course of this discussion, both boards acknowledged that as time goes on, there will be an increasing number of projects requiring discretionary review and overlap between the boards. Discretion should allow for the consideration of all relevant issues, even those not specifically charged to a particular board. It is a disservice to the applicant if they get mixed messages. Messages from the two boards to the applicant should be better coardinated. Site Review process summary points: a. Staff should communica[e better to identify historic resources early in the site review process. b. There are criteria in available in the site review process that allows the planning board to consider historic preservation issues during that process. 2 c. The boards should work to arrive at a shared vocabulary and an understanding of each board's role in achieving community objectives. d. Staff should do a better job of keeping the Landmarks Board appraised as to the status of discretionary review projects. 3) Preservation of resources and context - How are setting and context addressed by landmarks and planning board? Desi~- guidelines? The question was posed as to whether there are other "tools" like conservation districts available to address issues of community character outside of historic districts. In summary of [his topic, the following points were made: a. There are cunently not enough regulatory tools by which to protect community character. b. The Landmarks Board is in an uncomfortable position at times with the demolition review process being seen as a means to preserve community character. c. It is not the role of the Landmazks Board to consider the issue of community character outside of designated historic districts. 4) Landmarks representative at Planning Board It was agreed that the boards would not ask City Council permission for the appointment of an ex-officio member of the Landmarks Board to the Planning Board. However, it was decided that a Landmarks Board member should make commen[s to the Planning Board on issues of concem during scheduled meetings, and that these comments will be separate from public comment to allow for adequate time. Staff indicated it will do a better job of providing updates to the Landmarks Board as to the status of discretionary review applications where there are identified historic resources. 5) Annualized Landmarks/Planning Board Joint Meeting Both Boards agreed that the meeting was useful and should be annualized. The joint meeting adjourned at 922 pm and Landmarks Board members left. 4. MATTERS 5. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm OVED BY ~ B d hai l ~ Q D TE 3