Item 5A - 2045 BroadwayAgenda Item # 5D Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 7, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate application to install two internally illuminated
wall signs “Community Banks of Colorado” at 2045
Broadway Street in the Downtown Historic District, per
Section 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00296).
________________________________________________________________________
STATISTICS
1. Site: 2045 Broadway
2. Historic District: Downtown Historic District
3. Zoning: DT-4 (Downtown – 4)
4. Owner: Eric Gabrielson/The Willard Building, LLC
5. Applicant: Broomfield Sign Co.
6. Date of Construction: 1898
________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers the installation of two internally illuminated wall signs at 2045
Broadway will be generally consistent with the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and
the General Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt
the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to install
two internally illuminated signs at 2045 Broadway, in that, provided the conditions
below are met, the proposed installation will meet the requirements of Section 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated Dec. 7, 2016, as findings of the
board.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks
design review committee shall review the light level of the proposed
signage to ensure that it is low and appropriate to the building and this
location in the historic district.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the signs shall be
manufactured and installed in compliance with approved plans dated
08/25/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning, Housing and
Sustainability Department.
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that, provided the condition
listed above is met, the proposed installation will be generally consistent with the
standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY
On June 8, 2016, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) reviewed a
request to install internally illuminated signs on the building. The Lrdc
considered that externally lit signage was more appropriate (per section 3.1 of
the Downtown Design Guidelines) and requested that the applicant redesign to
provide for externally lit signage, or submit for review of internally lit
signage by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing.
On July 15, 2016, the applicant submitted revised plans for signage with no
lighting. A Landmark Alteration Certificate for this proposal was issued by
staff on July 21, 2016 (HIS2016-00156), per the Ldrc’s June 8, 2016
recommendations.
On September 21, 2016, the applicant submitted an application to remove the
two non-illuminated wall signs and to replace them with two illuminated
wall cabinet signs.
Staff considers the Willard Building to possess a high-degree of architectural,
historic, and environmental significance and integrity contributing to the
character of the Downtown Historic District.
Staff finds that with the listed conditions, the proposed installation will be
generally consistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as
per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.
This recommendation is based upon the understanding that, pursuant to the
conditions of approval, the stated condition will be reviewed and approved
Agenda Item # 5A Page 3
by Historic Preservation staff prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Figure 1. 2045 Broadway, c. 1913.
Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
One of the most distinctive commercial blocks in Boulder, the Willard Building at
2045 Broadway Street was constructed in 1898 by two prominent prohibitionists
in Boulder, Frederick White and Albert Reed. The building is named after
Frances E. Willard, president of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in
Boulder. Both Reed and White were active in political and civic affairs in
Boulder. White was prominent in real estate and mining and was a developer of
Green Mountain Cemetery. Reed was a lawyer, city attorney, and teacher at the
University School of Law. See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form.
The building was designed by local architect Arthur E. Saunders. Saunders
(1860-1930) studied architecture in Santa Cruz, California and came to Boulder to
begin his architectural practice in 1903. Saunders found considerable success in
Boulder, first in partnership with Charles Wright from c. 1905-1907 before
establishing his own firm in 1908.1 One Boulder’s most prominent early
architects, Saunders is responsible for the design of a number of prominent
commercial and residential buildings in the city, including:
The Mercantile Bank, 1201 Pearl St., Downtown Historic District;
1 http://www.historicdenver.org/uploaded-files/Architects_Colorado_Database_1875-1950.pdf
Agenda Item # 5A Page 4
Advertisement for the Boulder-News Herald
from the 1918 Polk Directory of Boulder,
from the Boulder Carnegie Library.
The Physician’s Building, 1345 Spruce St., Downtown Historic District;
604 Mapleton Ave., 1913, Tudor-Revival, Mapleton Hill Historic District;
731 Spruce St., 1910, Craftsman, Mapleton Hill Historic District;
1815 17th St., 1901, Spanish-Revival, Chamberlain Historic District.
The Willard Building held various addresses, from 2047-2061 Broadway Street,
the number of units changing over the years. The earliest listings in the 1898 City
City Directories only give “12th and Spruce” as the location of several businesses
at the location, making it impossible to tell which actually occupied the Willard
Building. Street addresses were first given for this area of downtown in the 1901
Directory, which lists Strawn & Esgar Groceries, A. M. and G. W. Richardson
Bicycles, and J. W. Richardson Real Estate as the occupants. The Richardsons had
departed by 1903, but Strawn & Esgar, though renamed Strawn & Adams in
1905, and Strawn & Whitacre in 1906, remained until c. 1908. A later long-term
occupant was Adolpus D. McGlothlen, a realtor, who operated from the Willard
Building from c. 1918 to c. 1936. Another was the law firm of Goss and
Hutchinson (earlier Goss and
Kemp), who operated there from c.
1918 until the late 1950’s. Many other
businesses and organizations have
operated from the Willard Building,
including a lantern oil company,
several real estate and insurance
firms, the prominent local
architecture firm of James & Hunter,
the Elks Club, and the Red Cross. By
the late 1960’s, the building had
become popular with engineering
firms, with three operating there in
1970.
Perhaps the most significant tenant
of the Willard Building was the
Boulder News, a local newspaper
which first operated there from 1908,
until 1932. The Boulder News traces
its origins through several
renamings and buyouts to the
Boulder County News, which was
first published on October 12, 1869.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 5
The Boulder News was first published under that title on June 12, 1888, and was
a weekly paper known to support the Republican Party. The Boulder News was
purchased by Arthur A. Parkhurst in 1914; he converted it to a morning daily
starting November 10, 1914. He also formed the Union Publishing Co. (which
also operated out of the Willard Building), to handle printing of his newly
acquired newspaper. On February 14, 1916, Arthur and Mary Parkhurst
purchased Boulder’s first daily newspaper, the Boulder Daily Herald (first
published on 17 April 1880). The Parkhursts combined them to create the
Boulder News-Herald, which was still operated out of the Willard Building by
the Union Publishing Co. It continued to operate from there until March 1, 1932,
when the News-Herald was purchased by and merged with the Boulder Daily
Camera, which remains Boulder’s primary local newspaper.2
DESCRIPTION
Figure 2. Location Map, 2045 Broadway
Approximately 10,780 sq. ft. in size, the lot is located on the southwest corner of
Broadway and Spruce Streets, within the boundaries Downtown Historic
District, which is both listed in the National Register of Historic Places (1980) and
designated a local landmark district (1999).
2 Daily Camera, “Newspapers: Boulder County has had 100 of Them,” 13 September, 1963. Boulder
Carnegie Library.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 6
Figure 3. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, 2016.
The masonry building features a cantilevered tower and Moorish inspired onion
dome.
Figure 4. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, c.1968
A c.1968 photograph of the demolition of the Arlington Hotel on the northwest
corner of Broadway and Spruce Street shows a portion of the Willard Building.
At that time, the first floor appears to have been remodeled in the 1950s or 1960s,
and the turret was painted in a monochrome paint scheme.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 7
Figure 5. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, 1986.
The first level storefront facades were remodeled and partially restored again in
1993. The scope of work included new brick with stone sills, and a new glass and
metal storefront with transom windows. The upper story was restored and the
turret was painted at that time.
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST
The Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) application proposes the installation
of two internally illuminated aluminum wall cabinet signs. Plans show the signs
are to be located above the main entrance at the east elevation and on the north
elevation where the non-illuminated signs were installed July of 2016 per
approval by the Ldrc (HIS2016-00156). At that time, the Ldrc considered that
internally lit signage in this location should be reviewed in a public hearing by
the Landmarks Board.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 8
Figure 4. Proposed East Elevation (Sign A).
Figure 5. Proposed North Elevation (Sign B).
Agenda Item # 5A Page 9
Figure 6. Proposed Sign
The project narrative included in the LAC application describes the sign design:
“The cabinet structure and skin are completely constructed of aluminum. The
faces will have routed out copy and logos, and will then have ½” thick acrylic
push thru the face and secured on the back. These cabinets will have a high
enamel automotive paint finish.” See Attachment X: Applicant’s Materials.
The signs are shown to measure 1’9” in height, 10’ in length, and 3” in depth,
designed to fit within the existing steel band. The signs would be mounted to the
existing steel plate, and would project 2” from the face of the building. The sign
would be secured with 3/8” lags approximately every 2’. The acrylic push
through lettering and logo would project ½” from the face of the sign. The logo
would have green vinyl overlay, the text would have a blue vinyl overlay, and
the sign base would be painted to match the existing steel plate. The sign would
be illuminated by LED modules located on the back of the sign.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsections 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.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 10
(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
the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within an
historic district?
Provided the conditions of approval are met staff finds that, in this instance, the
proposed installation of an illuminated sign is appropriate. The signs are to be
located on the remodeled 1993 portion of the building and as such, will not
damage or destroy historic architectural features of the building. Furthermore,
the proposed LED back-lighting is described as subdued and providing even
illumination. This type of adjustable lighting was not available when the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were developed in 1999. While likely not
appropriate in every application, staff considers the installation on the 1993
portion of the building appropriate and will not adversely damage or destroy
exterior features of the property or this edge of the Downtown Historic District.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 11
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Provided the conditions of approval are met, staff finds that that proposed
installation of the two internally illuminated signs will not adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic character of the historic district.
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?
Provided the conditions of approval are met, staff considers the arrangement,
texture, color and materials of the two illuminated signs will be compatible with
the character of this part of the historic district.
4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
The design proposes the use of LED lights, which are highly energy efficient.
DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines and the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines 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 intended to be used as an
aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate
sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Historic District Design
Guidelines.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
8.4 Signs
A sign typically serves two functions: to attract attention and to convey information. Signs designed
for a historic building should not detract from important design features of the building. All new
signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and district in mind.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Retain and preserve existing historic The building does not feature N/A
Agenda Item # 5A Page 12
signs that contribute to the overall
historic character of the building or the
district.
existing historic signage.
.2 New signs should be compatible in
material, size, color, scale and character
with the building.
The proposed signs are designed to
fit within the existing steel band at
the 1st floor of the building. Plan
show the sign base is to be painted
to match the existing steel band.
The signs appear to be in scale with
the building.
Yes
.3 Signs should be subordinate to the overall
building.
The signs are designed to fit within
the design of the building and will
be subordinate to the overall
building.
Yes
.4 Locate a sign on a building so that it
emphasizes design elements of the façade
itself. In no case should a sign obscure or
damage architectural destails or features.
Plans show the signs to be located
on the portion of the building that
was remodeled in 1993. No
architectural details or features will
be damaged or destroyed by the
installation of the signs.
Yes
.5 Simple letter styles and graphic designs
are most appropriate.
Plans show the design of the signs
to include a logo and simple
lettering with the business name.
Yes
.6 A hanging entry sign may be located on a
porch, or directly above the steps leading
to the primary entrance of a structure.
The signs are not proposed to be
hanging.
N/A
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
8.4 Signs
A sign typically serves two functions: to attract attention and to convey information. Signs designed
for a historic building should not detract from important design features of the building. All new
signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and district in mind.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
A. Commercial signs should function to
identify and locate businesses, promote
commercial activity, attract customers,
provide direction and information, and in
some cases create visual delight and
architectural interest.
The proposed signage will promote
business activity in the Willard
Building.
Yes
Agenda Item # 5A Page 13
B.1 Wall Signs
Wall signs are limited in size and defined
as projecting less than 15 inches from the
building. Wall signs should be positioned
within architectural features such as the
panels above storefronts, sign bands, on
the transom windows, or flanking
doorways. Wall mounted signs should
align with others on a block to maintain
established patterns.
Wall signs are shown to be located
within the existing architectural
features of the building. Sign aligns
with others on the block,
maintaining established patterns.
Yes
C. Signage should be designed as an integral
part of the overall building design. In
general, signs should not obscure
important architectural details. When
several businesses share a building, signs
should be aligned or organized in a
directory.
Sign to be located on 1993
remodeled portion of the building.
As such, the installation will not
obscure important architectural
details.
Yes
D. Use simple signs to clearly convey their
messages
Signs are simple in design. Yes
D.1 Sign materials should be durable and
easy to maintain. Appropriate sign
materials include painted or carved wood,
carved wooden letters, epoxy letters,
galvanized sheet metal, stone, specialty or
decorative glass, clear and colored acrylic,
or neon.
Sign materials include acrylic and
metal.
Yes
D.2 Lighting external to the sign surface with
illumination directed toward the sign is
preferred. External lighting may also
highlight architectural features.
Internally lit signs are generally
discouraged. The light level should not
overpower the facade or other signs on
the street. The light source should be
shielded from pedestrian view. The
lighting of symbol signs is encouraged.
Internal lighting may be appropriate
where only letters are illuminated or
neon is used. Neon is acceptable, though
restricted in size, if it does not obscure
Internally lit signs are generally
discouraged, but may be
appropriate where only the letters
are illuminated. In this case, the
letters and logo are illuminated
while the rest of the sign is not.
Staff considers that this type of
“halo lit signage” did not exist in
1999 when the Downtown Design
Guidelines were written. The light
level should not overpower the
façade or other signs on the street
and staff considers that the Ldrc
should review the light level of the
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5A Page 14
architectural detail or overly illuminate
display windows.
proposed sign to ensure that it is
appropriately low to ensure
consistency with this guideline.
D.3 Signs should be designed in simple,
straight-forward shapes that convey their
message clearly. Symbols are easily read
and enhance the pedestrian quality of the
Downtown.
Rectangular signs are simple in
design and clearly states the
business name.
Yes
D.4 Lettering styles should be proportioned,
simple, and easy to read. In most
instances, a simple typeface is preferred
over a faddish or overly ornate type style.
The number of type styles should be
limited to two per sign. As a general rule,
the letter forms should occupy not more
than 75% of the total sign panel.
Lettering appears well-
proportioned within the sign and
has a traditional, simple typeface.
The letter forms appear the occupy
approximately 75% of the sign
panel.
Yes
The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines state that internally illuminated signs
are generally discouraged. This has been interpreted to recommend the use of
gooseneck (and other forms of external lighting) whenever possible. The
guidelines continue that internal lighting may be appropriate when only the
letters are illuminated, or neon is used. The letters and logo of the proposed signs
are internally illuminated, while the rest of the sign is not. The technology of
lighting has changed since the guidelines were written in 1999.
Staff considers that the application should be approved with the condition that
the Landmarks design review committee review the proposed light level of the
sign prior to issuance of landmark alteration certificate to ensure that the lighting
is appropriate to the building and this location in the historic district and that it
does not overpower the light from the street or compete with other signs along
Broadway or Spruce St.
Staff suggests that following the review and approval of this sign, consideration
be given to including a language in Section 8.3, Signs, of the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines to provide for guidance for the installation of internally lit
signage of this type in the Downtown Historic District, on both contributing and
non-contributing buildings.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 15
Staff finds that, in this instance, with the suggested condition the proposed
installation of two internally illuminated signs generally appropriate in terms of
site planning and preservation of character-defining features and that the
proposal will meet the standards set out in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will
be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines.
FINDINGS
Staff recommends that the board adopt the following findings:
The request for installation of two internally illuminated signs is compatible with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in that:
1. Provided the listed condition are met and that if constructed in
compliance with approved plans dated 08/25/2016 on file in the City of
Boulder Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department, the proposed
work will not damage or destroy the exterior architecture of the property.
2. The request will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration
certificate per Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will be consistent with the
General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Record
B: Current Photographs
C: Plans
Agenda Item # 5A Page 16
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item # 5A Page 17
Agenda Item # 5A Page 18
Agenda Item # 5A Page 19
2045 Broadway, Survey Photograph, 1986.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 20
Attachment C: Current Photographs
\\
Agenda Item # 5A Page 21
Agenda Item # 5A Page 22
Attachment C: Plans
Agenda Item # 5A Page 23
Agenda Item # 5A Page 24
Agenda Item # 5A Page 25