HomeMy WebLinkAbout2A - Consideration of whether to initiate the designation of 3231 11th St. (HIS2008-00063) as a locally designated Historic LandmarkMEMORANDUM
Apri123, 2008
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Intern
Chris Meschuk, Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of whether to initiate th~ designation of
3231 11'h Street as a locally designated Historic Landmark, per Section 9-11-3,
B.R.C.1981.(HIS2008-00063)
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 3231 11"' Street
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low -1)
3. Owner: Michael and Michelle Clements
4. Applicant: Historic Boulder, Incorporated
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board not initiate landmark
designation of the property at 3231 11'h Street
SUMMARY:
• The purpose of this hearing is for the Board to determine whether it is appropriate to initiate
local landmark designation for the property at 3231 11'h Street.
• On April 11, 2007 the Landmarks Design Review Committee reviewed an application to
demolish the building. Finding there was "probable cause" that the building may be eligible
for individual landmark designation, the application was referred to the full Landmarks Board
for review. On May 31, 2007 the application for demolition was withdrawn.
• On June 6, 2007 the Board held an initiation hearing on this property, and did not initiate
landmark designation, but requested that staff noti,fy the Board when a building permit is
applied for.
• On August 17, 2007 a building permit was submitted for city review.
• On August 22, 2007, a majority of the Landmarks Board members requested a special meeting
be held on August 23, 2007 to consider initiating the process for local landmark designation for
the property.
~ On August 23, 2007, the Landmarks Board voted 3-0 (Watson and Plass absent) to schedule a
Aaenda Item #2A Pa¢e #1
S:~Plan\dataVongrang~IIIST\LandmarksV 1th3231\2008 Initiation\0423.08 LPAB Initiation Memo.doc
local landmark designation initiation hearing for the property at 3231 11"' Street.
• On September 5, 2007, the Landmarks Board voted 3-2 (Watson and Plass opposed) to initiate
landmark designation of the property (See Attachment D: initiation hearing transcript)
• On November 7, 2007, the board held a designation hearing. The board voted 3-2 (May and
Podmajersky opposed) to withdraw the designation application. (See Attachment E:
designation hearing transcript)
• On March 24, 2008 Historic Boulder, Incorporated submitted an individual landmark
application for the property (See Attachment A: Landmark Application).
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION
The Historic Preservation ordinance calls for the Landmarks Board to hold a public hearing to
consider initiating landmark designation of a property (9-11-3, BRC, 1981). Initiation hearings are
legislative, not quasi-judicial. In reviewing applications from a historic preservation
organization', the board may consider, but are not limited to the following criteria:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with the
purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City
Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981;
(2) There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to
complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the
application;
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
(4) The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation;
(5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Historic Boulder was recognized by the board as a historic preservation organization in January 2007 (See
Attachment B: Recognition Resolution).
Agenda Item #2A Page #2
S:\Plan\data\longrang\HIST\Landmarks\l lth.3231\2008 Initiation\04.23.08 LPAB Initiation Memo.doc
ANALYSIS:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation
as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with the purposes and standards in
Sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate Landmarks
and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981;
9-11-1(a). "The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by
protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of
past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or national history or providing significant
examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop
and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings sites, and areas to
enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and
foster knowledge of the City's living heritage".
The one-and-a-half story vernacular masonry house at 3231 11th Street is potentially
eligible for local landmark designation. Its walls are constructed of rough quarried
stone and the house features a pyramidal hipped roof with overhanging eaves and
small dormers on the north and south. There is a c. 1952 one-story frame addition to
the rear of the building. The house appears to have been constructed in 1902 by
Wallace and Margaret Chambers. Chambers was a stone cutter, and operated the
Chambers Stone Lime and Cement Company northwest of Boulder on land near or
part of what is now Heil Ranch Open Space. The 1995 architectural inventory form
by Front Range Research Associates stated that "The house is notable for its native
stone construction' but did not find the building to be potentially eligible for
individual listing in the national Register of Historic Places. See Attachment F for
additional analysis of the significance of the building. Despite having some
architectural significance, staff considers the initiation of landmark designation of
this property unnecessary as the owner opposes such designation, and the board
recently considered landmark designation and chose not to designate the property.
9-11-1(b). "The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in
the city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the
public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by
ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be
carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and
structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by
imitating surrounding buildings, but by being compatible with them".
Staff does not believe the initiation of landmark designation of this property is in
balance with private property rights and the public's interest. This initiation hearing
Agenda Item #2A Pase #3
S:\Plan\data\longrang\HISTILandmarks\1 ]th.3231\20081nitiation\04.23.08 LPAB Initiation Memo.doc
is the third time the board will be considering initiating landmark designation of
this property in less than a year.
The board first considered initiating landmark designation of the property in June
2007, and voted not to initiate designation but asked to be notified once plans were
developed and submitted for the property. Once plans were submitted, the board
scheduled an initiation hearing for the second time, and voted 3-2 to initiate
landmark designation on September 5, 2007. See Attachment D for a transcript of this
hearing.
At the designation hearing in November 2007, the board withdrew the designation
application. See Attachment E for a transcript of this hearing. Several members of
the board expressed a desire to deny the application, while others expressed a desire
to recommend designation to City Council. Prior to a motion, the City Attorney
informed the board that denial of the designation application meant that the
property could be demolished. Section 9-11-8, BRC, 1981 states: "no person shall
submit an application that is the same or substantially the same for at least one year
from the effective date of the final action on the original proposal." If the board was
to deny the designation application, demolition of the building could not be
prevented.
The board chose not to deny or recommend approval of the designation and
withdrew the application in September 2007. The following reasons for the
withdrawal were made as part of the motion:
• The designation does not meet the criteria of 9-11-1(b), B.R.C., 1981.
• The decision is based upon reasons of balancing private property interests
versus community interests, the fact that the owners are not in support of
landmarking, the building is not located in an area deemed eligible for
historic district designation, and that the building is not proposed for
demolition.
• That the withdrawal is based on the factor that if denied, and later a
demolition application was applied for, the board would be precluded from
taking action due to the one year limitation on resubmission.
Based upon this action, the property owners believed it was reasonable to proceed
with their plans to construct an addition to the building. Although there may be
instances where the public interest in the preservation of a resource not threatened
with demolition may override the established community expectation of
predictability of process, staff does not believe that initiating landmarking for a
second time on this property in less than six months is such a case and does not
draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest.
Agenda Item #2A Pase #4
S:\Plan\data\lonerane\HIST1Landmarks\] ]th.3231\2008 Initiation\04.23.08 LPAB Initiation Memo.doc
(2) There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of
the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application;
The historic preservation program has limited resources due to current workload,
but can complete the necessary work for this application. Due to the fact that
designation has been initiated before on this property, the majority of historic
research and analysis has been completed. However, since the request was
received, staff has spent a significant amount of time working on this application.
This increase has already forced the delay of other projects, and increased the delay
in the review of other applications.
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
Several neighbors have expressed support for the designation of this house as a local
landmark. There is no information on whether there is broad community support
for initiating the application; however staff believes that considering initiation of this
property for a third time is a departure from the community expectation of the
historic preservation program.
(4) The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation;
Given that the building will remain under the proposed development plans, staff
does not feel that further protection is needed through designation at this time.
(5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
Not applicable.
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan; or
Policy 2.33 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan States that," Buildings,
districts, and sites of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance
will be identified and protected. The city and county will encourage preservation of
such resources through incentive programs, designation of landmark buildings
design review, public improvements, and other tools." This policy encourages
landmark designation, and the property owner has not expressed a desire to
landmark the property at this time.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Staff believes that considering initiation of this property for a third time in less than
a year is a departure from the community expectation of the historic preservation
program and therefore not generally in the public interest.
Agenda Item #2A Paee #5
S:\Plan\data\longrang\HIST1Landmarks\11th.3231\2008 Initiation\04.23.08 LPAB Initiation Memo.doc
In conclusion, staff does not recommend initiation for the following reasons:
• The board has held two prior initiation hearings on this property within the last year, one
of which resulted in a landmark application being initiated, which was withdrawn at the
designation hearing.
• The board stated as part of the withdrawal that the designation did not balance private
property rights versus the public's interest in preserving the structure.
• Landmark designation over the property owner's objection has been used very rarely in the
34 years of the historic preservation program, and all are believed to have been in response
to the potential demolition of the resource. This structure is not proposed for demolition
• Initiation of designation on this property for a second time would be a departure for the
community expectation for predictability of previous decisions when the circumstances
surrounding the property have not changed.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
If the board chooses not to initiate landmark designation of the property, the owner may conrinue
to develop plans to construct an addition to the building, remaining below the threshold for
demolition as defined in 9-16, BRC,1981. Any building permits will be reviewed to ensure that
they do not meet the definition of demolition as stated in the Boulder Revised Code.
If the board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by resolution. A draft
resolution is included in Attachment C. If initiated, the application shall be heard by the
Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days in order to determine whether the proposed designation
conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2,
"City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. The owner must
obtain a landmark alteration certificate prior to the submission of building permit applications for
the property if they choose to proceed while the application is pending, or they may choose to
wait until the application process is complete.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Designation Application
B: Recognition resolution of Historic Boulder
C: Draft resolution to initiate
D: September 5, 2007 initiation hearing transcript
E: November 7, 2007 designation hearing transcript
F: Analysis of significance from November 2007 LPAB designation hearing
Aeenda Item #2A PaQe #6
S:\Plan\data~ongrangVIIST\Landmarks\llth.3231\2008 Initiation\04.23.08 LPAB Initiation Memo.doc
. ~SZf3a6 ' ~03 Attachment A
Application for Individual Landmark
Name of Building: Date: ~ f o~ I'o~ (j(~ ~
Address: ~ ~ ~ { ~ --t
Owners : ` I Phone: ~-f'a~~ L
Address(es): 5OS`S `'K C7!X . ~ `~rl~+C( .Q~Gy~LS/ g~
Applicant:`1 -'~iWIV„_c-~_ '1-_~~}PLhone: (~~03(.~ 'l~",7.Jr~ / a
Address: I I a ~ .~~'-~C~JI~-~ , ~1~--' ~1J O~Q~ ~ ~~~3G
Date of Construction: I ~ (7~
'IWpe of Construction: ~
Architectural Style /Period: <(1~ lnnJ n ~
Architect /Builder: ~ ~ fl~C~ !f'A R° y ~ .1/~CNY Vyi1'~~J U
Condition of Exterior: 1
Additions / Alterations to Exterior: \ iYU ~ ~-c_v
Date of Alteration(s) /Addition(s): ,
Please attach a copy of the legal description of the property.
' Fee $25 (if applicable)
A filing fee of $25.00 is required to file an application for designation of an individual landmark.
Should the Landmazks Board initiate designation of a property or azea, there is no fee involved.
I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Si lure: ~~ll ~y
Address: V bU
Desi ation initiated b : Date:
AC~IEENDA IYE~A ~ 2~
PAGE ~
Attachment B
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE THAT THE HISTORIC BOULDER, INC
IS AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORGANIZATION AS DEFINED IN 9-16
OF THE BOULDER REVISED CODE, 1981
WHEREAS, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board of the City of Boulder,
Colorado, hereby finds that Historic Boulder Inc, is an historic preservation organization as
defined in subsection 9-16 of the Boulder Revised Code., as amended;
WHEREAS, the Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board of the City of Boulder,
Colorado, finds that Historic Boulder Incorporated has over thirty years experience in historic
preservation in Boulder, and afull-time professional staff, and is an organization with
demonstrated experience and expertise in historic preservation per 9-16 of the Boulder Revised
Code, 1981
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, THAT:
Historic Boulder Incorporated is recognized as an organization with demonstrated
experience and expertise in historic preservation, and
Be it further resolved that this recognition shall expire 5 years from the date of this
resolution.
INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of January, 2007
Landmazl~ reservation Advisory
Board C air
Attest:
Staff Liaison to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
AGENDA ITEM 1k.I~sPAGE
Attachment C
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
ADVISORY BOARD INITIATING THE DESIGNATION OF
3231 11`h STREET AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on Mazch 24, 2008 Historic Boulder, Inc, a recognized historic preservation
organization, submitted an application to designate the property at 3231 11`h Street,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO:
Section 1. The City of Boulder Landmazks Preservation Advisory Boazd initiates the
designation of 3231 11th Street, and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the
historic preservation ordinance no fewer than sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty
days from the date of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 23rd day of April, 2008.
Chair, Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Secretazy to the Board
AGENDA REM # PAGE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
ADVISORY BOARD INITIATING THE DESIGNATION OF
3231 11`h STREET AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2008 Historic Boulder, Inc, a recognized historic preservation
organization, submitted an application to designate the property at 3231 11`h Street,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO:
Section 1. The City of Boulder Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board initiates the
designation of 3231 11`h Street, and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the
historic preservation ordinance no fewer than sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty
days from the date of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 23rd day of April, 2008. /
fs
Chair, Lay marks Preservation Advisory Board
y ATTEST: C /
Secretazy to the Board
a..-
Attachment D
Landmark Initiation Hearing Comments
3231 11th Street
September 5, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS:
Nancy Kornblum
Leonard May
Tim Plass, Chair
Kirk Watson
Lisa Podmajersky
STAFF MEMBERS
Sue Ellen Harrison, Assistant City Attorney
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
OWNERS' PRESENTATION & REBUTTAL
Scott Jurdem, Attorney for the owners, owner's presentation:
In making your decision tonight, I ask that you consider first of all the fact that the stone
building here will be meticulously preserved. There will be 5,150 sq ft visible above
ground, but that will be spread over 4 building lots. That is very compatible and probably
lower density than most of the properties immediately neazby. Not a singles stone on the
exterior of this building will be touched. Mr. Callahan's plans, which you've seen, serve
to beautifully preserve the stone structure. Now, if the azgument is that 5,150 visible feet
is too much, then the board is being asked to use its regulatory power to coerce
compliance with people's personal feelings about design and size of residential property
in Boulder. And that's beyond the purpose of this board. The board has as you know, has
no role and the Design Review Committee has no role in doing architectural, residential
design review in the absence of an Landmark Alteration Certificate or demolition
application. This is not a site plan review, when the neighbors get to come in and say
AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ PAGE
"this is too big, this is blocking the sun, I don't like the color of the paint." We're not at
that point, and I think we need to be careful not to use the Landmazks Boazd as another
way to control growth or to coerce compliance with personal design preferences. Concern
was expressed on June 6`h that extreme caution should be exercised when the Board is
going to act without guidance of the demolition standazd and that's our position today.
The history of this- the boazd has been aoound since 1974, many of the neighbors that are
concerned have been aoound nearly as long. There have been many many regular
meetings over those years; Mr. Goodson owned the property for 3 years; no action was
taken to list it as a Structure of Merit. In Mazch of 2007 Mr. Goodson submitted an
application for a building permit; the Landmazks Board had its regulaz meeting on Mazch
7`h. He applied for a demolition permit on Mazch 29~h; the Landmazks Boazd had its
regulaz meeting on Apri14`n. He decided to sell the property. The Clements were
interested in buying the property. So what did they do? There's an ordinance that directs
those people that have concerns about whether there will be additional zoning restrictions
on their property to contact the Plazming Department and ask them about that. And they
did that. They met in person, and in writing, and you have the letter there from Mr.
Callahan to the planners where he said the perspective (sic) purchasers would like
assurance that, I'm not mistaken, that we can in fact proceed with the addition, as long as
we keep more than 50% of the structure. We want to avoid a trip before the Landmazks
Boazd. There was no way their concerns could have been anymore cleazly stated than
that. Unlike the Board that's been here, unlike the neighbors, these people just moved to
town, with their 2 children. So they asked the question- the Landmazks Board met again
on May 2nd, 2007. After making all reasonable inquires of the staff, and receiving a
response that did not apprise them, in any way, that there were any further risks or issues
beyond the demolition issue, which they where awaze of, the Clements, as a result of
acting with no expectation of ever being before this Boazd, they went ahead and
purchased this property on May 4~h, 2007. This is an extreme situation. This is not your
usual situation. Now, out of the blue, within 2 weeks, the Clements, Michelle, received a
call from a member of the Board asking her about designating. Her husband was out of
town, she had owned the property 2 weeks; she hesitated; She said, well I don't know, let
me try to get my arms around this. And within 15 minutes, that property was on the
AGENDA IT€M 1t~3.PA(iE~
agenda of this board. Now, you are setting a precedent here that is, and you have to
decide if this is the process that you want to use for adding individual landmazks over the
owner's objections. 9-11-1B discusses balancing private property rights versus public
interest. And there is a public interest in having a fair process. Given the circumstances,
the balance weighs in favor of not landmazking the property. That's the planners' position
based on their best professional judgment, and they are correct in this instance. The
factors to consider aze: This property was purchased only after a direct, cleaz inquiry was
made to the staff. It was purchased after they received the response which did not apprise
them of any further risks or issues and which did suggest that a trip to the Landmarks
Board could be avoided. There was a total failure to act by anyone prior to their purchase
of the property. None of the concerned parties here sought to list this as a Structure of
Merit, which would show they were really interested in something other than just limiting
growth, and not having a lazge home in their neighborhood. Why is this different, when
we're acting without a demolition permit? Well, the reason it's different is because we
have no standards to apply. I respect Mr. Meschuk's suggestion that 9-11-3D can be
applied; Now, I understand his logic, but don't you need to wonder why 9-I l-3D is
specifically limited to historic preservation districts or applications by historic agencies
and not to landmazking initiated by the Board itself? Possibly, it was a drafting error. The
other possibility is it was not anticipated that this board would be doing very much
initiating on its own, and so there were not standazds written other than in the demolition
process, for which there are, in Section 29-11-23, very strict standards. So what
happened? What happened was, in absence of standards, on June 6`h we were here, there
was a question to the City Attorney- if we don't act tonight, can we bring it back on the
agenda? The city attorney said that's not a good practice, and I've listened to the record- I
have a transcript of the record, the City Attorney said that's not a good practice, but yet
that's what was done.
The next issue was, was there going to be a flag placed on the property when there was a
building permit. That was never discussed in the presence of the clients or myself; that
was discussed primazily on June 13s' at the next meeting, and at that meeting, the planner
told you that the board actually, with all due respect, has no legal right to get a flag on
anything. That the building permit process is completely separate than this Board's
AQEPIDA ITE1A i ~
PAGE
activity. And the Board suggested to the City Attorney that was there on the 13`h, which
was a different City Attorney than on the 6" ; I think you probably remember that- that
there'd been some understanding that this property was going to be flagged and that that
was why no action was taken. But that never happened in the presence of Michelle and
Mike Clements or in the presence of myself. And I have that, as I said, a transcript of that
meeting. Twelve o'clock that night after they left, there was some discussion of that, but
they were gone. But the property was flagged. Action was not taken because everyone
said we don't want to act on the 6`h because we want to take this opportunity to speak to
the Clements. We want to talk to them about the design. But they were never contacted.
They were never asked about the design. They asked for a building permit, they spent a
lot of money, then within 24/48 hours of doing that, they were back in front of another
board meeting on the 23rd. They asked to speak on the 23`d. "What were your concerns
about their building plans", and they were told `Your time is up'. It is perhaps necessazy
to Landmark over an owner's objections in certain cases. We're not suggesting that that's
not necessary or important. What I am suggesting is that it is in the public interest to
preserve due process of law. And I ask that you, in this case, make the decision not to
initiate, to let these people go about their careful and meticulous planning and building of
this property in a way that will preserve, beautifully, this property. Thank you.
Mike Clements, Property owner, speaking during public pazticipation.
I would like to begin by stating for the record that I strongly opposed the initiating of
landmazking of our property located at 3231 11`h Street. Secondly, I would like to voice
my disapproval of the manner in which this committee has gone about seeking landmark
designation. I feel as if we have complied with the Boazd's concerns and request
regazding the addition to the property, including reducing the size and moving the
addition further to the rear of the existing structure, while also attempting to beautify the
neighborhood and the street. By continuing to bring our property up for landmazk
consideration, it is clear to me that our rights as tax paying, private citizens aze being
grievously ignored. Not to mention the additional expense we have incurred in attempting
to respect the wishes of this Boazd. It is uncleaz to us, what, if anything, can be done to
please the Board members, outside of landmazking. At the meeting that took place on
RGENDA ITE6A It ~
PA(iH.®L'Z~
Thursday, August 23`d, we emphatically asked the question, and questioned input from
the three board members that were present. No information was given, and we were
informed that this was not the intent of this meeting. If this was not the intent of this
meeting, then when and how aze we to know what, if anything, this board disapproves of?
Additionally, I would like to ask, if this stone structure has the significant historical value
that you feel it has, then why has this property not been pursued for landmazking months
or even years ago, when a demolition permit was requested. Please understand that our
intent is to preserve, not to destroy. In closing, I realize it will be easy for you as board
members to vote to pursue landmazking. However, I ask you to consider the financial and
emotional effect this will place on us. So I ask you please vote against landmazking this
property.
Michelle Clements, Property owner, speaking during public participation.
Members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boazd, I hope you took the time to
review all of the information that we submitted to you for this meeting tonight. Secondly,
I would like to state that I am vehemently opposed to initiating our property as a
landmazk. While I don't want to repeat all of the points that we stated in the information
we submitted to you, I don want to address a couple of things. I know you received a few
letters from concerned citizens. I understand that these letters were precipitated by a flyer
that was sent out by a neighbor who lives adjacent to the south side of the property.
While I respect the thoughts each person has expressed, I question why they haven't
come to the Boazd prior to our purchasing the property. Why didn't they come forward
and express their concerns when the previous owner submitted his building request.
Where were these concerns when the previous owner mazked the trees for demolition and
the utilities were turned off? We have submitted building plans according to what we
stated we were going to do at the June 6`h Meeting. The house is proportionate to the size
of the lot, maintains the integrity of the original structure, and differentiates between old
and new. I believe there is a misunderstanding from those who have written you asking to
proceed with the initiation. Perhaps they do not know how to read building plans or
perhaps they have not seen the plans at all and aze relying on the word of others, and aze
making blanket and false accusations. Although there has been much confusion from the
AGENDA RE&11F~PAGE
Board with regard to exactly what it expects in relation to this property, I believe our
plans comply with the expectations you expressed, and that we have maintained the
integrity of the existing structure. While we didn't go our and rally our neighbors for
support as some people have, I do not believe that letters from a few people necessazily
represent the thoughts of a neighborhood of almost a thousand. As you stated at the June
6`h Meeting, part of the concern that has been expressed as part of another issue dealing
with, as Boazd member Plass has stated, residential design review. According to Mr.
Plass, he did not feel that it was appropriate, quote "for the Landmarks Board to
necessarily be entering into this realm". Although we aze uncleaz as to why our property
is on the agenda again tonight, we can only surmise that it is because we submitted for a
building permit request. If the role of this Board is to preserve, which is what we are
doing, then you should allow us our rights as private citizens and not initiate this property
as a landmark.
Kyle Callahan, Architect, speaking during public participation
A lot of the issues I wish to state have already been stated. We did appear before this
board on the 6~h of June and we listened to what you said and hoped that we have reacted
in the correct manner. Much of your concern involved the retention of what we've seen
on the photographs of the original stone structure, the part of the structure that we feel is
most historic and less concern for the addition in the back and we've tried pretty hazd to
preserve that. We have retained every bit of the stone structure and we repositioned any
of the addition that we had previously proposed as far away from the original footprint as
we could and still maintain some degree of connection. Just a few other things- some
points of clarification in terms of the size of the structure that has received a bit of debate
over time. The size of the structure-atypical way to evaluate that in the city of Boulder is
using a floor to azea ratio, which relates the above ground squaze footage to the size of
the lot, this lot is over 12,000 square feet- this lot is 12,700 sq ft, so it's more than double
than the size of a number of its neighbors. So I have read some comments that say this
proposed addition is out of scale with the neighborhood when in fact it is well within the
scale of many of the other additions and some of the existing houses which aze in the
neighborhood. The floor to area ratio, at the end of the day for our proposed addition with
AGENDA ITEM ;~~.PAGE
the existing home, is slightly in excess of 40% and houses that abut this particulaz pazcel
are 40, 41 and 44%. So at any rate, I'm trying to establish that for homes that have had
additions placed on them, this is not out of scale with any of the homes in the
neighborhood. So in conclusion, we have tried to retain as much as we can, all of the
existing structure- windows, doors and are reusing some of the same materials in hopes
that we would meet your needs and requirements without the need to go through the full
landmazk process. Thank you for you time.
Michelle Clements, Property Owner, rebuttal
Thank you again for allowing me this time. We really don't have a whole lot more to say.
I feel that the information that we've given you is fairly complete. But again, just to
remind you that at the June 6`h meeting, there was quite a lengthy conversation amongst
yourselves as to how this was brought before you, and your role as a preservation
organization versus an azchitectural review committee. And the questions were asked,
what our intention was, and I think that given the fact that we were fairly new to what we
had, and what we were going to do, I feel that we answered those questions very honestly
and fairly completely. Now we're back here again and again I can only surmise it's
because we've submitted a building permit request, and you've looked at the plans, so I
have to ask, is it that you're now putting yourself in the architectural review capacity, the
same capacity that you question amongst yourselves, that perhaps you shouldn't be in
that role because that's not your charge, that's not your purview. If it's not, and we've
done what we've said- we're keeping the stone structure, which is the major concern of
the board, why would you initiate over our objection. That's where we really don't
understand and I really urge you to go back, at least in your minds, to that June 6`h
meeting and the lengthy conversation you had amongst yourselves and the thoughts from
the attorney and think about it in those terms, and just in closing, to say to you, that I
listened, I went back and listened to those tapes twice and I read through the transcript
once and nowhere during our time, that we sat with you on June 6~', did you ever mention
putting a flag on that property. It wasn't until about 2:20 am during the matters section of
the June 6s' meeting did you discuss it, and it was discussed during that time that perhaps
you should do it. And then again, at the matters section of the June 13`h meeting, did it
AG~N®A 11°~AA ~~.P14361-I~
come up again, where city staff said that we're not going to do that. So again I have to
question where aze our rights as private citizens when you chose to take no action as
David Gehr said to you, we as private citizens had rights when you didn't initiate, when
you took no action. But instead, you wait until we're out of the room and have these
discussions amongst yourselves. And then we're notified on August 22nd, that there's this
emergency meeting 24 hours later. It just seems like a real gross violation of our rights as
private citizens trying to work with you as a board and develop a relationship in a
neighborhood that has now become quite unfriendly to us. Thank you.
BOARD DISCUSSION & DELIBERATION
Sue Ellen Harrison, City Attorney, addressing legal allegations from public comment,
owners' presentation and rebuttal)
Starting with the most recent and working back; this notion of whether it's your chazge
to look at plans or not, or whether it's your charge to be all involved in any kind of
azchitectural review; the initiation process is legislative in nature, which means you can
do anything you want; I don't want to come across as callous, that's a hazd statement to
make without sounding a little callous, but it's specifically designated as legislative in
nature, it was actually not a drafting error. Because it's legislative in nature, you have the
ability to consider whatever you want. Those criteria in 9-11-3D, staff has always felt-
gave you an appropriate framework in terms of your discussion, but that's not all there is.
And finally, there hasn't been any violations of due process, which is not to say that you
may find, because of the process that has occurred, that you're not comfortable with it, or
you are or you're not, I'm not passing judgment on that, all I'm saying is that I don't
believe that due process is really an issue here; this is legislative. There may be equity
azguments, you know, but it's still a legislative action.
(Addressing the issue of tagging): There's nothing illegal about tagging
L. May: And if I can put that into context for those of us whose memories may not be as
keen as mine; No less than nine times during the June 6`h heazing was there discussion by
each of the boazd members of deferring a decision to act until a future date. And I think it
sort of culminated with Kirk's comment that we should wait, allowing the owner to do
the right thing for a while; waiting for a while, meaning that they stated in that hearing
that they weren't sure what they were going to do yet. And so I believe, for you Lisa and
for you Nancy, and correct me if I'm wrong, your decision to defer action was based in
part on that discussion of picking it up at a future date, once the owners knew and once
we could learn what was actually going to happen to that structure. Is that correct?
N. Kornblum: Correct
L. Podmajersky: Well, I mean, it's certainly leaving the door open for future exploration
on the part of the applicant.
L. May: So our decision not to act that evening, at least for you two (Nancy and Lisa),
was based on the intention to revisit the matter in the future, once there was more
information. And then I believe Ms. Clements contacted Tim in mid-June to complain
about the tagging, so I don't believe it was correct that the first they learned about the
tagging was in August sometime.
The heart of the matter is preservation; and I think that the demolition issue is a red
herring. Demolition, as long as we've been discussing this case, has never been on the
table, so strictly we're looking at `is the building meritorious of landmazking based on its
architecture and its history'. And maybe it's impetuous to ask whether it's under threat,
but a building can be under threat through alteration or demolition, so we're really
looking at preserving the historic integrity of the structure. Now we have, in our packet,
some photographs of some stone buildings and a recent case on 6`s street (2958 6`h
Street), where the owner chose to explore methods other than demolition. That building is
an example to me when were should have acted to initiate landmazking because as an
example, the addition to that, I think, is incompatible with the structure. I think it resulted
in a significant lose of historic integrity. And that's what the landmazking is all about. To
me, these other issues are really peripheral. It's not about the politics, whether we're
anticipating City Council support, I think City Council appoints these independent boazds
to stay above the political fray, and look at things with an a-political eye. So I think,
really, the thing we need to be looking at is the same thing we looked at on 800 Arapahoe
~
which is `does this building have substantial merit?' And if it does, then we should
choose to initiate landmazking. It's not a taking, it's not a violation of owner's rights
because nowhere have we stated or does the ordinance state that they can't develop, that
they can't do significant redevelopment. I agree that it's a large lot and it can withstand
substantial redevelopment so I don't think there's any issue of rights being violated; it's
strictly an issue of a particulazly meritorious structure that is deserving of landmazking,
for both any neaz future alterations that might be made or ones well into the future.
K. Watson: I'm a little concerned about this, because I think back to another project that
came in for a demo permit and was referred to the full board by me- which was a
vernaculaz structure, which is what I consider this to be-frame structure. And it was in
my neighborhood, and I felt that it was a truly significant building in terms of the feel. It
wasn't an architectural building, it really didn't have any historical significance, but I did
believe it was fabric of the neighborhood. And the board voted 5-0 or 0-5, however you
say it, to allow the demolition of the building. For some reason there seems to be a
difference in attitude when it comes to masonry buildings as opposed to frame buildings.
And in terms of detailing, this building actually has a lot less detailing and architectural
filigree, as Harvey Hine called it, than the frame building. So I'm concerned about
consistency of application of standard.
The second part of that is when you are talking about the process of waiting to do the
right thing. And in the last discussion, on the June 6th I believe, I was trying to craft some
sort of compromise where we retain the buildings itself, so if the board found it a
landmazkable object, that it would be just around that structure. In regazds to this
pazticulaz hearing, it doesn't matter what you're doing with the rest of the house, is this
thing historic or not? I don't believe, at this point in time, given my reference of what's
happened since I've been on the board to be consistent, I cannot say that that would a
landmazk.
S.E. Harrison: I'd just like to advise the Board to be careful about-- your decision
tonight is whether or not to initiate, not to decide whether or not it is landmazk.
Eh1QA E`fEb~! ttP~~~
K. Watson: I don't think there's probable cause to consider it a landmark.
N. Kornblum: The issues tonight, for our boazd, are clear to me, and according to the
statute, the code sets forth the following questions that we really need to answer, and the
first would be: Would preserving the property at 3231 l la' Street protect, enhance and
perpetuating a building reminiscent of a past era or is the building associated with a
person of local history and does the building provide a significant example of an
azchitectural style of the past and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage and is a
reasonable balance between private property rights and the public's interest in preserving
the city's cultural, historic and architectural heritage being served?
To me, this building cleazly meets these criteria. This is an excellent example of a
working class home built in 1903 by a prominent stone worker and owner of a quarry. It
was built of local, indigenous stone, and it is virtually- entirely intact. Boulder has a rich
history of trades people, miners, and stone workers and this is a reminder of that part of
Boulder's past. Currently, these working class homes aze quickly fading, particularly in
the Newlands azea, and out preservation code clearly also is intended to protect not just
the upper-middle or middle class structures such as the Hannah Barker house, but also a
diversity of the azchitecture and the diversity of Boulder's historic past.
I do understand that this property sits on a sizable lot of 13000 square feet, and I think the
comments we've been getting from the applicant also, everyone keeps saying that we're
judging this by its mass and that's not an issue for us. There are plenty of examples where
the landmarks boazd has allowed sizable additions on modest homes, and I could easily
cite to the public numerous times when this has happened. This property is particulazly
unique because it is so lazge, and there is so much room for a creative way to respect the
historic integrity of the house and yet give the property owner what they need and adapt it
to contemporary uses.
I have to say that I disagree with staff's justification for not supporting the initiation. And
it's troublesome to me that it appears that they aze defining a landmark in the negative-
by the absence of a demolition and that further, staff is referring to demolition in the most
technical sense, meaning that the property owner can alter 49% of the historic house,
,l~ll~k t
i
~P~ ~.~1~~,~1a~0
under this definition of demolition, and that it won't be a demolition as long as it's just
49%.
I also note that the landmarks boazd rarely takes action over an owner's consent. And this
is something I'm not 100% comfortable with, but I do, just for the record, want to note
that most of the time we try to work this out with the property owner, very razely does
this happen, however our board is changed with preserving the historic character of
Boulder, and unfortunately very occasionally a property owner may disagree about that.
So as I stated eazlier, I do believe that this house does have historic integrity and is an
asset that should be preserved.
S.E. Harrison: The issue is initiation
N. Kornblum: Or, initiated, thank you.
T. Plass: I'll go ahead and call on myself. I won't be supporting initiation. And my
position hasn't changed since the last meeting. My issues have to deal somewhat with the
process, but also with the program, and how we're going to apply our landmarks program
and how we aze going to acquire new inventory to become individual landmarks. And it
seems to me that there's an expectation that if you don't have a demolition pending, and I
realized we might argue if that is the appropriate threshold, that the matter won't come
before the Landmarks Board as a matter of course, and I think that there is something to
be said for expectations of property owners that if they don't demolish a historic property
that is not landmazked, they won't be subject to review by this boazd. And that's not to
say that I don't think a property's integrity can't be daznaged by a very large addition. In
fact, during our retreat, I brought a whole sample of pictures of before and after where
there was less than a demolition where I though the historic property and its integrity had
been diminished and I think that is potential here at what we're looking at. But I still
don't feel that it's appropriate for the landmarks board to step in in this situation and I'm
concerned about doing things in a piecemeal, one-by-one fashion where there's no
demolition, I think that we will lose our political capital very quickly if we take this
matter on property by property over the owner's objections. I think that it's not a recipe
ltG't~F~~Ft l~'~1+~ IkP~~~ ~
that will bode well for preservation in Boulder, and so I have real programmatic concerns
about this kind of approach. I do support looking at solutions that would be more
legislative in nature in terms of changing our code perhaps, looking at changing the
thresholds perhaps of what constitutes a demolition, of looking at larger picture issues
involving neighborhood character, bulk-plane restrictions, and I think that in part what
we're facing here is a lack of land use regulations that control neighborhood character.
And it seems to me in part the Landmazks Board is going down that road and I'll reiterate
what I said in the previous meeting that seems that we're trying to do design review on a
property that's not a landmazk. So I have real concerns about approaching the initiation
of a property in this respect and I'll say again that I definitely have concerns about what
large additions can do to small historic properties, I think there is no question they can be
damaged, but I don't support the approach the board is taking or this problem. I'd like to
see a more universal, across the board approach that involves community discussion and
code changes. And I realize that that won't do anything for this house, but I do think
there's something to be said for the fact that the house will be there and we've heard
representation from the Clements that the whole stone house will be there. So again, I
will not be supporting the initiation of this property.
L. Podmajersky: The thing I would love to see come out of the meeting is that, like 800
Arapahoe, there's a vision that working toward preservation actually accomplishes a lot
of different goals and that there can be a lot of win-win situations. And I think 800
Arapahoe took a while to get there, but I think was a good result. I wish that the Clements
had a better impression of what historic preservation can do to a neighborhood and I
think that if you walk through a lot of the historic districts you'll realize that a lot of the
input we've had as a board has really enhanced the quality of the neighborhood. And that
we don't really limit what owners can do a whole lot. We see a lot of projects over and
over again and I can really say that there's a lot that preservation allows. And we're not
making any judgments about that right now but it's the overall taste I have in my mouth
and I wish that that part of the process was more embraced and that there were more
opportunities that were seen in this process, because there are so many, and so many
advantages and those haven't come across. So I feel that's unfortunate and something that
I'll be more conscious of pointing out in the future, because we're not working to be
anybody's enemies, we're working to make Boulder an even more beautiful place than it
is, and keep some of the relics to the past that aze just good historical reminders for all of
us. And actually I will be supporting the initiation to designate. I feel the property is
worth it azchitecturally, culturally; I agree with Tim that perhaps this one-by-one process
is a little painful and a little laborious and I guess I'm not willing to sacrifice a structure
like this in the meanwhile, until we figure out a way to approach designating historical
structures on an individual basis. So I will be supporting the initiation and my view on
this property also is that this is the last chance to give it any kind of protection as a
structure. Once the Clements or whoever, remodel it, and make any adjustments to it, it's
not going to be something that will ever gets landmazked, so demolition of it could occur
in the future, or significant alteration, so I think about the future of this property as well,
so I'm basing my decision on that, in large part, too.
N. Kornblum: I have a question for Chris; Is there any other option we have as a board,
and I suspect I know the answer, but I think all of us aze all highly uncomfortable-I am-
doing this over the owner's consent. Do we have any other creative way to try to achieve
mutually satisfactory goals other than the two options you've presented, or can this
somehow be extended for a period of time, where perhaps- it's not a stay of demolition
where we have the 180 days in which to work out alternatives, and I wish we did,
because I think perhaps that would be something that may be acceptable to them, and to
us. Is there anything like that in this situation where we would still have the opportunity,
where we're not waiving anything but at the same time, we're giving them the option of
working with us without necessarily having to landmazk is at this very moment.
C. Meschuk: I think we discussed this in the June 6`h meeting; the issue before you
tonight is whether to initiate an application, whether to file an application for individual
landmark designation on this property. So you either have to do that or not do that. Those
are the two decisions before you- you do not have any other options.
And it would go back to what was said on June 6`~ again if you do choose to initiate, you
enter into a quasi judicial process, and any contacts with the property owner would be ex-
parte contacts.
T. Plass, question for Sue Ellen or staff
If the board does initiate designation tonight, the ramification of that for the owner is that
the property would be subject to review of any changes to be made, as if it were a
landmark, that's what's in the code, so even though they submitted their building permit
request before the initiation heazing took place, or potential initiation, the fact that it
wasn't issued by the city means that it would be subject to review by the Landmazks
Board or the design review committee.
S.E. Harrison: That's a very cleaz code issue; in fact, David Gehr and I spent time
talking about that today because you have raised that question at the agenda meeting and
the decision of our office is that we feel the ordinance is pretty clear, no permit issues,
once initiation has occurred.
T. Plass: I wasn't really questioning that, I accept your explanation; I just want to make
sure that everyone in the room understood what the implication of initiating landmazking
was. I just want to make clear that once landmarking was initiated, then any changes or
alterations would have to go through the Landmazks Boazd in our regular process as if the
property was a landmark, and that's what the code provides for.
S.E. Harrison: The owner can choose to wait until the process is complete; the intent of
that section was to allow property owners to get going in the process and not wait until
the final designation occurred, you don't know ahead of time how City Council will vote.
That's a bit of what's going on. They can choose to either become part of the process and
apply for a landmark alteration certificate or they can choose to wait until the process is
final. It's their option.
T. Plass: Another concern I have is that one of the good things that the demo ordinance
did was to eliminate that race to the courthouse in terms of who gets where when,
between the applicant and someone who might be concerned about preservation and
filing an initiation form. I'm worried that with the process this boazd is headed down,
we're starting, again, a race to the courthouse in symbolic terms as to who gets where
when and we had a `special meeting' to put this on the agenda and then the short notice
for this meeting. So I'm concerned about that issue as well, its kind of a secondary issue,
but I do think the demo ordinance dealt with that very nicely and so I think we're kind of
headed down that road where we're starting that again.
L. Podmajersky: Although staff has made it very clear that they won't be flagging a lot
again.
L. May: I don't think we'd be in that position again anyway. The flagging was the
mechanism by which you and Nancy decided to defer action and I think probably in the
future, none of us would be inclined to defer action so I don't see that arising.
I would like to touch on something you (Tim) mentioned earlier and that Lisa brought up
and I wouldn't infer from this that this is the beginning of a sequence of events where the
Landmarks Board, on a regular basis, decides to initiate landmazking on individual
structures. I think what we have here is a particularly unique circumstance and 800
Arapahoe, I have heard I believe staff compare this and that similazly, but they are not
similar in any way, so as far as I know, this is the only time we've had this specific
circumstance arise. And it might arise in the future, I don't know, but I don't see this as
being a regulazly occurring event and I don't think it's the beginning of any sort of trend.
L. Podmajersky: I agree with that.
N. Kornblum: Well I would like to continue to throw out there that it would be my
desire to try and work this out with the property owner prior to our taking action, to at
least I guess this is where I was going, originally, prior to my phone call to the property
owner before June 6~h, with trying to discuss what's going on, because I do think there is
f~G1at~Ll; [`i LG~i ~~li~~c
perhaps a lack of information and that our motives aze really quite worthy and in fact, the
property owner could build a very lazge house, and as I said before, this lot could
accommodate that, and I guess it's a part of our process that could be improved in trying
to work with the property owners prior to getting to this point, to really make sure it's
understood that we're out for community character and preserving our historic resources,
but that can also be compatible with what the property owner wishes to do.
T. Plass: So I'm not sure where that really leads us, Nancy
N. Kornblum: I'm just keep trying to find any other alternative, and I don't think there is
one.
L. May: I think we're at the point where we need to put the matter at rest and if we
decide to initiate there still that opportunity in the ensuing period of time until the next
step in the procedure to have those discussions.
S.E. Harrison: And Nancy, our office, as well as the landmarks staff, is very much in
agreement that it is really problematic for the Boazd to get into interactions with land
owners that may ultimately be before you in a quasi judicial heazing. In essence, one
could say you are kind of holding a gun to their head-
N. Kornblum: But what do we do with demolitions, how is that different then? During
that 180 days, we work every closely with the property owners to try and achieve-
L. May: Because it's a prescribed methodology and there is none--
T. Plass: The code says you can reach out during the 180 day period
S.E. Harrison: And the code also allows the applicant to do nothing for 180 days.
J. Hewat: And also you should remember that there is a stay imposed, there can be that
contact with the Boazd provided that there is some kind of an intention to landmazk, if
there's not, then it's not appropriate. And I think that might be the same way here- if
there was an intention to landmazk--
T. Plass: But I really don't think there are any options other than what Chris has laid out,
we can either take no action or the Board can initiate designation. I think those aze the
two possibilities.
L. May: I'd like to make amotion-
K. Watson: I'd like to say one other thing here. I was really hesitant to talk about the
plans and a lot of this seems to be coming back to the plans, which, theoretically should
not be part of your decision tonight, but it's eluded to, in terms of the property owner's
plans, that somehow you don't like the way that it's been done. Well, in those plans, as
their attorney said, they are preserving the stone structure in its entirety. So what this
azgument is resting upon is that it appeazs as if some people do not like the way that stone
structure has been preserved but that's not pazt of the deal here. There seems to be some
confusion of dialogue but I would like to point out that the building, with the plans,
which I did see, the stone structure is still there, and they took the advice regarding the
June 6`h meeting, so they did what we asked.
S.E. Harrison: Actually, Kirk, since this is legislative in nature, yes, you can look at the
plans, you can do anything you want because it's legislative in nature. And if you all
want to look at the plans and talk about it, you can do that.
T. Plass: I think it was actually submitted as part of Mr. Callahan's attachment.
L. May: I guess, Kirk, where you and I might disagree is preservation is not just the
preservation of the structure, it's how any addition or alteration to it relates to it. And
when we deal with actual landmark structures, those aze always the criteria in which we
evaluate things by.
[Motion by L. May, seconded by L. Podmajersky to adopt resolution to initiate
landmazking ofthe property at 3231 11`" Street]
L. May, addressing the motion
A couple of key points; if this goes through, it does not impede the owner's ability to
have significant redevelopment on that site and the preservation of this building is not
limited strictly to the prevention of demolition. The whole purpose of this initiation is to
ensure compatibility of future additions or alterations to it, including protection against
demolition. And I don't have anything else to add.
T. Plass: Lisa, any comments?
L. Podmajersky: Nothing to add.
T Plass: Seeing no other comments, I will bring the motion to a vote
Vote: 3-2 Watson and Plass opposed.
t~~1~E~t (S~f1R #I ~p~~f~ E
Attachment E
November 7, 2007
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
3231 llo' Street Desigt?ation Hearing
T. Plass: We will now move to action item SB which is a public hearing and consideration of an
application to designate the house and property at 3231 11th Street as a local historic landmark,
per section 9-11-5 in the Boulder Revised Code. The applicant is the Landmark's Preservation
Advisory Board, the owners aze Michael and Michelle Clements. At this time I would ask boazd
members for any ex parte contacts.
T. Plass: Alright, I'll begin. I had a conversation with Ms. Clements on the phone, sometime
during the summer after, I'm trying to remember the context of it, I believe it was after the fourth
of no action. I'm a little uncleaz on that, but we discussed a bit of what had happened at the
boazd hearing, I believe. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, that was months ago. I have made a
site visit. I did speak with Dan Corson, I believe, after we decided not to initiate, initially during
this summer. I've had two conversations with the Mayor, Mayor Ruzzin. I was contacted on two
occasions regazding this matter. The fast time was on October 12. We were attending a
basketball game and the mayor informed me that Ms. Clements had called him and asked about
the 11th Street matter. And he said that he would talk to me. So I briefly discussed with him
what was a matter of public record in terms to what happened so faz in the process. And we ran
out of time and didn't discuss it much further. And than I believe it was several weeks later the
mayor called me on the phone. I believe Ms. Clements had called him again and he was calling
just to just find out what the situation was regarding the status of this matter. I think the most
important thing is that at no time did mayor indicate to me one way or the other his opinion
about how this should come out or about any of the substance involved in this issue. So, I just
wanted to make that clear. More exparte contact. I have many emails as Kirk just reminded me,
which I believe aze that are a matter of public record that have also been copied to staff. And if I
didn't so, I also made a site visit. And I believe that I had a phone call early on in this matter
from Bev Potter who is a neighbor so I did talk with her as well.
A¢enda Item #2A Paee #29
K. Watson: I did make a site visit and had a phone call with Ms. Clements, and similar to Tim I
can't remember when it was, I believe it was the summer after the first heazing, when was it?
Basically reflecting some of the things that happened at the meeting and the process. I did have a
site visit and multiple emails, which I do believe are a matter of public record.
N. Kornblum: I spoke to Ms. Clements before the process even began to try to discuss the
situation before taking any action. I had a DRC with the Clements and I have gotten numerous
emails regazding this property and have paid numerous site visits to this property.
L. May: DRC with the Clements, numerous emails, a site visit, a conversation or two with Bev
Potter.
T. Plass: Can you reveal the substance of the conversation with Ms. Potter?
L. May: This was actually before there was a process. Before we had any activity on it, so I
don't know if that even constitutes an exparte context. We were not in any kind of process. So, it
was basically, the substance of it was that, I didn't even know the structure existed. That there
was this lovely stone structure in the neighborhood and that there were some concerns about
whether it was going to survive. I believe there had been at the time a pending demolition
permit.
T. Plass: That does bring up an issue though, Willa, for me just in terms that you aze on the
Historic Boazd. Is Historic Boulder going to take an official position on this matter?
W. 3ohnson: Yes.
T. Plass: I'll ask our legal council if you will need to recuse yourself from this matter.
S. Harrison: Yes, you do. You are still on the boazd? That's what you said, right?
Agenda Item #ZA PaEe #30
T. Plass: I do hope you'll stick azound for the windows issue, unless you have to go. If it gets
too late, that's fine. Nancy, there is one other issue of potential conflict of interest that I would
like to get on the table.
N. Kornblum: I need to disclose that my husband, Michael Shriner, is an attorney in the law firm
of Kaplan and Ernest, where the representative, Iunderstand, for the Clements is an attorney
there. And I believe that I could make an objective decision in this matter. I have read the rules.
I have talked to the City Attorney and I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter. Neither
I, nor any member of my family, have a substantial financial interest in the outcome of this case.
My husband is an associate in the law firm and Mr. deRaismes is of counsel and I would assume
that because Kaplan and Ernest is a professional respected law firm that if any conflict of interest
were to arise, they would put into place an effective ethical wall; And I would also like to
assume that prior to taking on this case Mr. deRaismes would have done a conflicts check as all
attorneys are obligated to do. That's it.
T. Plass: Thank you Nancy. I need to swear everyone in who wishes to address the site that
includes members of the planning staff, the applicant and members of the public. At this time I
would please ask you to raise your right hand and answer the following question. Do you swear
to tell the truth in your testimony to the Landmarks Boazd this evening? All-I Do. We will start
out with a staff presentation.
C. Meschuk: Thank you Tim. So the criteria for the boazds decision this evening as outline in
section 9-11-5, of the Boulder Revised Code, states that the boazd shall consider legislative
intent of the code which is 9-11-1 and also the section 9-11-2, which outlines the authority of
the city council and designate landmazks and historic districts. Sothis evening the Landmarks
board has one of three decisions before them. You may either recommend the designation to city
Council, recommend the designation with modifications or deny the application. If you do
recommend designation to City Council, they must review the application within 100 days of
today. If you deny the application, City Council has an opportunity [o call up you decision
within 45 days after the date of the denial. After that, your decision is final.
Acenda Item #2A Paee #31
S. Harrison: Chris, I just want to make one addition there. One potential fourth option is since
you are the applicant, withdrawing the application is another option, on your list of potential
options.
C. Meschuk: So I think you aze all familiar with the property, located on 11 Stree[ in between
Forest and Grape, right on the northem edge of the Newlands subdivision. Actually, the property
just to the north of that. The northern edge of that property is the northern edge of the
subdivision. This is a photograph of the property from azound 1953, we believe. This is the tax
assessor photograph. The house was built in 1902 by the Chambers family. This is the house as
it stands today. There have been some alterations to the front of the building, most significantly
this lazge gabled front porch roof and the columns. And there's been what we believe to be two
additions to this building. The first, both are in the reaz, and I'm going to spin azound to the back
here. The first one we believe was here on kind of the northeast elevation of the building. And
the second expands to what would be the south side of the building. This would be the second
part of the addition off the back of the house as well as there have been dormers added on both,
north and south elevations of the roof. The chimney on the point of the roof as you can see in the
tax assessor photograph is no longer there as well. In looking through the criteria for Landmark
eligibility, and these criteria were put into place by administrative regulation to interpret Most
specifically, 9-11-1a. So looking at the historical significance of the property built in 1902, based
on assessor data and looking at all the buildings in the Newlands neighborhood its in the oldest
3%. There are about 21 buildings built prior to 1903 according to the assessor out of the 800
plus there in the subdivision. And the association with the Chambers family is significant.
Again, they were the first owners of the property and presumed to be the builders of the house as
well. This is a photograph of the Chambers family; Wallace, Mazy and their children. Wallace's
father was considered apioneer-a 59er in this area and came to Boulder and opened up a stone
quarry, the Chambers Lime and Cement company just outside of Lefthand Canyon on part of
what is now part of Highel Ranch. His son Wallace worked there also. Wallace was a teamster
and was basically a freighter that carried stone and other items up into the mountains. In looking
at the azchitectural significance the building is classified as a vernacular masonry architectural
style with that hipped roof design. And the stonework is really, I think, quite remarkable. It's a
random coursing of the stone, but cleazly there was a lot of artistic caze or craftsmanship put into
Aeenda Item #2A Paee #32
the assembly of the house. The large stone pieces make up the lintels the sills and the windows.
So the house was assembled and put together with quite good care even though it may be
considered small to today's standazds, as well as we believe it to be built by Wallace Chamber
with stone from his stone quarry. We don' believe that the building has any environmental
sign~cance. Although believe the designation would enhance that site. In looking at section 9-
11-1b which talks about balance. We believe that the proposed application does not draw a
reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the cities
cultural historic and architectural heritage. Now the reason I have the slide set up the way it is,
the remainder of the section of that code talks about ensuring the demolition of buildings and
structures would be weighed with alternatives and alterations to those buildings. We don't feel
that applies to those terms alterations and demolitions, talk about items that would be related to
an alteration certificate. Demolition and alteration is a defined term in the code, so in using this
clause related to a designation, we feel that the first part is really what applies. And in looking at
that, we don't believe that the application draws a balance for really three primary reasons. And
that being the primary reasons why we feel the board should deny the application. This building
is not proposed for demolition. There's no threat of demolition and therefore the resource will
not be lost. Most of the designations the boazd has done over the owners-have been done quite
razely for the history of the program that we can find. All of which we believe were associated
with the threat of demolition. And although, you are not required to consider that back practice,
we feel that is something that should be taken into account that this does happen fairly rarely.
The second thing is when the demolition ordinance was put into place in 1994. Prior to that, it
was kind of a race to the courthouse type of situation when there was an anticipated demolition
of a building. You never really knew for sure and so it was either get your demolition
application into the city or somebody get a landmark application in to try and prevent it's
demolition. In 1994 when the demolition was put in place it alleviated that pressure. And so, the
city set up a process in which to screen the buildings to insure buildings with importance to the
cities heritage are not lost and it also set a definition for demolition. The definitions been revised
over the years, but what that definition set up is at a certain point if the building is altered, it's
going to be altered beyond recognition and therefore is not historic anymore. So it set up a
threshold, and through the yeazs of the demolition ordinance being set up in place, we believe it
is set up a community expectation. You are not demolishing a building, you aren't involved with
Aeenda Item #2A Paae #33
a landmarks review for that building. Because this building is not threatened with demolition
there's still that community expectation that Landmazk designation may not be involved.
Obviously the boazd has authority to designate anything and to initiate a designation at any time,
but when it is over the owner's objection for a resource that isn't threatened, we feel that doesn't
balance the public interest with the private property rights. So, that where we as the staff are
really coming from. To be straight and honest, it was a real tough decision for us to go through
and look at things I don't think we have really ever dealt with before in the history of the
program. So with that in our staff recommendation, we recommend the boazd deny the
application, finding that the building is, we believe, to significant azchi[ecturally and historically,
we don't' feel it's in balance with the private property right versus the publics interest in
preserving the city's heritage. So that is how we set up the staff recommendation. With that I'll
stand for questions.
T. Plass: Thank you Chris. Questions for Chris from boazd members?
L. May: I'll save it, it's more of a comment.
N. Kornblum: I have a comment.
T. Plass: How bout a question?
N. Komblum: Question, I'm sorry. If this building were not to be landmazked, one of the
concerns I guess I would have would be the incremental creep of the demolition. Let say that
7000 square foot addition gets attached to a 677 squaze foot house. The 50% threshold has now
changed. Correct?
G Meschuk: Correct.
N. Komblum: So could they add there 7000, 6000, 5000 squaze feet, for any subsequent owner,
could they add that on and than a year later decide we're going to demolish the original house
because it's less than 50% of this new lazger structure.
Aeenda Item #2A Pase #34
C: Meschuk: Yes, although you still have the factors of the demolition set up. Roof azea would
be the entire building. So the roof azea of the existing house as it stands today, as long as it is not
over 50%, yes they could take that roof off. The walls they could, but the front straight facing
wall is always going to be a straight facing wall. To demolish that would always trigger a
demolition.
N. Kornblum: If there were going to have 25 feet more of a street facing wall, this would
become a lot less than 50%.
C. Meschuk: It doesn't matter that's sepazate. There is three pieces to the defmition of
demolition. 50% or more of the roof, 50% or more of the walls, or any wall facing a public
street. So that would trigger a demolition. So, the entire structure couldn't be demolished, but
you are correct.
L. May: But everything but the street facing wall?
C. Meschuk: Essentially if everything else is over 50%, or under I should say.
T. Plass: Any further questions for staff? Seeing none we will move to our next phase of our
heazing which is usually the presentation by the applicant, but that is us, the Landmarks Board
and we will not be giving a presentation. At this time I will invite the owners, or the owners'
representative, to come forwazd. And you will have 10 minutes to give your presentation. I
would please ask that you give your name and address and what your relationship is to the
project.
J.deRaismes: My name is Joseph deRaismes. I'm an attorney of counsel with the firm of Kaplan
and Ernest. I represent the Clements for this proceeding. I will state as a matter of record that we
have avoided having any contact at all with Mr. Schreider in the process of dealing with this
application. Ms. Komblum's observation is quite correct. The reasons for the Clements
opposition aze essentially stated in our protest which I trust you have had a chance [o look at over
Agenda Item #2A Paee #35
the weekend. Principally, of course, our objection is the same as the staff's observation. We
have an applicant, or sorry, an owner here which is opposing landmazk designation and which
essentially saved this structure from demolition. The court may have saved it first, but it happens
that we, the current owners bought it from the people who intended to demolish it. It seems an
odd and frankly an unwelcome thing for the board to be designating a building which is not to
be demolished, essentially the building was saved from demolition by this owners efforts to buy
it, to redesign it. They have worked with the staff and the DRC to try and bring the building in
line with the boazd's regulations and guidelines. And so we oppose designation for all of those
reasons. The other reasons aze outlined. I won't go through my memorandum in detail, but I
will mention a few things. The first is that I want to point out there is no proof at all that the
Chambers had anything to do with the building of this building or the fact that they used their
stone from their quarry to build the building. All of the terms in the staff memorandum, which I
assume is all the historical evidence that staff was able to uncover. I know they looked at it
cazefully. Are that it's assumed the Chambers used their stone, it's assumed that they built the
building. We know is, as a matter of historical fact that they owned building for a total of one
year. We don't know that they built it or not and that frankly, ladies and gentleman is a very thin
historic record on which to base Findings of historical evidence. Secondly, the building is not a
significant style. Your own guidelines refer to the vernacular masonry style as to being one
that's common throughout the city, throughout the state. That itself we also do not agree is a
basis for historical landmarking. We have stated that the building is not threatened, these owners
are quite committed to preserving the original building that's one of the reasons why they bought
the building. It's very important to understand that there is no reason for the board to intervene at
this point. If some later owner decides to demolish it within the terms of whatever ordinance the
board recommends, then council enacts, than you'll get another crack at it. This azgument will
not be an appropriate argument to resist landmazking. The community members who supported,
there aze several emails in your record. A couple of emails that come from a previous time
period. I don't know if they're in this record or not. But I requested that they be placed in the
record. They are from Michael Silverman, and Pat Angelo, I believe. I'm not sure which. Both
of which opposed landmazking in your earlier proceeding, where you were deciding whether or
not to initiate this proceeding. I would ask that those be added to the record if they are not
already part of it. I point out that they do oppose Landmazking although the ones you got
Aeenda Item #2A Pase #36
response to today's heazing all support Landmazking. Those aze from the Newlands
neighborhood, very few of them are from the immediate neighborhood. Those two that I just
mentioned aze from the very same block. In addition, Ms. Clements who will speak to you and
in a minute will present a petition signed by 55 community members of which I believe 14 aze
from the Newlands Neighborhood, all of whom oppose Landmazking the site. So in terms of the
community consideration in this matter, at least the majority of the people that we have in the
record aze opposing landmazking. And of those I received just this afternoon, there are at least
two from Ms. Howazd and Ms...., both of which aze focusing entirely on the size of the building
and as you know from the presentation by your staff and your own knowledge, opposing a big
building is not a basis for landmazking a building. There aze planning ordinances in effect to
deal with the size of building setbacks and the like and landmazking is not a solution to not
wanting a big building on a lot. This is a very lazge lot. 12,000 plus squaze foot lot. It a 677
square foot building. Whatever building you build, if it's anything like modern buildings it's
going to be over 13,000 squaze foot and so the addition is going to be larger than the existing
building. And that fact alone leads me on my last point to say that the Clements wish to resist
landmazking especially strongly because the materials, there a three sepazate guidelines that
seem to preclude a 677 squaze foot addition to this building. Now, you will respond I know that
these are guidelines and may not be binding on you and that's a matter of the authority of the
courts appeals and we'll see how that turns out. My clients wish only to say that they are
concerned about the potential of approving a landmark designation for this site where guidelines
make it very difficult to build. And that it seems is independent basis for resisting landmazking
of such a small building on such a large lot. With that having been said we wish to request that
you look at this matter cazefully and objectively recognizing you are the applicant that makes
things a little more difficult for us. But recognizing that you are looking closely at the staff
considerations which we very much support. We realize this is the case. The owner's wishes
aught to be respected and we respectfully request that you do so and than I'll ask Ms. Clements
to come forwazd and give you a presentation that she has based on her own feeling and
conversations with the neighbors and community residents.
T. Plans: thank you Mr. deRaismes. Marcy how much time is left?
Aeenda Item #2A Paee #37
M. Cameron: Three minutes.
Michelle Clements 3231 11th Street, I'm the property owner and I would like to submit to you,
as Mr. deRaismes did point out, I do have the petitions for you and there aze copies for the rest of
you. But first I would like to thank the staff. I do realize this has been a very difficult process
for all of us. James and Chris in particular have been very patient and kind in explaining the
process to me, so thank you for that. Mr. deRaismes covered pretty much everything I wanted to
say, but I do want to formally say that we do oppose the landmazking. We did sit on the DRC
meeting with Nancy and Leonard. I do appreciate that time. I think their comments did not go
unnoticed. Their comments and recommendations that they made to our plans that we would
probably try to incorporate. So thank you for that time. And fmally, I want to mention that at
the June 6 and Sept. 5th board meetings, Tim Plans consistently stated his concern for how our
property came before you and the process that we've gone through and in my time speaking to
members of the city, the mayor, the manager, other people in the community, Tim is very well
thought of in terms of his preservation mindedness and given the fact that he is so preservation
oriented and he does express concem for our particulaz property. I would just hope your
colleagues would heed the concerns as well. So it's really in your hands. Thank you.
T. Plans: Thank you Ms. Clements
Ms. Clements-and just for the record the petition I did submit to the boazd member and to Chris
Meschuk aze a total of 55 signatures. It does specifically state that they oppose landmazking.
These aze not just signatures at random. These are people that understand the position that we
have been placed in and the process that we've gone through. Fourteen of them aze in the
Newlands neighborhood.
T. Plans: Thank you again Ms. Clements. I will now open the public testimony part of the
heazing. Anyone from the public that wishes to testify, is welcome to come forward now.
You' 11 have three minutes to give your comments. Please begin by stating your name and
address for the record.
Agenda Item #2A Paee #38
Beverly Pottery 3201 11th street in Boulder. I have some additional history. Chris if you would
pass that down. I've high highlighted on the very brief pazagraph it's just to save you the time of
reading through everything at this point. But that history refers to Wallace Chambers freighting
in the mountains and the transport of supplies to the mining camps in the mountains and it has to
do with the city's building of the Albion Dam. You will not find the Albion Dam now. The
Albion Dam is part of the Boulder water shed and city water supply. You'll see on the first page
I don't have a copy myself, but the reference to the last pazagraph. The last teaming we did the
summer of 1911 was hauling supplies in for the building of Albion Dam. We hauled from hill
side and we had to hire five outfits besides out own two and had to haul in 28000 bags of cement
alone. And than you'll see newspaper clippings of how Boulder would build the dam and
employee as much Boulder labor as possible. Lastly, you have a photograph of the dam and I've
kind of high lighted it right in the center of the page, circled that . Let's see, the other thing I
want to point out to you very quickly is that I'd like to briefly touch on the historic inventory for
a record of, which I'm sure you've seen many times and which reflects absolutely no history
what so ever, for this structure. That leaves me to question whether the historic inventory for the
entire neighborhood was done adequately. We truly don't know what we've lost in Newlands,
we truly don't know what the historic nature was of the existing houses. Lastly I want to say I
truly feel that there is an incredible amount of history contained in [his house and I've been over
that with you and I, you know, going back to one of the oldest families in Boulder. I do not feel
that you can deny this history. I feel very strongly that this house should be designated. It is no
way intended to prevent the Clements from building. We know they will build, we hope they
will build a house that will truly please them, but I feel that this house truly needs to be honored
and designated for the entire community. Thank you.
T. Plass: Thank you Ms. Potter.
K. Saunders: Hi there, my name is Kathleen Saunders. I live at 3251 11th Street in Boulder,
that's three doors north of the little stone house that's being considered for landmazk
designation. For over three decades I've worked to support this neighborhood and community as
an Ecocycle block leader, Newlands newsletter distributor, and I'm currently scrambling to get
my block qualified for the Newlands bus pass program. I'm just telling you this to let you know
Agenda Item #2A Paee #39
that I Gaze deeply about this community and have contributed to it repeatedly. I'd like to thank
your staff for uncovering and compiling this wonderful history surrounding this property. I do
disagree with their recommendation however. The fact that the Clements pulled the demolition
permit does not currently protect this property. Any amount less than 50% could be demolished
now and all of it could be demolished in the future, perhaps under new ownership. Probably
other people have had this concern because Ms. Kornblum brought it up. It could be demolished
eventually. In their current house plans the materials seem to be as compatible as possible with
the old house and the beautiful trees, which haven't been mentioned at all in this process.
Shouldn't the stone construction be strongly reflected? And the trees protected? Contrary to all
the disclaimers size and scale do matter. The massive addition they have planned will render
that little stone house totally insignificant in my opinion. Also, if 3231 11th Street is designated
it will be registered and recognized. Be on the map, literally. The history documented by your
staff will be accessible to everyone. Otherwise this historical sight will effectively lost except to
those who picked up you packet this evening. So, I do ask that you proceed with landmazk
designation for the little stone house at 3231 11~' Street. Thank you.
T. Plass: Thank you
A. Daniels: Good evening, I'm Abbey Daniels, Director of Historic Boulder, 1123 Spruce
Street. Historic Boulder's Historic Committee unanimously decided to support the designation
at 3231 11th street and we do concur with staff finding that this structure does meet criteria for
designation because of the azchitecture and historical significance. Built of native stone with
expert craftsmanship, this house not only embodies the pioneer in enterprising spirit, of one of
the eldest sons of a 59er. A family settling here at the time of Boulder's birth. Tn the spirit and
legacy of all of Boulder's pioneer who made Boulder what it is today. A great deal of Newlands
history has been lost forever, but this house is still here and the community deserves to see it
designated. Such designation would preserve the character of this house and a piece of history in
this endangered neighborhood, while still allowing the property owners to build a home that
suites their families needs. Landmark designation does not prohibit redevelopment, but rather, as
you all know, guides it. As well as provides tax benefits for the owners and community and
environmental benefits for the all be preserving this gem while serving this part of our
Aeenda Item #2A Pa¢e #40
architectural heritage. The prior hearing the property owners have stated that in the plans they
submitted the stone structure and its integrity aze to be preserved. Designation is the only means
to ensure that this historic structure is truly preserved and protected for future generations.
Historic Boulder does not concur with staff claim that designating this property draws an
unreasonable balance between property owner rights and the community good. Property outlasts
its predecessors. The average length that someone owns a piece of property is seven years and
the decision you make tonight will have ramifications not only in seven months but seven yeazs,
but in 70 yeazs. You need to consider its impact not only on the current owners but also on the
neighborhood and the entire Boulder community. If the boazd uses eminent threat of demolition
to guide its decision. It's critical to point out that although demolition by raising the stone house
is not planned the azchitectural and historical context can be demolished by how an addition is
handled. The determination as to whether a landmazk eligible building is in danger, does more
than the owner's intent to physically demolish it. The board needs to discuss whether this
building may still be eligible for designation with the planned addition. There aze creative
solutions as to how property owners can build a 21st century home but still honor the stone
house and its significant history. As well intentioned as the property owners may be, without
designation, this house has no protection. Historic Boulder urges the boazd to designate 3231
11th Street.
T. Plass: Thank you Ms. Daniels. We have a question for Ms. Daniels from Ms. Komblum.
N. Komblum: Has Historic Boulder had a chance to talk to the property owners about creative
idea of building?
A. Daniels: No, we have not. You know we have, other than my attendance at DRC one
Wednesday, we and the Clements were there. We have not had that opportunity. We have as a
board very loosely discussed how we like Aspen has handled and there wonderful historic
resources. Maybe concentrating on a connector kind of sepazating a large addition from the
historic resource.
N. Kornblum: Thanks
A¢enda Item #2A Paae #41
T. Plass: Thank you Ms. Daniels. Any other questions?
K. Watson: You mentioned Aspen where there was a connector between the older building and
the newer building. But this is predicated on having a totally different set of design guidelines.
Would you file an amicus brief if this property was designated as a landmark to support
modification guidelines for this property? How would you handle that situation and if you did it
for this property than there is precedent for other situations where you may not support it. So
how would you handle that?
Ms. Daniels: We didn't go into great detail, just a very kind of casual remark at the end of a
Historic Preservation Committee meeting at the end of October. It was just an idea to draw upon
if we did sit down with the owners and say this is one thing you might want to consider. I know
that something very similaz, not quite, I can't remember specifically, but the property at 704 16th
street, Mr. Lau's property. He can only build forwazd on the property. He has a sepazate
structure better is some sort of connection. Something more along those lines we would possibly
have them consider.
K. Watson: Thank you.
T. Plass: Are there any other members of the public that wish to address the board? Mr. Calahan,
I'm a little uncomfortable with you speaking now.
Mr. Calahan: As a member of the public.
T. Plass: A member of the public you are not. You are speaking for the owner's team?
Mr. Calahan: Well I'm a member of the public.
T. Plass: Very well.
Agenda Item #2A Pase #42
C. Calahan: I'm Cyle Calahan. I'm an azchitect in Boulder. 21 30th street and I would like ask
the boazd to support staffs recommendation and not landmazk the structure. Aside from my
personal involvement with the project, I just left the meeting here and considering the qualities of
the home we reviewed at 1037 Pine, Mazk Trumbles home and all the fine qualities of that, I just
don't see this home, although it is a clean nicely constructed house, I just don't see those
azchitectural qualities that we just talked about for 1037 Pine being eligible for state and federal
designation and I'm not seeing the similazities. So, I'm just mentioning that as a member of the
public and not related to the project. Thank you
T. Plans: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to address this item? Seeing no one. At
this time I usually give the applicant a chance a rebuttal. The applicant will not be doing a
rebuttal, but I will offer the owner or the owner's representative three minutes at rebuttal, if you
wish. And again I ask that you please limit your rebuttal to the remarks that were made during
the testimony.
J. deRaismes: I believe this will be very brief. I just wan[ to call to the boazds attention and put
in the record that on the very night that this matter was approved for the boazd bringing it
forward, there were two projects where the board allowed the applicants to withdraw their
demolition permits so than did not consider any further action. We ask openly and ask the boazd
to ask itself why this property should be treated differently than other properties where routinely
the property is not considered for land marking once demolition application is withdrawn.
T. Plans: I'm not sure that was within the scope, but we'll consider it. Thank you Mr.
deRaismes. Very good, I'll bring the matter back to the boazd for deliberation and action. Who'd
like to start out our discussion this evening?
L. May: Mr. deRaismes, I'd like to address your last question. The answer is, at least from my
prospective, I don't know why. I don't recall the specifics of those cases, but I can tell you that
as a result of other cases where we have decided not to pursue Landmarking after demolition
applications were withdrawn, that I personally, I think some other board members, regret that
decision because in fact the result was substantial loss of integrity to the historic structure. So
Aeenda Item #2A Pa¢e #43
that in part, at least for me is a motivation to pursue landmazking of this structure. I have,
actually, a couple of questions for Chris. The property rights issue. How is it different, say, on
this project than on 1936 Mapleton? One that we also recently also designated over an owners
objection. Why is the property rights issue different here than it is there? Why wasn't it an issue
when that project
C. Meschuk: That building was proposed for demolition and this building is not.
L. May: Right, but what impact does that have on property rights? Your property rights are your
property rights. Whether your demolishing or not demolishing, I don't see the connection
between the property rights and the demolition or lack there of.
C. Meschuk: So it has to go with the statement of 9-11-1b which is balancing private property
rights with the publics interest in preserving the city heritage and if the building at 1936
Mapleton was not designated it would be demolished thereby not preserving any heritage
because the building would be gone. Because this building at 3231 11th Street is not being
demolished if landmazk designation doesn't occur, the building will still be standing there.
L. May: That sort of presumes that demolition is the soul means of damaging the integrity of a
historic structure. That there is no other means of its integrity being compromised.
C. Meschuk: I take that as a statement.
L. May: It's a question, laughing...doesn'tthat assume?
C. Meschuk: You can read it either way. I think the way we have analyzed the case is that
because the building is not threatened with demolition we feel that it is not balancing private
property rights with the publics' interest.
L. May: Okay, I also have another question and this relates to the owners representative. About
the assumptions made and the historical links of certain persons and events. In general as we
Aeenda Item #2A Pa¢e #44
deal with these historical properties, how much is absolute fact? Not specifically this project but
in general. How much assumption versus absolute guazanteed fact when we go through the
process of evaluating these projects?
C. Meschuk: I don't think I can give you a percentage or it's hard to quantify.
L. May: Is it common, or uncommon?
C. Meschuk: It vazies case by case. What we try to do is make sure that in our analysis it's clear
which parts aze know historical facts and which ones aze inferred and in a case like this one the
Chambers owned the property. This house was built during the ownership of the Chambers by
tax assessor records. The property taxes increased that yeaz, or the following year, I should say.
And we know the Chambers owned a stone quarry and this is a stone house. Yes, there is a
inference that the Chambers aze the ones that built the house using their stone, but I think that is
not an impractical assumption.
L. May: So in the preservation world, it's not an uncommon practice to sort of connect the dots
to inform about the history of a property without being absolutely sure about it?
C. Meschuk: In a case like this one we would, in using your terms, connect the dots but we
always clarify that it's assumed that they built the house using their stone.
L. May: What I'm getting at in cases where you might be recommending what ever criteria your
basing it upon landmazking, would that also include cases where your making certain inferences
versus being absolutely sure about every fact of its history?
C. Meschuk: I'm not sure I understand exactly what your question is, but correct me if I don't
answer it cleazly. The analysis we've done on this project is the same as the analysis we would
do on any other property.
Agenda Item #2A Paee #45
L. May: I understand that. What I'm getting at, in the art world, for instance, there are certain
assumptions and linkages made about artwork that in many cases anyone can't say for sure
occurred. It becomes sort of a matter of record of that work of art. So, in cases where you might
be recommending landmazking, are there cases where it would be appropriate to recommend
landmazking where you had the same level of knowledge and surety about the history as you do
on this one?
C. Meschuk: Yes.
L. May: Okay. So anyway, that concludes my question so I'll comment on where I stand on
this. I did want to make one comment also, actually about [he letters that we're addressing the
mcmansion issue. To insure the owners and all those on boazd that we cleazly understand that
this is not a mcmansion issue we're dealing with. This is totally on the merits of this particulaz
structure. So getting into the staffs recommendations as you might have surmised, I continue to
disagree with the I guess the primazy thrust of the staffs recommendation is the property rights
issue, I'm not really comfortable with the suggestion that properties are really only landmazkable
if they're under the threat of demolition. As I've said before, and as Nancy said eazlier, and as
public speakers said, there's more than one way to compromise the integrity of a historic
structure. We have numerous examples. In fact, on our last retreat Tim brought numerous
photographs of unsuccessful alterations to historic structures. None of which were demolished,
but basically the result of the alterations was an unfortunate, permanent loss of a resource.
As faz as the property rights issue goes, I don't really see the, firs[ of all, we've not precluded
any substantial alteration to this property. Any substantial redevelopment. We've said that in
previous hearings. We've said that in DRC meetings. The guideline issue you know is as the
representative said, i[ is a guideline it's not a hazd and fast rule. They are regulazly dealt with
according to the specifics of the project that's being governed by those guidelines. I guess the
main issue here on the landmazking is it's not a demolition issue. That's a red herring. The issue
is, does this property merit landmazking according to its history and its architectural heritage? I
believe it does. While it is a vernaculaz style, which is common, it's unique and particularly well
executed example of a vernacular style. It's very unique. As you pointed out, it's one of the 3%
oldest properties in Newlands. I think its history, it's age, its architectural merit all warrant
Agenda Item #2A Pa¢e #46
consideration for landmazking. This is where the demolition doesn't really apply. ff this
property has such merit than it should be protected and it's not what the current owner might do
but as what was pointed out eazlier, what subsequent owners might do once we cross that 50%
threshold. You know, where an addition is more than double the size of the existing house. It
ceases to have protection any longer. So, our boazd exists for the purpose of protecting
resources, it doesn't exist for protecting ones that aze only under threat of demolition.
T. Plass: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up so other board member can have a chance to
speak. You can certainly have another chance.
L. May: I think I can wrap up. I'm not going to get into some of my other comments. Anyway, I
disagree with the staff's assertion that we are not striking the appropriate balance with the public
rights versus the community benefit. The restraint that landmazking may oppose on the property,
I don't see as being any different that the zoning code, the solaz access ordinance, the building
code. It applies to how one uses their property. Thus I would continue to support the
landmazking of this.
T. Plass-Very good...Anyone else like to comment?
T. Plass---I'll go ahead and comment. I won't be supporting the landmarking. It's a tough call
for me because I didn't worry about the historic integrity of the building. And I certainly think
there are 2 problems to the test we are looking at tonight. One of them is 9-11-1a, which is, does
the building have the right stuff to be a landmazk? And I think the answer is cleazly yes. I
wasn't persuaded at all by the testimony that this building wasn't of landmazkable quality. I
certainly think that it is. Where I run into problems is 9-11-1b, where you do the balancing. I
think staff has articulated very well the issues involved in personal and private property rights.
The publics interest in preservation and Leonard brought up 1936 Mapleton and that was a
recommendation that the board made to council over the owners objection and I supported that
wholeheartedly. I thought it was absolutely the right thing to do. So, when I was thinking about
this property I compazed the 11th street property to the 1936 Mapleton and I think one of the key
things for me is the threat of demolition. There the resource is going to be completely lost. It
A¢enda Item #2A Pase #47
was going to be scrapped off. There was going to be no vestige of it. From here I understand the
materials that have been presented. The front of the building is going to be saved. The walls on
the side are going to be saved. The roof form is going to be saved. I think that is a big
difference. Also, 1936 Mapleton was in a potential historic district. The potential Whittier
historic district. This building is in Newlands, which doesn't have that potential. When I did my
site visit. When I walked from my own house all the way through the Newland neighborhood.
What's happen to the neighborhood, I don't think it's even going to be a historic neighborhood
with the changes that have occurred there. And also in contrast 1936 was a real anchor house in
the Whittier district. It sat on a real prominent corner. A good location. This house doesn't do
that either. I do have concerns about the historic integrity with the building of the addition. The
balancing that's supposed to go on in the code, I come out that we shouldn't recommend
landmazking to the council pazticulazly because the building in not in a potential historic district.
I have other concerns as well. They aze related but perhaps aze a policy concern. What does this
mean if we recommend to the council that this landmazking go forwazd? What does it mean for
our demolition ordinance? Right now we have incentives in place For property owners not to
demolish their properties. They know that if the save at least 50% of their historic property, they
won't be coming in front of the landmarks board. We have ---start down this road of
recommending landmarking properties that azen't under the threat of demolition. I don't know,
one of the results would be that we could hear the bulldozers revving up. I am concemed about
that. My second concern has to do with the standazds we use to initiate. It's very clear when we
have a building that is threatened by demolition what threshold we are going to look at. When
does a matter come before the boazd? A demolition of 50% of various aspects of the building
with a front facade that cleazly comes before the boazd. But I'm concemed in this case where we
don't have and application that meets the demolition requirement. What's the standard that we're
using? What is the standazd that we're using to determine if this should be landmazked or not?
Are we applying the design guidelines? If this were a landmazk or is it the opinion of boazd
members that, yah I think the addition your proposing is going to be detrimenental to the historic
integrity of the building. I think it's okay. You know it when you see it. Applying a standazd list
process to try to ascertain what triggers this process. I think in this case there was concern, I
believe this process we are in is happening in lazge part to the proposed addition. So, I just threw
that out there as a concern and I do think we have a problem. I am worried about what happens
Agenda Item #2A Paae #48
to old houses like this. As Leonazd said, I did make a presentation at our landmazks boazd
retreat, which showed our failures at our demolition ordinance. I definitely believe we have
holes in our demolition ordinance that allow for inappropriate additions that destroy integrity. I
think we need to look at legislative fixes for the demolition ordinance and we need to look at
neighborhood restrictions, I think both plain restrictions that we can use with a broader brush
than trying to pick out individual properties that don't come through a standazd process. For all
those reasons I'm going to oppose the recommendation of Landmazking to the council. That
said, regardless of how this comes out.. If the boazd votes in favor of recommendation of
landmazking, obviously I look forwazd to ------local landmazk. But if the boazd votes to not
move this forwazd the code also allows fora 45 day call up period for a discretionary review
council to take a look at this. So I think it's a really important issue. So either way if we were to
vote for or against the council can have a crake at this. This will be brand new territory for us to
designate a historic building over an owner's objection where there's no threat of demolition. I'd
certainly really like to heaz from the council as what their feeling about this. I'm saying there is a
potential for lost integrity. All that being said and I' 11 wrap up, I' m not going to support the
landmazking.
K. Watson--I don't quite have as much to say as you do, but my comments really, I'm trying to
think about the structure on its own merits. Is it a landmark or is it not with out the
consideration? I'll get to that later. It's a cute little vemaculaz stone building which may or may
not have some historic significance, as Ms. Potter pointed out there is nothing historic listed
about it on the inventory card. As Mr. De Raismes pointed out there is maybes, probables,
there's some fuzz there. In general it's a simple vernaculaz structure and what troubles me is that
there have been several other small simple vemaculaz structures that have come before the boazd
in terms of a demolition permit to demolish it. The vote was to allow those buildings to be
demolished. They aze particularly framed structures. Somehow "ohh, gee, stone structures"...
But both aze vemaculaz structures. So, there's a precedent in terms of allowing the small
vernacular building to be demolished in terms of it's significance. I agree with Mr. Callahan in
terms of, it's certainly not the grand 6000 squaze foot house that was discussed eazlier this
evening. I'm also concerned about the code which is 9-11-1b which is to balance property rights
with preserving the history. This gets to the demolition part of it and as I said at the original
A¢enda Item #2A Pa¢e #49
meeting way back, when the intent is to preserve a building, the rational design solution is to
incorporate this building into the structure. One can agree or disagree with respect to how it's
being done. I know this is but I think the overriding thing here is that the owner has a best
faith effort in terms of preserving the property, preserving this particular structure, the work
forms and the original front of the building and because of that I don't think it's appropriate,
along with the reasons before, to designate it unilateral.
T. Plass--Thank you.
N. Kornblum To me this case is one of the most difficult cases I've had in my 3 yeaz 101/2-----
and Ican not convey how many hours I've spent trying to figure out what's the right answer.
The case against landmarks typical balancing act between community benefits and property
rights. Contrazy to the Clements's statements this meets all the criteria to landmazk. The issue I
grapple With is the overriding language that it does not intend to address to protect every old
house. Everyone has seen that and everyone has commented that reasonable balance between
private property rights and community rights is answered. And to be perfectly honest I' d hope
through this process the property owners could have ended up with a landmazk ---house and the
neighborhood ----In addition they could have had perhaps a sizable addition or perhaps and
entirely separate house. Through the process they could have taken advantage of tax credits.
They could have taken advantage of waivers and various ----exemptions by going through the
process. I have to say I'm disappointed in the process for many reasons and in the future I hope
that the city and the boazd and work to improve it. The property owners have asserted that they
did not intend to demolish the property. No demolition application has been submitted. This
would mean that more than 50% of the house would have to remain. Perhaps this maybe more
appropriate in this case. Another equally if not more compelling issue is that this is a property
that is not in a potential historic district in Boulder's long range plans. In fact it is pretty much a
new This is a much different case than a property that is in a much different historic
district. Whittier or University hill, I walk the street and it's so apparent that there are so many
vernacular old homes that we aze becoming off limits these days for a demolition permit. How
aze we going [o handle this onslaught of pressure to demolish these ----homes? I do not
personally support [he proposal to build a 4500 sf addition to a modest 600 sf house, with a
A¢enda Item #2A PaEe #50
breeze-way and a 3 caz gazage. This is certainly not in keeping with the neighborhood chazacter
and most likely isn't keeping within Boulder energy policies. These concerns are for other
boazds and committees and I hope that city council will take a good look at them. So, after lots
of consideration I will not be supporting the landmazking of this property, based on the fact that
the owners do not consent , it is not in a potential historic district and it does not constitute a
demolition.
L. Podmajersky--I actually, maybe it's a moot point at this point, but I think it's worth saying
that I have absolutely no problems with ---the designation of this property. I actually think [hat it
would be a great conversation to have with council regarding the demolition ordinance. I don't
preserve that a 49% demolition is no loss of historic fabric than a 50% demolition. Actually, I
think it is about 100%. I think the loss in that 1% is dramatic and it's not a loss that I'm willing
to accept and a choice I'm willing to make on behalf of the community, the immediate
community and the community at lazge. I feel that it's unfortunate. I saw a great example of a
house on 40`s and Oxford. I thought of the Clements. I thought of their project. I don't even
know what their proposing. I don't know the size; I don't know the looks of it. I know some of
the issues that we've all been discussing. I saw an old store house on the corner of 40`s and
Oxford and the people had built a connector and a really lazge house right next to it and it looked
fabulous. I thought the material choice paid homage to the old stone house; it made it rise to the
top. The old stone pool house was under a 1000 ft and the other house was probably 4 or 5000
feet. I feel that it's unfortunate that there isn't vision in this particular situation and to find a way
to keep integrity of a historic structure and have the Clements see that they can actually get what
they want. Personally, if I were on design review committee when that project was reviewed I
think that I would have, and I think that we may have even talked about this, the guidelines are
guidelines. There is an exception to be made for the unusually large lot. There are exceptions to
be made on that lot. They aze only limited by creativity and imagination. That's the real loss
here. Real imagination and vision. For the house to maintain the full integrity of this structure,
not 49% but 100% of the structure. If you want to add a little breezeway in the back. I feel that
it is a real loss to the community to not have more creativity, more vision in exploring that
option. I feel very strongly that it's a permanent loss of the fabric. My concern from the very
beginning is beyond tonight we'll designate this property. The most we'll ever be left with is the
Aeenda Item #2A Paae #51
front facade. It's hazdly the essence of anything one could recreate historically. I think it's really
significant that it's one of only 3% of homes remaining in Newlands that were built prior to
1403. We'xe all judging that to be less significant because contextual there is no context-----. -
3% less and I actually think, I'm not about to judge that that's less an entire proposed district.
So I have a lot of concerns about some of the premises that my colleagues are using to make
their choice and I actually have a lot of concerns about the demolition ordinance and that's the
49% triggers, the 50% triggers the demolition where 49% still represents irreparable
recognizable loss of historical fabric. I think that's all I have to say. It's very unfortunate, I think
there's a very, very likely possible solution for, there's so much land there. That house is such a
fantastic piece of architecture and stonework. I think there's so much room for options to be
explored that haven't been explored. I'm disappointed at that. So, I would absolutely, whole-
heartedly support this designation. I think it leaves a lot of room for personal property rights to
be expressed. I don't have any problem, you know, feeling that the Clements could have a very
large portion of what they what, or any other subsequent property owner. Quite frankly, we
don't know if they want to sell the house tomorrow. There's really no guarantee's here except
the permanent landmazking of this property. But, I don't feel that it infringes on property rights
because, I think our board on numerous occasions, has expressed a lot of flexibility and a lot of
sensitivity to what the Clements want and their desires. I think taking a corporative, at least we
did in the past, a corporative resolution, so anyway.
K. Watson-I'd like to make a motion...
S. E. Harrison-I need to comment first. Just a couple quick things. One, Tim, you have
standazds, 9-11-1 and 9-11-2. There aze lots of descriptions -in the ordinance -----to pit your
opinion on. I was a little surprised at your statement that there ---a standazd for this process. I
wasn't sure where that came from. Code clearly says this is standazd and this is what you rely on
and look at. The other comment I need to make came from, actually, from the Clements.
Wondering what 9-11-8 means. saying that no person shall submit an application, it's the same,
with in a year. They laid out 2 scenarios. If you deny and the Clements decide to submit a
landmazk application, can they do so within a year? I think that's a really good question and I
think it's really problematic because, frankly, probably not because it says no person and their a
Aeenda Item #2A Pa¢e #52
person and you all were the applicant. It's kind of a different process. The other question they
were interested in is if you deny landmazk application, it appears to be 3 votes on the table. They
submit a demolition application that starts the demolition process. Let's say you have that
process and you decide to designate. You can't, because you can't do that within the one year
deal. You're the applicant, it's the same proposal. You would also be held to the one yeaz
concept. This kind of turns it on it's head a little, but we're not used to this. You aze actually the
applicant. I just wanted you all to understand that in denying what is happening here, and you
have all said, there's no way to insure there's no demolition. I wanted you to be cleaz that it
would appear that the way the ordinance is drafted, and I kind of went through it, I'm having a
hazd time coming up with any other azgument other than they can file for demolition tomorrow
and demolish the house. So I wanted you to procedurally understand all that, which leaves the
final question and is what I pointed out to Chris. If Demolition is what you are all basing this on.
Maybe one option is to withdraw your application. Than you don't have any of these one year
deals. If they submit a demo permit, you can than review it as all demolition permits and your
not stuck in this difficult little quandazy of the one yeaz problem. I appreciate the Clements bring
that up. This is to say, this has been a pretty unusual case. We keep diving into the ordinance
and kind of running azound in circles on some issues. There maybe arguments to be made, but
that is the best advice our office can give you.
N. Komblum-Well that significantly has an impact on my decision, because I am basing it
lazgely on the fact that the property is going to be demolished.
L. Podtnajersky-what would your decision be than?
N. Kornblum-I would propose that we withdraw the application.
S.E. Harrison-And than Tim, as your comments, then it doesn't go on to council
T. Plass-right, well my concern is for all the papers and folks that have been interested in
promoting landmark can haze left with not much recourse. Is that right?
Agenda Item #2A Paae #53
S.E. Harrison-I don't' have an opinion about this; this is not what I'm trying to say.
T. Plass-I'm just telling you what is a matter that can be done procedurally, the option of
appealing to council ------because you have the final decision.
S.E. Hazrison--Your absolutely right
K. Watson- This may be a neophyte question, but can council begin the designation process?
S.E. Han•ison-Yes they can.
L. May-So someone could petition them apazt from us.
K. Watson-they can do anything they want...
J. Hewat-as could Historic Boulder.
S.E. Harrison-If it was Historic Boulder it comes back before these folks I'm pretty sure
council initiated those. I' 11 have to look at that.
T. Plass-I have another question. Is the landmazks boazd different from city council? Or aze we
both part of the city? Is the applicant really the city?
S.E. Harrison-I would say that you all were the applicant, that this boazd is the applicant
because throughout the ordinance there is a constant distinction between council and this boazd.
And since you aze the applicant, You have the authority to the power, to withdraw the
application. Yes, that's a good question, Tim, I'm sure there's all sorts of.... I think that's a
tough question, my initial reaction is for the purposes of the Landmazks board is constantly
separate in the ordinance.
K. Watson-Can we have a discussion about this...
Aeenda Item #2A Paae #54
T. Plass-Absolutely.
N. Kornblum---would there be a possibility the property owner could agree not to file a
demolition permit within a yeaz? Would that give us any breathing room?
L. May---I don't see the substantive difference in...
N. Kornblum-than it would give the public the opportunity to go to city council.
K. Watson-Well, here, if we withdraw it's the one yeaz time limit doesn't apply. But at the
same time, council can review this on their schedule.
S.E. Harrison- they could accept a petition from somebody else
K. Watson-if we deny, than the clock starts. If the demolition permit comes in than council can
take their own steps. Presumably we can petition council as well.
T. Plass-this is a new wrinkle for me. I'm a bit surprised by the advice we're getting now.
S.E. Harrison---It's difficult because the code can't contemplate what's going on here. The code
didn't contemplate what would happen if you were the applicant. What happens in that yeaz?
You know, what would happen with a demolition permit? These sections are all pretty absolute
in their statement and as with a lot of things we talked about in this context; it doesn't make a lot
of sense. That's the best reading that we can put in. Now, you can always ignore it and go ahead
and see what happens. I'm really not trying to say; that its my opinion.
T. Plass -thank you Sue Ellen. Lets have a little bit of the boazds discussion about what that
means. My position, I've stated it, it would be a good chance for council to review this. It's an
important question and I do think there's a potential loss of integrity to the resource. I respect
the amount of effort you folks from the neighborhood and proponents of landmarking have put
Agenda Item #2A Page #55
into this. I hate to truncate the process at this point. I see that Mr. De Raismes has a point and I
will open the floor briefly and ask you to come forward
J. De Rasimes - We would be willing to stipulate as the owners we would not apply for a
demolition permit within 12 months from today.
T. Plass -thank you Mr. De Raismes, Sue Ellen?
L. Podmajersky-I guess I'm not sure what...
T. Plass-I think I'll give my interpretation of what Mr. De raismes said. That is, that we can go
ahead and have a up or down vote on the motion-possible motion. And I should say that, that
would preserve the right to go to council, but we wouldn't have to down size if the owner came
back as the applicant for a demolition. Not being able, at the landmarks boazd to initiate or
recommend landmarking. It would be within the one year period, so what their proposing is
stipulating it won't bring a demolition. Is that right? Will you please step forward? I feel this is
an important discussion, so I'd like to be sure we get it on the record. So we have Ms. Clements
and Mr. De Raismes.
M. Clements-the reason that I ask that question was when we had the DRC meeting, Nancy and
Leonard made the comment that they didn't care if the whole structure on the back went down.
That would take off more than 50% and that's why I asked that question. It was never, ever to
touch the stone part. Let me make that very, very cleaz. All of your concerns about the historic
part, which is the stone, we have always said that we intend to keep the integrity of that. That
has not changed. The only reason that question was brought up was merely just because that
conversation about that white structure, which I think we even mentioned in the September Sa'
meeting was brought up. It was very clear and our understanding from the board was that the
white part on the back of the house; that you guys didn't have a problem if we took it down.
So I ask the question if we wanted to take off all of that white part and it constituted more than
50%, how would that be handled? Is that handled by a demolition permit request? Does it go
Agenda Item #2A Paee #56
back to you guys? He wasn't clear so he asked Sue Ellen if we chose to do that, how do we
handle it. It was never, ever to teaz down the stone part.
T. Plass-So, Mr. De Raismes, will you repeat your offer?
J. De Raismes-Yes, our offer is to stipulate on the record that if there is a denial tonight, these
owners will not apply for a demolition permit within in one yeaz of tonight
N. Kornblum-it sounds like you' Il need to get the white part; that rear part...
J. De Raismes-that is the understanding. It does not require a demolition permit because it is
not part of the historic part.
L. May -That's the quandazy, would it constitute enough removal to meet the definition, does it
fit the definition? Is that correct?
C. Meschuk-that's correct.
L. May-I think all we need to do is stay away from the term demolition .
T. Plass-my other concern is---
S.E. Hazrison-let me clazify one thing, Joe, the ordinance states the effective date is the date of
the final action. The offer needs to be one year from the fmal action.
J. De Raismes-Which is what, one yeaz from the end of the call-up period?
S.E. Harrison-yes the end of the call period.
Agenda Item #2A Paae #57
J. De Raismes-that's fine as long as it's cleaz. This is a concession we would give if the
application is denied. Obviously if it is not denied we will deal with what ever we have to deal
with.
S.E. Harrison - I think we understand that.
J. De Raismes -So its one yeaz of the effective date which is 45 days from tonight, right?
S.E. Harrison-lets just say fro the final date of the action, that there are so many effective dates
in here...
J. De Raismes- and to clarify the other point, this concession applies to the historic structure.
There might well be a need to demolish portions of the structure; I don't know if this is under
50%, but our concession is with regazd to the historic stone structure, which as the staff has
commented is the historic structure.
S.E. Harrison-and it is 45 days
K. Watson~loes that include the roof above it?
L. Podmajersky-I don't know that we could really say that because, because I don't think
we've had a discussion separating out the white structure from the stone structure in reference to
a demolition.
J. De Raismes -Well I guess I'm going to make it clear. My offer is with regazd to the historic
stone structure. If you decide not to accept it that's your decision, but we can not agree we will
preserve what the staff memo concedes as anon-historic structure.
L. Podmajersky-I just want to have clarity about what we aze agreeing to...
A¢enda Item #2A Paae #58
T. Plass -let me be sure I have it clear. We have a stipulation from you for a demolition permit
that would include any portion of the stone house?
J. De Raismes: yes, and the roof and that stands from the effective date ---denial after 45 day
from tonight. In order to clazify this so there is no possibility of confusion, my recommendation
would be that Sue Ellen and I put together a written stipulation by the owners and by the board
chair...
N. Kornblum, umm, a comment...
T. Plass, sure, Thank you Mr. De Raismes.
N. Kornblum-Leonard just brought up a point that if by chance the property changes hands we
would want some kind of provision that this would go with the property. I don't know if you
could do that by law.
J. De Raismes- I cant..
N. Kornblum -because if the property is sold...
T. Plass--please, please, your out of order.
J. De Raismes - I can't give that stipulation today. I don't represent that potential person, the
property for sale as a result of this proceeding. That's where we stand. These owners intend to
renovate this structure and are willing to make the concessions. That's the only people I
represent.
L. May- The problem is, if I may say, 3 of us have made a decision that because it's not under
imminent threat, you know, current threat of demolition, that we aze not willing to go forth with
a designation as a landmazk. At the same time, you're trying to protect the historic stone
structure for a certain period of time because of all the issues Sue Ellen brought up. But for me
A¢enda Item #2A Paee #59
the issue is what happens 2 yeazs down the road or a year down the road or even 6 weeks from
now if they sell the property? And that owner wants to demolish. I don't quite understand the
concern about demolition because in the near future because if it's going to get demolished in a
year from now or 3 yeazs from now it doesn't matter. It gets demolished. I don't' understand
the concern right now about any potential for demolition in the next yeaz, six months.....
J. Hewat, Sue Ellen, If it did change hands, and the new property owner came in to apply for a
demolition, would that then constitute a new application?
L. May -Cause we're the applicant not the owner.
S.E. Harrison -The statute says person... it's not connected to the demolition. It's connected to
whether or not your landmazking it. I mean, you could have a deed restriction.
L. May -You know, it seems unduly complicated. If we're not wiling to land mazk it, we should
just...
T. Plass -No, I think there is a difference in thinking it should landmazked and not thinking it
should be demolished. I think there is a real difference.
N. Komblum - So Sue Ellen, I have another question. Is there anyway if we withdraw the
application, is there any other way it can go to city council for the public to have it reviewed? Is
there a way you can put it on their agenda?
S. E. Harrison-yes, the public can petition council
N. Kornblum-how do they do that?
S. E. Harrison-umm, well...
Aeenda Item #2A Paee #60
N. Komblum-well I don't know that that's necessazy, but there's an opportunity for the public to
go and appeal. I guess it's not in the action that we would betaking.
K. Watson-Can we petition them to put it on the agenda to review...
S.E. Harrison-no you act. You withdraw, approve or deny or That's what the ordinance
says. I'm not sure what you are asking, aze you saying that you don't want to make a decision
and you want to bump it to council to make the decision?
K. Watson-No, the question is, if we withdraw, the one yeaz periods don't apply? Therefore
there is certain implicit protection in the ability of the boazd to once again establish a procedure
if a particulaz type of demolition came up. But at the same time there is a need a desire to have
counsel understand the proceeding this evening. We would like to accomplish both of those
things. Did I say that alright?
T. Plans - I understood it.
K. Watson- The trick is how do we make this happen in the next 6 minutes?
S.E. Han•ison- If you want council to act on this issue and you don't withdraw your application
you either approve landmazking or you deny landmazking. Then there is a 45 day call up period.
You can't make council do anything, but to call it up-the board wants to pass a resolution
saying you want to call it up I suppose you could do that.
L. Podmajersky - hn not rewally sure why do you want council to deal with that your not willing
to deal with tonight?
T. Plans-that not really want I'm trying to imply
Agenda Item #2A Paae #61
K. Watson - I'm responding to Tim's desire to have council take a peek at this issue because of
the issue of designation, over the owners objection without the risk of demolition. It's the other
category of review.
J. Hewat-Sue Ellen, could I ask another question, If they were to deny the application or decide
not to forwazd it to city council for a recommendation to designate. If there were an application
to demolish, historic boulder or another 3`u party could submit an application. Is that right?
S.E. Harrison-no, aze you talking about landmark?
J. Hewat-yes
S.E. Harrison - It says no person within a year.
Man-It no person period, its not just the same person
S.E. Hazrison - It's a person, it doesn't say the applicant...
K. Watson-well there is the 45 day period.
S.E. Harrison-there is 45 day period, its also true if someone were to apply for demolition, once
the application is complete we spend 180 days, so you could be getting close to a year. Over a
year and under a year....
T. Plass -Sure, Kirk...
K. Watson - when I was doing some estate work for myself and my family, I said what about
this, what about this, what about this? Than it's like finally, if only you could plan for so many
contingencies and perhaps if we take the route of denying the application, having the 45 day
period along with the statement that Mr. De Raismes said tonight that this would be sufficient
protection for what we aze trying to perceive here tonight.
Agenda Item #2A Page #62
N. Kornblum - No...
T. Plans - I agree. I cant support a motion which would strip the city of it's ability to prevent
demolition. That's what I heaz coming from our legal counsel.
S.E. Harrison-As I said, you could protect it they were to put a deed of restriction if they
choose to sell. I'm not trying to make this overly complicated im just trying to respond to
your...
L. May - or just withdraw and be done with it,
N. Kornblum-Yah, just withdraw, the benefits seem to be weighing heavier to just withdraw,
and not risk the potential of a subsequent buyer to come in to file an application for demolition
and then we can't heaz it.
L. Podmajersky - I will just remind everyone there are no guarantees about the structure-
It can change hands, it can, what we aze doing is no guazantee that that building won't be
wrecked by somebody in the future. It could be 6 months from now. I mean, we shouldn't try to
pretend that we're doing everything we can to save this property. If it's that much of a priority.
N. Kornblum-If we were to withdraw do we need to make a motion to withdraw?
T. Plans-ya, we have to act as a board
L. Podmajersky - I guess my suggestion was to not withdraw but to landmazk it. If our goal is
for the preservation of this building
N. Komblum-Well the only other alternative as I heaz it is, it would be acceptable to me is if
property owner to put a deed restriction on for the next yeaz to state that a future buyer could not
Agenda Item #2A Pase #63
file for a demolition permit. Otherwise, I would be willing to go ahead and make a motion to
withdraw the application.
T. Plass -would you like to get that question answered?
N. Kornblum-yes
J. De Raismes-So this is not a definitive decision because we just came up with the issue, but at
least at this point Ms. Clements is not willing to put a deed restriction on. We will stipulate on
the record and agree to sign a document that we will not do anything to demolish it but we feel
very reluctant to impose that on somebody else that we don't even know who they aze. So, we
will suggest withdrawal as a preferable solution at this point if that's what the boazd wants to do.
I would also want to mention that if your worried about this thing not coming to council, than it
would be a relatively easy matter for the staff to write a report of what happened tonight, what
your vote was, send that to council and then council will have what ever reaction it has including
potentially reinstituting the landmazking procedure. I would say council initiated landmazking
do go to landmazks board before they go back to council, so there would be another heazing
before this board if council decided to do that.
T. Plass -Thank you Mr. De Raismes, and I do appreciate your offer to restrict yourself, your
client. And I understand your position that you are not willing to do the deed restriction, but for
me that's not enough. I do worry. I believe Ms. Clements said that property is on the market,
currently?
M. Clements - At the previous 2 boazd meetings the boazd members said to us that they felt that
if the property were landmazked it would increase the value, it wouldn't hurt it. And so after the
October 3rd meeting we put i[ on the market to see what that response was. Based on your
comment, that's the reason it's on the market.
T. Plass -Thank you, so for me it comes down to that I don't think there any good choice here.
I'm disappointed with the choices we have. T'm going to move that we withdraw the application
Agenda Item #2A Pa¢e #64
as the option that preserves out ability to save the building that if itself is be threatened with
demolition. Do I have a second.
N. Komblum -I'll second that.
T. Plass - we have a motion by Plass, seconded by Komblum to withdraw application for local
landmazking for the property on 3231 11`s street. I just like to address it briefly. As I said it's a
frustrating moment for me because the withdrawal while it won't protect the building from
demolition of more the 50% or demolition as we've defined it in our code, It won't give the
interested parties or some of the interested parties and chance to ask for the discretionazy review
at the city council level. I do feel there aze really important issues here regarding historic
integrity of the s[mcture, the size and the additions and so forth. Maybe this isn't the case where
we get back clarity. Maybe it's just a policy issue we discuss at a joint landmark and council
meeting. I do think it' really important and maybe we can discuss it in conjunction with how the
demolition ordinance itself is working. And Nancy is the second...
N. Komblum-I guess I just like to offer a friendly amendment. I would like to, in the
withdrawal, mention 9-11-1b as the grounds as to, it doesn't meet the criteria of 9-I1-1b. If it
would be appropriate, I'd like to state that we're basing our reasons on balancing private
property interests versus community interests and we are considering the owners are not
consenting, It's not in a potential district, and it will not be demolished. Would that be...
T. Plass - If you were to add to that the problems that a no vote... If we were to... I think I
could accept the friendly if it had something also about the reasoning with regazd as to why we
couldn't make an up or down decision. I think that it would be helpful, because of our concern
about the ability of the boazd then to come back if a demolition permit were sought. We would
be precluded from taking action because of the one yeaz moratorium on action of local land
mazking for a particular property.
N. Komblum - yah, that's fine.
Benda Item #2A Paae #65
T. Plans -Ill accept the friendly.
L. Podmajersky - Can I make a comment.
S.E. Harrison - First we need to know if the seconder accepts the friendly
T. Plans - I was the motion maker...
L. May, Nancy seconded and she also offered the amendment so we can assume she agrees...
L. Podmajersky - I haven't heard any mention of the mature trees on the property and I don't
think we should over look that. So, I don't know where there aze historic tree or lazge mature
trees on the property, but I think we've learned our lesson about ignoring that. I'd love some
information with which I could offer a friendly amendment.
T. Plans - I have trouble with that given if we're not going to proceed with land mazking, I don't
see what our jurisdiction would be.
L. Podmajersky-okay
T. Plans-while appreciate your sentiment absolutely, I don't see that in the purview.
Do we have any additional comments on the pending motion which is to withdraw the
application to landmazks board?
L. Podmajersky-the only other comments I'm make is just that I don't think that really resolves
the issue of protection the structure if the Clements follow through with everything they said.
They won't be destroying any part of the stone structure, but that's no guarantee that in the future
it won't happen. I don't think it's a way to guazantee the structure will remain.
N. Kornblum- I'd like to make 2 comments. The first is that I know there aze 3% of homes built
around 1902 remaining in the Newlands neighborhood. I would hope that this might be a call to
Agenda Item #2A Paee #66
action to historic Boulder or perhaps the Newlands neighborhood to reach out to those owners
and offer some outreach. This situation won't happen again and perhaps we could get someone
to voluntarily come forwazd to land mazk their property, someone who lives in a 1903 house in
that neighborhood. I just would like to see a more proactive effort made to go out to the
remaining properties in that neighborhood. I would also like the Clements to know too that if
after their done with their remodel, it has happended in the past, and I would hope that if they
would consider at some point revisiting the landmazking process and perhaps considering once
they made their plans up; knowing they can do them anyway, coming back to landmarks and
perhaps seeing about mazking that historic house.
S.E. Han•ision -Lisa was just asking if that was possible..
T.Plass - Im sorry, if what was possible, I didn't heaz the question.
L. Podmajersky - If landmazking after the addition is built is possible on the part of the
Clements4
L. May-If it's done and meets according to the criteria for landmazking.
L. Podmajersky - so you've landmarked 1000 feet of a
N. Kornblum -we've done that before
L. May-absolutely
L. Podmajersky - I thought you said eazlier that it wasn't possible. Maybe I just misunderstood.
S.E. Harrison -What I was saying was we have is the weird one yeaz problem. If a couple years
from now someone comes back wanting to landmazk a structure, at the time we will look to see
if they meet the criteria.
Agenda Item #2A Paee #67
T. Plass-I think we need to come to some closure on this item now.
L. Podmajersky - I was just getting clazity on Nancy's statement
T. Plass -Alright, aze there any other comments, we have motion to draw a landmarks board
application for landmazk designation? Hearing no comments I will bring the motion to a vote.
All those in favor of the motion say Aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. Motion carries
with 3 to 2, May and Podmajersky opposed.
T. Plass - We will now take a 5 minute break
Agenda Item #2A Paee #68
Attachment F
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The approximately 12,700 squaze foot lot at 3231 11"' Street contains the house and a
wood frame garage.
House
The House was constructed in 1902 by Wallace Chambers. Vernaculaz masonry in style,
the one story house has a hipped roof with dormers on the north and south elevations and
a one story rectangular addition on the reaz. The walls of the house aze constructed of
rough faced stone laid in irregular courses, and is believed to have come from the
Chambers' stone quarry northwest of Boulder. The roof has asphalt shingles, which aze
in poor condition. The original portion of the house has simple 1/1 double hung wood
windows, which appeaz to be original to the house. The front door is a wood 4 panel
door, with an upper light with decorative stained glass.
Based on the assessor cazd photo c. 1953, the front porch is not original to the house, and
through historic aerial photography reseazch the porch roof appeazs to have been
constructed sometime between 1966 and 1976, when a permit was pulled to "replace
cover on front porch and recap front porch with concrete." The porch was reconstructed
again in 1998, which appeazs to be when the metal posts were replaced with the current
columns, and wood decking was installed over the concrete pad. Additionally, the
chimney which rose from the point of the hipped roof no longer exists.
The reaz of the house appears to have had two additions; the first was the addition in the
northwest corner of the house, which was aone-story wood frame with simulated brick
rolled asphalt siding. The second addition was the lazger one-story shed roof portion that
extends to the southwest corner of the house. Based on assessor card notes, both
additions occurred after 1929, but prior to 1953. In December 1952 a permit was
received to "remodel kitchen and reaz porch." It is assumed that the southwest addition
was constructed at this time.
Wood Frame Garage
There is a one story wood frame garage/shed at the southwest corner of the property,
which appears to have been constructed prior to 1929. The building is one story, and has
painted wood board and batten siding. A demolition permit was issued for the building
prior to the initiation of landmark designation, and therefore may be demolished.
Site
The property originally comprised lots 15-20 of Block 9 of the Newlands Addition,
which is at the northern edge of the subdivision. In 1988, the property was subdivided,
separating the northern-most two lots (19 and 20), and the house now addressed as 3237
11`h Street was constructed. The remaining site is approximately 12,700 square Feet in
size, and has some mature trees. The fence surrounding the property was constructed in
1998. The remnants of three wooden wagon wheels are imbedded in concrete on the
south side of the house, and the concrete has the date of August 24, 1952. There is also a
small covered picnic table in the middle of the rear yard.
`ice! I`uGla~~~~~~E_~~--
Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
Adopted as Administrative Regulation by the Board
Historic Significance:
Summary: The house at 3231 l ls' Street has historic significance under criteria 1 and 2.
1. Date of Construction: 1902
Elaboration: The house at 3231 11`h Street was constructed in 1902, based off tax
records, despite an assessor construction date of 1900. Located in the Newlands
Addition to Boulder, which was platted in 1891, this house appeazs to be in the oldest
3% of houses remaining in the neighborhood. Based on assessor data, there are 21
properties out of 825 with a construction date prior to 1903.
2. Association with Historical Persons or Events: Margaret & Wallace Chambers
Elaboration: Prior to 1902, the land was owned by Mollie C. Dyer, who was the wife
of Warren C. Dyer, sheriff in Boulder County (1894-1898) who was also a miner and
prospector in Breckenridge during the 1880s. Dyer was involved in real estate,
insurance, and deliveries. He platted the Dyer's addition to Boulder, and administered
the sale of lots in the Newlands Addition. The Dyers owned significant portions of
the Newlands Addition. T'he Dyer's sold the property to Margaret Chambers in 1902.
Margaret Chambers was the wife of Wallace Chambers, a notable stonecutter and
teamster. The Chambers Stone Company, which was founded by Wallace's Father,
George Chambers & partners in 1881, supplied Boulder with stone quarried neaz Left
Hand Canyon for many of its commercial and residential buildings. Some of the
projects include the footing for the Masonic Temple and flagstone for the floor of the
vault of the First National Bank. It is likely that the stone house at 3231 11`h Street
was built by the Chamber's family with stone from the local quarry. The Chambers
only owned the house for one year, selling the house to T.H. Fitzpatrick and J.A.
Teagarden in 1903. The Chambers moved to 1535 Pearl Street. Thomas H.
Fitzpatrick was a prominent businessman, and served on the Boulder City Council for
20 years. Thomas served as the City Street Superintendent, and was responsible for
the paving of the city's streets. He had alife-long friendship with William F. Cody,
more commonly known as "Buffalo Bill". His daughter, Jessie Fitzpatrick, was the
principal of Whittier School from 1924-1947. The property changed hands numerous
times, until 1938 when Richard L. Worthing purchased the house, and owned the
property for 49 yeazs, living there for 38 years. Richard was the son of John
Worthing, who served for over 20 years with the Boulder Police Department, the last
nine as Captain. He retired in 1947.
Although associations with the various owners aze interesting, Staff believes that the
association with the Chambers family is the only of local, state, or national
significance.
3. Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: none observed
Elaboration:
,,C,C°~'l~~~f 'SC;ftFSc ~,k~FW~°1=141-_
4. Recognition by Authorities: none observed
Elaboration:
Architectural Significance:
Summary: The house at 3231 11`h Street has azchitectural significance under criteria 1,
2, 3, and 5.
1. Recognized Period/Style: Vemaculaz Masonry
Elaboration:
The stone masonry house at 3231 11`h Street is constructed in the vernacular masonry
style, with a hipped box subtype, defined by the hipped, or pyramidal roof type, and
simple square footprint of the house. With the additions, the house is of an irregulaz
footprint, but the original form of the stone house is clearly evident. The simple
window forms, stone sills and lintels, and simple cornice and eaves further define the
style.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Wallace Chambers
Elaboration:
The house at 3231 11`h Street is assumed to have been constructed by Wallace
Chambers, who was the proprietor of the Chambers Stone, Lime and Cement
Company. The Chambers Stone Company supplied Boulder with stone quarried near
Left Hand Canyon for many of its commercial and residential buildings. Some of the
projects include the footing for the Masonic Temple and flagstone for the floor of the
vault of the First National Bank.
3. Artistic Merit: Stone walls
Elaboration:
The rough cut, random coursing stone walls of the house exhibit superior
craftsmanship.
4. Example of the Uncommon: none observed
Elaboration:
5. Indigenous Qualities: Stone walls
Elaboration:
It is assumed that the stone walls of the house came from the Chambers Stone quarry
in Left Hand Canyon.
Environmental Significance:
Summary: The Staff believes that the application does not meet any of the
environmental criteria for individual landmazks as outlined below, which was adopted to
assist in the interpretation of this section of the ordinance:
1. Site Characteristics: none observed
Elaboration:
2. Compatibility with Site: none observed
Elaboration:
3. Geographic Importance: none observed
Elaboration:
4. Environmental Appropriateness: none observed
Elaboration:
5. Area Integrity: none observed
Elaboration:
6. Other: None observed
~ t~a~t ~ ~
Page I of 2
L~~Z~ o5s ~-PA (3
~ F M 2~4
Chris Meschuk - 3231 11th St.
"A'4s'4YAR`£iG2.~"
s'~.FY:hHS .S~.-ve Wz?
N[6wJtatN~tfM.'J.G'2J' 2. w.:n-n Ya.:' m> P2'..tx`~-v.`"W~V'YSkMdYL.WU`..~+M. .v.::XJ?' n nGJ.' Y.-:h .k vli ._..-r.LS....L fi"'.51a...IS
From: "A. Allyn Harker"
'To: <tim.plassC gmail.com>, <kornbhtmn@gwest.ttel>, <IomayCn?nilenet.com>,
<IpodmajetskyC~comcast.net>, <spitzerLaya.yale.edu>, <meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/15/2008 5:19 AM
Subject: 3231 11th St.
Dear Landmarks Board Members,
1 am writing to you regarding the old stone house on 3231 11th Street. My husband and I moved into the
neighborhood two and a half years ago into the house across the street (3228 1 Ith SL) looking for a
home with a yard and two bedrooms for our growing family. T he home we moved into was the product
of an almost two year long search: It was important to us to live in a neighborhood that Pelt like it had
some history. There are still remnants of that history in Newlands, and I'm proud to live across the street
from one. There was a Lime when Boulder was full of middle class people earning a living. The old
stone house at 3231 11th St. has a charm and character you can't find in new consU~ucfion: They don't
build houses the way they used to. 1-Iomes like the one across the sUeet are a vanishing breed,
Wlten we lived in Denver, we lived in a small arts and craPCS bungalow. These homes were purchased in
the early part of the century by catalog, then built by owners who lived in them and raised families in
them. "I•he section oP Cc»tgress perk whet'c we lived was full of these homes and 1 lived there with a
cerl'ain pride lautwing their story. In the old stone house, we have another meaningful story--another
attachment to our country's heritage. 1 like that the owners who built that house lived in i[ themselves,
with stone from their own quarry, and that other stones fi'om that quarry were used in other local
buildings.
We would have leapt at the chance to move into a home like this one: it is a dream of ours to live in an
older home and lovingly restore it so that it becomes a piece of living history. It seems the best way to
ensure that a house like this ends up in hands like that is to Landmark it. We are not in a position to buy
another home in Boulder, but there is a family out there who will lake this on. Save the house fcx them.
We love it just as it is and would love to have someone move into it who would love it and honor it.
Lmtdmarking the old stone house is necessary to preserving its as history.
't'hanks for your time.
We have plane tickets on the 19th to go on a vacation we ve been planning for months. If it were not for
those tickets, we'd come to the Wednesday meeting to speak fo you in person. There is strong interest on
our block to preserve this home. Plcasc help us keep it historical.
Allyn Harker
resident of 3228 I Ith St.
Boulder, CU 80304
303-413-8688
A. Allyn Hai1<er
English "teacher
file://C:\Doauncnts and Settings\mcsccl\Local Settings\Tcmp\GW }OOOOI.HTM 4/21/2008
_ . _ _
Chris Meschuk - 3231 11th Street Page 9
From:
To: <tim.plassC~?gmail.com>, <kornblumnQgwest.net>, <IomayQnilenet.com>,
<IpodmajerskyC~comcast.net>, <spitzer~aya.yale.edu>, <meschukcC~3bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/15/2008 5:34:55 PM
Subject: 3231 11th Street
Dear Members of Historic Boulder,
I live across the street from 3231 11th street ai the corner of Forest and 11th and have done so for the last
year and one half. From my vantage point, 1 have the opportunity to enjoy a view of 3231 11th Street, the
home you are considering for Historic designation.
In the landscape of Newlands bungalows and pop-ups 3231 is a refreshing sight. Its stone work facade
within a spacious yard is a living testament to the era in which the home was built. Everything around it
and in the nearby blocks speaks of the modern era. 3231 speaks of the history and continuity of this
community. Having this building enveloped in a modern design will erase one of the last vestiges of our
community's mining history.
I urge you to support the historic landmarking of this building.
Rona Wilensky
1101 Forest Avenue
Boulder, Colorado 80304
303-443.9974
CC:
ChrisMeschuk -History of 3231 1 tth Street Page 1
From: "Bev Potter"
To: <meschukcQbouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/16/2008 11:24:45 AM
Subject: History of 3231 11th Sireet
Chris,
Attached is revised version of the history of the Chamber's Cottage at 3231 11th
Street. This is the version that was provided to Historic Boulder. There may well be
additional useful information to be added for the next round.
Bev Potter
Historical Significance of 3231 11th Street, Boulder
The stone house at 3231 11jb street is situated in block nine of the Newland Addition. Maria
Tourtellot initially obtained this portion, as part of a larger section of land, from the United States
of America on July 2, 1872. The land was sold to William Newland in 1873 and was used as
farmland, primarily fruit orchards. This section of block nine was sold by Mary Newland to Mollie
Dyer in 1898.
In 1902, Mollie Dyer (wife of Warren Dyer, Sheriff of Boulder County) sold the land on which the
house was built to Wallace and Margaret Chambers. Wallace Chambers was a stonecutter and
a quarryman and built the house of local stone in 1903.
This house is a fine example of the work of a local craftsman and is a living reminder of the
legacy of one of Boulder's original pioneer families as well as the lives of other notable Boulder
citizens.
Wallace Chambers was the eldest son of George W. and Eliza Chambers. He was born in
Pennsylvania in approximately 1853. When he arrived in Boulder, he was about six years old.
The Chambers family were known as "59'ers", arriving in Colorado at the time of Boulder's
founding. In 186'1, George W. Chambers was appointed one of the first County Commissioners
by the Jefferson Territorial Legislature and in 1862 he was elected the first Treasurer of Boulder
County. The family held many mining and agricultural interests in Boulder County and, in '1887,
the Chambers Stone Lirne and Cement Company was incorporated under the laws of the State
of Colorado. The purpose of the company was described as:
"To quarry and prepare stone ready for use in erecting all kinds of buildings and structures of
every description whatever and to gutter and pave streets, road and alleys and to sell the same.
To contract and build all kinds of public and private improvements..."
In addition to his involvement in the Chambers Stone Company, Wallace Chambers was a
teamster, hauling supplies to the mining camps in the mountains and returning with gold, silver
and other ore. In 1910, the Chambers S.L.C. Company supplied stone and cement for the
building of dams in the Boulder Watershed and Wallace Chambers hauled the freight to build
the Albion Dam with a team of eight horses.
The stone house was later sold to John Teagarden and T.F. Fitzpatrick. In 1907, Teagarden
sold his share to Fitzpatrick. The house remained under Fitzpatrick ownership until 1923.
Thomas Fitzpatrick served on Boulder City Council from 1913 to 1917 and from 1924 to 1936.
He was instrumental in the building of Boulder's roads. His daughter, Jessie Fitzpatrick, was
principal of Whittier School from i924to 1947.
Additionally, this simple stone house provided shelter to numerous working class families who
also made their contribution to the establishment of Boulder. It remains virtually unchanged to
this day - 105 years after it was built.
• Page t of 1
Chris Meschuk - 3231 11th Street
ITS.'khv'vdSvS.R-il..l-t+.%3`......n~..v'..`F+l1fiFeF°x'a^.R`S~UT^dv.y:8'..(IX%n%ZY.GLada~w~.0..v^1A5°1~~N~1'.NiFi'3aF9.&dYd.~m4a.a'SSLLtlr 'F 4~o.h AW.'L hiY rta J_+t4'S~PJ' FAtX41•W#tZ(f'a'C£
.v.iG.~.~t`)Yk
From: Kathleen Saunders < >
'Co: Nancy ICornbhun <kornblumn@gwest,net>, Leonard May <IomayC nilenet.com>, Chris
Meschuk <meschukcC~bouldercolorado.gov>, Tim Plass <tim.plassC~gmaiLcom>, Lisa
Pochnajersky <]podmajersky®comcast.net>, ?Spitzer <spitzcrC?aya.yale.edu>
Date: 4!16/2008 12:35 PM
Subject: 3231 11th Street
_ _
Hi [here,
It's wonderful that the historic Little Stone House is back before you for consideration! It was so
disheartening last year when Nancy exhorted us to go out & find another possibility to champion, after
having just voted against this most worthy candidate. Very few examples, less than 3°I,'?, still exist in
this neighborhood.
1 have lived just 3 doors north of this prol.~erty for 35 years now. My family loved hanging out there
with Did< Worthing many years ago. The whole atmosphere was so interesting! The amazing old cut
stone, abundant wildlife, huge old trees etc. We've all really appreciated the new history that has
recently been found & shared. Whittier's principal lived there? Wow!
School kids from this neighborhood can make it an easy walling field trip, & should have that
opportunity. 'fhe rest of the community would also benefit greatly from landmm king this property.
't'his is how the average historic Boulderite lived! Unfortunately, they won't be able to appreciate all the
wonderful trees that graced it. `fhe new owners chopped several of them clown just. recently. They did,
finally, dean up the debris from the June 6th windstorm.
All in all, they haven't shown much respect for the property. That's why I would so much like you to
reconsider designating it now.
Thank you for all the thought, time, & energy you put into reviewing potential additions to Boulder's
171 sI01'tCa1 ilfi6ClS!
Kathleen Saunders
3251 I 1 th Su'ect
Boulder, CO 80304
Be a better friend, newshound, and Imow-it-al) with Yahoo! Mobile. "I'ry it now.
file://C:\Docwncnts and Settings\mescc I\L.ocal Settings\1'emp\GW }00001.1-I'I'M 4/21/2008
Pagc 1 of 1
Chris Meschuk - 3231 11th Street
iN"..~e!kYl".X,'YGd~:J'F~":~3i.^r#.r`39..~k`AdYiF:k'{~x',ne"..~'oe £a._%£~3',S'%A'~.kln:.C.kL :4:'°...ei.vv n?l`Sv Sv. .'l. i. '+4 ...a~:..:.v.Y.f.aJY.'-' .e.-. LiY::F;3Y
I&Se ~..v..v.t4v`.:.x-
From: Nancy Wolfson
To: <tim.plass@gmail.com>, <kornblumn@gwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
<Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitzer@aya.yale.edu>,
<meschu kc@ bo uldercolorado. gov>
Date: 4/17/2008 3:09 PM
Subject: 3231_1 ith_Street
_ _
Dear Members of Boulder's Landmark Preservation Advisory Board -
Please initiate the designation of the stone house at 3231 11th Street as a historical landmark. It's so rare in
Boulder to find such a wonderful, unchanged example of our past, and a home build from local stone by a
member of one of Boulder's founding families no less. Walking through the Newlands neighborhood and
happening upon this house is like discovering a little jewel. It would be a shame to miss this opportunity to
preserve a piece of Boulder's past, especially when so few examples remain today.
Respectfully,
Nancy M. Wolfson
1955 Chestnut Place
Boulder
More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger.
file://C:\Docmnents and Settings\mesccl\Locat Settings\'1'emp\GW {00001.}1TM 4/21/2008
_ . _ _
Chris~Meschuk - Landmark_3231_tlth_Street Page 1
From: "June Howard"
To: <tim.plassCa?gmaiLcom>, <kornblumnQgwest.net>, <IomayC~?nilenetcom>,
<IpodmajerskyC~comcast.net>, <spitzerCv3aya.yale.edu>, <meschukcC~bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/17/2008 3:30:37 PM
Subject: Landmark.,_3231_.11Ih_Street
for the Landmarks Board,
I sometimes walk by the stone house at 3231 11th St. Looking from the
sidewalk, I get a pleasant feeling for our past when houses were charming in
their yards and built to last. I hope you can consider landmarking this
reminder of how ordinary people once lived.
Thanks,
June Howard
Page l of I
Chris Meschuk • 3231 11th Street
ISR. "M V.. ^a ..•"'....:.v.'JJSa.v Nka:°S.IbX)`~+32LYx . 'v. L..n,. ..3...Y4.~kLa£ L.. )M iSYV Re . n'\ .1....:.rJm sWkasS~'P--+`-5e ~R"F ~v-....:.:.
.n 3.. \.rv
From: "Philip Sneed" .
'Po: <tim.plassC gmaiLann>, <IuxnblumnCagwest.net>, <IomayC~nilenet.com>,
<lpodmajerskyC~~comcast.net>, <spitrer@aya.ya)e.edu>, <meschukcCabouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/17/2008 3:57 PM
Sub,j ect: 3 231 _ I 1 th_S tree(
Dear Landmark Preservation Advisory Board,
I am writing to urge Landmark designation for the stone house at 2131 11 Street in north Boulder. 1 live nearby,
at 1085 Grape Avenue, and walk past this house every day. Based on my understanding of what constitutes
historic status, this house seems to me to be an ideal candidate. Please give serious consideration to this at your
earliest convenience.
Best,
Philip Sneed
1085 Grape Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
file://C:\Documentsand Settins\mesccl\LocalSettings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.H"I'M 4/2(/2008
Pti~c 1 of [
Chris Meschuk - 3231 11th St.
r...:.SM1nbiJn ..9`....dav: Yu.].w a..u ~aE:~.rCln:Y s. 4RS:G. a ~ .1. (5.:.:': VG .eT.'fi+^T..'..31I£S) A9. .r.~.,..i "A~~ Y{ .
ya.e..~u_.n. a,. ..A, ._.v
From: "Kay Bingham"
To: <lomay@nilenet.com>, <Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <kornblumn@gwest.net>,
<Cim.plass@gmail.com>, <meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>, "Spitzer"
<spitzer@aya.yale.edu>
Date: 4/18/2008 10:29 AM
Subject: 3231 11th St.
CC: "Bev Potter" < , "NewlandsKathleen" i>
To: Landmark Preservation Board
From: Kay and Larry Bingham
As Newlands residents since 1978, we are happy to learn that Historic Boulder has recommended
that the stone house at 3231 11th. Street will be considered for a landmark designation.
We think it is important for the community to see reminders of Boulder's past history. This
simple stone house provided shelter to numerous working class families who also made their
contribution to the establishment of Boulder. It remains virtually unchanged to this day - 7.05
years after it was built.
As I take my grandson for neighborhood walks, I hope to be able Co show hirn what homes looked
li!<e 100 years ago!
'T'hanks for the consideration.
Kay and Larry Bingham
3235 6th.
Boulder
1'ilea/L1Doc~unents and Settings\mescc 1\Local Settings\T'emp\GW X00001.1-I`I'M 4/21/2008
Pxgc 1 of l
Chris Meschuk -Chambers Cottage- 3231 11th St.
arcvx~. ~~m.N.,ti, .%X12.-,~.u3~`~~,
X~aasx x, .,.~,u ~.iv.. .,'z .h..~,._.,~..u..mA~..~i
a1.~N~.av....:...a,,,~l.~....xe.F...vs ecns>..n sU,ex~w'v.w'9e~x .a _...n
From: Jessica Deal
To: <tim.plass@gmail.com>, <kornblumn@gwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
<Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitzer@aya.yale.edu>,
<meschukc@bouldercolorado, gov>
Date: 4/18/2008 7:48 PM
Subject: Chambers Cottage- 3231 11th St.
_
Dear members of Boulder's Landmark Preservation Advisory Board,
The intent of this a-mail is to voice my support for landmark designation of the Chambers Cottage at 3231 11th
St.
This unique stone house contributes to our community by serving as a reminder of Boulder's pioneering past and
lifestyle of its founding citizens. This 105 year-old house dates back to one of Boulder's earliest families and
stands in memorial to the early settlers of Boulder from many different socioeconomic backgrounds. From an
architectural standpoint this house provides an excellent example of using local resources and craftsmanship
to construct a house that can endure the elements for decades to come. I cannot make ii: in person to the
upcoming meeting but would like Che board to consider Branding landmark status to this charming historic
building.
Thank you,
Jessica Sfein
Jessica Sfein
3250 11th St.
Boulder, CO II0304
Pilaf/C:\l~ocuments ~tnd Settings\mesccl\t.ocnl Settings\Temp\GW ~(1000IJi'TM 4/21!2008
Page 1 of 1
Chris Meschuk -Landmark 3231 11th Street
3S:o-~L.t4'-..3{~%"°W"iT4<.k1"`SP.. Yifi2AY.AEv."°.9.A.:.~:C&°1'4^.Y:.u-..YJ~J.Vi`:-h'..A~.M'.R'......Rr.u rK
Sn~Sh.°dYn^~#~J"+nNL2VMT.'A/v. Joa 2'a?.3 ?:6 n..s~ '~2-i ~."cYb+"II~R'rFQIS'fW'Y.'S'p'9
From:
To: <tim.plass@gmail.com>, <kornblumn@gwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
<Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitzer@aya.yale.edu>,
<meschukc @ bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/18/2008 11:03 PM
Subject: Landmark_3231_11th Street
_
To the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board:
(Note that I would be at your meeting on April 23 if I were not out of town.)
I continue to support the efforts that have been made to landmark the stone house at 3231
11th Street. The structure's setting and its role in Boulder's early history is significant in many
ways: It speaks of the craftsman architecture of the late 1800s, of one of the original
pioneer families in Boulder, of the materials that were available for building in that era, and of
later owners and inhabitants who played an important role in the history of Boulder and
Boulder County.
Because we have lived in the neighborhood for more than 35 years and our children attended
Foothill School, we often walked past the house and noted its architecture and age (although
at the time we did not know many details of its significance). The lessons that the stone house
can impart to current and future generations of Boulder's children and adults are invaluable.
I urge you to take the necessary steps to save this unique piece of Boulder's history for future
generations.
Sincerely,
Alice Levine
585 Juniper Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
303-447-0799
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
file://C:\Docu~2tents and Settings\mescc t\Loctl Settings\Temp\GW )OOQOI.tiTM 4/2U200S
!Chris Meschuk - 3231 _11 th_Street Page 1 j
From: "Bev Potter"
To: <tim.plass@gmail.com>, <kornblumn@gwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
<Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spiizer@aya.yale.edu>, <meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/20!2008 6:14:42 PM
Subject: 3231 _11 th_Street
Members of Boulder's Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board:
I am writing to share my opinion with you regarding the designation of 3231 11th
Street as a local landmark. You have long known that I am a supporter of designation
but I would like to convey to you the importance I feel, that this home be preserved
and protected.
I have been a resident of Boulder for more than thirty years. It was, however, only in
the past ten years that I gained a true appreciation of Boulder's history -through a
friendship with someone who was athird-generation Boulder native. Few people have
been as fortunate as I, to have experienced Boulder's history through the eyes of one
who has lived it.
I (or I should say "we" -those of us on the 3200 Block of 11th Street) have long
known that there was something special about this stone house. However, we were all
amazed to learn its true history.
But, the significance of this house is more than the history of the Chambers family -
although the Knowledge that this house dates back to one of Boulder's earliest pioneer
families is truly impressive. li is more than its architectural interest and the fact
that ii was built of local stone.
The true significance of this house is that it represents the history of all of
Boulder's pioneers who traveled across the plains to make a life here. Its true
importance is that it rose up out of the land on which it was built and offered
shelter to Humorous people who helped make Boulder what it is today. And its true
importance is that it stands firm as a reminder that the Boulder of the past still
endw es.
This building desorves the protection of landmark designation lest it be transformed
and lost forever, even as it stiti remains.
I ask that you initiate the landmarking process and designate this house as a local
landmark.
Thank You,
Bev Potter
3201 11th Street
Boulder, Co. 80304
Page 1 of
Chris Meschuk - Landmark_3231_I lth_Street
S.Y..:.~^.^.`. 3cx 1y/...G:r.:.,;~. r-.~.:..~'nd.2N9LLU.. awYihF£K3.34 K>>^s~ nU. - + '..:i:n . nC.tFV .~a..:avW.eE..Sv.i: z'4'3. b..4fNx.. 45::~ "43.T:'3~".. Y::..~~i~a2R2
From: Tony Cochrane <
To: Tim Plass <tim.p]assC~gmail.com>, Nancy Kornbltumt <kornb]unmC?gwest.net>, Leonard
May <lomay@nilenetcom>, Lisa I'odmajersky <Ipodmajersky atmcasLneY>, John Spitzer
<spitzerC~?aya.yale.edu>, Chris Meschuk -city staff <meschukcC~bouldercolorado.gov>
llate: 4/30/2008 8:28 PM
Subject: Landmark_3231_Ilth_Street
_
Dear Landmark Board Members,
I am writing in regard to the little stone house at 3231 11th Street. As a resident of the Newlands
neighborh~od,l believe it is in the best interest of the landmark board to preserve the house and
landscape as an important piece of Boulder anti Colorado history. The stone house at 3231 I Ith St. is a
reminder of our community's past--our first settlers, our mining and stone quarrying history, the
neighborhood's cultural history as an cxiended farm with orchards, and the fact that people who lived in
this house over the past century were leaders in the community. I hope that you do everything within
your power to achieve lanchnark designation. I appreciate your efforts to preserve this house
and look forward to hearing that it has received landmark status in the near future.
Sincerely,
Chris Munro
file://C:\Documents and Settings\rnesccl\Local Settings\Temp\GW }OOOOI.I-1'1'M 4/21/2008
Page I of 1
Chris Mesc?nrk - l.andmarlc 3231 11th Street
prom: "Mary Smith"
To: <tim.plassC~gmail.com>, <kornblumnC?dwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
<lpodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitzerL~aya.yale.edu>, <meschukcC Uouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/21/2008 9:07 AM
Subject: Landmark_3231_llth_Street
Please preserve the 3211 building by giving it landmark status. It is important we keep it as a rominder of our
past so we do not have to keep reinventing ourselves. Appreciate all your efforts. Thank you. Mary B. Smith
Citizen of Boulder for over 30 years.
filc://C:\Documenls and Settings\mesccl\L,ocal Settings\Temp\GW)OOOOI.IITM 4/21/2008
Pace 1 of I
Chris Meschulc -Landmark 3231 11th Street
s~~ardrrxvv
.:-..:.cxar.x•x~.:.~...e~sa"ro..,~eesa a,nz..x-.cx..,run ,-..n.~.... .,,.d m...., s., r ._s_-a av-..:;~. anm.~~..,,, ~tt..,,~.~ ~.«..=»~r, ¢u, _e sa
From: "Anne Fenerty"
To: <tim.plass@gmatl.com>, <lun'nblumn@gwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
dpodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitrer ~~aya.yale.edu>, <meschukeC bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/21/2008 11:07 AM
Subject: Landmark_3231._Llth_Street
_
Please save the historic stone house at 3231 1 Ith street. We are losing too many buildings from Boulder's past.
Thank you.
Anne and Mike Fenerty, 2805 Stanford Avenue Boulder.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\mesecl\Local Settings\Temp\CiW j00002.1I"I'M X4/21/2008
Chns Meschuk - Landmark_,3231_11th_Street Page 1
From: Geof Cahoon <
To: <tim.plass@gmail.com>, <kornblumn~gwest.net>, clomay@nilenet.com>,
<IpodmajerskyQcomcast.net>, <spitzerC~aya.yale.edu>, <meschukcC~bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/21/2009 1:16:15 PM
Subject: Landmark_3231_11th_Street
Dear Boutder landmark Preservation Advisory Board,
I have lived in Central Boulder since 1969, starting on Pine Street
when we'd close it down to go sledding and finally ending up here on
Elder Avenue where I raised my family. I am truly, deeply and madly
in love the historic character of our downtown neighborhoods and
shopping areas. Please do whatever you can, property by property, to
maintain the historic charm of the heart of Boulder, starting by
landmarking the stone house at 3231 11th Street. Once these
structures are gone they'll never be back and a part of our
collective history will be lost forever.
Thank you for your hard work. W e Boulderites are with you.
Sincerely, Alfy Sommers
' Chris Meschuk - Landmark_3231 11th_Street Page 1
From: Diane Dvorin <
To: <tim.plassC~gmail.com>, <kornblumn@gwest.net>, <lomay@nilenet.com>,
<IpodmajerskyQcomcast,net>, <spitzer@aya.yale.edu>, <meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4/21 /2008 1:33:10 PM
Subject: Landmark_3231_itth_Street
Dear Landmarks Board and City Staff:
I am writing in support of landmark designation for the stone house at
3231 11th St. Built of locally quarried stone, this house is a living
reminder of Boulder's pioneer roots, the determination of our early
settlers, and the livesof the working class people who built our
community in its early days.
As a Newlands residents for over 30 years, my family has grown to value
the unusual reminders of Boulder's past that are right here in our
neighborhood. We believe that such snapshots of living history are one
important way for us and for future generations to understand how those
who preceded us lived and prospered here.
I urge you to advance this designation since it is very likely that any
re-development of the site without such landmarking would put the stone
house at risk,
Thank you for your consideration,
Diane Dvorin
3232 Sixth St.
Boulder, CO 80304
303-449-0981
diane ~ bayhi I Isgroup.com
I Chns Meschuk - 3231 11th Street Page'1
_ _
From: Karina Black <
To: <tim.plass~gmail.com>, <meschukcC~bouldercolorado.gov>, <kornblumn(~gwest.net>,
<lomay@nilenet.com>, <IpodmajerskyC~comcast.net>, <spilzerC~aya.yale.edu>
Date: 4/21/2008 5:56:07 PM
Subject: 3231 11th Street
To the Members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board,
I am writing to indicate my support for the granting of landmark status
tc the stone
house at 3231 11th Street.
I am a relative newcomer to Boulder but was immediately drawn to this
unique building
and was pleasantly surprised to learn that its history dates back to
Boulder's
beginnings. It is an inspiring reminder of Boulder's early days.
I hope you will make every effort to preserve this building, and its
historic
integrity.
Sincerely,
Karina Black
1023 Forest Ave.
Boulder, CO 80304
• Page 1 or 1
Chris Mescbuk - 3231 11th Street
From: "Richard" <
To: <meschukcC bouldercolorado.gov>, <spitzerC~aya.yale.edu>, <lpodmajerskyC~comcastaieb,
<lomayC nilenct.com>, <kornblumnC gwest.net>, <tim.plassC~gmail.com>
llate: 4/21/2008 6:10:48 PM
Subject: 3231 11th Street
Dear members o1'the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board:
This letter is to show my support for the granting of landmark status to the house at 3231 11th
Street This house demonstrates unique, historic architechture and deserves to be included in the group
of landmarked hottscs that help define Boulder. It's history dates back to the early 1900's and it would
be a shame to lose this small piece of Boulder's history.
Thank you,
Richard Anderson
1023 Porest Ave.
file:!/C:\Docximents and Settings\mesccl\L.ocal Settings\Temp\GW )000O1.HTM 4/22/2008
I Chns Meschuk - 3231 11th St Page 1 ~
From: Wendy L Fuchs
To: <tim.plass~gmail.com>, <kornblumnC~gwest.net>, <IomayC~lnilenet.com>,
<Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitzer®aya.yale.edu>, <meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 4!21!2008 8:56:04 PM
Subject: 3231 11th St
Hello to Members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board,
I would like to add my voice with other citizens to request your recommendation to landmark the 105-year
old stone cottage built by Wallace Chambers, at 3231 11th Street in the Newlands Neighborhood.
My husband and I are Newlands residents, and found first-hand how unique the area is and how
concerned folks are to maintain the integrity and character of our neighborhood. Numerous neighbors
have
introduced themselves and expressed incredible relief that the remodeling done on our house--on the
corner of 9th and Forest--resulted in virtually no change in size or configuration. Rather, it was limited
to infrastructure improvements (such as strengthening the roof, new electrical wiring throughout, removal
of asbestos-laden exterior siding and replacement with Hardie plank siding, energy-efficient windows
and doors, insulation blown into walls and increased in attic space, etc.) and interior updating (primarily
the kitchen) that maintains its historical integrity and pre-war style--it was built in 1941, so it's a
relative youngster compared with the cottage on 11th Street. The main point I'd like to make here, though,
is how incredible and wonderful it feels when walking around in Newlands--there is a palpable
sense of unpretentious historical integrity of the majority of properties, almost as though you're living in
your grandparents' orgreat-grandparents' block, in modest bungalows and houses. And while you're
walking around--we've been astounded how many folks in the neighborhood do--you witness those special
gems, jewels of houses that go back in time even more, usually constructed of stone, such as the
Chambers cottage. Small abodes that were lived in by Boulder folks of more ordinary means, as opposed
to the wealthy class living in the elegant, larger homes up the hill in the Mapleton area. The beauty
in all this is the heritage left by early settlers who were not wealthy but who enabled this part of Boulder in
particular to have a history That is as rich, or moreso, in terms of time. It is incumbent on all of us,
and the City of Boulder to represent us, to continue this heritage as much as possible. Having little history
left would diminish society as a whole, and render everyone a bleaker, less meaningful life.
Just as we all need hope for the future, we also need to maintain our bearings in the context of the past,
and how better a way to do so in the city than having landmarked houses and buildings?
Many of us have hope that your efforts to designate landmark status for as many properties as suitable
(the Chambers cottage, 3231 11th St., being a prime example right now) and possible will be successful,
as it will provide collective enrichment and benefit in the short term and more importantly, in the long run.
You have our heartfelt support and gratitude for doing what you can do.
Thank you again,
Wendy Fuchs
907 Forest Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
' Page 1 1
Chris Meschuk - I,andmarlc sGntus for 3231 11th Street please............
From: "Fran Brown and Michael Hibner" <
To: "Timothy Plass" <tim.plass@gmail.com>, <kornblumnCr~gwest.net>, <lomayC~nileneLCOm>,
"Lisa Podmajerslry" <Ipodmajersky@comcast.net>, <spitzerCaaya.yale.edu>,
<meschukc @bouldercolorado.gov>
llate: 4/22/2008 8: l L• 12 PM
Suhject: Landmark status for 3231 1 Ith Street please............
Dear Boulder Landmark Preservation Advisory Board,
We support Historic Boulder's request that the Stone House at 3231 11th street be designated as a Boulder
Historic Landmark.
The "little stone house" is truly unique in both it's architecture and history. As one of the remaining touchstones
to it's era in the Newlands area this house is irreplaceable Your stewardship as well as that of Historic Boulder is
called for at this lime to insure that it be respected and preserved.
Respectfully yours,
Fran Brown and Michael Hibner
2950 Washington St.,
Boulder
303-447-8936
file://C:\Documents and Settings\mesccl~l.ocal Settings\'I'emp\GW ~00002.HTM 4/23/2008
Chris Meschuk - 3231 11th Street Page 1
- _
From: Mary Young
To: <Timothy Plass>, <kornblumnC~gwest.net>, <lomay~nilenet.com <Lisa
Podmajersky <spitzer@aya.yale.edu <meschukcC~bouldercolorado.gov>
Oate: 4/22/2008 9:05:56 PM
Subject: 3231 11th Street
Dear Boulder Landmark Preservation Advisory Board,
We support Historic Boulder's request that the Stone House at 3231 11th street be designated as a
Boulder Historic Landmark.
We live in a "little stone house" and its character, history and integrity nurture us every day. History is not
something you destroy, it is something that you learn from. Keep this little gem on 11th Street as
something that future generations will learn from.
Regards,
Kent and Mary Young
1420 Alpine Avenuo
Boulder
~ 231045 L P~1t3
`~'cF M
• i
biro
• •
April 22, 2008
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Tim Plass, Chair
Members of the Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
City of Boulder
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, Colorado 80306
Subject: 3231 11th Street Application for Initiation of Landmark Designation
Dear Mr. Plass and Members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board:
Historic Boulder, Inc. ("HB") has submitted an application to initiate designation of the
house located at 3231 11th Street (the "Property/') as an individual landmark pursuant to
Section 9-11-3 of the Boulder Revised Code ("BRC"). The City of Boulder's landmark
Preservation Advisory Board ("LPAB")will consider the application at an application hearing to
be held on April 23, 2008. HB is submitting this letter in order to provide LPAB with certain
additional information in advance of the hearing.
To be clear, under the Boulder Revised Code, LPAB's action on HB's application on April
23 will not result in designation of the Property as a landmark. All parties will have subsequent
opportunity to advocate for or against designating the Property as a landmark. Further,
concerns regarding the scope of the landmark area, the nature of proposed construction and
other items can be addressed within the City's other processes. Indeed, the City code was
designed to accommodate this kind of deliberative process.
At the conclusion of its hearing HB hopes that LPAB will adopt a resolution to initiate
landmark designation of the Property. However, if LPAB chooses not to adopt a resolution to
initiate landmark designation, and because the City Code is not clear on the effects on not
adopting a resolution, HB would appreciate clarification from LPAB, City staff and the City's
attorneys on the effect of taking no action at the application hearing.
HB will not unduly minimize the concerns of City staff and the owners of the Property in
this matter. See Memorandum from Susan Richstone, lames Hewat, Marcy Cameron and Chris
Meschuck to LPAB dated April 23, 2008 ("Staff Memo"). But it is important to note that
everyone seems to agree on the single paramount issue: the Prooerty merits landmark
designation. The owners themselves promise to initiate landmark designation, albeit
conditionally, themselves. See Email from toe de Raismes to Dominick Sekich, April 1, 2008
(attached as Attachment 2). The issue, it seems then, is not whether the Property should be
preserved, but one of timing and, consequently, the ability for an owner of a landmark property
to effectively avoid design review. As HB will explain, allowing this kind of "post hoc
landmarking" by not initiating designation now amounts to gaming the process, would severely
compromise the integrity of the proposed landmark and would be a disastrous precedent.
HB strongly believes that the merits of accepting its application and proceeding with
initiation outweigh other concerns. Not entering into a resolution to initiate landmark
designation would result in the loss of a landmark structure and seriously compromise the
City's landmark protection ordinance.
The House
The record of previous proceedings regarding the Property, as well as Staff Memo and
other research on this application makes clear that the house is important for its history and
association with historical persons and events, but is also noteworthy because of its relatively
rare stone vernacular design. HB has compiled a brief history of the Property, which is attached
as Attachment 1 to this letter. The house is very minimally altered from its original design and
reflects the vernacular construction of the early twentieth century. Features, such as its hipped
roof with overhanging eaves, double-hung windows and modest ornamentation are all typical
of structures in Boulder from that era. The house is very notable for its native stone
construction and expert masonry craftsmanship.
There appears to almost no disagreement that the history of the house, its design and
construction merits landmark designation. If initiation proceeds, HB will gladly supply its
expertise to further document the historical qualities of the house and its design and character.
Recent Process
There have been several earlier proceedings before LPAB regarding the Property. None
of these earlier proceedings is formally related to HB's present application. Nonetheless, the
prior applications have created the perception of a muddled process that may distort and
distract from HB's present application.
As early as April 11, 2007, while the Property was in the hands of a prior owner, the
Landmarks Design Review Committee reviewed an application for demolition of the historic
structure. At that meeting, according to the Staff Memo, the Committee found probable cause
that the building maybe eligible for designation. The present owners purchased the Property
on May 4, 2007 and withdrew the application for demolition on May 31, 2007. Since that time,
the City's and community's interest in preserving the historic structure has been repeatedly
stressed during a series of proceedings on the Property initiated by LPAB.
Some confusion on this matter may have resulted from members of LPAB attempting to
negotiate a "third way' to preserve and protect historic resources in the City. Although such an
approach may have much merit, it is not explicitly authorized by the Cit~/s code and can, as
here, apparently, feed the suspicions of an owner and result in a more difficult process.
HB has been present at most of the public meetings held by the City and has repeatedly
stressed the significance of the building and merits of landmark designation. When it became
clear that the building was threatened and action by LPAB or the owner was not imminent, HB
applied for designation of the Property pursuant to BRC § 9-113(a)(4) on March 21, 2008.
Upon filing its application, HB contacted the owners to inform them of HB's filing. Later, the
owners and HB arranged to meet to discuss the application. See Email from Dominick Sekich to
Michelle Clements, March 28, 2008 (attached as Attachment 3). At that meeting, the owners
and their attorney discussed their plans, and proposed to HB that if HB were to withdraw its
application, the owners would themselves apply for designation after their building permit and
their rights to build their proposed addition had "vested." The owners suggested that their
application for landmark designation would apply exclusively to the area delimited by the
current structure, with certain accommodations made for view access to the street.
HB committed itself to considering the owners' proposal to withdraw HB's application.
At a special meeting of HB's board of directors, HB reviewed plans left by the owners and
deliberated the merits of proceeding with its application. At that meeting, HB decided not to
withdraw their application.
In contrast to LPAB's various previous proceedings affecting the property, HB's
application is clear. We seek merely for the LPAB to decide whether to initiate landmark
designation for the Property. We do not seek to negotiate development, scope or any other
items which can all be managed within the City's existing processes. During such subsequent
processes, HB will continue to advocate for designation, but will remain available to LPAB, City
staff and the owners to act as a resource for alternatives and creative resolution.
Policy Imperatives
The City code outlines several items that may be considered by LPAB in reviewing an
application for designation submitted by a historic preservation organization. See BRC § 9-11-
3(d). Unlike the process outlined for an initiation hearing, the list of these items to be
considered at an application hearing is not meant to be exclusive. Further, the list is
permissive, meaning that LPAB may consider the items listed but does not need afford any
particular weight to or even consider any of them in order to proceed. Accordingly, we
encourage LPAB to consider all facts that may help them reach a reasoned and considered
decision on HB's application.
HB and City staff (and, from a review of the record of previous hearing affecting the
Property, both LPAB and the owners) appear to believe that there is probable cause that the
building may be eligible for designation as a landmark and that the designation is consistent
with the goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, HB believes that
extensive elaboration on these points is not warranted. However, HB would like to focus on
two issues that are very important to LPAB's consideration of whether to initiate designation
based on HB's application: threats to the Property and the balance of public interest and
private rights.
Threat to the Prooertv. City code suggest that LPAB look at whether the "building or
features may need the protections provided through designation:' City staff has suggested that
"[g]iven that the building will remain under the proposed development plans;' no threats to
the historic structure exist. Staff Memo, page 5. HB respectfully suggests that City staff is
wrong, and tfiat the threat of significant demolition is not the only "protection" that can be
afforded by landmark designation. Rather, failure to preserve the context of the proposed
landmark or the special character of the landmark site is vitally important. Moreover, as HB
explains below, failure to landmark the structure may indeed allow the majority of the historic
structure to be torn down at a later date without the City's demolition review.
Initially, however, HB would observe that at {east some portion of the existing historic
structure will be removed, demolished, covered or altered (including the rear additions, rear
wall and an existing dormer). These modifications are an effort, HB supposes, to "gentrify" the
existing structure to match the proposed addition. These modifications are at least in part
inconsistent with preservation of the historic structure.
Context and Special Character of the Landmark Site. Even though much less of the
historic structure will be demolished under the owner's new plans, threats to the historic
structure still remain. It is widely recognized that a hallmark of sensitive and appropriate
preservation includes conserving the context of a structure and honoring its historic elements.'
1 It may be worth referring here [o [he seminal Supreme Court decision, Penn Central vs. New York City, which firmly upheld
the ability of cities to implement comprehensive landmark designation ordinances and [o even designate a landmazk over the
objections of a property owner. Justice Brennan, in upholding the New York City Landmazks Preservation Commission's ruling
rejecting the ownei s plans for an addition to Grand Central Station, quoted the Commission's decision:
"[VVe have] no fixed rule against making additions to designated buildings it all depends on how
they are done....Landmarkscaanot be divorced from their settings particulazly when the setting
is a dramatic and integral part of the original concept. The [Grand Central Station] Terailnal, in its
setting, is a great example of urban design. Such examples are not so plentiful in New York City
[hat we can afford to lose any of the few we have. And we must preserve them in a meanirsg(ul way
with alterations and additions of such character, scale, materials and mass as will protect,
enhance and perpetuate the original design rather than overwhelm it."
Penn Central Trans. Co. v. Citv of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 117 (1978)(emphasis added). Boulder is a simpler town, with
humbler traditions than New York City, and few would argue that .Grand Central Station is anything but an exceptional national
treasure. However, HB believes that the Commission's admonition-and, in fairness, [he sentiment that there be no fixed rule
More specifically, the City code itself clearly recognizes that threats to a landmark need not
amount to "demolition;' but may instead result from adverse affects of development to the
site, elimination of the special character or other features of designated property. For example,
in the context of a landmark alteration certificate, the City code establishes certain conditions-
thevery conditions that would apply to the Property if and when it is designated-that must be
satisfied before approving an alteration, including the following:
The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of
the landmark and its site or the district
BRC § 9-11-18(b). More broadly, in its statement of purpose for the City's Historic Preservation
Ordinance, the City council was clear that the ordinance will ensure that "alterations to [old]
buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting,
not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them." BRC § 9-11-1(b)
(emphasis added).
Under the owner's present plans, the historic structure on the Property is completely
enveloped by the design and the mass and scale of the proposed addition, which overwhelms
the historic building.z Accordingly, such new construction does not respell the character of
the Property's setting, and the proposal adversely affects the special historical, architectural
and aesthetic value of the landmark and its site. Further, although the owners' plans indicates
an attempt to respell the material of the existing building, by not differentiating the addition
from the historic structure the owners fails to appropriately respect and differentiate between
the historical and the ersatz.
Unfortunately, there are examples of similarly misguided structures in Boulder.
Attachment 4 illustrates a couple of examples that are, in HB's opinion, similar to the proposal
presented by the owners. Whether or not one believes that the buildings illustrated on
Attachment 4 are attractive, appropriate for their owner's use or otherwise acceptable is
beside the point. The fact is that these structures have so compromised the underlying
structure's historic integrity, that they are likely not eligible for designation as landmarks. HB
sees the proposed addition as part of this sorry tradition s
against making additions [o landmazk buildings-rings Ime in Boulder: examples of [he kind of stmcture at issue here aze not so
plentiful that we can afford to lose them and we must preserve [hem in a meaningful way.
2 HB strongly recommends that LPAB review the owners' proposed plans and enter them into the record
for [his proceeding.
3 As HB has noted, this application is not a foram for design review. However, HB believes [ha[ the size of the
addition in terms of usable floor area is not the most important aspect of the project threatening [he integrity of the Property.
Rather, HB believes that compazable floor area maybe achieved in an addition that has reduced mass and scale, manages
sepazation from [he historic stmcmre by different azticula[ions of facades and or roof lines and is situated differently on [he lot.
These examples should encourage the City and the community to do better to help
preserve these and similar historic resources. Although HB appreciates the owners' gesture to.
initiate designation after their building permit has been granted, HB may oppose the
designation, just as it might if the owners of the properties shown on Attachment 4 applied for
designation. More importantly, we believe that City staff and LPAB would find it difficult to
conclude that the resulting project would qua{ify for designation. Allowing significantly altered
landmarks, including those within the City's portfolio of historic resources would not be good
policy.
Threat of Subsequent Demolition. If after construction of the owners' planned addition
the Property is not designated as a landmark, whether because the owners fail to initiate
designation or the Property does not meet the criteria for designation, it is possible that, except
for the portion of the facade that faces 11th Street, the entire historic structure could be
demolished by right. Because the elements of the new massive building, including roof
coverage and wall measurements, would be then counted when applying the definition of
"demolition" set forth at BRC § 9-16-1, the City's demolition review ordinance, BRC § 9-11-23,
would not be applicable to any demolition of the existing historic building after the owners'
construction, except for demolition of the street-facing facade. These concerns are heightened
because HB's review of the plans indicates that the historic building will be retained merely as a
single, open element, without any extensive interior finish.
Balance of Proaerty Rights and Public Interest. In addition to the significant threats to
the historic structure, HB believes that there is a strong public interest in preserving the
building and that the owners' interests have been continually considered. Like the City, HB has
a strong interest in maintaining public support of and confidence in the landmark designation
process. However, HB does not evaluate the balance and become, as City staff is, blase about
the loss of a historic resource otherwise eligible for landmark designation.
One of the important mandates of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance is "to
develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for (historic] buildings, sites and
areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest,
and foster knowledge in the city's living heritage. BRC § 9-11-1(a). It within this context that
HB believes LPAB must accept HB's application for designation. In particular, HB believes that
accepting its application to designate the Property a landmark will help to encourage owner
responsibility, preserve and honor the role granted by City council to historic preservation
organizations and, perhaps most importantly, ensure that the City's design review process is
not eviscerated.
Promoting Owner Responsibility. Initially, HB observes that the owners are not and
have not unaware of the significance of this property or the high likelihood that it would be
subject to an initiation action. At least one of the owners is a real estate agent, presumably
familiar with the real estate market and the demands the City places on construction and
development. Indeed, the owners had knowledge of the significance of this property and the
potential for landmark designation before their purchase. The owners had been advised by
previous owners about the challenges of demolition, the interest in landmark designation and
the unique nature of the home. Indeed, the owners themselves withdrew the initial
demolition application aware of the interest in designation of the Property.
The record of prior hearings is clear that initiation of the designation of the Property has
always been a possibility. In fact preserving the option of subsequent initiation was mentioned
by members of LPAB as an express reason for withdrawing LPAB's earlier resolution to initiate
designation.4 Furthermore, although City staff cites the owners' burden in attending hearings
on initiation as a reason to reject HB's application, the staff ignores the fact that the owners
themselves wish to initiate designation. It can hardly be a burden to the owners to submit to
a process that they themselves are willing accept at a later date. Moreover, had the owners
applied to initiate landmark designation, as they themselves say they intend to do, immediately
after purchasing the property, they would have been substantially completed with construction
of their home.
In this way, the fact that the initiation of designation has continually and expressly been
a possibility for the Property can be readily distinguish this application from other potential
initiations. LPAB is not charged with insuring owners against their own bets regarding
development.
Acknowledging Historic Preservation Organizations' Role. Further, City staff fails to
factor into its recommendation the rights and responsibilities of HB, as a recognized historic
preservation organization, to initiate landmark designation and the adverse policy affects of
rejecting its application as a consequence of the City's possibly muddled history. It would not
be appropriate to reject HB's application as a mea culpa for LPAB's or City staff's record on
this matter. Such an approach would have the effect of entangling the goals and
responsibilities of LPAB, an instrumentality of the City, and HB, a private, non-profit
organization. The approach would also render the policy embodied in the City's code, which
allows "historic preservation organizations' to apply for landmark designation, moot, and
impermissibly legislate away HB's role in the application process.
Preventing Avoidance of Design Review. As stated above, even the owners believe that
their property is qualified for designation as a landmark, and they intend to apply for such
4 Indeed, ai the November 7, 2007 LPAB meeting, members of LPAB voted to withdraw their resolution for
designation of the Property, rather than to allow an up or down vote, primarily because voting down the initiation would have
resulted in an imposition of one year moratorium under BRC 4 9-11-R. LPAB was clear [hat it intended to revisit the issue if
necessary to protect the property. Staff Memo, Attachment E, pp 64-66.
designation. NB presumes that the owner will not be persuaded to apply to initiate designation
before their permits are issued, notwithstanding their gesture to do so after. Accordingly, and
fundamentally, the issue before LPAB appears not to be whether the property is to be
landmarked but whether LPAB is to have design review responsibilities over a City landmark.
Designation as a landmark imposes on owners certain important responsibilities and
privileges. Among these is the obligation that significant modifications to the landmark must be
subject to the City's design review process. The design review process is a very common
element in landmark ordinances across the country, and, arguab{y, is the most fundaments{
and important tool available to City to protect its inventory of historic structures.
Unlike the landmark application process, the City Code does not afford HB any specific
formal role in the design review process. Accordingly, HB does not voice its opinion as to what
development would be appropriate, but it is willing to allow the City's process to sort out
appropriate alternatives. The process is intended to help owners and the City reach specific
solutions to issues affecting individual landmarks or homes in landmark districts in a potentially
less formal environment. As HB has repeatedly stressed in prior proceedings affecting the
Property, the goals of historic preservation can, and often have been, met while allowing
sensitive development on landmarked property through he design review process.
Adopting the owners' proposal-accepting their application for designation of the
Property after vesting of their building permit-would invert the City's landmark ordinance.
LPAB would effectively cede design review responsibilities over modifications to a landmark.
Not only would the present property suffer from such an approach, subsequent initiations
could be subject to the same bargain.
-C75-
Historic Boulder urges LPAB to accept its application to initiation designation of the
Property as a landmark. We are hopeful that such initiation will allow all parties to thoughtfully
review the merits of the property and reach consensus on efforts to preserve it.
Sincerely,
HISTORIC BOULDER, INC.
cc: Mr. Joe de Raismes, Esq.
James Hewat
Chris Meschuck
Attachment 1
History of 323111th Street
The stone house at 3231 11th street is situated in block nine of the Newland Addition. Maria
Tourtellot initially obtained this portion, as part of a larger section of land, from the United
States of America on July 2, 1872. The land was sold to William Newland in 1873 and was used
as farmland, primarily fruit orchards. This section of block nine was sold by Mary Newland to
Mollie Dyer in 1898.
In 1902, Mollie Dyer (wife of Warren Dyer, Sheriff of Boulder County) sold the land on which
the house was built to Wallace and Margaret Chambers. Wallace Chambers was a stonecutter
and a quarryman and built the house of local stone in 1903.
This house is a fine example of the work of a local craftsman and is a living reminder of the
legacy of one of Boulder's original pioneer families as well as the lives of other notable Boulder
citizens.
Wallace Chambers was the eldest son of George W. and Eliza Chambers. He was born in
Pennsylvania in approximately 1853. When he arrived in Boulder, he was about six years old.
The Chambers family were known as "59'ers', arriving in Colorado at the time of Boulder's
founding. In 1861, George W. Chambers was appointed one of the first County Commissioners
by the Jefferson Territorial Legislature and in 1862 he was elected the first Treasurer of Boulder
County. The family held many mining and agricultural interests in Boulder County and, in 1887,
the Chambers Stone Lime and Cement Company was incorporated under the laws of the State
of Colorado .The purpose of the company was described as:
"To quarry and prepare stone ready for use in erecting all kinds of buildings and structures of
every description whatever and to gutter and pave streets, road and alleys and to sell the same.
To contract and build all kinds of public and private improvements..."
In addition to his involvement in the Chambers Stone Company, Wallace Chambers was a
teamster, hauling supplies to the mining camps in the mountains and returning with gold, silver
and other ore. In 1910, the Chambers S.L.C. Company supplied stone and cement for the
building of dams in the Boulder Watershed and Wallace Chambers hauled the freight to build
the Albion Dam with a team of eight horses.
The stone house was later sold to John Teagarden and T.F. Fitzpatrick. In 1907, Teagarden sold
his share to Fitzpatrick. The house remained under Fitzpatrick ownership until 1923.
Thomas Fitzpatrick served on Boulder City Council from 1913 to 1917 and from 1924 to 1936.
He was instrumental in the building of Boulder's roads. His daughter, Jessie Fitzpatrick, was
principal of Whittier School from 1924 to 1947.
Additionally, this simple stone house provided shelter to numerous working class families who
also made their contribution to the establishment of Boulder . It remains virtually unchanged to
this day -105 years after it was built.
Attachment 2
From: Joe de Raismes <jderaismes@celaw.com>
To: dominick@historicboulder.org
Cc: msclements@mac.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 1:48:42 PM
Subject: 3231 Eleventh Street
As you know, I represent the Clementses in this matter. I sent a summary
of our conversation to my clients this morning as soon as we got off the
'phone. In the absence of comment from them, I will reiterate my
understanding of my clients' position: If Historic Boulder withdraws its
application concerning 3231 Eleventh, the Clementses will apply for
landmarking after the currently pending building permit is vested. The
intent is to landmark the historic structure and its viewscape. The
proposed addition would not be affected. I will work out the details
with you, as Historic Boulder Co-president, and I will copy you on all
landmark filings from here on out.
The Clementses realize that Historic Boulder is not legally precluded from
refiling its application, but it is our understanding that Historic Boulder
will defer to the Clementses in reinitiating the process.
If this reflects your understanding, please confirm, or please amend as
required. Thank you for your help in expediting board review of this
compromise.
Very truly yours,
joe
Joseph N. de Raismes
Special Counsel
Caplan and Earnest LLC
One Boulder Plaza
1800 Broadway, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302-6737
Phone: (303)443-8010
Fax: (303)440-3967
Ideraismes@celaw.com
http://www.ce I aw. com
Mkt##+k*t###****###M~¦~kk#V#
This electronic transmission (including any attached file) contains
information from the law firm of Caplan and Earnest LLC which may be
confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use
of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or
other use of this information is prohibited.
If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone or by electronic mail
(PostMaster(c~celaw.com).
Attachment 3
From: dominick@historicboulder.org <dominick@historicboulder.org>
70: mac.clemen[s@gmail.com
Ct:
Date: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:25 am
Subject: Fwd: Historic Boulder Landmark Application: 3231 11th Street
Attachments: ~ Text version of this message. (1KB)
Michelle:
I wanted to confirm Historic Boulder's meeting with you on Monday, March 31, 2008
between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. We will meet at the Spruce Street mansion, near the
corner of Spruce and Broadway.
Although I will not be available, Historic Boulder will have three to four representatives
available to discuss our application to initiate landmarking. Historic Boulder will not have
legal representation at the meeting. Historic Boulder's policy is not to conduct
conversations with third parties that have legal representation present when Historic
Boulder does not have legal counsel available.
As I had described to you, the purpose of the meeting is to share information on Historic
Boulder's application. In particular, we are happy to share with you what we consider the
merits of your property and why it is worthy of landmark designation.
Based on,comments that you have shared, I may have given you the impression that
Historic Boulder is interested in or capable of reviewing the merits of your proposed
development. To be clear, Historic Boulder's intent and focus is on the historic character of
the property and on the merits of landmarking and not on any particular or specific
plans. If the City decides to initiate landmarking based on our application, the nature of
plans for the property would be handled through a separate process, one that does not
specifically involve Historic Boulder. I apologize for any confusion, but I wanted to be clear
on Historic Boulder's role and interest.
Finally, we are encouraged that you are very aware of the historic qualities of your
property and the contribution it makes to the character and heritage of Boulder.
Accordingly, we'd be very pleased to have you join in our application for landmarking.
Thanks very much.
Dominick Sekich
Co-President, Historic Boulder
Attachment 4
House located at 8th and College, historic home on the left.
Y ~
as ~ ` y
" n
"~#~i~ .e~4.. s..~~ ~ - ii$~ flii7t _ i '""s,' ~AS z w
A..F"w„,.,c~ xNFyfXSx~a f~ 1f
`~~l;i {~14~4 F
~ ~ ~
~ ~~n
~ ~ #
~ x ~ s ~ c . ~ ~ a ,
~ ~
ro~
+ rE t~
' S s-s 9,~ ~s,
w
~ s . i ~ ~ ~ ~k"' -•°'Sp'ra~ trtdY~~ ~j).t.i &u„~?',+d .~.a.,.~ +6'~ ~
~
.
_ ~,.z
;~3 ~+n'~~':~d~„~'~,-.each- ~3~ 3w~ rj`: `x k~a ,,,r7
5 -N
~ Lt .N k.'d
k t 7<3
House located near the corner of 15th and Columbine, historic home in
the front, to the left.
k~ ~ ~ i
~ *rb
t'.
} ~ng+~ ti
~ .R p 1
v
J~. r 1T a. ~xy ::fit ~f,..,'""~ - ~
^w~ ,
~k