HomeMy WebLinkAbout2A - Consideration of a application to designate the house and property at 323 11th St as a local historic landmark (HIS2007-00244) MEMORANDUM
July 1, 2008
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the house
and property at 3231 11`" Street as a local historic landmark per Section
9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2007-00244).
STATISTICS
1. Site: 3231 11`" Street
2. 7..oning: RL-1 (Residential Low - 1)
3. Owner: Michael & Michelle Clements
4. Applicant: Landmarks Board
5. Lot Size: Approximately 12,700 square feet
6. Date of Construction: 1902
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board deny the application to designate the property at 3231 11`" Street as a
local historic landmark, finding that although the proposal meets 9-11-1(a) in that the
designation would protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building of the city reminiscent oi' past
eras, events, and persons, it does not meet the legislative intent of 9-11-1(b) in that it does not
draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest, and adopts
this staff memorandum as findings of the Board.
SUMMARY
¦ The purpose of this review is for the Board to determine whether the proposed designation of
3231 11`" Street conforms with the purposes and standards of Sections 9-11-1 Legislative
Intent and 9-11-2 City Council May designate Landmarks and historic Districts of the
Boulder Revised Code (BRC).
¦ On March 24, 2008 Historic Boulder, Incorporated submitted an individual landmark
application for the property (See Attachment A: Landmark Application), and on April 23,
2008 the board voted 4-U (Kornblum recused) to initiate designation.
¦ Staff believes that designation of this building meets section 9-11-1(a) in that the building
may be eligible for designation. IIowever, staff believes the designation does not meet
S:\YLANldataUonF,rang\HIS'(\LmdmarksU 1 th.3231\7.01.2008 LR I Icaring\07.Ol.OS LYAB Design:uiun ~9~~mo Final do;,
Agenda Item #lA Ya£e 1
section 9-11-1(b) of the historic preservation ordinance, in that the designation does not
balance private property rights with the public's 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.
• Staff recommends that the Board find that the designation of the house at 3231 11 t'' Street
does not conform with the purposes and standards of the historic preservation ordinance, and
that the Board deny the application, adopting this staff memorandum as findings of the
Board.
BACKGROU'VD
Landmark initiation and designation has been considered several times on this property in the
past year, beginning in June 2007 when the board considered initiating designation, and did not
initiate. In September 2007 the board considered initiating designation of the property for a
second time and initiated the designation process. At the designation hearing in November 2007,
the board decided to withdraw the application. In March 2008 Historic Boulder, Inc submitted
an application, and the board decided to initiate the application. The property owners are
opposed to individual landmark designation. See Attachment F: Transcripts of September S,
2(XJ7and Novemher 7, 2007 flearin~s
PROPERTY DESCRiP'I'ION
The approximately 12,700 square foot lot at 3231 11`l' Street contains an approximately 1,200
square foot stone house. The house is believed to have been constructed in 1902 by Wallace
Chambers. Vernacular 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 rear. The walls of the
house ale 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 are
in poor condition. The original portion of the house has simple 1/1 double hung wood windows,
1~ f~~1k } ~2 ~ which appear to be original to the
r~~ ti~r;,r~~ z~~ ` 1~' house. The front door is a wood 4
t ' ~ ,yf~ ~ ~ ~ ~;4?~, ~ ~ panel door, with an upper light
FAY - ~ - .~s' ~ with decorative stained glass.
~1 x: , ~'i_ pa - ' '.mss
" ~ ' ~ y ~ ~ - _ Based on the assessor card photo
Y~4~S~ rAa ~"~..:1c -~-Ewa'„,
c. 1953, the front porch is not
-L=, -l~`~ - ~ ~ • original to the house, and through
_ a ~ 1>- ~ °?3: a; historic aerial photography
- ~ c
w t~ _ research the porch roof appears to
- - w ~ ~ have been constructed sometime
'`T ' ~ ~ ~"'"~~-~''72+1 - " ` ~ ~ between 1966 and 1976, when a
~ ~ - - f T3 - ~-~r~ permit was pulled to "replace
' ~ ' • . - ~ ~ ;k ~
~ cover qn front porch and recap
ront porch with concrete. The
Figure 1: c. 1953 Assessor Card P{into porch was reconstructed again in
Courtesy Boulder Carnegie Branch Library fnr Kcal History 1998, which appears to be when
the metal posts were replaced with
S:\PLANldata\longrang\HIS7~1.andmarksU lth.323]\7.01.2008 LB Hearing\07.01.08 LPAB Designation ,'vlemo Fnal.doc
Agenda Item #lA Page 2
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 rear of the house appears to have had two additions; the first was the addition in the
northwest earner of the house, which was aone-story wood fi
~arrle with simulated brick rolled
asphalt siding. The second addition was the larger 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 rear porch."
It is assumed that the southwest addition was constructed at this time. See Attachment B: Flistoric
Building Inventory Record
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 11th Street was
y * { :,y ~<<,~.~.~ constructed. The
s c.~~,~ r~.''t`t sr~' ac~' - ~ { i remaining site is
33 jp~ } xi ~ t
yJi ~Y~~ - }I; 'Y.~.~," . ~;,~,fd'' _ f " ~ .t ~ l~s~ approximately 12,700
~ ~ d~z 2_ ~ d square feet in size, and
s `t ~ t~ ~ } V~,~r;,~ ,h has some mature trees.
*a'~`'~Y ~ The fence surraundin the
_
"r-~ - ~ property was constructed
>r ~ . • ,f x~> ~ r xY~ in 1998. 'The remnants of
. ~ three wooden wa on
, ~
u g
C; ~ . ' ~ wheels are imbedded in
.f j rs-~.a
~1. l' ~ ? ~ - concrete on the south side
.4
i 1
r~ s' a ` of the house, and the
' ~ - ' concrete has the date of
T ~ ~ ? ~ 'i ~ ~ ~ ; ~ i ~ r`{,~ August 24, 1952. There is
r r, : 3 3 K y ~ x ~ G E ~ f~' ~ ~ p F_ ~r also a small covered
`~r~ ~ , I:~ - ~ ~ <<2 ~ <<~-~ plcnlc table In the meddle
,
~ ' ~s~-'- ~ ~r `,;1~-~' ~ ~ k~'" ~ ~z ~ of the rear yard. See
_ ~5y Attachment E: Current
- __".j
Photographs
Figure 2: 2007 Photograph
CRITERIA FUR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
Section 9-11-5(c) Public Hearing Before the Landmarks Board, of the historic preservation
ordinance specifies that in their review of an application for local landmark designation, "the
landmarks board shall determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes
and standards in Sections 9-11-1 Legislative Intent, and 9-1 l -2 City Council May Designate
Landmarks mzd Historic Districts".
9-11-1: Legislative Intent states:
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by
protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\H1S'I~Landmarks\l lth.3231\7.01.2008 LB Hearing\07.01.08 LPAB Designation Memo ~nal.doc
Agenda Item #lA Pose 3
of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history or providing
significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this
chapter to develop and maintain appropt7ate settings and environments for such
buildings, sites, and areas to enhance prvperty values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote
tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage.
(b) The City Council dues nut 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 ether alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and
new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating
surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them.
(c) The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new
construction on landmarks or structures in a histvric district, the Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board shall follow relevant city policies, including, without limitation; energy-
efficient design, access for the disabled, and creative approaches to renovation. [not
applicable in this case]
9-11-2: City Council may Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the City Council may by ordinance:
(1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an
integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having a
special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
and designate a Landmark site for each landmark;
(2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of
sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a
distinct section of the city;
(3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites,
buildings, structures, or features which are contained in two or more
geographically separate areas, having a special character and historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value that are united together by
historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics; and
(4) Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or
district.
(b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the
requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city.
To assist in the interpretation of the historic preservation ordinance, the Landmarks Board has
adopted significance criteria to use when evaluating applications for individual landmarks. The
criteria are included in Attachment C: Simi tcunce Criteria.
S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\H tS'I~l.andmarks\I lth.3231\7.02.2008 LB Hearing\07.01.08 LPA}3 Designation Memo Fiual.doc
Agenda Item #lA PaQe 4
The Board may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. Findings
must be adopted within 30 days of the hearing date. Should the Board disapprove the application,
the Board must notify City Council of that action within fourteen days of the hearing date. City
Council may call up a decision disapproving a designation. Should an application he
disapproved, the same application may not be submitted for a period of one year.
If the Board finds that the proposed designation conforms to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 of the
code, it shall adopt specific findings and conclusions approving or modifying and approving the
application. If the Board approves the proposed designation, the application will be forwarded to
City Council (within 100 days) for a public hearing.
ANALYSIS:
Staff's analysis is based on the criteria for review as delineated above.
A. Does the proposed application protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas
of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or
national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past?
B. Does the proposed application 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?
C. Does the proposed application draw a reasonable balance between private property rights
and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage
by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be
carefully weighed with other alternatives?
A. Does the proposed application protect, enlza~:ce, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas
of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or
national history or providing significant exumples of architectural styles of the past?
Staff finds that the proposed application would protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building and
site of the City reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local history and
provide for a significant example of an architectural style of the past to be preserved. Staff
believes that the application meets the historic and architectural criteria for individual landmarks
as outlined below, which was adopted to assist in the interpretation of this section of the
ordinance:
IIistoric Significance
Summary: The house at 3231 11~' 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
S:~F'LATVldataVongrang\}IIS7~LandmarksU 1th3231\7.01.2008 LI3 He:uing\07.01.08 LPAB Designation 1~Iemo t~inaLdoc
A~cnda Item #lA Page 5
to Boulder, which was platted in 1891, this house appears to be in the oldest 3°Io of
houses remaining in the neighborhood. Based on assessor data, there are 21 properties
out of 825 in the Newlands Subdivision 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. The 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 near Left Hand Canyon for many
of its commercial and residential buildings. Some of the projects include the footing for
the Masonic 'T'emple 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 "I'.H. Fitzpatrick and J.A. Teagarden in 1903. The Chambers moved to 1535
Pearl Street. 'Thomas lI. 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. I`Tc 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 years, 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. See AttaclTnunt U: Deed and Directory Research
Although associations with the various owners are 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
4. Recognition by Authorities: none observed
Architectural Significance
Summary: The house at 3231 11`~ Street has architectural significance under criteria
1, 2, 3, and 5.
1. Recognized PeriodJStyle: Vernacular Masonry
>N;laboration: The stone masonry house at 3231 11`I' Street is constructed in the
vernacular masonry style, with a hipped box subtype, defined by the hipped, or pyramidal
t•oof type, and simple square footprint of the house. With the additions, the house is of an
irregular footprint, but the original form of the stone house is clearly evident. The simple
S_\F'LAN\data\lonlrtn};\HIS'llL.~ndmarks~] Ith-3231\7.(11.2O<)R LI3 }learin~\07.OL08 LPAIS Uesign:uion Memo Fural.dcx;
Agenda Item #lA Page 6
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~' 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 1`land 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
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.
B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such br~ildi~tgs, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize
neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City's
living heritage?
Staff finds that the proposed application would maintain an appropriate setting and environment
for the building to enhance property values, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster
knowledge of the City's living heritage. Staff however, does not believe that this application
would stabilize neighborhoods due to the application relating to only one property, in a
neighborhood of only one individual landmark and no historic districts.
Environmental Significance:
Summary: Staff believes that the application does not meet any of the environmental criteria for
individual landmarks as outlined below, which was adopted to assist in the interpretation of this
section of the ordinance:
1. Site Characteristics: none observed
2. Compatibility with Site: none observed
3. Geographic Importance: none observed
4. Environmental Appropriateness: none observed
S.\I'LAN\dataUongrang\HiS7~Lvidrtiarks\I Ith 323]\7.OL?008 LR Hearing\07 OI.OK I..PAl3 llesignatioo demo Final d,K;
Agenda Item #lA Page 7
5. Area Integrity: none observed
6. Other: None observed
C. Does the prupvsed application draw a reasonable balance between private properly rights
and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage
by ensuring that demvlition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be
careficlly weighed with ether alternatives?
In this case, where the resource is not threatened with demolition, staff does not think it is
necessary or in balance with private property rights to designate the property aver the owner's
objection.
In the history of the historic preservation program, individual landmark designations over the
owner's objection have occurred rarely, and are believed to have always been associated with the
threat of demolition of the building. Of the 118 designated individual landmarks since 1980
(1974 to 1979 records are not clear on who initiated), 110 were initiated by the property owner.
Four were initiated by Historic Boulder, one by the Modern Architecture Preservation League
(Bandshell), and five by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Of these lU designations,
four are believed to have been over the owner's objection and all were thought to be threatened
with demolition:
1980: 2032 14`h Street -Boulder Theater
1990: 646 Pearl St -Arnett-Fallen House
1998: 1949 Pearl Street -Campbell Grocery
2007: 1936 Mapleton Avenue - Frakes House
Prior to the adoption of the demolition ordinance in 1994, there was noway to know if a building
was threatened with demolition. The ordinance put into place a mechanism to ensure that
unanticipated demolitions did not occur, thereby eliminating speculative landmarking
applications. As part of the demolition ordinance, "demolition" was defined (and refined over
time), establishing acommunity-wide threshold at which review by the Landmarks Board would
be required. In the last 13 years, the ordinance (including the definition) has set certain
expectations in the community, most importantly that if a building is not proposed for
demolition, there will be no involvement with the Landmarks Board. If demolition of a building
is requested, the city process and ordinances clearly specify that if a determination of
significance is found, alternatives to the demolition of the building shall be sought, including the
potential for landmark designation.
At the designation hearing in November 2007, the board withdrew the designation application.
See Attaclurle~tt F: Transcripts of September S, 2007 u~td NovembE~r 7 2007 Flearinr;s for a
transcript of this healing. 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
S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\HIS11LandmarksU i th.3231\7.01.2008 Lft Hearing\07.01.08 LPA13 besignation Memo Final.doc
Agenda Item #IA Paee 8
effective date of the final action on the original proposal." If the board was tv deny the
designation application, demolitivn of the building could not be prevented.
The board chose not to deny or recommend approval of the designation and withdrew the
application in November 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 designative, 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 active 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 maybe 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
designating this property is such a case and that it does not draw a reasonable balance between
private property rights and the public interest.
FINDINGS
The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application and evidence presented that the
proposed designation application is not consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. Althvugh the proposed designation would protect, enhance, and
perpetuate a building and site of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important
in local history, the proposed designation does not draw a reasonable balance between private
property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage (9-11-1(b), B.R.C. 1981).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Individual Landmark Application
B: Historic Building Inventory Record
C: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
D: Directory & Deed Research
E: Current Photographs
F: Transcripts of September 5, 2007 and November 7, 2007 Hearings
S:\PLAMdaiaUongrang\FiIST~L.andmarks111th.3231\7.01.2008 LB Hearing\07.01.08 LPAB Designation Memo Final.dcx:
Agenda Ttem #lA Page 9
~"l~'~~~ ~ cr~~(o~ Attachment A
Application for Individual Landmark
Name of Building: Date: ~ I o~ ~ (;(j
Address: ~ ~ 3 ~ I
Owners : ~a~C~~l~O.o~ ~ r Phone: ~
Address(es): ,5OJ~S ~ 0-~-~L. ~~C.' - ~ ~ ~G~L~
1 ~ ~ l! ~y
Applicant:`-I~~,Q;\/GJ~~I,c-; Phone: ~Q~j, ~~7~ •S~ / r
Address: I I c~ ~ ~ _ ; ~J 1 "~C'~
Date of Construction:
Ty e of Construction:
Architectural Style /Period: V `~~-'U'C/~
Architect /Builder: p~ ~/\a-~y~~~
Cclndition of Exterior: Qr(•~~~
Additions /Alterations to Exterior: 1 iY~J
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 Landmarks Board initiate designation of a property or area, there is no fee involved.
I certify that the information and exhibits frerewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Si nature:
Address: ~ ~ b~~
Desi nation initiated b Date:
• AGENDA ITEM tk1ls_.PAGE ~ ~
Attachment B
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ~ NOT FOR FIELD USE
1300 Broadway, 6enver, Colorado 80203 Eligible _ Nominated
' ~ Oet. Not Eligible - Certified Aehab-
HISTORIC BUILDING iNYENTORY RECORD Date
PROJECT NAME: 8ouldrr Su rvey'of'Hi'storic' 'COUNTY: "CITY: STATE ID NO.: 58L5266
Places, 1995 _ Boulder _ Eloulde_r
TEMPORARY NO.: 1461-24-4-08-007 '
CURRENT BUILDING NAME: OWNER: VOORHIES BARBARA TRUSTEE OF
BARBARA VOORHIES TRUST
3231 11TH S7
BOULDER CO 80304
ADDRESS: 3231 11TH ST
BOULDER, CO $0304
TOWNSHIP 1N RANGE 71u SECTION 24 SE 1/4 NE 1/4
HISTORIC NAMF: U.S.G.S. gUAO NAME: Boulder, Colo.
YEAR: 1966 <PR1979) X 7.5' 15'
BLOCK: 9 LOTCS): 15-18
DISTRICT NAME: ADDITION: Newlands YR. OF ADDITION: 1841
FILM ROLL NO.: 95- 7 NEGATIVE NO.: LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION:
BY: Roger Uhitacre 2 Boulder City Ping. ESTIMATE: 1899 ACTUAL:
. sa SOURCE:
- : ~,1; Boulder County Assessor
" , i~
a' ~c. J- s~`~ USE:
_ r,R:r=, ;I j PRESENT:
r'
~r
,fir ~ ~ I ~ Residence
iv 1 tit ry ~ '1
_ ~ y~ < ~}r#z
~~~~';i~~~s~~l,,~- ~•i HISTORIC:
R, .~F~w.l'`t.~ ~n ~'"+'~;yo- i~ ~ Residence
~~s
CONDITION:
EXCELLENT X GOOD
FAIR DfTERI0RA7ING
EXTENT Of ALTERATIONS:
- MINOR X MODERATE MAJOR
_ _ I > DESCRIBE:
New gabled porch added; new windows
- in south side enclosed entry and in
, l~ a dormers; brick addition on north.
..may ~ ~ . . ~ , 'FYc+o,~,~~,.~,~ '~'''tt`
CONTINUED YES X NO
STYLE: Vernacular Masonry STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED
1 DATE(S) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Stone, Wood, Concrete Sq. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
1193
INDIVIDUAL: YES X NO
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
One-and-a-half-story dwelling With pyramidal hipped roof With overhanging eaves; CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT:
shed roofed dormers on north and south. walls composed of roughly quarried YES NO
stone. Projecting, gabled porch with wrought iron supports atop concrete base. LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: No
Center, paneled and glazed door. Double hung, 1/1-light windows wish stone
lintels and silts. Brick chimney on end wall. NAME:
DATE:
ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? X YES NO
TYPE:
Garage
If INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.:
CONTINUED? YES X NO
ADDITIONAL PAGES: YES X NO
~ ~ PA~E~,
PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: STATE ID NO.: SBL5266
I Unknown
ORIGINAL OWNER:
Unknown
SOURCE:
SOURCE:
I ( I BUILDER/CONTRACTOR: r
I- Unknown - -
I
I THEME(S):
I I ~ I SOURCE: Urban Residential Neighborhoods,
I 1858-present
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (DESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE):
CONTINUED YES X NO
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSOPIS'AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STRUCTURE):
In 1916, this was the home of Cornelius and Ruth Barnett. Cornelius Barnett was a painter. In 19'18, S. Earl and
Winifred Wagner lived here. Wagner was a bricklayer and building contractor. The Wagners still lived here in 1928.
CONTINUED YES X NO
SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE [ATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW);
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSQNS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS
X REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT
TIER EVALUATION:
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE:
This house, although altered, reflects vernacular construction of the early twentieth century through its hipped roof with
overhanging eaves, double-hung windows, and lack of architectural details which would indicate a particular style. The
house is notable for its native stone construction.
CONTINUED YES X NO
REFERENCES (8E SPECIFIC):
Boulder County Assessor records; Boulder City Directories.
CONTINUED YES X NO
SURVEYED BY: R.L. Simmons/J,E. 8roeker AFFILIATION: front Range Research Associates, Inc. DATE: June 1995
AGENDA ITEM # ~
~ PAGE
Attachment C
ADOPTED 9/17/1975
City of Boulder
Landmark Preservation Advisory Board
Significance Criteria for an Individual Landmark
On September 6, 1974, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing the
procedures for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of
Boulder. The purpose of the ordinance is the preservation of the City's permitted
cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the
ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its own organization
and procedures. The following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the Board to
help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner.
Historical Significance
The place (building, site, are) should show character, interest or value as part of
the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state, or nation;
be the site of historic or prehistoric event(s) that had an effect upon society; or exemplify
the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community.
1. Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on
the age of the structure.
2. Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national,
state or local.
3. Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is the most
applicable to an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc.) or business
structure though in some cases a residence may qualify. It stresses the
importance of preserving those places which demonstrate the growth during
different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awareness
of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
4. Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, lnc., the
Boulder I-Iistorical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, lµrink, GIadden,
Paddock, Schooland, etc.) F.L. Olmstead, or others in published form, as having
historical interest or value.
AGENDA ITEPN # ~.I~.,.PAGE
Architectural Significance
i
The place should portray those distinguishing characteristics of an architechtral
type specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master
builder, known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has
influenced later development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials
or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the
uncommon.
1. Recognized Period(s)/Style(s): It should exemplify specific elements of an
architectural period/style, i.e.: Victorian 1Zevival styles, such as described by
Hisforic American Building Survey Criteria, Gin eg rbread__A~e_(Maass), 76 Boulder
Homes (Barker}, The History of Architectural Style (Maxcus/Tiffin), Architecture
in San Francisco (Gebhard et al), I-Iistory of Architecture (Fletcher},
Architecture/Colorado (Thorsen et al) and any other published source of
universal or local analysis of "style".
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect
or builder who is recognized for their expertise nationally, state-wide or locally.
3. Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of
excellent visual quality and/or demonstrates supexior craftsmanship.
4. Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, detail, material, or
craftsmanship that are representation of a significance innovation.
5. Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the
Boulder area.
6. Other, if applicable.
Environmental Significance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the
community by the protection of the unique natural and man-mad environments.
1. Site Characteristics: The site should be of high quality in terms of planned or
natural vegetation.
2. Comta
tibilit~ with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing,
placement, or other qualities design with respect to its site.
AGENDA {TFl+A # ~~..pAGE -.:l~-
3. Geo raphic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical
characteristics, it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
community.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it
is situated in a manner particularly suited to its function.
5. Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental
importance and continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or
out of context might not qualify under other criteria.
6. Other, if applicable.
AGENDA ITEM #.L!`` .PAGE ( ~
Attachment D
3231 lln' Street Deed Research
Owners of 3231 l l~h Street
Bold indicates long term owners
Lot 17 ET B9 Newland Addition
Prior to 1902 Mollie T. Dyer
1902-1903 Margaret Chambers
1903-1908 T. H. Fitzpatrick and J. A. Teagarden
1.908-1914 F. M. Rogers and Clarence F. Rogers
1914-1923 Ivie E. Fitzpatrick
1923-1928 Samuel E. and Winifred Wagner
1938-1938 Ethel V. Stromberg
Lot 17 ET B 9 Newlands Addition to L,ot I S Et Newlands Addition
1938-1938 Sarah H. Worthing
1938-1987 Richard I.. Worthing
1987-1993 Charles B. and Carol W. Semple
1993-1998 Barbara Voorhies
1998-2002 D. J. MacDonald Bowyer
2002-2004 Stephen B. and Leslie C. DeFrees
2004-2007 John and Lisa Goodson
2007-present Michelle and Michael Clements
Residents of 3231 11~' Street
Bold indicates long term residents
1913 Vacant
1916 C. C. Barnett
1918-1932 Samuel E. Wagner
1936 Arthur Eastman
1938-1940 J. Tim Johnson
1943 Vernon W. Brown
1946 Jas A Williamson (carpenter)
1949-1987 Kichard L. Worthing
1988-1989 Gary G. Robertson
AGENDA ITEM # 1 ~ ' 1'AGI:
. , , ~ , d- t _ ~ is ~ ~ f~~ ^`r C~
sr _.G.,r-0rt _ ^r `'k~+'X~,ti : fi... ~Jti tlr Y! •n,~`~s'
M 1~t"-L ~~~~~.~,~.4,2`~ - 'r - ~~ir,. y ~ - 4 i 3L;'~ . ~t+Af-?.C';i",~,y 1~~r4 ~1f ,4'r; r~
U '.y ~ .Li1Y~ ~ ~ L 7. / y/-. vti `fir ~ yw
,r 4 - ish~iT .i. S A.o~,&t ~ t ~i• ai r !r-•. - ~ r y,~t''J, ~~:%i .f 6
-?d (,i. - ~ . "''~P ~ aI' `q ~
r, „'r+~4 t i x ~i, ~ ~ Pr ~ _ ~ ' T ~ -Lt ~ ~ < .C, +fc: ;i
~ j;~~ ~~A-g'~,~t. ~ - H~~~ ,•.:p ~ + ~t'~'~~~ 1. - `~\r -~`Y~. ~ 7 y~a
~ " 7" ~ i%W > :t:• n'k's rt ~ C• 1 ~ c~.t ,J s 7'}',.'.'~l~'gv,
r . y . ~ a., 6 [ v f'~; ~~~(~~1if` , C., ~C ok .,,,,~,,c a ~ _ r ~..-c~~7 ~
`P~' ~.x'Pib`~L'' r .f: ~.1'ix Fz~ ~Y't"i;afr.~-+..'".'T~,,.~'~`•'"C y~•?~{, a ...t-..• ,--:(l „'v Y Ki '"`..f *r .',~ri1
.f. S,M try P v yr-r.,7~iFw ~`k.. ~ M ~ _ L, Q
_ :,;y.~~`~^' sr y~~c.1t ~a. ~`~`P.r r L. ~ ~''f'x - ~ Q:. ~ ti' ~
~~Y: , -`.,.r~~r ~ "Yc,, ti• :chi n -,Lti T _ ~~i S - W
'te'a j c i '.."G. ~ i.- .a'~. A ~ ~ ~ -,••~,..~L r i Y l.c
~ ~ ~ r •'~•r. J r ~alJ ti „G ~P, ~ ;i 4."F L~ ~ "r"' ~ a'` - ~ r l ~
9 A Pf. IIf
r s ~"O~+-~a>r r•'V' ~ :~~tr f ~ +m. ~ y,y ~ ~ ',I:
~ > k, ii ~ • y 1 {mac - --'^r.: r. °b- - r~•t r ~
_ i,, ~ 7•~ r ~?'f r Ofw 1,~~fib ..1'~1i~, 71 - 4 - A 'i 5 - ' l ,rd
; ` tt~` ~~(Cr ~ Y ~'u~n "i ...A~' a~jy tel. .G„ ~ {r..'~ c ~ ~
{ ..~•i1 •P~-. r~1~" f 'i 1 ~ ~ 1 y ~ ~ .`s`2i+si~. ..rz71,~_
t A~~ :
f J'~'{~ TS . 'y n ~ ~ i ~ ~ •i i, i
~4 .h,~1~•"n~,~•'+(7-.1 ~~y.,L .4~ n-~','. f~l`~a .i~..R_~-L'1 P~i.y~.~,`y ~•~4 'y. i~^t 1"'4~t k7y -j'r .1~;~~ ~~~~i•'!''t'•.1 r '•r _c~
t •aa~ ` ~ `.C Y~ ..,J`<v y'fy ~,",s`YA~,~ 1 a ' ~h ~ - ' ` t ~ - r :.•!'a~+ ; . ~~1
Y ! t ~ ,r c , s. 4 : sta. t
.}Y _+r,~p `l~ r ,'•i+S ~ t'~~F' ~J?F~ • dhr` ~ `S {1~. + ` ~ +tfj~~~~~~'~ 1r _ y _r f . r' ..y i
rr ~ _ ! .~~yrkc ~ `~R-~y. ff• Dr i~ 'tf~~F~ .a. q~~ _ry ~+h,:I ~ ¢ ; ~ .~~ry ~ a Kf.~ - ` f ~ ~~1
t r •7•r3f' - 'a'n •:.`.1c~` :.,lr~ hi .ip~" ' `7~.~i _ + ' L
s;t~ r'~ ~ k'1 i~1 Tr 'MF~~ :c ~ rP t s _ ~W'~ 1,
3 Y h. .y ar,f= t '~•^~•-r'7 ~ ri' n.., ,rY'-~: 's..'' ,t'-`_ 1 ~l "Awe` ~`•4 '~t'w -t'- y •I
~jv~-..rh ~ ~ ~.w~~~,@~~,{~ i~`:t ! _ \ - J w - - `3f.a i ev-' nh*~i ~i~,
icy;, , • ~0!•' 1 rr ..i~ 'tit„ ~ r k ~ ~ rC .•'P.f ~ 7 ly/FL : •n,
y ~ .a ~ ~yjZC"~i~~- rt ~ ~'S • a r~I
• :
i
- ~ti-..,,~ b ,k,•.r . rl.: ~ Y y~.,:.y _r,,t^" _ t T f
•
+r3G;'tf%~ S'/°b~"'~i'~ ~ $ ~ ,t~". ' a+ }•~v" 7' x=-~ 'i,,y'„L~' j
2
r .rrf,.le•• t y , ~9
"4' Rte.
r'„K'4_~'e`.• ~ ~a~ 1A'q„'E'at ~ ~ ~ 3L C r~~~,,,,,~ P~i.. _ _ `~+WI:'°`ex"nF°-~P~x R 1 . 1.. ~ 1
_~a e., 7r7 'IBS' - ~ - a: 7'
?~F}ti~~•w ~ / r ~ ti ,'~rr1 ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ I'~~3^ tw-r+!. _ r ~ y...
• 1 7. ~tdY. -.t ~ r~~~~~ F ' - - P~, ~ } - i - rr ~ i.... f -4r ~i
r,,u~„,-.~'•',~ ~ l 4 0 .iy../ , ~ - 7 _ Y., '.1.1; ~
K• '`Sir
~y •yji4,~ y~e~ ~ 1. ~ ! 4 tl w ~ r• ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rki
c ~fif 5 4- ~ ~ - ° ~1- 'TN•• 'lRQ n. ! 7 n n. Ii i ` 1 r
T~ y ~ ' .t ` ' , ~ ~iK,~.r i 1 + n ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1r f r t ~ ^
b ra ~„r ~vs- ..2~, f ' , a ~ lC~ . ~ ~ L ii ~ f 5' `t ~y t 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ A 1 A ~t~,~
~j i {J{ i
~ r P ~ I 1 ,N 4. li. F -:i ~ ~ 7J k w ~ ~ ~ +r ~ ' ~ ~ y a F ~J
~ >e ~.r:
Y,~ 7 ~j
c ~ ~ ~ , :~i~c~~•'~ 'L K"'ti<+ " r "r''~- ~7+er~ b + ~ ~,.ytik~~.cw`~ t,~.'~
f ~ ~ 1l, 'c~^,~~
~°fu~~Q~,~'~: ..~JV~ R, ~ .~-~Y-"y,•,.~ ~ { i,
2:. Y' .
y~~y i ~ ~ ~~S Tali ~ y. - r'' ' r... t._ .y,-.~ - i ~ . r.
ITT f ~'Y~ V ~ 1 A
rr'. ,~.ybf ^r 1~-.y~°$i •t. ~i'i: if \f 'T~ ~
^~M 5 ~ r s~~' x~ Lit a. ~ J.~ V~.~ f s. v > Al 1 t~ ~ ,k
,J°° ~ ~ ';y„Ayy',~4~:, c~~n "„~a>:c~` _l~j~~.r~<':~ i~a~ t-~' s I., ~1 ~r ~ ;~'.f~~~ ~~S{s-i _.f'~~. yi
'6~.±5" n ,'~jp~'r d _ ,.A~ _ ~ , 1 ,f~..rt f ~`14 ~ ~ ~ ~ y t ~1~ ,~>l ~ i
~ . ~1b ~i:~ b i 1 { .t,~. { ~ 4 it ~ i f 1
l,' 4
i , ~ L~, - .,~;riX ~ Sty Y A,L
~ ~ro ,l t~~ M T~, y .y~ 1`c ` , 4 ~ -r'~'' : ~ . ! 1 ~ 1 1`~ ; ~ ~ I ~ i '1r ` .
~ . t y'~` 'S.n~~i.1~ y v y°~t~" r n-: v.. ~ 1 1, 4 1 ~ ~ c~ ~r~- 3f~~.
6 , A, k'ri ~ti;Y,7 d f~w+~." !i sf,% . i t ; F~y'. ~ J,
fj ~ s
M' - ~ V y,: h .,l .1 1b i"~;a' f S.,~i"wd9..w?~ ~ ~tt9
' ~ ~ ..r,
+e~'i5 ~.F yi -F ~~s~ ~ ~ ~ '`tirhti4 ~ `s~o tr'~~s~, 1 b .s ~ f 1 a_ ~
~`Lyr~y T y~?~~f )h ~t{„~ ,,f - 9„~~., a.a+~ '~t~ "6: ~tt. ~~.>:.9~ y~ i S } ~ {1~.~ _t ~..+5. e. ~ S
? •Y 1. ? 0
'~k"l i s' * qt~~
~i u.- t {y .j~~•'S'Y" ~c~ sa.'.c ~ &;.ai „ ~.Y,t ~ .r~1 ~ n~ ~ ~^t t sir ?
C i,rFS't ~l~liC li,~ 4 j.-4. y,. ~ ~ * ~ t Q ,y ~ ` y'; l~ J r f ~ N ~ : t't~
a ° ~.,i ~ r"'. N ~i i ~ '~4- . t ~ ? "'s'iv,' s `'y . r-
t ~'.l~r ` i~~.lf if r i ~ S .
Q.k., ia~..
;3;:~+A.sasSi~SfG~F3 t'~'~KS~&1c ...s...~ ~:t~=.~c.~_..a... ~~..•~~:le.+~~. aoL:l~~i1..i~~.,l ~ a _"~4-~'ti.~*a[.
a 4J~ , ~s t ~ K r/ a - r
r
T ~ ar ~k i ~4 ~ ,.ray.. ~?-y.y
f r.. i _ .n
ii.~ _i. ~...i..4i:': _
,ti~ r X _ _
q`d ~~'~~fGG~~~ N? ~~:~ti ~j 'w{ L ~^'~4 !/.c / ~r r. ~ err" "~z ~ '~2- wi.~:v c~~SY"~'.r'~:i7'e' ~S''C.~_..5..__... it r..:.~..~-".+tti,;,
4T ~ p,'=:..r ~ Fr ~ Sd. - '~?(1'k-~pC <N.A'~~,I, l`~ _,-y~l~y:: _ GZ ~ _ c a..c..~.~_ Sw+L `
.,.u ~ ?'f ~ i, l' .ter ~ dd~,!L:^..`^- ~ .t ~u- 1' '?,s:It ` y ~
- a..L~"~ u?=-ti..s.~~.~~~~~~'z..._.... °~-`rr^^-,et~r+ie6r..
ri n f ~ : f ; ~ ~ 1 -"'-~=e•-...:a=rte,. rtr,:tt~r., -it _ - - _ _ _
/ ~ r.
n _ t ~-rfi V'-t~ r Aye ~TC~~'`~ _ ` -T ~i "`i
~ ~#1!
w g _ a t ~ 7?r's}~~y ° .l T.y - -L t, _~i ~:'1 ~ _ _ 'i
~ ~ ^E. ~ ~ ~ S ~ 1r1 f' y , h^a. - ~ti I : L'',` ti ~~~]..~11w~ # ~ `ice-,;,,~
_ Iny. "1~_ ~ ~ j ~ s '!r t n J h +t ti.. it 'f ~ s ; r-~- z ~.a 1t.
~ h ~ ry~~ 1 ~ i~uy. y4'S~+Sf.! i ~~r~n r ` .x ~ t ~ w ' y.Lw i~~'.t~i':~~G1.:'i. •L.~~ AI~- -r
~ tlr VC
.l.
xp L~
.h
I Qq Y `.'ate a~a- r..
l t
a' '`}k
I --~'ki~~~ ~"¢r'"' y,,s~%frs,~,~ ~ '."`x~Y4~' Y 1~~.-; " N cam'
i L I I I ~ It ~ ^~a"xt k}} r Mrr ~3~J~~'~ n ^,"""L
i ~ f`r `l1~tY ~ ' h. 'r^- i Ya. sk@ Y~ n~f~ : %7f y~~~,~.~. 1 - y-'j ~Sy
V.I 1~~~ R ~ , _ 4Q~pS~ f_ ~tiN s..,r ~ 'L9 ~n"~'~~_'S-~a'y w'~ "J~'
Attachment F
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
Landmark Initiation Hearing Comments
3231 11"' 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 nearby. 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 argument 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
Aeenda Item #lA Paee19
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
"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 Landmarks Board as another
way to control growth or to coerce compliance with pexsonal 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 standard and that's our position today.
The history of this- the board has been around since 1974, many of the neighbors that are
concerned have been around 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 March of 2007 Mr. Goodson submitted an
application for a building permit; the Landmarks Board had its regular meeting on March
7`h. He applied for a demolition permit on March 29`''; the Landmarks Board had its
regular meeting on April 4`h. 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 Planning Department and ask them about that. And they
did that. They met in person, and in writing, and you have the Ietter there from Mr.
Callahan to the planners where he said the perspective (sic) purchasers would Iike
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 Landmarks
Board. There was no way their concerns could have been anymore clearly 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 Landmarks Board met again
on May 2"d, 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 demolitian issue, which they where aware of, the Clements, as a result of
acting with no expectation of ever being before this Board, they went ahead and
purchased this property on May 4`b, 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 IS minutes, that property was on the
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e2Q
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
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 landmarks 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 landmarking the property. That's the planners' position
based on their best professional judgment, and they are correct in this instance. The
factors to consider are: This property was purchased only after a direct, clear 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 large 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 9-11-3D is
specifically limited to historic preservation districts or applications by historic agencies
and not to landmarking 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 standards 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 primarily on June 13a' 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
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e21
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments '
activity. And the Board suggested to the City Attorney that was there on the 13"', which
was a different City Attorney than on the 6`h; 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`~ 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 23rd. "What were your concerns
about their building plans", and they were told `Your time is up'. It is perhaps necessary
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 participation.
I would like to begin by stating for the record that I strongly opposed the initiating of
landmarking 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 Board's concerns and request
regarding 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 landmark
consideration, it is clear to me that our rights as tax paying, private citizens are being
grievously ignored. Not to mention the additional expense we have incurred in attempting
to respect the wishes of this Board. It is unclear to us, what, if anything, can be done to
please the Board members, outside of landmarking. At the meeting that took place on
Agenda Item #].A Pa~e22
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
Thursday, August 23i`', 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 are we to know what, if anything, this board disapproves of?
Additionally, I would Iike 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 landmarking 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 landmarking. However, I ask you to consider the financial and
emotional effect this will place on us. So I ask you please vote against landmarking this
property.
Michelle Clements, Property owner, speaking during public participation.
Members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, I hope yvu 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
landmark. 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. 1 understand that these letters were precipitated by a flyer
that was sent out by a neighbor who Iives 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 Board 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 marked 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`i' 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 pans at all and are relying on the word of others, and are
making blanket and false accusations. Although there has been much confusion from the
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e23
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
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 necessarily
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 Board 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 are unclear 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`~ 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 hard 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 bii of debate
over time. The size of the structure-atypical way to evaluate that in the city of Boulder is
using a floor to area ratio, which relates the above ground square footage to the size of
the lot, this lot is over 12,000 square feet- this Iot 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 are in the
neighborhood. The floor to area ratio, at the end of the day for our proposed addition with
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e24
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
the existing home, is slightly in excess of 40% and houses that abut this particular parcel
are 40, 41 and 44%. So at any rate, I'm trying to establish that far 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
landmark process. Thank you for you time.
iVIichelle Clements, Property Owner, rebuttal
Thank you again for allowing me this time. We really don't have a whole lot more to say.
I fee] 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 architectural review committee. And the questions were asked,
what our intention was, and I think that given the fact that we wez-e 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 .Tune 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 C`E' 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
Agenda Item #1A Page25
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
come up again, where city staff said that we're not going to do that. So again I have to
question where are 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 22"d, 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 charge
to look at plans or not, or whether it's your charge to be all involved in any kind of
architectural 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 hard 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
arguments, you know, but it's still a legislative action.
(Addressing the issue of tagging): 'I'hcrc's nothing illegal about tagging
I,. 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`'' hearing was there discussion by
each of the board 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
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e26
September 5, 2007 Landmarks I3oard Comments
the right thing far 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 ]earned 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 ]andmarking 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
]ooking at preserving the historic integrity of the structure. Now we have, in our packet,
some photographs of same stone buildings and a recent case on 6a' street (2958 6"'
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 Iandmarking 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 landmarking 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 boards
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
Agenda Item #lA Pat:e27
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
which is `does this building have substantial merit?' And if it does, then we should
choose to initiate landmarking. 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 particularly meritorious structure that is deserving of landmarking,
for both any near 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
vernacular structure, which is what I consider this to be-frame structure. And it was in
my neighborhood, and 1 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 S-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 tot Iess 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 6`t' I believe, I was trying to craft some
sort of compromise where we retain the buildings itself, so if the board found it a
landmarkable object, that it would be just around that structure. In regards to this
particular 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
landmark.
S.I:. 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 landmark.
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e28
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
K. Watson: I don't think there's probable cause to consider it a landmark.
N. Kornblum: "I'he issues tonight, for our board, 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 11`h 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
architectural 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 clearly 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 are quickly fading, particularly in
the Newlands area, and our 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 architecture 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 board has allowed sizable additions on modest homes, and I could easily
cite to the public numerous times when this has happened. This property is particularly
unique because it is so large, 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 are 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,
Agenda Item #lA I'aQe29
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
under this definition of demolition, and that it won't be a demolition as long as it's just
49°l0.
I also note that the landmarks board 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 rarely does
this happen, however our board is charged with preserving the historic character of
Boulder, and unfortunately very occasionally a property owner may disagree about that.
So as I stated earlier, 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 haw we are 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 landmarked, they won't be subject to review by this board. And that's not to
say that I don't think a property's integrity can't be damaged 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
Agenda Item #1A Ya~e30
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
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 Landmarks 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 landmark. 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, 1 think there is no question they can be
damaged, but I don't support the approach the board is tatting 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.
I.. 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
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e31
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
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 are 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 architecturally, 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 landmarked, 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 are 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 landmark is at this very moment.
C. Meschuk: I think we discussed this in the June 6`'' 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-
Agenda Item #"lA Pa~e32
September S, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
And it would go back to what was said on June 6`h' 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. Plans, 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 it the code, so even though they submitted their building permit
request before the initiation hearing 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 Landmarks
Board or the design review committee.
S.E. Harrison: That's a very clear 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 landmarkij~g
was. I just want to make clear that once landmarking was initiated, then any changes or
alterations would have to go through the Landmarks Board 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.
Agenda Item #lA Pa~ei3
September 5, 200? Landmarks Board Comments
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 board 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 dawn 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 landmarking on individual
stntctures. I think what we have here is a particularly unique circumstance and 800
Arapahoe, I have heard I believe staff compare this and that similarly, 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 regularly occurring event and I don't think it's the beginning of any sort of trend.
I.. 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 b`h, with trying to discuss what's going on, because I do think there is
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e34
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
perhaps a lack of information and that our motives are really quite worthy and in fact, the
property owner could build a very large 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.>F;. Harrison: And Nancy, our office, as well as the landmarks staff, is very much in
agreement that it is really problematic for the Board to get into interactions with land
owners that may ultimately be before you in a quasi judicial hearing. 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 l80 day period
S.E. Harrison: And the code also allows the applicant to do nothing for 180 days.
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e35
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
J. Hewat: And also you should remember that there is a stay imposed, there can be that
contact with the Board provided that there is some kind of an intention to landmark, 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 landmark--
T. Plans: But I really don't think there arc any options other than what Chris has laid out,
we can either take no action or the Board can initiate designation. I think those are 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
argument is resting upon is that it appears as if some people do not like the way that stone
structure has been preserved but that's not part 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`~ 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. Plans: I think it was actually submitted as part of Mr. Callahan's attachment.
I,. 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
Agenda Item #lA PaQe36
September 5, 2007 Landmarks Board Comments
when we deal with actual landmark structures, those are always the criteria in which we
evaluate things by.
[Motion by L. May, seconded by L. Podmajersky to adopt resolution to initiate
landmarking of the property at 3231 11`h Street)
L. May, addressing the motion
A couple of key paints; 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.
Agenda Item #lA Pa~e37
Attachment F
Navembcr 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
November 7, 2007
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
3231 11`~ Street Designation. Hearing
T. Plass: We will now mave to action item 5B which is a public hearing and consideration of an
application to designate the house and property at 3231 l Ith Street as a local historic landmark,
per section 9-I l-5 in the Boulder Revised Code. The applicant is the Landmark's Preservation
Advisory Board, the owners are Michael and Michelle Clements. At this time I would ask board
members for any ex pane 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 unclear on that, but we discussed a bit of what had happened at the
board 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 Rurzin. I was contacted on two
occasions regarding this matter. The first 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 far 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 are 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 caIi early on in this matter
from Bev Potter who is a neighbor so I did talk with her as well.
Agenda Item #lA Page 38
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 hearing, 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 regarding 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
Patter.
T. Plans: 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. Plans: That does bring up an issue though, Willa, for me just in terms that you are on the
Historic Board. Is Historic Boulder going to take an official position on this matter?
W. Johnson: Yes.
T. Plans: 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 board? That's what you said, right?
Agenda Item #lA Page 39
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
T. Plass: I do hope you'll stick around 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, (understand, 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 1 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 IVIr. 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 Board this evening? All-I Do. We will start
out with a staff presentation.
C. Meschuk: Thank you Tim. So the criteria for the boards decision this evening as outline in
section 9-11-5, of the Boulder Revised Code, states that the board 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 landmarks and historic districts. So this 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 to call up you decision
within 45 days after the date of the denial. After that, your decision is final.
Agenda Item #lA Page 40
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 are all familiar with the property, located nn 11 Street in between
Forest and Grape, right on the northern 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 around 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 large 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 rear, and I'm going to spin around 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, Mary 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 architectural 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 clearly there was a lot of artistic care or craftsmanship put into
Agenda Item #lA Page 41
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 standards, 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
significance. Although believe the designation would enhance that site. In looking at section 9-
11-1bwhieh 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 far demolition. There's no threat of demolition and therefore the resource will
not be lost. Most of the designations the board has done over the owners-have been done quite
rarely 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 Iandmark 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 years 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
Agenda Item #lA Page 42
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation 1 scaring
a landmarks review for that building. Because this building is not threatened with demolition
there's still that community expectation that Landmark designation may not be involved.
Obviously the board 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 leave really ever dealt with before in the history of the
program. So with that in our staff recommendation, we recommend the board deny the
application, finding that the building is, we believe, to significant architecturally 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. P1ass: Thank you Chris. Questions for Chris from board 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. Kornblum: Question, I'm sorry. If this building were not to be landmai-kcd, 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 square foot house. The 50°Io threshold has now
changed. Correct?
C. Mcschuk: Correct.
N. Kornblum: So could they add there 7000, 6000, 5000 square 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 larger structure.
Agenda Item #lA Page 43
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
C: Meschuk: Yes, although you still have the factors of the demolition set up. Roof area would
be the entire building. So the roof area 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 SO°lo.
C. Meschuk: It doesn't matter that's separate. There is three pieces to the definition of
demolition. 54°~o yr more cif the roof, 50°Io 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
hearing 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 forward. And yvu will have 14 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. Kornblum's observation is quite correct. The reasons for the Clements
opposition are essentially stated in our protest which I trust you have had a chance to look at over
A~encla Item #lA Pale 44
November 7, 2Q07 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 landmark 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 effoxts 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 board's regulations and guidelines. And so we oppose designation for all of those
reasons. The other reasons are 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 ai 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 tcxms in the staff memorandum, which I
assume is all the historical evidence that staff was able to uncover. I know they looked at it
carefully. 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 dvn'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 argument will
not be an appropriate argument to resist landmarking. The community members who supported,
there are 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 landmarking 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 Landmarking although the ones you got
Agenda Item #lA Page 45
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
response to today's hearing all support Landmarking. Those are from the Newlands
neighborhood, very few of them are from the immediate neighborhood. Those two that I just
mentioned are 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 are
from the Newlands Neighborhood, all of whom oppose Landmarking 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 are opposing landmarking. And of those I received just this afternoon, there are at least
two from Ms. Howard and Ms...., both of which are 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 landmarking a building. There are planning ordinances in effect to
deal with the size of building setbacks and the like and landmarking is not a solution to not
wanting a big building on a lot. This is a very large lot. 12,000 plus square 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 square 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
Iandmarking especially strongly because the materials, there a three separate guidelines that
seem to preclude a 677 square 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 landmarking
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 carefully 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 forward and give you a presentation that she has based on her own feeling and
conversations with the neighbors and community residents.
'I'. Plans: thank you Mr. deRaismes. Marcy how much time is left?
Agenda Item #lA Nape 46
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation 1 Iearing
M. Cameron: Three minutes.
Michelle Clements 3231 l lth 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 are 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 landmarking. 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 recommendatic»~s that they made to our plans that we would
probably try to incorporate. So thank you for that time. And finally, I want to mention that at
the June 6 and Sept. 5th board meetings, Tirn Plass 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, Timis very well
thought of in terms of his preservation mindedness and given the fact that he is so preservation
oriented and he does express concern for our particular property. I would just hope your
colleagues would heed the concerns as well. So it's really in your hands. Thank you.
T. Plass: 'thank you Ms. Clements
Ms. Clements-and just for the record the petition I did submit to the board member and to Chr7s
Meschuk are a total of 55 signatures. It does specifically state that they oppose landmarking.
These are not just signatures at random. These arc people that understand the position that we
have been placed in and the process that we've gone through. Fourteen of them are in the
Newlands neighborhood.
'T. Plass: Thank you again Ms. Clements. I will now open the public testimony part of the
hearing. Anyone from the public that wishes to testify, is welcome to come forward now.
You'll have three minutes to give your comments. Please begin by stating your name and
address for the record.
Agenda Item #lA Yaffe 47
November 7, 2007 Landmarks 13o~u-d Designation Hearing
Beverly Pottery 3201 I lth street in Boulder. I have some additional history. Chris if you would
pass that down. I've high highlighted on the very brief paragraph 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 paragraph. The last teaming we did the
summer of l~I 1 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 this 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 1 Ith Street in Boulder,
that's three doors north of the little stone house that's being considered for landmark
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
_A~enda Item #lA Page 48
November 7, 2007 I,andrnarks Board Designation Hearing
that I care 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°Io could be demolished
now and atl 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 wilt 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 landmark
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 architecture 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. In 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 far the owners and community and
environmental benefits for the all be preserving this gem while serving this part of our
Agenda Item #lA Page 49
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
architectural heritage. The prior hearing the property owners have stated that in the plans they
subnvtted the stone structure and its integrity are 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 years,
but in 70 years. You need to consider its impact not only on the current owners but also on the
neighborhood and the entire Boulder community. If the board 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 architectural and historical context can be demolished by how an addition is
handled. The determination as to whether a Landmark 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 stilt be eligible for designation with the planned addition. There are 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 board to designate 3231
11th Street.
T. Plass: Thank you Ms. Daniels. We have a question for Ms. Daniels from Ms. Kornblum.
N. Kornblum: 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 separating a large addition from the
historic resource.
N. Kornblum: Thanks
Agenda Item #lA Page 50
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
T. Plass: Thank you Ivls. 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 similar, not quite, I can't remember specifically, but the property at 704 16th
street, Mr. Lau's property. He can only build forward on the property. He has a separate
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. CaIahan,
I'm a IittIe 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 #lA Page S1
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
C. Calahan: I'm Cyle Calahan. Pm an architect in Boulder. 21 30th street and I would like ask
the board to support staffs recommendation and not landmark the structure. Aside from my
personal involvement with the project, I just left the meeting here and considering the dualities of
the home we reviewed at 1037 Pine, Mark Trembles 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
architectural qualities that we just talked about for 1037 Pine being eligible for state and federal
designation and I'm not seeing the similarities. So, I'm just mentioning that as a member of the
public and not related to the project. Thank you
T. Plass: 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 want to call to the boards attention and put
in the record that on the very night that this matter was approved for the board 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 board
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. Plass: 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 board 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
Agenda Item #lA Pale 52
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
that in part, at least for me is a motivation to pursue landmarking 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 there by not preserving any heritage
because the building would be gone. Because this building at 3231 11th Street is not being
demolished if landmark 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't that 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
Agenda Item #1 A Page 53
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
deal with these historical properties, how much is absolute fact? Not specifically this project but
in general. How much assumption versus absolute guaranteed 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`l
C. Meschuk: It varies case by case. What we try to do is make sure that in our analysis it's clear
which parts are know historical facts and which ones are 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 year, 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 are 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 landmarking, 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 clearly. The analysis we've done on this project is the same as the analysis we would
do on any other property.
Agenda Item #lA Page 54
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 foz sure
occurred. It becomes sort of a matter of record of that woxk of art. So, in cases where you might
be recommending landmarking, are there cases where it would be appropriate to recommend
landmarking 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 the letters that we're addressing the
mcmansion issue. To insure the owners and all those on board that we clearly understand that
this is not a mcmansion issue we're dealing with. This is totally on the merits of this particular
structure. So getting into the staffs recommendations as you might have surmised, I continue to
disagree with the I guess the primary thrust of the staffs recommendation is the property rights
issue, I'm not really comfortable with the suggestion that properties are really only landmarkable
if they're under the threat of demolition. As I've said before, and as Nancy said earlier, 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 far as the property rights issue goes, I don't really see the, first 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, it is a guideline it's not a hard and fast rule. They are regularly dealt with
according to the specifics of the project that's being governed by those guidelines. I guess the
main issue here on the landmarking is it's not a demolition issue. That's a red herring. The issue
is, does this property merit landmarking according to its history and its architectural heritage? I
believe it does. While it is a vernacular 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°Io
oldest properties in Newlands. I think its history, it's age, its architectural merit all warrant
Agenda Item #lA Page 55
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
consideration for landmarking. This is where the demolition doesn't really apply. If 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 earlier, 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 board exists for the puzpose of protecting
resources, it doesn't exist for protecting ones that are 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 landm~u-king may oppose on the property,
I don't see as being any different that the zoning code, the solar access ordinance, the building
code. It applies to how one uses their property. Thus I would continue to support the
landmarking of this.
T. Plass-Very good...Anyone else like to comment?
T. Plass---I' Il go ahead and comment. I won't be supporting the landmarking. It's a tough call
for me because I 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-Ia, which is, does the
building have the right stuff to be a landmark? And I think the answer is clearly yes. I wasn't
persuaded at all by the testimony that this building wasn't of landmarkable 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 whole heartedly. I
thought it was absolutely the right thing to do. So, when I was thinking about this property I
compared the 11th street property to the 193b Mapleton and I think one of the key things forme
is the threat of demolition. There the resource is going to be completely lost. It was going to be
Agenda Item #lA Page 56
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Meaning
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 }ocation. 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 landmarking to
the council particularly because the building in not in a potential historic district. I have other
concerns as well. They are related but perhaps are a policy concern. What does this mean if we
recommend to the council that this landmarking go forward? 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 aren'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 concerned about
that. My second concern has to do with the standards 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 board? A demolition of 50% of various aspects of the building
with a front facade that clearly comes before the board. But I'm concerned 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 standard that we're using to determine if this should be landmarked or not?
Are we applying the design guide}roes? If this were a landmark or is it the opinion of board
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 standard 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 large part to the proposed addition. So, I just threw
that out there as a concem and I do think we have a problem. I am worried about what happens
Agenda Item #1A Nape 57
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
to old houses like this. As Leonard said, I did make a presentation at our landmarks board
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 ai 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 standard process. For all
those reasons I'm going to oppose the recommendation of Landmarking to the council. That
said, regardless of how this comes out.. If the board votes in favor of recommendation of
landmai•king, obviously I look forward to ------local landmark. But if the board votes to not
move this forward 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 hear 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'll wrap up, I'm not going to support the
landmarking.
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 vernacular 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 vernacular structure and what troubles me is that
there have been several other small simple vernacular structures that have come before the board
in terms of a demolitian permit to demolish it. The vote was to allow those buildings to be
demolished. They are particularly framed structures. Somehaw "ohh, gee, stone structures"...
But both are vernacular 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 square font house that was discussed earlier 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
Agenda Item #lA Page 58
November 7, 2047 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 year 10I/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. Contrary to the Clements's statements this meets all the criteria to landmark. '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 Landmark ---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 board 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 may be 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 are becoming off limits these days for a demolition permit. How
are we going to handle this onslaught of pressure to demolish these ----homes? I do not
personally support the proposal to build a 4500 sf addition to a modest 600 sf house, with a
Agenda Item #lA Page 59
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
breeze-way and a 3 car garage. This is certainly not in keeping with the neighborhood character
and most likely isn't keeping within Boulder energy policies. These concerns are for other
boards and committees and I hope that city council will take a good look at them. So, after lots
of consideration 1 will not be supporting the landmarking 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--1 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. 1 actually think that 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 large. I feel that it's unfortunate. I saw a great example of a
house on 40`~ and Oxford. I thought of the Clements. I thought of their project. T don't even
know what their proposing. 1 don't know the size; l 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`~ and
Oxford and the people had built a connector and a really large 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. 1 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 1 were on design review committee when that project was reviewed I
think that 1 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 are 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. 1 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
Agenda Item #1 A Pale 60
November 7, 2007 Landmarks [3oard Designation Hc~uing
front facade. It's hardly 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
1903. We're all judging that to be less significant because contextual there is no context-----. -
3% less and I actually think, ['m not about to judge that that's less an entire proposed district.
So 1 have a lot of concerns about some of the premises that my colleagues arc 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-
heartedlysupport 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 landmarking 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-1 need to comment first. Just a couple quick things. One, Tim, you have
standards, 9-11-1 and 9-11-2. There are lots of descriptions -in the ordinance -----to pit your
opinion on. I was a little surprised at your statement that there ---a standard for this process. I
wasn't sure where that came from. Code clearly says this is standard 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
landmark 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
Agenda Item #lA Page 61
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 landmark 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 year
concept. This kind of turns it on it's head a little, but we're not used to this. You are 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 clear that it
would appear that the way the ordinance is drafted, and I kind of went through it, I'm having a
hard time coming up with any other argument 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 quandary of the one year 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 around in circles on some issues. There may be arguments to be made, but
that is the best advice our office can give you.
N. Kornblum-Well~that significantly has an impact on my decision, because I am basing it
largely on the fact that the property is going to be demolished.
L. Podmajersky-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 bare left with not much recourse. Is that right?
Agenda Item #lA Ya~e 62
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
S.E. Harrison-I don't' havc 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. Harrison--Your absolutely right
K. Watson- This may be a neophyte question, but can council begin the designation process?
S.E. Harrison-Ycs they can.
L. May-So someone could petition them apart 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' II have to look at that.
T. Plass-I have another question. Is the landmarks board different from city council? Or are 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 board is the applicant
because throughout the ordinance there is a constant distinction between council and this board.
And since you are 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 Landmarks board is constantly
separate in the ordinance.
K. Watson-Can we have a discussion about this...
Atenda Item #lA PaQe 63
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
T. Plass-Absolutely.
N. Kornblum---would there be a possibility the property owner could agree not to file a
demolition permit within a year? 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 year 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 year?
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.
'I'. Plass -thank you Sue Ellen. Lets have a little bit of the boards 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 #lA Page 64
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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'II 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 board 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? 1 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 1 asked that question. It was never, ever to
touch the stone part. Let me make that very, very clear. 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 while structure, which I think we even mentioned in the September 5`n
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 1 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 #lA Page 65
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 tear down the stone part.
Z'. Plans-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 year of tonight
N. Kornbhim-it sounds like you'll 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 quandary, would it constitute enough removal to meet the definition, does it
fit the definition? Is that correct?
C. Meschuk--that's correct.
L. May-1 think all we need to do is stay away from the term demolition .
T. Plans-my other concern is---
S.E. Harrison-let me clarify one thing, Jae, the ordinance states the effective date is the date of
the final action. The offer needs to be one year from the final action.
J. De Raismes-Which is what, one year from the end of the call-up period?
S.E. Harrison-yes the end of the call period.
Agenda Item #1A Pale 66
November 7, ?007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
J. De Raismes-that's fine as long as it's clear. 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 year 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°Io, but our concession is with regard to the historic stone structure, which as the staff has
commented is the historic structure.
S.E. Harrison-and it is 45 days
I~. Watson-does 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 1 guess I'm going to make it clear. My offer is with regard 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 clarify about what we arc agreeing to...
Agenda Item #lA Ya~e 67
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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?
3. De Raismes: yes, and the roof and that stands from the effective date ---denial after 45 day
from tonight. In order to clarify 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 gv 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 svld...
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 are not willing to go forth with
a designation as a landmark. 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
Agenda Item #lA Yage 68
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation hearing
the issue is what happens 2 years 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 years 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 year, 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 landmarking it. I mean, you could have a deed restriction.
L. May -You know, it seems unduly complicated. If we're not wiling to land mark it, we should
just...
T. Plass -No, I think there is a difference in thinking it should ]andmarked and not thinking it
should be demolished. I think there is a real dii~fe.rence.
N. Kornblum - 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 nn their agenda?
S. E. Harrison-yes, the public can petition council
N. Kornblum-how do they do that?
S. E. Ilanison-umm, well...
_AQenda Item #1 A I'a~e 69
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board llesignation Hearing
N. Kornblum-well I don't know that that's necessary, but there's an opportunity for the public to
go and appeal. I guess it's not in the action that we would be taking.
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, are 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 year periods don't apply? Therefore
there is certain implicit protection in the ability of the board to once again establish a procedure
if a particular 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. llid I say that alright?
T. Plass - I understood it.
K. Watson- The trick is how do we make this happen in the next 6 minutes?
S.E. Harrison- If you want council to act on this issue and you don't withdraw your application
you either approve landmarking or you deny landmarking. Then there js 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 - Im not rewally sure why do you want council to deal with that your not willing
to deal with tonight?
T. Plass-that not really want I'm trying to imply
Agenda Item #lA Page 70
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation I-Icaring
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.
.1. [ Iewat-Sue Ellen, could I ask another question, If they were to deny the application or decide
not to forward it to city council for a recommendation to designate. If there were an application
to demolish, historic boulder or another 3`d party could submit an application. Is that right?
S.E. Harrison-no, are 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. Harrison - It's a person, it doesn't say the applicant...
K. Watson-well there is tl~e 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 are trying to perceive here tonight.
Agenda Item #lA Page 71
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
N. Komblum - No...
T. Plass - I agree. I cant support a motion which would strip the city of it's ability to prevent
demolition. That's what I hear 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. Komblum-Yah, just withdraw, the benefits seem to be weighing heavier to just withdraw,
and not risk the potential of a subseyuent buyer to come in to file an application for demolition
and then we can't hear it.
L. Podmajersky - I will just remind everyone there are no guarantees about the structure-
It can change hands, it can, what we are doing is no guarantee 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. Komblum-If we were to withdraw do we need to make a motion to withdraw?
T. Plass-ya, we have to act as a board
L. Podmajersky - I guess my suggestion was to not withdraw but to landmark it. If our goal is
for the preservation of this building
N. Komblum-Well the only other alternative as [ hear it is, it would be acceptable to me is if
property owner to put a decd restriction on for the next year to state that a future buyer could not
Agenda Item #lA Page 72
November 7, 2047 Landmarks Board llesignation Hearing
file for a demolition permit. Otherwise, I would be willing to go ahead and make a motion to
withdraw the application.
T. Piass -would you like to get that duestion 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 are. So, we
will suggest withdrawal as a preferable solution at this point if that's what the board 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 landmarking procedure. I would say council initiated Iandmarking
do go to landmarks board before they go back to council, so there would be another hearing
before this board if council decided to do that.
T. Plans -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 board meetings the board members said to us that they felt that
if the property were landmarked it would increase the value, it wouldn't hurt it. And so after the
October 3rd meeting we put it on the market to see what that response was. Based on your
comment, that's the reason it's on the market.
T. Plans -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. I'm going to move that we withdraw the application
Agenda Item #lA Page 73
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hering
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 Kornblum to withdraw application for local
Iandmarking for the property on 3231 11`h 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 oi• some of the interested parties and chance to ask for the discretionary review
at the city council level. I dv feel there are really important issues here regarding historic
integrity of the structure, 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. Kornblum-I guess I just like to offer a friendly amendment. I would like to, in the
withdrawal, mention 9-ll-lb as the grounds as to, it doesn't meet the criteria of 9-11-1b. If it
would be appropriate, Pd 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 regard 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 board then to come back if a demolition permit were sought. We would
be precluded from taking action because of the one year moratorium on action of local land
marking for a particular property.
N. Kornblum - yah, that's fine.
Agenda Item #lA Page 74
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
T. Plans -III accept the friendly.
L. Podmajersky - Can I make a comment.
S.E. HZrrison -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 are historic tree or large 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 marking, 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 landmarks 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 he 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 guarantee the structure will remain.
N. Kornblum- I'd like to make 2 comments. The first is that I know there are 3% of homes built
around 1902 remaining in the Newlands neighborhood. I would hope that this might be a call to
Agenda Item #lA Page 75
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
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 forward to land mark 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 landmarking process and perhaps considering once
they made their plans up; knowing they can do them anyway, coming back to landmarks and
perhaps seeing about marking that historic house.
S.E. Harrision -Lisa was just asking if that was possible..
T.Plass - im sorry, if what was possible, I didn't hear the question.
L. Podmajersky - If landmarking after the addition is built is possible on the part of the
Clements?
L. May-If it's done and meets according to the criteria for landmarking.
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 earlier that it wasn't passible. Maybe I just misunderstood.
S.E. Harrison ---What 1 was saying was we have is the weird one year problem. If a couple years
from now someone comes back wanting to landmark a structure, at the time we will look to see
if they meet the criteria.
Agenda Item #1A Page 76
November 7, 2007 Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
T. Plans--I think we need to come to some closure on this item now.
I.. Podmajersky - I was just getting clarity on Nancy's statement
T. Plans -Alright, are there any other comments, we have motion to draw a landmarks board
application for landmark 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. I'lass - We will now take a 5 minute break
Agenda Item #lA Page 77