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A. WITHDRAWN: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration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