Loading...
2B - Discussion & letter from the Landmarks Board to the City Council regarding priorities for 2009 ~~//jj,,~~ CITY OF BOULDER ~"J`,.'f'~ Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board January ]0, 2008 Mayor McGrath Members of the Boulder City Council PO Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Re: I,cn~dntarks Preservation Advisory I3ocn-d: Historic Preservaiiaai Issues and Priorities 2003 Dear Mayor McGrath and Members of the Boulder City Council, The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our priorities and concerns with the Council. With so many new Council members recently elected, now is an ideal time to bring you up to date on historic preservation issues in the city. The City of Boulder has a strong and vibrant historic preservation program, and a proud heritage of recognizing the value of our historic buildings and historic neighborhoods, The city cun•ently has ten historic districts and over 140 individual landmarks. However, as the city reaches build- out, and development interest turns to our core downtown area and older neighborhoods, there are increasing pressures on our historic resources. This renewed interest in downtown and the surrounding older neighborhoods presents challenges to the preservation program, but also opportunities. In addition, the maturing of our- post-World War II buildings, many of which are now reaching the 50 year age threshold for consideration as historic buildings, poses a significant challenge. On November 14, 2007, LPAB held a "Big Picture" meeting and discussed preservation program issues, challenges and opportunities. 'Phe board identified the following areas o1' interest as high priority: FIow Are Additional Historic Resources Brought into the Preservation Program? The city's historic preservation program can he divided into two broad areas. The first is the management of existing landmarks. In other words, what changes and alterations are appropriate under the design guidelines that LPAB uses to evaluate proposals? The second, and often-times more controversial area, is the addition of historic resources to the preservation program. Resources are added to the program in a variety of ways. Some are added through owner-initiated individual landmark requests. Some result from the formation of historic districts. Some arise fi•om the requirements of the site review process at Planning Board. Some are added through the demolition review process. And, others, though historically very few, have resulted from LPAB initiating designation over an owner's objection. Often, LPAB functions in a reactive way. In part, that is the nature of the preservation program; we are required to respond to proposals that are brought before us. However, there may be ways to Ue more proactive, and the board has made a commitment to a more proactive approach. Outreach and education to owners of historic buildings and better coordination with local preservation groups, such as Historic Boulder, arejust a few examples. Vying to find avenues for proactive approaches is a valuable goal in terms of efficiency and the public image of the preservation program. Creating historic districts, and gmnering owner support, is a much more efficient and effective way of preserving our historic resow'ces than landmarking houses on an individual basis or as the result of a threat of demolition. To guide these proactive efforts, a Preservation Plan would be an important tool. Cun'ently, the preservation program has no such plan, and the drafting of a plan could serve as a template to give direction and consistency to preservation efforts. LPAB requests Council's support in adding the creation of a Preservation Plan to the staff work program. is the demolition Review Ordinance Working? Whenever a building over fifty yews old is slated for demolition, the demolition permit request is routed through the preservation program to determine whether the building is a potential local landmark. LPAB has two main concet•ns regarding the demolition ordinance. The first is that the triggers for demolition review, as spelled out in the ordinance, are not strong enough. In other words, applicants skirt the language of the ordinance (i.e., they demolish 49%, rather than 50°~0 of a structure which would trigger review). The result is often that the building doesn't come to the preservation program for review, but the historic integrity of the building is diminished or destroyed by the changes made. There are many examples of such buildings around the city. LPAB would be happy to take Council members on a tour or present a slide show, if the Council is interested. The second concern relates to the appropriate scope of the application of the demolition ordinance. Should the imposition of at stay of demolition, and potential landmarking over an owner's objection, be reserved for only those properties with the highest level of significance? Or, is it appropriate to use the ordinance to pirotect and preserve buildings with something less than the highest level of significance, even those that are perhaps simply vernacular in style, but that still contribute to the character of the neighborhood and the community? Conservation Districts, Design Review and Residential Neighborhoods Within the current regulatory framework, LPAB undertakes design review only for those buildings that are individual landmarks, in a historic district, or are in the process of becoming landmarks. It may be worth exploring whether a separate category of residential design review is appropriate. This might take the form of a residential design review board constituted under the aegis of a neighborhood conservation district or some other mechanism. A conservation district would operate by defining the important aspects of a neighborhood's character and then establishing parameters to allow for appropriate change. Areas like the Newlands neighborhood might be candidates for- such a program. Obviously, this issue is larger than just LPAB and is part of the more general discussion on pops/scrapes and community character. Historic Preservation and sustainability As the city seeks to meet the goals set out in the Climate Action Plan, our historic resources can play an important part in attaining those goals. The recent revisions to the Green Points program recognize the value of improving the energy efficiency of historic buildings and of preserving, rather than demolishing, existing building stock. While older buildings often benefit fi•om measures to make them more energy efficient, it is important to recognize the value of the embodied energy contained in out- existing housing stock, including out' historic buildings. LPAB encourages the Council to look at the issue of sustainability,nor only in terms of yearly building operating costs, but also in tet•ms of the enormous amount of energy that goes into the construction of a new building, the life cycle expectations of the materials that are used in new construction, the huge volumes of waste that ar-e put into landfills as the result of demolition and the environmental impacts of resource extraction and the manufacturing of new materials. Informing and educating architects, contractors and owners of historic properties about the "green" qualities of historic structures is an important objective for LPAB. We will seek to build on our work with the Environmental Advisory Board, the Planning Board, and private groups interested in sustainability, and would ask the Council that LPAB continue to be included in sustainability-related issues and initiatives. Of course, in addition to the inherent "greenness" of an already constructed building, our historic resources are a critical link to the history of our city and past architectural styles. Our historic resources perpetuate a sense of place that is essential to maintaining our community character. Redevelopment of the University Hill Commercial Area As the proposal for the redevelopment of the University Hill commercial area moves forward, LPAB feels it is important that the value of our historic resources there is appreciated. The area under study for redevelopment includes two identified potential historic districts, the University Hill Commercial Historic District and the University Hill Historic District. It also includes a high percentage of buildings that would be considered contributing resomrces within the districts. Historic preservation needs to be an important component of any future redevelopment plans. Revolving Fund to Protect At-Risk Historic Properties LPAB encowrages the Council to explore the possibility of having a fund, perhaps jointly funded by the city and historic preservation groups, such as Historic Boulder, to purchase, landmark, and resell at-risk historic properties within the city. The existence of such a fund would give the city an alternative avenue for protection of historic resources. Enforcement Enforcement has been a continuing concern of LPAB. Currently, there is no specific review for compliance with the requirements set out in a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) after a project has been completed. Building inspections may catch some violations of LAC requirements, but inspectors are more focused on life/safety issues. And, not all projects that require an LAC require a building permit. This lack of inspection sets up an expectation in the building community that adherence to LAC requirements will not be enforced. We need to look at ways of improving our inspection/enforcement policies. Penalties for Illegal Demolition Currently, the preservation ordinance allows for a maximum of 90 days in jail and/or a fine of $5000 for the unlawful demolition of a historic building. Given property values in Boulder today, the dollar amount of the fine seems woefully inadequate. Some developers might view this fine simply as a cost of doing business. In addition to raising the dollar amount of the fine, the Council may want to consider adding a provision to the ordinance, similar to what Aspen has enacted, which provides for a moratorium of up to ten years for building on the parcel where the unlawfully demolished building stood. Aspen has also raised the maximum fine to $250,000. Staffing Resources The number of historic preservation cases that the staff handles, coupled with the cases increasing complexity, has strained the staffs ability to manage the workload. Often, the work that can't be accomplished is the more proactive and long-range oriented assignments, precisely where LPAB would like to focus. P&DS has recognized the need for additional staff in the preservation area and LPAB would encourage Counci] to fund the requested position. LPAB would very much like to have a study session with Council to discuss the items outlined above and to address issues from council members. Preservation cuts across many of fhe community, planning and sustainability issues that Boulder is grappling with today (the Washington school site redevelopment being a prime example) and we look forward to engaging in a dialogue with council on these important issues. Very truly yours, Timothy Plass Chairman Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board