Item 5A - 1102 Pearl StAgenda Item #5A, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
September 6, 2017
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Landmarks Board
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Sandra Llanes, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Anthony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
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., two-story building with set-back third
story to a height of 38’ at 1102 Pearl St. in the Downtown Historic
District per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2017-
00258).
STATISTICS:
1.Site:
2.Historic District:
3.Zoning:
4.Owner:
5.Applicant:
6.Date of Construction:
7.Historic Name(s):
8.Existing Building:
9.Proposed Building:
1102 Pearl Street
Downtown
DT - 4 (Downtown - 4)
Phil Day, PMD Realty
Jim Bray, Bray Architecture
c.1910s,
Garabino’s Saloon, Garbarino’s Garage
5,200 sq. ft.
15,380 sq. ft.
10.Proposed Building Height: 38 ft.
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board deny the application for demolition of the non-contributing building
and the construction of the proposed 15,380 sq. ft. building at 1102 Pearl St. as shown on plans dated
08/07/2017, finding that it does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated Sept. 6, 2017, in
Matter 5A (HIS2017-00258) 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 Urban Design Guidelines, and the General
Design Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
•On May 3, 2017, the Landmark’s Board approved an application to demolish the non-
contributing building and construct a 15,380 sq. ft. full three-story building at 1102
Pearl St., subject to the following conditions:
o Revision of architectural plans, 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
o The Landmarks design review committee 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.
The May 3, 2017 approval followed comment (and continuation for redesign) by
the applicant and Landmarks Board at its March 1st, 2017 meeting of a proposal
for the demolition of the existing building at 1102 Pearl Street and construction of a
two-story building with a set-back third story.
•Because the application calls for demolition of a building within a historic district and
construction of a free-standing building of more than 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.
•Staff has met with the applicant on multiple occasions to provide feedback on the
proposed design.
•The property is located within both the Downtown-4 (DT-4) zoning district, as well as
the Downtown Historic District.
•Because the applicant is requesting variations from the Land Use Code to build from
two to three stories (§ 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981) and a reduction to the open space
requirement (§ 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981), the project is required go through the Site Review
process.
•On September 1, 2016, a preliminary proposal for a three-story building at 1102 Pearl
St. was reviewed by the Planning Board (Concept Review LUR2016-00058).
•The Planning Board was generally supportive of constructing a new building and
were supportive of staff’s comments to design a simple, elegantly proportioned
Agenda Item #5A, Page 3
building and suggested that the third story be brought to the west and north edges,
thereby eliminating setbacks (See Attachment E).
•While one of the oldest developed lots in the City of Boulder, staff considers the pre-
1883 building (subsequently remodeled to serve as an automobile garage in 1918), has
been substantially altered outside of the 1865-1946 period-of-significance for the
district and should not be considered contributing to the Downtown Historic District.
•Staff acknowledges the time and consideration that has gone into the design of this
building, but finds the current proposed plan for demolition and new construction is
substantially inconsistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate
pursuant to Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines.
•Staff recommends denial of the current application and recommends the applicant
proceed with three-story building approved by the Landmarks Board at its May 3,
2017 meeting.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Located at the western terminus of the Pearl Street Mall, at the southwest corner of 11th and
Pearl streets, the site is considered a key gateway location. 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 surrounding 1102 Pearl Street is dominated by historic
commercial buildings dating from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the large 2015
PearlWest Building located across and west of 11th St. from the subject property.
Figure 1. Location Map, 1102 Pearl St.
(Hatched line indicates the Downtown Historic District Boundary)
Agenda Item #5A, Page 4
Figure 2. Northwest Corner, 1102 Pearl St., 2016
Figure 3. North Elevation, 1102 Pearl St., 2016.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 5
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 narrow ribbon 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 west 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.
Figure 4. West Elevation (facing 11th Street), 1102 Pearl St., 2016
The west (side) elevation of the building is clad in stucco matching that of the north
elevation, and features a ribbon window near the north side, and two fixed single pane
picture widows near the south side. All windows are framed in black wood trim and are
coved by metal framed, red cloth awnings. The parapet is composed of painted masonry
trimmed with dark brown stained wood. A large, blue and red sign for Old Chicago is
emblazoned on the parapet, matching the sign on the front façade.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 6
Figure 5. South Elevation (rear), 1102 Pearl St., 2017.
The south elevation of the building is covered by a shed-roofed frame addition. This
structure features many windows, which comprise the majority of the wall and roof area.
The south elevation features three doors, one single-light door, and two sliding glass doors.
One fixed single-pane window is located between the sliding doors. The roof of the rear
addition is entirely composed of casemented skylights and their framing. A sizable
mechanical box is located on the south side of the main structure’s roof.
A two-story addition is located at the southeast corner of the building. It is clad in cream-
colored stucco, matching that found the primary structure. There is a metal, hinged single
door providing access on its south side. The addition features four sliding, aluminum framed
windows on its second story, three along the west side, and one on the south. An additional
one-story structure projects from the addition’s rear to the alley; it is clad in white composite
board.
When surveyed in 1986, the Historic Building Inventory Form characterized the building as
being significantly remodeled, noting “this building may or may not be part of the original
structure which was built before 1883. It appears that it was built since 1931, however, some
of the original structural walls may still exist.” See Attachment A: Historic Building
Inventory Form.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 7
HISTORY:
Figure 6. 1102 Pearl St. 1874 (circled) from E.S Glover’s Bird’s-Eye View of Boulder City.
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
The property is located in the original Boulder Townsite and has been built upon since at
least 1874 (Figure 6). In 1883, at least part of the property housed the infamous Garbarino
Saloon, located directly across Pearl Street from the Boulder House Hotel. By the end of the
1880s, Garbarino’s Saloon was known to be so disreputable that Boulder’s temperate 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.
Despite its ill repute in Boulder, Garbarino’s Saloon continued operating at 1102 Pearl St.
until 1910 when the property is identified as a “moving pictures” house.
Sanborn Maps indicate that beginning about 1895 the People’s Meat Market was doing
business out of the west end of the property, then identified as 1100 Pearl Street. Operated
first by Eli P. Metcalf, and later by Joseph Hocking, Metcalf was locally noted for his role as
Boulder County Sheriff from 1884-1897.2
By 1901, Metcalf retired, and Hocking was the sole
proprietor until he was joined by his sons in 1908.
Joseph Hawking was born in England in 1848, and
immigrated to the United States in 1864. After
spending four years in Michigan, he moved to Gilpin
County, Colorado, and then to Boulder in 1889.
Hocking died on April 26, 1908, survived by his wife,
Elizabeth.3 His sons, Elmer V. and Herbert C.
Hocking, continued to operate their late father’s meat
market following his death, but Elmer later purchased
the Central Meat Market at 1103 Pearl St., and
operated from there.4 In 1910, the west end the
property at 1102 Pearl Street is identified as a business
selling sundries. By 1913, the building was vacant and
remained so until around 1916, when the property
was acquired by Belshe C. Garbarino, who opened a
garage and auto sales business there. It is unclear
whether the 1880s structures were completely demolished or heavily remodeled to become
the masonry-clad structure seen in photographs dating to the late 1920s (Figure 7). City
construction permit ledgers dating to that time (found in the collection of the Boulder
Carnegie Library) show that B. C. Garbarino was permitted to make alterations at 1102 Pearl
costing $15,000 in August, 1917.
2 Daily Camera. “Eli Metcalf, Member of Pioneer Family, is Boulder Visitor.” 13 August 1955. Boulder Carnegie Library.
3 Daily Camera. “Joseph Hocking Dead.” 27 April, 1908. Boulder Carnegie Library.
4 Daily Camera. “Hocking’s Market Stays.” 31 April, 1908. Boulder Carnegie Library; Daily Camera. “Elmer Hocking,
Pioneer of State, Dies Early Today.” 26 February, 1952. Boulder Carnegie Library.
Figure 8. Eli Metcalf, N.D.
Photo courtesy of the Boulder
Carnegie Library
Agenda Item #5A, Page 9
Figure 9. People’s Market, c.1893
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
Figure 10. Garabino’s SunCo Garage, c.1928
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
Garbarino’s garage operated on the site from 1918 until about 1930, when brothers Joseph C.
and J. F. Ardourel took over operation. They ran a garage there until the early 1940s.
Garbarino retained ownership, and for the next 18 years, the site was home to a variety of
Agenda Item #5A, Page 10
auto shops, garages, and automotive dealerships, none of which lasted for more than five
years. Building permit records show that the building was damaged in a fire sometime
shortly before 1957. This damage likely accounts for the building standing vacant in 1958. It
reopened as Arnold Brother’s Sports Car center in 1959, which would prove to be the last in
the series of automotive-related commercial occupants.
Figure 11. Walt and Hank’s Tavern, 1975
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
In 1960, owner Christopher G. Garbarino applied to remodel the building into a tavern once
more. It was known Walt & Hanks, which continued operating there until 1976, when,
following another remodel, the building became the home of Old Chicago Restaurant. The
current owners purchased the property in 1973.
1102 Pearl Streetscape
The 1100 block of Pearl Street (the south side of Pearl Street to the east of the site) was
predominately developed between 1860 and 1910, as part of the city’s commercial core. The
1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map below in Figure 8 shows a variety of shops that sold
hardware, drugs, hay and feed, meat, jewelry, as well as a moving picture theater, barber
and haberdasher. The block is comprised of one and two-story masonry buildings. All of the
Agenda Item #5A, Page 11
buildings on the south side of the 1100 block of Pearl Street are two-story masonry. A one-
story, frame commercial building is located in the middle of the block.
Figure 12. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1910
Today, the immediate streetscape of 1102 Pearl St. is dominated by historic commercial
buildings dating from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the large 2015 Pearl West
Building (Daily Camera site from 1880 to 2011) located across 11th St., immediately west of
the subject property.
Figure 13. South side of 1100 block of Pearl Street
Agenda Item #5A, Page 12
The building at 1108 Pearl St., directly east of the site, was constructed prior to 1883 and is
representative of Boulder’s early commercial buildings. The two-story masonry building
features segmental arched windows with stone sills and cast lintels with keystones. A simple
brick cornice adorns the top of the building. The first floor storefronts have been remodeled
within the original openings.
Figure 14. North side of 1100 block of Pearl St.
The north side of the block is comprised of two-story masonry buildings, dating to the same
period of development and include the handsome Buckingham Block at 1001 Pearl St.
located on the northeast corner of 11th and Pearl Streets. Charles Cheney, the president of
the First National Bank, constructed the building in 1898 to replace the 1860s Boulder House.
The building was constructed during a period of growth in the city and features red brick
with sandstone trim and elegant Classical and Colonial-Revival detailing. Floral swags
decorate the cornice, and the semi-circular windows with leaded glass add to the visual
interest of the building. The first story features cast iron elements.
Figure 15. South side of 1000 block of Pearl Street
The building located to the northwest of the site, across the intersection of 11th and Pearl
Streets at 1047 Pearl St. is the notable Trezise Building built in 1880 and historically
contributing to the district.
Figure 16. North side of 1000 block of Pearl Street
Agenda Item #5A, Page 13
The building located to the southwest of the site, at 11th and Walnut Streets was built in 1900
as the Stoddard Warehouse Building today housing the Walrus Bar and Nightclub.
To the south of the site is a former service station building at 1101 Walnut St., constructed in
1920 and currently housing the Rio Restaurant.
11TH STREET SPINE
Boulder’s Civic Area Plan includes plans to improve north-south pedestrian access along 11th
Street in the city’s core to provided “continuous paved access corridor aligning the north and
south areas of the park to connect Pearl Street through the Civic Area and south to
University Hill”. Construction is currently underway on the realigned 11th Street Bridge in
realizing this plan, the intersection of 11th and Pearl Streets being the northern edge of this
enhanced corridor.
CONCEPT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD
Figure 17. Sept. 1, 2016 Concept Review Design for Building at 1102 Pearl St.
On September 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
(§ 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).
Agenda Item #5A, Page 14
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.
MAY 3, 2017 LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPROVAL
On March 1, 2017 the Landmarks Board provided feedback on a design (see Figure 18) for a
new building at 1102 Pearl St. In order to provide time for redesign based upon the Board’s
feedback, the hearing was continued to the May 3, 2017 meeting to allow for time for
redesign.
Figure 18. March 1st. 2017 design for Building at 1102 Pearl St. (looking southeast)
The Landmarks Board gave the following direction to the applicant for redesign of the March
1, 2017 proposal:
• Narrow chamfer at northwest corner and extend full height of the building;
• Revise design so it reads as one building;
• 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.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 15
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
Figure 19. May 3, 2017 approved design for Building at 1102 Pearl St. (looking southeast)
Figure 19. May 3, 2017 approved design for Building at 1102 Pearl St. (looking southwest)
Agenda Item #5A, Page 16
Figure 20. May 3, 2017 approved design for Building at 1102 Pearl St. (looking southwest)
Figure 21. May 3, 2017 approved design for Building at 1102 Pearl St. (looking northeast)
Agenda Item #5A, Page 17
Concurring with staff’s analysis and recommendation (see Attachment A) at its May 3, 2017
meeting, the board considered that the redesign for the three-story, 15,380 sq. ft. building
responded to the March 1, 2017 comments and on a motion introduced by D. Yin, and
seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board voted to approve the demolition of the
existing building and construction of a three- story building with conditions (4-1, F. Sheets
opposed) (see Attachment B)
CONDITIONS OF MAY 3, 2017 APPROVAL:
1. Submission of revisions to the final plans, subject to review by the
Landmarks design review committee, that ensure that the final design of the
building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown
Urban Design Guidelines.
2. 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
to be reviewed by the Landmarks design review committee to ensure that the
approval is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown
Urban Design Guidelines.
3. Reduce the perceived height of the building.
4. Express and celebrate the chamfer corner and west entry.
Sheets opposed the motion considering the procedural step of the conditions being reviewed
at the Landmarks Design Review Committee, where public is welcome, but not able to
comment or participate. She preferred the conditions be reviewed a Landmarks Board
meeting, in which public comment is taken.
On May 16, 2017, the City Council chose not to call-up the Landmark Board’s decision to
approve the building with conditions. (see Attachment C)
Agenda Item #5A, Page 18
CURRENT PROPOSAL:
The current application makes substantial modifications to the design of building approved
by the Landmarks Board on May 3, 2017. Notably the mass of the building has significantly
changed with fully set-back third-story.
Current plans show the existing 5,200 sq. ft. commercial building to be demolished to make
way for the 15,380 sq. ft. mixed use building. The square footage of the current building
appears not to have changed while the height current building is 38’, where the May 3, 2017
approved building was shown to be 40’, 8” in height due to a 2’, 8” set back roof-top deck
railing.
Figure 22. Perspective Render, Proposed New Construction (Current Proposal).
Plans and elevations show the proposed brick and stone clad building to consist of two full
stories, a set-back third-story, and a full basement. The ground floor is shown functioning as
retail space, the second office space, with the top floor containing four apartments with west-
facing outdoor patios. The primary entry for the ground floor retail space is proposed at the
corner of 11th and Pearl with secondary entries on Pearl and 11th Streets near the ends of the
building. The building is shown to feature a stone-clad chamfered corner.
Primary access to the upper floors is shown via a stair and elevator lobby opening to a
doorway slightly south of the center of the 11th St. elevation. Secondary access to the upper-
levels is provided by a stair and rear entrance at the southeast corner of the proposed
structure.
Fenestration on the ground level is shown to be provided by bands of storefront windows
along the north and west faces. Renderings indicate these are to be shaded by awnings. Plans
show that the second-story windows to consist of four types of windows. The windows have
painted metal frames and are operable where possible.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 19
Figure 23. West Elevation, Proposed New Construction
The lower two levels are clad in cut stone at the base of the wall. This stone also clads the
chamfered northwest corner of the building. The remainder of the first level and all of the
second level elevations are clad in red brick, save for a glass volume around the elevator
lobby to the upper floors. Along most of the east and west elevations, the walls are topped
by a brick cornice of rowlock courses. At the northwest corner, the cornice becomes taller,
and is decorated with a cut stone frieze and a projecting metal cornice.
Figure 24. North Elevation, Proposed New Construction
Agenda Item #5A, Page 20
The third floor is shown to be set back 11’ from the edges of the building, providing a band
of roof terraces along the north and west sides accessed via metal framed sliding glass doors.
Fenestration on the third floor consists of nine fixed-metal, framed windows. Third-story
walls are shown to be clad in metal, as is the cantievered awning of the flat roof. There is a
metal clad mechanical hood atop the roof.
Figure 25. South Elevation, Proposed New ConstructionThe south (alley) elevation is to
accomodate three parking spaces beneath a second level balcony. See Attachment H: 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 21
proposed new construction to replace the building meets the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the landmarks board
shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy efficient
design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
The following is an assessment of the proposal against these standards:
ANALYSIS:
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the
exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic
district?
The existing building may have been constructed as early as 1882, but has been
significantly modified since 1960 and out of the identified 1858-1946 period-of-
significance for the Downtown Historic District and the extent of alterations has
compromised its historic integrity. As such, staff considers the building to be non-
contributing to the historic character of the Downtown Historic District.
While the City of Boulder encourages the reuse of existing buildings as a sustainable
approach to redevelopment, historic preservation staff does not consider demolition
of the building would be to the detriment of the historic district, provided the
proposed new construction is consistent with the relevant sections for new
construction in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the General Design
Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmark. However, staff finds
that based upon analysis against these guidelines, the design of the proposed new
construction is substantially incompatible with the character of the Downtown
Historic District and would have an adverse effect on the immediate streetscape (see
Design Guidelines Analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that based on analysis with the relevant design guidelines and because
of the high visibility of the property at a key downtown intersection at the southeast
corner of 11th and Pearl Streets, the mass, form and design of the proposed new
construction may adversely affect the special historic and architectural character of the
streetscape and the Downtown Historic District as a whole (see Design Guidelines
Analysis section).
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used
on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district?
Staff considers that the mass and proportions, as well as the arrangement of windows
and materials of the proposed building, are generally incompatible with the character
Agenda Item #5A, Page 22
of the streetscape and that the new building should takes cues from the historic
character of the streetscape, providing a simply designed building that is clearly of its
time (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Downtown Historic District and the
proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements
of the Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)?
While staff does not consider the existing building to contribute to the historic
character of the Downtown Historic District it finds that the application to replace the
demolished building does not meet the requirements of Section 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4),
B.R.C. 1981, because the construction of the building, as submitted, will not establish a
new building with compatible features on the streetscape, and is generally
inconsistent with the relevant sections for new construction in the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and
Individual Landmarks (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Code sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply
when reviewing a request for a LAC. The board has adopted the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The following is
an analysis of the proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are
intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for
compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate sections of the
Downtown Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines.
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
Section 1. The Historic District
While it is acknowledged that changes to buildings in the Downtown Historic District will occur
over time, it is also a concern that these changes not damage the historic building fabric and
character of the area. Preservation of the exteriors and storefronts of these buildings will continue
their contribution to the unique historic character of the Downtown. Any building remodeling or
alteration, no matter the planned use, must retain the overall design integrity of the historic
building by protecting the original features and materials and respecting the traditional design
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
Staff considers that the
significant remodeling that has
occurred to the building since
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A, Page 23
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.
the 1960s has compromised its
historic and architectural
integrity so that it is no longer
interpretable. Staff considers the
building to be non-contributing
and that demolition is
appropriate, provided a
compatible building consistent
with the downtown and general
guidelines in this very key
location in the Downtown
Historic District.
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
Screened rear alley parking but
this area might be redesigned to
provide secondary access to first
floor retail space.
Maybe
1.2 Guidelines for contemporary alterations and additions to local landmarks and
contributing buildings
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the design of additions or alterations to
contributing buildings in order to retain the historic character of the overall district. While
rehabilitation and building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time,
acknowledging the Downtown as a living district, it is important that it also respect the
traditional qualities that make the Downtown unique, such as massing, scale, use of storefront
detailing, and choice of materials. Architectural styles that directly copy historic buildings, and
theme designs, such as "wild west" are not appropriate.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
Agenda Item #5A, Page 24
A.
Distinguish additions to historic
buildings. Additions to historic
buildings should be differentiated, yet
compatible, from the original while
maintaining visual continuity
through the use of design elements
such as proportion and scale, siting,
facade set back, and materials that are
of a similar color and texture. When
design elements contrast too strongly
with the original structure, the
addition will appear visually
incompatible. Conversely, when the
original design is replicated, the
addition is indistinguishable and the
historical evolution of the building
becomes unrecognizable. New
additions should be subordinate to the
original building form
While not technically an
addition to a building, because
of the proposed physical linkage
to 1118 Pearl St. (a contributing
building), a sensitivity to and
continuity with this building is
important and the addition
guidelines relevant.
Proposed new construction is
visually distinct from adjacent
building and while not
subordinate to in scale it does
not overwhelm this building.
Proportion of store front level of
proposed building lines up with
that of 1118 Pearl St. however
stepped back third story appears
out of proportion with adjacent
building.
No
B.
For additions to a historic building,
retain the original proportions, scale,
and character of the main facade.
Position the addition so it is
subordinate to the original building.
Express the difference between the
original facade and the addition with
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 lines up with
that of 1118 Pearl St. however
stepped back third story appears
out of proportion with adjacent
building. Number of materials
including brick, stone, stucco,
wood and glass is not
subordinate to, or compatible
with, adjacent building.
No
C.
Maintain the proportions and the
established pattern of upper story
windows. In addition, upper floors
should incorporate traditional
vertically proportioned window
Set back third-story form,
pergolas and fenestration will be
visible and appear out of
proportion with historic
buildings in streetscape. Second-
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 25
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.
story fenestration proposes
several types and forms of
window/glass patterns which
appears incompatible with
defined 11th and Pearl
streetscapes.
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 bays roughly
follows established pattern on
Pearl Street, Glass entry segment
of building on 11 Street breaks
pattern in terms of pattern and
materiality. Materiality with
brick, stone, stucco, wood, glass
and metal should be simplified
to ensure compatibility with
1018 Pearl St. and adjacent
historic buildings in the
streetscape.
No
1.3 Guidelines for new construction and remodeling non-contributing buildings in
the Downtown Historic District
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for the design of new construction and the
renovation of non-contributing buildings in order to retain the historic character of the overall
district. While new building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time
acknowledging the Downtown as a living district, it is important that it also respect the
traditional qualities that makes the Downtown unique, such as massing, scale, use of storefront
detailing, and choice of materials.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
A.
Incorporate traditional building
elements in new design and
construction. Careful integration of
traditional facade features reinforces
patterns and visual alignments that
contribute to the overall character of
the district. These features may be
interpreted in new and contemporary
ways.
Attempts have been made to
incorporate traditional building
elements including distinct
building modules, articulated
cornice, stone accents, etc.
Staff considers thought has been
given to design a building that
takes cues from historic
buildings in the neighborhood
but considers that these forms
and details should be
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 26
significantly simplified. For
instance, the proposed design
shows five distinct modules at
the storefront level, multiple
patterns of fenestration and at
least six cladding materials on a
5200sq. ft. lot Finish details to
the cladding and transitions
need further development, e.g.
brick cladding appears veneer
where it intersects with glass
module and windows
B.
Construct new buildings to maintain
the continuity of the historic building
relationship to the street, adjacent
properties, and/or the block.
See A above.
C.
Maintain a human scale rather than a
monolithic or monumental scale.
Smaller scale buildings and the use of
traditionally sized building
components help to establish a human
scale and maintain the character of
Downtown. Standard size brick,
uniform building components, and
standard window sizes are most
appropriate.
Vertical and horizontal
proportions of the building’s
mass and fenestration at
storefront adequately reflect
historic proportions of
prominent corner buildings in
the historic district. Glass
module at west face makes
abrupt transition to this pattern.
Stone veneer at chamfered
corner element is atypical as is
veneer effect of brick was at
west face where it intersects
with glass module.
Maybe
D.
Consider the proportioning of the
height and mass to the building
footprint. In general, buildings
should appear similar in height, mass,
and scale to other buildings in the
historic area to maintain the historic
district’s visual integrity and unique
character. At the same time, it is
important to maintain a variety of
heights. While the actual heights of
Staff considers that because of its
location on a prominent corner,
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. Doing this
would allow for stair/elevator
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 27
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
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
tower at west to be integrated
better into the building’s form.
(See key buildings at Pearl St.
and Broadway, the Odd Fellows
Lodge Building at 16th and Pearl
Streets and 1505 Pearl St., (recent
infill) and the NW corner 15th
and Walnut Streets (recent
infill).) Desire for upper deck
areas might be met by locating
them at east and/or southeast
corners of building with railings
setback from street face.
If a setback third-story is
desired, it would be preferable it
be set back far enough so that
there will be little or no visibility
from Pearl St. or 11th St.
E.
Provide a variation of roof heights in
a large building. A variety of roof
heights and types within the district
is desirable.
Staff considers set-back third
story will be highly visible and
not characteristic of historic
building forms located at corner
locations in the Downtown
Historic District. Furthermore,
proposed canopies with steel
member extending to storefront
level on 11th Street face will
visually accentuate this element.
Consider redesigning and
simplifying this detail.
Maybe
F.
Buildings are expected to be designed
on all exposed elevations. Primary
facade materials are to extend to
secondary elevations, or wrap
building corners, at a proportionally
Brick appears as veneer where it
intersects glass module and
stone at corner element does not
integrate well with adjoining
walls and will enhance sense of
veneer and lack of depth in wall
form. Staff recommends design
Yes
Agenda Item #5A, Page 28
relevant distance as to portray a sense
of depth.
should rely on proportion rather
than multiple materials,
complexity of fenestration, form,
and applied filigree.
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.
The proposed design shows a
number of distinct modules at
the storefront level and at least
patterns of fenestration on a
5200sq. ft. lot. It is recommended
to simplify forms while allowing
expression of historic patterns
and proportions found in the
streetscape. Staff considers glass
element at west face interrupts
rhythm of the building.
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 as
dominant building material
appropriate by considers
simplification of the material
palette given the relatively small
scale of the building, to be in
keeping with the notion of
simplicity and use of traditional
form. Use brick as the dominant
material at the storefront level
creating more continuity with
upper stories and to be
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 29
consistent with historic
buildings in the district.
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.,
faces. However, west face
should be simplified to
reduce the number of building
modules and simplify material
palette at the storefront level.
No
C.
Awnings may be used to provide
visual depth and shade.
Awnings should be designed to fit the
storefront opening to emphasize the
building’s proportions and have at
least an eight-foot clearance from the
sidewalk. Awnings should not
obscure or damage important
architectural details.
Operable fabric awnings are
encouraged. Metal awnings or
canopies that are similar in form to
fabric awnings may be appropriate
when designed as an integral part of
the building facade, and do not appear
as tacked-on additions. Awning color
should be coordinated with the color
scheme of the entire building front.
Awnings on the upper stories are
discouraged.
Proposed awnings appear to be
consistent with this guideline. Yes
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
Proposed materials include
Number of materials including
brick, stone, stucco, wood, glass
and structural steel. . The
downtown district has little
precedent for utilization of this
number of materials on historic
buildings of this size. Consider
redesigning the building to
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 30
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.
significantly simplify the
material palette.
E.
Minimize the visibility of mechanical,
structural, or electrical
appurtenances
Use low-profile mechanical units and
elevator shafts that are not visible
from the street. If this is not possible,
set back or screen rooftop equipment
from view. Be sensitive to views from
the upper floors of neighboring
buildings. Skylights or solar panels
should have low profiles and not be
visible from the public right-of-way.
These features should be installed in a
manner which minimizes damage to
historic materials
The proposed glass
entry/elevator stair element will
be highly visible. Bringing the
third story to the face of
building on north and west will
provide for opportunity to
integrate the stair/elevator tower
into the building and to conceal
rooftop mechanical equipment.
No
F.
Improve rear or side alley elevations
to enhance public access from parking
lots and alleys
Where buildings are built to the alley
edge, consider opportunities for alley
display windows and secondary
customer or employee entries.
Screening for service equipment,
trash, or any other rear-of-building
elements should be designed as an
Enhancement on 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
Agenda Item #5A, Page 31
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.
G.
Exterior building lighting should be
designed to enhance the overall
architecture of the building. Security
lighting should be designed for safety,
as well as night-time appearance.
Details not provided.
H. Reduce the visual impact of
structured and surface parking.
Consider relocating or further
screening parking at rear. Maybe
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. However, massing and
proportions of the building should
better reflect forms of three-story
buildings located at prominent
intersections in the Downtown
Historic District. Bringing the third-
story to street face, reducing the
number of building modules and
simplifying building forms will result
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 32
in more compatible building. Revise
floor levels to ensure that the building
is proportioned so the first story level
is highest with upper story(ies) lower
in height to better reflect historic
building proportions. Ensure that
vertical elements including pilasters,
as well as horizontal forms and
accents are aligned.
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Redesign to ensure massing,
configuration and proportion better
reflect those found on at prominent
corners in the Downtown Historic
District (see .1 above).
No
.3 Historic heights and widths
as well as their ratios
maintained, especially
proportions of façade.
General proportions of the façade
elements that are found in the district
are followed on the north elevation,
however, proportions at west face of
building do not reflect proportions of
historic buildings in the district,
especially the entrance and
stair/elevator element and steel
elements continuing from third story
canopies to street level. Redesign to
bring third-story to street ace and
integrating and eliminate or
significantly redesign west entrance
module to simple and integrate form.
(see .1 above).
No
6.4 Materials
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Materials should be similar
in scale, proportion, texture,
finish, and color to those
found on nearby historic
structures.
Proposed materials include brick,
stone, stucco, wood, glass and
structural steel. The historic district
has little precedent for utilization of
this number of materials on historic
No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 33
buildings of this size. Simplify
material palette.
.2 Maintain a human scale by
avoiding large, featureless
surfaces and by using
traditionally sized building
components and materials.
In general, human scale is addressed
at storefront level.
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.
Reduce number of types and forms of
windows while revising storefront
elements to create unity more
consistent with historic buildings in
the district.
No
.2 Select windows and doors
for new structures that are
compatible in material,
subdivision, proportion,
pattern and detail with the
windows and doors of
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district
See .1 above. No
Agenda Item #5A, Page 34
.3 New structures should use
a roof form found in the
district or on the landmark
site
Third story roof canopy is not
compatible with historic roof
forms/elements found on historic
buildings in the Downtown Historic
District.
Maybe
Planning & Development and Historic Preservation staff have met with the property
owners and project architects several times about the construction of a building at this
location. During these meetings, staff has emphasized consistency with the design
guidelines and recommended moving the third story to the north and west edges to
be consistent with the historic pattern on major corners in the historic district. These
changes were made and an approval for such a building was approved with
conditions by the Landmarks Board at its May 3, 2017 meeting.
Staff considers that the design of that building appropriately takes cues from historic
buildings on prominent corners in downtown Boulder such as Pearl Street and
Broadway, the Odd Fellows Lodge Building at 16th and Pearl Streets, and 1505 Pearl
St., (recent infill) and the NW corner 15th and Walnut Streets (recent infill). Staff also
considers that the approved design provides for a simple and elegant building that
will appropriately anchor this corner entry to the Pearl Street Mall.
Staff appreciates the considerable time and consideration that the applicant has given
to the design of a building at 1102 Pearl Street and acknowledges the desire to provide
outdoor space for residential units on the third floor, but considers that such a desire
should not drive the exterior design of a building at such a key location in the historic
district and the downtown as a whole. The ability to provide rooftop deck area on top
of the third floor as proposed in the May 3, 2017 approved design seems to represent a
reasonable compromise in this respect.
To this end, staff cannot recommend the current proposal and that redesign to bring it
into compliance would not be appropriate through resolution of conditions at the
Landmarks design review committee.
The approved May 3, 2017 landmark alteration certificate approval for the design for a
building at 1102 Pearl Street is effective for 180 days from the May 16, 2017 (until
November 12, 2017) decision by the City Council to not “call-up” the decision per 9-
11-17(2) of the Boulder Revised Code. This approval can be extended for an additional
180 days, if requested in writing, if requested before November 12, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None received to date.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 35
FINDINGS:
Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be inconsistent with purposes of
the Historic Preservation Ordinance and finds that the proposed design does not meet the
standards specified in Section 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed work is also inconsistent
with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Staff
recommends that the Board deny the application.
The issues that should be addressed by the applicant in the redesign include massing, scale,
fenestration, materials and design details. The redesign should address these issues in a
manner that is more consistent with these guidelines and with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
The Landmarks Board finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the project
meets the standards for an alteration certificate requirements set forth in Section 9-11--18,
“Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In reaching this
conclusion, the Board considered the information in the staff memorandum dated Mar. 1,
2017, and the evidence provided to the Board at its Sept.6, 2017 meeting. Specifically, the
Board finds that:
1. The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district. Section 9-11-18(b)(1),
B.R.C. 1981.
2. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and
materials used on the proposed construction will be incompatible with the
character of the historic district. Section 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
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: Current Plans dated Aug. 7, 2017
B: March 1, 2017 Landmarks Board Minutes
C: May 3, 2017 Staff Memorandum to Landmarks Board re: 1102 Pearl Street
D: May 3, 2017 Landmarks Board Minutes
E: May 16, 2017 City Council Call-Up Memorandum re: 1102 Pearl Street
F: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item #5A, Page 36
Attachment A: Current Plans
Agenda Item #5A, Page 37
Agenda Item #5A, Page 38
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
Agenda Item #5A, Page 57
Agenda Item #5A, Page 58
Attachment B Excerpt from March 1st, 2017 Landmark Board Minutes
Agenda Item #5A, Page 59
Attachment C: May 3, 2017 Staff Memorandum to Landmarks Board re: 1102 Pearl Street
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:
11. Site: 1102 Pearl St.
12. Historic District: Downtown
13. Zoning: DT-5 (Downtown-5)
14. Owner: Phil Day, PMD Realty
15. Applicant: Jim Bray, Bray Architecture
16. Date of Construction: c. 1910s
17. Historic Name(s): Garbarino’s Saloon, Garbarino’s Garage
18. Existing Building: 5,200 sq. ft.
19. Proposed Building: 15,380 sq. ft.
20. 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
Agenda Item #5A, Page 60
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.
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.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 61
• 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
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 62
Figure 1. Location Map, 1102 Pearl St. looking southwest
Figure 2. Northwest Corner, 1102 Pearl St., 2016
Agenda Item #5A, Page 63
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 64
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 65
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.5
5 Silvia Pettem in “Boulder, Evolution of a City” University Press of Colorado, 1994 p.11
Agenda Item #5A, Page 66
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 1884-1897.6
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.7 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.8 In 1910, the west end the property at
1102 Pearl St. was identified as a business selling sundries. By 1913, the building was vacant
6 Daily Camera. “Eli Metcalf, Member of Pioneer Family, is Boulder Visitor.” 13 August 1955. Boulder Carnegie Library.
7 Daily Camera. “Joseph Hocking Dead.” 27 April, 1908. Boulder Carnegie Library.
8 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 67
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 68
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 69
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 70
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 71
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 72
(§ 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 73
• 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 74
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 75
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 76
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:
(5) 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;
(6) 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;
(7) 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;
(8) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the
Agenda Item #5A, Page 77
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 78
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 79
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 80
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 81
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 82
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 83
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 84
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 85
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 86
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 87
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 88
.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 89
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 90
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 91
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item #5A, Page 92
Agenda Item #5A, Page 93
1102 Pearl St. Survey Photograph, 1986
Agenda Item #5A, Page 94
Attachment B: Current Photographs
1102 Pearl St., north (front) façade, 2016
1102 Pearl St., northwest corner, 2016
Agenda Item #5A, Page 95
1102 Pearl St., west (side) elevation, 2016
1102 Pearl St., south (rear) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item #5A, Page 96
Attachment C: Plans
Agenda Item #5A, Page 97
Agenda Item #5A, Page 98
Agenda Item #5A, Page 99
Agenda Item #5A, Page 100
Agenda Item #5A, Page 101
Agenda Item #5A, Page 102
Agenda Item #5A, Page 103
Agenda Item #5A, Page 104
Agenda Item #5A, Page 105
Agenda Item #5A, Page 106
Agenda Item #5A, Page 107
Agenda Item #5A, Page 108
Agenda Item #5A, Page 109
Agenda Item #5A, Page 110
Agenda Item #5A, Page 111
Agenda Item #5A, Page 112
Agenda Item #5A, Page 113
Agenda Item #5A, Page 114
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 following 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 simple, yet elegantly
designed building that depends on scale, proportion and subdued materiality.
• A simple brick form, with transparency at the storefront level reflecting the Garbarino Garage may translate well to retail/restaurant
uses in a building and referencing the history of the site. Per the Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines and General Design
Guidelines, simplicity is key in designing a building that enhances the historic character of the streetscape and becomes an elegant
background building rather than one that dominates. This does not mean that the property does not provide an exciting opportunity
for creative contemporary design, but the design must respond to and be compatible with the historic character of the site and
district depending on form and proportion rather than architectural detail.
• While the building that exists on the site itself was not found to be contributing to the historic district given the extent of the
alterations to the building over time, there are design cues that should be taken from the original building. While staff notes 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 115
Consider eliminating the consistent banding across the tops of the windows which creates a more horizontal appearance,
using more traditional sills.
The columns proposed appear to be too large and out of proportion inconsistent with guideline 1.3.A
The format of the matrix below is intended to provide a concise response to the questions of consistency with the guidelines. Where
findings have been made that the current concept plans don’t respond or “maybe” respond to the guidelines, an image is provided to
emphasize the points made in the response. In some cases, staff is providing precedent images of built projects as examples, and in
other cases, the images from the concept plan are illustrated to demonstrate the inconsistency. Note that additional review for
consistency with section 6.0 of the General Design Guidelines for new primary buildings will be conducted at the time of application for a
Landmarks Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item #5A, Page 116
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.1 General Guidelines for the Historic District
Note: it is neither the intention of this guideline to recreate the past, nor to encourage theme design in the historic district, if the original building façade or original building materials do not exist. However, if documentary evidence exists, such as photographs, then an
acceptable alternative is to reconstruct the facade.
GUIDELINE: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES
1.1 A.
1.1.B
The use of traditional durable materials
as the primary building material is
encouraged to refelct the historic
building constgruction and development pattern within the distric. Choose accent
materials simiarl in texture and scale to
others in the district
Awnings may be used to provide visual depth and shade.
While the plans are conceptual in nature, the
applicant appears to be proposing red brick with
stone accents
Awnings are shown.
preliminarily
Preliminarily
1.1.C
Select buidling colors appropriate to
area’s historic character
While Red Brick appears to be a dominant
material in the 1100 block of Pearl Street, not all
buildings are red brick.; some historic buildings
are a blond brick and some have had the brick
painted over, including the adjacent building to
the east of the site. However, the applicant is
illustrating a red brick in keeping with much of
the historic character of downtown Boulder
which was established by the particular red clay
soils of the region.
Preliminarily
1.1.D Minimize the visibility of mechanical,
structural, or electrical appurtenances
Not currently illustrated, applicant should
consider low profile mechanical or embedding
mechanical into building
unknown ------------------
1.1.E
Improve rear or side alley elevations to
enhance public access from parking lots and alleys
The conceptual sketch of the alley elevation
does appear to address enhancements,
however, the applicant should consider display
windows and secondary customer alley access
partially
Agenda Item #5A, Page 117
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 118
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 119
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 120
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 121
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 Submitt
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS:
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
Agenda Item #5A, Page 122
Attachment D: May 3, 2017 Landmarks Board Minutes
Agenda Item #5A, Page 123
Agenda Item #5A, Page 124
Agenda Item #5A, Page 125
Agenda Item #5A, Page 126
Agenda Item #5A, Page 127
Agenda Item #5A, Page 128
Agenda Item #5A, Page 129
Agenda Item #5A, Page 130
Attachment E: May 16 2017 City Council Call-Up Memorandum re: 1102 Pearl Street
Agenda Item #5A, Page 131
Agenda Item #5A, Page 132
Agenda Item #5A, Page 133
Attachment F: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item #5A, Page 134
Agenda Item #5A, Page 135
1102 Pearl Survey Photograph, 1986