4 - Draft Minutes - Landmarks - December 30, 2008 CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BUARD
December 30, 2008
1.777 Broadway, City Council Chambers
1:30 - 3:30 p.m.
The following are 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) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also listen
to the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARll MEMBERS:
Nancy Kornblum
Leonard May
Tim Plass, Chair
Lisa Podmajcrsky
John Spitzer -arrived late to the meeting at I: 45 p. m.
K.C. Becker - ex officio Planning Board member
STAFF MI:MBEKS:
Suc Ellen I-lar-ison, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Long 1Zange Planning Manager
James 1Tewat, Histvric Preservation Planner
Heidi Joyce, Administrative Supervisor
I. CALL TO ORllER
The roll having been called, Chair T. Plass declared a quorum at 1:35 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL 01+ MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 3, 2008 AND DF,CF.MBER
10, 2008 TANDMARKS BOARD MEE'T'INGS
On a motion by N. Kornblum, seconded by 'I'. Plass, the Landmarks Board approved (4-0,
J. Spitzer absent) the December 3, 2008 and December l0, 2008 meeting minutes.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON '1'TTE AGENDA
John Goodson and T.isa 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 fvr 607 Forest Avenue prior to the expiration date of April 15, 2009. He
questioned why the applicant was rushing the process.
.1. Spitzer azrived to the meeting at 1:45 p.m.
1
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION, DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS
ISSUED AND PF,NDiNG
h07 Forest Avenue, stay-ol=demolition expires April 15, 2009
"1'he board took no action today, but agreed to discuss this item further at the January 7,
2009 Landmarks Board meeting with additional notice posted on the city website.
S. 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
(IIIS2008-00229) Applicant/owner: Edward &Roxie Duggan
Board members were asked to reveal any ex parte contacts they may have had on this item.
T. Plass, N. Kornblum, L. Podmajersley, 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 l lt~' Street, spoke in support of astay-of-demolition for this property. She
mentioned that previous owners of the house may have been signi#icant to Boulder's history.
Peter Berklin, 3075 Stt' Street, supported preserving at Icast 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 astray-o#=demolition to explore the historic significance of t}~e property.
L. Podmajersky appreciated two street facing elevations of the house, but did not find enough
integrity to justify landmarking the building.
N. Kornblum agreed that there is not enough integrity or historical significance to~landmark the
building.
MOtiOI)
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by L. Podma,jersky, the Landmarks Board approved {3-2, L.
May and .I. Spitzer opposed) the demolition pcnnit 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
Uecernber 30, 2008 as findings of fact, subject to the following condition of approval:
] .The appropriate NABS 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 TIII+; LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. llraft Chautauqua llesign Guidelines
Seth Frankel of Ecos Communications answered the board's questions regarding the possible
revisions to the Chautauqua Design Guidelines.
Should vs. shall and will vs. »iay
S. Harrison advised the board to request that the language in the guidelines be altered. She
advised the board to change tl~e 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 I,. Podmajersky supported changing the shoulds to shalls.
N. Kornblum recommended keeping the language consistent with the Language used in other
guidelines.
J. Spitzer preferred the use of the word should.
S. Garrison suggested revising paragraph three to read: #i~-s interpretive.
The board suggested rewording para~•aph 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. Plass, seconded by L. May, the Landmarks I3oard initiated (5-0) the
rulemaking procedure to adopt the administrative rules in amending the Chautauqua Sign
Guidelines, per Rulemaking, Chapter 1-4, of the Bouidcr Revised Cade, 1981, finding that they
are consistent with the general intent of the Chautauqua Design Guidelines.
The should vs. shall and will vs. may issue and the wording of paratn•aph 16 will he 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 si~mage.
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. DEBRIF:1+' YIEE'I'ING/CALI+,NDAR CHECK
K. AllJOURNMENT•
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Approved on February 4, 2009.
Kespectfully submitted,
Chairperson
4