2 - Draft Minutes - Landmarks - October 1, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER
LAI~IDMARKS BOARD
October 1, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
5 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the October 1, 2008 City of Boulder Landmarks Board
meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (mauitained 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.bouldci-plandevelop tlet.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Nancy Kornblum
Leonard May
Tim Plans, Chair
Lisa Podmajersky
John Spitzer
*Andrew Shoemaker *Planning Board representative without a vote
STAFF MEMBF.,RS:
Sue F,llen Harrison, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Itichstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Julie Johnston, Senior I'laruler
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Iistoric Preservation Planner
Allison Itawes, Historic Preservation Intern
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
Neil Poulsen, Chief Building Official
Kirk Moors, Senior Plans Examiner/Assistant Building Official
Elizabeth Vasatka, Environmental Coordinator
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll havuig been called, Chair T. Plass declared a quorum at 5:03 pan. and the following
business was conducted.
L. Podmajersky arrived at the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
2. DISCUSSION OF COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS PROJECT ("PUPS & SCRAPES")
S. Richstone introduced J. Johnston, this project's Senior Planner, and Abe Barge, a Winter &
Co. consultant. S. Richstone expressed interest in getting the board's feedback on this project
and outlined the board's involvement as this project moves forward.
A. Barge presented the item to the board. lluring phase 1 of public meetings that were held to
gather community feedback on this project, A. Barge noted that some members of the public
1
disalneed with council's problem statement because they were concerned about future impacts
any regulations might have. He disclosed that the major issues discussed by the public who
agreed with cowicil's problem statement were: long, tall, blank walls, size ofhouses,
sustainability and energy efficiency, mass, scale, bulk, loss of open space, inappropriate
accessory buildings, and the way that current regulations impact development, etc. He asked the
board for feedback specifically addressing any concerns they might have regarding impacts this
project could have on historic districts/resources.
The board answered the consultant's specific questions and provided general feedback regarding
the project.
Question I: In general terms, if you were to modify council's problem definition to apply
more specifically to historic districts and properties, what would you say?
Board members expressed concern about:
1. The fact that staff is not receiving comments from a fair cross-sample of the population
2. Affordability and diversity being issues that should be addressed
3. Speculative projects
A recommendation was made to alter the language regarding historic districts to reflect the
difference between contributing and non-contributing buildings.
Question 2: In your opinion, what are the bil;tiest issues that should be addressed in this
project as they relate to the compatibility of single family development in historic districts
or on historic properties?
The board felt that existing guidelines should be better defined and that more regulatory tools
(and successful application of them) are necessary, particulaz-ly in relation to mass and scale.
The board wanted to ensure that creativity and flexibility of design were not detrimentally
impacted by compatibility regulations.
Question 3: Do the issues vary by context?
The board agreed that the issues do vary by context. They felt that issues were more pronounced
in historic districts and emphasized how lot configuration determines appropriateness of
development on certain lots. Despite the difference in context, the board expressed concern
about equity issues that would be difficult to address on a block by block basis rather than with a
city-wide approach.
Question 4: Do you feel there are similar issues in single-family neighborhoods that are not
in designated historic districts`?
The board felt that this was acity-wide issue.
Question 5: In the design review process have you encountered specific issues with the way
that current regulations influence single family development within historic districts?
2
The board noted the contradiction between what zoning allows in districts and what the
ordinances and guidelines allow in areas and requested more clarity on how open space, mass,
and scale are defined. The board mentioned that solar ordinances are useful in limiting size, but
can result in less compatibly-designed buildings. Historic buildings are sometimes higher than
current height limits allow and setbacks are also different now than they were S0+ years ago
which creates issues.
L. May was nominated as the Landmarks Board representative for the Compatible Development
focus group moving forward.
3. RECESS FOR llINNER, 6-6:30 p.m.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. Podmajersky, the Landmarks Board approved (3-0,
L. May and N. Kornblum abstained) the minutes of the July 14, 2008 board meeting.
On a motion by L. Podmajersky, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board approved (S-t))
the minutes of the August 20, 2008 board meeting.
On a motion by L. Podmajersky, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board approved (S-0)
the minutes of the Scpteznber 3, 2008 board meeting.
S. PUSI,IC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Bruce Dierking, 2S9S Canyon Blvd. updated the board on 800 Arapahoe. He noted that the
historic structure assessment has been conducted and the subdivision is currently in city review.
He expressed some concern about the physical condition of the house due to break-ins since the
house is no longer boarded up. He requested that the board extend the deadline for the historic
designation from Oct. 31 to Uec. 31, but no later than this date. He understood that Historic
Boulder had no objections to this extension.
6. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PEl~'DING
• 9SS Broadway Avenue, Acacia Fraternity Building, stay-of-demolition expires January 19,
2009
• 800 Arapahoe
C. Nleschuk updated the board. on the property at 9SS Broadway.
On a motion by L. May, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board (S-0) extended the
application timeline for the City Council hearing on 800 Arapahoe Avenue froze Oct. 31 to Dec.
31, 2008.
L. Podmajersky asked for an update on 608 Spruce Street which is a 1-story non-contributing
building in the Mapleton Hill T-tstoric District.
3
J. Hewat replied that he will research this property further to insure that the conditions that were
approved in the Landmark Alteration Certificate application and Design Review Committee are
being followed.
7. ACTION TTEMS
LANllMAR.K ALTERATION:
A. Continuation of a public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to relocate (previously to demolish) the contributing garage at 413 Spruce Street
per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code, 198]. (IIIS2008-00177). Owner: Bruce &
Cody Oreck, Applicant: Jim Logan Architecture
Board members were asked to reveal any ex ~ar•te contacts they may have had on this item.
J. Spitzer made site visits and reported email correspondence. T. Plass revealed email
correspondence. L. May, N. KornUlum, and L. Podmajersky made a site visit.
A. Shoemaker recused himself far this item at 6:50 p.m.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat presented the item to the board.
Applicant's Presentation
Jim Logan, 973 Poplar, representing clients Bruce & Cody Oreck, spoke in support of the LAC
to relocate the contributing garage. He noted that there is a requirement for an off-street parking
space in this location and that it be paved; therefore, he felt it would be an undue burden on lvs
client to require the pad to be relocated with the garage since a parking space would need to be in
the original garage location to meet parking space requirements.
Public Hearing
Cindy Carlisle, 4ll Spruce Street, neighbor, spoke in support of the LAC to relocate the
contributing garage, but noted that she would prefer that the board allow demolition of the
garage rather than just relocation since she felt the garage did not contribute anything to the
nei ghborhood/property.
Applicant Rebuttal
J. Logan clarified the existing curb cuts mentioned in the public hearing.
Motion
On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by T. Plass, the Landmarks Board approved (3-2, L.
Podmajersky anal N. Kornblum opposed), with the conditions below, the request to relocate the
contributing garage on the property at 413 Spruce Street as requested in the revised application
dated 09.04.2008, finding that it meets the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, S.R.C. 1981 and is substantially consistent with section 7
"Garages, Carports, and Accessory Buildings", of the General Design Guidelines and section U
of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. The board adopted the staff memo
dated 10.01..08 as findings for its decision.
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shalt be responsible for constructing the house in compliance with the
approved plans dated 10.01.2008, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and. final issuance of the Landmark
Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, subject to the final review
and approval of the Landmarks Design Review Committee: final architectural plans for
the move and rehabilitation of the garage that include materials and colors of roofing,
windows, doors, and paint colors to insure that the approval is consistent with the
General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton dill Historic District Guidelines and the
intent of this approval.
L. May offered a friendly amendment to add to the conditions of approval the removal of the
concrete pad and the driveway where the existing location of the historic accessory building is
and to replace it with a material that is consistent with design guidelines. J. Spitzer and T. Plass
accepted the friendly amendment.
A. Shoemaker returned from recusal at 7:37 p.m.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION:
B. Consideration of initiating individual landmark designation for the property at 1904-
1912 and 19181/Z Pearl Street, per Section 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(HIS2008-00085). Owner: Ringsby Family LLLP, Applicant: Landmarks Board.
Staff Presentation
C. Meschuk presented the item to the board.
Danica Powell, 2255 Kincaid Place, representative of Urban Frontiers, the prospective
purchaser of the property, has been working with staff to process their demolition/relocation
request. She discussed the historic backlnound of these buildzzigs. She spoke about the fact that
these properties would not be eligible for landmarking because of their lack of•intcgrity and
mentioned that the cost of rehabilitation /restoration of these buildings would be prohibitive. She
mentioned that the Lund Hotel/former Coop building has little historic integrity and is not
considered to be contributing. The demolition request for the cottage was removed because it is
historically and architecturally significant and relleets the history of the site. Options that she
outlined for the cottage were that it remain on site or that it be moved one block to be near the
September School and used as an educational building. Urban Frontiers requested that the
cottage be moved and incorporated into the September School's resources.
Public Hearing
Charles Martin, 349 Mountain King Rd., member of the September School Board of
Directors. He expressed support for moving the cottage onto their grounds and restoring it for
the puzposes of education and historic preservation.
Leonard Thomas, 3135 23r`~ Street, spoke in opposition to landmarking the Lund Hotel. He did
not associate this building with the historic downtown area.
5
Jed MacArthur, 1155 Canyon #301, current downtown resident, spoke in support of the staff
recommendation to move the alley cottage to be part of the September School.
Harvey Hine, 961 Gapter Rd., spoke in support of demolishing the hotel and building
something significant in its place.
Abby Daniels, Director of Historic Boulder, 1123 Spruce, strongly encouraged the
preservation of the alley cottage in its present location and. felt that the Lwid Hotel was of
historic significance, but more information regarding its condition integrity was needed.
Motion
On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. l~~Iay, the Landmarks Board initiated (4-l, N.
Kornblum opposed) landmark designation for the entire property at 1904-1912 and 19181/2
Pearl Street and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance no fewer than 60 days and no greater than 120 days from the date of this resolution.
The board recessed at 9:05 p.m. and resumed at 9:15 p.m.
LANllMARK DESIGNATION:
C. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the house and
property at 2303 Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark per Section 9-11-5 of the
Boulder Revised Code, 1.981. (IIIS2008-00158). Applicant/Owvner: Douglas E. Johnson &
Theresa Hernandez
Board members were asked to reveal any ex carte contacts they may have had on this item.
T. Plass, L. May, L. Podmajersky, and A. Shoemaker revealed no ex-parte contacts. N.
Kornblum made a site visit. J. Spitzer noted that he had exchanged emails regarding this item.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat presented Action Items 7C and 7D to the board.
Applicant's Presentation
Douglas Johnson, 2303 Mapleton, owner of the properties, spoke in support of designating the
houses at both 2303 Mapleton Ave. and 2316 23` Street as local historic landmarks.
Public Hearing
Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, 1123 Spruce Street, spoke in support of designating the
houses at both 2303 Mapleton Ave. and 2316 23T`~ Street as local historic landmarks and
commended D. Johnson for his desire to landmark his properties.
Motion
On a motion by N. Kornblum, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board (5-0)
recommended to City Council to designate the house and property at 2303 Mapleton Avenue as a
local historic landmark, to be known as the 13erkert House, finding that it meets the standards for
individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C.. 1981 and adopted the
staff memorandum dated 10.01.08 including the following as findings of the board:
6
FINDINGS:
The Landmarks Board found, based upon the application and evidence presented, that the
proposed Landmark designation application for 2303 Ylapleton Avenue will be consistent with
the purposes acid standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
1. The proposed designation will protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas of
the City reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national
history and providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. (9-11-1(a),
B.R.C. 1981)
2. The proposed designation will develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments
for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods,
promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City's living heritage. (9-11-
1(a), B.R.C. 1981)
3. The proposed. designation with the amended boundary draws a reasonable balance between
private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and. structures important to
that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives. (9-11-1(b}, B.R.C. 1981).,
LANDMARK DESIGNATION:
D. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the house and property
at 2316 23r`' Street as a local historic Landmark per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised
Code, 1981 (HIS2008-0021'x. Applicant/Owner: Douglas E. Johnson & Theresa Hernandez
Board memUers were asked to reveal any ex carte contacts they niay have had on this iten2.
T. Plass, h. May, L. Podmajersky, and A. Shoemaker revealed no ex-parte contacts.
N. Kornblum and J. Spitzer made a site visit.
Motion
On a motion by N. Kornblum, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board (5-0)
recommended to City Council to desilmate the house and property at 2316 23rd Street as a Local
historic landmark, to be known as the Fred Hcrkert Cottage, finding that it meets the standards
for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C., 1981 and adopted the
staff memorandum dated 10.1)1.08 including the following as findings of the board:
FINDINGS:
The Landmarks Board found, based upon the application and evidence presented, that the
proposed landmark designation application for 2316 23rd Street will be consistent with the
purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
1. The proposed designation will protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas
of the City reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or
national history and providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. (9-
11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981)
7
L
2. The proposed designation will develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize
neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City's
living heritage. (9-11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981)
3. The proposed designation with the amended boundary draws a reasonable balance
between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural,
historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures
important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives. (9-11-1(b),
B.R.C. 1981).
E. Public hearing and discussion of changes to Title 10, "Structures," S.R.C. 1981, on
the following proposed ordinances.
1. An Ordinance amending Section 10-7-2, "Energy Conservation and Insulation
Code" by Adding an Additional Energy Efficiency Requirement for Commercial
Buildings, and setting forth related details.
2. An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-7.5, Green Building and Green Points
Program," B.R.C. 1981 Adding Requirements Related to Energy Efficiency
Thresholds for Remodels and Additions, Demolition, Boilers, and Windows; and
setting forth related details.
3. An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-5, 'Building Code," B.R.C. 1981, to Adopt
Minor Changes to the International Building Code Related to the Expiration of
Permits and setting forth related details.
4. An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-6, "Electrical Code", B.K.C. 1981 Adopting
by Reference the 2006 International Electrical Code" with Local Amendments and
setting forth related details.
K. Moors presented the item to the board.
K. Moors noted that if full compliance with the energy code put historic designation in jeopardy
that the energy efficiency requirements would become secondary to maintaining the building's
historic designation.
T. Plass asked how the amendment varied from the original language of the ordinance. He
wanted to be sure that demolitions would not be triggered inadvertently.
K. Moors replied that if the size of an addition went over a certain limit, it would be handled as a
new construction as far as energy efficiency requirements.
T. Plass inquired about what type of changes would trigger the new construction requirements?
K. Moors replied that a 3,000 sq. ft. structure would need a HERs rating of 70, which would
have a wall with R-19 insulation, an R-5 rigid insulation, an R-48 in the attic, and a U value of
.35 window.
J. Spitzer asked about insulation in homes that don't have attics.
8
K. Moors replied that better insulation (with a higher R value) would be used in the windows
and wails in this case. The minimum value that would be seen is R-38. R-40 and 48 are fairly
common in I~ERs ratings.
~ L. May asked about air ceiling in existing structures.
K. Moors noted the importance of testing for air ceiling. The blower door test helps test air
ceiling. He mentioned that this is more complicated for existnng constructions, but this test can
effectively find air leaks and allow for the leaks to be sealed in accessible areas.
L. May asked about applying the HERS rating to extensive remodeling of existing structures.
K. Moors responded that this would depend on the size of the structure and how low the HERS
rating must be. Rigid insulation on the outside would probably be required in this case.
Staff requested Landmarks Board feedback on the proposed recommendations to the City
Council for changes to Title 10, "Structures," I3.R.C. 1981.
T. Plass supported the thresholds that were put in this program because he felt they would
probably limit addition size. He felt this proposal did a good job of balancing demolitions with
existing housing stock sand gneening these buildings. He was generally in favor of the proposal
for the amendment to the Green Points Programs. He suggested tracking demolition trends over
the next year for evaluation puxposes.
K. Moors reminded the board that historic designations would always take precedence over
meeting the standards of the energy codes.
L. Podmajersky expressed some concern over alterations made to non-designated properties to
meet energy requirements that would then prevent them from being eligible for historic
designation.
J. Hewat expressed support for staff's recommendations about the Green Points program from a
Historic Preservation perspective.
J. Spitzer liked that the li-value for windows discouraged the use of SDL lights, but suggested
the allowable value should be .35.
In general, the Landmarks Board expressed support for staff's recommended changes to the
Green Points program.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board supported (S-0) the
Ordinance amending Chapter 10-7.5 Green I3uilding and Green Points Program, B.R.C. 1981
Adding Requirements Related to Energy Efficiency Thresholds for Remodels and Additions,
Demolition, Boilers, and Windows and setting forth related details in an attempt to strike the
proper balance between greening our existing building stock and reducing demolitions. The
9
board had concerns on page 44 of the staff memorandum dated 10.1.08 under energy efficiency
E to A, and xeconunended that the value should be .35 rather than .34.
8. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND
CITY ATTORNEY
A. Planrruig Board Calendar
B. Boulder Transit Village Concept Plan Update
J. Hewat noted that this item is being reviewed by the Planning Board far Concept Review on
Nov. 13, ?008. He noted that more space around the depot would be preferable and that the
parking building on site will need to be thought out carefully considering its proximity to the
depot.
He asked the board for any comments that they would like passed along (regarding Transit
Village's impact on the Depot's new location).
J. Spitzer expressed concern about the Transit Village's lay-out and that it did nothing to invite
people into the area. The current design is not agate-way; it is simply a bus terminal.
L. May noted that this desigm is lacking a "sense of arrival." He felt the design was
unimaginative and mainly consisted of a bus terminal.
Overall, the board was unimpressed and negative about the current desig7i of the Transit Village
Concept Plan. The board suggested having shops and sheltered areas rather than just bus bays in
this area.
C. Review of post-WWII residential subdivisions draft survey context
J. Hewat requested general comments from the board regarding the draft survey.
Carrie Schomig and Jen Bryant, consultants from TEC, Inc., were available to answer any
board comments.
A. Shoena~aker encouraged the consultants to continue to include and expand upon the prc-
WWII content.
T. Plass suggested tightening up the national information section- he felt this section needed a
conclusion/summary. He and J. Spitzer both enjoyed the cartoons that reflected the Amezzcan
Dream. In the local section he suggested discussing the differences between Boulder and other
locations. Hc'd like to see a visual of the subdivision during the survey's period of study. He felt
that the Boulder section needed a conclusion as well. Overall, he really appreciated it and
thought they'd done a nice job.
D. National Register nomination for individual listing of Arnett-Fullen House
10
J. Hewat provided the board with information about this nomination and asked the board for any
comments to pass along to the nomination committee by November 12, 2008.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by L. May, the Landmarks Board (5-0) expressed that they
are entirely delighted and enthusiastic about the proposal.
T. Plass noted a mistake in the memo/survey on page 3S where it states that this property was
listed as a city of Boulder landmark in 1990 and was one of the first houses in Boulder to have
this distinction. He noted that this is incorrect and should be corrected.
L. Pvdmajersky asked about the status of the Washington School boundary.
J. Hewat replied that the boundary is not changing.
L. May mentioned that more than 50% of the cases heard by the Landmarks Board within the
past two years have gone against staff recommendation. There is public awareness of this and he
was interested in discussing how staff and the board can move together in a more unified
fashion. He suggested a special meeting to discuss this issue along with demolitions.
Staff will determine a time for a special Landmarks Board meeting for these discussions prior to
their next scheduled meeting.
Staff will also coordinate a time for Landmarks Board to go on a tour of the post-WWII
neighborhoods being surveyed.
9. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at I I:15 p.m.
Approved on November S, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Chaizperson
11