HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Landmarks Board - 9/7/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
739 Broadway, Third Floor P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
1
e414
4 4 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop. net
Historic Preservation Reviews
Between July 23, 2011 and August 26, 2011
This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the
stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 13
HIS2011-00144 920 MAPLETON AV Mapleton Hill
Construction of fence to maximum height of 42" at north across driveway, south and west fence, patio, reataining wall
and associated landscaping - all as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 07.27.2011 and per Ldre
comments.
Sequence 111 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 07/28/2011
By; LDRC
HIS2011-00146 1302 BASELINE RD Individual Landmark
Placement of 14 small sandstone boulders at side of property set back from retaining wall, as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 07.20.2011.
Sequence 113 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 07/26/2011
B y., Staff
HIS2011-00147 1007 PEARL ST Downtown
Installation of five skylights behind parapet wall as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated
07.19.2011.Will not be publicly visible.
Sequence 114 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/03/2011
BT. LDRC
HIS2011-00148 1001 MAPLETON AV Mapleton Hill
Construction of rear shade structure (Painted or stained opaque white) as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
drawings dated 05.23.2011.
Sequence 115 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 07/28/2011
By: LDRC
HIS2011-00149 529 CONCORD AV Mapleton Hill
Re-roof house with Owens-Corning "Amber" "Duration" dimensional shingle as detailed on landmark alteration
certificate application dated 07.22.2011.
Sequence 116 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 07/26/2011
Staff
HIS2011-00152 541 HIGHLAND AV Mapleton Hill
Construction of 40 x 20 pool at rear (side) of yard as detailed on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated
08.08.2011. No other construction is associated with the new pool.
Printed on 08/26/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 1 of 5
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 13
Sequence 118 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/19/2011
Bw LDRC
HIS2011-00153 911 PINE ST Mapleton Hill
Re-roof pitch-roof areas of house with "Shamrock, Kona Sand" dimensional asphalt shingle as detailed on landmark
alteration certificate application dated 07.19.2011.
Sequence 119 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/03/2011
Staff
HIS2011-00154 453 PINE ST Mapleton Hill
Removal of existing concrete driveway, three fence panels and gate, the stone landing, rear sod and stone steppers
and the back porch floor. All features to be reset/replaced to match existing material, location, design and arrangement
when excavation is complete as deatiled on landmark alteration certificate application dated 07.28.2011.
Sequence 120 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/01/2011
B w- Staff
HIS2011-00155 444 PINE ST Mapleton Hill
Replacement of fence at rear and side with minimum 1" spacing between pickets, to maximum height of 5', 6" when
measured from bottom of existing wall (alley side), and 4' high fence between house and existing wall at front with 3/4"
spacing between pickets. Fence will be "semi-solid" gray stan.
Sequence 121 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/03/2011
By LDRC
HIS2011-00160 1540 PINE ST Individual Landmark
Reconstruct failing exterior stair at side of house that are in imminent danger of collapse. Exterior stair is necessary to
access upper apartments and will be simply designed, constructed of stee, and painted to match housel as detailed on
landmark alteration certificate application dated 08.04.2011.
Sequence 124 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/05/2011
By: Staff
HIS2011-00161 1001 SPRUCE ST Mapleton Hill
Reset historic flagstone path from sidewalk step to front porch as originally configured including width, pattern, etc.
Original stone slabs will be re-set in original configuration at south end of garden. Design of previously approved
retaining walls will not be changed. Intersections of historic masonry with new brick and stone will be set with ASTM
Type O high-lime mortar using Type 1 white Portland cement. Joints and colour will closely match that the fine joints on
the main house. Construction of metal fence is not part of this approval.
Sequence 125 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/05/2011
By: Staff
HIS2011-00162 1043 PEARL ST Downtown
Inset doorway on storefront as detailed on drawings dated 08.09.2011. Details on side panels should be submitted to
staff for review and approval prior to construction.
Sequence 126 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/10/2011
By Staff
HIS2011-00165 642 MAPLETON AV Mapleton Hill
Printed on 08/26/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 2 of 5
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 13
Replacement of non-historic vinyl windows and doors on 1992 addition, ipe decking at rear, repair of beams under front
porch, re-pointing of chimney & walls, repainting and new gutters. Details regarding re-pointing paint color and new
gutters will be reviewed by staff prior to work commencing.
Sequence 127 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/19/2011
B LDRC
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1
HIS2011-00107 1300 HAWTHORN AV Not Landmarked
DEMOLITION APPLICATION for accessory building
Sequence 3 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: Marie Zuzack Date: 08/01/2011
BNL Staff
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 3
HIS2011-00136 285 S 42ND ST Not Landmarked
Demo Review - For more than 50% of existing roof of SFD contructed in 1956.
Sequence 20 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: Marie Zuzack Date: 08/01/2011
B T_ Staff
HIS2011-00151 255 28TH ST Not Landmarked
Demolition of building constructed in 1953.
Sequence 22 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 07/26/2011
By: Staff
HIS2011-00163 2918 5TH ST Not Landmarked
POST-1940 DEMOLITION of a portion of existing single family home in the rear yard and existing detached garage
Sequence 23 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: Marie Zuzack Date: 08/16/2011
By: Staff
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 4
HIS2011-00142 3125 5TH ST Not Landmarked
Proposed demolition of a SFD, built 1913, see previous case HIS2007-00256
Sequence 4 Decision: Application Withdrawn
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 07/29/2011
By: LDRC
HIS2011-00156 1725 15TH ST Not Landmarked
Landmarks review for entire structure demolition.
Sequence 5 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/03/2011
LDRC
HIS2011-00164 810 COLLEGE AV Not Landmarked
PRE-1940 DEMOLITION for full structural demolition of existing single family dwelling and accesory building
Sequence 7 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/17/2011
B v., LDRC
Printed on 08/26/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 3 of 5
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 4
HIS2011-00167 1837 MAPLETON AV Not Landmarked
Demo Permit Review - For removal of portion of street facing wall to be replaced with second story sunroom.
Sequence 8 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/24/2011
B LDRC
State Tax Credit Reviews Case Count: 1
HIS2010-00002 811 MAPLETON AV Mapleton Hill
State tax credit application.
Sequence 1 Decision: Application Approved
Case Manager: James Hewat Date: 08/26/2011
LDRC
Printed on 08/26/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 4 of 5
Historic Preservation Reviews Summary
between 7/23/2011 and 8/26/2011
This summary shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn
within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
The cases listed "in Review" have not yet been resolved and are not shown in relation to the start and end dates. The
date on the "In Review" cases is listed as the current date on the main screen of the HIS case.
Historic District Amendment
In Review 1
Landmark Alteration Certificate
Application Approved 13
In Review 101
Landmark Amendment
In Review 1
Landmark Designation
In Review 10
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition
Application Approved 1
In Review 3
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 3
In Review 2
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 3
Application Withdrawn 1
In Review 11
Non-Designated Primary Demolition
In Review 15
State Tax Credit
Application Approved 1
In Review 10
Printed on 08/26/2011 HIS Statistical Report Page 5 of 5
MEMORANDUM
Sept. 7, 2011
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Marie Zuzack, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application to amend the designation of the
landmark, Platt Farmhouse, at 3160 Airport Rd., per Section 9-11-9 of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2011-00169).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 3160 Airport Road
2. Owner: City of Boulder, Parks & Recreation Dept.
3. Applicant: Michael Lamb, Parks Project Manager
4. Site Area: .28 acre
5. Date of construction: C. 1908
6. Original Ordinance: Ordinance No. 7016, adopted on Dec. 21, 1999
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board recommends amendment of the landmark designation for the Platt Farmhouse to
City Council to revoke the existing boundary as described in Ordinance 7016, and establish a new
boundary as presented in the staff memorandum dated Sept. 7, 2011. As part of this recommendation, the
board adopts the following as findings of the board:
FINDINGS
The application and evidence presented in the proposed amendment of designation for the Platt
Farmhouse as outlined in the staff memorandum dated Sept. 7, 2011, is consistent with the purposes and
standards of Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.).
SUMMARY
• The purpose of this review is for the board to determine whether the proposed amendment conforms
with the purposes and standards of B.R.C. Sections 9-11-1, Legislative Intent; 9-11-2, City Council
May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts; and 9-11-9, Amendment of Designation.
• On March 3, 2009, the City Council approved a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) to relocate
and restore the Platt Farmhouse at 3160 Airport Rd. This was a call-up of the Landmark Board's Jan.
7, 2009 denial of the LAC. On September 2, 2009, the Landmark design review committee issued an
LAC upon confirmation that the conditions of the City Council's March 3 approval had been met. This
LAC expired on March 3, 2010.
Agenda Item #5B Page #1
• On March 3, 2011 the Landmarks Board approved a new LAC to relocate and restore the building.
Staff indicated that the landmark boundary should be amended as soon as possible after the move.
• On June 3, 2011 the building was relocated onto a new foundation approximately 700 feet southwest
and in the same orientation as specified in the LAC approval for the move and rehabilitation.
• Staff believes the proposed landmark boundary for the relocated building will maintain an appropriate
setting for the building and the proposed amendment meets the criteria for approval.
BACKGROUND
Constructed about 1908, the Platt Farmhouse is historically significant for its association with James M.
Platt and the Platt family, and for its role in the agricultural development of east Boulder. The house is
architecturally significant as an intact example of an early-20th Century farm construction and
environmentally significant for its proximity to the North Boulder Farmers ditch, which played a
significant role in the agricultural development of the Valmont community.
The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department purchased the property on which the house is
located in 1997 to incorporate it into the larger Valmont City Park, which spans across Valmont Road to
the south. The building and surrounding .27 acre were landmarked in 1999 when the property was
annexed to the city (Attachments A and B). The landmark boundary was drawn to include the ditch and
a portion of the unpaved driveway to the east of the house, which originally linked the farm to Valmont
Road. The intent was to respect the house's historic relationship to nearby irrigation ditches and
transportation. The boundary was also drawn to include a 25-foot buffer to the north and west of the
house (see Figure 1.) (Note that the buffer to the north is stated as 25 feet in the Landmarks Board
designation memo in Attachment A, but incorrectly noted as 35 feet in Exhibit A of the designation
ordinance in Attachment B. Staff in the city Information Resources Division measures the north buffer at
25 feet.)
Agenda Item #5B Page #2
1 ~ b
7
Laniftlam St"
411-
j
e
~E
r
Figure 1. 1999 map showing landmark location and boundary
In 2009, the Parks and Recreation Department got approval to move the farmhouse southwest on the
property approximately 700 feet, to facilitate the design and construction of a bike park to the north and
east. (See Figure 2.) The proposed new location would be approximately 45 feet north of the ditch, as
was the original location. The approval was conditioned on maintaining the building's southern
orientation toward the ditch.
Agenda Item #5B Page #3
r
is 1 ~ _ _ - - '•1 I,`~ ~=y
-gyp _ Y NORTH P ¢b
Figure 2. 2009 map showing approved relocation (arroxv) and 45' distance from ditch
The 2009 LAC expired before the building could be moved, so on March 3, 2011, the Landmarks Board
approved a new LAC to relocate the building. The updated LAC included orienting the building toward
the ditch. (See Figure 3.) On June 3, 2011, the building was moved and bike park construction was
completed soon after. Rehabilitation of the building and reconstruction of the front porch is underway and
is expected to be completed near the end of this year. (See Figures 4 and 5.)
ExIsfing Location
71
-Pm posed Location
e r
''1 -4I a
Figure 3. March 2011 map showing approved relocation and building orientation
Agenda Item #5B Page #4
t r
L FIN
Figure 4. Farmhouse prior to re-location Figure 5. Farmhouse after move - August 2011
PROPOSED NEW BOUNDARY
Figure 6 shows the proposed landmark boundary (dashed outline). It is about the same size (.28 acre) as
the 1999 existing landmark boundary (.27 acre) and extends approximately 45 feet south of the farmhouse
along the middle of the ditch, similar to the 1999 boundary. The proposed boundary extends
approximately 45 feet east of the farmhouse, 25 feet north of it and 40 feet west of it.
.[700 A.
kn
a - ~ - -
Ix N °r
a I i f' ~
121
40' 46,
I f ° l r ~OF~~~<<+N
X
O r'
°f 4
SCALE: 1"=40'-0°
- T VALMONT PLATT FARM HOUSE
1 LANDMARK BOUNDARY 7%=77
AUGUST 2011 0' 20' 40 80'
Figure 6. Proposed amended landmark boundary
Agenda Item #5B Page #5
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
This application is to amend the designation of the Platt Farmhouse landmark, as described in Ordinance
7016. Section 9-11,-9 Amendment of Designation states that "designations of a landmark or historic
district may be amended to add or remove features or property to the site or district". The section goes on
to state that the procedure to be followed is that of the designation process as outlined in sections 9-11-3 to
9-11-8 of the BRC 1981.
Section 9-11-5(c), Public Hearing Before the Landmarks Board, of the Historic Preservation Ordinance
specifies that in its review of an application for local landmark designation, "the landmarks board shall
determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1,
"Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council Mov Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts." B.R.C.
1981."
9-11-1: Legislative Intent states:
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting,
enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events,
and persons important in local, state, or national history or providing significant examples of
architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain
appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property
values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the
city's living heritage.
(b) The City Council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city but
instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in
preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of
buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives
and that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character
of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them.
(c) The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new construction on
landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks Board shall follow relevant city
policies, including, without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled, and creative
approaches to renovation.
9-11-2: City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the City Council may by ordinance:
(1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an integrated
group of structures or features on a single lot or site having a special character and
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and designate a landmark site
for each landmark;
(2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites,
buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the
city;
(3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings,
structures, or features which are contained in two or more geographically separate
Agenda Item #511 Page #6
areas, having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or
value that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics;
and
(4) Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or district.
(b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the requirements
of this code and other ordinances of the city.
If the board finds that the proposed designation amendment conforms to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 of the
code, it shall adopt specific findings and conclusions approving or modifying and approving the
application. If the board approves the proposed designation, the application will be forwarded to City
Council (within 100 days) for a public hearing.
ANALYSIS:
Staff's analysis is based on the criteria above that are relevant to the proposed amendment to the landmark
boundary.
A. Does the proposed boundary amendment protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building reminiscent
of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history?
Stafffinds that the proposed boundary amen dmentprotects and perpetuates an important
historic building, the Platt Farmhouse, and a portion of the historic farm site. While the
building has been moved, its context is very similar to the historic. Its orientation and the
relative proximity of the house to the ditch have been preserved in its new placement
approximately 700 feet southwest of its original location.
B. Does the proposed boundary amendment develop and maintain an appropriate setting for the
building to promote tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage?
Staff finds that the proposed boundw y amendment maintains an appropriate setting for the
building and will promote tourist, as well as local visitor, interest and trade (particularly if
the future building use is commercial in nature) while fostering knowledge of the city's
heritage. The proposed amended landmark boundary incorporates a portion of the ditch,
which reflects the building's historic relationship with the original farming ficnction.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Sept 1, 1999 Landmarks Board memorandum on designating Platt Farmhouse a landmark
B: Ordinance 7016, designating the landmark
Agenda Item #5B Page #7
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
September 1, 1999
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Neil Holthouser, Planning Technician
Ruth McHeyser, Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council concerning a request
for individual landmark status for property located at 3160 Airport Road, also known as 5227
Valmont Road. (This item was continued fi om the August 4, 1999 meeting.)
Owner and Applicant: City of Boulder Parks Department.
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 3160 Airport Road
2. Zoning: Unincorporated Boulder County
3. Owner: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department
4. Applicant: City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department
INTRODUCTION
The ityt y o oul der arks and Recreation Department owns this house an pans to incorporate i into the pro
Valmont City Park. The property is located in unincorporated Boulder County east of Boulder's city limits. The Parks
and Recreation Department has initiated annexation procedures for the entire park site, which includes approximately
132 acres to the north and south of Valmont Road. The house was originally addressed as 5227 Valmont Road. The
Parks and Recreation Department purchased the property in 1997, routed a new driveway to access Airport Road, and
changed the address to 3160 Airport Road. The house remains in its original location.
As 'a condition of annexation approval, the Planning Department reconunended that the Parks and Recreation
Department apply for individual landmark designation for two structures within the proposed park: 1) 3160 Airport
Road; and 2) 5172 Valmont Road. The Parks and Recreation Department applied for landmark designation for both
structures on May 15, 1999.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The following is the result of staff's research on the property relative to the significance, criteria for individual
landmarks adopted by the Landmarks Board in September, 1975.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
1. Date of construction: c. 1908 (Source: Boulder County Assessor)
2. Association with historical persons or events: This house is associated with the Platt family, who operated a
farm on the property from the late 1890s until the early 1950s. The house was built in or about 1908 by James
M. Platt, who served as Boulder County's first water commissioner. The house is located in east Boulder in
what is generally known as the Valmont community. Though the property has not yet been annexed, it is
bounded to the east and west by land that is within the Boulder city limits.
The property was originally homesteaded by James J. Rhoads, a farmer and son of Boulder pioneer Joseph
Rhoads. The Rhoads family came to Boulder in 1859 from Missouri. Joseph Rhoads worked for several years
as a gold miner in Gold Hill before settling in the Boulder Valley as a farmer. James Rhoads (1812-1878)
homesteaded the subject farm site in 1872, though it is not clear whether he ever lived on the property.
(Source: Cultural Resources of Valmont Park, 1997)
rw,. ~
A 1114 (ill } T _ pas
The farm changed hands several times in the 1880s and early 1890s before it was purchased in 1896 by Jaynes
M. Plat. Platt was born in Iowa in 1860. His family moved to Boulder in the early 1870s and settled on a
farm in the Valmont area. Platt's first wife died in 1882, leaving him one son. Platt briefly moved back to
Iowa before returning to Boulder in 1885 to marry Lucy Lloyd. James and Lucy Platt had eleven children
together. (Source: Cultural Resources of Valmont Park, 1997)
James Platt began farming the subject property in the late 1890s. In or about 1908, he built the subject farm
house just north of the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch. In addition to farming, the Platt family was deeply
involved with water resource issues in the Boulder Valley. In 1907, James Platt was appointed Boulder
County's first water commissioner, a position he held for 25 years. Upon his death in 1932, Platt passed the
position to his son, Thomas L. Platt, who held it until his retirement in 1974. Thomas Platt also served as a
daily weather observer for the National Weather Service. Thomas' son, Thomas E. Platt, served as water
superintendent for the City of Boulder in the 1960s. (Source: Cultural Resources of Valmont Park)
The Platt family lived in the subject house until the early 1950s, when it was purchased by the Howe family of
Howe Mortuary. Goldine Howe lived in the house for several years in the 1950s. In 1976, the house was
purchased by Everett Wiehe, who lived here until 1997 when the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department
acquired the property as part of the proposed Valmont City Park.
3. Distinction in the development of the community of Boulder: This house is significant for its role in
Boulder's agricultural development during the first half of the 20th Century. The house reflects the area's
agricultural history in its simple wood-frame design and its proximity to the North Boulder Farmers Ditch and
the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch, which were built in the late 1800s to provide irrigation for Boulder's outlying
farm communities. The house is located in east Boulder in an area generally known as Valmont.
The Valmont community was founded in 1860 by a group of former miners seeking their fortunes in
agriculture. Pioneer Thomas Jones built the first building in Valmont in 1860 - a small log building housing a
tavern, inn and stage stop. The building, though badly deteriorated, still stands about half a mile east of the
subject farm site. The town of Valmont, platted in 1865, started out as a farming community. For a brief
period in the 1860s, Valmont's population actually surpassed that of Boulder. Boulder County's first
newspaper, the Valmont Bulletin, was founded in 1866. (Source: Cultural Resources of Valmont Park, 1997)
The subject farm site is significant for its relationship to three key land features in east Boulder: the North
Boulder Farmers Ditch, the Boulder and Left Hand .Ditch, and Valmont Road. The North Boulder Farmers
Ditch was constructed in 1862 to divert water from Boulder Creek to outlying farm communities. A second
irrigation canal, the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch, was constructed in 1873 to parallel the Farmers Ditch.
Together, the ditches played a vital role in the agricultural success of the Valmont community. The subject
farm house sits approximately 40 feet north of the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch.
Valmont's agricultural success also depended on reliable transportation. Valmont Road was built in the early
1860s to transport agricultural products from outlying farm communities to markets in Boulder. The road
served as the original wagon route for the Overland Stage Company, which included a stage stop at Thomas
Jones' tavern in Valmont. The importance of the road as an agricultural trading route is reflected in the
placement of many farmhouses along Valmont Road, including the house at 3160 Airport Road. The house is
set back from Valmont Road approximately 900 feet and was originally linked to the road by an unpaved drive.
The drive, which crosses both the Farmers Ditch and the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch, still exists, though it is
no longer accessible from Valmont Road. (Source: Cultural Resources of Valmont Park, 1997)
4. Recognition by authorities: None.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
1. Recognized.period/style: Vernacular wood fiarne. This house is an intact example of an early-20th Century
farm house as reflected in its vernacular hipped-box design, simple wood-farm construction, and prominent
wrap-around front porch. The house features poured concrete foundations, central brick chimney, and double-
hung windows with wood shutters. The hipped roof features sprung (flared) eaves. The north and south
elevations feature small shed-roof dormers with wood shingle siding. A large flat-roof (former and projecting
balcony, added in the 1970s, are located on the west elevation. The east-facing roof plane features three
--------1
skylights, also added in the 1970s. The wrap-around front porch features round wooden columns with square
capitals.
By far the most common style of architecture, vernacular wood frame structures have been built throughout
Colorado since 1860. With an absence of architectural features and ornamentation that can distinguish a
specific style, these simple, modest homes are divided into types according to floor plan and roof shape. The
hipped box is a small, one-story structure with hipped roof and usually a front porch. The hipped box has no
decorative elements. (Source: Sarah Pearce, A Guide to Colorado Architecture, 1983)
The house generally retains a high degree of architectural integrity, especially as viewed from the south (fi•ont).
However, a 1970s addition to the west facade is not compatible with the original design of the house. The
addition consists of a large flat-roofed dormer with two double-hung windows, two narrow plate-glass
windows, and a doorway exiting onto a projecting balcony. The addition is inappropriate in its scale, flat roof
pitch, narrow window openings, and cantilevered balcony. The three skylights in the east-facing roof plane,
added in the 1970s, are not compatible with the original structure. However, their visual impact is minimal.
2. Architect or builder of prominence: Architect, if any, unknown.
3. Artistic merit: N/A
4. Examples of the uncommon: N/A
5. Indigenous qualities: N/A
fR0N1ViENTAL
1. Site Characteristics: This house is located in east Boulder in an area generally known as the Valmont
community. The house is located on approximately 25 acres of rural, undeveloped land bounded to the south
by Valmont Road, Airport Road to the west, the Boulder County Jail complex to the north, and an industrial
site to the cast. The house is set back approximately 900 feet to the north of Valmont Road and 800 feet to the
east of Airport Road. An unpaved driveway leads from Airport Road to the subject farm house; a separate
driveway, which is no longer used, runs from the house south to Valmont Road.
The North Boulder Farmers Ditch and the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch run parallel to each other across the site,
flowing from southwest. to northeast. The house is located approximately 40 feet to the north of the Boulder
and Lefthand Ditch and approximately 300 feet north of the North Boulder Farmers Ditch. The ditches are
lined with mature trees and vegetation. The house faces south toward the ditches and Valmont Road. The site
slopes generally from north to south.
The site contains three outbuildings: a small gable-roofed building to the southwest on the house, built in the
1970s as a guesthouse; a small hexagonal shed immediately west of the house, which may have been used as a
chicken coup; and a flat-roofed garage located to the northwest of the house. The outbuildings are not
contributing features of the site.
The proposed Valmont City Park plan calls for the creation of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the ditch
corridors and the planting of a botanical garden to the southwest of the subject house. The proposed plans
appear in keeping with the site's historically rural character.
2. Compatibility with site: This house is compatible with its site in that it is located in a rural setting close to the
Farmers Ditch and the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch, reflecting its original use as a farm site. The proposed
Valmont City Park preserves the site's rural character through the creation of botanical gardens and pedestrian
trails along the ditches
3. Geographic importance: The house is geographically important for its proximity to the Farmers Ditch and the
Boulder and Lefthand Ditch, which were essential to the agricultural development of the Valmont community.
4. Environmental appropriateness: The house is situated in a manner well-suited to its original function as a
farm house. The house is substantially set back from Valmont Road, allowing for the cultivation of
surrounding farm land. The house is located close to the Farmers Ditch and the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch,
which allowed access to water for crop irrigation.
5. Area integrity: The house is an intact example of an early-20th Century farm house as reflected in its
vernacular hipped-box design, simple wood frame construction, and prominent wrap-around front porch. The
house should retain its rural character under the proposed Valmont City Park plan, which calls for the creation
of gardens and pedestrian trails on land immediately surrounding the house.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE:
This house is historically significant for its association with the Platt family, and for its role in the agricultural
development of east Boulder. The house is architecturally significant as an intact example of an early-20th Century
farm house. The house is environmentally significant for its proximdty to the North Boulder Farmers Ditch and the
Boulder and Lefthand Ditch, which played significant roles in the agricultural development of the Valmont community.
LANDMARK SITE
The house is surrounded by approximately 25 acres of rural, undeveloped land. The site is part of the larger Valmont
City Park site, which spans 132 acres to the north and south of Valmont Road. If the board recommends landmark
designation for the subject house, then it must also decide how much land to include in the landmark site. Staff believes
that the landmark site should respect the house's historic relationship to nearby irrigation ditches and transportation,
Staff therefore recommends that the site be drawn to include the Boulder and Lefthand Ditch and a portion of the
unpaved driveway to the east of the house, which originally linked the farm to Valmont Road. The site should further
e e 'me to me u e a - oot u-t er o e nor tan wes o
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board recommend to City Council that the building and its site at 3160 Airport
Road, as defined above and shown in Exhibit A, be designated as an individual landmark under the City historic
preservation code, adopting the staff memorandum detailing the significance criteria as presented above as findings of
the board.
Staff recommends that the building be named the Platt Farmhouse.
ATTACHMENT B
20120&5 f
" ~ i flfll II I li ill ICIili Ifl I Ei Ilf ii lilt ii 05104/2000 03 27P
6oUlder Cour'.4 Clerk, co R0 R 9.08 80,00
I
ORDINANCE NO. 7016
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE STRUCTURE AND A PORTION OF
THE SITE AT 3160 AIRPORT ROAD AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A, CITY OF
BOULDER, COLORADO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE PLATT FARMHOUSE, A
LANDMARK UNDER CHAPTER 10-13 OIL' THE REVISED CODE OF THE
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO 1981 AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN
RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED 13Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO,
THAT:
Section 1. The council enacts this ordinance pursuant to its authority under Chapter 10-13
of the Revised Code of the City of Boulder, Colorado, 1981 to designate as a landmark a structure
having a special character nr special historical architectural or aesthetic interest or value.
Section 2. The council finds that: 1) on or about May 15, 1999, the owner of the-property
at 3160 Airport Road, City of Boulder, Colorado applied to the City of Boulder Landmarks Presetvation.
Advisory Board to designate said property as a Imidmark; 2) the board held a public hearing on the
proposed designation on September 1, 1999; and 3) on September 1, 1999 the board recommended that
the council approve the proposed designation.
Section 3. The council also finds that upon public notice required by law, the council held
a public hearing on the proposed designation on November 9, 1999 and upon the basis of the
presentations at that hearing finds that the property at 3160 Airport Road does possess a special
character and special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value warranting its designation
as a landmark.
zr)& _
2012055
i111@111 lll iillI[IJ!1 1illIlll1111111 01/04/200003:07P
BoulCounty OR R 2 ,00 00.80
Section 4. There is hereby created as a landmark a portion of the property located at 3160
Airport Road, also know as the Platt Farmhouse, as shown in Exhibit A.
Section 51 The characteristics of the subject property that justify its designation as a
r
landmark are: (1) its historical significance for its association with the Platt family, and for its role in
the agricultural development of east Boulder; (2) its architectural significance as an intact example of
i
an early- 20th Century farmhouse; and, (2) its environmental significance for its proximity to the North
Boulder Famers Ditch and the Boulder Lefthand Ditch, which played significant roles in the agricultural
development of the Valmont community.
Section . The council further finds that the foregoing landmark designation is necessary
to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city.
Section . The council directs that the planning department give prop;pt naticeoo this
designation to the property owner and cause a copy of this ordinance to be recorded as required by
Section 10-13-6 (d) of the Revised Code of the City of Boulder, Colorado 1981.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 9th day of ~
November, 1999.
Mayor
Attest:
cz~
City lerk on behalf of the ~
Director of Finance and Record
~ ~ VIII 1 IIII 111 Ill lull III I Ill VIII Illl II I P ° ~2~ ~ ~4
Boulder County Cler as aRD R £6,66 D 9.66
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 21 st day of December, 1999.
Mayor
Attest;
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
1
33 rg P~. ( . 'd
LI
EXHIBIT A
I
Site Map Proposed Landmark Site
i Ptopcead Land nark Site Airport
X 3160 •v.,-•-
its & Vicinity Map
Vicinity Map
n `Score 1 Inch = 100 feat
j~ Ur D 100 F", S I
o
E
v Goudty Jail
r~"'y~~ I$3 a ,i
f f 3
Park Site
-
k, al
y WO t0 Pcaposad Landmuk Site
I > I '
~I
u M
j5j
d ci w r T Park Site T .
- ~ tSci hh'! L
~ i
t~ Scale 1 Inch= 400 feet
400 0 400 Feet
N
`rte/
ORDINANCE No. 7015
STA'L'E OF COLORADO)
COUNTY OF BOULDER) SS. CERTIFICATE
CITY OF BOULDER)
1, A1isa D. Lewis, City Cleric of said City in the County and
State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read on first reading, at a regular meeting of the
City Council thereof held on the 9th day of November, 1999, and
that afterwards, to--wit: I caused the same to be published (by i
title only) on the 12th day of November. 1999,in the official paper
of said City (the same being paper of general circulation
published in said city), and that said publication was made ten
days before the passage of said ordinance.
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was afterwards
duly and regularly passed and adopted, by the City Council of said
City on second reading at a regular meeting thereof held on the
21st day of December,. 1999, and that I caused the same to be
published (by title only) on the 24th day,vf December, 1999, in the
official paper of said city.
WITLESS my hand and the seal of said City of Boulder hereto
affixed, this 27th day of December, 1999.
Alisa D. Lewis
City Clerk
(,Seal)
cert2.ord
/to
i
7016.
I II II I
DRDINNCE wo. roes
AN ORDINANOE DESIONATING THE 111DUOTURE AND A PORTION OF 113 SITE
AT 3180 AIRPORT ROAD AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A, CITY OF BOULDER, COLO.
RADO ALSO KNOWN AS THE PLAIT FARMHOUSE k LANDMARK UNDER CHAA~
TER 1A-13 OF THE REVISED CODE OF THE CITY O~ BOULDER, COLORADO 1981.
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
(The ppubllahod text of the above ordinance is available for publle Inapecllon and 9o•
8la
n In the ORioe at the City Clark, Munlelpat Building, 1777 Broadway, Boulder,:
. .80302.)
-INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PU13USHED BY TITLE ONLY THIS BTH DAY!
OFNOVEM9ER,f999, y~Jtl7a°r
T.IAYOR
ATTEST;
Allan O. Lawia ,
Oily Clerk
Published November f 2, 19991n the Daily Camera • 699441,
' I S I I I
•
ORDiNANCB Np. YD/B
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE STRUCTURE AND A PORTION OF rTS SITE
COLO-
RADO. ALSOPKNOWN ROAD AS SHOWN AS THE PLATT IN EXHIBIT A LANDMARK UNp R CHAIR. 110
CODE
FIEVIReD
THE AND BETTING FTHE ORTH DETAILS IN RELATI N THEREFTO. ut.DEa, COLORADO 100'
(The ppubllehed text at 140 above ardlnence le available far public 4upootion and ac-
to, afeon In the Offloe.of the My Clerk, ktuntclpat BuRclinp, 1777 Broadway, Soufderr
91.0In,
O TROODUCCE HAD AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY THIS 9TH DAY
READ ON SECOND READING ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY THIS 21ST DAYOF BEO&HER~799Tg8.
' 'MAYORt -
ATTEST:
Alke D. Lewis .
City Clerk
Published December 24,1099 In the Daily Camera • 990221.
MEMORANDUM
September 7, 2011
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Marie Zuzack, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of whether to initiate the designation of the
property at 1135 North Street as a locally designated Historic Landmark, per
Section 9-11-3, S.R.C. 1981 (HIS2011-00011).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1135 North Street
2. Zoning: BT-1 (Business Transitional-1)
3. Owner: Community Hospital Association
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation of the property at 1135
North Street, for the following reasons:
• The initiation of landmarking over an owner's objection by the Landmarks Board has
historically been used very rarely.
• While relatively intact to their original construction the house and garage are of little
architectural or historic significance and the area around the property has been
significantly altered over the past several decades.
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 1135 North Street.
■ On January 18, 2011 the Landmarks design review committee (Ldre) reviewed an application
to demolish the main house and garage on the property. Finding there was "probable cause"
that the building may be eligible for individual landmark designation; the application was
referred to the full Landmarks Board for review.
■ On April 6, 2011 by a vote of 4-1 (Gerwing opposed), the Landmarks Board issued a stay-of-
demolition on the property in order to explore alternatives to the demolition.
■ Staff has left messages for the property owner on several occasions to set up a meeting to
discuss alternatives to the demolitions, but heard nothing back.
■ On August 3, 2011, the Landmarks Board voted to hold a public hearing to decide whether to
initiate landmark designation for the property.
Agenda Item #5C Page #1
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation ordinance revisions (effective October of 2006), call for the Landmarks
Board to hold a public hearing to consider initiating landmark designation of a property, as per 9-
11-3, SRC, 1981. The following is an analysis of the consideration to initiate per 9-11-1 (a) and (b),
Legislative Intent, of the Historic Preservation ordinance:
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 building sites, and areas to
enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and
foster knowledge of the City's living heritage".
Although the building appears relatively intact to its original construction, staff considers that there
is no "probable cause" to consider 1135 North Street as being eligible for designation as an
individual landmark based upon the level of alteration of the property's surroundings, and its lack of
significance under the individual landmark criterion, specifically criterion 1. Additionally,
environmental significance has been lost given the shift in the original low density residential
setting to a more urban, non-residential context. This shift in environmental context has
compromised the historic context of the building so that integrity has been lost.
b. "The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the
city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the
public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by
ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be
carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and
structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by
imitating surrounding buildings, but by being compatible with them. "
After detailed analysis, staff considers that while there is some historic and architectural significance
associated with the property, the fact that its environment has been significantly altered diminishes
the historic integrity of the site. Therefore, it does not meet the significance criteria for individual
landmark designation. For this reason staff recommends that the Landmarks Board issue a
demolition permit for the house located at 1135 North Street.
Section 9-11-3 (d) Criteria for Review. States that applications received by a historic preservation
organization or less than all of the property owners pursuant to paragraph 9-11-3(a)(3 or 4), B.R.C.
1981, must use but not be limited to the following criteria. While not required to do so, the board
may consider these criteria in making its decision:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with the
Agenda Item #5C Page #2
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," 9-11-2, Definitions,
and 9-11-3, "City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C.
1981;
Staff considers that there is not "probable cause" to consider 1135 North Street as being
eligible for designation as an individual landmark based upon its general lack of architectural
and historic distinction, the level of alteration of the property's surroundings, and its lack of
significance under the individual landmark criteria, specifically criterion 1. Additionally,
environmental significance has been lost given the shift in the original low density
residential setting to a more urban, non-residential context. This shift in environmental
context has compromised the historic context of the building so that integrity has been lost.
(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;
There are limited staff resources available to process an application for designation of a
property for which there is limited architectural, historic, or environmental significance and
for which there is not owner consent.
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
Several neighbors have expressed support for the designation of this house as a local
landmark.
(4) The buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation;
The property possesses little architectural or historic significance and its integrity has been
compromised by significant changes to the historic environment of the area. The loss of these
buildings will not constitute a significant loss to Boulder's history or architecture.
(5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
Not applicable
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan;
Policy 2.33 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan States that, "Buildings, districts, and
sites of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance will be identified and
protected. The city and county will encourage preservation of such resources through
incentive programs, designation of landmark buildings design review, public
improvements, and other tools. " As demolition is not being proposed, staff does not consider
that protection through landmarking is appropriate given the lack of architectural and
historic significance of the property and the degree to which the area around it has been
eroded the past several decades.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Agenda Item #5C Page #3
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
For the reasons stated above, staff does not consider that protection through landmarking
zvould be appropriate or in the public interest.
Initiations to landmark over a property owner's objection have occurred very rarely in the 37
years of the historic preservation program. Because staff considers this property to have very
little architectural or historic significance and because the area around the property has been so
changed in the past several decades, staff considers initiating landmark designation on this
property inappropriate.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
If the board chooses not to initiate landmark designation of the property, the owner may continue
to develop plans to demolish the house and garage on the property.
If the board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by resolution. A draft
resolution is included in Attachment IL 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
exterior changes to 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:
I: April 6, 2011 Demolition Permit memo to the Landmarks Board for 1135 North Street
II: Draft resolution to initiate
Agenda Item #5C Page #4
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
ATTACHMENT I:
MEMORANDUM
April 61h 2011
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Jessica Vaughn, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building
located at 1135 North Street, per section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code
1981 (HIS2011-00011) for non-landmarked buildings over fifty years old.
STATISTICS:
4. Site: 1135 North Street
5. Date of Construction: 1946
6. Zoning: BT-1 (Business Transitional-1)
7. Owner: Community Hospital Association
8. Applicant: Golden Triangle Construction, Inc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department recommends the Landmarks Board issue a demolition permit for the
house located at 1135 North Street, adopting the staff memorandum dated 4.6.11 as its findings.
Staff will require a Historic American Building Survey level one photographic documentation,
prior to the issuance of the demolition permit.
SUMMARY:
On January 18, 2011, the Planning Department received a demolition permit application for the
removal of the house at 1135 North Street. The building is over fifty years old and is not in a
designated historic district or individually landmarked. The proposed work meets the criteria for
demolition defined under section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981. On February 9, 2011, the Landmarks
Design Review Committee (Ldre) referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public
hearing, finding there was "probable cause" to consider that the building may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark.
A previous demolition permit was issued March 29, 2007, which has since expired.
Agenda Item #5C Page #5
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
After detailed analysis, staff considers that while there is some historic and architectural
significance associated with the property, the fact that its environment has been significantly
altered diminishes the historic integrity of the site. Therefore, it does not meet the significance
criteria for individual landmark designation. For this reason staff recommends that the
Landmarks Board issue a demolition permit for the house located at 1135 North Street.
DESCRIPTION:
The property is located in north Boulder, one block south of the Boulder Community Hospital on
North Street. The 5,674 sq. ft. lot contains the approximately 784 sq. ft. side gabled with hipped
roof addition wood frame vernacular cottage with covered front concrete stoop and exposed
rafters and eaves with craftsman-style ornamentation (see Figure 1: Location Map, and Figure 2:
Assessor Card Photo). While the property still retains its outward appearance as a residential
structure, it is surrounded by medical offices and their associated surface parking lots. 1135
North Street is estimated to have been built in 1946 as shown on the Boulder County Assessor
Card; however, the Historic Building Inventory form estimates a much earlier date of 1900. No
building permit records or insurance maps were found to support the Historic Inventory form's
date. Deed research revealed that the property was platted in 1901 and it began changing hands
in the early 1900's. The Polk's City and County Directory search; however, did not yield a
resident until 1946, when A. C. Yates reportedly resided at 1135 North Street.
Given the type of architecture and detailing, it is possible that the building was built prior to the
1940's. 1135 North Street is a representative example of the modest vernacular frame construction
dwellings commonly erected in Boulder during the early to mid-twentieth century. It is simple in
design and displays minimalist materials and ornamentation.
Building permit records dating back to 1946 indicate that that while alterations have been made to
the house, none were significant. In 1946, an addition was added to the existing structure and in
1947 the house was connected to city water and sewer. A one-car garage was added in 1953, the
rear patio was covered in 1954, a one bedroom addition to the north side of the residence was
added in 1955 and another addition in 1984. The improvements are all clearly evidenced in their
construction and roof configurations.
Agenda Item #5C Page #6
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
r }
Alpine Avenue
4
■ 3
E
1135 North Street
<t. • .
f y.
r
• ca r
p
Figure 1: Location Map, 1135 North Street
Appraised - 19
TIT..
Figure 2: 1135 North Street, 1947 Tax Assessor Photo
Agenda Item #5C Page #7
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
i
`I
4
tti V 'e~ I ~
a ~h r
a III~ii
.7141
h.r
A ~J
Figure 3: 1135 North Street, South (Front) Face, Current Photo, 2011
i ~
Figure 4: 1135 North Street, East Face, Current Photo, 2011
Agenda Item #5C Page #8
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
d
/f r
MOR
~rn~IR r }:S Y~iNY'- MYY~ p' .a1~..~i,kR} ' Y,.. - -
Figure 5: 1135 North Street, North Face, Current Photo, 2011
,j
J~
-
00 goo
Figure 6: 1135 North Street, West Face, Current Photo, 2011
Agenda Item #5C Page #9
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
PURPOSE OF THE BOARD'S REVIEW:
Pursuant to section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981, demolition requests for all buildings built prior to
1940 are required to be reviewed by Ldre. The Ldre is comprised of two members of the
Landmarks Board and a staff member. If during the course of their review, the Ldre determines
that there is "probable cause to consider the property may be eligible for designation as an
individual landmark, the issuance of the permit shall be stayed for up to sixty days from the date
that a completed application is accepted by the city manager, and the permit shall be referred to
the landmarks board for a public hearing." Section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the house proposed for demolition may have significance
under the criteria set forth below, 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 demolition. Section 9-
11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period would expire on August 15, 2011.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that 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 is 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 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.
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 (section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981).
CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
The following is the 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.
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 1135 North Street does not have historic significance under criteria 2
and 3; however, it does have significance under criterion 1.
1. Date of Construction: 1900's
Elaboration: Although research did not reveal a definite date of construction, it can be surmised,
given the outward appearance of the house, including minimal ornamentation and materials, side
Agenda Item #5C Page #10
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
gable roof configuration, and front stoop, that the house bears resemblance to early turn-of-the
century through mid-century residential construction.
1135 North Street is a good representative example of the simple forms of vernacular wood frame
architecture that were erected in Boulder in the early twentieth century.
2. Association with Persons or Events: None observed.
Elaboration: According to the Polk City and County Directories, only a few people resided at
1135 North Street. The first resident was A.C. Yates in 1946. Warren and Mary Waldron
resided at the house beginning in 1949 and continued through 2008 when they sold the
building to the Community Hospital Association.
3. Recognition by Authorities: 1995, Front Range Research Associates
Elaboration: The building was surveyed in 1995 and was identified as being a representative
example of the vernacular dwellings erected in Boulder during the early twentieth century, as
reflected in the simple design, gabled hood, double-hung windows and lack of architectural
details which would distinguish a particular style.
Although the survey gives a date of construction in the early 1900's, the Boulder County
Assessor information gives a date that is much later, 1947. A building at this location is visible
in the 1938 aerial photo; however, it is unclear if the photo is of this actual building.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house at 1135 North Street is architecturally significant under criterion 1.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Early Twentieth Century Vernacular
Elaboration: Although 1135 North Street is not associated with a specific style of architecture,
it is characteristic of the vernacular frame construction found in Boulder that was constructed
during the first half of the 20th century.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None known.
3. Artistic Merit: None observed.
4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed.
5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: There is no environmental significance for 1135 North Street. Given the amount of
redevelopment of the surrounding properties, the low density residential nature and
environmental integrity of the property have been lost.
Agenda Item #5C Page #11
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
1. Site Characteristics: None observed.
2. Compatibility with Site: None observed.
3. Geographic Importance: None observed.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed.
5. Area Integrity: None observed.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD:
1135 North Street is not located within an identified potential historic district, nor has it been
identified as eligible for individual landmarking (see Attachment B: Historic Building Inventors/
Record).
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING AND CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST
OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
Information regarding the existing condition of the building was not included in the application
materials.
ANALYSIS:
Although the building appears relatively intact to its original construction, staff considers that
there is no "probable cause" to consider 1135 North Street as being eligible for designation as an
individual landmark based upon the level of alteration of the property's surroundings, and its
lack of significance under the individual landmark criterion, specifically criterion 1. Additionally,
environmental significance has been lost given the shift in the original low density residential
setting to a more urban, non-residential context. This shift in environmental context has
compromised the historic context of the building so that integrity has been lost.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT:
Staff has not received any communications regarding the demolition permit request for 1135
North Street.
THE BOARD'S DECISION:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have significance under
the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall issue a demolition
permit.
Agenda Item #5C Page #12
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
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 demolition of the building (section 9-11-
23(h), B.R.C. 1981). A 180-day stay period would expire on October 3, 2011.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board issue a demolition permit for 1135 North Street for
the following reasons:
1. 1135 North Street is not eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its
compromised historic and environmental integrity as a result of the degradation of its
setting; and
2. Because of the loss of integrity, 1135 North Street does not contribute to the character of the
neighborhood as an intact representative example of the vernacular residential past with
which it is associated.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Record
B: Directory and Deed Research
C: Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5C Page #13
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
ATTACHMENT A
HISTORIC BUIDING INVENTORY
Auenda Item #5C Page #14
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation NOT FOR FIELD USE
1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203 Eligible _ Nominated
Det. Not Eligible _ Certified Rehab.
HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD Date
PROJECT NAME: Boulder Survey of Historic COUNTY: CITY: STATE ID NO.! 5BL6242
Ptaces-Scattered Resources, 1995 Boulder Boulder
TEMPORARY NO.: 1461.25-1-32-005
CURRENT BUILDING NAME: OWNER: WALDRON MARY f
1135 NORTH ST
BOULDER CO 80304-3310
ADDRESS: 1135 NORTH ST
BOULDER, CO 8=4
TOWNSHIP 1N RANGE 71W SECTION 25 NE 1/4 SE 1/4
HISTORIC )NAME: U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: Boulder
YEAR: 1966 (PR1979) X 7.5' 15'
BLOCK: 3 LOT(S): 5
DISTRICT NAME: ADDITION: Elbridge YR. OF ADDITION: 1899
FILM ROLL NO.: 95B-12 NEGATIVE NO.: LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION:
9Y: Roger Whitacre 19 Boulder City PLng_ ESTIMATE: ACTUAL: 1900
SOURCE:
Boulder County Assesor
USE:
PRESENT:
Residence
HISTORIC:
Residence
CONDITION:
ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE EXCELLENT GOOD
X FAIR DETERIORATING
EXTENT Of ALTERATIONS:
X MINOR MODERATE MAJOR
DESCRIBE:
CONTINUED YES X NO
STYLE: Vernacular Wood Frame STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED
1 DATE(S) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Wood SQ. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
784
INDIVIDUAL: YES X NO
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
One-story, side gable roofed frame dweLLing with Low projection an rear and shed CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT:
roofed porch with triangular braces on rear. Overhanging eaves and exposed YES NO
rafters- WaLls clad with drop siding. Small Low gabled hood over entrance has LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: No
triangular braces, concrete stoop. Off-center, slab door. Double-hung, 1/1-
light windows with plain wood surrounds. NAME:
DATE:
ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? X YES NO
TYPE:
Garage
IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.:
CONTINUED? YES X NO
ADDITIONAL PAGES: YES X NO
Agenda Item #5C Page #15
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: STATE ID NO.. 50L6242
Unknown
ORIGINAL OWNER:
Unknown
SOURCE:
SOURCE:
i
BUILDER/CONTRACTOR:
Unknown
THEME(S):
SOURCE: Urban Residential Neighborhoods,
1858-Present
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY CDESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE):
CONTINUED YES X NO
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSONS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STRUCTURE):
This address does not appear in the 1926 city directory.
CONTINUED YES X NO
SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW):
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS
X REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT
TIER EVALUATION:
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE:
This house is representative of the vernacular dwellings erected in Boulder during the early twentieth century, as
reflected in the simple design, gabled hood, doubte-hung windows, and Lack of architectural details which would
distinguish a particular style,.
CONTINUED YES R NO
REFERENCES CBE SPECIFIC):
Boulder County Assessor records; Boulder City Directories.
CONTINUED YES X NO
SURVEYED BY: R.L. Simmons/T.H. Simmons AFFILIATION: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. DATE: November 1995
Agenda Item #5C Page #16
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
HISTORIC BUILDING RESEARCH SHEET
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 11-35 Y
PROPER AIVIE: YEAR:
STYLE.: A1tC H1'1'h': -
DEVELOPMEN'I-!N EI(31-11=3ORt]001):
RESOURCE CHECKLIST:
( HISTORIC INVENTORY RECORD:
( SANBORN INSURA'N'CE MAP:
MARDEN MAP:
( ADDITIONIPLAT MAP: lf1 d
Rulm)ING PERMITS:
( A55)✓SSOR CARD): (
( PROPERTY DEEDS:
( ZONING (from MapLink):
DA11,Y CAMERA CLIPPINGS:
CII.ADDFN RFFERFNC:F. BOOKS:
PHOTOGRAPHS:
( ) HISTORIC C:ONTF.XT REPORT:
( ) FIELD GUIDE TO AMFR.ICAN HOUSES:
( ) GUIDE TO COLORADO ARCHITECTURE: _
PQLK'S CITY & COUNTY DIRECTORIES
BUSN 1869 -
crrY 1871 I3USN 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
C.:NTY 1916 -
CNTY 1918 - - -
BUSN 1918
CNTY 1921
CNTY 1923
CNTY 1926 - -
CNTY 1928
CNTY 1930
CNTY 1932
CNTY 1935 -
CNTY 1936
CITY 1938
CNTY 1940 tixT
BUSN 1946
CITY 1943 t~
CITY 1946 _ll~ _,-ilo f 164,
CNTY 1947
CITY 1949?
CITY 1951
CITY 1953 -
CITY 1955
CITY 1956 _
CITY 1958
CITY 1959
CITY 1960
CITY 1961
CITY 1962
CITY 1963
CITY 1964 - -
CITY 1965
CITY 1966
CITY 1967
CITY 1968
C1'IY 1969
CITY 1970
CITY 1971 1 VS
~I~/ fr~7ij
CITY 1972!€
CITY 1973 - ~ [Q 1I r
CITY 1974 tl ti
CITY 1975 UI _ -
CI'T'Y 1976 ~W-1 Y _ G f a~~
CITY 1977 I T i -t
CITY 1978 ft 11
CITY 1979 to l
CITY 1980 G . Vkr f { ti/
CITY 1981 y
CITY 1983 1 -
CITY 1984 11 - -
CITY 1985-86 >(l~i.! ~dCr 1'-
CITY 1987 ~i
CITY 1988-89 it
CITY 1989-90 li
CITY 1090-91
CITY 1991
BLUR 1992
Agenda Item #5C Page #18
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
BL
DN V
BL O
BL
CTl
cr,
CP
GI]
Ci'] - - - 7
CIl i
Crl f S
C.' Il a' f
w0
Gr p Q 4 q
iV('7 CL
S
a C~ S ,
C ~
f~ L ~ I
31
z
ATTACHMENT C
ASSESSOR CARD
Agenda Item #5C Page #20
S:IPLANIdatallonaranglHISTIDemos\North. 1135/1135 North Street.doc
Appraised to t h` A.
LOTS BLOCK ADDI
HOUSE No. _ STREET
OWNER
Year Constructed Est. Life is Years -
- - - - -
BOULDER COUNTY REAL F'~
ESTINTATC OF VALUATION
f3UlIvUING lsLAti
11f.11C. PAR-r A HEDt. P,1 R`r n c:AR.M1GH I / 'l
NO. Cubic Fret..-_ - J_..._ 1 / ✓ ' L
Cost per nt Ft
s.... - r 4.
Total Cost
.i _
I r : t x y 40
Garage _ _ - -
Extras
j"I
I ~J
TOTAL..........
........~d ObSOIC4CenCC I
..r. Physical Dep f
Net After Deducting
Ucprcaatian - f - is ° 5.
:.-...'r Utthty Dep _
5
PRP.SENI• VALUE 5 C 3. ( 4 -
DESCRIPTION
CI;•sx of Bldg...... F:,,ena•ur
ConAr.cdon
- Height of Btdldirg
Char. of Const.-~----,~.~. HraYi••g ~ i _ _ _ ----'-i----
Phnnbin _ SUMMARY AN.NLLNL ASSESSMENT
ti-r Ntc❑ IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL
Inlcrinr Flntsh 4,..i L f t _ _ sfRiPrlps »t,ou E
Eiarer ar q! 9 4 T ~ i R DP 5 ''R t.
- I Buildin Permit f i 4
Floors.. L rie. C arng - -
Stories . Barns nr Sheds- 'Orlolmi Cac[ htaptovc,nc ie, 0al 5 194%
d'110 s and Betterments
Plre Rex,tinq tits it of Rep. 0-. -s Zmir,ate of Present Value $ lvit) -
Fe::adat en .._..W........_.. I. A l :p Prk ne Aivr,I d $ 1Ril 4
Agenda Item #5C Page #21
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
,
CLASS OF BUILDING HLIGILT Floor LIGHT DESCRIPTION
]-S,ugle lirsiderto:.. No, of Stories...,.. FlectricitV-- Rt:Ct\15 STORIES
2 -Dupl x........._ FOUNDATION V,'.: Shin to - i -
3-Bungalow. Am. Crt - - CQp<aihon Shingle................. / . .
Brick...........
d-Flat or Terme............................
I ur .uui C.rawrl..._. - Living Room .
i-Apartment House.. CarneTLte........_...._.. Prepared Lratxr._ . Dining Room.-.....................
6-Hot l I.I .\l C GARM E. _ . W..._
11 and . Dinette. - t
W
Cvppcf Kitchen. 1-4] .
,
-Auto Tcunvt Court.... Tilt, . - '
C ,cr tr Tile Coastntcnon- hr e4(ast Nook
9Clflicr Building Foundation - I I.-'T 1 _
- Ct,a Tale l 1I
Httnr. - Iced Ruonr
i 1 -Hospl[al or Sanitarium.....»»...........» -
Slate. Rex f - Bath Boon
11-Bank Bulldin Ad-t-, Sh.uyle
12-The rtrv BASEMENT I I t 1'ailrt Room
Tin
Sim.- R
xm
I3-W irthouse
. Ins IatrJ - - T
li-Faetar}_ Ccl!.r Only SlrepingPorch
IS-Pohla Gera r ~ Quarter S'P5'L1•:
11 -hird "Om
l S t R
g Ilull Sze L_.... Cm,'tRN5 Den.... i Sto-g
SH DS AND ] BAIL . Office r Room ---'r , 14 ._.,T..._. _ _
Two Thirds
I r Y Ho[ oi lee Stati on.... 'llerec Quart Hi p l _ Halls .t.._... ` ...1...
H Haase or. Gr House. I I ,a
19 Puult.v Floust
- LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS -
"A-Barns or Sheds Full........... Man :red 1
-
Cement Floor..,, L-wo Street Paving
Finished W.H., and Ceiling AIle% Pae'inq _ FINISH cr,r eumuer,
L,+r,ndn•-. _
PLUMBING Sidewalks..,.......,......
Curhiny Clrau'.i~hxJ_.. _
Old Styir Water _ Ph"I"ej P}tro, CONSTRUCTION EXTERIOR h•Uxircn _ Smut Sewer Ffscn•d Orntm
Common Brick No. klail, Tuhs. Serniiary Sewer.. . - Papered
Prettied Brick - Nrt'Showrr Rxths Electrlctf _ P.,mcrd or Tinted....._................_
SoftandFloor-
Tile lrek Todres (w
Scone... Glazed Brick Nn Lavatories - 1 lcythanr Hmdwmcl Floor.. _
Gander llhwx Wood Siding__ Nto. I.Iri nnl:e _ Softwood Finish ..dC...~_.._
Concrete. Plata or Block W,,i Shmglrs Nn Laundry Tub _ I f trdwetod Finish
Concrco•. Remforccd. f -
-
Gm•nt S[.xco N,, 'Sink _ . M15CFF LANCOCfS file
t
Steel Frame Kcllastone _ 6anll uv Cletsct ti° M-N, or On}x .
Gee P-1 Si i Ixmrcla... !;ill Board
.
-
Insul fted and \V r.. -
Ad.[- Corrolpited 1rrm R ilfct Shemroek L-.........-f-'-
Tcrr (alt t..._ ' HEATING ('.ahmet
CI-L1RACI TR OF CONST -pile / li okCmses_. Wainscoting. .l .....1
Cheap.. Cumposflinn Paper Benin Cciltrtg Mond Crllm't
I lot A, A _ Indner:uor
Wz,ter Guekl
Steam SkyLights
IYI;A~fARKS
F,n• R s unry................ OUTSIDE TRIM ml- Rrfrle7e,r,gor or Cooler..
'inn.ISr li •~-i~.iin:,1 Nn. Ffrrplatrs 13"V _
Wexxi DnrmerWtrrdrnvs....
Duemn} 1
crs Porches-.............
Terra Co[c,.....
STATE Oil REPAIRS Air
Gore. Iron PllL•L
- -
Agenda Item #5C Page #22
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
ATTACHMENT II
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING THE
DESIGNATION OF 1135 NORTH STREET IN BOULDER, COLORADO
AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on AUGUST 3, 2011 the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation hearing for
1135 North Street,
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 1135 North Street, and
will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the historic preservation ordinance no fewer than
sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty days from the date of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 2011.
This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board minc pr o trinc as of September 7, 2011.
Dated:
Chair, City of Boulder Landmarks Board
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Board
Agenda Item #5C Page #23
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\Demos\North. 1135\1135 North Street.doc
DATE: September 7, 2011
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: James Hewat, Marie Zuzack
SUBJECT: Update Memo
Historic Preservation Ordinance:
Staff and the sub-committee have met to discuss approaches to making changes to the
review process for non-designated demolitions. Discussion has focused on changes to
the definition of demolition in 9-18 of the ordinance. Update at meeting.
Regional Transit District (RTD) Facility adjacent to Union Pacific Depot
Update at meeting.
Valmont Mill
Staff is working on an archaeological discovery plan and a request for proposals an
archaeologist to monitor excavations as part of the clean-up for the Butte.
Historic Preservation Website
Staff is working on revisions to the city's historic preservation program website.
Pending Landmark Applications
Update at meeting.
Planning Board Calendar
See attached.
Stays-of-Demolition Status Summary:
1135 North Street, Expires October 3, 2011
1815 Mapleton Avenue: Expires November 21, 2011
1
Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar
Amended Aug. 23, 2011
Sej)tember 2011 Last Planning Board meeting August 18, 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri sat
1 2 3
Aug 2011 Oct 2011 PB Meeting - Cancelled
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Holiday CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Environmental Advisory BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC Hill
'1st Reading 6400 Arapahoe Annexation and Site Board (EAB)6-8 p.m. Revitaliz
Review (Elaine M.) 1300 Canyon Blvd Ownersl
`2nd Reading Out of City Utility Permits (Karl G.) Group,
10:30-12
LB, 6 p.m. in CC
`2nd Reading Annexation, Initial Zoning, and Site pm
Review at 3015 Kalmia (Harper Hollow) (Karl G.) Grace
`1st Reading DT-5 Code Changes (Louise G.) Lutheral
'Resolution supporting DRCOG Grant Application
(Louise G.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Downtown CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC DDAB, 4 p.m. in Park PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in WBSC
Management Recommended 2012 Budget - 2 hours Central 401 Conference Creekside Room
Commission (Budget Presentation) Room W. Johnson and D. Powell Absent
(DMC) 5:30 in
13th St. Utility Rates & Fees "BVCP Code Changes (Jean
Conference G•)
"Code Changes - Breweries
(Bev J.)
"Wash Village final plat Call-up
(Karl G.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC University Hill Joint PB/BDAB Design Bike
"2nd Reading DT-5 Code Changes Commercial Area Tour, 4:30 p.m.
(Louise G.) Management
Commission
"Aug. 23 Update on SmartRegs & Rental nfHrAMrt Qvim in rr
Licensing Enforcement Study Session
Summary (Aimee K.)
25 26 27 28 29 30
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
"Recommended 2012 Budget - 2 hours
(Follow-up if necessarv)
Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar
October 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri sat
1
Sep 2011 Nov 2011
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
25 26 27 28 29 30 27 28 29 30
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Downtown CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Environmental Advisory PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
Management *1st reading Code Changes - Breweries Board (EAB) 6-8 p.m. *1352 College Use Review
Commission (Bev J) 1300 Canyon Blvd (Jessica V.)
(DMC) 5:30 in
rr *1st Reading BVCP Ordinance and LB, 6 p.m. in CC *955 Broadway Site Review
Code Changes (Susan R.) (Jessica V.)
*1000 Alpine Concept Plan
(Karl G.)
*Community Gardens (Karl G.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC DDAB, 4 p.m. in Muni BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC Hill
*Update to the Zero Waste Master Plan Lobby Revitaliz
(Jamie H.) Ownersl
Group,
10:30-12
pm,
Grace
Lutherai
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC University Hill PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
*2nd Reading 6400 Arapahoe Commercial Area *Boulder Junction TOD Site
Annexation and Site Review (Elaine M.) Management Review (Elaine M.)
Commission
*2nd reading Code Changes - Breweries (UHCAMCI. gam in CC
(Bev J.)
*1st Reading CDOT IGA (Bev J.)
*2nd Reading BVCP Ordinance and
Code Chanqes (Susan R.)
*Urban Wildlife Management Plan
Acceptance (Val M.)
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
*Hold for Open Space Issues
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC
30 31
Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar
November 201
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri sat
1 2 3 4 5
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC Environmental Advisory PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
CANCELED DUE TO ELECTION Board (EAB) 6-8 p.m.
1300 Canyon Blvd
LB, 6 p.m. in CC
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Downtown CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC DDAB, 4 p.m. in Muni BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC {OLIDA'
Management *2nd Reading CDOT IGA (Bev J.) Lobby Hill
Commission
(DMC) 5:30 in Revitaliz
rr. Ownersl
Group,
10:30-12
pm,
Grace
Lutherai
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CC Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC University Hill PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
Commercial Area
Management
Commission
niurAmri o- i.. rr
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC HOLIDAY
CANCELED
27 28 29 30 Oct 2011 Dec 2011
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3
'Boulder's Energy Future (Mary Ann W.) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
LL 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
Community Planning and Sustainability/Planning and Development Services Department Calendar
---December 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri sat
1 2 3
Nov 2011 Jan 2012 PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S "1600 Pearl Site Review
(Elaine M.) - A. Shoemaker
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Recused
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 29 30 31
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Downtown Environmental Advisory BOZA, 5 p.m. in CC Hill
Management Board (EAB) 6-8 p.m. Revitaliz
Commission 1300 Canyon Blvd Ownersl
(DMC) 5:30 in Group,
cc LB, 6 p.m. in CC 10:30-12
pm,
Grace
Lutherai
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
CC SS, 6 p.m. in CC DDAB, 4 p.m. in Muni PB Meeting, 6 p.m. in CC
Boulder's Energy Future (Mary Ann W.) Lobby
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
University Hill HALF
Commercial Area DAY
Management iOLIDA'
Commission
MWrAMM Qam in CC
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
HOLIDAY HALF
DAY
iOLIDA'
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
August 3, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the August 3, 2011 City of Boulder Landmarks Board
meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period of
seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also listen to
the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Mark Gerwing
Kurt Nordback
Liz Payton
Lisa Podmajersky, Chair
John Spitzer
*Tim Plass *Planning Board representative without a vote
STAFF MEMBERS:
Debra Kalish, Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Marie Zuzack, Historic Preservation Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Chair L. Podmajersky declared a quorum at 6:03 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by M. Gerwing, seconded by L. Payton, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0)
the minutes as amended of the July 6, 2011 board meeting.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION
APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING
1135 North Street: Expires October 3, 2011
On a motion by L. Payton, seconded by K. Nordback, the Landmarks Board voted (3-2,
L. Podmajersky and M. Gerwing opposed) to hold a landmark designation initiation
hearing for the property at 1135 North St. at the September 7, 2011 meeting.
1815 Mapleton Avenue: Expires November 21, 2011
Last week the architect indicated to staff that the property owner may be interested in
meeting with staff when he's back in town.
1
5. ACTION ITEMS
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE:
A. Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to construct a 42"
high simulated wrought iron fence at the front of the property at 1001 Spruce Street in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
(HIS20 1 1-00 1 09). Owner: Peter & Lynne Troup. Applicant: Outdoor Craftsmen
Board members were asked to reveal any ex paste contacts they may have had on this item.
M. Gerwing made a site visit and reviewed the project at Ldre.
K. Nordback made a site visit and reviewed the project at Ldre.
L. Payton looked at the property.
L. Podmajersky made a site visit.
J. Spitzer made a site visit.
a
Applicant's Presentation
Scott Deemer, Highway 52, Erie, CO, President of Outdoor Craftsmen, spoke in support of a
landmark alteration certificate for a simulated wrought-iron fence and a new buff sandstone front
path.
Public Hearing
No one spoke to this item.
Motion
On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by K. Nordback, the Landmarks Board voted (5-0) to deny
the proposal for a simulated wrought-iron fence and new path and steps (as shown on drawings
dated June 27, 2011) at the property located at 1001 Spruce Street in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District and directed the applicant to reinstall and maintain the original paving and configuration
and grade of the path from the sidewalk to the porch, including the existing three slab steps. The
Landmarks Board adopted the memorandum dated August 3, 2011 as the findings of the board,
as amended:
1. The proposed work will damage exterior architectural features of the subject
property within an historic district;
2. The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district;
3. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures are incompatible with the
character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic district;
4. The request is generally inconsistent with Guideline 2.5.1 and 2.6.2 of the General
Design Guidelines.
5. The request is generally inconsistent with Guideline VI.A.3.of the Mapleton Hill Design
Guidelines.
The applicant should return to Ldre or staff for approval of any changes to the retaining wall that
was previously approved by Ldre.
2
6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. 11'x' & Pearl and Junction Place updates
B. Demolition ordinance update - The subcommittee is looking at possible amendments to
the definition of demolition to address the issue of proposed demolition of building additions
less than 50 years of age and will test them on project examples.
C. Update Memo
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK ,
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
b
Approved on September 7, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Chairperson
3
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD/ LANDMARKS BOARD ACTION MINUTES
August 18, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Aaron Brockett
Willa Johnson
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Chair
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: N~*y
Bill Holicky
LANDMARKS BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS:
Mark Gerwing
Kurt Nordback
Liz Payton
Lisa Podmajersky, Chair
John Spitzer
STAFF PRESENT:
David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer
Elaine McLauglin, Senior Planner
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II
Heidi Schum, Civil Engineer I
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6.05 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Wetland Permit, LUR20 1 1-00044, 4474 North Broadway
The board did not call up these items.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of two requests related to redevelopment of the former
Daily Camera site (1048 Pearl and 1023 Walnut) into 160,000 s.f. of commercial office and
retail space in two buildings connected by a bridge over the alley:
o Concept Plan Review Comments from Planning Board
o Concept Level Landmarks Alteration Certificate Approval from Landmarks
Board
Applicant: Victoria Canto
Property Owner: Karlin Pearl Street LLC
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin and J. Hewat presented the item to the board. Questions from the Board to Staff
T. Plass questioned whether the 61 ft height on building across the street and the 55 ft height
on the proposed building are measured in the same way? Staff responded the heights are
from the GIS database and are likely measured 25' of the building to the low point.
T. Plass questioned the view sheds and whether alleys represent significant view sheds?
Staff responded the current situation is already blocked, so it isn't considered significant. The
significant view shed is from Pearl Street.
K. Nordback questioned the air lease and what it means when the 20 years are up? Staff
responded that the existing lease has been renewed once and likely to be renewed by future
councils. There is a payment for the lease.
At. Young questioned what the parking requirements are? Staff responded the building is in
the Central Area General Improvement District that only requires parking for residential, so
there isn't a parking requirement. But the applicant is likely to provide it for Class A office
space.
L. Podmajersky asked for clarification if the height was 49', specifically on the Pearl Street
side. Staff responded that the building is higher on the Pearl Street side and would be
measured independently. The shade structure on the roof and has to be considered as part of
the overall height, therefore included in the 55' overall height.
L. Podmajersky asked about the open space requirement. Staff responded it is 10-20% in
DT5. There is an allowance known as a Land Use Intensity Modification due to the
proximity to things like the mall. It allows the applicant to reduce it 100% if they meet the
criteria.
L. Podmajersky asked how high at street face the new non-contributing building located
across the street is? Staff responded that it is likely 36-38 feet, possibly a little taller.
J. Spitzer questioned whether the ground level plan outlined on page A2, is in the spirit of
30 feet widths at the storefront level? Staff responded that the Landmark Board's purview is
limited to the exterior of building. It is the applicant's choice to design the interior.
M. Gerwing asked if the bridge on the alley is the same width and height as the existing
one? Staff responded yes, that it is 15ft high through the alley for fire access.
L. Payton asked about the current building's FAR? Staff was not able to provide that
information during the meeting.
L. Payton questioned the community benefit modifications? Staff in responded that
community benefit is enacted at annexation, but there is a potential code change that will
potentially allow an additional 1.0 FAR for non-residential, if the housing linkage fee is paid.
L. Payton questioned what staff is doing to ensure this is a vibrant urban space? Staff
responded the applicant will need to strongly consider the corner to create value for the
community.
A. Brockett asked what would be the amount of the housing linkage fee, if the DT-5 code
change goes through? Staff responded it has not been calculated yet.
K. Nordback asked if the parking was included in the FAR calculation? Staff responded that
everything above grade counts, below grade does not. There is loading space above grade,
with approximately 7 loading spaces and carshare.
L. Podmajersky asked to what extent the city can make requirements about how large the
office spaces or number of tenants can be in the building? Staff responded that the code
doesn't dictate what type of retail can go into the building, the market does.
M. Gerwing asked if the staff did an analysis of the alley in regards the design guidelines
and use? Staff responded that analysis of the alley was limited but does take into
consideration the Downtown Design Guidelines section on alley design.
Applicant Presentation
Vicki Canto, Vice President of Development and Matt Sewabb, founder of Karlin Real Estate
and Chris Shears, Project Architect, presented the item to the board.
Board Questions for the Applicant
K. Nordback asked where the entrances will be for the street level retail, from lobby or
street? Applicant: It will likely be from the street, with the office space entrances from the
lobby.
W. Johnson asked for the applicant to explain the arcade/overhang on 11th. Applicant: The
intension is to make the storefront as transparent as possible and it may be better to set back
the building as part of the solution to handle the NE corner.
W. Johnson asked the applicant as to how committed they are to public having access to the
rooftop? Applicant: that isn't known yet.
W. Johnson asked if the potential tenants are known and what scale and type? Applicant:
Tenants want larger floor plates, but there have been no commitments thus far.
W. Johnson asked if the Walnut Street office space have below grade office space?
Applicant: Yes, it is a possible alternative.
T. Plass asked if they considered incorporating the existing building versus demolishing it?
Applicant: It was considered with the Walnut Street building, but not possible due to the
issues with the buildings on the east and west. They are likely to reuse the structure of the
building on Walnut.
D. Powell asked by whom the rooftop space, beyond the cafe, will be used or leased?
Applicant: A good deal will be used by tenants, except for the Walnut side, which will have
urban agriculture/green roof or storm water detention. Could it be a restaurant? Applicant:
Yes.
L. Podmajersky asked how committed they are to not having financial institutions in retail
spaces? Applicant: It is not the intention, because not best use for Pearl Street.
L. Podmajersky asked if they considered smaller modular buildings to follow more
traditional patterns and offer more variety and diversity. Applicant: That is not likely for the
potential tenants.
L. Payton asked what is the goal of the building? Applicant: Goal is both economic and
contextual, based on the needs of the community.
K. Nordback questioned whether there are plans/changes for the walkway between Walnut
and Pearl? Applicant: It needs work, but they will be studying and working on the design.
M. Gerwing asked if they considered plainer construction versus mass? Applicant: The
process starts with larger forms, then the planes and combination of 2 best approaches.
A. Brockett inquired about how the automated parking will work and whether it will be
available to tenants and visitors? Applicant: It is contingent upon cost, soil and structure
issues.
Public Hearing
1. Hugh Moore, Main Street, Gold Hill, 80302. Chair of Historic Boulder. Representing
Historic Boulder, Moore spoke in reneral support the concept as proposed, but suggested
the NE corner be less abrupt at 11 ` and Pearl, as it will hide the view of the Flatirons.
2. David Hose, 900 Pearl #201. Owner of Tajona/Resident of Tajona building. He likes the
project, but has concerns about the 300 parking spots, as it will cause significant traffic
issues.
3. Elizabeth Allen. She spoke in opposition because the community meeting wasn't
representative of the community, from her assessment, it was only the people that will
benefit from the building who were in attendance.
4. William Shutkin, 2103 Mapleton. He spoke in support of the project so that Boulder
remains a leader in urban design.
5. Phil Shull, 497 Pearl Street. Spoke in general support of the project though expressed
issues with the alley, concern that the building is too static, and recommended that the
corner be revised.
6. Catherine Scheweiger, 628 Maxwell. She expressed that the historic district should
have been excluded from the FAR bonus, the building is too large for the historic district
and won't contribute to the streetscape.
7. Ed Byrne, 250 Arapahoe #30. He asked the board to support the project.
8. Gwen Dooley, Plan Boulder County. She questioned the demonstrated need for the
amount of office space, whether the transportation/parking be supported, noted that the
massing is misleading and questioned whether the building will cast a permanent shadow.
She also noted that the form is too modern to fit in with the historic scale and asked if the
Camera building will be honored somehow in the new building?
9. Kevin Patrick McCarthy, 733 Pearl Street. He questioned whether the uniqueness and
vision is being addressed and was dismayed that having no parking wasn't an option. He
also expressed concerns about the urban canyon affect and suggested backing the
building away from the street to let light in.
10. Adrian Sopher. He noted that the conditions of approval on page 43 of 45, 2b and 2c
are contradictory to allowing the view of the flatirons.
Applicant Rebuttal
The applicant did not have any questions or comments in response.
Adjourn of the Landmarks Board
On a motion by K. Nordback, seconded by J. Spitzer, the Landmarks Board approved 5-0 to
adjourn the meeting until the September 6 Landmarks Board meeting
Board Discussion
Mass and Scale
In summary of the discussion, the board found the massing and height acceptable on the Walnut
side, but there were concerns with the Pearl Street side. There were a wide variety of opinions
regarding this aspect, ranging from the possibility of the four stories being too heavy to it being
acceptable. The 30' bays are satisfactory under the circumstances. It was unanimous that the
building needs to be unique, in line with the times, with suburb detailing and attention to detail.
The windows were specifically cited as an item that should not be generic. The board had
consensus that the glass box on NE corner does not work as currently configured. The board
varied on the range of views for how the corner could be utilized, but was in agreement that the
corner is important. There was consensus that the west side glass box is better suited to the
building and vital public space. The roof top opportunity is important for public use. It was asked
to use cues from the historic buildings and from the fact the site was the home of the city's
newspaper.
Viewshed
The board felt the street doesn't function properly now, so the new building should to come up to
the street to continue the flow from the Mall. It was suggested to take cues from Tom's
Tavern/Salt, as that entry gives a symmetrical aspect at an angle and steps down. This would also
create harmony at that intersection. However, it was noted that the corner doesn't need glass to
preserve the view. This could also be an opportunity to present new views on rooftop. It was
emphasized that the applicant should not take away from the meeting that the board does not care
about the view.
Alley/loth Street Walkway
There was unanimous agreement that the alley needs a management plan. In regards to the bridge,
the board varied on its opinion as to whether it is appropriate, too wide, too heavy and uninviting.
One recommendation was to light it up to bring more life to the area.
Parking
The board varied on its opinion of the parking. Some felt it would be best to look at other options
to get people to the office, such as bike share, other garages in the area, or a bus like Crispin
Porter, instead of having parking at all. Others found the automated parking to be an intriguing
way to address the below grade parking and retail space. In either situation, it was agreed that
having real trees planted, especially by the plaza, would be good.
Additional Comments
It was recommended that the building should memorialize in some way, the Daily Camera
newspaper, or highlight the evolution of the corner. It was suggested to be creative, not with just a
framed picture. Some examples were to have historic headlines in the cement or old papers lining
the lobby, or an informational display.
Applicant Rebuttal
The applicant did not have any questions or comments in response.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
1. Sept 1 - 2 Board members will be absent, so the meeting may change dates.
2. D. Powell not in on 15th of September
r
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
APPROVED BY
lk-
Board Chair
DATE