The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMeeting Packet - Landmarks - 7/6/2011 CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 1 e414 4 4 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop. net Historic Preservation Reviews Between May 21, 2011 and June 24, 2011 This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the stated date range.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: 18 HIS2010-00161 553 MAPLETON AV A Mapleton Hill Reconstruction of front porch, additiona of stair to rear porch, and removal of privacy fence - all as detailed on landmark alteraration certificate drawings dated 04.25.2011. Sequence 117 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/14/2011 By LDRC HIS2011-00051 568 MARINE ST Highland Lawn Construction of one-story garage as specified on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 05/06/2011. Rolling and exterior colour scheme will be reviewed and approved in separate landmark alteration certificate submission. Sequence 38 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/23/2011 By: LDRC HIS2011-00061 0 9TH ST Individual Landmark Construction of gable end, 320 sq. ft. storage and maintenance building at west side of property as presented by CU class on 06.01.2011 and detailed on model and drawings identified as landmark alteration certificate plans. Sequence 46 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/03/2011 BT_ LDRC HIS2011-00099 2041 5TH ST Mapleton Hill Replacement of non-historic casement windows on north (secondary) elevation of house as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated dated 05.13.2011. Sequence 76 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/03/2011 BT_ LDRC HIS2011-00102 627 SPRUCE ST Mapleton Hill Change of fenestration on garage including garage door without lights and installation of clad windows as detailed on drawings dated 05.17.2011. Proposal to use cementitious siding and trim will require full board review. Sequence 79 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/03/2011 B Y-* LDRC HIS2011-00104 603 MAXWELL AV Mapleton Hill Construction of side and rear fence with 3, 1/2" wide pickets with 3" spacing between, as detailed on drawings dated 06.08.2011 and identified as LAC plans. Printed on 06/24/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 1 of 5 Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 18 Sequence 81 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/09/2011 Bw LDRC HIS2011-00108 1750 13TH ST Individual Landmark Installation of 19.32 Kw solar panel system below parapet of roof on Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art Building as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.01.2011. Sequence 83 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/09/2011 B y., LDRC HIS2011-00110 2027 13TH ST Downtown Installation of awning black, with white lettering approximately 37 feet in length, projecting 5'6" from building, 3'6" drop, with valence and signage as deatiled on landmark alteration certificate application dated 05.30.2011. Revocable permit for awning required, and approval for signage & erection of awning by separate building pemit. Sequence 85 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/03/2011 B w- Staff HIS2011-00111 954 PEARL ST Downtown Installation of 4'x 4' skylight on flat roof below parapet - will not be publicly visible from street or alley as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.03.2011. Sequence 86 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/08/2011 LDRC HIS2011-00112 3160 AIRPORT RD Individual Landmark Re-roof landmark building with Tamko Elite Glass-Seal, 3-tab "antique slate" asphalt shingle as specified on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.03.2011. Sequence 87 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/03/2011 B Staff HIS2011-00114 1128 PINE ST Mapleton Hill Selective removal and repointing of loose and missing mortar joints using combination ASTM Type N and Type O lime -based mortars to physically and visually match existing mortar and joint profile as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.02.201 land spplemental information dated 06.15.2011. Sequence 89 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/22/2011 By Staff HIS2011-00115 1134 MAXWELL AV Mapleton Hill Construction of low wrought iron fence, facing of low reating wall with flagstone, and facing of walk steps with flagstone - all as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.10.2011. Sequence 90 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/16/2011 Staff HIS2011-00116 315 SPRUCE ST Mapleton Hill Reroof house with "GAF Timberline, Hunter Green" as specified on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.10.2011. Printed on 06/24/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 2 of 5 Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 18 Sequence 91 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/16/2011 Bw Staff HIS2011-00117 946 PEARL ST Downtown Installation of new awning on storefront with signage as specified on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.10.2011. Sequence 92 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/16/2011 Staff HIS2011-00119 2005 10TH ST Mapleton Hill Reconstruction of two, south-facing balconies on non-contributing building as detailed in landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.13.2011. Sequence 94 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/22/2011 By: LDRC HIS2011-00121 1125 PINE ST Mapleton Hill Intallation of ground mounted exterior sign in front of the Carnegie Branch Library as detailed on drawings dated 06.15.2011 and identified as landmark alteration certificate plans. Sequence 96 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/15/2011 By: Staff HIS2011-00123 553 MAPLETON AV A Mapleton Hill Reconstruction of front porch as amended on drawings dated 06.17.2011 (amends previously approved drawings dated 04.252011, HIS2010-00161). Sequence 98 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/22/2011 By LDRC HIS2011-00127 900 BASELINE RD Chautauqua Park Installation of commemorative inscribed rail on existing bench as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 06/16/2011. Sequence 100 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/22/2011 By: Staff Landmark Designation Reviews Case Count: 1 HIS2011-00016 1921 PINE ST Individual Landmark Application to individually landmark the Bell House. Desiganted by the City Council 06.07.2011. Sequence 1 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 06/13/2011 B v., LPAB Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1 HIS2011-00107 1300 HAWTHORN AV Not Landmarked DEMOLITION APPLICATION for accessory building Sequence 3 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: Marie Zuzack Date: 06/16/2011 Staff Printed on 06/24/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 3 of 5 Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1 Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 2 HIS2011-00106 1455 KING AV Not Landmarked Demo Review - For demolition of street facing wall for SFD constructed in 1954. Sequence 15 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: Marie Zuzack Date: 06/01/2011 B T_ Staff HIS2011-00125 1500 BALSAM AV Not Landmarked Landmarks review for demolition of roof to facilitate proposed second floor addition. Sequence 16 Decision: Application Approved Case Manager: Marie Zuzack Date: 06/22/2011 Staff Printed on 06/24/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 4 of 5 Historic Preservation Reviews Summary between 5/21/2011 and 6/24/2011 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. The cases listed "in Review" have not yet been resolved and are not shown in relation to the start and end dates. The date on the "In Review" cases is listed as the current date on the main screen of the HIS case. Historic District Amendment In Review 1 Landmark Alteration Certificate Application Approved 18 In Review 97 Landmark Designation Application Approved 1 In Review 10 Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Application Approved 1 In Review 4 Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Application Approved 2 In Review 2 Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation In Review 10 Non-Designated Primary Demolition In Review 15 State Tax Credit In Review 11 Printed on 06/24/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 5 of 5 MEMORANDUM July 6, 2011 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Marie Zuzack, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building located at 1815 Mapleton Ave., per section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2011-00091) for non- landmarked buildings over fifty years old. STATISTICS: 1. Site: 1815 Mapleton Ave. 2. Date of Construction: House c. 1915, Garage likely pre-1906 3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1) 4. Owner: Brad Schell 5. Applicant: Steve Montgomery, Architect STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Planning and Sustainability recommends the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the house and garage located at 1815 Mapleton Ave. for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager and adopt the staff memorandum with the findings as listed below in order to further explore alternatives to the demolition of the building. Alternatives to be considered include rehabilitation of the buildings rather than demolition, either with or without the benefit of tax credits available should the property be landmarked. Staff encourages the applicant to consider landmark designation of the property. Landmark designation would make state tax credits available to help offset the cost of rehabilitation. Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to expire, staff would require submittal of the following to the Department of Community Planning and Sustainability for recording with Carnegie Library: Agenda Item #5A Page I 1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property; 2. Measured elevation drawings of the buildings depicting existing conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans; and 3. Black and white medium format archival quality photographs of all exterior elevations. SUMMARY: On May 6, 2011, the Planning Department received a demolition permit application for the demolition of the house at 1815 Mapleton Ave. and the adjacent detached garage off of the alley. The buildings are both over fifty years old and the property is not in a designated historic district or locally landmarked; however, it is located in the potential Whittier local landmark historic district. The proposed work meets the criteria for demolition defined under section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981. On May 11, 2011, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldre) referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was "probable cause" to consider that the buildings may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The applicant filed an application addendum on May 24, 2011. DESCRIPTION: The property is located in the Whittier neighborhood, on the north side of Mapleton east of 18th Street. The 7,500 sq. ft. lot contains the approximately 1,050 sq. ft., one-story Classic Cottage with a brick exterior and hipped roof (see Figure 1: Location Map, Figure 2: Photo of House June 2011, and Figure 4: Photo of House, likely 1949). The Boulder County Assessor records (Attachment B) indicate the year of construction was 1915. This is borne out by City Directory and Sanborn Fire Insurance Map research. A simple gable, wood frame garage, approximately 290 sq. £t. in size, is located at the rear of the lot, adjacent to the alley (see Figure 3: Photo of Garage June 2011). According to the Assessor records, the garage was constructed in 1950; however, it very likely pre-dates the house, as a garage of similar proportions in the same location is shown on Sanborn maps from 1906 through 1960. Building permit records indicate that only minor, interior modifications have been made to the property over the years. The property contains mature trees and vegetation. Agenda Item #5A Page 2 Is~ ! -c 1 h 1815 Mapleton Av ~r Figure 1: Location Map of~ ~ it - mss' ~ -,..Ww - _ _ ..,y3" 4'• F< Figure 2: 1815 Mapleton House, June 2011 Agenda Item #5A Page 3 r a. , ~r~}• r {fit} 1 4 4 fi .t- " 4 Figure 3: 1815 Mapleton Garage, June 2011 f ,air \tk~,`®r~ ~~~j~~~~t,1~~' ~ 1/111V+~Sff~T~~'lY-•S ;'~,~Y+~Q~ I t rx~•r•-:.~ w0l IF Figure 4: House, County Assessor Card, likely 1949 Agenda Item #5A Pa!e 4 ~ear ~ " . 7 Ti Y1 y 'ky Figure 5: 1815 Mapleton East Elevation, June 2011 LJ§V K F. F. •f y fi Figure 6: 1815 Mapleton South Facade, June 2011 Agenda Item #5A Page 5 _ - 1. ;`~,a'P- ~r~~ t} - ! .t3 I#j~'Jf`.Y 'f6'• Y tig _F zr , 101 t~ Figure 7: 1815 Mapleton Neighborhood Context, Jane 2011 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 are required to be reviewed by Ldre. The Ldre is comprised of two members of the Landmarks Board and a staff member. If during the course of their review, the Ldre determines that there is "probable cause to consider the property may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark, the issuance of the permit shall be stayed for up to sixty days from the date that a completed application is accepted by the city manager, and the permit shall be referred to the landmarks board for a public hearing." Section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981. If the Landmarks Board finds that the building(s) proposed for demolition 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 building demolition. Section 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period would expire on Aug. 22, 2011. Agenda Item #5A Page 6 CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance states 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 is 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. When considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect (section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981). CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY The following is the result of staff's research on the property relative to the significance criteria for individual landmarks adopted by the Landmarks Board on September 17, 1975. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house and garage located at 1815 Mapleton Avenue have historic significance based on 1. and 3. below. 1. Date of Construction: House 1915 and Garage prior to 1906 2. Association with Persons or Events: John W. Beck and Frank P. Ray Elaboration: John W. Beck occupied the house from the time it was built through 1930. The Polk City Directory indicates that he was retired at the time he moved in. He may have been a Civil War veteran, as a photograph of members of the Grand Army of the Republic in the Carnegie Library files, dated between 1815 and 1920, lists a John W. Beck (the list of names is not matched to the faces in the photo). The Directory shows that Mrs. Carrie H. Beck occupied the house from 1936 through 1943. Following the Becks, from 1946 through 1996, the property was owned and occupied by Frank P. Ray, although Mrs. E. Rubie Ray was listed as the householder from 1988 through 1991. Agenda Item #5A Page 7 3. Recognition by Authorities: 1987, Front Range Research Associates Elaboration: The house was surveyed in 1987 and identified as being a contributing building in the potential Whittier historic district. The presence of the garage is noted but it is not described. See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Record. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The buildings at 1815 Mapleton Ave. are architecturally significant under 1. below. 1. Recognized Period or Style: Classic Cottage Elaboration: The house at 1815 Mapleton Ave. is listed by the Front Range Research Associates as Classic Cottage. It features a hipped roof and lower projecting front- gabled dormer with regularly coursed shingles, a small window with architrave surround and a pent roof enclosure. A partial width porch with column supports, a balustrade with wood balusters and classically proportioned frieze dominates the fagade which faces onto Mapleton Avenue. Notable features include: the bay window on the eastern elevation, which has staggered brick corners (see Figure 5: East Elevation, June 2011); double-hung facade windows, which have segmental arches (see Figure 6: South Facade, June 2011); and rusticated stone sills. The blond brick used for the construction of the house is somewhat unusual for its speckled appearance, a result of a darker "clinker" probably having been added to the clay matrix before firing. All of the doors and windows on the house appear to be original. The garage is a character-defining feature of the property with its gable roof form with exposed rafter tails, board and batten siding, fixed wood casement windows, and rolling vehicle door, the rail of which is partially supported by a post several feet west of the building. While it is difficult to determine the exact date of construction of the garage, a building in this location is shown on the Sanborn Maps from 1906 to 1960. The 1950 date of construction given by the County Assessor is unlikely given the form and type of construction typical of an early twentieth century building, especially the rolling door system. 2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None known. 3. Artistic Merit: None observed. 4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed. 5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed. Agenda Item #5A Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: There was no environmental significance found for 1815 Mapleton Ave. 1. Site Characteristics: None observed. 2. Compatibility with Site: None observed. 3. Geographic Importance: None observed. 4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed. 5. Area Integrity: None observed. CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: 1815 Mapleton Ave. has been identified as potentially contributing to the identified potential Whittier local historic district. (Figure 7 shows general neighborhood context.) CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING AND CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR: Front Range Research Associates listed the house as being in good condition. The demolition application materials state that the owner wishes to stabilize the brick walls and stone foundation by installing new concrete foundations that would be engineered for expansive soil conditions. The cost of restoration or repair was not included in the application. ANALYSIS: Staff considers that there is "probable cause" to consider 1815 Mapleton Ave. as being eligible for designation as an individual landmark, based on the criteria described above summarized below: • Criterion 1: Historic Significance due to Date of Construction and Recognition by Authorities; and. Architectural Significance due to Recognized Period or Style Criterion 2: Relationship to Character of Neighborhood Criterion 3: Condition of Building NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT: Staff has not received any communications regarding the demolition permit request for 1815 Mapleton Ave. Agenda Item #5A Page 9 THE BOARD'S DECISION: If the Landmarks Board finds that the building proposed 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 proposed 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 Aug. 22, 2011. FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for 1815 Mapleton Ave. for the following reasons: 1. 1815 Mapleton Ave. may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic and architectural significance; and 2. 1815 Mapleton Ave contributes to the character of the neighborhood and is in good condition. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Record Attachment B: County Assessor Card Agenda Item 95A Page 10 ATTACHMENT A HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD p _a { E GG~~. tG ( }rx~ jyt 9j F /i4 ~''Y+~f 5 Agenda Item #SA Page I I COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation NOT FOR FIELD USE 13130 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 813203 Eligible _ Nominated Bet. Nat Eligible Certified Rehab. HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD Date PROJECT NAME: : CITY: STATE ID NO.: 5BLIS48 Boulder Survey of Historic Places, 1987 : Boulder TEMPORARY NO.: Not applicable CURRENT BUILDING NAME: : OWNER; Frank & Ruby Ray 1815 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80302 : ADDRESS: 1815 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO - TOWNSHIP I N., RANGE 70 W,, SECTION 30, 5 ` 114, Nw 1/4 HISTORIC NAME: : U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: Boulder, Colorado (1966; photorevised 1979) ADDITION: Boulder North YEAR, 1873 DISTRICT NAME: Not applicable : BLOCK: 23 LOTS: 7 FILM ROLL NO.: BL-14 NEGATIVE NO.: 19 : NEGATIVE LOCATION: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: BY: Roger Whitacre : City of Boulder Planning ESTIMATE: 1915 ACTUAL: - SOURCE. Boulder County Assessor's records, 1929 and 1987 . USE: PRESENT: residence HISTORIC: residence ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE. CONDITION: E I EXCELLENT EXI GOOD f I FAIR E I DETERIORATING EXTENT OF ALTERATIONS: IX] MINOR I I MODERATE E I MAJOR DESCRIBE: STYLE: Classic Cottage STORIES: : ORIGINAL SITE EXI MOVED I I 1 : DATE(S) OF MOVE: MATERIALS: brick,. wood ; SQ. FOOTAGE: : FIELD ASSESSMENT: 1378 E I ELIGIBLE IXI NOT ELIGIBLE ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Hipped roof; two front bays. The - front-gabled bay has regularly coursed shingles, a small window : DISTRICT POTENTIAL: with architrave- surround, and a pent roof enclosure, The one bay, : M YES [7CI CONTRIBUTING open, inset, entry porch has column supports; balustrade with : E I NO E I NON-CONTRIBUTING wooden balusters; classical frieze. Notable features include the bay window on the eastern elevation which has staggered brick LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION? I I YES EXI NO corners; the double-hung facade windows which have segmental NAME: DATE: arches; and the rusticated stave sills. Stone foundation. - - - - ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? EXI YES E i NO TYPE: garage ADDITIONAL PAGES: E I YES EXI NO IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.. Agenda Item #5A Page 12 - i PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: unknown STATE ID NUMBER: 5BL1848 . . : ORIGINAL OWNER: unknown . . . . . : SOURCE: : SOURCE: - - - : BUILDERiCONTRACTOR: unknown , . . . . . . . THEME(S): The Urban Frantier . . . . . . : SOURCE: (1850-1920) - - - . . . . . . . . . . . CONSTRUCTION HISTORY: (DESCRIPTIONS, NAMES, DATES, ETC. RELATING TO MAJOR ; ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE) . . . . . . . . CONTINUED? € I YES I I NO - - - - - - - - - HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSONS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STRUCTURE) The current owners of the house, Frank and Ruby Ray, have owned the house since at least the 1940s. CONTINUED? I I YES ; I N'v - - - - - - - - - - SIGNIFICANCE: (CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW) ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE; I I REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER € I ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS I 3 P055E55E5 HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES € 1 ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS IS7 REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION [ I CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT - - - - - - STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: This brick house, built c. 1915, represents Boulder's early, aernacular, middle-class hcusinq. The house, which still features its original porch detail, adds to the architectural diversity of Mapleton Avenue and the Whittier neighborhood. CONTINUED" € E5 € I NO REFERENCES: (BE SPECIFIC) Boulder County Assessor's records, 1929~nd 1487, s CONTINUED? € I YES I I 1110 - - - - - - - - - - SURVEYED BY. L. Simmons/C. Whitacre AFFILIATION: Front Range Research Associates Inc. DATE: Sept. 1987 Agenda Item #5A Page 13 ATTACHMENT B ASSESSOR CARD Appraised I9_ BOULDER COUNTY REAL F STAT F° APPRAISAL irr, ~ I ~r OWIVEIZ r - HOUSE No. "TRENT CITY - hV TOTS BLOCK ADDITIOIJ _ I Year Com,1ructed R M.. Life in Years - 1~~ 111~! imi,A Aw ~ EFITIMAT OF VALUATION E>GILDING PLAN BLDG. VAn•r A HLDG.FA1VVB GARAGE No. Cuhic Beet-------- Cost per cu. fl. _ I orch enst _ P r 1 Mwugo_______________ - - _ TOTAL------ I$-------------- % Ohsoleaence___ _ Dep l ----`r" Physical j Net After Deducting r Dcpt•ecioLion__ 3_____._____ rr. q Utility Dep. $___.._______-__v-------------- 1 PRESENT VALUE-_$ $______________I$---------------- o3s of Bldg,_ Uasemont_--_- 'I lonstruc Lion _ qoof---------- _ Jhar. of Const Heating-------- Height of Building dxterior_ Plmnhiny----- SUMMARY ANNUAL ASSESSMRMT nteriorFinish Llvht_________.._________________ DiS:ieltll"1'10\ ~ AMOUNT IYLAR LAND 7)iPItOVfLLIPuNTO TO'TAL doors M, Oarare__ Building Permit. $ 198EI - - - $ $ itories________ Barnn or Sheds Original Cost. Improvements Only 1489 Additions and BeLLerments ~i 1940 'ire Ltesisting_ °h,te of Reps. l----------------- " Own<•r's f:::l,i mnlr of Prrsrr,L V:rlne 1~!1 ].Dent Impe._ _i______ _ _ Private Appraisal 1942 2 AUUI`I'dOC7;1 ~SNU ItErTti,RM I;PIT Insurance $ 19461 24 - _ _._-nnrnUN•r _ lnrtf;nge - - 19J.1 I _ - YL•'AU _ nnr ouN'r _ Yi An ntl Iy Len Lrl $ 191; I. _ A.. 5_____ ldv ti -d for Sale '.9111 ! _ - IF___.--------- . -,,,r ,,d in 19 194'1 I Agenda Item #5A Page 14 CLA33 OF BUILDING HCIGHT ROOF LIGHT DCSCRSPTION Clue eh Cheel, Cheea Md, l:{.c N-dh,,u 1-Single Residence _________c__ No. of Stories_______~_ f-UNSMUCTiON r rq-tricitY ROOMS STORIES 2-Duplex Gat u.,..~,~dt 1 x a I Auie FOUNDATION 'Nowt Shin6 ale 8-Bmtgcdow• Apt., Crf-------- - - - Oil__--.---- CampostUsn Sltincle_______ Concret----------------------- Dining Ltoom fi-Ho 6-A _ d-Hottel el---'on~nu. PreSheps et i and d ron Paper_________ J ~ klil-tAGR - Dinette I----- Spnrree B tmet vlldn Hou_se_-_ _ Cnppet___--_______________~_ [toom------------ I Concrete 'fil e Sr ee _ _ _~tl.clen - Breakfast Nook 9-Office Building Cht Constroction_ I-BAnk 1 S - SIAt 'file i Bath H..., Bank Building Roof - - Asbestos Slungle------ _ 72--Theatr---- amtarlu m_ BASEMENT Tin 11"t-------- . . _._____Shower Roon__!______ 1------....- I 3- 1V urehouae__.___-- - {I - d-Fu.tor, Quarter STYLli ---II=__ sleeping Sun ltonm P _J_________ Half________________ Gable SHEDS AND BARNS Storage Room__J I- 6-Prvlat GGarage Three-f~ I_.. ❑artet 7-Serviec Station liSd l Stse__ Hit_____________ c 8-Hut House or Gr. Hu uua Cement: Fl- Plat ..___-______.,Size. Const. U 9-Poultry House Finished Walls and Ceiling Gnmbrel-------------------- _ LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS U-Barns or Sheds_____ La indr Y _ M.,nnud _ _ _ _ _ Lcont................... _ SLrce.t Paving I I :1 Ilex Pav in FINISH Gwu N-fl,- PLUftrl lit hlG Sidewnllm____-------------------- Curbing EXTERIOR Unmeshed Plain. _ Old Style Water _Plastered, Oruatn _ Common Brick Modern Storm , Sewer __Sewer_______________. _ L Pressed Brick__________________ No. Bath Tnba________.___.j Sxnitar Pnpered________;______.______ y Pnin ted or ame _ . I-____ _ ire Cat rte No, ,ower n. o______________ Electricity trnelc--------------------------------- Glazed Brielc------------------- No. Toilets so------ u wuoc F oor., Hardwood I'lwr____ L___.. nerete Plain or Block______- Cement 3i.u • No. Laundr y Tubs_________. _ Wood Siding No. Lnvntories Tele huno_____ h_____ _ tone 'il e _ Wood Shingles . Nn. Urinals , S Haoftrdwowoodod F Fiinnisish P o bnuretc, Reinforced.----------- Kellnston- No. Sinks Pile , _ teal Frame ('nrr J___~c1PC Mnrhleo• Cry x ,I___ _ _ 1 uACP.d It'm l_________ GlDnata M79Ci'LLAN000" Sideboards _Celot Bnard___________________ hedien u t.____-_.-. I______._____,-____________ f tars Cott a________________ - SA_n_lt81'y Pool ------7NG-__--_~I CnMeet-____________________.~_.__ trock ___.__1 F ARACTFR OF CO NST-__.___ BuffeC WatnecottnB _ _ _ . t _ m_________ -ood--------------'------ Hut Air Bean Ceiling-----"'-- Metal Ceiling---- - ire Resistinj list Water Incinerator RE61A7ilIS nn-Fire OUTSIDE Tlildi Steam Sky KI ttG N.. Firephmea RevixtinY Kelri Lgicratur or Caoler Wood . No. Dummy Fireplaces. Bay Windowe. S'PATZ; OF REPAIRS 'ferrn Coltn i ;fir Dormer Windows _ . f'onditi on ed Scone Porches FUEL . ad Gal, Iro air Concrete__________________ - Coat ond.__._. oil rw Gas _ ri-Lrieit - Agenda Item #5A Pa2e 15 DATE: July 61111 2011 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: James Hewat, Marie Zuzack SUBJECT: Update Memo Joint Landmarks Board City Council Meeting Study session summary attached. Regional Transit District (RTD) Facility adjacent to Union Pacific Depot Update at meeting, Elaine McLaughlin Daily Camera Site Joint Landmarks Board Planning Board meeting to review concept plan scheduled for August 181h. Subsequent meeting will be scheduled for preliminary (concept level), landmark alteration certificate deliberations. Update at meeting, Elaine McLaughlin. 1921 Pine Street Landmarking City Council designated the property a local historic landmark on June 141h. Valmont Mill Staff to the county historic preservation advisory board has recommended that several of the.buiEldings proposed for removal as part of the clean.-up for- the property be retained, and that a condition of approval for the permit for the work be landmarking of the entire property, including the ra ll. site:1?t;view of the- permi- for clean-up'is scheduled'for review by the Boulder County Planning Commission on June'271h Update at meeting. Pending Landmark Applications Dushanbe Tea House - Update at meeting. Planning Board Calendar See attached. Stays-of-Demolition Status Summary: 1135 North Street, Expires October 3, 2011 (update at meeting) 1 ARTICLES AND INFORMATION: What'Does Success Mean in a Historic District By Eric Nelson Regulating New Construction in. Historic Districts: Contemporary Design By Eleanor Gorski- Contemporary Infill Design in Chicago By Brian Goeken, AICP All articles were taken from the News from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions The Alliance Review, March-April 2011 issue. 2 V10, v OF aQv CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 19, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a motion to accept the summary of the June 9, 2011 Joint City Council/Landmarks Board Study Session on Sustainability and Chautauqua PRESENTERS Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Marie Zuzack, Historic Preservation Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This agenda item provides a summary of the June 9, 2011 Joint City Council/Landmarks Board Study Session on Sustainability and Chautauqua. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to accept the study session summary from the June 9, 2011 Joint City Council/Landmarks Board Study Session on Sustainability and Chautauqua. ATTACHMENT A. Summary of the June 9, 2011 Joint City Council/Landmarks Board Study Session on Sustainability and Chautauqua. ATTACHMENT A City Council Study Session Summary Sustainability and Chautauqua June 9, 2011 PRESENT City Council: Mayor Susan Osborne, Deputy Mayor Ken Wilson, City Council Members Crystal Gray, K.C. Becker, Matt Appelbaum, George Karakehian and Suzy Ageton Landmarks Board: Chair Lisa Podmajersky, Vice-Chair John Spitzer, Liz Payton, Mark Gerwing and Kurt Nordback Staff members: Deputy City Manager Paul Fetherston, Community Planning and Sustainability: David Driskell, Susan Riclnstone, James Hewat and Marie Zuzack Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA): Executive Director Susan Connelly and Facilities and Preservation Manager Jeff Medanich PURPOSE The purpose of the June 9, 2011 joint City Council/Landmarks Board study session was for council and the board to check in on sustainability efforts relative to Historic Preservation and to discuss the review of physical changes at Chautauqua. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION SUSTAINABILITY Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat provided an overview of sustainability efforts in the Historic Preservation Program since 2007. Embodied Energy Landmarks Board member Kurt Nordback provided information on embodied energy in the overall building stock and historic buildings in Boulder. City Council and the Landmarks Board discussed providing more education for homeowners about how to renovate their homes, particularly post-World War II homes, to both meet their lifestyle needs and save energy and money. Windows Landmarks Board member Mark Gerwing described the review process for proposed window alterations in historic buildings and stated that recently there have been fewer requests for historic window replacements. Council and the board discussed possible reasons for the decrease in requests. One council member spoke in favor of allowing by- right replacement of window glazing and of historically important windows on secondary elevations and possibly others. Another council member questioned the aesthetics and value of storm windows. Historic Boulder and Chautauqua were cited as good sources of information for the public on options and resources for rehabilitating historic windows. Solar Panels Landmarks Board Chair Lisa. Podmajersky presented photos of all the solar installations reviewed by the board since 2007. Since the technology and appearance of panels is changing and since the board and staff now have more experience in reviewing applications, the solar panel guidelines may be revised. This would provide more predictability in both the review process and the final appearance of installations. Council and the board discussed the possible effect that solar gardens may have in the future on the number of applications for on-site installations. Sustainability at Chautauqua Jeff Medanich, Facilities and Preservation Manager for the CCA, described their on- going work to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings and measure the results, as part of the CCA Learning Laboratory program. Besides reducing energy use and costs, the program implements Chautauqua's education mission and has won several awards and national recognition. Additionally, a solar array may be installed on the roof of the reservoir above Chautauqua; if it is, Chautauqua would purchase power from it. Several council members appreciated what good stewards of Chautauqua the CCA has been. In concluding the Sustainability portion of the meeting, one council member suggested more education and outreach on historic preservation and sustainability issues, such as clearing up misconceptions about window requirements, on Channel 8 and/or other venues. POTENTIAL PHYSICA>€.., CHANGES AT CH.A.UTAUQUA David Driskell spoke about the outline, which was included in the study session packet, for a stewardship framework process that is being jointly proposed by the city and the CCA. The process would provide public process and baseline data and analysis on key, interrelated issues at Chautauqua: parking and access; programs; and facilities and the grounds. ` The resulting framework would help with the development and review of any future proposals for changes at Chautauqua. Landmarks Board members expressed their support for a third party analysis, as proposed in the framework process. It would help clarify for the board how it would review any proposed physical changes at Chautauqua, since the Chautauqua Guidelines do not provide guidance on new construction other than stating that it's generally inappropriate. They further spoke about how and why design guidelines are important for the board in reviewing proposals in their purview. The Chautauqua Guidelines could be updated and revised based on the results of the analysis. Several council members stated that considering revising the Chautauqua Guidelines is premature, as key threshold questions, primarily related to use, scale and impacts, must be addressed first. At this point design is not the issue. Since it's not a given that something is going to happen at Chautauqua, there is no need to revise the guidelines. Another reason that revised guidelines may not be helpful is that anything that happens at Chautauqua will be a special case, because it is such a special place, and will ultimately be decided by council anyway. A majority of council members said they generally like the proposed framework process, as it provides a roadmap for the next steps with Chautauqua, though the details of the process should be further discussed and refined at the June 16 council meeting. Several council members noted that the public input received during the process will be very influential and that the public likely does not want major change at Chautauqua. NEAT STEPS City Council will review and discuss the proposed stewardship framework process at their June 16 meetingon the work program. I; Erik Nelson is the SeniorPlannerfor the City of Fredericksbuzg, Virginia. His duties include preservation d , planning (both buildings and f~ 8attlrfzelds), transportation planning and implementation of trails projects, andgenenzllong range planning. What Does Success Mean in a Historic District , t { 1 T fT~" 1 ! I CCU l - 411 I A' !1 J a ! ~ ~ r i _ - Sn w ~ f , I1 9S {'7' { -r ~1t t7' 1 i - ~ ~ i(h yyy... 1 1111`` rY `.i.. f f 11 d f _ Historic districts h T l i, characterized by infll hill EZx. " development reflect the IRS !!1 dynamics of an active k ' urban environment. In the 1960s, preservation advocates in demolition within the Historic Fredericksburg Fredericksburg, Virginia convinced their local gov- District. This district encompasses not only the ernment to adopt historic preservation as a public central business district, but residential neighbor- policy. The local ordinance enacted to administer hoods that include homes dating from the 1760s the zoning overlay district included the usual catch- through the modern day. During those years, the phrases that such legislation is supposed to have, citizen board regularly reviewed and refined its pro- As stated, preservation would promote the general cedures, and otherwise endeavored to be an effective welfare, protect the integrity of existing buildings, component of the local land use process. prevent the intrusion of influences adverse to such purposes, and create an atmosphere for compatible The Board had even worked through an application growth for the future. for a new dwelling in a historic block. There was no demolition involved, but they had the challenge For the next few decades, a Board of Historic of integrating the house into a nineteenth century Buildings (later called an Architectural Review streetscape. The historic district ordinance had an- Board) reviewed applications for signs, addi- ticipated these types of issues and included language tions, storefront renovations, and the occasional taken from early guidelines for Savannah, Georgia. Page 4 The Alliance Review March-April 2011 National Alliance of Preservation commissions The ordinance specified that the The Board worked through its The newly developed historic Board was to consider height, review and the result was quite district guidelines emphasized proportions, relationships of ma- acceptable, but second guess- that new construction needed terials and textures, directional ing began immediately. Some to fit within the community's expressions, etc. The adopted citizens worried that the new composition and scale. The idea, ordinance thus included basic building "didnt look Colonial" however, was that design crite- architectural concepts, but what (we hear that a lot in Virginia). ria should not dictate any type it tacked was a defined sequence Local experts threw out technical of architectural style. Instead, for review, a logical framework thoughts and opined on things the guidelines provided broad to guide persons who weren't like "rhythm and balance." parameters within which an ap- architects. plicant should have the latitude The - Board itself asked: "How to be creative and innovative. In 1991 the promise of the Ares- can we do this better?" ervation ordinance to "create Preservation emphasizes the an atmosphere for compatible maintenance of historic resourc- TO FACILITATE I growth" entered the commercial es, but urban areas are dynamic realm, and the Board found itself places that constantly grow and the gtiidetirles outlined an evaluation proce,,5 confronting another experience evolve. Many historic districts in the following sequence: forwhichitwasnotfullyprepared. were established in times of At issue was a proposed new economic stress, but no govern- ° Site E'lanning ® Exterior Architectural commercial building, in the heart ing body would rightly say that Building Scale Elements ° BuiEding Massing ° Materials of the well-established Historic their policy is to preserve a per- o Roof Miscellaneous Details District. There was little contro-- petually struggling community. Windows Colors (if applicable) versy and the construction site Our stated intent is typically to ®Doorways ° Signs ° Storefronts ° Awnings again was- a vacant lot, but both "revitalize." Success, however, the applicant (an experienced brings pressure for change, and _ downtown architect) and the when investors become ac- Board realized they were working tively involved in a community, Adherence to this logical se- outside the familiar parameters citizens and local review boards quence was meant to keep of the Secretary's Standards, with sometimes become alarmed by discussions of design on track. issues that appeared more sub- the rate of change and question Experience proved encouraging stantial than integrating a house their ability to handle it. As and led to the option of a two- into a neighborhood. Mark Twain famously observed: step process for large projects. r, "People are in favor of progress. s It's change they don't like." New construction of any mag- i _ nitude can include architects, In Fredericksburg, the Board's first engineers, and other profession- "'k, step was to emphasize new con- als. Applicants paying these ' ■ s k~ sti~ction standards in its historic costs will more readily work with district sidelines. The key to this a community when they can be ~A y ty process was to develop a sequential assured of a reasonable process review that began with site plan- that is administered fairly. Many > Y = ning, progressed through scale and review boards provide informal massing, and then moved on to review of projects, to help ap- s e fenestration, materials, architec- plicants fully understand historic tural detailing, and so on. The idea district requirements, and some This corner building (constructed 1991) was to avoid getting hung up on jurisdictions will even confer a fits into its context and also includes a wbimsicalsecond story corner window. window shapes if the overall size conceptual approval, to help ap- of a design was still in question. plicants move forward. What The Alliance Review March-April 2011 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Page 5 is not always done, however, is buildings need to be adapted to Standard #9, for instance, in- to make a conceptual approval contemporary uses or they end dicates we should differentiate binding on the reviewing board. up abandoned as economically the new from the old. Years ago, Again, if an applicant has spent unfeasible. Revitalization also there were places where an ARB time and money to meet a ju- entails new construction where insisted that new buildings be risdiction's requirements, the there are gaps in the streetscape. made to look older than they were locality ought to be able to pro- there are no federal preservation (that old Colonial thing again). vide a formal acknowledgement. standards to guide new construe- `the inevitable result were places tion, so localities need to identify that had more Colonial buildings The Fredericksburg Board set the necessary criteria themselves. in the twentieth century than up its two-step process to give Historic districts also cannot had existed in the eighteenth. an applicant formal approval of maintain every building that is site planning, scale and massing, old. A thriving community needs Since then, most historic juris- and roof shape (if somehow not to grow and some buildings are dictions have come to recognize a part of the massing discus- not sufficiently important or may that a community's history is a sion). This first step defines the not have been built very well in continuum. It is okay for new parameters of a building, within the first place to ensure their construction to be clearly new, its context. The Fredericksburg survival. Jane Jacobs noted that with the expectation that it will staff has talked with numerous historic preservation seeking eventually become historic in its localities about this particular to encapsulate an image rather own right. Different designers step and many jurisdictions are acknowledging the dynamic of will have different approaches, somehow reluctant to commit human activity will eventually some mirroring previous styles to a decision until a project is become stagnant and irrelevant. more closely. As long as each fits esentially complete. Given the within basic parameters defined upfront costs of development, While there are no Secretary of by the community, through its though, the Fredericksburg the Interior's Standards for new zoning ordinance, then the build- Board found it worthwhile to construction, their basic prin- ing owner, rather than the ARB, give reassurance that an initial ciples for Rehabilitation can still should be able to take ownership decision would not be second be used to review urban growth. of the design. guessed at a later date. Once an applicant has worked through the basic integration issues of site planning and scale and massing, they receive a partial Certificate of Appropriateness. 'They can, then turn their architect loose to .;.I t finalize the design with a greater degree of confidence. The local- ity is not at risk because a partial; Certificate of Appropriateness '1.... - cannot be used to obtain a Building Permit. r T ~Fj I Change is what occurs in historic 3 districts and local. ARBs must ~~so fi function in a world of property=' owner expectations for the eco - The one story storefront in the middle of the block is a remnant nomic use of property. (If it was ofpost-WWII low density trends. The new (2005) three story easy, anybody could do it.). Old building to its right makes better use of rime real estate. Pace 6 The Alliance Review March-April 2011 National Alliance of Preservation commissions f )t / t p x4 d - i Zi r fi C (RI a . x zgn ~JFJW F ® . W new 99-roon; hotel is necessarily NOR' NINE large, but integrated into the ® " e nineteenth century streetseape: t Standard #10 instructs us not to for contemporary living. If a vi- the depressed area. As a conse- impair the existing historic prop- able use cannot be found to keep quence, ARBs need to prepare erty. New construction should be a building in use, it is going to for the anticipated change that respectful of what is in place, so deteriorate and be- lost. Our is inherent to our preservation adhering to this concept requires communities change, as we do. ordinancesm that we not impair the existing The reality is that our communi- historic community. New con- ties have readily accommodated ` stiuction is not likely to remain new styles of architecture, and within the same scale as older we should be equally confident k t~ ,F buildings, though, due to differ- that what gets built today tivill ent needs, different technologies, also become respected historic y different expectations, and con- components of the community. _ 1 stantly changing building code requirements. This progression, Interest in infill construction however, is not going to destroy needs to be seen as a sign of the community any more than success because urban areas are new styles did a century ago. traditionally dynamic places. The ; establishment of historic districts The most apt guidance, which appears to have coincided with - ` ~r also has the potential to alleviate hard tithes: Charleston in 1931, any lingering anxiety, comes from New Orleans in 1936, many = 5 Standard #4, which reminds us smaller localities in the 1960's, a,k W~ that properties change over time. 70's, and 80's (in response to !1 new parking deck was constructed Well) so do communities. Our suburbanization). This trend with riverfrontwarehoirse neighborhoods, districts, and suggests that at least a part of the massing and detailing, but is streetscapes are constantly in promise of preservation has been still clearly new construction. flux. Old buildings are renovated in its potential to help revitalize The Alliance Review March-April 2011 f National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Page 7 Eleanor Gorski, ALL, is an assistant commissioner in the City of Chicago Department of Housing and Economic Development, until recently with the department's Historic Preservation Division which staffs the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. She received the 2003 Rome Price in Historic Preservation to study planning and design in historic preservation. Ellen Beasley' earlier 1986 National Trust publication on this topic served as the starting point for the current 2009 National Trust publication. Regulating New Construction in Historic Districts: %,ontemporary Design A~ El e--a' nor Gorski Few building projects evolve more opinions, public meetings, Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating and discussion than new construction projects in historic Historic Buildings offers some guidance for new construction in districts. As preservation goals have has become more main- historic districts. Most preservation commissions throughout, stream and as the number of local historic districts has grown, the county use these standards to some degree, and they are so has the number of new construction projects proposed and seen as the basis for design review in many historic districts. reviewed by local communities and preservation commissions. Every request for new construction in a historic district is site Standard 9 states: "blew additions, exterior alterations or specific, and what was successful in one location can be a di- related new construction will not destroy historic materials, saster in another.'Ihe challenge for preservation commissions features and spatial relationships that characterize the prop- is [mowing how to make the judgments that will preserve the erty. New work will be differentiated from the old and will be distinguishing characteristics of the district while allowing compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and expressions of change and adaptation. proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment." Most preservation standards and guidelines dictate that new construction in a historic district should be of the highest qual- This Standard notes three important review considerations for ity possible and respond appropriately to its context. these can new infill construction: characteristics of the property, differen- be fairly subjective goals. Each can be accomplished through tiation of new work from old, and compatibility with existing the design review process as established by the preservation fabric in terms of materials, features, size, scale, and proportions commission. However, community sentiment and a preference and massing. But there is no mention of design or style, which for a particular architectural style can complicate or even negate leads to open interpretation for any design that meets the broad agreed upon standards and guidelines. criteria listed above. Anytime new construction is proposed for a historic district, 'The effectiveness of the Standards in guiding "good" new questions begin to arise concerning what is "good" and "ap- construction is frequently debated, for their language is open propriate" design. Some critics say that the review process to much interpretation. In this sense, it is important to note itself inhibits creativity or forward thinking design in a project. that the Standards are to be one of many guides to assist local Assuming that design review is simply a "check" to ensure that commissions in design review and are meant to be interpreted new construction reflects the basic character-defining features based upon the locality and the particulars of each project. Only of a district, then this should not be the case. This check can Standard 9 is devoted to what has become one of the most chal- work both ways--by not dictating or restricting styles, both lenging demands on local commissions and review boards. "good" and "bad" designs may be built, depending on your viewpoint. A contemporary design and a traditional design may The design of new construction in response to these review both be built in the same district, since both meet the same considerations depends on the following variables: the skill basic guidelines. of the architect, the skill and architectural knowledge of the commission staff and commission members, zoning and code But how can good contemporary design regardless of style be requirements, local politics, and the involvement and tempera- encouraged? Contemporary design (design of its place and ment of the community. Almost none of these variables can be time) may meet historic guidelines, but is this what everyone controlled-but they may be shaped for the best possible out- wants? To answer these questions, the Secretary ofthe Interiors come, depending on the circumstances and the historic district. The Affiance Review I March-April 2011 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Page 17 The proposed new construction does not have to replicate the Personal biases are hard to get away from in any situation, and existing style of the surrounding architecture, but it should be this is certainly true in the often perceived-to-be subjective compatible. The proposed project should be evaluated for its exercise of design review. Commission members may shun compatibility with the surrounding historic district based on a contemporary or other styles, or too heartily embrace them.The number of criteria, and how such criteria are applied depends on best way to avoid these biases, whether at a staff, commission the type of project and its location. The criteria should include: or community level, is to have a varied group of reviewers with (1) site placement; (2) height, massing, proportion, and scale; different expertise and interests comment on a project. Most (3) materials; (4) development patterns; and (5) architectural commission ordinances require that the membership include characteristics, such as ornamentation and fenestration. a mix of professions for this very purpose, and this mix may help provide objectivity in the decision-making process. And Furthermore, Standard 9 states that a new design should be community groups by their very nature often have a variety "differentiated from the old." This is sometimes taken to an of differing viewpoints. The commission staff managing a extreme, when applicants propose a contemporary design that challenging project should also confer with the other staff or would distinctly stand apart from the existing buildings in the commission members on critical decision points or precedent district, drawing attention to itself instead of working as part issues, to confirm that his or her recommendations are in line of the ensemble of buildings. In a district with a long period with the standards and guidelines. of significance and many different building styles, it is easier to make an argument for such a distinctive contemporary design. But what happens when an entire commission has a bias against In a district with more consistent building styles and with very contemporary styles of design? Education is the key in this cir- little new construction, this becomes more dilficult.The degree cumstance. Workshops to discuss the standards and guidelines to which such a building would stand out and not be compat- should be held regularly to help commissioners understand ible can be measured somewhat but is also subjective. how to evaluate contemporary design. Good examples of new up , construction produced in different cities and districts can show Still, designs reflecting current styles and tastes should use sit- what is possible and acceptable. And there are different types of ing, massing, proportion, and materials to achieve compatibility contemporary design, just as there are variations in styles from ^ with the surrounding district, and it should be communicated any era. It may simply be a reaction to the unfamiliar, rather clearly with the public what is required to make a contem- than a real bias. Design training also helps commission staff porary design also a compatible one. As with any design, it is to be more knowledgeable when working with applicants who important not to "water down" the concept so that it turns into are willing to move beyond traditional and replicative design. a mediocre ghost of the initial proposal. The goal should be to Applicants, in turn, will know that their designs will be given a allow the applicant's vision to come through so that he or she fair review. It is hard to encourage good contemporary design if is satisfied with the process while aligning the design with the the commission is uncomfortable with it® guidelines and standards. r r O /I I r r r _ r r b r ~r r r„ I r Access to NAPC-1. E in is limited to ® NAPC members Amk NAr" NAPC-Lis the only national listserv for local preservation commissions. NAPC-L gives you access to local commission members, staff, and others across the United States. To join !NAPC-L, simplysend an e-mail to napc@uga.edu, subject line: Join NAPC-L... B • ~ U Page Is The Alliance Review I March-April 2011 1 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Brian Goeken, ATCP, is Deputy Commissioner of the Historic Preservation Division of the City of Chicago Department ofHousing and Development and the lead staff to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. He is a pastX4PC board member and board chair. .00=ftra 100=%, III "'IT E RA RY Infill Design 'in Chicago By Brian ®eken, A.ICP _ % c yK ~9 r 1 1 r 1 ri~ ~ Ny II ~ ~ iMeb{xq rJn.r ~ 9 This large infillsite posed a number of design challenges. The new design was broken into three separate buildings, ~IVith facades articulated tbroughprojectingbay elements, larger masonry openings, brick detailing, and sloped roofs®all features found in the district, but bere interpreted in a contemporary way. The buildings share an angled front setback to allow views ofan adjacent historic institutional building. r::3 The Commission on Chicago Landmarks is one of Standards in 1995, the National Park Service in fact the many hundreds of local preservation commis- also explicitly recommended the use of compatible sions reviewing new construction projects in local contemporary designs. historic districts. Dealing sensitively'with a district's historic resources, building conventions and patterns The range of possible design solutions for new con- of development is of critical importance when consid- struction is, of course,varied----from explicit replication ering new infill buildings; design issues of particular or stylistic imitation of historic designs on one end concern include siting, size, shape, scale, proportion, of the spectrum to abstract reinterpretation, modern materials, and architectural character, in relationship contextualism, or even outright juxtaposition to his- to the prevalent character of the immediate neighbor- toric designs on the other. And each may be proper, or ing properties as well as to the block and the district. preferred, in specific circumstances; for example, the replication of an original design, while generally to be In addition to using Standard 9 of the Secretary of the avoided, may be appropriate in such limited cases as Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and other criteria replacing a missing unit in a group of identical row and guidelines in its review of proposed additions and houses. Why, though, in most instances, should con- infill construction, Chicago's commission also specifi- temporary infill design generally be encouraged? cally "encourages good contemporary design [emphasis added] that respects the district's existing architec- As has often been said, architecture is an expression tural and historic qualities, but does not necessarily of its time and place, and the purpose of historic dis- replicate historic designs." Prior to revisions to the trict designation is not to `freeze' a place in time, but The Alliance Review March-April 2011 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Page 19 v c MI, ~y¢r t P., 57 e 4 ~ f l~, ~.r...cr C ~ o v This historic district includes a number of two flats, cottages and other small-scaled residential buildings. w o This contemporary i): fcll design continues the massing, scale, fagade organization typical ofthe ti district, but reinterprets it using a modern design vocabulary and industrial materials. N E to protect what makes the place N special while managing inevitable and necessary change. Design; b' 3 which confuses the old and the s ~ 4 new can diminish the authenticity and character of a historic district. Contemporary new infill con- rrwr i 1-~ struction, however, if done well, °I sy v4 a can be respectful of that historic character, while still allowing the opportunity to be creative and innovative further enhancing ~r ? the architectural character of the district. Generally, to be successful, new contemporary design should blend in at the larger streetscape level, but may be more individualistic closer Zhese two new buildings in a row of similar 1880s-90s greystone residential up. The accompanying photos buildings follow thegeneral massing, scale, rhythm, and material_ialette of are examples of some new con- the block, but the architectural detailing is simpged and abstracted. temporary infill construction and ,yt 4 additions approved by Chicago's commission. Admittedly, contem- porary design is not always popular with commission members and the public, but it is important toll promote the same level of quality, originality and innovation in our new architecture as in the historic districts we are seeking to preserve. The Kenwood District is roymp;-ised of large homes in a variety ofstyles. This very contemporary design echoes the irregular massing, scale, footprints, fenestration patterns, and materials ofthe historic buildings, but has a modern stylistic vocabulary. Page 20 The Alliance Review March-April 2011 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions _ W7 pppppp, 4 _ ~ C f This landmark district typically has larger buildings on the corners and smaller buildings mid-block. phis new construction project follows this massingpattern, with the front of the building treated as an apartment building and the side as smaller attached row houses. a Constructed in a 1 i_ r neighborhood commercial district with a varied i a s ~k EN architectural character, this ~lr l ~i ..y new tnixxed--use building is an abstracted interpretation's of the building types and w conventions ofthe district, Some locations and historic 1 districts can handle more 1 ` `l variation without negatively _ o impacting the character of z' x the district. The Michigan l {l~~ Avenue streetwall of buildings along GrantPark ' in downtown Chicago IN r " 7 # t includes some of the citys finest historic architecture. The new Spertus Institute ofjewuh Studies follows some of the common building conventions of the district, As part;of the conversion ofthe Carbide but breaks with others. If Carbon Building into a hotel, an addition y the building were taller, or at another location in was constructed to house a restaurant, meeting rooms and ballroom spaces. The the district, it may not p orre : i have been approved. addition's canteen orar llesigit fi drew the architectural treatinertt ofthe fuse and colorpalette ofthe historic building. ; ' Pbatos courtesy ofLueien Lagrangeflrchftects The Alliance Review f march-April 2011 f National Alliance of Preservation commissions Page 21 Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar June 2011 Amended June 24, 2011 Last Planning Board meeting June 2, 2011 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 May 2011 Jul 2011 Environmental Advisory PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Board (EAB) 6-8 p.m. ~1680 Balsam (Karl G.) S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1300 Canyon Blvd '2035 Balsam Height 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 LB, 6 p.m. in CC Modification (Karl G.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Boulder's Energy Future Public Mtg, EBCC 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Joint DMC, DBI & BID CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC Rill Ownership 2nd Reading Designation of the building and Mtg 'Joint CC/LB meeting re: Group & property located at 1921 Pine Street as a local Chautauqua Sustainability Joint tong landmark (Jessica V.) 1030-7230 Action on 2010 Major update to the BVCP pm, Grace (Chris M.) Lutheran Church, 1001 'Boulder's Energy Future Study Session Street 13th Summary from May 10 (Mary Ann W.) 'Study Session Summary on Chautauqua Item from April 12 (Susan R.) 'City of Boulder/Boulder County Sustainability IGAs & CAP EnergySmart Services (Kara M.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC CC Special Meeting and SS, 5:30 p.m. in CC "Clean Energy 'Consideration of a motion to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the denial of the Site Review Height Modification application for the 855 Juniper Ave. project (Kad G) 'Work Program Checkin 'IP: Potential call-up of 16W Balsam Avenue Use Review Approval (Karl G.) IP: Potential call-up of 2035 Balsam Drive Site Review Approval (Kad G.) 'IP: Potential Call-up of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to rehabilitate and add a rear porch to the house and make site improvements at 403 Highland Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District (James H) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC CANCELED 26 27 28 29 30 Council Recess BOZA Retreat, 3:30-7:30pm, 13th St. Conference Room Information Item: Zero Waste Master Plan update process including information on disposable bags (Jamie H.) Special CC IP Packet Y LL Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar July 2011 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 Am 2011 Aug 2011 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HOLIDAY Council Recess Environmental Advisory PB Meeting, 5 p.m. at the west Hill Board (EAB) 6-8 p.m. Boulder Senior Ctr, Creekside Revitaliz 1300 Canyon Blvd Room Ownersl B. Holicky Absent Group, LB, 6 p.m. in CC 6400 Arapahoe Annexation, Initial 10:30-12 Zoning, Site Review (Elaine M.) pm, 'BVCP Public Hearing and Action on Grace Council changes (Chris M.) Lutheral Matters: TDM Toolkit Update (Martha R., Transportation) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Downtown Council Recess DDAB, 4 p.m. in Muni BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC Management Lobby Commission (DMC) 5:30 in rr 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 *CC1PB CIP Bus CC Meeting, 5 p.m. in CC University Hill PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Tour 'June 14 Clean Energy Study S,-im Summary (Mary Ann W) Commercial Area A.Brockett Absent 4:30-6:30Dm Management '1st Reading Boulder's Energy Future (Mary Ann W.) Commission 'Out of City Utility permits (Karl G.) 2010 Neighborhood Permit Parking Program Annual Update nturamrt oam in rr 'W ater Utility Master Plan (Bob (Moly w.) H arberg) 'CIP Public Hearing (Chris M.) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC "Clean Energy 31 Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar August 2011 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Downtown CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Environmental Advisory PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Management *1st Reading 6400 Arapahoe Annexation Board (EAB) 6-8 p.m. *Waterview Concept Plan (Karl Commission and Site Review (Elaine M.) 1300 Canyon Blvd G.) (DMC) 5:30 in rr. "2nd Reading Boulder's Energy Future LB, 6 p.m. in CC "'DT-5 Code changes (Louise (Mary Ann W.) G.) "1st Reading Annexation, Initial Zoning, "Boulder Creek Flood Mapping and Site Review at 3015 Kalmia (Harper Study (Bob Harberq) Hollow) (Karl G.) "Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations Ordinance (Christie Coleman) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC DDAB, 4 p.m. in Muni BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC Hill Lobby Revitaliz Ownersl Group, 10:30-12 pm, Grace Lutherai 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Congressional CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC University Hill Joint PB/Landmarks Meeting, Field Hearing "3rd Reading Boulder's Energy Future Commercial Area 6 p.m. in CC (Mary Ann W.) Management "Daily Camera Concept Plan Commission Review (Elaine M.) 1st Reading DT-5 Code Changes MWrAMM nam in rr (Louise G.) "1 st Reading Out of City Utility Permits (Karl G.) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC *2012 Recommended Budget 28 29 30 31 Jul 2011 Sep 2011 CC SS, 6:30 p.m. in CC S M T W T F S S M T W T F S "Update on Smart Regs Implementation 1 2 1 2 3 and Rental Housing Licensing 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Enforcement (Marv Ann W.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Update to the Zero Waste Master Plan 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (Jamie H.) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar September 2011 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 Aug 2011 Oct 2011 PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC S M T W T F S S M T W T F S "955 Broadway Site Review (Jessica V.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Holiday CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Environmental Advisory BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC Hill '2nd Reading 6400 Arapahoe Board (EAB) 6-6 p.m. Revitaliz Annexation and Site Review (Elaine M.) 1300 Canyon Blvd Ownersl Group, "2nd Reading Annexation, Initial Zoning, LB, 6 p.m. in CC 10:30-12 and Site Review at 3015 Kalmia (Harper pm, Hollow) (Karl G.) Grace Lutherai 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Downtown CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC DDAB, 4 p.m. in Muni PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Management Lobby Commission (Community Urban Gardens (DMC) 5:30 in (Karl G.) rr. "Code Changes - Breweries (Bev J.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC University Hill *2nd Reading Out of City Utility Permits Commercial Area (Karl G.) Management Commission *2nd Reading DT-5 Code Changes (11WrAMr% gam in rr (Louise G.) 25 26 27 28 29 30 CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC L CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD June 1, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room 6 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the June 1, 2011 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: Mark Gerwing Kurt Nordback Liz Payton Lisa Podmajersky, Chair John Spitzer *Tim Plass *Planning Board representative without a vote STAFF MEMBERS: Debra Kalish, Assistant City Attorney Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner _ Marie Zuzack, Historic Preservation Planner 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Chair L. Podmajersky declared a quorum at 6:02 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by K. Nordback, seconded by M. Gerwing, the Landmarks Board approved (5- 0) the minutes of the May 4, 2011 board meeting as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING 1135 North Street: Expires October 3, 2011 5. ACTION ITEMS LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to (1) rehabilitate and add a rear porch to the house and make site improvements at 403 Highland Avenue in the Mapleton Hill Historic District per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2011- 1 00056) and to (2) add approximately 274 sq. ft. in additions to the second-story of the 1,328 sq. ft. contributing garage located at 403 Highland Avenue in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2011-00057). Applicant: OZ Architecture, Owner: NV Holdings Board members were asked to reveal any ex paste contacts they may have had on this item. M. Gerwing made site visits. K. Nordback made a site visit. L. Payton made a site visit. L. Podmajersky made site visits and reviewed the project at a Design Review Committee meeting. J. Spitzer made a site visit and reviewed the project at a Design Review Committee meeting. Applicant's Presentation John Coleman and Susan Kohuth, 1805 291h St., OZ Architecture, spoke in support of the Landmark Alteration Certificate. Public Hearing June Zwan, 403 Highland Avenue, owner, spoke in support of the Landmark Alteration Certificate. Hugh Moore, Historic Boulder Preservation Committee, spoke in support of the Landmark Alteration Certificate for the house and garage with the suggestion that the garage's south gable be modified to be less imposing. Joseph Malsky, 505 Highland Avenue, spoke in support of demolishing the carport, but he felt that the proposed garage is too large and he was opposed to the front wrought iron fence. Motion House and Landscaping On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. Payton, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0) the proposal to rehabilitate, add a small rear porch, and undertake landscaping improvements at the property at 403 Highland Avenue (as shown on drawings dated March 29, 2011), in the Mapleton Hill Historic District in that the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section 9- 11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below, and adopted the staff memorandum dated 6.1.2011 as the findings of the board. Conditions of Approval: Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Applicant shall submit revisions that address the following design issues, which shall be subject to the review and approval of the Landmarks design review committee: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development is constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of Boulder Community Planning 2 and Sustainability Department, except as modified and consistent with these conditions of approval. 2. Plans will be revised so that original window configurations are restored as follows, based on the Tax Assessor photo and the 1930 photographs: • Double-hung window on each side of front door (south elevation); • Double-hung window on each side of balcony door on second floor above front door (south elevation); and • Double-hung window on each side of side door on west elevation. 3. Plans will be revised so that the lower rail of the bottom sash on the proposed double- hung windows is narrower. 4. Plans will be revised so that: • Original door configurations are restored, with brick surrounding, in the center of the south elevation on the first and second floor; • Proportions of the replacement door on the west bay more closely matches those of the original window, and • Proposed leaded glass is removed for the front (south) door and the west bay door. 5. Plans will provide further detail on the balcony materials and design. 6. Plans will be revised to show the removal of the wrought iron fence. Ldre will evaluate retaining the concrete wall on north/alley side of property and review the details of the east fence abutting the east side of house. 7. Plans will provide further detail regarding the paving material at the front path and construction of new rear wall and trellis. 8. Plans will be revised to simplify the paving material proposed at the west of the property to something more compatible with the property and the district as a whole. If possible, the applicant will reduce the amount of paving in this area. 9. Plans will be revised to provide fully detailed drawings of all replacement windows and doors for Ldre review. 10. Ldre will review the trim details around the south facing windows and doors. Addition to and Remodeling of Garage The applicant withdrew the proposal for the construction of a 274 sq. ft. addition to and remodeling of the contributing garage at 403 Highland Avenue. 6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Update Memo - Updates were provided on the Depot, the Daily Camera site and a joint meeting with Planning Board tentatively scheduled for August 18, the 1921 Pine St. 3 landmarking, the Valmont Butte, Dushanbe Teahouse landmarking, Land Use Review comments on First Christian Church at 950 28th Street, and pending solar garden regulations. B. The board discussed adding boilerplate language to LAC approvals to acknowledge when exemptions from land use regulations are known to be needed. C. Tim Plass reported on the recent Planning Board approval of Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation changes to the 1100 block of Pine Street and the Goss-Grove neighborhood from High Density Residential to Mixed Density Residential. D. June 9, 2011 Joint City Council/ Landmarks Board Study Session - The board reviewed the study session agenda and discussed how each sustainability topic would be introduced by board members and the Chautauqua agenda item. 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Approved on July 6, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Chairperson 4