Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.06.24 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 March 6, 2024 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Agenda Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 1.Call to Order - 6:00 pm 2.Approval of minutes from the Feb. 7, 2024, meeting – est. 6:10 pm 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items – est. 6:15 pm 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending – est. 6:25 pm •2111 Arapahoe Ave. – Stay of Demolition expires March 7, 2024 •1015 Juniper Ave. – Stay of Demolition expires March 25, 2024 •2260 Baseline Rd. – Stay of Demolition expires June 1, 2024 5.Public Hearings under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981: A.1590 Hillside Rd. – LAC – est. 6:30 pm B.1015 Juniper Ave. – Initiation – est. 7:15 pm 6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney – est. 8:15 pm 7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 8.Adjournment – est. 9:45 pm *Estimated start times subject to change 6 Public Participation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation7 2111 Arapahoe Ave. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 Jan. 25 – Site visit February 7 – scheduling decision March 6 – Last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay expires March 7 – Stay of demolition expires 1015 Juniper Ave. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation9 November 28 – Meeting with applicants January 8 – second meeting with applicants & site visit February 7 – scheduling decision March 6 – public hearing March 25 – Stay of demolition expires 2260 Baseline Rd. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation10 Meet with applicants – Feb. 15 April 3 – scheduling decision May 1 – Last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay expires June 1 – Stay of demolition expires Agenda Item 5A Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct a new ~1,500 sq. ft. accessory structure at 1590 Hillside Rd. (HIS2024-00002), a contributing property in the Hillside 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. Owner: Kerstin Lieff Applicant: Kim Cattau, Slope Architecture Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 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 Preservation13 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. 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation14 Landmarks Board Options Approve Subject to 16-day City Council Call-Up Period Will be determined at the March 21 City Council meeting Deny Subject to 30-day City Council Call-Up Provide applicant opportunity to withdraw application Application withdrawn; case closed. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation15 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Jan. 3, 2024 Landmark Alteration Certificate application submitted to construct a new approx. 1,500 sq. ft. accessory structure. March 6, 2024 Landmarks Board hearing 16 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation17Source: maplink+ Property Description & History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation18 2023 1938 - 1947 Property Description & History 19 2023 Proposed Work – Plan 20 21 Proposed Work – East Elevation Proposed Work – North Elevation 22 23 Proposed Work – West Elevation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation24 Proposed Work – South Elevation 25 Proposed Work – Materials 26 Proposed Work – 3D models 27 Proposed Work – 3D models 28 Proposed Work – 3D models Staff Analysis 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation29 Staff Analysis 30 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? •Subordinate •Set back •Does not obscure historic resources within the Historic District •Existing landscaping will be retained Looking west from Hillside Rd. 2024 Staff Analysis 31 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? Existing house, 2023 •Proposal is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines if stated conditions are met Staff Analysis 32 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? •Subordinate •Compatible •Generally simpler in design Staff Analysis 33 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18(c), B.R.C., 1981 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. •PV Solar Panel placement on proposed accessory building •No public visibility from within the district Analysis 34 •The proposed new building is set back from Hillside Road; •The traditional pattern in the district is for buildings to be prominently visible from the north (Boulder Creek and Arapahoe Ave.) The proposed accessory building is not detrimental to this existing pattern; •It will not obscure views of historic buildings (including 1590 Hillside Rd.) from within the Hillside Historic District; •The design is generally simpler than the main house; •It is reflective but not replicative; •Backyard space is retained. In this case, staff considers the new detached accessory structure at 1590 Hillside Rd. appropriate due to the following factors: Grandview Ave.15th St.17th St. Analysis 35 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Staff also considers that the windows may warrant additional discussion and potentially changes to ensure consistency with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks: •The divided lites and the wood window trim proposed are replicative of the historic house; •simpler one-over-one windows and simple punched openings may be more appropriate to make the accessory building simpler; •GUIDELINE: 7.2.10 Accessory Buildings: Windows, like all elements of accessory structures, should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated March 6, 2024, as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a new accessory building at 1590 Hillside Rd., a contributing property in the Hillside Historic District, as shown on plans dated Dec. 29, 2023, finding that the proposal meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines, provided the stated conditions are met. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation36 1.The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval: Revised architectural plans showing: a) Materiality of proposed walkways and patio; b) Window and door (including garage door) details to confirm they are simpler in detailing than similar elements on primary structure, trimmed with materials similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally; c) Details of stucco type proposed to show compatibility with primary structure (traditional stucco rather than synthetic, color matched, etc.); d) Details of any exterior mechanical systems, lighting, guttering, etc. not currently shown on plans. Recommended Conditions of Approval 37 Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: The Landmarks Board finds that, provided the stated conditions are met, the project will 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 March 6, 2024, and the evidence provided to the Board at its March 6, 2024 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds, if the stated conditions are met, that: 1. The proposal will be generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic character of the subject property within the historic district; 2. The proposed work will preserve, and will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property; 3. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color and materials used on the addition will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site; and 4. The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, and value of the subject property within the historic district, as it is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines and will generally comply with Sections 2.0 and 3.3 of the General Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18(b)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation38 **approx. 20 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does the project meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate? 1.Is the mass, scale and location of the proposed building appropriate? 2.Are the roof form and general solid-to-void ratio (window and door openings) appropriate? 3.Do the window and door openings meet the design guidelines? 4.Are the proposed materials appropriate? Board Deliberation 40 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation41 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation42 THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RD BOULDER,CO 80302 2023.12.29EXISTINGBUILDINGPHOTOS EXISTING HOME NEW GARAGE PROPERTY LINE PRINICPAL SETBACK LINE ACCESSORY SETBACK LINE PROPERTY LINE PRINCIPAL SETBACK LINE ACCESSORY SETBACK LINE NEW ADU DRIVEWAY ADU PATIO ADU ENTRY GARAGE ENTRY PROPOSED LOCATION FOR FUTURE SOLAR PANELS (IF REQUIRED BY ENERGY CODE) EXISTING PATIOS PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT PRINCIPAL SIDE SETBACK 3'-0" ACCY.SIDE SETBACK 5'-0" NON-PERMANENT SHED ON TRAILER BASE THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RDBOULDER,CO 80302 2024.03.06SITEPLAN GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE ADU MAIN ENTRANCE NON-PERMANENT SHED ON TRAILER BASE ADU THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RDBOULDER,CO 80302 2024.03.063DVIEWFROMNORTHEAST EXISTING HOUSE MAIN ENTRY PROPOSED LOCATION FOR FUTURE SOLAR PANELS GARAGEADU NON-PERMANENT SHED ON TRAILER BASE EXISTING HOUSE (NOT ALL WINDOWS REPRESENTED;SEE PHOTOGRAPHS) THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RDBOULDER,CO 80302 2024.03.063DVIEWFROMSOUTHEAST THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RDBOULDER,CO 80302 2024.03.063DVIEWFROMNORTHWEST EXISTING HOUSE (NOT ALL WINDOWS REPRESENTED, SEE PHOTOGRAPHS) GARAGE NON-PERMANENT SHED ON TRAILER BASE ADU MAIN ENTRY ADU THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RD BOULDER,CO 80302 2024.02.23EXTERIORMATERIALS EXISTING MATERIALS PROPOSED MATERIALS EXISTING ROOF SHINGLES ROOF SHINGLES (MATCH EXISTING) GRAY /BLACK SHAKE SIDING (ACCENT) STUCCO SIDING,SIMILAR TO PRIMARY EXISTING OFF-WHITE STUCCO EXISTING BLUE-GREY TRIM BLUE-GREY TRIM (MATCH EXISTING) EXISTING BLACK WINDOWS BLACK WINDOWS (MATCH EXISTING) EXISTING OFF-WHITE SHAKE SIDING EXISTING STONE EXISTING CARRIAGE HOUSE STYLE DOORS CARRIAGE HOUSE DOORS SIMILAR STYLE GARAGE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR FUTURE SOLAR PANELS ADU EXISTING HOUSE (NOT ALL WINDOWS SHOWN,SEE PHOTOGRAPHS) NON-PERMANENT SHED ON TRAILER BASE THE LIEFF RESIDENCE 1590 HILLSIDE RDBOULDER,CO 80302 2024.03.063DVIEWFROMSOUTHWEST 51 Proposed Work – 3D models 52 Proposed Work – East Elevation Proposed Work – North Elevation 53 54 Proposed Work – West Elevation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 55 Proposed Work – South Elevation **approx. 20 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does the project meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate? 1.Is the mass, scale and location of the proposed building appropriate? 2.Are the roof form and general solid-to-void ratio (window and door openings) appropriate? 3.Do the window and door openings meet the design guidelines? 4.Are the proposed materials appropriate? Board Deliberation 56 I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated March 6, 2024, as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a new accessory building at 1590 Hillside Rd., a contributing property in the Hillside Historic District, as shown on plans dated Dec. 29, 2023, finding that the proposal meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines, provided the stated conditions are met. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation57 1.The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval 58 Revised architectural plans showing: a) Materiality of proposed walkways and patio; b) Window and door (including garage door) details to confirm they are simpler in detailing than similar elements on primary structure, trimmed with materials similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally; c) Details of stucco type proposed to show compatibility with primary structure (traditional stucco rather than synthetic, color matched, etc.); d) Details of any exterior mechanical systems, lighting, guttering, etc. not currently shown on plans. e) Consider reducing plate height in the garage portion; f) Consider making a material change or wall articulation (either at the program change to garage or deeper into the garage) to reduce the garage presence; g) Modify the divider between the garage doors to match material of wall in general; h) Increase overhang of eaves and lookouts at gable ends to match historic structure; i) Eliminate divided lites in windows. Recommended Conditions of Approval 60 Next Steps – LAC conditionally approved Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation62 March 21, 2024 Deadline for City Council to review the decision (16 days) Not called up by City Council – Conditions reviewed by LDRC or staff Conditions satisfied – LAC issued Called up by City Council – hearing scheduled within 45 days Agenda Item 5B Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 or alternatively issue a demolition approval pursuant to Section 9-11-23 B.R.C., 1981 for 1015 Juniper Ave. (HIS2023-00180). Owner: Lillie Family Revocable Trust Applicant: City of Boulder Landmarks Board Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation65 1.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff 2.Owner presentation; Board may ask questions of owner 3.Public hearing opened for public comment; Board may ask questions of the public 4.Public hearing closed; Board discussion and, if appropriate, adoption of resolution to accept the Landmark application Public Hearing Procedure Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation66 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Sept. 19, 2023 •P&DS accepted demolition application as complete Sept. 20, 2023 •Landmarks Design Review Committee referred application to Landmarks Board Nov. 1, 2023 •Landmarks Board Hearing; stay- of-demolition placed on application Feb. 7, 2024 •Landmarks Board voted to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation or issue demolition approval March 6, 2024 •Hearing to initiate landmark designation or issue a demolition approval 67 Landmarks Board Options Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation68 1.Do not initiate landmark designation Stay of demolition will continue until March 25, 2024. If the Landmarks Board allows the stay of demolition to expire, the city manager will approve the demolition application after March 25, 2024. 2.Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution under Attachment A. Landmarks Board Designation Hearing held between 60 and 120 days (between May 5, 2024, and July 4, 2024) 3.Approve the demolition application Approval valid for 180 days. Criteria for Review Section 9-11-3(d), Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts Criteria for Review. Including, but not limited to: (1)There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, “Legislative Intent,” and 9-11-2, “City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981; (2)There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application; (3)There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation; (4)The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation; (5)(Not applicable) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate; (6)In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or (7)The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. 69 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation70Source: maplink+ 1015 Juniper Ave. Building Description 71 South (façade) elevation facing Juniper Avenue. North (rear) elevation. Building Description 72 East elevation.West elevation. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation73 Building History 2023c. 1941-1962 Property History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation74 1941 1958 2023 Probable Cause (§ 9-11-3(d)(1) B.R.C. 1981)Staff Analysis1.The Landmarks Board may consider whether there is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, “Legislative Intent,” and 9-11-2, “City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981: •The building is potentially eligible for designation: •Associated with McIntosh Family, specifically Lynn R. and Freda D. McIntosh •Constructed in 1925 •The building has architectural significance, intact example of a Bungalow that incorporates elements of the Craftsman style •Notable details include overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, battered porch posts, divided upper window lights, and triangular knee braces 75 Resources & Support(§ 9-11-3(d)(2) & (3)B.R.C. 1981)Staff Analysis2.The Landmarks Board may consider whether there are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application •Initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection requires additional staff resources including outreach and analysis. There are limited staff resources available to process applications for designation of a property without the owner’s input or community support. Diverting resources away from other Board and program priorities is not recommended. 76 Resources & Support(§ 9-11-3(d)(2) & (3)B.R.C. 1981)Staff Analysis3.The Landmarks Board may consider whether there is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation •There has been some community interest in the building since the application was submitted in Sept. 2023. •At the Nov. 1, 2023, hearing, three members of the public spoke and two members of the public wrote in support of preservation. •One member of the public spoke and four members of the public wrote in support of demolition of the buildings. •During the stay-of demolition, one community member has attended meetings and written to reiterate their support for preserving the building. 77 Resources & Support(§ 9-11-3(d)(4)B.R.C. 1981) Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationStaff Analysis4.The Landmarks Board may consider whether the buildings or features need the protections provided through designation •There is an active application for full demolition of the house and accessory buildings. The Landmarks Design Review Committee on Sept. 20, 2023 determined that the accessory buildings were not potentially eligible for designation and that staff level approval would be appropriate for the accessory buildings only. •If the Landmarks Board does not take action on the demolition application prior to the March 25, 2024 expiration of the stay of demolition, the demolition of the house and accessory buildings will be approved per Section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981. 78 Reasonable Balance (§ 9-11-3(d)(6) & (7) B.R.C. 1981) Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationStaff Analysis6.The Landmarks Board may consider whether, in balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan •Policy 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states that, “The city and county will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites and natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance with input from the community.” •The plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over an owner’s objection. Staff and members of the Landmarks Board met with the owner to discuss possible alternatives to demolition during the stay but no alternative was found. 79 Reasonable Balance (§ 9-11-3(d)(6) & (7) B.R.C. 1981) Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationStaff Analysis6.The Landmarks Board may consider whether the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest •Staff considers that designating this property over the owner’s objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public’s interest due to the location of the existing house within the regulatory FEMA 100-year flood zone and the conveyance zone. 80 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the property at 1015 Juniper Ave. for the following reasons: •The building has historic and architectural significance; •However, due to the floodplain constraints, incorporation of the existing house into the redevelopment plans of the site is not economically feasible; •Additionally, given the cost of relocation of the house and the location of the property within the 100-year floodplain and/or the conveyance zone, staff does not consider on-site relocation of the house to be feasible. 81 82 Board Options Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation83 **approx. 40 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** 1.Do not initiate landmark designation Stay of demolition will continue until March 25, 2024. If the Landmarks Board allows the stay of demolition to expire, the city manager will approve the demolition application after March 25, 2024. 2.Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution under Attachment A. Landmarks Board Designation Hearing held between 60 and 120 days (between May 5, 2024, and July 4, 2024) 3.Approve the demolition application Approval valid for 180 days. Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation84 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Do Not Initiate Landmark Designation I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated March 6, 2024, as the findings of the board and not initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and, in balance, is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 85 Alternate Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Approve Demolition I move that the Landmarks Board approve the application for demolition, finding that the house at 1015 Juniper Ave. does not meet the criteria for initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and, in balance, is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of the demolition application, the applicant shall submit to staff for review, approval, and recording with the Carnegie Library for Local History: 1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property; 2. Measured elevation drawings of all exterior elevations of the house depicting existing conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans; and 3. High resolution and professional quality digital color images of all exterior elevations. 87 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation88 Next Steps 1.Do not initiate landmark designation Stay of demolition will continue until March 25, 2024. If the Landmarks Board allows the stay of demolition to expire, the city manager will approve the demolition application after March 25, 2024. 2.Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution under Attachment A. Landmarks Board Designation Hearing held between 60 and 120 days (between May 5, 2024, and July 4, 2024) 3.Approve the demolition application Approval valid for 180 days. Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation89 1015 Juniper Ave Boulder,CO LAN D M AR K B OAR D PR ES EN TAT I ON MA RCH .6 TH ,2 0 2 4 S t ay of Demo Background •Owners/Applicant had open dialogue with Board and Staff and accommodated all requested meeting •2 meetings held to discuss alternatives to Demolition –Workshop on November 28th and on-site on January 8th •Discussed the difficulties of this particular location in terms of preservation •Onsite meeting to observe the home as well as neighborhood context of Juniper Ave •Discussed the financial hardship of renovating the existing structure and some preservation alternatives Questions asked by the Board •Q.Can we take advantage of the exemption on in floodplain regulations for main level (7 inches below)? –A.There are NO FEMA or City of Boulder exceptions to floodplain compliance. •Q.Is it possible to raise the main level floorplate height? –A.Would require lifting and moving the home.The foundation is not suitable per engineer. Moving and lifting a home difficult and expensive •Q.Have you explored the building envelope and buildable space on the lot?Lends itself to an addition on the rear of the lot without losing the historic character –A.Given the floodway at the rear of the lot,there is limited room to relocate the home to the north •Q.Gerwing asked about possible relocation –A.The cost to relocate the is extremely cost prohibitive.We spoke to one party about relocation to North Longmont but did not make financial sense given the costs to frame a new structure Site Analysis for Relocation •The home cannot be located within the rear 60’ of the lot •Current homes does not comply with 25’front yard set back •25’total side yard setback •Achieving any type of reasonable addition would be difficult given the lot constraints and requirement to lift and move the home Floodway:No structures allowed Minimum 10’side yard Setback Minimum 15’side yard Setback 100 Year Flood Plane: Buildable,NO basement Financial and Location Hardship •Any repair or alteration of the building over $104,855 would trigger FEMA and City of Boulder Land Use Regulations to lift the home in compliance with Flood Protection Elevation •Lifting and moving the home is a significant financial hardship on the owner Financial Hardship •Owners specifically purchased a property outside of a historic district to meet the needs of their family •Property was marketed on the MLS as a tear down:“offers an extraordinary chance for the buyer to materialize their dream home” •Designating this home would have a large,negative impact in property value and ability to improve the home BRC: Section 9-11-23:Consider Cost,Condition and Relationship to Surrounding Area •Extensive Cost to remodel due to several Factors: –Flood Considerations—Floodplain Engineering Analysis provided by SiteWorks Engineering –Entire site is located within the Zone AE also known as the 100-year flood plain –Northern half of property sits in City of Boulder High Hazard and Conveyance Zone •Existing and non-permitted structures sit within the Conveyance Zone...obstructing the floodway and further endangering the home •Poor condition of foundation and exterior materials •Would not impact the surrounding as the majority of the homes significantly improved,larger, or newer construction BRC:Section 9-11-23:Consider Cost, Condition and Relationship to Surrounding Area •Wide support from neighbors and residence of Juniper Ave –Multiple letters of support of demolition have been submitted to the board –Immediate neighbors expressed discontent of the condition of the home •Not currently livable and requires significant improvements even if not demolished •“A perfect example of a charming but mediocre,home...perfectly not special”– Landmark Board member Preservation Alternatives (1 of 2) •The majority of this home’s historical significance stems from being the residence of Freda McIntosh, the second woman to serve as Boulder County Treasurer •Owners have suggested installing an informational plaque on the property to educate on the history of Freda McIntosh •Sponsor documentation and pictures to be provided to the Boulder Carnegie Library at the cost of the new homeowners Preservation Alternatives (2 of 2) •Reclaim and reuse relevant architectural elements in the new home.Some identifiable elements include: –The exposed rafter tails –Battered columns on the front porch Summary •Site is faced with multiple restrictive site conditions •Compliance to required floodplain regulations would require the home to be moved and raised resulting in a financial hardship current or future owner •In our opinion,this home does not meet the threshold for involuntarily Landmarking •“We recommend approval of demolition with proposed restoration alternatives” Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Do Not Initiate Landmark Designation I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated March 6, 2024, as the findings of the board and not initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and, in balance, is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 102 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation103 Next Steps 1.Do not initiate landmark designation Stay of demolition will continue until March 25, 2024. If the Landmarks Board allows the stay of demolition to expire, the city manager will approve the demolition application after March 25, 2024. 2.Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution under Attachment A. Landmarks Board Designation Hearing held between 60 and 120 days (between May 5, 2024, and July 4, 2024) 3.Approve the demolition application Approval valid for 180 days. Alternate Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Approve Demolition I move that the Landmarks Board approve the application for demolition, finding that the house at 1015 Juniper Ave. does not meet the criteria for initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and, in balance, is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of the demolition application, the applicant shall submit to staff for review, approval, and recording with the Carnegie Library for Local History: 1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property; 2. Measured elevation drawings of all exterior elevations of the house depicting existing conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans; and 3. High resolution and professional quality digital color images of all exterior elevations. 105 Matters 48 •Welcome Meron Shiferaw – new intern! •City Council Annual Letter – Due March 22nd •Council appointment for Renee’s position – March 14th •2024 Saving Places Conference Recap Letter to Council As a whole board, commission, or panel, City Council invites you to share the top two to three community issues or opportunities on your mind, and/or the top two to three items on your group’s existing work plan, for Council awareness ahead of their annual retreat. •Written format (letter, memo) •CC most interested in hearing from group as a whole •Completely optional •Email letter to vallierem@bouldercolorado.gov •The information you provide will inform individual council members of your perspective as they develop proposals for Council priority actions in the 2024-2025 term. •Due March 22, in advance of Council Retreat on April 3 and 4 48 Letter to Council Proposed Discussion Topics •Identifying whether the Landmarks Board wants to submit a letter •Establish content and/or theme •Nominate one or two members to write letter on behalf of the board 48 Letter to Council •Process Improvements (LDRC; equity/broader representation) •Connection between preservation and sustainability; •Racial equity at the center of historic preservation;