Loading...
Meeting Packet - Planning Joint Meeting With Landmarks - 8/18/2011 CITY OF BOULDER PIX*P~ JOINT PLANNING BOARD/LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: August 18, 2011 TIME: 6 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINt1TES 3. Pt1BLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS A. Wetland Permit, LUR2011-00044, 4474 North Broadway 5. Pt1BLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Public hearing and consideration of two requests related to redevelopment of the former Daily Camera site (1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut) into 160,000 s.f. of commercial office and retail space in two buildings connected by a bridge over the alley: o Concept Plan Review Comments from Planning Board o Concept Level Landmarks Alteration Certificate Approval from Landmarks Board Applicant: Victoria Canto Property Owner: Karlin Pearl Street LLC 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY 7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to meeting. online at www.bouldercolorado.eov, at the Boulder Public Main Library's Reference Desk, or at the Planning and Development Services office reception area, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor. 1 CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER The Board must have a quorum (four members present) before the meeting can be called to order. AGENDA The Board may rearrange the order of the Agenda or delete items for good cause. The Board may not add items requiring public notice. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to address the Board (3 minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the Agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or reconmiendation. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows: 1. Presentations a. Staff presentation (5 minutes maximum*) b. Applicant presentation (15 minute maximum*). Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. c. Planning Board questioning of staff or applicant for information only. 2. Public Hearing Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (3 rnninnutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time allotted will be determined by the Chair. No pooled time presentation will be pennitted to exceed ten minutes total. • Time remaining is presented by a Green blinking light that means one minute remains, a Yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a Red light and beep means time has expired. • Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group, homeowners' association, etc., please state that for the record as well. • Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize continents wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. • Speakers should address the Land Use Regulation criteria and, if possible, reference the rules that the Board uses to decide a case. • Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record. • Citizens can send a letter to the Planning staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Planning Board meeting, to be included in the Board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the Board meeting. 3. Board Action a. Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. With regard to a specific development proposal, the motion generally is to either approve the project (with or without conditions), to deny it, or to continue the matter to a date certain (generally in order to obtain additional information). b. Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the Board. The applicant, members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon by the Chair. c. Board action (the vote). All affirmative vote of at least four members of the Board is required to pass a motion approving any action. If the vote taken results in either a tie, a vote of three to two, or a vote of three to one in favor of approval, the applicant shall be automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within seven days. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY Any Planning Board member, the Planning Director, or the City Attorney may introduce before the Board matters which are not included in the formal agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 10:30 p.m. and that study sessions adjourn by 10:00 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of Board members present. *The Chan may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her connuents. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Katie Knapp, Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator DATE: August 5, 2011 SUBJECT: Call Up Item: Wetland Permit (LUR2011-00044) 4474 North Broadway This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before August 18, 2011 A Wetland Permit for channel improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek was approved by Planning and Development staff on August 4, 2011. Proposed improvements include widening the existing channel, constructing drop structures within the channel and revegetation of the project area with native plants. Also included are a multi-use trail and a pedestrian bridge. The project will result in 0.10 acres of wetland impacts and 1.70 acres of wetland buffer impacts. The wetland impacts will be mitigated on-site at a 2:1 ratio. This project is adjacent to the proposed Violet Crossing project site. A floodplain development permit has previously been approved for the proposed channel work. The wetland permit was approved by Planning and Development Services staff on August 4, 2011 and the decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before August 18, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14 day call up period on August 18, 2011. Questions about the project or decision should be directed to the Case Manager, Katie Knapp at 303-441-3273 or by e-mail at knal)pkLa)bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: A. Wetland Permit 3 Agenda Item 4A Page 1 of 3 CITY OF BOULDER i Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Wetland Permit Date Issued: 8/4/2011 Expiration Date: August 3, 2014 (Pursuant to Subsection 9-3-9(k), B.R.C. 1981) Permit Number: LUR2011-00044 Contact Information DAVID JOHNSON 711 WALNUT ST BOULDER, CO 80304 Project Information Location: 4474 N BROADWAY Legal Description: TR 2318 & TR 2411 18-1 N-70 PER DEED 901095-96 02/02/88BCR LE SS 250.5 SQ FT TO CITY R/W PER REC 1088233 2/19/91 3 IMPS AK A N BOULDER MHP PROPERTY ADDRE SS: 004474 004478 N BROADWAY B OULDER Description of Work: WETLAND PERMIT for bridge over Fourmile Canyon Creek at Violet Crossing Conditions of Approval The proposed project/activity is approved on the basis that it satisfies applicable requirements of Chapter 9-3-9, "Wetlands Protection," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Other wetland requirements as set forth in Chapter 9-3-9 which are not specifically outlined in the conditions of approval below remain applicable to this project/activity. Best management practices shall be applied to all phases of the project and shall conform to the requirements of the "City of Boulder Wetlands Protection Program: Best Management Practices" adopted July, 1995; and "City of Boulder Wetlands Protection Program: Best Management Practices - Revegetation Rules" adopted July, 1998. The wetland mitigation site shall be monitored annually for five years. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the city of Boulder Planning and Development Services prior to September 1st of each year. If it is determined that the mitigation is not successful, then corrective measures will need to be established and implemented to ensure a successful wetland mitigation project. A mitigation monitoring fee of $650 per year will be due at permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain a site inspection and approval from the City of Boulder Floodplain and Wetlands Administrator upon completion of the project. Inspections To schedule an inspection, call 303-441-3280 and refer to your permit number (LUR2011-00044). 4 Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 3 Wetland Mitigation Inspection Wetland Mitigation 2nd Year Wetland Mitigation 3rd Year Wetland Mitigation 4th Year Final Wetland Mitigation Insp 5 Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 3 CITY OF BOULDER AGENDA ITEM PLANNING BOARD AND LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING DATE: August 18, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of two requests related to redevelopment of the former Daily Camera site (1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut) into 160,000 s.f. of commercial office and retail space in two buildings connected by a "bridge" over the alley: • Concept Plan Review Comments from Planning Board • Concept Level Landmarks Alteration Certificate Approval from Landmarks Board Applicant: Victoria Canto Property Owner: Karlin Pearl Street LLC REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Community Planning and Sustainability: David Driskell, Executive Director Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner OBJECTIVE: 1. Planning Board and Landmarks Board together hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold Public Hearing 3. Planning Board and Landmarks Board to ask questions of applicant, the public, and staff 4. Planning Board Discussion and comment on Concept Plan. No action is required by Planning Board. 5. Landmarks Board consideration of concept level landmark alteration certificate (September 6, 2011) PROPOSAL AND SITE SUMMARY: Proposal: Redevelopment of former Daily Camera site spanning from Pearl to Walnut St., with 160,000 square feet of development in a four story, 55-foot building that includes ground floor retail, office within the upper stories, and below grade parking. The proposed project also includes interior and exterior public spaces and/or cafe on the west end of the site. Concept Plan level review is primarily for evaluation of massing and scale. Project Name: Eleventh & Pearl Location: 1043 Pearl to 1032 Walnut Zoning: Downtown - 5 (DT-5) Comprehensive Plan: Regional Business Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 6 Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 45 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Executive Summary 2 II. Joint Review Boards Process 2 III. Summary of Site History 4 IV. Project Description Summary 6 V. Concept Plan Review Criteria 8 VI. Analysis of Proposed Project with Design Guidelines 28 VII. Standards for Landmarks Board Decision 41 VIII. Staff Findings and Recommendation for Landmarks Board Decision: Concept Level LAC 43 IX. Public Comment and Process 44 XI. Planning Board Action 44 Attachment A. Applicant's Concept Level Submittal Materials 1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The redevelopment of the former Daily Camera site represents a significant infill opportunity for the historic district of downtown Boulder on large a site that served as a media production facility since the late 19th century. The site is located both within the Downtown - 5 (DT-5) zoning district, as well as a National Register and local Downtown Historic District. The proposal is therefore being presented for a non-binding Concept Plan review by Planning Board under the Land Use Code (section 9-2-13(b), B.R.C.1981) and for a quasi-judicial hearing before the Landmarks Board, which must review any demolition and new construction in the historic district for a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC), per section 9-11-12, B.R.C. 1981. This consolidated memo provides context and background on the proposed project along with an evaluation of the proposed concept level massing and scale with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines specific to new construction in the Downtown Historic District for both the Planning Board and Landmarks Board and review against the General Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks by the Landmarks Board. In the conditions for the LAC recommendation on page 43, historic preservation staff considers the project generally consistent with the relevant design guidelines and the historic preservation ordinance as to location, mass, scale and height. In particular, the means proposed to breakdown the massing of a large structure through use of 25- to 30-foot fagade bays, along with demarcations of the corners and entries of the building will be consistent with the historic pattern of fagade transitions within the context. Similarly, much will be done to establish a pedestrian scale when finish materials are proposed on the building. Staff does note, however, that a considerable amount of design development still needs to occur between this and the final landmark alteration certificate review. In particular, refinements to the important 11th and Pearl corner should not only create architecture for our present and future time, but should also look to the surrounding historic precedents that have provided the enduring metric, form, and rich details and texture for the pedestrian environment which is downtown Boulder. II. JOINT REVIEW BOARDS PROCESS While an LAC review by the Landmarks Board must be held as a quasi-judicial hearing, the Planning Board review of a Concept Plan is intended to be a more iterative process providing guidance for the later Site Review submittal and decision. This consolidated memo and the joint public hearing are intended as a coordinated means for both boards to listen together to presentations from staff and the applicant, hear comments and questions from the public, and hear question from each board along with answers from staff and the applicant while both boards are present. While this combined review is unusual for projects in the city, it underscores the uniqueness and important context of this redevelopment. Given that the Landmarks Board must deliberate on an LAC under quasi-judicial hearing procedures, after public comments, question and answers, the Landmarks Board will adjourn their portion of the hearing until its next regularly scheduled meeting of Sept. 6, 2011. After the Landmarks Board adjourns, the Planning Board will then discuss the project as a board Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 7 Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 45 and provide comments to the applicant consistent with the requirements for Concept Plan of the Land Use Code, section 9-2-13(g), B.R.C. 1981. The graphic below provides a flow chart of the process. Purpose of Concept Plan Review by Planning Board. Under the land use code, the first step in the development review process is Concept Plan. The purpose of Concept Plan is to review a general development plan for the site, evaluate general architectural characteristics, land uses, and view corridor considerations, massing and scale of the proposal in context is a critical beginning point for the design process. To that end, the applicant provided a broad vision statement, the metaphor of "the wilderness city" as a foundation for their design decisions and concepts which is discussed under the Analysis section below. Landmarks Board Concept Level Review. The intent of the Landmark Board's concept review is to give the applicant general direction as to the development in terms of general location, mass, scale, and height at the concept planning stage of building design. This concept review through the LAC process is based upon an evaluation of the project against the standards articulated in section 9-11-18 B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and Section 1.2 of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. If determined to be appropriate a concept level LAC would be issued for the project that would enable the applicant to further develop their project plans, based on comments in preparation of the Site Review and Final LAC applications. Because of the size and complexity of the proposal, staff considers that two separate landmark alteration certificate reviews to benefit the process by allowing Landmarks Board early input on the concept for the project and giving the public additional opportunity to provide input on the proposal. In its review for an LAC, the Landmarks Board may either: approve the proposal, conditionally approve the proposal, or deny the proposal. If the board approves the proposal, a concept level LAC will be issued. Later, after the applicant develops project plans in response to concept plan input and decisions and the details of the final design are completed, a subsequent and final LAC review by the Landmarks Board, concurrent with Site Review by the Planning Board will be held. Both the Concept and final LACs, and ultimately the Site Review decisions are subject to call-up by the City Council. Concept PlanAp lication LACApplication DRC Comments and Memo: one memo addressed to Planning Board and Landmarks Board Joint Public Hearing forthe Landmarks and Plannin boards of Concept Plan Review 17 Concept Plan at Landmarks Board 0 tian 1: Vote in favor of Cance t Level LAC Option 2: Vote against Concept Level LAC p p (applicanlhasoption towithdrmLAiCapp-) Potential for City Council Call-Up DDAB discussion Refinements: Planning, Engineering, Landmarks and Urban Desi n StafwithA licant Joint Public Hearing for the Landmarks and Planning boards of Site Review and Final Landmarks Alteration Certificate at Planning Board I Potential for Ci Council Call-Up TEC Doc.tBuildin Permit Review 8 Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 45 III. HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY The subject property is located in the designated local landmark and National Register of Historic Places, Downtown Historic District and lies within the "Boulder Original Townsite" which was established by the Boulder City Town Company in February of 1859. Pearl Street Side of the Site. From the beginning, Pearl Street between 10th and 15th streets was the heart of the fledgling Boulder community whose business was to supply goods and supplies to the booming mining settlements of Ward and Gold Hill- By the Early 1880s, the 1000 block of Pearl Street was well-established with the north side containing several large buildings housing various retail establishments, the 1874 Brainard Hotel, and an indoor skating rink. W . 10 J I it r' I 'r "ilk rr-• ` _ - 4 ~ : ~ i• TM ate- . `L+ X41 'sue 7a~•o"r 'T ;L 4 - . V~ Lgo 36 4. .4 # -'4 y' S■ Corner of Pearl Street and 111h Street looking southwest, 1927 (Photo provided by Carnegie Library for Local History) The south side of the 1000 block featured the c.1880, two-story brick commercial building at the corner of 11th and Pearl streets which was occupied by the Daily Camera until 1962 when it was demolished to make way for the present building. Because of its 1964 date of construction and lack of architectural distinction, the current building at 1048 Pearl Street is considered to not contribute to the historic character of the district. The 1000 block of Pearl Street, however, contains four buildings that are historically contributing to the district-, the 1921 "Slim's Auto Building" at 1001-11 Pearl, the c.1906 Allen Auto Building at 1015-17 Pearl, the c.1880 the MacDonald Building at 1039 Pearl, and the c_1880 Trezise/Tom's Tavern Building at 1043-47 Pearl Street. Across 11th Street, and to the east of the subject property along the Pearl Street Mall, there is also a high concentration of historic buildings dating in age from the late nineteenth to early-twentieth centuries. Likewise, the 900 block of Pearl Street, to the south of the subject property, Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 9 Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 45 contains a number of historically important buildings. With the exception of the 1035 Pearl Street, the north side of the 1000 block of Pearl Street retains its late-nineteenthlearly-twentieth century architectural character and is a visual extension of the Pearl Street immediately to the west. In the early 1960s the original Daily Camera building was demolished and a new building with a front facing, surface parking lot was constructed. Later, in the 1980's an expansion of the building was completed spanning across the alleyway to Walnut Street. The images below illustrate the original building c.1880, along with the later redevelopment of the site in the 1960s and the building as it exists today. or/ I 1 ■ , k~ 1, aim Original Daily Camera Building circa 1880 Building from Redevelopment circa 1965 Existing Building, now vacant Walnut Street Side of the Site. The portion of the subject lot facing south onto Walnut Street is adjacent to the c. 1900 Stoddard Warehouse Building at the northwest corner of 11th and Walnut Streets, today housing the locally known bar, the Walrus. Historically, the 1000 block of Walnut Street was characterized by liveries, warehouses and, later car dealerships. The block (and streetscape as a whole) has redeveloped significantly over the past 30 years with the construction of a number of large new buildings including the Exeter Building (1984), 1035 Walnut in 1993, and 1011 Walnut Street in 2000. Today, the 900 and 1000 blocks are characterized by large, non-historic three and four story buildings housing a mix of retail, restaurants, and offices. r Corner of Walnut and 11+^ Street looking southwest, 1920 (Photo provided by Carnegie Library for Local History) Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 10 Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 45 t Pearl St . IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, r = _ -r-----is ~_I X -A The proposed project includes approximately =-:al 160,000 square feet of floor area on the 77,412 square foot site from Pearl to Walnut, including a portion of the building that would span the _ j alley, as is configured today. The resulting floor area ratio is proposed to be the maximum ■ 2.7 FAR and would include approximately 21,000 square feet of first floor retail, with - - - ~I r approximately 139,000 square feet of second, s- ----u--------- 1~ ' ' ■-r + third and fourth floor office. There is also an = AI'= ' option for a below grade portion of the building, not counted as floor area, for either retail or _ office uses included in the floor area total. The proposed project also includes a below grade parking structure under two alternatives'. a . unique automated parking system (currently unprecedented in Boulder), or a standard ~~,~I rtl underground parking structure, both of which could accommodate up to 200 parking spaces. Currently, a code change to the DT-5 zoning that would permit this mix of uses in the ' - building is being processed and will be Walmit St considered by City Council this fall. Site Plan - Illustrates First Floor With a focus on massing, scale and limited fenestration, the Concept Plan level of detail illustrated in the project plans shows both the Walnut and Pearl building elevations articulated with 25- to 30-foot bays to be in keeping with the rhythm of existing building fagade within the urban and historic context. The building spanning both blocks is also shown to be punctuated by contemporary "glass boxes" that are proposed on the corner of 11th and Pearl, mid-block on Pearl as the entry to the building, as well as mid-block at the entry to the Walnut side of the site. A key "glass box" feature is proposed on the west side of the site, termed the "wilderness space" that is intended to connect the urban context to views of the mountains. Although not specifically programmed, the intent is to be a "multi-use space" with 180 degree views of Boulder's spectacular backdrop, with access to a public roof deck allowing observation and connecting the urban viewer with the wilderness beyond" as noted in the applicant's Concept Plan Book. As currently envisioned, the space could be used as a cafe, a performance or meeting space or serve a number of functions with a distinct intent to activate the edge of the building and tie to the public plaza below, the approximately 2,000 square foot "Wilderness Plaza", for outdoor seating, dining, gathering, entertainment and art. The public plaza space also serves as a transition from the existing, well-used pedestrian corridor from Walnut to Pearl. y. n C•1r 1~ nF z-4 i6 oU[I s; P~A As currently proposed, the project would require requests for modifications to standards within the land use code through Site Review for the following: • Building Height to 55 feet (per section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981) that also includes a roof top shade structure. While the building height as measured from the sidewalk to the roof measures approximately 49-feet, the means to measure building height within the city requires a measure of 25-feet from the lowest point of the building within 25-feet of the tallest side of the building (per section 9-16, B.R.C. 1981). The low point used for base height measurement is on Walnut Street. The existing topography from Pearl to Walnut drops approximately eight feet. The Building on Pearl (including the proposed alley bridge) will be measured independent from the building on Walnut Street, per section 9-7-5(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981. • Four Stories on the corner where three are permitted by-right (per section 9-7-1); • A Land Use Intensity Modification (per section 9-9-11(c), B.R. C. 1981) with approximately 2,000 square feet of open space proposed where 10 to 20 percent of the site (or 7,000 square feet) is the standard. • A Floor Area Transfer from the alley bridge square footage (per section 9-8-2(e)(3)(D) to the adjacent lot. As proposed, the proposed building would be configured like the existing building with a span across the alley. Because the floor area within the span is over a public right-of-way, a 20-year air rights lease would need to be secured, and the floor area contained within the span "transferred" to the main lot for building code purposes. As with all Site Review applications, the floor area ratio is calculated across multiple lots, consistent with section 9-2-14(c)(2), B.R.C. 1981, that permits the averaging of floor area across multiple building sites within a zoning district. The following is a link to the applicant's proposal including the Concept Plan Book. http:llwww.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14705&ltemid=766 A hard copy is also provided. Birds eye aerial view looking south west from 111h and Pearl 12 gen a em age Ot 4b V. Concept Plan Review Criteria for Planning Section 9-2-13(e) Guidelines for Review and Comment: The following guidelines will be used to guide the Planning Board's discussion regarding the site. It is anticipated that issues other than those listed in this section will be identified as part of the Concept Plan review and comment process. The Planning Board may consider the following guidelines when providing comments on a concept plan: (1) Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including, without limitation, its location, surrounding neighborhoods, development and architecture, any known natural features of the site including, without limitation, mature trees, watercourses, hills, depressions, steep slopes and prominent views to and from the site; Site Characteristics. The roughly "T" shaped, 1.78 acre site encompasses property from Pearl Street (the north side of the site) to Walnut Street (the south side of the site). According to GIS data, the entire project site is approximately 77,412 square feet including both lots, as well as the portion of the alley with a 2,500 square foot portion of the building that spans the alley under a 20 year air rights lease. Surrounding Context. Located within the DT-5 zoning district and the BVCP land use designation of regional business, the site has a long history as an office use. The original Camera building at the corner of 11th and Pearl streets was demolished in the 1960s and a new building with a parking lot along Pearl Street was built. As noted, that building was significantly altered in the 1960s and is thus not eligible for landmark status itself. Contextually, the Pearl Street side of the site is located across the street from the former Tom's Tavern Building at 1043-47 Pearl Street noted above as a contributing building to the historic district, along with the Buckingham Block building, also a contributing building. Directly across the street from the Pearl Street side of the site is a 61-foot tall building at 1035 Pearl constructed in 1981. The corner of 11th and Pearl, where the larger of the two properties is located, is a distinct transition point between the pedestrian Pearl Street Mall, that terminates at 11th Street, and an area commonly referred to as "the west end" noted for the eclectic mix of buildings, restaurants and retail. The Walnut Street building is located across the street from the Exeter building that also houses the Cafe Mediterranean ("The Med') and on that same block is the entrance to the Walnut Street below grade parking garage and the St. Julien Hotel. Both buildings on the block have a maximum height of 55-feet. Page 9 illustrates photos of the immediate surroundings of the north side of the site. The northwest side of the site aligns with the 10th Street pedestrian walkway that provides a connection from Pearl to r $ . Walnut Street. -r. The south side of the site, along Walnut is surrounded by a diverse mix of building types and stYles including the 55-foot - .i ~ tall Stoddard Warehouse building, now housing the Walrus bar, the Exeter Building, built to 61-feet, and newer structures built 41 over the past 15 years. Page 9 illustrates a broad context aerial that illustrates the, site's location within downtown, and indicates the location of key public spaces including the Pearl Street Mall, the 10th V'- Street Pedestrian Alleyway, and also illustrates the location of buildings 55-feet and greater within a half block of the site. Pages 9 thru 12 illustrate photos of the site itself and surrounding context. Pages 14 thru 16 are scale and massing context comparisons of the proposed project to several nearby built projects along with a table that provides details on how the projects vary in size and scale to the proposal. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 13 Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 45 iki Ali Wy r-. _q" - I Q-1- F s 15th and Spruce L - i .a IN 4" Parking Structure • 1 _ PPP 4 ~ ° ggi{{i. West End Plaza Building, - • 1 , 1035 Pearl 61-foot height ` • ° „ :tar` } jjj q } kT' ffL Pearl Street Mall d w„aa. % lb lip Ilk .7, -P a- JL6 Ilk 7 Project Site Pearl Side;,, k4 w t tr L ik 601 Pedestrian Alleyway ' 3' • . " (Adjacent to Site) 40 k f S. - f , 11t ' ' e. 4k . a } I Pedestrian Alleyway from Pearl to Walnut # - ` L y L a h 4 Project Site: Walnut Side ' r'i mop ' '~l ; p a ,...arj ~ 1 t n'. IL 442 The Exeter Building IL 46 r `'h r - cr ,-T Ada 1155 Canyon" le + aF ! 4 __4 ArA V,4 -461 " i A " 751.~ St. Julian Hotel: 46 _ - ft•" . Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut I, , 'Lie 14 i% r-2- 9 r! 14 \"w A P., . k I 'L. , Agenda Item 5A Page 9 or45 OF APp- 'P . Il.e ,A 14 ~ r - I • Vii: ~ t ~ ~ ' ~ 1 L ! !Fwd r 1ti le Alley Britlge looking East Av B rl 5, C A View towards northwest and Walnut Street Side View from Pearl Street toward parking lot and building ; D ' Alley Bridge and 11thStreet Side of Building looking Northwest r 411 .r +~~~'ryJI e~ r~ 4. ~Ft i i' ,:y~•~► ~ ~s~.~,. r a -Wr S :.dry, Ip Ei; mfr pq , C".. t {t$ 1 4' a~~ ?F« w g /4' t r W-M~j -CM A Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 15 Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 45 4 40 4l J6, r • •7: t 1 - r • d 00 j. , OWL -wp Zoj! Y mow. - 'Ar, - : - A 41_ m _ 1 ihuy_ r 1f - Via'' yi: w'" 'R ir a TA 414 3 j ~ 1 . y p Irp ACR= MIND ~I ~ ~4 *1 Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 16 Age Item 5A Page 11 of 45 !,,M'OO Y14 r Ilk- 61 li ` ? flu li M - _ . 1 4t l'am' 3~ r f41 ;1~~ tit ~ h r~ 1 wr Jill ~ r • tin j M14 11 Mir -11_ ALE 3 Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 17 Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 45 Scale Comparison. It is instructive to look at a scale comparison between known or built structures in the downtown and elsewhere in Boulder. Following is a scaled comparison between the proposed project and several nearby built projects. At s R h y ~ ~ Fes'' J • Y t 'Sl ,1'~ jY fc T~ eel MI! Eleventh and Pearl Axonometric Perspective Looking South West Plan View of Eleventh and Pearl Elevations f rJ ~ - .1 I 1 y F 1~ 7T I LU 11011 11~~ 1d 1 1-1 T ~ I .f_ St. Julien Hotel Axonometric Perspective Looking South West Aerial View of St. Julien Hotel Walnut Street Elevation Addressa81048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 45 PNC- -IN isht Eleventh and Pearl Axonometric Perspective Looking South West Plan View of Eleventh and Pearl Elevations J~, 6t L i FFT 15th Street Wrapped Parking Structure Axonometric Perspective Looking South West Aerial View of 15th Street Parking Elevation on Pearl and 15th of the 151h Street Parking Addressi91048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut Agenda Item 5A Page 14 of 45 VA 1 x ~Y _ ~ \ I i` .err, g~ax v~ ~ yi • ~,,1 owl~ ..1 7, n °V vL i x{ _ C a ~fkt~Oyt~A ~'f~ 7 it '1 4` L ,r ~ g at' rT= f= 777 F7. f tr~ Mir Eleventh and Pearl Axonometric Perspective Looking South West Plan View of Eleventh and Pearl Elevations MORI ` ~v eye ky P jrs C.( A 'I .I r r n . wF, -7 771 Nor r l z. 9 ~ y. 77 3, VT I , ~..w J .L T Hotel Boulderado Looking South West Plan View of Hotel Boulderado Elevations of Hotel Boulderado Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 20 Agenda Item 5A Page 15 of 45 Table 1: Scale Comparison Hotel •Boulderado Proposed Portion Project Hotel Wrapped Parking Historic Total Boulderado Size of Site 60, 766 sf. 121, 682 sf. 42, 238 sf. 13, 861 sf 33,554 sf 41415 sf Total 160, 000 sf. 158,742 sf 251,793 sf 70,967 sf 91,916 sf 162,584 sf Area • 2.63 FAR 1.27 FAR < 1.70 FAR 5.12 FAR 2.7 FAR 3.34 FAR 1.50 FAR (without civic pad) (parking was exempt- with parking 5.9 FAR) Number • 4 stories 4 stories 4 to 5 stories 5 stories 4 stories n/a Stories Below grade Below grade Below grade none Below Grade n/a As the scale comparison images and table indicate, there are comparable developments built within the downtown, some of which greatly exceed the anticipated mass and scale of the proposed project and some which are similar in mass and scale. The St. Julien Hotel property has a much larger percentage of open space of approximately 40 percent of the site including the west facing courtyard where events such as wedding receptions are held. Therefore, the FAR for the hotel is lower in comparison to other developments. Conversely, the 15th Street parking garage is a much more intensively built structure, with approximately 250,000 square feet on a 42,000 square foot lot equating to slightly over 5.0 FAR. At the time, it appears that much of the parking was exempt as floor area with most of the building being unenclosed. However, it serves as a comparison for mass and scale. It is also important to note that the historic Boulderado Hotel (independent of the newer annex has a 5.12 FAR (with a 70,967 sf building built onto a 13,861 sf lot), but that the entire hotel, with the annex, has roughly the same floor area as the proposed project. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 21 Agenda Item 5A Page 16 of 45 (2) Community policy considerations including, without limitation, the review process and likely conformity of the proposed development with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and other ordinances, goals, policies, and plans, including, without limitation, sub-community and sub-area plans; BVCP Land Use Designation: As shown in the map below, the property is located toward the west side of the Regional Business land use designation. The intent of the Regional Business designation as described on page 63 of the BVRC is as follows: "Within these areas are located the major shopping facilities, offices, financial institutions, and government and cultural facilities serving the entire Boulder Valley and abutting communities. These areas will continue to be refurbished and upgraded and will remain the dominant focus for major business activities in the region." 1 1 Nl 1 ._IV a r t , Ida 3 ST 1 pEP_F1 ~ ~ "~•SPi~~N"i~+ 1 } i a l " _ W , LLD - Regional Business ~ Low Density Residential ® General Business High Density Residential Transitional Business Public The proposed use of the site for office and retail is consistent with the "Regional Business" definition of the BVCP, in that the area is intended for "major" retail and offices "serving the entire Boulder Valley. The definition also indicates the city's expectation that such areas will continue to be redeveloped and a dominant focus for major business activities in the region. The BVCP indicates that the formation of the Downtown Alliance in 1997 produced new zoning districts with FAR's consistent with the desired scale; it also established downtown as a local historic district and created a revised update to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 22 Agenda Item 5A Page 17 of 45 Relevant BVCP Policies: The following policies have been identified by staff as relevant to the review of the proposed project when it moves into site review and other policies may be identified at the time of Site Review 1.03 Principles of Economic Sustainability. 2.01 Unique Community Identity. 2.04 Compact Land Use Pattern. 2.28 Role of the Central Area. 2.39 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment. 2.40 Physical Design for People. 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment a) The context b) The public realm c) Human scale d) Permeability e) On-site open spaces t) Buildings 5.01 Economic Vitality. 5.02 Regional Job Center. 5.03 Support for Local Business. 5.07 Upgrade Existing Commercial and Industrial Areas. Other Relevant Policies, Plans: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines: An analysis of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for new construction within the Downtown Historic District, is provided beginning on page 26. It is also important to note that there are several relevant goal statements from the guidelines applicable to this project as follows. Page 6: 1. Assure the long term economic vitality of the downtown: Downtown Boulder is the heart of the city, the traditional hub of city life. Its future economic vitality is of great importance to the future health of the city. These guidelines will help the city to balance the need for economic vitality with the need to maintain and enhance downtown's unique "sense of place". Page 8: "The DT-5 zone is the area likely to undergo the most significant change while the RB-1E zone, which includes most of the Historic Area, is likely to undergo the least change." Page 9: "Views: Downtown Boulder is blessed with exceptional mountain views and projects should be designed to take advantage of this extraordinary asset. The south and west edges of downtown offer the most spectacular views." Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 23 Agenda Item 5A Page 18 of 45 Zoning: As shown in the map below, the property is located toward the west side of the Downtown - 5 (DT-5) zoning district, surrounded by DT-5 to the south and west; DT-4 and 5 to the east and DT-2 across Pearl to the north. The intent of the Downtown - 5 zoning district is defined in the Land Use Code, section 9-5-2, B.R. C. 1981 as follows. "The business area within the downtown core that is in the process of changing to a higher intensity use where a wide range of office, retail, residential and public uses are permitted. This area has the greatest potential for new development and redevelopment within the downtown core." Project Site in Zoning Context e y~ I~ VY, 1 1 t1 , 11 f a _1 T c` ~f A g ' H= TE Downtown - 5 (DT-5) up to 2.7 FAR ® Business Main Street (BMS) Downtown - 4 (DT-4) up to 2.2 FAR Residential Mixed Use -1 (RMX-1) Downtown - 3 (DT-3) up to 2.7 FAR Business Transition - 2 (BT-2) Downtown - 2 (DT-2) up to 2.0 FAR ~ Public From the intent statement for the DT-5 zoning district in the Land Use Code, it is evident that the area within downtown where the project site is located is intended for "higher intensity uses" and an area where the city has anticipated the highest potential for "redevelopment." It is important to note, however, that the site is located across Pearl St. from the lower intensity DT-2 zoning district. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 24 Agenda Item 5A Page 19 of 45 (3) Applicable criteria, review procedures, and submission requirements for a site review; The location of this project establishes a unique review process through two different boards. Page 3 illustrated the process in a flow chart that the city has identified to delineate the two concurrent review processes. The proposed project will be evaluated through a Site Review process for conformance with the DT-5 zoning and the Regional Business land use designation of the BVCP along with policies of the BVCP; Site Review criteria of the Land Use Code, and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Because of the location in the historic district, the application will also require concurrent application for Landmark Alteration Certificates evaluated through consistency with the Guidelines for New Construction in the Downtown Historic District the General Design Guidelines for new primary buildings in the Historic District, and the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate, section 9-11- 18, B.R.C. 1981. (4) Permits that may need to be obtained and processes that may need to be completed prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to site review approval; A Concept Level Landmarks Alteration Certificate review will be concurrent with Concept Plan Review and a final Landmarks Alteration Certificate application process will be required after Site Review approval as described and summarized on page 3. Use Review may be required for certain types of restaurant uses, if proposed on the site. (5) Opportunities and constraints in relation to the transportation system, including, without limitation, access, linkage, signalization, signage, and circulation, existing transportation system capacity problems serving the requirements of the transportation master plan, possible trail links, and the possible need for a traffic or transportation study; As an existing, fully developed site most of the infrastructure serving the existing and future site is already in place. However, as noted in the reviewer comments, a traffic impact study is required for any nonresidential development that is expected to generate 100 vehicle trips or greater during any single hour. Following from the submitted Trip Generation study, a traffic impact study will be a requirement of the Site Review submittal. (6) Environmental opportunities and constraints including, without limitation, the identification of wetlands, important view corridors, floodplains and other natural hazards, wildlife corridors, endangered and protected species and habitats, the need for further biological inventories of the site and at what point in the process the information will be necessary; Because the site is situated in an urban context and has been developed for over 130 years, there are no known wildlife corridors, wetlands, natural hazards, endangered, or protected species or other habitats within the subject property. A~ ti. View shed from the Site. There are existing ~*04, view corridors toward the mountains including - views toward Settlers Park at the terminus of Pearl and Mt. Sanitas, shown in the photo to the right which would not be obstructed.`; The most important viewshed that can be seen 11 from various angles near the intersection of 11 to n and Pearl are of the Flatirons. The views of the Flatirons are broad when standing back from the Views from Pearl to terminus of street with mtn. views end of the mall near the Boulder Bookstore, located 1107 Pearl St. Views in this area of the Mall can be readily seen, albeit framed by foreground building, kiosk trees, etc. as shown in the image above on the left. At the intersection of 11th and Pearl, the viewshed becomes more constrained due to the presence of the existing building, setback from the corner by the parking lot, as was developed in the 1960 it is important to note that this Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 25 Agenda Item 5A Page 20 of 45 condition has historically been the case with the original building anchoring the corner there were no views toward the Flatirons, as shown in the historic photos below. t1 J: 4F 16. WAN r ar i z I 'mow Present Day Views toward Flatirons from Pearl Street Mal Present Day Views toward Flatirons from intersection of 11th and Pearl ;Mid - Views toward Flatirons with Camera Bldg near intersection c 1956 Views toward Flatirons at intersection of 11th and Pearl c 1936 The challenge of redevelopment in Boulder, is to acknowledge that based on a 38' by right maximum height, not every Flatiron view, at any given angle or vantage point can be preserved. As demonstrated above, the view that exists of Flatirons today from points along the west end of the Pearl Street Mall does so as a result of the auto oriented redevelopment of the site that configured a building set far back from the street with a surface parking lot instead located at this important corner. The applicant is acknowledged for the intent within the Design Concept to maintain a view corridor toward the Flatirons by channeling the view toward a plaza and transparent building mass at the pedestrian walkway at 10th. As noted in the Concept Plan book, (refer to weblink on 9) "the intent of the building concept is to "respond physically to the urbanity of the Pearl, 11th, and Walnut Street edges yet explodes dramatically to recognize the foothills, mountain parks and always interesting sky to the west." The fact that views toward the Flatirons from the terminus of the Pearl Street Mall would change with the reintroduction of a building at the corner of 11th and Pearl, prompts a more in depth analysis of the existing viewshed condition. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 26 Agenda Item 5A Page 21 of 45 Changing Viewshed Along Pearl Street. The images on the following page 21 were formatted to illustrate a progression or movement toward the west along Pearl Street. As the images demonstrate, the viewshed toward the Flatirons along Pearl changes with views typically framed or "captured" as buildings move into or recede from the foreground viewshed. Another observation about the changing viewshed toward the mountains along west Pearl, is that even the small, historic single story buildings prevent Flatiron views. However, the viewshed directly west toward Mt. Sanitas does remain a constant, permanent focal point at the end of Pearl Street. The viewshed toward the Flatirons again returns at the intersection of 9th and Pearl. This is also the transition point between the high intensity DT-5 zoning and the beginning of the BMX zoning where a much lower 0.67 FAR is allowed. Flatiron Views in Downtown Boulder. Other analysis of the viewshed toward the Flatirons from Pearl Street shows that existing views toward the Flatirons along Pearl Street, particularly at intersections with Pearl Street have always been constrained, as shown below at the intersection of Pearl and Broadway, Pearl and 13th, and Pearl and Broadway, even in the context of east Pearl. Much of this has to do with the fact that downtown Boulder, and Pearl Street as a main street in downtown has been developed since the late 1800s. It is also due to the fact that there's a significant urban forest that has matured in downtown Boulder, particularly on the Pearl Street Mall that creates a "leafy room" that forms a canopy over the highly active pedestrian space of the mall Avw vu, C41 A 1 n 01 SW corner of 151h and Pearl looking southwest SW corner of Broadway and Pearl looking southwest As with many areas of Boulder close to the Flatirons, views open up and then become constrained with foreground development. Without broad areas of open space, it's uncommon for large areas of urban Boulder to have unobstructed views of the Flatirons. Forty-Five Degree Cone of Vision to Flatirons from Pearl. For the project to successfully channel the viewshed toward the "Wilderness Plaza" from Pearl, and to ensure that views are possible in this location, it is noted that a greater degree of analysis and potential refinement should occur at this space. As demonstrated in the aerial images on page 22, the Flatiron views are at an approximately 45 degree angle or cone of vision toward the southwest, from Pearl Street looking west. This is critical if the Concept Plan hopes to achieve the intent of the transparent "wilderness space" box on the west end of the building. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 27 Agenda Item 5A Page 22 of 45 1, - S i 4 ~ `XiWhi" ~ ~ ~a~.`!'~- III l,': r s ~ 'iC' ~ i ti r III ~ N.' l Beginning at the intersection of 11th and Pearl looking southwest, moving toward the west with views toward Flatirons appearing and then constrained by foreground buildings. UP - 06 Ar ~ . 110.'II s . 1 , - "MONO a u Continuing west on Pearl from intersection with 10th, it is noted that even single story structures obsure the view toward the Flatirons when traveling west on Pearl. u. R I _ ..a 1 .Y hi. M~1 ~lift 4~ t1` L I~f1lat x*: M~ ,Al A#'.. Iilgx. Views toward Flatirons remain obscured until the intersection of Pearl and 91h Street. Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 28 Agenda Item 5A Page 23 of 45 45 degree { 45 degree angle or cone - - angle or cone "L_ LiL- U_ ULt am - - of vision toward I of vision toward _ z- Flatirons from - Flatirons 1111ky~ existing site. r7_1 - 411 - H~ I T w'd'T.leirs Zhu f• '.s _y J , y~. x ,-a}~, R r• K~ , ~ _ i ~°"1re 'e--+-+'+~. L' "'G. s~d. ~ _ C'r~L 4 . ~ S ~`4.r' _ p . r= ~ _~~y _ ` ABM*1 ~q•/ 'mac ~~T'~,ta ~r~ ~ Ji Ira > ~ ~ ~..•.tl i.-,}~3 Sy Y`ld ~~il mil`.' its `S~ L rr ~-.4 a.[-f ~yt_,~ 1 ! i.~^i ~ p',,~~'°-T KLd th I.~~- ~ ~,,1~'~ i b ~ 1 t'Ak~.+'_.'G.- 4.1 M_ Y'd 11.~I'~`~ dlr., y k \ t J1 ` 'r".!M ''bse I v~ ~4~~~d~\~`~~~~-~~4 45 vb. 45 degree angle or cone U- Closer of vision toward perspective of Flatirons with 45 degree proposed angle or cone 1~ = project of vision toward ai; M1 _ - } Flatirons - F F~ kl* 4z '7- L, - - - r at N%, N~ft r~ !J r. i- R .I♦-~` ! erg.. ~ a- j ~ ~.sy~,'~/~IV ~"ire _ .s ..~•~--a L'~ tl E 1 t. Al 1 ~ Awl its 1u ~ Address: 1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut 29 Agenda Item 5A Page 24 of 45 View shed Analysis of Corner at 11th and Pearl. A preliminary visual simulation of the existing context (with the building setback from the corner and separated from the street by a parking lot) using the applicant's Sketch-up modeling draws an approximation of the building as proposed. As can be seen in the images below, the viewshed of the top of the Flatirons (shown on the left) would clearly change with a new building located per the downtown urban design guidelines, and in the historic configuration built to the corner. Staff notes that this would also be true with a by-right building of a 38-foot structure built at the corner, as also shown below. Vic. r _ !Ir n j`I,x ..r 1 Existing Views Proposed Project Visual Simulation Based on an analysis of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for new construction, staff has provided recommendations specific to the LAC application beginning on page If. The recommendations include a reference to the corner and how it should be refined or revised in terms of proportion and mass to better establish human scale at this critical downtown node. One recommendation to that end is to reduce the width (consistent with building end widths at 1200 and 1201 Pearl Street). Wilderness Space: The applicant intends to "channel" the vie wshed from the corner of 11th and Pearl to the Wilderness space. The question is if the viewshed should remain at all from the street level or if the access to the view can only be achieved in upper stories or a rooftop space. Staff recommends that additional viewshed analysis be done by the applicant prior to Site Review application to better understand if a viewshed open at the street level is achievable with the building setback and with transparent building mass above. As shown in a cursory analysis by staff below, it appears as though the building with the current setback wouldn't be able to capture the view from the street. Ridgeline Ridgeline of the of the Flatirons Flatirons Massing Model of 0 0 ikii4 Wilderness Space above and Plaza Before: After: (Existing Views at proposed location of Wilderness Space) (Visual Simulation of Wilderness Space approx. same location) 30 Agenda Item 5A Page 25 of 45 (7) Appropriate ranges of land uses; and (8) the appropriateness of or necessity for housing. On Aug. 4, 2011, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval to City Council of a DT-5 zoning code change to permit a 1.0 floor area ratio addition for non-residential uses, in conjunction with a housing linkage fee, under a Site Review process. A link to that Planning Board memo is provided herein. http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14704&ltemid=766 The City Council will be considering the ordinance next month. As the code is written today, under section 9-8-1, B.R.C. 1981, abase FAR of 1.7 is permitted by-right and an additional 1.0 FAR can be achieved through: provision of parking within the primary structure or on the same lot for a 0.5 FAR addition, and provision of residential, also for an addition of 0.5 FAR. The provision to allow an FAR addition for residential floor area was created in 2000 to encourage construction of residential in the downtown. BVCP Policies. In examining appropriate land use and residential for the site under the Concept Plan review criteria #7, it is important to reference the stated vision for downtown as noted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. On page 73 of the BVCP, the historic downtown is noted as the "heart of Boulder" and as., "the community's hub of economic, civic, cultural and social activity. It provides specialty shopping and restaurants, a center for civic activities, a central place for professional offices and banking, spiritual and educational facilities and an active area for the arts." Recent Analysis of Downtown Residential. An analysis completed in 2008 by the city, concluded that most of the residential built in recent years in the downtown had an average selling price of $1,000,000 "a direct result of market demand and the desirable downtown location" according to the analysis and that approximately % of the units in downtown were second homes. The analysis also revealed that while the price of units may be high, the cost of construction in the downtown for mixed-use buildings is also high, with land and construction costs accounting for nearly 80 percent of the total development costs. The conclusion was that while a percentage of units built in the downtown were permanently affordable, most developers paid cash in lieu to meet the city's inclusionary housing ordinance, and that the cost of land and construction drove up the price of the residential units that were built. Demand for Class A Office in Downtown. Planning Board and City Council adopted downtown code and Downtown Urban Design Guidelines changes on March 17 and May 3, 2011. Staffs original analysis and recommendations in April 2010 identified the demand for additional Class A office space downtown and suggested it be given equal consideration with housing. This issue surfaced again in discussions related to the site redevelopment at 11th and Pearl. City Council, at its May 3 meeting, directed staff to bring back a proposal for a floor area addition for non-residential use in the DT-5 zone district as an option to the existing floor area addition for residential use. As was noted in the original April 2010 memo prepared by staff regarding the downtown, " there is a need for new Class A office space close to the downtown, which has always been seen as the city's prime location for Class A office space. New businesses and employees in the downtown area will increase economic activity for the city and existing businesses." Defining Class `A' Office in Boulder. The Urban Land Institute, a noted authority on commercial land uses, says the following about these classifications in its Office Development Handbook. "Class `A' space can be characterized as buildings that have excellent location and access, attract high quality tenants, and are managed professionally. Building materials are high quality and rents are competitive with other new buildings." Related to the need for Class A office, it is noted that Boulder Economic Council's Economic Summit held in May 2011, explored what it is about Boulder that attracts entrepreneurs, how Boulder can remain competitive, and the economic implications if the city doesn't. Notes from the summit indicated, 31 Agenda Item 5A Page 26 of 45 `Boulder has been getting a lot of attention as a center for innovation and entrepreneurship. The city has been recently recognized as a "magnet for high-tech start-ups" by the New York Times, "one of the top places in the country to create an Internet start-up" by BusinessWeek, and a "hotbed for innovation" by MSNBC. According to the memo prepared for the Aug. 4, 2011 Planning Board hearing on non-residential use in the DT-5 zoning district, the current economic conditions have placed constraints on construction of residential in the downtown, compared to office space, "Difficulties in obtaining financing due to dislocations in the commercial real estate banking area as well as indications of unsold units downtown point to a small likelihood of condominium development in the DT-5 zone in the near term. While financing constraints also exist in the market for commercial real estate construction loans, there appears to be a shortage of larger-sized commercial space downtown. The market for downtown commercial space is also expected to improve moderately, and the demand for office space downtown appears to be stronger than for retail space." Transit Mode Share in the Downtown. The Aug. 4th memo to Planning Board also describes that downtown transportation mode share is very high, making access into the downtown for Class A office tenants attractive and reasonable. The study points to the fact that downtown is well-served by transit service and bike share programs, with commercial employees and residents having the highest mode share for alternative travel modes of any area in Boulder at 63 percent and 73 percent respectively using alternative modes of travel. Preliminary transportation analysis that was recently completed for the study by Fox Higgins Associates found that the downtown street grid is adequate to accommodate additional trips that would be generated by new commercial office in the downtown without significant additional impact. Site specific TDM and parking management strategies will be required through the site review process that may include or focus on incentivizing alternative travel modes and reducing the impacts of additional auto trips through. Eco Pass programs; car share and bike share programs; additional transit service such as improvements to 14th and Walnut RTD transit station, and US 36 bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements due to arrive by mid 2015. Potential Community Benefit for Non-Residential Floor Area. The Aug. 4th Planning Board approval for the DT-5 code changes also included a strategy creating community benefit for non-residential development such as Class A office in the downtown using a housing linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot to be paid on the additional non-residential floor area. Conclusion on Land Use. Indications from the recent studies point to the need for, and community benefit from, Class A office in downtown. City Council will be evaluating the code change next month that would permit the proposed office building with up to a 2.7 FAR. Therefore, the proposed use as Class A office is considered apporopriate and is expected to address an important need in the downtown. 32 Agenda Item 5A Page 27 of 45 VI. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES Consistency of project with Section 1.2 of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. The Board has adopted Section 1.2 of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, New Construction and Remodeling Non-Contributing Buildings in the Downtown Historic District and the General Design Guidelines 6.0 per the historic preservation ordinance and section 9-11-18 B.R.C With a joint review, the Planning Board's role in Concept Plan review is based on the criteria of the Land Use Code, section 9-2-13(g)(2) which requires, among other criteria, an evaluation of the community policy considerations including the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to be used as a "basis for understanding, discussing and assessing the design quality." Therefore, at this concept level of detail, the guidelines are intended as an aid for appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. The format of the matrix below is intended to provide a concise response to the questions of consistency with the guidelines. Where findings have been made that the current concept plans don't respond or "maybe" respond to the guidelines, an image is provided to emphasize the points made in the response. In some cases, staff is providing precedent images of built projects as examples, and in other cases, the images from the concept plan are illustrated to demonstrate the inconsistency. 33 Agenda Item 5A Page 28 of 45 DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.2 Guidelines for New Construction While new building design is expected to reflect the character of its own time, thereby making the downtown a living district, it is important that it also respect the traditional qualities that make the downtown unique such as massing, scale, uses of storefront detailing and choice materials. I 121 GUIDELINE; ANALYSIS; CONFORMS IMAGES G. Repetition of traditional features Upper-story windows might be better NO creates patterns and visual proportioned) either literally or more alignments that contribute to the abstractly), to reflect historic proportions overall character of the district. While found on c. 1880 Daily Camera and/or these features may interpreted in representative historic windows in new and contemporary ways, they historic district. Likewise, revisions generally should include vertical should be made to reflect proportion of ' i window patterns/shapes on 2n6 floor; wall area to openings on some faces of provide for angled entrances on the building. This could be done literally, - corners and recessed central or in a more figurative/abstract manner. r :r entrances. The face at 11 th and Pearl is critical to urban/historic context - current scheme is unresolved as to form, mass, scale, jai. and pattern. Consider angled corner to address mall. Design this corner in a wa will activate streetsca a and way that p yL; ~1l~t` attract pedestrians to gather. Refer to ltr' ,r. proportions of key historic buildings located at corners along Pearl Street as II reference. Also refer to image shown on I ! li:l page 33 regarding guideline 1.27, as a contemporary interpretation of window 1 patterns. 1424.26 Pearl c.1926 Cloverleaf Dairy/First Citizens National Bank Building with paired vertical windows. 34 Agenda Item 5A Page 29 of 45 1.2 .2 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS Align Architectural Features with While currently very schematic - YES Establshed Pattern of Neighboring alignments and patterns of storefronts Buildings. along Pearl & 11th Streets appear to support established visual character of The alignment of architectural ;:9 1 both Pearl and 11th Streets. Proposals features from one building to another divergence from 25' wide storefront to ANI[Alm !Jim creates visual continuity and - establishes a coherent visual context 30' wide is consistent with 30' widths at ` throughout the downtown. Facades 1011,1039, and 1047 Pearl Street. should be designed to reinforce More work needed to refine these - r features based upon this guideline and these patterns and support the established visual character. 1.2.1 at subsequent Landmarks Board review. 30 - - -fit-~ 1.2.3 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS Maintain the Line of Storefronts at Drawings show setbacks of proposed YES the Sidewalk Edge and Orient building essentially consistent with those r IT 4 Main Entrances Open Toward the of Pearl and 11th Streets, potentially with Street a slightly larger sidewalk space. The Maintain similar setback to that of public space at the west property line historic buildings in the area -careful appropriately establishes a larger consideration should be given if a setback to create the plaza space and ~ - - - i building wall is proposed setback augment the public space that exists beyond that of the historic pattern. with the pedestrian alley. More work needed to refine at subsequent Landmarks Board review.' 1.2.4 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS Do Not Construct Half Level of No split level floors shown. YES Split-Level First Floors That Extend Above and Below Grade. 35 Agenda Item 5A Page 30 of 45 1.2.5 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES Consider the Height and Mass of Staff also concurs that the breaks in the Buildings. building mass through use of the plaza MAYBE In general, buildings should appear space and glass boxes on both the similar in height, mass, and scale to Walnut and Pearl elevations may be other buildings in the historic area to effective in transitioning to the adjacent maintain the area's visual integrity buildings. However, the 11 rh and Pearl and unique character whileproviding corner, while a compelling idea for the x a variety of heights to create visual tY glass box, may register as too bulky for interset. One, two and three story that corner. Consider referencing r buildings make-up the primary elegant forms of 1200 & 1201 Pearl ft , F architectural fabric, with taller Street. This guideline, along with the 1 buildings located at key intersections. following (1.26) applies in particular to the corner element. Contributing buildings in historic district along Pearl Street are generally 2 & 3 stories in height. Exceptions to this are instances of higher buildings are1200 Pearl St (4 + stories, 63' high) and 1201 Pearl (3 + stories, 49' high). Across for subject site 1011 Pearl (3 + stories, 44' 1201 Pearl Street high) and 1047 Pearl (2 stories, 36' high). Original Camera building was 2 stories and approximately 38' in height. Proposed height at corner may be appropriate, but mass, height, anda proportions of corner element should be:, refined to better reflect those elements found in taller historic buildings located on corners - consider reducing width of east facing glass element to create proportions more like those of buildings - - at Pearl & Broadway. Mass, scale, and height of Pearl Street and 11th Street , facades might be varied more to create y`, J VNW, interest and ensure new building does _ not overwhelm historic buildings in the streetscape. These refinements could be 1200 Pearl Street reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration certificate. 36 Agenda Item 5A Page 31 of 45 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES A. Strive for visual interest in As design development progresses, MAYBE building forms. articulation of Pearl Street and 11th Street elements will need to be refined- ~ `i~ f n; I - 1II1`i'HI and reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration certificate. n a ~f r~i ~~L ,J. 1 V 1k~ _ V I ! ~r n-_' 1L-i7 ~ - View of proposed project looking SW from corner of Pearl and 111h. B. Relate the height of buildings to While proposed to be taller than YES neighboring buildings at the historically was the case on the sidewalk edge. 1000 block of Pearl Street, height of proposed building at sidewalk edge i generally consistent with that of historic - 4,7 _-________e- commercial buildings in the district. 11rh 4rr~~r iI'~,ii] I_o,t;ut.• As noted, the building will block certain C. Consider the effect of building views of Flatirons to southwest. At MAYBE height on shading and views. approximately 38' in height, the historic y i Camera building was shown in historic photos to have also obscured views from east side of 11th Street. Steps ff might be taken to lower roof height at west portion of building to provide some view of the Flatirons over the buildings when viewed form east end of mall (and possibly north side of 1000 block of r Pearl Street. Any new construction (to 2 stories or more) to sidewalk at this site will result in shading of the street during winter months C.1930 photograph of Daily Camera Building at subject site, looking southwest. Photo provided by Carnegie Library for Local History 37 Agenda Item 5A Page 32 of 45 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES 1.2.6 Maintain a Human Building Scale While large, the design seeks to break MAYBE Rather Than a Monolithic or up masses through modulation of Monumental Scale. Smaller scale planes, and step backs particularly on buildings and the use of the corners. The northeast corner traditionally sized building element (at 11th and Pearl) needs to be components help establish human revised in terms of proportion and mass scale and maintain the character to better establish human scale at this of downtown. Standard size brick, critical downtown node. uniform building components, and Likewise, with a more in depth analysis y standard window sizes are most, for the west portion of the building and \ t~ as~~ appropriate. ~XK plaza area (termed the "wilderness% space") is necessary as it relates to pedestrian alley. Greater detail will be forthcoming as , project plans progress, including details on types of materials to be used, which will also serve to break down the mass of the building. Massing Model Axonometric 17 65, R 3! , 4`iS'r' . Y ~~1?&--' Integration of massing model into streetscape: Design development must ensure modulation of front fagade to maintain established rhythm of traditionally sized building components and help establish human scale. 38 Agenda Item 5A Page 33 of 45 GUIDELINES; ANALYSIS; CONFORMS IMAGES 1.2.7 Maintain the proportions of Proposed building does not appear to NO Storefront Windows and Doors adequately incorporate proportions of 4 I~~ F + n fi, and Established Pattern of Upper wall area to glazed area found on Story Windows historic buildings in historic district. While currently schematic in design, size rte' First floor of downtown commercial buildings should be and proportions of the proposed window openings inconsistent with the character 1Z primarily transparent with pedestrian orientation and of historic buildings also (see analysis p under 1.2.1 above). These elements - Z storefront appearance. Upperq ` should be revised significantly and floors should incorporate traditional vertically proportioned reviewed under subsequent landmark ` I q alteration certificate. window openings within a more ! F s solid fagade. Use windows similar Example on the right (Sofitel Hotel in r in size and shape to those used Chicago shows a modern traditionally. abstraction/interpretation of window _7 r opening proportions that pay respect to Q r the adjacent historic building. (Please note this just one example of achieving ~J the goal of Guidelines 1.2.7, see also the image on page 29, Guidelinel.2.1G). Nit - ~I Sofitel Hotel, Chicago, IL by Jean-Paul Viguier. While 25' wide bays are the norm on MAYBE 30 30' z5 1.2.8 Maintain the rhythm of traditional ' historic buildings on the south side of the 25-foot fagade storefront widths. 900 block of Pearl Street (west of the site), 30' wide bays are found on historic irIr`1 , storefronts at 1001-11,1017,1143, and 1047 Pearl. Proposed 30' width on the ~rlc new building is appropriate, however, Hof'"'es' corner element at the northeast, facing the mall, should also be reduced to this width (consistent with building end widths at 1200 and 1201 Pearl Street). 77977. mas LIM Site Proposed 30-foot bays in relation to nearby, existing widths (1001.11 Pearl above) 39 Agenda Item 5A Page 34 of 45 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS R 1.2.9 Use building materials that have Conceptually, the use of glass curtain G~ r1 ---I texture, pattern, and scale similar walls on elements of the building can be to those in the district. considered a departure from this MAYBE li i A. rrit i it r t •~w,~I, 01, guideline. However, the use of more + ~-g 1~1 L : 73 The use of brick as the primar 1, A y traditional materials on the majority of All building material is encouraged to I u c, reflect historic patterns in the the provided building the may mass, appropriate, p , proportion and scale commercial downtown. Choose k6 i accent materials similar in texture of these elements is in keeping with and scale to others in the district traditional forms. Large surfaces of glass should be rendered so as to reflect form , s proportion of fenestration and patterns found on historic buildings. The details ' of materials placement, texture, pattern and rhythm should be reviewed under y subsequent landmark alteration certificate to ensure consistency with this guideline and overall design. Examples of glass curtain walls in historic and contemporary contexts - as provided by applicant. 1.2.10 Improve Rear or Side Alley Public access and character of alley will YES Elevations to Enhance Public be generally improved by proposed new Access from Parking Lots and construction. Details of alley-scape Alleys. should be reviewed under subsequent Where buildings are building to landmark alteration certificate. alley edge, consider opportunities for alley display windows and secondary entries. New construction should be sensitive to and compatible with historic alleyscapes in terms of scale and character of the building. 40 Agenda Item 5A Page 35 of 45 Landmarks Board • General Design Guidelines for New Construction, 6.0. The following is an analysis of the proposal's consistency with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks. 6.1 Distinction from Historic Buildings The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be compatible with the historic context, the must also be reco nizable as new construction. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES .1 Buildings should be of their own Refinement of design needs to occur to ensure MAYBE time creating contemporary that the proportion, massing, fenestration, and interpretations of historic finish of the contemporary idiom for this building elements. compatible with commercial blocks in Boulder. This will be reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration certificate review. .2 Interpretations of historic styles Proposed design does not interpret historic MAYBE may be appropriate if they are style(s), but rather strives to reference traditional distinguishable as new. form, rhythm, massing, fenestration, and materials in a distinguishable contemporary manner. Refinements to these elements as outlined in this analysis would occur in subsequent landmark alteration certificate review. 6.2 Site and Setting New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new structures should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings. Therefore, the compatibility of proposed new construction will be reviewed to ensure that these elements are maintained. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS 3 Site new construction to be The proposed design is generally compatible with YES compatible with surrounding surrounding historic buildings in terms of setback, buildings that contribute to the orientation, and distance from adjacent buildings. overall character of the historic district in terms of setback, orientation, spacing, and distance from adjacent buildings. 41 Agenda Item 5A Page 36 of 45 4 MAYBE New construction should not be The proposed 2.7 FAR for the new construction is significantly different from not unusual in the context for comparison: contributing historic buildings in the original Boulderado Hotel has a significantly the district in terms of the higher FAR of 5.1; proportion of built mass to open 1201 Pearl has a 3.09 FAR (11,000 sq ft. of floor space on the individual site. See area on a 3555 sq.ft. lot),- and Guideline 2.1.1. 1001 Pearl has a 2.55 FAR (31,678 sq.ft. of floor area on a 12,398 sq.ft. lot) rrr~. - [ It is important to note the size difference of the lots': L in the comparison. K@: A L R I Boulderado Hotel looking southwest 6.3 Mass and Scale In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing, size and scale will all be reviewed The overall proportion of the building's front fagade is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetscape. While new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not be so out-of-scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS Design new buildings to be Contributing buildings in historic district along Pearl MAYBE compatible with surrounding Street are generally 2 & 3 stories in height. buildings that contribute to the Exceptions to this are are1200 Pearl St (4 + overall character of the historic stories, 63' high) and 1201 Pearl (3 + stories, 49' \ district in terms of height, size, high) and across from subject site at 1011 Pearl scale, massing, and proportions. (3 + stories, 44' high) and 1047 Pearl (2 stories, 36 high). Original Camera building was 2 stories and approximately 38' in height. Proposed height atT corner may be appropriate, but mass, height, and proportions of corner element should be refined to~ p better reflect those elements found in taller historic buildings located on corners - consider reducing width of east facing glass element to create proportions more like those of buildings at Pearl & Broadway. Mass, scale, and height of Pearl Street` and 11th Street facades might be varied more to i'~I It~l q ll "X., create interest and ensure new building does not 11 I;4' NN overwhelm historic buildings in the streetscape. fl p~ 1. F 44, These refinements could be reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration certificate. Proportions of corner could reflect those of historic buildings at Pearl and Broadway 42 Agenda Item 5A Page 37 of 45 •2 The mass and scale of new construction should respect See 6.3.1 (above) for the Pearl elevation. MAYBE neighboring buildings and the streetscape as a whole. 1-14 Note the consistency of the Walnut elevation to -777- (non historic) neighboring buildings - II _ Existing Context at 11th and Pearl looking north. - r • 1. Elevation of proposed building along 1101, in comparison to former Tom's Tavern on North Side of Pearl Y Q t r f~r i r~l~ { i V All Perspective of massing study of proposed project in Walnut context 43 Agenda Item 5A Page 38 of 45 3 Historic heights and widths as Face at 11'" and Pearl is critical to urban/historic MAYBE well as their ratios should be context - current scheme is unresolved as to form, maintained. The proportions of the mass, scale, and pattern. Consider an angled I€ l y front fagade are particularly comer or other contemporary means to address' important and should be mall. Design this corner in a way that will activate compatible to those of streetscape and attract pedestrians to gather. a r I surrounding historic buildings. Refer to proportions of key historic buildings located at corners along Pearl Street as reference. r i These elements should be revised significantly and f I reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration s 1 OR- certificate. n^ ,t ! Example on the right (The Poetry Foundation, Chicago) is one example of a modern building that wI creates an active street corner that is inviting to pedestrians. 4 ' 4 P While 25 wide bays are the norm on historic buildings on the south side of the 900 block of - Pearl Street, 30' wide bays are found on historic storefronts at 1001-11,1017,1143, and 1047. Proposed 30' width on the new building is The Poetry Foundation Building, Chicago, IL by John Ronan. appropriate, however, corner element at northeast facing mall should also be reduced to this width (consistent with building end widths at 1200 and 1201 Pearl Street). (refer also to image on page 33, Guideline 1.28) 6.4 Materials GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS IMAGES Materials should be similar in Conceptually, the use of glass curtain walls on .1 MAYBE tq An scale, proportion, texture, finish, elements of the building can be considered a and color to those found on departure from this guideline. However, the use of I>>~~ +ry nearby historic buildings. more traditional materials on the majority of the ' r 1'. 0 , 1114 building may be appropriate, provided the mass g., V >>II' Y wi s;q proportion and scale of these elements is in , I k~ lI .,V~. keeping with traditional forms. Large surfaces of I it Vw~ glass should be rendered so as to reflect forme I proportion of fenestration and patterns found on historic buildings. The details of materials placement, texture, pattern and rhythm should be Examples of glass curtain walls provided by applicant. reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration E' . certificate to ensure consistency with this guideline and overall design. t' ti 44 Agenda Item 5A Page 39 of 45 2 Maintain a human scale by Large surfaces of glass should be rendered so as MAYBE avoiding large, featureless to reflect form proportion of fenestration and surfaces and by using patterns found on historic buildings. The details of traditionally sized building materials placement, texture, pattern and rhythm components and materials. should be reviewed under subsequent landmark alteration certificate to ensure consistency with this guideline and overall design, 6.5 Key Building Elements Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they compliment the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions. Design the spacing, placement, Review these elements under subsequent LAC. Additional scale, orientation, proportion, and information size of window and door openings required in news tructures to be compatible with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district, while reflecting the underlying design of the new buildin . 2 Select windows and doors for Review these elements under subsequent LAC. Additional news tructures that are information compatible in required material, subdivision, proportion, pattern and detail with the windows and doors of surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district. 4 Porches should be compatible in Review these elements under subsequent LAC. Additional massing and details to historic information porches in the district, and required should be appropriate to the style of the building. 45 Agenda Item 5A Page 40 of 45 F VII. STANDARDS FOR THE LANDMARK BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark Alteration Certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 (a)&(b)(1)-(4). Specifically: a. Is the proposed application consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981? In terms of location, mass, scale, and height, the proposed demolition and new construction is consistent with the purposes and intent of the historic preservation ordinance in that it will not damage the historic character of historic buildings or the Downtown Historic District. 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district? The existing 1964 building is non-contributing to the Downtown Historic District. Staff considers the loss of this building will not damage or destroy the historic character of the district and that in terms of location, mass, scale, and height, the proposed new construction is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (for new construction in the Downtown Historic District) and the General Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts (see design guidelines analysis section). 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? The staff finds that as presented at concept level, that in terms of location, mass, scale, and height, the proposed new construction will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district because, that in terms of these aspects, the proposed new construction is generally compatible with the with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (for new construction in the Downtown Historic District) and the General Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts (see design guidelines analysis section). 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district? The staff finds that in terms of location, mass, scale, and height, the proposed new construction will be compatible with the architectural style and arrangement of historic buildings in the district. 4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of paragraphs § 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3) of this section? SUMMARY OF CONSISTENCY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (Landmarks Board) The staff finds that in terms of location, mass, scale, and height, the proposed new construction which is to replace the proposed demolished building meets the requirements of paragraphs § 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3), as it will re-establish a building that is compatible with the existing streetscape and the district as a whole. It is generally compatible and consistent generally consistent with the generally compatible with the with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (for new construction in the Downtown Historic District) and the General Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts (see design guidelines analysis section). 46 Agenda Item 5A Page 41 of 45 c. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate. The Landmarks Board should consider the incorporation of energy-efficient design and accessibility in the design of the proposed building Historic preservation staff considers that demolition of the non-contributing, 1964 Daily Camera Building is appropriate as the building is constructed outside of the 1859-1946 period-of-significance for the Downtown Historic District and not a notable building from the recent past. Staff also considers that in terms preservation general location, mass, scale, and height, the proposed new construction is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (for new construction in the Downtown Historic District) and the General Guidelines for Boulder's Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks. However, there are a number of significant design issues, as outlined above, that need to be resolved through the Landmarks Board landmark alteration certificate process. Chief among these is revisions to the northeast corner of the building to ensure a design that is attractive and of a human scale where pedestrians will be drawn to gather, that its design responds to the historic urban context of the 1000 block of Pearl Street and the mall, that materials, shapes. and proportions of the building's walls appropriately responds to, and reinforces the historic character of the district, That consideration is given to maintain some view of mountains to the southwest when viewing the building from the west and north, and that the plaza at the south end is designed in a manner that respects human scale, and maintains an openness when approaching through the pedestrian alley from Walnut Street. Staff considers that the comments made regarding the proposed Pearl Street and 11th Street faces of the building also apply to the proposed Walnut. If the Landmarks Board was issue a concept level landmark alteration certificate for the building, staff considers that a subsequent lac review by the full Landmarks Board would be necessary for the final design. This review would cover review of revisions to the massing and proportions of the building as outlined above, but would also address elements such as fenestration, pattern, material, exterior finishes as well as review of the configuration of open spaces on and around the property, to ensure consistency with the appropriate design guidelines and these facets of the project meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate as set out in 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code. 47 Agenda Item 5A Page 42 of 45 VIII. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR LANDMARKS BOARD: CONCEPT LEVEL LAC Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: "The Landmarks Board approves the demolition of the non-contributing building at 1048 Pearl Street and 1023 Walnut Avenue issues a alteration certificate construction for the general location, mass, scale, and height of the proposed new building on that property as shown on plans dated July 15, 2011 finding that they generally meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below and adopts this memorandum as findings of the board." This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions listed below, the proposed demolition and new construction will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the Section 1.2 of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, New Construction and Remodeling Non-Contributing Buildings in the Downtown Historic District, General Design Guidelines, and the historic preservation ordinance. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for revising the plans per these conditions and that the review of those conditions shall occur in a subsequent landmark alteration certificate application of a more finalized design that will be reviewed by the full Landmarks Board in a public hearing. 2. Prior to 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 southwest 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 building in 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 west end of mall and 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. e) Refine design for south 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 store fronts on Pearl, 11t", and Walnut Street to reinforce visual continuity of streetscape. g) Refine design for alley with consideration of h) Continue to develop and refine details of building design including wall material, windows, doors, hoods, pergola, paving, and landscaping/hardscaping. Emphasize proportion and rhythm to detailing rather than use of ornament. 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. 48 Agenda Item 5A Page 43 of 45 Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: 1. The demolition of the 1964 Daily Camera is appropriate as it is non-contributing and the location, mass scale, and height of the proposed new construction meets the standards in 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code. 2. The proposed the location, mass scale, and height of the proposed building as presented in the concept plan, will not have an adverse effect on the value of the district, as it will be generally compatible in terms of mass, scale, or orientation with other buildings in the district. 3. The final landmark alteration certificate for the building including details outlined in the conditions of this memo will ensure consistency with the relevant design guidelines and the historic preservation ordinance as the design moves forward. IX. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Required public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject site and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-10(g), B_R.C. 1981 have been met. In addition, the applicant held five community meetings to solicit input by the public on the proposed project over the course of a six month period. The applicant also held a Good Neighbor Meeting on Aug. 3, 2011. Summary notes of these meetings are provided in Attachment A along with applicant's other submittal materials. XI. PLANNING BOARD ACTION: _ =a No action is required by Planning Board. Planning Board, Public and staff comments will be documented for use by the applicant. Concept Plan review and comment is intended to give the applicant preliminary feedback on the development concepts, and direction for site review applications. Approved B D 'd Driskell, Ex u i hector Department of Community Planning and Suslainability Attachments Attachment A: Applicant's Submittal Materials and Concept Plan Book 49 Agenda Item 5A Page 44 of 45 Attachment A: Applicant Submittal Materials The following is a link to the applicant's proposal including the Concept Plan Book, http:!lwww.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14705Nemid=766 A hard copy is also provided. 50 Agenda Item 5A Page 45 of 45