Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022
MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD
September 7, 2022
STAFF
Brad Mueller, Director of Planning and Development Services
Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Lucas Markley, Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner
Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner
Aubrey Noble, Program Coordinator and Board Secretary
Faith Hamman, Historic Preservation Intern
CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION HEARING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT
Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark
designation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 or alternatively issue
a demolition approval pursuant to Section 9-11-23 B.R.C, 1981.
Address: 3122 8th St.
Case Number: HIS2021-00323
Owner: Joshua and Tiffany Gwyther
Applicant: City of Boulder Landmarks Board
Case Type: Non-Designated Demolition
Code Section: 9-11-3, B.R.C., 1981 and 9-11-23, B.R.C., 1981
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Date of Construction: 1948
Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low – 1)
Lot Size: 6,065 sq. ft. (Boulder County Assessor estimate)
Building Size: 1,198 sq. ft. (Assessor estimate of above ground finished area)
Legal Description: LOTS 19-20 BLK 19 NEWLANDS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 1 of 24
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the property at
3122 8th St. for the following reasons:
• The owners considered alternatives to the demolition of the house, as suggested in 9-
11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981, including consensual landmark designation and incorporation of
the house into redevelopment plans, but given the stated desires for the property, do
not consider preservation of the house to be feasible.
• The stay of demolition provided time to carefully weigh the demolition of a potentially
eligible structure with alternatives to demolition.
• In recognition of the need to draw a reasonable balance between private property
rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage, the Landmarks Board has pursued the initiation of landmark
designation over the owner's objection only rarely.
• There has been little community interest in the proposed demolition during the stay-
of-demolition.
• While staff believes the building has architectural significance for its form and unique
materiality and the house was constructed over 70 years ago and represents the post-
war development of the Newlands area, the property does not have a strong
association with historically significant people or events, nor is it located in an area
with historic integrity. For these reasons, as well as the lack of community support for
preservation demonstrated during the stay, staff considers initiation over the owner’s
objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights
and public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic and architectural heritage.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Do Not Initiate Landmark Designation
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated September 7, 2022, as
the findings of the board and not initiate the process for landmark designation, finding that it
does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of
Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder Revised Code 1981,
and, in balance, is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
ALTERNATIVE MOTION(S)
Initiate Landmark Designation
If the Landmarks Board chooses to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to
Section 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, staff recommends the following motion
language:
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 2 of 24
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the resolution (Attachment A) to initiate the process
for landmark designation, finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation pursuant to
Section 9-11-3 “Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981, and, in balance, is consistent with the goals and policies of Section
2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Approve Demolition
If the Landmarks Board chooses to issue a demolition approval pursuant to Section 9-11-23
B.R.C, 1981 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, staff recommends the following motion
language:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve the application for demolition, finding that the
house at 3122 8th St. does not meet the criteria for initiation pursuant to Section 9-11-3
“Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder
Revised Code 1981, and, in balance, is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27
of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant shall
submit to staff for review, approval, and recording with the Carnegie Library for Local History:
1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property;
2. Measured elevation drawings of all exterior elevations of the house depicting existing
conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the
plans; and
3. High resolution and professional quality digital color images of all exterior elevations.
Continue the Hearing
If the Landmarks Board chooses to continue to the hearing, staff recommends the following
motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board continue the hearing to the Oct. 12, 2022 meeting.
SUMMARY
• This hearing provides the Landmarks Board the opportunity to determine whether it is
appropriate to initiate local landmark designation for the property at 3122 8th St., or
alternatively approve the demolition application for the house.
• On Jan. 5, 2022, the Planning & Development Services Department received a complete
application to demolish the house at 3122 8th St., constructed in 1948.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 3 of 24
• The building is not in a designated historic district or locally landmarked but is over 50
years old and the proposed work meets the criteria for demolition defined in Section 9-
16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
• On Jan. 12, the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Jellick, Daniels) reviewed the
application and referred the application to the Landmarks Board for review in a public
hearing, finding there was “probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible
for designation as an individual landmark.”
• The application was delayed under mutual agreement to allow the applicant to
consider options to demolition. The Landmarks Board review fee was paid on May 3,
2022.
• On June 1, 2022, the Landmarks Board voted (4-1, Castellano dissenting) to place a
stay-of-demolition on the application, finding the building may be eligible for
designation, that it contributes to the character of the neighborhood, and that it had
not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the
house. See Attachment C: 3122 8th St Memo to Landmarks Board 06.01.2022 (link).
• The 180 day stay period expires on Oct. 30, 2022.
• During the stay, representatives of the Landmarks Board and staff have met with the
owners to discuss alternatives to demolition, including potential landmark designation,
rehabilitation, and construction of an addition to the house. None of these options
were considered desirable by the property owner.
• At the June 6 hearing, three members of the public spoke regarding the application
(one in support of preservation, one in support of demolition, one not stating a
position) and two letters were received in support of the demolition application. See
Attachment D: Public Comment from 06.01.2022 Landmarks Board Meeting (link).
During the stay, the Landmarks Board received four letters in support of preservation
of the house from one community member (Attachment E: Letters received from
Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022).
• On August 3, 2022, the Landmarks Board voted (4-1, Castellano dissenting) to schedule
a hearing to consider whether to initiate landmark designation or to issue a demolition
permit for the house at 3122 8th St.
• While staff believes the building has architectural significance for its form and unique
materiality and the house was constructed over 70 years ago and represents the post-
war development of the Newlands area, the property does not have a strong
association with historically significant people or events, nor is it located in an area
with historic integrity. For these reasons, as well as the lack of community support
demonstrated during the stay, staff considers initiation over the owner’s objection
would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and public
interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic and architectural heritage.
• Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 4 of 24
Figure 1. Location Map, 3122 8th St.
Figure 2. 3122 8th St., Tax Assessor Photograph, 1949 (left) and Google street view, 2019 (right).
PURPOSE OF THE BOARD’S REVIEW
Chapter 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 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.
Initiation of designation of the property through Section 9-11-3, B.R.C., 1981 is one potential
outcome of a stay-of demolition.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 5 of 24
During the course of a stay, the Board may consider a variety of options to explore alternatives
to demolition, one of which is the designation of the property. 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. In recognition of
the need to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest
in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage, the Landmarks Board has
pursued the initiation of landmark designation over the owner's objection only rarely.
In the past 10 years, approximately 70 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.1 However, many stays during this same
period have resulted in the avoidance of demolition through reconsideration of projects and
the subsequent preservation of buildings. Recent examples in which stays of demolition have
resulted in the applicant filing an application for landmark designation include 1836 Pearl St.
(2019), 2326 Goss St. (2019) and 2122 22nd St. (2021). 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.
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.
Alternatively, the Board may issue a demolition approval pursuant to Section 9-11-23 B.R.C,
1981.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Initiation hearings are legislative, not quasi-judicial. In reviewing applications, the Landmarks
Board may consider without limitation the following criteria:
Section 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,
1 Demolition applications that the Landmarks Board voted to initiate landmark designation and
recommend designation to City Council between 2013 and 2021 include 747 12th St. (2014); 2326 Goss St.
(2019); and 940 North St. (2019).
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 6 of 24
stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge
of the City’s living heritage.
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 architectural
heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that
heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to
such buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character of
each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible
with them.
Section 9-11-2, City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts
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.
Section 9-11-3(d), Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts –
Criteria for Review
Section 9-11-3 (d), Criteria for Review, applies when an application for designation is received
from a historic preservation organization or less than all of the property owners pursuant to
paragraph 9-11-3(a)(3) and (4), B.R.C. 1981.
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent 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;
(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;
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
(4) The buildings or features may need the protections provided through
designation;
(5) (Not applicable) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are
appropriate;
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 7 of 24
ANALYSIS
The following is staff’s analysis of the standards for determining whether to initiate the
designation of an individual landmark designation pursuant to Section 9-11-1, Legislative
Intent, Section 9-11-2, City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts,
B.R.C. 1981, and Section 9-11-3(d), Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and
Historic Districts – Criteria for Review.
Section 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 important 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.
Analysis:
Historic Significance
Ira and Minnie Long purchased the property at 3122 8th St. in 1941 and obtained a
building permit to construct the house in 1948. Ira Long worked for the City’s Street
Department in 1940 and by the late 1940s worked as a carpenter, constructing at
least four houses in the Newlands neighborhood between 1948 and 1952, each with a
hipped-roof box style. The Longs lived at 3122 8th St. from 1948 until 1950. See
Attachment B: Research on Ira Long.
In 1950, Clyde and Opal Fulk purchased the property and lived there until 1978. Clyde
was born in 1892 in Kansas City, Missouri and Opal was born in 1894 in Stevens
County, Kansas. The couple married in 1913 and the 1920 Census lists Clyde’s
occupation as a farmer. The Fulks moved to Boulder in the late 1940s and Clyde
served as the secretary of the Pleasant View Grange. Clyde and Opal both died in
1978 and their son, Darl, sold the house soon after. The property passed through a
series of short-term owners. The current owners purchased the property in 2021.
The property is associated with the gradual development of the Newlands area,
which was largely agricultural prior to World War II and saw the construction of many
houses in the post-war period when the area was annexed into the city of Boulder.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 8 of 24
According to the 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places: Newland Addition and North
Boulder,2 Newlands was home to a number of builders, carpenters and contractors.
Staff considers that while the house was constructed over 70 years ago and
represents the post-war development of the Newlands area, the property does not
have a strong association with historically significant people or events. The house
passed through a series of short-term owners and residents with the exception of the
Fulks, who lived there from 1950 until 1978. However, they do not appear to be
historically significant on the local, state or national level.
Architectural Significance
Constructed in 1948, the one-story house at 3122 8th St. is a well-preserved example of
the hipped-roof box, also called a pyramidal roof cottage, building type. The house
features a shallow-pitched pyramidal roof with a clipped gable at its peak and an
asymmetrical façade where one half of the front is recessed for a front entrance. The
house is distinguished by the use of polygonal stone, which is uncommon and
demonstrates artistic merit. The house remains largely intact to its original
construction, retaining its original form, massing and materiality.
The building was not included in the 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places, which
documented pre-1940 buildings in the Newlands area.
Staff believes the building has architectural significance for its unusual form and
unique polygonal stone facing.
Environmental Significance
The house is situated on a typical residential lot. Its location next to the house at 3132
8th St., also clad in polygonal stone facing, adds to the character of the block. The
3100 block of 8th Street has an eclectic variety of building styles and dates of
construction, with ten houses constructed prior to World War II, and six houses
constructed during the post-war era (1945-1955) and five houses built since 2000. The
property is not located within an identified potential historic district and the area has
lost much of its historic character.
2 Simmons, R. Laurie, Thomas H. Simmons, and Front Range Research Associates. Boulder Survey of Historic Places:
Newland Addition and North Boulder. Boulder, CO, 1995.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 9 of 24
Staff considers that the house is not significant in the context of the neighborhood
character, which has little historic integrity. It is not located in an identified potential
historic district.
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
architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures
important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives and
that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will
respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding
structures, but by being compatible with them.
Staff considers efforts 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 efforts have been made to explore alternatives including looking at
rehabilitation costs using tax credits and other financial incentives.
During the course of the stay-of-demolition, there has been limited community support
for the preservation of the house. At the June 6 hearing, three members of the public
spoke regarding the application (one in support of preservation, one in support of
demolition, one not stating a position) and two letters were received in support of the
demolition application. See Attachment D: Public Comment from 06.01.2022
Landmarks Board Meeting (link). During the stay, the Landmarks Board received four
letters in support of preservation of the house from one community member
(Attachment E: Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022).
While staff believes the building has architectural significance for its form and unique
materiality and the house was constructed over 70 years ago and represents the post-
war development of the Newlands area, the property does not have a strong
association with historically significant people or events, nor is it located in an area
with historic integrity. For these reasons, as well as the lack of community support
demonstrated during the stay, staff considers initiation over the owner’s objection
would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and public
interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic and architectural heritage.
9-11-2. - City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 10 of 24
(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.
On June 1, 2022, the Landmarks Board voted (4-1; C. Castellano dissenting) to place a
stay-of-demolition on the building, finding that there was probable cause to believe the
property may be eligible for landmark designation based upon its architectural, historic
and environmental significance; that the property contributes to the character of the
neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; and that it had not been
demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building.
See 3122 8th St Memo to Landmarks Board 06.01.2022 (link). If the Landmarks Board
does not take action on the demolition application prior to the Oct. 30, 2022 expiration
of the stay of demolition, the demolition will be approved.
Section 9-11-3(d), Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts –
Criteria for Review
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with the
purposes and standards in sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," 9-11-2, "City Council
May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," and 9-16-1, "General
Definitions," B.R.C. 1981;
See analysis above.
(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;
Initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection requires additional staff
resources including outreach and analysis. There are limited staff resources available
to process applications for designation of a property without the owner’s input or
community support.
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
During the stay, one community member wrote two letters to the Landmarks Board to
support preservation (See: Attachment E: Letters received from Community Member
June 2 thru August 26 2022). Three community members attended site visits.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 11 of 24
(4) The buildings or features may need the protection provided through designation;
There is an active application for full demolition of the house. If the Landmarks Board
does not take action on the demolition application prior to the Oct. 30, 2022 expiration
of the stay of demolition, the demolition will be approved per Section 9-11-23, B.R.C.
1981.
(5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
Not applicable for individual landmarks.
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan;
Policy 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states that, “The city and county
will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites and
natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance with
input from the community.”
The plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over an owner’s
objection, though in some circumstances this may be appropriate. Staff and members
of the Landmarks Board have met with the owners to discuss possible alternatives to
demolition for the house during the stay and the owners have determined the
alternatives are not feasible. Staff considers that in this case, initiation of landmark
designation over the owner’s objection would not be consistent with the goals and
policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Staff does not consider that designating this property over the owner’s objection would
represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public’s
interest as outlined above.
BOARD OPTIONS
(1) Do not initiate landmark designation
The Landmarks Board may make a motion to not initiate landmark designation, in
which case the stay of demolition will continue until Oct. 30, 2022. If the Landmarks
Board allows the stay of demolition to expire, the city manager will approve the
demolition application after Oct. 30, 2022.
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 12 of 24
As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of the demolition permit, the applicant
shall submit to staff for review, approval, and recording with the Carnegie Library for
Local History:
1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject
property;
2. Measured elevation drawings of all exterior elevations of the house depicting
existing conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials
indicated on the plans; and
3. High resolution and professional quality digital color images of all exterior
elevations.
(2) Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the
resolution under Attachment A.
If the board chooses to initiate the process for reviewing the designation, it must do so
by resolution. A draft resolution is included in Attachment A: Draft Resolution. If
initiated, the application will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Landmarks
Board between 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.
(3) Approve the demolition application.
The Landmarks Board may make a motion to issue a demolition approval pursuant to
Section 9-11-23 B.R.C, 1981.
(4) Continue the Initiation Hearing
The Landmarks Board may make a motion to continue the initiation hearing until the
Oct. 12, 2022 meeting to allow time to continue to explore alternatives to demolition
while still maintaining the opportunity to initiate landmark designation prior to the
expiration of the stay of demolition on Oct. 30, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Draft Resolution
B: Research on Ira Long and the Newlands Neighborhood
C: 3122 8th St Memo to Landmarks Board 06.01.2022 (link)
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 13 of 24
D: Public Comment from 06.01.2022 Landmarks Board Meeting (link)
E: Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
F: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks (link)
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 14 of 24
DRAFTRESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING THE DESIGNATION OF 3122 8TH ST.,
BOULDER, COLO AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022 the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation hearing for 3122 8th
St.; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2022, the Landmarks Board held an initiation hearing to determine whether
to initiate designation of the property at 3122 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 3122 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 7th day of September 2022.
This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board on September 7, 2022.
_____________________________________
Chair, Landmarks Board
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Secretary to the Board
Attachment A - Draft Resolution
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 15 of 24
Attachment B – Research on Ira Long and the Newlands Neighborhood
The house at 3122 8th St. was constructed in 1948 during a period where Boulder experienced
enormous growth as many ex-servicemen returned for higher educational opportunities
resulting from the G.I. Bill. 1 Houses were constructed quickly, were modest and simple in
design, and used locally available materials. 3122 8th St. is reminiscent of this period. The
builder, Ira Long used a Minimal Traditional architectural style and a classic hipped-box
building form. Although the house is modest, it is a significant example of this architectural
style, exemplifying the use of local stone as facing, hand set in a patchwork pattern.
Ira Long (Dec. 19, 1907 – Dec. 12, 2000) was a working-class person. In 1940, he was employed
by the City of Boulder Street Department. By 1950, he was self-employed building houses. He
constructed at least four houses in the Newlands neighborhood between 1948 and 1952. All
are a similar hipped-roof box style in both wood frame and brick construction. None of the
other houses found that were built by Ira Long included the polygonal stone facing. However,
Mr. Long faced the house at 3132 8th St. (constructed 1920, builder unknown) with similar
stone. See Figures 1 – 4.
Figure 1: 3070 8th St. (in 1951 and 2019), built by Ira Long in 1951.
Figure 2: 2958 7th St. (in 1952 and 2019), built by Ira Long in 1952.
1 Simmons, R. Laurie, Thomas H. Simmons, and Front Range Research Associates. Boulder Survey of Historic Places:
Newland Addition and North Boulder. Boulder, CO, 1995.
Attachment B – Research on Ira Long and the Newlands Neighborhood
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 16 of 24
Figure 3: 3024 8th St. in 1952 (since demolished), built by Ira Long in 1952.
Figure 4: Similar polygonal stone facing at 3132 8th St. (left) and 3122 8th St. (right), May 2022
The property is not located within an identified potential historic district. In addition, the area
character is eclectic and generally split between four distinct periods: Prior to 1929; Great
Depression and War era; post-WWII building boom; and new construction (2000 – 2022). See
Figure 5.
Figure 5: Construction periods of current housing surrounding 3122 8th St.
Attachment B – Research on Ira Long and the Newlands Neighborhood
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 17 of 24
Prior to World War II, North Boulder was outside of the city limits and predominately
agricultural, consisting of cropland and cattle grazing. Within a block radius, nineteen pre-1929
houses remain, some of which still include a double lot. Of the houses that were constructed
during the Great Depression and the Second World War (1929 – 1945), seventeen remain.
Twenty-six houses remain that were constructed between 1945 and 1955, a period that reflects
the post-War building boom and growth of the neighborhood. The area was annexed into the
city in 1953. At this point, most (if not all) of the lots were developed. Some of the houses
retain historic integrity, others have been modified. Since 2000, 24 houses have been
constructed, replacing older houses.
None of the houses built after 1919 in the Newlands neighborhood have been designated as
individual landmarks. See Figure 6. There is little historic integrity in the context of the
neighborhood character.
Figure 6: Existing designated individual landmarks in the Newlands neighborhood (3122 8th St. identified with a green
flag), include 3231 11th St. (Chambers House, constructed in 1900), 3011 Broadway (Newland House, constructed
1889), 2962 11th St. (Austin-Estey House, constructed 1919), and 2949 Broadway (Hulse House, constructed 1914).
Attachment B – Research on Ira Long and the Newlands Neighborhood
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 18 of 24
From:ml robles
To:landmarksboard; Historic Preservation
Subject:3122 8th street
Date:Thursday, June 2, 2022 8:40:24 AM
External Sender
Good morning Landmarks Board and Historic Preservation staff,
I wanted to reach out regarding the house at 3122 8th street asking for demolition
on my block. I so appreciate the history that was uncovered in your process. Thank
you for that.It occurs to me that there is another possible solution to consider. Should the stone-faced cottage be Landmarked, might it be allowed to remain as an ADU with a shinynew house built to the back of the site (it is certainly deep and wide enough toaccommodate a house in the back)? I reviewed the inspection and construction reports... yes there are some issues but Idid not see anything compelling either the cost or doom presented verbally.
Replacing counters for $17,000, replacing cabinets for $35,000, replacing an exterior
hose bib for $8,000, replacing a leaning fence $31,000, replace a broken gate for
$500, maintain 1 tree $7,500... none of these items lead to the stability of the house,
furthermore they are common maintenance items on any house. Not to underminethat there is cost to fix things.I would remind that newcomers might be attracted to the walkability of Newlandsand to the increasing community of like-minded newcomers, but there are many ofus who have been here for decades and decades for whom Ira's houses havemeaning. We knew Ira and Minnie, we experienced his involvement in so very manyconstruction projects across the neighborhood. Some of them deserve to remain. And
I think repurposing this particular one into an ADU might offer a great alternative to
erasing some of Newlands' increasingly fragile history as newcomers displace the
existing fabric.
Thank you for your work on this project and for considering my suggestion.Kind regards, ml --
ml Robles, NCARB Architect LEED AP
City of Boulder Planning Board member, 2022
Architect at STUDIO POINTS
www.studiopoints.com
ml@studiopoints.com
303-443-1945
Attachment E - Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 19 of 24
From:Laura Kaplan
To:landmarksboard; Brandt, Clare; Historic Preservation
Subject:Landmarked buildings as rentals
Date:Thursday, June 2, 2022 11:05:56 AM
External Sender
Hello, Landmarks Board and staff. I don't want to start a serial meeting so I do not expect
an email reply, but a thought occurred to me upon reading my colleague ml's email about the
potential for the home at 3122 8th St to be restored and used as an ADU. I realized that I do
not know if landmarked houses are subject to the same rental license requirements as non-
landmarked houses. As I'd wager you all already know, in order to obtain a rental license in
Boulder, properties must meet higher energy efficiency and safety standards than properties
that are owner occupied, including complying with the SmartRegs for energy efficiency. I'm
assuming that, if the rental licensing requirements are the same for landmarked properties, this
would factor into any conversations with property owners about costs and options for
renovating a landmarked building into a rental property.
Rental Housing License Handbook: https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/799/download?inline=
Smart Regs Handbook: https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/1446/download?inline
Please forgive me if I'm just behind the curve and you all are already thinking about this.
Thank you,
Laura Kaplan
Facilitator / Mediator
916.529.1531 (cell phone / text / primary contact number )
916.529.4971 (desk line / alternate number)
laura.j.kaplan@gmail.com
Attachment E - Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 20 of 24
From:ml robles
To:landmarksboard
Cc:Brandt, Clare; Hewat, James
Subject:3122 8th st
Date:Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:52:06 AM
External Sender
Landmarks Board chair and members,Thank you so much for your service on this Board, I have not met most of you but Iam the PB back-up liason on your board. I have to say you have a most importantjob to do in our city and I thank you for your service. On PB we deal with developers
and architects but you deal directly with homeowners and that is a true service. My
gratitude.
I was able to attend the site visit on the 3122 8th st house. I have 3 comments whichmight be useful in your process:1. I agree with the suggestion that if the Owner submits that there are significantstructural issues that pose a burden on the house remaining, an unbiased structuralengineer be brought in to evaluate. Having a builder provide a cost to repair shedsvery little light on the true cost of retaining this building. Much of what was included
in the provided contractor cost were remodel and repair costs to update the house to
their desires. You buy an old house, you anticipate remodeling the interior, this is not
the cost of retaining the structure.
2. I suggest that the Board get an opportunity to see the proposed house footprinton the site and including the new garage. The point being that the Owner impliesthere is no way to add to the existing house and add a garage as well and still have auseable yard. Take a look at what they are planning to do in a brand new situation tosee what yard would remain in that scenario. Visuals go a long way to understanding.3. Money. According to the Boulder County Property information: the house purchasewas recorded on 10-14-2021 (just over 8 months ago) for $1,289.000 with the
Owners (stated) expectation to demolish. Deconstruction of that structure - where old
valuable lumber would be encountered - could cost tens of thousands of dollars,
meaning that before they even build a brand new house they could easily have
invested around $1.4 million into the project - for land. Land only. I submit to yourconsideration that Owners who are able to invest that sort of money into land, wellthis might not be about the ability to afford but rather the willingness to afford.
Lastly - but not really a point :) - there is definitely a way to accomplish adding thenew construction to the site whilst retaining the original house (i had suggested itremain as an ADU and be granted the authority for the new build to have reduced
setbacks etc). There is precedence for this on a prior Board that Debra Yin was on.
But again, you need Owners will to work with what exists. As an architect, I do
believe this existing house could be retained and an excellent addition made that will
be a shining example of how to evolve rather than erase a site's history. Especially given that there are two stone cottages adjacent to each other. That isworthy of taking the extra step to get this right.
Again - thank you for your most excellent service on this important Board. Kindregards, ml--
ml Robles, NCARB Architect LEED AP
City of Boulder Planning Board member, 2022
Architect at STUDIO POINTS
Attachment E - Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 21 of 24
www.studiopoints.com
ml@studiopoints.com
303-443-1945
Attachment E - Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 22 of 24
From:ml robles
To:Brandt, Clare
Cc:Abby Daniels
Subject:Re: Site visit - 3122 8th St
Date:Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:26:09 AM
External Sender
thanks for this Clare,they continue to do upgrades to the property, this is nice :)questions:1. Will there be an unbiased professional and structural engineer to guide on the cost
review? FYI: a contractor is not qualified to determine structural deficiencies, these
would need to be assessed by a structural engineer.
2. The prior costs were not at all indicative of restoration of the structure but rather
lifestyle remodel costs, it would be good to clarify that parameter when preparingand reviewing costs. It is the structure that is at risk and under review here not theinterior finishes. The Owners had always expected to build new so those costs oflifestyle should not be a burden on the restoration costs. (my advice to them as anarchitect would be to take it to the shell and not try and restore the interior but tobuild that new to current energy and livability standards)3. There has been reference to the stone veneer as something of less value, know
that stone veneer has been used on houses since the late 1800's, today the stone on
multi-million dollar houses is always veneer. It is a better way to build.
I appreciate the thoughtful considerations regarding this property and it's role inneighborhood character.kind regards, ml
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:50 PM Brandt, Clare <BrandtC@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:
Please meet on site to discuss Stay of Demolition placed July 6, 2022 pursuant to Section 9-
11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 under the procedures set forth in Chapter 1-4 of
the B.R.C, 1981:
on Friday, July 29 from 1:00 – 1:45 p.m.
at 3122 8th St., Boulder, Colo.
On-site discussion to include:
potentially switching to the Designation/Landmark Alteration Certificate process
General Guidelines in LAC process, especially in regards to front door placement
Condition and cost of restoration review
Masks are required. Members of the public are welcome to observe, but there is no
Attachment E - Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 23 of 24
opportunity for public comment during these meetings.
Thank you!
--
ml Robles, NCARB Architect LEED AP
City of Boulder Planning Board member, 2022
Architect at STUDIO POINTS
www.studiopoints.com
ml@studiopoints.com
303-443-1945
Attachment E - Letters received from Community Member June 2 thru August 26, 2022
Item 5A - 3122 8th St Memo 09.07.2022 Page 24 of 24