Loading...
06.01.16 LB Packet 1. Call to order 2. Approval of minutes from the April 6, 2016 Landmarks Board Meeting 3. Selection of Landmarks Board Chair and Vice Chair positions 4. Public participation for items not on the agenda 5. Discussion of Landmark Alteration Certificates, Demolition Permit Applications issued and pending  Statistical Report  717 17th St. – Stay-of-Demolition Expires July 3, 2016 6. Public Hearings A. WITHDRAWN: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to add new round windows to the gable peak facades of the contributing houses at 521 Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00121). Owner / Applicant: Brandie Emerick / Joel Smiley, Inc. 7. Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney A. Update on the Chautauqua Access Management Plan by Susan Connelly B. Historic Resource Survey Plan update C. Update Memo 8. Debrief Meeting/Calendar Check 9. Adjournment For more information contact James Hewat at hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov or (303) 441-3207. You can also access this agenda via the website at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation then select “Next Landmarks Board Meeting”. CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING DATE: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 TIME: 6:00 p.m. PLACE: 1777 Broadway, Municipal Building, City Council Chambers PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Board members who will be present are: Deborah Yin Eric Budd Briana Butler Ronnie Pelusio Fran Sheets John Gerstle *Planning Board representative without a vote The Landmarks Board is constituted under the Landmarks Presentation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 4721; Title 9, Chapter 11, Boulder Revised Code, 1981) to designate landmarks and historic districts, and to review and approve applications for Landmark Alteration Certificates on such buildings or in such districts. Public hearing items will be conducted in the following manner: 1. Board members will explain all ex-parte contacts they may have had regarding the item.* 2. Those who wish to address the issue (including the applicant, staff members and public) are sworn in. 3. A historic preservation staff person will present a recommendation to the board. 4. Board members will ask any questions to historic preservation staff. 5. The applicant will have a maximum of 10 minutes to make a presentation or comments to the board. 6. The public hearing provides any member of the public three minutes within which to make comments and ask questions of the applicant, staff and board members. 7. After the public hearing is closed, there is discussion by board members, during which the chair of the meeting may permit board questions to and answers from the staff, the applicant, or the public. 8. Board members will vote on the matter; an affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required for approval. The motion will state: Findings and Conclusions. * Ex-parte contacts are communications regarding the item under consideration that a board member may have had with someone prior to the meeting. All City of Boulder board meetings are digitally recorded and are available from the Central Records office at (303) 441-3043. A full audio transcript of the Landmarks Board meeting becomes available on the city of Boulder website approximately ten days after a meeting. Action minutes are also prepared by a staff person and are available approximately one month after a meeting. CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD April 6, 2016 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room 6:00 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the April 6, 2016 City of Boulder Landmarks Board meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also listen to the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net. BOARD MEMBERS: Fran Sheets, Interim Chair Eric Budd Briana Butler Ronnie Pelusio *Crystal Grey, *Planning Board representative without a vote Deborah Yin, absent STAFF MEMBERS: Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Interim Chair F. Sheets declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. OATHS OF OFFICE FOR NEW BOARD MEMBERS D. Kalish swore in the two new Landmarks Board members, E. Budd and R. Pelusio. She verbally offered, “I (Eric and Ronnie) to solemnly swear or 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.” 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by B. Butler, seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board approved (4-0) the minutes as amended of the March 2, 2016 board meeting. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Kathryn Barth, 2940 20th St., welcomed the new board members and encouraged applicants to come review designs early in the process. She also recommended pursing State Historic Fund grants and strengthening partnerships with History Colorado, the State Historic Fund, and the National Historic Register. Ron Sladek, Chair of the City of Fort Collins Landmarks Commission, invited the Landmarks Board to Fort Collins. 5. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING  717 17th St. Stay-of-Demolition Expires July 3, 2016. J. Hewat offered a recap of site visit, mentioning that there was not a lot of interest from applicant to preserve the house in particular because the unique construction material of clay tile, does not lend itself to adding onto the building. Since the site visit there have been no additional conversations with the applicant. Staff plans to reach out to the applicant to further discussion about alternatives to demolition.  Statistical Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to make improvements at the north end of Chautauqua Park, 900 Baseline Rd., including construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Baseline Road from 6th Street to the King’s Gate, construction of a sidewalk on the east side of Kinnikinic Road into the park from Baseline Road, reconstruction of the drainage swale along the east side of Kinnikinic Road, and installation of lighting at the trolley house and arbor per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00068). Ex-parte contacts E. Budd, B. Butler, R. Pelusio, and F. Sheets made site visits. F. Sheets also reviewed the swales at the LDRC. C. Gray noted that Chautauqua was the first place she lived in Boulder and that Susan Osborne, president of the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) is a good friend Staff Presentation J. Hewat, presented the case to the board Applicant’s Presentation Melanie Sloan, Transportation Planner, presented an overview and goals of the project to improve pedestrian safety while honoring historic nature, to meet ADA accessibility standards, and to provide improve lighting. Brian Wiltshire, Project Manager, provided information during the questions and answer portion of the process. Public Hearing Karl Anuta, 4840 Thunderbird Dr., former Landmarks Board and CCA board member, spoke in support of project, especially because of it’s limited scope. He advised the board that their job was to ensure it (the application) meets the code, to inquire if the walk south from Kings’ Gate is ADA compliant in itself, and to ensure the swale does not constitute approval for the whole district. He highlighted that since Chautauqua is a National Register historic district, it is possible that non-compliance with National standards can lead to it loosing status. An an example of this is when there was so much modification to History Colorado at 18th and Baseline that it was removed from the National Register. Tom Thorpe, 3815 Newport Ln., architect and planner, worked in boulder for 40 years, specializing in preservation for 7 years. He was a former Landmarks Board member, and is now a CCA board member and Chair of Buildings and Grounds Committee. Mr. Thorpe spoke in support of this current version. Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, welcomed the two members and spoke in support of the project, acknowledging the responsive revisions the project team made since the last Landmarks Board review (in February 2016). She impressed upon the board the importance of this, “Crown Jewel of Boulder.” Kathryn Barth, 2940 20th St., Has researched online about swales in national parks, finding that there was not a precedent for concrete underlayment to swales. Ms. Barth expressed concern and encouraged the board to consider the inconsistency of the ADA at the King’s Gate then not ADA on the path head south toward the Dining Hall. Jeff Medanich, lives in Berthoud, Preservation and Facilities Manager at Chautauqua, spoke about the approved test patch of the swale that was presented at LDRC. He detailed the material would be permeable concrete below the stone, the stone will be set in the concrete, with no grout between the stones to allow sediment to fill in the gaps. J. Medanich also mentioned the plan was to re-use 75% of existing swale stone. He pointed out ribbon course down the middle of the swale and that this is predominant throughout the campus that they intend to match. Sighting that the existing swales are sometimes used as sidewalks, and that they are currently in poor condition and hazardous to walk on. He clarified that, there is no intention to build more sidewalks. Dorothy Riddle, 700 Grant Pl. asked if sidewalk on the east side of Kinnikinic entrance would cut into existing plantings. She expressed that ADA at Kinikinnic is unnecessary, as wheelchair users rely on handicapped parking further in the park. Motion On a motion by B. Butler seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board voted and approved (3-1, D. Yin absent, S. Sheets objecting that she does not like the plans, they do not meet the guidelines well enough, concerned with queen’s gate path, and does not agree with need for 5’ concrete path) the application for the construction of public improvements as shown on plans and specifications dated 04/06/2016, finding that, if constructed pursuant to the conditions below, the public improvements will meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Chautauqua Park Historic District Design Guidelines, and adopts the staff memorandum dated April 6, 2016 as the findings of the Board. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development will be constructed in compliance with the application dated 03/11/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Housing & Sustainability Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and receiving final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit revised plans showing: a. A test patch of the proposed new concrete sidewalk for inspection by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) to ensure consistency with historic concrete in the historic district; 3. Prior to submitting a building permit application and receiving final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit design revisions and details as required above that shall be reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall demonstrate that the design details are in compliance with the intent of this approval and the General Design Guidelines and the Chautauqua Park Historic District Design Guidelines. For areas outside the Historic District, R. Pelusio recommends that Public Works looks closely at the radius of the corners at Kinnickinic and Baseline Roads, evaluates the median vs bulb out in an effort to design a tighter turning radius (to slow cars down) for a more pedestrian friendly entrance to Chautauqua. B. Public hearing and consideration of revisions to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, Section 1, The Downtown Historic District. Staff Presentation M. Cameron, presented the third round of revisions that will incorporate a change that was requested by the City Council. For section 1.1.G. Reduce the visual impact of structured and surface parking lots, add the language under .1 that “surface parking lots are discouraged” and renumber points after that. Public Hearing There were no public speakers for item. Motion On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by E. Budd, the Landmarks Board approved (4-0, D. Yin absent) that pursuant to the rulemaking procedures set forth in Chapter 1-4, B.R.C. 1981, the Landmarks Board approve as to substance the proposed revision to Section 1, “The Historic District,” of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, specifically Subsection 1.1, G., to include an additional guideline, “Surface parking lots are discouraged,” so that subsection will now reads as follows: G. Reduce the visual impact of structured and surface parking. 1. Surface parking lots are discouraged. 2. Parking structures should be compatible with the historic district, overall block and adjacent buildings. All parking structures should be architecturally screened and/or wrapped with an occupiable use. 3. Surface parking should be located to the rear of the property and screened from view. 4. Pedestrian routes in structures and parking lots should be easily identifiable and accessed, with clear visual connections to the sidewalks and buildings. 7. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Historic Resource Survey Plan Introduction – Ron Sladek, Tatanka Historical Associates. He gave an overview to the grant-funded Historic Resource Survey Plan, with a project update, purpose, and process. M. Cameron solicited two board members to consider participation and attendance at meetings. B. Canyon Boulevard Complete Street Study – Noreen Walsh, Senior Transportation Planner. She introduced the Canyon Complete Streets with a public open house on April 27, a joint board meeting on May 18, and a City Council Study Session on May 31. R. Pelusio asked which boards are invited and N. Walsh mentioned LB, PRAB, Transportation, DMC, and BDAB. C. Gray asked if there will be conceptual designs at the open house and how did she get input for those designs. N. Walsh responded that an internal working group was formed to create the strengths and constraints of the area. E. Budd asked what the format of the open house. N. Walsh responded that it will be an open house format, with feedback on the measures of evaluation. The joint board meeting will provide time for board discussion. C. Update Memo D. Subcommittee Update 1) Outreach and Engagement 2) Potential Resources 8. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Approved on _______________, 2016 Respectfully submitted, , Chairperson CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Historic Preservation Reviews Between March 26, 2016 and April 22, 2016 This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case. Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 12 Chautauqua Park601 CHAUTAUQUA PARKHIS2015-00278 Landmark Alteration Certificate request to enlarge front porch door and replace/adjust location of light fixture at door. Application Approved Decision : 155 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Downtown1539 PEARL STHIS2015-00331 Restoration of storefront based upon historic photographs and schemes reviewed by Ldrc - details to be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Application Approved Decision : 183 Sequence # : 04/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Chautauqua Park900 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00016 Proposed repair/restoration of historic swale to the east of the Ranger Cottage at Chautauqua Park by OSMP as demonstrated in test sample reviewed by LDRC on 3/30 and on drawings dated 12/11/2015. Application Approved Decision : 10 Sequence # : 04/06/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Mapleton Hill1128 PINE STHIS2016-00034 Proposal to add a metal panel behind an existing sign so sign lettering is more visable. Sign is located on the south elevation facing the alley/city parking lot. Application Approved Decision : 22 Sequence # : 04/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Individual Landmark1031 14TH STHIS2016-00044 Proposal to move rear building and stage on site, to allow for construction of underground parking garage. Application withdrawn. Application Withdrawn Decision : 30 Sequence # : 03/30/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Individual Landmark1027 14TH STHIS2016-00045 Proposal to move rear building and stage on site, to allow for construction of underground parking garage. Application withdrawn. Application Withdrawn Decision : 31 Sequence # : 03/30/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 1 of 5HIS Statistical Report Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 12 Not Landmarked2949 BROADWAYHIS2016-00067 Rehabilitation of pending landmark house (application pending), and construction of rear addition as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application drawings dated 04.13.2016. Also see cases LUR2014-00097 & HIS2015-00121 Application Approved Decision : 44 Sequence # : 04/15/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Mapleton Hill721 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00074 Refacing of front retaining wall and reconstruction of steps with flagstone (as shown in example 5A) matchiung predominant stone usuage on north side of 600 and 700 blocks of Spruce Street. Application Approved Decision : 48 Sequence # : 04/21/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Downtown1521 PEARL STHIS2016-00075 LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE: Proposal to install dryer vent and gas line on wall off alley. Application Approved Decision : 49 Sequence # : 03/30/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Individual Landmark2229 BROADWAYHIS2016-00087 Retrofit colored glass windows with Bi-Glass system as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 03.28.2016. Application Approved Decision : 53 Sequence # : 04/15/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Mapleton Hill530 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00089 Landmark Alteration Cerififcate review for changing the body and trim colors of a single family dwelling. Application Approved Decision : 54 Sequence # : 04/05/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Individual Landmark1507 PINE STHIS2016-00096 The LDRC supports an exemption from 9-7-8(a), which allows for coverage of a second building in the rear yard setback of up to 500 sq. ft. Application Approved Decision : 60 Sequence # : 04/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1 Not Landmarked3175 10TH STHIS2016-00088 Partial demolition (removal of non-historic siding on accessory building) for a building constructed c.1920s. Partial demoliiton approved- if the scope of work changes, a new demo application is required. The house is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register, however, removal of non-historic siding on the acessory building will not have a detrimental effect on the historic character of the property. Application Approved Decision : 1 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 2 of 5HIS Statistical Report Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 10 Not Landmarked3065 17TH STHIS2016-00076 Full demolition of building constructed in 1956. Application Approved Decision : 22 Sequence # : 03/30/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked2207 NICHOLL STHIS2016-00079 Partial demolition of house (removal of entire roof, portions of north and weat walls, carport) and attached shed built in 1956. Full demolition approved. Application Approved Decision : 23 Sequence # : 03/30/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked2077 POPLAR AVHIS2016-00081 Full demolition of an accessory building. Application Approved Decision : 24 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked2855 16TH STHIS2016-00082 Partial demolition (alteration to size of street facing windows) of house constructed in 1955. Full demolition approved. Application Approved Decision : 25 Sequence # : 04/06/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked195 S 32ND STHIS2016-00084 Partial demolition (removal of a street facing wall) for a building constructed in 1955 Application Approved Decision : 26 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked2890 20TH STHIS2016-00085 Partial demolition (removal of more than 50% of the roof) of a building constructed in 1955. Application Approved Decision : 27 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked1775 DEER VALLEY RDHIS2016-00099 Full demolition of a house built in 1966. Application Approved Decision : 28 Sequence # : 04/18/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked3150 4TH STHIS2016-00104 Full demolition of house built in 1965 and a wood frame garden shed. Application Approved Decision : 29 Sequence # : 04/18/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked1400 VIOLET AVHIS2016-00106 Partial demolition (re frame and raise the roof profile of a street-facing wall) of a building constructed in 1958. Full demolition approved. Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 3 of 5HIS Statistical Report Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 10 Application Approved Decision : 30 Sequence # : 04/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : By :Staff Not Landmarked2801 ELM AVHIS2016-00109 Landmarks review of demolition of portion of street facing wall for proposed addition to residence. Application Approved Decision : 31 Sequence # : 04/22/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 3 Not Landmarked3091 10TH STHIS2015-00308 HIS case to demolish an existing house and accessory structure built in 1933. Application referred to the full Landmarks Board for review, withdrawn prior to the meeting. Application Withdrawn Decision : 38 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Not Landmarked3091 10TH STHIS2016-00086 Full demoliiton of an accessory structure (garage) constructed in 1933. See HIS2015-00308. Although intact, garage not individually significant as a landmark. Application Approved Decision : 4 Sequence # : 04/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked1705 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00090 Partial demolition (removal of the 2nd story roof, altered from a hip to a cross-gable in the 1990s) and replacement with knee walls and a gabled roof. Partial demolition approved as shown on plans dated 4/17/15 and 4/13/16. If scope of work changes, a new demo application is required. Previously approved under HIS2015-00112 and HIS2015-00261. Application Approved Decision : 5 Sequence # : 04/15/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 4 of 5HIS Statistical Report Historic Preservation Reviews Summary between 3/26/2016 and 4/22/2016 This summary shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case. Landmark Alteration Certificate Application Approved 10 Application Withdrawn 2 Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Application Approved 1 Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 10 Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 2 Application Withdrawn 1 Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 5 of 5HIS Statistical Report CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Historic Preservation Reviews Between April 23, 2016 and May 20, 2016 This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case. Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 15 Chamberlain1806 17TH STHIS2015-00241 Construction of rear addition, new dormers, rehabilitation of main house and garage as detailed on LAC plans dated 09/17/2016. All existing wiundows and doors to be rehabilitated. This approval per the LDRC's review and comments and consistent with the LAC for paving dated 02.10.2016 (HIS2016-00024). Application Approved Decision : 130 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Individual Landmark2008 PINE STHIS2015-00243 Rehabilitation of and addition to historic school as detailed on LAC plans and specifications dated 04.29.2016. Application Approved Decision : 132 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :LPAB Mapleton Hill521 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00095 Replacement of three vinyl windows with non-clad wood windows, new window at rear gable end, and installation of two skylights as detailed on LAC drawings dated 05.11.2016. Application Approved Decision : 59 Sequence # : 05/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Individual Landmark2141 BLUFF STHIS2016-00097 Installation of front stair rail, rear exterior stair and replacement of rear (tertiary) basement windows per LAC application dated 04.08.2016. Application Approved Decision : 61 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Individual Landmark2010 19TH STHIS2016-00098 Rehabilitation of historic windows per proposal reviewed by the landmark design review committee 04.27.2016. Application Approved Decision : 62 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Chautauqua Park807 BOGGES CIRHIS2016-00105 Replacement of ground mounted air conditioning unit at fenced in area at rear of house with new wall mounted PVC pipe at non-contributing property as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 04.14.16. Application Approved Decision : 64 Sequence # : 04/25/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 1 of 4HIS Statistical Report Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 15 Individual Landmark800 ARAPAHOE AVHIS2016-00108 LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE: Installaton of roof vent penetrations and a sidewall fireplace vent (western elevation) on the Hannah Barker House Application Approved Decision : 66 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Chamberlain1833 19TH STHIS2016-00110 Location of 110 sq. ft. of shed, as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 02.20.2016. Application Approved Decision : 67 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Mapleton Hill502 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00112 Replacement of existing AC unit with unit of same size and shape in existing location as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 04.21.2016. Application Approved Decision : 68 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill805 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00113 Replacement of existing AC unit with unit of same size and shape in existing location as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 04.21.2016. Application Approved Decision : 69 Sequence # : 05/04/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill914 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00128 Replacement of existing shingle roof with Malarkey Legacy asphalt shingle (Rain Forest Green) as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 05.02.2016. Application Approved Decision : 73 Sequence # : 05/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Downtown926 PEARL STHIS2016-00134 Installation of 2 retractable awnings at storefront of Jax and one for Westend Tavern, as deatiled on landmark alteration certificate application dated 05.06.2016. Application Approved Decision : 78 Sequence # : 05/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Downtown1048 PEARL STHIS2016-00136 Replacement of existing shingle roof with Malarkey Legacy asphalt shingle (Rain Forest Green) as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 05.02.2016. Application Approved Decision : 80 Sequence # : 05/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Chamberlain1644 WALNUT STHIS2016-00137 Installation of non-illuminated wall sign "Congressman Jared Polis" on the northwestern face of the building as deatiled on landmark alteration certificate application dated 05.10.2016. Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 2 of 4HIS Statistical Report Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 15 Application Approved Decision : 81 Sequence # : 05/20/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill801 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00144 Reroof of house with Owens Corning Duration Storm asphalt shing "Driftwood" as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 05.06.2016. Application Approved Decision : 86 Sequence # : 05/20/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 2 Not Landmarked1801 NORWOOD AVHIS2016-00111 Partial demolition (portion of roof) of primary building and full demolitino of garage constructed in 1952. Full demolition of primary building and garage approved. Application Approved Decision : 32 Sequence # : 04/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked1047 BALSAM AVHIS2016-00124 Full demolition of a house built in 1946. Application Approved Decision : 33 Sequence # : 05/13/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 2 Not Landmarked2069 BLUFF STHIS2016-00101 Partial demolition (alteration of a street facing wall) of a house built c. 1911, remodeled c.1980s. Full demolition approved due to extent of alterations. Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # : 04/27/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Not Landmarked717 UNIVERSITY AVHIS2016-00120 Partial Demo (90%, retaining non-conforming kitchen portion) of a building constructed c.1920. Alterations have diminished its integrity. Full demolition approved by LDRC. Additional information on early residents requested. Receieved 5.5.2016. Application Approved Decision : 13 Sequence # : 05/05/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 3 of 4HIS Statistical Report Historic Preservation Reviews Summary between 4/23/2016 and 5/20/2016 This summary shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case. Landmark Alteration Certificate Application Approved 15 Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 2 Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 2 Printed on 05/20/2016 Page 4 of 4HIS Statistical Report Agenda Item # 5A Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M    June 1, 2016    TO: Landmarks Board    FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager  Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney  James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner               Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner   William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern     SUBJECT:    Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration  Certificate application to add new round windows to the  street facing gables of the contributing houses at 521  Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Historic District, per Section  9‐11‐18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016‐00121).    STATISTICS:  1. Site: 521 Maxwell Ave.    2. Zoning: RL‐1 (Residential‐Low 1)   3. Lot size: 6,990 sq. ft.   4. Applicant: Joel Smiley, Inc.  5. Owner: Brandie Emerick  6. Date of Construction: c. 1900      STAFF RECOMMENDATION:  Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:   The Landmarks Board denies the request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate to add  round windows on the south (gable end) elevations of the contributing houses at 521  Maxwell Avenue in the Mapleton Hill Historic District as shown on plans dated  04/28/2016, finding that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of a  Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9‐11‐18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopts the staff  memorandum dated June 1st, 2016 as findings of the board.  This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed  modifications to the contributing buildings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District  will be inconsistent with Section 9‐11‐18, Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981,  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 2 and the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design  Guidelines.  SUMMARY:   On Apr. 28, 2016, the applicant submitted a completed Landmark Alteration  Certificate to add new circular windows on the south (street facing) gables of  the two contributing houses at 521 Maxwell Ave.    On May 11th, 2016 the Ldrc reviewed the proposal and considered the request  to add new windows on the primary elevations of contributing buildings  would require review by the full Landmarks Board in a public hearing.   Constructed around 1900 and 1906 respectively (within the identified 1865‐ 1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), the two  houses at 521 Maxwell Avenue retain a high level of historic integrity to this  period. Staff consider the houses contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic  District.    Staff finds the proposed addition of window openings on the primary  elevations of the contributing buildings to be inconsistent with Section 3.7(1)  of the General Design Guidelines, Section I of the Mapleton Hill Historic District  Design Guidelines, as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic  Preservation (Rehabilitation), and would adversely affect the historic, and  architectural character of the property.   Staff recommends that the applicant revise the proposal to eliminate the new  round windows on the primary elevations of these two contributing  buildings and explore other alternatives to provide additional interior light.    PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:      Figure 1. Location map, 521 Maxwell Ave.   Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 3 The property at 521 Maxwell Ave. is located on the north side of Maxwell  Avenue, between 5th and 6th Streets. An alley runs along the north side of the  property. There are three buildings on the property: the one‐and‐a‐half story  main house, a smaller, single story dwelling to the west, and a detached garage  on the alley. The lot is 6,990 square feet in size.       Figure 2. View of south elevation (façade) of primary house, 2016.     The one‐and‐a‐half story wood frame main house on the property was  constructed around 1900 and is an example of the type of Edwardian Vernacular  house construction that was common in Colorado and around the United States  at the turn‐of‐the twentieth century. Simply but elegantly detailed, it features a  front facing gabled roof, fish scale wood shingles on the gables, clapboard and  shingle siding, a full‐width porch supported by turned spindles, and a full‐width  balcony above the porch.      Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 4   Figure 3. View of south elevation (façade) of secondary house, 2016.    The one‐story wood frame secondary house, located behind the main house and  along the west property line, was constructed around 1906 and is an example of  simple, vernacular wood frame construction common in  Boulder during the first  half of the twentieth century. It features a front‐gabled roof with overhanging  eaves, a projecting front porch with shingled gable end supported by battered  Arts and Crafts inspired wood columns on wood‐paneled piers, and wood slat  rail.      Figure 4. View of garage, 2016.    Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 5 A wood frame flat roofed garage is situated at the north east corner of the  property. Side‐hinged vertical board doors face the alley on the north, and a  pedestrian entry has been added to the south side. There is a four‐light window  on the west side. The Historic Building Inventory Record indicated the accessory  building was likely constructed during the 1940’s, due to its stylistic similarity to  other nearby garages built during that period. No changes to this building are  proposed.      Figure 5. 520 Maxwell Avenue (across the street from 521 Maxwell Avenue), 2016.    Interestingly, the house directly across the street, 520 Maxwell Avenue, is nearly  identical to the main house at 521 Maxwell Avenue and was likely constructed  during the same period.                             Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 6 PROPERTY HISTORY:      Figure 6. 521 Maxwell Ave. Tax Assessor Card photograph, c.1929  Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.      Figure 7. 521 Maxwell Ave, auxiliary dwelling. Tax Assessor Card photograph, c.1949  Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.    As noted in the 1993 Historic Building Inventory Record, the property was  purchased by Frederick Baun from Hayes and Hawley in 1884, then purchased  by notable Boulder pioneer and former Boulder Mayor James Maxwell and  George Oliver in 1888. In 1889, it was sold to George F. Baun, and then to George  F. Oppenlander in 1890. County deed records indicate that the property was still  under Oppenlander’s ownership when the main house was constructed, around  1900. In 1904, he sold it to A. K. Toppenberg. By 1913 the main house was  occupied by John Carl and Carrie Durbin. Carrie was born in Sunshine Canyon  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 7 in 1870, and married John in 1888. The Durbins moved to Wyoming with their  eight children in 1918. Carrie died in 1954.    The smaller house on the property was originally considered a separate address  (519 Maxwell Avenue), but was combined as part of 521 Maxwell Avenue by  1934. It remains a separate dwelling, and is considered a legal, non‐standard use  in this area which is zoned Residential Low‐1 (RL‐1). The City Directories  indicate that by 1910, local laundress Flora Corbett lived in this house. By 1913,  laborer Walter M. Jewett had replaced her as the occupant.    A building permit for 519 Maxwell Avenue dating from 1935 lists Laura E.  Householder as the owner. By 1949, both houses were owned by Householder,  the daughter of Daniel S. and Catherine Householder. Daniel and Catherine  married in 1871 in Wisconsin and had 10 children, though 7 died in childhood.  Laura, born 1881, was one of the surviving children, who came to Boulder in   1914. In 1932, she lived with her father at 516 Maxwell Avenue, while her sister,  Mrs. Charles Reynolds, lived at 814 Maxwell Avenue. City registries show that  Laura had moved to 519 Maxwell Avenue by 1936. She lived in the small house  until 1960, save for briefly living in the main house around 1946. She appears to  have typically rented out whichever unit she was not living in. She never  married, and worked as a babysitter through the 1950’s. She sold 521 Maxwell to  John F. and June A Groothuis in 1960.  Householder died in Lyons, Colorado on  Oct. 22nd, 1970.     ALTERATIONS  Building permit records show that the main house was repainted and reroofed in  1989. These same records show that the secondary house was sided with asbestos  shingles in 1952. As of the 1993 survey these were still in place, but were recently  removed, revealing the original wood siding. The 1909 Sanborn map, the first to  cover this area of the city, shows both buildings much as they are today. The  Sanborn map does not show the porch on the small house, indicating it may have  been added after 1931. A number of sashes on both buildings have been replaced  with vinyl windows, three of which were recently approved for replacement  with wood sash replicating the historic windows more closely (HIS2016‐00095).  The only other notable alteration is the addition of a lean‐to on the rear of the  secondary dwelling, carried out sometime between 1922 and 1931.    Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 8   Figure 8. 1906 Sanborn Map of 521 Maxwell Ave.     PROPOSAL:     Plans call for the addition of a round window in the street‐facing (primary  elevation) gable ends of the main and secondary houses. Drawings show the  window on the main house to be 1’6” in diameter, including frame. The  proposed round window on the secondary house is shown to be similar in  design to that proposed on the main house, though slightly smaller at 1’, 3” in  diameter. Both new windows are shown to be single light, wood‐framed.       Figure 9. Proposed South Elevation (front), photo simulation.  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 9   Figure 10. Proposed South Elevation (front), rendering.  Figure 11. Existing (left) and Proposed (right) south elevations, main house.      Figure 12. Existing (left) and proposed (right) south elevations, secondary house   Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 10 CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION  Subsections 9‐11‐18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, set forth the standards the Landmarks  Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration  Certificate.    (b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark  Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:    (1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not  damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the  landmark or the subject property within an historic district;  (2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character  or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the  landmark and its site or the district;  (3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of  color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions  are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its  site or the historic district;  (4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic  district, the proposed new construction to replace the building  meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.    (c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the  Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,  incorporation of energy‐efficient design, and enhanced access for the  disabled.  DESIGN GUIDELINE ANALYSIS  1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy  the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a  historic district?   The houses were constructed in c.1902 and 1906, within the period of significance  for the Mapleton Hill Historic District and retain their original form, massing,  scale, and materiality and should be considered contributing to the Mapleton  Hill Historic District. Staff considers that the south faces of both houses are  “primary elevations” as defined in the General Design Guidelines and that adding  new round windows would alter the historic character of the façades of the  contributing houses, thereby damaging their historic character.  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 11 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,  architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?  Staff considers that adding new windows would alter the historic character of  the primary elevations of these contributing buildings and would have an  adverse effect on the immediate streetscape of the Mapleton Hill Historic  District.  3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and  materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the  historic district?  Staff finds that the proposed new round windows on the primary elevations of  the contributing buildings at 521 Maxwell Avenue to be inconsistent with Section  3.7(1), (2) and (6) of the General Design Guidelines, Section I of the Mapleton Hill  Historic District Design Guidelines, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the  Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation) and incompatible with the historic  character of the property within the Mapleton Historic District.    4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District  and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the  requirements of paragraphs  9‐11‐18(b)(2), 9‐11‐18(b)(3) and 9‐11‐18(b)(4) of this  section?  N/A   ANALYSIS:  The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks  Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration  Certificate.  The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret  the Historic Preservation Ordinance.  The following is an analysis of the  proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines.  Design  guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a  checklist of items for compliance.     The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate  sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District  Design Guidelines.       Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 12 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES   3. ALTERATIONS   3.7 Windows, Storm Windows, and Shutters    Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the most  important character‐defining elements of a historic building and should be preserved… Windows on  elevations visible from public ways, particularly the façade, are especially important…   GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS  .1  Retain and preserve existing historic  windows, including their functional and  decorative features, such as frames, glass,  sashes, muntins, sills, heads, moldings,  surrounds, and hardware. Because  windows near the façade are particularly  critical to the character of historic  buildings, their protection may supercede  the protection of historic windows  elsewhere.   The proposed windows are to be  located on a primary elevation of  contributing buildings. Adding  new openings that will change the  street‐facing character of historic  buildings is inappropriate.  Redesign to eliminate the round  windows and explore alternative  ways to provide light to the  interiors of these houses.  NO  .2  Preserve original window locations; do  not move windows from their historic  placement.   There is no documentary evidence  to suggest that round windows  were ever located on the façade of  either house at 521 Maxwell  Avenue and so proposal cannot be  justified in that it will alter the  historic character of the most  important and visible faces of these  historic houses. Redesign to  eliminate the round windows and  explore alternative ways to provide  light to the interiors of these  houses.  NO  .6  The location of the window(s) proposed  for retrofit or replacement is important in  assessing their significance to a historic  building. In general, the more important  the elevation where the window is  located, the less likely that retrofit or  replacement will be appropriate.  Elevations will be categorized as  The proposed new windows are  located in a very prominent  location in the primary elevation.  Addition of new windows to on the  primary elevation only if historic  documentation exists and new  fenestration is a recreation of a  historic condition.  NO  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 13 primary, secondary or tertiary, using the  methodology set out in the Window &  Door Replacement Application and  Survey.  • Replacement of intact historic windows  on primary  elevations is rarely appropriate.  • Replacement of intact historic windows  on secondary  elevations is generally inappropriate.  • Replacement of intact historic windows  on tertiary  elevations can occur provided it does not  compromise  the historic integrity of the building.     MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES   The Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines do not differentiate  between contributing and non‐contributing buildings. See Design Guideline  Analysis section.   I. Windows   Large additions and additional stories to a building frequently change the character of the  structure. The diversity that characterizes the historic district is a result of the variety in the sizes  of buildings and the differing architectural styles. A design response that respects this diversity is  most appropriate.     Guideline Analysis Meets Guideline?  .3  When replacing deteriorated  windows or adding new windows  to existing buildings, a vertically‐ proportioned, double‐hung  window which matches the  existing window should be used.  There is no evidence to suggest that  round windows were ever located on  the south (primary) elevations of  either building.  Redesign to eliminate  the round windows and explore  alternative ways to provide light to  the interiors of these houses.  NO  .10  Where a pattern of smaller scale windows in attic and accessory spaces near the roofline exists, it should be maintained.  This pattern does not exist on either  building, nor the very similar example  directly across the street at 520  Maxwell Avenue. Redesign to  eliminate the round windows and  explore alternative ways to provide  light to the interiors of these houses.  NO  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 14 FINDINGS:    Staff considers the two houses at 521 Maxwell to be substantially intact to their  early‐twentieth century dates of construction and are contributing elements to  the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Staff finds the proposal to add windows on  the primary elevations of these two contributing houses to be inappropriate and  that undertaking such alterations would have an adverse effect on the historic  character of the property. This interpretation of the General and Mapleton Hill  Historic Design Guidelines is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s  Standards for Historic Properties (Rehabilitation) which states that, “the historic  character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive  materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that  characterize a property will be avoided.”    Staff considers the proposed alteration to be inconsistent with Section 3.7 (1) of  the General Design Guidelines and Section I of the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines  and with Section 9‐11‐18 B.R.C. 1981, for issuance of a landmark alteration  certificate, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District  Guidelines.     PUBLIC COMMENT:  No public comment had been received at the time this memo was written.          ATTACHMENTS:  A: Tax Assessors Cards  B:  Photographs  C:  Applicant’s Materials   D:  Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties                  Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 15 Attachment A: Tax Assessors Card      Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 16     Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 17 Attachment B:  Current Photographs      521 Maxwell Ave., South Elevations (front), 2016      521 Maxwell, View from Maxwell Ave., 2016    Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 18   View of north elevation (rear), 2016.          Main House, Southeast corner, 2016. Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 19   East elevation (side), Secondary Dwelling, 2016. North elevation (Rear), Secondary Dwelling, 2016. Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 20 South elevation, Garage, 2016. Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 21 Attachment C: Applicant Materials   Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 22   Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 23   Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 24             Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 25       Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 26 Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 27       Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 28         Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 29   ATTACHMENT D: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of  Historic Properties.  Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Memo to the Landmarks Board Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item # 5A Page 30 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Rehabilitation as a treatment When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. The Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties illustrate the practical application of these treatment standards to historic properties. These Guidelines are also available in PDF format. The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes apply these treatment standards to historic cultural landscapes.     C I T Y O F B O U L D E R LANDMARKS BOARD STAFF BRIEFING MEETING DATE: June 1, 2016 AGENDA TITLE: Staff Briefing and Landmarks Board input regarding the Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP) 2016 work program PRESENTER/S: Molly Winter, Executive Director, Community Vitality Susan Connelly, Deputy Director, Community Vitality Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Deryn Wagner, Environmental Planner, Open Space and Mountain Parks Jeff Haley, Parks Planning Manager, Parks and Recreation Lisa Smith, Communications Specialist, Community Vitality Amanda Nagl, Neighborhood Liaison, City Manager’s Office EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this briefing is to provide to the Landmarks Board materials associated with the 2016 work program for the development of the Chautauqua Access Management Plan (CAMP). The development of the CAMP is a process involving city staff from multiple departments, including the Transportation Division of Public Works, Community Vitality, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Parks and Recreation and the City Manager’s Office. The CAMP will explore ways to manage existing demand for transportation access (including parking) to and from the Chautauqua area in ways that minimize vehicular and parking impacts to surrounding neighbors, visitors and the area’s natural and cultural resources. The CAMP will not be exploring resource management or visitor use of OSMP land in the Chautauqua area. At this early stage in the CAMP development project, city staff are interested in gathering feedback from the public, city boards, and city council on the proposed planning process, including the scope of work, schedule, and community engagement. City Council will be receiving an information item concerning this topic in its June 7th packet. Input from the boards and commissions listed below will be provided in that memorandum. Landmarks Board input will be communicated separately due to the date of the Landmarks Board meeting and the date the IP will be finalized and sent to council. Background The City of Boulder enjoys a now-118-year-old public-private partnership with the nonprofit Colorado Chautauqua Association (“CCA”) for shared stewardship of the Colorado Chautauqua. The city owns the 40-underlying acres, three historic buildings and a new building, and leases approximately 26 acres and those four buildings to CCA. The city’s Parks and Recreation Department operates a city park on the north lawn known as the Chautauqua Green. In addition to leasing the land and four buildings from the city, CCA also owns 67 historic buildings, including 60 cottages. Year-round, CCA offers lodging, programming, rental of historic venues and a full-service restaurant. Private individuals own 39 historic cottages, most of which are used seasonally (typically summer) but some of which are year-round owner-occupied residences. Chautauqua was designated a Boulder Landmark District in 1979 and a National Historic Landmark in 2006. Physically, Chautauqua is surrounded on two sides by city open space that is not part of the historic district. The Chautauqua Trailhead is one of the most popular trailheads in the region. The Chautauqua Ranger Cottage, located within the historic district adjacent to that trailhead, is staffed by Open Space and Mountain Parks and provides information services to local and visiting hikers. The historic district abuts single-family residential neighborhoods to its north across Baseline and to the east. This brief description illustrates the number and variety of interests and uses/users associated with “greater Chautauqua.” The previous lease between the city and CCA (dated 1998, amended 2002) recognized the negative impacts of parking demand exceeding supply and the unique conditions within the historic Chautauqua. The 1998 lease authorized CCA to take a variety of actions to limit access and parking under certain circumstances and anticipated that the city would designate a residential permit parking or similar program within the historic district to address the negative impacts on the Chautauqua operations and environment. Many of these approaches were deemed infeasible to implement. Actions that were taken over the years included:  CCA and the city, in collaboration with the Colorado Music Festival, in 2003 initiated free off-site parking and free shuttle service on event nights at the Chautauqua Auditorium to mitigate traffic impacts within the historic district and in the surrounding residential neighborhoods to the north and east. This free service has continued yearly since inception and will continue in summer 2016. The city issues a special event permit annually to permit temporary street closures and limited access on these event evenings.  RTD discontinued the 210 bus route that stopped just east of 9th Street on Baseline, leaving the closest transit stops at 9th and College and Broadway south of Baseline.  The city funded a pilot Hop 2 Chautauqua daytime bus during the summer 2008 but ridership was low and the service was discontinued.  In 2011 the city and the CCA partnered to evaluate parking and access issues in the leasehold area. As a part of this project, the partnership collected parking utilization and parking duration data on all available parking within the leasehold area and in the neighborhood to the north of Chautauqua on three separate days. The results of that data collection showed some areas of high parking utilization within the leasehold area, but very few areas of high parking utilization in the neighborhood north of Chautauqua. Using the data and analyses from this study, a series of pilot programs for the CCA leasehold area was advanced by staff for city council’s consideration but none of these pilots were adopted for implementation. Council members’ concerns at that time included the concept of restricting parking on streets near open space and park property. Following the Council meeting in spring 2012 it was jointly determined that access and parking management at Chautauqua should be addressed through the upcoming lease renegotiation rather than through a pilot program. In late 2012, the city and CCA adopted Collaborative Stewardship of the Colorado Chautauqua: Guiding Principles for Place Management and Fiscal Sustainability (hereinafter “the Guiding Principles”) as a shared statement about the nature of the Colorado Chautauqua and the manner in which its primary stewards, the city and CCA, intend to collaborate in the planning and management of Chautauqua’s future. The Collaborative Stewardship Guiding Principles are summarized as follows: 1. A Public Place 2. A Historic Landmark 3. A Historic Mission 4. A Balanced Approach 5. Collaborative Place Management 6. A Cautious Approach to Change 7. Shared Financial Responsibility The city and CCA entered into a new lease effective Jan. 1, 2016 (“the Lease”). The “Access and Parking Management” section of the Lease acknowledges the need for a tailored access management strategy to balance the access of the variety of users and modes while also maintaining the natural, built and historic environments. The Lease reiterates the recognition that during peak periods, parking demand for all uses within and around Chautauqua far exceeds supply, and acknowledges that the movement of vehicles looking for parking presents safety issues and degrades the visitor experience. The lease contains the commitment of the city and CCA to develop a Chautauqua Access management Plan (“CAMP”) within the first year of the new lease according to the CAMP Governing Principles:  Chautauqua is a unique shared resource requiring unique solutions.  Chautauqua is a National Historic Landmark.  The needs of all stakeholders, including the Association, cottage owners, park users, open space users and neighbors should be considered.  A mix of uses must be accommodated.  Pedestrians must be given priority on the narrow streets without sidewalks.  Traffic circulation should be minimized in the interests of pedestrian safety and user experience.  Parking demand is seasonal and solutions need not address time periods during which access is readily available.  During peak periods, the parking needs of users in the historic core should be prioritized, but not exclusive.  A seasonal transportation demand management (TDM) plan for employees should be implemented.  The right of public access should not be restricted except for good cause, with such restrictions minimized as appropriate.  The interests of the surrounding neighbors should be addressed.  Any plan should be flexible to address changing circumstances.  Access management should be consistent with the Guiding Principles for Place Management and Fiscal Sustainability.  Consistent with the city’s climate commitment and sustainability and resilience goals, any plan should support public transit, alternative modes of transportation, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in visits in single-occupant vehicles. In 2015 resident-owners in the neighborhood north of Baseline adjacent to the Chautauqua historic district and Chautauqua Meadow open space (“Sustainable Chautauqua”) approached the city with parking-related issues including: parking too close to or in front of driveways, stop signs, and hydrants; litter and dog waste; speeding and u-turns; general disrespect and noise; overuse of resource/environmental impacts; and lack of parking enforcement. Some improvements have been implemented already, including placement of trash receptacles and enhanced parking enforcement in the area. Temporary pavement markings have been installed to help delineate where parking is legal. It is anticipated that the Chautauqua-area activity-related issues will be addressed during the CAMP process. At a study session on Feb. 9, 2016, staff sought council feedback on the process for development of the CAMP. One option identified was to move forward with developing a CAMP for implementation in the summer of 2016 utilizing parking utilization and duration data from 2011 that may be different today because of increased visitation to Chautauqua. This approach would have the advantage of providing mitigation this summer but would have the disadvantage of being based on data that may be out of date1 and may be questionable to use as baseline data for future comparison. Another option would be to collect new data in summer 2016 to use to develop the CAMP for implementation and monitoring in summer 2017, thus delaying mitigation until 2017. Council members supported staff’s recommendation to pursue the second option – to collect new data this summer, followed by the development of a CAMP for implementation in 2017. After discussions with the City Council at the February 9, 2016 study session, city staff identified the following actions to incorporate into the 2016 work plan for development of the CAMP:  Develop a data collection/evaluation plan and a public process plan for Council’s review prior to this summer  Gather data including parking utilization and duration and an updated user intercept survey this summer  Work with OSMP to coordinate data collection and outreach and to understand data and system-wide options  Explore transit options and other ideas for Baseline as part of CAMP development. 1 The 2011 parking utilization and duration data and corresponding analyses could form the foundation of the development of the 2016 CAMP, but recent data from an Open Space and Mountain Parks Chautauqua Study Area Visitation Monitoring Report (2015) suggest that visitation to Chautauqua has increased substantially since 2005. Whether this increase occurred since the 2011 data collection is unclear. The substantial increase in visitation over time suggests that parking utilization within the leasehold and in the surrounding neighborhood potentially could be higher than previously studied, thus suggesting the necessity of data collection and evaluation of current conditions.  Operating Assumptions for the Development of the CAMP As discussed at the Feb. 9, 2016 City Council study session, options for the development of the CAMP may include consideration of:  Some degree of managed parking within the Chautauqua leasehold area and possibly in the surrounding neighborhood as well. This could include parking restrictions similar to those provided by the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program.  Some degree of paid parking, possibly in the Ranger Cottage lot, on the loop surrounding the park and/or on Baseline Road.  Enhancements to other modes of transportation including but not limited to restoration of transit service to the Chautauqua area. Relevant guidance for this plan includes the city’s Access Management and Parking Strategy (AMPS) guiding principles:  Provide for all transportation modes  Support a diversity of people  Customize tools by area  Seek solutions with co-benefits  Plan for the present and the future  Cultivate partnerships RECOMMENDATIONS: Proposed CAMP Process - Subject to modification based on feedback received from the community, CCA and the city boards and commissions, and city council, the project team anticipates the following project steps: 1. Initial Community Engagement including Check-ins with boards and commissions, CCA and council – late April to early June 2016 (see detailed schedule below) 2. Data Collection – Summer 2016 3. Evaluation of Data, Initial Formulation of Menu of Possible Approaches/Pilots for summer 2017 and Consultation with Potential Community Working Group – Fall 2016 4. Formulation of Recommended Approaches/Pilots – Winter 2016-2017 5. Consultation with Boards and Commissions, presentation to City Council – Q2 2017 6. Preparation for implementation of pilot project – Q2 2017 7. Implementation of pilot project – Summer 2017 8. Finalization of plan – Fall/Winter 2017 Data collection efforts in summer 2016 may include:  User intercept survey to understand more about the people arriving at Chautauqua, why they are there and where they are coming from (funds being requested)  New parking utilization and duration data to be collected within the CCA leasehold and in the neighborhood to the north and east of the leasehold  Speed and volume data to be collected on key roadways within the leasehold and in the surrounding neighborhood  Coordination with OSMP on a system-wide visitor survey to understand current visitor use and demographics at Chautauqua A map showing the proposed boundary of the parking utilization and duration data collection and speed and volume data collection is provided as Attachment A. The CAMP Community Engagement Process - To gain feedback on the many perspectives on Chautauqua from the variety of users and stakeholders, the project team will pursue some combination of the following communication tools to foster ongoing outreach and engagement throughout the project:  Email newsletters through the city and the Colorado Chautauqua Association  Press releases  Direct mail postcards  Social media, including Facebook, Twitter and Nextdoor  Flyers around town  Signs around Chautauqua (e.g., at trailheads)  Online and/or intercept surveys  A community working group to offer periodic feedback  Presentations to city boards and city council To date, the project team has received input from approximately 50 community members who attended the CAMP Community Open House on April 28th as well as from the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board of directors, the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB).  Community Open House input centered on limited parking availability, parking limits and/or permits, pedestrian safety, interest in pedestrian and cycling data collection, support for transit and also concerns about neighborhood impacts and best practices; and interest in a community working group.  CCA board input included interest in the community working group and in the scope of the data collection.  OSBT input included recommendations to proactively reach out to occasional users and not just those with ownership interests, to use the CCA and Colorado Music Festival e-mail lists and the Camera for outreach, and to have meetings both in and outside Chautauqua to try and attract a range of attendees (e.g., meetings for the North Trail Study Area Plan were held at various locations around the city). Questions raised were whether the project schedule is too ambitious and what impact the new sidewalk on Baseline might have.  TAB input included concerns re: safety at the main Chautauqua entrance, whether a Park’n’Ride would be considered, whether the study area could be extended to include Gregory Canyon, and comments that paid parking can help make parking more accessible and that the proposed communications plan looks good. Upcoming Meetings The project team will continue to seek feedback on the project schedule and work plan during the following meetings: May 23 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board June 1 Landmarks Board June 7 Information Packet [memo] to City Council Questions for the Board: 1. Do you have any questions about or feedback on the project schedule or scope of work? 2. What feedback do you have on the possible community outreach and engagement approaches? 3. Is there anything else you would like to share at this point in the process? ATTACHMENTS A. Map of proposed 2016 Summer data collection area DATE: June 1, 2016 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron SUBJECT: Update Memo Archaeology and Historic Preservation Month City Council read a Declaration of May as Archaeology and Historic Preservation Month on May 3. On May 9, the owners of recent landmarks and notable recent historic preservation projects were recognized at the annual Heritage Roundtable Awards Ceremony at Chautauqua. The Landmarks Board recognized the restoration and additions to 1815 Mapleton, 615 Spruce, 1029 Broadway (Evans Scholars House) and the Boulder Jaycees Depot. The event was attended by about 90 people. Landmarks Board Lecture Series – Ode to a Persian Garden and Bike Tour The board hosted a lecture, “Ode to a Persian Garden” by William Bechoffer on April 13 at the Boulder Library Canyon Theater. Approximately 30 people attended. On Friday, May 13, Marcy Cameron led a bicycle tour through the Highland Lawn and Mapleton Hill historic districts. It was attended by about 35 people. Landmarks Board members, James Hewat, and Oscar Segue- Andrade, an intern with GO-Boulder, contributed to the success of the tour. Certified Local Government Grant – Historic Resource Survey Plan Ron Sladek of Tatatanka Historic Associates Inc. has been hard at work assessing Boulder’s current survey records and writing a Draft Survey Plan. On April 19, a working group and Landmarks Board subcommittee convened to provide feedback on the current records and resource types and research themes that should be prioritized in the furture. On May 11, the Survey Plan information was presented at the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Open House to gather feedback. The next working group meeting will be held on May 24. Update at meeting. Civic Area Glen Huntington Band Shell/Atrium Building The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the Civic Area. The Band Shell Update (May 2016) provides an update to the Band Shell. On May 17, the Parks and Recreation Department is hosting a community volunteer event to paint the band shell seats. Other scheduled events for the Civic Area can be found under “Activation (Events + Site Improvements + Safety)” on the main Civic Area webpage. Certified Local Government Grant – NAPC Conference The city has received a CLG grant for two board members and a staff member to attend the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Forum in Mobile, AL from July 27-31, 2016. Session information will be posted April 1st, 2016 on the NAPC website: https://www.regonline.com/builder/site/default.aspx?EventID=1772691 University Hill Commercial District – National Register Nomination On Dec. 8, the City Council reviewed the University Hill Reinvestment Strategy Update (click for memo). As part of the strategy, the city is pursing National Register designation for the commercial district. Update at meeting. Comprehensive Planning and Sustainability Calendar - See attached. 1102 Pearl Street, 05.17.2016 Pre-Application Comments Historic District Considerations: The property is located at a key intersection at the west end of the Pearl Street Mall in the Downtown Historic District. Demolition of the existing building and subsequent new construction requires review by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing per 9-11-12 of the Boulder Revised Code. Southeast corner of 11th and Pearl Streets 1896 The 1883 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map indicates that a saloon was located in the one and one-half story frame building at the southeast corner of Pearl and 11th Street (then addressed as 348 Pearl Street) probably run by Louis Garbarino, with rooms for rent in the rear. By 1895 a butcher’s shop, the People’s Market, owned and operated by Eli P. Metcalf & Joseph Hocking, was located in the west side of the building. By 1901, Metcalf had retired, and Hocking was sole proprietor of People’s Market. The east portion of the building remained as a saloon until at least 1906, by which time the market had been converted into a restaurant. 1100 Pearl was vacant following Hocking’s death until sometime around 1916, when Belshe C. Garbarino opened an automobile garage. A brick building with stepped parapet was constructed 1927, the year in which it appears in a series of photographs. The west side was occupied by Garbarino’s Auto and the east side by the Colorado Fruit Company. Garabino’s Auto 11th and Pearl Streets, 1928 Garbabino operated the garage until about 1930, when the Ardourel brothers, Joseph C. and J. F., took over the until the early 1940’s. For the next 18 years the site was home to a wide variety of auto shops, garages, and automotive dealerships, none of which lasted for more than five years. Building permit records provide evidence that the building was damaged in a fire sometime shortly before 1957. This damage probably accounted for removal of the stepped brick parapet and replacement with the current concrete block parapet when it reopened as Arnold Brother’s Sports Car center in 1959. Arnold’s Sports Car Center, 11th and Pearl Streets, 1959 In 1960, owner Christopher G. Garbarino applied to remodel the garage into Walt & Hanks Tavern which opened in 1961. It appears the corner was enclosed and the storefront was blocked-in and stuccoed. Brick pillars from the 1920s construction are still visible on the west side of the building. 1102 Pearl Street would continue as Walt and Hanks until 1976, when, following another remodel, the building became the home of Old Chicago Restaurant. Few changes appear to have occurred to the building since that time. Because the building is located in the Downtown Historic District and demolition and new construction is being contemplated, review by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing is required. While the existing building appears to be have been altered to the point that it has lost its integrity and it may be considered non-contributing to the historic district, assessing proposed demolition and new construction would be subject to review through the Landmark Alteration Certificate process. Because of its scope and prominent location on the mall, we strongly recommend that the applicant meet with staff to discuss the proposal at the conceptual level (location, height, mass, scale, etc.) and that design development proceed prior to submittal for review by the Landmarks Board and or Planning Board. Staff also encourages the applicant to consider a two-story building which takes design cues from the brick Garbarino Auto Building. The simple brick form, handsome stepped parapet, and transparency of the storefront of that building may translate well to retail/restaurant uses in a building that references history of the site in mass and scale, as well as simplicity of design and proportion. Staff does not recommend a tower element or chamfered corner as shown in the pre-application renderings and considers the overall mass and scale of the design to be inconsistent with the character of historic buildings in the streetscape. Monthly Planner Mon Tu e Wed Thu Fri 2 DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m., CC 3 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *2016 Declaration of Historic Preservation Month (J. Hewat) *Bear Protection Ordinance Implementation Update (V. Matheson) *Middle Income Housing Strategy SS Summary (J. Sugnet) *2nd Reading Rezone and Land Use Map Change 2560 28th St. (C. Van S chaack) *Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (K. Pahoa) *Middle Income Housing Strategy - Matter from City Manager (J. Sugnet) *April 5, 2016 Summary of the Update on Ci vic Area Master P lan Implementation (S . As sefa) *Call-up 350 Ponca Place Concept Plan Review (C. Van S chaack) *Call-up: 4655 Hanover Ave Vacation (C. Hill) 4 LB Meeting CANCELED EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West Conf erence Room 5 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC *3 356 Diagonal Hwy Concept Plan (E. McLaughlin) *9 6 Arapa hoe Anne xa tion (E. McLaughlin) 6 PB Retreat, 12-4 p.m ., Wild Sage Common H ouse - 1650 Zamia Ave. 9 Development Fees Working Group Meeting #3, 5-8 p.m., Library Boulder Creek Room 10 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *P otential Ballot Items and Budge t and Long Ra nge Fina nc ial Planning Upda te *Climate Commi tment (D. Driskell) 11 BVCP Public Meeting, 3:30-7:30 p.m. in Main Library DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West Conference Room 12 Boards & Commissions Reception, 5:30-7:30pm at Etow n PB Meeting, 7pm in CC *2 020 Arapahoe Non-Confor mi ng Use Review & Site Review (E. McLaughlin) *B VCP Update (L. Ellis) *CAGID Access Proje ctions (M . Winter) *COB Resilient Strategy (G. Guibert) 13 16 17 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *First Reading Co-op Housing Ordinance (T. Carr) *SS Summary Development Related Impact Fees & Excise Taxes (C. Meschuk) *2nd Reading of Building Performance Ordinance (K. Tupper) *Call-up: 2790 Dartmouth Ave Utility Easement Vacation (C.Hill) *Call-up 3356 Diagonal Hwy Concept Plan (E. McLaughlin) 18 BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777 West Conf.Room BVCP Process Subcommittee Mtg, 12-1:30pm, Park Central 401 Conference Room Canyon Boulevard Complete Street StudyJoint Board Mtg, 6-7:30pm,First Presbyterian Church, Oerter Room 19 BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in CC PB Meeting CANCELED UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777 West Conference Room 20 23 24 Historic Resource Survey Pl an, Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #2, 10am-12pm at Park Central, Conf Rm 401 CC SS, 6 p.m.in CC *North TSA *B oulde r Valley Comprehe nsive Plan Upda te (L. Ellis) 25 26 PB Meeting, 5pm in CC *3 200 Bluff Co ncept Plan (K. Guiler) *4 525 Palo Pkwy Site Review (S. Walbert) *Downto wn Urban Design Guidelines (K. Pahoa) 27 30 CITY HOLIDAY 31 Special CC Meeting *S trategic Development Plan for 6400 Ar apahoe (K. Mertz) CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *Canyon Complete Streets Study and Upda te on Design Optio ns *TMP Implementation Upda te Apr 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Jun 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 May 2016 Amended: May 20, 2016 Last Planning Board Meet ing: May 12, 2016 Monthly Planner Mon Tu e Wed Thu Fri 1 LB , 6 p.m . in CC EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West Conf erence Room 2 PB Meeting, 5pm in CC *2 949 Broadway Site Review (E. McLaughlin) *9 04 College NonCo nforming Use Review (C. Van Schaack) *Modification to Mobile Food Ve hicle Ordinanc e to Allow Public Pedal Vehicles (L. La ndrith) 3 6 DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m., CC 7 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *1 st Re ading Fo rm Based Code for Boulder Junctio n Pha se 1 ( K. Guiler) *Call-up: 4525 Palo Parkway Site Review (S. Wa lbert) *Call-up: 2020 Arapahoe Ave. Non-Conforming Use Review & Simple Site Review (E. McLaughlin) 8 DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West Conference Room 9 BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in CC 10 13 14 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *Mid-year Check-in for Council Workplan *Development Related Impacts Fees and E xcise Taxes (C. Meschuk) 15 BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777 West Conf. Room BVCP Process Subcom mittee Mtg, 12-1:30pm, Park Central 401 Conference Room 16 PB Recess UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777 West Conference Room 17 20 21 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *2 nd R eading Fo rm Based Code for Boulder Junctio n Pha se 1 ( K. Guiler) *1 st Re ading 96 Ara pahoe Annexation and Initial Zoning (E. McLaughlin) 22 23 PB Recess 24 27 28 CC Recess Historic Resource Survey Plan, Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #2, 3-5pm at Park Central, Olmsted Conf Rm 29 30 PB Recess May 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jul 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 June 2016 Monthly Planner Mon Tu e Wed Thu Fri 1 4 CITY HOLIDAY 5 CC Recess 6 LB , 6 p.m . in CC EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West Conf erence Room 7 PB Recess 8 11 DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m., 1777 West Conf Room 12 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *B roadba nd F easibility Study Results *Residential and Comme rcial Energy Codes: Long TermStrategy (K. Tup per) 13 DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West Conference Room 14 BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in CC 15 18 19 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *3 rd Reading Form Based Code for Boulder Junctio n Pha se 1 ( K. Guiler) *Development Related Impacts Fees and E xcise Taxes (C. Meschuk) 20 BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777 West Conf. Room BVCP Process Subcom mittee Mtg, 12-1:30pm, Park Central 401 Conference Room 21 UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777 West Conference Room PB Meeting, 6pm, location TBD *B arriers to Development & Disclosures of Conflict Options (Board) *Meeting Management (D. Driskell) 22 25 26 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *B riefing: Boulder Energy Future (H. Bailey) *Homelessness Strategy Draft and Homeless Action Plan U pdate *Check-in for 100 Resilient Cities 27 28 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC *B VCP Review of Initial Policy & Land Use Category Changes (L. Ellis) *CIP Process (J. Gatza) 29 Ju n 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Aug 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 July 2016 Monthly Planner Mon Tu e Wed Thu Fri 1 DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m., CC 2 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *2 nd R eading 96 Ara pahoe Annexation (E. McLaughlin) 3 LB , 6 p.m . in CC EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West Conf erence Room 4 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC *4 750 Broadway Site Review (K. Guiler) 5 8 9 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *Draft 2017 to 2021 Capital Improve me nt P rogram *HOLD for Dashboard 10 DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West Conference Room 11 BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in CC 12 15 16 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC *IP : Update on Civic Use Pad (E. Ame igh) 17 BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777 West Conf. Room BVCP Process Subcom mittee Mtg, 12-1:30pm, Park Central 401 Conference Room 18 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777 West Conference Room 19 22 23 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *Homelessness Strategy Draft and Homeless Action Plan U pdate *Middle Inco me Housing Strategy Subc ommi tte e Report (D. Driskell) 24 25 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC *1 440 Pine Concept Plan (K. Guiler) 26 29 30 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *3 0th & Pearl Redevelopment Options (E. Ame igh) 31 Jul 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Sep 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 August 2016 Monthly Planner Mon Tu e Wed Thu Fri 1 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC 2 5 CITY HOLIDAY 6 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC 7 LB , 6 p.m . in CC EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West Conf erence Room 8 BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in CC 9 12 DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m., 1777 West Conf Room 13 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *2 017 COB Recomme nded B udget 14 DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West Conference Room 15 UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777 West Conference Room PB Meeting, 6pm in CC *B VCP Land Use Request Ana lysis & Recomme ndations (L. Ellis) 16 19 20 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC 21 BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777 West Conf. Room BVCP Process Subcom mittee Mtg, 12-1:30pm, Park Central 401 Conference Room 22 23 26 27 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *2 017 Recomme nde d Budge t *Renewed Vision for Tra nsi t Update 28 29 30 Aug 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Oct 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 September 2016 Monthly Planner Mon Tu e Wed Thu Fri 3 DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m., CC 4 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC 5 LB , 6 p.m . in CC EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West Conf erence Room 6 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC 7 10 11 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *Human S ervices Strategy Draft 12 DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West Conference Room 13 BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in CC 14 17 18 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC 19 BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777 West Conf. Room BVCP Process Subcom mittee Mtg, 12-1:30pm, Park Central 401 Conference Room 20 PB Meeting, 6pm in CC UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777 West Conference Room 21 24 25 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *B riefing: Boulder Energy Future (H. Bailey) *Updating Council on AMPs *B oulde r Communi ty Hospital Broadway Project (J. Crean) 26 27 28 31 Sep 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Nov 2016 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 October 2016