08.03.16 LB Packet
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes from the June 1, 2016 and June 23, 2016 Landmarks Board
Meetings
3. Selection of Landmarks Board Chair and Co-Chair Positions
4. Public Participation for Items Not on the Agenda
5. Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications Issued and Pending
Statistical Report
6. Public Hearings
A. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the house and a
portion of the property located at 479 Arapahoe Ave. as a local historic landmark,
per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00122). Owner /
Applicant: Katherine Toan Merlin / Mark Gerwing
B. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and
property located at 2949 Broadway as a local historic landmark, per Section 9-11-5
of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2015-00121). Owner / Applicant: ALR
Investments, LLC / Michael Bosma
C. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the house and
accessory building located at 870 University Ave., a non-landmarked building over
50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(HIS2016-00103). Owner / Applicant: 870 University Ave., LLC / Chris Gray
7. Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney
A. Historic Resource Survey Plan
B. Update Memo
C. Subcommittee Updates
8. Debrief Meeting/Calendar Check
9. Adjournment
For more information contact James Hewat at hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov or
(303) 441-3207. You can also access this agenda via the website at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation
then select “Next Landmarks Board Meeting”.
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING
DATE: Wednesday, August 3, 2016
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
PLACE: 1777 Broadway, Municipal Building, City Council Chambers
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
Board members who will be present are:
Deborah Yin
Eric Budd
Briana Butler
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets
John Putnam or Harmon Zuckerman *Planning Board representative without a vote
The Landmarks Board is constituted under the Landmarks Presentation Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 4721; Title 9, Chapter 11, Boulder Revised Code, 1981) to designate
landmarks and historic districts, and to review and approve applications for Landmark
Alteration Certificates on such buildings or in such districts.
Public hearing items will be conducted in the following manner:
1. Board members will explain all ex-parte contacts they may have had regarding the
item.*
2. Those who wish to address the issue (including the applicant, staff members and
public) are sworn in.
3. A historic preservation staff person will present a recommendation to the board.
4. Board members will ask any questions to historic preservation staff.
5. The applicant will have a maximum of 10 minutes to make a presentation or
comments to the board.
6. The public hearing provides any member of the public three minutes within which
to make comments and ask questions of the applicant, staff and board members.
7. After the public hearing is closed, there is discussion by board members, during
which the chair of the meeting may permit board questions to and answers from
the staff, the applicant, or the public.
8. Board members will vote on the matter; an affirmative vote of at least three
members of the board is required for approval. The motion will state: Findings and
Conclusions.
* Ex-parte contacts are communications regarding the item under consideration that a board
member may have had with someone prior to the meeting.
All City of Boulder board meetings are digitally recorded and are available from the Central
Records office at (303) 441-3043. A full audio transcript of the Landmarks Board meeting becomes
available on the city of Boulder website approximately ten days after a meeting. Action minutes
are also prepared by a staff person and are available approximately one month after a meeting.
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
June 1, 2016
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6:00 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the June 1, 2016 City of Boulder Landmarks Board
meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period
of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also
listen to the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Deborah Yin
Eric Budd
Briana Butler
Fran Sheets
*Liz Payton, *Planning Board representative without a vote
Ronnie Pelusio, absent
STAFF MEMBERS:
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Interim Chair D. Yin declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and
the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by B. Butler, seconded by E. Budd, the Landmarks Board approved (3-0, R.
Pelusio absent and D. Yin absent from the April 6 meeting) the minutes as amended of
the April 6, 2016 board meeting.
3. SELECTION OF LANDMARKS BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR POSITIONS
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Karl Anuta, 4840 Thunderbird Dr., former Landmarks Board and CCA board
member, spoke in support of the project. He brought to attention a letter of April
11, 2016 from History Colorado to Andrea McGimsey, Executive Director,
Colorado Chautauqua Association, regarding 717 17th Street.
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in
support of placing a stay-of-demolition on the property at 717 17th St.,
highlighting its unique International Style. Ms. Daniels, on behalf of Historic
Boulder, offered any assistance with exploring all possible alternatives to
demolition in an effort to have a meaningful dialog about the options. She
requested the board consider an initiation hearing to continue to explore
opportunities to save this building.
Stephanie Brennan, trustee for the applicant, Graziana Lazzarino, P.O. Box
17850, Boulder, 80308, spoke in support of lifting the stay-of-demolition. She
noted it would cost over $400,000 to repair the house. Ms. Brennan noted the
severe damage in many areas of the house including structural damage and toxic
mold. These repairs would require exterior alterations that would leave very few
original features.
5. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING
Statistical Report
717 17th St. Stay-of-Demolition Expires July 3, 2016. On a motion by D. Yin,
seconded by F. Sheets, the Board voted 4-0 in favor of holding an initiation to
consider landmark designation for the property at 717 17th street.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. WITHDRAWN: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate application to add new round windows to the gable peak facades of the
contributing houses at 521 Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, per
Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00121). Owner /
Applicant: Brandie Emerick / Joel Smiley, Inc.
7. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Update on the Chautauqua Access Management Plan by City of Boulder’s Susan
Connelly, Deputy Director, Community Vitality and Lisa Smith, Communication
Specialist, Community Vitality
B. Mark Rodman, Preservation Technical Services Manager, History Colorado
provided information about resources, obligations, and learning opportunities
available through History Colorado. Mr. Rodman’s role at this meeting was to
evaluate this board’s process.
C. Historic Resource Survey Plan update by M. Cameron and J. Hewat.
D. On a motion by D. Yin, seconded by E. Budd, voted to form a subcommittee,
with volunteers, F. Sheets and B. Butler, for the CCA’s CLA revision.
E. Update Memo
F. Update from the Planning Board via L. Payton.
8. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Approved on _______________, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
, Chairperson
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
June 23, 2016
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6:00 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the June 23, 2016 City of Boulder Landmarks Board
meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period
of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also
listen to the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Deborah Yin
Eric Budd
Fran Sheets
Ronnie Pelusio
*Harmon Zuckerman, *Planning Board representative without a vote
Briana Butler, absent
STAFF MEMBERS:
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Interim Chair D. Yin declared a quorum at 6:01 p.m. and
the following business was conducted.
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
3. SELECTION OF LANDMARKS BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR POSITIONS
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING
Statistical Report
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public hearing and consideration of whether to initiate individual landmark
designation for the property located at 717 17th St., per to Section 9-11-23 of the
Boulder Revised Code (HIS2015-00337). Owner / Applicant: Lazzarino Living Trust /
Stephen Brown
Ex-parte contacts
All board members made site visits. H. Zuckerman had no ex parte contacts.
Staff Presentation
M. Cameron presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board lift the stay of demolition and issue the demolition permit.
Applicant’s Presentation
Stephanie Brennan, owner’s representative, P.O. Box 17850, 80308 spoke in support
of issuing a demolition permit, noting the difficulty in selling the property, the
condition of the building and past alterations, and impact the designation would
have on the current owner. She noted that the property was offered for sale to
Historic Boulder at the agreed upon sales price.
Graciana Lazzarino, current owner, assisted living, Louisville, spoke in support of
issuing a demolition permit, describing her nearly 50-year ownership and her desire
to sell the property so she can continue to reside in assisted living.
Tom Precourt, owner’s representative, 2014 Madison Wy., Erie, Colorado, spoke in
support of issuing a demolition permit. He addressed a topic of concern within a
letter submitted by Historic Boulder comparing 717 17th St. to 819 6th St., a modern
house in poor condition that had been designated over the owner’s objection. Mr.
Precourt considers that the lot size, location, and design by a well-known architect
differentiates the two properties.
Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, 1200 Pearl St., spoke in support of a designation
hearing, and stated she was not aware of any offer of sale being made to Historic
Boulder. She disagrees with staff’s assessment that the house is of marginal
significance and noted that many houses have successfully mitigated mold. Ms.
Daniels stated that she did not have access to the cost estimate provided to the board
earlier in the day.
Kathryn Barth, 2940 20th St., spoke in support of a designation hearing and
presented a handout to the board with examples of historic houses that have been
successfully remodeled and noted that state historic funds are available to mitigate
the cost.
Dan Corson, 757 8th St., spoke in support of a designation hearing and stated that the
survey forms were mailed to property owners when they were completed in 1992.
He reiterated that Historic Boulder did not receive the costs which were presented to
the board and considers the designation hearing would provide time for Historic
Boulder to assess the estimated costs, and consider the offer of sale that they were
not aware the property owner is willing to make.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
S. Brennan stated she was invited, then uninvited to Historic Boulder’s preservation
committee meeting, then invited again at the last minute, which caused her to not go
to the meeting. She noted that board should rely on staff’s recommendation, not
Historic Boulder’s input. Ms. Brennan argued that Stephen Brown’s would step
aside if Historic Boulder was willing to pay the agreed upon sales price. She claimed
that board would have to put Historic Boulder’s rights before the property owner’s
rights (Lazzarino’s) if they were to initiate landmarking of the property.
Motion
On a motion by D. Yin, seconded by F. Sheets, the Landmarks Board voted (2-2, R.
Pelusio and E. Budd opposed) to approve a resolution of the Landmarks Board
initiating the designation of 717 17th St. as an individual landmark, as provided in
attachment C in the Landmarks Board packet of June 23. A tie, the motion failed.
E. Budd made a motion to lift the stay-of-demolition and issue the demolition permit
before its expiration. Without a second, E. Budd withdrew the motion.
The Landmarks Board decided to take no action, understanding the stay-of-
demolition would expire on July 3, 2016.
6. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Approved on _______________, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
, Chairperson
CITY OF BOULDER
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
Historic Preservation Reviews
Between June 23, 2016 and July 21, 2016
This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the
stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 32
Individual Landmark210 ARAPAHOE AVHIS2015-00190
Landmark Alteration Certificate: For changes to addition associated with Buidling A. Changes will consist of raising the
roof elevation, changing the roof pitch, changes to the porch roof, different windows, different siding, and different trim.
Application Approved Decision : 104 Sequence # :
07/11/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill2233 4TH STHIS2015-00275
Alteration to front of house (change porch roof to shed, add railing) replace sliding doors at south elevation with
windows, construct gate at north elevation, finish with white opaque stain or paint.
Application Approved Decision : 153 Sequence # :
07/11/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1048 PEARL ST 105HIS2015-00335
Installation of halo lit signs for "Eureka" restaurant per the Ldrc notes dated 06.22.2016 and detailed on LAC plans
dated 07.04.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 185 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Individual Landmark212 ARAPAHOE AVHIS2015-00341
Revisions requested to previous LAC approval for the restoration and construction of an addition to 212 Arapahoe
(Cottage D) including shifting the footprint of the addition, omission of the porch, removal of window opening on west
elevation, and use of Smartside siding on addition with battons. Plans dated 12.5.2015.
Application Approved Decision : 188 Sequence # :
07/11/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Individual Landmark2303 BLUFF STHIS2016-00007
Construction of a new garage as deatiled on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated July 20th, 2016.
Application Approved Decision : 5 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Mapleton Hill436 CONCORD AVHIS2016-00094
Restoration of north facade including the reconstruction of the north wall, entry door, and three window openings.
Restoration of front porch, including addition of doric wood columns, wood railing, wood steps, as shown on the LAC
drawings dated 6/23/2016.
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 1 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 32
Application Approved Decision : 58 Sequence # :
06/28/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1048 PEARL STHIS2016-00129
Installation of one projecting blade sign for parking lot on 11th Street, one parking garage sign under canopy at
entrance, and three projecting building blade signs as detailed on landmark alteration certificate plans dated
06.23.2016n and reference in Landmarks design review committee notes dates 06.22.2016 and 06.23.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 74 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill511 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00140
Restoration of front porch based on historic photograph and change to east addition and west dormer as detailed on
landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 07.14.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 83 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1048 PEARL STHIS2016-00143
Installation of one projecting blade sign and one wall sign for "Galvanize", as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
plans dated 06.23.2016 and referenced in Landmarks design review committee notes dates 06.22.2016 and
06.23.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 85 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown2045 BROADWAYHIS2016-00156
Installation of non-illuminated signs as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 07.15.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 93 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1242 PEARL STHIS2016-00160
Application for changes to existing signage for Wells Fargo building, including installation of externally lit signs at the
NE entry, soth elevation and rear entry. Signs to be channel letters lit by a light bar. Approval includes design for
Non-illuminated blade signs on north and east elevations. All signs must meet sign code.
Application Approved Decision : 96 Sequence # :
06/27/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown2037 13TH STHIS2016-00176
Installation of non-illuminated blade and wall sign as shown on drawings dated 4.15.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 104 Sequence # :
06/27/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill2229 BROADWAYHIS2016-00177
Repair stone retaining wall at south east corner of property. Existing stones to be reused, new mortar applied. Existing
size, lovation and configuration to be maintained.
Application Approved Decision : 105 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 2 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 32
Individual Landmark1735 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00179
Rehabilitation to addition of dormers to carriage house and new porch at rear of house as detailed on lac plans dated
06.16.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 106 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Chautauqua Park900 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00183
Realignment of curb at southwest corner of Auditorium near bathroom building as detailed on landmark alteration
certificate application dated 06.08.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 109 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1312 PEARL STHIS2016-00185
Reroof a flat roof over 1312-1314 Pearl St (one building, two addresses in one parcel).New roofing to be same type
and color of existing roof.
Application Approved Decision : 111 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Chautauqua Park900 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00188
Replace parking stops in parking space along Clematis Dr. on north side of street between Kinnikinic Rd. and the
Dining hall. Scope to include new striping (white paint), parking spaces to stay the same size.
Application Approved Decision : 112 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Individual Landmark1375 WALNUT STHIS2016-00189
Proposal for installation of a replacement non-illuminated hanging sign, "Navigant" under the existing first floor awning
of the Colorado Building as shown on on drawings dated 6.23.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 113 Sequence # :
06/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Individual Landmark1089 13TH STHIS2016-00201
Application to replace two antennas on east facade (increasing length from 4' to 6'), relocate one antenna from west
rooftop and add one to south parapet (two antennas at 6'), replace 4 antennas on faux mechanical penthouse (4',
same as existing), and move penthouse closer to north to improve service. All new antennas to be painted to match
existing antennas.
Application Approved Decision : 118 Sequence # :
06/28/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown1048 PEARL STHIS2016-00202
Storefront glass on north and west elevations to operable storefront,metal railing for outdoor seating in courtyard and at
west side of building, extension of outdoor seating along west side of building and construction of 7' tall outdoor
screened storage area at south (alley) side of restaurant as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated
07.14.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 119 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 3 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 32
Mapleton Hill2425 10TH STHIS2016-00203
Request to repair existing windows, install new storm/screen windows, new screen door and lock on front, and repairs
and storm door on back porch door. A secondary entry door is to be replaced with an original restored window, all as
shown on LAC application dated 6.24.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 120 Sequence # :
07/08/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill809 PINE STHIS2016-00206
Replace flat areas of roof with 60 mil EPDM as specified on landmark alteration certificate application dated
06.28.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 122 Sequence # :
07/05/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill541 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00211
Installation of conduit a rear of house to provide for upgraded electrical service to house as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 06.29.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 123 Sequence # :
07/05/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Chautauqua Park900 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00215
In kind replacement of broken flagstone at curb cut north of Dining Hall at the south east corner of oval as detailed on
landmark alteration certificate application dated 06.28.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 125 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Individual Landmark1302 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00217
Reroof house with Malarkey Windsor asphalt shingles in "Heather" color as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
application dated 06.17.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 126 Sequence # :
07/12/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill1040 PINE STHIS2016-00223
Unit C: Installation of ductless ac/heat pump w/ condenser located on the ground at rear of building as detailed on
landmark alteration certificate application dated 07.13.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 128 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown1048 PEARL ST 107HIS2016-00225
Installation non-illuminated blade sign "Le Pops - Boulder - Gourmet Iced Lollies" as detailed on landmark alteration
certificate application dated 07.21.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 130 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown1048 PEARL ST 115HIS2016-00226
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 4 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 32
Installation of halo-lit blade sign, externally lit wall sign, and non-illuminated wall signs as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 07.13.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 131 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown1101 WALNUT STHIS2016-00227
Replacement RTU on the kitchen rooftop of the Rio Grande restaurant. Unit is same approximate size and color and
location as exisiting; minimal changes to exposed ductwork.
Application Approved Decision : 132 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill1111 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00230
Reconstruction of parking garage on north side of condo complex as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
drawings dated 06.28.2015
Application Approved Decision : 133 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill2447 6TH STHIS2016-00231
Replacement of windows, front porch railing and repainting of house on plans dated 07.20.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 134 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Chamberlain1702 WALNUT STHIS2016-00237
Repaint exterior of designated property. Body- white; trim - black.
Application Approved Decision : 137 Sequence # :
07/20/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1
Not Landmarked1828 PEARL STHIS2016-00186
Proposal for full structure demolition of single car detached brick garage off alley constructed in 1950.
Application Approved Decision : 2 Sequence # :
06/28/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 10
Not Landmarked2126 COLUMBINE AVHIS2016-00195
Partial demolition of a residence built in 1948. Scope includes removal of rear wall of residence and removal of entire
roof.
Application Approved Decision : 51 Sequence # :
06/28/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked100 S 34TH STHIS2016-00197
Partial demolition (removal of more than 50% of the roof and cladding material on a street-facing wall) of a house
constructed in 1955. Full demolition approved.
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 5 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 10
Application Approved Decision : 52 Sequence # :
06/27/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked4705 QUALLA DRHIS2016-00200
Full structure demolition of existing triplex and attached carport constructed in 1965.
Application Approved Decision : 53 Sequence # :
06/28/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked2015 ORCHARD AVHIS2016-00207
Full demolition of a house, garage and accessory building constructed in 1957. Previously approved under
HIS2015-00193. Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 54 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3055 24TH STHIS2016-00208
Partial demolition (removal of a street-facing wall) of a house constructed in 1958. Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 55 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked1712 GARLAND LNHIS2016-00209
Partial demolition (construction of a wall in front of a street-facing wall) of a house constructed in 1961. Full demolition
approved.
Application Approved Decision : 56 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked1411 KALMIA AVHIS2016-00214
Full demolition of a house, attached garage and detached storage shed constructed in 1949. Previously approved
under HIS2016-00002. Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 57 Sequence # :
07/14/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3025 17TH STHIS2016-00218
Partial demolition of a single family residence constructed in 1953 to facilitate a proposed addition and remodel.
Demolition exceeds 50 percent of existing walls and more than 50 percent of existing roof. Demo plans are on plans for
PMT2016-03194. Building permit (PMT2016-03194) is pending demo approval.
Application Approved Decision : 58 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Not Landmarked919 BALSAM AVHIS2016-00220
Full demolition of house and detached garage constructed in 1946.
Application Approved Decision : 59 Sequence # :
07/20/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked890 CYPRESS DRHIS2016-00233
Historic review to consider removal of an attached garage, having a street facing wall, which was built in 1965.
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 6 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 10
Application Approved Decision : 62 Sequence # :
07/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 5
Not Landmarked1122 PLEASANT STHIS2015-00011
Application to remove a street facing wall to allow for a proposed addition. Application referred to the Landmarks Board
for review.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 5 Sequence # :
07/11/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked1033 14TH STHIS2015-00234
Proposed full structure demolition of house built in 1922 (previously addressed as 1031 14th St.). Application referred
to the full Landmarks Board for review. Application withdrawn.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 29 Sequence # :
07/11/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked1831 22ND STHIS2016-00123
Full demolition of duplex constructed in 1951. Building has been significantly altered; full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 14 Sequence # :
07/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked740 PEARL STHIS2016-00196
Partial demolition (removal of existing storefront glazing/doors at north side of building and replacement with new store
front glazing. Opening will not be increased in width or height) of building constructed c.1910. If scope of work
changes, new demolition permit application is required.
Application Approved Decision : 19 Sequence # :
07/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Not Landmarked1841 PINE STHIS2016-00210
Partial demolition of house constructed in 1873. House significantly altered. Partial demolition as shown on application
dated 6.29.2016 approved. If scope of work changes, new application is required.
Application Approved Decision : 22 Sequence # :
07/08/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 7 of 8HIS Statistical Report
Historic Preservation Reviews Summary
between 6/23/2016 and 7/21/2016
This summary shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn
within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate
Application Approved 32
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition
Application Approved 1
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 10
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 3
Application Withdrawn 2
Printed on 07/22/2016 Page 8 of 8HIS Statistical Report
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 1
M E M O R A N D U M
August 3, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the
building and a portion of the property at 479 Arapahoe Ave. as a
local historic landmark per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised
Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00122).
__________________________________________________________________________
STATISTICS
1. Site: 479 Arapahoe Avenue
2. Date of Construction: c. 1900
3. Zoning: RL-1
4. Lot Size: 11,238 sq. ft.
5. Applicant/Owner: Mark Gerwing/ Katherine Toan Merlin
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board recommend that the City Council designate the house and
portion of the property at 479 Arapahoe Ave. as a local historic landmark, to be known as the
Higman House, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in
Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated August 3rd,
2016 as the findings of the board.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 2
FINDINGS
The Landmarks Board finds that, based upon the application and evidence presented
and subject to the conditions of approval, the proposed designation application will be
consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
1. The proposed designation will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building
reminiscent of past eras and persons important in local and state history and
provide a significant example of architecture from the past. Section 9-11-1(a),
B.R.C. 1981.
2. The proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment
and will enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist
trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. Section 9-
11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981.
3. The proposed designation draws 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 important to that
heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives. Section 9-11-1(b),
B.R.C. 1981.
4. The building proposed for designation has special character and historical,
architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Section 9-11-2(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981.
5. The proposed designation is consistent with the criteria specified in Section 9-11-
5(c), B.R.C. 1981.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The house at 479 Arapahoe Ave. is located on the north side of Arapahoe Ave. between
4th and 5th streets and located on an 11,238 sq. ft. lot that slopes down to Boulder Creek
and terminates at the north bank of that drainage. The property is located within the
boundaries of the identified Expanded Highland Lawn Potential Historic District.
Figure 1. Location Map, 479 Arapahoe Ave.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 3
Figure 2. Tax Assessor Card Photo, c.1949.
Figure 3. South Elevation (façade), 479 Arapahoe Ave, 2016.
One-and-a-half stories, the front gable roof house features decorative wood shingles in
an alternating fish-scale pattern and paired double hung windows. The first level of the
house is constructed of brick, with segmental arches above the door and window
openings, and rounded brick returns at the openings. Gabeled dormers with wood
shingles are located on the east and west elevations. The west dormer features paired
double-hung windows matching those on the façade. The dormer windows have been
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 4
replaced by a non-historic sliding glass door. A non-historic, flat-roof porch with simple
wood supports extends across the façade and east elevation. The front door features a
transom window, with a segmental brick arch above. A brick chimney is located in the
center and the building rests on a rubble-stone foundation.
Figure 4 & 5. West Elevation (left) and East Elevation (right), 479 Arapahoe Ave, 2016.
The west elevation features a second entrance which provides access to the second story
via a staircase, and two additional original double-hung windows decorated with
radiating voussoirs. Two original arched windows, and an entry near the rear of the
house.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 5
Figure 6. North Elevation (rear), 479 Arapahoe Ave, 2016.
The north elevation features a skirt roof and shingled gable end. There is one double-
hung window on the upper level, and two fixed windows below. The upper window
appears to be original, while a small fixed window below is likely a replacement,
although its frame suggests a window was originally located there. The other lower
window, featuring a frame matching the original arched windows on the other
elevations, appears to a have been altered to fit a smaller, fixed window. A traditional
horizontal cellar door is located at the foundation. See Attachment B: Current Photographs.
ALTERATIONS
Historic photographs show that with the exception of a non-historic, over scaled
wrapping front and side porch, the house remains largely intact to its original
construction.
A comparison of photographs from c.1920 and c.1949 show the house remained largely
unchanged during this period (See Figure 7). A porch wrapped the south and east
elevations, with a pediment indicating the entrance.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 6
Figure 7. 479 Arapahoe, c. 1920 (left) and c.1949 (right).
The historic porch was removed between 1956 and 1969, during the ownership of Cecil
W. Smith. By 1969, a small awning was added to the west entrance. The east porch
remained, along with the decorative bargeboard at the gable end. Shutters had also
been added by this time to the two window openings on the south elevation the brick
appears to have been painted between 1949 and 1969.
Figure 8. Tax Assessor Card Photo, 1969 (left) and Survey Photograph, 1989 (right).
Between 1969 and 1989 (see Figure 8) shutters were removed and a polychrome paint
scheme applied to the gable end. Window and door surrounds were also painted a
contrasting paint scheme during this period as well storm windows being added to the
paired double-hung windows on the gable end. The current over-scaled wrapping
porch was constructed circa 1996, according to city construction permit records.
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE
On July 6, 2016, the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Ldrc) issued a Landmark
Alteration Certificate for the restoration of the main house and the construction of a rear
addition (See Figure 9). Prior to this, in June 2016, a solar variance was granted for the
proposed addition, that was, in part, supported by the Ldrc on the basis of the
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 7
compatibility of the proposed addition with the house and the intention by the
property owner to designate the building as a local landmark.
In 2015, prior to the submittal of a landmark designation application, a demolition
permit was issued for an accessory building at the rear of the lot.
Figure 9. Landmark Alteration Certificate renderings showing the south façade and west elevation of the
house and proposed addition.
HISTORY
While the Boulder County Tax Assessor card dates the construction of the house as
1908, the date of construction for the house is estimated to be 1901, the year the address
first appears in city directories.
The Town of Highland Lawn
The property at 479 Arapahoe Ave. is located in the Highland Lawn Addition that was
platted by Hannah Barker in 1884. Hannah was an Irish-born school teacher and widow
of wealthy local business man Ezra Barker. She purchased approximately 40 acres of
land in the area now known at the Highland Lawn neighborhood from Jonas Anderson,
who received the land under the Homestead Act of 1862. Hannah Barker’s
neighborhood originally consisted of nineteen lots, about an acre in size, from 4th St. to
6th St., bordered by Boulder Creek to the north and University Avenue to the south.
Barker’s plan for the neighborhood showed foresight: each lot included water rights to
the Anderson ditch and buyers were encouraged to plant trees (cottonwoods were
specifically excluded) and build fences around their properties. Upon being filed on
September 10th, 1884, the area officially became the Town of Highland Lawn, located as
it was, south of the city limits of Boulder. The town remained an independent
community until 1891 when it was annexed by the City of Boulder. Most of the original
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 8
owners did not build in the neighborhood, choosing instead to subdivide the parcels
into smaller lots.2
479 Arapahoe Ave.
The property at 479 Arapahoe Ave. has had many owners over the last 116 years, with
the Higmans and the Lambs residing at the property for the longest periods.
Deed research shows that Joseph and Clara Higman purchased the property at 479
Arapahoe Avenue in 1900 and lived there until 1908. Joseph Higman was born in
Liskeard, England in 1865 and came to the United States at the age of 18. He was
initially engaged in mining, and later worked as a carpenter while he lived in Boulder.
He is known to have built the house at 930 11th St. in 1920, but it is unknown that he
built the house at 479 Arapahoe Ave. Joseph , Clara, and their children lived at 479
Arapahoe until 1908.
Clara Higman was a long-time Boulder resident, and recalled
her family history on her 90th birthday in 1960. Clara was born
in 1870 to George T. and Priscilla B. Jones in Blackhawk,
Colorado. Her mother and father, born in Wisconsin and
England, were “en route to California in 1866 when they
decided to stop off in Colorado. The mining excitement took
them to Blackhawk first, then to Caribou, where [George]
operated a blacksmith shop.”3 Clara and her siblings spent
most of their childhood in Caribou, a small silver mining
community west of Boulder. It was in Caribou that Clara met
Joseph Henry Higman, whom she married June 18, 1890. After
they married, Joseph and Clara lived in various mining towns,
including Caribou, Central City, Gold Hill, and Ward, until 1900 when they moved to
Boulder. According to an interview with Joseph’s son, Howard Higman, Joseph worked
his way up as a building contractor in Boulder, eventually getting involved in real
estate until his death in April of 1935.4
Clara and Joseph’s stories of Boulder County’s early mining days were often re-told in
Daily Camera articles, including a 1949 article documenting Clara’s experience as a
young girl witnessing the historic September 14, 1879 fire that destroyed most of
2 Simmons, R. Laurie and Christine Whitacre, 1989 Boulder Survey of Historic Places: Highland Lawn. City of
Boulder, 1989.
3 “Clara Higman To Mark 90th Birthday Quietly With Members Of Her Family.” Daily Camera, Jan 15, 1960.
4 Higman, Howard. “Higman: A Collection.” Adams, Tom and Betty Brandenburg, eds. Lafayette, California:
Thomas Barryhill Press, 1998. Boulder Public Library
Figure 10: Clara Higman
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 9
Caribou, including her house and father’s blacksmith shop. While living in Ward, Clara
and Joseph also witnessed the fire in January of 1900 that nearly wiped out the town.
Clara’s parents moved to Boulder in 1896, a few years before she and Joseph did.
George and Priscilla lived at 440 Arapahoe Ave. from 1896 to 1916, within a block of 479
Arapahoe Ave.. The house was landmarked in 1993 as the Jones-Walton house.
A clipping from a Boulder newspaper in 1897 shares one of Clara’s most interesting
experiences:
“Mrs. Clara Higman had a thrilling experience last week that not many men would care
to face and which stamps her a heroine equal to any in history or romance…She received
word of [her father’s] critical illness during the snow blockade when no stages were
running and the trails broken by the few horsemen were filled up by the high winds
almost as fast as made. She insisted on going at once to his bedside, and procuring a horse
and man’s saddle started along on her long, dangerous trip of twenty miles over the
mountains. She had to force her way through huge drifts and around precipices where the
road was obliterated and where a fall meant certain death. A portion of the way she drove
the horse in front of her to break a trail, she following on foot. At last she reached Gold
Hill, chilled, tired, and every stitch of clothing wringing wet. Here she rested a short time
and obtained a change of clothing, and then pushed on, reaching here at night again
drenched to the skin, and remained at her father’s bedside until he died. Think of the love
and the courage that could nerve and sustain a woman to such a deed as that!”5
While they lived in Boulder, Clara and Joseph were active members of the Presbyterian
church and Joseph was active in the Odd Fellows, serving as the “Noble Grand” of that
group in his later years. Clara was also a member of the WCTU and Daughters of Union
Veterans. Joseph and Clara had 5 children, Norine, Winifred, S.E. “Sid”, Josephine, and
Howard. Their youngest son, Howard, became a well-known Sociology professor at the
University of Colorado, where he taught from 1946 until 1985. Howard Higman is most
well remembered as the founder of the University of Colorado’s Conference on World
Affairs.
5 “Clara Higman To Mark 90th Birthday Quietly With Members Of Her Family,” Daily Camera, Jan. 15, 1960.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 10
Figure 11. Left to right: Daughters Josephine and Norine, c. 1920s (Boulder Carnegie Library), and son
Howard Higman (www.coloradanmagazine.org), undated.
Christopher and Kate Blewitt, a retired couple, are known to be the next residents of
the house in 1910. They were married 1891 in Gilpin County, Colorado and moved to
Boulder in 1905. Kate was born in England and came to Central City with her parents as
a young girl. After she and Christopher married, they lived near Steamboat Springs
where Christopher served as treasurer of Routt County. While in Boulder, Kate was
active in the Women’s Relief Corps, the Queen Esther Chapter, and in the Methodist
church. Christopher died in 1913, and Kate lived at 479 Arapahoe Ave. until 1918.
Charles and Ellen Smith owned the property fom 1919 until 1921. Charles was born
around 1870 in Maryland and Ellen was born around 1871 in Iowa. The 1920 city
directory lists Charles’ occupation as a carpenter.
Paul D. and Sadie V. Scott and their children resided at 479 Arapahoe Avenue from
1921 until about 1932. Paul was born around 1877 in Illinois. Before moving to Boulder
in 1921, the Scott family was living in Lowell, Kansas where Paul was employed as a
cashier at a bank. In Boulder, Paul was in the shoe business. Paul and Sadie had seven
children: T. Harold, Walter, Pauline, Warren, Lois, Natalie, and Robert. Paul and Sadie’s
eldest son, T. Harold, graduated from CU Boulder and was later employed as Assistant
Secretary to the U.S. Senator of Colorado Alva B. Adams, who was in office in the 1920s
and 1930s. Deed research shows that in 1932 ownership of the house passed to the
Mercantile Bank & Trust, yet the Scott family still resided at 479 Arapahoe Avenue
during that year.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 11
The next long term owners were McFay
and Olive Lamb, who owned the property
from 1937 until 1958. McFay worked as an
auto mechanic at Arnold Motors, a
dealership located at 38th and Arapahoe
Avenue and later at 9th and Canyon
Boulevard. Olive was a member of the
Boulder Senior Citizens Club and the First
Methodist Church. McFay was born in
Chanute, Kansas in 1889 and Olive was
born in Iowa in 1890. McFay and Olive
were married 1910 in Rocky Ford,
Colorado.
Cecil and Gladys Smith, no relation to the previous owners, owned the property from
1958 until 1969. During the 1950s and 1960s, Cecil worked as a pharmacist at Potter
Drug and later at McKermitts Self Service Drugs. In 1964, Gladys was featured in a
Daily Camera article titled, “Antique Furniture Makes Comfortable, Graceful Living,
Mrs. Smith Believes.” As an avid antique hunter and collector, she opened an antique
shop in Niwot in the 1960s.
Figure 13. Gladys Smith at 479 Arapahoe Ave., 1964.
From 1969 to 1981, the house was owned by Fauniel Young, who rented out the
property to various tenants. It then passed to two additional owners, before the current
owner purchased the property in 2014. See Attachment E: Directory & Deed Research.
Figure 12. McFay and Olive Lamb, 1960.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 12
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION:
Section 9-11-5(c), Public Hearing Before the Landmarks Board, B.R.C. 1981, specifies that in
its review of an application for local landmark designation, “the landmarks board shall
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.” See Attachment F: Chapter 9-11-1 & 9-11-2
Purposes and Intent, Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
To assist in the interpretation of the historic preservation ordinance, the Landmarks
Board has adopted significance criteria to use when evaluating applications for
individual landmarks. See Attachment G: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks.
The board may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application.
Findings must be adopted within 30 days of the hearing date. Should the board
disapprove the application, the board must notify City Council of that action within
fourteen days of the hearing date. City Council may call up a decision disapproving a
designation. Should an application be disapproved, the same application may not be
submitted for a period of one year.
If the board finds that the proposed designation conforms to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2
of the B.R.C. 1981, it shall adopt specific findings and conclusions approving or
modifying and approving the application. If the board approves the proposed
designation, the application will be forwarded to City Council (within 100 days) for a
public hearing.
ANALYSIS OF LANDMARK CRITERIA:
A. Does the proposed application protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings in 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?
Staff finds that the designation of the house at 479 Arapahoe Ave. will protect,
enhance, and perpetuate a building reminiscent of a past era important in local
history and preserve an important example of Boulder’s historic architecture. Staff
considers the application to meet the historic criteria for individual landmark
designation as outlined below:
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 479 Arapahoe Ave. meets historic significance criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 13
1. Date of Construction: c. 1901
Elaboration: The address first appears in city directories in 1901.
2. Association with Persons or Events: The Higman family
Elaboration: Clara and Joseph Higman arrived in Boulder and purchased the
property at 479 Arapahoe in 1901 after spending the first ten years of their marriage
in various mining towns such as Central City, Gold Hill, and Ward. Clara was born
near Caribou to parents that migrated to the area in 1866, a decade before Colorado
was established as a state. Clara Higman’s stories from her pioneer life were often
recounted in Daily Camera articles.
3. Development of the Community: The house was constructed in the Highland Lawn
Addition to the city, which developed primarily between 1880 and 1920.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Historic Building Inventory Form, 1989.
Elaboration: The 1989 Historic Building Inventory Form found the property to be in
good condition with moderate alterations. The form notes that “this house, although
altered, retains details of early twentieth century construction, including the gable
ornament, decorative wood shingles, and segmental window arches.”
See Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Record.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 479 Arapahoe Ave. meets historic significance criteria 1 and 3.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Queen Anne Vernacular
Elaboration: The house has elements of the Queen Anne style popular in the
1890s and early 1900s as seen in the decorative shingles on the front gable end,
the slight return in vergeboards, the gabled dormers, the segmental arches above
the windows and the transom over the front door.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: It is possible, but unknown, whether
carpenter and first resident Joseph Higman constructed the house.
3. Artistic Merit: Architectural detailing
Elaboration: The house embodies skillful integration of design and material
which is of excellent visual quality, as can be seen in its Queen Anne detailing.
4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed.
5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 14
B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain an appropriate setting and environment
for the historic resource and area to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods,
promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City’s living heritage?
Staff finds that the proposed designation maintains an appropriate setting for the
historic resource at 479 Arapahoe Ave. and enhances property values, promotes
tourist trade and interest, and fosters knowledge of the City’s living heritage. Staff
considers that the application meets the environmental significance criteria for
individual landmark designation as outlined below:
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 479 Arapahoe Ave. has environmental significance under
criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5.
1. Site Characteristics: Residential historic character
Elaboration: The house is sited along Arapahoe Avenue between 4th and 5th
streets. It is located within the boundaries of the identified potential Expanded
Highland Lawn Historic District and the house retains its historic residential
character.
2. Compatibility with Site: Residential historic character
Elaboration: The building is representative of the typical building patterns in
Highland Lawn and contributes to the residential character of the neighborhood.
The property retains its historic relationship to its lot and surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Geographic Importance: None observed.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Residential historic character
Elaboration: The house and surroundings are complementary and careful
integrated.
5. Area Integrity: Potential Expanded Highland Lawn Historic District
Elaboration: The 400 block of Arapahoe Avenue is located in the identified
Potential Expanded Highland Lawn Historic District, which retains a high
degree of historic integrity to the original development of that neighborhood.
C. Does the proposed application draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and
the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 15
ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be
carefully weighed with other alternatives? (See Subsection 9-11-1(b), B.R.C. 1981).
Staff finds this application draws a reasonable balance between private property
rights and the public’s interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage. The property owner supports the designation.
Landmark Name
Staff considers that the landmark should be named the Higman House, given its
association with the Higman family, who were the earliest residents of the house, and in
particular Howard Higman, who founded the University of Colorado’s Conference on
World Affairs. This is consistent with the Landmark Board’s Guidelines for Names of
Landmarked Structures and Sites (1988) and the National Register of Historic Places
Guidelines for Designation. See Attachment H: Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures
and Sites.
Boundary Analysis
The building sits on a residential lot measuring approximately 11,238 sq. ft. in size and
extends to the north side of the Boulder Creek. The applicant has requested a landmark
boundary that encompasses the southern half of the property, extending 110’ from the
south (street-facing) property line, and following the east and west property lines. The
applicant requests this boundary in order to allow for the construction of a new
accessory building on the rear portion of the site. See Figure 16. Proposed Landmark
Boundary, and Attachment A: Applicant Materials. Typically, staff recommends a
landmark boundary be based on the property boundary to reflect the historic lot and to
ensure protection of the site as a whole. In this case staff considers the smaller boundary
appropriate as there are no character defining features at the rear of the property and
the lack of visibility to this area from the public right of way. The applicant has
indicated that once the rear accessory building has been constructed they would amend
the landmark boundary to include the entire property, if the Landmarks Board
considers it appropriate.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 16
Figure 14. Proposed Landmark Boundary (dashed line).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Applicant Materials
B: Current Photographs
C: Historic Building Inventory Form
D: Tax Assessor Card
E: Deed and Directory Research
F: Chapter 9-11-1 & 9-11-2 Purposes and Intent, Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
G: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
H: Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 17
Attachment A: Applicant Materials
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 18
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 19
Attachment B: Current Photographs
479 Arapahoe Ave., South Elevation (façade), 2016.
479 Arapahoe Ave., Northwest Corner, 2016.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 20
479 Arapahoe Ave., Southeast Corner, 2016.
479 Arapahoe Ave., North Elevation (rear), 2016.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 21
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form, 1989
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 22
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 23
479 Arapahoe Ave., 1989.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 24
Attachment D: Tax Assessor Card
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 25
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 26
Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c. 1949
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 27
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 28
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 29
Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c. 1967.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 30
Attachment E: Deed and Directory Research
Owner (deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
Joseph H. Higman 1901-1908 Joseph & Clara Higman,
carpenter.
Christopher & Kate Blewitt 1908-1919 Christopher & Kate Blewitt,
retired.
Charlie & Ellen Smith 1919-1921 Charles & Ellen Smith,
carpenter.
Paul D. & Sadie Scott 1921-1931 Paul (salesman), Sadie,
Pauline (clerk), Lois
(student), Natalie (student),
T. Harold (CU student),
Warren (CU student), &
Walter.
Mercantile Bank & Trust 1932-1936
William & Alma Irwin 1936-37 Frank W. (trucking) & Alice
Farrow, Kenneth (driver) &
Pauline Farrow.
McFay & Olive Lamb 1937-1958 McFay (auto-mechanic) &
Olive Lamb,
Amos & Ella Thurlow.
Cecil W. & Gladys M.
Smith
1958-1969 Cecil & Gladys Smith,
Pharmacist at Potter Drug
and later McKermitt’s Self
Service Drugs.
Fauniel & James Young 1969-1981 Various tenants
George W. Bauer 1981-1988
Fauniel & James Young 1988
Alan E. Ostlund 1988-2014
Little Owl, LLC. 2014-Present
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 31
Attachment F: Purposes and Intent
9-11-1 & 9-11-2 Purposes and Intent
Boulder Revised Code, 1981
9-11-1: Purpose and Legislative Intent states:
(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.
(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.
(c) The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new construction on
landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks Board shall follow relevant city
policies, including, without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled and
creative approaches to renovation.
9-11-2: City Council may Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
(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;
(2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites,
buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of
the city;
(3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings,
structures, or features which are contained in two or more geographically
separate areas, having a special character and historical, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value that are united together by historical, architectural, or
aesthetic characteristics; and
(4) Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or district.
(b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the requirements
of this code and other ordinances of the city.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 32
Attachment G: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures for the
designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of the ordinance is
the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The Landmarks
Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its own
organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the board to help
evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner.
Historic Significance
The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be the site of
a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political,
economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the
structure.
Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state, or local.
Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to an
institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some cases
residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places which demonstrate
the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an
awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder Historical
Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schooland, etc), State
Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L. Olmsted, or others in
published form as having historic interest and value.
Other, if applicable.
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a
good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally,
state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development; contain
elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant
innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style,
i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American Building Survey Criteria,
Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The History of Architectural Style
(Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture
(Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published source of universal or local analysis of
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 33
a style.
Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or builder who is
recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally.
Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent visual
quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship that are
representative of a significant innovation.
Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area.
Other, if applicable.
Environmental Significance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the
protection of the unique natural and man-made environment.
Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation.
Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or other
qualities of design with respect to its site.
Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it
represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community.
Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is situated in a
manner particularly suited to its function.
Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental importance and
continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of context might not qualify
under other criteria.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 34
Attachment H: Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites
GUIDELINES FOR NAMES OF LANDMARKED STRUCTURES AND SITES
PURPOSE:
The City of Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board finds that adoption of guideline
for the official landmark names of structures and sites designated by the City Council as City of
Boulder Landmarks will provide consistency in meeting the historic preservation goals as set
forth in the Historic Preservation Code (9-11-1 and 9-11-3).
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF OFFICIAL LANDMARK NAMES:
1. The official landmark name of the site or structure should be based on one or more of
the following criteria:
A. Original owners, architect, or builder;
B. Historically significant persons or prominent long-term residents;
C. A commonly accepted name;
D. Original or later event or use;
E. Unusual or architectural characteristic which clearly which clearly identifies the
landmark; and
F. The contributions of both men and women.
2. Owners requesting landmark designation for their buildings may be considered under
the above criteria. In the event that the official landmark name does not include the present
owners, a separate plaque containing the statement “Landmar k designation applied for (date)
by owners (names of owners)” will be made available at the owners’ expense.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 1
M E M O R A N D U M
August 3, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the
building and property at 2949 Broadway as a local historic
landmark per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(HIS2015-00121).
__________________________________________________________________________
STATISTICS
1. Site: 2949 Broadway
2. Date of Construction: 1913
3. Zoning: RH-2
4. Lot Size: 6,230 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Applicant/Owner: ALR Investments, LLC / Michael Bosma
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board recommend that the City Council designate the property at
2949 Broadway as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Hulse House, finding that it
meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C.
1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated August 3, 2016, as the findings of the board.
FINDINGS
The Landmarks Board finds that, based upon the application and the evidence
presented, the proposed designation application will be consistent with the purposes
and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 2
1. The proposed designation will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building
reminiscent of past eras and persons important in local and state history and
provide a significant example of architecture from the past. Section 9-11-1(a),
B.R.C. 1981.
2. The proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment
and will enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist
trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage. Section 9-
11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981.
3. The proposed designation draws 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 important to that
heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives. Section 9-11-1(b),
B.R.C. 1981.
4. The building proposed for designation has special character and historical,
architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Section 9-11-2(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981.
5. The proposed designation is consistent with the criteria specified in Section 9-11-
5(c), B.R.C. 1981.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property at 2949 Broadway is located on the west side of Broadway, between
Dellwood and Cedar avenues. Constructed in 1913 with Edwardian vernacular
elements, the property is not located in a designated or identified potential historic
district.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 3
Figure 1. Location Map, 2949 Broadway.
Figure 2. Tax Assessor Card Photo, c. 1949.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 4
Figure 3. East Elevation (façade), 2949 Broadway, 2015.
The one-story hipped-roof house features a projecting gable roof porch over the
entrance at the north side of the east façade and features square supports and a stick
balustrade that extends the width of the façade. The gable end of the porch features
decorative, diamond shaped shingles and an arched decoration with dentils. Three
double-hung windows are located at a projecting bay window on the south side of the
façade with the middle window featuring an 8-over-1 window flanked by 6-over-1
windows. The building is clad in narrow wooden lap siding (clapboard) with corner
boards and has overhanging eaves are on all four sides. The building rests on a
rusticated, coursed stone foundation. See Attachment B: Current Photographs.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 5
Figure 4. North Elevation, 2949 Broadway (left 2015, right 1995).
The north elevation is closely situated to the fence line and is mostly obscured by
vegetation. The 1995 Historic Building inventory Record photo shows that the north
elevation has four windows spread out across the elevation, at least one of which
appears to be double-hung. These windows appear to be intact.
Figure 5. South Elevation from rear of house, 2949 Broadway, 2015.
The south elevation features a projecting bay with three double-hung windows. Two
small square windows are to the right of the bay window, although one of these has
been closed for the installation of an A/C unit. A rear entrance to the house is located to
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 6
the right of the bay window. A small double-hung window is situated closely to the
right of the wood-paneled door.
Figure 6. West Elevation (rear), 2949 Broadway, 2015.
The west elevation (rear) features a horizontal sliding window on the left side, a double-
hung window in the center, and a picture window at the right. The southwest corner of
the house is clad in wooden beadboard siding, which is indicative of 1920s construction.
However, the picture window on the west elevation indicates that the addition was
altered in the last 50 years.
Figure 7. Detail of southwest corner, 2949 Broadway, 2015.
According to Tax Assessor records, a garage measuring approximately 12’ by 18’ was
constructed prior to 1929 at the southwest corner of the lot. This building has since been
demolished and there are no other accessory buildings located on the lot.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 7
The integrity of this Edwardian vernacular house remains largely intact with no major
modifications having occurred to the house since its construction.
Site Review
In 2014 the owners submitted an application for demolition of the house. This request
was subsequently withdrawn, and the same year a Site Review application to construct
additional units on the property and a request for a parking reduction was submitted.
As a condition of that approval, the owners submitted a landmark designation
application for the property. The Landmark Alteration Certificate for a construction of
an addition was approved by the Landmarks Design Review Committee on April 13,
2016 (HIS2016-00067). The Planning Board appproved the Site Review application at its
June 6, 2016 meeting (LUR2014-00097).
Figure 8. Landmark Alteration Certificate renderings showing rear addition.
HISTORY
The house was constructed in 1913 for Elisha and Mary Hulse, who lived there until
1946. Elisha worked as a Real Estate dealer and Public Notary in Boulder, having
married Mary Anne Knight in Wisconsin in 1873, shortly after Elisha graduated from
the University of Wisconsin. While attending the university, he was pitcher on the
school’s first baseball team from 1870-1871.1 As an alumnus, Elisha often participated in
school reunions, particularly with the Rocky Mountain Alumni association of the
University of Wisconsin.
1 “Carroll S. Montgomery, ’72, Oldest Living ‘W’ Man,” The Wisconsin Alumni Magazine, November, 1927.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 8
In the mid 1870s, Elisha and Mary taught school in Rock County,
Wisconsin. By 1877, the couple had moved to Kansas, where
Elisha continued in educational work. For some time Elisha was
the superintendant of schools in Arkansas City, Kansas, and he
and his wife were charter members of the first Presbyterian
church to be organized there. In the 1880s, Elisha and Mary
moved to McPherson, Kansas, where, according to a Daily
Camera article, “he installed the first high school course in
connection with the city schools.”2
Around 1908, the Hulses moved to Boulder where Elisha
engaged in the real estate business and as an abstractor. While in
Boulder, they were also very active in the Presbyterian church
and other civic affairs. In 1911, Elisha is listed as working at
Hulse & Hopkins Real Estate and Insurance Company located at
1938 13th Street and as President and Manager of the Record Abstract of Title Company.
In 1920, Elisha was listed as working at Hulse & Thurston at 2103 12th St.
Elisha and Mary had four daughters, Grace (Clarke), Maude
(Barber), Mildred (Payne), and Mrs. E.F. Woods. In 1923, their
daughter, Grace, came to live with them at 2949 Broadway. In
city directories, Grace is listed as the widow of Fred B. Clarke.
Elisha died in 1927, and Mary remained at the house with her
daughter, Grace. Mary died in 1944, at which point ownership
of the house passed to Grace.
A photo album belonging to the Davis-Stilwell family from the
1910s includes photographs of the house at 2949 Broadway
since the Davis-Stilwell family lived next door at 2945 and 2937
Broadway. The house appears to have been painted a darker
color at that time. Broadway, an unpaved, two-lane road, was
the main north-south thouroughfare in Boulder .
2 “Golden Wedding Anniversary Of Mr. and Mrs. E.W. Hulse Tonight,” Daily Camera, October 19, 1925.
Figure 9.
Elisha Hulse, 1873
The University of
Wisconsin Collection
Figure 10.
Elisha Hulse, 1923
The Wisconsin Alumni
Magazine, Aug., 1923.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 9
Figure 11. Photo of 2945 Broadway (left) and 2949 Broadway (right), c. 1913-1920.
In 1947, the house passed from Grace Clarke to her sister, Mildred Payne, who sold it
one year later to Ira & Etta Hoskin. Although the Hoskins owned the property from
1948 until 1953, city directories list their residence during this time at 959 University
Avenue. Ira worked as a maintenance foreman at the University of Colorado’s Vetsville.
The Hoskins rented out 2949 Broadway to Jack and Margaret Churchill, who later
bought the house from the Hoskins in 1955. Jack Churchill was employed as a meat
cutter at Ideal Market.
In 1959, Harold and Anna Stephens purchased the house. During the 1960s, Harold
worked at the Arrow Trailer Court. Ownership of 2949 Broadway passed through
Harold, Anna, and their daughter until 2013, when ALR Investments LLC purchased
the house from Marilyn Stephens. See Attachment E: Deed and Directory Research.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION:
Section 9-11-5(c), Public Hearing Before the Landmarks Board, B.R.C. 1981, specifies that in
its review of an application for local landmark designation, “the landmarks board shall
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.” See Attachment F: Chapter 9-11-1 & 9-11-2
Purposes and Intent, Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
To assist in the interpretation of the historic preservation ordinance, the Landmarks
Board has adopted significance criteria to use when evaluating applications for
individual landmarks. See Attachment G: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks.
Within 45 days after the hearing date, the board shall adopt specific written findings
and conclusions approving, modifying and approving, or disapproving the proposal.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 10
Within 30 days of its action, the board shall notify city council of any decision
disapproving a designation or shall refer a proposal that it has approved to the council
for its further action. If the board approves the proposed designation, the application
will be forwarded to City Council (within 100 days) for a public hearing. City Council
may call up a decision disapproving a designation. Should an application be
disapproved, the same application may not be submitted for a period of one year.
ANALYSIS OF LANDMARK CRITERIA:
A. Does the proposed application protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings in 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?
Staff finds that the designation of the house at 2949 Broadway will protect, enhance,
and perpetuate a building reminiscent of a past era important in local history and
preserve an important example of Boulder’s historic architecture. Staff considers the
application to meet the historic criteria for individual landmark designation as
outlined below:
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 2949 Broadway meets historic significance criteria 1, 2, 3.
1. Date of Construction: 1911
Elaboration: Boulder City Directory research indicates that Elisha and Mary Hulse were
living at the property in 1913. The Tax Assessor Card dates the building to a year later in
1914, but notes that a permit for the property was issued April of 1911.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Elisha W. and Mary K. Hulse
Elaboration: The first residents of the house were Elisha and Mary Hulse. The
Hulses were originally from Wisconsin, where Elisha graduated from the University
of Wisconsin in 1873. He was fondly remembered as the pitcher on the university’s
first baseball team in 1870. From about 1880 to 1908, the Hulses were both employed
as teachers in the public schools in Arkansas City, Kansas and later in McPherson,
Kansas. Elisha is considered a pioneer educator of that state, since he is credited
with implementing the first high school courses in the McPherson public school
system. Around 1908, Elisha and Mary moved to Boulder, where Elisha was
employed as a Real Estate and Insurance Agent, a public notary, and an abstractor.
Elisha died in 1927, Mary died in 1944. The house briefly passed ownership through
two of their daughters, Grace, and later Mildred.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 11
3. Development of the Community: The house is one of the earlier houses in north
Boulder, and is an excellent example of the Edwardian Vernacular style popular in
Boulder in the early twentieth century.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Historic Building Inventory Form, 1995.
Elaboration: The 1995 Historic Building Inventory Form found the property to be in
fair condition with minor alterations. The form notes that the house is significant as
it represents a type, period or method of construction, noting that “this is a well
preserved example of Edwardian Vernacular style, as reflected in the asymmetrical
massing, clapboard siding, gable face with decorative shingles and arch with dentils,
and bay window.” See Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Record.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 2949 Broadway meets historic significance criteria 1 and 3.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Edwardian Vernacular
Elaboration: The house is an excellent example of the Edwardian Vernacular
style popular in the early twentieth century, as reflected in the asymmetrical
massing, clapboard siding, gable face with decorative shingles and arch with
dentils, and bay window.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None Observed
3. Artistic Merit: Architectural detailing
Elaboration: The house embodies skillful integration of design and material
which is of excellent visual quality.
4. Example of the Uncommon: The house is one of the earliest residences in North
Boulder.
5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed.
B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain an appropriate setting and environment
for the historic resource and area to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods,
promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City’s living heritage?
Staff finds that the proposed designation maintains an appropriate setting for the
historic resource at 2949 Broadway and enhances property values, promotes tourist
trade and interest, and fosters knowledge of the City’s living heritage. Staff
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 12
considers that the application meets the environmental significance criteria for
individual landmark designation as outlined below:
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 2949 Broadway has environmental significance under criteria 1,
2 and 3.
1. Site Characteristics: Residential historic character
Elaboration: The house is located along Broadway, between Cedar and
Dellwood avenues. The house retains its historic residential character.
2. Compatibility with Site: Residential historic character
Elaboration: The building is representative of the typical building patterns along
north Broadway and contributes to the residential character of the area. The
property retains its historic relationship to its lot and surrounding neighborhood .
3. Geographic Importance: House is a familiar visual feature along Broadway.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Residential historic character
Elaboration: The house and surroundings are complementary and careful
integrated.
5. Area Integrity: None Observed.
Elaboration: The property is not located in an identified potential historic
district.
C. Does the proposed application 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?(See Subsection 9-11-1(b), B.R.C. 1981).
Staff finds this application draws a reasonable balance between private property
rights and the public’s interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage. The property owner supports the designation.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 13
Landmark Name
Staff considers that the landmark should be named the Hulse House, given its
association with the Hulse family, who were the first owners of the house, residing
there from 1913 into the 1940s. This is consistent with the Landmark Board’s Guidelines
for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites (1988) and the National Register of Historic
Places Guidelines for Designation. See Attachment H: Guidelines for Names of Landmarked
Structures and Sites.
Boundary Analysis
The building sits on a residential lot measuring approximately 6,230 sq. ft. in size. Staff
recommends that the boundary be established to follow the property lines of the lot,
which is consistent with current and past practices and the National Register Guidelines
for establishing landmark boundaries.
Figure 12. Landmark boundary map for 2949 Broadway.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Landmark Designation Application
B: Current Photographs
C: Historic Building Inventory Form
D: Tax Assessor Card
E: Deed and Directory Research
F: Chapter 9-11-1 & 9-11-2 Purposes and Intent, Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
G: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
H: Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 14
Attachment A: Landmark Designation Application
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 15
Attachment B: Current Photographs
2949 Broadway, East Elevation (façade), 2015.
2949 Broadway, Southeast corner, 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 16
2949 Broadway, Northeast corner, 2015.
2949 Broadway, Close up view of Gable detail, 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 17
2949 Broadway, West elevation (rear), 2015.
2949 Broadway, South elevation, 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 18
2949 Broadway, View of Southwest corner from alley, 2015.
2949 Broadway on left, view looking north on Broadway, 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 19
2949 Broadway on right (front lawn visible), view looking south on Broadway, 2015.
2949 Broadway, view looking south in alley, 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 20
2949 Broadway on right, view looking north in alley, 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 21
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form, 1988
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 22
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 23
2949 Broadway, 1995.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 24
Attachment D: Tax Assessor Card
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 25
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 26
Tax Assessor Card Photograph, c. 1949.
Attachment E: Deed and Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Year Occupant(s)/Directory
Elisha W. & Mary Hulse
1913-1942
1913 Elisha & Mary Hulse (Real Estate, Insurance, Rentals, and
Loans)
1918 Elisha W. & Mary Hulse (Real Estate & Public Notary 7)
1926 Elisha & Mary Hulse (Real Estate, Loans, Rentals, Notary)
& Grace Clarke (widow of Fred B.)
1930 Mary (widow) and Grace (widow)
Grace Clarke
1942-1947
1946 Grace Clarke (widow)
Mildred Payne (lived in Denver)
1947-1948
Ira & Etta Hoskin (lived at 959
University Ave.)
1948-1954
1949 Jack S. & Margaret C. Churchill (meat cutter at Ideal Market)
Jack Churchill
1954-1955
1955 Jack S. & Margaret C. Churchill (meat cutter at Ideal Market)
Hurschel Fitzpatrick
1955-1959
1959 Hurschel & Gladys Fitzpatrick (janitor at Boulder county
Courthouse)
Edgar & Eva Brock (lived at 3320
13th)
1959
Harold & Anna Stephens
1959-c. 2005
1960 Harold G. & Anna Stephens (Arrow Trailer Court)
Marilyn Stephens
c.2005-2013
ALR Investments, LLC 2013
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 27
Attachment F: Purposes and Intent
9-11-1 & 9-11-2 Purposes and Intent
Boulder Revised Code, 1981
9-11-1: Purpose and Legislative Intent states:
(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.
(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.
(c) The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new construction on
landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks Board shall follow relevant city
policies, including, without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled and
creative approaches to renovation.
9-11-2: City Council may Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
(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;
(2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites,
buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of
the city;
(3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings,
structures, or features which are contained in two or more geographically
separate areas, having a special character and historical, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value that are united together by historical, architectural, or
aesthetic characteristics; and
(4) Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or district.
(b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the requirements
of this code and other ordinances of the city.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 28
Attachment G: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures for the
designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of the ordinance is
the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The Landmarks
Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its own
organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the board to help
evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner.
Historic Significance
The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be the site of
a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political,
economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the
structure.
Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state, or local.
Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to an
institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some cases
residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places which demonstrate
the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an
awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder Historical
Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schooland, etc), State
Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L. Olmsted, or others in
published form as having historic interest and value.
Other, if applicable.
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a
good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally,
state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development; contain
elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant
innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style,
i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American Building Survey Criteria,
Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The History of Architectural Style
(Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture
(Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published source of universal or local analysis of
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 29
a style.
Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or builder who is
recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally.
Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent visual
quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship that are
representative of a significant innovation.
Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area.
Other, if applicable.
Environmental Significance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the
protection of the unique natural and man-made environment.
Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation.
Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or other
qualities of design with respect to its site.
Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it
represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community.
Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is situated in a
manner particularly suited to its function.
Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental importance and
continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of context might not qualify
under other criteria.
AGENDA ITEM #5B PAGE 30
Attachment H: Guidelines for Names of Landmarked Structures and Sites
GUIDELINES FOR NAMES OF LANDMARKED STRUCTURES AND SITES
PURPOSE:
The City of Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board finds that adoption of guideline
for the official landmark names of structures and sites designated by the City Council as City of
Boulder Landmarks will provide consistency in meeting the historic preservation goals as set
forth in the Historic Preservation Code (9-11-1 and 9-11-3).
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF OFFICIAL LANDMARK NAMES:
1. The official landmark name of the site or structure should be based on one or more of
the following criteria:
A. Original owners, architect, or builder;
B. Historically significant persons or prominent long-term residents;
C. A commonly accepted name;
D. Original or later event or use;
E. Unusual or architectural characteristic which clearly which clearly identifies the
landmark; and
F. The contributions of both men and women.
2. Owners requesting landmark designation for their buildings may be considered under
the above criteria. In the event that the official landmark name does not include the present
owners, a separate plaque containing the statement “Landmar k designation applied for (date)
by owners (names of owners)” will be made available at the owners’ expense.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
August 3, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application
for the house and accessory building located at 870 University Ave.,
non-landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-
11-23, Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00103).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 870 University Ave.
2. Date of Construction: 1922
3. Zoning: RL-1
4. Existing House Size: 1,924 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Lot Size: 7,056 sq. ft.
6. Owner/Applicant: 870 University Ave., LLC / Chris Gray
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department (PH&S) recommends that the
Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition permit application for the building
located at 870 University Ave. finding that, due to a loss of architectural integrity, the property is
not eligible for landmark designation, and adopt the staff memorandum dated August 3, 2016, as
the findings of the board. The Landmarks Board recommends that prior to issuance of the
demolition permit, staff require the applicant to submit to CP&S staff for recording with Carnegie
Library:
1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property;
2. Measured elevation drawings of all faces of the buildings depicting existing conditions,
fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans.
Agenda Item 6C Page 2
Should the board choose to issue a stay-of-demolition, a 180-day stay period would
expire on Oct. 29, 2016. If the board chooses to place a stay of demolition on the
application, staff recommends the following motion language:
I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 870
University Ave., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was
accepted by the city manager, findings listed below, in order to explore alternatives to demolition
of the building.
1. The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic
and architectural significance;
2. The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of
the area’s past;
3. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate
the building.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 13, 2016, the Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department received a
demolition permit application for the house and detached garage at 870 University Ave.
The buildings are not in a designated historic district nor locally landmarked, but are
over 50 years old and the action proposed meets the definition of “Demolition
(Historic)” found in Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. On April 27, 2016, the Landmarks design
review committee (Ldrc) referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public
hearing, finding there was “probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible
for designation as an individual landmark” and that the proposed alteration would
constitute a significant impact or detrimental effect to a potentially historic resource.
PURPOSE OF THE BOARD’S REVIEW
Pursuant to section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981, demolition requests for all buildings built
prior to 1940 requires review by the Ldrc. The Ldrc is comprised of two members of the
Landmarks Board and a staff member. If, during the course of its review, the Ldrc
determines that there is “probable cause to consider the property may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark,” the issuance of the permit is stayed for up to 60
days from the date a completed application was accepted and the permit is referred to
the board for a public hearing.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building proposed for demolition may have
significance under the criteria in subsection (f) of Section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981, the
application shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date the
permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete in order to provide the
time necessary to consider alternatives to the building demolition. If imposed, a 180 -day
Agenda Item 6C Page 3
stay period would start when the completed application was accepted by the city
manager (May 2, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on Oct. 29,
2016. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION
The property is located on the south side of University Avenue between 8th and 9th
streets in the Buena Vista Heights Addition within the identified potential Expanded
Highland Lawn historic district, west of the identified potential University Hill local and
national historic district, and half a block north of the Columbia Cemetery National
Register Historic District. The 7,056 square foot lot contains a 1,924 square foot house
with an alley bordering the southern property line. A 236 square foot frame shed is
located at the southwest corner of the lot.
Figure 1. Location Map showing 870 University Ave.
Agenda Item 6C Page 4
Figure 2. North Elevation (façade), 870 University Ave., 2016.
Originally constructed in 1922, the one-story, hipped roof-dominated house at 870
University Ave. was significantly remodeled in 1987 with the construction of a second
story and rear addition. The 1987 design referenced the original Craftsman elements
through its roof form and tapered window surrounds. Remaining features from the 1922
house include the entry, with a centrally located door, clipped gable overhang supported
by triangular braces, and entry stairs, original window openings on the first story, and 4-
over-1 double-hung windows with tapered surrounds. A low, shed and clipped roof
portion of the building wraps the southeast corner of the building and appears to have
been original to the construction of the building. This portion of the building appears on
the 1929 tax assessor card and features a side entrance and original doors and windows.
The south (rear) elevation has been obscured by the 1987 addition.
Agenda Item 6C Page 5
Figure 3. Northeast Elevation, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Figure 4. South Elevation, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Agenda Item 6C Page 6
Figure 5. Southwest Corner, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Figure 6. Southeast Corner, Accessory Building, 2016
Agenda Item 6C Page 7
Figure 7. Southwest Corner, Accessory Building, 2016
An accessory building is located on the southwest corner of the property and was likely
constructed at the same time as the house. The one-story stuccoed building features a
low pitched gable roof with exposed rafters, and a contemporary pedestrian door and
casement window on the north (interior) elevation. The east, south (alley) and west
elevations do not have openings. The tax assessor card notes a private garage was
located on the property and that the garage was extended 4’ in 1958. The building no
longer retains evidence of the garage door opening. The accessory building was
approved for demolition in 2007, and building permit records indicate the building was
clad in stucco in 2008.
Agenda Item 6C Page 8
Figure 8. Tax Assessor Photo, University Ave., c. 1929.
Figure 9. Existing roof plan showing modifications to the building.
The National Park Service’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties states
that, “changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right
will be retained and preserved.” The alterations to this building were made
approximately 30 years ago and are not considered to have historic or architectural merit
Agenda Item 6C Page 9
on their own. While the first level of the original building remains, the resulting loss of
original fabric weakens the property’s architectural integrity as a representative turn-of
the-twentieth-century Craftsman Bungalow inspired house.
Condition
The house appears to be in good condition, with no significant damage evident. No
information had been provided on the interior and structural condition of the house.
SCOPE OF DEMOLITION
Section 9-17 Definitions, B.R.C., 1981 defines “Demolition (Historic)” as the removal of
more than 50% of the roof, more than 50% of the exterior walls, or the removal of a
street-facing wall. The demolition permit application proposes the removal of a street-
facing wall. See Figure 10. Existing and Proposed Elevations.
Figure 10. Existing (left) and Proposed North Elevations, 870 University Ave. Shaded area on
existing drawing shows scope of demolition.
Staff considers that due to the extent of alterations to the building, notably the addition
of a second story in 1987, the house is no longer eligible for designation as an individual
landmark. As such, the proposed alterations would not have a significant impact or
detrimental effect on a potential historic resource in the city.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The house is located within the Buena Vista Heights addition, which was originally part
of Marinus Smith’s sizable landholdings in eastern Boulder. Due to the vast size of his
estate and the number of potential heirs, a legal battle over inheritance followed Smith’s
Agenda Item 6C Page 10
death in 19021. The suit, Della M. Eschenburg et al. vs. Herbert M. Smith et al., resulted in an
agreement to plat many of Smith’s lands into new subdivisions, the lots of which were
then parceled out to the various parties2. As part of this settlement, 870 University was
deeded to the Harrington family3. In 1922, Jessie L. Harrington, widow of George W.
Harrington, sold it to Sophrona “Frona” McNair and her daughter Madge. They held the
property for just over three months before deeding the property to Edward B. Bain,
husband of Jeannette Allen (McNair) Bain, Frona’s daughter. The original house, a one
story Craftsman inspired bungalow, was constructed in 1922.
Edward B. Bain was born on March 1st, 1887, in Clinton, Missouri, the son of John and
Mattie Bain4. John was born in Ireland, emigrated to the U.S. in 1872, while Mattie was
born in Canada, immigrating in 18765. They married in 1884, and by 1900 had moved to
Denver with Edward6. By 1910, Edward had moved to Salina, a small mining town near
Boulder, where he worked as a salesman at a grocery7. He took over ownership of J. O.
Mercantile, a general store in Salina on May 19, 1916, and ran it until November, 1918,
when he joined the United States Army8. Bain was assigned to the Army Air Service,
and, after 60 days basic training in Colorado Springs, trained at the radio school at
Kelley Field, near San Antonio, Texas9. He served with the 145th Headquarters Squadron,
receiving promotion to Sergeant in February, 1919. The First World War having ended
shortly after he joined, Bain was discharged on June 14, 1919. Just over a year later, on
July 25, 1920, he married Jeannette McNair in Denver10.
Jeannette Allen McNair Bain was born in 1893 in Mason City, Iowa to John and
Sophrona McNair 11. In 1909, the McNairs moved to Boulder to take advantage of the
educational opportunities for Jeannette and her sister Madge12. Jeannette attended the
Boulder Preparatory School and two years at the University of Colorado13. She then
taught elementary school at Saguache and Salina for one year each, and in Boulder for
two years, one of which was spent at Highland Elementary School14.
1 Simmons, R. Laurie and Christine Whitacre, 1989 Boulder Survey of Historic Places: Highland Lawn. City of Boulder, 1989.
2 “Map of the Lands Belonging to the Heirs of Marinus G. Smith, Dec.” May, 1902. Boulder Carnegie Library.
3 Ibid.
4 Daily Camera, “Obituaries: Edward Bain”, January 20, 1975. Boulder Carnegie Library.
5United States of America, Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States. 1900. Ancestry.com.
6 Ibid.
7 United States of America, Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States. 1910. Ancestry.com
8 Photo Caption, Boulder Carnegie Library.
9 Daily Camera, “Miss Jeanette A. McNair and Edward Bain Married.” July 26, 1920. Boulder Carnegie Library
10 Ibid.
11 “Miss Jeanette A. McNair and Edward Bain Married”
12 Daily Camera, “Services will be Held Thursday for Mrs. McNair.” September 22, 1943. Boulder Carnegie Library.
13 “Miss Jeanette A. McNair and Edward Bain Married”
14 Ibid.
Agenda Item 6C Page 11
Figure 11. Jeannette Bain, 1934. Photo
Courtesy of the Boulder Carnegie Library
Figure 12. Edward Bain, 1942. Boulder
Carnegie Library.
Following her marriage to Edward, Jeannette was
highly active in numerous local, regional, and national
women’s organizations, and held several prominent
positions. She served as president of the Boulder
Woman’s Club from 1930 until 1932, and was elected
president of the Northern District of the Colorado
Federation of Women’s Clubs (CFWC) in 1934, serving
as president from 1944 until 1947.15 She was appointed
Treasurer of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union
of Colorado in 1955. She was regent of the Arapahoe
Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR),
Regent of the Colorado State Society, DAR, from 1965
until 1967, and Vice President General of the national
DAR from 1965 until 196816. She also taught Sunday
school for the First Presbyterian Church for 15 years,
and was organizing president of the United
Presbyterian Women’s Association17. She died on April
23, 1988, at the age of 94.
Edward Bain worked at Graham Furniture, located in
the Ehrlich Building at 1407 Pearl St.18 Starting as an
assistant manager, he would eventually become owner
and president of the company in 1944.19 Edward was
active as a Scout Master for Boy Scout Troop 75 of
Boulder for 12 years, receiving the Silver Beaver, a high
honor for Scout masters, in 1943. He was a member of
the American Legion for 52 years, and the Boulder
Rotary Club for 39. He retired as president of Graham
Furniture in 1965, and died ten years later on January
18th, 1975, at the age of 87.20 The Bains had one son,
Edward McNair Bain, Jr., who served as an officer in
the U.S. Navy and lived at 870 University until 1946.
15 Mrs. Edward Bain Elected State Federation Head.”; Daily Camera, “Mrs. Edward Bain Elected Northern District President.” April
28, 1934. Boulder Carnegie Library; The Colorado Club Woman, “Mrs. Edward Bain Candidate for Treasurer CFWC.” Boulder
Carnegie Library.
16
17 Daily Camera, “Obituaries: Jeannette A. Bain.” 28 April, 1988. Boulder Carnegie Library.
18 Ibid.
19 Daily Camera, “Mrs. Edward Bain Elected State Federation Head.” September 20, 1944. Boulder Carnegie Library.
20 “Obituaries: Edward Bain”
Agenda Item 6C Page 12
The Bains lived at 870 University Ave. until 1960, when they moved to a new house at
400 Christmas Tree Drive. They retained ownership of 870 University Ave. and rented
the house out until 1974, when it was sold to the First National Bank.
The property was purchased by David S. and Elaine Ogle, a retired couple, in 1975. They
were the sole occupants until 1978, when two additional rental units were created out of
the house. The Ogles rented these to various tenants, before the house passed to David
H. and Penelope Ogle in 1979. Over the following four decades, the property passed
through five owners, each owning the property for less than 10 years. The current
owner, 870 University Ave., LLC, purchased the property in 2014.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION:
Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, provides that the Landmarks Board “shall consider and
base its decision upon any of the following criteria:
(1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark
consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2,
B.R.C. 1981;
(2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an
established and definable area;
(3) The reasonable condition of the building; and
(4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration
or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider
deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.
As detailed below, staff does not consider this property to be potentially eligible for
designation as an individual landmark.
CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
The following is a result of staff's research of the property relative to the significance
criteria for individual landmarks as adopted by the Landmarks Board on Sept. 17, 1975.
See Attachment E: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 870 University Ave. meets historic significance under
criterion 1 and 2.
1. Date of Construction: 1922
Agenda Item 6C Page 13
Elaboration: The tax assessor card lists the date of construction as 1922 and the address
first appears in the 1923 city directory.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Jeannette and John Bain
Elaboration: Jeannette Bain was president of the Colorado Federation of Women’s
clubs, vice president general of the national Daughters of the American Revolution,
and held several other noteworthy positions in local, state, and national women’s
organizations. John Bain was owner and president of Graham Furniture, a prominent
local business, from 1944 until 1965. They lived at 870 University Ave. from its
construction in 1922 until 1960, a period of 38 years.
3. Development of the Community: University Hill/Highland Lawn
Elaboration: The house is typical of houses constructed in the 1910s and 1920s, when
the University Hill neighborhood was growing. The expansion of the house into a
multi-unit dwelling illustrates the long-term change in the character of University
Hill from low-density single family areas to higher density rental ones.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Front Range Research Associates, Inc.
Elaboration: The 1995 Historic Building Inventory Form notes that “Although the
house has been extensively remodeled, it is notable for its original details, which
include its half-timbering, slanted surrounds, and 4/1 light windows.” There is no
historical background information on the survey, and it was not found to have
specific architectural or historic significance.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: Due to extensive remodeling, the house located at 870 University Ave. is no longer
architecturally significant.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Bungalow Style
Elaboration: Though originally an excellent example of modest Craftsman
Bungalow house construction in Boulder , extensive alterations have diminished its
significance. The 1987 addition of a full second story has significantly impacted the
original one-story roof-dominated form and character of the house.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Unknown
3. Artistic Merit: The alterations to this property have diminished the artistic merits of
its original construction.
4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed.
Agenda Item 6C Page 14
5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house is not environmentally significant.
1. Site Characteristics: Residential Historic Character
Elaboration: The house is located on the south side of University Avenue between 8th
and 9th streets. It is located within the identified potential Expanded Highland Lawn
historic district, west of the identified potential University Hill local and national
historic district, and half a block north of the Columbia Cemetery National Register
Historic District.
2. Compatibility with Site: Residential Historic Character
Elaboration: While the house retains the original front and side yard setbacks, the
house itself no longer contributes to the historic residential character of the
neighborhood.
3. Geographic Importance: None observed.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed.
5. Area Integrity: The property is located within the identified Potential Expanded
Highland Lawn Historic District, which retains a high degree of historic integrity to
the original development of that neighborhood, however, because of the extent of
remodeling, staff does not consider the house would contribute to the potential
historic district.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD:
Extensive alterations to this house have diminished its architectural, historic and
environmental integrity. It is no longer contributing to the neighborhood.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING:
Little information has yet been provided regarding the condition of the build ing.
Externally, the house and accessory building appear to be in good condition.
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
No information has been submitted regarding the cost of restoration or repair.
Agenda Item 6C Page 15
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT:
Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter.
THE BOARD’S DECISION:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have
significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, the city manager
shall issue a demolition permit.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have significance
under the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended for a period not to
exceed 180 days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager
as complete in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the
demolition of the building. Section 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period
would expire on October 29, 2016.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
Issuance of a demolition permit for the house and accessory buildings at 870 University
Ave. is appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in
that:
1. While the property possesses historic significance, it is not eligible for individual
landmark designation as the extensive alterations, including a full second-story
addition, have compromised its historic and architectural integrity;
2. The property does not contribute to the character of the neighborhood, due to the
extent of alterations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1929
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Agenda Item 6C Page 16
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Photo 1. North Elevation (façade), 870 University Ave., 2016.
Photo 2. Northeast Corner, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Agenda Item 6C Page 17
Photo 3. South Elevation (rear), 870 University Ave., 2016.
Photo 4. Southeast Corner, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Agenda Item 6C Page 18
Photo 5. Southeast Corner, Accessory Building, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Photo 5. Southeast Corner, Accessory Building, 870 University Ave., 2016.
Agenda Item 6C Page 19
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1929 - 1966
Agenda Item 6C Page 20
Agenda Item 6C Page 21
Agenda Item 6C Page 22
Agenda Item 6C Page 23
Agenda Item 6C Page 24
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item 6C Page 25
Agenda Item 6C Page 26
Photo from Historic Building Inventory Record, 1989.
Agenda Item 6C Page 27
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
Madge and Frona
McNair
3/2/22 – 6/21/22
1922
Bain, Edward
5/19/22 – 11/6/74
1923-60 *first appears Bain, Edward (Jeannette A.), Graham
Furniture Co.
1960 Posphala, Steve J. (Bertha M), electrician.
1961-62 Hill, Robert D. (Joan M.), Student
1963-74 Sharp, Betty A. (Widow of Floyd) retired.
First National
Bank
11/06/74 – 6/2/75
1975 Vacant
David S. and
Elaine Ogle
6/2/75 - 1979
1976 -78 Ogle, David S. (Elaine), Retired.
1978 Ogle, David S. (Elaine); A – Jacobs, Cindy;
B – Reynolds, R.
1979 Ogle, David S. (Elaine); A – Milkovich, Gary;
B – Schaefer, Priscillia.
David H. and
Penelope Ogle
1979 – 8/23/85
1980 Swenson, Pete; A – Behnke, Tom;
B – Veit, Chris
Christopher and
Stephen Soper
8/23/85 – 2/22/93
1985
Lora Thorne-
Smith
2/22/93 – 6/27/01
1993
Robert G. Taylor,
II
6/27/01 – 10/27/04
2001
Theodore A.
Hartridge
10/27/04 –
11/18/09
2004
Agenda Item 6C Page 28
870 Boulder, LLC.
11/18/09
2009
Naren S. Tayal
11/18/09 – 3/7/14
2009
870 University
Ave, LLC
3/7/14 – present
2014
Agenda Item 6C Page 29
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures
for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The
purpose of the ordinance is the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic,
and architectural heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt
rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its own organization and procedures.
The following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the board to help evaluate
each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner.
Historic Significance
The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be
the site of a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the
cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age
of the structure.
Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state,
or local.
Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to
an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some
cases residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places
which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in
order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder
Historical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock,
Schooland, etc), State Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L.
Olmsted, or others in published form as having historic interest and value.
Other, if applicable.
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type
specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder,
known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later
Agenda Item 6C Page 30
development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship
which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural
period/style, i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American
Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The
History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard
et al), History of Architecture (Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published
source of universal or local analysis of a style.
Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or
builder who is recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally.
Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent
visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship
that are representative of a significant innovation.
Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder
area.
Other, if applicable.
Environmental Significance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community
by the protection of the unique natural and man-made environment.
Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural
vegetation.
Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or
other qualities of design with respect to its site.
Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it
represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community.
Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is
situated in a manner particularly suited to its function.
Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental
importance and continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of
context might not qualify under other criteria.
DATE: August 3, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron
SUBJECT: Update Memo
Certified Local Government Grant – Historic Resource Survey Plan
Ron Sladek of Tatatanka Historic Associates Inc. has completed the grant‐funded Historic Resource Survey
Plan, which was accepted by History Colorado. The working group reviewed the document on May 24, and
provided comments. Update at meeting.
Civic Area
Glen Huntington Band Shell:
The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the
Civic Area. The Band Shell Update (May 2016) provides an update to the Band Shell. On May 17, the Parks and
Recreation Department is hosting a community volunteer event to paint the band shell seats. Other scheduled
events for the Civic Area can be found under “Activation (Events + Site Improvements + Safety)” on the main
Civic Area webpage.
Atrium Building/Public Market
The Public Market team has periodically been out at the Wednesday evening or Saturday morning Boulder
Farmers’ Markets to hear from the community about what they think “Boulder’s version” of a public market
could look like. Initial input gives community members the opportunity to share some of their experiences at
other community markets, and to react to draft vision statements and draft goals. All the feedback will
culminate in a Public Market workshop with David O’Neil (leading market hall expert) where public input
will help the city refine the Public Market vision, goals, proposed program and phasing that will be presented
to City Council for direction in November. Discussion is ongoing in considering whether the Atrium Building
might be used as a Market Hall on a temporary or permanent basis. Historic Boulder has agreed to continue
keeping the March 2015 application to landmark the Atrium on hold as exploration of these options continues.
University Hill Commercial District – National Register Nomination
On Dec. 8, the City Council reviewed the University Hill Reinvestment Strategy Update (click for memo). As
part of the strategy, the city is pursing National Register designation for the commercial district. Update at
meeting.
2016 National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Forum Update
Update at meeting.
Chautauqua Historic District
Update at meeting
Landmarks Board Retreat.
Update at meeting.
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1
4
CITY HOLIDAY
5
CC Recess
6
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conference Room
7
PB Recess
UHCAMC Retreat,
8am-12pm at The
Academy, 970 Aurora
8
11
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,
1777 West Conf Room
12
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
13
DAB Meeting CANCELED
14
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
Main Library, Boulder
Creek Room
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*1440 Pine St. Concept Plan (K.
Guiler)
15
18 19
Middle Income Working Group
Meeting, 4:30-6:00 p.m., 1777
West Conf Rm
CC Meeting, 6:20 p.m. in CC
*Modification to Mobile Food
Ve h icle Ordinanc e (L. Landri th)
*Call-up: 1590 Violet Ave ea sement
vacation (C. Hill)
*IP: Residential and Commercial
Energy Codes: Long TermStrategy
(K. Tuppe r)
20
BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777
West Conf. Room
BVCP Process
Subcommittee Mtg,
12-1:30pm, Park Central
401 Conference Room
21
UHCAMC is CANCELED
PB Meeting, 5pm in CC
*Barriers to Development &
Disclosures of Conflict Options
(Board)
*Meeting Management (S.
Richstone)
22
25
PB/CC CIP Tou r,
5:30-7:30 p.m., leaving
from Main Library
(Arapahoe Entrance)
26
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
27 28
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*Annexation of Certain City Owned
Properties (C. Meschuk)
*BVCP Review of Initial Policy
Change s (L. Ellis)
*CIP Process (J. Gatza)
29
Jun 2016
M TWT FSS
12345
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Aug2016
M TWT FSS
1234567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
July 2016
Am ended:July 22, 2016
LastPlanning Board Meet ing: July 21, 2016
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,
CC
2
Middle Income Wo rking
Group Meeting,4:30-6:00 p.m.,
1777 West Conf Rm
CC Meeting, 5:55 p.m. in
CC
*Hearing/Resolution that annexation to
meet state law if agreement signed for
96 Arapahoe Annexation (E. McLaughlin)
*Call up: 1440 Pine Concept Plan (K.
Guiler)
*IP: Update Regarding Community
Survey (J. Gatza)
3
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conference Room
4
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*4750 Broadway Site Review (K.
Guiler)
5
8 9
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
10 11
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
CC
12
15 16
Middle Income Working Group
Meeting, 4:30-6:00 p.m., 1777
West Conf Rm
*Prairie Dog Relocationat the Arm ory Site
(V. Mathes on)
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
*Development-Related Impact Fees and
Excis e Tax(C. Meschuk)
*Information and feedback about BVCP
survey questions (L. Ellis)
*SS Summary for 6/14 Development
Fees (C. Meschuk)
*Call-up: Vac at ion of Public Utility
Easement at 4500 Brookfield Dr (C. Hill)
17
BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777
West Conf. Room
BVCP Process
Subcommittee Mtg,
12-1:30pm, Park Central
401 Conference Room
18
UHCAMC is CANCELED
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*1550 Eisenho wer-Eastpointe
Apartments Concept Plan (E.
McLaughlin)
*1:1 Perm. Aff. Housing
Replacement Code Change (K.
Guiler/Housing)
19
22 23
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
24
60-DayPublic Comment for
Prairie Dog Relocation Site
Ends
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conference Room
25 26
29
BVCP Joint Board Mtg,
6:30-8:30pm, First Pres
Church, 1820 15th St.
30
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
31
Jul 2016
M TWT FSS
123
45678910
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Sep 2016
M TWT FSS
1234
567891011
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
August 2016
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*1102 Pearl Concept Plan (E.
McLaughlin)
*1815 Pearl Use Review (C.
Ferro)
*2180 Violet Concept Plan (K.
Guiler)
2
5
CITY HOLIDAY
6
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
*Boulder Pollinator App reciation M onth
Declaration (R. Abernathy)
*Modification to Mobile Food Vehic le
Ordinance (L. Landrith)
7
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conference Room
8
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
CC
9
12
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,
1777 West Conf Room
13
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
14
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conference Room
15
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*30th & Pearl Redevelopment
Options (E. Ame igh)
*Middle Income Housing (C.
Launder, J. Sugnet)
*Public Hearing to Appr ove BVCP
Policy Updates and Integration (L.
Ellis)
16
19 20
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
*Motion for Final Direction on the
Development Related Impact Fees and
Excis e Taxes (C. Meschuk)
21
BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777
West Conf. Room
BVCP Process
Subcommittee Mtg,
12-1:30pm, Park Central
401 Conference Room
22 23
26 27
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
*30th & Pearl Redevelopment
Options(E. Ame igh)
*Middle Income Housing Strategy
Subcommittee Report (D. Driskell)
28 29 30
Aug2016
M TWT FSS
1234567
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
Oct 2016
M TWT FSS
12
3456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
September 2016
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
3
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,
CC
4
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
5
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conference Room
6
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
*BCH Riverbend Mental Health
Facility Site Review/Height Ord
Change (K. Guiler)
7
10 11 12
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conference Room
13
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
Main Library, Flatirons
Room
Joint CC/PB Meeting re:
BVCP, 6 pm in CC
14
17 18
* First reading BCH Riverbend MentalHealth
Facility Site Review/Height Ord Change (K.
Guiler)
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
19
BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777
West Conf. Room
BVCP Process
Subcommittee Mtg,
12-1:30pm, Park Central
401 Conference Room
20
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
21
24 25
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
26 27 28
31
Sep 2016
M TWT FSS
1234
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Nov2016
M TWT FSS
123456
7 8 9 10111213
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
October 2016
Monthly Planner
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
1
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
* Al p i ne-Balsam project: Urban Design
Framework and Site Analysis (J. Crean)
* Civic Area - Public Market Update (J.
Crean)
*1st Reading Management Agreement
with St. Julien Partners LLC for Civic
Use Space (E. Ame igh)
*Se cond reading B CH Riverbend Mental
Health Facility Site Review/Height Ord
Change (K. Guiler)
*BVCP land use changes initiated by
public requests (L. Ellis)
*Study Session Summary for Sept. 27
30th and Pearl Redevelopment Options
(E. Ameigh)
*Study Session Summary for Sept. 27
Middle Income Housing Strategy
Subcommittee Report (D. Driskell)
2
LB , 6 p.m. in CC
EAB 6-8pm, 1777 West
Conference Room
3
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
4
7
DMC Mtg, 5:30 p.m.,
CC
8
Election Day
9
DAB, 4 p.m. in 1777 West
Conference Room
10
BOZA Meeting,5 p.m. in
Main Library, Flatirons
Room
Joint CC & PB SS, 6 p.m.
in CC
*BVCP Update (Lesli. E)
11
CITY HOLIDAY
14 15
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
*2nd Reading Management
Agreement with St. Julien Partners
LLC for Civic Use Space (E.
Ameigh)
*1st reading Energy Codes Long-Term
Strategy & Proposed Near-Term Updates
& Implementation Plan (K. Tupper)
16
BJAD, 4-6 p.m., 1777
West Conf. Room
BVCP Process
Subcommittee Mtg,
12-1:30pm, Park Central
401 Conference Room
17
PB Meeting, 6pm in CC
UHCAMC, 4-6pm, 1777
West Conference Room
18
21 22
CC SS Cancelled
23 24
CITY HOLIDAY
25
28 29
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
30
Oct 2016
M TWT FSS
12
3456789
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Dec 2016
M TWT FSS
1234
567891011
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
November 2016