Loading...
02.03.16 LB Minutes CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD February 3, 2016 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room 6:00 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the February 3, 2016 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.bouldgplandevelop.net. BOARD MEMBERS: Kate Remley, Chair George Clements,Vice Chair Briana Butler Fran Sheets Deborah Yin *John Gerstle, *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 Lesh Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Chair K. Remley declared a quorum at 6:01 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by K.Remley, seconded by B. Butler,the Landmarks Board approved (5-0)the minutes as amended of the January 6, 2016 board meeting. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There were no public speakers for items not on the agenda. 4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING • Statistical Report 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WITHDRAWN: Public Hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application for changes to the south face of Mt. St. Gertrude's Academy, 970 Aurora Ave., an individual landmark, including the installation of balconies and modifying windows to door openings,per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2015-00313). Owner/Applicant: Academy Equities, LLC /Jonas DiCaprio This application was withdrawn prior to the public hearing. B. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to make improvements at the north end of Chautauqua Park, 900 Baseline Rd., including construction of a sidewalk,retaining wall and drainage swale along Baseline Road (improving accessibility at King's Gate) and installation of new lighting from Baseline Road to the Auditorium, per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2015-00355). Owner/Applicant: City of Boulder/City of Boulder, Public Works Ex-parte contacts K. Remley, F. Sheets, D. Yin, G. Clements, and B. Butler made site visits. J. Gerstle, even though he is not a voting member,he mentioned that on advice of council rescued himself from the conversation because a possible conflict and will wait outside during this discussion. Staff Presentation J. Hewat,presented the case to the Board, with the staff recommendation that the Landmarks Board conditionally approved the request. He mentioned that the Board is asked to comment upon the items not within the historic district and to vote upon the items within the historic district. Applicant's Presentation Melanie Sloan, City of Boulder,Transportation Planner, , spoke in support of Landmark Alteration Certificate application and answered questions from the board and the public. Brian Wiltshire, City of Boulder, Engineering Project Manager, answered questions about the when the lights would be on and about the retaining walls,the Queen's gate social trail the other application for the Ranger swale, the crusher fine sidewalk, City code for the width of the sidewalk, the anticipation of bike traffic, and separation of the sidewalk from the road. David Roederer, Clanton&Associates, Inc., 4699 nautilus Court South, Suite 102, , answered questions regarding the King's Gate lighting,the style of acorn fixtures, and the height of the fixtures. Public Hearing Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, Inc., 1200 Pearl Street, suggested regardless of the board's vote, the application come back to the Landmarks Board meeting and not to the Landmark Design Review Committee so that the process is more widely available to the public. For items within the historic district the Board offered these suggested modifications: 1. Swale B. Butler—supports matching the field stones 2. Queens Gate social path B. Butler, G. Clements, K. Remley and D. Yin—support F. Sheets - does not support social path without more research 3. Lighting a. General D.Yin does not support the acorn style lighting just because it matches the donated 80's light fixtures. She noted that since it is a park and camp and that you should be able to look up and see the stars (sighting the Dark Skies Initiative). K.Remley mentioned that there's no data stating lighting is needed; lighting degrades the rural quality of Chautauqua; She supports no additional lighting except at the King's gate. b. Acorn lighting D.Yin—requested that the fixtures have a simple design. c. King,'s Gate/trolley Butler, G. Clements, and D. Yin—support the lighting as long as it marks the spot, instead of generally illuminating the area. d. Arbor G. Clements—supports B.Butler, K.Remley, F. Sheets, and D. Yin—do not support e. Majority and supported summary Keep the light fixtures at the King's Gate, on Sumac, at the Tennis court and only one in the parking lot, and remove the lights along the path. 4. Kinnikinic Road sidewalk B. Butler, G. Clements, D. Yin and F. Sheets - supports the 5' width. They support the idea of a separation between the road and the sidewalk, as well as a transition from the concrete sidewalk on Baseline to a crusher fine sidewalk on the east side of the entrance, matching the narrower crusher fine sidewalk to the west side entrance sidewalk. K. Remley- does not support the 5' width, but likes the idea of crusher fine 5. Diagonal Parking B. Butler and G. Clements - supports this for general safety and safety of bikers D.Yin, K. Remley and F. Sheets -do not support Since the Board indicated that the majority would not support approval of the application, the applicants chose to withdraw their application, integrate the suggested modifications then re-submit. C. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the house and accessory building located at 717 17th St., non-landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code(HIS2015-00337). Owner/Applicant: Lazzarino Living Trust/ Stephen Brown Ex-parte contacts B. Butler, G. Clements, K. Remley, and D. Yin made site visits. F. Sheets did not have ex-parte contacts. Staff Presentation M. Cameron, presented the case to the Board, with the staff recommendation that the Landmarks Board place a stay of demolition for 180 days. She highlighted that the 1939 home was an example of Art Modern/International style, a rare find for the area. M. Cameron noted alternations made in the 1960s to the windows, garage roof, and entrance. She shared the reports detailing the extent of the deterioration of the structure. Applicant's Presentation Stephen Brown, 145 South Ivy St., Denver, expressed his interest in demolition and rebuilding, because it has been altered and the cost to buy the property, remodel and refurbish the exiting building would be economically unfeasible to purchase the property. Public Hearing Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, Inc., 1200 Pearl St., expressed her support for staff's recommendation for a stay of demolition, because the building's unique qualities to the area. Motion On a motion by G. Clements, seconded by K Remley,the Landmarks Board issued(5- 0) a stay of demolition for the buildings located at 717 17th St., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager, adopting the staff memorandum with the findings listed below, in order to further analyze information on the condition of the buildings. D. Public hearing and consideration of revisions to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, Section 1, The Downtown Historic District. Staff Presentation Sam Assefa, City of Boulder, Senior Urban Designer, introduced the project to the board. Kalani Pahoa, City of Boulder, Urban Designer,presented an overview of the revision process to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Public Hearing There were no public speakers for item. Motion On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by G. Clements, the Landmarks Board voted (5-0) to adopt the proposed revisions to Section 1, "The Historic District: of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines"pursuant to the rule making procedures set forth in Chapter 1-4, B.R.0 1981 and adopted the staff memorandum dated February 3, 2016, including the following as the findings of the Board: Suggested Revisions: Section 1 The Historic District 1. Kate Remley suggested changing the order of the sub-sections in Section 1 The Historic District, to place the general guidelines for the district first, and the minor guidelines(i.e. awnings and building colors) to the last part of the section; 2. Kate Remley suggested changing the wording on page 4, from "Human-scaled space"back to "human-scaled buildings;" 3. Kate Remley suggested changing the wording on page 17, from"differentiated yet compatible'back to "subtlety distinguishable;" 4. Edits to the entire document to increase the sidebar notes column contrast between the background and the white font for improved legibility. 5. Page 17— 1.3.A changes the bullets to an alphanumeric list and merge with the preceding"A". 6. Page 19—Figs 7-8—Fix the figure ordering in the captions. 7. Fig 9—Add historic district note to the caption. Items to be recorded for consideration in a future revision to Section 1 The Historic District: 1. Reorganize Section 1: The Historic District subsection order. Move 1.1 general building requirements for all areas of the historic district to end of the section and move 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 forward in the order. The working group reorganized to move common building elements in front; however, the first few subsections are now the less-important building features (building colors, awnings, mechanical equipment). 1.1 is important, but not the heart of the guidelines (1.2— 1.4 are the heart). LB consensus to reorganize the subsections. 2. Page 17—Landmarks Board discussed the revising language regarding "differentiated but compatible" vs. "subtly distinguishable'. K. Remley expressed concern that this was a significant change. Majority of the board did not want to change the guidelines back to "subtly distinguishable'. D. Yin noted "differentiated, yet compatible" fits Secretary of the Interior Standards. 3. Page 17—Fig. 5 —Figure shows a rather large addition that does not seem subordinate. Comments from the Landmarks Board include the size of the addition, confusion in the differentiation of the new versus original buildings. Landmarks boards expressed a consensus to revise this image or provide a different image. D.Yin suggested possibly showing two images. 4. Page 21 - Fig. 9 - K. Remley commented that in her opinion the figure does not follow any of the guidelines for historic building elements. D. Yin commented that she considers the figure to comply with the guidelines for new construction, and the list of historic building elements is not a checklist for new construction. 5. K. Remley inquired as to why the examples of the Neo-traditional building examples she submitted to the working group were not incorporated. K. Remley requested that it would be helpful to show range of acceptable styles. 6. Pages 19-23 —Figures—D. Yin noted the images are too big and have too much prominence. Consider the resizing the images to four images per page. K. Remley noted this may address concerns regarding Figure 9. 7. The Board agreed that it, if appropriate the Board could make some or all of the changes above to Section 1 of the Guidelines through the Rulemaking process after the entire document has been reviewed and adopted by the City Council. 8. Page 4—K. Remley prefers"human scale buildings"to "human scale space". The Board agreed that this was not an item it could change as it is not in Section 1 of the Guidelines and not subject to its change through the rulemaking process'. Per 9-11-24, B.R.C.,Landmarks Board and City Manager Authorized to Adopt Rules., the landmarks board and the city manager are authorized to adopt rules and regulations under chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981, that the landmarks board or the city manager determine are reasonably necessary to implement the requirements of this chapter. Ordinance No. 7225 (2002) 6. 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 DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Approved on ' S 2016 Respectfully submitted, Chairperson