Loading...
5C - Draft changes to the criminal penalty provisions of the historic preservation ordinance January 6, 2009 DRAFT Mayox McGrath Members of the Boulder City Council PO Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 _ Re: Historic Preservation Priorities for 2009 Dear Mayor McGrath and Members of the Boulder City Council: The Landmarks Board would Like to thank you for the opportunity to share our priorities and concerns for the city's preservation program for the upcoming year. As you look forward to crafting your legislative agenda and working with the Planning Department and City Manager in formulating a work program, we ask that you consider including the policy issues set out in this letter. The Landmarks Board held two special meetings in December to consider and discuss "Big Picture" concerns and priorities with regard to the preservation program. The board reached a consensus on the importance of the items that are discussed below. Ail board members agreed on one issue as the highest priority: changes to the demolition review ordinance. Priority #1 • Revise the Historic Preservation Code to Increase Protection T'or Non- Designated Historic Resources. The Landmarks Board's highest priority is to implement changes to preservation code to stem the ongoing and irreversible loss of the city's non-designated historic resources. The historic buildings that are individually designated or are in historic districts represent only a fraction of the valuable historic building stock within our community. Increasing land values and limited area for new development have led to mounting pressure on non-designated resources, and the code needs to be modified to meet the challenges we are facing today. The recent case of the stone cottage at 3231 11~' Street highlighted the code's inadequacy and illustrated that non-demolition is not the same as preservation. iJnfortunately, there are many other less well-publicized cases where the city has, indeed, lost significant non-designated historic resources through inappropriate changes. In order to remedy the ongoing and irreversible loss of our non-designated resources and to address the concerns raised by the Planning Department and the City Council with regard to predictability of process and community expectation, the Landmarks Board proposes that council make the following changes to section 9-11-23 of the B.R.C.: • Change the heading of the demolition ordvaance from its current language to encompass a broader array of threats to these resources. The board recommends that the new heading be "The Protection of Non-Designated Resources." • Increase the scope of the triggers that would prompt review by the preservation program. ~ One new trigger would be the size of a proposed addition to anon-designated historic structure. When the proposed addition exceeded one hundred percent of the historic structure, the resource would be subject to review. ~ A.nothcr new trigger would be the height of the proposed additions/renovations. If the height of the modifications exceeded the ridge height of the historic structure, that would also prompt review. • Lower the threshold at which a building is considered "demolished" for purposes of review. The current threshold of fifty percent is not restrictive enough to ensure that the integrity of anon-designated building is maintained. The Landmarks Board recommends a threshold of 30 percent to ensure the continued integrity of non-designated historic structures. • Serial applications be treated as one application for purposes of prompting review. The board recommends that multiple demolition. permit applications or building permit applications for anon-designated historic resource submitted within atwenty-four month period be treated as one application for purposes of requiring review by the preservation program. • The term "stay of demolition" be replaced with "stay of inappropriate change." However, the process that would be employed by the preservation program would mirror the system currently in place. Thus, an application that triggered review would be examined by either staff or the Design Review Committee, and, if there were a finding of probable cause that the resource was a potential local landmark, the matter would go to a public hearing before the full Landmarks Board for a potential imposition of a "stay of inappropriate change." A property examined under this revised ordinance would not be subject to design review. Rather, the focus of the review would be on whether the historic resource itself merited protection as a potential local 1 an dmark. The proposed changes address a real, irreversible and ongoing loss of valuable historic resources and answer concerns raised about community expectations and predictability of process in the wake of the landmarking of the stone cottage at 3231 11 St. '1'Iie changes would not require a wholesale restructuring of the current program. Rather, the additional triggers and enlarged scope would fzt naturally into the existing program. The board recognizes that taking on this project will involve a significant amount of staff time, and we request that the council allot resources for this effort in the work program. We urge the council to consider these changes and look forward to a vigorous community discussion on this matter. Additional Priorities The board also identified the following areas of concern: • City of Boulder Relations with the Boulder Valley School District While the "rebuilding" of Casey Middle School has received much attention in the past year, as has the sale and redevelopment of Washington School, there are also significant changes planned for Mapleton School, Whittier School and University Hi11 School, all three of which are either individual landmarks or in an historic district. The Landmarks Board believes that a strong and proactive approach by the City Council to our relationship with BVSD is essential in order to safeguard our historic schools. • New Historic Districts and a Proactive Approach to Preservation _ While much of the preservation program's work is reactive bynature-i.e., the board responds to applications received by the city, we recognize the value of proactive efforts, especially the creation of historic districts. Tlie Whittier area, which was highlighted by the historic Boulder Holiday Home Tour and the successful restoration of 1936 Mapleton, is ane area where the board hopes to reach out to the residents and gain support for a district. The other area is the University Hill Commercial District, which, as a result of the New Hill proposals for redevelopment, maybe at significant risk. • Increased Penalties for Unlawful Demolition The Landmarks Board continues to support the revision of the penalty provisions for unlawful demolition of historic resources and appreciates the council's interest in this issue. Potential changes are currently being studied by the City Attorney's Office, and the board hopes to be able to recommend revisions to the council in the next few months. - • Landmark Boundaries Currently, the preservation program lacks a detailed and systematic approach to creating boundaries for new landmark properties or districts. 'The board plans, through it's rulemaking authority, to promulgate regulations to guide staff, applicants and board members in determining appropriate boundaries by creating a list of criteria that can be applied to an individual application. • Conservation Districts The board supports council consideration of an ordinance enabling the use of conservation districts. Having another tool in the tool box of land use regulation would prove valuable for those areas of the city that do not meet the criteria of the preservation ordinance, but still merit protection to preserve valued neighborhood attributes. The board recognises the interconnection between conservation districts and the ongoing compatible development study, and encourages the council to consider this option. • I3istoric Preservation and Sustainabilit~ In addition to the architectural and cultural qualities that our historic resources contribute to the community; they also play an important part in helping the city meet the goals set out iu the Climate Action Plan. While older buildings can often benefit from measures to make them more energy efficient, we urge the council to recognize the value of the embodied energy in our historic resources. Sustainability should be viewed, not only in terms of yearly building operating cost, but also recognize the huge quantity of energy required to constzuct a new building, life cycle expectations of new materials, and the enormous amount of waste directed to our landfills through the demolition of our existing building stock. The Landmarks Board looks forward to continuing to work with architects, builders and the public to promote the continued use and reuse of our historic building stock-truly the greenest option. • Preservation Plan Last year, the Landmarks Board recommended to council the drafting of a preservation plan and was pleased that the council gave direction to the staff to move forward with scopvng the project. The board continues to believe that a preservation plan is a valuable tool. to -make the preservation program more proactive and prioritize objectives, as well as inform the staff's work program. The board does acknowledge, however, the limited resources available to the preservation program. An effort to move forward with changes to the demolition ordinance, the creation of a preservation plan and the ongoing day-to-day responsibilities of administering the program are beyond the capacity of the current staffing levels. The addition of a .5 FTE for the preservation program would be of enormous help to the program, and we ask that you consider such a request in your budget. 'T'hank you for your consideration of these issues, and we took forward to working with you in the coming year to preserve and. protect our historic resources. Respectfully submitted, Titn Plass Chair City of Boulder Landmarks Board on behalf of the board: Nancy Kornblum Leonard May Lisa Podmajersky John Spitzer KC Becker (ex officio member) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-11-12, B.R.C. 1981, RE~iARDING ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES, AND SITTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 9-11-I2, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to add a new subsection {e) as follows: 9-11.12 Landmark Alteration Certificate Required. (a) No person shall carry out or permit to be carried out on a designated landmark site, on a designated feature, or in a designated historic district any of the following without first obtaining a landmark alteration certificate: (1) New construction, alteration, relocation, or demolition of any building; (2) New construction, alteration, relocation, or demolition of any designated feature; (3) New construction, alteration, relocation or demolition of any fence or other landscape features, including, without limitation, any deck, patio, wall, berm, garden structure, water feature, exterior lighting, curb cut, driveway, replacement of sod with a hard surface, or any landscaping that has the potential for damaging buildings or designated features; and (4) Any activity requiring a building permit pursuant to this code, except for building permits required for interior work on a building. {b) In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection (a) of this section, applicants must also obtain all necessary permits for the proposed work under this chapter as well as any other permits required by this code or other ordinance of the city. (c) The planning department shall maintain a current record of all designated. landmark sites and historic districts and pending designations. If the building division receives an application for a permit to carry out any new construction., alteration, relocation, or demolition of a building or other designated feature on a landmark site or in a historic district or in an area for which designation proceedings are pending, the building division shall promptly forward such permit application to the planning department. (d} The city manager shall review any permit application the manager receives to determine whether a landmark alteration certificate for the work proposed in the permit application has K:\plhdlord to add each 24 hrs sep violation to code-488.doc Agenda Item # Page been issued and whether the permit application conforms to the certificate. If a certificate has been issued on the permit application and the proposed work conforms thereto, the manager shall refer the permit application to the building division, which shall process it without further reference to this chapter. If no certificate has been issued, or if in the sole judgment of the manager the permit application does not conform to the certificate, the manager shall disapprove the permit application anal shall. not issue it until a certificate has been issued and the permit application conforms thereto. e It loll ~c a separate violation of subsections 1~lor (p) for each 24-hour r e~dslurinQ_which the condition created in violation of this section exists until ~a landmark alteration certificates obtained for the construction, alteration, relocation or demolition~erformed or (21 the work performed in violation of this section is restored to the condition that existed prior to the violation and in accordance with all a~nlicable provisions of this code. Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 3. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available ui the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE O1\tLY this day of , 20_. Mayor Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record K:lplhdlord to add each 24 }xs sep violation to code-488.doc Agenda Item # Page READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AI~tD ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_. Mayor Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record K:lplhdlord to add each 24 hrs sep violation to code-48$.doc Agenda Item # Page