Loading...
10.14.20 LB Powerpoint1.Meetings are for conducting the business of the City of Boulder. 2.Activities that disrupt, delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. 3.The time for speaking or asking questions is limited to facilitate the purpose of the meeting. a.No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. b.Each person shall register to speak at the meeting using that person’s real name. Any person believed to be using a pseudonym will not be permitted to speak at the meeting. 4.No video will be permitted except for city officials, employees and invited speakers. All others will participate by voice only. 5.The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule. 6.If the chat function is enabled, it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should be used for technical/online platform-related questions only.If an attendee attempts to use chat for any reason other than seeking assistance from the host, the city reserves the right to disable that individual’s access to chat. 7.Only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen during this meeting. 1 We are pleased you have joined us! To strike a balance between meaningful, transparentengagement and online security, the following rules will be applied at this meeting: Landmarks Board Meeting October 14, 2020 2 Agenda1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from the September 9, 2020 meeting 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending Statistical Report for September 5.Public Hearings A.2111 Arapahoe Ave. –Demolition Review B.1723 Marine St. –Demolition Review 6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney 7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 8.Adjournment 3 Quasi- Judicial Hearing Electronic Participation Rules (1/2) The Landmarks Board (“Board”) may hold quasi-judicial hearings at a meeting through electronic participation, subject to the procedures set forth in this Rule. To the extent practical, the Board will use its standard meeting procedures, as modified by this Rule. To the extent that this Rule conflicts with the procedural rules of the Board, this Rule is intended to prevail. GENERAL PROCEDURES A. Applicant’s Written Request. An applicant may request to have its application for a hearing conducted via electronic participation by completing a written request form provided by the city. The applicant will acknowledge that holding a quasi-judicial hearing by electronic participation presents certain legal risks and involves an area of legal uncertainty, and the applicant will acknowledge that moving forward with a quasi-judicial hearing by electronic participation will be at its own risk. B. City Manager to Determine Suitability of Conducting Quasi-Judicial Hearing by Electronic Participation. These procedures create no right in any party to a quasi-judicial matter to a hearing conducted by electronic participation. Upon receipt of a written request, the city manager will determine whether the city has the capability to hold the particular type of hearing by electronic participation, what available form of electronic participation is most appropriate for the type of hearing, and set a date(s)for the hearing(s). C. Hearings Open to the Public and Subject to Adequate Technology. Hearings will be open to the public and provide the ability for interested members of the public to join the hearing electronically. The method chosen by the city manager will ensure the public can view or listen to the hearing in real time and interested parties may speak at designated times during the hearing. If at any point the city manager or board chair determines it is not possible or prudent to hold the hearing by electronic participation, whether due to technical issues or an inability to do so while meeting constitutional due process requirements, the hearing will be continued or vacated, and the matter will be held in abeyance until any technical problems can be resolved or in-person meetings have resumed. D. Notice Requirements. In addition to the requirements of the Boulder Revised Code, the city will include additional notice about how the hearing will be conducted and how the public can access, observe, and participate in the hearing. The additional notice is intended to reasonably inform interested persons that such hearing will instead be held by electronic participation; provided, however, this additional notice will not be deemed jurisdictional. E. Technological Accommodations. The city will make reasonable efforts to accommodate interested parties who lack necessary computer equipment or the ability to access such equipment by providing call-in or telephonic access to the meeting. Interestedparties will be encouraged to submit written comments in advance of the hearing, which comments will be made a part of the hearing record. Continued … 4 Quasi- Judicial Hearing Electronic Participation Rules (2/2) F. Hearing Procedures. Hearings are for conducting the business of the City of Boulder. Activities that disrupt, delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. At the onset of the hearing, the board chair will describe the hearing procedures, including how testimony and public comment will be received. The department that supports the Board will moderate the electronic meeting. To the extent practical, any person that wants to attend the meeting will be added to the meeting and will be muted. Any person that wants to testify should inform the moderator. The moderator will unmute such person during the public hearing to testify for three minutes. 1.Any documentary evidence will be provided to the designated secretary of the Board via email at least 48 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting. Documentary evidence includes, without limitation, materials related to specific applications and other documents to be shown electronically during the hearing. 2.Any person testifying, including the applicant, shall be sworn in individually. 3.The applicant will be allowed to speak to its application for 10 minutes. City staff will be allowed to speak to its recommendations for 10 minutes. The applicant or staff may request additional time from the board chair for more complicated applications. Persons wishing to testify will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. For electronic hearings, every person will need to testify for themselves. No pooling of time will be allowed. 4.The time for speaking or asking questions is limited to facilitate the purpose of the hearing. No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting using that person’s real name. Any person believed to be using a pseudonym will not be permitted to speak. 5.No video participation will be permitted except for city officials, employees and invited speakers. All others will participate by voice only. 6.The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule. 7.Board members, staff, and applicants shall not use chat features of electronic meeting software except for the purpose of asking the board chair procedural questions or to request to be recognized by the board chair to speak. 8.Applicants will be provided the opportunity to speak for up to three minutes prior to the close of the public hearing. 9.In order to accurately record board member votes, the board chair will call for a roll call vote on any motions made during the hearing or taking final action. G. Record. The secretary of the Board will ensure that all equipment used for the hearing is adequate and functional for allowing clear communication among the participants and for creating a record of the hearing as required by law; provided, however, the secretary will not be responsible for resolving any technical difficulties incurred by any person participating in the hearing. 5 Statistical Report 6September 2020 applications approved and closed Statistical Report 34 19 32 48 35 41 30 26 28 29 32 29 42 30 30 19 36 26 41 33 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec 2019 2020 7 9/30/2019: 296 cases 9/30/2020: 284 cases 2019: 386 cases Historic Preservation Applications Received 2019 vs. 2020 4% decrease in cases from this point last year Agenda Item 5A Public hearing and consideration of a demolition application for the building located at 2111 Arapahoe Ave., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11 -23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. (HIS2020-00214). Owner: Naropa University Applicant: Catherine Bean, Element Properties 8 Quasi- Judicial Public Hearing Procedure 9 1.All speaking are sworn in 2.Board members note any ex parte contacts 3.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff 4.Applicant presentation; Board may ask questions of applicant 5.Public hearing opened for citizen comment; the Board may ask questions 6.Applicant response 7.Public hearing closed; Board discussion 8.A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation 9.A record of the hearing is kept by staff Purpose of Review 9-11 -23 (a) B.R.C. 1981 Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historical or architectural significance Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 10 Criteria for Review 9-11 -5 (c) B.R.C. 1981 The Landmarks Board “shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria: 1.The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2, B.R.C. 1981; 2.The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; 3.The reasonable condition of the building; and 4.The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. 11 Process July 27 Application Submitted August 13 Staff referred application to Landmarks Board August 17 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing Fee Paid October 14 Landmarks Board Hearing 12 Application Process •Approve the Demolition Application Full demolition of the building; approval would expire Oct. 14, 2021 (COVID-19 extension applied). •Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition Stay would expire Feb. 13, 2021. Initiate Landmark Designation Schedule an initiation hearing 13 Landmarks Board Options Property Location 14 Property Description 15 Property Description 16 Property Description 17 Property Description 18 Alterations 19 •Enlarged window openings on the first level of the south elevation, •Shingle siding may have been replaced; early photograph suggests original siding was horizonal clapboard; •Painted brick walls Scope of Demolition 20 Criteria for Review 9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2 B.R.C. 1981 21 CRITERION 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION Historic Significance Date of Construction: 1964 Association with Persons or Events: Local pediatrician, Dr. Richard Roos Distinction in the Development of the Community: Building constructed in 1964 to accommodate Boulder physician and dentist practices during a period of growth in the community. Recognition by Authorities: None Observed 22 Recognized Period or Style:Modernistic Architect or Builder of Prominence: Unknown Artistic Merit: None observed Example of the Uncommon: The building is an example of modernist office and medical buildings constructed in the 1960s. Indigenous Qualities: None observed. 23 CRITERION 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION Architectural Significance 24 Site Characteristics: Compatibility with Site: None observed Geographic Importance: The building is a familiar visual landmark along Arapahoe Avenue Environmental Appropriateness: None observed Area Integrity: The property is located in the identified potential Goss-Grove Historic District. 25 CRITERION 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION Environmental Significance The property is located in the identified potential Goss-Grove Historic District. 26 CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD The applicant has submitted a narrative that includes “The building is more than 55 years old, and likely needs some upgrades in order to meet the demands of current users, as well as life safety, ADA, and environmental requirements.” 27 CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING Staff has not received information specific to the condition of the building. 28 CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR Recommended MotionI move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay- of-demolition for the building located at 2111 Arapahoe Ave. for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building, and adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated Oct. 14, 2020. 29 FindingsStaff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: A stay of demolition for the property at 2111 Arapahoe Ave. is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9- 11 -23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that: 1.The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic, architectural and environmental significance; 2.The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; 3.It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. 30 Alternative MotionI move the Landmarks Board approve the demolition of 2111 Arapahoe Ave., finding that the building to be demolished does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11 -23(f), B.R.C. 1981. 31 Applicant Presentation 32 2111 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder Landmarks Board Meeting October 14, 2020 Original design 34 Images courtesy of the Carnegie Library for Local History Criteria: Architectural significance Major exterior alterations 35 1 3 3 2 2 1 Criteria: Architectural significance Alterations to modernistic character defining features •Ribbon windows •Diminished by alteration of ribbon on main façade, presence of single-pane glass •The first story may have been designed with ribbon windows for patient privacy •Horizontally oriented building •Diminished by addition of wood cornice to second story •Concrete/aluminum materials •Shingling covering original horizontal siding on second story, (typical 1970s alteration to commercial buildings) •Use of brick on first story 36 Criteria: Architectural significance –recognized period/style, artistic merit Interior 37 Criteria: Architectural significance –recognized period/style, artistic merit Hobart Wagener 200+ public and private buildings •2111 Arapahoe Ave not listed in the Carnegie library attested bldgs. (call number 857-4) •No sign or stamp on renderings present in library archive 38 727 29th Street (left) 1300 Walnut Street (above) Criteria: Architectural significance: architect/master builder Relationship to Surrounding Area Goss-Grove subdivision (1985 survey report) •Residential area, agricultural background, black and Hispanic residential history •Buildings typically from the 1890s •Typical styles include vernacular Dutch Colonial, Second Empire, Queen Anne, etc. 39 1716 Grove Street 1903 Goss Street Criteria: Environmental significance – environmental appropriateness Relationship to Surrounding Area Although within the potential district boundaries of the Goss-Grove subdivision, the 1964 building at 2111 Arapahoe Ave is not representative of the Goss- Grove period of significance, typical architectural styles nor typical area use. 40 Criteria: Environmental significance –environmental appropriateness Agenda Item 5B Public hearing and consideration of a demolition application for the house located at 1723 Marine St., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11 -23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. (HIS2020-00243). Owner: Dirk Stribrny, Evernest Holdings, LLC Applicant: Kenneth J. Jacques 41 Quasi- Judicial Public Hearing Procedure 42 1.All speaking are sworn in 2.Board members note any ex parte contacts 3.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff 4.Applicant presentation; Board may ask questions of applicant 5.Public hearing opened for citizen comment; the Board may ask questions 6.Applicant response 7.Public hearing closed; Board discussion 8.A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. Motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation 9.A record of the hearing is kept by staff Purpose of Review 9-11 -23 (a) B.R.C. 1981 Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historical or architectural significance Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 43 Criteria for Review 9-11 -5 (c) B.R.C. 1981 The Landmarks Board “shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria: 1.The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2, B.R.C. 1981; 2.The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; 3.The reasonable condition of the building; and 4.The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. 44 Process August 14 Application Submitted August 19 LDRC referred application to Landmarks Board September 1 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing Fee Paid October 14 Landmarks Board Hearing 45 Application Process •Approve the Demolition Application Full demolition of the building; approval would expire Oct. 14, 2021 (COVID-19 extension applied). •Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition Stay would expire Feb. 28, 2021. Initiate Landmark Designation Schedule an initiation hearing 46 Landmarks Board Options Property Location 47 Property Description 48 Property Description 49 Property Description 50 Property Description 51 Alterations 52 •Relocated in 1945; • Carport added on north side in 1993, covering rafter tails; •Shutters and trellis removed; •Front door replaced; • Shed-roof addition window removed; •Metal eave troughs and downspouts added after 1995 Scope of Demolition 53 Criteria for Review 9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2 B.R.C. 1981 54 CRITERION 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION Historic Significance Date of Construction: c. 1910 Association with Persons or Events: Joseph and Lula Misclevitz Distinction in the Development of the Community: None observed Recognition by Authorities: 1995 Scattered Resources Survey 55 •House relocated by Charles N. Alden in 1945; •Not owned by any one person for more than a few months until Nelson E. McPherson, a student, purchased it in 1946. •In 1951 McPherson began renting the house to Lula Mary Misclevitz and her husband, Joseph C. Misclevitz. •The Misclevitz family purchased the property in May 1952, and lived there until 1985. •Joseph (Joe) was a barber; Lula (who was also known as Lulu) was a Vice Grand of Boulder’s Rebekah Lodge No. 5 from 1951. Recognized Period or Style:Vernacular Wood Frame Architect or Builder of Prominence: Unknown Artistic Merit: None observed Example of the Uncommon: None observed Indigenous Qualities: None observed 56 CRITERION 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION Architectural Significance Site Characteristics: Varied and mature vegetation Compatibility with Site: Well-scaled and appropriate to site Geographic Importance: None observed Environmental Appropriateness: Residential character Area Integrity: None observed 57 CRITERION 1: ELIGIBILITY FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION Environmental Significance Though this section of Goss Grove has been substantially redeveloped into medium-density residential housing, this block features other houses dating to around the turn-of-the-century, including a Four Square house next door at 1719 Marine St. and a Shingle-style house at the corner of Marine and 17th streets. 58 CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD The applicant notes: Cracking and spalling in the foundation; Floor level of the house is not compliant with flood safety code; Foundation would likely have to be entirely replaced, a process made more difficult and costly by the presence of a free standing masonry chimney at the center of the frame house. 59 CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING The applicant estimates cost of repair at $192,200 60 CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR Recommended MotionI move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 1723 Marine St., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager, adopting the staff memorandum with the findings listed below, in order to explore alternatives to demolition for the building. 61 FindingsA stay of demolition for the house at 1723 Marine St. is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11 -23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that: 1.The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic and architectural significance; 2.The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; 3.It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. 62 Alternative MotionI move the Landmarks Board approve the demolition of 1723 Marine St., finding that the building to be demolished does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11 -23(f), B.R.C. 1981. 63 Applicant Presentation 64 65 66 67 68 Matters Subcommittees LB Subcommittees Demolition Code (Ronnie and Fran) Landmarking Interiors (Fran and Abby) MCM Design Guidelines (John and Ronnie with HBI) Historic Paint Colors (Abby and John; Ronnie –intent language) Community Outreach (Abby, Bill and John) Other Efforts Continue board discussion on underrepresented communities Pool design guideline revisions (Bill has drafted revisions) 69