03.01.17 LB Packet
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from the revised November 17 Library Commission & Landmarks Board
joint study session, and the January 4th, 2017 Landmarks Board Meeting
3. Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda
4. Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending
Statistical Report
5. Public Hearings
A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to
demolish a non-contributing, 5,200 sq. ft. building and, its place, construct a 15,380 sq.
ft. three-story building to a height of 38’ at 1102 Pearl St. in the Downtown Historic
District per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00391).
Owner / Applicant: 1102 Pearl LTD / Jim Bray
6. Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney
A. Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) update
B. Update Memo
C. Subcommittee Update
1) Design Guidelines and Code Revisions
2) Outreach and Engagement
3) Potential Resources
7. Debrief Meeting/Calendar Check
8. Adjournment
For more information, contact James Hewat at hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov or
(303) 441-3207. You can also access this agenda via the website at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation
then select “Next Landmarks Board Meeting”.
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING
DATE: Wednesday, March 1st, 2017
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
PLACE: 1777 Broadway, Municipal Building, City Council Chambers
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
Board members who will be present are:
Deborah Yin
Eric Budd
Briana Butler
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets
John Putnam or Harmon Zuckerman *Planning Board representative without a vote
The Landmarks Board is constituted under the Landmarks Presentation Ordinance (Ordinance
No. 4721; Title 9, Chapter 11, Boulder Revised Code, 1981) to designate landmarks and historic
districts, and to review and approve applications for Landmark Alteration Certificates on such
buildings or in such districts.
Public hearing items will be conducted in the following manner:
1. Board members will explain all ex-parte contacts they may have had regarding the
item.*
2. Those who wish to address the issue (including the applicant, staff members and public)
are sworn in.
3. A historic preservation staff person will present a recommendation to the board.
4. Board members will ask any questions to historic preservation staff.
5. The applicant will have a maximum of 10 minutes to make a presentation or comments
to the board.
6. The public hearing provides any member of the public three minutes within which to
make comments and ask questions of the applicant, staff and board members.
7. After the public hearing is closed, there is discussion by board members, during which
the chair of the meeting may permit board questions to and answers from the staff, the
applicant, or the public.
8. Board members will vote on the matter; an affirmative vote of at least three members of
the board is required for approval. The motion will state: Findings and Conclusions.
* Ex-parte contacts are communications regarding the item under consideration that a board member
may have had with someone prior to the meeting.
All City of Boulder board meetings are digitally recorded and are available from the Central Records office at
(303) 441-3043. A full audio transcript of the Landmarks Board meeting becomes available on the city of
Boulder website approximately ten days after a meeting. Action minutes are also prepared by a staff person
and are available approximately one month after a meeting.
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
January 4, 2017
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6:00 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the January 4, 2017 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.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Eric Budd
Briana Butler
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets, Vice Chair
Deborah Yin, Chair
Harmon Zuckerman, *Planning Board representative without a vote
STAFF MEMBERS:
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair D. Yin declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Yin, seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board approved (5-
0) the minutes as amended of the November 17 Library Commission and
Landmarks Board joint study session, and the November 28 and December 7, 2016
Landmarks Board meetings.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING
2334 14th St. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 29, 2017
3900 Orange Ct. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 31, 2017
Statistical Report
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS [starting 00:07:00 and ending 2:56:10 audio minutes]
A. [00:07:00 audio minutes] Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a
resolution to initiate the process for the designation of 2334 14th St. as an
individual landmark as described in Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, or in the
alternative, to issue a demolition permit, as described in § 9-11-23(f) and (g)
B.R.C. 1981, which will allow for issuance of a demolition permit (HIS2016-
00191). Owner / Applicant: Alexander Brittin / Bob Von Eschen
Ex-parte contacts
E. Budd and H. Zuckerman had no ex-parte contacts.
F. Sheets and R. Pelusio made a site visit.
D. Yin and B. Butler made a site visit and reviewed the case at the LDRC.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board take no action and allow the stay of demolition, originally
imposed on Oct. 5, 2016, to remain in place until Jan. 29, 2017, to provide time for
the Board, staff, and the owner / applicants to review the results of the pending
Structural Report, anticipated to be completed by Jan. 3, 2017.
Applicant’s Presentation
Bob Von Eschen, 3445 Penrose Pl., #230, contractor, spoke in support of a
demolition of the building, citing discrepancies in scope and cost in the current
structural report by Dave Woodham versus the previous structural reports.
Kenneth Jacques, 128 Katie Ln., architect for the applicant, spoke in support of
demolition. He noted the structural report by Dave Woodham had incorrect
measurements and assessments, and submitted a letter with the details of his
findings.
Public Comment
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in
support staff’s recommendation.
Rebuttal
Bob Von Eschen mentioned that they would be happy to meet later in the month
to more fully analyze the structural reports and discuss the case, but they would
prefer to have this application approved this evening.
Motion
On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by F. Sheets, the Landmarks Board
voted, (5-0) to hold a special meeting prior to the Jan. 29, 2017 expiration of the
stay-of-demolition in order to consider initiation of landmark designation of the
property at 2334 14th St. as described in Sec. 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981.
B. [00:48:30 audio minutes] Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a
resolution to initiate the process for the designation of 3900 Orange Ct. as an
individual landmark as described in Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, or in the
alternative, to issue a demolition permit, as described in § 9-11-23(f) and (g)
B.R.C. 1981, which will allow for issuance of a demolition permit (HIS2016-
00229). Owner / Applicant: Jarrow Montessori School / Michael Girodo
Ex-parte contacts
D. Yin and F. Sheets made a site visit.
E. Budd and B. Butler reviewed at the LDRC.
E. Budd and R. Pelusio reviewed case with applicant during the stay-of-
demolition.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation to not
initiate landmark designation for the property at 3900 Orange Ct.
Applicant’s Presentation
Michael Girodo, 1094 Fairway Ct., Head of Jarrow Montessori School, spoke in
support of demolition of the two buildings, noting that the school’s development
plans are not yet determined, and that the building may or may not be
demolished in the near term. He thanked staff for their assistance through the
process, noting that they had gained a lot from the process.
Public Comment
No one from the public spoke to this item.
Motion
On a motion by R. Pelusio, and seconded by E. Budd, the Landmarks Board
voted (5-0) that the Landmarks Board find that due to its lack of historic and
environmental significance, and the lack of public interest in preservation of the
buildings during the demolition review process, landmark designation of 3900
Orange Ct. over the owner’s objection does not balance private property rights
and the public good and adopt the staff memorandum dated Jan. 4, 2017, as the
findings of the board. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of the
demolition permit, the Landmarks Board recommends that staff require archival
documentation of the property.
C. [1:14:55 audio minutes] Public hearing and consideration of an application to
designate seven properties located at 1424 Pine St., 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine
St., 1443 Spruce St., 2118 14th St., 2124 14th St., and 2132 14th St. as local historic
landmarks as per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-
00127 and HIS2016-00358 to HIS2016-00363). Owner / Applicant: First United
Methodist Church / Jeff Dawson
Ex-parte contacts
D. Yin had no ex-parte contacts.
B. Butler, R. Pelusio, and F. Sheets made a site visit.
E. Budd currently serves on a Better Boulder’s Steering Committee Board, in
which one of the applicants also serves on, yet they have not discussed these
cases.
H. Zuckerman heard the Attention Homes’ concept review while serving on the
Planning Board.
Staff Presentation
M. Cameron, presented both cases (Item C & D) in an effort to provide context
for both. Staff recommended that the Landmarks Board continue the designation
hearing until after the Site Review Approval for the Attention Homes project.
The applications were submitted as part of the Site Review proposal and the
owner’s support of landmark designation is contingent on the approval of the
Site Review project. Staff recommended the board conditionally approve the
Landmark Alteration Certificate request for 1424 Pine St.
Applicant’s Presentation
Shannon Cox Baker, 3845 Elmhurst Pl., SCB Consulting, the development
consultant to the owners, expressed support for the project. She discussed the
overall vision of the project, including the relocation of the house at 1424 Pine St.
Ms. Cox Baker highlighted that this project is unprecedented in its support from
public, private, and religious entities.
Jon Kottke, 2975 Valmont Rd., Senior Lay Leader at the First United Methodist
Church, spoke in support of the applications. He pointed out that the Attention
Homes project was founded at the church over 50 years ago by Judge Holmes.
Mr. Kottke expressed that the church would like to offer this housing project to
the community, as well as preserve the existing house in this block for the
neighborhood.
Jeff Dawson, 1350 Pine St., Suite 1, architect at Studio Architecture, answered a
question regarding 1424 Pine St.’s finish floor height in relation to the existing
buildings (to the west), as well as new buildings (to the east), relative to grade.
He also answered why the underground parking lot cannot be kept where it is
and dig underneath, because the goal is to fully build a subsurface parking
structure where the house is currently, then once the parking structure is built,
that the house would move a second and final time to its destination, allowing
the rest of the parking structure to the east be built.
Public Comment
Michael McCue, 3796 Moffit Ct., member and chair of the board of the First
United Methodist Church, spoke in support of the project. He shared that the
project is part of the church’s mission and has over 95% approval from the
congregation. Mr. McCue shared his belief that this will be a lasting benefit to the
community.
Gary Urling, 2240 17th St., lives in the Whittier neighborhood and expressed
concern about moving the house at 1424 Pine St., especially because there would
be three moves, making it eight times as likely to fail. He encouraged the board
to consideration the impetus of moving the house is not for historic reasons, but
for maximizing amount of new construction square footage. With regard to new
construction, Mr. Urling expressed that the new design does not match the
historic elements of the block’s buildings or the neighborhood.
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, was
supportive of the landmark designation and relocation of the house at 1424 Pine
St., highlighting that the block is an important transition between downtown
Boulder and a residential neighborhood. She encouraged the creation of a small
historic district for the block.
Rebuttal
Shannon Cox Baker, clarified that moving the house at 1424 Pine St. would only
move twice as part of the project. She indicated that the new construction design
was based upon input from over ten community meetings.
Motion
On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by F. Sheets, the Landmarks Board
voted, (5-0), continue the landmark designation hearing for the properties at
1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 1424 Pine St., 2118 14th St., 2124 14th St., 2132 14th
St. and 1443 Spruce St., to a meeting after the city approves the Site Review
application.
D. [2:54:40 audio minutes] Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate application to demolish an accessory building, remove a
rear addition and relocate the house at 1424 Pine St., a pending landmark,
approximately 30 ft. west to 1418 Pine St., per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00125). Owner / Applicant: First United Methodist
Church / Jeff Dawson
Note that the ex-parte contacts, staff presentation, applicant presentation, public input,
and applicant rebuttal were combined with item 5C.
Motion
On a motion by E. Budd, and seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board
voted, (5-0) adopt the staff memorandum dated Jan. 4, 2017, as the findings of the
board and approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the proposed
demolition and relocation shown in the application materials dated May 5th, 2016,
finding that they generally meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be
completed in compliance with plans dated January 4, 2017 on file in the City
of Boulder Planning Department, 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 the following,
which shall be subject to the final review and approval of the City Manager:
a. A written description and map of proposed temporary location of the
building; detailing methods for securing the building during the
relocation and construction;
b. A written description of the moving technique and steel layout as
proposed by the building mover;
c. Final architectural details, including a foundation plan and proposed
south elevation, including materials and colors and details showing that
the building will generally relate to the grade similar to existing
conditions
Amendment
On a motion by D. Yin, and seconded by B. Butler, the Landmarks Board voted
(5-0) to amend the main motion, so as to further modify the recommended
conditions of approval, in particular, that when the building is in its final and
new location, that the first floor grade will relate to the original location and to
the adjacent buildings in a way that is generally consistent with the original
grade relationship.
8. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. Update Memo
B. Subcommittee Update
1) Design Guidelines and Code Revisions
2) Outreach and Engagement
3) Potential Resources
10. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Approved on _______________, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________, Chairperson
Library Commission & Landmarks Board
Joint Study Session Minutes
November 17, 2016
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING
MINUTES
Name of Board/ Commission: Library Commission and Landmarks Board
Date of Meeting: November 17, 2016 at the Main Boulder Public Library, 1001 Arapahoe Ave.
Contact information preparing summary: Maureen Malone, 303-441-3106
Library Commission members present: Joni Teter, Juana Gomez, Joel Koenig
Library Commission members absent: Alicia Gibb, Tim O’Shea
Landmarks Board members present: Deborah Yin, Eric Budd, Briana Butler, Ronnie Pelusio, Fran Sheets
City staff present:
David Farnan, Director of Library & Arts
Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director
James Hewat, Senior Planner
Edward Stafford, Development Review Manager
Jim Robertson, Chief of Urban Design
Joanna Crean, Senior Project Manager
Maureen Malone, Library Administrative Specialist II
Members of the public present:
None
Type of Meeting: Joint Study Session
Agenda Item 1: Call to order and approval of agenda [6:04 p.m., 0:00:00 Audio min.]
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
Teter proposed moving agenda item 3 (Update on Library Master Plan process) to the beginning of the meeting.
Agenda Item 2: Update on Library Master Plan process – Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director
[6:06 p.m., 0:02:02 Audio min.]
Phares explained that library staff is looking at commissioning a feasibility study on renovating the north building to see
what’s possible and the associated cost; later next summer, staff will begin more in depth analysis of facilities and come up
with detailed plans of building uses based on community feedback.
Farnan added that he has requested a current valuation of the north building; code dictates that renovation costs are limited to
50% of the value of the building. A copy of the test fit of the area that was done over a year ago has also been requested.
Agenda Item 3: Matters from the Library Commission [6:08 p.m., 0:00:25 Audio min.]
a. Memo: Joint Meeting talking points
Butler asked about the library’s capacity to handle the growth experienced over the past year and whether
any big expansions are being considered. Farnan replied that the growth should start to level off and
explained that staff has worked to activate as much space in the library as possible, aside from the north
building due to the uncertainty of its future and the fact that its current layout is dysfunctional and
disorienting; determining the future of the north building will be part of the Master Plan process.
b. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Historic Architectural Inventory of the Main Library north building
Butler asked if the 1974 addition would receive the same flood exceptions if historically designated,
despite the building being less than 50 years old. Stafford clarified that if the building is designated, the
flood regulation as it relates to historic buildings would apply; historic designation does not exempt a
building from flood regulations, but allows leeway for improvements to the structure and the value of the
improvements. Hewat added that if federal funds are used for improvements or physical changes to the
building, a section 106 review will be triggered to assess the impact of such improvements on a designated
or identified historic resource.
Library Commission & Landmarks Board
Joint Study Session Minutes
November 17, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item 4: Discussion [6:41 p.m., 0:37:00 Audio min.]
Yin explained that decisions on whether or not to landmark a building are based solely on the merit of the building,
not on what the applicant plans to do with it. There is a sense that the north wing has become an iconic building for
Boulder, and there would be an issue if the library wanted to demolish it; however, since the interior has changed so
much, it could be reprogrammed entirely.
Hewat explained that a landmark application could be submitted by the city (the city manager or City Council), a
third party recognized historic preservation organization, or the Landmarks Board. Ultimately City Council decides
whether or not to designate a building.
Teter communicated her hope that the Library Commission and Landmarks Board might jointly come up with a
process that over the next 2-3 years helps us as a community to determine the best use of the site of the north
building, taking into account library and other community uses, as well as all of the different values that are in
conflict with one another to some extent – historic value, maximum height, flood issues, etc.
Yin expressed her hope that the library would follow through on the Boulder Comprehensive Plan’s statement that
the city and county should take a leadership role in landmarking their own buildings, and trust that there is still a lot
of flexibility to do what they want to do with the north building, whether it be library-related use or some kind of
adaptive reuse.
Pelusio stated that starting the landmarking application and design review process would allow the Landmarks
Board to give the Library Commission insight on the board’s position on the building more quickly.
Hewat stated that the landmarking process typically takes 4-6 months from start to finish.
There was a question of whether state funds could be used for the interior of the building if the exterior building was
the landmarked aspect, or if the funds could be used for flood mitigation or energy upgrades.
Pelusio asked whether an addition to the west side of the building would be allowed if it were structurally
independent and met FEMA requirements. Stafford replied that more analysis would need to be done, but it would
have to function 100% independent structurally, and may not be a cost effective solution.
Pelusio expressed that there is merit associated with keeping the existing building – the educational component to
having a historic structure marries well to the objectives of the library, and the bridge connects either side of the
creek that is disconnected everywhere else in Boulder.
Stafford stated that should the bridge get destroyed in a flood, the city would not be able to permit its reconstruction.
Stafford explained that if the building receives historic designation, the 50% value cap for internal rehab of the
building goes away; however, there are still issues regarding flood-proofing requirements.
Yin suggested that it might be worth exploring the potential for an exception to the height restriction for a civic
building.
There was consensus among the Library Commission and Landmarks Board that neither party will surprise the other with a
sudden decision to demolish or landmark the north building.
Teter suggested that the Library Commission and Landmarks Board should have another joint meeting around September of
2017, after the library’s community engagement process is complete and a study on the potential uses for the north building
has been commissioned by the Facilities and Asset Management department.
Agenda Item 5: Adjournment [7:41 p.m., 1:37:51 Audio min.]
The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net
Historic Preservation Reviews
Between January 21, 2017 and February 17, 2017
This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the
stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 25
Individual Landmark1236 CANYON BLHIS2015-00258
Installation of temporary LED lighting
Application Approved Decision : 141 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill603 HIGHLAND AVHIS2015-00288
Construction of fence at west, north (Rear) and wast side yard fence and gate and concrete retaining walls as detailed
in LDRC notes dated 12.23.2015.
Application Approved Decision : 157 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Individual Landmark970 AURORA AVHIS2015-00313
Proposal for the addition of six 13' x 6' balconies at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stories on the south side of Mt. St. Gertrude's
Academy building.12/02/15-Landmark Board materials submitted.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 169 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
University Place765 14TH STHIS2015-00340
Proposal for a first floor dining room and kitchen expansion and bath addition on second floor in the rear of the single
family dwelling.
Application Approved Decision : 187 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1141 PEARL STHIS2016-00062
Remove existing ballasted roof down to existing substrate, install (2) layers of 2.6" ISO (r-30) and one 1/4" layer of
Securock with Class A fire rating, then install 60 mil RhinoBond (white) mechanically attached PVC membrane.
Application Approved Decision : 42 Sequence # :
02/09/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill735 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00078
Landmark Alteration certificate review for a five foot extension on an existing rear deck attached to a single family
detached dwelling.
Application Approved Decision : 50 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 1 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 25
Mapleton Hill2121 4TH STHIS2016-00246
Replace existing shingle roof with standing seam metal roof, charcoal grey in color, and replace 2 skylights with velox
units. Application referred to full Landmarks Board for review. Application voided after no activity.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 143 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Chautauqua Park108 CHAUTAUQUA PARKHIS2016-00255
Construction of a 50 s.f. (8' x6'6) detached shed to be built in the south west corner of the lot. Wood siding, painted
Chelsea Gray with Dover white trim to match house. Asphalt shingles. Reviewed and approved by CCA. Approved by
LDRC 8.17.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 147 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill911 PINE STHIS2016-00366
Removal of c1970s-1980s addition at the rear and construction of a 2-story addition on the north side of a house in the
MHHD. Scope of work includes reconstruction of a porch based on historic photographs, all as shown on plans dated
12.23.2016. Wood windows at the addition. LDRC supports reconstruction of front porch in front yard setback under
Section 9-7-4(d) Setback Encroachments for Front Porches.
Application Approved Decision : 213 Sequence # :
01/31/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill520 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00384
Construction of a rear addition as shown on plans dated 2.2.2017. Wood siding and wood double-hung windows at
addition. Wood railing at deck and metal railing in rear yard. HP Planner flagged potential zoning/building code issues
with sunken/covered patio-- must meet all applicable building/zoning code provisions.
Application Approved Decision : 224 Sequence # :
02/07/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Downtown1141 PEARL STHIS2016-00397
Window and door replacement on facade facing the Pearl Street mall and the alley, painting brick on the south facing
elevation, and new signage on south and north sides of building as detailed on drawings and specifications dated
01.11.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 233 Sequence # :
02/09/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill731 SPRUCE ST 1HIS2017-00016
Installtion of low wattage foot lighting for front steps from the sidewalk to the front path as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 01.16.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Chautauqua Park803 BOGGESS CRHIS2017-00017
Construction of 68 sq. ft. addition below rear porch as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated
01.25.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 8 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 2 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 25
Individual Landmark479 ARAPAHOE AVHIS2017-00019
Reconstruction of historic foundytion to be faced with rubble stone to match existing per lac application dated
01.19.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 9 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill624 CONCORD AVHIS2017-00020
Installation of 5' high wood fencing at side of house from back of house to accessory building as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 01.20.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 10 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill1109 PINE STHIS2017-00022
Replacement of existing roof shingle on house with with Certainteed grand manor dimensional asphalt shingles in
stonegate gray as detailed on landmark lateration certificate application dated 02.01.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 12 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Chautauqua Park410 PRIMROSE RDHIS2017-00025
Installtion of approximately 100 lineal feet of sandstone curbing at southeast of intersection.
Application Approved Decision : 13 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
University Place881 14TH STHIS2017-00027
Change window opening and install new double-hung wood window system, as detailed on drawings dated 02.01.2017
and reviewed by the Landmarks design review committee.
Application Approved Decision : 15 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked2135 11TH STHIS2017-00030
After-the-fact review of repairs to an existing deck and construction of a new balcony at the southwest corner.
CPL2017-00073
Application Approved Decision : 16 Sequence # :
01/30/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill911 PINE STHIS2017-00033
Demo of existing 1979 garage. No changes are proposed to the adjacent 1931 accessory building. New garage
proposed in similar location to the existing garage. New retaining wall on the south elevation as necessary to contain
grade.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 18 Sequence # :
02/15/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
University Place881 14TH STHIS2017-00036
Replace existing basement window on north elevation with new egress, casement wood window as detailed on LAC
plans dated 02.03.2017.
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 3 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 25
Application Approved Decision : 20 Sequence # :
02/16/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill642 MAPLETON AVHIS2017-00041
Reroof detached garage installing dimensional asphalt shingles, "weathered wood" color as deatiled on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 02.07.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 23 Sequence # :
02/16/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill1001 SPRUCE STHIS2017-00042
Roof replacement, replace rotted soffit and facia to match existing, replace gutters to match existing K-style gutters and
downspout at north side of house, replace rotted handrails and trim at porch of wood to match existing, resurface porch
roof, repaint house with existing colors, all as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 02.08.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 24 Sequence # :
02/16/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Individual Landmark15 S 35TH STHIS2017-00044
Replace existing electrical panel with new electrical panel, 100 Amp service, in same location, at rear of house as
detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 02.08.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 25 Sequence # :
02/16/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Chautauqua Park900 BASELINE 218HIS2017-00052
Installation of furnace vent at east wall as shown on lac application dated 02.15.2017.
Application Approved Decision : 30 Sequence # :
02/15/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Landmark Designation Reviews Case Count: 11
Individual Landmark2245 PINE STHIS2013-00206
Landmark Designation - Ravenscraft House, designated 8.18.2015 by Ord. 8058.
Application Approved Decision : 6 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2322 23RD STHIS2015-00077
Application for Individual Landmark-Herkert/Glasser Cottage. Designated 10.20.2015 Ord. 8083.
Application Approved Decision : 2 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked479 ARAPAHOE AVHIS2015-00099
Application for Individual Landmark-- application withdrawn at request of owner; later submitted under HIS2016-00122
and designated as the Higman House on 9.20.2016 by Ord. 8141.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 4 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 4 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Designation Reviews Case Count: 11
Not Landmarked2949 BROADWAYHIS2015-00121
Application for Individual Landmark for 2949 Broadway, the Hulse House. Designated 9/20/2016 ORd. 8142.
Application Approved Decision : 5 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked1900 KING AVHIS2015-00173
Application for Individual Landmark of the Sampson-Wood House. Designated 1.19.2016 Ord. 9003.
Application Approved Decision : 6 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2200 BROADWAYHIS2015-00189
Application for Individual Landmark Designation of the Trinty Lutheran Church. Designated 1.19.2016 Ord. 9001.
Designation boundary encompasses 1929 portion of the church only.
Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked479 ARAPAHOE AVHIS2016-00122
Application for Individual Landmark for hte Higman House.
Application Approved Decision : 2 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2747 4TH STHIS2016-00126
Application for Individual Landmark. Application withdrawn at request of owner.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 3 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Individual Landmark1420 ALPINE AVHIS2016-00145
Application to landmark a single family dwelling built in 1937. Application withdrawn by owners- may submit later.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 5 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2935 19TH STHIS2016-00169
Application for Individual Landmark for the Tyler-Bartlett House.
Application Approved Decision : 6 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Downtown1345 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00253
Landmark designation for Boulder Shambala Center.
Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1
Not Landmarked1726 MAPLETON AVHIS2017-00043
Demolition of a detached garage with a footprint of 18'x16' likely constructed in the 1930s.
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 5 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1
Application Approved Decision : 1 Sequence # :
02/15/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 15
Not Landmarked1295 HARTFORD DRHIS2015-00132
Historic review for removal of at least 50% of the roof and 50% of contiguous exterior walls of a home built in 1963
Application Approved Decision : 42 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked304 MAPLETON AVHIS2015-00202
Landmarks review for removal of duplex and attached garage constructed in 1941.
Application Approved Decision : 59 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked0 FOLSOM STHIS2015-00252
Proposal for full structure demolition of existing detached garage, built 1950s.
Application Approved Decision : 71 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked2021 WALNUT STHIS2015-00290
Proposal for the removal of a second story "witch's hat" dormer that has been indicated to have been built in1995.
Partial demo approved as shown on plans dated 7.15.2015
Application Approved Decision : 79 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked3768 DAVIDSON PLHIS2016-00251
Demolition of a street-facing carport on a single family residence constructed in 1960.
Application Approved Decision : 68 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked510 JUNIPER AVHIS2016-00281
Full structure demolition of a house constructed in 1945 and two sheds.
Application Approved Decision : 75 Sequence # :
02/07/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked2858 5TH STHIS2016-00310
Demolition of front porch roof, rear deck/rear facade of residence, and detached garage.
Application Approved Decision : 81 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked285 MARTIN DRHIS2017-00007
Partial demolition (remove roof) of building constructed in 1955. Full demolition approved.
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 6 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 15
Application Approved Decision : 2 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked1463 NORTH STHIS2017-00009
Full demoliiton of a house and accessory building constructed in 1951.
Application Approved Decision : 3 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3325 FOLSOM STHIS2017-00011
Partial demolition (removal of street facing walls) of a building constructed in 1965. Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 4 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3184 9TH STHIS2017-00014
Full demolition of a house and detached garage constructed in 1940.
Application Approved Decision : 5 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3018 13TH STHIS2017-00024
Partial demolition (removal of street-facing wall and 100% of hte roof). Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked555 S 43RD STHIS2017-00028
Partial demolition (remove front entry canopy and siding on street-facing wall) of a house constructed in 1959. Full
demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 8 Sequence # :
02/06/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked853 CYPRESS DRHIS2017-00029
Partial demolition (alteration of street-facing wall) of a house constructed in 1965. Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 9 Sequence # :
02/01/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked2211 WALNUT STHIS2017-00035
Full demolition of a duplex constructed in 1945.
Application Approved Decision : 10 Sequence # :
02/06/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 11
Not Landmarked2228 BLUFF STHIS2005-00150
Total structure demolition of residential building, and three outbuildings. Date of construction unknown at time of case
cleanup in 2017.
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 7 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 11
Application Approved Decision : 30 Sequence # :
01/25/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked1035 KALMIA AVHIS2014-00231
Proposal to demolish portion of c.1910 house and five accessory structures. Application called up to Landmarks Board
for review. Application withdrawn.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 21 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked2150 FOLSOM STHIS2015-00251
Landmarks review for full structure demolition of two detached dwelling units (one with front gable built in 1913) and
two accessory sheds, built in the 1930-50s. Approved by LDRC 9.22.2015.
Application Approved Decision : 31 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked3131 7TH STHIS2016-00028
Full demolition of main house and accessory structure constructed in 1924. Application referred to the full Landmarks
Board for review. Application withdrawn when property sold; new application submitted- see HIS2016-000325.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 1 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked3171 9TH STHIS2016-00100
Full demoliiton of a house and garage constructed in 1927. Application referred to the Landmarks Board for review. LB
hearing fee paid 5/2/2016. Application withdrawn prior to board review.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 6 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked1424 PINE STHIS2016-00125
LAC application to move a structure 30' to the west of current location on 1424 Pine, demolish the existing structure's
addition, demolish storage garage at 2124 14th St., demolish storage garage at 1418 Pine. See LUR2016-00033.
Application withdrawn; Landmark designation and LAC applications submitted for move.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 15 Sequence # :
01/26/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2650 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00340
Demolition of residence and three outbuildings. Application referred to the full Landmarks Board for review. Application
withdrawn; new application for Partial Demolition submitted (HIS2017-00013).
Application Withdrawn Decision : 35 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2650 MAPLETON AVHIS2017-00013
Partial demolition (removal of 1950 rear addition, porch base and supports) of house constructed in 1922. Full
demolition of accessory building. Partial demolition approved based on drawings dated 1.25.2017. Original porch roof
to remain. If scope of work changes, a new demo application is required.
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 8 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 11
Application Approved Decision : 3 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked340 17TH STHIS2017-00015
Partial demolition (removal of exterior sheathing on street-facing wall) of a house built in 1925. Alterations have
diminished architectural integrity. Full demolition approved by LDRC.
Application Approved Decision : 4 Sequence # :
01/27/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked2001 MESA DRHIS2017-00018
Full demolition of duplex constructed in 1903, additions in 1973.
Application Approved Decision : 5 Sequence # :
02/16/2017 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
University Place868 17TH STHIS2017-00037
Partial structure demolition - removal of a street facing exterior wall, the enclosed porch on the south-facing facade, the
covered patio roof on the north-facing facade, and the detached shed to the west of the single family home.
Application Approved Decision : 6 Sequence # :
02/16/2017 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 9 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Historic Preservation Reviews Summary
between 1/21/2017 and 2/17/2017
This summary shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn
within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate
Application Approved 22
Application Withdrawn 3
Landmark Designation
Application Approved 8
Application Withdrawn 3
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition
Application Approved 1
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 15
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 6
Application Withdrawn 5
Printed on 02/17/2017 Page 10 of 10HIS Statistical Report
Agenda Item #5A, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
March 1, 2017
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 demolish a non-contributing, 5,200 sq. ft. building and, its
place, construct a 15,380 sq. ft., three-story building to a height of 38’ at
1102 Pearl St. in the Downtown Historic District per Section 9-11-18 of
the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00391).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1102 Pearl St.
2. Historic District: Downtown
3. Zoning: DT-5 (Downtown-5)
4. Owner: Phil Day, PMD Realty
5. Applicant: Jim Bray, Bray Architects
6. Date of Construction: c.1910s,
7. Historic Name(s): Garabino’s Saloon, Garbarino’s Garage
8. Existing Building: 5,200 sq. ft.
9. Proposed Building: 15,380 sq. ft.
10. Proposed Building Height: 38 ft.
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board deny the application for demolition of the non-contributing building
and the construction of the proposed 15,380 sq. ft. building at 1102 Pearl St. as shown on plans dated
01/31/2017, finding that they do not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated December 1, 2017
in Matter 5A (HIS2016-00391) as the findings of the board.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 2
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed demolition and new
construction will be generally inconsistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9-11-
18(a) and (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines and the
General Design Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
On Feb. 2, 2017 the Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) Department
received a complete Landmark Alteration Certificate application for the proposed
demolition of the existing 5,200 sq. ft. building and construction of a new three-story,
15,380 sq. ft. at 1102 Pearl St.
Because the application calls for demolition of a building within a historic district,
review by the full Landmarks Board in a quasi-judicial hearing is required pursuant to
Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.
Staff has met with the applicant on multiple occasions to provide feedback on the
proposed design.
The property is located within both the Downtown-5 (DT-5) zoning district, as well as
the Downtown Historic District.
Because the applicant is requesting variations from the Land Use Code to build from
two to three stories (§ 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981) and a reduction to the open space
requirement (§ 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981), the project is required go through the Site Review
process.
On September 1, 2016, a preliminary proposal for a three-story building at 1102 Pearl
St. was reviewed by the Planning Board (Concept Review LUR2016-00058).
The Planning Board was generally supportive of constructing a new building and
were supportive of staff’s comments to design a simple, elegantly proportioned
building and suggested that the third story be brought to the west and north edges,
thereby eliminating setbacks (See Attachment E).
While one of the oldest developed lots in the City of Boulder, staff considers the pre-
1883 building (subsequently remodeled to serve as an automobile garage in 1918), has
been substantially altered outside of the 1865-1946 period-of-significance for the
district and should not be considered contributing to the Downtown Historic District.
Staff acknowledges the time and consideration that has gone into the design of this
building, but finds the current proposed plan for demolition and new construction is
substantially inconsistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate
pursuant to Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends denial of the demolition and proposed new construction but
suggests that the Landmarks Board give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the
application for redesign after providing direction to that end, thereby avoiding the
applicant having to wait a year to reapply pursuant to Section 9-11-17(c), B.R.C. 1981.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 3
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Located at a key gateway location at the southwest corner of 11th and Pearl streets, the
property at 1102 Pearl St. has a long history, reaching back to the earliest days of Boulder
City and lies within the “Boulder Original Townsite,” established by the Boulder City Town
Company in February 1859. The Pearl Street Historic District, in which the property is
located, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1980 and designated as a
local historic district in 1999.
Today, the immediate streetscape of 1102 Pearl Street is dominated by historic commercial
buildings dating from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the large 2015 Pearl West
Building located across 11th St. to the west of the subject property.
Figure 1. Location Map, 1102 Pearl St.
Figure 2. Northwest Corner, 1102 Pearl St., 2016
Agenda Item #5A, Page 4
Figure 3. North Elevation, 1102 Pearl St., 2016.
The 1874 Birds-Eye View of Boulder (Figure 6) illustrates a building at 1102 Pearl St, part of
which housed Garbarino’s Saloon by 1883. If not completely reconstructed, this building has
been significantly remodeled several times throughout its history, most recently in the 1970s.
Today, the one-story commercial building features storefront windows on the north and
west elevations. The north elevation features two tone, red and cream colored stucco. It is
penetrated by two doorways, with a double door at the center of the façade and a single door
on its eastern side. Fenestration includes a pair of tripartite ribbon windows on the west side
of the façade, and a pair of fixed single-light picture windows on the east side. There is an
outdoor eating area along the façade, which is delineated with a metal rail fence and
sheltered by a large, metal framed cloth awning. The flat roof is concealed by a stepped
masonry parapet. This parapet is framed in dark stained wood, and painted with a red and
blue “Old Chicago” sign. Wood framing extends to ground level at the northeast corner, but
is absent from the northwest corner. A neon box sign, reading “Old Chicago”, is mounted
from the northwest corner.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 5
Figure 4. West Elevation (facing 11th Street), 1102 Pearl St., 2016
The west (side) elevation of the building is clad in stucco matching that of the north
elevation, and features a ribbon window near the north side, and two fixed single pane
picture widows near the south side. All windows are framed in black wood trim and are
coved by metal framed, red cloth awnings. The parapet is composed of painted masonry
trimmed with dark brown stained wood. A large, blue and red sign for Old Chicago is
emblazoned on the parapet, matching the sign on the front façade.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 6
Figure 5. South Elevation (rear), 1102 Pearl St., 2017.
The south elevation of the building is covered by a shed-roofed frame addition. This
structure features many windows, which comprise the majority of the wall and roof area.
The south elevation features three doors, one single-light door, and two sliding glass doors.
One fixed single-pane window is located between the sliding doors. The roof of the rear
addition is entirely composed of casemented skylights and their framing. A sizable
mechanical box is located on the south side of the main structure’s roof.
A two-story addition is located at the southeast corner of the building. It is clad in cream-
colored stucco, matching that found the primary structure. There is a metal, hinged single
door providing access on its south side. The addition features four sliding, aluminum framed
windows on its second story, three along the west side, and one on the south. An additional
one-story structure projects from the addition’s rear to the alley; it is clad in white composite
board.
When surveyed in 1986, the Historic Building Inventory Form characterized the building as
being significantly remodeled, noting “this building may or may not be part of the original
structure which was built before 1883. It appears that it was built since 1931, however, some
of the original structural walls may still exist.” See Attachment A: Historic Building
Inventory Form.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 7
HISTORY:
Figure 6. 1102 Pearl St. 1874 (circled) from E.S Glover’s Bird’s-Eye View of Boulder City.
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
The property is located in the original Boulder Townsite and has been built upon since at
least 1874 (Figure 6). In 1883, at least part of the property housed the infamous Garbarino
Saloon, located directly across Pearl Street from the Boulder House Hotel. By the end of the
1880s, Garbarino’s Saloon was known to be so disreputable that Boulder’s temperant citizens
insisted on removing all tables and chairs from the public house to prevent loafing.
Garbarino’s was reportedly also good value, providing patrons “two schooners for a nickel”
and free lunch.1
Figure 7. Interior of Garbarino’s Saloon, c.1880s. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
1 Silvia Pettem in “Boulder, Evolution of a City” University Press of Colorado, 1994 p.11
Agenda Item #5A, Page 8
In spite of its ill repute in Boulder, Garbarino’s Saloon continued operating at 1102 Pearl St.
until 1910 when the property is identified as a “moving pictures” house.
Sanborn Maps indicate that beginning about 1895 the People’s Meat Market was doing
business out of the west end of the property, then identified as 1100 Pearl Street. Operated
first by Eli P. Metcalf, and later by Joseph Hocking, Metcalf was locally noted for his role as
Boulder County Sheriff from 1884-1897.2
By 1901, Metcalf retired, and Hocking was the sole
proprietor until he was joined by his sons in 1908.
Joseph Hawking was born in England in 1848, and
immigrated to the United States in 1864. After
spending four years in Michigan, he moved to Gilpin
County, Colorado, and then to Boulder in 1889.
Hocking died on April 26, 1908, survived by his wife,
Elizabeth.3 His sons, Elmer V. and Herbert C.
Hocking, continued to operate their late father’s meat
market following his death, but Elmer later purchased
the Central Meat Market at 1103 Pearl St., and
operated from there.4 In 1910, the west end the
property at 1102 Pearl Street is identified as a business
selling sundries. By 1913, the building was vacant and
remained so until around 1916, when the property
was acquired by Belshe C. Garbarino, who opened a
garage and auto sales business there. It is unclear
whether the 1880s structures were completely demolished or heavily remodeled to become
the masonry-clad structure seen in photographs dating to the late 1920s (Figure 7). City
construction permit ledgers dating to that time (found in the collection of the Boulder
Carnegie Library) show that B. C. Garbarino was permitted to make alterations at 1102 Pearl
costing $15,000 in August, 1917.
2 Daily Camera. “Eli Metcalf, Member of Pioneer Family, is Boulder Visitor.” 13 August 1955. Boulder Carnegie Library.
3 Daily Camera. “Joseph Hocking Dead.” 27 April, 1908. Boulder Carnegie Library.
4 Daily Camera. “Hocking’s Market Stays.” 31 April, 1908. Boulder Carnegie Library; Daily Camera. “Elmer Hocking,
Pioneer of State, Dies Early Today.” 26 February, 1952. Boulder Carnegie Library.
Figure 8. Eli Metcalf, N.D.
Photo courtesy of the Boulder
Carnegie Library
Agenda Item #5A, Page 9
Figure 9. People’s Market, c.1893
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
Figure 10. Garabino’s SunCo Garage, c.1928
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
Garbarino’s garage operated on the site from 1918 until about 1930, when brothers Joseph C.
and J. F. Ardourel took over operation. They ran a garage there until the early 1940s.
Garbarino retained ownership, and for the next 18 years, the site was home to a variety of
Agenda Item #5A, Page 10
auto shops, garages, and automotive dealerships, none of which lasted for more than five
years. Building permit records show that the building was damaged in a fire sometime
shortly before 1957. This damage likely accounts for the building standing vacant in 1958. It
reopened as Arnold Brother’s Sports Car center in 1959, which would prove to be the last in
the series of automotive-related commercial occupants.
Figure 11. Walt and Hank’s Tavern, 1975
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
In 1960, owner Christopher G. Garbarino applied to remodel the building into a tavern once
more. It was known Walt & Hanks, which continued operating there until 1976, when,
following another remodel, the building became the home of Old Chicago Restaurant. The
current owners purchased the property in 1973.
1102 Pearl Streetscape
The 1100 block of Pearl Street (the south side of Pearl Street to the east of the site) was
predominately developed between 1860 and 1910, as part of the city’s commercial core. The
1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map below in Figure 8 shows a variety of shops that sold
hardware, drugs, hay and feed, meat, jewelry, as well as a moving picture theater, barber
and haberdasher. The block is comprised of one and two story masonry buildings. All of the
Agenda Item #5A, Page 11
buildings on the south side of the 1100 block of Pearl Street are two-story masonry. A one-
story, frame commercial building is located in the middle of the block.
Figure 12. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1910
Today, the immediate streetscape of 1102 Pearl St. is dominated by historic commercial
buildings dating from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the large 2015 Pearl West
Building (Daily Camera site from 1880 to 2011) located across 11th St., immediately west of
the subject property.
Figure 13. South side of 1100 block of Pearl Street
Agenda Item #5A, Page 12
The building at 1108 Pearl St., directly east of the site, was constructed prior to 1883 and is
representative of Boulder’s early commercial buildings. The two-story masonry building
features segmental arched windows with stone sills and cast lintels with keystones. A simple
brick cornice adorns the top of the building. The first floor storefronts have been remodeled
within the original openings.
Figure 14. North side of 1100 block of Pearl St.
The north side of the block is comprised of two-story masonry buildings, dating to the same
period of development and include the handsome Buckingham Block at 1001 Pearl St.
located on the northeast corner of 11th and Pearl Streets. Charles Cheney, the president of
the First National Bank, constructed the building in 1898 to replace the 1860s Boulder House.
The building was constructed during a period of growth in the city and features red brick
with sandstone trim and elegant Classical and Colonial-Revival detailing. Floral swags
decorate the cornice, and the semi-circular windows with leaded glass add to the visual
interest of the building. The first story features cast iron elements.
Figure 15. South side of 1000 block of Pearl Street
The building located to the northwest of the site, across the intersection of 11th and Pearl
Streets at 1047 Pearl St. is the notable Trezise Building built in 1880 and historically
contributing to the district.
Figure 16. North side of 1000 block of Pearl Street
Agenda Item #5A, Page 13
The building located to the southwest of the site, at 11th and Walnut Streets was built in 1900
as the Stoddard Warehouse Building today housing the Walrus Bar and Nightclub.
To the south of the site is a former service station building at 1101 Walnut St., constructed in
1920 and currently housing the Rio Restaurant.
11TH STREET SPINE
Boulder’s Civic Area Plan includes plans to improve north-south pedestrian access along 11th
Street in the city’s core to provided “continuous paved access corridor aligning the north and
south areas of the park to connect Pearl Street through the Civic Area and south to
University Hill”. Construction is currently underway on the realigned 11th Street Bridge in
realizing this plan, the intersection of 11th and Pearl Streets being the northern edge of this
enhanced corridor.
CONCEPT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD
Figure 17. Sept. 1, 2016 Concept Review Design for Building at 1102 Pearl St.
On September 1st 2016 a preliminary proposal for a three-story building at 1102 Pearl St. was
reviewed by the Planning Board (Concept Review LUR2016-00058)(Figure 17). Because the
applicant is requesting variations from the Land Use Code to build from two to three stories
(§ 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981) and a reduction to the open space requirement (§ 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981),
the project is required go through the Site Review process.
The Planning Board was generally supportive of constructing a new building and were
supportive of staff’s comments to design a simple, elegantly proportioned building that
suggested that the third story be brought to the west and north edges, thereby eliminating
Agenda Item #5A, Page 14
setbacks. This would provide a building with a street face form more in keeping with
historic building forms found at key intersections in the Downtown Historic District (See
Attachment E).
Historic Preservation and Planning and Development staff have met with the applicant on
several occasions since the Concept Review by the Planning Board and discussed these
recommendations.
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 5,200 sq. ft. commercial building at 1102 Pearl
St., and, in its place, construct a 15,380 sq. ft. mixed use building.
Figure 18. Perspective Render, Proposed New Construction (Current Proposal).
Plans and elevations show the proposed brick and stone clad building to consist of two full
stories, a set-back third-story, and a full basement. The ground floor is shown functioning as
retail space, the second office space, with the top floor containing four apartments with west-
facing outdoor patios. The primary entry for the ground floor retail space is proposed at the
corner of 11th and Pearl with secondary entries on Pearl and 11th Streets near the ends of the
building. The first level of the building is shown to feature a deeply inset chamfered corner,
the upper levels of this corner are shown to be supported by a square column.
Primary access to the upper floors is shown via a stair and elevator lobby opening to a
doorway slightly south of the center of the 11th St. elevation. Secondary access to the upper-
levels is provided by a stair and rear entrance at the southeast corner of the proposed
structure.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 15
Fenestration on the ground level is shown to be provided by bands of storefront windows
along the north and west faces. Renderings indicate these are to be shaded by awnings with
diffuse glass transoms above. Plans show that the second-story windows to consist of four
types of fixed pane windows. At the northwest corner, four-light double windows with
infilled arched tops are shown, while the west and north elevations feature four-light
rectilinear windows. The windows on the west elevation are shown to be shaded by
awnings.
Figure 19. West Elevation, Proposed New Construction
The lower two levels are clad in cut stone at the base of the wall. This stone also clads the
entire first level at the northwest corner of the building. The reminder of the first level and all
of the second level elevations are clad in red or blond colored brick, save for a glass volume
around the elevator lobby to the upper floors. Along most of the east and west elevations, the
walls are topped by a brick cornice of rowlock courses. At the northwest corner, the cornice
becomes taller, and is decorated with a cut stone frieze and a projecting metal cornice.
Figure 20. North Elevation, Proposed New Construction
Agenda Item #5A, Page 16
The third floor is shown to be set back 15’ from the walls of the building, providing a band of
roof terraces along the north and west sides accessed via metal framed sliding glass doors.
Fenestration on the third floor consists of nine fixed-metal, framed windows. Third-story
walls are shown to be clad in metal, as is the cantievered awning of the flat roof. There is a
metal clad mechanical hood atop the roof.
Figure 21. South Elevation, Proposed New Construction
The propoal shows that the south (alley) elevation is to accomodate three parking spaces
beneath a second level balcony. See Attachment C: Plans.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b), 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 historical,
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
Agenda Item #5A, Page 17
materials used on existing and proposed structures 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.
The following is an assessment of the proposal against these standards:
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 a historic
district?
The existing building may have been constructed as early as 1882, but has been
significantly modified since 1960 and out of the identified 1858-1946 period-of-
significance for the Downtown Historic District and the extent of alterations has
compromised its historic integrity. As such, staff considers the building to be non-
contributing to the historic character of the Downtown Historic District.
While the City of Boulder encourages the reuse of existing buildings as a sustainable
approach to redevelopment, historic preservation staff does not consider demolition
of the building would be to the detriment of the historic district, provided the
proposed new construction is consistent with the relevant sections for new
construction in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the General Design
Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmark. However, staff finds
that based upon analysis against these guidelines, the design of the proposed new
construction is substantially incompatible with the character of the Downtown
Historic District and would have an adverse effect on the immediate streetscape (see
Design Guidelines Analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that based on analysis with the relevant design guidelines and because
of the high visibility of the property at a key downtown intersection at the southeast
corner of 11th and Pearl Streets, the mass, form and design of the proposed new
construction may adversely affect the special historic and architectural character of the
streetscape and the Downtown Historic District as a whole (see Design Guidelines
Analysis section).
Agenda Item #5A, Page 18
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 the mass and proportions, as well as the arrangement of windows
and materials of the proposed building, are generally incompatible with the character
of the streetscape and that steps should be taken to redesign the buildings in a manner
that takes cues from and compliments the historic character of the streetscape while
providing for a building that is clearly of its time (see Design Guidelines Analysis
section).
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Downtown Historic District and the
proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements
of the Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)?
While staff does not consider the existing building to contribute to the historic
character of the Downtown Historic District it finds that the application to replace the
demolished building does not meet the requirements of Section 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4),
B.R.C. 1981, because the construction of the building, as submitted, will not establish a
new building with compatible features on the streetscape, and is generally
inconsistent with the relevant sections for new construction in the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and
Individual Landmarks (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Code sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply
when reviewing a request for a LAC. The board has adopted the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The following is
an analysis of the proposal 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
Downtown Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines.
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
Section 1. The Historic District
While it is acknowledged that changes to buildings in the Downtown Historic District will occur
over time, it is also a concern that these changes not damage the historic building fabric and
character of the area. Preservation of the exteriors and storefronts of these buildings will continue
their contribution to the unique historic character of the Downtown. Any building remodeling or
alteration, no matter the planned use, must retain the overall design integrity of the historic
building by protecting the original features and materials and respecting the traditional design
Agenda Item #5A, Page 19
elements. The following are the guidelines for the preservation and restoration of local landmarks
and contributing buildings:
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
A.
Preserve Original Character, Façades
and Materials. Wherever possible
retain these elements through
restoration and repair, rather than
replacement. If portions of the
original material must be replaced,
use a material similar to the original.
The following elements are part of the
traditional storefront building
typology indicative to the
development of Downtown Boulder.
See DUDGs for list of historic
elements.
Staff considers that the
significant remodeling that has
occurred to the building since
the 1960s has compromised its
historic and architectural
integrity so that it is no longer
interpretable. Staff considers the
building to be non-contributing
and that demolition is
appropriate, provided a
compatible building consistent
with the downtown and general
guidelines in this very key
location in the Downtown
Historic District.
Maybe
B.
Avoid concealing or removing
original materials. If the original
material has been covered, uncover it
if feasible
N/A
C.
Maintain the historic building set
back line. Preserve the historic
relationship of the building to the
street or property line. Where
buildings are built to the alley edge,
consider secondary customer entries
if original materials and features are
not damaged.
While the street level walls of
the proposed building appear
generally consistent with
historic setbacks, the proposed
deeply inset chamfered
northwest corner and heavy
supporting post are inconsistent
with this guideline and building
forms in the district. Consider
eliminating this feature or
design with a full height
chamfer no more than 10’ in
width similar in form to Trezise
and Boettcher Building.
Rear alley face might be
redesigned to provide secondary
access to first floor retail space.
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 20
1.2 Guidelines for contemporary alterations and additions to local landmarks and
contributing buildings
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the design of additions or alterations to
contributing buildings in order to retain the historic character of the overall district. While
rehabilitation and building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time,
acknowledging the Downtown as a living district, it is important that it also respect the
traditional qualities that make the Downtown unique, such as massing, scale, use of storefront
detailing, and choice of materials. Architectural styles that directly copy historic buildings, and
theme designs, such as "wild west" are not appropriate.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
A.
Distinguish additions to historic
buildings. Additions to historic
buildings should be differentiated, yet
compatible, from the original while
maintaining visual continuity
through the use of design elements
such as proportion and scale, siting,
facade set back, and materials that are
of a similar color and texture. When
design elements contrast too strongly
with the original structure, the
addition will appear visually
incompatible. Conversely, when the
original design is replicated, the
addition is indistinguishable and the
historical evolution of the building
becomes unrecognizable. New
additions should be subordinate to the
original building form
While not technically an
addition to a building, because
of the proposed physical linkage
to 1118 Pearl St. (a contributing
building), a sensitivity to and
continuity with this building is
important and the addition
guidelines relevant.
Proposed new construction is
visually distinct from adjacent
building and while not
subordinate to in scale it does
not overwhelm this building.
Proportion of store front level of
proposed building does not line
up with that of 1118 Pearl St. or
others on the block front.
Awnings obscure this view.
Redesign to raise store front
level to line up with other
buildings and create weightier
first floor as historically found.
No
B.
For additions to a historic building,
retain the original proportions, scale,
and character of the main facade.
Position the addition so it is
subordinate to the original building.
Express the difference between the
original facade and the addition with
Proposed new construction is
visually distinct from adjacent
building and while not
subordinate to in scale it does
not overwhelm this building.
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 21
a subtle change in color, texture or
materials.
Proportion of store front level of
proposed building does not line
up with that of 1118 Pearl St. or
others on the block front.
Awnings obscure this view.
Redesign to raise store front
level to line up with other
buildings and create weightier
first floor as historically found.
C.
Maintain the proportions and the
established pattern of upper story
windows. In addition, upper floors
should incorporate traditional
vertically proportioned window
openings with less window glazing
and transparency than the lower
floors. Use windows similar in size
and shape to those used historically to
maintain the facade pattern of the
block.
Second story of the north and
northwest corner of the building
appears over scaled and top-
heavy. Consider expressing
second level floor level in brick
course, reduce size and simplify
pattern of windows at northwest
corner, reduce size and simplify
design of cornice.
No
D.
Maintain the rhythm established by
the repetition of the traditional ~25’
facade widths for projects that extend
over several lots by changing the
materials, patterns, reveals, and
building setbacks in uniform
intervals or by using design elements
such as columns or pilasters
Repetition of storefronts
maintains this pattern, though
wider element might be shifted
to west end on north face.
While the divisions of the north
bays along Pearl Street are
roughly consistent. the
individual elements within the
western most bay, e.g. pilasters
and 2nd floor window
arrangement, is not balanced.
Materiality with brick, stone,
glass and metal should be
simplified to ensure
compatibility with 1018 Pearl St.
and adjacent historic buildings
in the streetscape.
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 22
1.3 Guidelines for new construction and remodeling non-contributing buildings in
the Downtown Historic District
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the design of new construction and the
renovation of non-contributing buildings in order to retain the historic character of the overall
district. While new building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time
acknowledging the Downtown as a living district, it is important that it also respect the
traditional qualities that makes the Downtown unique, such as massing, scale, use of storefront
detailing, and choice of materials.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
A.
Incorporate traditional building
elements in new design and
construction. Careful integration of
traditional facade features reinforces
patterns and visual alignments that
contribute to the overall character of
the district. These features may be
interpreted in new and contemporary
ways.
Attempts have been made to
incorporate traditional building
elements including distinct
building modules, articulated
cornice, stone accents, Italianate
round arch windows, clerestory
windows, chamfered corner, etc.
Staff considers thought has been
given to design a building that
takes cues from historic
buildings in the neighborhood
but considers that these forms
and details should be
significantly simplified. For
instance, the proposed design
shows six distinct modules at
the storefront level, six patterns
of fenestration and at least seven
cladding materials on a 5200sq.
ft. lot. In addition, the finish
details to the cladding and
transitions appears to need
further development, e.g. string
course running roughly midline,
planar transitions where brick
bond stands proud of the main
façade and pilaster definition of
the discrete bays. Consider
designing the building to rely
more on proportion than
multiple materials, complexity
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 23
of fenestration and applied
filigree.
B.
Construct new buildings to maintain
the continuity of the historic building
relationship to the street, adjacent
properties, and/or the block.
See A above.
C.
Maintain a human scale rather than a
monolithic or monumental scale.
Smaller scale buildings and the use of
traditionally sized building
components help to establish a human
scale and maintain the character of
Downtown. Standard size brick,
uniform building components, and
standard window sizes are most
appropriate.
It is difficult to discern
storefront details, however, staff
recommends raising the 1st floor
storefronts to align with others
on Pearl St., reduce number of
building modules and simplify
material palette. In order to
reinforce human-scale and the
character of the downtown
entries to storefronts need to be
clearly readable and corners
anchored.
Maybe
D.
Consider the proportioning of the
height and mass to the building
footprint. In general, buildings
should appear similar in height, mass,
and scale to other buildings in the
historic area to maintain the historic
district’s visual integrity and unique
character. At the same time, it is
important to maintain a variety of
heights. While the actual heights of
buildings are of concern, the
perceived heights of buildings are
equally important. One, two and
three story buildings make up the
primary architectural fabric of the
Downtown, with taller buildings
located at key intersections.
Relate the height of buildings to
neighboring structures at the
sidewalk edge. For new structures
Staff considers that because of its
location on a prominent corner,
bringing the third-story to the
north and west sides of the
building would be appropriate
and consistent with the existing
pattern along Pearl St. in the
historic district. Doing this
would allow for stair/elevator
tower at west to be integrated
better into the building’s form.
(See key buildings at Pearl St.
and Broadway, the Odd Fellows
Lodge Building at 16th and Pearl
Streets and 1505 Pearl St., (recent
infill) and the NW corner 15th
and Walnut Streets (recent
infill).) Desire for upper deck
areas might be met by locating
them at east and/or southeast
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 24
that are significantly taller than
adjacent buildings, upper floors
should be set-back a minimum of 15’
from the front facade to reduce the
perceived height.
Consider the effect of building height
on shading and views. Building
height can shade sidewalks during
winter months leading to icy
sidewalks and unappealing pedestrian
areas
corners of building with railings
setback from street face.
If a setback third-story is
desired, it would be preferable it
be set back far enough so that
there will be little or no visibility
from Pearl St. or 11th St.
E.
Provide a variation of roof heights in
a large building. A variety of roof
heights and types within the district
is desirable.
Though the two-story portions
of the building create variety
though differing proportions,
the horizontally truncated
cornice at northwest corner
appears over-scaled. Consider
redesigning and simplifying this
detail.
Maybe
F.
Buildings are expected to be designed
on all exposed elevations. Primary
facade materials are to extend to
secondary elevations, or wrap
building corners, at a proportionally
relevant distance as to portray a sense
of depth.
Materials wrap building
appropriately, though staff
recommends designing the
building to rely more on
proportion than multiple
materials, complexity of
fenestration and applied filigree.
Yes
G.
Construct residential units to include
entry stoops and/or porches.
Residential entry porches are
encouraged to extend 18” to 30”
above grade. Construct commercial
buildings at grade.
N/A
H.
Maintain the rhythm established by
the repetition of the traditional 25'
(approximate) facade widths for
projects that extend over several lots
by changing the materials, patterns,
reveals, and building setbacks in
uniform intervals or by using design
The proposed design shows six
distinct modules at the
storefront level and six patterns
of fenestration on a 5200sq. ft.
lot. It is recommended to
simplify forms while allowing
expression of historic patterns
Agenda Item #5A, Page 25
elements such as columns or
pilasters.
and proportions found in the
streetscape.
Staff does not consider the
proposed chamfered and inset
corner column to repeat rhythm
of streetscape or that it will
enhance the pedestrian
experience.
1.4 General Guidelines for the Downtown Historic District
The following guidelines apply to all areas of the Downtown Boulder Historic District.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
A.
The use of traditional, durable
materials as the primary building
material is encouraged to reflect the
historic building construction and
development pattern within the
district. Choose accent materials
similar in texture and scale to others
in the district. See DUDGs for list of
materials that are generally
appropriate and inappropriate.
Staff considers use of two colors
of brick on separate modules
appropriate but suggests
simplification of the material
palette given the relatively small
scale of the building, to be in
keeping with the notion of
simplicity and use of traditional
form. Use brick as the dominant
material at the storefront level
creating more continuity with
upper stories and to be
consistent with historic
buildings in the district.
No
B.
Maintain the original size, shape and
proportion of storefront facades and
openings to retain the historic scale
and character.
It is difficult to discern
storefront details, however staff
recommends raising the 1st floor
storefronts to align with others
on Pearl St., to reduce the
number of building modules
and simplify material palette to
make brick the dominant
material at the storefront level.
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 26
C.
Awnings may be used to provide
visual depth and shade.
Awnings should be designed to fit the
storefront opening to emphasize the
building’s proportions and have at
least an eight-foot clearance from the
sidewalk. Awnings should not
obscure or damage important
architectural details.
Operable fabric awnings are
encouraged. Metal awnings or
canopies that are similar in form to
fabric awnings may be appropriate
when designed as an integral part of
the building facade, and do not appear
as tacked-on additions. Awning color
should be coordinated with the color
scheme of the entire building front.
Awnings on the upper stories are
discouraged.
Awnings appear an integral
component of design. From
renderings supplied it appears
that many of the awnings are
fixed and not all of fabric, as
suggested in this guideline. Staff
suggests revising the design to
reduce the number and type of
awnings, to align them with
other awnings on the street and
allow for them to be operable.
Consistent with this guideline,
significantly reduce or eliminate
upper story awnings.
No
D.
Select building colors appropriate to
the area’s historic character.
Select a color scheme that will
visually link the building to its past
as well as to others in the area.
Consider colors that are compatible
with the building’s predominant
materials, or do an analysis of colors
pre-existing on the building and use
one of the colors found.
Develop a comprehensive color
scheme. Consider the building as a
whole as well as the details that need
emphasis. Softer muted colors
establish a uniform background.
Establish a hierarchy for the color
palette with one color on similar
elements such as window frames.
Reserve brighter colors for small
Proposed materials include two
types of brick, metal wall panels,
metal cornice details and steel
window headers, stone facing
and accents, glass spandrel
panels, fabric, metal and diffuse
glass awnings and diffuse glass
transoms. The downtown
district has little precedent for
utilization of this number of
materials on historic buildings of
this size. Consider redesigning
the building to significantly
simplify the material palette.
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 27
special accents to emphasize entry
ways and to highlight special
structural ornamentation.
It is not appropriate to paint
unpainted brick. If the brick is already
painted, paint removal is preferred.
Avoid paint removal procedures that
damage the original brick finish such
as sand blasting or caustic chemicals.
Before removing paint conduct a test
to determine detrimental effects. If the
existing paint on the brick is in poor
condition and paint removal will
damage the underlying brick, the
brick should be repainted.
E.
Minimize the visibility of mechanical,
structural, or electrical
appurtenances
Use low-profile mechanical units and
elevator shafts that are not visible
from the street. If this is not possible,
set back or screen rooftop equipment
from view. Be sensitive to views from
the upper floors of neighboring
buildings. Skylights or solar panels
should have low profiles and not be
visible from the public right-of-way.
These features should be installed in a
manner which minimizes damage to
historic materials
The proposed elevator stair
element will be highly visible.
Limited modeling makes it
difficult to assess visual impact
of HVAC systems. Bringing the
third story to the face of
building on north and west will
likely provide for opportunity to
integrate the stair/elevator tower
into the building and to conceal
rooftop mechanical equipment.
No
F.
Improve rear or side alley elevations
to enhance public access from parking
lots and alleys
Where buildings are built to the alley
edge, consider opportunities for alley
display windows and secondary
customer or employee entries.
Screening for service equipment,
trash, or any other rear-of-building
Parking at rear does not seem
consistent with this guideline.
Consider providing a rear
entrance to retail space(s) and or
storefront windows as
suggested. Enhancing the alley
at this location seems
particularly important given the
Agenda Item #5A, Page 28
elements should be designed as an
integral part of the overall design.
Where intact, historic alley facades
should be preserved along with
original features and materials.
Alterations should be compatible with
the historic scale and character of the
building and block.
corner location and proximity to
the Pearl Street Mall.
G.
Exterior building lighting should be
designed to enhance the overall
architecture of the building. Security
lighting should be designed for safety,
as well as night-time appearance.
Details not provided.
H. Reduce the visual impact of
structured and surface parking.
Consider relocating or screening
parking at rear. No
I.
The law requires that universal access
be located with the principal public
entrance.
Details not provided.
6.3 Mass and Scale
In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing,
size and scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front façade
is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on th e streetscape.
While new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the modern
needs and desires, new buildings should not be so out-of-scale with the surrounding
buildings as to loom over them.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
terms of height, size, scale,
massing, and proportions.
The proposed scale is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings. However, massing and
proportions of the building should
better reflect forms of three-story
buildings located at prominent
intersections in the Downtown
Historic District. Consider a redesign
to bring the third-story to street face,
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 29
reducing the number of building
modules and simplifying building
forms. Revise floor levels to ensure
that the building is proportioned so
the first story level is highest with
upper story(ies) lower in height to
better reflect historic building
proportions. Ensure that vertical
elements including pilasters, as well
as horizontal forms and accents are
aligned.
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Redesign to ensure massing,
configuration and proportion better
reflect those found on at prominent
corners in the Downtown Historic
District (see .1 above).
No
.3 Historic heights and widths
as well as their ratios
maintained, especially
proportions of façade.
General proportions of the façade
elements that are found in the district
are followed on the north elevation,
however, proportions at west face of
building do not reflect proportions of
historic buildings in the district,
especially the central entrance and
stair/elevator tower that is inset and
rises above roof level. Consider
redesign to bring third-story to street
face and integrating stair/elevator
tower into the building form. (see .1
above).
No
6.4 Materials
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Materials should be similar
in scale, proportion, texture,
finish, and color to those
found on nearby historic
structures.
Proposed materials include two types
of brick, metal wall panels, metal
cornice details and steel window
headers, stone facing and accents,
glass spandrel panels, fabric, metal
and diffuse glass awnings and diffuse
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 30
glass transoms. The historic district
has little precedent for utilization of
this number of materials on historic
buildings of this size. Consider
redesigning to significantly simplify
material palette.
.2 Maintain a human scale by
avoiding large, featureless
surfaces and by using
traditionally sized building
components and materials.
In general, human scale is addressed
at storefront level with exception of
deeply inset chamfer at northwest
corner which does not seem as though
it will enhance the pedestrian
experience at this gateway to the Pearl
Street Mall. Redesign to allow for full
height chamfer in proportion to those
found on corner buildings in the
historic district (i.e., Trezise Building)
or consider square corner.
No
6.5 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 complement the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also
to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Design the spacing,
placement, scale,
orientation, proportion, and
size of window and door
openings in new buildings
to be compatible with the
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district, while reflecting the
underlying design of the
new building.
Fenestration on proposed design
shows at least eight window designs
and configurations. Round arch
windows at second level of corner
element are out of proportion and at
south end of west wall appear to butt
up to pilaster (this condition also
occurs where the westernmost
window at east module on the north
face). Storefront windows appear out
of alignment and glass transom
windows appear over scaled.
Consider simplifying number of types
and forms of windows while revising
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 31
storefront elements to create unity
more consistent with historic
buildings in the district.
.2 Select windows and doors
for new structures that are
compatible in material,
subdivision, proportion,
pattern and detail with the
windows and doors of
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district
See .1 above. No
.3 New structures should use
a roof form found in the
district or on the landmark
site
Cornice on building appears out of
proportion with the building
Maybe
Over the past year, Planning & Development and Historic Preservation staff have met
with the property owners and project architects several times. During these meetings,
staff emphasized consistency with the design guidelines and recommended moving
the third story to the north and west edges to be consistent with the historic pattern on
major corners in the historic district. Staff considers that such changes to the design
will provide for a simpler and more elegant building form, anchor this corner entry to
the Pearl Street Mall, and allow for the elevator tower and 11th Street entry to be
integrated into the building’s mass like that on the Mercantile Bank Building at 1201
Pearl St. Staff also considers that such a design would also allow for rooftop deck
areas for the third-floor apartments at the east and southeast sides of the building.
The design presented to the Planning Board in Sept. 2016 showed a third-floor setback
that staff and some members of the Planning Board suggested should be brought to
the buildings edge. Staff considers that the proposed chamfered corner is inconsistent
with building corners on prominent buildings in the district. Where corners are
chamfered, such as at the historic Trezise Building across the street, they are shallow
(less than 10 ft. wide) and extend up the height of the building. A contemporary
example can be seen on the building at 1505 Pearl St., constructed in 2009. Staff
considers that the design for this building should take cues from historic buildings on
prominent corners in downtown Boulder such as Pearl Street and Broadway, the Odd
Fellows Lodge Building at 16th and Pearl Streets, and 1505 Pearl St., (recent infill) and
the NW corner 15th and Walnut Streets (recent infill).
Agenda Item #5A, Page 32
Staff appreciates the considerable time and consideration that the applicant has given
to the design of this building but finds that significant revisions to the mass, form,
scale and detailing are still required and that such revisions to the current design
cannot be achieved through conditions to a Landmark Alteration Certificate approval.
If the Landmarks Board agrees that revisions to the current design cannot be handled
at the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Ldrc) level, the board should provide
clear guidance on needed revisions and give the applicant the opportunity to
withdraw the application for redesign and a resubmission for review at a subsequent
Board meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None received to date.
FINDINGS:
Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be inconsistent with purposes of
the Historic Preservation Ordinance and finds that the proposed design does not meet the
standards specified in Section 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed work is also inconsistent
with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Staff
recommends that the Board deny the application.
The issues that should be addressed by the applicant in the redesign include massing, scale,
fenestration, materials and design details. The redesign should address these issues in a
manner that is more consistent with these guidelines and with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
The Landmarks Board finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the project
meets the standards for an alteration certificate requirements set forth in Section 9-11--18,
“Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In reaching this
conclusion, the Board considered the information in the staff memorandum dated Mar. 1,
2017, and the evidence provided to the Board at its Mar. 1, 2017 meeting. Specifically, the
Board finds that:
1. The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district. Section 9-11-18(b)(1),
B.R.C. 1981.
2. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and
materials used on the proposed construction will be incompatible with the
character of the historic district. Section 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 33
3. With respect to the proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the
proposed new construction to replace the building does not meet the requirements of
s and (3) above. Section 9-11-18(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
_________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Form
B: Current Photographs
C: Plans
D: Application
E: September 1st, 2016 Planning Board Concept Review Design Guidelines Analysis &
Minutes
Agenda Item #5A, Page 34
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item #5A, Page 35
Agenda Item #5A, Page 36
1102 Pearl Survey Photograph, 1986
Agenda Item #5A, Page 37
Attachment B: Current Photographs
Figure 21. 1102 Pearl St., north (front) façade, 2016
Figure 22. 1102 Pearl St., northwest corner, 2016
Agenda Item #5A, Page 38
Figure 23. 1102 Pearl St., west (side) elevation, 2016
Figure 24. 1102 Pearl St., south (rear) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item #5A, Page 39
Attachment C: Plans
Agenda Item #5A, Page 40
Agenda Item #5A, Page 41
Agenda Item #5A, Page 42
Agenda Item #5A, Page 43
Agenda Item #5A, Page 44
Agenda Item #5A, Page 45
Agenda Item #5A, Page 46
Agenda Item #5A, Page 47
Agenda Item #5A, Page 48
Agenda Item #5A, Page 49
Agenda Item #5A, Page 50
Agenda Item #5A, Page 51
Agenda Item #5A, Page 52
Agenda Item #5A, Page 53
Agenda Item #5A, Page 54
Agenda Item #5A, Page 55
Attachment D: Application
Agenda Item #5A, Page 56
Attachment E: September 1st, 2016 Planning Board Concept Review Design
Guidelines Analysis & Minutes
The Concept Plan Review Criteria of section 9-2-13(g)(2) of the Land Use Code, which requires, among other criteria, an evaluation of
the community policy considerations including the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to be used as a “basis for understanding,
discussing and assessing the design quality.” Therefore, at this concept level of detail, the guidelines are intende d as an aid for
appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. Staff’s cursory review of the Concept Plan with the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines and Section 6.0 of the General Design Guidelines under the historic preservation ordinance is provided foll owing in a
matrix format. The following is a summary of several key design issues that were identified through the consistency analysis with the
guidelines.
Historically, the property has contained very simple low one or one and one-half story buildings reflective of the gritty, utilitarian
character of west Pearl Street until the 1960s. Recognizing this, staff encourages the applicant to consider a simp le, yet elegantly
designed building that depends on scale, proportion and subdued materiality.
A simple brick form, with transparency at the storefront level reflecting the Garbarino Garage may translate well to retail/restaurant
uses in a building and referencing the history of the site. Per the Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines and General Design
Guidelines, simplicity is key in designing a building that enhances the historic character of the streetscape and becomes an elegant
background building rather than one that dominates. This does not mean that the property does not provide an exciting opportunity
for creative contemporary design, but the design must respond to and be compatible with the historic character of the site and
district depending on form and proportion rather than architectural detail.
While the building that exists on the site itself was not found to be contributing to the historic district given the extent of the
alterations to the building over time, there are design cues that should be taken from the original building. While staff no tes the
applicant has shown some similarities to the original building, including the graduated “stepping” of the parapet, the resulting
parapet on the second story appears too tall at the highest point to be proportional to the rest of the building. Refer to Figures 11a
and 11b. Staff notes that there may be other ways to pay homage to the building rather than utilize the tall parapet.
As project plans progress, staff recommends the following, in keeping with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines:
Consider alternative means to accentuate the corner rather than the tall parapet. One consideration is to move the three
story building mass to the corner and be honest about the third story in this prominent intersection location. While the
code standard is a 15-foot setback, corners can hold the height within the downtown. The example precedents (while
much taller) are the new PearlWest across 11th Street as well as the corners of Broadway and Pearl. In this location
three stories would be compatible in the context to punctuate the terminus of the Pearl Street Mall, and at the corner
rather than setback. This is a consideration that must take careful thought and discussion with staff. Refer to Attachment
A and a preliminary consistency analysis with the design guidelines.
The tall parapet at the corner does not appear proportional to the rest of the building and creates an appearance of a very
tall second story.
The retractable doors on the ground floor aren’t historically consistent in this context and wouldn’t meet guideline1.3.A
(refer to the discussion in the following matrix).
Utilize a more consistent pattern of traditionally proportional and vertically oriented window openings; as currently shown,
the window openings on Pearl Street are primarily square to horizontal, this would not meet guideline 1.3.A.
Figure 11a (original building) Figure 11b (proposed concept)
Agenda Item #5A, Page 57
Consider eliminating the consistent banding across the tops of the windows which creates a more horizontal appearance,
using more traditional sills.
The columns proposed appear to be too large and out of proportion inconsistent with guideline 1.3.A
The format of the matrix below is intended to provide a concise response to the questions of consistency with the guidelines. Where
findings have been made that the current concept plans don’t respond or “maybe” respond to the guidelines, an image is provided to
emphasize the points made in the response. In some cases, staff is providing precedent images of built projects as examples, and in
other cases, the images from the concept plan are illustrated to demonstrate the inconsistency. Note that additional review for
consistency with section 6.0 of the General Design Guidelines for new primary buildings will be conducted at the time of application for a
Landmarks Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 58
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.1 General Guidelines for the Historic District
Note: it is neither the intention of this guideline to recreate the past, nor to encourage theme design in the historic district, if the original building façade or original building materials do not exist. However, if documentary evidence exists, such as photographs, then an
acceptable alternative is to reconstruct the facade.
GUIDELINE: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES
1.1 A.
1.1.B
The use of traditional durable materials
as the primary building material is
encouraged to refelct the historic
building constgruction and development
pattern within the distric. Choose accent
materials simiarl in texture and scale to
others in the district
Awnings may be used to provide visual
depth and shade.
While the plans are conceptual in nature, the
applicant appears to be proposing red brick with
stone accents
Awnings are shown.
preliminarily
Preliminarily
1.1.C
Select buidling colors appropriate to
area’s historic character
While Red Brick appears to be a dominant
material in the 1100 block of Pearl Street, not all
buildings are red brick.; some historic buildings
are a blond brick and some have had the brick
painted over, including the adjacent building to
the east of the site. However, the applicant is
illustrating a red brick in keeping with much of
the historic character of downtown Boulder
which was established by the particular red clay
soils of the region.
Preliminarily
1.1.D Minimize the visibility of mechanical,
structural, or electrical appurtenances
Not currently illustrated, applicant should
consider low profile mechanical or embedding
mechanical into building
unknown ------------------
1.1.E
Improve rear or side alley elevations to
enhance public access from parking lots
and alleys
The conceptual sketch of the alley elevation
does appear to address enhancements,
however, the applicant should consider display
windows and secondary customer alley access
partially
Agenda Item #5A, Page 59
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES
1.1.F.
Exterior building lighting should be
deisgned to enhancwe the overall
architecture of the building.
This guideline should be considered at site
review.
Unknown at
this time
------------------
1.1.G Reduce the visual impact of structured
and surface parking
A planter is shown against a screen wall
adjacent to 11th Street. The applicant may want
to consider a more robust means of screening
alley parking in this location.
partially
1.1.H The law requires that universal access be
located with the principal public entrance
Applicant appears to have addressed this. yes -----------------
Parking Screening Proposed
Agenda Item #5A, Page 60
1.3 Guidelines for new construction and remodeling non-contributing buildings I the Downtown Historic District
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the design of new construction and the renovation of non-contributing buildings in order to retain the historic character of the overall district. While new building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time
acknowledging the Downtown as a living district, it is important that it also respect the traditional qualities that makes th e Downtown unique, such as massing, scale, use of storefront detailing, and choice of materials.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
1.3.A Incorporate traditional building elements
in new design and construction. Please
see Section 1.1 for a list of historic
buiidling elements:
(1.2.A):
The proposed concept plan, while early in the
design process does illustrate elements that
appear to be consistent with the traditional
elements listed.
One exception to this is that the corner of Pearl
and 11th has retractable windows. This
treatment wouldn’t be considered consistent with
the traditional elements of the downtown.
Similarly, the very tall “freeboard” and parapet
walls are not traditionally scaled or proportional
to the buildings. The tall parapet creates an
appearance of a much taller building for the two
story portion than would be proportional for a two
story building.
The paired windows shown on the second story
of 11th Street are more in keeping with the
traditionally vertically proportioned windows.
The window openings on Pearl are more square
than vertical
partially
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES
1.3.B
Construct new buildings to maintain the
continuity of the historic building
relationship to the street, adjacent
properties, and/or the block.
The building is shown to maintain the historic
relationship of a zero lot line along both Pearl
and 11th streets.
With the former Daily Camera site returned to its
original urban configuration along the street, the
new building will retain the urban configuration
as shown.
yes
Agenda Item #5A, Page 61
1.3.C
.
Maintain a human scale rather than a
monolithic or monumental scale. Smaller
scale buildings and the use of
traditionally sized building components
help to establish a human scale and
maintain the character of Downtown.
Standard size brick, uniform building
components, and standard window sizes
are most appropriate.
The concept plan has building components that
are outsized and contribute to an appearance
that wouldn’t meet this guideline. Among the
considerations is the tall parapet height which
would also not meet the land use code.
Similarly, the window openings on Pearl Street
second story are more square than vertically
proportioned.
Not yet
1.3.D
1.3.E
Consider the proportioning of the height
and mass to the building footprint. In
general, buildings should appear similar
in height, mass, and scale to other
buildings in the historic area to maintain
the historic district’s visual integrity and
unique character. At the same time, it is
important to maintain a variety of heights.
While the actual heights of buildings are
of concern, the perceived heights of
buildings are equally important. One, two
and three story buildings make up the
primary architectural fabric of the
Downtown, with taller buildings located
at key intersections.
1. Relate the height of buildings to
neighboring structures at the sidewalk
edge. For new structures that are
significantly taller than adjacent
buildings, upper floors should be set-
back a minimum of 15’ from the front
facade to reduce the perceived height.
2. Consider the effect of building height
on shading and views. Building height
can shade sidewalks during winter
months leading to icy sidewalks and
unappealing pedestrian areas
Provide a variation of roof heights in a
large building. A variety of roof heights
and types within the district is desirable.
The guideline notes that the primary architectural
fabric of the downtown is one, two and three
stories, with taller buildings located at key
intersections. The guideline also speaks to
maintaining variety in heights. Across the street
from the site, is the DT-5 zoning district where
the largest buildings of downtown are located
and where the new PearlWest building stands.
The corner of the PearlWest building was,
through the design process, held at a three story
height to transition to the DT-4 zone where the
site is located. Staff considers the site to be
located at a key intersection with the terminus of
the Pearl Street Mall. Therefore, consider
moving the three story mass to the corner. The
two stories could still be located on the east side
of the building to relate to the adjacent
contributing building, as shown in the figure to
the right.
This relationship is similar to other historic
patterns on the Pearl Street Mall particularly at
the corner of Broadway and Pearl.
Not yet
1. Parapet height is out of proportion with building and
traditionally scaled elements
2. Window openings are not vertically proportioned
3. Ground floor window at corner with retraction is not
traditionally formed
4. Corner second story windows don’t align
5. Columns are outsized for height of building
DT-4 zoning DT-5 zoning
Agenda Item #5A, Page 62
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES
1.3.F
Buildings are expected to be designed on
all exposed elevations. Primary facade
materials are to extend to secondary
elevations, or wrap building corners, at a
proportionally relevant distance as to
portray a sense of depth.
The building does utilize brick on all exposed
facades including the alley façade.
yes
1.3.G
Construct residential units to include
entry stoops and/or porches. Residential
entry porches are encouraged to extend
18” to 30” above grade. Construct
commercial buildings at grade.
The applicant is not illustrating any residential
units at this time. However, to achieve the
maximum 2.2 FAR in the DT-4 zoning district,
the only means is by providing on-site residential
for a
0.5 FAR.
N/A
----------------------
1.3.H
Maintain the rhythm established by the
repetition of the traditional 25'
(approximate) facade widths for projects
that extend over several lots by changing
the materials, patterns, reveals, and
building setbacks in uniform intervals or
by using design elements such as
columns or pilasters. See Figure 6.
There is a rhythm of façade widths along the
south side of the 1100 block of Pearl Street that
vary from approximately 14 feet in width up to 25
feet. the proposed project conceptually appears
to establish a similar patterning of façade widths.
The intent in the repetition is to serve as a
continuing pedestrian experience along the
street, and in a context where many of the lot
widths along Pearl Street are 50 feet. It’s a
means to, not only permit demising walls with
meaningful sized retail spaces but to provide
maximum ground floor openings to continue the
pedestrian experience.
MAYBE
Agenda Item #5A, Page 63
Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners
within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice
requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Two comment letters were received, refer to Attachment A for those letters.
No action is required by Planning Board. Planning Board, Public and staff comments will be documented for use by the applica nt.
Concept Plan review and comment is intended to give the applicant preliminary feedback on the development concepts, and direction for site
review applications.
Attachments
Attachment A: Public Comments Received. Are these attachments below?
Attachment B: Link to Development Review Comments
Attachment C: Concept Plan Submittal
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Agenda Item #5A, Page 64
A. AGENDA TITLE: CONCEPT PLAN & REVIEW - Concept Plan Review and Comment for
redevelopment of 1102 Pearl Street (currently the Old Chicago Restaurant) into a 15,380 square foot, three
story retail office building of 38 feet. Reviewed under case no. LUR2016 -00058.
Applicant: Jim Bray
Developer: PMD Realty (Phil Day)
Staff Presentation:
C. Ferro introduced the item.
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
E. McLaughlin answered questions from the board.
Applicant Presentation:
Madeline Day, the owner representative, and Jim Bray, architect and applicant representative with Bray
Architecture, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions:
Jim Bray, the architect, and J. Hewat answered questions from the board.
Public Hearing:
1. Paul Eklund spoke in support to the project.
Board Comments:
The board agreed to discuss the proposed project in terms of the originally submitted design in the packet
and the revised design presented to the board at the hearing.
Key Issue #1: Is the concept consistent w/ the BVCP?
J. Putnam agreed the concept is consistent as it fits within the map designations and the BVCP principles
identified.
All board members agreed with J. Putnam.
L. Payton added that she does not agree that the project is consistent with all BVCP policies. Due to the
fact that the project is in an historic district, she questions if it would be consistent with BVCP policy “2.39
Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment.” She expressed concern regarding the residential aspects of the new
design and compliance with the Comp Plan policy.
C. Gray added that the BVCP policy “2.40 Physical Design for People,” should be considered when
designing an outdoor patio when considering a restaurant in the design. Residential units in that area would
be helpful and proposed that staff review a parking reduction so more, smaller units could be incorporated.
It would give more eyes on the street and vitality in the area.
B. Bowen agreed with C. Gray regarding a possible residential component downtown.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 65
J. Putnam stated that he could support a diversity of units if at least one unit were permanently affordable
on-site.
B. Bowen disagreed with J. Putnam’s comment with having only one unit permanently affordable,
however he would be in favor of a multi -unit affordability.
J. Gerstle gave a summary of the board’s comments regarding Key Issue #1. He stated that the board felt
the concept plan was generally consistent with the BVCP policies with the exceptions mentioned by L.
Payton. He said that he would support small residential units on the third floor with parki ng requirement
reductions.
Key Issue #2: Is the concept preliminarily consistent w/ the Downtown Design Guidelines?
C. Gray suggested that the proposed corner be designed with a prominent cornice. She supports the change
on 11th Street regarding the elevator in terms of the revised treatment and that it breaks up the buildings.
L. May generally agreed with staff comments. The corner element should be accented. The parapet should
extend all the way across. The new proposed design does not relate to the overall mass. The window
opening articulation is tall and vertical in proportion which relates well. The corner element appears too
jumbled. He suggested carrying the glazing pattern to the ground. On the west elevation, the elevator shaft
appears awkward. He suggested a higher parapet to the elevator, then step down for the remainder of the
building. The new design is better articulated and cleaner. Regarding the slit between the two buildings, he
added it reads as an entrance. He suggested it become one.
B. Bowen agreed with L. May. The new design is more successful. He likes the transom windows over the
awnings and the large operable windows on the corner. He is ambivalent toward a two-story building vs. a
three-story. He hopes the project has multiple retail tenants on the main floor. He approves of the artful
alley elevation. He suggested adding public art.
H. Zuckerman agreed with the previous comments. The corner of the building needs a stronger cornice to
define the roofline of the building like the neighboring traditional buildings. He reminded the applicant
that this is the west gateway to the Pearl Street Mall. Perhaps a mitered corner to mirror the building on the
north side of the street would create a gateway feature. In the outdoor seating space, the proposed posts are
too big. He suggested using wrought iron. In addition, he would like to see more street trees to shade the
11th Street sidewalk. In the new design, he approves of the slit on the west elevation as it adds visual
interest. He also approves of the second-story awnings and that the building material proposed is brick. He
suggested adding a polychromatic look and additional textural elements to the brick to create visual relief
on the facade similar to the traditional building.
L. Payton stated that the new design is keeping with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for the
historic district. She agreed with H. Zuckerman regarding his parapet suggestions. The third-story corner
element is a good idea however the top windows are not successful. She agreed with the comments
regarding making an entrance on 11th Street.
J. Putnam agreed that the third-story design works well but the design needs some refinement.
J. Gerstle agreed with all previous comments.
B. Bowen, regarding the wrapping of the materials, it would be important that they continue all the way
around the building.
L. May, regarding the alley issue, the pattern of fenestration should carry around the corner. He added that
the third-story element appears too thin and suggested bringing up the parapet. In addition, the change of
brick color is not necessary. If the color were the same, it would integrate better with the mass.
B. Bowen suggested the applicant could do some creative design elements too.
Board Summary:
Since this is a Concept Review, no action is required on behalf of the Planning Board.
1
Opansky, Holly
From:Hewat, James
Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:12 PM
To:Opansky, Holly
Subject:FW: Comment on proposed design for 1102 Pearl Street
Please forward below to the board and applicant and add to the public record.
Thanks,
J
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kathryn Barth [mailto:khbhboulder@icloud.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:45 PM
To: Hewat, James <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Cameron, Marcy <CameronM@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Comment on proposed design for 1102 Pearl Street
> Dear James and Marcy,
> I have reviewed the drawings and package of materials for the March 1 review of 1102 Pearl Street. I support Staff's
analysis of the new design. In my view it is too massive, complicated, and cluttered with too many awnings. With the
building across the street being so large and blocking views of the mountains, keeping this corner building as a simple,
contextural and appropriate building is important… it is the western entrance of the Pearl Street Mall. I hope your
recommendation to deny approval is upheld by the Landmarks Board. Please make these comments part of the Public
Record.
> Sincerely, Kathryn Barth, AIA
> Former Landmarks Board
1
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
LANDMARKS BOARD
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2017
AGENDA TITLE: Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) Summer 2017
Pilot Projects – Staff Recommendations
PRESENTERS:
Bill Cowern, Principal Traffic Engineer, Public Works-Transportation Division
Susan Connelly, Deputy Director, Community Vitality Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This memorandum details the background on the Chautauqua Access Management Plan
(CAMP) Summer 2017 Pilot Project origins, goals and process to date and presents
staff’s recommendations for pilot implementation in summer 2017, including
considerations related to selection of strategies to pilot and how success will be
measured. The staff recommendations include multiple components across four “zones”
within greater Chautauqua that address parking management and multi-modal
improvements including:
1. Paid parking in all zones,
2. Two-hour time-restricted (and paid) public parking AND permit systems in the
two Neighborhood Zones,
3. Free transit service from satellite parking lots and
4. An employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
employees within Chautauqua (Colorado Chautauqua Association, Colorado
Music Festival, Chautauqua Dining Hall and OSMP/Ranger Cottage)
The desired timing of the summer 2017 pilot is approximately June 1 through August 31
to respond to the highest usage time of the year.
BACKGROUND:
In 2015, the city and the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) entered into a new
lease, effective Jan. 1, 2016. The lease contains the commitment of the city and CCA to
develop a Chautauqua Access Management Plan (“CAMP”) according to the following
specific governing principles:
Chautauqua is a unique shared resource requiring unique solutions.
Chautauqua is a National Historic Landmark.
2
The needs of all stakeholders, including the Association, cottage owners, park users,
open space users and neighbors should be considered.
A mix of uses must be accommodated.
Pedestrians must be given priority on narrow streets without sidewalks.
Traffic circulation should be minimized in the interests of pedestrian safety and user
experience.
Parking demand is seasonal and solutions need not address time periods during which
access is readily available.
During peak periods, the parking needs of users in the historic core should be
prioritized, but not exclusive.
A seasonal transportation demand management (TDM) plan for employees should be
implemented.
The right of public access should not be restricted except for good cause, with such
restrictions minimized as appropriate.
The interests of the surrounding neighbors should be addressed.
Any plan should be flexible to address changing circumstances.
Access management should be consistent with the Guiding Principles for Place
Management and Fiscal Sustainability.
Consistent with the city’s climate commitment and sustainability and resilience goals,
any plan should support public transit, alternative modes of transportation, a
reduction in vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in visits in single-occupant
vehicles.
In addition to the CAMP governing principles contained in the city-CCA lease, relevant
guidance for this plan also includes the city’s Access Management and Parking Strategy
(AMPS) guiding principles:
Provide for all transportation modes
Support a diversity of people
Customize tools by area
Seek solutions with co-benefits
Plan for the present and the future
Cultivate partnerships
At a study session on Feb. 9, 2016, staff sought council feedback on the process for
development of the CAMP. Council members supported staff’s recommendation to
collect new (updated) data in summer 2016, followed by development of a CAMP pilot
program for implementation in 2017. As discussed at that study session, options for the
CAMP summer 2017 pilot would include consideration of:
Some degree of managed parking within the Chautauqua leasehold area and possibly
in the surrounding neighborhood as well. This could include parking restrictions
similar to those provided by the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program.
Some degree of paid parking, possibly in the Ranger Cottage lot, on the loop
surrounding the park and/or on Baseline Road.
Enhancements to other modes of transportation including but not limited to
restoration of transit service to the Chautauqua area.
3
Initial Mitigation Strategies in Summer 2016
Staff implemented several preliminary mitigation strategies in summer 2016 based on
discussions with and feedback from residents within the neighborhood north of Baseline.
Parking block striping (“Ls”) were installed in an attempt to address illegal parking
blocking sight lines and driveways. Additional enforcement staff was also deployed on
peak weekend visitation days.
Summer 2016 Data Collection and Analysis – Key Findings
Three types of data collection occurred in 2016 to aid development of a 2017 pilot
program and subsequent evaluation of the implemented pilot. First, the Fox Tuttle
Hernandez Transportation Group (FTH) collaborated with multiple city departments and
the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) to monitor and collect parking utilization
and duration data as well as speed and volume data in and around the Colorado
Chautauqua National Historic Landmark, including the adjacent residential
neighborhoods. Data collection took place on multiple days in July and August. Second,
RRC Associates developed a user intercept survey. This survey was conducted at
multiple locations throughout the Chautauqua campus by a team of trained interviewers
between June 30 and Sept. 4 throughout the day, from morning through early evening, on
various days of the week. A total of 1,491 interviews were completed. Third, OSMP staff
analyzed updated visitation counts in 2015 and administered visitor surveys at the
Chautauqua trailheads in 2016 that were specifically designed to support the CAMP
process. This data is available for review on the CAMP webpage
www.ChautauquaAccessManagementPlan.com, including a high-level summary of more
than 650,000 data points collected during summer 2016.
The data collection efforts included new parking observation areas that had not been
studied in previous field studies, new observations of bicycle demand, new travel pattern
data beyond the Chautauqua area, and a shared street safety analysis within Chautauqua.
The specific data collected included:
Travel pattern and arrival routes - Acyclica readers detect a portion of the Wifi or
Bluetooth signal that emits from a mobile device or vehicle. The city’s Acyclica
readers at four locations external to Chautauqua and two readers deployed within
Chautauqua yielded data on two days that indicated arrival direction patterns of
Chautauqua area visitors.
Vehicle traffic and speeds - Using traffic count and speed data equipment at various
locations on roadways in and around Chautauqua
Parking supply, duration, and utilization - Through FTH field observation and photo
documentation walking routes each hour for eight hours over 11 collection days with
different usage patterns – concert and non-concert, weekday and weekend – as well as
license plate recognition technology
Bicycle parking and usage - Through FTH field observation over two days
4
Rideshare usage and drop off locations - Using FTH field observations over 11 days
while conducting the hourly parking supply, duration and utilization observations and
photo documentation and on two concert nights
Shared Street interactions - Through video camera footage of Kinikinnick Road
analyzed by FTH
Key findings from the transportation data collection, OSMP surveys and RRC user
intercept surveys included:
Approximately one-third of visitors to the Chautauqua area are city of Boulder
residents, approximately another third are non-city Boulder County residents and the
remainder come from other Colorado communities like Denver and Broomfield or
from out of state (California and Texas, for example).
Approximately 70 percent of visitors who live between two and four miles from the
Chautauqua area arrive by automobile and do so several days per week.
Data collected from August to November suggests that Open Space and Mountain
Parks (OSMP) visitation at Chautauqua more than doubled between 2004 and 2015.
The largest component of this increase can be attributed to visitors living outside the
City of Boulder.
Visitation to Chautauqua trailheads is twice as much on a weekend day compared to a
weekday and typically peaks around 11 a.m.
Visitation to Chautauqua trailheads is typically around 2,500 people per day and can
be as high as 5,000 people per day.
Almost half of the people surveyed when visiting Chautauqua trailheads stated that
they found it “easy” or “very easy” to find parking. Less than one third found it
“difficult” or “very difficult” to find parking.
The majority of people traveling to the Chautauqua area arrive from the south, using
either US-36 or Broadway to access Baseline Road. Between a quarter and a third
(varies by day) come from the north (downtown) and arrive by 9th Street. Most of the
remainder come in from the east or northeast (east Boulder, Longmont, Lafayette,
etc.). When entering the historic district, more than 80 percent enter from the Baseline
Road/Grant Place/Kinikinnick entrance.
The duration that people parked in the Chautauqua area averaged close to three hours
per visit. Parking duration in the Ranger Cottage lot, around the Chautauqua Green
(city park) and in the neighborhood north of Baseline were typically between two and
three hours. Parking duration on Baseline was shorter and parking duration within the
leasehold was longer.
Five blocks in the neighborhood north of Baseline and most of the Chautauqua
Leasehold streets meet the city’s 75% parking utilization four or more hours/day
threshold to warrant a residential permit parking approach.
It also was observed that:
Access for visitors with mobility impairments can be challenging, due to limited
handicapped parking spaces, the historic character of the site and the elevation gain
from north to south.
5
There are public parking spaces in the downtown, the CU campus and along South
Boulder Road/Table Mesa and Broadway that many Chautauqua area visitors pass on
their way to the site. The number passing these spaces and the availability of parking
in these spaces is highest on the weekend when visitation to the Chautauqua area is
highest.
Issue Statements – Foundation for Development of the CAMP Summer 2017 Pilot
Potential summer 2017 pilot projects will be targeted to mitigate the following main
issues identified from the technical and survey data collected in summer 2016 and based
on input from the Community Working Group (CWG):
The vast majority of visitors to the Chautauqua area arrive by automobile which,
combined with the popularity of the area, creates traffic congestion, neighborhood
livability/parking congestion and greenhouse gas emission levels that do not meet the
city’s transportation mode choice or environmental goals.
Parking demand within the Chautauqua complex (including for access to the
trailheads) exceeds supply, resulting in the surrounding neighborhood streets (within
the CCA leasehold and north of Baseline) becoming overflow parking for the site and
creating a variety of concerns for the residents of those streets, including lack of
access to on-street parking for their own homes, illegal parking that limits sight
distance to conflict areas, and issues with trash, noise and verbal conflicts.
On streets within the National Historic Landmark itself (i.e., the CCA leasehold area,
the city park commonly referred to as “The Green” and the Ranger Cottage parking
lot), pedestrians walking in the street (no sidewalks) are in conflict with motor
vehicles, including those looking for parking spaces.
Chautauqua Auditorium event night shuttle buses become problematic for the
neighborhood east of Chautauqua because of requests from some shuttle riders for
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) drop-off at the Auditorium via Columbine vs.
regular drop-off on Baseline, creating noise and odor for east-side neighborhood
residents and concerns about conflicts with pedestrians and other vehicles along
Columbine.
The CWG recommended adding as an issue for consideration speeding on residential
streets within and outside of the historic district.
Chautauqua-area Transit Study
The city contracted with Jarrett Walker & Associates to complete a Chautauqua area
transit study in support of the CAMP process and also the HOP Refresh initiative
currently underway. The study explored the possible role public transit could play in
addressing CAMP issues. https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Jan._2016_JWA_CAMP_Transit_Analysis -1-
201702171306.pdf?_ga=1.151751353.1803319030.1459538082
Identification and Refinement of Possible Summer 2017 Pilot Projects
In response to the key data findings and the articulation of the target issues, staff initially
identified a wide range of potential strategies for summer 2017 pilots in the form of a
6
matrix that also connected strategies to key issues and identified associated
considerations, implementation needs and potential impacts, concluding with an initial
evaluation of the high-medium-low feasibility of summer 2017 implementation as part of
a pilot. https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Potential_Pilot_Strategies_FINAL_DRAFT_for_11.30.1
6_CWG_Mtg-1-201612120749.pdf?_ga=1.126052877.1803319030.1459538082 The
CAMP Working Group (CWG) gave feedback, and additional input from the community
was sought and considered. (Please see more information on the CAMP Community
Engagement Process, below.) Staff subsequently performed more detailed analysis of
potential pilot projects leading to recommendations made initially to the CWG and now
to four city boards and commissions and the CCA board of directors. (Please see Next
Steps below.)
The CAMP Community Engagement Process
To gain input on the many perspectives on Chautauqua from a variety of users and
stakeholders, the project team has used various communication tools to foster outreach and
engagement, including:
Community Open Houses - April 28, 2016 (approx. 50 community participants),
January 26, 2017 (approx. 20 community members)
CAMP Working Group (CWG) - The stated charge of the CWG was to help city staff
recommend to respective city boards and city council which short-term measures could
be implemented and evaluated in 2017, with the acknowledgement that beyond the
summer 2017 pilot, additional community process will help craft the final plan.
Twenty-seven applications were received and 10 community members were appointed
by the city manager. A meeting summary for each of the four CWG meetings to date is
available on the CAMP webpage. The final CWG meeting is scheduled for Feb. 23,
2017. A meeting summary will be posted as soon as possible thereafter.
Stakeholder-specific meetings – with management of CCA, CMF, CDH; a meeting
with neighbors on the proposed pilot residential permit program is scheduled for Mar. 9
Data “deeper dive” meetings with neighbors and CCA board members and staff
Project webpage - www.ChautauquaAccessManagementPlan.com provided project
news, background, materials from the open houses and CWG meetings, and other
resources, including a public comment e-mail address of CAMP@bouldercolorado.gov.
Community Questionnaire – Distributed mid-January and scheduled to close Feb. 26,
this informal tool (not statistically valid) to gauge community support for possible pilot
approaches provides staff and council an opportunity to hear from a wide range of
stakeholders, including neighbors, CU students, non-city residents, CCA employees
and others. (1,099 responses received as of noon on 2/16/17)
Earned media – Camera front-page coverage and 9News coverage
7
The city’s Community Newsletter (Feb/March issue) – “New ways to get to
Chautauqua” article about the work on a pilot CAMP for summer 2017 in an attempt to
manage and mitigate impacts of parking
Outreach to Boards and Commissions – Staff shared the CAMP pilot project work
plan with Landmarks Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Open
Space Board of Trustees (OSBT), Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the
Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board of directors in Spring 2016 and is
now in the process of presenting to each the staff recommendations for a summer
2017 pilot.
ANALYSIS:
The staff recommendations detailed in the next section address and reflect the different
conditions and opportunities associated with four “zones” within greater Chautauqua:
1. The Adjacent Neighborhood Zone – north of Baseline and east of Chautauqua
2. The Baseline Road Zone
3. The Green/Ranger Cottage Lot Zone
4. The Chautauqua Neighborhood (leasehold) Zone
Staff believes that it is essential to pursue a comprehensive strategy for all four zones of
greater Chautauqua even for the summer pilot, as strategies employed in one area are
highly likely to affect other areas – the “squeezing the balloon” syndrome.
8
The staff recommendations include multiple components across the four zones that
address parking management and multi-modal improvements, including:
1. Paid parking in all zones,
2. Two-hour time-restricted (paid) public parking AND permit systems in the two
Neighborhood Zones,
3. Transit service from satellite parking lots and
4. An employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
employees within Chautauqua (CCA, CMF, CDH and OSMP/Ranger Cottage)
Transit and Parking Integration – A transit-only pilot, with no parking management,
could result in increased use of the Chautauqua area, with increased trail crowding and
impacts to the meadow habitat. It is anticipated that transit ridership would be low with
available free and unrestricted parking in the Chautauqua area. Prior experience with the
daytime HOP2Chautauqua (not to be confused with the successful evening
HOP2Chautauqua Auditorium event shuttle) supports this expectation of low transit
usage if parking remains free and unrestricted. A parking management strategy (paid
and/or time-restricted) without transit could result in decreased use of the Chautauqua
area but could divert some open space use to other trailheads, with potential impacts on
those trailheads, and could diminish access to Chautauqua for some users. Staff
recommends that the pilot include both parking management and transit to offer more
choices and better access for more of the community.
Parking Management – The staff recommendation for parking management is a
combination of paid parking in all four zones, time-restricted parking in the two
neighborhood zones with permit parking in the two neighborhood zones. The proposed
parking payment rate of $2.50 per hour is deemed to be an acceptable payment rate for
many users ($5 for two hours could include a modest hike or a meal at the Dining Hall),
an incentive to take the free transit instead of driving to Chautauqua, an incentive for
turnover of spaces to make way for other users and a way to help fund the hefty transit
price tag. The staff recommendation is to provide as few parking kiosks as may be
required for legal enforceability of the paid parking for the minimum required number of
parking payment kiosks along Baseline (that will take credit cards and coins) and use of
the ParkMobile phone app (credit card only) for all parking within the historic district and
in the neighborhoods, in order to minimize visual impacts and to aid parking enforcement
through use of license plate recognition technology. Some signage will be required, of
course, and it will be minimized to what is required by the municipal court to make the
parking restrictions legally enforceable.
Time restrictions also encourage turnover of parking spaces to accommodate other users
and will encourage some who desire longer stays at Chautauqua to use the free transit
option. The initial proposal is to limit public parking in the Adjacent Neighborhood and
9
Chautauqua Leasehold zones to two hours (paid) once per day and no time restriction
(but paid) in the Baseline and Green/Ranger Cottage zones. Neighborhood input will be
important to finalizing those recommendations. The proposal is for parking restrictions
and required payment to be in force 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days/week in the Adjacent
Neighborhood and Green/Ranger Cottage zones and 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. seven days/week in
the Baseline Road and Chautauqua Leasehold Neighborhood zones. (Note that CCA also
controls entry into the Chautauqua Leasehold Neighborhood on Auditorium event nights
pursuant to a special event permit with the City in conjunction with offering a free event
night shuttle from satellite parking. This arrangement has been in place for a decade or
more.)
A pilot permit program within either or both Neighborhood zones would reflect the city’s
existing Neighborhood Parking Permit program (NPP) but perhaps could be customized
to the specific conditions and the temporary nature of the pilot. This would include
resident purchase of a permit (with license plate registration) and visitor permits and
potentially commuter permits. Input will be sought from the affected neighborhoods at a
meeting on March 9th before a recommendation to Council is finalized. Any mitigation
approach that includes parking management through a permit system within the CCA
leasehold or on Sundays and holidays anywhere in the pilot project study area may
require an ordinance amendment (two readings and a public hearing by Council, then 30-
days to effective date).
A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for employees within
Chautauqua would include appointment of an Employee Transportation Coordinator by
CCA and could include employee carpool/vanpool/ride share and/or paying for parking
permits and or integration with the visitor transit strategy utilizing a satellite parking lot.
Alternatives to the staff recommendations for parking management could include parking
restrictions only Friday through Sunday instead of seven days/week, not charging for
parking but relying solely on time-restricted parking (still coupled with permits in the two
Neighborhood zones), charging higher parking rates, permit-only parking in the
Chautauqua Leasehold zone and extending paid parking east along Baseline to 12th
Street.
Transit – An understanding of the existing transit network in the area, existing ridership,
prior transit service, the original HOP2Chautauqua summer pilot experience, the current
HOP2Chautauqua event night shuttle as well as the four drivers of transit feasibility
(density, walkability, proximity and linearity) and cost factors (time/distance, and
drivers) led to consideration of a variety of potential route and schedule possibilities for
the summer 2017 pilot. Other factors considered include:
As stated above, staff believes that parking management is a prerequisite to achieving
better transit ridership. Higher frequency (shorter waits) and shorter routes (faster
speed, fewer stops) also aid ridership but cost more for vehicles and drivers. Free vs.
paid transit and free vs. paid parking at satellite lots also will incentivize or dis-
incentivize transit ridership.
Larger vehicles can accommodate more users but could operate empty in lower
demand periods.
10
Multiple possible transit routes were considered to respond to the summer 2016 data
indicating direction of travel of Chautauqua users, which also indicated that many
Chautauqua users now drive by parking opportunities.
Various satellite parking opportunities were explored.
Micro-transit and rideshare offered by Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)
also were explored as opportunities to test additional mobility options and to augment
more traditional transit options.
The desired transit strategy for the summer 2017 pilot likely will be tempered by budget
constraints and is dependent upon responses to the city’s RFP for a transit operator and/or
TNC participation. While a seven days/week transit strategy is highly desirable, a three-
day (Friday through Sunday) approach would address the peak days of the summer weeks
at a reduced project cost.
Information/Education/Marketing of the Pilot – Effectively informing the myriad of
Chautauqua area users about the details of the summer 2017 pilot will be a critical part of
creating a successful pilot in summer 2017. This will require a multi-targeted, multi-
channel approach, and a significant cost.
Additional Considerations – There are three additional processes that may be necessary
to complete prior to implementation of the summer 2017 pilot. The reality of these
additional required processes could mean that either certain these strategies cannot
practicably be tested this summer or that they can be tested over a shorter pilot period in
summer 2017 than would otherwise be desirable.
Funding availability to implement the pilot – Estimated expenses of the summer 2017
pilot exceed estimated revenue generation from paid parking by a significant amount,
potentially $200,000-300,000 or more depending on the details of the parking
management and transit strategies that may be approved by council. Staff anticipates
that input from the CWG, the city boards and the CCA board will help staff shape
final recommendations to council that will include both fiscally-constrained and
recommended packages. If council wishes to implement a summer 2017 pilot, it
likely will have to approve an adjustment to the approved 2017 city budget, which
decision would occur in early May.
Timing of any necessary landmark alteration certificate (LAC) approvals - Any
mitigation approach that includes an external alteration within the historic landmark
district would be dependent upon issuance of an LAC by the Landmarks Board or its
Design Review Committee or staff, depending on the alteration. CCA’s Building and
Grounds Committee or staff would offer its recommendation to the Landmarks
Board, LDRC or staff.
Timing of any necessary temporary ordinance amendment approvals (for the duration
of the pilot, only) by council
11
How will we measure pilot success? During the Summer 2017 pilot implementation,
we will collect the following kinds of data to compare with the data collected in summer
2016:
Arrival mode (through an online users questionnaire)
Transit and TNC ridership (through the service providers)
Traffic patterns (through radar, Miovision counts and Acyclica data)
Parking location and utilization (through city Parking Management staff)
The online users questionnaire also would gauge visitor demographics, whether users
thought that the key issues were addressed and customer experience/customer satisfaction
with the various pilot components.
The Post-Pilot Plan Development – The data collected during the summer 2017 pilot
and the subsequent user experience inputs will inform development of a
permanent/ongoing Chautauqua Access Management Plan. It is anticipated that the future
plan that builds on what we learn from the summer 2017 pilot also will address possible
infrastructure and programmatic changes that were beyond the scope/capacity of the
summer 2017 pilot planning effort.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
After evaluation of a wide-range of potential mitigation measures, taking into account a
variety of considerations as well as input from the CWG and the public and debating pros
and cons, staff recommends as summer 2017 pilots a “package” of actions that are
consistent with the CAMP governing principles and the AMPS guiding principles and
that address the key issues that arose from the summer 2016 data collection.
The recommended timing of the summer 2017 pilot is approximately June 1 through
August 31 to respond to the highest usage time of the year.
Staff recommends incorporating multiple components across the four zones that address
parking management and multi-modal improvements, including:
1. Paid parking in all zones,
2. Two-hour time-restricted (paid) public parking AND permit systems in the
two Neighborhood Zones,
3. Free transit service from satellite parking lots and
4. An employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for
employees within Chautauqua (CCA, CMF, CDH and OSMP/Ranger Cottage)
The details of the proposed paid and time-restricted parking management by zone and
transit service are shown below. The acronym LPR below refers to license plate
recognition technology that supports parking enforcement.
12
13
As illustrated, the transit proposal includes two segments connecting (1) downtown and
Chautauqua and (2) Broadway/Baseline and Chautauqua, using existing parking lots
downtown and satellite lots at CU (Regent and Broadway) and/or New Vista High School
(20th and Baseline). The desired level of service is 30 minute headways on weekdays and
15 minute headways on weekends, seven days a week. The proposal includes integration
of or augmentation with ridesharing using transportation network companies (TNCs) like
Uber and Lyft and/or zTrip, particularly to support the employee TDM program that must
address both early-starting and late-staying Chautauqua Dining Hall employees.
Together, these recommendations are intended to address the key issues identified
through the summer 2016 data collection, resulting in:
Reduction of automobile mode share to meet CAMP governing principles and city
transportation and environmental goals
Reduction of parking demand on adjacent neighborhood and Chautauqua (leasehold)
neighborhood streets currently used as overflow parking for access to the site
Reduction of conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians in highly-trafficked
residential areas.
The recommendations do not at this time address the concerns raised by neighbors about
quality of life impacts from Chautauqua Auditorium event night shuttles on Columbine at
night. The recommendations also do not address concerns raised about speeding in the
14
neighborhoods because data did not support the concern. Both these concerns could be
revisited in the post-pilot plan development phase.
Information/Education/Marketing of the Pilot – Staff recommends that a robust
information/education and marketing effort be undertaken to foster success of the
summer 2017 pilot. It is anticipated that such an effort could include print and digital
advertising throughout the summer, print collateral, website work, branded “wrapping” of
transit vehicles, a city-wide mailer, etc.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff is scheduled to present a recommended summer 2017 pilot to City Council on April
4, 2017. Associated ordinance amendments necessary to implement aspects of the
recommended approaches will have first reading (consent agenda) on April 4 and second
reading/public hearing on April 18. These dates are critical to allow for necessary
preparation for implementation in summer 2017. Thereafter, the staff work plan will
include:
Submittal for council consideration of the associated adjustment to the approved 2017
budget (ATB) to fund the approved summer 2017 pilot program
Issuance of a request for proposals (RFP) for the pilot transit service and/or TNC/ride
share component
Development of a communications plan and issuance of a RFP for marketing services
Preparation for implementation, including application for any required Landmark
Alteration Certificates (LACs) (if any), production and installation of signage, etc.
During and following implementation in summer 2017, evaluation of pilot results to
inform development of a permanent/ongoing plan
Return to boards and commissions and council to report on results of the summer
2017 pilot and recommended process to develop a final CAMP (Fall 2017)
Development of a CAMP, including community engagement (Fall 2017 to Winter
2018)
Return to boards and commissions and council for consideration of a recommended
CAMP for implementation in summer 2018 and beyond (Spring 2018)
DATE: March 1, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron
SUBJECT: Update Memo
UPCOMING EVENTS
Colorado Preservation, Inc. Saving Places Conference was held in Denver Wednesday, Feb. 1 to Saturday,
Feb. 4. Update at meeting.
Landmarks Board Interviews 2017
The City Council will hold interviews for the Landmarks Board on either March 9th, 14th or 16th. A packet with
the received applications is available online: https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2017_Boards_and_Commissions_-_Applicant_booklet_for_Council-1-
201702161626.pdf?_ga=1.3273590.791145974.1462544310
ON-GOING PROJECTS
Chautauqua Lighting Plan and Design Guidelines
The City of Boulder and the Colorado Chautauqua Association are undertaking a collaborative development
of a lighting plan and lighting design guidelines for Chautauqua in 2017. Update at meeting.
University Hill Commercial District – National Register Nomination
On December 8, 2015 the City Council reviewed the University Hill Reinvestment Strategy Update (click for
memo). As part of the strategy, the city is pursing National Register designation for the commercial district.
Front Range Research Consultants has completed a draft nomination, which will soon be distributed to
property owners. It is anticipated that the nomination will be reviewed at the May 2017 State Historic
Preservation Review Board meeting. Update at Meeting.
Atrium Building/Public Market
Discussion is ongoing in considering whether the Atrium Building might be used as a Market Hall on a
temporary or permanent basis. Historic Boulder has agreed to continue keeping the March 2015 application to
landmark the Atrium on hold as exploration of these options continues. Update at meeting.
Civic Area
The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the
Civic Area. Update at Meeting.
Grandview Conference Center
A memorandum of agreement between the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents
has been signed for cooperation in developing the Grandview site for conference center. The agreement sets
out a process for consideration of potentially historic buildings in the area.
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1
LB CANCELED
EAB Retreat, 5-8pm,
1777 West Conference
Room
2
PB Meeting C ANCELED
3
6 7
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
*2nd Reading Ordinance to adopt a
revised affordable housing linkage fee
(C. Meschuk)
*Resolution & 1st Reading of an
Ordinance to annex at 19,042 square ft.
enclave property located at 994 55th St
with initial zoning of R-L 2 (S. Moeller)
*1st Reading Energy Code Update (E.
Vasatka)
*Study Session Summary on
inclusionary housing and affordable
housing financing 101 (J. Sugnet)
*Call-up 3289 Airport Rd UseRe view (E.
Mclaughlin)
8
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conf erence Room
*Attention Homes Project Review (K.
Guiler)
*Frasier Meadows Project Review (E.
Mclaughlin)
9
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
CC
10
13
Public Participation
Working Group Meeting,
4-7pm, East Boulder
Community Center,
Flagstaff Rm, 5660
Sioux Dr.
14
CC SS, 6 PM in CC
*Briefing: Development and Aff orda ble
Housing Update (C. Ferro)
15 16
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*1:1 Replacement Ordinance (K.
Fi rnhaber, C. Launder)
*Annexation Guidelines/Blue Line
Properties (C. Meschuk)
*Building Height Ordinance (S.
Ri chstone)
17
20
CITY HOLIDAY
21
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
* SS Summary from 1/24 BVCP Update
(L. Ellis)
*2nd Reading Energy Code Update (E.
Vasatka)
*1st Reading ordinance amending
Chapter 9-12 Exemption for West
Moorhead Cr, south of Table Mesa Dr. in
the Tantra subdivision (K. Hyser)
*1st Reading AmendingTitle 9 Height
Regulations and requirements (S.
Richstone)
22
BVCP Process
Subcom mittee Mtg,
12-1:30pm, 1777 West
Conf erence Room
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
23 24
27 28
CC SS, 6 PM in CC
*Update on Alpine-Balsam Project
(J.Crean)
Jan 2017MTWT F S S12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
Mar 2017MTWTF S S12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
February 2017 Amended: February 17, 2017
Last Planning Board Meeting: February16, 2017
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conf erence Room
2
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*Discussion Item: BVCP re Key
Policies (L. Ellis)
3
6 7
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
*Motion to authorize City Manager to
enter into an intergovermental Agreement
(E. Vasatka)
*1st Reading one to one affordable
housing replacement ordinance (J.
Sugnet)
*Disposal of city property-Sale of PA
home (L. Pinkham)
*Study Session Summary from 2/28 SS
on Alpine B alsam project and next steps
(J. Crean)
*2nd Reading Amending Title 9 Height
Regulations and Requirements (S.
Richstone)
*IP Update on 30th and Pearl RFP (K.
Fi rnhaber)
*IP Blue Line Implementation
Discussion (C. Meschuk)
8
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conf erence Room
9
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
CC
10
13 14
CC SS, 6 PM in CC
15 16
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*2205 Broadway (Museum of Boulder)
Site & Use Review Approval Extension
(C. Ferro)
*Rayback Collective 2775 Valmon t Use
Review Call Up (S. Walbert)
*1919 14th Street / Colorado Bldg Roof
Top Patio Site Review (K. Guiler)
*Under "Matters" - Options for Updates
to the Inclusionary Housing Program (J.
Sugnet, K. Firnhaber)
17
20
Public Participation
Working Group Meeting,
4-7pm, East Boulder
Community Center,
Flagstaff Rm, 5660
Sioux Dr.
21
Special Meeting with
Study Session after, 6 PM
in CC
*2nd Reading of an Ordinance to annex
at 19,042 square ft. enclave property
located at 994 55th St with intial zoning
of R-L 2 (S. Moeller)
Study Session Items
*Inclusionary Housing Program Update
Options (J. Sugnet)
22
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
23 24
27
BVSD & CU Spring
Break
28
BVSD & CU Spring Break
29
BVSD & CU Spring Break
30
BVSD & CU Spring Break
31
BVSD & CU
Spring Break
Feb 2017
M T W T F S S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28
Ap r 2017
M T W T F S S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
March 2017
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
3 4
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
*Approval of Mgmt Agreement with St.
Julien Partners LLC for Civic Use Space
(E. Ameigh)
*2nd Reading one to one affordable
housing replacement ordinance (J.
Sugnet)
*Resolution and 1st Reading of
Ordinance to Annex 90/96 Arpahoae and
Information Packet (E. Mclaughlin)
5
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conf erence Room
6
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*BVCP Update (L. Ellis)
*First Floor Bank Uses on Pearl Street
Ordinance (C. Ferro)
7
10
Public Participation
Working Group Meeting,
4-7pm, East Boulder
Community Center,
Flagstaff Rm, 5660
Sioux Dr.
11
Joint CC & PB Study
Session for BVCP Update,
7 PM in CC (Tentative)
*BVCP- Draft Plan (L. Ellis)
12
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conf erence Room
13
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
CC
14
17 18
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
19 20
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*2990 Diagonal Hwy - Mackenzie
Junction Prop Site Review (K. Guiler)
21
24 25
CC SS, 6 PM in CC
26
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
27 28
Mar 2017MTWT F S S12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
May 2017MTWTF S S12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
April 2017
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1 2
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
*SS Summary from 4/11 S tudy S ession
regarding BVCP-Draft Plan (L. Ellis)
*Apprvoal of Alpine -B alsam Guiding
Principles, Vision & corridor design
framework (J.Crean)
3
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conf erence Room
4
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*Hogan Pancost Plan & Annexation (K.
Guiler)
5
8
Public Participation
Working Group Meeting,
4-7pm, East Boulder
Community Center,
Flagstaff Rm, 5660
Sioux Dr.
9
CC SS, 6 PM in CC
10
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conf erence Room
11
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
CC
12
15 16
CC Meeting, 6 PM in CC
*Study Session Summary regarding 4/25
SS on Inclusionary Housing Program
Update Options (J. Sugnet)
*Resolution and 2nd Reading of
Ordinance to Annex 90/96 Arapahoe and
Information Packet (E. Mclaughlin)
17 18
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*1440 Pine Attention Homes Site
Review(K. Guiler)
19
22 23
Joint PB/CC Public
Hearing
*BVCP-Draft Plan Public Hearing (L.
Ellis)
24
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
25
PB Meeting, 6pm in C C
*BVCP Deliberate & Vot e (L . Ellis)
26
29
CITY HOLIDAY
30 31 Apr 2017MTWTF S S123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Jun 2017MTWTF S S123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
May 2017