Loading...
Item 5C LDRC Adjustments 10.09.24MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD October 9, 2024 STAFF Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager Chris Reynolds, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner Aubrey Noble, Historic Preservation Program Coordinator Meron Shiferaw, Historic Preservation Intern AGENDA ITEM Public hearing regarding process improvements for the Landmarks Board and historic preservation staff: consideration of an administrative rule to expand the types of projects that can be reviewed by staff, and consideration of a code amendment to extend the time for initial review and project approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the Landmarks Board to review community feedback received related to a pending Administrative Rule to expand the types of Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) projects that can be reviewed by staff. On Sept. 4, 2024, the Landmarks Board voted to adopt an Administrative Rule to expand the types of projects that can be reviewed by staff (see Attachment B) and voted to recommend to City Council code amendments to extend the initial review period from 14 to 21 days and the approval period (expiration date) from 180 days to one year for Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) and Non-Designated Demolition applications. Reference the Sept. 4, 2024 Landmark Board Memo (link). The Boulder Revised Code requires publication of the Administrative Rule in a newspaper, followed by a 15-day Public Comment period. An online questionnaire was available between Sept. 1-30, with the option to email additional comments directly to the Landmarks Board. In total, 38 responses were received, with the majority in favor of the proposed changes. No comments were received suggesting specific modifications to the Administrative Rule, and many comments made broad statements about historic preservation and permit review in Boulder. See Attachment A. This is a public hearing item and the Landmarks Board has the following options: Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments 1.Make no further changes to the Administrative Rule. The rule would go into effect once signed by the chairperson of the Landmarks Board and the City Attorney’s Office, and then filed with the city clerk. 2.Add or remove items from the Administrative Rule. The revised rule would then be reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, followed by another newspaper publication and 15-day public comment period and a public hearing to review the comments. RECOMMENDED MOTION LANGUAGE Make No Further Changes I move the Landmarks Board not make further revisions to the Administrative Rule included as Attachment B and adopted by the Landmarks Board on Sept. 4, 2024 to expand the types of projects that may be reviewed by staff. Make Further Changes I move the Landmarks Board make further revisions to the Administrative Rule included as Attachment B and adopted by the Landmarks Board on Sept. 4, 2024 to expand the types of projects that may be reviewed by staff. The changes include: 1.Remove [placeholder] 2.Add [Placeholder] 3.Revise [Placeholder] COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Administrative Rule process included a public hearing at the Landmarks Board on Sept. 4, 2024, followed by a public notice published in the Daily Camera on Sept. 11, 2024 inviting comments during the 15-day public comment period. An online questionnaire was posted on the P&DS Code Change website from Sept. 1-30, 2024. Additionally, staff notified approximately LDRC applicants from the last 6 months (approximately 80 recipients) of the proposed changes and included information in the P&DS Newsletter (approximately 5,000 recipients). The questionnaire asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with each of the three proposed changes and provided an open comment box for additional comments. In total, 38 responses were received, with the majority (61%) strongly agreeing or agreeing to the proposed changes. No comments were received suggesting specific modifications to the Administrative Rule, and many respondents made broad statements about historic preservation and permit review in Boulder. See Attachment A: Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 PROCESS AND TIMELINE The Landmarks Board may adopt an Administrative Rule, while code amendments require review by the Landmarks Board and City Council. The following table outlines the respective processes. Timeline Administrative Rule Code Amendment Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments August 7, 2024 Confirm direction with Landmarks Board (Matters) Analysis Draft Administrative Rule and Landmarks Board Memo Approval by CAO as to form Review by CAO September 4, 2024 Landmarks Board Public Hearing to Adopt Administrative Rule and Recommend Code Amendment to City Council Publish in Newspaper Prepare City Council Memos 15-day Public Comment Period October 9, 2024 Landmarks Board Review of Comments (Matters); if no changes, rule goes into effect. November - December 2024 City Council 1st Reading City Council 2nd Reading (Public Hearing); if adopted, changes go into effect. Update Forms and Website December 2024 Internal and External Communication NEXT STEPS If the Landmarks Board does not make additional changes to the Administrative Rule, it will go into effect immediately. If the board chooses to make additional changes, the revised rule would be reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office, followed by another newspaper publication and 15-day public comment period and a public hearing to review the comments. The Landmarks Board recommendations on the proposed code amendments will be included in the City Council memos. Staff is currently drafting the memos and ordinance, and it is anticipated to be reviewed by the City Council on November 21, 2024 and December 19, 2024 (dates subject to change based on Council Agenda Committee). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 Attachment B: Administrative Rule Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments ATTACHMENT A: QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES RECEIVED SEPT. 1-30, 2024 Question No. 1: I support expanding the following types of historic preservation projects that may be reviewed by city staff: Structural repairs, sidewalk and/or driveways, re-grading, hardscaping and/or retaining walls, fences, patios, decks and/or railings, trim and/or siding, painting and/or paint colors, storm windows and/or doors, window rehabilitation, skylights, roofing, solar panels and/or solar battery storage, mechanical units, commercial awnings, signs, lighting, gutters, bike racks and/or e-bike stations, electric vehicle chargers, Historic Preservation Residential State Tax Credits Of the 36 responses received for the first question, 25 percent strongly agree, 36 percent agree, 28 percent disagree and 11 percent strongly disagree with the proposed change to expand the types of LAC projects that can be reviewed at the staff level. Question No. 2: I support extending the initial review period from 14 days to 21 days. 28% 11% 36% 25% Expanded Staff Review of LAC applications Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments Of the 36 responses received for the second question, 11 percent strongly agree, 42 percent agree, 19 percent disagree and 28 percent strongly disagree with the proposed change to extend the initial review period from 14 to 21 days. Question No. 3: I support extending the approval period (expiration date) from 180 days to one year. Of the 36 responses received for the third question, 44 percent strongly agree, 42 percent agree, 6 percent disagree and 8 percent strongly disagree with the proposed change to extend the approval period (expiration date) from 180 days to one year. 28% 19% 42% 11% Extend Initial Review Period from 14 to 21 Days Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 8% 6% 42% 44% Extend Expiration Date from 180 days to 1 Year Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments Question No. 4: Do you have any additional comments related to potential changes to the historic preservation review process? The full set of comments received is included in the table below. I support expanding the following types of historic preservation projects that may be reviewed by city staff: [reference list above] I support extending the initial review period from 14 days to 21 days. I support extending the approval period (expiration date) from 180 days to one year. Do you have any additional comments related to potential changes to the historic preservation review process? Agree Agree Agree As a counterbalance, demolition permit reviews could provide more time to accommodate community appeals, and processes for those appeals to be heard and ruled upon. Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree How about the single dissenting vote that can move a project from LDRC to full Board. Maybe switch to a majority instead? Seems like a fair number of cases end up before the full Board that doesn't change the opinion of the majority at LDRC. Strongly Agree Strongly Agree I don't understand th impact of an initial review period extension so left that answer blank Agree Strongly Agree Agree I need to know more about this in order to give the best feedback Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I would highly suggest enabling more decision making to happen at the LDRC level. The LAC process can be prohibitively costly, in time and monetary costs, dissuading homeowners from making improvements that would extend the lives of their historic homes, or new, motivated buyers to move to historic areas and invigorate the neighborhood. I think opening up the projects outlined above to be handled by city staff is a great first step! Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I would highly suggest enabling more decision making to happen at the LDRC level. The LAC process can be prohibitively costly, in time and monetary costs, dissuading homeowners from making improvements that would extend the lives of their historic homes, or new, motivated buyers to move to historic areas and invigorate the neighborhood. I think opening up the projects outlined above to be handled by city staff is a great first step! Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I'm fine with letting staff review more things, provided (a) they are required by ordinance to do so in a timely manner (ideally 1 week, definitely no more than 2 weeks) and (b) the owner can appeal denials to the LDRC and/or the Landmarks Board. Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree It's already so difficult for people to get through the City review process and you guys are apparently too busy to help businesses and so the best ones leave and incur unnecessary costs and taxes. Fresh Thyme and Under the Sunb are two recent examples. Reviewing all of this stuff makes it more expensive. Get more employees who are efficient and helpful and stop wasting our tax money on this and a private library district, both of which are expensive and elitist. And trust me, most middle aged and younger people are not commenting. Very little of Boulder's architecture is actually nice and pretty soon staff will be saying a tract home in Martin Acres needs to be saved because it represents an instrumental and impactful period of history. Agree Disagree Strongly Agree I've always thought that it might be more helpful when it comes to the Historic Demo Permit for a house over 50 years old but has no historic significance at all, that maybe Landmarks should actually go throughout the City and make a permanent list of houses/address that would require this historic demo permit. Instead of having this usually be a pointless requirement for majority of the homes in Boulder. Strongly Agree Please make it more user friendly and allow for energy conservation and renewable energy to be used. Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments Disagree Disagree Disagree There should be fewer restrictions and a more streamlined process, not more restrictions and a slower process. Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Agree Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments Disagree Agree Agree Item 5C - LDRC Adjustments STANDARD Contract Routing Cover Sheet Please print and attach to your document You can view the status of your contract using the Contract Tracking Status Page. Routing Number 20240813-2420 Originating Dept Planning & Development Services Contact Person Amanda Cusworth Phone Number 303-441-3215 Project Manager / Contract Administrator Marcy Gerwing E-mail gerwingm@bouldercolorado.gov Counter Parties City of Boulder Contract Title / Type Staff Review of Landmark Alteration Certificates Number Description Non-emergency Rule Change to Staff Reviews related to Landmark Alteration Certificates and the business of the Landmarks Board Special Instructions Was not sure who counter party should be. Route to CAO Route to CMO Route to City Clerk Return Document to Document Administrator Amount Expense Type Dept. Head Signature_______________________________________ NOTE; Originating Department: Identify with a check mark all areas document needs to be routed. Purchasing_________________________________________________ Budget_____________________________________________________ Sales Tax__________________________________________________ CAO _______________________________________________________ City Manager_______________________________________________ Central Records____________________________________________ Contract Tracking Home | Signature Routing Form | Track Contract Status | Update Contract Status 8/13/24, 2:45 PM Contract Tracking > Thank You https://work.bouldercolorado.gov/ContractTracking/servlet/Controller 1/1 9-11-14.A(24) STANDARD (NON-EMERGENCY) REGULATION/RULE Staff Review of Landmark Alteration Certificates BRC Section that is the subject of this Rule: Section 9-11-14(a)(2) B.R.C. 1981 1.The Landmarks 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 9-11-14 (a)(2) B.R.C. 1981: 1.Structural Repairs 2.Sidewalk and/or driveways 3.Re-grading, hardscaping and/or retaining walls 4.Fences 5. Patios, decks and/or railings 6. Trim and/or siding 7.Painting and/or paint colors 8. Storm windows and/or doors 9. Window Rehabilitation 10. Skylights 11. Roofing 12. Solar panels and/or solar battery storage 13.Mechanical units 14.Commercial awnings 15. Signs 16. Lighting 17.Gutters 18. Bike Racks and/or e-bike stations 19.Electric Vehicle chargers 20.Historic Preservation Residential State Tax Credits 2.To the extent only of any conflict, this Rule supersedes any conflicting Rules or parts of Rules, including, without limitation, 10-13-14.B(99) and 10-13-14.A(00). 9-11-14.A(24) *** NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC *** Rule ___________________ As adopting authority, on September 4, 2024 the Landmarks Board, filed with the city clerk a Rule proposing to: This rule expands the types of alterations to historically designated properties that can be reviewed by staff. Copies of the Rule are available for public review at the Central Records Office at the Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway, 2nd floor. The public has a right to submit written comments on the proposed rule for 15 days from the date of this publication (September 26, 2024). Please direct written comments to: Marcy Gerwing Principal Historic Preservation Planner City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services PO Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 historicpreservation@bouldercolorado.gov For more information, visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/departments/historic-preservation or call 303- 441-3207. If no written comments are received, the Rule will become final when the time for comments has passed. 9-11-14.A(24) STANDARD (NON-EMERGENCY) RULE SIGNATURE PAGE Staff Review of Landmark Alteration Certificates Originating Department – B.R.C. Section Granting Rulemaking Authority: Section 9-11-24 City Attorney’s Office – Approval as to form and legality: The proposed Rule was approved as to form and legality for adoption on ________________________ (date). Signature: _______________________________ City Manager / Adopting Authority – Approval as to substance The proposed Rule was approved as to substance prior to publication and three copies were filed with the City Clerk on ________________________ (date). Adopting Authority Signature: _______________________________ City Clerk Publication: The public notice will be published in the Daily Camera on ______________________ (date), starting a 15-day written comment period ending on ______________________. ____No comments were received. The proposed Rule is in effect as of the end of the comment period. City Clerk Signature: _________________________________ City Manager / Adopting Authority - Comment Review/Effective Date: 8/21/2024 September 11, 2024 September 26, 2024 ____ Written comments were received for this Rule, and no change has been made. The Rule is in effect as of the end of the comment period. ____ Written comments were received for this Rule. The Rule was amended and returned to the City Attorney’s Office for review on __________________. The Rule is effective upon approval of the City Attorney. City Attorney approval Date:________________________________ Signature: ____________________________ ____ Written comments were received for this Rule. The Rule has been amended and will be republished. Adopting Authority Signature: _______________________________