Loading...
06.01.22 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 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 Raise Hand: Alt Y for PC Option Y for Mac *9 for phone June 1st, 2022 Landmarks Board Meeting Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation4 Agenda 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from the May 4, 2022 meeting 3.Public Participation for Non-Public Hearing Items 4.Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending •Statistical Report for May 5.Public Hearings: A.3122 8th St –Demolition Application B.568 14th St –Demolition Application 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map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Applications Approved, Denied or Withdrawn in May 6 Historic Preservation Applications Approved by Case Type (LAC) in May Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation7 Historic Preservation Applications Reviewed by Case Type (Demo) in May Statistical ReportPlanning & Development Services | Historic Preservation8 Historic Preservation Applications Reviewed and Closed by Year (to date)Statistical Report2020: 352 applications reviewed and closed (26 in May 2020) 2021: 352 applications reviewed and closed (34 in May 2021) 2022: 21 applications reviewed and closed in May 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 26 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 demolition application for a house constructed in 1948 located at 3122 8th St., 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. Owner: Joshua and Tiffany Gwyther Applicant: Emily Stack, Daedalus Studio Architecture 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 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation13 Purpose for Review 1.Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. 2.Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 9-11-23 (a) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation14 Criteria for Review 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. 9-11-23 (f) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation15 Landmarks Board Options 1.Approve the Demolition a)Approval valid for 180 days 2.Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application a)Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition b)Stay would expire October 30, 2022 3.Initiate Landmark Designation a)Schedule an initiation hearing Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation16 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation December 9, 2021 Demolition Application Submitted January 5, 2022 Landmarks Design Review Committee referred application to Landmarks Board May 3, 2022 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing Fee Paid June 1 Landmarks Board Hearing 17 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation18 Site Photos –3122 8th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West Elevation facing 8th Street, Google street view. 19 Site Photos –3122 8th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation North Elevation/side. 20 Site Photos –3122 8th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation East Elevation/rear. 21 Site Photos –3122 8th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation East Elevation/rear. 22 Site Photos –3122 8th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation East Elevation/rear. 23 Site Photos –3122 8th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West Elevation facing 8th Street, May 2022. 24 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West Elevation facing 8th Street, in 1949 (left) and 2022 (right). 25 Site Plan Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation26 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Tax Assessor Cards for 3132 8th Street (left) and 3122 8th Street (right) in 1949. 3132 8th St.3132 8th St. 3122 8th St. 3122 8th St. 27 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation History of Owners: •Ira M. and Minnie J. Long (1941-1950) •Ira and Minnie purchased the land from Clinton and Bertha Hixson. The Long family also owned the property to the north (3132 8th St) and Ira constructed the house at 3122 8th St in 1948. Their son, Linn, recalls that his father was a contractor and built the house himself, subcontracting the plumbing and electrical. •William R. and Jacqueline E. Kent (Feb. 1950 –July 1950) •Clyde R. and Opal W. Fulk (1950-1978) •Clyde and Opal were married in 1913. Clyde served as the secretary of the Pleasant View Grange. They both died in 1978 and their son sold the house. •Other owners: The house has had multiple owners since 1978, including Philip M. and Jennifer C. Groves (1978 –1979); Edwin J Stanley, Jr (1979 –1983); Ruth T. Fitterman (1983 –1984); Yeager A. Bush (1984 –1986); Kimberly Rosenthal and Robert L. Wheeler (1986 –1990); Robert Schettler and Ladawn Forth (1990-1992); Andrew Lange (1992-2021); and the current owners, Joshua and Tiffany Gwyther (2021-present). 28 Criteria for Review Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 9-11-23 (a) B.R.C. 1981 29 Historic Significance Date of Construction c. 1948 01 Association with Persons or Events Ira M. and Minnie J. Long (1941-1950) Clyde R. Fulk (1950-1978) 02 Distinction in Development of the Community Newlands Elaboration:The property is an example of the gradual development of the Newlands residential neighborhood that took place during the first half of the 20th century and represent an example of this period of Boulder’s development. 03 Recognition by Authorities None04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation30 Architectural Significance Recognized Period or Style 01 Builder of Prominence Ira Long, a local building contractor, built the house02 Artistic Merit Unusual polygonal stone siding on frame construction. 03 Indigenous Qualities Local stone.05 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation Post World War II Hipped-Roof Box Elaboration:The house includes characteristics of the Postwar Hipped-Roof Box building type, including the shallow-pitched pyramidal roof with clipped gable, asymmetrical façade where one half of the front is recessed for a front entrance. 04 Example of the Uncommon The house is a rare example of post WWII vernacular hipped- roof box construction faced with local stone. 31 Environmental Significance Site Characteristics01 Compatibility with Site02 Geographic Importance Unique location adjacent to the property where the Longs resided 03 Environmental Appropriateness None observed.04 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. 05 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation None observed. Constructed by Ira Long. The same faced polygonal stone is seen at adjacent property to the north where the Longs resided. 32 Relationship to Neighborhood Relationship and Character The surrounding areas has an eclectic character and a wide range of building ages, including pre-and post WWII buildings. While many of the surrounding buildings are more architecturally detailed, the vernacular construction and use of polygonal stone “to match” the neighboring property adds to the character of this block and area in general. Criterion 2: Relationship to the character of the neighborhood33 Condition of Building The owner has submitted information related to the condition of the building for the board’s review. Projected Cost The owner has submitted information related to the to the projected cost of restoration or repair of the building for the board’s review. Criterion 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair34 I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-demolition for the building located at 3122 8th St. for a period not to exceed 180 days (and endeavor to resolve expeditiously through site visit(s), meetings with owners to review alternatives, review financial analysis, and review unknown history) 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 1, 2022. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation35 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. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation36 Applicant’s Presentation 37 38 39 40 Agenda Item 5B Public hearing and consideration of a demolition application for a house constructed in 1940 located at 568 14th St., 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. Owner: Andrea Lundeen Dart and David Larocca Applicant: Andrea Dart 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 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation48 Purpose for Review 1.Prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. 2.Provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building. 9-11-23 (a) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation49 Criteria for Review 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. 9-11-23 (f) B.R.C. 1981 Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation50 Landmarks Board Options 1.Approve the Demolition a)Approval valid for 180 days 2.Place a Stay-of-Demolition on the Application a)Provide time to consider alternatives to demolition b)Stay would expire October 30, 2022 3.Initiate Landmark Designation a)Schedule an initiation hearing Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation51 Application Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation April 9, 2022 Demolition Application Submitted April 20, 2022 Staff referred the application to the Landmarks Board May 3, 2022 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing Fee Paid June 1 Landmarks Board Hearing 52 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation53 Location Map Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Boulder Survey of Historic Places: University Hill Resurvey designation recommendations within the potential expanded University Hill Historic District. 54 Site Photos –568 14th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West elevation, facing 14th Street. 55 Site Photos –568 14th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation North elevation, facing Columbine Avenue. 56 Site Photos –568 14th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation East elevation, facing the alley. 57 Site Photos –568 14th St Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation58 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation West Elevation facing 8th Street, in 1949 (left) and 2022 (right). 59 Site Plan Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation60 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Roy H. and Lorraine Light (1940-1943) Roy and Lorraine Light were the first owners of the house. Roy was born around 1895 in Colorado and married Lorraine on August 12, 1923, in Denver. Roy was a painter employed by the University of Colorado. Vinton S. and Verna W. Curry (1943-1948) Vinton and Verna Curry purchased the house from the Lights in 1943. Vinton was an accounting teacher at the University of Colorado and Verna was a bookkeeper. Marcia and Helen Carpenter (1948-1995) Longest owners of the house and made the porch modification in 1949-1950 61 Building History Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation Helen Carpenter (1948-1995) 62 Criteria for Review Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation 9-11-23 (a) B.R.C. 1981 63 Historic Significance Date of Construction 1940 -195001 Association with Persons or Events Helen Carpenter 02 Distinction in Development of the Community East Chautauqua / Floral Park / Wellington Heights Elaboration:The influence of the University of Colorado was reflected in the large number of university employees who lived there, and as University Hill became more developed and exclusive, working-class residents looked to Floral Park and Wellington Heights. “Modern” development of remaining open lots in the neighborhood began in 1940 and continued post-WWII. 03 Recognition by Authorities The Boulder Survey of Historic Places: University Hill Resurvey considered the property “Contributing-restorable” within the potential expanded University Hill Historic District. 04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 64 Architectural Significance Recognized Period or Style Masonry vernacular 01 Architect or Builder of Prominence Unknown 02 Artistic Merit None observed. 03 Indigenous Qualities None observed.04 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 65 Environmental Significance Site Characteristics None observed01 Compatibility with Site None observed. 02 Geographic Importance Although the house is currently somewhat hidden by mature vegetation, it is prominently located on a corner lot. 03 Environmental Appropriateness None observed.04 Area Integrity The property is located in the identified potential expanded University Hill Historic District. 05 Criterion 1: Eligibility for Landmark Designation 66 Relationship to Neighborhood The neighborhood is predominantly post World War II single family residential houses with a scattering of early 1900s buildings. The block includes two buildings designed by Glen Huntington and constructed in 1941 that are not designated. Criterion 2: Relationship to the character of the neighborhood Condition of Building The owner intends to submit information related to the condition of the building. Projected Cost The owner intends to submit information related to the to the projected cost of restoration or repair of the building. Criterion 3 & 4: Condition of the Building and Projected Cost of Restoration or Repair68 I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-demolition for the building located at 568 14thSt. 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 1, 2022. Recommended Motion Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation69 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 is significant for its association with Helen Carpenter; 3.The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; 4.It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. Proposed Findings Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation70 Applicant’s Presentation 71 C L . UNCONDITIONED AREA CLOSET CRAWLSPACE GARAGE UTILITY ROOM GARDEN ROOM 1 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" CL. MECH.ROOM H A L L / S T O R A G E C L G . E L E V BOULDER,CO 80302 Shee t: 72 SUNROOM ADDITION CL. FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT ENTRY LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM SUNROOM CL.CL. BEDROOM 1 SIDE ENTRY KITCHEN BATHROOM 1 1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-0"BOULDER,CO 80302 Shee t: 73 000BOULDER,CO 80302 Shee t: 568 14th STREET BASEMENT BEDROOM HALL/STORAGE UTILITY ROOM CLOSET 74 001BOULDER,CO 80302 Shee t: 568 14th STREET STAIRS UPSTAIRS BEDROOM BATHROOM KITCHEN LIVING ROOM SUNROOM 75 Matters Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation •Update regarding resuming in- person meetings and Annual Retreat update (approx. 5 mins) •Contributing vs. non-contributing buildings Process Outline Update (Jellick)(approx. 5 mins) •1345 28th St. / Millennium •Bandshell expansion at City Council •Paint color update (approx. 30 mins) 77 Paint Color Roadmap Outline Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation78 •Purpose •Scope •Process for Guidelines (written) •Creating Figures •Adoption process The Purpose 79 •Create a framework to make more consistent decisions on exterior color choices in the historic districts and for individual landmarks •Create common terminology and provide descriptions to justify and explain (predictable) decisions (rather than a specific palette) •Provide a tool to assist property owners in making appropriate historic color choices Why? 80 •The way we perceive color is subjective •Tastes and trends change •The technology of color / paint changes •We’re seeing Lac requests for color proposals that aren’t consistent with the historic district context or historic color schemes Glossary of Terms: Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation81 •Muted –current guidelines request a muted and subdued color choice. Is this clear and well-defined? •Intensity •Contrast –an important area, but how do you balance not enough with too much? (subtle contrast?) •Tone and hue –Tone generally refers to blacks and whites, hues to colors. •Architectural expression, character, periods of construction (significance) Plan of Action Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation82 Use Bill/John’s research Propose changes to General Guidelines Include recommendation to refer to the district guidelines if available Draft changes and definitions in redline Encourage paint color analysis Keep short and non- judgmental •Identify condensed /types of architecture Outline a couple of examples •Exemplary examples (photographs) •Bibliography or references Plan of Action Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation83 adoption process 1.Staff prepares draft •Landmarks Board reviews draft and provides comments •Staff finalizes the drafts based on comments The Adoption Process Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation84ProposalLandmarks 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! Guidelines –Identified Periods in Architecture 85 Late Victorian Period 1860-c.1900 -organic pigments Vernacular Wood Frame Vernacular Masonry Italianate (1870-1900) Second Empire (1870-1900) Queen Anne (1880-c.1900) Terrace (1880-c.1910) c. 1900-1920 Turn of the Twentieth-Century Period Edwardian Vernacular (1900-c.1920) Foursquare Classic Cottage (1910-c.1920) Colonial Revival (1900-1920) Mission-Revival (1900-1920) Inter-War Period c.1920-1946 Tudor-Revival (1910s-c.1930) Mediterranean-Revival (1920-1940) Craftsman Bungalow (1910s-1940) Proto-Ranch/Minimalist-Traditional (1930s-1950) Modernistic Post WW-II Architecture (1946-present) Non-contributing buildings and buildings outside of the period of significance Defined Period: 1. Late Victorian Period 1860-c.1900 By far the most common type of house construction in Boulder, Vernacular Wood Frame buildings are constructed with locally available materials according to traditional building practice. They are simple in form and detail and generally include little ornamentation. Body typically off-white to subdued earth-tone colors. May utilize varying muted accent tones on trim and windows. Vernacular Wood Frame 86 87 Architectural features to accentuate: unpainted masonry, decorative brackets, cupola or tower, decorative lintels often unpainted stone, dentils, low pitches roof. Colors: •Main body often unpainted masonry, wood- frame buildings in eclectic colors ranging from low value to moderately intense hues •Trim (wood only) in medium to high intensity and value colors. •Accent color, used sparingly on wood features like cornice molded panels, often matches color of stone lintels (if present) or very high value colors like dark greys. Defined Period: 1. Late Victorian Period 1860-c.1900 Italianate (1870-1900) Queen Anne (1880-1900) Edwardian Vernacular (1900-1920) 88 Architectural features to accentuate: gable end ornamentation, finials, dentils, bargeboard, frieze, corner brackets, beading, sunburst, decorative shingles, etc. Later in the time period, paints were massed-produced and mass-marketed. Wider range of colors included new pastels and deeper more saturated colors. Three-color schemes for exterior become the norm: one color for body; second for the trim; and third, always the darkest, for the sash (doors, sashes, shutters). Colors: •Main body color in a low to moderate value hue •Secondary body color in higher or lower value of main body color appropriate for decorative shingle only •Low intensity hue for main trim, usually cream or a paler variation of the body color •3rd and 4th darker accent colors used sparingly to accentuate architectural detail, sash in Edwardian houses with less ornamentation 89 Architectural features to accentuate: low-pitched gabled roof, wide unenclosed overhanging eaves, roof rafter usually exposed, battered porch supports Typically painted in a color scheme of 3 to 5 colors. Palettes were typically comprised of variations of earth tones. Colors: •Main body color in a moderate to high value hue in a low intensity that reflects more natural colors, for example browns and greens •Trim color in low value, low intensity color, often of the same hue as the body color •Window sash and rafter tails may have third color close to main body color 2. c. 1900-1920 Turn of the Twentieth-Century Period Craftsman Bungalow 1900-1920s 90 Constructed in Colorado during the 1910s and 1920s, these houses feature gabled or hipped roofs covered with tile, slate, or shake shingles, and decorated chimney detailing. Windows are generally mullioned casements, with an occasional bay window. Typically painted in color schemes of 3 colors. Base light earth tones. Trim in contrast to base color. Window frames tend to be dark colors. Tudor-Revival c. 1910-1930s 3. 1920-1946 Interwar Period 1880-90s Palette 91 1900 Palette 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Project Outline Planning & Development Services | Historic Preservation100 What do we need the Landmarks Board to do? •Review work staff is doing and provide feedback: •Is this going in the right direction? •Is the Board comfortable with this level of involvement to review and adopt?