Loading...
Item 5A - 100 Clematis Dr Memo 03.03.2021 MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD March 3, 2021 STAFF Charles Ferro, Interim Comprehensive Planning Manager Lucas Markley, Assistant City Attorney James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Marcy Cameron Gerwing, Historic Preservation Planner II Clare Brandt, Administrative Specialist II LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to reconstruct an outdoor open-air pavilion between the Chautauqua Dining Hall and Cottage 100 based upon historic photographs, in the Chautauqua Park Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, “Quasi- Judicial Hearing,” B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2020-00218). Owner/ Applicant: Colorado Chautauqua Association Address: 100 Clematis Drive Owner/Applicant: Colorado Chautauqua Association Case Number: HIS2020-00313 Case Type: Landmark Alteration Certificate Code Section: 9-11-18, B.R.C., 1981 SITE INFORMATION Individual Landmark: N/A Historic District: Chautauqua Historic District Dates of construction: Dining Hall 1898 (90 Clematis Dr.) 1899, Secretary’s Building (100 Clematis Dr.) 1899. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1) Proposed Addition: 1,182 sq. ft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Landmarks Board approve the application with conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 1 of 45 I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated March 3, 2021, as the findings of the board and, with conditions, approves the application to reconstruct the open-air pavilion between Chautauqua Dining Hall and Cottage 100 based upon historic photographs, in the Chautauqua Historic District as shown on plans dated February 12, 2021, finding that the proposal generally meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans dated February 12, 2021, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit final architectural plans and specifications to the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc), for its final review and approval to ensure that the final design of the building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks, the Chautauqua Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval: a. Provide an excavation plan with protocols in the event of encountering archaeological artifacts during construction of the pavilion; b. Provide details of age of retaining wall proposed for removal and details ensuring that its removal doesn’t lead to damaging 100 Clematis Dr; c. Further investigate historic access to pavilion stair and attempt to reconstruct as closely as possible in alignment and materials minimizing the amount of hard area; d. Provide details of connection points between the porch at Cottage 100 and the pavilion; e. Investigate alternatives to replacement of east window at 100 Clematis Dr. – if replacement is necessary, the original sash should be stored and a new wood window installed in existing frame; f. Consider installing interpretive signage that explains the history of the of the pavilion and identifies the building as a reconstruction; g. Submit details of all framing, roofing, railings, flooring including materials and proposed finishes for review by the LDRC. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY • On November 18, 2020, the property owner submitted a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to reconstruct the open-air pavilion that was located between 100 Clematis Dr. (aka. Secretary’s Building/Cottage 100) and 90 Clematis Dr. (the Chautauqua Dining Hall) between 1899 and 1905; • On November 25, 2020, the Landmark design review committee (Ldrc) referred the application for review by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing; • On February 2, 2021, revised drawings for the proposed pavilion were submitted; • The proposed recreation of the pavilion is based upon historic photographs; • Staff finds that the proposal to reconstruct the open-air pavilion between the Chautauqua LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 2 of 45 Dining Hall and the cottage at 100 Clematis Drive generally meets the Standards issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate pursuant to 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981 and is largely consistent with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks and the Chautauqua Design Guidelines. With the stated conditions, staff recommends approval by the Landmarks Board. EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • The Chautauqua Dining Hall at 90 Clematis Dr. and Secretary’s Cottage at 100 Clematis Dr. are located to the south of Chautauqua Green. Figure 1. Maps showing relative location of 90 Clematis Dr. and 100 Clematis Dr. • The Colonial-Revival cottage at 100 Clematis Dr. was constructed in 1899 as the Chautauqua Secretary’s office for Chautauqua and served as the central location for mail and a reception area until 1944 when the office was relocated to Academic Hall; LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 3 of 45 • The cottage remains relatively unchanged since the 1905 removal of the open-air pavilion, and currently functions as the “General Store” for Chautauqua; Figure 2. Cottage 100/General Store (100 Clematis Dr.) c. 1899 – 1905. Figure 3. Cottage 100/General Store (100 Clematis Dr.) 2017 Google Maps. • The Chautauqua Dining Hall (90 Clematis Dr.) was constructed in 1898 and remains remarkably intact to its original construction (the wrapping porch appears to have been constructed about 1899). It continues to function as a restaurant in the Chautauqua Park Historic District; LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 4 of 45 Figure 4. Chautauqua Dining Hall (90 Clematis Dr.) Photograph by J.B. Sturtevant 1851-1910. Courtesy Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder Figure 5. Chautauqua Dining Hall (90 Clematis Dr.) 2019 Google Maps. PROPERTY HISTORY • In 1899, an open-air wooden pavilion with a canvas awning was built between the Dining Hall and the Secretary’s Office at 100 Clematis Dr.; • The pavilion had a gabled roof with simple wood supports and a canvas awning. It was elevated on a platform. • Originally referred to as the Café, the open-air pavilion operated seasonally as an adjunct to the Dining Hall, offering informal dining space offering “coffee, short orders and cold meats”. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 5 of 45 Figure 6. Dining Hall (left) and 100 Clematis Dr. (right) with open-air pavilion between, 1899. Photograph by J.B. Sturtevant 1851-1910. Courtesy Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder Figure 7. Dining Hall (left) and 100 Clematis Dr. (right) with superstructure of café remaining. c. 1901-1910 Courtesy Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 6 of 45 CHAUTAUQUA HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES The Design Guidelines state: “There are very few locations where a new building of any kind could be added to Chautauqua without destroying the historic integrity and rural character that has been carefully preserved for nearly a century. In general, the addition of buildings to Chautauqua will be inappropriate; however, if for some unforeseen reason, the addition of a new public building is considered in the future, the design and siting of the building should be compatible with existing public buildings. Considerations for compatibility will include, but not be limited to: location on the site; public access; massing; roof forms; fenestration; exterior materials; and paint colors. The addition of any new building to Chautauqua requires a public hearing before the Landmarks Board.” DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK Figure 8. Existing Site between Dining Hall (left) and Cottage 100/General Store at 100 Clematis Dr. (right). Site Plan • Proposed reconstruction of a 24’ x 47’ open-air pavilion between 100 Clematis Dr. and the Dining Hall; • Removal of one buckeye tree; • Existing retaining wall at southeast corner of 100 Clematis Dr. to be altered and the east corner removed; • New flagstone path from south parking area to southeast corner of 100 Clematis Dr.; • New flagstone path at north from existing paths to new stairs up to the proposed open-air pavilion; • Existing flagstone at north shown to be relocated. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 7 of 45 Figure 9. Existing Site Plan. Not to scale. Figure 10. Proposed Site Plan. Not to scale. Figure 11. Proposed Ceiling Plan of Pavilion. Not to scale LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 8 of 45 Proposed Changes to 100 Clematis Drive – East (primary) Elevation • Proposed removal of historic double-hung window to replace with new functioning service window; • Proposed removal of (non-historic) planter box on existing porch and construction of 5’x 6’ platform connecting 100 Clematis with pavilion to provide Americans with Disability Access (ADA) to proposed pavilion from existing porch; • Existing retaining wall at southeast corner to be altered; • Existing gas meter to be relocated. Figure 12. Proposed changes to 100 Clematis, east elevation: Existing service window to be replaced (left), retaining wall to be altered (middle), gas meter to be relocated (right). Figure 13. North Elevation of Proposed Pavilion LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 9 of 45 Figure 14. South Elevation of Proposed Pavilion Figure 15. Proposed east elevation 100 Clematis Dr. Not to scale. Proposed changes to Chautauqua Dining Hall – West Elevation • Proposed pavilion is structurally independent and not physically attached to the Dining Hall or 100 Clematis Dr.; LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 10 of 45 • New construction shown to fully intersect two Dining Hall windows and partially intersect the southernmost window (see historic photographs 6 &7). Figure 16. Proposed west elevation (Chautauqua Dining Hall). Not to scale. Proposed Pavilion – North Elevation • Features a 47 ft x 24 ft open air pavilion; • Platform is raised ~3 ft from grade; • Walls are open, constructed of wood with steel cross-bracing, steel trusses and purlins; • Wood is fire retardant with a natural finish; • Roof is canvas; • Access from stairs at north elevation, via anaccessible ramp from the porch at 100 Clematis Dr.; and from the south elevation via 2 risers (no railing); • New flagstone landing pad at base of stairs and new flagstone paths will extend to existing walkways on Clematis Drive. Existing flagstone will be relocated; • New landscaping. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 11 of 45 Figure 17. Proposed north-east (front) elevation. Figure 18. Proposed view south from Chautauqua Green. North (front) elevation. Figure 19. Historic view (left) and proposed view (right) of Pavilion. Proposed Pavilion – South Elevation • New flagstone path from rear parking lot; • Existing retaining wall at south-east corner of Cottage 100/General Store will be altered; • Two risers provide access to pavilion; • New landscaping. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 12 of 45 CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18, B.R.C., 1981 (a) The Landmarks Board and the City Council shall not approve an application for a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless each such agency finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions: 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? Staff considers that if the stated conditions of approval are met, the proposed re-construction of the open-air pavilion will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that the proposed pavilion is removable and will not damage the exterior architectural features of property in the Chautauqua Historic District. 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, if the conditions of approval are met, the proposed reconstruction of the open-air pavilion will not damage or destroy the historic character, interest, or value of the property or district as it will be generally compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the Chautauqua Historic District Design Guidelines. 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, if the conditions of approval are met, the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used in the re-construction of the proposed open-air pavilion will be compatible with the character of the landmarked site. (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. Staff considers that, if the conditions of approval are met, the proposed provides enhances access for the disabled. DESIGN GUIDELINE ANALYSIS The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC). The Board has adopted the Chautauqua District Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. Design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 13 of 45 SUMMARY Staff finds that if the listed conditions are met, the proposed recreation of the outdoor pavilion at Chautauqua will be generally compatible and consistent with the standards set forth in Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code, the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks, and the Chautauqua Design Guidelines. See Attachment A for a complete analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the design guidelines. GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES (SUMMARY) 2.0 Site Design • Staff considers the location of the proposed pavilion to closely match the historic condition (1899-1905) 2.1 Building Location, Orientation & Spacing • Staff considers the relationship to the adjacent historic buildings is close to the historic condition. 2.2 Streetscape and Landscape • Staff considers the reconstructed pavilion will reinstate the historic condition of the streetscape at east end of Clematis Dr. and that no significant landscape features will be removed to achieve this. • Staff considers the removal of the existing retaining wall at south-east corner of Cottage 100/General Store may be innapropriate if the wall is a historic feature and/or regrading could damage the structure of the cottage at 100 Clematis Dr. 2.5 Sidewalks • Staff considers further investigation should be made to reconstruct the historic pedestrian access to the pavilion stairs. 3.3 Decks • Staff considers the use of natural wood for decking appropriate and that railings should be designed to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible. • Provide details of deck and railing finishes. 3.6 Exterior Materials • Proposed replication of the similar materials, including natural wood posts and canvas roof with some use of contemporary steel roof trusses and diagonal bracing appropriate as structurally necessary. and using simple light steel railing compatible but distinctly contemporary and indicative that these materials were not part of the original construction. 3.7 Windows • Staff considers the removal of existing window at 100 Clematis replacement with a new service window may be appropriate depending on whether-or-not retrofitting the existing window is feasible, whether the window can be otherwise stored, and details of a proposed window design are appropriate. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 14 of 45 4.0 Additions to Historic Structures • Staff considers that the proposed pavilion recreation is reversible, does not destroy, (and may enhance) the original historic character of this area of the district. • Staff considers the free-standing nature of the proposed pavilion is appropriate and that the subtle integration of contemporary steel with interpretative signage will clearly indicate the pavilion is a contemporary rec-construction. 6.1 Distinction from Historic Structures • Staff considers that additional steps may be taken to distinguish the pavilion as a reconstruction including the integration of steel railing to achieve life safety and ADA access.. Likewise, an interpretive sign outlining the pavilion’s history and recreation should be considered. 8.3 Mechanical and Utility Facilities • Staff considers the proposed relocation of gas meter appropriate. 8.8 Americans with Disabilities Act • Staff considers the addition of an accessible ramp from the porch at 100 Clematis Dr. will not distract from the historic character. CHAUTAUQUA HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES (SUMMARY) A. Massing • The open sides of the proposed pavilion minimize the changes in building mass and help to preserve the size and proportions of the existing buildings, but do not eliminate the visual changes in mass. B. Rooflines • Reconstruction of historic roof pitch is proposed. C. Windows • Staff considers the removal of existing window at 100 Clematis and replacement with a new service window may be appropriate depending on whether or not retrofitting the existing window is feasible, whether the window can be otherwise stored, and details of a proposed window design. D. Exterior Materials • Exterior materials primarily make use of those similar to original construction – cue that pavilion is reconstructed can be achieved through appropriate contemporary rail details and interpretive panel. C. Paint Schemes and Color • Wood finish for decking and wood railings to be determined. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION While the City of Boulder’s historic preservation guidelines address the possibility of reconstructing historic elements, if there is sufficient historic documentation, because LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 15 of 45 Chautauqua is a National Historic Landmark District, consideration of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction is appropriate. The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project. 1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. Because there are good historic photographs showing the original pavilion, staff considers there is adequate documentary evidence to ensure an accurate reconstruction of this early feature at Chautauqua. 2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts that are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The construction of the pavilion will likely result in little ground disturbance, though it us recommended that steps be taken monitor any excavation to ensure that any archaeological resources are not disturbed. If such resources are encountered, work should cease and a qualified archaeologist consulted immediately. 3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features and spatial relationships. With the exception of a window at the east face of 100 Clematis, no historic materials will be disturbed and proposed spatial relationships appear to be carefully reconstructed. Steps should be taken to investigate whether the existing windows can be modified to function as a service window. If not, staff suggests that the sash be carefully removed and stored. Compatible new sash should be installed into existing window-frame. 4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. The introduction of some new elements and materials are proposed to achieve structural, life-safety and universal access requirements for the pavilion. These elements should be clearly contemporary, though compatible with the historic character of the Dining Hall and 100 Clematis Dr. LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 16 of 45 5.A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. Staff considers that in combination with the limited used of steel as described an interpretive sign should be considered to explain the history of the pavilion while describing its reconstruction. 6.Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. No design issues outside of those proposed to meet life safety and accessibility for the reconstructed pavilion are proposed. RECONSTRUCTION AS A TREATMENT When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property's historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historic documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment. See .5 above. PUBLIC COMMENT Staff has received no public comment on this case. FINDINGS Staff finds that if the stated conditions are met, the proposed recreation of the outdoor pavilion between Chautauqua Dining Hall and the cottage at 100 Clematis Drive 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 substantially consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Chautauqua Historic District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: 1.If the stated conditions of approval are met, the proposal will be reversible and will not damage the exterior architectural features of the contributing buildings in the Chautauqua Historic District. 2.The proposal will not damage or destroy the historic character, interest, or value of the property or district as it will be generally compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the Chautauqua Historic District Design Guidelines. 3.If the conditions of approval are met, the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used in the construction of the proposed will be compatible with the character of the landmarked site. 4.The proposal provides enhanced access for the disabled. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Design Guideline Analysis Attachment B: Application materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 17 of 45 Attachment A – Design Guideline Analysis GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 2.0 SITE DESIGN Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and building. Individual buildings are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that set the context for the neighborhood. How buildings occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing, creates much of the context of the neighborhood. 2.1 BUILDING ALIGNMENT, ORIENTATION, AND SPACING The pattern of setbacks is an important element in defining neighborhood character. A front yard set back serves as a transitional space between the public sidewalk and the private building entry. When repeated along the street, these yards enhance the character of the area. The relatively uniform alignment of building fronts, as well as similar spacing between primary buildings, contributes to a sense of visual continuity. Traditionally, the primary entrance of a building faced the street and, depending on the architectural style of the house, was often sheltered by a one-story porch. This feature provided an additional transition from the public to the private space and helped establish a sense of scale to the neighborhood. The primary structure generally “stepped down” to one story at the rear of the lot. This, and smaller accessory structures along the alley, helped frame the rear yard. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Locate buildings within the range of alignments as seen traditionally in the area, maintaining traditional setbacks at the front, side and rear of the property. The location is that of the historic condition and is generally compatible with the historic character of the landmark. YES .2 Building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district. For example, many areas are characterized by relatively narrow lots and vertically proportioned front facades, taller than they are wide. In such an area, it would be inappropriate to introduce horizontally proportioned front facades. The size and proportions attempt to closely reconstruct the historic condition. YES .3 Orient the primary building entrance to the street. The primary access to the reconstruct pavilion is from Clematis Dr. consistent with the historic condition. YES .4 Preserve the original location of the main entry and walk. See .3 above. YES .5 A new porch may encroach into the existing alignment only if it is designed according to the guidelines and if it is appropriate to the architectural style of the house. The proposed reconstruction of the pavilion encroaches on the existing windows on the west face of the Dining Hall replicating the historic condition. Yes 2.2 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE The overall character of the historic districts is defined by more than the buildings. Landscape features of the streetscape, such as the pattern of street trees and planting strips between the sidewalk and the curb, form a significant part of the historic character of an area. Similarly, traditional landscape designs help to unify the district visually. Lawns and low plantings define open spaces between the street and the houses. Traditionally, few front yard fences or landscaping materials obscured the view of the building from the street. Those traditional patterns should be maintained as the districts continue to evolve. Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 18 of 45 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .2 Preserve street trees whenever possible. The proposal requires the removal of a relatively small caliper buckeye tree; other trees will be retained. YES .5 Provide a front yard that is landscaped in a traditional manner with traditional materials. Avoid replacing sod with concrete or any hard surface. Edge areas with natural materials such as stone. Locate planting beds in traditional areas such as around foundations and along walkways. The use of railroad ties in landscaping is a recent design approach that is not permitted. The proposal calls for using flagstone walkways and the addition of landscaping around base of platform. It is unclear what the aligment and material of the original path the pavilion was. Staff recommends making as simple as possible and minimizing the amount of hard surface – resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe .7 Where existing retaining walls are important to the character of the site they should be preserved and incorporated into new landscape features. Tall, plain concrete retaining walls are inappropriate. Regrading and the introduction of new retaining walls is inappropriate. Proposal calls for removing existing retaining wall at south-east corner of Cottage 100/General Store – unclear as to whether this is a historic feature and no grading details provided to ensure this removal does not damage structure – resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe 2.5 SIDEWALKS Many of Boulder's older neighborhoods were originally paved with flagstone or aggregate concrete. These original walkway materials are important elements and contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. The traditional pattern of walkways perpendicular from the public sidewalk to the front porches or main entries of the houses provides unity to the streetscape. New sidewalks must meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 19 of 45 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .1 Retain and preserve original sidewalk materials where they exist. If replacement of a deteriorated section is necessary, match the original section or element in location, pattern, spacing, dimensions, materials and color. • Replace flagstone with flagstone. • Replace concrete with concrete. However, if the blockface is predominantly paved with flagstone, replacing concrete portions with flagstone is appropriate. It is unclear what the aligment and material of the original path the pavilion was. Staff recommends making as simple as possible and minimizing the amount of hard surface – resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe .2 New walkways should be designed to be compatible in location, pattern, spacing, dimensions, materials and color with existing walkways that contribute to the overall historic character of the area. • Walk design should be simple and traditional, reflecting the neighborhood and period of construction. • Flagstone or traditional aggregate concrete is encouraged. See .1 above Maybe .3 Provide a walkway from the street to the primary front entrance of the building. The walkway should generally be perpendicular to the sidewalk. See .1 above Maybe 3.3 DECKS Decks are modern expressions of porches that were not found on historic buildings. Great care needs to be taken in designing decks to fit into the historic character of the house. The design elements must respect the historic character as to size, materials, railing detail, intrusion into spaces between buildings, and materials. Because decks are not traditionally found on historic structures, they should be avoided or their appearance should be minimized. Decks should be subordinate to the house in terms of scale and detailing. For second story decks, see 3.2 Roof Decks and Balconies. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .2 While current code requirements must be met, new railings should be as close as possible to historic heights. In addition, sensitive design may give the appearance of the lower railing heights found on historic structures. Details of railings not provided – should be simple, contemporary and compatible. – Resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe .3 Unpainted redwood is inappropriate; decks should be painted or stained to match the existing building. Details of decking not provided -consider Douglas Fir or equivalent. Maybe .4 Materials with a synthetic look and/or feel should be avoided. See .3 above and provide details of treatment on wood structure for review by the Ldrc. Maybe 3.6 EXTERIOR MATERIALS: WALLS, SIDING, AND MASONRY Brick, stone, horizontal wood-lapped siding, stucco, and wood shingles are common finish materials found in historic districts and on historic structures. Over the years, the materials used in residential construction have not changed dramatically, but the scale of materials has become larger. Narrower lap siding, smaller brick and shingles used alone or in various combinations often distinguish older homes from newer ones. Brick and stone masonry were traditionally left natural while wood surfaces were painted. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .2 New finish materials should be compatible with, but not seek to replicate, original finish materials. • Use materials that are similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. • Use authentic materials - materials made to look like other materials, such as concrete that is scored to look like brick, are not appropriate. See 3.6 (2-4) above – resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe 3.7 WINDOWS, STORM WINDOWS, AND SHUTTERS Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 20 of 45 Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the most important character-defining elements of a historic building and should be preserved. Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can seriously detract from its architectural character. The relative importance of a window depends on three factors: the location of the window on the building, the historic significance of the window, and its condition. Windows on elevations visible from public ways, particularly the façade, are especially important. A window that has a high level of historic significance, regardless of its location, may also be very important to the historic integrity of the building. The replacement of historic windows or components including glass, should be considered only as a last resort. At times, property owners consider replacement of their historic windows as a way of improving energy efficiency. Research indicates that, in most cases, the energy efficiency of an old window can be increased to that of a thermal pane replacement window by weatherstripping, insulation of weight pockets, and the application of an interior or exterior storm system. While the energy loss of a building may be reduced by replacing or repairing historic windows, windows are only one factor in the building’s energy usage. It is strongly recommended that a comprehensive energy audit be undertaken to identify areas for improvement. To increase a building’s energy efficiency, a combination of air sealing, additional wall and ceiling insulation, and the adjustment of mechanical systems is generally more effective than focusing only on the repair or replacement of a window. For more information regarding energy efficiency and energy audits for historic buildings, please contact the Office of Environmental Affairs at www.environmentalaffairs.com GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS Protection of Historic Windows .1 Retain and preserve existing historic windows, including their functional and decorative features, such as frames, glass, sashes, muntins, sills, heads, moldings, surrounds and hardware. Because windows near the façade are particularly critical to the character of historic buildings, their protection may supercede the protection of historic windows elsewhere. In some cases, it may be appropriate to use window elements from rear or side elevations to repair those on the front. Removal of what appears to be historically important window at east (primary) wall of 100 Clematis Dr. may be inconsistent with this design guideline. Consider retrofitting existing window for use as service window or removing and storing only the sash and installing compatible window in existing frame as temporary measure. Resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe .2 Preserve original window locations; do not move windows from their historic placement. Proposed new window location and size remains the same. YES .3 Repair rather than replace the functional and decorative features of original windows through recognized preservation methods. If replacement of a feature is necessary, replace only the deteriorated feature in kind rather than the entire unit, matching the materials, design and dimensions of the original. See .1 above. Maybe Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 21 of 45 4.0 ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES This section applies to buildings that are individual landmarks or are within a historic district and have been identified as Contributing, Contributing-Restorable, or Significant Newer. (see p. 7 and Glossary). Additions to non-historic structures are considered in Section 5. While the guidelines in this section do not specifically apply to those properties, they do represent design principles that should be considered in any addition. It is normal for buildings to evolve over time and additional space is needed or uses are accommodated. New additions within the historic districts are appropriate as long as they do not destroy historic features, materials, and spatial relationships that are significant to the original building and site. They also must be distinguishable from the historic architecture. New additions should not compromise the integrity of the original structure or site, whether through direct destruction of historic features and materials or indirectly through their location, size, height or scale. Additions should be compatible with, but discernible from, the historic architecture. When the original design is duplicated the addition is indistinguishable and the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Conversely, when design elements contrast too strongly with the original structure the addition will appear visually incompatible. The appropriate location of an addition to an existing building will depend on the character of the existing building and its site, adjacent buildings, and the area as a whole. While every site is unique, generally additions are most appropriate at the rear of the structure. The addition should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost. An addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character, and should be subordinate to the existing structure. The primary focus in reviewing additions will be on aspects of new construction that are visible from public streets. The guidelines will be applied most stringently to these publicly visible areas. More flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely screened from public view. 4.1 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic buildings is the protection of the existing structure and the character of the site and district. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Construct new additions so that there is the least possible loss of historic fabric and so that the character-defining features of the historic building are not destroyed, damaged, or obscured. Frees-standing pavilion will not destroy or damage character- defining features and is reversible. Proposal obscures windows on west elevation of Dining Hall, but this was the historic condition. YES .2 New additions should be constructed so that they may be removed in the future without damaging the historic structure. Proposed pavilion is represented to be free-standing with small 5’ x 6’ connection at northwest corner to provide accessibility – appears to be reversible. YES .3 It is not appropriate to construct an addition that will detract from the overall historic character of the principal building and/or the site, or if it will require the removal of significant building elements or site features. Proposal will not detract from the overall historic character and does not require removal of significant building elements. YES 4.2 Distinction from Historic Structures All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design is duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additions should be compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Distinguish an addition from the historic structure, but maintain visual continuity between the two. One common method is to step the addition back and/or set it in slightly from the historic structure. Every project is different and successful designs may incorporate a variety of approaches. Some of the details and materials used to achieve life safety and accessibility will distinguish the pavilion as a reconstruction. Staff recommends the installation of an accessible interpretive sign to outline the history of the pavilion and describe the reconstruction – Resolve at Ldrc. Maybe .2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Instead, interpret historic elements in simpler ways in the addition. Some of the details and materials used to achieve life safety and accessibility will distinguish the pavilion as a reconstruction. and should be simple – revise details at the Ldrc. Maybe .3 Additions should be simpler in detail than the original structure. An addition that exhibits a more ornate style or implies an earlier period of architecture than that of the original is inappropriate. See .2 Above. Maybe .4 The architectural style of additions should not imitate the historic style but must be compatible with it. Contemporary style additions are possible, but require the utmost attention to these guidelines to be successful. The use of two distinct historic styles, such as adding Tudor-style half- timbering to a Classic Cottage, is inappropriate. This is a reconstruction based upon historic photographs. YES Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 22 of 45 4.3 Compatibility with Historic Structures Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions should be distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic tructures or the site, in mass, scale or detailing. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 An addition should be subordinate to the historic building, limited in size and scale so that it does not diminish or visually overpower the building. This is a reconstruction based upon historic photographs. YES .2 Design an addition to be compatible with the historic building in mass, scale, materials and color. For elevations visible from public streets, the relationship of solids to voids in the exterior walls should also be compatible. This is a reconstruction based upon historic photographs. YES .3 Adding a partial or full story to the historic portion of a historic building is rarely appropriate. This is a reconstruction based upon historic photographs. YES .4 Reflect the original symmetry or asymmetry of the historic building. This is a reconstruction based upon historic photographs. YES .5 Preserve the vertical and horizontal proportion of a building’s mass. This is a reconstruction based upon historic photographs. 4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Design new additions so that the overall character of the site, site topography, character-defining site features and trees are retained. With the exception of one tree, trees and site historic features appear to be retained. YES 8.0 MISCELLANEOUS 8.3 Mechanical and Utility Facilities GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .2 Locate new mechanical equipment and utilities, including heating and air conditioning units, in the most inconspicuous area, usually along a building's rear facade. Screen them from view. Details of relocation of gas meter not provided -review at Ldrc. Maybe 8.8 Americans with Disabilities Act Places of public accommodation are required to provide access to their services and programs under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the case of historic buildings, some provision for using alternative measures exists if the property is historically or architecturally significant enough to merit such treatment. When changes to a building or site are necessary, careful consideration must be given to how the changes can be incorporated without compromising the integrity of the historic building, its character defining features, or its site. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Provide barrier-free access that promotes independence for the disabled to the highest degree practicable, while preserving significant historic features. Deviations from a strict reconstruction of the 1899 are being made to provide for universal access and compliance with current life safety codes – details rails, etc. will be resolved at Ldrc. YES .2 The appearance of accessibility ramps or elevators should not significantly detract from the historic character of the structure. The addition of an accessible ramp from the porch at 100 Clematis Dr. does not distract from the historic character. Ensure turning size is sufficient for a wheelchair. YES .3 If the addition of accessibility improvements negatively impacts significant historic elements, these improvements should be designed to be reversible. The pavilion is removable. Provide details of the connection points to the porch at 100 Clematis Dr. YES Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 23 of 45 CHAUTAUQUA HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES GUIDELINE: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? STREETSCAPES 1.Preserve the existing setback from the street. N/A N/A 2. Maintain the same spacing between buildings. Additions to many cottages will be difficult to achieve, but should be confined to the rear of the building. Where there is more open space surrounding larger buildings, this space should be carefully preserved. 3. The orientation of the cottages to the interior of the park should be preserved by maintaining the main entry from the interior streets. N/A N/A 4. The lack of distinction between properties should be preserved. Property lines should not be defined by fences or landscape material so that the camp character of the park will be preserved. The use of informal landscaping and low fences to control access to Chautauqua Park Historic District and between cottages will be considered. Any additions to cottages should maintain the overall sense of the building size. Conversion of one story cottages to two stories will generally be inappropriate. N/A N/A SITE 1. Accessory buildings, such as sheds, should be located at the rear of the cottages so the pattern of spacing will be preserved. N/A N/A 2. There may be some locations where a carport can be added without disrupting the existing patterns, but generally the additions of garages and carports will be inappropriate. N/A N/A 3. The treatment of the setback should be preserved, whether it is flagstone paving or grass. The setbacks to existing buildings are preserved – Proposal is a reconstruction of lost historic feature dating from the 1898-1930 period-of-significance for the Chautauqua Park Historic District. YES 4. The existing location of the main entry and walk should be preserved. Reconstruct to historic condition in alignment and materiality – review details at the Ldrc. Maybe MASSING 1. Any addition to a building in Chautauqua, whether a public building or a cottage, should preserve the essential size and proportion of the existing building. Alterations should not create an irregularly-shaped building mass, except in the areas where there is an existing pattern. Reconstruction to historic condition in alignment and materiality – review details at the Ldrc. YES 3. Any new construction or future infill should preserve the existing massing patterns in the Park. Reconstruction to historic condition in alignment and materiality – review details at the Ldrc. YES ROOFLINES 1. Preserve the roof form of the existing building. Reconstruction of lost feature preserves the existing roof form of the Dining Hall and 100 Clematis Dr. YES 2. A similar roof form and pitch should be used for any roof additions such as dormers. Individual small dormers with steeper gable roofs will be appropriate for some cottages, while larger dormers with shed roofs will be more appropriate for others. Reconstruction to historic condition in alignment and materiality – review details at the Ldrc. YES 4. Any new construction or future infill should carefully preserve the roof forms that are typical in the Park. Reconstruction to historic condition in alignment and materiality – review details at the Ldrc. YES WINDOWS 1. The window opening itself should be carefully preserved. It should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a differently-sized window. Every effort should be made to preserve existing windows by repairing deteriorated sashes and frames. There are methods to consolidate rotted wood members with epoxy saturation. The window opening of the proposed service window preserves the size of the window opening. YES 2. If repair is not feasible, and the window must be replaced, match the existing windows as closely as Details to be provided as to retrofit of existing window is feasible and proposed new sash. MAYBE Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 24 of 45 possible. Elements that should be carefully considered are: size; frame material; method of operation; single or double glazing; divided or single panes. 5. Window frames should be wood, rather than metal or vinyl clad. New service window will be double-hung, wood. Details to be provided for review by Ldrc – also see 3.8 of GDG above. Maybe EXTERIOR MATERIAL 1. For repairs or additions, the exterior materials should match the existing materials as closely as possible. Exterior materials and treatments should be reviewed by the Ldrc for consistency. Maybe 3. Roof materials should be a neutral, solid color, for example, dark green, dark red, charcoal, or brown. The surface of the roof should appear nearly smooth and the material may be treated wood or asphalt shingles. Roofing material should be reviewed by the Ldrc for consistency with historic condition. Maybe PORCHES 1. Repairs to the structure of a porch should not change its visual character. Changes to the porch are limited to relocating an existing planter box and adding a 5’ x 6’ platform for access between 100 Clematis Dr. and pavilion. YES PAINT SCHEMES AND COLORS 1. Select a color for repainting using the Chautauqua Association's palette of paint colors. Wood finish for decking and wood railings to be determined – review at Ldrc Maybe 2. Paint schemes should be simple. Generally, a body color and trim color will be appropriate. See .1 above Maybe Attachment A - 100 Clematis Design Guideline Analysis 03.03.2021 LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 25 of 45 Project Address: ________________________________________ Date of Application: _____________ Historic District / Landmark Name: ________________________________________________________ Chamberlain Chautauqua Downtown Floral Park Highland Lawn Hillside Mapleton Hill University Place W est Pearl 16th Street CONTACT INFO Applicant’s Name: ___________________________________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ___________________________ Owner’s Name: _______________________________________________________________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Staff Level □Landscaping□Paint □Roofing □Commercial awning, patio and/orsign (demonstrate signs meetprovisions in Section 9-9-21 Signs,B.R.C., 1981)□Antenna or mechanical unit □Restoration of existing features Landmark Design Review Committee (LDRC) □Deck and/or porch□Doors and/or windows □Dormers and/or skylights □Solar panels□Front fence or fence taller than 5ft. □Addition □New free standing/accessory building smaller than 340sq. ft. Landmarks Board □New free-standing construction340sq. ft. or larger□Demolition and new construction □Application Referred by LDRC Description (attach additional narrative for additions and free-standing new construction): *Please Note that all Landmark alteration certificate (LAC) applications must be submitted through a Project Specialist at the P&DS Services Center. Application for review by the Landmark design review committee (Ldrc) should be submitted by noon on the Friday prior to the requested meeting date. I agree to perform the work described herein, in accordance with the plans and/or specifications submitted and with all provisions of the Historic Preservation Code, Building Code, Zoning Ordinance and Health Regulations of the City of Boulder as enumerated in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. _______________________________________________________ ___________________ Signature of owner or authorized agent for owner Date Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) Application For Exterior Changes to Properties Located in a Historic District and/or Individually Landmarked For Office Use Only Date Received Time Received Case Number HIS Historic Preservation | 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 | (303) 441-1994 | www.boulderhistoricpreservation.net Email: ____________________________________ Phone:_________________________ Mailing address (if different from project address): ________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ revised 12 2019 Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 26 of 45 Property Information – Please complete for: New free-standing construction Addition Dormers Porches Fences Staff Use Verified Need Info Zoning District ❑RL-1 ❑ RL-2 ❑ RMX-1 ❑ RH-2 ❑ DT-1 ❑ Other: ______ Floodplain ❑None ❑ 500 Year ❑ 100 Year ❑ Conveyance ❑ High Hazard Lot Size _______________sq. ft. ❑ Interior ❑ Through ❑ Flag ❑ Corner Source: ❑ City of Boulder ❑ Boulder County ❑ Survey ❑ Other:___ Existing Principal Building Setbacks Section 9-7-2 ❑No Change Front: Side: Side: Rear: Proposed Principal Building Setbacks ❑No Change Front: Side: Side: Rear: Existing Accessory Building Setbacks ❑No Change Front: Side: Side: Rear: Proposed Accessory Building Setbacks ❑No Change Front: Side: Side: Rear: Primary or accessory building located within 3 ft. of a property line: Y / N Primary or accessory buildings located within 6 ft. of each other: Y / N Existing Proposed Allowed Maximum Building Coverage Floor Area (sq. ft.) Height Past Discretionary Review: ❑ Site Review ❑ PUD/PRD/PD ❑None Will your project require a variance or exemption? Verified Need Info Setback variance Section 9-7-2, B.R.C., 1981 Bulk plane requirements Section 9-7-9, B.R.C., 1981 Side yard wall articulation standards Section 9-7-10, B.R.C., 1981 Exemption from the maximum building coverage for accessory buildings in the rear setback Section 9-7-11(d), B.R.C., 1981 Solar exception Section 9-9-17, B.R.C., 1981 Form Completed by:__________________________________(Applicant) Date:______________________ Initial Verification by: ____________________________________(Staff) Date: ______________________ INITIAL CODE REVIEW This review is intended to identify potential zoning and building code issues. Please fill out to the best of your ability. The verification of this form is a customer service review and does not constitute a formal review of all applicable codes and regulations. All sections of the Boulder Revised Code must still be adhered to prior to performing any work. Property information can be found on https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/property-report Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 27 of 45 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW LANDMARKS DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (LDRC) LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REVIEW CHECKLISTS Initial review is completed by Staff (Administrative) or the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) within 14 days after a complete application is received. Staff and the LDRC can either approve the application, request revisions, or refer the proposal to the Landmarks Board for review in a public hearing. Please call 303-441-1994 if you have questions. City staff review of minor alterations typically has a quick review turn-around provided that application is complete and the proposed alterations are consistent with the applicable design guidelines. A complete application submittal includes: This application: Completely filled out Photographs: Color photos of existing conditions and details. Samples: Col or chips of paint and printed samples of roofing types are helpful. Fences and Hardscaping: Elevations and site plans should be clearly detailed and scaled, preferably at an 1/8" or 1/4" scale on 11"x17" paper. Show existing conditions and proposed changes side-by-side. For fences, show dimensions and spacing between pickets and a site plan showing existing and proposed locations. Landscaping Paint Roofing Mechanical Unit Fences and Hardscaping (rear / side yard fence only if maximum 5ft. tall with minimum 1" spacing between pickets) Restoration of Existing Features DOWNTOWN ONLY: Commercial awnings, patios and signs Typical Projects: A staff member and two members of the Landmarks Board meet weekly to review applications for exterior alterations to designated properties. Large projects often require more than one meeting and may be referred by the committee to the full Landmarks Board for review. A complete application submittal includes: This application: Completely filled out, including zoning review sheet. Photographs: Photographs of existing building and surrounding context One set of scaled elevations and site plans: All drawings should be clearly detailed and scaled, preferably at an 1/8" or 1/4" scale on 11"x17" paper. Show existing conditions and proposed changes side-by-side. Fences: A scaled drawing showing dimensions and spacing between pickets and a site plan showing existing and proposed locations. Survey: A land survey may be required if the proposed project is within 20% of the maximum permitted lot coverage, floor area or floor area ratio. The following documentation is required for final review and approval: Final Details: Specific materials should be noted on plans; include color chips and printed samples of roofing types, manufacturers/catalogue “cut” sheets for windows/skylights. Typical Projects: Deck / porch Doors / windows Dormers / skylights Additions New accessory building (smaller than 340 sq. ft.) Fence (front yard or rear / side yard if taller than 5ft. or less than 1" spacing between pickets) Solar Panels Completed applications for LDRC review must be turned in by noon on the Friday prior to the requested meeting date and must be submitted through a Project Specialist. Please note that LDRC meeting requests are processed in the order in which they are received and that a first request may not be available due to scheduling. The LDRC meets each Wednesday morning (except holidays) at the P&DS Service Center offices on the third floor of the Park Central Building, 1739 Broadway. Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 28 of 45 LANDMARKS BOARD REVIEW (LB) 2019 Landmark Board Meeting Dates and Application Submittal Deadlines Landmarks Board meetings are generally held the first Wednesday of each month at 6 p.m. in the Municipal Building, Council Chambers, located at 1777 Broadway. Applications scheduled for a public hearing before the full Landmarks Board must be submitted at least 28 days prior to the meeting date. All applications must be submitted through a Project Specialist. More information, including deadlines and agendas can be found online: www.boulderhistoricpreservation.net The Landmarks Board reviews new free-standing construction 340 square feet and larger, the demolition or moving of buildings, and applications referred from the LDRC. Public hearings take place within 60 days of the receipt of a complete LAC application and are conducted as quasi-judicial proceedings. Following the public hearing for the LAC, a Notice of Disposition is sent to the City Council outlining the Board's recommendation. City Council has 14 days to call-up a decision of approval made by the Landmarks Board. If the Board votes to deny a Landmark Alteration Certificate application, the City Council has 30 days to call-up the decision. Tip: Projects that require full Landmarks Board review should be presented to staff early in the planning process, before detailed drawings are initiated. Please contact staff prior to submitting an application for full Board review; these reviews are often complex. A complete application submittal includes: LDRC requirements (listed on the previous page) Written project description 7 copies of project drawings, including side-by-side existing and proposed conditions (preferably 11”x17” or 12”x18”) plans, including: ▪Scaled site plan (existing and proposed) ▪Scaled elevations for all sides of the building at 1/8” or 1/4” scale ▪Sketches, as needed 1 copy of any color renderings or photographs, color samples, etc. (preferably no larger than 11”x17”) 1 digital copy of all materials submitted in a PDF file format At the request of staff or the Board, the following may also be required: Building sections Methods of restoration 3-D modeling New free-standing construction 340 sq. ft. and larger Demolition Includes primary and/or accessory buildings designated as individual landmarks or within an Historic District. Application referred from LDRC Typical Projects: Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 29 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 1 Written Statement Summary This application is for the reconstruction of the Chautauqua Café, an outdoor covered dining pavilion that occupied the site between the Chautauqua Dining Hall and Cottage 100 between 1898 - 1905. The proposed pavilion is ~ 47’ (L) x 24’ (W) x ~3’ (H) with an ADA complaint bridge connected to the porch of Cottage 100 to allow access to the existing ADA ramp. Background When the Colorado Chautauqua was established in 1898, the Chautauqua Dining Hall was the first building completed. In 1899, Cottage 100, commonly known today as the “General Store,” was built to the west of the Dining Hall and functioned as the Chautauqua Secretary’s office. In 1899, an open-air wooden pavilion with a canvas awning was built between the two buildings. This structure, referred to as the Café, functioned as an adjunct to the Dining Hall. It served as an informal dining space and, as archival material states, offered “coffee, short orders and cold meats.” Based on CCA’s archival photos of the Café, CCA staff estimate that the original pavilion measured approximately 47’ x 24’. The Café sat between the Dining Hall and Cottage 100, but it did not physically connect to either building. In 1900, the wrap around porch was added to the Dining Hall. The Café was ultimately removed in 1905. Proposal CCA proposes to recreate this historic feature in the original location between the Dining Hall and the General Store. The proposal is for a 47’ x 24’ x 3’ open air wooden pavilion with stairs on the north elevation and a canvas awning roof. The proposal also includes the construction of an ADA walkway connected to the porch of Cottage 100, so visitors can access the space through the existing ADA ramp at the west end of the General Store porch. For over a decade, staff, board members, and community members have discussed the possibility of reconstructing this cafe pavilion as part of CCA’s commitment to historic preservation. Not only is the pavilion an historic reconstruction that will benefit the thousands of visitors who cherish and adore the Chautauqua National Historic Landmark, it will also provide much-needed additional outdoor seating space for safe gathering and social distancing, which has become imperative in the age of COVID-19. The proposed project varies slightly from a true reconstruction as defined by the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties sited below: “Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.” All preservation projects conducted by CCA, regardless of their magnitude, are carefully reviewed by the CCA Building and Grounds Committee and the City of Boulder Landmarks staff. CCA’s Building and Grounds Committee has reviewed this proposal in depth, and after much discussion, has deemed the proposal appropriate. CCA has also informally discussed the possibility of reconstructing the pavilion with Landmarks staff and received positive feedback. CCA is now seeking approval for the project from the Landmarks Board. Chautauqua Construction Season Chautauqua has a moratorium on construction during the summer season. This begins Memorial Day weekend, May 28, 2021. Interior view of the cafe pavilion looking toward Dining Hall View of the cafe pavilion nestled between the General Store and Dining Hall Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 30 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 2 Chautauqua Cafe Pavilion Vicinity Map 1000 ft N➤➤N © 2020 Google © 2020 Google SITE HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY LEASE AREA BOUNDARY CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 31 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 3 Osborne Maps 1899-1905 (Cafe Pavilion and Ice Cream Pavilion shown on map)1906 (Cafe Pavilion and Ice Cream Pavilion removed) Ice Cream Pavilion Historic Cafe Pavilion Proposed Pavilion Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 32 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 4 Existing site between the Dining Hall (left) and the General Store (right). Existing Site Photo Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 33 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 5 Existing Site Plan TO FACE OF DINING HALL EXIST NG TREE TO BE REMOVED (BUCKEYE) WALL TO BE REMOVED AND REPAIRED AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR NEW STA R AND PLATFORM DINING HALL COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE DRAINAGE EXISTING ADA RAMP TO GENERAL STORE EXIST NG GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED, REF PROPOSED PLAN EXISTING ELECTRIC METER BUSH TO BE RELOCATED EXIST NG TREE TO BE PRESERVED EXIST NG TREE TO BE PRESERVED EXISTING TREE TO BE PRESERVED N L NERAL ORE DATE A Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 34 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 6 Existing Site Plan TO FACE OF D N NG HALL EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (BUCKEYE) WALL TO BE REMOVED AND REPA RED AS REQU RED TO ALLOW FOR NEW STAIR AND PLATFORM DINING HALL COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE DRA EXISTING ADA RAMP TO GENERAL STORE EXISTING GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED, REF PROPOSED PLAN EXISTING ELECTRIC METER BUSH TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING TREE TO BE PRESERVED O BE PRESERVED EXIST NG TREE TO BE PRESERVED L NERAL ORE DATE A Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING SOLAR PICNIC BENCH TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING SERVICE PLATFORM TO BE REMOVED EXISTING RETAINING WALL AT REAR OF GENERAL STORE TO BE ALTERED EXISTING TREES ON SITE TREE 'A' TO REMAIN TREE 'B' TO BE REMOVED TREE 'C' TO REMAIN TREE 'C' TO REMAIN TREE 'B' TO BE REMOVED TREE 'A' TO REMAIN Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 35 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 7 Proposed Site Plan DINING HALL COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE NOTES: 1. INCLUDED IN THIS SCOPE ARE ALTERATIONS TO THE RRIGATION AND LANDSCAP NG RELOCATED GAS METER EXISTING ADA RAMP TO GENERAL STORE ACCESS FROM REAR TO PLATFORM (2 RISERS) N L NERAL ORE DATE A Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOTE: ELEVEN TABLES SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL SEATING CONFIGURATION AND AMOUNT MAY VARY. Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 36 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 8 Proposed Landscaping and ADA Access DINING HALL COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE NOTES: 1. NCLUDED IN THIS SCOPE ARE ALTERATIONS TO THE IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING RELOCATED GAS METER CLEMATIS DRIVE EXISTING ADA RAMP TO GENERAL STORE ACCESS FROM REAR TO PLA FORM (2 RISERS) NEW FLAGSTONEPATH 10 SF HARDSCAPE REMOVED 182 SF HARDSCAPE ADDED EXISTING FLAGSTONE PATH TO BE RELOCATED 101 SF HARDSC PE REMO ED EXISTING FLAG TONE TO BE RELOCATED N DATE A Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" ADA ACCESS FROM EXISTING GENERAL STORE RAMP 205 SF OF HARDSCAPE REMOVED 182 SF OF HARDSCAPE ADDED IN TH R GAT O RELOCATED GAS METER NEW FLAGSTONE PATH 104 SF HARDSCAPE REMOVED 182 SF HARDSCAPE ADDED EXISTING FLAGSTONE PATH TO BE RELOCATED 101 SF HARDSCAPE REMOVED EXISTING FLAGSTONE TO BE RELOCATED GENE AL MA HARDSCAP NOTES: NCLUDED HA DS APE Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 37 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 9 Comparative Views Historic Cafe Pavilion Proposed Cafe Pavilion Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 38 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 10 Historic Photos (11) 4x4 wood columns at regular intervals Wood x-brace Center wood column at each end Dining hall windows allow viewing into cafe Wood trusses occur at every other column Interior view of the cafe pavilion looking toward the Dining Hall Exterior view of the cafe pavilion looking toward the Dining Hall Exterior view of the cafe pavilion looking from the General Store to the Dining Hall Exterior view of the cafe pavilion situated between the Dinning Hall and General Store Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 39 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 11 3d Model Views FIRE RETARDANT CANVAS ROOF COVERING STEEL STRUCTURE: TRUSSES AND PURLINS CODE UPDATES: RAILINGS, HANDRAILS, AND ADA ACCESS PLATFORM EXTENSION WOOD TRUSSES, COLUMNS, AND PAVILION DECK REFLECTED CEILING PLAN COMPOSED CAFE PAVILIONEXPLODED AXONOMETRIC VIEW OF THE CAFE PAVILION COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE DINING HALLNEW PAV LION STEEL STRUCTURE: X-BRACING Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 40 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 12 NTS Modifications COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE DINING HALLNEW PAVILION Steel X-brace Steel Railings ADA Access to General Store porch and ramp Steel X-brace Steel TrussSteel X-brace Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 41 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 13 FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Elevations Pavilion is structurally independent and not physically attached. X-bracing is required at each face of the structure for rigidity without tying into the adjacent buildings Historic railing at stair Proposed wood railing at stair with required code modifications Entry stair to cafe pavilion Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 42 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 14 SECTION C Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" SECTION A Sections Section at service window Relationship between Cafe Pavilion and Dining Hall COTTAGE 100 GENERAL STORE DINING HALLNEW PAV ION PLAN SECTION KEY CA View of service window from under the pavilion cover View from a Dining Hall window to the cafe pavilion The cafe pavilion can be illuminated with market lights at night Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 43 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 15 View from the Cafe Pavilion to Chautauqua Park 3d model views ADA platform extension: Note: fall protection at General Store via planter boxes. Cafe Pavilion entry from Clematis Drive. Note: all wood used in the Cafe Pavilion shall be fire resistant with a natural finish. Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 44 of 45 PEL•ONA ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS Ronnie Pelusio, aia, leed ap • Korkut Onaran, ph.d., cnu ap 4696 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80304 / 303.443.7876 / WWW.PEL-ONA.COM FEBRUARY 12, 2021 CHAUTAUQUA CAFE PAVILION Landmarks board 16 Comparative Views Historic Cafe Pavilion Proposed Cafe Pavilion Attachment B - 100 Clematis Dr Application Materials LB memo LAC 100 Clematis Dr. 03.03.2021 Page 45 of 45