06.02.21 LB Presentation1.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
June 2, 2021
2
Agenda1.Call to Order
2.Approval of minutes from the May 5, 2021 meeting
3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items
4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending
Update on stay of demolition –2130 22nd Street (expires Sept. 26)
Statistical Report for May
5.Public Hearings
A.515 Alpine Ave. –Demolition
B.933 Mapleton Ave. –LAC
C.406 Pearl St. –LAC
6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney
Sub-committee status reports
7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check
8.Adjournment
3
/
Link to dynamic map
Statistical
Report
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
2019 2020 2021
5
5/31/2020: 36 cases 5/31/2021: 34 cases
Historic Preservation Applications Received 2019 and 2020 vs. 2021
Statistical
Report
27 27
34
39
35
40
28
35
27
36
29
23
19
22
43
23
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
2015-2019 Average 2021
6
5-year average for May: 35 cases May 2021 cases: 34
Historic Preservation Applications Received Monthly
Statistical
Report
27 27
34
39
35
40
28
35
27
36
29
23
42
30 30
19
36
26
41
33
27
16
25
29
19
22
43
23
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
2015-2019 Average 2020 2021
7
5-year average for May: 35 cases May 2021 cases: 34
Historic Preservation Applications Received Monthly
Agenda
Item 5A
Public hearing and consideration of a demolition application
for a house constructed c. 1900 located at 515 Alpine Ave.,
pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code,
1981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3,
"Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2021-00093).
Owner: Richard and Elizabeth Evans (Estate)
Applicant: Brad Evans
8
Quasi-
Judicial
Public
Hearing
Procedure
9
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
historic or architectural significance
Provide the time necessary to initiate designation
as an individual landmark or to consider
alternatives for the building.
10
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.
11
Process
April 15
Application
Submitted
April 28
Landmarks
Design Review
Committee
May 4
Landmarks
Board
Designation
Hearing Fee
Paid
June 2
Landmarks
Board Hearing
12
Application
Process
•Approve the Demolition
Approval valid for 1 year (COVID-19 extension)
•Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application
Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition
Stay would expire Oct. 31, 2021.
Initiate Landmark Designation
Schedule an initiation hearing
13
Landmarks
Board
Options
Property
Location
14
Property
Location
15
Property
Description
16
Property
Description
17
South (front) elevation
Property
Description
18
East (side) elevation
Property
Description
19
West (side) elevation
Property
Description
20
North (rear) elevation
Property
Description
21
View facing south along alley
Area
History
Edwin and Jessie Barrows (1900-1945)
Various Owners (1945-1966)
Richard and Betty Evans (1966-Present)
22
Property
History
23
Property
History
24
Criteria for Review
9-11 -1 and 9-11 -2 B.R.C. 1981
25
CRITERION 1:
ELIGIBILITY FOR
LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Historic
Significance
1.Date of Construction:c.1900
Elaboration: The Historic Building Inventory Form estimates the date of
construction as c.1900 and the Tax Assessor Card from 1929 estimates the age as “over 40.”
2.Association w ith Persons or Events:None observed
3.Distinction in the Development of the Community:Newland
Elaboration:The property is an example of the gradual development of the
Newlands residential neighborhood that took place during the first half of
the twentieth century and represents an example of this period of Boulder’s
development.
4.Recognition by Authorities:Front Range Research Associates,Inc.
Elaboration: The property was surveyed as part of the 1995 survey of the
Newland Neighborhood. The survey found the building to “represent a type,
period or method of construction” and “associated with significant events or
patterns,” stating “This house is associated with agricultural pursuits which
were popular during the early development of North Boulder, having been
the site of Edwin Barrow’s apiary operation. The house is representative of
vernacular residential construction at the turn of the century in the area, as
reflected in the gabled L plan, and the lack of architectural details which would distinguish a particular style.
26
Recognized Period or Style:The vernacular frame building is verysimpleindesign,with a one-and-a-half story front gabled portion and aone-story side-gabled roof.Alterations include covering the original narrowlap siding with shingles, adding a front porch and reconfiguring thewindowson the front of the house. Permit research indicates thesechangesoccurredin1958.
Architect: Unknown
Artistic Merit: None Observed
Example of the Uncommon: The house is one of the earliest constructed in the Newland neighborhood.
Indigenous Qualities: None Observed
27
CRITERION 1:
ELIGIBILITY FOR
LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Architectural
Significance
1.Site Characteristics: While many residential blocks in Newlands
have regularly spaced houses, the 500 block of Alpine Avenue is unusual
in that the house at 515 Alpine is one of the few that faces Alpine
Avenue. Irregularly spaced garages are located on the south side of
Alpine and an alley is located directly west of the property.
2.Compatibility with Site: None observed.
3.Geographic Importance: The house is not visually prominent.
4.Environmental Appropriateness: None observed.
5.Area Integrity: The property is not located in an identified potential
historic district. The surrounding areas has an eclectic character and a
wide range of building ages.
28
CRITERION 1:
ELIGIBILITY FOR
LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
Environmental
Significance
While many residential blocks in Newland have regularly spaced houses, the
500 block of Alpine Avenue is unusual in that the house at 515 Alpine is one
of the few that faces Alpine Avenue.Irregularly spaced garages are located
on the south side of Alpine and an alley is located directly west of theproperty.
29
CRITERION 2:
RELATIONSHIP TO
THE CHARACTER
OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
Staff did not receive information specific to the condition of the
building or the projected cost of restoration or repair in advance of the
staff memo.
Summary:
Landmarks Board Memo from Rich Lopez
515 Alpine Assessment by 410 Structural Engineers
30
CRITERION 3:
CONDITION OF
THE BUILDING
CRITERION 4:
PROJECTED COST
OF RESTORATION
OR REPAIR
31
Memo from Lopez Law Office received June 2, 2021
32
Memo from Lopez Law Office received June 2, 2021
33
Memo from Lopez Law Office received June 2, 2021
34
Structural Report by 410 Structural dated May 28, 2021
35
Structural Report by 410 Structural dated May 28, 2021
Recommended
Motion
The Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-demolition
for the building located at 515 Alpine Ave. 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 June 2, 2021.
36
Findings
A stay of demolition for the property at 2130 22nd
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, architectural and environmental 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.
37
Applicant Presentation
38
Agenda
Item 5B
Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate application for the
construction of a 338 sq ft accessory building, in-
ground pool, retaining wall and fence at 933
Mapleton Ave.an individual landmark and
contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District, pursuant to Section 9-11 -18 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2021-00094).
Owner: Julian Farrior
Applicant: Lisa Egger
39
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
40
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.
41
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.
42
Application
Process
April 16
Application submitted
April 28
LDRC review; referred to the LB
June 2, 2021
Landmarks Board Review
43
Location
44
Property
History
45
•The house was constructed in 1900 for Judge Adam C. Patton.
•Judge Patton contributed to the development of the legal profession in Boulder,
serving for eight years as Boulder District Attorney. He also helped organize the
Boulder County Bar Association and served as its first president.
•Mrs. Nellie (Davis) Patton was a member of one of northern Colorado’s earliest
pioneering families. The Davis family had moved from Tennessee in 1873, settling
west of Fort Collins. She was active in the Fortnightly Club and was one of the
founders of the Woman’s Club of Boulder and served two terms as president.
•Later owners include Jack Cys (1940s-1950s), a Boulder contractor, Marvin Woolf
(1960s), and Dr. Oran White, an astrophysicist with the High Altitude Observatory
(1970s).
Property
Description
46
Property
Description
47
Property
Description
48
Property
Description
49
Property
Description
50
Property
Description
51
Property
Description
52
Property
Description
53
Property
Description
54
East Fence 1
55
East Fence 2
East Wall
NW corner
56
West Fence
Previous
Approval
(July 2012;
HIS2011-00218)
57
Proposal
58
Existing &
Proposed
Site Plans
59
Proposed Site Plan
•Swimming pool measures 16’ x
38’ and is located on the
northwest corner of the property.
•No additional hardscaping is
proposed.
•Details of color and pool lighting
not provided.
Proposed
North
Elevation
(facing alley)
60
•One-story, frame accessory building with a flared hipped roof and painted
horizonal wood siding with a maximum 5” exposure proposed. Hipped roof
porch extends from the west elevation.
•Building measures 15’ in height, with a 12’ x 25,’6 footprint, with an
approximate 10’ x 10’ porch on the west elevation and a 9’ x 3’, 6” bump out
on the north elevation for a total of 338 sq. ft.
•North elevation facing the alley has a single six-light awning window with
simulated divided lights and an access hatch to the basement below.
Proposed
South
Elevation
(facing
interior of lot)
61
•South elevation has a gable dormer with a fixed, four-light window and a
series of four wood sliding French doors.
Proposed
East & West
Elevations
62
•East elevation has a single window, matching window on the north elevation.
•The west elevation has a pair of single-light French doors under the roof
extension.
Retaining
Wall and
Fence
63
•A wrought iron fence measuring between 4’ and 6’ in height is proposed to
extend along the north (rear) property line and a portion of the west (side)
property line.
•The existing 6’ wooden stockade fence extending along the alley is
proposed to be removed.
•The existing historic stone retaining wall and non-historic concrete retaining
wall are shown to be removed and replaced with a concrete retaining wall
with stone facing. The new wall is shown to measure 4’ in height at the west
corner of the property and diminish in height to follow the grade toward the
east.
Retaining
Wall and
Fence
64
•Along the alley, fence is proposed atop the new retaining wall, measuring 4’
in height at the east side and 5’9” at the west corner of the property. The
fence is shown to extend along the north property line along the alley until a
point 4’4” from the northwest corner of the property, then turning south
parallel to the west property line. A 9’ wide gate is proposed to be located on
the east side along the alley.
•A 4’ tall fence is proposed to run parallel to the west property line for
approximately 18’8” before turning to run along the west property line,
stepping up to 6’ in height. The 6’ high fence continues to a point parallel
with the existing two-car garage. The fence then steps down to 3’ high.
•The fence has posted spaced 6’ on center and has 3” spacing between bars.
•The retaining wall is shown to be 8” wide with a 4” stone veneer.
Design Guideline Analysis
9-11 -18, B.R.C. 1981
65
General
Design
Guidelines
66
2.0 Site Design
o The accessory building and swimming pool adds built mass to the rear
yard. However, due to the large size of the (18,000 sq. ft.) lot, the
general proportion of built mass to open space found in the area with
be maintained.
2.7 Pools
o Due to its location at the rear of the property and the nature of the
grade, the pool will have very minimal (if any) visibility from Mapleton
Avenue. However, the pool will be visible from the alley, as it is located
10’ from the rear property line and the proposed wrought iron fence
provides visibility into the historic property.
o Pool could be removed in the future without damaging historic features
on the site.
o Proposed paving is minimal and will not detract from the site.
o Mechanical equipment is proposed to be located in the basement
below the accessory building and will not be visible from the public
right-of-way.
General
Design
Guidelines
67Accessory Building
o An accessory building is located 6’ from the historic building located on
the property to the east; this condition has the potential to create a
tunnel-like effect; however, no built mass is proposed for the
approximately 50’ to the west. The building is setback 11’ from the
alley.
o Location, massing, scale and materiality of the proposed new
accessory building will not detract from the overall historic character of
the principal building.
Fences
o Proposed fence meets the guidelines in this section in terms of
materials, location, configuration, openness, height and finish.
However, Section 2.7 Pools states that pools should be minimally
visible.
o Proposed fence is wrought iron with an open appearance. Review
details of new fence at Ldrc ensuring that combine height on wall does
not exceed 6’ in height.
Landscaping
Historic stone retaining wall and non-historic concrete retaining wall along
the alley is proposed to be removed. In its place, a concrete retaining wall
with a stone veneer is proposed. Historic wall should be preserved –
resolve at Ldrc.
Recommended
MotionThe Landmarks Board adopts the staff
memorandum dated June 2, 2021, as the findings
of the board and, with conditions, approve a
Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a 338
sq. ft. accessory building, a 16 x 38 ft in-ground
swimming pool and a fence at 933 Mapleton Ave.
as shown on plans dated May 5, 2021, finding that
the proposal meets the Standards for Issuance of
a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11 -
18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with
the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
68
Conditions
of Approval
Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit final details for review and approval by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Ldrc):
1.Revised plans to preserve historic stone retaining wall along the alley and locate the fence behind the retaining wall;2.Review of fence to ensure combined height of fence and wall does not exceed 6’ in height from the alley;3.Effort should be made to preserve tree if its condition and species warrants it; 4.Details on surrounding deck materials, colors and pool lighting;5.Details on accessory building windows, doors, roofing, hardscaping and final paint colors.
69
Findings
The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application
and evidence presented and provided the stated
conditions are met, the proposed Landmark Alteration
Certificate application is consistent with Section 9-11 -18
B.R.C., 1981. Specifically that:
1.The proposed accessory building, swimming pool and
fence will not adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or
value of the property or the historic district. §9-11 -
18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
2.The proposed accessory building, swimming pool and
fence will generally comply with Sections 2.7, Pools, of
the General Design Guidelines and Section C of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines and Section 9-
11 -18(b)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
70
Applicant Presentation
71
Agenda
Item 5C
Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate application for the on-site
relocation of a contributing accessory building at
406 Pearl St. a non-contributing property in the
West Pearl Historic District, pursuant to Section
9-11 -18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981
(HIS2021-00117).
Owner: Andrew and Diana Fordyce
Applicant: Samuel Austin
72
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
73
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 may consider the economic feasibility of
alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and
enhanced access for the disabled.
74
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.
75
Application
Process
August 2020
Landmarks Board approval for demolition and construction of a new house
May 2021
Current Application Submitted
June 2, 2021
Landmarks Board Review
76
Location
77
Property
History
78
•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
79•Graduated from the University of Michigan in 1874 with an MA and worked for a time 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 and was re-elected to this position in 1897.
•George and Alice helped secure Texas Chautauqua’s location to Boulder in 1898
Property
History
80
•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 81
Contributing Status –1953 Cottage 82
Contributing Status –c.1893 Barn 83
84
•View facing east (from 4th Street)
Previous
Approval
August 2020
85
Previous
Approval
August 2020
86
Approved house North (front) Elevation
Approved house West Elevation (side facing 4th)
Previous
Approval
August 2020
87
Approved house East South (rear) Elevation
Approved house East (side) Elevation
Previous
Approval
August 2020
88
Approved Garage
Proposal
89
Historic Barn
(north)
90
Historic Barn
(west)
91
Historic Barn
(south)
92
Historic Barn
(east)
93
94
Proposal
Existing &
Proposed
Site Plans
95
Existing Site Plan (cropped)Proposed Site Plan (cropped)
96
Proposal
Existing
4th Street (west)
Proposed -Barn moved onto
property and rotated 90 degreesAlley4thStreet (west)Alley
Proposed
West
Elevation
(facing 4th
Street)
97
Existing Proposed
West (4th Street) Elevation
•Proposed rotation of building will result in the gable end of building, now
facing the alley, to front onto 4th Street;
•Non-historic plywood mural (on plywood attached to siding) is proposed to
be re-installed on new west face of building;
•Height of building relative to grade will rise approximately 3’ in height.
Proposed
South
Elevation
(facing alley)
98
Existing Proposed
South Elevation
•Gable end alley face to be replaced by side gable face with existing lean-to
addition (currently east elevation);
•Currently open-face of the lean-to addition to be enclosed with vertical boards
and fenestrated with two casement windows;
•Because the building is to be raised and the grade is lowest at the southwest
corner of the property, the relocated building is shown to placed upon an 18’
stone foundation that will be exposed on the alley side.
Proposed
North
Elevation
99
Existing Proposed
North Elevation
•North gable-end proposed to change to side gable roof (former west) face of
building with removed cow mural (reinstalled on new west face) existing
casement windows retained;
•New higher foundation appears covered in novelty siding to match existing.
Proposed
East
Elevation
100
Existing Proposed
East Elevation
•Former gable-end yard face becomes east face;
•Existing door and window to be replaced (details not provided), and entrance
to raised building shown to be accessed via a three-step stoop.
Design Guideline Analysis
9-11 -18, B.R.C. 1981
101
General
Design
Guidelines
102
2.0 Site Design
Proposed re-location of the barn so it no longer encroaches into the
right-of-way appropriate, but setbacks should be varied to closely
preserve the historic location & context of the 120 + year old barn.
Little information about the tree proposed for preservation is included
in the application. Consideration of rotating the barn 90 degrees to
preserve the tree would only be appropriate if it were identified as a
“Notable Tree” through the City of Boulder’s Forestry Program.
The need to raise the barn approximately 3’ in height will affect the
historic scale, form, and massing of this historic building.
Steps to raise the building only to the minimum required floodplain
height is recommended and regrading up to the new foundation
should be explored to minimize the perceived increased height.
General
Design
Guidelines
103
2.1 Building Location, Orientation & Spacing
Proposed encroachment of the barn into the side, rear and building separation setbacks appropriate to preserve the historic context of this highly visible contributing building. In this case support of requested setbacks by the Landmarks Board under 9-2-3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property of the Boulder Revised Code, is appropriate in that relocating the barn in a by-right location would likely have an adverse effect on it and historic character West Pearl Historic District.
2.3 & 7.1 Alleys and Existing Accessory Buildings
While never a first option, the relocation of contributing buildings is sometimes appropriate, especially if the orientation does not change and the spatial relationship of the buildings on the property is not significantly changed.
Proposed relocation will not impact existing character of the alley. However, re-orienting the building will likely impact the historic character of the barn and alley.
Additional space between the previously approved new garage and relocated barn in its current (non-rotated) orientation appropriate and would not result in this block-end of the alley becoming tunnel-like.
The materials, features, and details of the historic accessory building will be maintained.
Recommended
MotionRecommended Motion:
The Landmarks Board adopts the staff
memorandum dated June 2, 2021, as the findings
of the board and, with conditions, approves the
relocation and rehabilitation of the pre-1900
historic barn as shown on plans dated May 27,
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.
104
Conditions
of Approval
Recommended Conditions:
1.Submit for review and approval by the LDRC:
a. Revise to not rotate, and preserve the historic orientation of, the pre-1900 barn unless determined that the tree located immediately to the east of the barn is a Notable Tree and worthy of preservation by the City of Boulder’s Forestry Program;
b. Raise the historic barn only to the minimum required floodplain height, regrade up to the new foundation, and explore any other steps that will minimize the real and perceived increase in height of the building;
c. Provide details of windows, doors, trim, siding, roofing, material colors/finishes and hardscaping to relocated and rehabilitated barn.
105
Recommended
Findings
If stated conditions are met, the relocation of the existing barn will be generally appropriate in terms of site planning and preservation of character-defining features and will meet the standards set out in Section 9-11 -18, B.R.C. 1981, and be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the West Pearl Historic District Design Guidelines.
Building cannot be rehabilitated in its current location in the public right-of-way and its proposed new location will require setback variances from the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA). Staff recommends the Board’s support under 9-2-3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property of the Boulder Revised Code, finding that in that relocating the barn in a by-right location would have an adverse effect on the historic character of the barn and West Pearl Historic District.
The Landmarks Board finds that the project meets the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate set forth in Section 9-11 -18, “Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considers the information in the staff memorandum dated June 2, 2021, and the evidence provided to the Board at its June 2, 2021 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds, if the stated conditions are met, that:
Provided the stated conditions are met, relocation of the existing contributing accessory building is compatible with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in that:
1.If constructed in compliance with approved plans dated 06/02/2021 on file in the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Department, the proposed work will not damage the immediate streetscape in the historic district is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the West Pearl Historic District Guidelines.
2.The proposed work will not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic value of the contributing barn and associated hardscaping features on the property or affect the special historic character of the West Pearl Historic District. § 9-11 -18(b)(1).
106
Applicant Presentation
107
Matters
•Sub-committee status reports
•July Landmarks Board Meeting
•Landmarks Board Retreat
108