Loading...
04.06.22 LB Presentation•The city has engaged with community members to co- create a vision for productive, meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. •This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board/commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. •More about this vision and the project’s community engagement process can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/productive- atmospheres Public Participation at Board Meetings 1 The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. •All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. •No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. •Participants are required to sign up to speak using the name they are commonly known by,and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. Public Participation at Board Meetings 2 Raise Hand: Alt Y for PC Option Y for Mac *9 for phone 3 April 6, 2022 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation4 I, Chelsea Castellano, do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder, and faithfully perform the duties of the office of a member of the Landmarks Board which I am about to enter. Oath of Office Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation5 Agenda 1.Call to Order •Oath of Office 2.Approval of minutes from the March 2, 2022 meeting 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending •Statistical Report for March 5.Public Hearings: A.1236 Canyon Blvd. –Designation / expanded boundary B.936 Mapleton Ave. –Landmark Alteration Certificate C.745 Highland Ave. -Landmark Alteration Certificate 6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney 7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 8.Adjournment Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation6 Statistical ReportLink to dynamic map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Applications Approved, Denied or Withdrawn in March 7 Historic Preservation Applications Approved by Case Type (LAC) in March Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 Historic Preservation Applications Approved by Case Type (Demo) in December Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation9 Historic Preservation Applications Reviewed and Closed by Year (to date)Statistical Report2020: 352 applications reviewed and closed (37 in March 2020) 2021: 352 applications reviewed and closed (40 in March 2021) 2022: 19 applications reviewed and closed in March 2022 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec 2020 2021 2022 Historic Preservation Applications Received 2020 and 2021 vs. 2022 Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation11 26 26 36 36 35 38 29 34 27 34 30 24 22 24 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec 2016-2021 Average 2022 Historic Preservation Applications Received Monthly Statistical Report6-year average for March.: 36 applications Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 Agenda Item 5A Public hearing and consideration of an application to amend the designation boundary of 1236 Canyon Blvd., an individual landmark to include all of Block 13, pursuant to Section 9-11-5, B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2021-00263). Owner: City of Boulder Applicant: City of Boulder Landmarks Board Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation13 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 public 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 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation14 Criteria for Review Section 9-11-5(c), B.R.C. 1981, Landmarks Board “shall determine whether designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, Legislative Intent, and 9- 11-2, City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts.” Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation15 Landmarks Board Options 1.Recommend designation to the City Council a)City Council Public Hearing Within 100 days (before July 15, 2022) 2.Recommend disapproval a)Decision subject to 45-day call up period by the City Council (May 21, 2022) Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation16 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation November 3, 2021 Landmarks Board initiates process for expanding the landmark boundary. January 24, 2022 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) reviews initiation and requestions to postpone designation to allow time for additional review. April 6, 2022 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing Background 17 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Proposed expanded Landmark Boundary. 18 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Designated Landmark Boundary, Ordinance 5751, 1995. 19 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation20 Property Description Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Aerial Photograph of Central Park, 1938 (Block 13 indicated by hatched line), Carnegie Library for Local History 21 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation “Proposed Boulevard & City Building Group, with Flood Protection, Parking Areas and Farmer’s Market. Boulder, Colorado. S.R. DeBoer, Consultant. February 1945.” Denver Public Library. 22 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Cropped image of “Boulder Creek Boulevard Plan. S.R. DeBoer & CO City Planners.” Date unknown, Denver Public Library. 23 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation “Sketch of Proposed Civic Center and War Memorial. War Memorial Committee of Boulder Colorado. S.R. DeBoer & CO City Planners, Landscape Architects, Denver, CO, July 1947.” Denver Public Library. 24 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Along Canyon Blvd. (Water St.) looking east along the tracks from Broadway (12th St.), 1894. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. 25 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation South side of Canyon Blvd. between 10th and 11th Streets, known as the “Jungle” in 1920. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder 26 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Four men reclining under the trees in “Cigarette Park”, c. 1870- 1920. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. 27 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Boulder and White Rock Weir in Central Park, May 1921 (looking east from Broadway). Haenselman Greenhouses are on the left. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder. 28 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation The grassy lawn of the park seen from the 12th St. (Broadway) bridge. The Lyon Lumber Company building (the site of the current Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse) is in the background, 1925. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. 29 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West toward Broadway Bridge and Central Park, c. 1929. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder 30 Area History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation C. 1940 photograph looking north across Central Park from White Rock Ditch. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder 31 Criteria for Review 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation32 Historic Significance Date of Construction 1909-195001 Association with Persons or Events Cultural entertainment; Park development Elaboration:The open lawn area of Central Park from Canyon Boulevard to White Rock Ditch is visible in a 1920s photographs, however the addition of the Bandshell, constructed in 1938, unified the design of Central Park. The 1995 Band shell Report by Front Range Research notes “Landscaping around the shell was completed in 1939” and modified in 1950 with the addition of the seating 02 Distinction in Development of the Community Central Park and Boulder Creek Elaboration:The proposed boundary expansion to the White Rock Ditch (all of Block 13) includes land acquired by the city between 1906-1933 specifically for use as a civic park. Formal planning for the park began c. 1907-1910 Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.’s suggestions to reimagine Boulder Creek as a "pretty, shady spot with a clean park path running beside the murmuring water …”Construction of the Bandshell in 1938 with associated landscape improvements including the planting of trees and expansion of pathways across the park saw the area development into a center of civic celebration in the park that continues to the present. 03 Recognition by Authorities Front Range Research 1996, History Colorado, Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places 2015, Mundus Bishop, 2022. 04 1970-1980 art show in Central Park. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. 33 Architectural Significance Recognized Period or Style European Influences Public Landscape Design Elaboration:As is typical of designed landscapes, Central Park has evolved over time. However, the essential historic character of the site remains; The landscape was consciously designed by Saco DeBoer over a period spanning 1938 -1950. The expansive lawn, trees and pedestrian paths through the area exemplify European-style civic park design favored by DeBoer at the time. 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Saco DeBoer and Glen Huntington Elaboration:The expanded boundary is associated with the design intent for a central park area as originally envisioned by Frederick Law Olmsted in the early twentieth-century and Saco R. DeBoer's realization of this vision as consulting city planner to Boulder’s Planning and Parks Commission in the 1930s and 1940s. The historic landscape was designed specifically to complement the 1938 Bandshell, designed by Glen Huntington. The Bandshell was situated by Huntington and DeBoer to encourage passersby into the park and to provide a comfortable gathering space for concerts and other open-air activities. 02 Artistic Merit None Observed. Example of the Uncommon: The Bandshell is Boulder’s only example of park bandshell construction and one of the few such examples in the state. However, the associated park is not uncommon in Boulder. 03 Memorial Day celebration in Lions bandshell in Central Park c. 1940 –1949 prior to construction of seating. (BHS 129-10-4). Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder 34 Environmental Significance Site Characteristics The proposed landmark expansion is environmentally significant for its planned and natural site characteristics. The bandshell and its open-air seating and treed lawn area have long served as the focus of Central Park and as a civic center for social and cultural events in Boulder. 01 Compatibility with Site The open lawn, informally planted mature trees and pathways contribute to the historic character of Central Park and the setting of the Bandshell as its central element. 02 Geographic Importance Central Park and the Bandshell comprise an established, familiar, and prominent visual civic landmark located near Boulder Creek, the White Rock Ditch on major thoroughfares that has been an important gathering place in central Boulder since the Bandshell’s construction in 1938. The Bandshell is uniquely located as a focal point of Central Park in Downtown Boulder and was consciously situated to encourage passersby to enter the park for entertainment and relaxation. 03 Environmental Appropriateness Expansion of the landmark boundary south to the White Rock ditch is appropriate given the design and orientation of the bandshell facing south to the park with planned seating, a mature tree canopy for shade and open lawn for additional seating and recreation. 04 Area Integrity The character of the property has changed very little since the Bandshell’s seating area, also designed by Saco DeBoer and contributing to the character of the site, was added in 1950. The southern portion of the site has remained an open lawn with informally planted trees and unpaved paths since at least 1938. The pathways on the east and southern edges of the site were added in 2008. These non-historic changes do not detract from the historic character of the site. 051962 aerial of the train monument alongside the Boulder and White Rock Ditch in Central Park. Carnegie Library for Local History. 35 Staff considers that moving forward with the proposed landmark boundary expansion, at this time, would not be appropriate: •The area of Central Park considered for expansion is not threatened and any changes to the Bandshell or seating, including relocation or rehabilitation, would require review by the Landmarks Board. •Expanded area would more logically be included in a Civic Area historic district encompassing all Individual Landmarks in the in the area including the Bandshell & Park, the Boulder/Dushanbe Teahouse, City Transfer and Storage Building, Atrium Building, and Penfield Tate II Municipal Building) better recognizing & protecting the historically significant setting for each of these landmarks. •Staff, the Landmarks Board, the Planning Advisory Review Advisory Board (PRAB) will work together to ensure that any changes to the Civic Area reflect the area’s historic and cultural significance and the City Council-approved Area Master Plan Carnegie Library for Local History 36 The Landmarks Board does not recommend the City Council expand the designation boundary of 1236 Canyon Blvd., to include all of Block 13 as a local historic landmark finding, that at this time, it would not meet the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated April 6, 2022, as the findings of the board. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation37 Staff recommends that, at this time, the Landmarks Board not forward a recommendation to the city council to amend the landmark boundary for the following reasons: 1.As an existing individual landmark, any changes to the Bandshell or seating, including relocation or rehabilitation, already requires review by the Landmarks Board. 2.The areas of Central Park south of the existing boundary are currently city park. In 2021, City of Boulder voters approved funding for an extension of the Community, Culture, Resilience and Safety tax, which included funding for enhancements to the Civic Area Phase II, including Central Park. Landmarks Board and the PRAB will have opportunities to work together to ensure that these plans reflect the historic and cultural significance of this area and the City Council-approved Civic Area Master Plan. 3.The area considered for expansion would more logically be included in a future civic area historic district which could encompass all of the existing individual landmarks in the civic area (the Bandshell, the Boulder –Dushanbe Teahouse, the City Transfer and Storage Building, the Atrium Building, and the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building) and better protect the historically significant setting for each of these landmarks. While staff do not have capacity for this in 2022, it could be considered in 2023. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation38 Staff suggests the Landmarks Board and the PRAB continue to work together as planning for the East Civic Area/Central Park continues. Within 45 days of the hearing date, the Landmarks Board must adopt specific written findings and conclusions approving, approving with modifications, or disapproving the application. Should the board disapprove the application, the board must notify the City Council of that action within 30 days of the hearing date. City Council may call up a decision disapproving a designation. Should an application be disapproved, the same application may not be submitted for a period of one year. If the board finds that the proposed designation conforms to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, it shall adopt specific findings and conclusions approving or modifying and approving the application. If the board approves the proposed designation, the application will be forwarded to City Council (within 45 days) for a public hearing. The public hearing before City Council must be held within 100 days of the Landmark Board’s decision recommending designation. Next Steps Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation39 The Landmarks Board recommends the City Council expand the designation boundary of 1236 Canyon Blvd., to include all of Block 13 as a local historic landmark finding, that at this time, it would meet the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 B.R.C. 1981. Alternative Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation41 APRIL 6, 2022 BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING FRIENDS OF THE BANDSHELL REQUEST to DESIGNATE & AMMEND HISTORIC BANDSHELL / CENTRAL PARK SITE to ORIGINAL BLOCK 13, 300’ X 300’ Original Block 13, Map of the City of Boulder 189842 1894 FLOOD DAMAGE –TRAIN DERAILED IN BOULDER CREEK 43 Block 13, Fredrick Law Olmstead’s 1910 Map Block 13 BlocK 13 44 9/21 Views Central Park –Unshaded Bandshell Area 45 9/21 Shaded Picnic Areas : Current Border runs through tables 46 Agenda Item 5B Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct a 792 sq. ft. addition at 936 Mapleton Ave. a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2021-00313). Owner: Marybeth Emerson Applicant: Elizabeth Smith, Fanas Architecture Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation47 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 public 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; available within 28 days Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation48 Criteria for Review 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. 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation49 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. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation50 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation December 6, 2017 Landmarks Board reviewed a LAC application to construct a 1,550 sq. ft. rear addition (HIS2017- 00107) and application was withdrawn. The application was modified and resubmitted and reviewed by Landmarks Board on April 4, 2018, and was also withdrawn by the applicant January 5, 2022 LAC Application submitted (HIS2021-00313) and referred to Landmarks Board for review by the LDRC. The applicant requested the Landmarks Board hearing be scheduled for April 6, 2022. 51 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation52 936 Mapleton Ave, photograph from Real Estate Appraisal card (left), 1929-1938. Carnegie Library for Local History53 541973, Carnegie Library for Local History 55 1986-2005.Carnegie Library for Local History. 5656 5757 5858 5959 Site Photos –936 Mapleton Ave 936 Mapleton Ave., front (north) elevation.60 Site Photos –936 Mapleton Ave 936 Mapleton Ave., rear (south) elevation.61 Site Photos –936 Mapleton Ave 936 Mapleton Ave., side (east) elevation.62 Site Photos –936 Mapleton Ave 936 Mapleton Ave., side (west) elevation.63 64 Alley64 Proposal 65 Proposed Site PlanExisting Site Plan Existing House 1,816 sq. ft., proposed addition 1,501 sq. ft. = 3,317 sq. ft. (area in blue is proposed for demolition and area in green is proposed new construction) Existing Accessory Building & Garage = 1, 079 sq. ft. Proposal 66 North Elevation (façade) •Proposed gable roof addition approx. 9” below existing north elevation gable, however grade drops 12” over the length of the addition, resulting in a perceived increase in height of the addition; •Addition protrudes approx. 8 ft. to the east, visible from the north elevation Proposal 67 East Elevation •Proposed addition facing unnamed alley; •Removal of 1964 covered porch for new entry door; •New 2nd story balcony inset into connector between historic and new sections of building; •Details for windows not provided; divided light windows shown at 2nd story on elevations; •Perceived length of the addition matches the length of the historic house, with short connector; •Privacy “pony” wall proposed at south end, creating a void in the wall; •Pitch of gable at proposed dormer not reflective of historic dormer; •Grouped windows at proposed dormer; •2nd story balcony at south elevation visible from alley. Proposal 68 South Elevation (rear) •Proposed removal of 1964 covered entry porch; Proposed removal of historic hipped-roof addition and chimney; Proposed gable roof addition approx. 9” below existing north elevation gable, however grade drops 12” over the length of the addition, resulting in a perceived increase in height of the addition; Addition protrudes approx. 8 ft. to the east; Proposed 2nd story balconies at south elevation and west elevation; Details for windows not provided; divided light windows shown at 2nd story on elevations; Proposed 1st and 2nd story groups of “nano” or patio doors; Complex roof lines behind the main gable, which is reflective of the historic gable behind. Proposal 69 West Elevation •Perceived length of the addition exceeds length of historic house, with no connector; •Addition inset behind historic portion of house; •New 2nd story balcony inset behind historic portion of house; •Shed roof over grouped windows Proposal 70 Proposal 71 Proposed Exterior Wall Materials: Brick, smooth surface Proposal 72 Proposed Exterior Wall Siding: shake siding, 7” and staggered Proposal 73 Proposed Exterior Wall Siding: lap siding, 4” and painted Proposal 74 Proposed Roofing Material: Class ‘A’ asphalt shing, Owens Corning, “Oakridge” shingle Design Guideline Analysis 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation75 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation76 Staff considers that the following changes to the proposal are necessary to ensure consistency with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines: •Because the addition will be visible from Mapleton Avenue and the alley, staff considers that the perceived and real mass, scale, and height should be meaningfully reduced to ensure that it is subordinate to the historic house. This will likely require reducing its footprint and revising the two-story volume to a one and one-half story, more roof- dominated addition better reflecting the character of the historic house; •Revise side dormers to better reflect the forms of those on the historic house; •Exploration of the feasibility of restoring the east (side) screened-in porch to its pre-1964 appearance and configuration based upon the c.1949 tax assessor photograph; •Exploration of the feasibility of utilizing the upper-level of the pre-1929 addition to create passage from the historic house to the addition, understanding that do so may require support from the Landmarks Board for variances from the Board of Zoning Adjustment per 9.2.3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property of the Boulder Revised Code; •Simplification of the fenestration of the addition to better reference pattern and proportions on the historic house. Large banks of “nano doors” at rear are incompatible with character of main house and should be reduced; •Minimize the extent to which regrading is necessary and limit the amount of mature vegetation will be lost on the property; •Provide all material and design details including all-wood windows and doors, siding, railing, roofing and wood- decking, colors and hardscaping materials. General Design Guideline Summary 1.The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, 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 shallsubmit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval: a.Revised drawings showing: i.A meaningful reduction in the perceived and real mass, scale, and height of the addition to ensure that it is subordinate to the historic house. This will likely require reducing its footprint and revising the two-story volume to a one and one-half story addition that is more roof dominated to better reflect the character of the historic house; ii.Revised dormers to better reflect the forms of those on the historic house; Restoration of the east (side) screened-in porch to its pre-1964 appearance and configuration based upon the c.1949 tax assessor photograph; iii.Simplification of the fenestration of the addition to better reference pattern and proportions on the historic house; elimination of the large banks of “nano doors” at rear and groupings of windows; iv.Minimize the extent to which regrading is necessary and limit the amount of mature vegetation that will be lost on the property; b.Final architectural plans that include details including details for exterior doors, windows (including placement, style, and type), lighting, paint and roofing color, composition of walls, etc. Conditions of Approval 77 The Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated April 6, 2022, as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a rear, one and one half-story 1,501 sq. ft. addition to the main house at 936 Mapleton Ave., a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as shown on plans dated December 3, 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 provided the stated conditions are met. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation78 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation79 8080 8181 8282 8383 8484 8585 8686 8787 8888 8989 9090 Agenda Item 5C Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to install front railings at 745 Highland 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 (HIS2022-00041). Owner: Carrie and Neville Vere-Nicholl Applicant: Jeff Borchardt, Jazz Architecture Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation91 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 public 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; available within 28 days Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation92 Criteria for Review 1.The proposed work: 2.Preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property; 3.Does not adversely affect the historic, architectural value of the property; 4.Architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property; 5.The Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation93 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. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation94 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation February 16, 2022 LDRC reviewed a revised proposal (HIS2022-00025) for iron railings. LDRC advised applicants to simplify railing detail or submit for review at the Landmarks Board. February 25, 2022 An application (HIS2022-00041) detailing the proposed railing with quatrefoil elements was received. 95 Location Map 96 Google Streetview, Nov 2017. Historic Photo –745 Highland Ave Photo of 745 Highland Ave in 1903 (from Carnegie Library)Architectural drawing, c. 1902 (Carnegie Library) 97 Historic Photo –745 Highland Ave 98 Site Photos –745 Highland Ave 745 Highland Ave., South Elevation (façade), 2022. 99 Site Photos –745 Highland Ave Views of the front porch, east elevation (left photo) and southwest (right photo). 100 Site Photos –745 Highland Ave Details photographs of columns on the front porch. 101 Scope of Proposed Work 102 Scope of Proposed Work 103 South Elevation (façade) •Proposed installation of 36” high railing on three sides of front porch; 1.5” wide tubular steel posts welded to steel footing plate; ½” square hammered balusters with alternating quatrefoil detailing; anodized bronze; free-standing design that allows for removal with no damage to the façade or columns. Scope of Proposed Work Detail view of porch railing and details of proposed railing components. 104 Scope of Proposed Work 105 West and East Elevations •Installation of railing on east and west sides of porch; 36” tall railing proposed; 1.5” wide tubular steel posts welded to steel footing plate; ½” square hammered balusters with alternating quatrefoil detailing; anodized bronze; free-standing design Design Guideline Analysis 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation106 General Design Guideline Analysis Front porches are a common and important visual element of many historic building styles. The porch roof is generally supported by freestanding columns or by columns resting on a masonry wall. Wood railings are anchored with masonry or wood balustrades. A porch is generally open with the facade of the house plainly visible. .3 Maintain the height, detail and spacing of the original balustrade if replacing, extending or adding balustrades. .5 If a rear or side porch is to be enclosed, the following guidelines apply: •Maintain the sense of openness, scale, proportion, and separation from the structure of the house. The enclosure should not obscure the main architectural details of the porch or house. •Keep the design and materials as simple as possible rather than trying to match the building facade. .8 Porches on new buildings or on non-contributing buildings should be compatible with the architecture of the building, incorporating traditional scale and proportions with updated design details. 107 Analysis: •Photographic evidence indicates that the porch never included a railing; •The simplicity and lightness of the proposed railing design will not obscure the architectural details of the house; •The railing design is simple and will complement the architecture of the house, however the quatrefoil element is more typical of a Gothic Revival architecture; •Recommend removing the quatrefoil element or including a detail that is compatible with, and takes cues from, the architecture of the building. For example, the original diamond detailing in the windows in lieu of the quatrefoil pattern. General Design Guideline Summary In this case, staff considers the installation of a railing at the front porch appropriate, due to these factors: •The proposed railing is an effective and necessary for life-safety ; •The proposed railing is sensitive to the open appearance of the house; it will be subtle and keeps the facade of the house plainly visible; •A 36” tall railing is proportional to the two-story volume of the front porch; •The proposed railing is freestanding not connecting to columns or walls, is reversible, and therefore will not damage historic material. Staff considers that the following changes to the proposal are necessary to ensure consistency with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Landmarks: •Modification of the design to be better reflect and be more compatible with the Neo-Classical architecture of the building (consider utilizing diamond form on rail found on windows rather that quatrefoil pattern). 108 I move that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct front porch railings at 745 Highland Ave., an individual landmark and contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as shown on plans dated September 22, 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. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation109 1.The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, 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 staff for its final review and approval to ensure that the final design of the railings are consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval. a.Revised railing detailing to simply reflect design elements found on historic portions of the house, for example the diamond pattern in the front windows. Conditions of Approval 110 The Landmarks Board finds that with the stated conditions 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 April 6, 2022, and the evidence provided to the Board at its April 6, 2022 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds, if the stated conditions are met, that: 1.The proposal will be generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic character of the landmark property; 2.The proposed work will preserve, and will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark; 3.The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials used on the building will be compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site; and 4.The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, and value of the landmark property, as it is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines and will generally comply with Sections 2.0 and 3.3 of the General Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18(b)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. Proposed Findings 111 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation112 113113 114114 115115 116116 Matters Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation117 •Nomination of Board Chair and Vice Chair •Preservation Month •Annual Retreat update •Paint color update Paint Color Roadmap Outline Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation118 •Review and refine purpose •Define scope •Deliverable options / pros and cons •Identify milestones •Create schedule •Identify budget (and constraints) •Adoption process The Purpose Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation119 •Create a framework to make more consistent decisions on exterior color choices in the historic districts •Provide a tool to give us a common terminology to justify and explain decisions (rather than a palette for making decisions) •Provide a tool to assist property owners in making color choices that are consistent with the historic context Scope Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation122 In Scope Out of Scope •Definitions of common terminology to justify and explain decisions •A color palette Deliverable Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation123 •By Historic District? •By type of house/style? •Graphics versus written guidelines? Analysis of deliverable Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation124 Pros Cons The Scope Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation125 •… Milestones Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation126 •… Schedule Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation127 •Define what’s been discussed so far at retreat work plan within context of other stuff •Approx. 6 month timeframe Budget and Constraints Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation128 •… History of the Project Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation129 •Landmarks Board progress: •May 14, 2021 (Meeting –board invited consultant to discuss paint colors and palette) •June 2, 2021 (Matters -Subcommittee requests comments from LB) •July 16, 2021 (LB Retreat -subcommittee outlined the discussion; board agreed that the subcommittee should proceed with examples that illustrate a set of qualities) •August 4, 2021 (Matters -subcommittee updates the LB on a proposed analytical format applying hue, intensity, value and context) •September 1, 2021 (Matters -subcommittee updates board on progress) •September 14, 2021 (LB Retreat –subcommittee reported on constraints of developing a true palette, noting limited resources available; presented a collection of color examples) •January 5, 2022 (Matters -subcommittee updates board and suggests retreat to discuss) •February 2, 2022 (Matters -subcommittee request LB members review materials) •March 2, 2022 (Matters -draft proposal presented; LB request roadmap for completion) The Adoption Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation130ProposalLandmarks Board discuss proposal, documenting changes Approved ProposalLandmarks Board agree that the proposal is ready for a motion Motion to approvePublic CommentPublic comment period (15 days) is notified, and comments collected Public HearingRule adoptedLandmarks Board hearing to consider adoption of the rule / changes Landmarks Board vote on motion to approve proposal “as of substance” Adopted rule added to official archive These steps must be notified on a public meeting agenda (10 days in advance)We are here!