2 - Draft Minutes - Landmarks - December 10, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
December 10, 2008
1739 Broadway, 401 Conference room
1:30 - 3:30 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the December 10, 2008 City of Boulder Landmarks
Board meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period
of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also listen
to the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Nancy Kornblum
Leonard May
Tim Plass, Chair
Lisa Podmajersky .
John Spitzer
STAFF MEMBERS:
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair T. Plass declared a quorum at 1:40 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Extension of landmark application for Hannah Barker house, 800 Arapahoe Avenue
C. Meschuk provided the board with details about the status of 800 Arapahoe Avenue and
answered questions regarding this item. Staff has recommended an extension of the application
until April 30, 2009 and felt that the building was not in danger of accelerating deterioration
between now and then.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by N. Kornblum, the board recommended (5-0) to extend
the process for 800 Arapahoe until Apri130, 2009.
B. Discussion of letter from the Landmarks Board to the City Council regarding priorities
for 2009.
J. Spitzer stated his opinion the demolition ordinance was the top priority. He suggested
combining penalties related to demolition and demolition review in their letter to council. He
asked staff for quantification of where resources have been used over the past year.
1
Staff provided the board with a numerical break down of historic preservation case loads from
2004 until present.
The board expressed interest in gathering feedback on customer satisfaction within the
preservation program.
S. Kiehstone noted that in 2009 the Planning Department will be conducting customer service
surveys that will include satisfaction with the preservation program service.
The board discussed staff resources and how they could be used most efficiently to handle the
daily workload, special projects, and board priorities.
N. Kornblum asked if there were opportunities for board members to assist staff more with their
work.
S. Richstone mentioned that board members could help with special projects such as outreach to
historic and potentially historic districts.
T. Plass agreed that the board could assist staff with special projects including demo ordinance
revisions and formulating language for code changes.
L. Podmajersky initiated a discussion about board priorities regarding Large site development
including landmark boundaries (individual and district} and issues of design review.
T. Plass stated that this was a good item to discuss as a board. and one that council should be
made aware of.
L. May pointed out that redevelopment of the [Jniversity Hill Commercial District and the idea
of Conservation Districts were important topics to bring to council's attention.
N. Kornblum suggested a proactive approach to incorporating more districts into the
preservation program to avoid a piecemeal approach to preservation. She also brought up the
issue of "supersizc" additions to historic structures, but noted that this issue maybe addressed
through regulations regarding Compatible Development.
J. Spitzer mentioned including information about sustainability issues related to historic
preservation in the board's letter to council.
L. May noted that interior modifications that affect the structural integrity of historic buildings
are also a concern.
After listing issues the board would. like to see addressed, T. Plass noted that the Preservation
Plan was not on the list, but would need to be considered as one of the work program items that
will require staff resources in 2009. The board viewed the Preservation Plan as an important
project and one that will consume large amounts of staff resources over a long period of time.
2
They felt that the demo ordinance was a more pressing issue that should be addressed
immediately.
T. Plass presented a powerpoint showing non-designated historic resources that did not trigger
demolition review and have been significantly changed or lost entirely to illustrate the negative
alterations that can occur to historic resources under the current demo ordinance. He will present
the powezpoint to City Council under public participation at a City Council meeting in
conjunction. with sharing the board's letter of priorities with council.
The following items were listed and discussed as Landmarks Board priorities:
1. Demo Ordinance Revisions
2. Relations with BVSD
a. University Hill, Whittier, and Mapleton
3. Pro-activity regarding districts (particularly University Hill and Whittier)
4. Penalties for unlawful demos
S. Landmark Boundaries
a. Individual
b. District
c. Issues of design review
6. Conservation Districts- mention of compatible development .
7. Historic preservation/sustainability
8. Staff resources
In their letter to City Council the board will include the issues listed above as important, but #1,
the demo ordinance revisions, is the only issue that will be presented as an item that the
Landmarks Board is requesting City Council make a priority and provide the staff resources
necessazy for completion. With current staffing resources, the demo ordinance can not be
adequately addressed.
T. Plass suggested a proactive approach to districts such as University Hill and Whittier
combined. with the reactive approach of revising the Historic Preservation Code Demolition
Ordinance.
The Landmarks Board supported T. Plass's draft letter to council regarding revisions to the
Historic Preservation Code to Increase Protection for Non-Designated Historic Resources.
N. Kornblum left the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
J. Spitzer left the meeting at 3:37 p.m.
T. Plass will send a draft of his proposed language to the Landmarks Board prior to the January
meeting so that the board can discuss it at their 3anuary meeting and have their letter ready for
council in time for the City Council retreat.
3. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.~n.
3
- -
Approved on December 30, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Chairperson
4