Item 5A - 3201 8th StAgenda Item # 5A Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
August 1, 2018
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Charles Ferro, Interim Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution
initiating the process for the designation of the property at 3201 8th
St. as an individual landmark pursuant to Section 9-11-3, B.R.C.
1981.
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 3201 8th St.
2. Date of Construction: 1928
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low)
4. Lot Size: 9,173 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Building Size: 1,437 sq. ft. (County Assessor)
6. Owner: Jeanne and Steven Hoerter
7. Applicant: City of Boulder Landmarks Board
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board does not initiate landmark designation for the
property at 3201 8th St. for the following reasons:
• The building is not currently threatened with demolition. The owners withdrew
the demolition permit application on June 14, 2018. They have stabilized the
building, made improvements and are currently renting out the house, having
met the rental licensing requirements. If the building is proposed for demolition
in the future, a new application would require review by the historic
preservation program. See Attachment 2: Letters from Owner to Withdraw
Demolition Application and Provide a Status Update.
• The initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection by the
Landmarks Board has historically been used very rarely.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 2
• There has been little community interest in the proposed demolition during the
stay of demolition. See Attachment 3: Public Comment Received March 1 – July
1, 2018.
• The building is not currently proposed for demolition and while the building
may be eligible for landmark designation, staff considers initiation of landmark
designation over the owner’s objection is not appropriate in that it would not
represent a reasonable balance of private property rights and the public interest.
MOTION:
I move that the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the property at 3201 8th
St.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this hearing is for the Board to determine whether it is appropriate to
initiate local landmark designation for the property at 3201 8th St.
On Sept. 28, 2017, the Historic Preservation program received a demolition permit
application for the house and garage at 3201 8th St.
On Oct. 4, 2017, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) referred the
application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was “probable
cause” to consider the property may be eligible for designation as an individual
landmark.” The Landmarks Board hearing fee was paid Feb. 2, 2018.
On March 7, 2018, staff recommended, and the Landmarks Board imposed a stay-of-
demolition for a period of up to 180 days, in order to seek alternatives to the
demolition finding that the house may be eligible for individual Landmark
designation. See Attachment 6: Demolition Memo dated March 6, 2018.
On March 9, April 16, and June 6, staff, two representatives of the Landmarks Board
and representative of Historic Boulder, Inc. met with the owner to discuss
alternatives to demolition, including landmark designation, rehabilitation, and the
possibility of constructing an addition to the main house. As stated in the analysis
section of this memo, none of these options were considered feasible by the property
owner. See Attachment 4: Stay of Demolition Meeting Notes
On June 6, 2018, the Landmarks Board voted (3-2, E. Budd and R. Pelusio opposed) to
schedule a hearing to consider whether to initiate landmark designation for the
property at 3201 8th St.
The 180-day stay period would have expired on August 1, 2018. On June 14, 2018, the
owners withdrew the demolition permit application.
Limited public interest in the preservation of the house has been demonstrated.
Between March 1 and July 1, the PH&S department has received 4 letters in support
of the demolition of the house and none in support of preservation of the house. At
the June 6 Landmarks Board meeting, two community members spoke in support of
preservation of the house and one person spoke in support of the demolition permit
Agenda Item # 5A Page 3
application. See Attachment 3: Public Comment Received March 1 – July 1, 2018.
Staff considers that, in this case, landmark designation would not represent a
reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest per § 9-11-
1(b), B.R.C. 1981, and recommends the Board not initiate the application.
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance, at Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, provides that the
Landmarks Board may hold a public hearing to consider initiating landmark designation
of a property if the Board finds that the building may be eligible for landmark
designation pursuant to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981. At the June 6, 2018
Landmarks Board meeting, the Board voted (3-2, R. Pelusio and E. Budd opposed), to
hold a hearing to consider whether initiation of landmark designation is appropriate in
advance of the August 1, 2018 expiration of the stay-of-demolition. Following the
meeting, the owners withdrew the demolition permit application.
Purpose of Stays of Demolition
The stated purposes of a stay-of-demolition are “to prevent the loss of buildings that
may have historic or architectural significance” and, “to provide the time necessary to
initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives.” Section 9-11-
23(a), Purpose, B.R.C. 1981. During the course of a stay, the Board may consider a variety
of options to this end, one of which is the designation of the property. The initiation of
landmark designation over an owner’s objection by the Landmarks Board has
historically been used only on very rare occasions.
In the past ten years, approximately 60 stays-of-demolition have been imposed by the
Board. Only three times during that period has the Board initiated and recommended
landmark designation of a property over the owner’s objection. However, many stays
during this same period have resulted in the avoidance of demolition through
reconsideration of projects and the subsequent preservation of buildings, including
landmark designation. Recent examples in which stays of demolition have resulted in
the applicant filing an application for landmark designation include: 1936 Mapleton Ave.
(2008); 900 Pearl St. (2009); 2003 Pine St. (2014); and 1922 20th St. (2014). Likewise, there
are many examples of stays that have been allowed to expire (or demolition permits
issued prior the stay expiring) by the Board when reasonable alternatives to demolition
have not been found.
Initiation by Board
Pursuant to Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, the decision to initiate the designation of an
individual landmark pursuant to Section 9-11-1, Legislative Intent, and Section 9-11-2,
City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts, B.R.C. 1981, is
legislative in nature.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 4
Compliance with Section 9-11-1(a)
Section 9-11-1(a) reads as follows:
9-11-1, Purpose and Legislative Intent
a. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare
by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city
reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or national history or
providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the
purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values,
stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge
of the City’s living heritage.
Architecture
Constructed in 1928, the one and one-half-story house at 3201 8th St. is a relatively well-
preserved example of the English/Norman Cottage Revival style, evidenced though its
steeply gabled roof, decorative brick sheathing with stone trim, chimney with divided
stacks and round arched window. The house remains largely intact, retaining its original
form and massing, and materiality. Alterations include the construction of an addition in
1935 by the original owner, construction of a second addition and dormers, estimated to
have been completed in the 1950s or 1960s.
The Historic Building Inventory Form (1995) identified the house as representing a type,
period, or method of construction, noting that it is “ . . . representative of the
English/Norman Cottage Revival style popular during the 1930s and 1940s, as reflected
in the gabled roof, brick construction with stone trim, chimney with divided stacks, and
round arched window.”
The 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places: Newland Addition and North Boulder
Survey Report documents the presence of the English/Norman Cottage style in the
survey area. The survey recorded 380 buildings in the Newland Addition/North Boulder
area. The survey report states:
In the survey area, twenty-three examples of English/Norman Cottage style were
documented. The English/Norman style dwelling at 2825 3rd Street is unusual for its
walls clad with rounded logs which taper in width from foundation to gable peak. A fine
native stone example of English/Norman Cottage architecture is 3134 4th Street. A
picturesque example of the style is 3142 8th Street, with its flared eave, round arched
entrance, façade chimney, and band of multi-light windows. The brick and stucco dwelling
at 1407 Cedar Avenue is notable for its clipped gable and porch with arched openings. A
Agenda Item # 5A Page 5
nice brick example of English/Norman Cottage style is 2927 11th Street, notable for its
extruded mortar, steeply pitched roof, and tall chimney.
A garage is located at the northwest corner of the property. Constructed between 1929
and 1949, the building is clad in brick, with stone lintels and sills and a concrete
foundation. The building has a gabled roof with wood shingles at the gabled ends and
exposed rafter tails. A wide door opening and window are located on the east elevation;
it is likely that the garage was historically accessed from 8th Street. Three clearstory
windows are located on the south end of the west elevation. Tax Assessor records show
the building was originally L-shaped; the northwest corner was filled in with concrete
block at a later date. The roof form and materials appear to be original.
Persons Associated with the Property
The property is associated with Mary and Owen Goldsworthy, who constructed the
property and lived here from 1928 until 1939. Mary Goldsworthy was an active member
in the community, serving in many capacities with the Boulder Rebekah Lodge No. 5
and the Boulder Women’s Club. Like his father and brother, Owen Goldsworthy was a
brick mason who built houses in the Boulder area.
The house was constructed during the early years of the Newland neighborhood’s
development and demonstrates Boulder’s growth between WWI and WWII.
Geographic Importance
This property is representative of houses constructed in the Newlands area during the
first half of the twentieth century as it gradually transitioned from agricultural in
character to a residential neighborhood. In the early twentieth century, the area
consisted primarily of farms, orchards and ranches; by the 1940s, residential
development had begun in earnest. Many of residents in the houses constructed from
1920 to 1940 were working-class laborers, carpenters, shopkeepers, and people working
for companies such as the Mountain States and Telephone Company.
This property may provide historic and environmental importance or significance as a
representative example of the character of this area of Boulder in the early 20th Century.
However, as a whole, the area has lost much of its original character.
Compliance with Section 9-11-1(b)
Section 9-11-1(b) reads as follows:
b. “The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building
in the city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property
rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and
Agenda Item # 5A Page 6
architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures
important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives . . . .”
Staff considers the initiation of landmark designation of this property inappropriate
given the property is no longer under threat of demolition and efforts that have been
made to explore alternatives to the demolition during the stay. A stay-of-demolition is
issued to provide time to “explore alternatives” that might prevent the demolition of
significant historic resources. Staff considers that time has been taken and considerable
efforts have been made to explore alternatives including offsetting rehabilitation costs
using tax credits and other financial incentives. Due to the compromised structural
condition and estimated cost of repair, the owner considers rehabilitation of the building
to be unreasonable and impractical, but has decided to withdraw the demolition
application and rent the house.
During the course of the stay-of-demolition, there has been limited community support
for the preservation of the building. Between March 7 and July 1, four letters have been
received in support of the demolition of the house and none in support of preservation
of the house. At the June 6 Landmarks Board meeting, two community members spoke
in support of preserving the house and one person spoke in support of the demolition
permit application. See Attachment 3: Public Comment Received March 1-July 1, 2018.
Staff considers that while the building may be eligible for landmark designation, the fact
that it is not currently threatened with demolition and that the owners have explored
alternatives to demolition and chosen to not demolish the building at this time, initiation
over the owner’s objection would represent an unreasonable balance of private property
rights and the public good.
Compliance with Section 9-11-2
Section 9-11-2 provides:
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may by ordinance:
(1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an
integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having
a special character and historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or
value and designate a landmark site for each landmark.
Staff considers that while the property might meet the standard for designation as an
individual landmark per Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C., 1981, in this case, it would be
inappropriate to designate the property at 3201 8th St. as a local landmark over the
owner’s objection because it not proposed for demolition, the fact that it is not located in
an identified potential historic district, and the limited public support during the stay of
Agenda Item # 5A Page 7
demolition.
Consideration of Section 9-11-3 (d)
While not directly applicable when initiation is considered by the Landmarks Board,
Section 9-11-3 (d), “Criteria for Review,” provides some guidance regarding the criteria
the Board may wish to consider. That section states that applications received by a
historic preservation organization or less than all of the property owners pursuant to
paragraph 9-11-3(a)(3) or (4), B.R.C. 1981, may consider, without limitation, the
following criteria in making its decision:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as
an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-
11-1, “Legislative Intent,” 9-11-2, “Definitions,” and 9-11-3, “City Council May
Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981;
While the property may meet the standard for designation based on its
architectural, historic and environmental significance, in this case, staff
considers the initiation of landmark designation over the owner’s objection
inappropriate because the buildings are not currently threatened with
demolition. As such designation of the property over the owner’s objection
would not meet the legislative intent of balancing private property rights
and the public interest as stated in 9-11-1 “Legislative Intent” of the historic
preservation ordinance.
(2) There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to
complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the
application;
There are limited staff resources available to process applications for
designation of a property which is not threatened and for which there is
not owner consent.
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
At the demolition hearing, no one from the public spoke during the public
comment period, and over the course of the demolition process, little
public interest in the preservation of the house or garage has been
demonstrated. Between March 7 and July 1, four letters in support for the
demolition of the house were received and none in support of its
preservation. At the June 6 Landmarks Board meeting, two community
members spoke in support of preservation of the house and one person
Agenda Item # 5A Page 8
spoke in support of the demolition permit application. See Attachment 3:
Public Comment Received March 1-July 1, 2018.
(4) The buildings or features may need the protection provided through designation;
Following the June 6, 2018 decision to hold a hearing to consider initiation
of landmark designation, the owners withdrew the demolition permit
application. The house is not currently proposed for demolition; if
demolition is proposed in the future, the application would be reviewed by
the historic preservation program. See Attachment 2: Letters to Withdraw
Demolition Permit Application and Provide a Status Update.
(5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
Not applicable
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan;
Policy 2.33 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan States that,
“Buildings, districts, and sites of historic, architectural, archaeological, or
cultural significance will be identified and protected. The city and county
will encourage preservation of such resources through incentive programs,
designation of landmark buildings . . ., design review, public
improvements, and other tools.” Staff and two members of the Landmarks
Board have met with the owners to discuss possible alternatives to
demolition for the house. At this time, the owners have determined the
alternatives are not feasible, due to the projected cost of restoration,
condition of the building, and desires for the property, but have decided to
stabilize the building and rent it out.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
While the property would likely meet the city’s criteria for designation of
individual landmarks, in this case staff does not consider that designating
over the owner’s objection would represent a reasonable balance between
private property rights and the public’s interest as outlined above.
The property owners have considered alternatives to demolition, including
consensual landmark designation, but oppose landmark designation. Staff
Agenda Item # 5A Page 9
considers that, in this case, initiating designation over the owner’s objection
would not represent a reasonable balance of private property rights and the
public interest.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
If the Board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by resolution. A
draft resolution is included in Attachment 1. If initiated, the application shall be heard
by the Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days in order to determine whether the
proposed designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1,
Legislative Intent, and 9-11-2, City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,
B.R.C. 1981. The owner must obtain a Landmark Alteration Certificate prior to the
submission of building permit applications for the property if they choose to proceed
while the application is pending, or they may choose to wait until the application
process is complete.
Board Options:
1. Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the
resolution under Attachment 1.
2. Take no action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Draft resolution to initiate landmark designation of the property at
3201 8th St.
Attachment 2: Letters from Owners to Withdraw Demolition Application and
Provide Status Update
Attachment 3: Public Comment Received March 1- July 1, 2018
Attachment 4: Structural Report, Cost Estimates Received since March 7, 2018
Demolition Hearing (reference link below for initial reports)
Attachment 5: Stay of Demolition Meeting Notes - March 9 and April 16
Attachment 6: Link to March 7, 2018 Demolition Memo (Available through Central
Records Online Archive > Boards & Commissions > Landmarks
Board (LB) > 2018 > 03 March > Item 5C – 3201 8th St. memo)
Agenda Item # 5A Page 10
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING
THE DESIGNATION OF 3201 8TH ST. AS AN INDIVIDUAL
LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2018, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation hearing
for the property at 3201 8th St.; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2018, the Landmarks Board held an initiation hearing for the
property at 3201 8th St. and determined that the property meets the standards for initiation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS BOARD OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER, COLORADO:
The City of Boulder Landmarks Board hereby initiates the designation of 3201 8th St. as an
individual landmark and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the historic
preservation ordinance no fewer than sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty days from
the date of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 1st day of August 2018.
This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board on August 1, 2018.
_____________________________________
Chair, Landmarks Board
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Secretary to the Board
Agenda Item # 5A Page 11
Attachment 2: Letters to Withdraw Demolition Application and Provide Status Update
Agenda Item # 5A Page 12
Agenda Item # 5A Page 13
Attachment 3: Public Comment Received March 1-July 1, 2018
1. Letter from Steven Rosenblum to the Landmarks Board, March 2, 2018 in support of
demolition permit application
Agenda Item # 5A Page 14
2. Letter from Scott Gardner to the Landmarks Board, March 6, 2018 in support of
demolition permit application
3. Letter from Amanda Louey to the Landmarks Board, March 6, 2018 in support of
demolition permit application
Agenda Item # 5A Page 15
4. Letter from Debra Campbell to the Landmarks Board, June 5, 2018 in support of
demolition permit application
5. March 7, 2018 Landmarks Board Meeting Minutes
6. June 6, 2018 Landmarks Board Draft Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item # 5A Page 16
Attachment 4: Stay of Demolition Meeting Notes
Agenda Item # 5A Page 17
Agenda Item # 5A Page 18
Meeting 2 – April 16, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 19
Agenda Item # 5A Page 20
Attachment 5: Structural Report, Cost Estimates Received since March 7, 2018
Demolition Hearing
Letter from Owners to Case Manager dated June 1, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 21
Agenda Item # 5A Page 22
Updated Letter from Structural Engineer #1 (Gebau) dated June 1, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 23
Agenda Item # 5A Page 24
Agenda Item # 5A Page 25
Second Opinion - Letter from Structural Engineer #2 (Anthem) dated June 5, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 26
Agenda Item # 5A Page 27
Updated Cost Estimate from Morningstar Homes dated June 1, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 28
Photographs of the Condition – Sent by the Owner to the Landmarks Board April 6, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 29
Agenda Item # 5A Page 30
Photographs of the Condition – Sent by the Owner to the Landmarks Board June 5, 2018
Agenda Item # 5A Page 31