Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.04.22 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 May 4, 2022 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation4 Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from the April 6, 2022 meeting 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending •Statistical Report for April 5.Public Hearings: A.841 Spruce St. –LAC 6.Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney 7.Debrief Meeting / Calendar Check 8.Adjournment Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation5 Statistical ReportLink to dynamic map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Applications Approved, Denied or Withdrawn in April 6 Historic Preservation Applications Approved by Case Type (LAC) in April Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation7 Historic Preservation Applications Reviewed by Case Type (Demo) in April Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 Historic Preservation Applications Reviewed and Closed by Year (to date)Statistical Report2020: 352 applications reviewed and closed (16 in April 2020) 2021: 352 applications reviewed and closed (31 in April 2021) 2022: 45 applications reviewed and closed in April 2022 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation9 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 Preservation10 26 26 36 36 35 38 29 34 27 34 30 24 22 24 31 35 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 April: 36 applications Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation11 Agenda Item 5A Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct a 6'10" brick wall at 841 Spruce St., a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2021-00339). Owner: Richard Emerson Applicant: Guy Stevenson, Guy Stevenson Designs. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation12 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 Preservation13 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 Preservation14 Landmarks Board Decision 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 Preservation15 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation February 16th, 2022. The LDRC referred a LAC application to construct a 6’ 10” brick wall (HIS2021- 00399) to the full Landmarks Board. May 4th, 2022 LAC application to construct a 6’ 10” brick wall reviewed by the full Landmarks Board 16 Location Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation17 Location Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation18 Historic Photos –841 Spruce St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 841 Spruce St., (c. 1929 –1949). Real Estate Appraisal Card, Carnegie Library for Local History. 19 Historic Photos –841 Spruce St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 841 Spruce St., 1958 Aerial Photograph showing 9th Street frontage. 20 Site –841 Spruce St Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationLooking northwest21 Site –841 Spruce Street Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationNorth Along 9th Street. 22 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West Along 9th Street. 23 Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationNorth Along 9th Street24 Planning & Development Services | Historic PreservationNorth Along 9th Street South Along 9th Street. North Along 9th Street. 25 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Looking Southwest.26 Scope of Proposed Work Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Southeast corner, view of existing 5’ 10” wood fence. Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation28 Proposal Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Elevation drawing of the east elevation, looking from 9th Street. 29 3030 Existing Proposed Rendering appears approximately 12” lower than actua;. 31 Existing Proposed Rendering appears approximately 12” lower than actuaL. 32 Design Guideline Analysis 9-11-18 (b) & (c), B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation33 General Design Guideline Analyses Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation •The preamble to Section 2.6 of the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Landmarks Historic Districts (amended 2019) states: •“The appearance of the house from the sidewalk, street, and alley contributes to an area’s character. Historically, fences were not common in Boulder. Where they existed they were very open, low, and used to de-lineate space rather than to create walled-off privacy areas. Rear and side yard fences were built low enough so neighbors could talk to each other over them. The fences could be easily seen through and were built of woven wire (not chain-link), wrought iron, or painted or opaque stained wood pickets. Elaborate wrought iron and cast- iron fences were typically found only on lots with large or grand homes.” •Section 2.6 (3) goes on to recommend that where fences are appropriate to, “introduce compatible new fences of traditional materials only in locations and configurations that are characteristic of the historic district. New fencing should reflect the character of historic fences in height, openness, materials, and finish.” 34 General Design Guideline Analyses Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation •Staff considers that as proposed, the 6’10” high, 88’ long wall does not reflect the historic character of the 9th Street corridor in the Mapleton Hill neighborhood. 9th Street is a heavily trafficked street by pedestrian and cyclists as well as motor vehicles and this has been the case since at least the 1950s. The construction of a solid brick wall of this height will have a significant impact on the character of the block. •However, staff also acknowledges the need for higher fences at side yards, especially on busier streets. For this reason, staff recommends that constructing portions of masonry wall along the 88’ stretch between the house and garage may be appropriate to provide a sound buffer from vehicular traffic, but that those portions should not exceed 4’ height and that a more open painted wood trellis (of up to 2’ in height) should be used in areas to a achieve a total height of no more than 6’. This will allow the property to benefit from increased sound isolation from vehicular traffic while maintaining the historically open character of the block. 35 Conditions of Approval Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 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 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.Revised design to construct a brick wall of no more than 4’ in height (offsets may not be necessary) with an open painted lattice of no more than 2’ atop the new wall. b.Final architectural plans that include footing system, width of masonry, brick/mortar- type, wood lattice design, paint color, etc. 36 I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated May 4, 2022, as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a wall at the east property line of 841 Spruce Street a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as shown on plans dated April 1st 2022, 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 Preservation37 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 May 4, 2022, and the evidence provided to the Board at its May 4, 2022 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds 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 property; 3.The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color and materials used on the addition will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site and the historic district; 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 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation38 Applicant Presentation Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation39 4040 4141 Matters Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation42 •Annual Retreat update •Preservation Month update •Upcoming conferences •Discussion: contributing vs. non- contributing buildings •Paint color update Discussion: contributing vs. non- contributing buildings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation43 How is a determination of Contributing vs. Non-Contributing applied to a structure? •Is that determination considered binding for the purposes of deciding the extent of modifications allowed to a property? •Can an ‘administration function’ such as an LDRC meeting change whether a structure is contributing or non-contributing? •Can or should the full Landmarks Board be able to confirm or change a determination of contributing vs. non-contributing? •What is the process by which a determination is made or changed? •What key points should the process of determination address? •How do we keep track of determinations that are different/changed? 44 45 Survey Photographs Example: 2439 6th Street Directories Sanborn Maps Building Permits If more info is needed or if the pictures show something different … Contributing / non-contributing45 *Slide used to discuss contributing or non-contributing buildings in LDRC meetings 46 Paint Color Design Guideline Outline Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation47 •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 Preservation48 •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 History of the Project Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation49 •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 Preservation50ProposalLandmarks 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!