Loading...
10.09.24 LB PresentationOctober 9, 2024 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation •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 Agenda Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 1.Call to Order - 6:00 pm 2.Approval of minutes from the September 4, 2024, meeting – est. 6:05 pm 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items – est. 6:10 pm 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending – est. 6:20 pm •777 Broadway, stay of demolition expires Jan. 20, 2025 5.Public Hearings under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981: A.2119 Mariposa Ave. – Demo – est. 6:45 pm B.425 Arapahoe Ave. – Demo – est. 7:30 pm C.Process Improvements for the Landmarks Board and historic preservation staff – LAC – est. 8:15 pm 6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney – est. 8:45 pm •Rescheduling January 2025 Landmarks Board meeting •Planning Board ex-officio position 7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 8.Adjournment – est. 9:30 pm *Estimated start times subject to change 5 Public Participation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation6 777 Broadway Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation7 September 4 Landmarks Board Hearing October 2 Site visit with applicants October 9, 2024 Scheduling discussion January 2025 Last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay expires Jan. 20, 2025 Stay of demolition expires 777 Broadway Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 Oct. 9 Summary Site visit with applicants Board members Decker, Golobic and Pelusio One member of the public Alternatives to Demolition -Incorporate character-defining elements Other Discussion -Lot and setback -Sewer main under 1964 portion -Cost of rehabilitation of existing building ~$5 million; mechanical upgrades alone more than $1 million -ADA compliance 777 Broadway Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation9 Motion to hold a public hearing to consider initiation of landmark designation or alternatively issue the demolition permit at the Landmarks Board’s November 6th meeting for 777 Broadway. Agenda Item 5A Public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish an accessory building constructed c. 1940 at 2119 Mariposa Ave., a non-landmarked property older than 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. Owner /Applicant: Vanessa Coleman Miles Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation10 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 Preservation11 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Purpose for Review 1.Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. 2.Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 9-11-23 (a), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 Criteria for Review 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. 9-11-23 (f), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation13 Landmarks Board Options 1.Approve the Demolition Request a)Approval valid for 180 days (April 7, 2025) 2.Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application a)Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition b)Stay would expire Feb. 10, 2025 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation14 Previous Review Process (2023) Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Proposed demolition of house and garage •Jan. 4, 2023 Demolition Hearing: LB voted to place stay of demolition on application •April 12: LB voted to schedule hearing to take action on application •May 3, 2023: Hearing continued •May 2023: Third-party Structural Report complete; owner revised application to preserve garage •May 25, 2023 Initiation Hearing: LB took no action; demolition of house approved. •House demolished in 2023 15 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation16 Aug. 8, 2024 The Planning & Development Services Department accepted demo application for the accessory building on the lot. Staff referred application to the Landmarks Board Aug. 14, 2024 Applicant paid the Landmarks Board hearing fee. Oct. 9, 2024 Landmarks Board Hearing Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation17 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation18 Source: maplink+ South Elevation. 2119 Mariposa Ave. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation19 South elevation, 2022 showing the local sandstone in an uncoursed random rubble pattern, the wood frame gable roof with shingles in the gabled ends and the carport on the west side. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation20 West elevation with carport and window openings in the local sandstone. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation21 North elevation showing the gable roof with shingles and ‘hay-loft” door in the gabled end, windows below and CMU construction of the carport. Integrity 22 Real Estate Appraisal image c. 1949.Staff photograph, 2022. Staff Analysis of Criteria 9-11-23(f) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation24 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. Historic Significance Date of Construction c.1940 01 Association with Persons or Events Cox likely rehabilitated the accessory building c.1949, including possibly placing windows and doors in existing openings (shown boarded or open in the c. 1949 image) and repairing the mortar. Cecil and his wife, Mary, are associated with multiple working-class businesses in Boulder. In addition, the McCormick family was connected to the house for more than 60 years and likely constructed the addition on the west side of the garage c.1955-1964. Donald was a farmer and gardener at NIST. 02 Distinction in Development of the Community Interurban Park, NIST 03 Recognition by Authorities The Boulder Survey of Historic Places, 1992 considered the property significant as an example of vernacular architecture and notable for its stone construction. 04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 25 Staff considers the property is eligible for individual landmark designation. Cecil and Mary Cox in 1977.Donald McCormick tending petunias at the United States Department of Commerce Boulder Labs grounds, 1959. Recognized Period or Style Vernacular Masonry 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Unknown 02 Artistic Merit The application of the sandstone demonstrates the builder’s artistic abilities. 03 Indigenous Qualities Sandstone was likely locally sourced. 04 Example of the Uncommon 05 Masonry accessory building 26 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Architectural Significance The property has architectural significance as a vernacular masonry accessory building. Site Characteristics Cleared level lot with no primary building. The house was deconstructed in 2023. 01 Compatibility with Site The accessory building is located at the rear of the lot, along the alley and consistent with traditional patterns of residential lots. 02 Geographic Importance Remnant of the area’s rural origins before development in the 1950s. 03 Environmental Appropriateness None observed. 04 Area Integrity The property is not located in an identified potential historic district. Although the area has not retained the rural feel of the 1940s, it remains residential in character. Some features of the 1950s development remain. 05 27 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Environmental Significance Location of 2119 Mariposa Ave. between 21st and 22nd Streets on Mariposa Avenue. The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past. Relationship to Neighborhood 28 Criterion 2: Relationship to the Character of the Neighborhood Enlargement of 1938 photograph indicating location of 2119 Mariposa Ave (yellow box & arrow). The south side of the 2100 block of Mariposa Ave. (opposite 2119 Mariposa Ave. on the north side of Mariposa Ave.) in 1951. Condition of Building Projected Cost The owner has not submitted information on the condition of the building. The owner has not provided information regarding the projected cost of restoration or repair. 29 Criteria 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: A stay -of-demolition for the property at 2119 Mariposa Ave. is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that: 1.The accessory building is eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic associations with Cecil Cox and Donald McCormick, and for its architectural significance as a vernacular masonry accessory building. 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. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation30 I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated Oct. 9, 2024 and issue a stay-of-demolition for the accessory building located at 2119 Mariposa Ave. for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the buildings. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation31 Next Steps – Demo application stayed Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation32 180-day stay of demolition placed from date Landmarks Board hearing fee was paid – until Feb. 10, 2025. Follow up meeting scheduled Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation34 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 25 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does this building have historic significance? If yes, place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition If no, approve the demolition request Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation35 2119 Mariposa Ave. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation36 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Agenda Item 5B Public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a house constructed c.1908 at 425 Arapahoe Ave., a non-landmarked property older than 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. Owner: Susan G. Ellis & Fred Raymond Ellis, Jr. Applicant: Kari Whitman Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation53 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 Preservation54 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Purpose for Review 1.Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. 2.Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 9-11-23 (a), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation55 Criteria for Review 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. 9-11-23 (f), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation56 Landmarks Board Options 1.Approve the Demolition Request a)Approval valid for 180 days (April 7, 2025) 2.Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application a)Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition b)Stay would expire Feb. 17, 2025 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation57 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation58 Aug. 8, 2024 Planning & Development Services Department accepted an application to demolish the building. Aug. 21, 2024 LDRC referred the application to the Landmarks Board for review in a public hearing. Aug.21, 2024 Applicant paid the Landmarks Board hearing fee. Oct. 9, 2024 Landmarks Board Hearing Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation59 Source: maplink+ South Elevation (façade from Arapahoe Avenue). 425 Arapahoe Ave. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation61 South elevation (façade) showing the frame hipped-roof house with front-facing dormer and hipped porch. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation62 Left: west elevation showing deep eaves of the hipped roof, roof dormer and shed roof over side entrance to the rear. Right: shed roof over side entrance with knee backets and newer door. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation63 Left: The east end of the south elevation (façade) showing the addition (c. 1980). Right: the east elevation with gable roof form. Site Photos Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation64 Left: north elevation (interior lot) showing the hipped roof with wall dormer; newer addition on left side of image (behind tree). Right: connection at rear between the newer addition (on the left) and the original house with the wall dormer to the right. Integrity 65 Left: Earliest Tax Assessor Card image of 425 Arapahoe Ave. c.1929 showing the southeast corner of the house, the shed roof enclosed porch on the east side, dormer on the east side and brick chimney. Right: Tax Assessor Card image c. 1962 showing the southwest corner of the house, hipped-roof form and wide eaves, horizontal siding and turned porch posts. Integrity 66 Left: Aerial image from Google Maps (link) showing the existing roof plan of the house. The solid blue line indicates the approx. footprint of the original house; the dotted yellow line indicates the approx. extent of the 1981 modifications. Right: The c. 1962 site plan showing the original footprint of the house, front porch, and enclosed porch at the northeast corner. The enclosed porch was removed in 1981 to construct the existing addition. Staff Analysis of Criteria 9-11-23(f) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation67 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. Historic Significance Date of Construction Pre-1908 01 Association with Persons or Events Arabella Burhans Carpenter purchased the land from Hannah Barker. The Carpenter family likely constructed the house. After Arabella’s death, her heirs sold the house to Squire Swan and Nettie Swan. Nettie was disabled and relied on her sister Mattie Maxson. After Squire’s death, the sisters moved back to their childhood home in Nebraska. Myron and Ramona Teegarden were the most notable residents, although lived in the house for a short time. Myron was Boulder’s Police Captain. The Clark–Taylor family owned the house for 54 years and the Lewis–Cundiff family owned it for 40 years. 02 Distinction in Development of the Community Highland Lawn 03 Recognition by Authorities The house was surveyed and the significance noted: “Although this house has been altered, elements of its late nineteenth century style are still apparent, including the front gabled, shingled dormer, the hipped roof, and the tall, narrow windows.” 04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 68 The changes to the building diminish the connection between the property and the community’s cultural, political, economic or social heritage or the development of the community. Hannah Barker c.1869.Arabella Carpenter.Ella Belle Carpenter. Charles Carpenter.Ramona and Myron Teegarden, 1968. Recognized Period or Style Vernacular frame with hipped roof 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Unknown 02 Artistic Merit None noted 03 Indigenous Qualities None noted 04 Example of the Uncommon 05 None noted 69 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Architectural Significance It is not a significant example of architectural styles of the past and does not include innovative use of material or exemplary craftsmanship to be considered significant. Site Characteristics Mature trees dominate the site. 01 Compatibility with Site None observed 02 Geographic Importance None observed 03 Environmental Appropriateness None observed 04 Area Integrity Within the context of Hannah Barker’s original 1894 plat, the area has remained residential with mature trees lining the street and within the properties. The area was identified as a potential historic district in 1989. 05 70 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Environmental Significance Left: Hannah Barker’s plat of Highland Lawn from 1884. The house does not represent a unique natural or man-made environment, and the property is not located within the boundaries of a potential historic district. Relationship to Neighborhood 71 Criterion 2: Relationship to the Character of the Neighborhood Approx location of the property in 1901. Condition of Building The applicant submitted information related to the condition of the building including details on: •Recommendations for “re-framing a significant portion of the existing roof framing for size appropriate roof members and required insulation”; •Recommendations to “to strengthen the [existing upper floor structure] for compliance with the current adopted IRC code”; •Recommendations for “additional beams, posts and foundation support to properly support the floor and structure above” on the first floor; •Recommendations that a “new foundation (retaining walls) is recommended for the proper support of the soil in the crawl space and prevent future settlement and movement” and general foundation repair. The owner also submitted a geotechnical subsurface exploration report from Substrata Consulting Engineers regarding construction of a new building. 72 Criteria 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair Projected Cost The owner has not submitted information related to the projected cost of restoration/repair of the building. However, the letter from GFE Structural, structural engineering consultants includes the statement that: “It is our overall conclusion that the building is in poor to satisfactory condition. If any remodeling is to occur, significant structural revisions will be likely at all levels of the building. Structural repairs and revisions of this type are expensive and often more expensive than demolishing and replacing the structure with a new building built to code with modern building materials. In addition, repair of homes of this type of construction are time consuming and requires a skilled contractor.” 73 Criteria 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: Approval of the historic preservation demolition application for the house at 425 Arapahoe Ave. is appropriate under the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, as the property does not meet the significance criteria for individual landmark designation: 1.While the building at 425 Arapahoe Ave. dates from before 1908 and is associated with the Carpenter, Swan, Teegarden, Clark–Taylor and Lewis–Cundiff families, the house does not have the integrity needed to convey that significance; 2.The additions to the building diminish the architectural interest or value, it is not a significant example of architectural styles of the past and does not include innovative use of material or exemplary craftsmanship to be considered significant; and 3.The house does not represent a unique natural or man-made environment and the loss of the building would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder’s historic resources. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation74 I move the Landmarks Board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated Oct. 9, 2024 and approve the application to demolish the building at 425 Arapahoe Ave., finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation75 Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation77 Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Public Participation Applicant Response Board Deliberation **approx. 25 minutes scheduled for board deliberation** Does this building have historic significance? If yes, place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition If no, approve the demolition request Board Deliberation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation78 2119 Mariposa Ave. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation79 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation80 425 ARAPAHOE AVE LANDMARK DEMOLITION SUBMISSION Concerns regarding Foundation and Main Floor: Cracks were noted on interior walls,around window frames,and some doors were sticky.Although no cracks were observed on the foundation walls,uneven floors up to 6 inches were detected. The main floor structure was found to be inadequately supported,with tilted beams,improperly supported joists,and shifting stone retaining walls.Drainage issues around the property were also identified,which exhibits server water damage throughout the structure. The main floor needs additional support,including new beams and posts,along with major foundation repairs.The existing stacked stone foundation is inadequate and may need replacement. Concerns regarding Roof Structure: The existing roof structure does not meet current IRC codes.Significant re-framing would be necessary to comply with modern standards,which may be challenging within the existing space. Concerns regarding Floor Structure: The upper floor joists are likely undersized and non-compliant with IRC code requirements. Concerns regarding Soil: The main concern identified in the boring drilled at this site is the presence of lean clay/clayey sand soil which exhibited close to moderate swell potential. All new footing foundations should be extended through the expansive near-surface soil to bear on no/low swelling silty/clayey sand and gravel and the expansive material should be removed from below at-grade floor slabs (if any). Otherwise,conventional spread footing foundation and slab-on-grade floor construction appears suitable for this site. Concerns regarding Sewer: The main concern identified is that the sewer is made of old clay pipes,and partially steel,and has multiple cracks and root growth into the vessels.A section of clay pipe that has collapsed and will be an issue when any and all water goes down the line.Drainage issues around the property were identified, which exhibits severe water damage throughout the structure. The entire waterline will need to be repaired and replaced throughout the property due to the age and condition of the clay pipes. By replacing with a new water line system,it will help with water preservation. Overall Concerns: The property is in extremely poor condition,with repair costs estimated at around $800,000.The reports suggest that demolishing and rebuilding the structure would be more cost-effective and provide better long-term value.The current property has a substantially further setback than neighborhood properties. KWI’s Plan: KWI plans to align the building’s setbacks more closely with those of other properties in the neighborhood,while still adhering to the required building codes.This approach will help integrate the new structure harmoniously with its surroundings. KWI will endeavor to preserve the historic character of the property by ensuring that the new design reflects the original look and integrity of the house.We are committed to matching the historic aesthetics and maintaining the architectural characteristics consistent with the surrounding area.We understand the importance of preserving historic buildings and will strive to honor this heritage in any new construction with architectural salvage materials. We are passionate about environmental sustainability and love the plants and the planet.As part of our commitment,we will strive to preserve as much of the existing greenery on the property as possible during the redevelopment process. Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation88 I move the Landmarks Board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated Oct. 9, 2024 and approve the application to demolish the building at 425 Arapahoe Ave., finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981. Next Steps – application approved Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation90 Approval letter issued. Expires April 7, 2025. (180 days from approval) Permit obtained within 180 days – deconstruction proceeds Permit NOT obtained within 180 days – resubmit historic preservation application Agenda Item 5C 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. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 93 Purpose for Review 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. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 94 Landmarks Board Options 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. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 95 Project Timeline Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Aug. 7 Confirm direction with the Landmarks Board (Matters) Sep. 4, 2024 Public Hearing Sep. 1-30, 2024 Public Comment Period (9/11- 9/26) Oct. 9, 2024 Landmarks Board hearing 96 Scope of Process Improvements Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 1.Administrative Rule to expand types of projects that can be reviewed by staff 2.Extend initial review period from 14 days to 21 days 3.Extend expiration period from 180 days to 1 year 97 Administrative Review of Landmark Alteration Certificates 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 98 Public Comment Period 1.Public Hearing on Sept. 4, 2024 2.Public Notice published in the Daily Camera on Sept. 11 3.Project summary included in P&DS Newsletter (approx. 5,000 recipients) 4.Email sent to last 6 months of LDRC applicants (approx. 80 recipients) 5.Questionnaire available Sept. 1-30 on the P&DS Code Changes webpage 1.“Each question is in a form of a statement. Please select the answer that most closely aligns with your opinion. The final question has an open field to provide additional comments.” 2.38 responses 99 Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 100 Question No. 1 “I support expanding the following types of historic preservation projects that may be reviewed by city staff: [list of project types]” 36 responses •61% agree with the change •39% disagree with the change Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 101 Question No. 1 “I support expanding the following types of historic preservation projects that may be reviewed by city staff: [list of project types]” Sample Comments from those that agree with the change: “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.” Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 102 Question No. 1 “I support expanding the following types of historic preservation projects that may be reviewed by city staff: [list of project types]” Sample Comments from those that disagree with the change: “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!” “There should be fewer restrictions and a more streamlined process, not more restrictions and a slower process.” 103 Question No. 2 “I support extending the initial review period from 14 days to 21 days.” 36 responses •53% agree with the change •47% disagree with the change Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 104 Question No. 3 “I support extending the approval period (expiration date) from 180 days to one year.” 36 responses •86% agree with the change •14% disagree with the change Questionnaire Responses Received Sept. 1-30, 2024 Process and Timeline 105 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] Recommended Motion Language 106 Background 48 In 1975, the ex-officio position was intended to help the Landmarks Board navigate quasi-judicial processes as a new board. For the last 50 years, the Planning Board has appointed an ex-officio member to serve on the Landmarks Board. Over the past 50 years, the Landmarks Board has developed significant expertise and institutional support from dedicated staff, making the ex-officio role less necessary. Proposed code amendment (Ord. 8658) to remove the Planning Board ex-officio position from the Landmarks Board Proposed Change 48 City Council could amend the Boulder Revised Code to remove the Planning Board ex-officio position from the Landmarks Board. Analysis In 2024, it is estimated that the Planning Board liaison volunteers an additional 58 hours a year to prepare for (12 hours) and attend Landmarks Board meetings (36 hours), site visits (2 hours) and Landmarks Board retreats (8 hours). Removing the ex-officio position from the Landmarks Board would represent a significant reduction in the volunteer time commitment for the Planning Board. Considerations Integration will continue to occur through the Site Review process and additional collaboration could occur through other venues, including joint meetings or tours as deemed necessary. Proposed code amendment (Ord. 8658) to remove the Planning Board ex-officio position from the Landmarks Board Matters 48 •Board Chair/Vice Chair training •Tuesday, October 29th from 4:00 - 6:30pm via Zoom (virtual only) • All board members invited if they are interested: •Meeting Facilitation •Productive Atmosphere and Inclusive Participation •Handling Disruptions •Media Relations •Relationships with Staff and Council •Intergovernmental Policy •Contact Aubrey if interested in attending •Reschedule January 2025 meeting •Proposal for January 8, 2025 •Informational Item •Letter of Support for Boulder County Courthouse Nomination as a National Historic Landmark (NHL) •Proposed code amendment (Ord. 8658) to remove the Planning Board ex-officio position from the Landmarks Board.