2 - Draft Minutes - Landmarks - July 1, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD ACTION MINUTES
July 1, 2009
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the July 1, 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.boulderplandevelol).net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Leonard May
Liz Payton
Tim Plass, Chair
Lisa Podmajersky
John Spitzer
*K.C. Becker *Planning Board representative without a vote Absent from meeting.
STAFF MEMBERS:
Deb Kalish, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Julie Johnston, Senior Planner
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair T. Plass declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by L. May, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0) the
minutes as amended of the June 3, 2009 board meeting.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
No one addressed the board.
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING
5. ACTION ITEMS
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE:
A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to install vinyl
windows on the non-contributing house located at 720 Spruce Street in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2009-00046).
I
Applicant/Owner: Gwen Dooley
Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they may have had on this item.
T. Plass received a call from the property owner after the Landmarks Design Review Committee
(LDRC) called up the application. She informed him that she intended to have the Landmarks
Board review the application. She invited him on a tour of the house with council members
Susan Osborne and Crystal Gray, which he declined.
L. Payton and J. Spitzer made site visits.
L. Podmajersky visited the site and was at the LDRC meeting at which the application was
called up.
L. May revealed no ex-parte contacts.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat presented the item to the board
Applicant's Presentation
Gwen Dooley, 720 Spruce Street, owner, spoke in support of the application.
Public Hearing
Jonathan Hondorf, 2720 41h St. spoke in support of the application.
Motion
On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. Payton, the Landmarks Board approved (4-1, L.
Podmajersky opposed) the proposal for the replacement of windows at 720 Spruce Street in that
it generally meets the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, and is generally
consistent with the General Design Guidelines, and Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines subject to the conditions below, and adopted the staff memorandum dated 7.1.09 as
findings of the board.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be constructed
in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of Boulder Planning
Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND
CITY ATTORNEY
A_ Compatible Development Project Update
J. Johnston presented an update to the board.
Public Testimony
Ruth Blackm,ore, 705 S. 41" St. asked for clarification on whether or not (and in what ways) the
compatible development regulations as proposed would impact developers who are trying to get
properties re-zoned.
2
r
Michael Hibner, Washington St. (pooling time with Libby Brown, 2951 14"' St. and Mike
Fenerty, 2805 Stanford Ave), spoke in support of staff's recommendation.
Ron Geary, 1742 Garland Lane, expressed concern about FAR averaging and equality issues
that it raises.
Thom Krueger, 655 Pleasant St., agreed with the concerns raised by previous speakers and also
noted that residential use in a PE zone should have to comply with compatible development
regulations. In general, he spoke in support of staff s recommendations.
Gwen Dooley, 720 Spruce St., spoke in support of all other public comments.
Landmarks Board Recommendation:
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by I Spitzer the Landmarks Board forwards a
recommendation to the Planning Board and City Council (4-1, L. Podmajersky opposed) in
support of the staff recommendation to adopt the Compatible Development ordinance. The
board supports the proposed metrics for FAR, building coverage, and bulk plane in the zone
districts proposed.
The board is encouraged by how this ordinance supports and complements the Historic
Preservation Program. The inclusion of the community wide FAR at the standards proposed by
staff more closely mirrors the patterns found in the historic areas of the city. And, the burden on
the preservation program of limiting oversize development to maintain historic character is
reduced because house size regulations are city wide.
In addition, the board supports the ability to allow the preservation program to waive the
requirements for lot coverage and bulk plane within the historic districts and on individually
landmarked properties through the Landmark Alteration Certificate process, when such a waiver
fosters historically appropriate additions. The board is also encouraged that the flexibility offered
by these possible waivers, which would not require proof of hardship through the Board of
Zoning Adjustment, will create additional incentives for owners to designate properties.
While the board supports the majority of the staff proposal, the following concerns were
articulated:
Historic Preservation Concern:
The board is concerned that the regulations will add more pressure to demolish historic accessory
structures and exemptions for these buildings should be considered..'
Primary Regulatory Concern:
Virtual Floor: The board strongly encourages inclusion of a virtual floor regulation to address
high volume spaces to assist in the reduction of potential building volume which cannot be
captured by a floor area ratio. In addition, the board has a concern that without regulating high
volume spaces through a virtual floor, additional square footage could be added without a
building permit after inspection is completed.
3
Secondary Regulatory Concerns:
1. Single-family detached units in the Public zone should be regulated by the new
Compatible Development ordinance.
2. FAR averaging permitted in Section 9-2-14(2) of the proposed ordinance should be
eliminated.
3. The addition of the wall length articulation standards should be included in the overall
package of tools.
4. The exemptions for dormers outlined in Section 9-7-9(d)(5) of the proposed ordinance
should require a setback from the vertical wall plane to allow for more wall articulation.
5. The description of a gable end of a sloping roof form as described under Section 9-7-
9(d)(4) should include a defined pitch for the roof.
6. The exemptions for penetrations into the bulk plane should be an important part of the
one year review process because of their potential to affect the overall sense of mass and
scale of a structure.
L. Podmajersky opposed for the following reasons:
1. Concerned that the bulk plane standard in the RMX-1 zone should be different from what
is being proposed for RL-1. The proposed bulk plane significantly changes what is
'currently permitted under the Solar Ordinance standards for RMX-1, which is a 25-foot
solar fence. The change from 25 feet at the property line to 12 feet can not be
compensated through an increased FAR and building coverage. In addition, the bulk
plane, as proposed, could affect the development of accessory dwelling units as well as
cause building designs that do not work well with multiple family and nonresidential uses
immediately adjacent.
2. The layering of wall articulation on top of the other tools becomes too restrictive to
architectural design and makes the regulations too complex.
B. Update Memo
C. Update from City Attorney
D. Planning Board Calendar
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Approved on August 5, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
Chairperson
4