Loading...
Item 5A - 1102 Pearl St.Agenda Item #5A, Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M May 3, 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: Continuation of 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 42’ 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 Architecture 6. Date of Construction: c. 1910s 7. Historic Name(s): Garbarino’s Saloon, Garbarino’s Garage 8. Existing Building: 5,200 sq. ft. 9. Proposed Building: 15,380 sq. ft. 10. Proposed Building Ht: 40’8” __________________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: I move that the Landmarks Board (i) approve the application to demolish the non-contributing building and construct the proposed 15,380 sq. ft. building at 1102 Pearl St., as shown on plans dated 04/05/2017, 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 conditions below and (ii) adopt the staff memorandum dated May 3, 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the new building in compliance with the approved plans dated 04/05/2017, except as modified by these conditions of approval: 1. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit final architectural plans that include revisions, which shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design review committee. The final plans shall ensure that the final design of the building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines; and 2. The Landmarks design review committee shall review details for the building including, materials, fenestration patterns on the north, west and south elevations of the building, doors and window details including moldings, headers and sills, railings, colors, lighting and signage on the property to ensure that the approval is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval. BACKGROUND:  On Sept. 1, 2016, the Planning Board reviewed a preliminary proposal for a three- story building at 1102 Pearl St. (Concept Review LUR2016-00058). The Planning Board was generally 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.  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, and new, free-standing construction over 340 sq. ft., review by the full Landmarks Board in a quasi-judicial hearing is required pursuant to Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.  At its Mar. 1, 2017 meeting, the Landmarks Board reviewed an application for demolition and new construction on the property and, with the applicant’s agreement, continued the hearing to the May 3, 2017 meeting in order provide time to make Agenda Item #5A, Page 3 revisions to the mass, scale, height and design of the proposed new building. The Mar. 1, 2017 Landmarks Board memo is available online at: https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/140329/Electronic.aspx  On Mar. 30, historic preservation staff and current planning staff met with the applicants to discuss the Landmark Board’s recommended changes to the building’s 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.  While it is 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 considers that the plan for demolition and revised plan for new construction is substantially consistent 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 approval of the demolition and proposed new construction. 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 St. 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. Agenda Item #5A, Page 4 Figure 1. Location Map, 1102 Pearl St. looking southwest Figure 2. Northwest Corner, 1102 Pearl St., 2016 Agenda Item #5A, Page 5 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 6 Figure 4. West Elevation (facing 11th St.), 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. Figure 5. South Elevation (rear), 1102 Pearl St., 2017. Agenda Item #5A, Page 7 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 on 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. 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. Located in the original Boulder Townsite, the property has been built upon since at least 1874 (Figure 6). In 1883, at least part of the property housed the 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 1 Silvia Pettem in “Boulder, Evolution of a City” University Press of Colorado, 1994 p.11 Agenda Item #5A, Page 8 Figure 7. Interior of Garbarino’s Saloon, c.1880s. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History. 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 St. 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 St. was identified as a business selling sundries. By 1913, the building was vacant 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 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 buildings were completely demolished or heavily remodeled to become the masonry-clad structure seen in photographs dating to the late 1920s (Figure 10.) 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 St. costing $15,000 in August, 1917. Figure 9. People’s Market, c.1893 Carnegie Branch Library for Local History Figure 10. Garbarino ’s SunCo Garage, c.1928 Carnegie Branch Library for Local History Agenda Item #5A, Page 10 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 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. Agenda Item #5A, Page 11 1102 Pearl Streetscape The 1100 block of Pearl St. (the south side of Pearl St. 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 12 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 buildings on the south side of the 1100 block of Pearl St. 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. Agenda Item #5A, Page 12 Figure 13. South side of 1100 block of Pearl Street 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 (see Fig. 16, center left). Agenda Item #5A, Page 13 Figure 16. North side of 1000 block of Pearl Street 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 St. 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 Sept. 1, 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 Agenda Item #5A, Page 14 (§ 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 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. PREVIOUS PROPOSAL On Mar. 2, 2017, the Landmarks Board reviewed the proposal to demolish the existing building and construct a 15,380 sq. ft. mixed use building. Figure 18. Perspective Rendering, Mar. 1, 2017 Proposal After initial discussion of the proposal, the Landmarks Board voted to continue the hearing to the May 3, 2017 meeting. The board provided the following direction for the redesign of the building:  Narrow chamfer at northwest corner and extend full height of the building;  Revise design so it reads as one building; Agenda Item #5A, Page 15  Simplify materials and fenestration pattern;  Eliminate awnings on the second floor;  Align fenestration with adjacent buildings (document relationship to its historic context);  Revise design of parking screen to incorporate into design;  Revise south elevation to allow for alley activation; and  Simplify street-level awnings to be fabric and operable. The board provided input on the treatment of the third floor massing:  Support third-floor setback: E. Budd, B. Butler, and R. Pelusio  Third-floor should extend to street-facing facades: D. Yin CURRENT PROPOSAL The applicants have redesigned the project based on the Landmarks Board’s comments on Mar. 1, 2017 creating a full three-story massed building that addresses Pearl and 11th streets with simplified fenestration and materiality and detailing. At 15,380 sq. ft., the floor area of the current proposal has not changed from the previous design. The applicant has managed to significantly reduce the stepped back third-story area bringing the top level of the building to the street edge on Pearl and 11th streets by relocating the terrace area to the roof of the third story. This results in the height of the building (as measured to the top of rooftop railing) to 40’8” where the maximum allowable height for DT-5 (Downtown-5) is 38’. This increase in height will require a height modification through the Site Review process. The applicant has responded to staff and the board’s direction that the building be more traditionally proportioned with the upper stories reading lighter than the first level and that the building read as a single building and less as an accretion of forms. Figure 19. Northwest Corner, Proposed New Construction Agenda Item #5A, Page 16 The base of the proposed building is shown to be detailed with sandstone in cut ashlar, while the dominant exterior material is traditional red brick, save for the stepped back portion of the third story at the south end which is shown to be clad in a zinc finish material. The three- story brick portion of the building is shown to be surmounted by a simplified, pre-cast concrete cornice while the top edge of the two-story portion of brick is shown to be detailed with slightly projection cut stone cap. The storefronts facing Pearl St. are divided into two 25’ wide bays while the storefront level facing 11th St. are divided into four 25’ segments. The most southerly bay is 18’ wide. A second level balcony extends from the south end of the building covering a parking/service entrance to the building. Per the Landmark Board’s comments, attempts have been made to screen the parking area and activate the alley face of the building at ground level. Upper level window forms and patterns have been simplified considerably from the Mar. 1, 2017 proposal and upper story awnings have been eliminated. Figure 20. View facing Southwest, Proposed New Construction Agenda Item #5A, Page 17 Figure 21. North Elevation, Proposed New Construction The setback portion of the third story is shown to be stepped back 15’ from the street level walls of the building, providing roof terrace area at the south and southwest ends of the building for one of the units accessed via metal framed sliding glass doors. Fenestration on the setback third floor consists of a set of five west facing doors surmounted by transom lights and a set of three windows facing south. Figure 22. West Elevation, Proposed New Construction Agenda Item #5A, Page 18 Figure 23. 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 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 Agenda Item #5A, Page 19 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 is 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. Staff finds that based upon analysis against these guidelines, the design of the proposed new construction is generally compatible with the character of the Downtown Historic District and would not 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 historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? Staff considers that based on analysis against the relevant design guidelines, the mass, height, form and design of the proposed new construction will not adversely affect the special historic and architectural character of the streetscape and the Downtown Historic District as a whole (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). 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 compatible with the character of the streetscape and that steps have be taken to design the building in a manner that takes cues from and compliments the historic character of the streetscape while Agenda Item #5A, Page 20 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)? Staff does not consider the existing building to contribute to the historic character of the Downtown Historic District and finds that the application to replace the demolished building meets the requirements of Section 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4), B.R.C. 1981, because the construction of the building, as submitted, will establish a new building with compatible features on the streetscape, and is generally 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 Landmarks (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). 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. Since the existing building is non-contributing to the historic character of the Downtown Historic District, consideration of alternatives to demolition is unnecessary. The proposed building incorporates several features, such as ample daylighting and solar shading, which staff considers an appropriate incorporation of energy efficient design. The building features entries at grade and elevator access to all floors, enhancing accessibility. 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 Agenda Item #5A, Page 21 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 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, given the current proposal provides compatible and contextual building consistent with the Downtown Urban and General Design Guidelines in this very key location in the Downtown Historic District. Yes 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. The street level walls of the proposed building appear generally consistent with historic setbacks and the full- height chamfered northwest corner is consistent with this guideline and corner building forms in the district. Rear alley face has been redesigned to screen parking. Yes 1.2 Guidelines for contemporary alterations and additions to local landmarks and contributing buildings Agenda Item #5A, Page 22 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 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 has been revised to better line up with that of 1118 Pearl St. Redesign has created visual effect of weightier first floor and more traditional vertical proportions. Yes 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 a subtle change in color, texture or materials. 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 has been revised to better line up with that of 1118 Pearl St. No C. Maintain the proportions and the established pattern of upper story Vertical and horizontal proportions of the buildings Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 23 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. mass and fenestration have been revised to better reflect historic proportions of prominent corner buildings in the historic district. Details of window, door size profile placement as well as material and detailing should be refined at the design review committee level. 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 rhythm has been revised to reflect 25’ wide bays. Material details including brick, stone, glass and metal should be reviewed by the Ldrc to ensure compatibility with 1018 Pearl St. and adjacent historic buildings in the streetscape. Yes 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. Staff considers thought has been given to design a building that takes cues from historic buildings in the neighborhood and acknowledges that forms and details have been significantly simplified from the Mar. 1, 2017 proposal and that current proposal relies on traditional proportion while introducing contemporary Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 24 elements that are compatible with the character of the area. 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. Yes 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. 1st floor storefronts appear to align with others on Pearl St. Reduction number of building modules and simplified material palette reinforces human-scale and entries to storefronts. Revised chamfered corners anchors building. Details of brick, stone, glass, window and door should be reviewed by the Ldrc. Yes 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 that are significantly taller than Staff considers that redesign bringing the third-story to the north and west sides of the building is appropriate and consistent with the existing pattern along Pearl St. in the historic district. Stair/elevator tower at west has been integrated into the building’s form. Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 25 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 E. Provide a variation of roof heights in a large building. A variety of roof heights and types within the district is desirable. Redesign has simplified roof forms and types but does provide for some variety that will provide interest. Details of cornice design should be reviewed at Ldrc. Yes 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. 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 elements such as columns or pilasters. Redesign has simplified forms while allowing expression of historic patterns and proportions found in the streetscape. Revised full-height chamfered corner and 25’ modules streetscape consistent with this guideline. Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 26 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 brick, sandstone and cast concrete appropriate and consistent with historic buildings in the district. Review details at Ldrc. Yes B. Maintain the original size, shape and proportion of storefront facades and openings to retain the historic scale and character. 1st floor storefronts appear to align with others on Pearl St., and will retain scale and character of buildings on the Mall and 11th St. Yes 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. Proposed awnings appear to be consistent with this guideline – review details at the Ldrc. Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 27 Awnings on the upper stories are discouraged. 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 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. Staff considers use of brick, sandstone and cast concrete appropriate and consistent with historic buildings in the district. Review material details and proposed colors at the Ldrc. Projecting window sills at 3rd story appear out of character with the district – review at the Ldrc. Yes E. Minimize the visibility of mechanical, structural, or electrical appurtenances The proposed rooftop deck rail will be minimally visible from the north on 11th and Pearl Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 28 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 streets. Visibility from south including setback third-story appropriate given this is the rear of the building. Review details at the Ldrc. 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 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. Revisions have attempted to screen parking area from 11th Street. Continued enhancement the alley at this location seems particularly important given the corner location and proximity to the Pearl Street Mall. Review continued enhancements to alley face to provide for compatibility with the historic scale and character of the district. Maybe 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. Review at LDRC. H. Reduce the visual impact of structured and surface parking. Visual impact of the rear parking has been reduced, but will still be quite visible. Maybe Agenda Item #5A, Page 29 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 the 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. Revised massing and proportions of the building reflect forms of three-story buildings located at prominent intersections in the Downtown Historic District. Details including vertical elements including pilasters, as well as horizontal forms and accents are aligned, should be reviewed by the Ldrc. Yes .2 Mass and scale of new construction should respect neighboring buildings and streetscape. Redesigned building better reflects and respects neighboring building and the Downtown Historic District (see .1 above). Yes .3 Historic heights and widths as well as their ratios maintained, especially proportions of façade. General proportions of redesigned building reflect the proportions of historic buildings in the district. Yes 6.4 Materials Guideline Analysis Conforms? Agenda Item #5A, Page 30 .1 Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found on nearby historic structures. See above 1.4 D of the General Design Guidelines. Yes .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. Yes 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. Simplified fenestration of revised better align with neighboring buildings. Review details of window and door design/placement at the Ldrc. Yes .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 See .1 above. Yes Agenda Item #5A, Page 31 contribute to the historic district .3 New structures should use a roof form found in the district or on the landmark site Cornice on building appear in scale with building and compatible with historic buildings on the streetscape. Yes Staff considers that the proposed redesign of the building is generally consistent with the Landmark Board’s Mar. 1, 2017 direction to the applicant. The revised design will provide for a simpler and more elegant building form, anchor this corner entry to the Pearl Street Mall. Staff appreciates the great time and effort that the applicant has given to the design of this building and finds that the building substantially consistent with the design guidelines and meets the Standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate, per Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. Staff considers that details of windows, doors, decorative elements, store front detailing including materials and colors should be reviewed by the Landmarks design review committee PUBLIC COMMENT None received to date. FINDINGS Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be consistent with purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and finds that provided conditions are met, the proposed design meets the standards specified in Section 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. This is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposal is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Board approve the application with conditions. Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: The Landmarks Board finds 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 May 3, 2017, and the evidence provided to the Board at its Mar. 1 and May 3, 2017 meetings. Specifically, the Board finds that: 1. The removal of the existing non-historic building and proposed new construction is appropriate and that is will not damage or 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. Agenda Item #5A, Page 32 2. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials used on the proposed construction are generally compatible with the character of the historic district. Section 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. 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: Revised Plans D: Sept. 1, 2016 Planning Board Concept Review Design Guidelines Analysis & Minutes E: March 1st, 2017 Landmarks Board Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #5A, Page 33 Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form Agenda Item #5A, Page 34 Agenda Item #5A, Page 35 1102 Pearl St. Survey Photograph, 1986 Agenda Item #5A, Page 36 Attachment B: Current Photographs 1102 Pearl St., north (front) façade, 2016 1102 Pearl St., northwest corner, 2016 Agenda Item #5A, Page 37 1102 Pearl St., west (side) elevation, 2016 1102 Pearl St., south (rear) elevation, 2016 Agenda Item #5A, Page 38 Attachment C: Plans Agenda Item #5A, Page 39 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 Agenda Item #5A, Page 56 Attachment D: Sept. 1, 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 intended 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 an d 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 guideline s, 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 distr ict, 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 the 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 applicant. 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 parking requireme nt 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 prop osed 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. Agenda Item #5A, Page 66 ATTACHMENT E: March 1st, 2017 Landmarks Board Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #5A, Page 67