Correspondence after the 5.3.17 LB meeting packet went out
May 2, 2017
Re: 1102 Pearl Street
Dear Members of the Landmarks Board,
Historic Boulder’s Preservation Committee reviewed the current proposal for
1102 Pearl Street including Planning Board’s comments from site review.
In reviewing the analysis of the Downtown Design Guidelines, Historic Boulder
feels the current proposal does not conform to the following italicized guidelines:
1.3.B. The current design does not respect the iconic Pearl Street Mall, the
local or National Historic District and this prominent western gateway to the
Mall.
Construct new buildings to maintain the continuity of the historic building
relationship to the street, adjacent properties, and/or the block. While the
proposed building attempts to relate more to Pearl West, it violates the
patterning that predominates on its block in terms of height, scale, modulation,
void/solid and fenestration patterns. Further, the proposal has an awkward
scale that just doesn’t relate to anything around it in terms of window sizes,
proportions, alignments and the delineation of floor levels. Not every block
needs punctuation at the end and not every corner need an expressive element
such as a chamfer or turret. Sometimes simplicity is best, especially when the
context is simple. Think about both sides of the block and how it is visually
balanced or unbalanced by this building.
1.3.C. The design needs to be refined for a more human scale and not so
monumental.
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 the Downtown Historic
District. Standard sized brick, uniform building components, and standard
window sizes are most appropriate.
(See previous and following scale comments.) The setback third story is more
appropriate given the context to the east and across Pearl Street. Further, the
scale of this third story forward design exacerbates the third story element by
inflating the scale further with window sizes and floor horizontal alignments with
adjacent buildings. Attempting to relate more to Pearl West rather than its own
block is a mistake, especially given the difficulty of Pearl West’s scale in the
context of Pearl Street. Why take something that is incompatible scale-wise
(Pearl West) and then make that the model for new buildings unnecessarily?
The purposed of historic districts is to preserve the context and character. That
can be done even with a new three-story building but isn’t being achieved with
this proposal.
1.3.D. The current proposal does not relate to the neighboring structures or
maintain the continuity of this particular block of Pearl Street.
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 Downtown, with taller buildings
located at key intersections.
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.
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.
It’s hard to imagine, given how clearly the guidelines describe how to achieve a
desirable outcome, how this proposal, which deviates at every opportunity from
the guidance, can be considered consistent with the guidelines’ intent.
Historic Boulder does not feel that this proposal has evolved in a positive way
and that the first iteration, with Planning Board’s comments, is the appropriate
direction for the design to pursue. Historic Boulder encourages the Landmarks
Board to have the proposal come back to the full Board and not be remanded to
DRC. If you do remand, you have NO control over the outcome.
We believe a critical historic district like the Downtown Historic District, one that
plays such a vital role for Boulder’s economic vitality, deserves the review of the
full Board as well as public input, especially given how this design has evolved
so inconsistently with the guidelines.
Proposal presented on March 1, 2017
Sincerely,
Abby Daniels
Executive Director
1200 Pearl Street, Suite 70 I Boulder, CO 80302
Justin Gold
409 Spruce Street
Boulder, Colorado
May 2017
Dear Landmarks Board,
We apologize that we are not able to attend this meeting but we are with Nick in spirit and
excitement for this project.I want to provide a little bit of background on how and why we switched
from 409 to 341 Spruce St.
When we planned and submitted for 409 Spruce we had a long term renter in 341 whom the
neighborhood adored.We received notice from the 341 Spruce tenant around the time of our initial
meeting that they purchased a home elsewhere which gave us the opportunity to re-evaluate our
proposal with your feedback.
After much thought and discussion with our neighbors we felt that it was in the best interests of
everyone to maintain 409 Spruce St as is and to re-imagine 341 Spruce St.Our reasons included:
less impact on neighbors,341 in much greater disrepair and less historically relevant than 409,and
no relocation necessary during construction.Same as last time,I personally circulated the materials
that we've submitted to the board to everyone on our street for thoughts,feedback and the
opportunity to be here tonight.
We certainly took everyone's comments from our last meeting and incorporated them into our design
for 341 Spruce and hope you are as excited as we are to continue to contribute to our neighborhood
and to Boulder.Our intention is to build a thoughtful,energy neutral home that will be historically
relevant for the next 100 years.
Thanks for your consideration,
Justin, Nancee, Nora, Morrison and Mobi (our dog)
1
Opansky, Holly
From:Hewat, James
Sent:Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:48 AM
To:landmarksboard
Cc:Guiler, Karl; Ferro, Charles
Subject:FW: HIS2017-00104
Attachments:IMG_1746.JPG
See response below to the Attention Homes’ landmark alteration certificate request to remove the garage at 2124 14th
Street to be reviewed by the Landmarks Board at its May 3rd, 2017 meeting.
James M. Hewat
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Planning, Housing & Sustainability
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
From: J Richards [mailto:jlr7001@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:19 AM
To: Hewat, James <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Brown, Robert L. <rbrown@shermanhoward.com>; Fletcher Richards <luciles@msn.com>
Subject: Re: HIS2017‐00104
James Hewat
Landmarks Board
City of Boulder
303‐441‐3207
Dear Mr. Hewat,
I am formally objecting to project 2017‐00104 which requests permission to demolish a detached garage at 2124 14th
Street Boulder Co 80302.
Lucile's Ltd. is the current tenant of this property which includes, by specific reference, this detached garage. Lucile's
has a legally binding lease through December 31, 2019, more than 2 years away.
We have not given our permission to demolish the detached garage.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions,
Judith Richards
Attorney At Law
Lucile's Ltd.
303‐884‐4751
1
Opansky, Holly
From:Shannon Cox Baker <shannon@scbconsult.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:30 PM
To:Hewat, James; landmarksboard
Cc:Jon Kottke; Mike McCue; Matthias Krier
Subject:Re: HIS2017-00104
James – below is Jon Kottke’s response to Judy’s email. Jon is on vacation, so if I need to formalize a written response, please
let me know. I have copied key staff from the FUMC and the Landmarks Board as well.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
This is in reply to a letter from Judy Richards to Mr. Hewat objecting to the demolition of the single car
garage.
I personally met with Judy to discuss the demolition of the single car garage and told her that a
replacement structure of similar size would be built for her use, before the garage is torn down, at no
cost to her. Initially she seemed fine with that but said she wanted some time to think about it. The next
day I received a draft agreement from her attorney requiring First United Methodist Church to enter into
a long term lease with Lucille's before she would agree to the demolition of the garage. FUMC is willing
to enter into a long term lease with Lucille's if the Attention Homes Project is approved by the City.
However, if it is not approved the Church does not want to have the Lucille's property under a 20‐30
year lease when the Church is not sure what it will do with the rest of the block north of the alley.
Judy is correct that the existing lease goes to the end of 2019. They have been wanting to extend the
existing lease or enter into a new long term lease for several years. Judy is using the demolition of the
garage to try to force the Church into agreeing to a long term lease before we know the outcome of the
Attention Homes Project. Judy is also correct that the existing lease includes the detached garage.
However, what she doesn't say is that without obtaining the Church's written consent and in violation of
the existing lease, Lucille's substantially modified the garage interior. The Church's written permission
to make these modifications was never given, as is required by the lease.
In reality, Judy's objection is a moot point. If the Attention Homes Project is not approved by the City,
then nothing on this block is Landmarked and no demolition will occur. If the Project is approved by the
City, then as I said above, the Church is willing to enter into a long term lease with Lucille's. Given that
Lucille's is using the garage for an unauthorized use, Judy is not in a position to object to its demolition,
especially since a replacement structure would be built at no cost to her. She should not be allowed to
use this issue to force the Church to enter into a long term lease before we know the outcome of the
Attention Homes Project.
Jon Kottke
Lay Leader and Attorney for FUMC
Jon F. Kottke
Law Offices of Kottke & Brantz, LLC
2975 Valmont Rd. Suite 240
Boulder, CO 80301
2
Phone 303‐449‐6161
Fax 303‐440‐0348
Shannon Cox Baker, Principal
SCB Consulting, LLC
303.709.9147
shannon@scbconsult.com
www.scbconsult.com
From: James Hewat <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 9:54 AM
To: Shannon Cox Baker <shannon@scbconsult.com>
Subject: FW: HIS2017‐00104
Hi Shannon,
See below. I forwarded the message to the Landmarks Board.
James M. Hewat
Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Planning, Housing & Sustainability
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
From: J Richards [mailto:jlr7001@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:19 AM
To: Hewat, James <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Brown, Robert L. <rbrown@shermanhoward.com>; Fletcher Richards <luciles@msn.com>
Subject: Re: HIS2017‐00104
James Hewat
Landmarks Board
City of Boulder
303‐441‐3207
Dear Mr. Hewat,
I am formally objecting to project 2017‐00104 which requests permission to demolish a detached garage at 2124 14th
Street Boulder Co 80302.
Lucile's Ltd. is the current tenant of this property which includes, by specific reference, this detached garage. Lucile's
has a legally binding lease through December 31, 2019, more than 2 years away.
We have not given our permission to demolish the detached garage.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions,
3
Judith Richards
Attorney At Law
Lucile's Ltd.
303‐884‐4751
1
Opansky, Holly
From:Hewat, James
Sent:Sunday, April 30, 2017 9:00 PM
To:landmarksboard
Subject:Fw: 511 Marine Street
See message below in support of the new garage at 511 Marine Street.
From: John Winsor <jtwinsor@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 6:15 PM
To: Hewat, James
Cc: CANDICE DICKINSON; judypatric@aol.com
Subject: 511 Marine Street
James ‐
We are writing you in regards to the alley improvements to 511 Marine Street. We are in favor of these
improvements for the following reasons:
1. Changing the plywood carport and moving the current garage to make room for the new structure is more
consistent with the historical nature of not only the house but also the neighborhood. We are excited for the
new structure in that it will improve the alley view compared to many of the other older structures.
2. Likewise, over the last ten years many of the houses on the south side of the Highland Lawn Historic
District (Marine Street) have seen good improvements that have beautified the alley. It feels like this is
necessary on the north alley, as well. Also, many of them look larger than what is being proposed here.
3. Living in the neighborhood for 27 years, one of the joys has been the vibrant nature of the community. Not
only with events like the Halloween party but also the fact that so many people work in structures in the rear
of their properties, making the neighborhood much more vital during the day. Some of the benefits that I’ve
seen are an increase in safety and a much more connected community.
We are in favor of the project as it does not change the main structure and provides a vast improvement in
the alley making the north side of the street’s alley structures more balanced the south side of Marine.
2
All of the best,
John Winsor
505 Marine Street
Dear Landmarks Board and Preservation Staff, 28 April 2017
I would like to express my opinion regarding the application to the Landmarks Board for the
individually landmarked home at 511 Marine St,
Moving the contributing garage is not a recommended practice by historic preservation
standards. The structure is extremely old, and quite fragile as well. However, if it must be
moved, it must be accomplished with the utmost care and some guarantees as to a positive
outcome. It would be unacceptable if the building were lost in the process. The building should
be thoroughly documented prior to the move.
The design for the new two-car garage is sympathetic to the neighborhood as well as the
primary landmarked home, for which I am thankful. However, after reviewing the design
guidelines for the Highland Lawn Historic District and the general guidelines, I conclude that the
mass and scale of the proposed structure is much too large for the house and the
neighborhood. The General Design Guidelines state “New garages for single-family residences
should generally be one story tall and shelter no more than two cars. In some cases, a two-car
garage may be inappropriate.” The garage should not have dormers and skylights or a second
story. This was originally a working class neighborhood. The neighborhood should remain in
clear contrast to the Mapleton Hill wealthy residences. The alley needs to maintain the scale
that is “comfortable for pedestrians” as the design guidelines state.
I support the new garage concept but feel the mass of the building should be significantly
diminished, to a simple 1- or 2-car garage in the standard 400 square foot range.
Dr. Payson Sheets
520 Marine St.
Boulder CO 80302
To: Landmarks Board and Staff
From: Tom and Caroline Hoyt
Re Demolition Request 1321 9th St., Boulder, CO 80302
Board Members and Staff
We are writing to you because we understand you may choose to discuss our application at your May
meeting which we are unable to attend.
On April 11th we met with Deborah Yin, Eric Budd, and Marcy Cameron at our house on 1315 9th St,
which is next door to the property on which we are requesting a demolition permit. We appreciated
that opportunity to hear thoughts from Board members on what they would hope to see happen with
the cottage. The meeting provided us the opportunity to explain the alternatives we have considered as
we went through the process of deciding to request the demolition permit. Marcy did a really excellent
job of facilitating the meeting and keeping us focused on the alternatives.
For us, the process has just reinforced our belief that this is a house that makes no sense to try to save.
The combination of it being situated in the rear setback of the lot and its poor original construction
means, in our opinion, there is not a practical way to preserve the house.
Two points based on your criteria:
As we illustrated in our original presentation, this is not a particularly unique small house in the
neighborhood. We showed pictures of 10 other similar small cottages that sit on the front of their lots
rather than the rear which makes it much more practical to preserve them. We only documented 10
houses, but believe there are at least double that number in our neighborhood.
Your criteria speaks to "reasonable costs". We believe that the costs, as shown in our original
presentation, to bring this little cottage into proper structural and livability standards are much higher
than the cost to reproduce the structure. We understand the intent to preserve affordable small houses
in Boulder but feel this far exceeds the "reasonable" category.
Thank you for your continued consideration of our request.
Caroline and Tom Hoyt