Loading...
4 - Draft Minutes - Landmarks - January 7, 2009 ' CITY OF BOtJLDF,R LANllMARKS BOARD .January 7, 2009 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room 6 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the January 7, 2009 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.bouldezplandeve}op.net. BOARD MEMBERS: Nancy Kornblum Leonard May Tim Plass, Chair Lisa Podmajcrsky John Spitzer *K. C. Becker *Planning Board representative without a vote S'TAkF MEMBERS: Deb Kalish, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstonc, Long Range Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Chair T. Plass de;ctared a quorum at 6:07 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TOR ITEMS NOT UN THE AGENllA John and Lisa Goodson, 6(17 Forest Ave, spoke in support of lifting the stay-of-demolition on 607 Forest Avenue and in opposition to initiating }andmarking of this property. 3. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION ANll DEMOLITION APPLICAI`IONS ISSUED AND PENDING 607 Forest Avenue, stay-of-demolition expires April 15, 2009 Motion On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. Podma,jersky, the Landmarks Board requested (4-l, "I'. Plass opposed) staff to schedule a public hearing for the potential lifting of the stay-of= demolition feu- the property at 607 Forest Avenue on February 4, 2009 during the Landmarks Board's regularly scheduled meeting. 1 T. Plass opposed adding this public hearing because he saw value in the timeframe imposed by stays-of-demolition. 1Ie expressed concern that this could set a poor precedent and encourage additional applicants to request stay-of-demolitian lifting, resulting in fuller board agendas. 4. ACTION ITEMS LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS A. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the house and a portion of the property at 3015 Kalnua Avenue as a local historic landmark per Section 9-] 1-S of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2008-(1(1216) Applicant/Owner: Harper Hollow, LLC Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they may have had ~n this item. T. Plass, N. Kornblum, L. Podmajersky, and J. Spitzer reported site visits. L. May and K. Becker revealed no ex-pane contacts. Staff Presentation C. Meschulc presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation .l. Kirk Hendricks, 67 Wild Horse Circle, presented the item to the board. He spoke in opposition of landmark designation with proposed boundary. The applicant would prefer if the garage were not included in the landmark designation application because they hope to demolish the garage and reuse the materials. The applicant is also interested in possibly constructing an addition to the west side of the garage. He mentioned that if the property is landmarked it will .have a negative economic impact on the applicant. Gary Calderon, co-owner of the property, also presented information to the board. He requested that the board amend the boundary line to reduce the sire of the landmark area. He suggested that the board only landmark the house and exclude the sun-ounding property and garage from the designation. Public Hearing Abby Daniels, Ilistoric Boulder, 1123 Spruce Street, spoke in support of landmark designation. She strongly advocated that future development be compatible with the surrounding areas. Applicant's Rebuttal (Vary Calderon mentioned that when he first applied for landmark status he thought it only applied to the house rather than the entire lot. He inquired if it was possible for him to withdxaw his landmark application if the boundaries defned were not suitable to him. Board Discussion C. Meschuk informed the board of the implications for the property's annexation status if the applicant withdrew his landmark application. ,2 Motion On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board recommended to C.,ity Council to designate the house, garage, and a portion of the site at 3015 Kalmia 1lvcnuc as a local historic landmark, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, I3.R.C., 1981, and adopted the staff' znemoranc}um dated 1.'1.09 including the following as findings of the board: FINllINGS The Landmarks Board found, based upon the application and evidence presented, that the proposed designation application, subject to the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and: 1. The proposed designation will protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history and provide a significant example of an architectural style of the past. (9-11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981) 2. The proposed designation will develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City's living heritage. (9-11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981) The boundary shall be established to follow the property lines of the proposed Lot 23, as shown on page 8 of this staf(~memorandum. 3. The proposed designation draws a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives. (9-11-1(b), B.R.C. 1981). L. May suggested (possibly as a tiiendly amendment) increasing the area around the north and east side of the property to maintain more of the rural feeling of the site. N. Kornblum expressed problem with the suggested boundary. She felt that to celebrate the house's original rural setting it should be given a bit more breathing room. She suggested moving the boundary further east. L. Podmajersky wanted to know what the setback is from the road to the house. She supported extending the landmark boundary to the north to encompass the lateral ditch to acknowledge the signif cance of its agriculhiral history. T. Plass invited the applicant to discuss wl}ether or not he would like to withdraw his application given that the board supported the landmarking of the property including the garage. G. Calderon declined the opportunity to withdraw his application. He informed the board about the affordable housing restrictions on the site being discussed and the economic impact landmarking of all of the structures would have on the number of units that could be added to the property. 3 I,. Podma,jerksy suggested moving the landmark boundary 5-10 feet further on the northern side. S. Richstone noted that it would be appropriate for the Landmarks Board to recommend to City Council particular boundaries I-or annexation. The board did not vote nn T. Plus's motion because 7: Pluss witlzd~•ew his vrixinal motion and .T. Spitzer withdrew his original second Can a motian by L. May, seconded by N. Kornblum, the Landmarks Board moved (5-0) to continue the matter of 3015 Kalmia Avenue to the regularly scheduled l~cbruary 4, 2009 Landmarks Board meeting. B. Public hearing and consideration of the initiation of individual landmark designation for the property at 955 Broadway Street per Section 9-I1-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2008-001.84}. Applicant: Landmarks Board, Owner: Colorado Acacia Fraternity House Corporation Staff Presentation A. Hawes presented the item to the board. Owner Presentation David Carson, 3085 6t~' Street, member of the Board of the Acacia Fratcmity House Corporation, spoke in opposition of individual landmark designation due to the lack of integrity of the building and the economic impacts of continued maintenance ol~ the building. Ronald Mitchell, P.O. Box 1705, spoke in opposition of individual landmark designation and detailed the ways in which the building is environmentally and economically obsolete. Public Hearing Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, 1123 Spruce Street, spoke in support of initiating landmark designation. Tim Campbell, Louisville, Acacia Fraternity Alumni, spoke in opposition of individual landmark designation and supported demolishing the building and replacing it with a more functional building. Motion On a motion by L. Podmajcrlcs}', seconded by N. Kornblum, the Landmarks Board issued a demolition pet~nit (3-2, L. May and J. Spitzer opposed) for 955 Broadway, conditioned upon submittal of fully annotated drawings of the existing building and archival quality photographs of the exteriar and interior of the building consistent with HABS level I documentation requirements far archiving at the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History and adopted the staff memorandum dated 1.7.09 as findings of the board. J. Spitzer opposed issuance of the demolition permit because he wanted preservation opportunities for the building explored further due to the building's significance to the history of the Acacia Fraternity in Boulder and its familiarity as a structure. L. May opposed issuance of the demolition permit based orz his feeling that the option to landmark this building should remain open while further exploration is done into the integrity of the building. LANDMAF2K ALTERATION CERTIFICATES C. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark alteration certificate to relocate and add 218 sq. ft. to a contributing garage at 652 Concord Avenue in the Mapleton Hill Historic District per Section 9-1'1-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-002.54). Applicant: Kristin Lewis, architect, Owners: Elizabeth Yodice & Greg Althaus T. Plass recused himself at 8:37 p.m. because he was noticed about this item due to his proximity to the property. N. Kornblum acted as chair for this item. Board members were asked to reveal any ex carte contacts they may have hczd on this item. T. Plass received notice about this item and recused himself from the discussion. N. Kornblum and L. Podmajersky made site visits and reviewed the project at a Design Review Committee meeting. J. Spitzer made a site visit. L. May and IC. Becker revealed no ex-pane contacts. Staff Presentation J. Hewat presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation Elizabeth Yodice, 6.52 Concord, owner of property, spoke in support of a landmark alteration certificate to relocate the contributing garage in order to save a tree on the property. Public Hearing Kristin Lewis, 511 Pleasant Street, architect, spoke in support of a landmark alteration certificate to relocate the contributing garage and noted that the structure would be well reinforced during the move if it is approved. The board took a straw poll and determined that: L. Podmajersky recommended that the board deny this request. She did not support moving the historically contributing building in order to save a tree. L. May was also leaning towards denial because he felt the proposed move of the oz-iginal garage and the (previously approved LAC. for an addition) was significant given the context. J. Spitzer and N. Kornblum indicated they would support the proposal to relocate the garage. Given the board's split feelings that would ultimately result in a denial of the application, N. Kornblum gave the applicant the opportunity to withdraw. 5 Elizabeth Yodice withdrew the application to relocate and add 218 sq. ft. to a contributing garage at 6.52 Concord Avenue in the Mapleton I-fill Historic District per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (H1S2008-00254). T. Plass returned from recusal and resumed his role as Landmarks Board Chair at 9:18 p.m. The board recessed at 9:18 p.m. and resumed at 9:27 p.m. U. Public hearing and consideration of a 1landmark alteration certificate to relocate and restore the landmarked house on the property at 3160 Airport Road per Section 9-11- 18 of the Boulder Revised Codc (HIS2008-00271) flpplicanUOwner: City of Boulder, Parks and Recreation Department Board members we~•e asked to reveal any ex pane carrtacts they may have herd on this item. N. Kornblum made a site visit and reviewed the project at a Landmarks Design Review Committee meeting. L. Podmajersky made a site visit and discussed superficial issues regarding this topic with a neighbor. T. Plass and J. Spitzer made site visits. L. May reviewed the project at a Landmarks Design Review Committee meeting. K. Beckez• revealed no ex-pane contacts. Staff Presentation J. 13ewat presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation Perry Brooks, City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Ucpartment, spolcc in support of a landmark alteration certificate to relocate and rehabilitate the Platt Farmhouse at 3160 Airport Road. He noted that the proposed relocation of the house closer to the road produces a layout that is more conducive to park design as well as safety and security in deterring vandalism. Chuck Sanders, 2055 Kohler Drive, OZ Architecture, noted that they are open to lowering the grade of the house for accessibility purposes, but they value keeping the look of the original concrete foundation. l-Ie emphasiied the reasons for orienting the house towards Airport Road rather than the irrigation ditch as it is currently situated. Rotating the house to face Airport Road would present the more attractive facade to the street. Public Ilcaring Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, 1123 Spruce Street, spoke in support of staff's recommendation to relocate the farmhouse. However, she also expressed support of the applicant's current proposal that the house be oriented towards the west, facing Airport Road. Norman iVIurphy, PRAB Chair, spoke on his own behalf. I-Ie wanted to make sure that the Landmarks Board had a copy of PRAB's motion. He also expressed that PRAB die} not look at rotating the house; they only considered moving the house in order to make the park as functional as possible. G Board Discussion I.. May felt that the relocation of the building was warranted. J. Spitzer agreed that it made sense to relocate and rotate the building to provide it with a more prominent location on the site. L. Podmajersky liked the proposal to restore and make more use of the building. She felt there would be a lot of community benefit which led her to consider the request for such a large move that she would not consider under different circumstances. She would like to see more of a celebration of the site's agricultural past. N. Kornblum liked the heightened visibility that this proposal would bring to the Platt Farmhouse. She was in favor of elevating the boost, but felt that the reorientation of the house would be somewhat awkward. She expressed some concern about making sure that the rural agricultural context of the house be preserved. T. Plans did not support the move of the farmhouse. I-le felt that it failed to meet the criteria in the code. He thought that the location of the house by the ditch is integral to the context of the historic character of the house. He supported adaptive use of the building, but felt that this could be accomplished without moving the building. N. Kornblum argued that the proposal was a good balance between historic preservation and community benefits. The board took a straw poll and determined that: T. Plans did not support the move of the fari~housc. J. Spitzer supported the move of the farmhouse. N. Kornblum supported the move provided she felt the context was right and well deGncd (not as is currently planned). L. May could support a move, but did not support the proposal for this particular move;. L. Podmajersky felt she could not support the move as proposed. C.. Meschuk noted that the applicants could go back and redesign their proposal or ask the board for a decision which they could choose to appeal. P. Brooks noted that they have explored all the other options for relocating the house onto other t~oi-tions of the property, but they face many constraints from Fire, Transportation, AUA accessibility, etc. regulations that must be met. In order to meet all the legal requirements, the house would need to stay where it is or be moved to the proposed location- there are not many other options. Chuck Sanders replied that there might still he other options to explore. The relocation of the house may already be acceptable with a few tweaks here and there for a more rural aspect. P. Brooks requested an up or down action from the board based on the proposal that has been submitted. Motion Un a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by N. Kornblum, the Landmarks Board approved with the conditions below (2-3, L. Podmajersky, L. May, and 1'. Plans opposed) the request to relocate and rehabilitate the Platt Farmhouse at 3160 Airport Road as requested in the application dated 11.Ob.2008, finding that it meets the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-1 1-18, F3.R.C. l 981 and is substantially consistent with the General Design (;ui~/c~lines. The hoarei adopted the staff memorandum dated 1.7.09 as findings for its decision. 7 CONDITIONS Or APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for moving and rehabilitating the building according to approved plans dated l l .Ob.2008, except as modified by these conditions of approval. ~~-1}~ti~E~~}~•, ,l~rcr-rcl "v'+rlvc~vtt'2~~c tH~~ucc=dren. I„~+„ .'I ~I, ,1.7 ,r . ,+1, rte, ,•~J it,~, , •••-frn-rr-cri-verd'ic`l@%i- 4;,.1,,.~r'.. ~l;t..l-. ;r 1, I, „11, 3. The fiill foundation shall be reconstructed to match existing closely and the existing historic stair shall be retained. 4. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks Design Review Committee: final architectural plans detailing the methodology for the relocation of the building and plans for the new foundation, details regarding the rehabilitation including paint colors to insure that the approval is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval. 5. Amore zliz•al setting will be created for the house; one that minimizes traffic impacts on it. N. Kornbtum made a friendly amez~zdmezlt and suggested changing the wording of condition of approval Ii5 to: A more rural setting will be created for this farmhouse to minimize traffic impacts. The friendly amendment was accepted by J. Spitzer. L. Podmajersky offered a friendly amendment to delete # 2. The friendly amendment was accepted by J. Spitzer and N. Kornbtum. L. May offered a friendly amendment that in #3 all of the shoulds should be changed to shahs in the conditions of approval. The friendly amendment was accepted by J. Spitzer and N. Kornbtum. The rnvtion,failed, so ?to action was taken. On a motion by 'T. Plass, seconded by L. May, the Landmarks Board approved a motion to deny (3-2, ,I. Spitzer and N. Kornbtum opposed) the request for the proposed relocation of the Platt Farmhouse at 31 GO Airport Road as requested in the application dated 11.06.2008, finding that it does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-1 l - 18, B.R.C. 1981, particularly section I3-2 in that the proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or district and the proposed move does not create an appropriate setting for the building. T. Plass did not support moving this building because of the significance of its historic context in relation to mature trees sun•ounding it, the Boulder and Left Hand ditch, and its rural and isolated location near the center of the property. J. Spitzer and N. Kornbtum suppoz-ted 8 moving the building as shown, but expressed a desire that a more rural agricultural setting be maintained. They suggested that the plan might be revised to keep the parking area fui-thcr away from the house in its new location L,. May and L. Podmajcrsky stated that they could possibly support moving the building if the location and context were more rural iza character, but could not support the move as currently proposed. They suggested locating the house further back (northeast) from Airport Road and maintaining the existing spatial relationship to the farmer's ditch mentioned in the 1999 designating ordinance for the property. The Parks and Kecreation Department was given the option to withdraw the proposal for redesign and re-submittal per the board's comments, but requested that the board approve or deny the current design. K. Becker left the meeting at 11:22 p.m. 5. IVIAT`fERS FROM TIIE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Update Memo B. Planning Board Calendar Staff asked the board if they'd like to meet from 5-6 p.m. to discuss Compatible Development, break for dinner and begin their regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. on February 4, 2009. The board agreed. C. Draft changes to the criminal penalty provisions of the historic preservation ordinance D. Kalish briefly discussed the status of the project, and will be retunling in a future meeting with more information. . 1'. Plans asked the board for feedback nn the draft letter to City Council regarding Landmarks Hoard recommendations about Work Program priorities. The board provided some feedback to T. Plans about the Landmarks Board letter to City Council and agreed to email him any additional comments. The board agreed that "stay of alteration" is the language that should be used in their letter. C>n the board's behalf Z'. Piass attended the Planning Board meeting to address the historic issues as they relate to the context study of the University I lill business district. He then spoke on his own behalf about the proposal. T. Plans will be attending to the January 20, 2009 City Council meeting to present his powerpoint presentation on demos that have not triggered review. C. Meschuk reminded the board that there should be a board representative at the February 3, 2009 City Council meeting for the Municipal Building designation hearing. C. Meschuk updated the board on the status of the surveying efforts underway for the Dushanbe Teahouse. b. DEBRIEF iVIEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 9 7. ADJOURNMENT . "[die meeting adjourned at 11:51 p.m. Approved on February 4, 200~~. Respectfully submitted, Chairperson 10