12.07.16 LB Packet
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from the November 2, 2016 Landmarks Board Meeting
3. Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda
4. Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending
Statistical Report
1723 Marine St. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 16, 2017
2334 14th St. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 29, 2017
3900 Orange Ct. - Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 31, 2017
5. Public Hearings
A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to install
two internally illuminated wall signs "Community Banks of Colorado" at 2045 Broadway in
the Downtown Historic District, per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981
(HIS2016-00296). Owner / Applicant: The Willard Building, LLC c/o Eric Gabrielsen /
Broomfield Sign Co.
B. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to demolish
a non-contributing building and construct a 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St. in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981
(HIS2016-00341). Owner / Applicant: Nancee and Justin Gold / Nicholas Fiore
C. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building located at 1580
Cress Ct., non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the
Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00271). Owner / Applicant: Lacy LLC / Donald
Hackstaff
6. Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney
A. Update Memo
B. Subcommittee Update
7. Debrief Meeting/Calendar Check
8. Adjournment
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING
DATE: Wednesday, December 7, 2016
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
PLACE: 1777 Broadway, Municipal Building, City Council Chambers
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”.
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
November 2, 2016
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6:00 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the November 2, 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
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets
*John Zuckerman, *Planning Board representative without a vote
STAFF MEMBERS:
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair D. Yin declared a quorum at 6:02 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Yin, seconded by B. Butler, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0)
the minutes as amended of the October, 2016 board meeting.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Tom Jarmon, 6028 Olde Stage Rd., applicant for the 1723-25 15th St. case, offered a
status update on the stay-of-demolition process for this property. He shared that the
owners, Bob Chambers and Regina Suffian and himself met with R. Pelusio, M.
Cameron, and J. Hewat to review the alternatives to demolition. He summarized
that the alternatives do not meet the objectives or budget of the owners and
requested the board direct staff to issue a demolition permit before the stay expires.
Motion
On a motion by D. Yin, and seconded by R. Pelusio, passed a resolution (5-0) that
the Landmarks Board hold a hearing to initiate landmark designation or,
alternatively, approve the demolition permit for 1723-25 15th St. at the December 7th,
2016 Landmarks Board meeting.
Response
Bob Chambers, 3842 Lakebriar Dr., owner asked why the board couldn’t direct staff
to issue the demolition permit at this meeting. M. Cameron and D. Kalish replied
that since this process started as a public process, that it needed to continue in the
public process and as a public hearing.
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING
Statistical Report
2220 Bluff St. – Stay of Demolition expires Dec. 3, 2016
J. Hewat mentioned that he has spoken with the applicants and that it appears
they would like the “stay” to expire.
Motion
On a motion by D. Yin, seconded B. Butler, (3-2; E. Budd and R. Pelusio
objecting) the board passed a resolution to hold a special Landmarks Board
meeting to consider initiating landmark designation of 2220 Bluff St., before the
stay-of-demolition expires on December 3, 2016.
1723-25 15th St. – Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 9, 2017
1723 Marine St. – Stay of Demolition expiries Jan. 16, 2017
2334 14th St. – Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 29, 2017
3900 Orange Ct. – Stay of Demolition expires Jan. 31, 2017
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and
a portion of the site at 4750 Broadway as a local historic landmark per Section 9-
11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00053). Owner / Applicant:
Armory Community, LLC
Ex-parte contacts
B. Butler, F. Sheets and D. Yin reviewed landmark alteration certificate request
for changes to the building at the Landmarks design review committee.
R. Pelusio used to live in the adjacent neighborhood and was on the Holiday
HOA, and now has an office a block away.
Staff Presentation
M. Cameron, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation
that the Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the
City Council with a recommendation to designate.
Applicant’s Presentation
Bruce Dierking, 2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 300 Boulder, CO, applicant c/o
Armory Land Investors, LLC, spoke in support of the application and answered
question from the board.
Public Comment
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in
support of a designation. Publically wanted to thank Mr. Dierking for his part in
helping the Hannah Barker restoration and now is landmarked and owned and
inhabited by new owners.
Motion
On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by D. Yin the Landmarks Board voted
(5-0) that the Landmarks Board forward the application to the City Council with
a recommendation that it designate the building and a portion of the property at
4750 Broadway as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Armory Mess
Hall, 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
November 2, 2016, as the findings of the board.
B. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and
property at 1345 Spruce St. as a local historic landmark as per Section 9-11-5,
Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00253). Owner / Applicant: Front Range
Shambhala / Eileen Malloy
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the City
Council with a recommendation to designate.
Applicant’s Presentation
Eileen Malloy, 1345 Spruce St., applicant and operations manager at the Boulder
Shambhala Center, spoke in support of designation.
Public Comment
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in
support of a designation.
Motion
On a motion by D. Yin, and seconded by R. Pelusio, the Landmarks Board voted
(5-0) to forward the application to the City Council with a recommendation to
designate the building and property at 1345 Spruce St. as a local historic
landmark, to be known as the Physicians Building – Dorje Dzong, 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 November 2, 2016,
as the findings of the board.
C. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and
property at 2061 Bluff St. as a local historic landmark, per Section 9-11-5 of the
Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00289). Owner / Applicant: Jesse Markt
and Lindy Hinman
Ex-parte contacts
E. Budd, B. Butler, R. Pelusio, and F. Sheets reviewed plans for the restoration
of the building at the Landmarks design review committee and made a site visit.
Staff Presentation
M. Cameron, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation
that the Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the
City Council with a recommendation to designate.
Applicant’s Presentation
Lindy Hinman, 2061 Bluff St., applicant and owner, spoke in support of
designation. Highlighting that designating the house as a landmark, financially
enabled them to proceed with the repairs whereas without this program, they
would not be able to do the work.
Public Comment
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in
support of a designation.
Motion
On a motion by R. Pelusio, and seconded by E. Budd, the Landmarks Board
voted (5-0) to forward the application to the City Council with a
recommendation to designate the property at 2061 Bluff St. as a local historic
landmark, to be known as the Nelson Terrace, 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 November 2, 2016, as the findings of the
board.
D. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate
application to relocate existing accessory building at 1735 Mapleton Ave. so that
the building and overhangs do not encroach into the alley per Section 9-11-18 of
the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00257). Owner / Applicant: Elizabeth
Helgans / Joel Smiley
Ex-parte contacts
D. Yin assessed the application in the Landmarks design review committee.
E. Budd, B. Butler, R. Pelusio, and F. Sheets had no ex-parte contacts.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board approve with conditions.
Applicant’s Presentation
Joel Smiley, 521 Maxwell Ave., contractor, spoke in support of move the
accessory building but expressed frustration that a move was required given that
the building had been in its current location for over 100 years and that only a
small part of it currently extends into the right-of-way.
Public Comment
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in
support of moving the building. Publically honored
Motion
On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by D. Yin, voted and approved (5-0)
that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to relocate
the existing accessory building at the northeast corner of the lot at 1735 Mapleton
Ave., from its current location to the proposed location on the same property,
with a 3-foot setback from the north property line, in that, provided the condition
below is met, the proposed relocation will meet the requirements of Section 9-11-
18, B.R.C. 1981, and to adopt the staff memorandum, dated November 2, 2016, as
findings of the board.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development
shall be constructed in compliance with approved plans dated
08/09/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning, Housing and
Sustainability Department.
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that, provided the condition
listed above is met, the proposed construction will be generally consistent with
the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines.
8. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. Update Memo
B. Subcommittee Update
1) Design Guidelines and Code Revisions
2) Outreach and Engagement
3) Potential Resources
10. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 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 October 22, 2016 and November 25, 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: 22
Mapleton Hill521 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00121
Landmark Alteration Certificate review for addition of a round window at the gable peak on both buildings (south
elevation) facing the street. No proposed changes on other elevations.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 72 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Highland Lawn541 MARINE STHIS2016-00213
Removal of non-contributing garage and construction of new 609 sq. ft., two-car garage as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate drawings dated 11.09.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 124 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Mapleton Hill603 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00258
Relocate existing accessory structure in order to have the building and eaves completly located on property.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 150 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Highland Lawn541 MARINE STHIS2016-00285
See HIS2016-00213
Application Approved Decision : 167 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill705 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00326
LAC review for addition of approximately 263 sqft, replacement of rear deck, replacement/reconfiguration of exterior
door and windows, and remodleing of non-contributing house as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings
dated 11.09.2016(B).
Application Approved Decision : 187 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill814 MAXWELL AVHIS2016-00328
Installation of solid wood door and balcony at rear of house as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings
dated 10.10.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 189 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 1 of 6HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 22
Downtown1211 PEARL STHIS2016-00332
Remodeling of storefront as detailed on lac drawings dated 10.18.2016 with two color scheme as shown.
Application Approved Decision : 191 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown0 PEARL STHIS2016-00333
Installation of kiosk on the Peral Street Mall as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 10.18.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 192 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill828 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00334
Installation of 4.7 Kw photo-voltaic panels on garage roof as detailed on lac application dated 10.18.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 193 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown2060 BROADWAYHIS2016-00335
Remove (12) of the (12) existing panel antennas on site and replace with (12) proposed 6' panel antennas and addition
of 6 RRH units on rooftop of non-contributing building.
Application Approved Decision : 194 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill1128 PINE STHIS2016-00337
Construction of 6' high wood fence with minimum 1" spacing between boards and painted or stained opaque earth-tone
to blend with historic carriage house.
Application Approved Decision : 196 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
University Place1403 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00344
Rehabilitation of existing windows, addtion of storm windows and reroofing of flat roof area as detailed on lac
application dated 08.21.16.
Application Approved Decision : 200 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
University Place756 14TH STHIS2016-00346
Construction of low retaining wall and fence above as detailed on lac application dated 10.31.2016 - paving and
driveway not part of this approval.
Application Approved Decision : 201 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Hillside1601 HILLSIDE RDHIS2016-00347
Replacement of roofing with "Owens Corning Duration" asphalt shingle (Onyx Black) to match existing as detailed on
landmark alteration certificate application dated 10.27.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 202 Sequence # :
11/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 2 of 6HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 22
Downtown1320 PEARL STHIS2016-00349
Replace RTU unit with like unit in existing location as detailed on landmark alteration certificate dated 10.27.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 203 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill1012 SPRUCE STHIS2016-00350
Installation of a new furnace flue as part of a furnace replacement. Flue to terminate in window well on west elevation
of the building as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 11.02.16.
Application Approved Decision : 204 Sequence # :
11/14/2016 Date : Case Manager :
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill2425 10TH STHIS2016-00352
Reroof contributing garage with asphalt shingle to match existing, replacment of non-historic wood flooring on porch
with vertical grain Douglas fir flooring, rplacement of coal chute bulkhead with wood to match existing as detailed on
landmark alteration certificate dated 11.03.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 206 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Hillside1601 HILLSIDE RDHIS2016-00353
Installation of skylights at rear roof areas (non-publicly visible), as dtailed on lac application dated 10.02.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 207 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill2420 9TH STHIS2016-00355
Repaint building with field color "butter-up" at 75% (SW 6681). Trim color to be "Dove White" (SW 6385). Four front
doors to be "Black Magic" (SW 6991) all as detailed on landmarkalteration certificate application dated 11.04.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 209 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
University Place1403 BASELINE RDHIS2016-00356
Reroof west side of house with new TPO roofing to match existing in color as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
application dated 11.08.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 210 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill421 MOUNTAIN VIEW RDHIS2016-00364
LAC review for proposed demolition of detached garage along the alley behind a single family dwelling.
Application Withdrawn Decision : 211 Sequence # :
11/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :LPAB
Mapleton Hill403 MOUNTAIN VIEW RDHIS2016-00367
Landscaping modifications including construction of pergola, shed, new parking area and reduction in size of pool, as
detailed on plans dated 11.08.2016 and 11.11.2016.
Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 3 of 6HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 22
Application Approved Decision : 214 Sequence # :
11/18/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1
Not Landmarked861 GRANT PLHIS2016-00323
Full demolition of a detached garage.
Application Approved Decision : 7 Sequence # :
10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 9
Not Landmarked3370 4TH STHIS2016-00321
Full demolition of a house and small accessory structure constructed in 1961.
Application Approved Decision : 84 Sequence # :
10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3020 3RD STHIS2016-00322
Partial demolition (construct a wall in front of a street facing wall) of a house built in 1954.
Application Approved Decision : 85 Sequence # :
10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked901 GILBERT STHIS2016-00331
Full demolition of a house and attached garage constructed in 1954.
Application Approved Decision : 87 Sequence # :
11/03/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked717 EVERGREEN AVHIS2016-00339
Partial demolition (removal of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls and 100 percent of the roof) of a house
constructed in 1942 and full demolition of garage. Full demolition approved for both buildings.
Application Approved Decision : 88 Sequence # :
11/03/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked1840 SUMAC AVHIS2016-00348
Alteration of the street-facing facade of a single family residence constructed in 1954.
Application Approved Decision : 89 Sequence # :
11/09/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked375 27TH STHIS2016-00357
Partial demolition (removal of more than 50% of the roof) of a buildig constructed in 1952. Full demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 90 Sequence # :
11/16/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3390 VALMONT RDHIS2016-00369
Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 4 of 6HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 9
Full demolition of building constructed c.1960s (former train depot, building #3). Previously approved under
HIS2014-00028.
Application Approved Decision : 91 Sequence # :
11/23/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked565 HARTFORD DRHIS2016-00370
Partial demolition (removal of exterior siding on street-facing elevation) of a building constructed in 1962. Full
demolition approved.
Application Approved Decision : 92 Sequence # :
11/23/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3023 JEFFERSON STHIS2016-00371
Full demolition of a house and carport built in 1955.
Application Approved Decision : 93 Sequence # :
11/23/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :Staff
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 4
Not Landmarked870 UNIVERSITY AVHIS2016-00103
Landmarks review for demolition of portion of street facing facade,and portions of roof and exterior walls, and
accessory structure at rear of property. Application referred to the Landmarks Board for review.
Application Approved Decision : 8 Sequence # :
10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked870 UNIVERSITY AVHIS2016-00131
Landmarks review for partial structure demolition of street facing elevation consisting of removal of entry porch. Ldrc
determined removing first floor elements (windows/doors/porch/rafters/etc) would require review by the full Landmarks
Board. Lengthening of 2nd story windows is acceptable.
Application Approved Decision : 16 Sequence # :
10/25/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked2220 BLUFF STHIS2016-00148
Full demolition of a house built pre-1900. Application referred to full Landmarks Board for review based on potential
historic, architectural and environmental significance. Please notify Marcy Cameron when LB fee is paid. Fee paid 6/6.
Hearing not held within 75 days; demolition permit issued (historic preservation) 11/16/2016.
Application Approved Decision : 17 Sequence # :
11/16/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By :LPAB
Not Landmarked1210 PLEASANT STHIS2016-00343
Partial demolition (removal of a street-facing wall) of a house constructed in 1910 and full demolition of detached
garage constructed in 1941. Porch enclosed in 1951; LDRC approves removal of 1951 walls as shown on drawings
dated 10.18.2016. LDRC also approves full demolition of accessory building. If scope of work changes on primary
house, a new demolition permit is required.
Application Approved Decision : 36 Sequence # :
11/02/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 5 of 6HIS Statistical Report
Historic Preservation Reviews Summary
between 10/22/2016 and 11/25/2016
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 19
Application Withdrawn 3
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition
Application Approved 1
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 9
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 4
Printed on 11/29/2016 Page 6 of 6HIS Statistical Report
Agenda Item # 5D Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 7, 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 a Landmark Alteration
Certificate application to install two internally illuminated
wall signs “Community Banks of Colorado” at 2045
Broadway Street in the Downtown Historic District, per
Section 9-11-18, Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00296).
________________________________________________________________________
STATISTICS
1. Site: 2045 Broadway
2. Historic District: Downtown Historic District
3. Zoning: DT-4 (Downtown – 4)
4. Owner: Eric Gabrielson/The Willard Building, LLC
5. Applicant: Broomfield Sign Co.
6. Date of Construction: 1898
________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers the installation of two internally illuminated wall signs at 2045
Broadway will be generally consistent with the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and
the General Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt
the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to install
two internally illuminated signs at 2045 Broadway, in that, provided the conditions
below are met, the proposed installation will meet the requirements of Section 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated Dec. 7, 2016, as findings of the
board.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks
design review committee shall review the light level of the proposed
signage to ensure that it is low and appropriate to the building and this
location in the historic district.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the signs shall be
manufactured and installed in compliance with approved plans dated
08/25/2016 on file in the City of Boulder Planning, Housing and
Sustainability Department.
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that, provided the condition
listed above is met, the proposed installation will be generally consistent with the
standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as specified in
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY
On June 8, 2016, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) reviewed a
request to install internally illuminated signs on the building. The Lrdc
considered that externally lit signage was more appropriate (per section 3.1 of
the Downtown Design Guidelines) and requested that the applicant redesign to
provide for externally lit signage, or submit for review of internally lit
signage by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing.
On July 15, 2016, the applicant submitted revised plans for signage with no
lighting. A Landmark Alteration Certificate for this proposal was issued by
staff on July 21, 2016 (HIS2016-00156), per the Ldrc’s June 8, 2016
recommendations.
On September 21, 2016, the applicant submitted an application to remove the
two non-illuminated wall signs and to replace them with two illuminated
wall cabinet signs.
Staff considers the Willard Building to possess a high-degree of architectural,
historic, and environmental significance and integrity contributing to the
character of the Downtown Historic District.
Staff finds that with the listed conditions, the proposed installation will be
generally consistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as
per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.
This recommendation is based upon the understanding that, pursuant to the
conditions of approval, the stated condition will be reviewed and approved
Agenda Item # 5A Page 3
by Historic Preservation staff prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Figure 1. 2045 Broadway, c. 1913.
Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
One of the most distinctive commercial blocks in Boulder, the Willard Building at
2045 Broadway Street was constructed in 1898 by two prominent prohibitionists
in Boulder, Frederick White and Albert Reed. The building is named after
Frances E. Willard, president of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in
Boulder. Both Reed and White were active in political and civic affairs in
Boulder. White was prominent in real estate and mining and was a developer of
Green Mountain Cemetery. Reed was a lawyer, city attorney, and teacher at the
University School of Law. See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form.
The building was designed by local architect Arthur E. Saunders. Saunders
(1860-1930) studied architecture in Santa Cruz, California and came to Boulder to
begin his architectural practice in 1903. Saunders found considerable success in
Boulder, first in partnership with Charles Wright from c. 1905-1907 before
establishing his own firm in 1908.1 One Boulder’s most prominent early
architects, Saunders is responsible for the design of a number of prominent
commercial and residential buildings in the city, including:
The Mercantile Bank, 1201 Pearl St., Downtown Historic District;
1 http://www.historicdenver.org/uploaded-files/Architects_Colorado_Database_1875-1950.pdf
Agenda Item # 5A Page 4
Advertisement for the Boulder-News Herald
from the 1918 Polk Directory of Boulder,
from the Boulder Carnegie Library.
The Physician’s Building, 1345 Spruce St., Downtown Historic District;
604 Mapleton Ave., 1913, Tudor-Revival, Mapleton Hill Historic District;
731 Spruce St., 1910, Craftsman, Mapleton Hill Historic District;
1815 17th St., 1901, Spanish-Revival, Chamberlain Historic District.
The Willard Building held various addresses, from 2047-2061 Broadway Street,
the number of units changing over the years. The earliest listings in the 1898 City
City Directories only give “12th and Spruce” as the location of several businesses
at the location, making it impossible to tell which actually occupied the Willard
Building. Street addresses were first given for this area of downtown in the 1901
Directory, which lists Strawn & Esgar Groceries, A. M. and G. W. Richardson
Bicycles, and J. W. Richardson Real Estate as the occupants. The Richardsons had
departed by 1903, but Strawn & Esgar, though renamed Strawn & Adams in
1905, and Strawn & Whitacre in 1906, remained until c. 1908. A later long-term
occupant was Adolpus D. McGlothlen, a realtor, who operated from the Willard
Building from c. 1918 to c. 1936. Another was the law firm of Goss and
Hutchinson (earlier Goss and
Kemp), who operated there from c.
1918 until the late 1950’s. Many other
businesses and organizations have
operated from the Willard Building,
including a lantern oil company,
several real estate and insurance
firms, the prominent local
architecture firm of James & Hunter,
the Elks Club, and the Red Cross. By
the late 1960’s, the building had
become popular with engineering
firms, with three operating there in
1970.
Perhaps the most significant tenant
of the Willard Building was the
Boulder News, a local newspaper
which first operated there from 1908,
until 1932. The Boulder News traces
its origins through several
renamings and buyouts to the
Boulder County News, which was
first published on October 12, 1869.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 5
The Boulder News was first published under that title on June 12, 1888, and was
a weekly paper known to support the Republican Party. The Boulder News was
purchased by Arthur A. Parkhurst in 1914; he converted it to a morning daily
starting November 10, 1914. He also formed the Union Publishing Co. (which
also operated out of the Willard Building), to handle printing of his newly
acquired newspaper. On February 14, 1916, Arthur and Mary Parkhurst
purchased Boulder’s first daily newspaper, the Boulder Daily Herald (first
published on 17 April 1880). The Parkhursts combined them to create the
Boulder News-Herald, which was still operated out of the Willard Building by
the Union Publishing Co. It continued to operate from there until March 1, 1932,
when the News-Herald was purchased by and merged with the Boulder Daily
Camera, which remains Boulder’s primary local newspaper.2
DESCRIPTION
Figure 2. Location Map, 2045 Broadway
Approximately 10,780 sq. ft. in size, the lot is located on the southwest corner of
Broadway and Spruce Streets, within the boundaries Downtown Historic
District, which is both listed in the National Register of Historic Places (1980) and
designated a local landmark district (1999).
2 Daily Camera, “Newspapers: Boulder County has had 100 of Them,” 13 September, 1963. Boulder
Carnegie Library.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 6
Figure 3. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, 2016.
The masonry building features a cantilevered tower and Moorish inspired onion
dome.
Figure 4. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, c.1968
A c.1968 photograph of the demolition of the Arlington Hotel on the northwest
corner of Broadway and Spruce Street shows a portion of the Willard Building.
At that time, the first floor appears to have been remodeled in the 1950s or 1960s,
and the turret was painted in a monochrome paint scheme.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 7
Figure 5. 2045 Broadway, Northeast Corner, 1986.
The first level storefront facades were remodeled and partially restored again in
1993. The scope of work included new brick with stone sills, and a new glass and
metal storefront with transom windows. The upper story was restored and the
turret was painted at that time.
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST
The Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) application proposes the installation
of two internally illuminated aluminum wall cabinet signs. Plans show the signs
are to be located above the main entrance at the east elevation and on the north
elevation where the non-illuminated signs were installed July of 2016 per
approval by the Ldrc (HIS2016-00156). At that time, the Ldrc considered that
internally lit signage in this location should be reviewed in a public hearing by
the Landmarks Board.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 8
Figure 4. Proposed East Elevation (Sign A).
Figure 5. Proposed North Elevation (Sign B).
Agenda Item # 5A Page 9
Figure 6. Proposed Sign
The project narrative included in the LAC application describes the sign design:
“The cabinet structure and skin are completely constructed of aluminum. The
faces will have routed out copy and logos, and will then have ½” thick acrylic
push thru the face and secured on the back. These cabinets will have a high
enamel automotive paint finish.” See Attachment X: Applicant’s Materials.
The signs are shown to measure 1’9” in height, 10’ in length, and 3” in depth,
designed to fit within the existing steel band. The signs would be mounted to the
existing steel plate, and would project 2” from the face of the building. The sign
would be secured with 3/8” lags approximately every 2’. The acrylic push
through lettering and logo would project ½” from the face of the sign. The logo
would have green vinyl overlay, the text would have a blue vinyl overlay, and
the sign base would be painted to match the existing steel plate. The sign would
be illuminated by LED modules located on the back of the sign.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsections 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the
Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark
Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 10
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy
the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within an
historic district?
Provided the conditions of approval are met staff finds that, in this instance, the
proposed installation of an illuminated sign is appropriate. The signs are to be
located on the remodeled 1993 portion of the building and as such, will not
damage or destroy historic architectural features of the building. Furthermore,
the proposed LED back-lighting is described as subdued and providing even
illumination. This type of adjustable lighting was not available when the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines were developed in 1999. While likely not
appropriate in every application, staff considers the installation on the 1993
portion of the building appropriate and will not adversely damage or destroy
exterior features of the property or this edge of the Downtown Historic District.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 11
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Provided the conditions of approval are met, staff finds that that proposed
installation of the two internally illuminated signs will not adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic character of the historic district.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the
historic district?
Provided the conditions of approval are met, staff considers the arrangement,
texture, color and materials of the two illuminated signs will be compatible with
the character of this part of the historic district.
4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
The design proposes the use of LED lights, which are highly energy efficient.
DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines and the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to help interpret the historic preservation
ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed new construction with
respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used as an
aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate
sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Historic District Design
Guidelines.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
8.4 Signs
A sign typically serves two functions: to attract attention and to convey information. Signs designed
for a historic building should not detract from important design features of the building. All new
signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and district in mind.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Retain and preserve existing historic The building does not feature N/A
Agenda Item # 5A Page 12
signs that contribute to the overall
historic character of the building or the
district.
existing historic signage.
.2 New signs should be compatible in
material, size, color, scale and character
with the building.
The proposed signs are designed to
fit within the existing steel band at
the 1st floor of the building. Plan
show the sign base is to be painted
to match the existing steel band.
The signs appear to be in scale with
the building.
Yes
.3 Signs should be subordinate to the overall
building.
The signs are designed to fit within
the design of the building and will
be subordinate to the overall
building.
Yes
.4 Locate a sign on a building so that it
emphasizes design elements of the façade
itself. In no case should a sign obscure or
damage architectural destails or features.
Plans show the signs to be located
on the portion of the building that
was remodeled in 1993. No
architectural details or features will
be damaged or destroyed by the
installation of the signs.
Yes
.5 Simple letter styles and graphic designs
are most appropriate.
Plans show the design of the signs
to include a logo and simple
lettering with the business name.
Yes
.6 A hanging entry sign may be located on a
porch, or directly above the steps leading
to the primary entrance of a structure.
The signs are not proposed to be
hanging.
N/A
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
8.4 Signs
A sign typically serves two functions: to attract attention and to convey information. Signs designed
for a historic building should not detract from important design features of the building. All new
signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and district in mind.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
A. Commercial signs should function to
identify and locate businesses, promote
commercial activity, attract customers,
provide direction and information, and in
some cases create visual delight and
architectural interest.
The proposed signage will promote
business activity in the Willard
Building.
Yes
Agenda Item # 5A Page 13
B.1 Wall Signs
Wall signs are limited in size and defined
as projecting less than 15 inches from the
building. Wall signs should be positioned
within architectural features such as the
panels above storefronts, sign bands, on
the transom windows, or flanking
doorways. Wall mounted signs should
align with others on a block to maintain
established patterns.
Wall signs are shown to be located
within the existing architectural
features of the building. Sign aligns
with others on the block,
maintaining established patterns.
Yes
C. Signage should be designed as an integral
part of the overall building design. In
general, signs should not obscure
important architectural details. When
several businesses share a building, signs
should be aligned or organized in a
directory.
Sign to be located on 1993
remodeled portion of the building.
As such, the installation will not
obscure important architectural
details.
Yes
D. Use simple signs to clearly convey their
messages
Signs are simple in design. Yes
D.1 Sign materials should be durable and
easy to maintain. Appropriate sign
materials include painted or carved wood,
carved wooden letters, epoxy letters,
galvanized sheet metal, stone, specialty or
decorative glass, clear and colored acrylic,
or neon.
Sign materials include acrylic and
metal.
Yes
D.2 Lighting external to the sign surface with
illumination directed toward the sign is
preferred. External lighting may also
highlight architectural features.
Internally lit signs are generally
discouraged. The light level should not
overpower the facade or other signs on
the street. The light source should be
shielded from pedestrian view. The
lighting of symbol signs is encouraged.
Internal lighting may be appropriate
where only letters are illuminated or
neon is used. Neon is acceptable, though
restricted in size, if it does not obscure
Internally lit signs are generally
discouraged, but may be
appropriate where only the letters
are illuminated. In this case, the
letters and logo are illuminated
while the rest of the sign is not.
Staff considers that this type of
“halo lit signage” did not exist in
1999 when the Downtown Design
Guidelines were written. The light
level should not overpower the
façade or other signs on the street
and staff considers that the Ldrc
should review the light level of the
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5A Page 14
architectural detail or overly illuminate
display windows.
proposed sign to ensure that it is
appropriately low to ensure
consistency with this guideline.
D.3 Signs should be designed in simple,
straight-forward shapes that convey their
message clearly. Symbols are easily read
and enhance the pedestrian quality of the
Downtown.
Rectangular signs are simple in
design and clearly states the
business name.
Yes
D.4 Lettering styles should be proportioned,
simple, and easy to read. In most
instances, a simple typeface is preferred
over a faddish or overly ornate type style.
The number of type styles should be
limited to two per sign. As a general rule,
the letter forms should occupy not more
than 75% of the total sign panel.
Lettering appears well-
proportioned within the sign and
has a traditional, simple typeface.
The letter forms appear the occupy
approximately 75% of the sign
panel.
Yes
The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines state that internally illuminated signs
are generally discouraged. This has been interpreted to recommend the use of
gooseneck (and other forms of external lighting) whenever possible. The
guidelines continue that internal lighting may be appropriate when only the
letters are illuminated, or neon is used. The letters and logo of the proposed signs
are internally illuminated, while the rest of the sign is not. The technology of
lighting has changed since the guidelines were written in 1999.
Staff considers that the application should be approved with the condition that
the Landmarks design review committee review the proposed light level of the
sign prior to issuance of landmark alteration certificate to ensure that the lighting
is appropriate to the building and this location in the historic district and that it
does not overpower the light from the street or compete with other signs along
Broadway or Spruce St.
Staff suggests that following the review and approval of this sign, consideration
be given to including a language in Section 8.3, Signs, of the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines to provide for guidance for the installation of internally lit
signage of this type in the Downtown Historic District, on both contributing and
non-contributing buildings.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 15
Staff finds that, in this instance, with the suggested condition the proposed
installation of two internally illuminated signs generally appropriate in terms of
site planning and preservation of character-defining features and that the
proposal will meet the standards set out in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will
be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines.
FINDINGS
Staff recommends that the board adopt the following findings:
The request for installation of two internally illuminated signs is compatible with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, in that:
1. Provided the listed condition are met and that if constructed in
compliance with approved plans dated 08/25/2016 on file in the City of
Boulder Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department, the proposed
work will not damage or destroy the exterior architecture of the property.
2. The request will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration
certificate per Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and will be consistent with the
General Design Guidelines and the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Record
B: Current Photographs
C: Plans
Agenda Item # 5A Page 16
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item # 5A Page 17
Agenda Item # 5A Page 18
Agenda Item # 5A Page 19
2045 Broadway, Survey Photograph, 1986.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 20
Attachment C: Current Photographs
\\
Agenda Item # 5A Page 21
Agenda Item # 5A Page 22
Attachment C: Plans
Agenda Item # 5A Page 23
Agenda Item # 5A Page 24
Agenda Item # 5A Page 25
Agenda Item #5A Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 7, 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 a Landmark Alteration Certificate
application to demolish an existing non-contributing house and, in its
place, construct a new 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St. in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981
(HIS2016-00341).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 409 Spruce St.
2. Date of construction: c.1900
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
4. Owner: Justin and Nancee Gold
5. Applicant: Nicholas Fiore
6. Site Area: 7,298 sq. ft. (approx.)
7. Existing House: 1,462 sq. ft. (approx.)
8. Proposed House: 3,055 sq. ft. (approx.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board denies the application for demolition of the non-contributing house
and the construction of the proposed 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St., as shown on
plans dated 10/23/2016, finding that they do not meet the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopts the staff
memorandum dated December 7, 2016 in Matter 5B (HIS2016-00341) as the findings of
the board.
Agenda Item #5A Page 2
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed demolition and
new construction would be inconsistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY
Because this application calls for the demolition of a building and new free-standing
construction of more than 340 sq. ft., review by the full Landmarks Board in a quasi-
judicial hearing is required per Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.
The applicant has met with staff on several occasions to review design concepts and
provide feedback on the proposal.
The existing house was constructed around 1900 and was significantly modified in
the 1980s, prior to the 2001 expansion of the Mapleton Hill Historic District to
include this property. At the time the district was expanded to include this portion
of Spruce Street, the building at 409 Spruce St. was considered to be non-
contributing, due to the extent of alterations.
The 1988 historic building inventory of the property characterizes the level of
modification to be “major,” noting that the “house was extensively remodeled in
1985.” The survey states “this house, although remodeled, is representative of the
homes constructed by the working class in Boulder at the turn of the century. It is
associated with the Mathias Schons family, German immigrants who raised a large
family, many of whom worked in Boulder during the early 1900s.” See Attachment A:
Historic Building Inventory Form).
While the house was constructed during the period of significance and is generally
compatible with the streetscape, subsequent non-historic additions have comprised
the architectural integrity of the house. For this reason, staff considers the building a
non-contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Staff acknowledges the consideration that has gone into the design of the house and
finds the front portion generally compatible with the character of the historic.
However, staff considers the oblique angle of the rear addition and mass, scale,
proportion and style, to be generally inconsistent with Section 2, Site Design, and
Section 6, New Primary Buildings, of the General Design Guidelines, Section U of the
Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines and Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981.
Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction as the design is
substantially inconsistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as
per Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends denial of the demolition and proposed new construction, but
suggests that the Landmarks Board give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw
Agenda Item #5A Page 3
the application for redesign after providing direction to that end, thereby avoiding
the applicant having to wait a year to reapply pursuant to Section 9-11-17(c), B.R.C.
1981.
Figure 1. Location Map, 409 Spruce St.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property at 409 Spruce St. is part of the Mapleton Terrace addition to the city,
which was platted in 1890 by W.H. Thompson, Harold D. Thompson, and Isaac C.
Dennett. For many years 4th Street formed the western edge of the city with the land
beyond in the ownership of John Brierly who operated vegetable gardens, an orchard,
and lime kilns in the area.
The property is associated with the Schons family, German immigrants who owned the
property from 1899 until the 1970s. Mathias and Apollonia Schons came to Boulder
from Nebraska in 1896. They lived at 409 Spruce Street from the 1900s until their deaths
in the 1930s, at which time the house appears to have passed to their daughter Susanna
and her husband William Rusch (based on burial records). Mathias and Apollonia were
the parents of Apollonia Schons Berkeley, Susanna Schons Rusch, and Nicholas Schons,
Agenda Item #5A Page 4
and others. Nicholas Schons was the father of the donor's husband, Mathias C. Schons.1
A 1974 zoning verification form indicates the owner is the estate of Apollonia Schons
and that the house had been vacant since 1945.
Figure 2. Mathias and Apollonia Schons standing in front of their house at 409 Spruce St., c.
1919. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Located on the north side of Spruce Street in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, the
property was included in the expansion of that district in 2002. The expansion included
approximately 80 properties on the southeast, north and east boundaries of the district.
At the time of designation, 409 Spruce St. identified as non-contributing to the district as
a result of non-historic alterations.
1 Electronic Catalog Description. Carnegie Branch Library.
Agenda Item #5A Page 5
Figure 3. 409 Spruce St., c.1929 (Carnegie Library)
Approximately 7,300 sq. ft. in size, the lot at 409 Spruce St. slopes to the south and
features mature vegetation, much of which is volunteer. The Farmer’s Ditch is located
directly north of the property.
Figure 4. 409 Spruce St., c.1949 (Carnegie Library
The original township of Boulder City was platted at a 15-degree angle, aligning with
Valmont Butte. This pattern extends east from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to 30th
Street, north of Canyon to Pine Street. While most lots extend perpendicularly from the
Agenda Item #5A Page 6
street, the properties on the 400 block of Spruce Street meet the street at an angle,
resulting in an unusual building envelope. The houses on this section of Spruce Street
share a uniform setback, and the building facades are aligned parallel to Spruce Street.
Figure 5. 409 Spruce St., 1984 (Carnegie Library)
ALTERATIONS
Research indicates the house was significantly remodeled beginning in 1980. The house
appears to have fallen into disrepair and was vacant in the early 1970s and upgraded to
add water and sewer service in 1974. The 1980s remodels were significant with the
house being raised to add a new foundation and basement (1980) and the raising of the
roof of the house with new projecting gables on the façade. The windows, doors and
exterior finishes appear to have all been replaced during this remodeling campaign.
Agenda Item #5A Page 7
Figure 6. 409 Spruce St., 2016.
Today, the one-and-a-half story side-gabled wood frame house features two gable
roofed dormers, a full width porch, and a bay with double hung windows. Each of the
dormers have small double hung windows. The dormers have boxed eaves are the
gable ends are clad in an alternating diamond and fish scale shingle pattern. The porch
features non-historic square supports and a simple railing, a centrally located entrance
with a multi-light door and a contemporary storm door. A double hung window is
located east of the main entry. The foundation is clad in flagstone
Figure 7. 409 Spruce St., 2016.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and, in its place, construct a two-
story house of approximately 3,055 sq. ft.
Agenda Item #5A Page 8
Figure 8. Existing Site Plan Figure 8. Proposed Site Plan
In plan, the front setback for the proposed new house is shown at approximately 13’ 7”
(determined through setback averaging for the block) and roughly the same setback as
the existing house. The existing house measures approximately 33’ wide and 36’ in
length while the width of the front portion of the proposed house is shown to measure
approximately 35’ in width while, because of the oblique angle of the building, the rear
portion of the building increases the street face of the house to 45’. The east wall of the
proposed house is shown measure approximately 75’ in length, while the west wall
measures about 77’ in length. At its highest point the house is shown to be
approximately 29’ in height, approximately the same height as the existing building.
Agenda Item #5A Page 9
Figure 9. Existing house south elevation (façade)
Figure 10. Proposed south elevation (façade)
Agenda Item #5A Page 10
Elevations call for the new house to be of frame construction, with the front, neo-
traditional portion to feature a full-width gable intersected by a smaller gable above a
projecting ell and partial width front wrapping porch. The front, gable portion of the
proposed house is shown to be 36’ in length at which point it is intersected by a flat roof
portion of notably more contemporary form, mass, and finish. At the east wall, the flat
roof portion of the house intersects the gable portion and turns ten degrees east creating
an oblique angle to the front portion of the house but in parallel with the eat property
line.
Drawings and renderings show the asymmetrical façade of the house to recall the
Edwardian Vernacular in form and to feature a wrapping, partial width shed roof front
porch and small upper screened balcony with round arch motif and Queen Anne
inspired iron spindle work. Access to the balcony is shown by way of a set of twelve
light French doors while the main gable form is shown to be clad in semi-opaque
stained, vertical wood siding and fenestrated with a small four-over-one window and a
larger one-over-one double hung sash.
A front door in in line with the porch steps and is located next to a 4’ x 6’ picture
window and a single six-over-one double hung window. A single, ¾ light door
provides access to the house at the east end of the porch.
The smaller gable roofed portion of the façade projects 5’ south and is shown to be clad
in a decorative brick. A one-over-one double hung window is located over a pair of first
level six-over-one windows on the façade.
Figure 11. Existing north (rear) elevation from Mountain View Road
Agenda Item #5A Page 11
Figure 12. Existing north (rear) elevation
When foliage is bare, Mountain View Road provides visual access to the rear of the
property. Elevations indicate the north face of the house to be distinctly more
contemporary in design with its flat roof, horizontal volumes and abstracted window
forms that will be visible from the north, at least during the winter months.
Figure 13. Proposed north (rear) elevation
The proposed east elevation shows the front neo-traditional gable form of the house to
feature a low dormer with three six light casement windows, a six-over-one double
hung window, two nine light casement sash under the porch, and a bank of three nine
light windows on the decorative brick wall. Specifications call for the structure of the
Agenda Item #5A Page 12
porch to steel and the its roof to be sheathed in standing seam metal.
Figure 14. Existing house east (side) elevation
Figure 15. Proposed east (side) elevation
The rear, flat roof portion, of the house skews about 10 degrees east of the front section
and intersects with the neo-traditional front section of the about 7’ into to the gable roof.
In contrast to the brick, the rear portion of the house is shown to be sheathed with
vertical wood siding and fenestrated with narrow horizontal windows. An 8’ section of
the second story wall is set back, and a decorative brick fireplace stack is shown to be
located at the north end of this wall.
Agenda Item #5A Page 13
Figure 16. Existing house west (side) elevation
Figure 17. Proposed west (side) elevation
Elevations show the west wall of the front portion of the house to be clad in decorative
brick with three six-over-one, double hung, a four-light window, and single pane on the
first level. The half story roof is shown to feature two, low dormers with two and four
light windows respectively.
Agenda Item #5A Page 14
Figure 18. South elevation of existing house facing onto Spruce Street
The rear portion of the house is shown to connect below the gable roof of the front
segment, to be sheathed in vertical wood siding and fenestrated with a variety
horizontal and vertical shaped windows. Two wall dormers project from the second
story of the house, each with a square, single pane window. Large windows and doors
are shown to be located on this face of the house and to be partially covered by an
attached pergola.
Figure 19. Rendering of proposed south elevation of house facing onto Spruce Street
Exterior materials shown include standing seam metal roofing on the from porch,
asphalt shingle on the gable roofs, decorative and simple brick, semi-opaque, stained
cedar vertical siding, stone lintels and metal columns and spindle work on the porch
and balcony.
Agenda Item #5A Page 15
Figure 20. Rendering of proposed south elevation from southeast
Figure 21. Rendering of proposed south elevation from southwest
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must
apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district;
Agenda Item #5A Page 16
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark
and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used on existing and proposed constructions are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic
district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks
Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of
energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the
exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district?
The existing house was constructed about 1900, but has been significantly modified
since 1980. While the house is currently compatible with the form and details of historic
houses in the immediate streetscape, the extent of alterations has compromised its
historic integrity. While the City of Boulder encourages the reuse of existing buildings
as a sustainable approach to redevelopment, historic preservation staff does not
consider demolition of the house would be to the detriment of the historic district,
provided the proposed new construction is consistent with the General and Mapleton
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines However, staff finds that based upon analysis
against the Guidelines, the design of the proposed new construction is incompatible with
the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic district and would have an adverse effect on
the immediate streetscape (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that based on analysis with the relevant design guidelines and because
of the high visibility of the property, the mass, form and design of the rear portion of
the proposed new construction, which will be visible from Spruce Street and Mountain
View Drive, may adversely affect the special historic and architectural character of the
streetscape and the Mapleton Hill Historic District as a whole.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials
Agenda Item #5A Page 17
used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district?
Staff considers that the while the proposed mass, scale, proportion and design of the of
the front portion is generally compatible with the character of the streetscape, the rear
portion which will be visible from both Spruce Street and Mountain View Drive, is
incompatible with the character of the Mapleton Historic District and that steps should
be taken to redesign (including reorienting the rear portion) in a manner that takes cues
from and complements the historic character of the streetscape (see Design Guidelines
Analysis section).
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the
proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of
the Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)?
While staff does not consider the existing house to contribute to the historic character of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District, it finds that the application to replace the
demolished building does not meet the requirements of Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4),
B.R.C. 1981 because the construction of a new house will not establish a new building
with compatible features on the streetscape and it will be generally compatible and
inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate and the
board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The
following is an analysis of the submitted proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. It
is important to emphasize that design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to
appropriate design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable design
guidelines:
Agenda Item #5A Page 18
General Design Guidelines
2.0 Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts
and building. Individual structures are located within a framework of streets and
public spaces that set the context for the neighborhood. How structures occupy their
site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing, creates much of the context of the
neighborhood.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Locate buildings within the
range of alignments as seen
traditionally in the area,
maintaining traditional
setbacks at the front, side
and rear of the property
The property is a trapezoidal in shape,
approximately 50’ wide and 7,300 sq.
ft. in size. The neo-traditional portion
of the house is aligned with the other
houses on the north side of the block,
roughly parallel to Spruce Street.
However, the north portion of the
proposed house is planned at an
oblique angle to the rest of the house
and this angle will be visible from the
street and incongruent with the
alignments of historic houses in
Mapleton Hill. Redesign rear portion
of house so that walls are parallel to
side walls of front portion and more
in keeping with traditional alignments
in the historic district.
No
.2 Building proportions should
respect traditional patterns
in the district
The neo-traditional portion of the
house reflects the traditional gable-
roofed forms in the district in terms of
scale, form, and massing. However,
the contemporary portion is
dominated by a flat roof and features
oblique angles (see .1 above).
At over 75’ in length, proposed
footprint of the house may be out of
character with those in immediate
streetscape. Likewise, neo-traditional
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 19
gable and flat-roof cubic forms may
be incongruous. Consider combining
forms to reflect more traditional
building proportions and forms more
reflective of those historically found
in the district and immediate
streetscape.
.3 Orient the primary building
entrance to the street
Primary entrance is oriented to the
street.
Yes
.4 Preserve original location of
the main entry and walk.
Existing house considered non-
contributing and proposed for
demolition. Walkway is proposed in
approximately the same location.
Yes
.5 A new porch may encroach
into the existing alignment
only if it is designed
according to the guidelines
and if it is appropriate to
the architectural style of the
house.
Porch is proposed at the entry way,
addressing the street in traditional
manner, and is appropriate to the neo-
traditional, Edwardian-Vernacular
form of the front portion of the house
Yes
.7 Preserve a backyard area
between the house and the
garage, maintaining the
general proportion of built
mass to open space found
within the area
Trapezoidal lot configuration is
somewhat challenging, though its size
provides opportunity to preserve
backyard area by providing more
space at the rear of the property with
setback averaging. Proposed design
preserves general proportion of built
mass to open space.
Yes
2.2.2 Preserve street trees
whenever possible
Mature trees along the Street will not
be removed, however, large trees in
the front yard area may lost as a result
of proposed new construction.
Yes
6.0 New Primary Buildings
New construction within a historic district can enhance the existing district character if
Agenda Item #5A Page 20
the proposed design and its siting reflect an understanding of and a compatibility with
the distinctive character of the district. While new construction should fit into the
historic character of the district or site, it should not replicate historic styles. Instead,
new buildings should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic district or
landmark site while also conveying a contemporary style. New buildings should not
overshadow existing historic structures. Fundamental characteristics to be considered
in designing compatible new structures include: site and setting, building size and
proportions, materials, and the placement and style of doors and windows.
The primary focus in reviewing new structures will be on aspects that are visible from
public streets. The guidelines will be applied most stringently to these publicly visible
areas. More flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely
screened from public view.
6.1 Distinction from Historic Structures
The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can
create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings.
While new structures must be compatible with the historic context, they must also be
recognizable as new construction.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1
Create compatible
contemporary
interpretations of historic
elements.
Contemporary interpretation of
traditional Edwardian Vernacular
design in front portion of house in
terms of mass, scale and proportion,
though is clearly a contemporary
interpretation. However, some
elements including front balcony and
use of materials including steel and
stained wood may be inappropriate.
Rear portion of house may be
incompatible with neo-traditional
front – redesign to better integrate
creating a visually continuity between
these two elements
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 21
.2 Interpretations of historic
styles may be appropriate if
distinguishable as new.
Proposed design for front portion of
house interprets Edwardian
Vernacular house form in clearly
contemporary way. Rear portion of
house may be incompatible with neo-
traditional front – redesign to better
integrate creating a visually
continuity between these two
elements.
Maybe
6.2 Site and Setting
New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features,
including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new structures should
not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within
historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and
distance
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Conform to Section 2.0 Site
Design.
See above for analysis. No
.2 Overall character of site is
retained.
Residential character will be retained,
with similar setbacks. However
oblique building angle at north will be
visible from Spruce St. and will alter
character of the site in a manner that
likely will be incompatible with
streetscape and southwest section of
Mapleton Hill. Redesign building to
better ensure that new construction be
compatible with historic character of
area (see section 6.1.2 above).
No
.3 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
setback, orientation,
spacing, and distance from
adjacent buildings.
Trapezoidal lot configuration is
unusual and presents design
challenges. The Neo-Traditional
portion of the building is compatible
in terms of setback, orientation,
spacing and distance from adjacent
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 22
buildings. However, the oblique angle
of the proposed rear portion of the
house is inconsistent with this
guideline None-the-less, the lot
provides adequate space to construct
a new house in a manner that
complies with this guideline.. Revise
design for rear portion of house to be
parallel with the front.
.4 Proportion of built mass to
open space not significantly
different from contributing
buildings.
Proposed design appears to preserve
general proportion of built mass to
open space.
Yes
6.3 Mass and Scale
In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing,
size and scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front façade
is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the
streetscape. While new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings,
reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not
be so out-of-scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
terms of height, size, scale,
massing, and proportions.
Proposed scale is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings. However massing and
proportion of rear portion should
better integrate with front portion of
the house and relate to historic
buildings in the district. Redesign to
ensure compatibility of forms of
house to each and to surrounding
historic buildings in the district.
No
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Redesign to ensure massing,
configuration and proportion better
reflect those found on historic
properties in Mapleton Hill (see .1
above).
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 23
.3 Historic heights and widths
as well as their ratios
maintained, especially
proportions of façade.
General proportions of the façade
elements are found in the district.
Redesign rear portion of house to
better integrate with the front and
forms of like-sized historic houses in
the district.
No
6.4 Materials
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Materials should be similar
in scale, proportion, texture,
finish, and color to those
found on nearby historic
structures.
Proposed materials include brick,
decorative brick, stained vertical
wood siding, standing seam metal
roofing, asphalt shingle and steel
structural elements and metal spindle
work on the front balcony. Brick,
horizontal wood siding and asphalt
shingles are traditionally found in the
historic district. Little historic
precedent for use of exposed steel
structural elements, metal roofing, or
stained wood in Mapleton Hill.
Redesign to simplify material palette
including reconsideration of use of
steel, metal roofing and stained
vertical wood siding. Provide detailed
information on all materials including
proposed path ways, patio and
retaining walls.
No
.2 Maintain a human scale by
avoiding large, featureless
surfaces and by using
traditionally sized building
components and materials.
Façade maintains a human scale with
a porch and nestle gables. However,
areas of the east wall of the house
include large featureless wall areas.
Revise to include proportion of
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 24
window/door to wall area closer to
that found on historic houses in
Mapleton Hill.
6.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important
character-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to
assure that they complement the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines
below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Design the spacing,
placement, scale,
orientation, proportion, and
size of window and door
openings in new structures
to be compatible with the
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district, while reflecting the
underlying design of the
new building.
Fenestration on the neo-traditional
portion of the building generally
reflects traditional window patterns.
Fenestration of building should be
redesigned to reflect more traditional
window proportions on the rear
portion of the house, placing and
scale. Use of horizontal windows
should be avoided on portions of the
building visible from the public right
of way, as little precedent on historic
buildings for such fenestration exists
in Mapleton Hill.
No
.2 Select windows and doors
for new structures that are
compatible in material,
subdivision, proportion,
pattern and detail with the
windows and doors of
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district
See .1 above. No
.3 New structures should use
a roof form found in the
district or on the landmark
site
Roof form on front portion of house
typical of many historic houses in
Mapleton Hill. While simple flat roof
forms are occasionally found in the
district, gable, hipped and gambrel
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 25
roof forms are the pattern of historic
buildings in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District. Current design flat
roof of the house comprises
approximately 50% of the roof area of
the house. Consider modifying rear to
reduce flat roof area, especially that
visible from a public way.
.4 Porches should be
compatible in massing and
details to historic porches in
the district, and should be
appropriate to the style of
the house.
Front porch is appropriately scaled
and located on house. The enclosed
front balcony should be simplified
and single door should provide access
as the norm for front balconies on
Edwardian-Vernacular houses of this
scale
Maybe
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section U. of the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Only those guidelines that further the analysis of
the proposed project are included and those that reflect what has been evaluated in the
previous section are not repeated.
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines
U. New Construction
While new construction should fit into the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District, there is no intent to require historic imitation. It is appropriate that new
designs incorporate the elements that contribute to the character of the District, such as
overall mass, rooflines, windows, porches, front entries, etc. However, innovative
ways of incorporating such elements and modern expressions of detailing are strongly
encouraged.
New construction in the District should be in the character of the buildings
surrounding it. Because streetscapes vary in the District, new buildings facing the
street should respect and be consistent with the existing block pattern. Traditional site
layout, porch size and placement, front entry location, roof type, and door and
window sizes and patterns should be considered when proposing new in-fill
construction.
New buildings on the rear of a lot (including house behind a house developments)
should be of a lesser mass and scale than the original structure and more simply
Agenda Item #5A Page 26
detailed. New accessory buildings on the rear of a lot should be consistent with the
existing pattern of small structures that are simple and utilitarian in design.
New construction on corner lots requires an especially thoughtful approach. Each
corner lot will present a unique design challenge for a highly visible building that does
not disrupt the historic context.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 New construction should
incorporate the elements
contributing to the historic
character of the Mapleton
Hill Historic District as
identified by the Design
Guidelines.
The building reflects contributing
elements found in the historic
district including the gabled roof
form, use of brick, and front porch.
Residential character will be
retained with similar setbacks.
However oblique building angles,
use of structural and decorative
steel on the house will be highly
visible and alter character of the
site in a manner that likely will be
incompatible with streetscape and
southwest section of Mapleton
Hill. Redesign building to better
ensure that new construction be
compatible with historic character
of area (see sections 2 & 6 of
General Design Guidelines above).
No
.2 Building elevations visible
from streets and alleys need
the greatest sensitivity.
Front porches are an
important visual element
and should be incorporated
into new construction
except in unusual
situations.
In placement and form front porch
addresses street appropriately
taking cues from historic houses in
the district (see sections 2 & 6 of
General Design Guidelines above).
Proposed scale of front portion of
the house is generally compatible
with surrounding buildings.
However, massing and proportion
of rear portion of house appears
incongruous with front section and
adjacent historic buildings.
Redesign to simplify forms and
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 27
materials to better reflect character
of historic houses in the district.
.3 New construction should
not imitate historic
buildings, but should be an
expression of its own time.
Contemporary expression of
traditional architectural
elements is encouraged.
Simplicity is an important
aspect of creating
compatible new
construction.
Massing, proportion and design of
the neo-classical portion of house
reflects the historic context of the
district but is an expression of its
own time. However, the rear
portion appears inconsistent with
surrounding historic building
forms in terms of location, mass
and fenestration. Redesign to rear
portion to better integrate with
front portion of house and better
reflect character of historic houses
in the district.
No
.4 The mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
the streetscape as a whole.
Site layout, porch size and
placement, entry level and
location, roof line, and door
and window sizes and
patterns should harmonize
with the historic context
rather than compete with or
copy it.
Modeling indicates the oblique
building angle at east will result in
modern rear portion of house
being visible from the Spruce
Street. The visibility of this rear
element may alter character of the
site in a manner incompatible with
streetscape and southwest section
of Mapleton Hill, as a whole.
Consider redesign to provide for
elimination of oblique angle of rear
portion and revise to better
integrate with the neo-traditional
portion of house. While simple flat
roof forms are occasionally found
in the district, gable, hipped and
gambrel roof forms are the pattern
of historic buildings in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District.
No
.7 New construction should
utilize a roof form found in
the district.
Current design shows indicate 50%
of the roof will be flat. Consider
redesign to reduce flat roof area.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 28
.8 Use building materials that
are familiar in their
dimensions and that can be
repeated. This helps to
establish a sense of scale for
new buildings. Whenever
possible, use familiar
building components in
traditional sizes. Avoid
large featureless surfaces.
Proposed materials include two
types of brick, stained vertical
wood siding, standing seam metal
roof and structural and decorative
steel elements. Little historic
precedent for use of metal roofing,
stained wood siding or structural
or decorative steel on historic
houses in in Mapleton Hill. Revise
design to simplify material palette
including roofing, use of wood in
lieu of structural and decorative
steel and more traditional painted
wood siding. Provide detailed
information on all materials
including proposed path ways,
patio and retaining walls.
No
Staff considers that, while the existing house is compatible with the streetscape in terms
of mass, scale and design, because it was significantly altered in 1980 (well outside of
the 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), it should be
considered non-contributing. At the time the Mapleton Hill Historic District was
expanded to include this area, this building was considered non-contributing.
The historic preservation ordinance requires that in order to approve a demolition, the
Landmarks Board must find the proposal for new construction meets the standards of
Section 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3), B.R.C. 1981, ensuring compatible new construction in the
context of the historic district. In spite of many compatible elements of this design (in
particular the mass, scale and location of the front portion of the house), staff considers
that the design substantially inconsistent with the design guidelines and that redesign
likely could not be achieved through the imposition of conditions to be reviewed by the
Landmarks design review committee.
Specifically, the oblique angle of the rear addition and its incompatibility with the front
portion of the house (and streetscape) in terms of location and design is substantially
inconsistent with the Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Likewise, staff
considers the material palette should be revised and simplified to be more in keeping
with materials found on historic buildings in Mapleton Hill.
Agenda Item #5A Page 29
The construction of new houses in historic districts is relatively rare and great care
needs to be taken to ensure compatibility. Given the proposed front setback of only 14’,
and proximate location to the street, this is especially important. Staff recognizes the
considerable thought that has gone into the design of this building, and finds the front
portion to be generally contextual in terms of mass and scale. However, it also considers
that the building’s front and rear portions should be better unified to reflect the
proportion of historic buildings of similar size found in the district. Consideration
should be given to redesigning the footprint of the house to eliminate the oblique angle
of the rear portion. Likewise, consideration should also be given to reconfiguring
window proportion, spacing, and scale on elevations of the rear portion of the house
visible from public ways, to reflect more traditional patterns found in the district.
Similarly, the material palette should be simplified and revised per the Design Guideline
analysis.
For this reason, staff is recommending denial of the proposal, but suggests that if the
Board feels denial is appropriate, that it provide the applicant the opportunity to
withdraw the current proposal for redesign, after providing feedback on how they
might redesign a house be more consistent with the standards of Section 9-11-18.
Allowing the applicant to withdraw would prevent the applicant from waiting a year to
reapply per 9-11-17(c), B.R.C. 1981.
FINDINGS
Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be inconsistent with
purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and finds that the proposed work does
not meet the standards specified in Section 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed work
is also inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Board deny the application.
The issues that should be addressed by the applicant in the redesign include massing,
scale, height and materials, as well as the stylistic approach to the design of the house.
The redesign should address these issues in a manner that is more consistent with these
guidelines and with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
The Landmarks Board finds that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the project
meets the standards for an alteration certificate requirements set forth in Section 9-11--
18, “Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In
reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the information in the staff
Agenda Item #5A Page 30
memorandum dated December 2, 2015, and the evidence provided to the Board at its
December 2, 2015 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds that:
(1) The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district. Section 9-11-
18(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981.
(2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on the proposed construction will be incompatible with the
character of the historic district. Section 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
(3) With respect to the proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the
proposed new construction to replace the building does not meet the
requirements of s and (3) above. Section 9-11-18(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessor Card
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5A Page 31
Attachment A: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5A Page 32
Agenda Item #5A Page 33
Agenda Item #5A Page 34
Agenda Item #5A Page 35
Agenda Item #5A Page 36
Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1929.
Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1978.
Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1985.
Agenda Item #5A Page 37
Attachment B: Photographs
South (Front) Elevation, View from Spruce St., 2016.
East (Side) Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item #5A Page 38
North (Rear) Elevation, 2016
West (Side) Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item #5A Page 39
Attachment C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5A Page 40
Agenda Item #5A Page 41
Agenda Item #5A Page 42
Agenda Item #5A Page 43
Agenda Item #5A Page 44
Agenda Item #5A Page 45
Agenda Item #5A Page 46
Agenda Item #5A Page 47
Agenda Item #5A Page 48
Agenda Item #5A Page 49
Agenda Item #5A Page 50
Agenda Item #5A Page 51
Agenda Item #5A Page 52
Agenda Item #5A Page 53
Agenda Item #5A Page 54
Agenda Item #5A Page 55
Agenda Item #5A Page 56
Agenda Item #5A Page 57
Agenda Item #5A Page 58
Agenda Item #5A Page 59
Agenda Item #5A Page 60
Agenda Item #5A Page 61
Agenda Item #5A Page 62
Agenda Item #5A Page 63
Agenda Item #5A Page 64
Agenda Item #5A Page 65
Agenda Item #5A Page 66
Agenda Item #5A Page 67
Agenda Item #5A Page 68
Agenda Item #5A Page 69
Agenda Item #5A Page 70
Agenda Item #5A Page 71
Agenda Item #5A Page 72
Agenda Item #5A Page 73
Agenda Item #5A Page 74
Agenda Item #5A Page 75
Agenda Item #5A Page 76
Agenda Item #5A Page 77
Agenda Item 5C - Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 7, 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 building located at 1580 Cress Ct., a non-landmarked
building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00271).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1580 Cress Ct.
2. Date of Construction: 1937
3. Zoning: RE (Rural Estate)
4. Existing House Size: 2,193 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Lot Size: 22,109 sq. ft. (approx.)
6. Owner/Applicant: Donald Hackstaff
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff 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 1580 Cress Ct. finding that, due to a lack of architectural, historic or environmental
significance, the property is not eligible for landmark designation, and adopt the staff
memorandum dated December 7, 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 5C - Page 2
3. Archival quality color photographs of the exterior of the building, including at least one
photograph of each side.
Should the board choose to issue a stay-of-demolition, a 180-day stay period would
expire on April 18, 2017. 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 1580 Cress
Ct., 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 August 19, 2016 the Planning Housing & Sustainability (PH&S) Department received
a demolition permit application for the building at 1580 Cress Ct. The building is not
located within a historic district, but is over 50 years old. The action proposed (full
demolition) meets the definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder
Revised Code 1981. On August 26, 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.”
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 require review by the Landmarks design review committee (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 to provide the time
Agenda Item 5C - Page 3
necessary to consider alternatives to the building demolition. If imposed, a 180-day stay
period would start when the completed application was accepted by the city manager
(October 20, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on April 18,
2017. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION
The approximately 22,110 square foot property is located on Cress Court, south of
Norwood Avenue and east of Broadway. The property slopes from Cress Court to the
house, and then the topography steps to the south by means of a stone retaining wall.
The approximately 2,193 sq. ft. building is oriented to the south, away from its modern
access via Cress Court. A two-car garage, constructed in 1982, is the most visible site
feature from the street. Due to the topography of the site and the orientation of the
building, only the low, gable roof of the house is visible from Cress Ct. The property is
not located in an identified potential historic district.
Figure 1. Location Map, 1580 Cress Ct.
Figure 2. 1580 Cress Ct., As Viewed from Cress Court, 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 4
Figure 3. 1580 Cress Ct., South Elevation, 2016.
The L-shaped building has a shallow pitched gable roof on the western portion, a
shallow hipped roof on the eastern portion and is of frame construction clad in local
stone. The south elevation, originally the façade when the building was accessed from
Meadow Avenue, is unadorned with the exception of the window and door openings. A
large picture window is located near the southwest corner of the building, with a
pedestrian door located to the east. Two smaller window openings are also located on
this elevation of the building. The eastern portion of the building steps to the north, and
features a random pattern of window openings. A second pedestrian door with a
concrete stoop is located near the intersection of the hip and gable roofs. The stones are
laid in a soldier course above the opening on the hip roof portion of the building, and
above the window on the east elevation of the gable portion. This is the extent of the
architectural detailing on this otherwise modest building.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 5
Figure 4. 1580 Cress Ct., West Elevation, 2016.
The west elevation features a low gable roof, flanked by two windows. The stones above
the openings on the west elevation are also vertically aligned. A concrete walk wraps
around this elevation.
Figure 5. 1580 Cress Ct., East Elevation, 2016.
A fourth door is located on the east elevation, and is accessed by concrete steps. Two
smaller, square windows flank this entrance.
Figure 6. 1580 Cress Ct., Northeast Corner, 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 6
The north elevation features smaller casement windows and is otherwise unadorned. A
portion of this elevation is clad in shingles. All windows and doors appear to have been
replaced. The applicant notes they were changed in the 1990s.
Figure 7. 1580 Cress Ct., Non-historic Garage, facing south, 2016.
A two-car, frame, gabled roof garage is located north of the main house. The demolition
of the garage would not require historic preservation review as it was constructed in
1981. Fronting onto Cress Ct., the garage is accessed by a concrete driveway. It is clad in
wide, wood siding with teal trim on its north elevation, and unpainted, narrower wood
siding on its east side.
A gravel parking area is located along the north elevation. The site has been divided into
two flattened terraces. The north terrace is a grassy lawn, while the south terrace is the
site of the house and another flat, grassy lawn to its south. The north terrace is held by a
retaining wall of large, native sandstone boulders, while the south is retained by a large
berm, the sides of which are covered in loose stone rubble. The retaining wall was
constructed in the 1990s. Mature vegetation is located along the south and west property
lines.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 7
Figure 8. Southwest corner, county assessor’s photo, c. 1960.
Image courtesy Boulder Carnegie Library.
Alterations
The building retains its overall form and materiality while the windows, originally
divided light, and doors were replaced in the 1990s. The owners believe the building
was converted from its agricultural use into a duplex in the mid-1950s. The garage was
constructed in 1982.
Condition
No information on the condition of the property has been received. Externally, the house
appears to be in good condition.
Cost of Repair or Restoration
The applicant has not submitted information on the cost of repair or restoration.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The building currently addressed as 1580 Cress Ct. was originally constructed as part of
an agricultural complex at 1400 Meadow Ave. The main house, constructed in 1937, was
a two-story stone house with a clipped gable roof which was subsequently added to in
multiple phases and in 2013, a demolition permit application was approved for the
building. Other buildings on the property appear to have included a one-story frame
building with a metal roof, and the subject building.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 8
Figure 9. 1400 Meadow Ave. (1560 Cress Ct.), Tax Assessor Card, c. 1950.
The 1987 Historic Building Inventory Form for the property notes that the building at
1580 Cress Ct. was used as a honey house for a bee farm operated by O. G. Warne.1
Oliver and Ethel Warne resided at 1560 Cress Ct. (see Figure 9) from about 1938 until
1973. In 1964, they created the Warne subdivision, dividing the farm into eleven
residential lots. The subject building at 1580 Cress Ct. was converted into a duplex
(likely in the mid-1950s) and continues to be utilized as a rental today.
Oliver Warne appears to have purchased the subject property around 1944. He and Ethel
reportedly resided in the main house and used the one-story 1937 stone building to keep
bees. Oliver is first listed in the city directories as a beekeeper in 1956. His brother,
Ralph, is listed as an apiarist (beekeeper) in the 1940 census. Warne’s obituary notes in
1967 that “he had operated a beekeeping business here for many years.”
Warne platted the Warne Subdivision in 1964. It includes eleven properties (Lots 1-11,
Warne Subdivision). Two properties face Norwood Avenue, and nine are oriented
around Cress Court. Warne passed away in 1967.
Oliver G. Warne was born on May 4, 1897, in Galaton, Pennsylvania to Lee and Maynie
Warne.2 He spent his early life in New York and later Oklahoma, coming to Boulder in
1921 with his parents.3 He served in the U.S. Navy during World War I. In 1930, the
1 Simmons, R.L. and T. H. Simmons, “Boulder Survey of Historic Places, Scattered Resources, 1995.” City of
Boulder, 1995.
2 Selective Service System, World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. United
States, 1918. Ancestry.com.
3 Oliver Warne Dies Following Brief Illness. Daily Camera. 10 October 1967.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 9
Warnes resided on a farm at 3050 12th St. (Broadway) with their children Oliver, Ralph,
Bart, Esther and Wesley. Oliver and Lee both worked as house painters.
Oliver and Ethel Isabella Hynd married in the study of the Presbyterian Church on
December 27, 1941. The Daily Camera reported that the bride wore a “street length dress
of blue wool with matching accessories…her corsage was of orchids.”4 Ethel Hynd was
born May 2, 1900 in Kay County, Oklahoma.5 She attended the Oklahoma Agricultural
and Mechanical college in Stillwater. In 1940, Ethel lived with her Scottish uncle, James
Hynd, at 1040 14th St. in Boulder. Her aunt, Isabella Lawson Hynd, was a landscape
painter, whose “canvasses hung in some of the prominent homes of the intermountain
region.”6 Ethel died at the age of 73 in a car accident at Highway 287 and Lookout Road.
At the time, she lived at 1560 Cress Ct. with her siblings, Robert and Julia. The Warnes
did not have children.
In 1973, Ethel Warne sold the property to Jack and Patricia Ann Lacy. The Lacy LLC
retains ownership today.
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) of this section, the board may not
consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.”
As detailed below, while the property meets some of the criteria for landmark
designation, staff does not consider this property potentially eligible for designation as
an individual landmark.
4 Ethel Hynd and Oliver Warne Married Saturday. Daily Camera. 27 December 1941
5 Ibid.
6 Miss Isabella Lawson. Carnegie Branch Library.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 10
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 building located at 1580 Cress Ct. meets historic significance under criterion
1.
1. Date of Construction: 1937
Elaboration: The Historic Building Inventory records a construction date of 1937, based on
the Boulder County Assessor records.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Oliver and Ethel Warne
Elaboration: Oliver and Ethel resided in the house at 1560 Cress Ct. and reportedly
utilized the building at 1580 Cress Ct. in their bee keeping operations. Oliver Warne
platted the Warne Subdivision in 1964. While interesting, staff does not consider the
Warnes to be of local, state or national significance.
3. Development of the Community: Agriculture
Elaboration: The building at 1580 Cress Ct. was constructed as part of an agricultural
complex in 1937 and was likely converted to a duplex in the mid-1950s. North
Boulder remained largely rural in character through the 1950s, when area began to be
annexed into city limits. The farm was subdivided in 1964 and all other buildings
associated with the farm have since been demolished. The agricultural character of
the property no longer remains.
4. Recognition by Authorities: 1995 Scattered Resources Survey
Elaboration: The 1995 Historic Resources Survey noted that, although altered, the
building reflects vernacular masonry agricultural building construction and is
notable for its use of native stone.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The building located at 1580 Cress Ct. meets historic significance under criteria 1
and 5.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Vernacular Masonry
Elaboration: The low, one-story building reflects vernacular masonry agricultural
building construction.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Unknown
Agenda Item 5C - Page 11
3. Artistic Merit: None observed.
4. Example of the Uncommon: Agricultural Property
Elaboration: The building is associated with Boulder’s early agricultural past, and is
unusual as an agricultural building that was later converted to living space.
However, due to the development of the property following its subdivision in 1964,
staff considers that the property no longer retains its agricultural character.
5. Indigenous Qualities: Native Stone.
Elaboration: The building utilizes native stone cladding in its design.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 1580 Cress Ct. meets environmental significance under
criteria 2.
1. Site Characteristics: Terraced Landscape
Elaboration: The building is sited on a sloping lot with an excellent vista across
Boulder. The site features a series of terraced lawns, initiated in the 1990s.
2. Compatibility with Site: Scale, massing and placement
Elaboration: The building was constructed when the property was accessed from the
south by Meadows Avenue. The scale and massing does not overwhelm the site.
3. Geographic Importance: None Observed.
Elaboration: The building is minimally visible from the public right of way and is not
a familiar visual landmark of the community.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: None Observed.
Elaboration: The surrounding character was significantly changed following the
subdivision of the property in 1964. The surrounding buildings were largely
constructed in the 1970s and staff considers that is does not retain historic
agricultural character.
5. Area Integrity: None Observed
Elaboration: The property is not located in a potential or designated historic district.
The former agricultural property is today surrounded by residential development
that was largely constructed in the last 40 years.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD:
Agenda Item 5C - Page 12
The building at 1580 Cress Ct. was constructed around 1937 as part of an agricultural
complex. North Boulder remained largely agricultural until the mid-1950s when this
area began to be annexed into the city of Boulder. The Warnes subdivided their farm in
1964, creating the Warne Subdivision, comprised of eleven residential properties. Two
are oriented toward Norwood Avenue and nine face Cress Court, and were constructed
between 1959 and 2015. The original farmhouse at 1560 Cress Ct. was approved for
demolition in 2013 due to a loss of architectural integrity through the construction of
many additions. The building at 1580 Cress Ct. remains as an early tie to the property’s
agricultural history, but staff considers that due to a loss of the property’s agricultural
character, the building is not eligible for individual landmark designation.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
No details concerning the condition of the building were submitted as part of this
application. The building appears to be in good condition.
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
No estimate of the cost of restoration or repair has been made.
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 April 18, 2017.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
Agenda Item 5C - Page 13
Issuance of a demolition permit for the building at 1580 Cress Ct. is appropriate based on
the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that:
1. The building does not possess strong historic, architectural or environmental
significance;
2. The property has lost its historic relationship to the neighborhood due to
subdivision of the property in 1964 and subsequent development of the area;
reorientation of the access to the property from the south (Meadows Ave.) to the
north (Cress Ct.); and demolition of the primary house in 2013.
3. The building will be thoroughly documented through Historic American Building
Survey Level II recordation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item 5C - Page 14
Attachment A: Current Photographs
1580 Cress Ct., South Elevation, 2016
1580 Cress Ct., Southeast Corner, 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 15
1580 Cress Ct., Northeast Corner, 2016.
1580 Cress Ct., West Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 16
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Agenda Item 5C - Page 17
Agenda Item 5C - Page 18
Tax Assessor Photograph, 1960
Agenda Item 5C - Page 19
Tax Assessor Card for 1560 Cress Ct., c.1949 – 1961
Agenda Item 5C - Page 20
Tax Assessor Card for 1560 Cress Ct., c.1949 – 1961
Agenda Item 5C - Page 21
1560 Cress Ct., Tax Assessor Photograph, c. 1949.
1560 Cress Ct., Tax Assessor Photograph, c. 1949.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 22
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item 5C - Page 23
Agenda Item 5C - Page 24
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
House Constructed 1937
1938
O. G. Warne
(Resided at 1400
Meadows/1560 Cress Ct.)
1944 Agricultural use
Oliver and Ethel Warne,
Beekeepers
1956
Warne By 1960 Converted to duplex
Oliver G. Warne (owner);
Gene R. Sellmer (owner);
Warne Bee Farms
1965
Jack and Patricia Ann Lacy 1972 William A. Pennyington
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.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 25
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 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.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 26
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: December 7, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron
SUBJECT: Update Memo
Library Commission and Landmarks Board Joint Meeting
A joint Library Commission and Landmarks Board meeting was held on November 17. The Board and
Library Commission agreed to coordinate and share information as the Library Master Plan and
planning for the west end of the Civic Area proceeds.
University Hill Commercial District – National Register Nomination
On December 8, 2015 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. Front Range Research Consultants is now under contract to undertake the work
with view to a May 2017 review of a National Register of Historic Places by the State Review Board.
Staff had a kick-off meeting with the consultants the second week of October.
Atrium Building/Public Market
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. Update at
meeting.
Civic Area
The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in
the Civic Area. Update at Meeting.
Grandview Conference Center
A memorandum of agreement between the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado’s Board of
Regents has been signed for cooperation in developing the Grandview site for conference center. The
agreement sets out a process for consideration of potentially historic buildings in the area.
Chautauqua Historic District
In 2017, the City of Boulder and the Colorado Chautauqua Association will jointly undertake the
development of a lighting plan, establishing a context of the historic use of lighting in the park, a
general approach to new lighting, and design guidelines to inform decisions on future lighting
proposals. Update at meeting.
Landmarks Board Interviews 2017
City Council will hold interviews for the Landmarks Board on either March 9th, 14th or 16th. The
application will be available online January 3rd: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-
commissions/boards-commissions