08.12.20 LB PowerPoint1.Meetings are for conducting the business of the City of Boulder.
2.Activities that disrupt, delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited.
3.The time for speaking or asking questions is limited to facilitate the purpose of the
meeting.
a.No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding and no
person shall speak for longer than the time allotted.
b.Each person shall register to speak at the meeting using that person’s real name. Any
person believed to be using a pseudonym will not be permitted to speak at the
meeting.
4.No video will be permitted except for city officials, employees and invited speakers. All
others will participate by voice only.
5.The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who
violates any rule.
6.If the chat function is enabled, it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host.
It should be used for technical/online platform-related questions only.If an attendee
attempts to use chat for any reason other than seeking assistance from the host, the city
reserves the right to disable that individual’s access to chat.
7.Only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their
screen during this meeting.
1
We are pleased you
have joined us!
To strike a balance
between meaningful,
transparentengagement
and online security, the
following rules will be
applied at this meeting:
Landmarks
Board
Meeting
July 8, 2020
2
Agenda1.Call to Order
2.Approval of minutes from the July 8, 2020 meeting
3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items
4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued
and pending
Statistical Report for July
5.Public Hearings
A.406 Pearl St. –Landmark Alteration Certificate
B.728 10th St. –Demolition Review
6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City
Attorney
7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check
8.Adjournment
3
Quasi-
Judicial
Hearing
Electronic
Participation
Rules (1/2)
The Landmarks Board (“Board”) may hold quasi-judicial hearings at a meeting through electronic participation, subject to the procedures set forth in this Rule. To the extent practical, the Board will use its standard meeting procedures, as modified by this Rule. To the extent that this Rule conflicts with the procedural rules of the Board, this Rule is intended to prevail.
GENERAL PROCEDURES
A. Applicant’s Written Request. An applicant may request to have its application for a hearing conducted via electronic participation by completing a written request form provided by the city. The applicant will acknowledge that holding a quasi-judicial hearing by electronic participation presents certain legal risks and involves an area of legal uncertainty, and the applicant will acknowledge that moving forward with a quasi-judicial hearing by electronic participation will be at its own risk.
B. City Manager to Determine Suitability of Conducting Quasi-Judicial Hearing by Electronic Participation. These procedures create no right in any party to a quasi-judicial matter to a hearing conducted by electronic participation. Upon receipt of a written request, the city manager will determine whether the city has the capability to hold the particular type of hearing by electronic participation, what available form of electronic participation is most appropriate for the type of hearing, and set a date(s)for the hearing(s).
C. Hearings Open to the Public and Subject to Adequate Technology. Hearings will be open to the public and provide the ability for interested members of the public to join the hearing electronically. The method chosen by the city manager will ensure the public can view or listen to the hearing in real time and interested parties may speak at designated times during the hearing. If at any point the city manager or board chair determines it is not possible or prudent to hold the hearing by electronic participation, whether due to technical issues or an inability to do so while meeting constitutional due process requirements, the hearing will be continued or vacated, and the matter will be held in abeyance until any technical problems can be resolved or in-person meetings have resumed.
D. Notice Requirements. In addition to the requirements of the Boulder Revised Code, the city will include additional notice about how the hearing will be conducted and how the public can access, observe, and participate in the hearing. The additional notice is intended to reasonably inform interested persons that such hearing will instead be held by electronic participation; provided, however, this additional notice will not be deemed jurisdictional.
E. Technological Accommodations. The city will make reasonable efforts to accommodate interested parties who lack necessary computer equipment or the ability to access such equipment by providing call-in or telephonic access to the meeting. Interestedparties will be encouraged to submit written comments in advance of the hearing, which comments will be made a part of the hearing record.
Continued …
4
Quasi-
Judicial
Hearing
Electronic
Participation
Rules (2/2)
F. Hearing Procedures. Hearings are for conducting the business of the City of Boulder. Activities that disrupt, delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. At the onset of the hearing, the board chair will describe the hearing procedures, including how testimony and public comment will be received. The department that supports the Board will moderate the electronic meeting. To the extent practical, any person that wants to attend the meeting will be added to the meeting and will be muted. Any person that wants to testify should inform the moderator. The moderator will unmute such person during the public hearing to testify for three minutes.
1.Any documentary evidence will be provided to the designated secretary of the Board via email at least 48 hours prior to the beginning of the meeting. Documentary evidence includes, without limitation, materials related to specific applications and other documents to be shown electronically during the hearing.
2.Any person testifying, including the applicant, shall be sworn in individually.
3.The applicant will be allowed to speak to its application for 10 minutes. City staff will be allowed to speak to its recommendations for 10 minutes. The applicant or staff may request additional time from the board chair for more complicated applications. Persons wishing to testify will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. For electronic hearings, every person will need to testify for themselves. No pooling of time will be allowed.
4.The time for speaking or asking questions is limited to facilitate the purpose of the hearing. No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted. Each person shall register to speak at the meeting using that person’s real name. Any person believed to be using a pseudonym will not be permitted to speak.
5.No video participation will be permitted except for city officials, employees and invited speakers. All others will participate by voice only.
6.The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule.
7.Board members, staff, and applicants shall not use chat features of electronic meeting software except for the purpose of asking the board chair procedural questions or to request to be recognized by the board chair to speak.
8.Applicants will be provided the opportunity to speak for up to three minutes prior to the close of the public hearing.
9.In order to accurately record board member votes, the board chair will call for a roll call vote on any motions made during the hearing or taking final action.
G. Record. The secretary of the Board will ensure that all equipment used for the hearing is adequate and functional for allowing clear communication among the participants and for creating a record of the hearing as required by law; provided, however, the secretary will not be responsible for resolving any technical difficulties incurred by any person participating in the hearing.
5
Statistical
Report
6July 2020 applications approved and closed
Statistical
Report
34
19
32
48
35
41
30
42
30 30
19
36
26
41
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan Feb March April May June July
2019 2020
7
7/31/2019: 240 cases 7/31/2020: 219 cases 2019: 386 cases
July 2020 applications approved and closed
Agenda
Item 5A
Public hearing and consideration of a proposal to
demolish a non-contributing house and
accessory building and to construct a new 3,295
sq. ft. house and 400 sq. ft. two-car detached
garage at 406 Pearl Street in the West Pearl
Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11 -18
B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2020-00163).
Owner: Andrew and Diana Fordyce
Applicant: Samuel Austin, Samuel Austin &
Company Architects.
8
Quasi-Judicial
Public
Hearing
Procedure
1.All speaking are sworn in
2.Board members note any ex parte contacts
3.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff
4.Applicant presentation; Board may ask questions of applicant
5.Public hearing opened for citizen comment; the Board may ask
questions
6.Applicant response
7.Public hearing closed; Board discussion
8.A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to
pass. Motions must state findings, conclusions, and
recommendation
9.A record of the hearing is kept by staff
9
Criteria for
Review
9-11 -18 (b) & (c),
B.R.C. 1981
The proposed work:
1.Preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior
architectural features of the property;
2.Does not adversely affect the historic, architectural value of the
property;
3.Architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials are compatible with the character of the property;
4.The Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of
alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and
enhanced access for the disabled.
10
Landmarks
Board
Options
Approve
Subject to 14-day City Council Call-Up
Deny
•Subject to 45-day City Council Call-Up
Provide applicant opportunity to withdraw
application
Application withdrawn; case closed.
11
Application
Process
May 27, 2020
Application Submitted
Aug. 12, 2020
Landmarks Board Review
12
Location
13
Property
History
14
•House at 406 Pearl Street was constructed prior to 1893 -by 1900 property was by
George L., his wife Alice (nee Stansbury) Harding, and daughters Eva and Mildred.
•Born in Cork, Ireland in 1847, George emigrated to USA with his family in 1861 and
settled in Sturgis, Michigan.
Property
History
15•Graduated from the University of Michigan in 1874 with an MA and worked for a number of
years as a schoolteacher in Minnesota and Ohio.
•George and Alice married in Ligonier, Ohio in 1887 and in 1890 the couple relocated to
Longmont, Colorado where George took a position leading the growing city’s school system.
•1893, George elected superintendent of Boulder County Schools, representing the Populist
party was re-elected to this position in 1897.
•George and Alice helped secure Texas Chautauqua’s location to Boulder in 1898
Property
History
16
•House either operated as a rooming house or divided into flats
beginning around 1901.
•June of 1953, permit issued for construction of a frame storage shed for
$200 (the cottage?), and Tax Assessor card makes reference to
construction of a “12x20 . . . “storage house”.
•In 1974 a bay and bedroom addition to the main house -1982 permit for
“take off and rebuild the second-story”.
•The 1988 survey identifies the house as being “masonry vernacular”
and having “been remodeled beyond its historic integrity”.
Contributing Status –c. 1893 Main House 17
Contributing Status –1953 Cottage 18
Contributing Status –c.1893 Barn 19
20
•View facing east (from 4th Street)
Staff considers both the main house and cottage are non-contributing to the West Pearl
Historic Districtand that their removal is appropriate provided new construction is
consistent with Section 9-11 -18 of the Boulder Revised Code.
Proposal
406 Pearl St., West Pearl Historic District
21
Existing &
Proposed Site
Plans
22
Proposed
North
Elevation
23
Proposed
West
Elevation
24
Proposed
East
Elevation
25
Proposed
South
Elevation
26
Proposed
Garage
27
Proposed
Garage
28
Proposed
Garage
29
Design Guideline Analysis
9-11 -18, B.R.C. 1981
30
General
Design
Guidelines
31
o The Neo-Traditional design of the building is compatible in terms of setback and
orientation.
o Proposed garage is shown to be located mid-lot adjacent to new curb cut location
recommended by the City of Boulder transportation.
•6.3 Mass & Scale
o The proposed scale of main house is somewhat larger than historically found
in the historic district, but is generally compatible with surrounding buildings.
Staff considers that the rear porch/balcony should be significantly reduced
(including redesign of the brick wall with arched opening to be more open) to
minimize the mass and scale of the building when viewed from the west and
southwest.
o Proposed two-car garage is appropriate and mass and scale, but efforts
should be made to increase space between it and adjacent historic garage.
•6.4 Materials
o Proposed materials including stone, brick, and clapboard all traditionally found in
the historic district, though staff considers that use of stone on garage
inappropriate.
o Use of metal roofing elements on house should be analyzed to ensure
appropriateness to context of the historic district.
o Provide detailed information on all materials including proposed siding, wood
railings, windows, doors, pathways, driveway, porch for review by the Ldrc.
•6.5 Key Building Elements
o Fenestration on front portion of proposed house generally reflects traditional
window patterns though over-scaled windows and doors especially at west and
south elevations should be revised
32
General Design Guidelines
2.0 Site Design
o Location of existing and proposed buildings
generally consistent with this section, but
recommends applicant explore relocation the
main entrance to Pearl Street..
o Curving rear deck/porch be reconfigured and
significantly reduced in depth to provide
garden area between the house and
accessory buildings.
o Maintaining the mature tree in the middle of
the yard. This may be possible if the
deck/porch is reduced as recommended.
2.1 Building Location, Orientation & Spacing
o Distance between rear porch/deck significantly
increased to provide more rear garden space as
suggested above.
o Distance between the contributing barn and
proposed garage should be increased to extent
possible.
33
General Design Guidelines
•6.1 Distinction from Historic
Buildings
o Design is contemporary
interpretation of traditional
Edwardian Vernacular in terms of
mass, scale and, materials.
o Review fenestration to reduce
scale of windows and doors
(especially at south end of west
face and south elevation).
•6.2 Site and Setting
o Neo-Traditional design compatible
in terms of setback and
orientation.
o Proposed garage is shown to be
located mid-lot adjacent to new
curb cut location recommended by
the City of Boulder transportation.
34
•6.4 Materials
o Proposed materials including stone,
brick, and clapboard all traditionally
found in the historic district, though
staff considers that use of stone on
garage inappropriate.
o Use of metal roofing elements on
house should be analyzed to ensure
appropriateness to context of the
historic district.
•6.5 Key Building Elements
o Fenestration on front portion of
proposed house generally reflects
traditional window patterns though
over-scaled windows and doors
especially at west and south
elevations should be revised.
o Skylights may not be appropriate on
publicly visible areas of roof.
35
West Pearl Historic District Design Guidelines
•F. New Construction
o Proposed design incorporates elements of historic house in
form and detail, though revisions should be made to
fenestration at south portion of west elevation and south
face to better integrate design into historic context more
appropriate scaling of windows and doors, significant
reduction of rear porch deck, fine-tuning of materials.
o Staff considers that large wall dormer at east elevation will
have limited (if any public visibility) and that the form and
details of this element is generally appropriate.
•C. Storage Buildings and Garages
o Proposed garage is shown subordinate to and compatible
with proposed main house, but consideration should be
given to increasing distance between it and historic barn.
6.Porches
o Reduction to rear porch/deck size and configuration should
also include revisions from brick to lighter wood railing
Details of upper porch railing not submitted –resolve at the
Ldrc.
Staff
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board
approve the application with the listed conditions.
36
Conditions
of Approval
1.Submit for review and approval by the LDRC:
a. Redesign the proposed house to significantly reduce the size of the rear porch and deck to have a more open railing system, redesign of fenestration on the south portion of the west elevation and south elevation to be more traditionally scaled and proportioned, and eliminate the west facing skylights;
b.Determine the appropriateness of metal roofing elements and use of stone on new garage by studying precedence in the district;
c.Explore locating the main entrance of the house on the north elevation (facing Pearl Street), increasing the space between the historic barn and garage and change the stone facing on the garage to wood siding;
d.Provide details of windows, doors, trim, siding, roofing, material colors/finishes and hardscaping.
37
Recommended
MotionThe Landmarks Board adopts the staff memorandum dated
August 12th, 2020, as the findings of the board and, with
conditions, approves the demolition of the non-contributing
main house and cottage and in their place the construction of
a 3,295 sq. ft. house and a 400 sq. ft. garage as shown on
plans dated May 27th, 2020, finding that the proposal
generally meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11 -18, B.R.C. 1981.
38
Findings
39The proposed demolition of the non-contributing house and cottage and construction of new house and garage at 406 Pine Street will be consistent with purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and meets the standards specified in Section 9-11 -18 (b), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed work is also be substantially consistent with the General Design
Guidelines and the West Pearl Historic District Design
Guidelines.
Applicant
Presentation
40
Agenda
Item 5B
Public hearing and consideration of an application
to demolish more than 50 percent of the roof and
construct in front of the street facing wall at 728
10th Street, a non-landmarked building over 50
years old,pursuant to Section 9-11 -23 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2020-00159)
and under the procedures prescribed by chapter
1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981.
Owner: Lucinda Low and Daniel Magraw
Applicant: David Biek, Arcadea Architecture
41
Quasi-
Judicial
Public
Hearing
Procedure
42
1.All speaking are sworn in
2.Board members note any ex parte contacts
3.Staff presentation; Board may ask questions of staff
4.Applicant presentation; Board may ask questions of applicant
5.Public hearing opened for citizen comment; the Board may ask
questions
6.Applicant response
7.Public hearing closed; Board discussion
8.A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to
pass. Motions must state findings, conclusions, and
recommendation
9.A record of the hearing is kept by staff
Purpose of
Review
9-11 -23 (a)
B.R.C. 1981
Prevent the loss of buildings that may have
historical or architectural significance
Provide the time necessary to initiate designation
as an individual landmark or to consider
alternatives for the building.
43
Criteria for
Review
9-11 -5 (c)
B.R.C. 1981
The Landmarks Board “shall consider and base its decision
upon any of the following criteria:
1.The eligibility of the building for designation as an
individual landmark consistent with the purposes and
standards in Sections 9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2, B.R.C. 1981;
2.The relationship of the building to the character of the
neighborhood as an established and definable area;
3.The reasonable condition of the building; and
4.The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected
cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and
(f)(4) …, the board may not consider deterioration caused by
unreasonable neglect.
44
Process
June 4
Application
Submitted
June 17
Landmarks
Design Review
Committee
July 15
Landmarks
Board
Designation
Hearing Fee
Paid
Aug. 12
Landmarks
Board Hearing
45
Application
Process
•Approve a Partial Demolition
Based on application materials dated May 29,
2020; owners submit approval with Building
Permit Application.
•Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application
Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition
Stay would expire Jan. 11, 2021.
Initiate Landmark Designation
Schedule an initiation hearing
46
Landmarks
Board
Options
Property
Location
47
Property
Description
48
Property
Description
49
Property
Description
50
Alterations
51
The 1924 house appears
to be largely intact to its
original construction,
alterations include:
•Dormer with wide
overhanging eaves
located on the south
elevation (1960s);
•Partial enclosure of the
porch (date unknown).
Scope of
Demolition
52
Scope of
Demolition
53
Threshold for review:
•Removal of more than
50% of the roof;
•Removal of a portion
of a street-facing wall
(removal of a portion
of the gable end and
replacement of the
non-historic wood lap
siding with stucco).
Scope of
Demolition
54
“Significant impact or potential detrimental effect” means alteration to the
identified architectural or historic character of a building that is substantially
inconsistent with the standards for the issuance of a landmark alteration
certificate (LAC) found at Sections 9-11 -14 and 9-11 -18, B.R.C. 1981.
The following are examples of alterations that may have a significant impact or
potential detrimental effect on a historic resource of the city:
•Construction of an addition that visually overwhelms the building in terms
of location, mass, scale and height.
•Removal of features that may retain historic architectural integrity.
•Removal of a portion of a street-facing wall if that has been identified as
older than 50 years in age and retains historic architectural integrity. .
The following are examples of alterations that may not have a significant impact
or potential detrimental effect on a historic resource of the city:
•Work that does not involve portions of a building that are documented as
being less than 50 years in age.
•Removal of a non-character defining feature (including an addition)
•Construction of an addition that would not be substantially inconsistent
with the standards for issuance of an LAC in terms of location, mass,
scale and height.
Criteria for Review
9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2 B.R.C. 1981
55
CRITERION 1:
ELIGIBILITY FOR
LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Historic
Significance
Date of Construction: 1924
Association with Persons or Events: George Jump
Distinction in the Development of the Community: University
Hill Addition
Recognition by Authorities: Front Range Research, 1991
“This well-preserved dwelling is representative of the Bungalow style,
popular during the 1920s in the University Hill neighborhood in
Boulder. The building is notable for its varied wall composition, which
includes cobblestone, wood, and stucco. The native stone construction
is found throughout this Boulder neighborhood.”
56
Recognized Period or Style:Bungalow
Example of the Uncommon: The use of cobblestone, flagstone,
stucco and wood is unusual.
Indigenous Qualities: Native stone construction with the use of
cobblestone and flagstone.
57
CRITERION 1:
ELIGIBILITY FOR
LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Architectural
Significance
Site Characteristics: The house is centrally located in the middle
of a large lot with mature vegetation and retains its historic
residential character.
Area Integrity: The property is located in the identified potential
University Hill Historic District. The 700 block of 10th Street appears
to retain its historic integrity.
58
CRITERION 1:
ELIGIBILITY FOR
LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Environmental
Significance
The property is located in the identified potential University Hill
Historic District. The 700 block of 10th Street appears to retain its
historic integrity.
59
CRITERION 2:
RELATIONSHIP TO
THE CHARACTER
OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
Staff has not received information specific to the condition of the
building.
60
CRITERION 3:
CONDITION OF
THE BUILDING
Staff has not received information specific to the cost of restoration or
repair.
61
CRITERION 4:
PROJECTED COST
OF RESTORATION
OR REPAIR
Recommended
Motion
I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-
demolition for the building located at 728 10th St.
for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day
the permit application was accepted by the city
manager in order to explore alternatives to
demolishing the building, and adopt the findings of
the staff memorandum dated August 12, 2020.
62
FindingsAstay of demolition for the property at 728 10
th St.
is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in
Section 9-11 -23(f),B.R.C.1981 in that:
1.The property may be eligible for individual
landmark designation based upon its historic
and architectural significance;
2.The property contributes to the character of the
neighborhood as an intact representative of the
area’s past;
3.It has not been demonstrated to be impractical
or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the
building.
63
Applicant
Presentation
64
65
Matters