Minutes - Landmarks - December 30, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
December 30, 2008
1777 Broadway, City Council Chambers
1:30 - 3:30 p.m.
The following aze the action minutes of the December 30, 2008 City of Boulder Landmarks
Board meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period
of seven years) aze retained in Centra] Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also listen
to the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Nancy Kornblum
Leonard May
Tim Plass, Chair
Lisa Podmajersky
John Spitzer -arrived late to the meeting at 1:45 p.m.
K.C. Becker - ex ofjzcio Planning Board member
STAFF MEMBERS:
Sue Ellen Harrison, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Heidi Joyce, Administrative Supervisor
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair T. Plass declazed a quorum at 1:35 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 2008 AND DECEMBFIZ
10, 2008 LANDMARKS BOARD MEETINGS
On a motion by N. Kornblum, seconded by T. Plass, the Landmarks Board approved (4-0,
J• Spitzer absent) the December 3, 2008 and December 10, 2008 meeting minutes.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
John Goodson and Lisa Goodson, 607 Forest Avenue, distributed a handout to the
board, including a petition signed by 40 neighbors who support lifting the stay-of-
demolition. J• Goodson requested that the Landmarks Board lift the stay-of-demolition for
the property located at 607 Forest Avenue.
William Butler, 3232 6`"Street, expressed concerns over the applicant's request to lift the
stay-of-demolition for 607 Forest Avenue prior to the expiration date of April 15, 2009. He
questioned why the applicant was rushing the process.
J. Spitzer arrived to the meeting at 1:45 p.m.
1
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION, DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS
ISSUED AND PENDING
607 Forest Avenue, stay-of-demolition expires April 15, 2009
The board took no action today, but agreed to discuss this item further at [he January 7,
2009 Landmarks Board meeting with additional notice posted on the city website.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Public hearing and consideration of a permit for the demolition of the house located
at 501 Evergreen Avenue, per Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(HIS2008-00229) Applicant/Owner: Edward & Roxie Duggan
Board members were asked to reveal any ex-pane contacts they may have had on this item.
T. Plass, N. Kornblum, L. Podmajersky, J. Spitzer and K.C. Becker visited the site.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat presented the item to the board.
Applicant's Presentation
Edward/Roxie Duggan, 501 Evergreen presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
Beverly Potter, 3231 11`h Street, spoke in support of astay-of-demolition for this property. She
mentioned that previous owners of the house may have been significant to Boulder's history.
Peter Berklin, 3075 5`h Street, supported preserving at least a part of the house. He said the lot
is large and he had concerns about what will be built in its place.
Edward Duggan noted that Beverly Potter referenced people who were not listed as previous
owners of this property.
Board Discussion
T. Plass felt that there was not enough integrity or historic fabric to landmark the building.
J. Spitzer thought the building could still have architectural significance for its vernacular
design..
L. May supported astay-of-demolition to explore the historic significance of the property.
L. Podmajersky appreciated two street facing elevations of the house, but did not find enough
integrity to justify landmazking the building.
N. Kornblum agreed that there is not enough integrity or historical significance to landmark the
building.
Motion
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by L. Podmajersky, the Landmazks Board approved (3-2, L.
May and J. Spitzer opposed) the demolition permit for the house and garage at 501 Evergreen
Avenue, finding that the buildings are not eligible for designation as individual landmarks and do
not contribute to the character of the neighborhood, adopting the staff memorandum dated
December 30, 2008 as findings of fact, subject to the following condition of approval:
2
1. The appropriate HABS documentation be provided to the city before the demolition occurs.
L. May stated that the appearance of the original building is unknown. He would like to have
additional information prior to issuing a demolition permit.
6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. Draft Chautauqua Design Guidelines
Seth Frankel of Ecos Communications answered the board's questions regazding the possible
revisions to the Chautauqua Design Guidelines.
Should vs. shall and will vs. may
S. Harrison advised the board to request that the language in the guidelines be altered. She
advised the board to change the word should to shall (which is more definitive and enforceable)
and outlined the difference between using will (definitive) versus may (not enforceable, but
strongly recommended).
T. Plass and L. Podmajersky supported changing the shoulds to shahs.
N. Kornblum recommended keeping the language consistent with the language used in other
guidelines.
J. Spitzer preferred the use of the word should.
S. Harrison suggested revising paragraph three to read: 13isteris interpretive.
The board suggested rewording paragraph 16 to address new identity signage, not for existing
buildings.
The board recessed at 3:25 p.m. and resumed at 3:31 p.m.
Motion
On a motion by T. Piass, seconded by L. May, the Landmarks Board initiated (5-0) the
rulemaking procedure to adopt the administrative rules in amending the Chautauqua Sign
Guidelines, per Rulemaking, Chapter 1-4, of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, finding that they
aze consistent with the general intent of the Chautauqua Design Guidelines.
The should vs. shall and will vs. may issue and the wording of paragraph 16 will be discussed
further at the February 4, 2009 Landmarks Board meeting.
L. May felt this was a carefully thought out and well conceived project.
B. Preliminary review of proposed way finding and interpretive signage at Chautauqua
J. Spitzer noted a red flag on page 6 of the proposed way finding and interpretive signage
section. He felt that the proposed entry sign looked like an advertisement and was not compatible
with the other proposals.
3
T. Plass disagreed with J. Spitzer. He felt that the entry sign was consistent with the historic
simplicity of Chautauqua's signage.
N. Kornblum agreed with T. Plass and supported the simplicity of the proposed signage.
T. Plass had concerns about the choice of materials (similar to chain link) of one of the proposed
signs.
L. Podmajersky supported consistency between the sign posts as well as the signs themselves.
C. Planning Board Calendar
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Approved on February 4, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
Chairpers n
4