Loading...
7A - Consideration of initiating local landmark designation of 607 Forest Ave (HIS2008-00234 MEMORANDUM April 1, 20Q9 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: ~ Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager James Hewat, Preservation Planner Chxis Meschuk, Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of initiating local landmark designation of 607 Forest Avenue as a locally designated Historic Landmark, per Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981. (HIS2008-00234) STATISTICS: 1. Site: 607 Forest Ave 2. Date of Construction: 1937 3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential -Low 1) 4. Owner: John & Lisa Goodson 5. Applicant: Landmarks Board STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation of the property at 607 Forest Avenue. SUMMARY: ¦ The purpose of this hearing is for the board to determine whether it is appropriate to initiate local landmark designation for the property at 607 Forest Avenue. ¦ On Octobex 8, 2008, the Planning Department received a demolition permit application for the house at 607 Forest Avenue. ¦ The building is not in a designated historic district or locally landmarked, but is over fifty years old and meets the criteria for demolition defined under Section 9-11-23 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. ¦ On October 15, 2008, the Landmarks Design Review Committee referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was Agenda Item #t~A Page #1 S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Landmarks\Forest.607\04.01.09 initiation memo.doc "probable cause" to consider that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. ¦ The Landmarks Board imposed astay-of-demolition on the property at its December 3, 2008 meeting finding the building may be eligible for landmark designation per 9-11-23 (f)(1) of the Boulder Revised Code for a period of up to 180 days to consider alternatives to the demolition. See Attachment D for a copy of this memo ¦ Staff has discussed alternatives to the demolition of the building with the owner, including landmarking, per 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code. • The ownex considers that the existing building cannot meet his family's needs and wishes to proceed with the demolition. I Ie has indicated that he will recycle materials from the existing building. ¦ At the December 30, 2008 and January 7, 2009 Landmarks Board meetings the applicant requested that the board lift the stay-of-demolition on the property. ¦ At the January 7, 2009 meeting the board requested that a public hearing be scheduled in order to consider lifting the stay. ¦ At the February 4, 2009 meeting the board chose not to lift the stay. • Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation of the property at 607 Forest due to a loss of integrity and lack of eligibility to be designated as an individual landmark. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DF,CISION: T'he Historic I'reservatian ordinance calls for the Landmarks Board to hold a public hearing to consider initiating Iandmark designation of a property (9-11-3, BRC, 1981). Initiation hearings are legislative, not quasi-judicial. While not requixed, in reviewing whether to initiate the board may consider without limitation the criteria analyzed below. ANALYSIS: (1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for designation as an individual landrark or historic district consistent with the purposes and standards• in Sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981; 9-11-1(a). "The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings sites, and areas to enhance property values, Agenda Itenn #~A Page #2 S:\PLAN\datallongrang\HIST\\Landmarks\Forest.607\04.01.09 initiation memo.doc stabilize neighborhoods, prornote tourist trade and interest, a..nd foster 1cr2ou~ledge of the city's living heritage". Staff does not believe the house at 607 Forest Avenue is eligible for local landmark designation due to a loss of architectural integrity, and lack of historical and environmental significance that warrants designation. The house was built in 1937, with Minimal Traditional design aspects characteristic of buildings constructed in Boulder during the pre-WW II period. These include its diminutive size, lack of architectural or architectural detail, closed eaves, and front facing gabled section. The entry portico features squared column supports, wrought iron balustrade and railings and a concrete base. The paneled and glazed front door is off-centered with double-hung, one-over-one light windows with wide wooden surrounds. There is a bay window on the east side while the west wall bay was merged with the rear ell. The Original horizontal siding has been covered or replaced with vinyl siding. A 1949 addition is located at the rear of the house, which added approximately 200 square feet to the house for additional bedrooms. This addition was contracted by the Guyer's to accommodate their growing family. In 1985 the windows were replaced with vinyl windows. The adjacent free-standing two-car garage at the east side of the building was constructed in 1947 and features a sloping shed roof, two-bays, and an attached carport. Stylistically, the garage relates to more to the Modernistic inspired architecture that began to appear during the post-WW II years in Boulder, than it does to the adjacent Minimal Traditional house. rhhe garage ~?.oors face Forest Avenue and the alley. The application of vinyl siding and replacement of the windows and doors have compromised the historic integrity of this house. Staff does not consider this house to be an intact example of the Minimal Traditionalist form, and therefore not a significant example of an architectural style of the past (9-11-1, B.R.C.) The house is associated with Dean Sanborn, who was city surveyor in 1945 and promoted to engineering department superintendent in 1948. From 1946 to their death, Brownlee and Louis Guyer lived in the house. Guyer was Boulder County's lone game warden for 32 years. His life Lois worked as a teacher at an elementary school i1 Agate and at the North Broadway Center for children with. disabilities. See llttachment E for newspaper articles about Brownlee Guyer. Although the associations with Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Guyer are interesting, staff Agenda Item #~'A Page #3 S:\PLAN\data\longrang\H1ST\Landmarks\Forest.607\04.01.09 initiation memo.doc does not believe this historical association alone warrants initiating designation of the property. The house is located on the corner of 6~h Street and Forest Avenue, and has several Large street trees. Due to the Large street trees and location of the house on the lot, the character of the corner is interesting. However, staff does not consider this environmental character to be a unique nahzxal or man-made environment eligible for landmark designation. (2) There are currently resources available that would allow the .city manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application; The historic preservation program has very limited resources due to current workload, budget and the recent elimination of the historic preservation intern position. While the majority of staff analysis has been completed for this property, designations require additional staff time to work with property owners, and prepare memos and present to the Board and City Council. (3) There is community and neighborhood support for' the proposed designation; Staff and the board have received neighborhood comment regarding the demolition and designation potential on the property, both in support of the demolition, and in support of preservation of the building. The majority of entails relate to the desire by the neighborhood to allow the 180-day stay-of- demolition to run its course. Copies of all the letters received to date are included u1 Attachment C. (4) The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation; The building is proposed for demolition. Staff considers that the historic and architectural integrity of the building has been so compromised that it does not qualify for designation as an individual Landmark and does not need the protections provided through designation. (5) The potential) boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate; Not applicable. (b) .ln balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or Policy 2.33 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan States that," Buildings, districts, and sites of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance will be identified and protected. The city and county will encourage Agenda Rein #~A Pale #4 S:\PLANTdata\longrang\HIS`r\t.andmarks\Forest.607\04.01.09 initiation memo.doc preservation of such resources through incentive programs, designation of landmark buildings ...design review, public improvements, and other tools." T1iis policy encourages landmark designation when appropriate. There is no evidence to suggest that the property is of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance to the city, state, or nation. Furthermore, staff considers the architectural integrity of the house so compromised that it does not qualify for designation as an individual landmark. (7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. Because of its Lack of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance and because the historic architectural integrity of the house has been compromised, initiation of the process to designate this property as a landmark would. not be in the public interest. DECISION OF THE BOARD: If the board chooses not to initiate landmark designation, no action is taken and the demolition permit will issue on April 15, 2009. If the board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by resolution. A draft resolution is included in Attachment A. If initiated, the application shall be heard by the Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days in order to determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9- 11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981.. The owner must obtain a landmark alteration certificate prior to the submission of building permit applications for the property if they choose to proceed while the application is pending, or they may choose to wait until the application process ~is complete. ATTACHMENTS: A: Draft resolution to initiate designation B: Photographs C: Emails and letters received since demolition application D: December 3, 2008 memo to Landmarks Board E: Additional newspaper articles about J. Brownlee Guyer F: Letter from the property owners Agenda Ttem #~A Pale #5 S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\HIST\Landmarks\~ores[.607\04.01.09 initiation memo.doc Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLU'1 ION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD T\]I'TIA'TING THE DESIGNATION OF 607 F(4REST AVENUL: AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK. WHEREAS, on December 3, 2009 the Landmarks Board imposed astay-of-demolition on the property at 607 Forest Avenue for a period of up to 180 days, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. The City of Boulder Landmarks Board initiates the designation of 607 Forest Avenue, and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the historic preservation ordinance no fewer than sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty days from the date of this resolution. ADOPTI?D this 1st day of April, 2009. Chair, Landmarks Board ATTEST: Secretary to the Board At~FNDA FYI ~.._~__._.j ~ _ ~z - . ~ ~~-.,.=f-'-~: Attachment B _ L _ . F~~--~ _ _-.t ; ~ a ~4a,~z~ r, r ~ ~f • • - ~ rJ ~ I i' ' 4 } ~ , j - i _ a1~ a I t~St* + br ~1r a sr~ LL ~ ~ .sue ` 1 ~ ~!f'> I I YYY~~, ~ ~ ---E' ' i i . ~ ,Vl„4~'~, il. 1-~J. ~Ij~{`A r S~(fLU~'S~~~-.~~,j ~ - ~ .~~5{~; l~<1~.~ I - tr'~n tt. 1~ [ t'S '.fr'.~ al~S. j ~ 1 ~ rN ~/•~~,Ll yyy~~~~ ~ a't +r of } 5 i~v~ t 'tw ~ f'A LL j°'.. .I n \~I ,yam. L~r t:l. I LTrt. ~}r ',C ~ y, r>~ '3-\ I T h~ t s I -ta{~'~a ~y.~, .t ~.t. / 1!k~ 1 < /t~: ~~l ~y~' ~ r w/,s at~~~- i r¢~l. r .~,1j,~ { h - r~ _ '':).T ~tsr , -ti, > f ~ S" J j}~ ~ 2 r~C "a. r!. ~ ,~rl a - ; ~t j. #~~;1~ ~ t'{ . ~}:l r~l ~I•~ ~r ~ d I ' s y ~ ~ ! ~ f .t 11 r'.. ,Yy~,a +~t<_~. ~ 'fir I,+, I l ~ ' ~ re 1? i. I~~~J. I I 1 f r r jl1`~ ` ~ 11 III 1~~IIIIiI ,I y~~~. ~~(1jl! ~ _ I i ;'p ~ i~ I,'~1 . ;'I,Il~.tl.ir~rluu ~ r ,i ~ ."r ~ I.' 4 , i _fi - r - psi w a [ra ~,a Ls r~ 2 ir, 5`ii} ~ ~4 f fSS- ~ } ( r. ~ i ~ C~•r.S3 , i+1` ~"4~l _ r l,j ti-'~:'yr/9~, ti i ,rvi ~ ~ ~yaycJ~g~ rS _ `~y t, y _ - r r '-~K 4u* nf~l`fjy'+JS' ~ ,'y~~ > r ~ j '~f Y''~~" r ..ate .ri 2~'[:+~Mr~.T'K~~~Ya~ .;i't ~ ~ ~i kY: .fi[ ~s'a-~J.f ~ r, t r~n`r...~~ r ~ / ! mil`" "~M~~~ yr.. I' ak.ni R:i.: IP`..+^/l. a r.i} sr~ Sin LJ`,(r. .1~ ~`~b z r.. r'f~l~c A.•,~ xt ~ .,A'. ~ t w .r~ ; ,'Y' rr~Z~ j'~ ~'t 1Y ' /•'4 j-- ~ t.. -I'~ ~Y. ril~ -'~'S.~'~.x~~`.J~i.~".OIwe1 :may. ` - 4 • ~vxF dd r?~~ r fi1t- y~kt~. ri~~}.,ti~~ F ~ 1/~,~~,1 R r PX P,~>. t'~ ray ~+.Q. ~ `t'' 1 ~.;_I ' ~ i t~ -.,ems e'~.tR*'/k~.' i? ' 1 -j'/.S'IS•~a r'1'.~I/ ~ 7 ti, i ~ . 7i /.r '1~ Y` . _ _ . ; ~~~~r'/,Pry > 3"~', {y k ~v`.r i f~' ~ hii ~ 5t~k 3 ~ ~i~:.~-t- 1 2 - -F-''xl` =~..~~'•~Z' cn~t P= ~ r ~ N ~6 ~ ~yr< ~h Tf ~~~r ' i 1 - + ~ ~1 ~1~ -M S,. i ~ .Vf ~ i - ~ ~ ~ Y 6 11~' - ~ ~ ' ~ - . r- 4 ~ t fit., w`1`-, .,...-.,r.~' K f",•,`',y1'~"?w 1. iii t ~.~..i ~ 14 fj~~ i~~; 1 vl p~~ 1 I ~ ' _ r - - l: I _ _ I. _ Y . ~ ~ - _ ~ it _ - ==F _ i- - _ 1 1 ~ I - - ~ _ ~ - - - i ~ J/~, I_ ~ f,,~,~~~,_ ,,.p5~~_^r~ ~s _ - is ::t~ ~~.5, rr .K Piro 1' - ~ 9 . • ~t`r ~ 1 ~ IT, i !'r'~ }mot Lr~~r~ ` .i ~•,f rte. h r ~ ~ t ~ r \ ~ a l~r~ c. , ti~~ .r ! _ r J l ~ ~ A Y. i ~ ,f 1 y, : ~'2`~~-„ham! _ , F r ~ , 2, - r r ~ T• psi` r . ~ t } ;7~2 °~'i~~r.; " 51 , ~ , V. r.. ~ ~ ~ . P P i i 7 i f _ ~ ~ . - _ _ :~rG /x`22 ~ Ya-•-\ ~r Ljj \ -'c, r r , ~ > ~i f- i / ~ f Z r ~ s r 1 ''s t ~ gyp, ryf ~ . ~ ~ + 1 , ) S- 3 s . r. ~ ~ ; ~x'_C , ~ f ~ ~ qtr r~ j •r it' t' y~' ^rT sj~L r -uklslT i"t t,` ~ 1J _ ..u t~ ~~1, if ~;f =fir ~ r "T\\,J +t i ~ a G~ a. l ` _ 1{ i . 1 h a c ~t ~ ~ ns?'s ~ e 1! ' ~ l= stj'~ f,,.{•K' r~,~_, ` 1` rr .,r 4Y L~''~ mow-; ~ / qc'~ - L h ~ - r.~ ~ Ij ff:: - „d^ IP t - - f6 Y w• l 2 j ~ "~i a Dpr`I i ~ ~ i?~ti~ `I C1~t~~!ll'I~~~~t1tj 1.1,~r,~,''li. •r ~~'~;;~I Y~ ~s:.J~+~~,L' ` ,tr~~~1~~1. qcr I tl',cPr ~ ~ ~ . i 1;1 I ' - f _ _ _ 1~nr.: tea'.'" '~~F FYI, :i. Ai -~.H•'.: y;~ ~~~~~r~-.i~~ - _ - t a L1 _ r - - - ~ l "~F ~r{~ f~h i '^!S- :ZiV ~•(r~lF -r~11~1 ~a~ ~<?y i-t:~~ ~ 1~ Sv~ 1~~~ e. - ~ i -~,:1 s:' yr ~ fY ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~'f ti 1 - , i _ x- 'a ~ J'~: Fes` ' 5..~ / ~ \ 1, _ _ alt 1 ~ Y.~ ~4. Y n f~ f /.1r~=. Yjr ~i. 14_ 1' ~ -r ) xi _ - F1I,1~~ ~~(j1~;~~~~~~(F!{~ I(I+IIrf~i ? t~ 111 {~I ~ ii~1 ~:~xe'''i.__---~.._--- - 5~t ~:a4 C~ ~ f ~9sy a~ T... ~uy~ r ' •~X'X I } Y`*~f-(~ 'mil { i' ~f< ':V ~4 _ ; •c y' 997 R l g~~ i, ~ I~ n' . , ~ .i'M I it ~ - 1 ,~~a~K~31C3~, PTI~t~ s . ~ y1~t~k ~ . Attachment C From: Hewat, James Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:19 PM To: Plans, Tim; Meschuk, Chris; Podmajersky, Lisa; Spitzer, John; May, Leonard Cc: Meschuk, Chris; Richstone, Susan; Kalish, Debra Subject: Error in 607 Forest Avenue memo Dear Board ivlembers: You've probably noticed the recommendation and findings in the 607 Forest Avenue are at odds; the recommendation to issue a stay and the findings stating that the building is not of significance. We are, in fact, recommending that the Board issue a demolition permit consist with the memos finding that the building is not eligible for landmark designation based upon its lack of historic, architectural, or environmental significance and that it does not contribute to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative example of the area's past. I'll clarify this at the meeting, during my presentation. Sorry for the confusion. James From: Kay Bingham [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 5:24 PM To: Piass, Tim; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Meschuk, Chris; ;Spitzer, John; hewetj Cc: Council Subject: Demolition Permit Landmarks Board and staff: Regarding 607 Forest Ave -demolition permit My husband and I purchased our home at 3235 6th. Street in ].978. We care deeply about our block and about Newlands. We have participated in two compatible infill meetings sponsored by the city and l am a member of the Greenlands Steering Committee, a group of Newlands neighbors dedicated to helping neighbors lower their carbon footprint. We have given a great deal of thought to the potential demolition of the home at 607 Forest. In light of the study the city is currently engaged in concerning compatible infill, I think it is important that the demolition of 607 Forest be postponed until the study is complete next spring. To us, the present home is a reminder of the simple character of the early Newlands homes. It sits on a beautiful corner lot with at least 4 mature trees that have been home to a wide variety of wild life over the years. The large open yard certainly stores groundwater, summer cooling, and allows expansive views. The alley garage and workshop also are reminders of a way of life before 3 car garages dominated homes in the area. The former owners, Brownlee and Lois Guyer lived in the home for 50+ years. They both have large files at the llaily Camera documenting the contributions they h made to Boulder. They were "salt of the earth" people that should not be forgotten.. It is our hope that the demolition permit can be put on hold until we have assurances that the new structure will be compatible and sustainable. The process of obtaining a demolition permit in~ Newlands is flawed and needs to be re-examined ASAP. We are loosing our old homes at an alarming rate. Thanks for your work in preserving Boulder's history and also caring about the sustainability of Boulder. Kay and Larry Bingham 3235 6th. From: Hewat, James Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:42 PM To: May, Leonard; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Plass, Tim; Spitrer, John Cc: Richstone, Susan; Meschuk, Chris Subject: FW: 607 Forest Avenue, Boulder See attached. From: GEORGE HOWARD [maiito:] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:20 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: 607 Forest Avenue, Boulder To the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Re: 607 Forest Avenue, Boulder I wish to submit a brief statement concerning an application that has been made for a permit to remove a dwelling located at 607 Forest Avenue, and to build in its stead anew home. 2 learned of this application less than 24-hours before tha hearing that I understand is scheduled for this evening at 6:00 p.m. AC3~N1lA ITt=1yl ~#._~=.~ACa~ I have been informed that consideration can be given to denying such an application if the home had been owned by persons who were significant to the Boulder community. This home was owned by Brownlee and Lois Guyer from 1943 to Brownlee's death in 2007. For nearly sixty-five years they were a force for good in Boulder while in that home. They had moved to Boulder in 1938 and had rented a home in Boulder until 1943. Brownlee and Lois were both native Coloradans. Brownlee's grandfather (Dr. Clarkson Neryberry Guyer) had moved to Denver in the 1870s, where he was a practicing dentist. Brownlee's father's birth in 1885 was announced on the front page of the Rocky Mountain News, as the Clarkson Guyers were a popular young couple in Denver. (Brownlee's mother was born in Golden.) Brownlee was also born in Denver and received his education there in the public schools. He attended the University of Denver where he met his future wife, Lois Perryman. Brownlee was employed by the State of Colorado as a game warden, and served in that capacity from 1938 until the 1970s. He was very well known in Boulder and was active in community affairs. For a while during World War II, he also served as a member of the Boulder city police department, there being a lack of available and qualified men due to the war. He was able to catch the guilty, and by force of personality, many of those he "pinched" became his friends. He did not usually carry a gun. His view favored education over punishment. Over the years he visited the Boulder schools and gave many a lecture or demonstration in wildlife conservation to the school children. The Boulder Daily Camera over the years often had articles or comments about Brownlee's exploits. He had an unusual personality, one full of humor and practical jokes. Brownlee was very well known in the Colorado Division of Wildlife, having served many years, and among the game wardens (conservation officers) carried badge number 3. Of especial note for him was the fact that President Dwight David Eisenhower gave him Ike's Colorado fishing license with Ike's signature on it. Brownlee's wife, Lois, was a school teacher by education. When one of her daughters was an undergraduate student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Lois entered graduate studies there, and gained her master's degree - in middle age! She wrote about her teaching experience in an article published by the Colorado Historical Society in its magazine. Both Brownlee and Lois, in later years, served as substitute teachers in the Boulder school district, and both kept up their teaching certificates into old age. In fact, Brownlee was still substitute teaching into his eighties, which is a testament to his personality in keeping the "kids" in line. Until nearly 90 years of age, Brownlee played in a band that often entertained the disabled and those in nursing homes around the community. Perhaps a gauge of his notoriety, and the esteem in which he was held in Boulder, was the size of the crowd at his funeral services. (There were 3 funeral services and one committal service.) In summary, Brownlee and Lois served the people and city of Boulder, remaining actively involved into their old age. It would be fitting to remember them by keeping the outward appearance of their humble bungalow cottage on Forest Avenue as it was for all those years. On such short notice, 2 have been unable to assemble the quality and amount of material that I would have liked to for your consideration, and suggest that if it would be helpful, a postponement until early next year would materially assist us (friends and family members) in assembling further information. Sincerely, George W. Howard, J.D. From: Hewat, James Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:43 PM To: Plass, Tim; May, Leonard; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Spitzer, John Ce: Richstone, Susan; Meschuk, Chris Subject: FW: 607 Forest Demolition See aUached. From: CCiaraVino [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:14 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: 607 Forest Demolition Regarding 607 Forest Ave.-demolition permit My husband and I have lived at 3214 Sixth St. since March 1979. Brownlee and Lois Guyer lived at 607 Forest Ave. #rom 1943 until they recently passed on. Both of them le#t their mark on the neighborhood and Boulder, as well. I strongly agree with the ideas expressed in the letter to you from Kay and Larry Bingham. Please seriously consider their letter. A(a~NUA (YIE ef~4 F ,i~Atat Thank you, Marguerite Ciaravino From: Kay Bingham Date Received: 12/03/2008 Response Key: 23121 Respondents sent this email: James Hewat in Planning sent an FYI only. Juliet Sonnell in Planning sent an FYT only. Council Correspondence: To: Landmark Board The Landmark hearing last night was a first for my husband and me. We were most impressed with the careful consideration given to the properties under consideration for landmarking. Thanks so much for your time and dedication. And thanks for your decision to grant a "stay" for the 607 Forest property. We are pleased that you agreed with us that a 70 year old property that was the long- time home for two Colorado natives deserves careful consideration. I assure you the present owners can wait 180 days. They have been comfortable in this home for 15 months and will be busy with the birth of their second child in February. What is their rush in the middle of winter? Makes me wonder if they are interested in maxing out the property before potential new restrictions come from the compatible infill study? Meanwhile, what can we do to improve the demolition application process in Newlands? In every case discussed tonight, concerns over what will replace the structure arose. •There must be a way to assure neighbors that the character of the surrounding environment will be.resp:ected before a building is demolished. Please let me know how I can pursue this issue? Kay Bingham From: Hewat, James Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:53 AM To: Meschuk, Chris; Richstone, Susan Subject: FW: Landmarking of 607 Forest Street see attached From: bsharphondorf [mailto:] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:54 PM AC-,~NtJA ~`k .NAC~~ ~ ~ . To: Hewat, James Subject: Landmarking of 607 Forest Street Dear Jim: Hello, this letter is to inform you of my position on the land marking of 607 Forest Street Boulder Co. I am in support of the land marking of this historic home. This home is pristine and appears in excellent condition for it's age. feel that it is an excellent example of the old Newlands homes. Because there is no Historic District in Newlands, believe it is important that we landmark homes here. I have lived in Newlands for over thirty years and this home with it's majestic trees and corner location is lovely, and a fine representation of the neighborhood that I have grown to love over the years. Lately, I notice that speculators are especially attracted to the corner lots in Newlands. Two near my home at 2720 4th have been scraped and left as empty lots. I think owners intentionally scrape in order to get the politics of scraping out of the way. This allows the lots to be put up for sale as vacant lots for a new owner to buy. I find this especially destructive because who is to say the new owners could not have worked with the old home? In the future, I suggest that you do not allow scraping without a completed set of new plans and that we discourage scraping all together. Therefore, saving this corner home is a must. Regarding 607 Forest, I understand that it could be added on to while preserving the front of the home. This is an excellent idea and I actually think that the combination of new and old adds more value and character to the home. At least this location would not end up with another cookie cutter home ,as many of the Newland homes are. In fact, I recently read in a magazine that Newlands was regarded as the best place to scrape and build. This is terrible because the character of the neighborhood is destroyed. Many of the new homes look as if they belong in a California subdivision and are huge, built to maximize the dollar. The trees are removed,and houses jammed together without a cohesive feel. In the end, I think this wil{ hurt the overall values of the area. Please preserve this wonderful home so others may learn from it's historical design and see how a builder can work with the past. I submit this letter personally and not as a function of my BnZA position. Sincerely: ' Elizabeth Hondorf -----Original Message----- From: Chris 7acobs [mailto:] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:20 PM To: lpab Subject: 607 Forest Ave Dear Landmark Committee, I live around the corner from the above property, which is requesting a demolition permit. As a neighbor and property owner, I fee]. that the permit should be granted. The existing structure is not, in my opinion, worth preserving as it does not sufficiently meet the ~1iat_.~IGFi i~~~:tW :`f ~...ir'A+Ca~ Landmark criteria (architectural significance, historically significant occupants/occurrences, etc). I think you would agree that there are a number of homes in our neighborhood and in the City that better exemplify the Landmark criteria. I am generally familiar with the plans for the new home the owners are proposing and feel the proposed home will be better suited for our neighborhood than the existing structure for a number of reasons. The proposed home will fulfill the needs of the neighborhood's market which is young and growing families. On the bases of design, amenities, and square footage, the current home is not safe or suitable for the market nor a young family. The proposed home will be more ecologically friendly and environmentally efficient, values I'm proud much of the neighborhood shares. I do hope the Committee considers seriously allowing the owners to move forward with their plans without the 6 month stay. Should you have questions or need additional input, I may be reached at 720.289.5947. Sincerely, Chris Jacobs 3132 5th Street From: May Yin Architecture [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:25 AM To: Meschuk, Chris; Hewat, dames; Spitzer, John; Podmajersky, Lisa; Kornblum, Nancy; 'Tim Plass' Subject: 607 Forest HI all, Sorry to wait so long to study the agenda. went by 607 Forest over the weekend and also yesterday to study the issues. Isn't here supposed to be a public hearing sign posted? There wasn't when I did my site visits. Especially given that there was greater than usual neighborhood interest for the last hearing and it was commented by one neighbor prior to that hearing that they didn't know about it until the last minute because a truck was parked in front of the sign. Because of the noticing and interest level, 1 am concerned about the appropriateness of hearing the case at this time. . Leonard From: Kay Bingham [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:22 AM AUENDIi iYi~IVI ~x.-~-_ir`A+(~~ ~ ~ ~ - To: Piass, Tim; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Meschuk, Chris; n; Spitzer, John; hewetj Subject: Retrial, 607 Forest Landmarks Board: It has come to my attention that a retrial concerning the demolition of the property at 607 Forest is moving forward, possibly today. There has been no public announcement of the retrial. The lack of announcement for the retrial, along with less than desirable placement of the sign for the hearing in December, (behind a truck) makes me wonder if someone is trying to sneak this demolition through the landmarks board? I understood that the 180 day stay granted in December was to provide time to determine other options to demolition. My husband and I have asked to meet with the owner after the New Year to better understand his building plans. That meeting hasn't happened yet. Please postpone the retrial until proper notice has been made and other options to demolition have been explored. Thanks, Kay and Larry Bingham 3235 6th. Boulder, CO From: Diane Dvorin [maiito:] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:15 PM To: Plass, Tim; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Meschuk, Chris; Spitzer, John; hewetj Subject: Re: Retrial, 607 Forest To: Landmark Board: Re: 607 Forest We have lived at 3232 Sixth St., I/2 block north of 607 Forest, for 33 years. We just learned that a retrial concerning the demolition of the property at 607 Forest is moving forward, possibly today, rather than on January 7 as previously scheduled. There has been no public announcement of this retrial. It did not appear in the agenda printed in the Camera on Dec 28. "Phis lack of announcement for the retrial, along wish Less than visible placement of the sign for the December hearing (behind a truck) makes us wonder about what is going on here. There is no compelling reason to rescind or shorten the 180 day stay granted in December, as it was intended to provide time to determine options to demolition, for the owners to share with neighbors their plans for what would replace it, the impact of their plan on both immediate neighbors and the neighborhood, etc. Some of the neighbors have asked to meet with the owners after the New Year to better understand their building plans. Please postpone this retrial until proper notice has been made and other options have been explored. r~t~~~vra~, l~r~~ ~ -.l~~w~ I g._. 'thank you for your consideration, Diane Dvorin Bill Butler 3232 Sixth St. Boulder, LO 80304 303-449-098I From: Hewat, James Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 10:00 AM To: Ipab Subject: FW: 607 Forest Ave see attached From: Steve Remmert [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 9:46 AM To: 'jgoodson'; Hewat, James; Meschuk, Chris Cc: 'Lisa Goodson' Subject: RE: 607 Forest Ave Hey James, l enjoyed working successfully with you and the Landmarks Board on the difficult Uberoi / Hobart Wagner home. It seemed that a reasonable resolution was found and I feet that Cheri appears to be doing a great job of respectfully contributing to the home. It appeared to me that there were a variety of reasons for the Landmarks board to intervene in the demolition of that specific property. I see absolutely no way that 607 Forest should fall into that same category. I don't see any historical significance with the architect, if the architect can even be identified, the home certainly has no character or defining architectural elements and it does not appear to contribute to the neighborhood. Unlike areas like Mapleton Hill, this neighborhood has virtually no consistent theme and has perhaps come to be more defined try larger nicer homes than small shacks. 1 am respectful of the Landmark Board and appreciate their efforts as I too believe in preservation. With that said, I think attempting to Landmark this home makes a strong negative statement about the rote and potential overuse of authority with no specific justification and undermines the Landmark Boards entire objective. I do not think it would be fair to the community and especially fair to the Goodson family to impose this burden on them, especially given the fact that the neighbors are in support and also see no historic contribution. 1 know John and have worked with him in years past. John is committed to building aesthetically interesting, environmentally friendly and of course safe homes. He is a wonderful person that is mindful of the importance of a home and it rote within a community. So please see what others see as common sense and allow the Goodsons to move forward on what will be a beautifut home that wilt ultimately contribute to the neighborhood and serve the community for years to come by providing a tax payer with a great functional place to live. Thanks, Steve ~i~t~Nt~a i~'s~kld,f ~~raAC~F 1 SteYP. rerrlill~:r~ From: To: Ipab@bouldercolorado.gov Subject: 607 Forest Ave Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:46:16 -0700 Dear Landmark Committee: I am writing in support of a demolition permit for 607 Forest Ave, I live on the adjacent corner of 6th and Forest (555 Forest), and wonder why there is even a question regarding the tear-down of this property. The house at 607 Forest is ugly and old; it lacks any architectural or historical significance. It is constructed of vinyl, and I know the roof leaks. I'm not sure its truly safe in its present condition, I also don't believe it meets any of the three criteria which would classify it for preservation. I'm sure you know that the plan of the owners is to build a safe, sustainable, and ecologically friendly home. The construction of such a house will enhance the character of the neighborhood, as well as add to the value of all the surrounding homes. I realize neighbors wishes don't really come into play in your decision making, but I wanted to add my "two cents". Thank you for your time, and for all the work you do in helping keep Boulder the wonderful place it is to live. Sincerely yours, Julie Benjamin From: Hewat, James Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:44 PM To: Ipab Subject: FW: A viewer has a question about your event See attached. From: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:27 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: A viewer has a question about your event User has a question about the event you have posted titled Landmarks Board Design Review Committee which is scheduled for 07 January 2009. `Their question is: Af~~~1riA IY'I~tW,x._~=.ii'A~IF_ . Mr. Hewat, I sent you a rather extensive e-mail in early December 2008, regarding my concerns about the proposal to demolish the home at 607 Forest Ave, which was the home, for around 50 years, of J. Brownlee and Lois Uuyex. I am a bit concerned that it may not have reached you, as I cannot find a copy in my "sent mail". However, I am following up this contact to tell you that I just learned that the proposal will again be considered on Wednesday 1/7/09, and 1 feel that the meeting about the proposal may be coming before the Board too quickly, without the needed consideration time. Since a friend had advised me that on December 3, 2008, the board asked for time to consider alternatives to demolition, I am shocked to see anothe r meeting about this proposal only one month later, during which intervening time Christmas and New Year's holidays were taking pl~.ce. I would ask that the Board follow through with their com.mittment to give sufficient consideration to alternatives and not rush into a decision at a time of year when there have been many distractions for Board members and days off for City employees. This home has been a part of its neighborhood for about/over 50 years. Should its demolition take place, no proposal has been presented as to future plans fox the property; however, it is safe to assume that the property owner will erect a large residence that will resemble many which have been and will be going up in older neighborhoods consisting of predominantly smaller homes, and that it will radically change the character of the 6th & Forest neighborhood. In the interests of this neighborhood and many other older Boulder neighbo rhoods, I ask the Board to give sufficient consideration to demolition alternatives. I would be happy to speak to anyone who has questions for me about this matter. Thank you, Jacqueline Johnson From: Hewat, James Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:49 PM To: Ipab Subject: FW: Demolition permit for 607 Forest Ave. See attached From:.. _ Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:39 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: Demolition permit for 607 Forest Ave. Dear Landmarks Board Members, Our family listened to the board meeting of Dec. 3, 2008, concerning the demolition of the former Guyer property at 607 Forest Ave. We were pleased that the board voted to take up to 180 days to look at the property more carefully before issuing the permit. We felt comfortable that a thorough study would be made before a decision was made on the property. We were concerned to hear that the house was brought up again on Dec. 30th and Jan. 7th. We are asking the board to stand by their word of taking sufficient time to look into options to demolition of the property. We understand that this was done for a property on Dewey Street. We ask for the same consideration on the Forest Street property. We are available to provide you with any additional information that you might need in making your decision. The Betty Guyer Nelson Family 813 Alta Vista Ave. Corona, CA 92882 9.51-735-2529 frnelson @ aol The Donna Guyer Gease Family 800 Ardath Pueblo, CO 81005 719-566-6957 From: Kay Bingham [mailto:] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:20 PM To: hewetj; Plass, Tim; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Meschuk, Chris; lomay@nilenet.com; Spitzer, John; Kay Bingham Cc: Bill Butler _ Subject: Re: 607 Forest Enviromental Significance Preservation Board: Unfortunately I don't know if any of the 6th,/Forest neighbors will be able to attend tonight, but we do hope to receive an answer to the question below and possibly pursue further changes in the demoliton process for future applications. We would appreciate advice about how to address the process.. Kay Bingham Original Message From: Kay Bingham Cc: Bill Butler Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:11 AM Subject: 607 Forest Enviromental Significance ~ac~s~~~aa rrr~vi;x_ ~.i~ac~~ Landmarks Preservation Board: I understand the "retrial" for 607 Forest is on the agenda for tonight. Our neighbors did meet with the Goodson's earlier this week to better understand their plans and timetable. Those of us who met are pretty much in agreement that the house is not architecturally significant and has structural problems which would be costly to fix. We agree that the Guyers were wonderful old-timers and native Coloradoans ,but did not contribute significantly to the history of Boulder. This leaves the question of environmental significance. The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the protection of the unique natural and man-made environment. • Site Characteristics It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation. Compatibility with Site Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or other qualities of design with respect to its site. • Geographic Importance Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. • Environmental Appropriateness The surroundings are complementary and/or it is situated in a manner particularly suited to its function. • Area Integrity Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental importance and continuity of an existing condition; yet if taken singularly or out of context it might not qualify under other criteria. • Other, if applicable Those of us who attended the neighborhood meeting feet that the corner lot has provided a sense of openness which has contributed to the character and community interaction. The GoGdson's intend to save this green corner and setbacks further require this. ^1y question is how will a 4 bedroom, 3 bath two-story structure with a 2 car garage and studio above support the variety, interest, and sense of identity of our neighborhood? Is there any way to further study what will be built after the 2-bedroom, 1 bath home is destroyed? Amen! Kay Bingham 3235 6th Street Boulder, CO 80304 ~~,~,~vnaaY~i~~F~~_.i~Ac~l'r a3, ~L _ r - i ! . • ~ ~,i~?.. yea y" ~ i kb~r ~ , From: jgoodson [mailto:J Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:06 PM To: Council Cc: Brautigam, Jane; McHeyser, Ruth; Hewat, James; Meschuk, Chris Subject: [with attachment) Landmarks Board is being unreasonable Importance: High CC: Jane Brautigam; Ruth McHeyser; James Hewat; Chris Meschuk City Council Members: - . My name is John Goodson and I own the property at 607 Forest Avenue, Boulder, CO 80304. My wife and I want to build a new house on this property, but have not been able to get our Demolition permit because of unknown reasons with the Landmarks Board. We've worked closely with James Hewat and Chris Meschuk (City Staff) who have been a pleasure to work with and have supported our efforts from the beginning, but 1 think even they are confused as to the actions of the Board. What should have been a very simple decision granted on December 3, 2008 has now been prolonged into February and is causing not only significant stress within my family but also a financial strain. As wriften in the Boulder Revised Code: The landmarks board shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria: (1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981; (2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; (3) The reasonable condition of the building; and (4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. ,~c;t:iV~J~ f`!'~:M ~'f,'IYl-.r'fa~~l~..°?-~- If they were basing on only this criteria, then we would have our demo permit, because James Hewat has showed that the property does not meet any of the above criteria--there are no historic homes nearby which will be affected by its demolition, there is no historic merit to the home (not architectural nor based on who has lived there), and furthermore, the neighborhood and community support our efforts to get a demo permit. Therefore no groups or individuals are in favor of Landmarking this property, and we as owners are not willing to Landmark it, so the fact that we still do not have a permit is frustrating us. If we had been issued a demolition permit as the City Staff recommended back in December, we could have been well into our design by now and most likely through that process before our 2nd child is born in February. But instead the Board continues to delay this process even though there is absolutely NO support for Landmarking this building--not from City Staff, not from Historic Boulder, not from the Community and not from us the owners. We feel that the decision is being unduly prolonged and ask that City Council review if for us to ensure we are being treated fairly. I would like to note that Lisa Podmajersky is in full support of our efforts and we speculate that Nancy Kornblum is also supporting us. All we want is to be able to start our design process now--before our baby comes--which will allow us to put together a budget and know what we can afford to rent during the building process. We're not asking for the board to reverse any findings from City Staff nor are we asking them to go against what the public wants-- actually we have support for this demo from every angle except the Board and we just feel it is in your best interest as City Council to know what is going on. Please read through the details of our situation below--it's a lengthy email and for that I apologize, but it re-caps what has happened so far and I think explains our confusion. We applied for ademo-permit in November of 2008 and were told that since our house was constructed prior to 1940, we were mandated to pay $2100 and have the city staff (James Hewat and Chris Meschuk) research this property to see if it met any of the Landmark criteria. We paid the fee and the research done by James and Chris showed that the house does NOT MEET ANY of the Landmark criteria. Sorne of the points they referenced in their report: 1) Severe modifications--an addition of about 50% done in the 1960's and 7 Street facing windows replaced with vinyl windows 2) T he Historical Building Inventory Record states the home has a "lack of architecturaE details which would indicate any particular style" ` 3) No one of local or national significance has ever lived in the home 4) Not in a historical neighborhood and does not have any landmarked buildings nearby On December 3, 2008, James and Chris presented their research to the board. Not only did they find that the home does not meet Landmark Criteria, but Historic Boulder (who has been present at each of the last 3 meetings with us) has never opted to speak in favor of preserving this building. Even with all these facts and the printed statement from James and Chris which says: "Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: Issuance of a demolition for the building at 607 Forest Ave is appropriate based upon the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f) B.R.C, in that the building: 1. Is not eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic, architectural, or environmental significance; 2. does not contribute significantly to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative example of the area's past." the board still chose to impose a 180-day stay of demolition on the property. I met with both James and Chris after this ruling and learned that the purpose of this 180-day stay of demolition is to allow the homeowner to explore alternatives to the demolition. My wife and I are not interested in any alternatives. As stated previously, i\Lt i\~~~ t~11.=tVl ; f , - .~~l~C'a~ the house has no architectural style and we do not want to do an addition because of the added cost necessary to bring the existing structure up to code, the limitations an addition would impose on our design and floor-plan, the inability to have a basement under the existing structure and most importantly--we agree with the experts and think that this home is not worthy of Landmark designation. We know that neighborhood (or community) support is not a requirement for a demo permit, nor should the opinion of the community even influence the decision of the board--as it is not a "criteria" of Landmarking. We felt that maybe subjectively, the board would feel better about allowing us to demo if they knew we had support from the neighbors. As you can see from the attached document, we took the time to speak with as many neighbors as possible to see if they supported us. We got 40 signatures in support of our demo out of the 41 people with whom we spoke. Included in that 40 is every neighbor who shares a property line with us or is across the street or alley from us. On December 30, 2008, we showed this neighborhood support to the board and asked them to lift the stay since: 1. We were not willing to Landmark the property 2. City Staff was not going to do any additional research on the property and their findings already showed that it didn't meet Landmark Criteria 4. The community supports us tearing down the existing home and building a new one 3. Waiting 180 days seems pointless when no additional research was going to be done and we are not willing to Landmark but they chose not to lift the stay because they felt the neighborhood didn't have significant notice of that meeting. One neighbor, Bill Butler, spoke up because we had not been able to get around door-to-door to everyone and he said that although none of the neighbors he was representing thought the house should be kept or even Landmarked, he said they were interested in what style/size home we wanted to build. The board cited the lack of public notice as a reason for not making a decision, yet the City Attorney present on December 30th stated: "Based on the notice you have hear today you could certainly decide to set an initiation hearing which would start the ball rolling on all those issues. You could also decide that you're not going to proceed and it's done and the demolition permit can issue." --Suelyn "City Attorney's office" 12/30/2008 Even after being advised by the Attorney that they could lift the stay, the board decided they needed to give more ample notice to the public before making any decision citing that they felt many neighbors would be present at the January 7th meeting, So is neighborhood support actually a criteria even though the City Code does not reference it?? tBy the way, ?io neighbors ended up coming to the January 7th rneeting....} On January 5th, 2009 we met with Bill Butler and some other neighbors and discussed what we want to build. This is not something the city requires, encourages or uses as a basis for Landmarking a property, but we have a good relationship with our neighbors and want to make sure they are comfortable with what we design. They got the chance to speak out about their concerns and we were able to give our ideas on the design--the meeting went very well and we fee! like the entire group supports us in this effort. In proof of that--NO neighbors were at the meeting on January 7th, 2009 to speak against our demo permit. Yet on January 7th, 2009 the Landmarks board again decided not to lift the 180-day stay of demolition. This time it seems it is hung up potentially because of the non-existence of detailed instructions on how to handle the "lifting" of a 180-day stay of demolition, and an inconsistency in how the City Attorney's office interprets the code. A different City Attorney was present at this meeting and, in direct contrast to the City Attorney at the last meeting, told the board that there should be a formal notice on the property for two-weeks before the Board can lift the stay--even though that formal.notice had been placed before the meeting on December 3, 2008! We don't care if a banner is wrapped around the house telling about the upcoming meeting--it's quite obvious by the lack of community representatives present at the meeting that there is na opposition to us getting a demo permit. But more important and of interest to City Council was a statement from one of the Board members: "If we go down this route we're going to have every applicant for a demolition permit come into us every month and ask for us to...lift the stay and I worry that we're going to fill up our calendar with a lot of this type of action..." --Tim Plass 01 /07/2009 s~rxt:~1lt:1I~, ~("~i~13~..~!~'_:'la~~k ~(Q--• That to me seems that Mr. Plass's reasoning for not supporting a lift of the i80-day stay of demolition is a personal reason of not wanting to be in ameeting--where he is supposed to be representing the public's best interest--for "too long". He seems to have complete disregard for the impact of his and the boards actions on my family. This process seems completely out of control. Our home does not meet any of the Landmark Criteria as written in the City Code and there is no interest from anyone in Landmarking it--even the Board has not said they want to do that. My wife and I are raising our 2 year-old in this 2-bedroom home which by any interpretation is not a good fit for a child: 1. Asbestos in the walls, floors and ductwork 2. Lead based paint 3. NO insulation in the walls--empty wall cavities! 4. Once external basement stairs, now in the middle of our living room (each tread at a different height) 5. 1 or 2 electrical outlets in most rooms =extension cords everywhere 6. Cast-iron plumbing 7. Lead based gas pipe 8. Knob and tube wiring We have another baby due to arrive on February 22, 2009 and all we want is to know that we will be allowed to demo our current--very unsafe, impractical home, so that we can build a very sustainable and energy efficient home which will more adequately house us and our 2 or 3 children. Please speak to your appointed board members and tell them they need to lift the unfounded 180-day stay of demolition. Frustrated, John Goodson John W Goodson. President 1VTe~~iro Solutions, tnc. ti~ : 303.l~'~.10~7 "B>> faitin~ to prepare, you are preparing to fail." 13enjanrirr f%ranklin From: Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:03 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: A viewer has a question about your event User has a question about the event you have posted titled Landmarks Board Design. Review Committee which is scheduled for 04 February 2009. Their question is: ~(X111'i.~~1;i~~,;1;l~r.~ar'laC~k~=?-? . To: Landmarks Preservation Board Re: 607 Forest Ave Demolition Permit Dear Board Members, Again we ask you to keep the stay on the property at 607 Forest Avenue for the full 180 days. The neighbors are continuing to explore alternatives to demolition. Betty Guyer Nelson 813 Alta Vista Corona, Ca., 92882 ~ Donna Guyer Gease 800 Ardath Pueblo, Co., 81005 From: Kay Bingham [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:29 PM To: Hewat, James; Plass, Tim; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Meschuk, Chris; lomay@niienet.com; Spitzer, John Subject: 607 Forest To the Landmarks Board: Once again, we write you to ask you to uphold the stay of demolition for the 607 Forest property for the full 180 days. Lifting the stay will set a precedent and weaken the process. My concerns for protecting the environmental sizlr~ificance of the property such as the~open features and soil permeability of this prominent corner- lot have not yet been answered. If the Goodson's can tell me more about the depth of the foundation and the height and placement of the proposed new home with respect to the site, I will rest my case for the environmental significance. Kay and Larry Bingham 3235 6th. From: Bev Potter [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:41 PM To: Meschuk, Chris Subject: 607 Forest The attached pdf was sent to the Landmarks Board. f~txf:tllt~Jl~ i~i'1~;111 at~~.L1_~i-'6a~1w ;~f: .F . Brownlee Guyer , - ~~.~,x , , ~ was the c~unty~s ~ ©nly game ~ r { warden for • y.~~~ ~ ~,r., ~ - , , 4 k~-:~ ~ R~~, three decades _ 1 ~ t l~ f ~7:.. I:~' J ~r - ~ f Y. i r j ~i ~ 1. c. .a •Yi. qY u r~. `t. ~ ~ t Bnutder County 5 game . ~ ` ~ ward8n from 1938 to 197U, Brownlee Guyer r~ . ~ / ~ ~ ~~>,G, ~ now spenc[s m®st of leis . 'j~~,.- time at tl~e Borest ; Avenue pause he . 1 ~Alilali! INE h vyz~.z r:o:t r ~k i. y.~ i~ e \ e- r:. t3y Clay Evans _ Senior tditor ~ ~ ~ - r K d x3~~ 'r,il /lt 93, Brownlee Grayer still likes t~ get ottt and se£ ~ =r ~ ~ ~ - the terr•ilory i)e walked antl h 1•' Brave so often while serving \ ~ ~ , as Boulder County s lone s, game warden from i9:iF3 to s ~ Tljese days,l3e relies t)it r~ ~ , ~ " •:;r . . friends to drive him. fiat he's ~ ~ L ' t r never sto!)tfed taking stork j t ~ ti ~ ~ • of howll~e laztd and wildlife _ are doing, even through a ° snfitMV or~w. i t~ c~ car windt)w. Guyer doesn't s~ tnucl) jiitlge what he set's tlrnro titan three decades, he in t1~e <)ut-of-cltx~rs " as simply ol~set'vec, but he was a ftxttrrc around the fiat even after ste;)ping sccm9 to lcmg ft)r days past. county, puttering about in away from 1)is work with t)ne sunny day in late leis beloved Model T. what. was then Called the February, a friend drove ltirt~ "I3rawnlee Guyer is one t;<ame, Dish and Parks north of i3oulder on 11.S. 3fi, of the truest and finest signs Department, (?trycr contin- theneast an Nelson Road, that gotxl oltl Haukler still ued to educate kids and offer wizere pheasants used t.o his insi hts anti experience burst from tl~e tong grass. lives among us, says writer g anti fly f slier Gordon is up-and-coming state "VYhen 1 came lt!cre, Ehc•rc Wic#cskz't)m. "Ne chased nie wildlife conservation off- were wonderful l~lteasanEs down fife nights and days of cers. all over.l'd st;e titan when 1 long ago w}tcn I was the 1'or tl;o 1)ast three years, . talked to penple wlto lived in fact, the Cnlorado I}OW otrt nn the flats," lte says. lx>acher.~nd he life gattte „ warden. We d still be poach ltas invited him to speak to 13th 1 haven't seen a pltea~• ittg anti arrr.sting today if'we its new recruits. t~uyer has a ant in years.... It s all ltous- cottltl_ Just the sight o€ thank-you letter from a class cc, nrrw i~rc)wtifee makes me fee: ~ ~ ate spoke in in January llnyone who hunted "I tell thetrt how to coop- pheasar)ts it) i;oulcier County uoocl'., ` "iirownie " ~s itc was carte with law enforcement, ----which were scarce, hrtt and to keep in touch with the still )resent, intt) the n~itl- known, left the jot) in 1970 tv „ 19Rth -may share (:uyer•s run a small "Gx-it" shop in tip his It ntg.lclose relat on-~ regret over their disappear- Nederland artd teach indu4 sl t~ with editors at the once. Mow yott have to jour. trial arts at tl>:e ihen-new C.atnera. "I never see a ney notch fartJter into "kite Alexander t)awson School (lamed thing about a wildlife t3ats" of e<rstern Calarailo t>r "I've really enjoy<,d work- conservation offienr in the to fife Sand lliUs of ing with the 1tcUl)le of Camera any rrtore." Nebraska to find the birds. 13otrJclt~rCottnty, espceially IIe enjoyed leading edu- Ilut it was devFlnprnrnt, nnf with the youngstFrs,' ht' laltl catiotla] prograttts in local hunting, that drove t}te 1)irds the 1)aiiy Canters after schools, an(i says he particu- eastward, annrnntcin~ his retirement lady liked to tack abaul (;uyer's 1<)ng history titter, decades ago_ if 1 heavers. }Ie wouicl arrive at workitag with wildlife, had it. to dt) over again, I ccltool wii}t a "beaver hunters and fisltcrs nnitturly would clo 41)c same thing. I stump," a hide and tail, and shits loin tt) rt'C711 Iiotrltler WE)lll(1 r/'.C()n)~lend niV tyT)(' Cvunty'ti natural t)ast, For of work ic) anyone it)icrested f'tertse see GAMf on 7G i Game warden h~el ed ~eese . p g Continued from 8C~ show students a "wonderful beaver film:" "I still think the beaver is ~ • ' the greatest: conservationist ~ , ~ ~ we've got on Earth. He ~ 3~ s 1 , knows how to preserve (the ~ ' a;~l a ~ . ; ~ . environment) in a way the r rr ; v. white man has never xj~. ^"v~ learned," he says- Guyer has myriad tales r ~ ~ _ ~ from his days in the field. He - y;~:r recalls, for example, the time _ he noticed that then- ra President Dwight D. Eisenhower neglected to sign his Colorado fish and game license, technically an offense. He called the White House seekuig ati after-the- fact John Hancock, but the : s secretary hung up nn him: carnea rye photo "She told me I was just a:i autograph hound," he says. Brownlee Guyer often traveled in his beloved Model T dur- Sv he went to longtime ing his 32 years as Boulder County's lone game warden. Boulder U.S. Rep. Don Brotnnan, who managed to get the presidents signature to have been caught," he flock of geese," he says. - albeit in the wrvug place. says -but mostly, people And he believes, with Guyer still keeps the license returned.the respecthe same bemusement, that he is one of two tuck scrap- showed them.' and a friend may be partly books he keeps from his "I'm still friends with the responsible for the count}~s years of service, worst poacher I ever knew," now-thriving goose popula- Guyer clearly leas deep he says with a smite. He tivn. respect for na.t<:re, but the won't reveal the nova-re}tabil- We went down to Denver . ethic regard'uig wildlife was hated hunter's name, but City Park and got baby considerably different dur- says, "He lives just down the geese," and introduced them ing his hitch. strecL" to the ponds around Boulder For example, he keeps a Guyer sees no conflict .County, he says. newspaper clipping about between hunting and conser- Deep inty retirement, his response tv a bear cub vadon, noting that for people Guyer mostly spends his that wandered into town: He and wildlife to coexist---and days in the house at 607 shot it, noting that any dam- for the health of the whole Forest Ave. that he and his age the animal might have ecosystem -population wife bought from Bill Arnold caused would be the liability control is sometimes neces- in 1943 - for a whopping of the state fish and game ~•y Deer are thriving, he $2,500. But he stfll goes to department Today, rangers observes, and elk are doing McDona]d's for coffee with give bears more than one so well that some are return- friends and takes rides out in strike. They don't resort to ing to the plains hahitat the country. lethal control uriless they where they lived before "I don't li~Ce to do too deem that an individual bear European settlers arrived. much any mare," he says. has become too bold within Iie also wonders at the `But I always tell people I city Iimits. preponderance of Canada had the best job in the Guyer had a few close geese who stay in the area world." shaves with angry poachers year-round. Contact senior editor Clay over the years - "I think "When I first got here, it Evans at (303) 473 ~I352 or they were just embarrassed was very unusual to see a evanscCa?dailycamera.com. From: Kay Bingham [mailto:] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:56 AM To: Hewat, James; Plass, Tim; Kornblum, Nancy; Podmajersky, Lisa; Meschuk, Chris; Spitzer, )ohn; Kay Bingham Cc: LARRY Subject: Re: 607 Forest ~ ' I just returned home from a vacation and listened to the full 23 minutes audio recording of the Feb. 4 hearing on 607 Forest. Thanks for upholding the stay. I do not understand why the board doesn't acknowledge my concerns for establishing environmental significance? It was repeated numerous times that nothing new has been brought up and that is not true. I have sent my concerns to the board a couple of times since the December meeting and no one has responded. Also, I don't have KC Becker's email so she is not receiving my comments. . Kay Bingham 3235 6th. Original Message From: Kay Bingham To: James Hewat ; Sent: Tuesday, February u:~, Luuy i ray rnn Subject: 607 Forest To the Landmarks Board: Once again, we write you to ask you to uphold the Ut~y of de~iolition for the 607 Forest property for the full 180 days. Lifting the stay will set a precedent and weaken the process. My concerns for protecting the environmental significance of the property such as the open features and soil permeability of this prominent corner lot have not yet been answered. If the Goodson's can tell me more about the depth of the foundation and the height and placement of the proposed new home with respect to the site, I will rest my case for the environmental significance. Kay and Larry Bingham 3235 6th. Attachment D MEMOIt.ANDUM December 3, 2008 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building located at 607 Forest Ave, per Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-00234} fox non-landmarked buildings over fifty years old. STATISTICS: 1. Site: 607 Forest Ave 2. Date of Construction: 1937 3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential -Low 1) 4. Owner/Applicant: john Goodson STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: The Landmarks Board issue astay-of-demolition for the building located at 607 Forest Ave, for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the perirnit application was accepted by the city manager, in order to explore alternatives to the demolition of the building, adopting the findings as listed on page 7 of the staff memorandum. Alternatives to be considered include rehabilitation of the building, incorporation into redevelopment plans, or withdrawal of the demolition permit. Staff encourages the applicant to consider landmark designation of the building and incorporation into redevelopment plans for the property. Landmark designation would make state tax credits available to help offset the cost of rehabilitation, as well as the waiver of sales tax on building permits. SUMMARY: On October 8, 2008, the Planning Department received a demolition permit application for the house at 607 Forest Avenue. The building is not in a designated Iv.storic district Agenda Item Page ?j Memo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2008 Re: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Permit After detailed analysis, staff considers the building to be a moderately intact example of Minimal Traditional house construction from the late 1930's, but that it does not meet the eligibility criteria for individual landmark meeting the critex-za set forth in Section 9-11- 23(f) of the B.R.C. Therefore, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board issue a permit to demolish the building. DESCRIPTION: Located in the Newland neighborhood in north Boulder, on the north side of Forest Avenue between 6t'' and 7t'' Streets, the 9,400 square foot corner lot contains the one-story 1937, 1100 sq. ft. woad frame Minimal Traditional house and free-standing 1947 Modernist inspired garage. ~ f~' ~ ~ ~ D I } ~n o Figure 1: Location Map, 607 Forest Avenue According to Boulder County Tax Assessor records, the house ivas built uz 1937. The Minimal 'Traditional design is characteristic of buildings constructed in Boulder during the pre-WW Il period with its diminutive size, lack of architectural or architectural detail, closed eaves, and front facing gabled secrion. The entry portico features squared column supports, wrought iron balustrade and railings and a concrete base. The paneled and glazed front door is off-centered with double-hung, one-over-one light windows with wide wooden surrounds. There is a bay window on the east side while the west wall bay was merged with the rear ell. The original clapboard sidu1g has been clad with vinyl siding. T11e adjacent free-standing two-car garage at the east side of the building was constructed in 1947 and feahzres a sloping shed roof, two-bays, anal an attached carport. Stylistically, the garage relates to more to the Modernistic inspired architecture that began to appear during the post-WW II years ix1 Boulder, than it does to the adjacent 5:\YLAV~ciata\longrarg\HIS'[1Dcnos~.Forest.6U7\1'7,.03.2008 L1:3 metao iinal.doc Agenda Item~PaL~e3~ Ulemo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2Q08 Re: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition permit Mini.rnal Traditional house. The garage doors face Forest Avenue and the alley. Building permits from 1947,1949, and 1985 indicate re-roofing, the addition of the garage/carport and window replacement, respectively. With the exception of vvnyl siding and window replacement about 1985, the overall form of the historic building remains intact. ti %r rr' r i ;7,, . r 1 ~ ~ ~n ~t 1 ~ 1 ''1~•FF a Y ~ i i ~~Y , ~ 'r'te`. ~1 1 { ~>'~~~t r/'~•~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ 1t-' ~ 1 4 f ~ j_ w~~ . ~ + t ~.'INi r*M~j~' 'v' ~ - - 'S'am, .a. ~I ` ,.AIM - Figure 2: 607 Forest Avenue, c. 1971 B .'L11~ri~iK.. .5,~1 4 ar r~ IC 1~ - ~n 1 t Tii•.~ 1 -1 ' _ _ Figure 3: 607 Fvrest Avenue, Svuth elevation, 2008 S:U'LAN~datauongrang~II1S"IlllemoslForest.607\12.03.2008 LB men;o final.doc ALTenda Item 1'a e 3~ Memo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2008 Re: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Permit t t'~ ~ ~ ~ fit ~ ; fibll ~s- `Y ' ' i~ ~ ~ ~w ~ M 1 ~r. ,t ,fit ,_.,.w t v?• •i ~v ,i ; 1 tt<If1u~ ~l'''~,t ~ r,~~ , ~lti :1~t~ • .n - _ .~t~ r - - _ _ _ ~ rt 4 "z t c j 1 t wC J ~ .i - ` L,.- is nt F~„~ • s • ti:~ ..r s' -a ot'~itJ ts. . rs .w ` ~ t ::a - ~ X4-4-~ . . . Figure 4: L-'ast elevation slx~wing c.1947 garage addition The building is not located in a potential historic district, is simple in design, and can be considered as Minimal '.Craditional in form. The late 1930's date of construction corresponds with an increase in house building in Boulder (and the east section of Newland in particular), at the end of the great depression. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that the Landmarks Board shall consider and base ifis decision upon any of the following criteria [9-11-23(f)]: (1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981; (2) The relationship of the building to the character of t11e neighborhood as ax1 established anal definable area; (3) The reasonable condition of the building; and (4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. S:;YLANldataVong.arg\HIS'1\Demos\ForesL607\12.03.2Q08 LB memo final.dec Agenda item ~•Pa~e~~j • Memo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2008 Re: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Permit When considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the Board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. As detailed below, staff considers this property to not be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The house appears to be in relatively good condition and no evidence has been provided suggesting that fhe condition of the building or the cost of restoration or repair (criteria 3 and 4) are factors in the request for demolition. As such, staff concentrated on criteria 1 and 2, the building's eligibility for landmark designation and its relationship to the character of the neighborhood, in the analysis below. CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIBILITY The following is a result of staff's research on the property relative to the significance criteria for individual landmarks adopted by the Landmarks Board on September 17, 1975. See Attachment F• Individual Landncark Significance Criteria HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house located at 607 Forest Avenue may have historic significance under criterion 1. 1. Date of Construction: 1937 Elaborations According to Boulder County Assessor records, the building was constructed in 1937 with the garage and carport constructedx.11947-49 and is over fifty years old. 2. Association with Persons or Events: None observed Elaboration: Dean Sanborn was city surveyor ix11945 and promoted to engineering department superintendent in 1948. Brownlee Guyer was Boulder County's lone game warden for 32 years. His life Lois worked as a teacher at an elementary school in Agate and at the North Broadway Center for children with disabilities. Staff considers none of these residents to be of local, state, or national significance. See Attachment B• Directoryand Deed Research. 3. Development of the Community: None observed Elaboration: 4. Recognition by Authorities: None observed Elaboration: The building was surveyed in 1995 by Front Range Research Associates, and found not to be eligible for listing on the National Register. See Attachment S:\PLANldata\longrang\EilST\Demos\Porest.607\12.03.2008 LB memo final.doc ALenda ItCm Pa~e3~ Memo to Landmarks Board 1?_/03/2008 Re: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Kermit A• Historic Buildin~Inventory Record. ARCHITECTUIt,ATr SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: Staff. considers the house at 607 Forest Avenue not be of historic architectural significance. 1. Recognized Period or Style: Minimal Traditional Elaboration: The simple design and lack of architectural detail is characteristic of many houses constructed during the pre-WWII period. The Minimal Traditional See Attachment G, emerged as a transition. from established bungalow or period cottage to a squarer, more boxy form house to the horizontally massed Ranch house. Typically one-story in height, the Minimal Traditional is based loosely on the Tudor-Revival popular in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s. Architectural elements at 607 Forest Avenue include diminutive size, boxy appearance, rectangular footprint, medium roof pitch, front facing gable over front entry and closed eaves. About 1947, the Modernist garage was constructed. Non-historic modifications to the building include the replacement of windows (1985), and the application of vinyl siding over the original clapboard. These non= historic alterations have had a moderate effect on the historic integrity of the building. Staff considers that while relatively intact, the building does not stand out as a noteworthy example of Minimal Traditional in the Newland area, or the city as a whole. A "windshield" survey of the surrounding area revealed a number of more intact and/or distinctive Mixlimal Traditional form houses. When comparing the building to these examples, staff considers the house at 607 Forest Avenue not to have architectural significance or uniqueness to merit designation as an individual local land mark. 2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None known Elaboration: 3. Artistic Merit: None observed 4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed 5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed Elaboration: S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Dcntos\Forest.607U2.03.2008 LB memo fnal.doc Agenda Item~l'age3g ' Memo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2008 Re. 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Permit ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house at 607 Forest Avenue has no environmental significance. 1. Site Characteristics: None observed 2. Compatibility with Site: None observed 3. Geographic Importance: Familiar visual feature in the area. Elaboration: Located on a visible corner lot of 6t'' St and Forest Ave, the building in the Newland neighborhood.. 4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed 5. Area Integrity: None observed CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHAIZA,CTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: The house at 607 Forest Street is located in the Newland neighborhood in North Boulder. Due to an erosion of historic integrity over the years, this area has been found not to be a potential local landmark district. r f ~ ~ - ~ _ y. t :Fi ~ y l . ' ~ ~"mil ~w is ~ ~ r„ 1~Y_J l=igure 4: Neighborhood showing 1930's construction S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\H1ST\Demos\Forest.607\I2.03.2008 LB memo final.doc Agenda Item~Pa~e?~ Memo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2008 Re: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Permit The aria was suxveyed in the 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places report by Front Range Research Associates, which found no buildings in the Newland Addition survey area to be eligible for individual listing izz the National Register of Historic Places. The Newland subdivision in which the house is located was first platted in 1891 and developed primarily from the 1920s through fhe 1950s and its character to that period has been altered significantly during the past two decades as a result of demolition and new construction. Stylistically, the house is related to the late 1930s development of the subdivision, although does not stand out as a notable or unique example of construction in the area. CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING AND CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR: Because no claim has been made by the applicant about the condition of the building or cost of restoration or repair, staff concentrated on criteria 1 and 2, the building's eligibility for landmark designation and its relationship to the character of the neighborhood in making a recommendation on the appropriateness of demolition. Staff has visited the site and observed the building to be in relatively good condition. NEIGI-IBORHOOD COMMENT: Staff has received no comments regarding the proposed demolition. THE BOARD'S DECISION: If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have historic, architectural, or environmental significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11- 23(f) B.R.C., the city manager shall issue a demolition permit. If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have significance under the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete, in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the building. [Section 9-11-23(h)]. A 180-day stay period would expire on April 6, 2009. Should the Board choose to issue the demolition permit, staff recommends that demolition be conditioned upon submittal of the following to the Planning Department for recording with Carnegie Library: 1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property; S:~YLAI~datauongrang~IiIST~Demos~Forest.60712.03.2008 LB memo final.doc ALTe~lda Item PaEC ~0 Memo to Landmarks Board 12/03/2008 Ke: 607 Forest Ave- Demolition Permit 2. Black and white medium fornnat archival quality photographs of all exterior elevations. FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the T andmarks Board adopt the following findings: Issuarice of a demolition for the building at 607 Forest Ave is appropriate based upon the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f) B.R.C, in that the building: 1. is not eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic, architectural, or environmental significance; 2. does not contribute significantly to the character of the neighborhood as intact xepresentative examples of the area's past. ATTACHMENTS: A: Historic Building Inventory Record B: - Directory and Deed Research C: Newspaper Articles D: Assessor Card E: Current Photographs F: 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places Excerpt: Newland Addition G: Significance Criteria for an Individual Landmark H: Selected Post-WW II Residential Architectural Styles and Building Types, Minimal Traditional, Colorado Historical Society, 2006 S:\I'LAN\data\tongranglHISTIDemos\Forest.609\12.03.2008 LS memo final.doc Agenda Ttem . Paae COLORACO 4iSTORICAL SOCIETr NOT FOR FIELD USE Office of Archaeology and Historic ?reservation Nominated 13C0 9roaduay, Denver, Colorado 80203 J_ Eligible _ Det. Not Eligible _ _ Certified Rehab. HISTORIC 9Utl_OING INVE?ITORY RECORD AttaC~1Tl18nt A Oate PROJECT NAME: Boulder Survey of Historic COUNTY: CITY: STATE ID NO.: 58L5364 Places, 1995 tacutder Boulder TENPORARY NO.: 1461-24-4-2Q-004 CURRENT uUILDING NAME:: OWNER: GUYER J BROWS~c' & LUIS P 607 FOREST AVE BOULDER CO $0304-255?_ ADDRESS: G07 FGRES7 AV BOULDER, C0 80304 TOWNSHIP 1N RANGE 71W SECTION 24 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 HISTORIC NAME: U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: 9oulder, Colo. YEAR: 1966 (PR1979) X 7.5' 15' BLOCK:' 30 LOT<5): 8-10 DISTRICT NAME: ADDITION: Newlards YR. OF ADDITION: 1891 FILM ROLL NO.: 95-17 PIEGATIVE NO.: LGCATION OF NEGATIVES: DArE OF CONSTRUCTION: BY: Roger Whitacre 18 Boulder City Ping. ES"iIMATE: ACTUAL: 1937 SOURCE: Uoulder County Assessor r ~`/r %r' USE: PRESENT: - ~~_,~`~r~'/>~. Residence s a ~j I - ~ ~ ? F.;r / x ~ ~ ~ t HISTORIC: 4, ~ ~ ~F 3, 'r Residence js`i Y~ its - f~.:. ~ ~t - - - Fly/ i'.i ~ ~~x ~~~x ~ . ~ S - ~ t is =~f _c 1 CONOiTION: ~ py .~V~~~~~. ~ ~ - t 2 ' 74.~,}~ ~ X EXCELLENT 600D ~ T i~. ~.~r''~ `Y(~ ~ ~ • "~i: FAIR DETERIORATING ~ a~ I_~~ ~ r-XTENT OF ALTERATIONS: ~ ; j 1T~ I I ~ ~f ~ > _ r t MINOR X MODERATE MAJOR r ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ : ~ y , = lr = ~ _ DESCRIBE: 1t~. ,y,~`-", ~122,,,~Y ~,fi~~~~ ,~,~~„~.~y q-Y-;;e~ Garage and carport ad}acent to house. ~1..k ~r'~~ l~t,. ~ I`',t ,t; _ >!t t Large rear addition. r 1~ r ~~i.; ~t.~ 3 T"t~ x i~T ~ • ~,i~r~~~~~Cc-- ,i';~ Y~ C~2yi~, e r t y s^~ 7+F ~x r ro~~~~~ ~~1Af~,*fy;~'Yt'~ '=,h :y r titi~~x'~p ~ S,`~`~~~.. --=f ''~iit ~i, ' . s :`i~ , u `t.^' c~~. j1~ y,l. ~ ~r ! 1 _ _ 1 J, '.t~4 ~ ~ Cy',a ~ :t r ~~5~ ~ y ~~~I,rt'. ~+~R 1 NO ~ ~ t~+I~!~ri rTM titi'[;c,`l~ ~ ~ `C%, CONTINUED YES X ,l t r y'':: ..r , ~ , c.r!~57~,`r'~,u'~ .y~~Y~,,_i f{r'~~ r. 'd S1YLE:' Vernacular Wood Fram.. - ~J,~.~':~5: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED 1 DATECS) GF MOVE: MATERIALS: Wood,"Concrete Sq. FOOTAGE: NAl"IONAL REGISTER ELIGI81LIlY 1116 SNDIVIDUAL: YES X NO ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: One-story frame dwelling with intersecting gables; close eaves; wood shingle CONTRIBUTING 70 DISTRICT: roofing. Walls clad with lap siding; stone toundation with basement level YES NO windows. Projectiny, shed roofed porch with squared column support, wrought LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: No iron balustrade and railings, and concrete base. off-center, paneled and glazed door. Double hung, 1/1-light windows with wide wooden surrounds. Bay window on NAME: • DATE: east; west wall bay merged with addition. ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? X YES NO TYPE: Garage, Carport IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.: CONTINUED? YES X 40 ADDITIONAL PAGES: YES X NO ' PLAPI SHAPE: ARC4ITECT: STATE ID k0.: SBL5364 I j I I I I Unknown I I I I I I I I ' I! ORIGINAL OWNER: I I I I I I I I I I Unknown I I ! I SOURCE: I I I I SOURCE: I I I ( I I ~ 9UILDER/CONTRACTOR: I I ' I l l i r r l l l ~ I Unknown I I I r l I I I THEME(S): I I i I I I I I SOt1RCE: Urban Residential Neighborhoods, II li IIII lil III r I ~ 1858-present CONSTRUCTION HISTORY CDESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE): Rear addition added in 1960s. CONTINUED YES X NO HISTGRICAL BACKGROUND (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSONS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STRUCTURE): In 194D, this was the home of Dean and Rose M. Sanborn. Dean Sanborn was superintendent of the city engine=ring department. He started work in the department in 1936. During World War II, he worked at aircraft plants in Arizona and California. After returning to Boulder in 1945, he was appointed city surveyor and in 1948, he was promoted to engineering department superintendent. Sanborn later left to work as a civil engineer in the water department of the Public Service Company of New Mexico. In 1943y this was the home of Willis H. and Dorothy M. Basiior. Mr. Bashor was a laborer at Public Service Company. CONTINUED YES X NO SIGNIFICANCE CCHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES ANO BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW): ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: REPRESENTS THE WORK Or' A MASTER ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS X REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METV;OD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT TIER EVALUATION: STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: ' This house is representative of the vernacular duelling construction in eoulder, as reflected in the simple design and lack of architectural details which could indicate a particular style. CONTINUED YES X, NO REFERENCES (BE SPECIFIC): 8oulder•County Assessor records; Boulder City Directories; Boulder Daily Camera files. CCNTINUED YES X N~ SURVEYED BY: R.L. Simmons/J.E. eroeker AFFILIATION: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. GATE: June 1995 Attachment B HISTORIC BUII.DING RESEARCH SHEET SUBJECT PROPERTY: ~7(`J ~ ~ PROPERTY NAME: YEAR: 1 ~ S"I'YLE: AR/CHITECT: DEVELOPMENT/NEIGHBORHOOD: ~ ~ i~~,~'VIs=~-~~~5 RESOURCE CI-IECKLIST: ~ HISTORIC INVENI`ORYRECORD: SANBOI2.~'V II~TSURANCE MAP: _ h ~~~-~~--s~~" MARDEN MAP: ~ ADDITION/PLAT MAP: ~ - ~-c . ~ ~ ~ BUILDL'~tG PERMITS: _ ~ ASSESSOR CARD: t PROPERTY DEEDS: ZONING (from MapLink): 1__ 1 ' O DAILY CA~VILRA CLIl'PINGS: GLADDEN REFERENCE BOOKS: i ~ PHOTOGRAPHS: ~ ~ HISTORIC CONTEXT REPORT: ( ) FIELD GUIDE TO AMERICAN HOUSES: ( ) GUIDE TO COLORADO ARCHITECTURE: _ 1'uLK'S CITY & COUNTY DIRECTORIES ~ . , ' BUSN 1869 CITY 1871 , BUSN 1882 CITY 1883 CNTY 1892 CNTY 1896 CNTY 1898 CITY 1901 CITY 1903 CNTY 1904 CITY 1905 CITY 1906-07 CITY 1908 ~ CITY 1911 CITY 1913 C1V"1'Y 1916 CN 1'Y 1.918 BUSN 1918 f CNTY 1921 ~y], • r' Y .1 CNTY 1923 , CNTY 1926 CNTY 1928 CNTY 1930 CNTY 1932 CNTY 1935 CNTY 1936 n ~ ~ : . ' ::`•.l CITY 193$ T ~;r,:~,-~ ~ } d~ i ~1 <~~cv;•~~ - • ~ ?~..,1; CNTY 1940 BUSN 1940 CITY 1943 1•~-.~ ~ 1 ~ t'~ . ~ ~ o I~~ ~v t,.l ttl ! i°~ 1_ ~rL? ' CITY 1946 t.t.srz-•, ~ ~~•l,~ i~)~11 ~1` ~ y o ` CNTY 1947 ~ ~ CITY 1949 ~ ~ ~ + ~ } r CITY 1951 ;t. ~-~_~:...,-::i:~...~, CITY 1953 CITY 1955 CITY 1956 CITY 1958 CITY 1959 CITY 1960 CITI'Y 1961 CITY 1962 ~~.••n ,na-U;~ t' `'~•i J CITY 1963 ~ CITY 1964 CT'rY 1965 CITY 1966 CITY 1967 CITY 1968 CITY 1969 - CITY 1970 a~~{i ' i^n~,.~ ~•ti~.~.._fi-_~. t ' -/c ~ f~J~~ D" C';`.T~~ 1971 - C~~~: e ~ ~ I CITY 1972 _ ~ -(~.~,~1.<„ CITY 1973 CTTY 1974 CITY 1975 ~ ~ ~ b~1 - CY~Y 1976 CITY 1977 CITY 1978 CITY 1979 ~ 1 ..j . CITY 1980 ~ ~ CTrY 1981 CITY 1983 CITY 1984 CITY 1985-86 CITY 1987 CITY 1988-89 CITY 1989-90 C~rY 1990-91 1L~ ,..-1-- ---t CITY 1991 BLDK 1992 `F PO.LK'S DIlZECTORY LISTINGS C( ONTINUED - BLDR 1993 DNVR 1994 BLDR 1995 BLDR 1996 CITY 1997 CITY 1997-98 CITY 1998-99 C.I'I'Y 1999-00 CITY 2000-01 CITY 2001. CITY 2002 CITY 2003 ''11 ~ NOTES: `~-~t ~~L i Attachment C BrorNnlee Guyer ~l ~oo~~ BrO~E'~ G`rt,~.~~~ November 5, 1.912-1 ebracary 7, 2007 T~~ ~0~~ ~/~J Brownlee Guyer, ~;t;tilh~~~ his wife Lois. He is Boulder and ~y,~; survived by their Nederland, ~4 Tt` ~ two dau hters, 94-year~olCl also retirement ui 1970. ` If I had it died g to do over again, l would do Wed. February ?th in ; ` ~tc,~;r~~., Donna Gease of taught at .Alexander the same thing. l would recom- his home in Boulder i , r2 " tlignlands • Ranch; DawSOn mend my type of work to any- I from pneumonia. He I ~s~ „ Colorado, and .Betty 9 ~6~ 200'7 one interested in kxi2,c.ut-of- was 94 years old. He ~ ;z,• ~ Nelson of Corona; gy pmy Bounds doors." came to Boulder in ' f Yti Caluornia _ Later in life., he erioyed lead- t 'kr Camera Stafj"IY/ritrr 1937: He has spent I ~ The family ipg education~il progz airs iri lo- summers in Nederland since requests donations lie sent to Brownlee Guyer, Boulder cal schools. )-1e still Lked io get 1955. ~ ~ ' TYie Nederland - Communit County's lone game warden out and see the territory he Y for 32 years, died Wednesday walked and drove so often, He was born, raised .and Presbyterian Church, P.O. `Box at 94 at his Boulder home. educated in Denver. He mar- 467, Nederland, CO 80466, for commenting on the changes Born, raised and educated in as homes replaced open land. ried Lois Perryman on Oct. 31, the Guyer Park. ~ Denver, Guyer came to Boul- Guyer was a storyteller who 1937 in Denver. He worked for A visitation will be held from der in 1937 to patrol Boulder also loved music and pl~ryed a the Colorado Division of 5-7 p.m. at The Masonic County as a warden for the bass horn. He also was skilled Wildlife from 1937 - 1970 as a Lodge, 2205 Broadway, Colorado Division of Wildlife. with lus hands, restoring du-ee Wildlife Conservation Office in Boulder, on Tues. February 13. For more than three decades, 1Vlodel:T's and doing wood- Boulder County. A funeral service will be held hewas a fixture around the worlung and repairs. His fami- He was ~ a member of the at the Lodge on Wed. February county, Pottering around in his ly said he often had a joke to Blue Lodge #45 for over 60 14th at 10:00am. A second beloved Model T. 211. ar a trick to play. years, a past member of the service will be held at the The Tall and skinny with a deep Guyer married Lois Perry- Colorado Consistery #1 in Nederland Community Voice, Guyer was described as man in 1937. They bought Denver; and the EI Jebel Presbyterian Church, 210 a tough but respected warden. rhea- House in Boulder. in 1943 Boulder writer and fly Iisher for $2,ti00, spending summers Shrine. ~ - Jefferson St., Nederland at Gordon Wickstrom fu'st knew in Nederland starting ui 195:i. He played a bass horn in the 11:OOam on Thurs. February Guyer as the man he tried to She died in July at the age of El Jebel Shine Band, the 15th. Interrunent will be • on avoid when poaching. ~0• '~oulder Senior Citizen's Band Wed. February 14th at 11:30am '°I used to think Brownlee He's survived by their two ;d the Nederland Barker Dam at The Green Nfountain Guyer was behind every daughters, Donna Gease, of Brass Baud.: Cemetery, 290 20th ' .St.; bush," saidWickstrom, 81. Highlands Ranch; and Betty He was an )eagle Scout and Boulder. "He-said to the end that he had Nelson, of Corona; Califor:ua. Scout IVlaster for troops 'in Howe Mortuary of Lafayette one regret -that he wasn't _ Nederland and Boulder. is in charge of the services. ~ able to get me in jail. He was • He is preceded in death by 'almost mythological around ~ a - - here." Y~ s,; ~,.3~ s- , y - .>1 Wickstrom later befriended Guyer, joining tyre warden and , ; . other Boulder old-timers for ~ n4. ~v. ,~u~ _ reguhu- coffee. _ ' "He heel a natural vitality ~ , ~ ~ and a deeply ngrained, posi- ~ Y; , i F five grasp upon the business of !;y; living ° W ickstrom said. "Iri ~ ; ~ ` r the last weeks, he told me that ~ t' he just looked back on his life w~' '"i>` ~ ~ with such gratitude, that it had k ~ ~ ~ ~ been such a wonderful life. alt" SERVICES When you yvere mound h;m, a cr.~.~c ~ ~ E PHOro • Visitation will be held from 5 to Person just felt better." Brownlee Guyer often 7 p.m. Tuesday at Boulder's "Brownie," as he was traveled in his beloved known, left the warden job in Model T during his 32 Mascnic Lodge, 2205 Broadway, 1978 to run a smaIl "f~-it" shop Boulder. A funeral service will be in Nederland and teach Indus- years as Boulder County s held at.10 a.m. Wednesday at the iz-ial arts at Alexander Dawson lone game warden. He died lodge, followed by internment at School. - Wednesday at his Boulder the Green Mountain Cemetery. • "I've really enjoyed working home at the age of 94. ' A second service will be held ai with the people of Boulder y 1 a.rn. Thursday the Nederland County, especially with the Community Presbyterian Church, Youngsters," he told the Daily Camera after announcing his ~ J~ ty Zoa LOIS ELEANOR,. GUYE1k~ g a °Q ~ Nov. 2~ I~rs .-July i~> 200 ~~.1~ ~~1~ ors Eleanor Guyer, of _ . , " Community Presbyterian L Boulder and. Nederland, Church, Mrs. Guyer was ac- Nov. 23, 1912 -Feb: 5, 2003 died of natural causes , rive in the PTA acid served as Wednesday, July 19, 2006, in a voting judge in elections. 'g' ottie Marie Guthrie of $ouI Boulder. She was 90. ~ She enjoyed gardening, cools- L der died of natural causes on '1-lle ing, canning and helping oth_ Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2003, at Well- daugllter of :-,A,r; ors. ~ ~ spring of Louisville. She was 90. Walter, Per- ` ~ Survivors include her bus- The daughter ryman and ! ~ Edith Sedg- ~ band; of Boulder; arid.two '.yi of Ernrnett daughters, Donna Cease, of Tuck and Jane wick Perry- . man, she . ~ I-Iighlands 12anch, and-Betty r« Richards Tuclr, was born : Nelson, of Corona, Calif: w , G~;'°~~ she was born ~~K Nov. 23, 1912, Nov. 24, She was preceded in death 1915, in Englewood. She mar- by a brother, John Perryman. ~ ~1 _ in Nevadaville. tied Brownlee Guyer on Oct. Visitation will be from 5 to 7 - :,l She married 31,1937, in the chapel at the p.m. Monday at Fist Presby- ~t{~-'-• t-` ~ John Chappell Iliff School of'1'heology on the terian .Church of Boulder, Guthrie on Sept 15,1940, in Ida- University of Denver campus. 182015th St. Interment will be ho Springs. He died ii 1966. Mrs. Guyer moved to Boul- at 9:30 a.m. Tpesday of Green She moved to Boulder in 19$5 der in 1937,. and.lived ui Ne- Mountain Cemetery, 290 20th from Fort Collins. derland during the summers. St., Boulder: ~ Mts. C=uthrie was a housewife She earned a bachelor's de, p memorial service will be at anti a homemaker. She was a gree in speech and dranza 10 a.m. ~Vednesciay at the member of Saint Mary Magda- frompUand amaster's de-,,~ church. The Rev. Don Dexter lene Episcopal Church of Boulder . gree in speech therapy froni._ ~ officiate. ~ and Elks VV~idows. She enjoyed the University of Colorado. ' reading and bird watching. Contributions in Mrs. Guy- "She was a loving mother and She worked as a teacher at an er's name ma be sent to 1'he elementary school in Agate y gY~ndmother acid will be missed," and at the North Broadway ' American. Bible Society, Attn: family members-said. center for children with disc- . Donations, 1865 Broadway, Suiviv~rs include a dai,~ghter, bilities. She was a substitute New York, NY 10023. Sue Ann Quiilan of Boulder; a teacher for the Boulder"Valley Howe Mortuary, ii La- sister, Eileen Straub of Chapel School District. fayette, is handling arrang- Hill, N.C.; and three grandchil A member of Nederland ~ menis. dren. . ~ She was preceded in death by 9 r ao os . a son, J9hn Francis Guthrie, in JFAN LT.JNI~ GUTHRIE 1968. '-Jean Eunice Guduie, oELouisville, A funeral service.Will be at ~li~i;TTtutsd:ty, Apt~l 7, 2005, ;n 10:30 a.m. today at Saint. Mary Lt~u~n~llc. Siic was 87. A manorial IVfagdalene Fpiscopal Church, saryic~ will be az 10 am. Monday az 47a5 Cambridge St., Boulder. S.w~c~ci Heart oEJcaus Catholic 'I he. Rev: iVTichael Floulilc of the _ Church,~2312 14th Sc, Boulder. church will officiate. Services will conclude at-the church. There will be a private family ' burial at Crown Hill Cemetery in Denver. • Contributions maybe made to the John F. Gulluie 1Vlemori- al Scholarship, in care of Colo- rado State University Founda- tion, P.Q.13ox 1370, Fort Collins, CO X0522=1$70. M.P. tliluiphy & Associates Funeral Directors is in charge of arrangements. 1 (DABI j (DAL) ~I C SEC.;:;SEC.jPAAPNO. i - - 2S-1r:-71 ~4'J`t {~L~J~2~ f .`~s.. Lf.?i?I, .e i_' ~ ~ , ~ 2-' i J. . ~1_ ~ . : _ _ IHAl1 UiAH7 ~,r:., \~'~-,I~ 1 '.4a. ~t ~ ~ i'~~.- Ii ~ L PAGE I TYPE DOC. =>}.r~~ +y'i . I INSTR. FEE - s ~'R~:Z'3' _~';.S{';L.~- v I r Rj ti ZI-_ ^ ~ y. ! ~ ) CCC ~B atA .Y- li 6.~7{ I=v, ~a~. LG .-''2 X7.13 l~1r~i~~ i~~?++1>.j i ^1' ~ ? 76r:6 'r~ t}9i~~ 5~,G? 1'~3~1~7 16334 - i._...,.,,.,F__ - _ ' !'i 78 17u~1 :57~'J ;~3v 56367 ~~i's+; }.7757 _ - _ _ ~ I 79 ~ u " - _ I . Iii.'-~;•.i _ ~j 'L^, `r~^' I - l , 1?.~ 1 r _ I• - LAND A?TRIP.UTES APPRAISER'S INTERVIEW 4ND VALUE ESTIhL1TE .:~Oh!E A~F:iU::CrI A SUBJECT PROPERTY (Yrnnl SWAB} LONF;RMEO IIAAI (IABJ IlACI 11 k0; I i'.YAE} ~-?CSC ?=rl' ECONOAUC INDICATED D•iTE APPRAISER OCCUPANC'f ~ MONTHLY FURNUIIED EST. ECOrJOM1C EST. PROPERTY' iMTC I'' - ~ DATA AEFER~NC (CA41)ZONfNG SALE PRICE OYlNER/TEr+AnT' RENT IuNFUGN4NE0 RENTIUNFUR.1 VALUE '•'U, "':~IJFf:I RENT VAUJE •i.>` _ - IJAA)USE I I C iFAPROVEh1ENTS JBA Poved Slrtet 1931 Grevtlyd $Iretl ~ 1FC Unimproved I I y 16D SidcwolY. ~ V::_L'E CAL!:'.IL1TIOiJ 1BEI ~n H Gunc, AG; L!; hdC '.I - LK .D - - r. ~ 4P;=?~~4C4 USi~ J IC^~~?CELF.I _ 'GACY (GA01 BASE 0.DJUSTM:->,f PACTOG.S pA,,. UNIT TOTAL LAhD F(5i ~'!-`l. ~l. 'Jrll l,i~" "-~~fER'J IJ:i~ CN JP.F Slreti Lignts DATE - - OOE S17.E UNIT 52£ SNar£ Lt1^.aTIN/ OnrCR COMP^Srt£ VALUE VALVE IiYHnt IWBeI l5'lBF) i i,NC/IfJPS. IWDCI JHG; alley I i DATE APPROACH ACTUALgrip DETERMINED UTILITIES I - USED VALUE Ry JLA Public water JCH well water I JCCI PubUC Stwcr I JCD Septet 5yaem JcL Natural Go: COST APPROACH JCF E4crrwlly TOTAL COST FnCTO_RS ApJIJ>TED A00 (NDICAT ED DATE ACTUAL VALUC ASSESSED VALUE TOPOGRAPHY R.C. N. L.O. AREA TIIAE R. C. N.L D. LAND VALUE _ JDAj Lrvtl (FACT (GAB} (FAB) ENTERED TEAR LAt•ID IMPS. TOTAL LANG IA!PS. TOTAL HY JOHj rrign ~ J I JDCI Sreep I L IH _ ' JDD ton I 5, % 19 JDE $IOPlnO + _I JDF~ Hilly I ii ~ I ° I 19 I I JDG Roc>, MARKET APPROACH IconsPnrtnHLE SALES) I? JOH Rttolnin0 Woll SALES OATS PRICE PAID TINE LOCATION ?HY=C:V_ ~F f.?f:C`CI-`iTl; S INDI...7TED r 13 SHAPE,ETC. REFCF,£NCE OF SALE IR. E. ONLY) ADJ. ADJ. iCTrEP hDdUS7!e:elTSi VALVE JEA Reprrentative 19 JEO UraQator - - - JEC Cul-Oe-SOe IP JED Corner ~ I Reviewed by- JEE Vlnw i l I -I O01t: ' JEF Non-Sr. Front I _ _ - _ _ ~ i Q (A!~}TYPE N0. + (aN) oeslcN / {AVI nDPRAISEO BY: (Atvi DA'fC: - (AX) Date• ~ ' _ - _ - - , J.,;r:., COST TADLE r,Er-ERENCES 5'EAR pUILT - _ - - Soo1~ _ Computed hy: ADJUSTED YEAF IAC•7 FIRST STORY 1.1~ FQ ~ - ~ IAY1 RevietYed by: - (AO) ROOh15 IACI BnSES!c"YT Foll~ Pt.G Na~ (APl BEDROOMS - - ~ - FIRST FLOOR 19 19 IAOJ A80VE FtRS7 R1~ f~ {A01 PATHS , . , ~ . . . . . . . . , ' . ~ ~ • = 1 / ~ h . -1 (AEI CARPORT I I I} FIRST FLOOR FI;J. AREA In ~ ~ ~ •~l; ~ /G~: 1 = aB0'lE FIRST FIAI.AREA O _ \ ~ ~ ~r/ x s'} ••.t/ (AF) CARPC~R7 ROOF Pifcn~flol? t _ 9ASEtdENT Ft N. AREA ~ x IJ •i.9 IAGI GARAGE I I I: 13 TOTAL FINISHED AREA ~ ro . - - ~ `t x ! = 17_ IAHI "vARAGE WALL !A(] F~ RCN./SQ.FT FIN. AREA ~ ~ .--.._-_-I•~___.-_ t.'. ~ (gA) TOTAL Ilx k I; I a $ IAII nn, DerriE:m•! RC.N.LD./SQ.FT. PIh1.AREA $ SECOND FLOOR aND ABOVE (E1 FOUNDATION AFPL IaNCES AND rSECkIaNICAL IJ I9 x = t. Conertte {K1 APPLIAPICES hYPI N0. UNIT COST COST ~ ~ - ~ ~ _ _ ~ _ x = 0 R!oc!. A Conxir To I_-__~-__- T ~ ~ x - r t: ISlone R W'oll Ovcn I I . U ~BriC% ~ C OroD-inROnnc w/Oven ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 (B81 TOTAL t7 ~ E ~P~cr U Hord 151ondardl - ~'7~ - - - ~ !AJ} I I t2 13 HALF STORY/FIN. ATTIC • f Mud Sil le E wao4.Cw:om Str. I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !r ~ ~ F ~HOOd,Cuclom Con. I _ - ~ - - _ x = ' - r O {F1 EkTER10R 1'?. G Etectromr. Oven _ ~ `I ~ ~ - ~ _ A Fr. Wd. or Sb ~ R Electric D 8.0. .',~'I. x _ E ,Fr. Aebestn: _ 1 Double_Uven ~ - • 1~_' C Fr. Stucco J Control Vocuum I ~ _ ~ IAfiJ~lll~l. .3 PARTIAL BSMT. {IINFIN.1 ' U Brak Voneer I is Intercom., .lhS-FAI ~ • E 191 Y. Pmntn4 L Inlncam.. Atd - _ , i I~.x c r~~iD F 81k Stucco _ M Intereom.,Rtmote Sto. ~~.•t j~' ~ ~ ~ ~ x G BN: M Brk/Elk; Z ! I 9P •l ~ . ! I, : • (BD) TOTAL I ~r',.'r~ 0 H:Ln-rl n ~~(L) PLURtBING ~ :il ~•I. + . ! tAetnt _ a ,3oce _ TOTAL BASE COST Fy' 9 JttSt:VL'orS Rt~i a ~3 Ftdurc 8olh - ~ - hr r ? ~ QUALITY ADJUSTi'.ENT ""/nI Sn, f t C I3/4 Bnlh ~ ) t\ I D i^ Fislurc Bath ~I• .r~11` i . ~ ~ _ ADJUSTED EASE COST r $ {Gl YIINDOYIS f E;Lnvntorp ~ TALI III1211S FIhI15HE0 BASEtdENT ~J F ~5'ln rer Ctozel _ - ~ ~ G iEvtnTvb • {Zl OTHER• iTEtdS EST. R.C.N• _ H)ROOF & RFNG. N iROmon Tub ----x n r-ircplntn ~ rt ,w A Flat '~I _"_•'Stall Sno+.cr '(p`c1 TOTAL 8 iShcd I J ISlall $hovtct, w/Door D Yard ImDrovcmmts c Ieaule 7l r. ,lar:ne~ srnx ~ ( APFUANCES & MEChIAIdICaL D Inn f l tYOrcr weo:cr 64LLA^n ADJUST M1:ENT$ _ D Ar.o Unit E iGnmbrnt jht ILound ry Troy I E I g F IFromin^ ALI, h! IDi.po;ol 7J. Stn,/t.1os: Rock Fromm nd'. f- I,l:phell Shq•., _ U !Oieh.vo5hcr q t I I Y. ^?~~S~I'•/C.t•?s-1.71 P .R. Ftzt urt Both TOTAL OTHER ?TENS ~ Roahnq . S:onc.E..rJar _~uarnarotrslnct 1 fl:~r _ L. REMARKS ~ ConcrC`o Stob rr } J Spcr.irn at- I R 'Slid mr Tub Encl. ~ ~11 r: IS!+l~'ern.ftal S It!'mcr Sohcncr Carprt i ~ 71~ ! 1. IRuG[-t7p ~ 1' ISn'Jn0 Both ~rl;brstoc Sh;~l 1 IEIUCI I I I I I `I I I IAhtl III~II:` PORCHES, ETC. ((11NTERIOR FIN. (A711~IL•ATING Ei COOLINGI 50. F7. UNI A UnLr,lcned t rFbrcan Art I I1N Area Unrt 0 iRfectrred ~ R ,,rcvih• ~f? c)x 1~ 'l S 1 IDry.ron c Viol tvtr, or steam - U i^lnllhcord D IB,m!. Hnl Vltr lino) • E Plyvood E IElcc:r.t x F M,,^,rdW00dPOn , f Yoll or Flom Furr.nc: _ QUALITY ADJUSTMENT 0£PRECIATION CARPORT ~ ~ ~ ~I ~Au Cand.lln HI. Ouc!zJ I (AI Time of CnnstruttioN - i Year of ADPral,al 19 19 18F1 x I 'J)FLOORS 8 FLRG. 11 An Cond.lwlOwn Duetsl I ICA) Oe:ign By ;BFI x r A Vlood Joisl: Lf i Evnnororwc Cooler pb•.num ;v, _ • IDnJ Ynnr Built GARAGE 0 ~Sublloor N0. UNIT Ertcnor - C SoHvrood Flr LCeI t:'or~m..•'.+:1 {DBl Yeor P,emodeled (BGI _ q.l ~tl.tlranic Nr Clcer.trs - z ~ - Intenor IDC1 Remo4el•d j'~ 0 waM.•onJ Flm. .f jHummit Ter ~ ~ ICC1 ~ f8G1 x E IN:vl:ent Flro_I_ L Elnc'. tVOll wf-TSU V7 IMmrmvm n+.t fODJ ndluao4 rcor Bm It F Cr.romic Lrr 1 t.! Elou tvnll hlr-15pOP; NE" VARIANCE Nnrmol % Gnnd OTHER i7EM5 _ ICDI Ipr^m trnnl Conc. slob ~ r+ nw~c E. Fon lw/T.mrrt lDE1 Condn~an For Aqe I REPLACEMENT COST NEW t $ Sa.r: plThnr-Wall art ConCr 100 : (OF1 Fonthrnol Obsolexence ADJUSTED % GOOD J CnrPp ~ ~ I TOTAL QI:ALITY , ICGI ECOnom~c Obeoteecnnce Fr rarer ncor_r~.rur•cc auccunattrerc ! ADJUS.T._651=9LT I _ an.urcrcn L r_nnn ~ TO-ALF~C_U...f!. S t --T- - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - a ' ~ n .YJ y iy ~ ~ ' Y . ~ ~ .i •a 1 rid; .Yt~ ''~~s~~~ ~ - . v 1 f r.~ t ~ ~ ' ~ - '.I _ , rw n ~ ~~'~~f~ ' • it~y1( R11 F ~ ~r.~•~ f ,(~l ~~'r~~~ a vn ~ - n1A1iGy""- ~ _ _ ( ~ _ _ _ ' •aM~ ' ~ T- ~f7- < ~ 3, 1 c ti.? ~ .I~~~ .~7' Y ~~.,y I I Itz, ~~,i.. A?'A ~ ry„%! ~ ~y~.T_ y, ~ ~'.Ok' .s~. ~W~ X" . r, ~ .1 ~Z' •rN.{^.. ~ .•t~ 1 r } ,'y ~F. R.t 4 ~)RTa~^,~ t,"!~ ~'^'.,y-~--~r(,~#Y`y,~{~., r r'+G ~ 4+, ~ ~y i., 'l{Y:~;. .~a "~J~''~~,'`~v~' I .,tb' I r•w•4` n'Y"~; -A ; -y, v ' I._. r r, S.~ioc•*e^., t ~ r ~.t. i:"~' ~~~'q' fi ~ , D f. < !R.`f`-0'z,~Si' ~_Ys~ 1~~',ti~Jy ~5~9Z'~i~a'~~}s'-~1 Iv--- - a.~ ~~'s ~ ~ - ~a~': ''-'~--r ~ ti a'•ti ~r i~1a- h.~. Via:. • . a - _1 i -=.~r U ` r~ ~ ~ r' ' ~ ' - : a.s, > yh F t ` ~''~la6~f1~~13.F >•'C-~'~`''~r` . ~ t , _ . :ice..-v~` .a~" ~ ^ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ r-~ _ - _ _ t a, ~ W Vii. y, ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~1, -1 Y r~r`, - r ~ ~ "`~t~ _ . i~"-+ ~ t .t .,Z„ ~ Y7j ~ ~Y'4 n, ;iA%vf. ' ~ ~ *~'~Qc~ y-., • ~ ~ ,fi , ~?~sar- - ` _ - - - ~ _ ail . r ~ ~1 • ~ R ~ 'Iy - ~~.~r ~L.~ to - ~ ~'T .<:-r^?j to i~ ~.'I - - • ~ a ~ liil,.•,~ - c - ter`, ~:.j ` - , _ _ :_'"~',~~+s ^~s ~>,~J'--' _ - ~ J~ d. ' ~ ~7. ~ ~+~;Sid f ~"J V' _'n~ •v ~L rte? fi mil" a _ d{~ l r .M. r , - ~I 11 ~ Yr ~ w~ ~'8~ wYiJ.. ` ~ f i ,~*.Z.;~i,r, ~fi~y~'~t ~ f7C' S "~.7~!'J'•t ~ ~ V,~ I r. -:,.t r ~ ~ Sim ~'i.,r,1~ YS ~R ~k i'S T?^ ',;i: i,i~.l - i~ - ~.~j' • y ~ t ..t r I , "cr :...'ti" ~1L~''. ` ~ 1a~ •r. r.' 111""" 1 I' 'i~'• ~-•,_;~t: ~ : ~C N~ e~~~ t yam, •s. r.~ ~ _ j, ' _ ' ~ a r ~l , .E-~-~- . 4 , ','c14 F{,•~ } a ~'4. K ,tJt y. °X, T , 1Y.~'' wT- jl - - N . F~'~- 9 •'i, ll~1t~~4clii{iilii~!' ~Y. r a r g •.t 1 f ^ ,fie a - ~ - _ 3 r 1 ` ~ - _...r x., _ .v ? _ ~ .II ~~-~T•• ..rte ~ .a. - Y ~ \ . S • f c' it ' ' ' ~ fi ,7~~q,~i. i.. T b ~ *2 t.,- ? ~ "f a f! ~ r r' ~ i~ ~ ^S ,gyp, ~;p,,.~ per' r _ ~-^~d~'~ .e I~• ''4. T~T4~~~.1~ ~i'I'!!'. w~'~ l ~}7^ ~ - i _ , .~3~ `'per ? ~~r; i ~ S. 1, ~ ~t. . .t, y - ~ - - s .J~".w et-t 1 .~:'^^•.-.Y'".., ~ Y:.~ fair-l.-~~~+c1,~,~ r- i ti* `w CIS. ~ ~ ~ "s ~1~~~yr ~ ~1;' • ~ ~r - a. „fin - •"I ~ _ ' _ i _ l~ III ~ Attachment F Fol o Mrs. Wolff's death in 1907, Joseph Wolff offered the~fa ~?-t~rthe ity for park land at $60 re, but the ci_ty_ council deGlined_ the pr esal` In_ ly0$ he. sold the farm _ to Lucius C. Paddock o 000 with the sti n that'he could continue to occupy the house until his death. Joseph o f. ' .1909 at the age of 84. As the Wolffs had no children, he left his estate to nd~lVIrs. as F. Nolan, who had been associated him in the farming operati r~tiventy years. The No erited two acres of land, money from the sate o ~re'st of the land, and were allowed to stay ' e house, which they later purchas rom Paddock. Paddock divided the remaining acreage in ~ for sale. By ,the Nolans were living at 1503 Balsam Avenue.l' William and Mary Newland and Newland Addition William Newland purchased 240 acres of land north of the city limits from pioneer developer James Tourtellot, establishing one of the most widely known fruit farms in the Boulder area. Newland's property was adjacent to that of Joseph Wolff and he pursued similar agricultural endeavors, specializing in fruits and berries. Newland was born in Pennsylvania in 1833 and marred Mary E. Harris in Illinois in 1857. Along with other goldseekers, Newland arrived in Colorado in 1860. After mining for several years, Newland became involved in grading railroad routes, including that of the Colorado Central between Golden and Denver. In 1871, Newland purchased his farm in North Boulder for $5,OOO.f$ In 1875, Newland experimented with the successful raising of spring wheat, but discovered that dairy production and truck gardening were more profitable. By 1876, Newland was growing one of the largest crops of strawberries in the Boulder area, with eleven acres devoted to that fruit. Newiand's berries were marketed in Denver, as well as in mining camps: In 1876, his fields produced an estimated six thousand quarts of strawberries. Newland also grew grapes and apples. Like his neighbor Joseph Wolff, Newland experimented with agricultural techniques. He was one of the first local farmers to mix kerosene with water to kill grasshoppers.19 Newland began to carve garden lots of small acreages from his farmland to sell to others. Following his death in 1886, his wife Mary erected a substantial brick home at 3011 Broadway which is now a Boulder Landmark. Mrs. Newland Lived in the residence and operated the farm until her death in 1906. In 1891, the Newland Addition was platted, I'Boulder Planning Office, "Wolf House Historical Background;" Boulder Daily Camera files; and Boulder City Directory, 1923. 18Boulder Planning Office, "Newland House Biographical Data," Memo to City Council, 15 November 1983. 19Boulder Planning Office, "Newland House Historical Background," Memo to City Council, 15 November 1983. v~ extending from Alpine to Grape avenues between 2nd Street and Broadway. Flowing northward through the addition was the FarmET'S Ditch. illiam W. and Anna J. Wolf Nort ast of Broadway and Iris was the ranch of William W. and Anna J. W ,who raised cattle to ell at their Wolf Meat Market at Broadway and Spruce. The Ifs came to the site in 18 and developed a large orchard of apple trees. The Wolfs' roperty included a large Missio Revival style home with curvilinear parapets and file ro surrounded by maple trees at 3850 oadway. In 1918, Wolf sold his house and my acres of land to the county for use as a Boulder County Poor Farm 20 - James P. Maxwell an Maxwell's Addztion Among the most promuie members of the agric Ural community in North Boulder was James P. Maxwell, who pla d Maxwell's Add' ion with George S. Oliver in 1891. The development included an area om 4th Stre to 9th Street between Portland Place and Maxwell Avenue. Born in Big ot, Wi onsin, in 1839, James P. Maxwell came to Colorado with his father in 1859 an se ed in Boulder in 1870. Maxwell, for whom the Boulder street is named, compiled a to career of public service, holding the offices of state senator (1876-1880 and 1896-1900 may • of Boulder (1878-1880), state engineer (1888- 1893), and Boulder County tress er (1880- 82). Iri private affairs, Maxwell was one of the city's most active pioneers. e served as pr 'dent of the First National Bank of Boulder and was active in many dev opment projects inkier County, including surveying, real estate, irrigation develop ent, road building, and Battle raising. Maxwell laid out a residential addition of Ben acres and was vice presid nt of the company which platted forty acres into lots Mapleton Hi11.21 Maxwell becam involved in cattle ranching in the North Bout r area around 1893. In 1906, brick son Frank Gregg erected a large two-story home f Maxwell on Maxwell Hill north Linden (3737 Broadway). The dwelling was surroun d by orchards and comman d "a view of pastoral and mountain scenery unsurpassed. "zZ Th axwell family raised orses and cattle, herding their cattle over the range in the summer and turning them in t1 fall. Following his death in 1929, Maxwell's sons, Mark and Clint, continued to live at e residence and formed the Maxwell Brothers Registered Hereford Company. Other members of the family were also active in the development of the North Boulder area.zs 20Pettem, 142; Boulder Ciry Directory, 1913. 21Boulder Daily Camera, 7 April 1929 and 4 May 1954: Portrait and Biographical Record, 320. 22Boulder Daily Camera, 3 October 1906. 2sBarker, 76 Historic Homes, 76-77; and Bauider Daily Camera, 7 January 1960. was c pleted. The North Broadway Shopping Center was distinguished b its accordion roof cons tion and attracted long-lived businesses such__ as .Gene _ s _Pharnaacy, the Beauty Centre, the Ideal Market, 66 By the end of World War II, of the lar arming tracts in North Boulder had been divided into smaller lots. In 1949, e e H. Landrum, a farmer who lived at 1815 Iris Avenue, wrote of the changes w ' had come a area: "When I guide Bill William [his horse] along the fringe o affic on the .streets of Bo deferring for pedestrians and dodging autos while o 'gin vain for a hitching past, I fee lace--part of a swiftly vanishing e and generation. "67 In 1994, Verna Hamm no 'the increasing urbani n of North Boulder and regretted the loss 'of truck farms which once filled the - a "and the marvelous cheap produce which was so accessible. X68 Architectural Styles of North Boulder The buildings documented during the 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places reflected a variety of popular late nineteenth and twentieth century architectural styles. Among the earliest of the styles represented was the Italianate, found on one surveyed dwelling and one dwelling in the study area~which had been previously documented. The Italianate style had become file most popular in America by the 1860s. The style had a vertical, often asymmetrical, emphasis and rich ornamentation. Homes designed in the Italianate style were generally two to tluee stories in height, and had low .pitched, hipped roofs, overhanging eaves, and cornices with decorative brackets. Tall, narrow windows with double-hung sash were common, as were elaborate window crowns, usually arched. Porches were an important element of the style, and one-story porches with square supports with beveled edges were typical. Elaborate versions of the style featured cupolas or towers, quoins, and balustraded balconies.69 The Joseph Wolff House at 1237 Elder is one of the finest examples of the Itaiianate style in the city. This previously recorded dwelling reflects typical elements of the style, including its two-story height, hipped roof with overhanging eaves with brackets, one-story porch, and windows with arched hood molds. The 1880 dwelling at 2951 14th Street is also of Italianate style, as reflected in its low hipped roof with overhanging eaves, vertical emphasis, one-story porch, tall double-hung windows, and paneled bay window. The Queen Anne style, popular up to the first decade of the twentieth century, emphasized 66Pettem, 133 and 135. 67Boulder Daily Camera fries. 68Vema Hamm Transcript. 64Pearce, 18; McAlester, 212; and James C. Massey and Shirley Maxwell, "The Italian Style," Old House Journal (Jan./Feb. 1.989): 49-53. ornamentation through a variety of shapes, patterns, and building materials, made accessible throw h advances in t_echn_olo and trans ortation. ueen Awe houses had vertical lines. _ g gY_ P - - - Q with steep gables and angles to catch the light. The style favored a variety of buildng materials for a single structure, including brick, stone, wood; stucco, tile, shingles, and stained glass. The style was immensely popular as it could be adapted to any size home, and any Iot, rural or urban. A Queen Anne style dwelling could be had by the common man, who might not decorate his home with stained glass, but could afford decorative shingles or a turned spindle support on the porch. Many vernacular houses in North Boulder display Queen Anne influences in their decorative shingles and turned porch supports.70 A small home reflecting Queen Anne elements is 2935 Broadway, notable for its inset porch with arched frieze. Another well preserved example of Queen Anne architecture is 904 Hawthorn, which features an asymmetrical plan, spindled porch supports, decorative shingles, and a paneled bay window. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, reaction to the elaborate ornamentation of the Queen Anne style and the economic downturn of the 1890s led to a movement to create somewhat plainer, less ostentatious residences, a trend which continued during the early years of the next century. The excesses and extravagances of the previous age were attacked as an indication of selfishness and lack of social concern. Urban reform movements emphasized the values of the middle class. The Edwardian Vernacular style was apost- Victorian architectural concept wluch utilized the same form and massing as the Queen Anne - residence, but stripped away the spindled porch details, varieties of glass, and other ornament to create a more simplified surface dignified by classical details. The Edwardian Vernacular style was very popular in Colorado from about 1890 to 1910. Fourteen examples of Edwardian Vernacular style homes were recorded during the survey of the Newland Addition area. A well preserved small dwellhg in the Edwardian Vernacular style is 2949 Broadway, a house with clapboard siding, a gable with shingles and. an arched ornament, and a porch with squared columns. A large, elaborately detailed version of the Edwardian Vernacular style is 3175 10th, a house with multiple gables, decorative verge boards and gable ornaments, shingle and lap siding, and a porch with squared columns. The Edwardian Vernacular frame home at 3SOS Broadway is notable for its gabled dormer with paired columns and fan ornament. A fine example of Edwardian Vernacular style is found at 1345 Hawthorn, a home which features a central. Palladian window and afull-width porch with column supports. By 1910, the square footage of houses had diminished, although prices of new homes remained high due to new technological advances. The eclectic movement which followed the Victorian era drew upon a wide range of architectural traditions for its inspiration and stressed relatively pure copies rather than free stylistic mixtures of the previous era. The 70James C. Massey and Shirley Maxwell, "Queen Anne Style," Oid House Journal (3uly/Aug. 1989): 38. ~ _ - - movement was influenced by Chicago's 1893 Columbian Exposition, which emphasized the "correct historical interpretation" of European architectural styles.71 Americans also continued to be interested in their own country's architectural roots. Houses constructed by the colonists were viewed as a model for finding the American identity in terms of a dwelling. The movement resulted in the creation of two types of residences: those which were historically accurate reproductions of colonial houses and those in which colonial details were applied to basically Victorian or post-Victorian buildings. A subcategory of the Colonial Revival style was the Dutch Colonial Revival house, which found great popularity. The Dutch Colonial was distinguished by its gambrel roofed design, to which colonial details such as Palladian windows and classical columns were added. An . excellent example of the Dutch Colonial Revival style was built at 3315 4th Street. The front gambrel roofed dwelling features a combination of shingle and lap siding, a round window in the apex of the facade, and a porch with columns.- The Parsons/Long residence at 3240 Broadway is also a good representative of the Dutch Colonial Revival style. California developed Mission Revival style architecture as a counterpart to the Colonial Revival. Popular Mission Revival elements included a curvilinear shaped gable, stucco or plaster wall finish, porch arcades, the roofing, towers, and arched windows.72 North Boulder displayed examples of Mission Revival style architecture during the early twentieth century. The Knudsen Greenhouses, the W.W. Wolf house, and the Boulder County Hospital were significant Mission style buildings; of these, only the hospital building remains. The Bungalow and Craftsman styles were influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement as popularized by Gustav Stickley, a Syracuse, New York, furniture maker whose shop produced its products with hand tools and emphasized simple lines and unvarnished materials. The movement encouraged the appreciation of hand-crafted goods, simplicity, rustic appearances, and a wholesome environment. Bungalows were small houses 6f one tv one-and-a-half stories, with wide porches with heavy supports and overhanging eaves, which were generally composed of a variety of materials. The design was very versatile and could be adapted to brick, clapboard, shingle, or stone. Bungalows were popular houses for small urban residential lots and their numbers increased as journals and pattern books made such _ designs available tv the average builder. The Colorado Historical Society defines buildings with similar details to Bungalows but of larger scale as Craftsman. Forty-nine Bungalow style homes and three Craftsman style homes were recorded during the "Gwendolyn Wright, Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981), 156; and Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 319. 'ZClem Labine and Patricia Poore, "The Comfortable House: Past-Victorian Domestic Architecture," Old House Journal (January 1982): 4; and Pearce, 45. .~J.J. _ survey. North Boulder contains a number of nicely preserved Bungalow style hvuses in ' brick, frame, and stone variations _ Among_ the finest examples in, _the area _ is 2520 10th Street, a shingled frame dwelling with full-width porch with twin supports atop a shingled wall with inset slat balustrade and tiny brackets. 'The side gable roof house at 3375 16th Street displays slanted door and window surrounds popular for the Bungalow style. The dwelling at 2821 10th Street exhibits an interesting combination of narrow lap and shingle sheathing. Frame houses at 2835 and 2841 10th Street display several elements common for Bungalow style homes, including gabled roofs with overhanging eaves and exposed rafters, shingle and lap siding, broad porches with tapered columns, and multi/single-light windows. The native stone house at 2958 6th Street features stone rubble walls. The stone house at 3084 6th Street is notable for its polygonal masonry. Brick homes with stucco in upper gable faces, such as 1404 Ilawthorn Avenue, are also present in the study area. A notable Craftsman style house, with stone foundation, brick walls, and shingled gable faces is 803 Forest Avenue. The house displays afull-width porch with tapered supports atop a shingled wall, a shingled shed roof dormer, and a rectangular above ground bay window. By the end of World War I, more people were living in the city than in rural areas for the first time in the country's history. Many city dwellers had been drawn by high paying jobs resulting from the war and chose to remain in the city. The ideal of owning a home away from the inner city had become popular and the growth of streetcars and improvement of roads made the concept possible. Iri North Boulder, homeowners had the opportunity of combining the rural atmosphere and lots large enough for gardens with convenient access to jobs in the downtown area and nearby sources of employment. Home building in North Boulder proceeded steadily following the war. Following World War I, home design reflected a concern for the role of women in society and emphasized simplicity, unpretentiousness, and sanitation. Advances in technology allowed new designs employing such techniques as adding a thin layer of brick or stone to a balloon. frame house. These advances resulted in the popularity of a full complement of European and Colonial American styles during the decades before World War II. `l he English influence, with its half-timbering and steeply pitched roofs was the favorite style during the peak of home building between the wars. In North Boulder, the English/Norman Cottage style was widely built during the era. These dwellings were generally constructed of brick and had steeply pitched gabled roofs, with overlapping front gables, projecting entrance bays with round arches, facade chimneys, and multi-light windows. In the survey area, twenty-three examples of EnglishlNorman Cottage style were documented. The English/Noi-man style dwelling at 2825 3rd Street is unusual for its walls clad with rounded logs which taper in width from foundation to gable peak. A fine native stone example of English/Nonnan Cottage architecture is 3134 4th Street. A picturesque example of the style is 3142 8th Street, with its flared cave, round arched entrance, facade chimney, and band of multi-light windows. The brick and stucco dwelling at 1407 Cedar Avenue is notable for its clipped gable and porch with arched openings. A nice brick example of English/Norman Cottage style is 2927 11th Street, notable for its extruded ~ t 4 ~Ik ~ ~..r r p xi(`)4t~~ 1 tbs., ..-1 Cu ~ t, `•w"4nt 1 }ye ~'`>ji.- ~f~. -mot ~r(s ~~,~~~F r~'`~~ `Fy S~gJJJ...;~~~2~-yY~ L ~ frl ?..,r- 4• ~i~ a}r~~,L t ~ '`~g •l 1~'•T I.f t. 't kf41~.f~ ~ 'J~Mv' i~ ?tx~ {~~~.,t~} 5 `i::~>' ~ ''t ~ t . a ~ ~~3 ~ ~•,~1 r,~~ ~qti~ r _ , ..?1'S~ ~ ~,.~~i cr,. r ~K ~`.-r';\A,:•. c'.y R ~ ~~3~~__~~~^J~~ti~t A.~'V ~'~~~'M' ~f..~~ + t j 9~~~,~ ~~•lA`2C'~~y.~.1 ~r.•~., , aa~h-" 't ,~49C~~~ ~r,,..•~ 9 ~ J~f1~~ r.. (((rrrtrT~<~ Y i ?~C~~.. ~~.~y~?••c'~`V•,`~~.~..~~'~'•r •t•AY~ rrYt 4 7 1 "t,v.-a tiy.- y ~ 1• ~ . •i~r~ ;:i la t\;1,~~ ~`J.,. 4. l~!t'A,}.}.t f r1~1 ~,r~ J~,~1 ,.l 1{'. ! ' t ~t . t i ~ ~ ~7.5 • ~ L "=ef t;: i~C r1;~4 Ji V~. ~'~.l- 1 Jr t '•'S ~ J`1+~„ ~'i ~f ,~~s`:/ t tµ~ i ~/i.• r t ~L ~ t ;~l `.~a.a ~~4 Cyi ~ ?r~~, ..~4~`~~t f~ ~;`~.e`~~ r l~ ~,I<;1 a+'r`{ . l.,r' r l"' ~ . t ~ ~~~~i~~ 1 1 4 ~ t r t e - k wr r ~ r ,t' . ~ , t~ i.~.' t ~9; 1. n r`i~. :~`t Y'; '1 ~ 'tt ~i T ' ,.4 l'~S 1(,: 1 F- ~ ~ ti ~ },t~h ~ r~~J ~i i~S`t 1'?Y, IJ R~ :t~ -.,{y}r~~' ~i-.f. .•r5~u ,F~'y r•~•^ +`~Ct~t~~~;{. ~ '.~ir~ q~~{~ ~t} w~,.~~'r\~`•~ t T(r l r.~7 -V ~I.r,,r Lz ,1~-, ~caf f .l. _F t i~ ~ - ~ ~ .~~.V,~.. 1~`A f xL~~t rK ~~F } ~t 4 tS~ )1.111 ~ ~'Nr =~d~ r.r rF.i'1 ~ Yr -r'~- .tTh~ t///, ~'i. 2 y y 4., ~}J~4! .~i` ~f ` ,3 Cam. te'" ~ M ;111 111 'r.. 1, t tJ., - ~ ~ i ~ . 111 Ilt. . .i.fTS~ : .ti . 1 . ~ 'dCUI: h~ r• ~ _ _ 1 e 1 P •~fl't~,i J14~-'~('Jf~I ~i~.. iyt~f r ,4`.l~ a, 7 d Y ~ ~+'C 1 `..+-R, f-jJ,~}}1~~..J ?;ti ~ ~`~d,~~ 4~J~'~~~~rS `'I~,~~r~t?y ~ i t/f t/t„~'~s~} y,~,t..'~7 }~~s p. 1 t,i^V ht''i+.~iL3. 'r! , Y !r•l ~Lti r .t V :+y,~f1L', t~ >-~~Y~. ~1" t , t f.Y~.}~'~ 'r'~~St"1Tt f~i,~ =~4 trit %•r ~2+~'(~``zi t:,7.~r`tC4~ 4nt '-Jr~}i 1/'~\ ~ S?~'/ t tt 1 t i:~,~ t'L~;i. ~ . ~ ~'K it,/ r' ~/'t~•i~ ~ r~ v a i, 5 ~r ~¢~(~+.M ,r, e. l ? ~ 1)rk ~S J ~ ~~t 'z.i r y~ ~ .::1'>~ J. [ ~ _r 17k~:.tT Ut ~ ~wf~~ ,.f;4'~tr ~ i ~ S.-S'>; X 4.r .tt. ~ t t~i rti t ~y: t~ rF i 1~.. t 7 a ~ C t , . ? t..e•Y n ~ lh~`~~~ ~ ,F ~ -ri~~ia(t ~N4~, /ir 1'~ :+1} / ~ ~i I ,L.~y ~ {iYi , ii fy'it+'r4'.r~ ~ k ?lr'~ ;.f k,'ri kit~~r t~7 4 ~atiA ~ v i,('~} t., Att t`~ar i K`t .4} .n 1 ;.r 4. 1/r rl Z T,t ~ ,c • ' F~>~r ,~9 t ~~1 1FI~F, 1 .!y {Vt { ! } i rQ'~ j ~~r < t 1~ ~ Y iJ x•pr'j~~'7~Y'1:~ ~y,. •'~t ,.l W•i ~1 :ft~;r~2 I~V!fj SS ~V rrtSr .S~yfy'tC 4t f4 ~ t J1 t L;/, tJ f t.,1 J~• h ,,r.. y;~,/ t(~ L v.F~~. 1 .1 r~ r b 4. ~ t t t~ L 11 t~` ~ f ~ ,d ,/>„i r ~ •}tiE~a 1 ;b'A•`yy~ ~~;;yy~~~~,,y,'~r j1E'15 3~f"'`'?C~..'"i~~<1~,~4'+~~a'~1':V r'}"y'~1,r~G { l ,n„ f~i~l ~~,~'i7~,t,, ~;~ll'}.,~,5 \ ri~',e t~~,tiko `J,r.}"tS ~Tr•~:st,'1'M~cY~~WI12h.~~, a t{'ti,~'?y t+ ~ ~ tr~~`~a~~a,Ci"~t~+~}~t{~+~ l~~ r~,t ~kirL(~) t~i~tr,s~' c , di;~ e3~` Bey `t:~ , ~s3~.a~..'r.tL•',.1`._`:,- ~ S' ice.-,C. `.u"-\l.t~'r~i' _S:}S._.t.Y'V{ dS'fiY~i~~YI.L-ts~~''~.~xL~(ci•E ~.4'i:t' R.ax tali:cE : ,..c~l?':...,t. ~,,:'.,J .:H.a ^.~A,., . . _ Figure 13. This early 1940s view west of 2815 11th Street (built 1940) and 2825 11th Street (built 1941) illustrates the type of housing built in the area during that period. Source: Boulder Carnegze~ Library. ti~ ' ~ ' _ /i 1_ AW 4 ~ ; i v~~ r-- _ 6~ a . ~ YY f 4 t . _ ~ rr -..+~.c • 7~. ~ v`d'+~c'b,t. . ~S- ~ _ thy, rCt _ - - ~ fvf. f - ~ _ . ens . .r .'7-.-- ~.s ~~i;t~°-Z."^-' ~ J ~r~r.F'~~<~.~},4C. _.~„1~Ft-%fi~t: r, •.i%~~'~'~t'yT T~l • ti~ Lct _ L'"'.s . ~ ~ figure 14. This Modern style home built in 1939 at 905 Evergreen represents minimal English influences in its projecting entrance bay with flared eave and half-timber ornament. Source: Boulder Carnegie Library, A.A. Paddock y__ Collection, 207-5-60. . mortar, steeply pitched roof, and tall chimney. The period immediately preceding and during World War II saw the introduction of Modern style homes which would dominate the post-war period. The Minimalist Traditional version of the Modern home was a simplified version of the cottages of the 1920s and early 1930s, which was characterized by a low pitched, gabled roof, one-story height, casement windows, close eaves, and minimal exterior ornamentation. The Ranch style, a later version of the Modern home, was aone-story structure with very low pitched roof and a rambling facade. During the war era, material for construction was in short supply and dwellings of the era reflected the emphasis on conservation of materials. The available land in North Boulder made it a prime site for construction of Modern style homes. Forty-seven Modern style homes dating from the late 1930s through World War II were surveyed in North Boulder. The Modern style homes mostly reflect the minimal traditional elements derived from English and Colonial architecture. The home at 905 Evergreen reflects the English influence in its projecting, stucco and half timber clad entrance bay with flared cave. The steeply pitched front gable and flared cave of 2825 11th street also represent this influence, as do the multi-light casement windows. A nicely preserved home with minimal Colonial elements is 3142 11th Street, notable for its narrow lap siding and pediinented entrance area. The layers of thin stone which compose tl~e broad facade of the house at 1445 Balsam Avenue are its major ornament. The frame dwelling at 3115 6th Street also has a rambling facade, with ornamentation limited to vertical siding in a gable face and a shed roof entrance bay with octagonal window. Among the most popular type of home from earliest times to the World War II era were those of vernacular design. Vernacular homes, having no particular stylistic influence, were based on local traditions utilizing native materials. Vernacular construction has been divided into several subcategories by the Colorado Historical Society: gabled L, front gable, hipped box, and side gable. Vernacular housing was generally the least expensive type of building available to the home owner, as it did not require formal architectural knowledge or skilled craftsmanship. The suzvey recorded 158. vernacular dwellings, with vernacular frame construction far more numerous than masonry. A simple brick dwelling whose design is dominated by its front gable roof is 740 Hawthorn Avenue. The brick dwelling at 3135 9th displays influences popular during the early twentieth century, including segmental arches, a shingled gable face, and tapered porch supports; the house is notable for its stone balustrade and piers. Another house which features a stone porch is 3580 4th Street, a side gable roof dwelling with narrow lap siding and simple, symmetrical design. An early twentieth century version of a simple vernacular frame house is 3355 4th Street which has a pyramidal hipped roof, lap siding, and a porch with slender posts. V I. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The 1995 Boulder Survey of Historic Places recorded 380 buildings in the Newland Addition/North Boulder area. Appendices 1 and 2 contain listings in street address and state identification number order of all resources surveyed during the 1995 project. The buildings recorded were predominantly single family residences, although several have been incorporated into large apartment complexes in recent years. Architecture of Newland Addition/North Boulder Area Periods of Development Little development occurred in the survey area before 1900, with a few large landholders owning much of the property in the area. The nineteenth century was the period of construction for only four percent of the buildings recorded during the survey. The period before World War I witnessed increased growth, as the large tracts of land were increasingly subdivided, many into smaller garden lots. Sixteen percent of the recorded buildings date to the first decade of the twentieth century and nine percent were built between 1910 and 1919. The greatest period of development for the survey area was the 1920s, when twenty- nine percent of the documented buildings were erected. Although homebuilding took a sharp downturn during the economic crisis of the 1930s, approximately twenty percent of the documented properties were built during that period. The period 1940-1945 witnessed the construction of twenty-three percent of the buildings surveyed. Architectural Styles Vernacular dwellings accounted for the largest number of recorded resources ui the survey, will forty-two percent. Among the vernacular houses, the large majority were of frame construction. The second largest group of homes recorded were those with no discernable style due to major alterations. Among the houses for which formal styles could be assigned, the Bungalow style constituted the largest group, comprising tiurteen percent of the total resources surveyed. Modern style homes totaled twelve percent of the houses recorded. English/Norman Cottage style homes accounted for six percent of all buildings surveyed and Edwardian Vernacular-homes equaled approximately four percent of the surveyed resources. Styles represented by four or fewer buildings recorded included Craftsman, Dutch Colonial Revival, Eclectic, Italianate, Mediterranean, Queen Anne, and Neo Victorian. Historic District Evaluation No potential National Register historic districts were found during the course of the survey. The lack of districts reflects the continuous development which has taken place in the study ~~~~OD 0~' CONSTI~~JCT~ON Newland/No~~h ~ou~de~ A..~ea I20 . ~i>r, i~ r 100 ~ phi > • ~~t s ! ~~^r` 'SLY . 2 r 111 ~i ~5t V ~ t; ~C 9 ~ r 4 .c ` ~ i ~ ~x L. Y4 r ~ 1 ti ~ ift ~ rte: 1 ll T f~6 t~ ] ~ ~ ~ VY r~r~: ~Ls 2 ~ /y { Ir ~ y. , 4j 4_ ,l Sc 4~ i <~.c2~ti 11.; `F~ I i. 2~4<.: :i ~~~1880s 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s Construction i'eriod area over the years. No major period of construction stands out, rather, the area has been ' _ continuously developed- and become increasingly more populated during each decade since - the 1880s. Recent development pressures have affected the integrity of many homes in the study area. Typical alterations include additions, new siding, window alterations, and porch ' alterations. Many homes have undergone substantial remodeling and expansion, diminishing their historic integrity. -Sixty-nine houses in the study area had been so altered that they no longer reflected an architectural style. In addition, several new homes have been erected on lots which were once large garden lots but have been subdivided. One .small group of homes, 2821, 2827, 283:>, 2841 10th Street, display historic integrity reflecting Bungalow style elements popular during the 1920s and are the most cohesive and intact remnant of the historic neighborhood dating from that era. Although other areas of the city possess larger quantities and more detailed examples of this style of architecture, thus precluding the group's eligibility for the National Register, the houses may be eligible as a. local landmark distzict. Individually Significant Buildings Nine individual resources within the survey area were evaluated as potentially eligible to the National Register and are listed in Table 2. 1. 3134 4th Street (SBL5085), Harris Residence. This 1938 dwelling is an Englisl~INorman Cottage style version of the native stone domestic architecture popular ui Boulder during the 1920s and 1930s. The house is notable as representative of the group of homes erected by local stone masons during the era and reflects middle class tastes and lifestyles of the period before World War II. 2. 3315 4th Street (5BL5093), 1890, LaRue Residence. This house is significant for its Dutch Colonial Revival style with front gambrel roof, its shingle and lap siding and stone foundation, its circular window at facade apex, and porch with classical column supports. This was the home of Reverend Robert A. and Beulah LaRue, who were ranchers. Robert LaRue was a Baptist minister affiliated with the First Baptist Church ui Boulder. 3.. 2958 6th 5tr-eet (SBL5122), Brookhart Residence. Tlus stone Bungalow style dwelling also reflects the native stone craftsmanship of the period before World War II and is a well preserved representative of the era. 4. 3084 6th Street (SBL5132), 1940, Petersen Residence. This 1940 stone dwelling is also one of the group of dwellings crafted with native stone by local masons during the period before World War II. 5. 2520 10th Street (SBLS196), 1922, Hannahs Residence. This fine example of the Bungalow style- was the home of Frank B. and Alice Hannahs. Frank Hannahs was a - r~ ~ w» _ Attachment G ADOPTED 9/17/1975 C City of Boulder Landmark Preservation Advisory Board Significance Criteria for an Individual Landmark On September 6, 1974, the City Council adopted Oxdinance #4000 providing the pxocedures for the designation of Landmarks and I-Iistoxic Districts in the. City of Boulder. The purpose of the ordinance is. the preservation of the City's permitted cultural, historic, and axchitectural 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 Boaxd to help evaluate each pofential 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 cultuxal, political, economic, or social hexitage of the community. I 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 stxesses the importance of pxeserving those places which demonstrate the growth during different trine spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage. 4. Recognition by 1~uthorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder; Inc., the Boulder Historical Society, local historians (Baxkex, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schooland, etc.) F:L. Olmstead, or others in published form, as having historical interest or value. i Architectural Significance The place should portray those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon. 1. Reco _ ized Periods /S le(sl: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style, i.e.: Victorian Revival styles, such as described by , Historic American Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Aye (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barker), The History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Tiffin), Architecture ix1 San Francisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture (Fletcher), ArdutectureJColorado (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 fox 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 superior 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 Si ~ icance 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.. Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing, placement, or other qualities design with respect to its site. f C- 3. Geogr~hic 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 ouf of context might not qualify under other criteria. 6. Other, if applicable. - l - - i Attach><nen>E hi Selecfied Post-World War II Residential Architectural Styles and Building Types ~AY~l1A~~~ . ~'~~.e~g~~®fl~dlfl These simple homes were built in large numbers immediately preceding and following World war ll; this fcr ~ ~ ~ r 2,^^,r es~nted an e~onomir_.al choice for large tract-housing developments because they were inexpensive to construct. The Minimal Traditional was more a building type than a true style. Minimal Traditional properties emerged as a transition from estab- lisfied bungalow and period cottage forms to early ranch homes. In the Minimal Traditional form, the narrow deep footprint of the bungalow or period cottage was transformed to a square, boxy plan with small rooms situated around a core. The Minimal Traditional was a somewhat larger version of the 1940s Federal Housing Authority (FHA) minimum house, a standardized, plan which resembled a small (750 square feet): box. The Minimal Traditional was very loosely basE;d on the Tudor Revival style of the 1920s and 1930s. It was a relatively small, one-story building often with a predominant front facing ga- ble section or gabled covered entry, echoing Tudor features. Rather than the steeply pitched roof of its Tudor predecessor, the Minimal Traditional roof pitch was low or interme- diate with closed eaves and rake. The simFlified facade features few architectural details other than decorative shutters. Typical wall materials include cement asbestos shingles in an assortment of colors, brick (usual{y striated), wood, or metal siding (a replacement mate- rial). - Common t{emen#s: - o Boxy appearance vdith minimal architectural or decorative details . o Small, usually one story v Rectangular plan on a concrete slab ~ - ' o Low or intermediate pitched roof - - o Simple roof, typically side-gabled (occasionally hipped) o Closed eaves (little or no overhang) o Front-facing gable section or gabled projection over front entry o Usually a central main entry with flanking windows o Both asbestos shingle and aluminum siding common o Later examples in•brick (usually striated) i ~ _ _.r^~.a.-fin.- i i• ~j ~ l ~~1 I :r J Ill{/~`t ~ l ~ .i Y. ry*. These two metro Denver. examples represent the classic early form of Minima! 7 raditional. Selected Post-World War II Residential /architectural Styles and Building Types - u~ ~ - • Si1~;,;;- . _ _ - _ . ; ~ This brick house represents a r'rv ^ ~ ~ ' , later example of the Minimal :,,c; , ~ ; ' ~ _ Traditional form. r _ j ~ '~;~r~ry=fir ' ~ ~7i"' ~ ~.`h G 'Sw'`- L YS~a , -,.t' - - - - ~ ih _ - ' ~ - .r 4 ' . _ _ r r The fwo Denver area . - - - ~ - - 3 ` ' ~ _ Minimal Traditional _ _ _ ~ homes (left and below) ' .r - ~ _,~~`y ~ exhibif prominent front ~ _ . ~ facia ables. .r ~ 11 _ _ ~ l _ I _ _ 1 ~ I ~ _ ~ ` _ _ { ` I . • I 4 }ate-- - _ Y r ~ j'*_-'~ ~v-'F~-, i_~ t :T Attachment E _ ~ r t~ ricndly '4S'if?t C]2ilclz•en • 1 ~--•-~°r~~ ~dU~.~E~ ~,~I~.~ ~.,~.,'~/1~~~ ' ~ Another fisberrnatt told him loucl- Boultlcr, Colorado, hriday, June 13, 1U52 1 • to sheets a > yowtg boy fishinf; • 2, nearby. "You ]cnoty you don't deed • I a license, soon , "Guyer ;;aid later Brownie C~Uyer•, LoVlr~g MOUY7~'gtr1S~' ; revealing that rte doesn't: believe in And ~~b ,~1as t~US 1-~e11 fu1 career frightoring kids. "R'c don't t+~anl ~ Yr ~ that type o£ attitude toward Itnv en• ,BAs ~ame V1/ax'den ri1 BaU~d~'r Distrrc~ ; forcemer2t officers," ?te said. That he loves kids is better prov- ed by actions. kle has been octave By 1VTarty Tloltbins r iu Scout:htg auil in Junior Police C.TI. J'ottrnallstn (zt•aduate ~ work. In 1948 he repaired toys for The spirit of the border rsn'f ~ t dead, nor have the lean, po+verful ~ children in his tvor)tsbop, where he nteu who deeply loved the wilder- spends most of his spare i_rne. It I tools a year, but he fixed toys fox, ness disappeared, Today same 0f s~ 100 familic2s. them protect us not from Inchatts "Sometimes fish .u•e smarter but from ourselves. Such public servants arc spot I ~ ~ lighted during Colorado's trout sea ''`YY ~~cy &r>r ~u'~-~~` ~x3 2,,, than fishermen, he quipped, Ile son. Tlfrtny of them wvill be ut25 I , ~ revealed holy 1000 fish hart Been trusted, cussed and misunders(0od, . `5 ~ quietlp damped ht a locz] lake Clearinf{ tip fhc ntisunderstand2t2z;~ out morning and when nobodY~ is easy when you meet J. Taro+vnlec ~ caughC any-the perennial gripe: Cruyer, I3ouldr:r district game t+>at ~~.f ~ ~2hy doesn't the state stock this flea. lake? ' A tall anti w i t• y z•edlu act, ' : ]3rotvnie has been a 13oy Scout 25 "13rotvnic" Guyer shows the wcath_ years, atz T<)agle since 1928. T7e often Bring oC :t5 years as a game war- ; !Talks to Scouts at Camp Tahosa. den. Isis deep brawn eyes are sup - ~ One of his reasons for becoming a rounded by fine wrinlc]es turd l2~ warden was because of scouting fx'relr}('(l faCC flltrl itrmS arC he(tV21y ~~s~r~~,~a~ ~ j ~ I Cxpel'ie2tCCS SharCd Milt Ills fafltcr, tar,,:ccl. f ~ ~ ` y ~;y`~~' ~.ltu•Irson J, Guyer o,~. 7)enver, 3;'o++atie 1)elieves in his job. Ile 7?ad Ts Special Sl~'ardc;n is e0u,-t.eotts, tnxlerstancling and fat, ,f. 73xoEt~n1E,. E u5~c 1 't'hey have huntccl anet fi~bccl to- fz'o2n "tlcltet happy." 13eslcles his gelher since Bro+vnic could caz•ry t+~ifc Y ois, :utcl Iris two blonclc I•Iis duties inc]ade spcal:ing to ~ a t;utt and still +vorlc fu2;ether chu••~ daughters, l>unna And I3etf.y, 38-:schools, ~ioy Scouts, Grange orgy-: ling pheasant seasc»t. 7'he elder year•olc] Guyer has another love..-- rttzations, a,2rl persons phoning mt ~ Gayer has had a special game t+,ar.l. the mountains. gFrme la+es and t;cnex•aI conscrva• 2 'den commission for d0 yeas. mnco Taagltt :ichooi Lion. Iic: helps stock streams oast (;u~cr studied mechanicr,l car'`} <<I,` the state ever wanted to get Lakes in the spring, often stays out tteeri2tg for °two years at i];e Un rid of mc, all they'd }rave to do is for a n'eclc at a time during <iecr versit:y of Denver, haying for hc:', to ptt(, nie out on the plains so reason- ~Ie~:piug in his car, Ile has education by playing the i2, ntp ' couldn't see i:hr mountains fe;r ~t cabins and provisions all ovor the . i and later the sousaphone in u1r, fe++= days,,, he CODtI]tL'21teCl. ntOlnltainS for nig]tt stopover's. ~ ~••,,..2~• Ile also tools ehenti~li; r;v; 1 N......... Reinb cooped up in r2 schoolroom i 'I'l'atehint; Brownie move his six- ~ biolol;y and animal ec~olot?y :~.t ni';;,;;`;::~ at Sterling where he taught Indus- • foot three~ineh frame t•eminds you . of the University of Coloz•ado. ; i.rial arts was one of his reasons of otie of Gane Greys ++oodsnten- : , Iris fat=orite territory is inth¢EP; for bc~ominf; n warden, he saiii, he covers a lot of territory in one ~ high `.lakes near Corona pass alo-' Besides lilciug plenty of "elbo+v stride, I•Ie wears out ttvo pair of ~ the Continental Did=ide. Guyer r zoom" Guyer likes trawl--and ycts heavy hoofs ayear-including a re- mhtisccd about: 'childhoed da>; plenty df it, (read apiece, There's IOts et tough" when i2e, his father and g:•ancitaltii Since corning to tttc l3ouldet• dis_ '+va]lring find you ve got to be a . cr, a dmtlist who +vas 021 the ]7e , t.rict Nov. 1, 1937 lirotvnie has goat practically in the high coon- ~ vcr school board, used to take i ' worn out six statecars and three try," said Guyer, !yammer offi for fishing. of his own-•-putting 30 to QU thous- The gatnc a22c1 fish depart2nent u "~~'e'd take a tva;,~on info Tra and tttiles a Year. <»t a start car. needs the good twill and cocperation a _ 1>cr's lake with an Indian guict IIe averages about 750 miles an Sun= of the public .n lot more than it;~ You could catch ++~heppers with day, which is his heaviest day. needs the few c1011ars it collects I*: bare hook then. Those days arj I~Iis hotu•s depend on the season from flues, according to Uuyer, ilt: gone forever," Guyer said; ; anti ::o;~ciit:;o.;s, bt:t he averages ).Q 1>r'oves this quite often. s 2`ltere isn't touch tailderness leil _ ]tours a 5und~2y daring fishing sea- Checking one of the Io+v Ialces, • but the spirit of the border pet± son. I3esicles watching for viola- Guyer found a fisherman who }tad ~ lists iu devoted men like Bro++~G! Lions, wardens compile information Iasi year's license, but couldn't ie Guyer wlto IOVe what we've go! on the number 0f fish caught per find fltis year's. Ike took the man's p ',left and are trying fo Ix•eserve it f . fisherman in an horn,, name and address oast had him ,all of us, • Qne of Iris gripes is that many mail i:h<; license. '.l't2is happens l; ~ sportsmen rcIy on lteres<ty infor- about 15 to 24 limes a year and set- ; motion. Guyer zeporis he got dote dons he have t.o get the sheriff. dozens oz calls aslcinl; vrtty salmon ' egos were outlawed Last year when thew •tvet•e never illegal. ftaG- I ~ - IgSb - No.Violators Found A Day In L~~e Of Q -same, ~lar~en °we came down fnto.a lush•val- (-1 ley and soon. rDachod Yanlcee• By Forest Crosson f 7'1•{ ~ ~ `J ~ Doodle Lake, around which the rail- felt a thtgle,:o[ ezcit meat as ~Ve coutiuued on to A'ederland, road grado msde n perfect horse~ Brotvnlco Gttyei'; deputy warden Brownlee scanning iho stream and shoo: Then on up the gentle grado, Per tlio Colorado Game• and • Nish shores of Barker Resert•olr. Now where in the old days iho ,riallet Dept„ and I drove into the mouth rand dgain we stopped to check 11• ]ocomotlves had worked so hard, of Boulder Canon. It was a Uright tenses and fish catches- So far, At• Dixie Lake Brownlee found ~ Ueclconln there ]tad been no violators- hvo. fishermen, Both, hotvover had 1 g summer morning and I ~Vo turned south 'on the Poak•to• ' had come along Decauso 1 wanted , prolier, !!tenses .sail were within to know the course of a day lu the '.`Weak Highway and drove to Rol• the law ns Co uurnUer and size of ilia of a doputy gamo wardett•, Iinsville• Here wo turned west and fish. They returned the courtesy of "It's like this every day of the followed boautttul South Boulder the doputy warden. year," explained Brownlee. "1'm Creek to Tollauct. At this point wo es, this work takes me to all always on the move. I patrol all oP left the main road and struck off in rho out•of•way places," Brownlee Boulder County, along with parts of a northwesterly ctirectiou through ,oUserved when the men had return~ the timber, crossing bright streams • Joftcrsou and Gilpin counties. 1 ed to their fishing. "it's the same drive }IlroutL500 miles a month." and avoiding big rocks. the year 'round. Presenfly. Arownlee sett- a flsiter• into High Country Wdrk In Game Season man aheu'd: whipping a Ply across ~ Presently we came to a roadway running along the side of the menu, As soon as trout fishing season quli3t pool.•lfo stopped iho pah.ol ends, 1'11 have to spend mono tlmo ~ .War alopgslde, rain. "This is rho o]d 14Ioffat (Deu• ver and Salt Lalco) railroad gr,[do. 'j "Good ntornhtg. How's the Lis1l ~ • - ~ lag?" It was aUandoned lu 1927,-when the - ~ ~ [ dowri in the In country:. 'i'hero The ratan answered ltis greetii[g i4iofPat Tunnel was opened for trat- I ' smUingiy. 'Pretty, good, If my luck Pic. lt'!1 take us up to Di~lte Lake, are always: violators. killisig phoas• where 1've hoard there have Ueen ants, taking »tore than tics legal - ~ -holds oui I ought to tttlco iho ]!Writ ltmlt of fish front the lakes, etc. this morning," some viotatlons." illy eyes widened. I had coots "Big gamo season gives us a . Brownlee clambered clown tlto 1 real workout. ~Vo really have to • ~ bank. "That's good," ho Bald. "Do over this grado when it hold shin, ~ fug steel rails, rty cars tilled tvlth cover territory then, i You ntLtd if lsco your Iicensol" "There's no rest, oven in the "\'ot rat all." The fisherman open- thu exhausts of a hardworking loco- dead of winter. ,!tore than once I've ed his basket. "And here are the motive cliutbing to the summit o[~ ~ 'fish." ltollhts Pass, where CorGun, Wtui caught poachers killing ducks"dur• IiigliosC standard ing r;nowstornts. o have to dis• Brownlee examined qte catch, gauge railroad courage this, like other vlolatlons, all of which were over iho le al ,station iu North A[~iorlca, Uraced! g or wo woulcht't have any game and length oL seven !aches. ~ itselD against • n•inds turd Arctic : fish for the ]nw•aUIding citizens." "]ou'rp doing all right," Ito said. tvesiher. ~I~~ Trownlee grlnued, shook his head "Thnulcs•" ~Va:~wtUnuocl on;tip the nmaziug•~ "Thank yea;' returned the ftsl?er• slowly. "I've never stayed home a ~ ~iy easy grade, a large pert of which day, regardless oP iho weather. Ao, I rata[[' J Js wJdo enou~~it for two curs •to pass. sir, fu this work t,hore's paver a ' Nhen the were onto more under Wo wore fu a (and of stately spruc• dull moment." ~ way Brownlee said, "That man's es, with the groat peaks of the Con• i gc;~ ,•isl[ar;tiai;, loo good to keep t.htontal Divide teeming against a ~ small fish." blue slcy 'tiled with movlt:g white Fleilpc Fisherman clouds: Now and_-again the It,ad to 14'ell above the Narrptvs and in (cave the roadbed and Uypas~•tvhere the vicinity eP the Perfect Treo the a. t[•estle .had Veen removed. I car: a .to another fisherman. A'eat•• ^Thls is one of the most "wo~d~r~ f j by rues a car with an out'-of•state fui places iu'Calorado,"• Brownlee license. ,aid. "ivot many people some up f 'Again Brownlee went through the !tore, because the !giver part of the ' roUtlno of cltecking iho man's li• rcld runs through private- prop- tense. '_•~ny Pish?„ he asked. The man grinned rueful) erty," y. "Not a strllce." ~ "have 'you G•ied fishing vp •jl abora'1" :asked Brownlee. "There are some, deep pools ou uP the ` i creels tt•het•o you )night do better." The man thanked him and start, i ed upsti•ehm. ~ "That man's no tisherntnn,,, • Brownlee oU:~ervod. "lIo'd never •catch~rv-fish here. But up above he should do some good, T Peel that's part of my Jab - helplug people. They pay tholr money For lirensos au~1 they're e:aitled to s~~rto ii:,h," t' ~ ~fs`7 - ~ `A Good llisCrict'. - - YHE'` BOULDER:~DAILY CAMERA 11 "It's a good district," Guyer Boulder, Colorado; -Monday; -~{rnc 4, -1956 says. "Fot• the most part,. the sportsmen .are just that - real sportsmen. Of course, in any Gds'~G l~Yar~en C'u~ep J~s~ A C®~ group that large, you are bound ~ to run into crackpots, and ~3e have P pg p~ ~y pip our, share." S A~S® / Sp®! 6~CI/~iI ~I N~g~~ Guyer has never been shot at, I~ nor has he,used physical violence to - ~ arrest a game•lavr violator. "A lot i ~ of ,the fellows put up a pretty good 1 , ~f' tongue-fight," he says, "but I'm ' i~~'~ : usually able to show them the error ! r, ~ + ; in theil• ways. . ` ~ ~ • ' ' ' "Soule people age pretty good at :.f hiding illegal fish or game, but After you've been, on the job for a' F..~ ~ few years, you learn to detect fishy .t situations. We often find htn phea- 1 I ,e4 sants stuffed away in hub-caps, and •h • , ~ ~ ; : extra kt'out tucked away in the ` t ~ ~ ~~y~' trunk." ' r,, Guyer s work often carries hin) ~ v y! ` ,4. r rt .lS'.' out of -his district. Last- Novem• aer, lie went up- to' Wellington to J~~1n~~ help patrol the antelope season. }';d , ~ But most of the time, he 1'vorks . ~ ` ~ right around Boulder, where there t ~ are plenty of problems to keep him ~ ;K '~I occupied. • , ~ ~ , ; ~ Pheasant Shortage A T'rou~em b* ~ , 3 } ` One of his biggest problettis right - < ~ 1 S ~ x , !~"`{T r+ <.; ~ - z' ~ ~ now is the ph ¢asant shortage. "You can't, pin this on any one cause, ~ , z ~ he says, "but the cleaner farming 4 ,p ~ practices certainly have something ' , ~.•>:rj, ~ ~ to do with it.,, .r• . ! a er. rates s ortsmai)-landown- ~ G y p. - i ~ `k '~i er rclatior.s id his>area as only fair. x-, "You actually can't blame the ' ~ ~ , ' farmers, after some, of the unplea- ~y... ~ ' ~ ~f stint experiences they have had," ,;~n"'~ ,a ~ ' ' ~ ! he says. ~ Hunters anti fishermen entering i ~ri~ privatd land- without first, asking i , ~ ,,~k~t' ~ permission is a major cause of the J ` ,c+ 1.~ friction, Guyet• says. ''Ever. though 4 j ~ .;~tS they may do nn damage, they ccr- tainly don't malte;a good~impres- ~...;~.i •sion: Aft2~ A11, they are Crespass- dy DICK TAYLOIL Gives'irlany Pills _ ing." Journalism Student "I• speak before conservation Guyer's pet gripe is "people who During.the,,past Z9 years, a tall groups, sport~nien's clubs; and litter the mountains tvlth beer bespectacled man has become a school and scout groans,".he con, cans, paper plates and trash." familiar sight €or sportsmen in the tinucd, "And we alsvays try to Does Guyer like his work? Boulder area. He is Brownlee Guy- -maintain a friendly rciatioi)ship "wouldn't know what to do w" ~ er, district game warden for the with the farmers and ranchers who .myself without' it," he says, 1 i State Game and Fish Department, contcol:•.most.,nl:..the.. recreatiopal. keeps me nn .the go, sand there's areas." ~ never x drill moment. The average sportsmen may - ~ ~ . think of the game warden As a-cop Guyer s job calls for a full work with a badge, who goes around ar- schedule and irregular hours ` 114y schedule'vartes, he'saya, 'but the • 'resting unsuspecting Jnutters And Game and Fish Department ex= fist•,ermen,. But in Guyer's case,' pects its wardens to be on call 24 nothing could he farther from the' ltotirs a day,. seven days a week." ' truth, Ile Steeps a diary, filled with t}:e 'As he sees it, his main purpose, projects he works on and contacts is not only to enforce game- laws,' he makes during the day. The_en- but to help> sportsmen by preserv- tries may begin At 9 a.m. And end ;ng thew sport for them, This goal at midnight. ' leads him into a variety of activi- The district that Guyer is respon- ties, Bible for extends west to fhe'Conti- "W:e~make' hooter and fisherman nental Divide, north to Hygiene, counts, check game populations,. quid south fo the Gilpin County line. and .wort; on conservation prpj- It's a big ar¢a-fbr. otie. man to cov, ects," says .Guyer. "In addition, er, and he sometirrmes-drives 2,500 a' lot of our work is public rela- rr.iles a mor,tl3• to do the job, C::> ~ o ~ ~ i ~ : , I Springs, atieiupterl to raise phcas- a~ ants, turning them out as six n'eelt j chicks. The aves•ig;e cast of rais- ~'~®e~s~~e~ ~a~~a~sed ~a~e harden ~~~~~~a~ p)'gC>iclct i\\~as1 citc,)~ed a- icnuplc11<>t yeas at;a because it invited dis- "I buy a ]ichnse and then T have balie\'e~the fences our departmettf Dlicltigau System ~ aster for the birds. Tfind riisad, no place to fish or hunt." ll's heard \Enuld erect sufficient Eo keep the ,liif*.ht tic: 7ic1PEu1 tixcy seemed unable tv procure all m'ar ihti State, and it's present- public from trespassing rm his "A group of hunl.ers negotiate toad, and hid no ctefe,tse at;aiust ing a big headache to the Colorado properly. It's the same with hunt- \cith a rancher or farmer to hunt their natural el)emies." ' Game and hash Dep;n•Uncnl, u'ho, 311f.T. IlterCBSlitg numbers of land or fish on his propcrfy in season. 2'beasant ltaisiug like any. other law enforcement i ov;ners arc posting their land i3ut•- Year round they coniributr some T'rt)ved Lhtsuccesstul agency, is...oilen criticized by U)c I~ ing season, a praMice which \vould of their spare time fo helping on A second reason for the lack of 'general pu})lic about millers on I be mmecessary if ihC public ac• the place. Anything from fixing birds is the bit;it Poll taken by cut• ;~y~hich the general public is very I ca•ded thG same respect to gates fence +lo helping out in the hay- tang machines in the fields, lrlush• 'Often Icss than informed. Ind fences that they do to a fields. The men gel well acquaint- inl; bars that t;o before•tite blade ' ~•In the words of ]3rotvnleC Guyer, I neighbor's franc door. You dntt't ell, and it does a\\°ay \.ith i lot and root cut the bird before the C,amr li'irden for this area, "15°e ]abr.} }'our door, "private propcrtY" of bat} feeling on Ix)tlt sides. The steel rc:nc'hes fhC nest, ltclp, but try to protect, Colorado's resources ~ bu! f:alcs ind fences must be, m• firmer knows his propcrfy \t~ill be Dtr. Gu~~cr snys, "lt's• a h)C of \vhile prm•idinl; rtood hunting and a bird care of careless destructive respectitd, and tho sportsmen have trouble and expense far.tite farmer fishinf; for Colorado sportsmen, ind cilircns make it impossible for the ; a place to go, usually Close to to go to, alul yarl.icuiur]}• in the ,it's discnurs:>ing when the public ]indo\encr l.a distinguish betu'ecn home."• 'case \vhere he isn't: eveia jntca•csted so utter eoncicnuts our e[farls \vilh- I them and the: ,iverigle courle.aus a Unfortunately this system might in pheas.,nt shooting!''; , ? out. beiitgt intrrrmc<1 on both sides of ~ lndividuil." not profif the hunter much during ~ t;'hile discussing thes•~"State wide current pl'ol)la)ns.,` A ])atiSlblC SO11111011 10 tlt('. 17llntlltg the next phrisant scison, due to problems, hiT. Guyer. Pouched on ~ In presenting farts that ire the probleut, pirticulirly for those \vho the lick of birds in the area. Itts one that ba.s f:iven much ccmcet•n ,basis o[ present controversy in the rant fret away for long trips to the a thought, though, that i claw cn- to ]cis <leparunent locally. "'l'i)e :Slice, DIr. Guyer toucrhed on sever- divide, is a system no\v working operation between farmers area • prevalet:ce of dogs hunting; deer in .al points.`..lrurcmast is the \eidcly in itiicitigan. l1tr. Gu~•eL• believes hunters roultl result in a partial ~ f.his area is \:~orrying ns. 7:hC 7~1 .bc)no;nted' lack of , "gonrl fishing;" it ci» \eurl: in C;olc,:ado and t>,x- retarn of much good Cover neces= ('ado community bas reported these :itt Culnradu. 7.ong• known for its plains SC like this. ~ sary to the pheasants and so nfttut `animals frettucntlj', and other rc- fi:;hint> lu)tcntial, a large majw•itY eiestroyed when antler brush is Y>orts frum F:Idorido mtd i~izgtsiatf Hof (:olorariu rutlutsiasts. now de- fu•ed. 73y confining the bw:ning; to cm)firm that )n<uty dogs from )3ou1- '•cln•r, ih<: Stita is a tl)tal IOSS• llll- tht<'lIC5 anti ground adjacent to tier are in the ft;il)it.'of i•ointinq -less ynu haw: ;nt iu with- land 1)ar- ficads under cultivation, farmers : tba foothiiis on ixmtinf; trips." ! ;ors. or I)caor,;' to sp<n'tsuu:): clubs, could help the situation immensely.: (,)unti:tr frc.un fire utauual on ~ ~nu)sf of v:honi o\vn laltes, pri\•aiely Ucid corners anti pints of gtrouuri I Game la,vs, concerning predaf.ur~ 'stocked for members. unlikely to seed fields would pro- <mitnal<, ;!i.t.•. (yttyer warned liasl• ,Incrcasr. Iu Ntnnbct' _ vide cover far pheasanfs to keep der tint' owners to keep their pets li)f ~~isic•:•n,en lIas the hunters happy, and a little: help :)t. hotnc. t7.)rpictcd tit,•cams .au th<: place would mike iC wort}t "t~umeslic animals, (do«s and; ',f~l;"i: (rcm<v:Butts increase in pop- `the fit'mers, while i.o preserve a ; cats i \vl, n unllct:nseti, uttmttzzlyd, juL•ttiuu has ciraint)ci open \vaters till ~ more careful balance. ~ and appr.rently unclaimed, runnint, ` •ovcr fhu Stale of their uat.ural quota '.4fr. Guyer c:xpiiined that the de- ~ louse in I::,mc cover ar gr.mc trails l lot fist). ]n an effort to comi)at this, mantis of a section of Colorado (ire) ciassrd 'as prc:dt,lnry aui• i ,the Gams: l)cpart.ment cansistcnLly I pheasant hunters •rrC naC being; met ms!Is." sio~•la takes and streams, •r.nd in for several reasons, ~ Since ntt:ch of fhis area is classed Ia fsirihcr effort to Oise the situa- ~ , <'loscd 5craians ~ as f;inu° rove:-, thrasc animals may lion: recently put a bill info Com- ~ ' Tiitvi To C.uutruI be shot. res 1 ]n•cdau>rs trhen seen t 4mittci; at Cite last session of the "This a:•r.:~ is in bid shape,,, he ~ nnoer finis couditians. '.l'he•reccnt tStata. 7~cgisliture aimed it pro- ndtnitled, ' ::'~a. to claw the scison i for,iys parties of huntinb dogs have: jciu~int; morn open waters. State whir: \\•ouhl deprive.- other t made in I'laftstaff city Park alone, ' '.}'his i)ill of I:ascment, if passe(} regions of 1;ood shooting, and Iead have been sufficient to male deer 4duriug the next session, \vill make eventualh' to same erog dimiYC. I ?r) unusual sight. '1\='a large clogs µl postiible far ;the Game .Depart- :1'o close ont: area at a time is ii )n hot p~.u•suit of a floe \acre re- Uncnl to g;o to court in scel;ing virtually impossible because of flte rently seen on fire I'larsiaff roast. ;-purchase of condenuted waters run- vastness of attCtnpfa3tg to post'' The doe \vas spent and otily inter- ~tinf; thirour(t private property. 1i'ith • l,uncircds of square miles, and also, renlion (\ve threw rocks at Q)e 1t fair pric:c, fences and \t•uter !same tltausands ,of bunters, d~ dogs and Earned them back to ~:ights 'to the. }anti o\vner, many' ~:pzived of the' chance • of killing a 73ou1der) saved .her from .iurlher streams could be opened to the :k~ird on their home territory \vould hirassntent, area posible death: public, `being- stocked \vhere nee- inevitably clock to open places and Thr. C;;:ate t:nd hash 7)epartmett`i ssiry. A so reduce theta to the state that has tnan>• problems, .irnm State ,iudotcner .4nct our }anti is in (tow." wide hctttiug and. fishing in local +'ishct•,nen Tlustifity" ; 1Vltc? asked about the chance a1 depreciation of Mild life. 'il »rcalcr 1'ilis -bill is. needed: because of clocking land with pheas`. nfs, much ca-operation frum Ufa public, fqr the hosli111y existing betteeen as the str<:arns arc st;: °hcd with \vhose , bcucfits,;.;is., laws exist, ' tporlsnten and land awners,t' Dir. fish, Dir. Guyer replied," 7t has ~i'Ould 'di, much' to keep Colorado ',uycr ,dcr:)arcrl. "':t'he' farmer, }.x;en fried. '7•he 1"ash n)ui Ctame a natural both.for t\~iid i.ifa and through tun<„ sac} <:xpet•ie)Ycc doesn't .Department firm, east of Colorado sportsmen. t SEP ~ 1, - t~'i~10 ' THE- BOULDER DAILY .CAMERA State. Qpen~ Extei~si~re Program Qf 1 j dish-Sfoskn•g ~n ~oulde~ District . ~:i etntl.y tit~te~ t trio : 1Vai•den rele:isin~.thctit, ~ort'ltiee •.Guyer. qP 'Houltler an• 1V;iuleit Ciuycr '.also aunoiincc:( tiottt!'ced today,tht3 statti;~ante.ancl that tnoru attautiou Trill hr3 tilyeti '~fis>'t• depat~t~iteitL is tindorUihing.;an' to pollc,ing. this lili;h lake Let t dory ~mbit.loug : Znlogram : qt', stociting' to preveuC tllggal night lt.,ltiit_ stceatus and Dikes ttr Plio•Rpnldot' and catchini; of inulerslze fish, ~ dlslrtCtt p•it[r. Luu~ruds; oI, •tLou• - ~ sincls of. tl ~ tt . , • ; • . Guye:e aucT . ~ Fe~:SJt, director: of; the stnli>, j irtutetit,'returnecl; 'Ptte:iday~ after ,tti tottr•d,ly ,tnsjlec•' lion trip of st1•ea~ • and lill;li;ln.l:es iu: ttte~ ccitiiliy;~.tp .obt~iii~ g1t'+st•liauil lnfortiiatlan:;tti Islting±eoudltious~ and stoc}:ius; n cls. • ~r ~ ~ r t~ n ~//y ' ~ 1'4b`11141 j)1'Udram Ot~ 6tOC)tlna ~..~,a~ t.~. ~..a V ~ "71 / > •.V.i T quf tt~t~~~ f 'tt~LP ' ~ ~ r'"- ~ yt Is to be level lice nd nlulutrthled ,•r,• •r:r•f~+.. ~ lu;the hgitc, of n t~i~lttg ht„lt l:ilte ~ - - = ,y flsiitng I`e.tselioited. souse 10;000 MORE CI-IANCES F~R'BOULDER FIST-IERMEN • • study also was givett.. to the;lgwer _ _ ' stre•luts : to fnriinu.t•te a IteLtel r stooltiu~ ptobi am. Our ltisit ]ai+:o~ s are one''ot o.ut',valuabla~•lesourc:e5 ~ v~"E ~~vf,~ls ' and llteir re~niar s(nclting as well ( ,u 6+, as lhat oP streams, sltould: fio a j~art i ,:F .:,g t t ~ ° • ~ ~ _ i~ ! oP a hell-U ;lanced j>regt am:" . L > ° x ;',~,~;}d , a ; ,I !'east curl Guyer said tibout 110 { w: ' > ;1'1~~ ~ 000 Raloboty f111~P,11111$S \VSIC-Plant ~I 'p 3 ~ '1 ~ ed last lveelt in stteants and ]alcr.~ K ` F ~ ' ~ e w,~ a~,; z, . of the clistt tct tvrtlt at least '::UU, I ~ ~ r r~; ~ a : r ~ , 000 motq ycL tti c.umE r `•`N4 ~ ~ d rj ,r\ z s'• .The depnly \\,ytdrn t nltot•lecl it ~ , ~ , , t „ . ,.~w+ r k and olltet• t•cl>t•eseutaitves of lll~ I I t ` G1 :'~s~ ~ s~P , At aid~V ~ 3~-~` state ,lattarttnyut tYili Ire hattllu• I ~r '>.Y;~,i h ~;r..' K•~ S. '=~.4"~?`'r~~"~ ~ ~ ,~1F=• nallve, aastern btnnl; .nn~l Itt)iu ~ =~y:~ z,l ~ ; ~~"pg~'r.~+~ f`. i ~t a~,~ ~~7 ~W;~i'~ bon' trout, one antl t\vn inrh~, ~ 'r ; , ~ ~ s~ M~r±,F,..,r it !oltg, to 1•arlous slit 'ms Ttont )to\. z .t~"':t t'w,«„~,~,;,f ,~j.r-~ 'r' until 5ejlt. 2 :ane1 ~ffet I.::tltc~r -vay „ ~ ~ 3 'V{ ~ t,V~,rw . thousands tlotewlll bu dlstl•litut.ed j ~ c~~ ` `e,,,f~ F Y , 111 111 P, lllgll ItI~DS. yy,~.~ ; S~e~ r~ c G,t ¢ s This. program,. underlul en mt ' F < ~ S ~ ti-~ ~ ~ atlelt .an...extenslve atitl ,C, I., tiEtiic .r~,,° ~ rj sole by the'statg depilitment ftti ~ : ~ ' r ' Uio fu•sC tint©, will be seltcuat~ /f~•, r r ~r ~>a'orit ,anti.,;suPRlctnteutal 'E6, tlc ~ ~ ~ stoclang :agtiwftles of the. Bouidc~ l ~~`,~+y ~ ~ Fish and Gantr ,club.. ,`Phe cln'> b ,f s l ~ ; ~ usually. obt<lins , larget• tt5h front ~ x~rr "'b•``'• the ~st••tte , 4olinrtnteul ot,. raison ~ x' ,Y : R 6hem lit the lacul ponti3, utttll they f at`e Eqf near-cat,chtthln• aixa ; l>gforo ' ~ ' a i -~s'' , ~ : ~ Oyu ,n i; ~1B•ac ~ ~ r s • , - - - - ___a • ' . An+cstimated 10,000 trout of catchabie size wero taken from thcYponds of~ the Bouldor Fish I and Game c ub this week• and distributed in E3oulder, county streams in peeparaflori-for the opening of the seatson May 28. Ray Johnson and Joe Ardourel, directors. of the club, ara taking out a net.ful,l'of fish, while in Mho liack- ground is an oxygen tank truck of the state fish.and game, department which brought G,000 amah~ ~alnbow trout to be nlarnrl (n thA nnnAo~}u,o..a• is r,.,,.,..,.~ ;y;«N .a; net full of blg ones. (Camera photos by I:u M'onroe) ; - '-t V ~Apr;l 1, 19401 y i ~ - - - - - - NEW GAME BIRD, BROUGHT TO BOULDER COUNTY BY LOCAL.CLUB ~ t~~~r , ~ a. ~j ,yi L i ~ f 5 ~ S w~ is q .,k ` t ' A`` a ~xa'~'lfid•6PR~4 ~ ~ ~ ? z s a ,e )'x x'~ ,jy~,'p+,;ppYt7e'mr a, ~a+as ,:rv ~ ii ;s~ p>r»iy.•~&~ i . eq,..,e.. 'S}}4`~`~ ~ f~ < E~: yid.. e P py 'v iH ~q 7 i+ 'Y'r 3aly~~ydm~, ~ ,S. -;.i ~.v I~\ ~ JJ3"R'..a~a.slni:: M T N ' • .'t' : tom.., t ~1:; ~ ? S.9 i Y i_ sq r«, 4 ~-I 9 .f....1 ~ `v- is Tx7 - ~..J~'. 4 ~a l: 4 'C ~ J ~3 j 4 4. ~ A: ~ i. r 1 ~•it S tLv~ ~ ? ai~• ~ yid ~.T ~i& w~ R t 4" 4~.y ~ ~ F I Z ~ Cl fY'~`_' t... ~~lt ti~ ''~Y~ t' c5 } 1~. jj "4L. .~~';5~1 • ^ ~y~ ty~~: i, • GjPf" c,. ^ ~ ~a~ ar?k.L.r1" ~x, rY`.t,V:. , i ~~p;~::S ~~~r'~S ~~•lA .d'•Ir.~ b S 'K ~SF.yvlr ~ YSY~~ ~~Y'f v5,,. . Suvr.r:l tur:rnbr•1•; of tits Boulder i~'ish nnci Uaino chth aru sho+vn above unlo<tdin;; a sltipnumt of chtihxi• l;arlridgt;"s teltielt have Veen released ip Doulcier cotutty as rm c-xperimont'to deterrnino ii titeso game birds can successfully. live iu this Olin ate, and ntttlttply. to the. point whcrt5 additional ~~ut- ing quitrry wlll be provided for sportsmr:u of thi;3 region. The P~u•tridges wcro obtained .from , tllo state game and. fish comutis3iou':t farm at.Coloi-aclo Sptjnt;s; and ~cet~e• released iu.various sections of tno county by me•utbei~s of tlie•Bonlder club. I'hls, acttcity ts' one' of..lna;ny..the 13ouldei•~Fish and Gamo drib, uuw Cpndurtitlr a membership drive, tutdertaltec to ]uip`rovo' hiiilting,;-and fishing in this region. T•hc ll1911 &irown above are, left to right; front rn+v: John rialtoa,'i\4as Berger, Dr. C. .L.•.Smith, Ray Johnson, Pred 'frost, Robert. Crowrl.er,, and LYtuloti S+vitter. Taft to right in bacl., ai•e: Joe AtyloU.i•el, • -:..Reginald Ylatts, Erownleo Gegc;r, and C. !1lbcrt StiilCh.-(G'tvir:era Pkof.o.) C~ ~u ~r ~ i a~; w " r <i . , _F a f `r` v ; i~i -2 .L,' li 3> ' ~r _ A ~ ~ r y ~ ''YY A ~ '~'s ~ ~ S~ w.. " R 4 h~ . .s ~ ! ~ IJ 4 , ~j ~ : t ~ ~ r~ I' ` f'~~`4 N „ h, y S~tf~„~ c i.. -o~H~ I'IZ _ ~ ~ yt (.i:1.i: ,.~l.t,! rn;on J. it~n,' ~ i , t t ~ OP r l'1t~0i1 1111~C dl°- - [ U1vS)1RVA71()\ 7 T ti5U` gout llc lalh d nn the ~~,s~ ~c u: , d Lfe acid ; (cussed ~tiild life .and conservation with the „ } directed a wide circle hike searching for signs of animal 1!fe L2ter,•he s4to, ~d~'the student, films on the wise tine of water. Guyer e::plained to the group.Ulat,he spends:niote,time cin public, edu Ez cation than is required to cate}t ldw breakers, which his agency of the stale go~~etnment feels is as it would be. j Q _ ^ r' 'i ~ - l~Y ~ =c e rv ~ 5 F ~'Ft. ~ A cw gym' t i ~ ~I ~ 'T ~~y Y c `o' a i . ~ 'tom. `trs 1 A ~ y aP~ ~ 0 - ~ f~'1~~1~`b'i~fl tti~ ` \ <,r~f ~kA 'k/K t: ' ::u ~ sls, I < t ZS I ,~y~f 7~ t /2-r ~ ifh~ ~~~~ss v~'~tu ~ YtF v~li r; .uo7~ ~ li ti~g •c ! s~;- ~'13 r: r,y1 1.f~ ~ 't ~ t - sr ~K tit' ~~s ~ v~l~s^i `~,y ~ S 3,' a "5 J ~r~y, ; ~ ' js,~`"ya '~s may' /y~~~. ~'a,~2 { y Y` a t ,ar c . T ~i i ~ ~ [ c , ~ ~~x1~ a ~3w r 7 £:i~d I J. GilOWNLcE GO`,'Efi i S. 1'~:ir5:. , ~ ,g~_~ t , irrn ,.tl~ soma ~ _ tii~, ~ 4i~:'°u.:e r:u i~~:~ t.i, h;~. ,d~:r slrica, many toy:, which Ue reFAired and repainted as A voluntary contribution to the Social Service • i;hilc:- t~Vetfare bui'ettu. 'The toys were collected through tho 1)lll'0AU And will be dtstributcd to children oC needy famlltes in Boulder w)to otherwiso mlglit not havo a very merry ChristmAS. Ranger Guyer itas employed, till.hls AI)are-tints Por soveral rieoks >ettiug tits tAys in A-1 conditimt. Attachment F Landmarks Board City of Boulder Park Central Building 1739 Broadway, 3`d Floor Boulder, CO 80302 03/19/2009 RE: Upcoming Landmark Initiation Hearing for 607 Forest Avenue Landmarks Board I've attached a letter to end of this document which I`m passing around to as many people as 1 know in Boulder--it's addressed to Council because the ultimate decision will rest on their shoulders, but I want you to see it as I believe it sums up what many people (I already have nearly 100 signatures) think about my house being landmarked. I also want you to know that if my house does get Landmarked--it's not just a hardship of finding a new place to live, but it also will bring a very significant financial hardship to my family. To better understand the situation I might be in, I spoke to Joel ltipmaster who is currently listing the property at 3231 11th street which was landmarked in 2007. He is in close contact with the owners--Mike and Michelle Clements--and informed me they had to move out of town after spending almost 100k during their landmark process. Joel is actually in favor of landmarks and historical designation in many scenarios--he was instrumental in getting the historic designation for 16th and Baseline and he currently lives in a Landmarked house. I think his opinion is fairly respected within these circles because he knows the value of preserving heritage. That being said, he completely disagrees with the process of "Spot t.andmarking"-- basicallychoosing individual houses outside of historic districts. 3231 1 lth Street is the perfect example of this as it has received no offers whatsoever and per Joel's words "no one will touch it with a ten foot pole". Spot Landmarking within a neighborhood thriving with young families and experiencing constant new construction, actually has a very detrimental effect on property values. The property at 3231 11th is now valued at several $100k less than the Clements paid for it due largely to the decrease of options available for its development. In contrast, Landmarked homes which fall within a Historically designated area tend to see an increase in value b/c the character of the entire neighborhood is preserved rather than just a single house amidst other new canstructi~n. If 607 Forest Avenue is Landmarked, I fully expect the value of my property to drop more significantly than 3231 1 Ith Street and .toel agrees with that assessment. 3231 is one of the largest lots in Newlands and has a very charming Stone cottage on it which definitely adds character to the property. On the other hand, 607 Forest is a smaller lot, on a fairly busy corner of Forest with a house which has absolutely no Architectural signifance or character. Furthermore, 3231's existing structure is offset on the lot and allows very ample space for a new house beside it, while 607 Forest is in the middle of the lot and occupies both street views of the property- I realize the initiation hearing is a way to bring closure to the 180-day stay of demolition--it allows the neighbors and public in general to voice their opinions as well as puts another sign in fiont of the property. All of that is fine by me, but please remember if any neighbors are now trying to show support for this landmark designation--specifically Larry and Kay F3ingham, that they have written to you before, and I quote: "Those of us who mel are pretty much in agreement that the house is not architecturally significant and has structural problems which lrould be costly to fix. We agree that the Guyers were wonderful old-timers and native Coloradoanr ,but did not contribute significct~ztly to the history of Boulder. " --Kay Bingham via email on 01/26/2009 And one more quote from another neighbor from whom you've received an email: "First of all 1 should state that we have absolutely no question in our minds about demolition of this building. It doesn't have any obvious historical content--it's just an odd farm house that has been there for a long long tinte...I think that the question in our ntir:ds is why is there this rush...so irthat question can be addressed I think that no one the neighborhood has any real objection to this. " --Bill Butler 12/30/2008 (spoken at the Landmarks Mtn) 1 really hope the board can bring resolution to this matter and vote not to Landmark my property. Please. Sincerely, J~ John Goodson 607 Forest Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Boulder Cit Council PO Box 791 Pictures on back of page Boulder GO 80306 CC: Members of the Landmarks Board 12E: 607 Forest Avenue, Boulder, CO 80304 City Council: There is an upcoming hearing for the Landmark Designation of the house at 607 Forest Avenue. I am in complete OPPOSITION to this designation based on the points listed below: • The home is not located within a defined historic district in the City of Boulder. • The individual landmark status that is being sought by the Landmarks Board is being done so against the wishes of the nroperty's owners-a process only occurring once in the last 10 years. The owners find that the home in its condition is both unfit for their family and that of any growing family with children. • Boulder City Staff agreed with the position of the property's owners and recommended a demo pernut be issued in December 2008 based on this home's inability to meet any of the Landmark Criteria. • The home has "a lack of architectural details which would indicate a particular style" as written by R.L. Simmons and J.F. Bxoeker in their Historical Survey dated 1995. • Precedence has been set within this neighborhood such that if a home has been significantly modified from its original state, that is considered adequate to negate any historic value of the home and allow demolition to proceed. This home has been modified several times including a 1960's addition which doubled its square footage, the addition of vinyl siding around the entire house and the replacement of most windows with vinyl windows. The home is no loner original. • Most neighboring properties to this one have been significantly modified from their original construction- thereby supporting the lack of historical merit to this neighborhood. • Although the previous owner-Brownlee Guyer-was awell=known person within the neighborhood, he was not of historical significance at a local or national level. His accomplishments do not justify historic merit. • The property's owners are a growing family with young children, and for such a family the home is dangerous o Asbestos in the walls, floors, and ceilings o Lead-based paint o Lead gas piping o Knob-and-tube un-grounded wiring o No insulation in ,,x~all cavities-none at all o Cast-iron interior plumbing o Plumbing located on exterior walls o Concrete basement stairs which are irregular in height located in middle of den To landmark this home would be to elevate it to the status of historically significant. Very few homes outside of designated historic districts have this distinction-a couple of examples include the Scott Carpenter House and the Newland House. Clearly this home at 607 Forest does not possess either the architectural character or the persons of historical significance that would qualify it for inclusion on such a distinguished list and to include this home would only diminish the relevance of the other-truly noteworthy homes. I hope you can understand the opposition the city of Boulder holds against Landmark designation for this home. Sincerely, i reside at the address listed below: Signature Boulder, Colorado Printed Name ~1takS~ll:1~ 91I't~:fldl #t ~.PA~a~. v k~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~n _ rtf~ '~.h.. t ; +f,: 'dam,. II 4 t~ ~•j,{r t ~L,. ~ ' ~ r' r+ ~ r _ a I' ..~-its-t.~'+r~-~"'~`- - yr~ i;~ ~ - _ ' . ti ~',t:it:l~li~6`~. t~7 i~:luJ ;s. ~r? .'~AC~~ ~