Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.06.23 LB Presentation•The city has engaged with community members to co- create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. •This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board/commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. •More about this vision and the project’s community engagement process can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/productive- atmospheres Public Participation at Board Meetings The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. •All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. •No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. •Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. Public Participation at Board Meetings Raise Hand: Alt Y for PC Option Y for Mac *9 for phone September 6, 2023 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Agenda Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 1.Call to Order - 6:00 pm 2.Oath of Office for New Landmarks Board Member Renee Golobic – est. 6:10 pm 3.Approval of minutes from the July 12, 2023, meeting – est. 6:15 pm 4.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items – est. 6:20 pm 5.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending – est. 6:25 pm •1741 Walnut St. –Stay of Demolition expires Nov. XX, 2023 6.Public Hearings under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981: A.604 Mapleton – Application to Designate – est. 6:30 pm B.910 Spruce St. – LAC – est. 7:00 pm 7.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney •Civic Area Update – est. 7:45 pm •LDRC Adjustments Update – est. 8:00 pm 8.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 9.Adjournment – est. 8:45 pm *Estimated start times subject to change 6 Public Participation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation7 1741 Walnut St. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 March 1 - LB Hearing, LB representatives - John & Abby April 4 - Meeting #1 (virtual) April 18 - Meeting #2 (on-site) May 3 – LB voted to hold hearing prior to stay of demolition expiration June – Tolling Agreement signed to extend stay July – Tolling Agreement extended Stay of demolition expires in November Agenda Item 6A Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and property at 604 Mapleton Ave. as a local Historic Landmark, pursuant to Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981. (HIS2023-00128). Owner/Applicant: Judith Reid and Richard Collins Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation9 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 public 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 available Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation10 Criteria for Review The Landmarks Board “shall determine whether designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, Legislative Intent, and 9-11-2, City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts.” Section 9-11-5(c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation11 Landmarks Board Options •Recommend Designation to City Council •City Council will hold a public hearing within 100 days •Disapprove Request for Designation •Subject to a 45-day call up period •Owners may file a notice of appeal within 21 days of the Landmarks Board Decision Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 1982 The Mapleton Historic District was designated by ordinance 4702. The house at 604 Mapleton Ave. was identified as a contributing feature of the district. June 23, 2023 Staff accepted an application to designate the house as an individual local landmark. A hearing must be scheduled between 60 and 120 days of an accepted application (between Aug. 22 and Oct. 21, 2023). Sept. 6, 2023 Landmarks Board hearing 13 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation14 Location of 604 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Property Description 15 Staff Analysis 9-11-5(c) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation16 Historic Significance Date of Construction 1913 Elaboration: The house was constructed for Frank and Asenath Eastman and their two children. 01 Association with Persons or Events Associated with the Eastman Family; Andrew and Josephine Zangara; the Benson Family; René and Charlotte Wolf; and Richard Collins and Judith Reid, families prominent in Boulder community and business activities. 02 Distinction in Development of the Community Mapleton Hill Historic District Elaboration: The area represents Boulder’s growth. Frank Eastman, for whom the house was constructed, was a wealthy professional. The house is distinct within the district for its style and size spanning multiple lots. 03 Recognition by Authorities Identified as a contributing resource in the Mapleton Hill Historic District (1982); Front Range Research Associates (1986); featured in “Historic Homes of Boulder County: Eastman House” (1979). 04 17 Frank and Asenath Eastman in 1921. 18 Andrew Zangara Ross Benson senior and junior with others after a hunting trip. Dr. Charlotte Wolf Judith Reid (center) and Richard Collins (right) with family Recognized Period or Style Tudor Revival Elaboration: From History Colorado: “The most dominant features of the Tudor Revival style are the false or ornamental half-timbering, which covers the upper story, and the steeply pitched roof. Exterior texturing, through the use of brick, stone, or stucco, together with the half-timbering and asymmetrical massing, gives a Tudor Revival style building a picturesque composition.” 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Arthur E. Saunders Elaboration: The house was likely designed by Arthur E. Saunders (1860-1930), who additionally designed 410 Highland Ave. and the Howe Mortuary at 1045 Spruce St. (both within the Mapleton Hill Historic District), the Mercantile Bank at 1201 Pearl St., and multiple other buildings. 02 Artistic Merit Masonry Elaboration: The masonry detailing, such as the brick lintels with stone detailing at the corners show exceptional skill. 03 Indigenous Qualities Likely utilized local stone and brick. 04 Example of the Uncommon 05 Narrow brick porte cochere (carriage porch), carriage steps, and attached one-story hipped-roof garage. Elaboration: The automobile arrived in Boulder around 1904. The inclusion of these original features in 1913 (and no carriage house on the property) demonstrates the changes in architecture due to the increasing popularity of the automobile. 19 Architectural Significance Real Estate Appraisal Card photograph, c.1929. Historic Building Inventory Record photograph, 1986. 20 Architectural Significance Site Characteristics The orientation of the house on the corner lot allows for the façade to face Mapleton Avenue, and allow the cars (or carriage) to enter from either Mapleton Avenue or 6th Street, and draw up to the side of the house and access the attached garage. Additionally, the mature street trees are all character-defining features of the house within the context of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. 01 Compatibility with Site Consistent with similarly grand houses in the district, the house spans multiple lots on the corner and is set back from the street. 02 Geographic Importance The house is centrally located within the Mapleton Hill Historic District. 03 Environmental Appropriateness None observed.04 Area Integrity The property is located in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Elaboration: The house contributes to the architectural variety and character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. 05 21 Environmental Significance The Landmarks Board recommends to the City Council that it designate the property at 604 Mapleton Ave. as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Eastman-Reid-Collins House, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated September 6, 2023, as the findings of the board. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation22 Proposed Name & Plaque Language Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation23 Eastman-Reid-Collins House 1913 Frank and Asenath Eastman constructed this house with features specific to the newly popular automobile. Richard Collins and Judith Reid purchased it in 1975. Collins spent a legal career fighting for Native American Rights; Reid for women’s rights and civic equity. Designated a City of Boulder Landmark in 2023 Proposed Boundary Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation24 The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application and evidence presented, that the proposed designation application is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in that: 1.The designation of the property at 604 Mapleton Ave. will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a property reminiscent of a past era of history and preserve an important example of Boulder’s historic architecture. 2.The proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the building, and enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation25 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation26 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 20 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does this property meet the standards for individual landmark designation? If yes, recommend approval If no, recommend denial Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation27 604 Mapleton Ave. 28 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation The Landmarks Board recommends to the City Council that it designate the property at 604 Mapleton Ave. as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Eastman-Reid-Collins House, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated September 6, 2023, as the findings of the board. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation30 Next Steps Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation31 City Council first reading (consent agenda) City Council second reading (public hearing); before December 15, 2023 Building designated; City provides plaque Agenda Item 6B Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to replace metal roof with asphalt shingle at 910 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981. (HIS2023-00139). Owner: Marc Shull Applicant: Guy Stevenson Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation32 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 public 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 available Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation33 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Criteria for Review The proposed work: 1.Preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property; 2.Does not adversely affect the historic, architectural value of the property; 3.Architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property; 4.The Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. Section 9-11-18 (b) & (c) Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications: Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation34 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation35 Landmarks Board Options Approve Subject to 16-day City Council Call-Up Period Deny Subject to 30-day City Council Call-Up Period Provide applicant opportunity to withdraw application Application withdrawn; case closed. June 28, 2023 LDRC referred application to the Landmarks Board Sept. 6, 2023 Landmarks Board hearing Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation36 Application Process Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation37 North elevation from Spruce Street. Property Description & History 38 1890 and 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps identified 910 Spruce (Lot 8) as a one-story frame dwelling with a shingle roof and a rear one-story sleeping porch with a slate or tin roof. c.1882-1891. Property Description & History 39 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance map 1900 Sanborn Fire Insurance map Property Description & History 40 The Real Estate Appraisal Card identifies the roof as pressed iron in both the 1929 (blue) and 1949 (red) assessments. c.1929-1949. Property Description & History 41 c.1960-1971. 1994. 1929. 2012. c.1882-1891. Metal Roofs in the Historic District 42 2029 5th St. 1002 Spruce St. Scope of Work 43 Staff Analysis 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation44 Staff Analysis 45 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines & General Design Guidelines H. Roofing Materials & 3.1 Roofs, Skylights and Solar Panels: •Although historical accuracy in roofing material is not required, it will generally be more appropriate to reserve the type and unit scale of original roofing. In some circumstances, the roofing material is an important architectural feature which should be preserved. For example, shingled roofs should remain shingled, tile roofs should remain tiled, etc. General Design Guidelines 3.1 Roofs, Skylights and Solar Panels: •The roof is one of the primary character-defining features of a historic building, and the repetition of similar roof types creates part of the visual consistency that defines a historic area. Sec. of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved 6. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture. Staff Analysis 46 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18(b), B.R.C., 1981 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district? Staff considers that the change in material from a metal roof to asphalt shingle roofing will destroy the exterior architectural features of the contributing building. The metal roof has been a character-defining feature of the house for more than 123 years. Staff Analysis 47 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18(b), B.R.C., 1981 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark property? Staff finds that the proposed replacement of the metal roof with an asphalt shingle roof would be detrimental to the character of the historic district as the metal roof is one of only three remaining metals roofs installed during the period of significance for the district. Staff Analysis 48 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18(b), B.R.C., 1981 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the landmark property? Staff considers that the architectural style, texture, color and materials of an asphalt roof is not compatible with the character of the property, which is defined by the architectural style, texture, color and materials of the metal roof. Although the original roof was wood shingle (pre-1895), the roof pitch was modified when the roof was replaced with metal sometime between 1895 and 1900, changing the architectural character of the house. Staff Analysis 49 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18(c), B.R.C., 1981 (c) In determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design and enhanced access for the disabled. •~$39,700 for metal roof vs. ~$16,400 for asphalt shingle roof •Metal roofs are typically more economical over time due to their expected longevity •Metal roof would be eligible for State Historic Preservation Tax Credits of 25% of qualifying costs ~$9,925. •With Tax Credits, the reroofing cost would be approx. $29,775 for a standing seam metal roof vs. $16,400 for an asphalt shingle roof. Staff Analysis Summary 50 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation In this case, staff considers the removal of the existing standing seam metal roof and replacement of the roof material with asphalt shingle inappropriate due to the following factors: •The metal roofing material is an important architectural feature which should be rehabilitated if possible, and replaced in kind if repair proves infeasible. •The metal roof is the primary character-defining feature of the building. The metal roof was installed before 1900, within the period of significance for the district when the roof form was modified. •The prominent visual impact created by this unusual roof type defines the property and has shown to be a rare feature within the historic district. I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated September 6, 2023 as the findings of the board and deny a Landmark Alteration Certificate to replace the metal roof with asphalt shingle at 910 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, finding that the proposal does not meet the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation51 Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: The Landmarks Board finds that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate set forth in Section 9-11-18, “Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considers the information in the staff memorandum dated September 6, 2023, and the evidence provided to the Board at its September 6, 2023 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds that: •It has not been demonstrated that the roof is damaged beyond repair; •Replacement of the metal roof with an asphalt shingle roof will damage the historic character and the exterior architectural features of the landmark property; •The metal roof was installed before 1900, within the period of significance for the district, when the roof form was modified, and is a character-defining feature of the building. As such, it is an important architectural feature which should be preserved and therefore, replacement with different roofing material is inappropriate; •The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, and value of the landmark property, as it is generally inconsistent with the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines and will not comply with Sections 2.6 of the General Design Guidelines and Section 9- 11-18(b)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation52 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation53 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 30 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does the replacement of the metal roof with asphalt shingle meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate? If yes, approve the application. Conditions may be discussed and added to the approval if needed. If no, deny the application Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation54 910 Spruce St. 55 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation56 I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated September 6, 2023 as the findings of the board and deny a Landmark Alteration Certificate to replace the metal roof with asphalt shingle at 910 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, finding that the proposal does not meet the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation64 Matters Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation •Reminder to complete hrQ survey •Retreat mid-October •Over lunch? •Poll for dates •Update on Civic Area Historic District •Proposed LDRC adjustments 48 Helen Webb and the Webb house , 1607 6th Street, [1909-1926] City of BoulderLDRC Brainstorm September 6, 2023 70 City of BoulderPurpose In June 2023, Landmarks Board member Chelsea Castellano emailed staff and board members requesting to explore restructuring Landmarks Board meetings and the LDRC process. At the July 2023 meeting, the Landmarks Board discussed the idea under Matters and generally expressed support for exploring changes to the LDRC. The following slides are intended to be a starting point to discuss potential changes to the LDRC to improve the process and make the Landmarks Board 5-year volunteer commitment sustainable. 7 1 City of BoulderBackground •Historic Preservation program established in 1974 •Review 350-400 LAC, Demolition, Tax Credit and Designation applications annually •History of Staffing •1974-1990s: one part-time planner •1990s-2013: one full-time, one part-time •2013-present: two full time planners •1994 and 1999 demolition code: revision to allow staff to review post-1940 buildings 7 2 City of BoulderCurrent Code Requirements 7 3 Code Requirement Effect LAC and demo approvals expire after 180 days (LACs can be extended for additional 180 days) •LDRC must review these cases again which adds to the case load, spending more time reviewing cases •Staff reviewed demos: staff spends time on a case they already approved •Creates uncertainty for the applicant Staff or LDRC must review completed applications within 14-days •Short time period: LDRCs must be held even if it’s only one case •Automatic approval after 14 days 2 LB members and 1 staff member must review all applications except for the few applications that can be reviewed by just staff •Significant volunteer time commitment City of BoulderCurrent State •Weekly meetings on Wednesday mornings 9am-12:30pm •Estimated staff time spent per LDRC case: 4 hours •Compared to approx. 30 minutes for staff review cases, 30 hours for Landmarks Board cases •Significant volunteer time •64 cases this year so far 7 4 City of BoulderCurrent State - Statistics •Jan-Aug: 8 LDRC meetings were cancelled (2 were on days of LB meetings) •An additional 3 meetings had only one case •Jan-Aug 2022: 7 meetings were cancelled •Jan-December 2022: 14 total cancelled (1/4 of the total possible LDRC meetings) •66% of LDRC cases required only one LDRC review •Items such as storm windows, signage, hardscaping, fences, partial demos, siding, and solar panels 7 5 City of BoulderLDRC at Its Best Is… •Collaborative •Transparent •Clear criteria-based with consistent decisions •A good use of everyone’s time •When applicants are prepared and know what to expect •Opportunity to connect with the owners/applicants •Improved outcomes 7 6 What to we want to make sure to maintain? City of BoulderThese ideas are a combination of staff and board members brainstorming efforts 1.LDRC meetings every other week 2.LDRC meetings on Fridays 3.Demolition approvals expire after 1 (or 2) year(s) 4.Staff level review of more items 5.LDRC for staff referrals only 6.More than 14 days to review applications 7.Staff refer straight to LB, skip LDRC 8.LDRC rotation reflects LB members availability 7 7 City of BoulderIdea #1: Hold LDRC Meetings Every Other Week If we hold LDRC meetings every other week, then… •The case load would be condensed •Could lead to longer meetings •Example: June 2023 would have had 5 cases per meeting •Volunteer Board Members would have 2 Wednesday mornings per month to potentially be scheduled for (instead of 4) •We could ensure there are no LDRC meetings on days of LB meetings •Decreased time commitment on that Wednesday for LB members •Staff would not have 2 long meetings in 1 day to prepare for •Applicants may have to wait longer for a decision •If a board member must cancel last minute, agenda would stack up and potentially create a backlog that lasts weeks 7 8 City of BoulderIdea #2: Schedule LDRC Meetings on Fridays If LDRC meetings are scheduled on Fridays, instead of Wednesdays, then… •Volunteer Board Members may have more flexibility in their work schedule, making it easier for them to volunteer their time •More community members and applicants might be able to attend b/c they may have more flexibility in their work schedules •However, others may have more difficulty attending due to travel •Staff often flex time on Fridays to compensate for night meetings; other deadlines (notably LB deadlines) occur on Fridays •Sending out approvals and notes to the applicants may not happen until the following Monday, applicants have to wait longer 7 9 City of BoulderIdea #3: Extend Demolition Approvals to 1 or 2 Years If we extend the demolition permit approvals from 180 days to 1 or 2 years, then… •LDRC would not have to review cases that were previously and recently reviewed •So far this year, that would have taken 2 demo cases off the case load •Applicants would have more time to complete the demolition work, and have more predictability in the outcome of a case 8 0 City of BoulderIdea #4: Make a Revision to the Code to Allow Staff Level Review of More Items Allow staff level review of the following items: 1.All fences 2.All signs 3.Installation of storm windows 4.Mechanical units with public visibility 5.Replacement of hardscaping 6.Solar panels 7.Previously approved LACs (if the application has not changed) 8.Removal of clearly documented non-contributing features 9.Reconfiguration of non-historic storefronts (windows and doors) 10. All landscaping 11.Patio railings in Downtown HD Staff can make referrals to the LDRC when applicable 8 1 City of BoulderIf more items are allowed to be reviewed at the staff level, then… •There will be a decrease in the number of cases that go to the LDRC; therefore, •Decreased need for weekly meetings •Decreased amount of time staff and board members spend on LDRC meetings •This would have taken at least 27 cases off the case load this year •Relevant applicants may get their decisions faster 8 2 Idea #4: Make a Revision to the Code to Allow Staff Level Review of More Items (continued) City of BoulderIdea #5: Change LDRC to staff referred applications only If the LDRC becomes staff referred applications only, then… •There will be a decrease in the number of cases that go to the LDRC; therefore, •Decreased need for weekly meetings •Decreased amount of time staff and board members spend on LDRC meetings •Most applications would be reviewed by staff only •Applicants may get a decision faster •Staff may be viewed as “gatekeepers” that could be swayed •LDRC could be viewed as punishment for the applicants that couldn’t get staff review, rather than a collaborative session 8 3 City of BoulderIdea #6: Make a Revision to the Code to Provide More Than 14 Days to Review If the program is allowed to take more than 14 days to review a proposal, then… •The LDRC schedule could be more flexible •Applicants may have to wait longer for a decision 8 4 City of BoulderIdea #7: If staff plans to vote to send a case to the LB, they should send it straight to the LB and skip LDRC If staff refers case directly to the Landmarks Board, then… •The case load for that LDRC meeting would decrease, therefore decreasing the amount of time staff and volunteer Board Members spend in that meeting •The application process may be faster for the applicant, they wouldn’t have to wait to have an LDRC meeting first •Staff would not have to prepare a full presentation for a case that is going to be called up anyway •Applicants can benefit from LDRC meetings and hearing feedback from Board members, more collaborative environment •Applicants would miss out on this opportunity •Applicants may not understand why they are being referred to the Board without the LDRC discussion 8 5 City of BoulderIdea #8: Modify LDRC rotation to reflect the availability of each Board Member If the LDRC rotation is reflective of the availability of each Board Member, then… •Some board members would take on more volunteer work than others •This could lead to an inequitable volunteer commitment •Repeat applicants may only get to hear from certain board members 8 6 City of BoulderThese ideas are a combination of staff and board members brainstorming efforts 1.LDRC meetings every other week 2.LDRC meetings on Fridays 3.Demolition approvals expire after 1 (or 2) year(s) 4.Staff level review of more items 5.LDRC for staff referrals only 6.More than 14 days to review applications 7.Staff refer straight to LB, skip LDRC 8.LDRC rotation reflects LB members availability 8 7 City of BoulderStaff’s Take •Staff looks forward to a discussion with the Board. At the time of the creation of this slide deck, staff is interested in exploring these ideas further: •Staff level review of more items •Staff refer straight to LB, skip LDRC •More than 14 days to review applications •LDRC meetings every other week •Demolition approvals expire after 1 (or 2) year(s) •LDRC rotation reflects LB members availability •Staff prefers not to consider these ideas further: •LDRC meetings on Fridays•LDRC for staff referrals only 8 8 City of BoulderQuestions 1.Are there other ideas that are not included? 2.Does the Landmarks Board support making changes to the LDRC? 3.What are the top 3 changes the board would recommend pursuing? 8 9 City of BoulderNext Steps •Discuss potential changes at fall retreat 9 0