Loading...
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