Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Landmarks - 9/7/2011 CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKS BOARD September 7, 2011 1777 Broadway, Council Clambers Room 6 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the September 7, 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 PRESENT: Marls Gerwing Kurt Nordback Liz Payton Lisa Podmajersky, Chair Jolui Spitzer BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: *Tim Plass *Planning Board representative without a vote STAFF MEMBERS: Debra Kalish, Assistant City Attorney David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainabil.ity Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Chair L. Podmajersky declared a quorum at 6:05 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 August 3, 2011 board meeting. Landmarks Board suggested revisions to the August 18, 2011 joint LB/PB minutes. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING 1 1135 North Street: Expires October 3, 2011 1815 Mapleton Avenue: Expires November 21, 2011 5. ACTION ITEMS A: Limited public hearing and consideration of a concept level landmark alteration certificate for the demolition of the non-contributing Daily Camera Building and construction of a new 160,000 sq. ft, building at 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut Street in the Downtown Historic District per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2011-00139). Owner: Karlin Pearl Street LLC, Applicant: Shears, Adkins, Rockmore architects. (This is a continuation o f the Landmark Board's August. 18"` hearing of this itei'n) Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they tnay have had on this item. M. Gerwing received an email from Bev Potter and made additional site visits. K. Nordback listened to the August 18 Planning Board discussion following the joint portion of the meeting, made another site visit, read an open forum letter from Dylan Williams in the newspaper, and received an email from Bev Potter. L. Payton listened to the August 18 Planning Board discussion following the joint portion of the meeting and received an email from Bev Potter. L. Podmajersky listened to the August 18 Planning Board discussion following the joint portion of the meeting, spoke with Bill Shutkin about her admiration for the Middlebury College campus and how they've integrated contemporary buildings with a richly historic campus from the 1800s, and made a site visit. J. Spitzer received an email from Bev Potter, made a site visit, and read an open forum letter from Dylan Williams in the newspaper. Staff Presentation J. Hewat presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation Vicky Canto, Karlin Pearl Street, LLC, emphasized that they understand this is a unique process and that this conceptual review is different than what is normally done. They look forward to the Landmarks Board's preliminary feedback on their conceptual plan. Chris Shears, ShearsAdkins Architects, noted that concept review is incredibly valuable to architects so that they don't move in an inappropriate direction with their project. ShearsAdkins Architects agree with the staff recommendations for moving forward. They have been and are open to collaborating with and incorporating community input, board input, and staff input. He mentioned that the design team is open to revising the northeast corner of the building, in order to better anchor the building, based on community and board input. He noted that all elevations of the building will be considered as well as lighting, the relationship between inside and outside, structural systems, materials, and the proportions of the building. The design team has already revised their plans based on staff's comments and requests that views of the Flatirons be maintained. He noted the commitment and strength of the design team and the success of their previous work. Chris Shears emphasized their intent and commitment to revise the design based on comments. 2 Public Hearing Nore Winter, 475 Poplar Avenue, spoke in support of issuing a concept level landmark alteration certificate. His design firm specializes in writing design guidelines for historic districts and 25 years ago he authored the original Boulder downtown design guidelines. He noted the difficulty of joint hearings and separating out Landmarks Board versus Planning Board purview. He noted the challenge of projects in historic districts being contemporary, but not imitating. Nore Winter encouraged the board to challenge the applicants to be creative in an exciting way and allow for compatible infill in historic districts. He spoke in support of this project and issuing a concept level landmark alteration certificate for it. Carol Adams, 3790 Longwood Avenue, spoke in support of issuing a concept level landmark alteration certificate. She participated in a community design workshop for this project and found it refreshing, lively and engaging. She recommended conditional approval of this project so that the design team can move forward and continue to adapt their design based on conununity, staff and board input. Hugh Moore, representing the board of directors of Historic Boulder. He indicated that Historic Boulder has been involved and engaged in this project and is supportive of the proposal. He spoke in support of issuing a concept level landmark alteration certificate. Elizabeth Allen, Boulder, expressed concern about the current design because she felt it should better reflect the historic design of the building. She looks forward to seeing the evolution of the design of the building and is hoping that it will better speak to the history of the area. She was also concerned about the height of the building and felt that it should be within the designated height limits. Sean Maher, 3565 Catalpa Way, Boulder, Executive Director of Downtown Boulder Inc. (DBI), spoke on behalf of DBI in support of issuing a concept level landmark alteration certificate. He felt that since this is a concept level review there is time to address any concerns as the design of the building evolves based on board and community comments. Ed Byrne, 250 Arapahoe Avenue, felt that iterative comments were more appropriate at this stage than an approval or denial since this project will be heard by the board again when it is no longer conceptual and more finalized. He spoke in support of issuing a concept level landmark alteration certificate. Phil Shull, 497 Pearl Street, urged the board to approve the concept level landmark alteration certificate. He didn't think the project was "there yet", but lie thought that the design team was aware of that and that the revisions they will make will get the project closer to where it should be. Adrian Sopher, 1919 Walnut Street, spoke about the board's concern about the proposed project obstructing views of the Flatirons. He found it surprising that views of the Flatirons were included as a condition and asked the board to reconsider this condition. He supported approval of the concept level landmark alteration certificate. 3 Board Discussion I Spitzer felt this project would be more appropriate at the Denver Tech Center or on Canyon Boulevard instead of on Pearl Sheet. He thought the scale was too large and needed to be more pedestrian-scale. He said that the building had a very corporate feel to it rather than the more individual forms found on Pearl Street currently. He felt that bringing the building up to the sidewalk was appropriate for this building, but that it needs more fine-grained detailing. K. Nordbaek agreed with I Spitzer's concerns and emphasized that the most important level of the building is the first floor. He felt that the first floor needed to be more pedestrian-scaled (but not just with gratuitous articulation), whereas it was acceptable for the upper levels of the building to be larger scaled for commercial space. Smaller, pedestrian scale on the first floor is important along Pearl Street as well as 1 I"' and Walnut Street. He had no objection to demolition of the existing building, but supported reusing portions of the original structure in the construction of the new building. He noted that removing the parking lot and bringing the building out to the street would be beneficial. He indicated that the height of the proposed building was appropriate for this location, but that something better needed to be done at the northeast corner of the building (perhaps a chamfered corner). He stated that overall the mass, scale, and height of the proposed building is appropriate, but noted that the alley needs significant work in order to make it an appealing area to the public. The pedestrian walkway on the west side of the building is currently one of the most beloved public ways in Boulder and emphasized that getting this space "right" is important. M. Gerwing found it challenging to evaluate this proposal on a concept level with the amount of detail that the board has been provided. Scale is how you relate to the size of a building and this is done at a level that this review is difficult to assess. This building fills a gap in Pearl Street and he thought the location was appropriate and that this building will be a great addition to downtown. He felt that the building reads as a horizontal building which he felt was a problem in terms of massing. He encouraged revisions to the bays, their sizing, that the building should read more vertically and that there was a conflict between the glass and brick portions. He expressed his opinion that the height of the building was appropriate, but he noted that how it is executed and the perception of height is important. He felt that two-story elements were unusual in this area and that they could be problematic as the design moves forward. He is an advocate of looking at the spectrum of compatibility and differentiation between old and new in historic districts and finding a good balance. He expressed that the building should be of its own time and felt that in general, the mass, height, and location speaks to that though emphasized the need to develop the syncopation and rhythm of its modules in a much more sophisticated manner. He mentioned that the design team should be provided with a lot of latitude in design at the conceptual stage. L. Payton noted that the buildings on Canyon Boulevard have not been well received and she wondered what feedback could have been given to the developers that would have made the buildings more appealing and pedestrian-friendly. She thought that this proposed building is similar to the buildings on Canyon and she expressed concern that it will not be a good addition to downtown. She agreed that as designed now, the building looks corporate and won't fit well within the downtown historic district. She felt that a big mistake is a lot worse than a small mistake and didn't feel that the current proposal is consistent with the downtown or the general 4 design guidelines. She felt that the proposed building is too tall (but it could be this tall if it weren't a lot line to lot line monolithic building). She felt that the combination of height and the articulation of the building is a problem because it has too much bulls, but hoped the stated conditions would resolve these issues. L. Podrnajersky thought that it was a huge challenge to give this single-ownership building a diverse, lively and vibrant feel. She felt the northeast corner of this building was too confrontational and should be three stories instead of four. She was concerned that four stories at this corner was not consistent with other businesses along Pearl Street and might cause pedestrians to turn around instead of inviting them to continue walking further along Pearl Street. She noted that the volume and articulation of this corner is problematic and overwhelming to the streetscape.. She'd like to see the surrounding buildings honored and the interface respected. She thought the massing of the building was too much of one thing and she agreed with M. Gerwing's comment that the building is too horizontal. She noted that pedestrian levels and upper levels are important and should be delineated better. She agreed that the storefronts are too large and should be less corporate in appearance and more discreet and individually sized in character of historic buildings in the district. She noted that this building does not have the same rhythm as the other storefronts along Pearl and she'd like to see it delineated better to minimize the corporate feel of it. J. Spitzer agreed with other board member's comments and reiterated that the current design is too much like Canyon Boulevard and not suited to a historic district. He felt that the mass is too large, corporate, and not sure of the glass cube (which may be lit up at night) as appropriate to the historic district. He also agreed that the building was too horizontal and thought that masses should be more vertical and should broken up in traditional pattern and more pedestrian-oriented on both the lower and upper levels. He referred to guideline 1.2.6 and the importance of maintaining a human building scale rather than a monolithic or monumental scale. L. Podmajersky had mixed feelings about the proposed plaza because she wasn't sure if it would be a lively, activated space. She doesn't think the "wilderness city" concept is relevant to the site and isn't sure the west will be a comfortable space to hang out in. She appreciated the transparency of it and the views it would provide. M. Gerwing noted that the building should be articulated more to minimize the perceived mass and efforts made to make the building more vertical in appearance. L. Payton suggested the possibility of having the plaza in front of the building at the northeast corner. She mentioned splitting the building with a courtyard in order to break it up/make it more narrow, vertical in appearance, and minimizing the perceived mass and provide more open space on the lot. L. Podmajersky summarized the board's comments as follows: A majority of the board members found the height to be acceptable, but that significant revisions to the modulation of the height need to be made. In general, the four story height was found to be appropriate, but not on the entire site as proposed, and perhaps not at the northeast corner. The board considered that proportions and massing of the building needs to be revised to express 5 verticality, rhythm, and syncopation of historic buildings in the district. Board members all considered that the northeast corner element was a critical aspect of the building and needed significant redesign to better respond to the mall, pedestrians, and the historic district as a whole. The board felt that individual storefronts and articulation of the building needed to be better developed in a more delicate and discrete manner. The board agreed that the location of this project was acceptable including the proximity to the street, sidewalk and the plaza. The board was in agreement with the conditions outlined as part of the staff recommendation. Motion On a motion by L. Podmajersky, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0) the general location, mass, scale, and height of the proposed new building on 1048 Pearl Street and 1023 Walnut Avenue proposed by the applicant, Victoria Canto and the property owner, Karlin Pearl Street LLC, finding that if the conditions recited below are met, the proposed new construction would meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for revising the plans per these conditions. The final review of the revised plans, which shall be included in a second landmark alteration certificate and shall include final, specific details regarding the location, mass, scale and height of the proposed new building and the final design of the proposed new building shall occur in a subsequent public hearing before the full Landmarks Board. 2. Prior to submitting a submitting a subsequent landmark alteration certificate application for final review and approval by the Landmarks Board, the applicant shall work with planning staff to revise and refine the following design elements: a. Revisions to the northeast corner of the building as to form, mass, scale, and pattern taking into consideration the possibility of angling that element to ensure that this critical element of the building relates to the historic urban context, relates to like historic buildings in the district, and provides a face to the building that attracts pedestrians and enlivens the streetscape. b. Design upper story fenestration to either literally (or more abstractly) reflect historic proportions of 1880 Daily Camera and/or representative historic windows on buildings in the Downtown District. Revise upper story walls to better reflect solid to glazed areas found on historic buildings. Consider detailing glass curtain wall portions of the building to reflect window forms found on historic buildings. c. Continue to refine building to minimize perceived mass of building and complete blockage of views from north side of Pearl (consider lowering portion of roof to afford partial view of flatirons from these areas). d. Refine overall design idiom for building with consideration given to historic urban context. 6 e. Refine design for west plaza area to ensure more open access to Walnut Street pedestrian alley and ensure that scale in this area is not overwhelming to pedestrian and buildings immediately to south. f. Refine storefronts on Pearl, 11th, and Walnut Street to reinforce visual continuity of streetscape, g. Refine design for alley with consideration of Section 1.2. 10 of the Downtown Design Guidelines. h. Continue to develop and refine details of building design including wall material, windows, doors, hoods, pergola, paving, and landscapinglhardscaping. Emphasize proportion and rhythm to detailing rather than use of ornament. i. Mass and scale especially at the lower levels of the building should be refined to reflect pedestrian scale of the Pearl Street Mall. j. The architect will develop a design that emphasizes the rhythm of traditional facades on the Pearl Street Mall and establishes non-horizontal massing to the building per 1.2.5a and 1.2.8 of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. 3. The above items will be reviewed by the Landmarks Board in public hearing to ensure that the final design is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval. 4. No demolition of the current building located on the property shall occur until after the final LAC for the new construction is approved by the Landmarks Board. B: Public hearing and consideration of an application to amend the landmark boundary by moving it approximately 700 feet to the southwest to encompass the relocated Platt Farmhouse on the property located at 3160 Airport Road, City of Boulder Landmark L-99-3, per Section 9- 11-9 of the B.R.C., 1981 (HIS2011-00169). Applicant/Owner: City of Boulder, Parks and Recreation. Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they may have had on this item. M. Gerwing made a site visit. K. Nordiback had no ex-parte contacts. L. Payton made a site visit. L. Podmajersky made a site visit. J. Spitzer made a site visit. Staff Presentation J. Hewat presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation 7 There was no applicant presentation, but M. Lamb from Parks and Recreation was available to answer any questions. Public Hearing No one spoke to this item. Motion On a motion by K. Nordback, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board recommended (5- 0) amendment of the landmark designation for the Platt Farmhouse to City Council to revoke the existing boundary as described in Ordinance 7016, and establish a new boundary as presented in the staff memorandum dated Sept. 7, 2011. As part of this recommendation, the board adopted the staff memorandum dated Sept. 7, 2011 as findings of the board. C: Public hearing and consideration of whether to initiate the designation of the property at 1135 North Street as a locally designated Historic Landmark, per Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981. (HIS201 1 -00011). Owner: Community Hospital Association Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they may have had on this item. M. Gerwing made a site visit. K. Nordback made a site visit. L. Payton had no ex-paste contacts. L. Podmajersky made a site visit and numerous other reviews. I Spitzer made a site visit. Staff Presentation I Hewat presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation Mickey Nykyforchyn, Parker, CO, representing the Community Hospital Assocation, spoke against designating this property as a historic landmark and was in support of issuing a demolition permit for this property. Public Dearing No one spoke to this item. The Landmarks Board did not initiate a landmark designation of the property at 1135 North Street, for the following reasons: • The initiation of landmarking over an owner's objection by the Landmarks Board has historically been used very rarely. ® While relatively intact to their original construction the house and garage are of little architectural or historic significance and the area around the property has been significantly altered over the past several decades. The Landmarks Board suggested saving some elements of the existing building and using them on the new building. 8 6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Demolition ordinance update B. Update Memo 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Approved on October 5, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Chairperson t 9