Loading...
12.07.16 LB Packet 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of minutes from the November 2, 2016 Landmarks Board Meeting 3. Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda 4. Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending  Statistical Report  1723 Marine St. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 16, 2017  2334 14th St. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 29, 2017  3900 Orange Ct. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 31, 2017 5. Public Hearings A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to install two internally illuminated wall signs "Community Banks of Colorado" at 2045 Broadway in the Downtown Historic District, per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00296). Owner / Applicant: The Willard Building, LLC c/o Eric Gabrielsen / Broomfield Sign Co. B. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to demolish a non-contributing building and construct a 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00341). Owner / Applicant: Nancee and Justin Gold / Nicholas Fiore C. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building located at 1580 Cress Ct., non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00271). Owner / Applicant: Lacy LLC / Donald Hackstaff 6. Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney A. Update Memo B. Subcommittee Update 7. Debrief Meeting/Calendar Check 8. Adjournment CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING DATE: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 TIME: 6:00 p.m. PLACE: 1777 Broadway, Municipal Building, City Council Chambers 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”. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Board members who will be present are: Deborah Yin Eric Budd Briana Butler Ronnie Pelusio Fran Sheets John Putnam or Harmon Zuckerman *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 November 2, 2016 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room 6:00 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the November 2, 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: Deborah Yin Eric Budd Briana Butler Ronnie Pelusio Fran Sheets *John Zuckerman, *Planning Board representative without a vote STAFF MEMBERS: Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Chair D. Yin declared a quorum at 6:02 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by D. Yin, seconded by B. Butler, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0) the minutes as amended of the October, 2016 board meeting. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Tom Jarmon, 6028 Olde Stage Rd., applicant for the 1723-25 15th St. case, offered a status update on the stay-of-demolition process for this property. He shared that the owners, Bob Chambers and Regina Suffian and himself met with R. Pelusio, M. Cameron, and J. Hewat to review the alternatives to demolition. He summarized that the alternatives do not meet the objectives or budget of the owners and requested the board direct staff to issue a demolition permit before the stay expires. Motion On a motion by D. Yin, and seconded by R. Pelusio, passed a resolution (5-0) that the Landmarks Board hold a hearing to initiate landmark designation or, alternatively, approve the demolition permit for 1723-25 15th St. at the December 7th, 2016 Landmarks Board meeting. Response Bob Chambers, 3842 Lakebriar Dr., owner asked why the board couldn’t direct staff to issue the demolition permit at this meeting. M. Cameron and D. Kalish replied that since this process started as a public process, that it needed to continue in the public process and as a public hearing. 4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING  Statistical Report  2220 Bluff St. – Stay of Demolition expires Dec. 3, 2016 J. Hewat mentioned that he has spoken with the applicants and that it appears they would like the “stay” to expire. Motion On a motion by D. Yin, seconded B. Butler, (3-2; E. Budd and R. Pelusio objecting) the board passed a resolution to hold a special Landmarks Board meeting to consider initiating landmark designation of 2220 Bluff St., before the stay-of-demolition expires on December 3, 2016.  1723-25 15th St. – Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 9, 2017  1723 Marine St. – Stay of Demolition expiries Jan. 16, 2017  2334 14th St. – Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 29, 2017  3900 Orange Ct. – Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 31, 2017 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and a portion of the site at 4750 Broadway as a local historic landmark per Section 9- 11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00053). Owner / Applicant: Armory Community, LLC Ex-parte contacts B. Butler, F. Sheets and D. Yin reviewed landmark alteration certificate request for changes to the building at the Landmarks design review committee. R. Pelusio used to live in the adjacent neighborhood and was on the Holiday HOA, and now has an office a block away. Staff Presentation M. Cameron, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to designate. Applicant’s Presentation Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 300 Boulder, CO, applicant c/o Armory Land Investors, LLC, spoke in support of the application and answered question from the board. Public Comment Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in support of a designation. Publically wanted to thank Mr. Dierking for his part in helping the Hannah Barker restoration and now is landmarked and owned and inhabited by new owners. Motion On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by D. Yin the Landmarks Board voted (5-0) that the Landmarks Board forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation that it designate the building and a portion of the property at 4750 Broadway as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Armory Mess Hall, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated November 2, 2016, as the findings of the board. B. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and property at 1345 Spruce St. as a local historic landmark as per Section 9-11-5, Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00253). Owner / Applicant: Front Range Shambhala / Eileen Malloy Staff Presentation J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to designate. Applicant’s Presentation Eileen Malloy, 1345 Spruce St., applicant and operations manager at the Boulder Shambhala Center, spoke in support of designation. Public Comment Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in support of a designation. Motion On a motion by D. Yin, and seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board voted (5-0) to forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to designate the building and property at 1345 Spruce St. as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Physicians Building – Dorje Dzong, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated November 2, 2016, as the findings of the board. C. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and property at 2061 Bluff St. as a local historic landmark, per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00289). Owner / Applicant: Jesse Markt and Lindy Hinman Ex-parte contacts E. Budd, B. Butler, R. Pelusio, and F. Sheets reviewed plans for the restoration of the building at the Landmarks design review committee and made a site visit. Staff Presentation M. Cameron, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to designate. Applicant’s Presentation Lindy Hinman, 2061 Bluff St., applicant and owner, spoke in support of designation. Highlighting that designating the house as a landmark, financially enabled them to proceed with the repairs whereas without this program, they would not be able to do the work. Public Comment Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in support of a designation. Motion On a motion by R. Pelusio, and seconded by E. Budd, the Landmarks Board voted (5-0) to forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to designate the property at 2061 Bluff St. as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Nelson Terrace, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated November 2, 2016, as the findings of the board. D. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to relocate existing accessory building at 1735 Mapleton Ave. so that the building and overhangs do not encroach into the alley per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00257). Owner / Applicant: Elizabeth Helgans / Joel Smiley Ex-parte contacts D. Yin assessed the application in the Landmarks design review committee. E. Budd, B. Butler, R. Pelusio, and F. Sheets had no ex-parte contacts. Staff Presentation J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the Landmarks Board approve with conditions. Applicant’s Presentation Joel Smiley, 521 Maxwell Ave., contractor, spoke in support of move the accessory building but expressed frustration that a move was required given that the building had been in its current location for over 100 years and that only a small part of it currently extends into the right-of-way. Public Comment Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in support of moving the building. Publically honored Motion On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by D. Yin, voted and approved (5-0) that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to relocate the existing accessory building at the northeast corner of the lot at 1735 Mapleton Ave., from its current location to the proposed location on the same property, with a 3-foot setback from the north property line, in that, provided the condition below is met, the proposed relocation will meet the requirements of Section 9-11- 18, B.R.C. 1981, and to adopt the staff memorandum, dated November 2, 2016, as findings of the board. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be constructed in compliance with approved plans dated 08/09/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department. This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that, provided the condition listed above is met, the proposed construction will be generally consistent with the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines. 8. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Update Memo B. Subcommittee Update 1) Design Guidelines and Code Revisions 2) Outreach and Engagement 3) Potential Resources 10. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:47 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 October 22, 2016 and November 25, 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: 22 Mapleton Hill521 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00121 Landmark Alteration Certificate review for addition of a round window at the gable peak on both buildings (south elevation) facing the street. No proposed changes on other elevations. Application Withdrawn Decision : 72 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :LPAB Highland Lawn541 MARINE STHIS2016-00213 Removal of non-contributing garage and construction of new 609 sq. ft., two-car garage as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 11.09.2016. Application Approved Decision : 124 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :LPAB Mapleton Hill603 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00258 Relocate existing accessory structure in order to have the building and eaves completly located on property. Application Withdrawn Decision : 150 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Highland Lawn541 MARINE STHIS2016-00285 See HIS2016-00213 Application Approved Decision : 167 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill705 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00326 LAC review for addition of approximately 263 sqft, replacement of rear deck, replacement/reconfiguration of exterior door and windows, and remodleing of non-contributing house as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 11.09.2016(B). Application Approved Decision : 187 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Mapleton Hill814 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00328 Installation of solid wood door and balcony at rear of house as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 10.10.2016. Application Approved Decision : 189 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 1 of 6HIS Statistical Report Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 22 Downtown1211 PEARL STHIS2016-00332 Remodeling of storefront as detailed on lac drawings dated 10.18.2016 with two color scheme as shown. Application Approved Decision : 191 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Downtown0 PEARL STHIS2016-00333 Installation of kiosk on the Peral Street Mall as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 10.18.2016. Application Approved Decision : 192 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Mapleton Hill828 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00334 Installation of 4.7 Kw photo-voltaic panels on garage roof as detailed on lac application dated 10.18.2016. Application Approved Decision : 193 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Downtown2060 BROADWAYHIS2016-00335 Remove (12) of the (12) existing panel antennas on site and replace with (12) proposed 6' panel antennas and addition of 6 RRH units on rooftop of non-contributing building. Application Approved Decision : 194 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill1128 PINE STHIS2016-00337 Construction of 6' high wood fence with minimum 1" spacing between boards and painted or stained opaque earth-tone to blend with historic carriage house. Application Approved Decision : 196 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC University Place1403 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00344 Rehabilitation of existing windows, addtion of storm windows and reroofing of flat roof area as detailed on lac application dated 08.21.16. Application Approved Decision : 200 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC University Place756 14TH STHIS2016-00346 Construction of low retaining wall and fence above as detailed on lac application dated 10.31.2016 - paving and driveway not part of this approval. Application Approved Decision : 201 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Hillside1601 HILLSIDE RDHIS2016-00347 Replacement of roofing with "Owens Corning Duration" asphalt shingle (Onyx Black) to match existing as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 10.27.2016. Application Approved Decision : 202 Sequence # : 11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 2 of 6HIS Statistical Report Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 22 Downtown1320 PEARL STHIS2016-00349 Replace RTU unit with like unit in existing location as detailed on landmark alteration certificate dated 10.27.2016. Application Approved Decision : 203 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill1012 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00350 Installation of a new furnace flue as part of a furnace replacement. Flue to terminate in window well on west elevation of the building as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 11.02.16. Application Approved Decision : 204 Sequence # : 11/14/2016 Date : Case Manager : By :Staff Mapleton Hill2425 10TH STHIS2016-00352 Reroof contributing garage with asphalt shingle to match existing, replacment of non-historic wood flooring on porch with vertical grain Douglas fir flooring, rplacement of coal chute bulkhead with wood to match existing as detailed on landmark alteration certificate dated 11.03.2016. Application Approved Decision : 206 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Hillside1601 HILLSIDE RDHIS2016-00353 Installation of skylights at rear roof areas (non-publicly visible), as dtailed on lac application dated 10.02.2016. Application Approved Decision : 207 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Mapleton Hill2420 9TH STHIS2016-00355 Repaint building with field color "butter-up" at 75% (SW 6681). Trim color to be "Dove White" (SW 6385). Four front doors to be "Black Magic" (SW 6991) all as detailed on landmarkalteration certificate application dated 11.04.2016. Application Approved Decision : 209 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff University Place1403 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00356 Reroof west side of house with new TPO roofing to match existing in color as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 11.08.2016. Application Approved Decision : 210 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :Staff Mapleton Hill421 MOUNTAIN VIEW RDHIS2016-00364 LAC review for proposed demolition of detached garage along the alley behind a single family dwelling. Application Withdrawn Decision : 211 Sequence # : 11/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By :LPAB Mapleton Hill403 MOUNTAIN VIEW RDHIS2016-00367 Landscaping modifications including construction of pergola, shed, new parking area and reduction in size of pool, as detailed on plans dated 11.08.2016 and 11.11.2016. Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 3 of 6HIS Statistical Report Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 22 Application Approved Decision : 214 Sequence # : 11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat By : LDRC Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1 Not Landmarked861 GRANT PLHIS2016-00323 Full demolition of a detached garage. Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # : 10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 9 Not Landmarked3370 4TH STHIS2016-00321 Full demolition of a house and small accessory structure constructed in 1961. Application Approved Decision : 84 Sequence # : 10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked3020 3RD STHIS2016-00322 Partial demolition (construct a wall in front of a street facing wall) of a house built in 1954. Application Approved Decision : 85 Sequence # : 10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked901 GILBERT STHIS2016-00331 Full demolition of a house and attached garage constructed in 1954. Application Approved Decision : 87 Sequence # : 11/03/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked717 EVERGREEN AVHIS2016-00339 Partial demolition (removal of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls and 100 percent of the roof) of a house constructed in 1942 and full demolition of garage. Full demolition approved for both buildings. Application Approved Decision : 88 Sequence # : 11/03/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked1840 SUMAC AVHIS2016-00348 Alteration of the street-facing facade of a single family residence constructed in 1954. Application Approved Decision : 89 Sequence # : 11/09/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked375 27TH STHIS2016-00357 Partial demolition (removal of more than 50% of the roof) of a buildig constructed in 1952. Full demolition approved. Application Approved Decision : 90 Sequence # : 11/16/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked3390 VALMONT RDHIS2016-00369 Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 4 of 6HIS Statistical Report Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 9 Full demolition of building constructed c.1960s (former train depot, building #3). Previously approved under HIS2014-00028. Application Approved Decision : 91 Sequence # : 11/23/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked565 HARTFORD DRHIS2016-00370 Partial demolition (removal of exterior siding on street-facing elevation) of a building constructed in 1962. Full demolition approved. Application Approved Decision : 92 Sequence # : 11/23/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Not Landmarked3023 JEFFERSON STHIS2016-00371 Full demolition of a house and carport built in 1955. Application Approved Decision : 93 Sequence # : 11/23/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :Staff Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 4 Not Landmarked870 UNIVERSITY AVHIS2016-00103 Landmarks review for demolition of portion of street facing facade,and portions of roof and exterior walls, and accessory structure at rear of property. Application referred to the Landmarks Board for review. Application Approved Decision : 8 Sequence # : 10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :LPAB Not Landmarked870 UNIVERSITY AVHIS2016-00131 Landmarks review for partial structure demolition of street facing elevation consisting of removal of entry porch. Ldrc determined removing first floor elements (windows/doors/porch/rafters/etc) would require review by the full Landmarks Board. Lengthening of 2nd story windows is acceptable. Application Approved Decision : 16 Sequence # : 10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :LPAB Not Landmarked2220 BLUFF STHIS2016-00148 Full demolition of a house built pre-1900. Application referred to full Landmarks Board for review based on potential historic, architectural and environmental significance. Please notify Marcy Cameron when LB fee is paid. Fee paid 6/6. Hearing not held within 75 days; demolition permit issued (historic preservation) 11/16/2016. Application Approved Decision : 17 Sequence # : 11/16/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By :LPAB Not Landmarked1210 PLEASANT STHIS2016-00343 Partial demolition (removal of a street-facing wall) of a house constructed in 1910 and full demolition of detached garage constructed in 1941. Porch enclosed in 1951; LDRC approves removal of 1951 walls as shown on drawings dated 10.18.2016. LDRC also approves full demolition of accessory building. If scope of work changes on primary house, a new demolition permit is required. Application Approved Decision : 36 Sequence # : 11/02/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron By : LDRC Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 5 of 6HIS Statistical Report Historic Preservation Reviews Summary between 10/22/2016 and 11/25/2016 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 19 Application Withdrawn 3 Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Application Approved 1 Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 9 Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 4 Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 6 of 6HIS Statistical Report Agenda Item # 5D Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M December 7, 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 install two internally illuminated wall signs “Community Banks of Colorado” at 2045 Broadway Street in the Downtown Historic District, per Section 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00296). ________________________________________________________________________ STATISTICS 1. Site: 2045 Broadway 2. Historic District: Downtown Historic District 3. Zoning: DT-4 (Downtown – 4) 4. Owner: Eric Gabrielson/The Willard Building, LLC 5. Applicant: Broomfield Sign Co. 6. Date of Construction: 1898 ________________________________________________________________________ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff considers the installation of two internally illuminated wall signs at 2045 Broadway will be generally consistent with the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and the General Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: I move that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to install two internally illuminated signs at 2045 Broadway, in that, provided the conditions below are met, the proposed installation will meet the requirements of Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated Dec. 7, 2016, as findings of the board. Agenda Item # 5A Page 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks design review committee shall review the light level of the proposed signage to ensure that it is low and appropriate to the building and this location in the historic district. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the signs shall be manufactured and installed in compliance with approved plans dated 08/25/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department. This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that, provided the condition listed above is met, the proposed installation will be generally consistent with the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines. SUMMARY  On June 8, 2016, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) reviewed a request to install internally illuminated signs on the building. The Lrdc considered that externally lit signage was more appropriate (per section 3.1 of the Downtown Design Guidelines) and requested that the applicant redesign to provide for externally lit signage, or submit for review of internally lit signage by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing.  On July 15, 2016, the applicant submitted revised plans for signage with no lighting. A Landmark Alteration Certificate for this proposal was issued by staff on July 21, 2016 (HIS2016-00156), per the Ldrc’s June 8, 2016 recommendations.  On September 21, 2016, the applicant submitted an application to remove the two non-illuminated wall signs and to replace them with two illuminated wall cabinet signs.  Staff considers the Willard Building to possess a high-degree of architectural, historic, and environmental significance and integrity contributing to the character of the Downtown Historic District.  Staff finds that with the listed conditions, the proposed installation will be generally consistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.  This recommendation is based upon the understanding that, pursuant to the conditions of approval, the stated condition will be reviewed and approved Agenda Item # 5A Page 3 by Historic Preservation staff prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate. PROPERTY HISTORY Figure 1. 2045 Broadway, c. 1913. Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History. One of the most distinctive commercial blocks in Boulder, the Willard Building at 2045 Broadway Street was constructed in 1898 by two prominent prohibitionists in Boulder, Frederick White and Albert Reed. The building is named after Frances E. Willard, president of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in Boulder. Both Reed and White were active in political and civic affairs in Boulder. White was prominent in real estate and mining and was a developer of Green Mountain Cemetery. Reed was a lawyer, city attorney, and teacher at the University School of Law. See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form. The building was designed by local architect Arthur E. Saunders. Saunders (1860-1930) studied architecture in Santa Cruz, California and came to Boulder to begin his architectural practice in 1903. Saunders found considerable success in Boulder, first in partnership with Charles Wright from c. 1905-1907 before establishing his own firm in 1908.1 One Boulder’s most prominent early architects, Saunders is responsible for the design of a number of prominent commercial and residential buildings in the city, including:  The Mercantile Bank, 1201 Pearl St., Downtown Historic District; 1 http://www.historicdenver.org/uploaded-files/Architects_Colorado_Database_1875-1950.pdf Agenda Item # 5A Page 4 Advertisement for the Boulder-News Herald from the 1918 Polk Directory of Boulder, from the Boulder Carnegie Library.  The Physician’s Building, 1345 Spruce St., Downtown Historic District;  604 Mapleton Ave., 1913, Tudor-Revival, Mapleton Hill Historic District;  731 Spruce St., 1910, Craftsman, Mapleton Hill Historic District;  1815 17th St., 1901, Spanish-Revival, Chamberlain Historic District. The Willard Building held various addresses, from 2047-2061 Broadway Street, the number of units changing over the years. The earliest listings in the 1898 City City Directories only give “12th and Spruce” as the location of several businesses at the location, making it impossible to tell which actually occupied the Willard Building. Street addresses were first given for this area of downtown in the 1901 Directory, which lists Strawn & Esgar Groceries, A. M. and G. W. Richardson Bicycles, and J. W. Richardson Real Estate as the occupants. The Richardsons had departed by 1903, but Strawn & Esgar, though renamed Strawn & Adams in 1905, and Strawn & Whitacre in 1906, remained until c. 1908. A later long-term occupant was Adolpus D. McGlothlen, a realtor, who operated from the Willard Building from c. 1918 to c. 1936. Another was the law firm of Goss and Hutchinson (earlier Goss and Kemp), who operated there from c. 1918 until the late 1950’s. Many other businesses and organizations have operated from the Willard Building, including a lantern oil company, several real estate and insurance firms, the prominent local architecture firm of James & Hunter, the Elks Club, and the Red Cross. By the late 1960’s, the building had become popular with engineering firms, with three operating there in 1970. Perhaps the most significant tenant of the Willard Building was the Boulder News, a local newspaper which first operated there from 1908, until 1932. The Boulder News traces its origins through several renamings and buyouts to the Boulder County News, which was first published on October 12, 1869. Agenda Item # 5A Page 5 The Boulder News was first published under that title on June 12, 1888, and was a weekly paper known to support the Republican Party. The Boulder News was purchased by Arthur A. Parkhurst in 1914; he converted it to a morning daily starting November 10, 1914. He also formed the Union Publishing Co. (which also operated out of the Willard Building), to handle printing of his newly acquired newspaper. On February 14, 1916, Arthur and Mary Parkhurst purchased Boulder’s first daily newspaper, the Boulder Daily Herald (first published on 17 April 1880). The Parkhursts combined them to create the Boulder News-Herald, which was still operated out of the Willard Building by the Union Publishing Co. It continued to operate from there until March 1, 1932, when the News-Herald was purchased by and merged with the Boulder Daily Camera, which remains Boulder’s primary local newspaper.2 DESCRIPTION Figure 2. Location Map, 2045 Broadway Approximately 10,780 sq. ft. in size, the lot is located on the southwest corner of Broadway and Spruce Streets, within the boundaries Downtown Historic District, which is both listed in the National Register of Historic Places (1980) and designated a local landmark district (1999). 2 Daily Camera, “Newspapers: Boulder County has had 100 of Them,” 13 September, 1963. Boulder Carnegie Library. Agenda Item # 5A Page 6 Figure 3. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, 2016. The masonry building features a cantilevered tower and Moorish inspired onion dome. Figure 4. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, c.1968 A c.1968 photograph of the demolition of the Arlington Hotel on the northwest corner of Broadway and Spruce Street shows a portion of the Willard Building. At that time, the first floor appears to have been remodeled in the 1950s or 1960s, and the turret was painted in a monochrome paint scheme. Agenda Item # 5A Page 7 Figure 5. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, 1986. The first level storefront facades were remodeled and partially restored again in 1993. The scope of work included new brick with stone sills, and a new glass and metal storefront with transom windows. The upper story was restored and the turret was painted at that time. LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST The Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) application proposes the installation of two internally illuminated aluminum wall cabinet signs. Plans show the signs are to be located above the main entrance at the east elevation and on the north elevation where the non-illuminated signs were installed July of 2016 per approval by the Ldrc (HIS2016-00156). At that time, the Ldrc considered that internally lit signage in this location should be reviewed in a public hearing by the Landmarks Board. Agenda Item # 5A Page 8 Figure 4. Proposed East Elevation (Sign A). Figure 5. Proposed North Elevation (Sign B). Agenda Item # 5A Page 9 Figure 6. Proposed Sign The project narrative included in the LAC application describes the sign design: “The cabinet structure and skin are completely constructed of aluminum. The faces will have routed out copy and logos, and will then have ½” thick acrylic push thru the face and secured on the back. These cabinets will have a high enamel automotive paint finish.” See Attachment X: Applicant’s Materials. The signs are shown to measure 1’9” in height, 10’ in length, and 3” in depth, designed to fit within the existing steel band. The signs would be mounted to the existing steel plate, and would project 2” from the face of the building. The sign would be secured with 3/8” lags approximately every 2’. The acrylic push through lettering and logo would project ½” from the face of the sign. The logo would have green vinyl overlay, the text would have a blue vinyl overlay, and the sign base would be painted to match the existing steel plate. The sign would be illuminated by LED modules located on the back of the sign. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION Subsections 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. Agenda Item # 5A Page 10 (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. 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 an historic district? Provided the conditions of approval are met staff finds that, in this instance, the proposed installation of an illuminated sign is appropriate. The signs are to be located on the remodeled 1993 portion of the building and as such, will not damage or destroy historic architectural features of the building. Furthermore, the proposed LED back-lighting is described as subdued and providing even illumination. This type of adjustable lighting was not available when the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were developed in 1999. While likely not appropriate in every application, staff considers the installation on the 1993 portion of the building appropriate and will not adversely damage or destroy exterior features of the property or this edge of the Downtown Historic District. 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? Provided the conditions of approval are met, staff finds that that proposed installation of the two internally illuminated signs will not adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic character of the 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? Provided the conditions of approval are met, staff considers the arrangement, texture, color and materials of the two illuminated signs will be compatible with the character of this part of the historic district. 4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate. The design proposes the use of LED lights, which are highly energy efficient. DESIGN GUIDELINES 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 and the Downtown Urban 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 Downtown Historic District Design Guidelines. GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 8.4 Signs A sign typically serves two functions: to attract attention and to convey information. Signs designed for a historic building should not detract from important design features of the building. All new signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and district in mind. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .1 Retain and preserve existing historic The building does not feature N/A Agenda Item # 5A Page 12 signs that contribute to the overall historic character of the building or the district. existing historic signage. .2 New signs should be compatible in material, size, color, scale and character with the building. The proposed signs are designed to fit within the existing steel band at the 1st floor of the building. Plan show the sign base is to be painted to match the existing steel band. The signs appear to be in scale with the building. Yes .3 Signs should be subordinate to the overall building. The signs are designed to fit within the design of the building and will be subordinate to the overall building. Yes .4 Locate a sign on a building so that it emphasizes design elements of the façade itself. In no case should a sign obscure or damage architectural destails or features. Plans show the signs to be located on the portion of the building that was remodeled in 1993. No architectural details or features will be damaged or destroyed by the installation of the signs. Yes .5 Simple letter styles and graphic designs are most appropriate. Plans show the design of the signs to include a logo and simple lettering with the business name. Yes .6 A hanging entry sign may be located on a porch, or directly above the steps leading to the primary entrance of a structure. The signs are not proposed to be hanging. N/A Downtown Urban Design Guidelines 8.4 Signs A sign typically serves two functions: to attract attention and to convey information. Signs designed for a historic building should not detract from important design features of the building. All new signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and district in mind. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS A. Commercial signs should function to identify and locate businesses, promote commercial activity, attract customers, provide direction and information, and in some cases create visual delight and architectural interest. The proposed signage will promote business activity in the Willard Building. Yes Agenda Item # 5A Page 13 B.1 Wall Signs Wall signs are limited in size and defined as projecting less than 15 inches from the building. Wall signs should be positioned within architectural features such as the panels above storefronts, sign bands, on the transom windows, or flanking doorways. Wall mounted signs should align with others on a block to maintain established patterns. Wall signs are shown to be located within the existing architectural features of the building. Sign aligns with others on the block, maintaining established patterns. Yes C. Signage should be designed as an integral part of the overall building design. In general, signs should not obscure important architectural details. When several businesses share a building, signs should be aligned or organized in a directory. Sign to be located on 1993 remodeled portion of the building. As such, the installation will not obscure important architectural details. Yes D. Use simple signs to clearly convey their messages Signs are simple in design. Yes D.1 Sign materials should be durable and easy to maintain. Appropriate sign materials include painted or carved wood, carved wooden letters, epoxy letters, galvanized sheet metal, stone, specialty or decorative glass, clear and colored acrylic, or neon. Sign materials include acrylic and metal. Yes D.2 Lighting external to the sign surface with illumination directed toward the sign is preferred. External lighting may also highlight architectural features. Internally lit signs are generally discouraged. The light level should not overpower the facade or other signs on the street. The light source should be shielded from pedestrian view. The lighting of symbol signs is encouraged. Internal lighting may be appropriate where only letters are illuminated or neon is used. Neon is acceptable, though restricted in size, if it does not obscure Internally lit signs are generally discouraged, but may be appropriate where only the letters are illuminated. In this case, the letters and logo are illuminated while the rest of the sign is not. Staff considers that this type of “halo lit signage” did not exist in 1999 when the Downtown Design Guidelines were written. The light level should not overpower the façade or other signs on the street and staff considers that the Ldrc should review the light level of the Maybe Agenda Item # 5A Page 14 architectural detail or overly illuminate display windows. proposed sign to ensure that it is appropriately low to ensure consistency with this guideline. D.3 Signs should be designed in simple, straight-forward shapes that convey their message clearly. Symbols are easily read and enhance the pedestrian quality of the Downtown. Rectangular signs are simple in design and clearly states the business name. Yes D.4 Lettering styles should be proportioned, simple, and easy to read. In most instances, a simple typeface is preferred over a faddish or overly ornate type style. The number of type styles should be limited to two per sign. As a general rule, the letter forms should occupy not more than 75% of the total sign panel. Lettering appears well- proportioned within the sign and has a traditional, simple typeface. The letter forms appear the occupy approximately 75% of the sign panel. Yes The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines state that internally illuminated signs are generally discouraged. This has been interpreted to recommend the use of gooseneck (and other forms of external lighting) whenever possible. The guidelines continue that internal lighting may be appropriate when only the letters are illuminated, or neon is used. The letters and logo of the proposed signs are internally illuminated, while the rest of the sign is not. The technology of lighting has changed since the guidelines were written in 1999. Staff considers that the application should be approved with the condition that the Landmarks design review committee review the proposed light level of the sign prior to issuance of landmark alteration certificate to ensure that the lighting is appropriate to the building and this location in the historic district and that it does not overpower the light from the street or compete with other signs along Broadway or Spruce St. Staff suggests that following the review and approval of this sign, consideration be given to including a language in Section 8.3, Signs, of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to provide for guidance for the installation of internally lit signage of this type in the Downtown Historic District, on both contributing and non-contributing buildings. Agenda Item # 5A Page 15 Staff finds that, in this instance, with the suggested condition the proposed installation of two internally illuminated signs generally appropriate in terms of site planning and preservation of character-defining features and that the proposal will meet the standards set out in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. FINDINGS Staff recommends that the board adopt the following findings: The request for installation of two internally illuminated signs is compatible with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in that: 1. Provided the listed condition are met and that if constructed in compliance with approved plans dated 08/25/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department, the proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architecture of the property. 2. The request will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate per Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: A: Historic Building Inventory Record B: Current Photographs C: Plans Agenda Item # 5A Page 16 Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form Agenda Item # 5A Page 17 Agenda Item # 5A Page 18 Agenda Item # 5A Page 19 2045 Broadway, Survey Photograph, 1986. Agenda Item # 5A Page 20 Attachment C: Current Photographs \\ Agenda Item # 5A Page 21 Agenda Item # 5A Page 22 Attachment C: Plans Agenda Item # 5A Page 23 Agenda Item # 5A Page 24 Agenda Item # 5A Page 25 Agenda Item #5A Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M December 7, 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 demolish an existing non-contributing house and, in its place, construct a new 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00341). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 409 Spruce St. 2. Date of construction: c.1900 3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1) 4. Owner: Justin and Nancee Gold 5. Applicant: Nicholas Fiore 6. Site Area: 7,298 sq. ft. (approx.) 7. Existing House: 1,462 sq. ft. (approx.) 8. Proposed House: 3,055 sq. ft. (approx.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: The Landmarks Board denies the application for demolition of the non-contributing house and the construction of the proposed 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St., as shown on plans dated 10/23/2016, finding that they do not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopts the staff memorandum dated December 7, 2016 in Matter 5B (HIS2016-00341) as the findings of the board. Agenda Item #5A Page 2 This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed demolition and new construction would be inconsistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. SUMMARY  Because this application calls for the demolition of a building and new free-standing construction of more than 340 sq. ft., review by the full Landmarks Board in a quasi- judicial hearing is required per Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.  The applicant has met with staff on several occasions to review design concepts and provide feedback on the proposal.  The existing house was constructed around 1900 and was significantly modified in the 1980s, prior to the 2001 expansion of the Mapleton Hill Historic District to include this property. At the time the district was expanded to include this portion of Spruce Street, the building at 409 Spruce St. was considered to be non- contributing, due to the extent of alterations.  The 1988 historic building inventory of the property characterizes the level of modification to be “major,” noting that the “house was extensively remodeled in 1985.” The survey states “this house, although remodeled, is representative of the homes constructed by the working class in Boulder at the turn of the century. It is associated with the Mathias Schons family, German immigrants who raised a large family, many of whom worked in Boulder during the early 1900s.” See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form).  While the house was constructed during the period of significance and is generally compatible with the streetscape, subsequent non-historic additions have comprised the architectural integrity of the house. For this reason, staff considers the building a non-contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.  Staff acknowledges the consideration that has gone into the design of the house and finds the front portion generally compatible with the character of the historic. However, staff considers the oblique angle of the rear addition and mass, scale, proportion and style, to be generally inconsistent with Section 2, Site Design, and Section 6, New Primary Buildings, of the General Design Guidelines, Section U of the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines and Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981.  Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction as the design is substantially inconsistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as per Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.  Staff recommends denial of the demolition and proposed new construction, but suggests that the Landmarks Board give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw Agenda Item #5A Page 3 the application for redesign after providing direction to that end, thereby avoiding the applicant having to wait a year to reapply pursuant to Section 9-11-17(c), B.R.C. 1981. Figure 1. Location Map, 409 Spruce St. PROPERTY HISTORY The property at 409 Spruce St. is part of the Mapleton Terrace addition to the city, which was platted in 1890 by W.H. Thompson, Harold D. Thompson, and Isaac C. Dennett. For many years 4th Street formed the western edge of the city with the land beyond in the ownership of John Brierly who operated vegetable gardens, an orchard, and lime kilns in the area. The property is associated with the Schons family, German immigrants who owned the property from 1899 until the 1970s. Mathias and Apollonia Schons came to Boulder from Nebraska in 1896. They lived at 409 Spruce Street from the 1900s until their deaths in the 1930s, at which time the house appears to have passed to their daughter Susanna and her husband William Rusch (based on burial records). Mathias and Apollonia were the parents of Apollonia Schons Berkeley, Susanna Schons Rusch, and Nicholas Schons, Agenda Item #5A Page 4 and others. Nicholas Schons was the father of the donor's husband, Mathias C. Schons.1 A 1974 zoning verification form indicates the owner is the estate of Apollonia Schons and that the house had been vacant since 1945. Figure 2. Mathias and Apollonia Schons standing in front of their house at 409 Spruce St., c. 1919. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Located on the north side of Spruce Street in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, the property was included in the expansion of that district in 2002. The expansion included approximately 80 properties on the southeast, north and east boundaries of the district. At the time of designation, 409 Spruce St. identified as non-contributing to the district as a result of non-historic alterations. 1 Electronic Catalog Description. Carnegie Branch Library. Agenda Item #5A Page 5 Figure 3. 409 Spruce St., c.1929 (Carnegie Library) Approximately 7,300 sq. ft. in size, the lot at 409 Spruce St. slopes to the south and features mature vegetation, much of which is volunteer. The Farmer’s Ditch is located directly north of the property. Figure 4. 409 Spruce St., c.1949 (Carnegie Library The original township of Boulder City was platted at a 15-degree angle, aligning with Valmont Butte. This pattern extends east from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to 30th Street, north of Canyon to Pine Street. While most lots extend perpendicularly from the Agenda Item #5A Page 6 street, the properties on the 400 block of Spruce Street meet the street at an angle, resulting in an unusual building envelope. The houses on this section of Spruce Street share a uniform setback, and the building facades are aligned parallel to Spruce Street. Figure 5. 409 Spruce St., 1984 (Carnegie Library) ALTERATIONS Research indicates the house was significantly remodeled beginning in 1980. The house appears to have fallen into disrepair and was vacant in the early 1970s and upgraded to add water and sewer service in 1974. The 1980s remodels were significant with the house being raised to add a new foundation and basement (1980) and the raising of the roof of the house with new projecting gables on the façade. The windows, doors and exterior finishes appear to have all been replaced during this remodeling campaign. Agenda Item #5A Page 7 Figure 6. 409 Spruce St., 2016. Today, the one-and-a-half story side-gabled wood frame house features two gable roofed dormers, a full width porch, and a bay with double hung windows. Each of the dormers have small double hung windows. The dormers have boxed eaves are the gable ends are clad in an alternating diamond and fish scale shingle pattern. The porch features non-historic square supports and a simple railing, a centrally located entrance with a multi-light door and a contemporary storm door. A double hung window is located east of the main entry. The foundation is clad in flagstone Figure 7. 409 Spruce St., 2016. PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and, in its place, construct a two- story house of approximately 3,055 sq. ft. Agenda Item #5A Page 8 Figure 8. Existing Site Plan Figure 8. Proposed Site Plan In plan, the front setback for the proposed new house is shown at approximately 13’ 7” (determined through setback averaging for the block) and roughly the same setback as the existing house. The existing house measures approximately 33’ wide and 36’ in length while the width of the front portion of the proposed house is shown to measure approximately 35’ in width while, because of the oblique angle of the building, the rear portion of the building increases the street face of the house to 45’. The east wall of the proposed house is shown measure approximately 75’ in length, while the west wall measures about 77’ in length. At its highest point the house is shown to be approximately 29’ in height, approximately the same height as the existing building. Agenda Item #5A Page 9 Figure 9. Existing house south elevation (façade) Figure 10. Proposed south elevation (façade) Agenda Item #5A Page 10 Elevations call for the new house to be of frame construction, with the front, neo- traditional portion to feature a full-width gable intersected by a smaller gable above a projecting ell and partial width front wrapping porch. The front, gable portion of the proposed house is shown to be 36’ in length at which point it is intersected by a flat roof portion of notably more contemporary form, mass, and finish. At the east wall, the flat roof portion of the house intersects the gable portion and turns ten degrees east creating an oblique angle to the front portion of the house but in parallel with the eat property line. Drawings and renderings show the asymmetrical façade of the house to recall the Edwardian Vernacular in form and to feature a wrapping, partial width shed roof front porch and small upper screened balcony with round arch motif and Queen Anne inspired iron spindle work. Access to the balcony is shown by way of a set of twelve light French doors while the main gable form is shown to be clad in semi-opaque stained, vertical wood siding and fenestrated with a small four-over-one window and a larger one-over-one double hung sash. A front door in in line with the porch steps and is located next to a 4’ x 6’ picture window and a single six-over-one double hung window. A single, ¾ light door provides access to the house at the east end of the porch. The smaller gable roofed portion of the façade projects 5’ south and is shown to be clad in a decorative brick. A one-over-one double hung window is located over a pair of first level six-over-one windows on the façade. Figure 11. Existing north (rear) elevation from Mountain View Road Agenda Item #5A Page 11 Figure 12. Existing north (rear) elevation When foliage is bare, Mountain View Road provides visual access to the rear of the property. Elevations indicate the north face of the house to be distinctly more contemporary in design with its flat roof, horizontal volumes and abstracted window forms that will be visible from the north, at least during the winter months. Figure 13. Proposed north (rear) elevation The proposed east elevation shows the front neo-traditional gable form of the house to feature a low dormer with three six light casement windows, a six-over-one double hung window, two nine light casement sash under the porch, and a bank of three nine light windows on the decorative brick wall. Specifications call for the structure of the Agenda Item #5A Page 12 porch to steel and the its roof to be sheathed in standing seam metal. Figure 14. Existing house east (side) elevation Figure 15. Proposed east (side) elevation The rear, flat roof portion, of the house skews about 10 degrees east of the front section and intersects with the neo-traditional front section of the about 7’ into to the gable roof. In contrast to the brick, the rear portion of the house is shown to be sheathed with vertical wood siding and fenestrated with narrow horizontal windows. An 8’ section of the second story wall is set back, and a decorative brick fireplace stack is shown to be located at the north end of this wall. Agenda Item #5A Page 13 Figure 16. Existing house west (side) elevation Figure 17. Proposed west (side) elevation Elevations show the west wall of the front portion of the house to be clad in decorative brick with three six-over-one, double hung, a four-light window, and single pane on the first level. The half story roof is shown to feature two, low dormers with two and four light windows respectively. Agenda Item #5A Page 14 Figure 18. South elevation of existing house facing onto Spruce Street The rear portion of the house is shown to connect below the gable roof of the front segment, to be sheathed in vertical wood siding and fenestrated with a variety horizontal and vertical shaped windows. Two wall dormers project from the second story of the house, each with a square, single pane window. Large windows and doors are shown to be located on this face of the house and to be partially covered by an attached pergola. Figure 19. Rendering of proposed south elevation of house facing onto Spruce Street Exterior materials shown include standing seam metal roofing on the from porch, asphalt shingle on the gable roofs, decorative and simple brick, semi-opaque, stained cedar vertical siding, stone lintels and metal columns and spindle work on the porch and balcony. Agenda Item #5A Page 15 Figure 20. Rendering of proposed south elevation from southeast Figure 21. Rendering of proposed south elevation from southwest CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets 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; Agenda Item #5A Page 16 (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. 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 existing house was constructed about 1900, but has been significantly modified since 1980. While the house is currently compatible with the form and details of historic houses in the immediate streetscape, the extent of alterations has compromised its historic integrity. While the City of Boulder encourages the reuse of existing buildings as a sustainable approach to redevelopment, historic preservation staff does not consider demolition of the house would be to the detriment of the historic district, provided the proposed new construction is consistent with the General and Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines However, staff finds that based upon analysis against the Guidelines, the design of the proposed new construction is incompatible with the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic district and would have an adverse effect on the immediate streetscape (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? Staff considers that based on analysis with the relevant design guidelines and because of the high visibility of the property, the mass, form and design of the rear portion of the proposed new construction, which will be visible from Spruce Street and Mountain View Drive, may adversely affect the special historic and architectural character of the streetscape and the Mapleton Hill Historic District as a whole. 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials Agenda Item #5A Page 17 used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district? Staff considers that the while the proposed mass, scale, proportion and design of the of the front portion is generally compatible with the character of the streetscape, the rear portion which will be visible from both Spruce Street and Mountain View Drive, is incompatible with the character of the Mapleton Historic District and that steps should be taken to redesign (including reorienting the rear portion) in a manner that takes cues from and complements the historic character of the streetscape (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). 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 the Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)? While staff does not consider the existing house to contribute to the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, it finds that the application to replace the demolished building does not meet the requirements of Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4), B.R.C. 1981 because the construction of a new house will not establish a new building with compatible features on the streetscape and it will be generally compatible and inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). DESIGN GUIDELINES The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate and the board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The following is an analysis of the submitted proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. It is important to emphasize that 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 applicable design guidelines: Agenda Item #5A Page 18 General Design Guidelines 2.0 Site Design Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and building. Individual structures are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that set the context for the neighborhood. How structures occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing, creates much of the context of the neighborhood. Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 Locate buildings within the range of alignments as seen traditionally in the area, maintaining traditional setbacks at the front, side and rear of the property The property is a trapezoidal in shape, approximately 50’ wide and 7,300 sq. ft. in size. The neo-traditional portion of the house is aligned with the other houses on the north side of the block, roughly parallel to Spruce Street. However, the north portion of the proposed house is planned at an oblique angle to the rest of the house and this angle will be visible from the street and incongruent with the alignments of historic houses in Mapleton Hill. Redesign rear portion of house so that walls are parallel to side walls of front portion and more in keeping with traditional alignments in the historic district. No .2 Building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district The neo-traditional portion of the house reflects the traditional gable- roofed forms in the district in terms of scale, form, and massing. However, the contemporary portion is dominated by a flat roof and features oblique angles (see .1 above). At over 75’ in length, proposed footprint of the house may be out of character with those in immediate streetscape. Likewise, neo-traditional No Agenda Item #5A Page 19 gable and flat-roof cubic forms may be incongruous. Consider combining forms to reflect more traditional building proportions and forms more reflective of those historically found in the district and immediate streetscape. .3 Orient the primary building entrance to the street Primary entrance is oriented to the street. Yes .4 Preserve original location of the main entry and walk. Existing house considered non- contributing and proposed for demolition. Walkway is proposed in approximately the same location. Yes .5 A new porch may encroach into the existing alignment only if it is designed according to the guidelines and if it is appropriate to the architectural style of the house. Porch is proposed at the entry way, addressing the street in traditional manner, and is appropriate to the neo- traditional, Edwardian-Vernacular form of the front portion of the house Yes .7 Preserve a backyard area between the house and the garage, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area Trapezoidal lot configuration is somewhat challenging, though its size provides opportunity to preserve backyard area by providing more space at the rear of the property with setback averaging. Proposed design preserves general proportion of built mass to open space. Yes 2.2.2 Preserve street trees whenever possible Mature trees along the Street will not be removed, however, large trees in the front yard area may lost as a result of proposed new construction. Yes 6.0 New Primary Buildings New construction within a historic district can enhance the existing district character if Agenda Item #5A Page 20 the proposed design and its siting reflect an understanding of and a compatibility with the distinctive character of the district. While new construction should fit into the historic character of the district or site, it should not replicate historic styles. Instead, new buildings should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic district or landmark site while also conveying a contemporary style. New buildings should not overshadow existing historic structures. Fundamental characteristics to be considered in designing compatible new structures include: site and setting, building size and proportions, materials, and the placement and style of doors and windows. The primary focus in reviewing new structures will be on aspects that are visible from public streets. The guidelines will be applied most stringently to these publicly visible areas. More flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely screened from public view. 6.1 Distinction from Historic Structures The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be compatible with the historic context, they must also be recognizable as new construction. Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 Create compatible contemporary interpretations of historic elements. Contemporary interpretation of traditional Edwardian Vernacular design in front portion of house in terms of mass, scale and proportion, though is clearly a contemporary interpretation. However, some elements including front balcony and use of materials including steel and stained wood may be inappropriate. Rear portion of house may be incompatible with neo-traditional front – redesign to better integrate creating a visually continuity between these two elements Maybe Agenda Item #5A Page 21 .2 Interpretations of historic styles may be appropriate if distinguishable as new. Proposed design for front portion of house interprets Edwardian Vernacular house form in clearly contemporary way. Rear portion of house may be incompatible with neo- traditional front – redesign to better integrate creating a visually continuity between these two elements. Maybe 6.2 Site and Setting New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new structures should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 Conform to Section 2.0 Site Design. See above for analysis. No .2 Overall character of site is retained. Residential character will be retained, with similar setbacks. However oblique building angle at north will be visible from Spruce St. and will alter character of the site in a manner that likely will be incompatible with streetscape and southwest section of Mapleton Hill. Redesign building to better ensure that new construction be compatible with historic character of area (see section 6.1.2 above). No .3 Compatible with surrounding buildings in setback, orientation, spacing, and distance from adjacent buildings. Trapezoidal lot configuration is unusual and presents design challenges. The Neo-Traditional portion of the building is compatible in terms of setback, orientation, spacing and distance from adjacent No Agenda Item #5A Page 22 buildings. However, the oblique angle of the proposed rear portion of the house is inconsistent with this guideline None-the-less, the lot provides adequate space to construct a new house in a manner that complies with this guideline.. Revise design for rear portion of house to be parallel with the front. .4 Proportion of built mass to open space not significantly different from contributing buildings. Proposed design appears to preserve general proportion of built mass to open space. Yes 6.3 Mass and Scale In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing, size and scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front façade is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetscape. While new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not be so out-of-scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them. Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 Compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of height, size, scale, massing, and proportions. Proposed scale is generally compatible with surrounding buildings. However massing and proportion of rear portion should better integrate with front portion of the house and relate to historic buildings in the district. Redesign to ensure compatibility of forms of house to each and to surrounding historic buildings in the district. No .2 Mass and scale of new construction should respect neighboring buildings and streetscape. Redesign to ensure massing, configuration and proportion better reflect those found on historic properties in Mapleton Hill (see .1 above). No Agenda Item #5A Page 23 .3 Historic heights and widths as well as their ratios maintained, especially proportions of façade. General proportions of the façade elements are found in the district. Redesign rear portion of house to better integrate with the front and forms of like-sized historic houses in the district. No 6.4 Materials Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found on nearby historic structures. Proposed materials include brick, decorative brick, stained vertical wood siding, standing seam metal roofing, asphalt shingle and steel structural elements and metal spindle work on the front balcony. Brick, horizontal wood siding and asphalt shingles are traditionally found in the historic district. Little historic precedent for use of exposed steel structural elements, metal roofing, or stained wood in Mapleton Hill. Redesign to simplify material palette including reconsideration of use of steel, metal roofing and stained vertical wood siding. Provide detailed information on all materials including proposed path ways, patio and retaining walls. No .2 Maintain a human scale by avoiding large, featureless surfaces and by using traditionally sized building components and materials. Façade maintains a human scale with a porch and nestle gables. However, areas of the east wall of the house include large featureless wall areas. Revise to include proportion of No Agenda Item #5A Page 24 window/door to wall area closer to that found on historic houses in Mapleton Hill. 6.5 Key Building Elements Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they complement the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions. Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 Design the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, and size of window and door openings in new structures to be compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district, while reflecting the underlying design of the new building. Fenestration on the neo-traditional portion of the building generally reflects traditional window patterns. Fenestration of building should be redesigned to reflect more traditional window proportions on the rear portion of the house, placing and scale. Use of horizontal windows should be avoided on portions of the building visible from the public right of way, as little precedent on historic buildings for such fenestration exists in Mapleton Hill. No .2 Select windows and doors for new structures that are compatible in material, subdivision, proportion, pattern and detail with the windows and doors of surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district See .1 above. No .3 New structures should use a roof form found in the district or on the landmark site Roof form on front portion of house typical of many historic houses in Mapleton Hill. While simple flat roof forms are occasionally found in the district, gable, hipped and gambrel Maybe Agenda Item #5A Page 25 roof forms are the pattern of historic buildings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Current design flat roof of the house comprises approximately 50% of the roof area of the house. Consider modifying rear to reduce flat roof area, especially that visible from a public way. .4 Porches should be compatible in massing and details to historic porches in the district, and should be appropriate to the style of the house. Front porch is appropriately scaled and located on house. The enclosed front balcony should be simplified and single door should provide access as the norm for front balconies on Edwardian-Vernacular houses of this scale Maybe The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section U. of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Only those guidelines that further the analysis of the proposed project are included and those that reflect what has been evaluated in the previous section are not repeated. Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines U. New Construction While new construction should fit into the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, there is no intent to require historic imitation. It is appropriate that new designs incorporate the elements that contribute to the character of the District, such as overall mass, rooflines, windows, porches, front entries, etc. However, innovative ways of incorporating such elements and modern expressions of detailing are strongly encouraged. New construction in the District should be in the character of the buildings surrounding it. Because streetscapes vary in the District, new buildings facing the street should respect and be consistent with the existing block pattern. Traditional site layout, porch size and placement, front entry location, roof type, and door and window sizes and patterns should be considered when proposing new in-fill construction. New buildings on the rear of a lot (including house behind a house developments) should be of a lesser mass and scale than the original structure and more simply Agenda Item #5A Page 26 detailed. New accessory buildings on the rear of a lot should be consistent with the existing pattern of small structures that are simple and utilitarian in design. New construction on corner lots requires an especially thoughtful approach. Each corner lot will present a unique design challenge for a highly visible building that does not disrupt the historic context. Guideline Analysis Conforms? .1 New construction should incorporate the elements contributing to the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District as identified by the Design Guidelines. The building reflects contributing elements found in the historic district including the gabled roof form, use of brick, and front porch. Residential character will be retained with similar setbacks. However oblique building angles, use of structural and decorative steel on the house will be highly visible and alter character of the site in a manner that likely will be incompatible with streetscape and southwest section of Mapleton Hill. Redesign building to better ensure that new construction be compatible with historic character of area (see sections 2 & 6 of General Design Guidelines above). No .2 Building elevations visible from streets and alleys need the greatest sensitivity. Front porches are an important visual element and should be incorporated into new construction except in unusual situations. In placement and form front porch addresses street appropriately taking cues from historic houses in the district (see sections 2 & 6 of General Design Guidelines above). Proposed scale of front portion of the house is generally compatible with surrounding buildings. However, massing and proportion of rear portion of house appears incongruous with front section and adjacent historic buildings. Redesign to simplify forms and No Agenda Item #5A Page 27 materials to better reflect character of historic houses in the district. .3 New construction should not imitate historic buildings, but should be an expression of its own time. Contemporary expression of traditional architectural elements is encouraged. Simplicity is an important aspect of creating compatible new construction. Massing, proportion and design of the neo-classical portion of house reflects the historic context of the district but is an expression of its own time. However, the rear portion appears inconsistent with surrounding historic building forms in terms of location, mass and fenestration. Redesign to rear portion to better integrate with front portion of house and better reflect character of historic houses in the district. No .4 The mass and scale of new construction should respect neighboring buildings and the streetscape as a whole. Site layout, porch size and placement, entry level and location, roof line, and door and window sizes and patterns should harmonize with the historic context rather than compete with or copy it. Modeling indicates the oblique building angle at east will result in modern rear portion of house being visible from the Spruce Street. The visibility of this rear element may alter character of the site in a manner incompatible with streetscape and southwest section of Mapleton Hill, as a whole. Consider redesign to provide for elimination of oblique angle of rear portion and revise to better integrate with the neo-traditional portion of house. While simple flat roof forms are occasionally found in the district, gable, hipped and gambrel roof forms are the pattern of historic buildings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. No .7 New construction should utilize a roof form found in the district. Current design shows indicate 50% of the roof will be flat. Consider redesign to reduce flat roof area. Maybe Agenda Item #5A Page 28 .8 Use building materials that are familiar in their dimensions and that can be repeated. This helps to establish a sense of scale for new buildings. Whenever possible, use familiar building components in traditional sizes. Avoid large featureless surfaces. Proposed materials include two types of brick, stained vertical wood siding, standing seam metal roof and structural and decorative steel elements. Little historic precedent for use of metal roofing, stained wood siding or structural or decorative steel on historic houses in in Mapleton Hill. Revise design to simplify material palette including roofing, use of wood in lieu of structural and decorative steel and more traditional painted wood siding. Provide detailed information on all materials including proposed path ways, patio and retaining walls. No Staff considers that, while the existing house is compatible with the streetscape in terms of mass, scale and design, because it was significantly altered in 1980 (well outside of the 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), it should be considered non-contributing. At the time the Mapleton Hill Historic District was expanded to include this area, this building was considered non-contributing. The historic preservation ordinance requires that in order to approve a demolition, the Landmarks Board must find the proposal for new construction meets the standards of Section 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3), B.R.C. 1981, ensuring compatible new construction in the context of the historic district. In spite of many compatible elements of this design (in particular the mass, scale and location of the front portion of the house), staff considers that the design substantially inconsistent with the design guidelines and that redesign likely could not be achieved through the imposition of conditions to be reviewed by the Landmarks design review committee. Specifically, the oblique angle of the rear addition and its incompatibility with the front portion of the house (and streetscape) in terms of location and design is substantially inconsistent with the Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Likewise, staff considers the material palette should be revised and simplified to be more in keeping with materials found on historic buildings in Mapleton Hill. Agenda Item #5A Page 29 The construction of new houses in historic districts is relatively rare and great care needs to be taken to ensure compatibility. Given the proposed front setback of only 14’, and proximate location to the street, this is especially important. Staff recognizes the considerable thought that has gone into the design of this building, and finds the front portion to be generally contextual in terms of mass and scale. However, it also considers that the building’s front and rear portions should be better unified to reflect the proportion of historic buildings of similar size found in the district. Consideration should be given to redesigning the footprint of the house to eliminate the oblique angle of the rear portion. Likewise, consideration should also be given to reconfiguring window proportion, spacing, and scale on elevations of the rear portion of the house visible from public ways, to reflect more traditional patterns found in the district. Similarly, the material palette should be simplified and revised per the Design Guideline analysis. For this reason, staff is recommending denial of the proposal, but suggests that if the Board feels denial is appropriate, that it provide the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the current proposal for redesign, after providing feedback on how they might redesign a house be more consistent with the standards of Section 9-11-18. Allowing the applicant to withdraw would prevent the applicant from waiting a year to reapply per 9-11-17(c), B.R.C. 1981. FINDINGS Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be inconsistent with purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and finds that the proposed work does not meet the standards specified in Section 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed work is also inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Board deny the application. The issues that should be addressed by the applicant in the redesign include massing, scale, height and materials, as well as the stylistic approach to the design of the house. The redesign should address these issues in a manner that is more consistent with these guidelines and with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: The Landmarks Board finds that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the project meets the standards for an alteration certificate requirements set forth in Section 9-11-- 18, “Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the information in the staff Agenda Item #5A Page 30 memorandum dated December 2, 2015, and the evidence provided to the Board at its December 2, 2015 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds that: (1) The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district. Section 9-11- 18(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981. (2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on the proposed construction will be incompatible with the character of the historic district. Section 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. (3) With respect to the proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the proposed new construction to replace the building does not meet the requirements of s and (3) above. Section 9-11-18(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981. ATTACHMENTS: A: Tax Assessor Card B: Photographs C: Applicant’s Materials Agenda Item #5A Page 31 Attachment A: Tax Assessor Card Agenda Item #5A Page 32 Agenda Item #5A Page 33 Agenda Item #5A Page 34 Agenda Item #5A Page 35 Agenda Item #5A Page 36 Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1929. Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1978. Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1985. Agenda Item #5A Page 37 Attachment B: Photographs South (Front) Elevation, View from Spruce St., 2016. East (Side) Elevation, 2016. Agenda Item #5A Page 38 North (Rear) Elevation, 2016 West (Side) Elevation, 2016 Agenda Item #5A Page 39 Attachment C: Applicant’s Materials Agenda Item #5A Page 40 Agenda Item #5A Page 41 Agenda Item #5A Page 42 Agenda Item #5A Page 43 Agenda Item #5A Page 44 Agenda Item #5A Page 45 Agenda Item #5A Page 46 Agenda Item #5A Page 47 Agenda Item #5A Page 48 Agenda Item #5A Page 49 Agenda Item #5A Page 50 Agenda Item #5A Page 51 Agenda Item #5A Page 52 Agenda Item #5A Page 53 Agenda Item #5A Page 54 Agenda Item #5A Page 55 Agenda Item #5A Page 56 Agenda Item #5A Page 57 Agenda Item #5A Page 58 Agenda Item #5A Page 59 Agenda Item #5A Page 60 Agenda Item #5A Page 61 Agenda Item #5A Page 62 Agenda Item #5A Page 63 Agenda Item #5A Page 64 Agenda Item #5A Page 65 Agenda Item #5A Page 66 Agenda Item #5A Page 67 Agenda Item #5A Page 68 Agenda Item #5A Page 69 Agenda Item #5A Page 70 Agenda Item #5A Page 71 Agenda Item #5A Page 72 Agenda Item #5A Page 73 Agenda Item #5A Page 74 Agenda Item #5A Page 75 Agenda Item #5A Page 76 Agenda Item #5A Page 77 Agenda Item 5C - Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M December 7, 2016 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application for the building located at 1580 Cress Ct., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00271). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 1580 Cress Ct. 2. Date of Construction: 1937 3. Zoning: RE (Rural Estate) 4. Existing House Size: 2,193 sq. ft. (approx.) 5. Lot Size: 22,109 sq. ft. (approx.) 6. Owner/Applicant: Donald Hackstaff STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: I move that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition permit application for the building located at 1580 Cress Ct. finding that, due to a lack of architectural, historic or environmental significance, the property is not eligible for landmark designation, and adopt the staff memorandum dated December 7, 2016, as the findings of the board. The Landmarks Board recommends that prior to issuance of the demolition permit, staff require the applicant to submit to CP&S staff for recording with Carnegie Library: 1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property; 2. Measured elevation drawings of all faces of the buildings depicting existing conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans. Agenda Item 5C - Page 2 3. Archival quality color photographs of the exterior of the building, including at least one photograph of each side. Should the board choose to issue a stay-of-demolition, a 180-day stay period would expire on April 18, 2017. If the board chooses to place a stay of demolition on the application, staff recommends the following motion language: I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 1580 Cress Ct., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager, findings listed below, in order to explore alternatives to demolition of the building. 1. The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic and architectural significance; 2. The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; 3. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 19, 2016 the Planning Housing & Sustainability (PH&S) Department received a demolition permit application for the building at 1580 Cress Ct. The building is not located within a historic district, but is over 50 years old. The action proposed (full demolition) meets the definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. On August 26, 2016, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was “probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark.” PURPOSE OF THE BOARD’S REVIEW Pursuant to Section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981, demolition requests for all buildings built prior to 1940 require review by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc). The Ldrc is comprised of two members of the Landmarks Board and a staff member. If, during the course of its review, the Ldrc determines that there is “probable cause to consider the property may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark,” the issuance of the permit is stayed for up to 60 days from the date a completed application was accepted and the permit is referred to the board for a public hearing. If the Landmarks Board finds that the building proposed for demolition may have significance under the criteria in subsection (f) of Section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981, the application shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete to provide the time Agenda Item 5C - Page 3 necessary to consider alternatives to the building demolition. If imposed, a 180-day stay period would start when the completed application was accepted by the city manager (October 20, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on April 18, 2017. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981. DESCRIPTION The approximately 22,110 square foot property is located on Cress Court, south of Norwood Avenue and east of Broadway. The property slopes from Cress Court to the house, and then the topography steps to the south by means of a stone retaining wall. The approximately 2,193 sq. ft. building is oriented to the south, away from its modern access via Cress Court. A two-car garage, constructed in 1982, is the most visible site feature from the street. Due to the topography of the site and the orientation of the building, only the low, gable roof of the house is visible from Cress Ct. The property is not located in an identified potential historic district. Figure 1. Location Map, 1580 Cress Ct. Figure 2. 1580 Cress Ct., As Viewed from Cress Court, 2016. Agenda Item 5C - Page 4 Figure 3. 1580 Cress Ct., South Elevation, 2016. The L-shaped building has a shallow pitched gable roof on the western portion, a shallow hipped roof on the eastern portion and is of frame construction clad in local stone. The south elevation, originally the façade when the building was accessed from Meadow Avenue, is unadorned with the exception of the window and door openings. A large picture window is located near the southwest corner of the building, with a pedestrian door located to the east. Two smaller window openings are also located on this elevation of the building. The eastern portion of the building steps to the north, and features a random pattern of window openings. A second pedestrian door with a concrete stoop is located near the intersection of the hip and gable roofs. The stones are laid in a soldier course above the opening on the hip roof portion of the building, and above the window on the east elevation of the gable portion. This is the extent of the architectural detailing on this otherwise modest building. Agenda Item 5C - Page 5 Figure 4. 1580 Cress Ct., West Elevation, 2016. The west elevation features a low gable roof, flanked by two windows. The stones above the openings on the west elevation are also vertically aligned. A concrete walk wraps around this elevation. Figure 5. 1580 Cress Ct., East Elevation, 2016. A fourth door is located on the east elevation, and is accessed by concrete steps. Two smaller, square windows flank this entrance. Figure 6. 1580 Cress Ct., Northeast Corner, 2016. Agenda Item 5C - Page 6 The north elevation features smaller casement windows and is otherwise unadorned. A portion of this elevation is clad in shingles. All windows and doors appear to have been replaced. The applicant notes they were changed in the 1990s. Figure 7. 1580 Cress Ct., Non-historic Garage, facing south, 2016. A two-car, frame, gabled roof garage is located north of the main house. The demolition of the garage would not require historic preservation review as it was constructed in 1981. Fronting onto Cress Ct., the garage is accessed by a concrete driveway. It is clad in wide, wood siding with teal trim on its north elevation, and unpainted, narrower wood siding on its east side. A gravel parking area is located along the north elevation. The site has been divided into two flattened terraces. The north terrace is a grassy lawn, while the south terrace is the site of the house and another flat, grassy lawn to its south. The north terrace is held by a retaining wall of large, native sandstone boulders, while the south is retained by a large berm, the sides of which are covered in loose stone rubble. The retaining wall was constructed in the 1990s. Mature vegetation is located along the south and west property lines. Agenda Item 5C - Page 7 Figure 8. Southwest corner, county assessor’s photo, c. 1960. Image courtesy Boulder Carnegie Library. Alterations The building retains its overall form and materiality while the windows, originally divided light, and doors were replaced in the 1990s. The owners believe the building was converted from its agricultural use into a duplex in the mid-1950s. The garage was constructed in 1982. Condition No information on the condition of the property has been received. Externally, the house appears to be in good condition. Cost of Repair or Restoration The applicant has not submitted information on the cost of repair or restoration. PROPERTY HISTORY The building currently addressed as 1580 Cress Ct. was originally constructed as part of an agricultural complex at 1400 Meadow Ave. The main house, constructed in 1937, was a two-story stone house with a clipped gable roof which was subsequently added to in multiple phases and in 2013, a demolition permit application was approved for the building. Other buildings on the property appear to have included a one-story frame building with a metal roof, and the subject building. Agenda Item 5C - Page 8 Figure 9. 1400 Meadow Ave. (1560 Cress Ct.), Tax Assessor Card, c. 1950. The 1987 Historic Building Inventory Form for the property notes that the building at 1580 Cress Ct. was used as a honey house for a bee farm operated by O. G. Warne.1 Oliver and Ethel Warne resided at 1560 Cress Ct. (see Figure 9) from about 1938 until 1973. In 1964, they created the Warne subdivision, dividing the farm into eleven residential lots. The subject building at 1580 Cress Ct. was converted into a duplex (likely in the mid-1950s) and continues to be utilized as a rental today. Oliver Warne appears to have purchased the subject property around 1944. He and Ethel reportedly resided in the main house and used the one-story 1937 stone building to keep bees. Oliver is first listed in the city directories as a beekeeper in 1956. His brother, Ralph, is listed as an apiarist (beekeeper) in the 1940 census. Warne’s obituary notes in 1967 that “he had operated a beekeeping business here for many years.” Warne platted the Warne Subdivision in 1964. It includes eleven properties (Lots 1-11, Warne Subdivision). Two properties face Norwood Avenue, and nine are oriented around Cress Court. Warne passed away in 1967. Oliver G. Warne was born on May 4, 1897, in Galaton, Pennsylvania to Lee and Maynie Warne.2 He spent his early life in New York and later Oklahoma, coming to Boulder in 1921 with his parents.3 He served in the U.S. Navy during World War I. In 1930, the 1 Simmons, R.L. and T. H. Simmons, “Boulder Survey of Historic Places, Scattered Resources, 1995.” City of Boulder, 1995. 2 Selective Service System, World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. United States, 1918. Ancestry.com. 3 Oliver Warne Dies Following Brief Illness. Daily Camera. 10 October 1967. Agenda Item 5C - Page 9 Warnes resided on a farm at 3050 12th St. (Broadway) with their children Oliver, Ralph, Bart, Esther and Wesley. Oliver and Lee both worked as house painters. Oliver and Ethel Isabella Hynd married in the study of the Presbyterian Church on December 27, 1941. The Daily Camera reported that the bride wore a “street length dress of blue wool with matching accessories…her corsage was of orchids.”4 Ethel Hynd was born May 2, 1900 in Kay County, Oklahoma.5 She attended the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical college in Stillwater. In 1940, Ethel lived with her Scottish uncle, James Hynd, at 1040 14th St. in Boulder. Her aunt, Isabella Lawson Hynd, was a landscape painter, whose “canvasses hung in some of the prominent homes of the intermountain region.”6 Ethel died at the age of 73 in a car accident at Highway 287 and Lookout Road. At the time, she lived at 1560 Cress Ct. with her siblings, Robert and Julia. The Warnes did not have children. In 1973, Ethel Warne sold the property to Jack and Patricia Ann Lacy. The Lacy LLC retains ownership today. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION: Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, provides that: … “the Landmarks Board shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria: (1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981; (2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; (3) The reasonable condition of the building; and (4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) of this section, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.” As detailed below, while the property meets some of the criteria for landmark designation, staff does not consider this property potentially eligible for designation as an individual landmark. 4 Ethel Hynd and Oliver Warne Married Saturday. Daily Camera. 27 December 1941 5 Ibid. 6 Miss Isabella Lawson. Carnegie Branch Library. Agenda Item 5C - Page 10 CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY The following is a result of staff’s research of the property relative to the significance criteria for individual landmarks as adopted by the Landmarks Board on Sept. 17, 1975. See Attachment E: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The building located at 1580 Cress Ct. meets historic significance under criterion 1. 1. Date of Construction: 1937 Elaboration: The Historic Building Inventory records a construction date of 1937, based on the Boulder County Assessor records. 2. Association with Persons or Events: Oliver and Ethel Warne Elaboration: Oliver and Ethel resided in the house at 1560 Cress Ct. and reportedly utilized the building at 1580 Cress Ct. in their bee keeping operations. Oliver Warne platted the Warne Subdivision in 1964. While interesting, staff does not consider the Warnes to be of local, state or national significance. 3. Development of the Community: Agriculture Elaboration: The building at 1580 Cress Ct. was constructed as part of an agricultural complex in 1937 and was likely converted to a duplex in the mid-1950s. North Boulder remained largely rural in character through the 1950s, when area began to be annexed into city limits. The farm was subdivided in 1964 and all other buildings associated with the farm have since been demolished. The agricultural character of the property no longer remains. 4. Recognition by Authorities: 1995 Scattered Resources Survey Elaboration: The 1995 Historic Resources Survey noted that, although altered, the building reflects vernacular masonry agricultural building construction and is notable for its use of native stone. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The building located at 1580 Cress Ct. meets historic significance under criteria 1 and 5. 1. Recognized Period or Style: Vernacular Masonry Elaboration: The low, one-story building reflects vernacular masonry agricultural building construction. 2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Unknown Agenda Item 5C - Page 11 3. Artistic Merit: None observed. 4. Example of the Uncommon: Agricultural Property Elaboration: The building is associated with Boulder’s early agricultural past, and is unusual as an agricultural building that was later converted to living space. However, due to the development of the property following its subdivision in 1964, staff considers that the property no longer retains its agricultural character. 5. Indigenous Qualities: Native Stone. Elaboration: The building utilizes native stone cladding in its design. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house located at 1580 Cress Ct. meets environmental significance under criteria 2. 1. Site Characteristics: Terraced Landscape Elaboration: The building is sited on a sloping lot with an excellent vista across Boulder. The site features a series of terraced lawns, initiated in the 1990s. 2. Compatibility with Site: Scale, massing and placement Elaboration: The building was constructed when the property was accessed from the south by Meadows Avenue. The scale and massing does not overwhelm the site. 3. Geographic Importance: None Observed. Elaboration: The building is minimally visible from the public right of way and is not a familiar visual landmark of the community. 4. Environmental Appropriateness: None Observed. Elaboration: The surrounding character was significantly changed following the subdivision of the property in 1964. The surrounding buildings were largely constructed in the 1970s and staff considers that is does not retain historic agricultural character. 5. Area Integrity: None Observed Elaboration: The property is not located in a potential or designated historic district. The former agricultural property is today surrounded by residential development that was largely constructed in the last 40 years. CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Agenda Item 5C - Page 12 The building at 1580 Cress Ct. was constructed around 1937 as part of an agricultural complex. North Boulder remained largely agricultural until the mid-1950s when this area began to be annexed into the city of Boulder. The Warnes subdivided their farm in 1964, creating the Warne Subdivision, comprised of eleven residential properties. Two are oriented toward Norwood Avenue and nine face Cress Court, and were constructed between 1959 and 2015. The original farmhouse at 1560 Cress Ct. was approved for demolition in 2013 due to a loss of architectural integrity through the construction of many additions. The building at 1580 Cress Ct. remains as an early tie to the property’s agricultural history, but staff considers that due to a loss of the property’s agricultural character, the building is not eligible for individual landmark designation. CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING No details concerning the condition of the building were submitted as part of this application. The building appears to be in good condition. CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR: No estimate of the cost of restoration or repair has been made. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT: Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter. THE BOARD’S DECISION: If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall issue a demolition permit. If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have significance under the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the demolition of the building. Section 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period would expire on April 18, 2017. FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: Agenda Item 5C - Page 13 Issuance of a demolition permit for the building at 1580 Cress Ct. is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that: 1. The building does not possess strong historic, architectural or environmental significance; 2. The property has lost its historic relationship to the neighborhood due to subdivision of the property in 1964 and subsequent development of the area; reorientation of the access to the property from the south (Meadows Ave.) to the north (Cress Ct.); and demolition of the primary house in 2013. 3. The building will be thoroughly documented through Historic American Building Survey Level II recordation. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Current Photographs Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946 Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials Agenda Item 5C - Page 14 Attachment A: Current Photographs 1580 Cress Ct., South Elevation, 2016 1580 Cress Ct., Southeast Corner, 2016. Agenda Item 5C - Page 15 1580 Cress Ct., Northeast Corner, 2016. 1580 Cress Ct., West Elevation, 2016. Agenda Item 5C - Page 16 Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946 Agenda Item 5C - Page 17 Agenda Item 5C - Page 18 Tax Assessor Photograph, 1960 Agenda Item 5C - Page 19 Tax Assessor Card for 1560 Cress Ct., c.1949 – 1961 Agenda Item 5C - Page 20 Tax Assessor Card for 1560 Cress Ct., c.1949 – 1961 Agenda Item 5C - Page 21 1560 Cress Ct., Tax Assessor Photograph, c. 1949. 1560 Cress Ct., Tax Assessor Photograph, c. 1949. Agenda Item 5C - Page 22 Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form Agenda Item 5C - Page 23 Agenda Item 5C - Page 24 Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory House Constructed 1937 1938 O. G. Warne (Resided at 1400 Meadows/1560 Cress Ct.) 1944 Agricultural use Oliver and Ethel Warne, Beekeepers 1956 Warne By 1960 Converted to duplex Oliver G. Warne (owner); Gene R. Sellmer (owner); Warne Bee Farms 1965 Jack and Patricia Ann Lacy 1972 William A. Pennyington Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Individual Landmark September 1975 On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of the ordinance is the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its own organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the board to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner. Historic Significance The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be the site of a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community. Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the structure. Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state, or local. Agenda Item 5C - Page 25 Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some cases residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage. Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder Historical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schooland, etc), State Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L. Olmsted, or others in published form as having historic interest and value. Other, if applicable. Architectural Significance The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon. Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style, i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture (Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published source of universal or local analysis of a style. Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or builder who is recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally. Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship. Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship that are representative of a significant innovation. Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area. Other, if applicable. Environmental Significance The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the protection of the unique natural and man-made environment. Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation. Agenda Item 5C - Page 26 Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or other qualities of design with respect to its site. Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is situated in a manner particularly suited to its function. Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental importance and continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of context might not qualify under other criteria. DATE: December 7, 2016 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron SUBJECT: Update Memo Library Commission and Landmarks Board Joint Meeting A joint Library Commission and Landmarks Board meeting was held on November 17. The Board and Library Commission agreed to coordinate and share information as the Library Master Plan and planning for the west end of the Civic Area proceeds. University Hill Commercial District – National Register Nomination On December 8, 2015 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. Front Range Research Consultants is now under contract to undertake the work with view to a May 2017 review of a National Register of Historic Places by the State Review Board. Staff had a kick-off meeting with the consultants the second week of October. Atrium Building/Public Market Discussion is ongoing in considering whether the Atrium Building might be used as a Market Hall on a temporary or permanent basis. Historic Boulder has agreed to continue keeping the March 2015 application to landmark the Atrium on hold as exploration of these options continues. Update at meeting. Civic Area The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the Civic Area. Update at Meeting. Grandview Conference Center A memorandum of agreement between the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents has been signed for cooperation in developing the Grandview site for conference center. The agreement sets out a process for consideration of potentially historic buildings in the area. Chautauqua Historic District In 2017, the City of Boulder and the Colorado Chautauqua Association will jointly undertake the development of a lighting plan, establishing a context of the historic use of lighting in the park, a general approach to new lighting, and design guidelines to inform decisions on future lighting proposals. Update at meeting. Landmarks Board Interviews 2017 City Council will hold interviews for the Landmarks Board on either March 9th, 14th or 16th. The application will be available online January 3rd: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards- commissions/boards-commissions