2 - Draft Minutes - Landmarks - November 19, 2008
r
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
November 19, 2008
1739 Broadway, 401 Conference room
1:30 - 4:00 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the November 19, 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:
Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Deb Kalish, Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
L CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair T. Plass declared a quorum at 1:41 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
L. Podmajersky amved at the meeting at 1:42 p.m.
2. DISCUSSION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS VS. BOARD ACTIONS AND
BOARD/STAFF ROLES
R. McHeyser introduced the item to the board by clarifying the responsibilities of staff and the
responsibilities ofthe board.
T. Plass asked for clarification about staff's role in "supporting the board" and expressed interest
in understanding the process for changing policy.
S. Richstone explained that staff was responsible for supporting the board's capability to fulfill
their responsibilities as defined in the Charter and emphasized that staff is not required to support
the board's position on an issue.
1
N. Kornblum, L. Podmajersky, and T. Plass felt that occasional variances of opinion between
staff and the board are normal, show that the system is working well, and increase the staff and
the board's professional image and credibility. The process of staff's recommendations followed
by the board's actions is an effective system of checks and balances and some of the differences
of opinion are simply due to different interpretations of the code.
L. May and J. Spitzer questioned whether the code should be written differently or policies
should be in place in order to minimize these differences of interpretation and direction. Spitzer
asked whether it was appropriate for the staff to not make recorrunendations and rather lay out
pros and cons for the board.
N. Kornblum expressed concern about the board's recommendations to City Council being
presented forcefully enough when staff disagrees with the board's actions.
T. Plass noted that staff fairly and dispassionately presents the board's recommendation as well
as their own recommendations and that board members have the opportunity to attend the
council meetings to act as advocates. He felt that the code was well written and that their
professional expertise combined with public interest has to inform their decisions.
Most cases of divergent opinions between staff and the board occurred over non-consensual
designations. Board and staff members were happy to discuss this issue and were open to
ongoing examination and communication. Staff encouraged the board to request additional
information about items if and when it is needed and staff will do their best to provide it with
available resources.
C. Meschuk arrived to the meeting at 2:39 p.m.
3. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN SCOPE AND TIMELINE
S. Richstone presented the item and requested feedback from the board on Preservation Plan
priorities.
Staff and the board discussed the cost and timeline for the creation of the Preservation Plan.
L. Nlay suggested hiring additional staff rather than using a consultant for this project.
S. Richstone noted that the majority of this project would be funded by grants. She mentioned
that this project would identify top districts and landmarks that should be brought into the
preservation program. She promoted the creation of a Preservation Plan as an opportunity to
gather public input and support for the preservation program.
The board supported a proactive approach to the Preservation Plan and creation of tools for
reevaluation to accommodate for changes over time. The board wanted to ensure adequate
resources and staff time for this project in combination with ongoing projects.
2
4. DISCUSSION OF DEMOLITION ORDINANCE AND PROTECTION OF NON-
DESIGNA'FEll RESOURCES
N. Kornblum left the meeting at 3:07 p.m.
T. Plass suggested an ordinance that would protect non-designated resources from inappropriate
additions and changes as well as from demolition.
The board proposed making changes to and adding additional. types of triggers for the demo
ordinance. They felt the 50% trigger was problematic and suggested changes to the ordinance to
preserve more resources and address concerns about predictability.
T. Plass will draft a preliminary letter regarding this issue and bring it to the December 3
Landmarks Board meeting for review and discussion by the board. In the Landmarks Board's
letter to City Council changes to the demo ordinance will be presented as the Landmarks Board's
highest priority. Additional resources will be requested to allow for the public process necessary
to address changes to the demo ordinance. This issue is time sensitive and essential to
preventing more historic resources from being lost.
The board will set another time to discuss landmark boundaries and other board issues. During
the extra meeting they will determine additional priorities to include in their letter to council.
5. ADJOURNMF,NT
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Approved on December 3, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Chairperson
3