HomeMy WebLinkAbout5C - 11.05.14 Memo for Boulder Depot
M E M O R A N D U M
November 5, 2014
th
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Angela Smelker, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to construct a 300 sq. ft. addition and 150 sq. ft.
screened-in mechanical area and restore the trackside arched
openings at the Union Pacific Depot at 30 and Pearl St., and
th
individual landmark, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder
Revised Code (HIS2014-00299).
STATISTICS:
1.Site: Northeast of 30 St. and Pearl Pkwy
th
2.Designation: Individual Landmark
3.Historic Name(s): Boulder Jaycees Depot
4.Date of Construction: 1890
5.Zoning: MU-4
6.Applicant: James Bray, Bray Architecture, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the proposed addition
will be generally consistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18,
General Design Guidelines,
B.R.C. 1981, the Staff recommends that the Landmarks
Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board adopts the staff memorandum dated November 5, 2014 in matter
5C (HIS2014-00299) as the findings of the board and approves the construction of a 300
sq. ft. addition and 150 sq. ft. screened-in mechanical area at the north and east
elevations of the Union Pacific Depot as shown on plans dated 10/10/2014, finding that
they generally meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in
Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the following conditions:
Agenda Item # 5C Page 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1.The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the addition and
reconstruction of the alcoves in compliance with the approved
plans dated 10.10.2014, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2.Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance
of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit
revised drawings for review and approval by the Ldrc that show
the trackside arch walls inset to from the
exterior wall, and fenestration inside the arched openings to more
closely match that shown in historic drawings.
3.Final details showing door and window details, roofing materials,
wall materials and proposed colors. These design details shall be
reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review
committee, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant
shall demonstrate that the design details are in compliance with the
General Design Guidelines.
intent of this approval and the
SUMMARY:
In 2007, a Landmark Alteration Certificate was approved for the relocation
and stabilization of the Depot. The depot was relocated northeast of 30 and
th
Pearl Street on the street now known as Junction Place.
On September 25, 2014, an application was submitted for the construction of a
screened mechanical and service entry following referral of the addition to
the full Landmarks by the Landmark design review committee.
After meeting with staff to review the proposal, the applicants submitted
revised plans on Oct. 10, 2014.
Staff finds the proposed addition to be generally consistent with the criteria
for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C.
General Design Guidelines.
1981, the
recommendation to approve the proposed addition is based upon the
understanding that final details will be reviewed and approved by the
Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) prior to the issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 2
PROPERTY HISTORY:
Figure 1: Boulder Depot shortly after construction at 14 and Canyon Blvd., c.1890.
th
The Union Pacific Depot was constructed in 1890 on the north side of Canyon
Boulevard and 14 Street. It operated until 1957, when rail transport ceased to
th
downtown Boulder. Until 1973, the building was used as a bus terminal and
travel agency. In 1973, under threat of demolition by the City of Boulder, the
Boulder Jaycees purchased the building and moved it to the Pow Wow Rodeo
Grounds near 30 and Pearl streets.
th
Figures 2. The depot being transported in two pieces to its new location, at 2275 30 St., 1973.
th
Agenda Item # 5C Page 3
Figure 3. 2007 view of the Depot while located at 2275 30 St.
th
The Jaycees used the facility for their offices and as a meeting space. In order to
offset the costs of maintenance for the depot, the Jaycees also rented out the
space on a short term basis for private uses, such as wedding receptions, parties,
and business meetings. This worked fairly well for the organization for many
years. However, overhead and maintenance costs grew at a fast rate. As a non-
profit organization with limited resources, the Jaycees were not able to afford
upkeep of the Depot. The City of Boulder purchased the depot in 2007.
Due to development interest in the area, the city relocated the Depot a second
time east across 30
th
Several years of planning went into the move of the building including
substantial structural reinforcement of the walls with carbon fiber.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 4
Figure 4 second relocation, 2007.
Figure 5. The Depot at its 3 and current location northeast of 30 and Pearl, 2014.
rdth
Figure 6: Location Map (left) and Landmark Boundary (right).
Agenda Item # 5C Page 5
DESCRIPTION:
The property is located north of Pearl Parkway and east of 30 Street in the
th
Boulder Junction development, which is currently under construction. The 1890
Union Pacific Depot is a classic example of a western Victorian train station. Built
rough-cut stone exterior, quoins, arched entrances, hipped roof, and a decorative
cupola.
The Landmark boundary for the depot is a roughly triangular shaped piece of
Department and to the fact that the depot was relocated to this location in 2008,
prior to planning for Junction Place having been completed. However,
considerable consideration was given to ensuring that the building would have a
relationship to the original Union Pacific rail line, still in operation and located to
the east of the depot. The landmark designation was amended as part of the
move in October of 2007. Since the move, development of the larger Junction
Place site has proceeded. When complete the area will have a hotel, a number of
housing units, a park and plaza area, a wonerf and bridge over Goode Creek,
the planning for Junction Place, the depot has treated as a central component to
the development with consideration given to referencing its historic context as a
transportation hub in Boulder from the 1980s until the late 1960s.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 6
Figure 7. Detail of window (non-Figure 8. Detail of bay window, 2006.
historic) and stone surround, 2006.
Figure 9. View of the interior of the Figure 10. Detail of quoins,
depot,2013. overhanging roof, and brackets, 2008.
PROPOSED REHABILITATION AND ADDITION TO HISTORIC DEPOT
The City of Boulder has entered into a long-time lease agreement with the
developer of Junction Place who is responsible for the rehabilitation of the
interior of the building and restoration of the exterior including construction of
the front porte-cochere, roof and tower elements and trackside arched openings
building. This work is based upon the original drawings for the depot and has
been reviewed and approved by the Ldrc.
In order facilitate re-use of the depot as a restaurant, the applicant proposes an
enclosed service entry of 300 square feet and a screened mechanical area of an
additional 150 square feet to be constructed on the northeast corner of the
building. A previous Landmark Alteration Certificate for the depot approved the
installation of an exterior staircase to the basement at the north side of the
building. However, the applicant indicates this configuration will not work for
the proposed restaurant circulation and that the area needs to be enclosed in
order to meet health code and to be usable during the winter months. The
proposed restaurant also requires a mechanical service area. The applicant
proposes to enclose this area with a screen in order to prevent visual exposure
that would detract from the character of the building.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 7
Figure 11. Proposed Site Plan, 2014.
Figure 12. Basement floor plan showing proposed service area, 2014.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 8
Figure 12. Proposed East Elevation and Perspective Sketch, 2014.
Plans also call for the rear arched trackside entrances that originally functioned
drawings show these
wall, and each to access the rooms via 4-panel, four light double-doors. A six
light window is shown to have also been located on the inset wall in each loggia.
This configuration was also shown in the 2011 submittal for the restoration of the
See Attachment D for a side-by-side view
building which was approved by the Ldrc.
of the original and proposed treatment of the trackside arches.
Figure 13. Portion of the original 1890 trackside elevation for the Depot
Agenda Item # 5C Page 9
Figure 14. Approved 2011 LAC drawings, trackside
In order to provide more functional interior space for the proposed use as a
restaurant, the applicant
from the exterior wall
the applicant is proposing the fenestrated inside each arch to be somewhat
modified. Instead of the quarter light door, the request is for wider, three quarter
ten light wood doors. The proposed configuration would also eliminate the six
light window originally located in the loggias.
Figure 15. Current proposal South Elevation and Perspective Sketch, 2014.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 10
Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1)The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2)The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3)The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(4)With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c)In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore and not damage or destroy
ǰ
the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a
historic district?
Staff finds that the construction of the proposed addition will be generally
General Design Guidelines
compatible and consistent with the (see Design
)
Guidelines Analysis section. Historically, this end of the trackside face of the
building was a service entrance and the main entrance to the freight area of the
building. Repurposing the building as a restaurant requires a service entrance
and a location for mechanical equipment. Given the historic of the building and
steps that have been taken to ensure reversibility of the addition, the proposed
additions are appropriate.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 11
Reconfiguring the, no longer extant, trackside loggias from the original design is
the building is impractical and could be to the detriment of the long-term
viability and condition of the depot. Staff considers that care should be taken to
detail the archways and consideration might be given to insetting the arch walls
at
of the buildings trackside face.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff finds that recommended conditions are met, the proposal will not adversely
affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest
or value of the district because the proposed new garage will be generally
General Design Guidelines
compatible with the in terms of mass, scale, height,
)
design and color (see Design Guidelines Analysis section.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the
historic district?
Staff considers that provided the recommended conditions are met the
architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials of the proposed garage to be compatible with the contributing house
on the property and it will be generally compatible with the character of the
)
historic district (see Design Guidelines Analysis section.
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District
and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the
requirements of paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2), 9-11-18(b)(3) and 9-11-18(b)(4) of this
section?
Not applicable.
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
General Design Guidelines
Certificate. The Board has adopted the to help interpret
the historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed
new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are
Agenda Item # 5C Page 12
intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of
items for compliance.
General Design Guidelines.
sections of the
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
ALTERATIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, 3.0
3.1 Roofs
The roof is one of the primary character-defining features of a historic building, and the
repetition of similar roof types creates part of the visual consistency that defines a historic area.
Alterations or additions to roofs must be given careful consideration to ensure that they do not
compromise the integrity of the historic structure. Typical roof shapes are gabled or hipped.
Shed roofs sometimes occur on historic additions and accessory buildings.
ȱ
Guideline Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
Maintain the roof form, slope,
Roof form will be maintained; the
.1 Yes
height, and orientation to the
addition is located under the over-
street.
hanging eave and below the
architectural brackets as to not
damage this architectural feature.
Roof appurtenances such as swamp Mechanical equipment cannot be
.5 Yes
coolers, TV antennas, and
located on the roof, and is proposed
satellite dishes should be
to be screened at the north
installed so that they are not
elevation.
visible from the street and do
not damage or obscure historic
features.
3.6 Exterior Materials: Walls, Siding, and Masonry
Brick, stone, horizontal wood-lapped siding, stucco, and wood shingles are common finish
materials found in historic districts and on historic structures.
Guideline Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
New finish materials should be
Proposed addition is shown to be Yes
.2
compatible with, but not seek to
wood tongue-in-groove siding to
replicate, original finish materials.
match finish of door infill panel on
the north elevation.
Windows
3.7
Agenda Item # 5C Page 13
Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the
most important character-defining elements of a historic structure and should be preserved.
Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can seriously detract
from its architectural character. Windows on facades visible from public streets, particularly the
front façade, are especially important.
Meets
Guideline Analysis
Guideline?
Retain and preserve existing Non-historic windows, installed in Yes
.1
historic windows including their
the 1970s, were removed prior to
functional decorative features . . . In
th
some cases, it might be appropriate
historic windows exist. Custom
to use window elements from the
windows are to be built based on
side or rear elevations to repair
historic drawings and photographs
those on the front.
(under a separate LAC).
3.8 Doors
Front doors and primary entrances are among the most important elements of historic
buildings. The original size and proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door
surround, and the placement of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance.
Meets
Guideline Analysis
Guideline?
Whenever possible, retain and
The applicant proposes to restore Maybe
.1
preserve all original doors and door
the two openings on the south
elevation based on the original
plans and historic photographs. The
historic loggias no longer exist and
these features are to be
reconstructed. Staff considers depth
of arched openings should be
depth to provide for archways to
read more as loggias. Proposed
door design differ from those on
historic drawings and windows
eliminated in each arch.
If replacement is found to be
The original doors no long exist. Maybe
.2
appropriate, the replacement door
Proposed door design differ from
should match the original as closely
those on historic drawings and
windows eliminated in each arch.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 14
ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS, 4.0.
4.1 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic structures is the
protection of the existing structure and the character of the site and district.
Meets
Guideline Analysis
Guideline?
Construct a new addition so that The addition is shown to be tucked
.1 Yes
there is the least possible loss of
under the existing eaves, and will be
historic fabric and so that the
constructed in a manner that would
character-defining features of the
be easily reversible, not causing
historic building are not
damage to the historic building. The
destroyed, damaged, or obscured.
walls of the addition step down at the
brackets to ensure visibility of this
character-defining feature is
maintained.
New additions should be The applicant indicates that the
.2 Yes
constructed so that they may be
addition will be constructed in a
removed in the future without
manner so that it could be removed in
damaging the historic structure.
the future without damaging the
historic masonry of the building
It is not appropriate to construct The addition is shown to be tucked
.3 Yes
an addition that will detract from
under the existing eaves, and will be
the overall historic character of the
constructed in a manner that would
principal building and/or the site,
be easily reversible, not causing
or if it will require the removal of
damage to the historic building. The
significant building elements or
walls of the addition step down at the
site features.
brackets to ensure visibility and
integrity of this character-defining
feature is maintained.
4.2 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
All additions should be discernible form the historic structure. When the original design is
duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additions should be
compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction.
Meets
Guideline Analysis
Guideline?
Distinguish an addition from the The addition is proposed to have a
.1 Yes
historic structure, but maintain
tongue and groove wood finish,
visual continuity between the two.
which would clearly distinguish the
One common method is to step the
old from the new.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 15
addition back and/or set it in
slightly from the historic
structure. Every project is
different and successful designs
may incorporate a variety of
approaches.
Do not copy historic elements.
The addition as proposed is simple
.2 Yes
Instead, interpret historic
and secondary to the historic
elements in simpler ways in the
building.
addition.
Additions should be simpler in
Addition as proposed utilizes a
.3 Yes
detail than the original structure.
simpler material (wood) and is simply
An addition that exhibits a more
detailed that is complimentary and of
ornate style or implies an earlier
its time.
period of architecture than that of
the original is inappropriate.
The architectural style of additions The addition is simple and does not
.4 Yes
should not imitate the historic
imitate the historic style of the Depot.
style but must be compatible with
it. Contemporary style additions
are possible, but require the
utmost attention to these
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Structures
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site
detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic district. While additions should be
distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from
the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic structures or the
site, in mass, scale, or detailing.
Meets
Guideline Analysis
Guideline?
An addition should be subordinate to The addition as proposed is limited
.1 Yes
the historic building, limited in size
in size and scale, and located under
and scale so that it does not diminish
the existing overhanging eaves.
or visually overpower the building.
The addition will not overpower
the building.
Design an addition to be compatible The addition will be compatible, as Yes
.2
with the historic building in mass,
it is limited in scale and mass, and
scale, materials and color. For
uses traditional material (wood)
elevations visible from public
painted in a subdued color. The
streets, the relationship of solids to
addition does not introduce new
Agenda Item # 5C Page 16
voids in the exterior walls should voids/openings, retaining a simple
also be compatible.
character.
Adding a partial or full story to the Full or partial story not proposed. Yes
.3
historic portion of a historic
building is rarely appropriate.
Reflect the original symmetry or
Yes
.4
asymmetry of the historic building.
symmetry.
Preserve the vertical and horizontal
Yes
.5
horizontal proportion.
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature
trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the site or
dramatically alter its historic character.
Meets
Guideline Analysis
Guideline?
Design new additions so that the The addition is located at the
.1 Yes
overall character of the site, site
northeast side of the building, its
topography, character-defining site
visibility mitigated through its
features and trees are retained.
simple design and location under
the over-hanging eaves. Character-
defining features of the site will not
be impacted.
Locate new additions on an The Depot does not have an
.2
inconspicuous elevation of the
inconspicuous elevation due to its
historic building, generally the rear
prominence in the future Depot
one. Locating an addition to the
Plaza. The proposed location does
front of a structure is inappropriate
not detract from the building or
because it obscures the historic
obscure character defining features.
facade of a building.
4.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining
elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they compliment the
historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for
related suggestions.
Meets
Agenda Item # 5C Page 17
Guideline Analysis Guideline?
Maintain the dominant roofline Proposed addition does not impact the
.1 Yes
and orientation of the roof form
roofline of the building.
to the street.
Rooflines on additions should be
Roof of the addition is flat and lower than Yes
.2
lower than and secondary to the
the original roofline. The addition is
roofline of the original building.
secondary to the original building.
The existing roof form, pitch, Staff considers that in this case, a flat roof Yes
.3
eave depth, and materials should
has the lowest profile and the least impact
be used for all additions
. on the historic character of the building.
Maintain the proportion, general
Proposal partially obscures a door Yes
.5
style, and symmetry or
opening on the south elevation.
asymmetry of the existing
Utilization of this existing opening
window patterns.
prevents further modification of the
historic building. Restoration of the
alcoves on the south elevation is
encouraged.
Use window shapes that are
Windows not proposed on the addition. Yes
.6
found on the historic building.
Do not introduce odd-shaped
windows such as octagonal,
triangular, or diamond-shaped
Staff considers the proposed construction of an addition on the south and east
elevation of the historic Depot to be consistent with the historic preservation
General Design Guidelines.
ordinance and Sections 3 and 4 of the The addition is
shown to be tucked under the over-hanging eave and separated from the
decorative brackets, a character-defining feature of the Depot. The addition is
proposed to be clad in tongue and groove wood, a traditional material that is
complimentary but distinct from the historic building. The addition will obscure
an existing opening on the south elevation, however, this incorporation of an
existing opening will prevent further modification of the building. The proposed
restoration of the alcoves at the arches on the south elevation is based on the
as a train depot. The concrete enclosure on the east elevation is simple in
detailing and material, and will not detract from the historic character of the
building. Overall, the proposed addition represents a creative and modest
addition that will allow the building to function in the next chapter of its history.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 18
Staff considers that in terms of the archways, details should be reviewed at the
Landmarks design review committee to ensure that the fenestration inside the
arches is as accurate as possible. Likewise, staff considers that effort should be
ewed
and approved by the landmark design review committee.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff has received no public comment regarding this case.
FINDINGS:
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff
recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the
following findings:
1.The proposed new construction meets the standards in 9-11-18 of the
Boulder Revised Code.
2.The proposed addition will not have an adverse effect on the value of
the landmark property, as it will be generally compatible in terms of
mass, scale, or orientation with the historic character of the building.
3.In terms of mass, scale, and detailing, the proposed addition will be
generally consistent with Section 9-11-18 B.R.C., Sections 3 and 4 of the
General Design Guidelines
.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessors Card
B: Photographs
C: Plans and Application
D: Original and Proposed Treatment of the Trackside Arches
Agenda Item # 5C Page 19
Attachment A: Tax Assessors Card
Agenda Item # 5C Page 20
Agenda Item # 5C Page 21
Tax Assessor Card Photo, 1960
Agenda Item # 5C Page 22
Attachment B: Photographs
Photo 1: View of Northwest corner of Depot at current location, 2014.
Photo 2: View of Depot from bike path, construction of new bridge on left, 2014.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 23
Photo 3: Southwest corner of Depot, 2013.
Photo 4: East elevation of Depot, 2008.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 24
Photo 5: Relocation across 30 St., 2008.
th
Photo 6: Depot at 2275 30 St. location, 2006.
th
Agenda Item # 5C Page 25
Photo 7: Depot at 14 and Canyon. Original porte cochere on left demolished c. 1940s.
th
Photo taken c. 1900.
Photo 8: Photo of Depot at 14 and Canyon ca. 1951-1958.
th
Agenda Item # 5C Page 26
Attachment C: Plans and Application
Agenda Item # 5C Page 27
Agenda Item # 5C Page 28
Agenda Item # 5C Page 29
Agenda Item # 5C Page 30
Agenda Item # 5C Page 31
Agenda Item # 5C Page 32
Agenda Item # 5C Page 33
Agenda Item # 5C Page 34
Agenda Item # 5C Page 35
Agenda Item # 5C Page 36
Attachment D: Original and Proposed Treatment of the Trackside Arches
Original 1890 trackside elevation for the Depot
Figure 14. Approved 2011 LAC drawings, trackside
Agenda Item # 5C Page 37