Loading...
3.1.2017 LB meeting 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