Loading...
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