Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Landmarks - 3/1/2000 City of Boulder MINUTES OF THE Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1777 Broadway March 1, 2000 5:00 p.m. Board Members Present: Michael Holleran, chair Lisa Egger Sharon Rosall Rory Salance Leslie Durgin Ex-officio Planning Board Members present: Mark Ruzzin Staff Members Present Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director of Long Range Planning Jim McCarthy, Board Secretary Mr.Holleran - called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. 1. Citizen Participation for items not on the agenda There were none. 2. Report on Landmark Alteration Certificates/Demolition Permits Issued and Pending Accepted without comment. 3. Review and Approval of the Minutes of the February 2, 2000 meeting This item continued to the April 5, 2000 meeting. 4. Public hearing and consideration of a request to grant a Demolition Permit application for the structure located at 1445 Pine St., Pursuant to section 10-13-23 for buildings over fifty years or recognized as structure of merit. Applicant: St. John's Episcopal Church This item was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. 2 5. Public hearing and consideration of a request to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for construction of a garage on the property located at 706 Pine St., within the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Applicant: Nancy Shapiro Mr. Holleran - gave an overview of quasi-judicial hearings. Ex-Parte contacts: Mr. Salance - Design Review Ms. Egger - Design Review Mr. Holleran - Design Review Ms. Rosall - none Public Hearing Mr. McCarthy - swore in those planning to speak to the issue. Ms. Doherty - summarized the staff memo recommending conditional approval. Nancy and Mark Shapiro, 706 Pine Street - placed a board of photos into the record and offered to answer any questions from the board. Ms. Rosall - asked about the distance from the back of the house to the garage. Ms. Shapiro - 17.5 feet from the deck of the house to the stair; 25 feet from the deck to the garage; 38 feet from the house wall to the garage wall. Mr. Shapiro - asked the board to approve a single garage door instead of two. Mr. Holleran - asked why the garage doors face sideways instead of onto the alley. Mr. Shapiro - explained that this was a Design Review Committee request to prevent placing the garage extremely close to the house and in order to get the required turning room as well as accommodating the three foot drop to the alley. Public Hearing Mr. Holleran - opened the public hearing and, seeing no one wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. 3 Board Deliberation Mr. Salance - moved that: The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board conditionally approve the Landmark Alteration Certificate for construction of a new two-car garage located at 706 Pine Street, adopting the staff memorandum of.- 1. Final details, colors, and materials to be approved by Design Review Committee. 2. Final window and door details to ensure compatibility with the house to be approved by Design Review Committee. Ms. Egger - seconded. Mr. Salance - is comfortable with what has been presented, but he is concerned with the increase in size of approved garages. He is unwilling to remove the center post. Ms. Eger - agrees that the garage is borderline big and for that reason the two doors are essential. Ms. Rosall - explained why the board insists on the use of two garage doors. Mr. Holleran - noted that the double doors in the applicant's photos predate the need for board approval. There is one exception, but that was a reuse of a smaller, historic outbuilding. He then called the question. Vote Unanimous Approval (4-0) 6. Public hearing and consideration of a request to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for an addition to the building known as the "Old Public Service Power Substation", on the individually landmarked site located at 1590 Broadway. Applicant: Tebo Development This item was continued at the request of the applicant. Item 7 has been rescheduled to later in the meeting 9. Matters from the Planning Department a. Discussion of the five year update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan sections concerning policy and the Historic District Map. Ms. McHeyser - gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and how it is organized. She summarized the existing preservation policies and staff's proposed changes as part of the five- year update of the plan. She polled the board about using a Program Summary of the board's 4 work in lieu of a valley-wide preservation plan, which would be an immense work item, and may not be needed because the existing program is so extensive and mature. Mr. Holleran - asked if there were something more comprehensive than a summary, but less involved than a complete Preservation Plan. Ms. McHeyser - explained that the Comp. Plan's general policies state that the city and county will develop a valley-wide preservation plan. Many communities create preservation plans, which are huge undertakings, but the city of Boulder already has a fully developed and comprehensive preservation program. A summary of this program could better define our preservation goals and policies than creating an entire separate plan for the same properties. She suggested that staff would bring a draft Program Summary to the next several meetings with the goal of having a document ready for Planning Board and City Council review in June or July. If the board at a later time wanted to develop a Preservation Plan, that is an option. Mr. Holleran - noted for the record that Ms. Durgin has arrived. Mr. Holleran - opposes a Preservation Plan for time, energy, and cost reasons. He does feel that looking at where we want to be in ten years would be beneficial. Ms. Mel-leyser - recommends some visioning as recommended by Mr. Holleran, but that taking on much more is an expenditure of time the board and staff probably don't have. The board can choose to leave the policy in and decide whether to add it to the work program at a later time. Ms. Rosall - asked whether view corridors are included. She noted that there is nothing to explain to future readers why the height limit was enacted and why the street grid follows certain axes. She wonders if certain elements of the urban design can be protected from encroachment. Mr. Ruzzin - believes that the height limit covers this. Ms. Durgin - asked if this belongs in the Comp. Plan. Ms. McHeyser - thinks it could be addressed somewhere in the Comp. Plan. Ms. Doherty - reminded that this is already a part of the code (BRC). Ms. McHeyser - The Comp. Plan is where we speak in broad terms about community design and the code is where we implement the most important of those ideas in detail. The question now seems to be whether we should add a visioning component along with the program summary. At the next meeting we can review a draft of the program summary and talk about visioning. 5 Mr. Holleran - the area east of Whittier was never surveyed for consideration as a historic district. The consultants were working with strict guidelines at that time. He suggests we draw the historic district lines as part of this revision rather than later. Ms. McHeyser - thinks that some information about possible future districts is appropriate if accompanied by the caveat the specific district boundaries will require a significant study. She doubts that a study could be accomplished before the Comp. Plan adoption. Mr. Holleran - thinks it may be feasible because the survey information was gathered for the original Whittier district survey, which covered some of the same properties. His concern is that trying to designate properties after failing to add then to the Comp. Plan gives credibility to opponents. Ms. Durgin - is concerned that adding potential new districts through the Comp. Plan might be unpopular with property owners who haven't been notified and believe they are outside any district. Ms. McHeyser - The proposed districts would be on a map published in the paper and included in the Comp. Plan update giving property owners notice of the public hearings where they can comment. We do not notify property owners individually. Mr. Holleran - explained that most of the existing districts went through the same process. Ms. McHeyser - In Whittier there is the National Register-eligible district and a larger section that is locally significant. In general, then, is the map okay? Ms. Durgin - would like the map and its accompanying text to call out National Register-eligible districts not currently indicated. Mr. Holleran - will risk a more complicated map in exchange for showing National Register- eligibility, which sends a stronger message to property owners. Ms. McHeyser - will bring a maps with and without eligibility information to the next meeting. b. Depot Task Force update Ms. McHeyser - The first meeting will be next Tuesday at the Depot. The task force is a group appointed by the City Manager to look at options for relocating the Depot. The task force should have an interim report to the City Manager by the end of May. 10. Matters from the Board Ms. Durgin - summarized a letter from the Chancellor of the university to Mayor Toor expressing the university's desire to continue negotiations. 6 Mr. Holleran - updated the board on the progress made by the City Attorney's Office in closing the loophole that allows the demolition of structures to go unpunished as well as and plans to add more protections for historic resources. 11. Old and New Business There was none. 7. Public hearing and consideration of a request to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for demolition of the existing building and replacement with new construction at the site located at 1468 Pearl Street in the Downtown Historic District. Applicant: J Nold Midyette Chris Shears and John Spitzer of the Downtown Design Advisory Board joined the meeting. Mr. Holleran - the hearing will be separated into two items: The demolition of the existing structure and the design of the replacement structure. Ms. Durk - recused herself from this item. Mr. Boles - reviewed quasi-judicial hearings. Ex-Parte Contacts: Mr. Salance - Design Review Ms. Egger - Design Review Mr. Holleran - Conversations with DDAB members Ms. Rosall - No contact Mr. McCarthy - swore in those planning to speak to the item Ms. Doherty - presented the staff memorandum and its supporting slides. Applicant's Presentation J Midyette, 1936 14th Street - Studied the building for possible modification. There are four main problems: Building is constructed of cast-in-place concrete and was build with an eight foot six inch ceiling height and a great deal of reinforcing steel; the building has been opened-up to the extent possible; it is not pedestrian friendly; it is not the right scale for a gateway to the mall; and the interior has over 20 14 X 14 inches columns. It would be almost impossible to reuse for retail space and can never be the building that the corner deserves. The photograph of the 7 building shows primarily the Citizen's Bank building behind it. It could not be built today under existing guidelines. Mr. Spitzer - asked in what year it was built. Mr. Midyette - 1465 Public Hearing Richard Polk. 1724 Norwood & Owner, Pedestrian Shops - Spoke in favor the demolition and the proposed replacement. He believes the two ugliest buildings on the mall form the eastern portal. Mr. Holleran - seeing no else wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Board Deliberation Motion Ms. Rosall - moved that: The board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for demolition of the existing building located at 1468 Pearl Street. She expressed a willingness to accept a friendly amendment linking the Landmark Alteration Certificate for demolition to approval of the replacement building. She then added the following: Conditions: Black and white as built drawings of the building's exterior; and Second, approval of a Landmark Alteration Certificate ,for the replacement building. Ms. F,gger - Seconded. Ms. Rosall - Speaking to her motion noted that the building is not considered contributing, not built during the period of significance, and has been extensively modified. Ms. Egger - would like to see the original plans as part of the permanent record. Mr. Holleran - offered a friendly amendment: That the board adopt the staff memorandum as findings of the board and that the photos and drawings be approved by the Design Review Committee. Ms. Rosall - accepted the friendly amendment Mr. Holleran - called the question Vote (on demolition only) Unanimous Vote - (4-0), Ms. Durgin recused. 8 Mr. Holleran - The board will now review the proposed replacement building. Ms. Doherty - summarized the staff memorandum. She informed the board that condition 2-B should be removed. Ms. Rosall - asked how many Design Review visits the project made. Ms. Doherty - One. Ms. Rosall - asked if the project changed as a result. Ms. Doherty - Yes. Ms. Rosall - asked what the kickplate height is. Ms. Doherty - 17 inches is called out on he plans. She then showed several slides. Ms. Rosall - wanted to see the historic elements. Ms. Doherty - showed several pictures showing the sigh band and transom that are not carried on the new building Applicants Presentation J Midyette, 1936 14th Street - has, along with others, made a commitment to revitalizing the cast end of Pearl Street. The eastern gateway to downtown is now probably the new parking garage and the Odd Fellows' Hall. The proposed building has gone through several revisions as a result of review and it has improved with each revision. He reviewed the palette of materials and colors. He then explained that he didn't go to three stories because the 1.7 FAR makes for very small second and third story footprints and there is a need for review. The floor to floor heights are as large as practical to help moderate the very tall parking garage across the Street. Mr. Shears - asked if Mr. Midyette could describe the floor-to-floor heights. Mr. Midyette - 20'6" on the first floor and the second floor takes the roof deck to 35'. Mr. Spitzer - asked why the curved glass corner isn't an entry. Mr. Midyette - stores actually on the Mall do very well. Those just off the Mall do much less well. The idea is to draw people around the corner and a display window works better than an entry. Also, having the office entry a ways down 15th Street means that a certain number of people must walk down from the Mall. 9 Mr. Spitzer - Do you foresee different first floor tenants? Mr. Midyette - There is one with a fifteen year lease--Artisanias. If there is a new tenant or multiple tenants in fifteen years, then one of them gets the corner. Mr. Holleran - asked why there are canopies, but not over the doors. Mr. Midyette - the nature of the shading on the building means that it doesn't ever need canopies. The canopies shown are open and primarily decorative. Mr. Salanee - questioned the strong band along most of the south side of the 1400 Block of Pearl, but not on the new building. Mr. Midi - looked at the parking garage which has the same first floor height. Also, as at the turn of the century, high ceiling heights are considered prime spaces. Mr. Shears - asked if the radius of the corner has been reduced since coming to DDAB. Mr. Midyette - replied that it has--at one time it was large enough to hold a revolving doors and the surrounding emergency doors. Mr. Spitzer - would like to see the canopies extended over the entries to make them more inviting. Mr. Midyette - thinks it will not feel uninviting at street level due to the other design elements added to make the entrances more inviting. He then verified some window and kickplate measurements for Ms. Rosall. Public Hearing Mr. Holleran - opened the public hearing. Richard Polk, 1724 Norwood - thinks this is exciting retail space. The best retail space reaches outside and makes you want to come in and this building does that. Mr. Holleran - seeing no one else wishing to speak, closed the public hearing. Board Deliberation Mr. Salanee - moved that: The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board conditionally approve the application for new construction at the site located at 1468 Pearl Street as shown on the plans dated February 18, 2000 and adopting the staff memorandum with findings as listed.- 1. final details, colors and materials. to 2. a revised alley elevation which eliminates the glass block and develops a better solid-to-void relationship of the upper story windows. 3. black and white photographs and as-built drawings of the existing buildings. exterior. Ms. Rosall - Seconds and offers a friendly amendment to eliminate condition 3 since it was covered in the conditions of demolition. Mr. Salance - accepts friendly amendment. Ms. Rosall - accepts (as seconder). Mr. Salance - fears design by committee. Accepts Mr. Midyette's solution. Ms. Rosall - likes solution, but is concerned about the kickplates. The narrower they become, the more a building looks like "big box retail" and less like Boulder's historic storefronts--and at 15 inches, it almost disappears. The parking garage has 25 inch kickplates. In an walking study of downtown, she estimates the average kickplate height was 20 inches. She wants to avoid setting a precedent so she made a friendly amendment that the applicant: Raise the kickplate height and lower the transom height, hopefully creating a signband." Mr. Salance - thinks the applicant has done what was asked of him in the guidelines. We have asked that new buildings be of their own time and in doing so we have to accept certain liberties with mass and proportion. Mr. Holleran - explained the procedure for friendly and regular amendments. Mr. Salance - stated he did not consider Ms. Rosall's amendment friendly. Ms. Rosall - reintroduced her motion as a non-friendly amendment. There was no second Mr. Shears - initially found curve too large, but the radius has been reduced enough to make him comfortable. His original concern was that it diluted the end of the mall. The size and segmentation of the canopies is good. The lack of canopies at the entrances takes away the opportunities for lighting, signage and accenting of those entries. The articulation of architectural metal is critical and determines the success. He thinks that the floor-to-floor heights are appropriate--the more color and light that get onto a street, the more successful that street becomes. He suggests that the glass block on the alley side not be eliminated without some real consideration. II Ms. Rosall - found that the glass block at the 1 lth and Spruce parking structure to offer a softness, light without transparency. She thinks the board should reconsider it. She is concerned that the curved wall in brick will be castle-like. Mr. Holleran - believes that stronger architectural marking of the entrances would be an improvement, but is not a problem requiring board action. The curve at he south-east corner is a problem. It detracts from the Pearl Street corner. If the curve at 15th and Pearl is welcoming us to the Mall, then the curve at the other end is welcoming us to the dumpster. To that end, he proposed an amendment changing Mr. Salance's motion to read [Changes in bold]: The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board conditionally approve the application for new construction at the site located at 1468 Pearl Street as shown on the plans dated February 18, 2000 and adopting the staff memorandum with findings as listed: L final details, colors and materials. 2. a revised alley elevation which eliminates the curve in plan at the southeastern corner, and the glass block and develops a better solid-to-void relationship of the upper story windows. 3. black and white photographs and as-built drawings of the existing buildings. exterior. Mr. Shears - would like to give the architect the opportunity to explain his rationale for the curve. Mr. Holleran - suggested that they first see if there is board support for the change. Ms. Eeger - seconded Mr. Holleran's motion. She supports the amendment because the alley curve detracts from the Pearl curve and invites pedestrians into the alley. Mr. Shears - suggested that the motion restricts the solution and offered an example that allows the curve to remain while extending the 15th street facade one more bay to the south. Mr. Holleran - stated that he would rephrase his amendment to give greater latitude to the Design Review Committee to approve an improvement. He then withdrew his amendment and offered the following replacement [Changes in bold]: The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board conditionally approve the application for new construction at the site located at 1468 Pearl Street as shown on the plans dated February 18, 2000 and adopting the staff memorandum with findings as listed: L final details, colors and materials. 2. a revised east and south elevation which maintains the plane of he building facade along the street or eliminates the curve in plan at the southeastern corner or both, and eliminates the glass block and develops a better solid-to-void relationship of the upper story windows. 3. black and white photographs and as-built drawings of 'the existing buildings. exterior. Ms. Eger -seconded 12 Mr. Holleran - called the question. Vote on amendment unanimous - (4-0) Mr. Spitzer - supports some kind of setback at the corner of Pearl and 15th. This is the pedestrian entrance to the Mall and pulling back offers a better pedestrian experience. Though he likes the way the design interprets and reuses historical elements, Mr. Spitzer is unconvinced that this is the best architecture. He finds it a bit too Denver Tech Center. Mr. Holleran - called the main question. Vote Unanimous - (4-0), Ms. Durgin recused 8. Matters from the City Attorney's Office Mr. Boles - announced that the city has received its first Grandview Terrace lawsuit. He then presented the board with a copy of the suit. Mr. Holleran - adjourned the meeting at 9:20 For further information contact Ruth McHeyser in the Planning Department at 441-3292 S:\PLAN\DATA\COMI)I: V\H IST\MIN U'I'ES\2000\00-03-01. MIN