6C - 12.03.14 - 445 College Ave
M E M O R A N D U M
December 5, 2014
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Angela Smelker, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of the proposed designation of the
property at 445 College Ave. as an individual local historic
landmark per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981
(HIS2014-00085).
STATISTICS:
1.Site: 445 College Ave.
2.Date of Construction: 1963
3.Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low)
4.Lot Size: 38,488 sq. ft.
5.Owner George and Stephanie Stark
6.Applicant: Landmarks Board
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board disapprove the proposed individual local
historic landmark designation for the property at 445 College Ave. for the following
reasons:
The applicant has diligently explored alternatives to demolition of the buildings
as suggested in § 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981, including consensual landmark
designation, construction of an addition to the house, modification of the house in
a manner that would not require demolition review, and relocating the house.
Through the exploration of alternatives to demolition, the owners have
determined that preserving the existing building does not meet their goal of
providing an accessible house and maximizing economic support for their
differently abled son.
In this instance, tinterest in their property includes providing a home
for their son that meets his needs.
Landmarking the property over the owners objection, in this instance, does not
draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest
and is inconsistent with the intent of § 9-11-1(b), B.R.C. 1981.
The Landmarks Board has rarely recommended landmark designation over an
and then only for properties that meet the criteria for
designation at a very high level.
This disapproval would be subject to call up by City Council within 45 days of the
chooses not review the decision, a
demolition permit will issue as the stay-of-demolition expired on Oct. 23, 2014.
However, staff will require HABS Level documentation including photographs and
measured drawings of the building prior to issuance of a building permit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
I move that the Landmarks Board disapprove the designation of the property at 445 College Ave.
as an individual local historic landmark, finding that although, pursuant to Sec. 9-11-1(a),
B.R.C. 1981, the proposal would protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building of the city
reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons, it does not meet the legislative intent of Section 9-
11-1(b) in that approving the application would not draw a reasonable balance between private
property rights and the public interest. I further move that the Landmarks Board adopt this staff
memorandum as findings of the Board, order staff to issue the demolition permit and recommend
that prior to issuance of the demolition permit, staff require the applicant to submit to CP&S staff
for recording with Carnegie Library
:
A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property;
1.
Measured elevation drawings of all faces of the buildings depicting existing conditions,
2.
fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans; and
Black and white medium format archival quality photographs of all exterior elevations
3..
SUMMARY:
On Oct. 1, 2014, the Landmarks Board voted to initiate landmark designation for the
property located at 445 College Ave. (3-2, M. Gerwing and K. Remley opposed) The
purpose of this review is for the Board to determine whether the proposed
designation of the property at 445 College Ave. conforms with the purposes and
Purpose and Legislative Intent,City Council
standards of Sections 9-11-1, and 9-11-2,
May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,
of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
On Mar. 26, 2014, the Community Planning and Sustainability Department received a
application to demolish the house at 445 College Ave. Staff referred the application to
Agenda Item # 6C Page 2
the Landmarks Board for a public hearing,
On June 4, 2014, the Landmarks Board imposed a stay-of-demolition for a period of
up to 180 days in order to seek alternatives to the demolition.
During the stay-of-demolition, staff met with the applicant on several occasions to
discuss alternatives to the demolition of the buildings, including landmark
designation, constructing an addition to the house, modifying the house in a manner
that would not require demolition review, relocation of the house and combination of
the lots through a lot-line elimination. The owner conducted several site visits and
undertook a Pre-Application review to identify site constraints and opportunities. As
stated in the analysis section of this memo, none of these options were considered
feasible universally accessible house and to
See Attachments D and F: Materials
maximize future economic support for their son.
from the owners and their architect.
Staff finds that the property has architectural and historic significance and may be
eligible for individual landmark designation pursuant to Section 9-11-1(a) B.R.C.
However, staff also finds
would be inconsistent with Section 9-11-1(b) of the historic preservation ordinance.
City Council made clear in Section 9-11-1(b) that
every old building in the city but instead to draw a reasonable balance between
historic and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and
structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other
alternatives
their son with a universally accessible home.
Staff is concerned that the designation of a building that does not meet a high
standard of significance over the owner would not represent a reasonable
balance of
cultural, historic, and architectural heritage.
Staff recommends that the Board find that the designation of the house at 445 College
Ave. does not conform to the purposes and standards of the historic preservation
ordinance and deny the application, adopting this staff memorandum as findings of
the Board.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The one-story frame and brick house at 445 College Ave. features a low-pitch front gable
roof with wide, overhanging eaves, exposed rafters and open-gable carport with
exposed trusses and simple square, wooden column supports. The façade of the house is
clad in wooden board-and-batten siding that is painted blue with single, square
casement window located at the gable end. The slope of the roof extends west, creating
Agenda Item # 6C Page 3
an asymmetrical building mass. Three sliding glass doors are located on the east end of
this eleva
from the southeast corner of the house to the southeast corner of the carport and along
the east and west sides of the carport. The east and west walls are of brick construction
and run perpendicular to the steeply north sloping lot.
445 College Ave.
Figure 1. The map above correctly shows the property at 445 College Ave.
The map in prior staff memoranda incorrectly depicts the property encompassing Lots
11, 12 and 13 of the Kecoughtan Hills Subdivision. This was due to an error in the GIS
software, which does not differentiate between lots if the property has been historically
owned by a single owner. Lots 12 and 13 are legally separate lots and do not contain any
buildings; the house at 445 College Ave. (Lot 11) is situated on a 12,031 sq. ft. lot. The
only property to be considered by the Board in this hearing is the structure on the
See Attachment C: Original Plans.
property at 445 College Ave.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 4
Figure 2. Original drawings showing house designed for Lot 11, Kecoughtan Hills Subdivision, 1961.
In October 2014, staff was notified that the original plans for the house at 445 College
Ave. were located at the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History. The plans are signed
by Hobart Wagener and show that, with the exception of a single, square casement
window on the façade (which was added at an unknown date), the house was
remains largely intact from its 1963 date of
construction.
Hobart Wagener is recognized as a prominent modernist architect who practiced in
Boulder from 1950 until his death in 1985. He worked with James M. Hunter prior to
launching his own firm in 1953. Over the course of his career, he designed over two
hundred public and private buildings including St. John's Episcopal Chapel, First
Methodist Sanctuary, Fairview High School, Presbyterian Manor Apartments, Fruehauf
Garden Center, and the First National Bank. He also designed the University of
Colorado Kittredge Dormitories and Williams Village. The Labrot House (819 6 St.) and
th
the Green Shield Insurance Building (900 28 St.) are among his best known buildings
th
and both are designated as individual landmarks.
The owners require universal accessibility in and around the house, which will require
ramping, an accessible parking space and an elevator to provide access between the two
stories. The building, in its current configuration, is not accessible: the roof of the carport
is too low to accommodate an ADA van; the concrete slab of the carport is sloped,
creating a hazardous condition in inclement weather; the path to the main entrance (east
elevation) is narrow and uneven; and the deck on the east side is raised. Schemes for the
Agenda Item # 6C Page 5
construction of an addition at the south or east elevations have been explored, but
constructing in these locations would likely require continuing the two-story
configuration where a one level floor plan is desired to achieve the accessibility required
by the Americans with Disabilities Act inside and around the house.
Public Hearing Before the Landmarks Board
Section 9-11-5(c) ,of the historic preservation
ordinance specifies that in their review of an application for local landmark designation,
Legislative IntentCity Council
the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 , and 9-11-2
May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts
ANALYSIS OF LANDMARK CRITERIA:
9-11-1: Legislative Intent states:
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by
D
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
The City Council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in
E
the city but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights
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.
The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new
F
construction on landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board shall follow relevant city policies, including,
without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled, and creative
approaches to renovation.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 6
City Council may Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the City Council may by ordinance:
D
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;
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;
Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites,
buildings, structures, or features which are contained in two or
more geographically separate areas, having a special character and
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value that are united
together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics; and
Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site
or district.
Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all
E
the requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city.
To assist in the interpretation of the historic preservation ordinance, the Landmarks
Board has adopted significance criteria to use when evaluating applications for
Attachment A: Significance Criteria.
individual landmarks. The criteria are included in
The board may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application.
Findings must be adopted within 45 days of the hearing date. Should the board
disapprove the application, the board must notify City Council of that action within 30
days of the hearing date. City Council may call up a decision disapproving a
designation. Should an application be disapproved, the same application may not be
submitted for a period of one year.
If the board finds that the proposed designation conforms to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2,
B.R.C. 1981, 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 45 days) for a public hearing. The
public hearing before City Council must be held within 100 days of the Landmark
decision recommending designation.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 7
ANALYSIS:
provided below.
A.Does the proposed application protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and
areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local,
state, or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of
the past?
Staff finds that the proposed application would perpetuate a building and site of the
city reminiscent of past eras and persons important in local history. Staff considers
that the application may meet the historic and architectural criteria for individual
landmark designation as outlined below, which was adopted to assist in the
interpretation of this section of the ordinance:
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 445 College Ave. meets historic significance under criteria 1,
2 and 3.
Date of Construction: 1963
Elaboration: The building permit and tax assessor card indicate the building was
constructed in 1963.
2.Association with Persons or Events: William and Elizabeth Kellogg
Elaboration: William and Elizabeth Kellogg owned the property from the time of the
an influential in early childhood education.
3.Development of the Community: Kecoughtan Hills
Elaboration: The Kecoughtan Hills subdivision was platted in 1961 by Henry Vincent
Ellwood, Lelia Weymouth Ellwood, William Weymouth Ellwood and Margaret B.
Ellwood. Penfold Realty was the exclusive agent for the Kecoughtan Hills development,
and local Modernist architect Hobart Wagener was commissioned to design ten houses,
ranging from $20,000 to $40,000. The simple -
designed to integrate into the dramatic sites, and were unified through the use of low
gables, wide, overhanging eaves, porches and exposed beams. For unknown reasons,
only three of the ten houses were developed by Penfold Realty. In total, ten houses were
constructed between 1963 and 1974, including the Damman and McConnell Houses (450
and 460 College Ave.), designed by Modernist architect Charles Haertling. Kecoughtan
Hills is an intact example of a notable mid-century development that retains much of its
original character.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 8
4.Recognition by Authorities: None observed.
Survey of Modern
Elaboration: This building was not included in the 2000
Architectural Structures in Boulder 1947-1977
. It is unclear why the buildings in this
subdivision were not included in this study. -
six of the most significant buildings of the [1947- Hobart Wagener is
-WWII period in
Boulder and designed over 200 buildings. Of the 66 buildings examined in the
survey, 10 were designed by Wagener, two of which have been designated as
individual landmarks.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 445 College Ave. meets architectural significance under
criteria 1 and 2.
1.Recognized Period or Style: Modern
Elaboration: The house is an example of mid-twentieth century simple architectural
-
and-batten siding, exposed beams and large windows. The prominence of the carport
on the otherwise unadorned façade exemplifies the importance of the automobile in
mid-century residential design. The house is closed to the street and opens to the
north with expansive plate glass and balcony. The open design of the house is
consciously integrated into its site.
2.Architect or Builder of Prominence: Hobart Wagener
Elaboration: The house was designed by local architect Hobart Wagener (see figure
2). The Kecoughtan Hills subdivision, platted in 1961, was initially intended to be
developed exclusively by the Penrose Realty Company. Hobart Wagner designed ten
-Three of the houses were completed
(including 445 College Avenue), and the rest of the lots were sold individually.
Wagener practiced architecture in Boulder from 1950 until 1985. Wagener designed
over two hundred public and private buildings including St. John's Episcopal
Chapel, First Methodist Sanctuary, Fairview High School and Presbyterian Manor
Apartments. The Green-Shield Insurance Building and LaBrot House are designated
as local landmarks.
3.Artistic Merit: While the house was built according to drawings by Hobart Wagener,
it is one of his simplest and least distinguished house designs.
4.Example of the Uncommon: None observed.
5.Indigenous Qualities: None observed.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 9
B.Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values,
stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of
Staff finds that the proposed application would maintain an appropriate setting and
environment for the building. However, the two lots to the east are not included in the
application and could be developed without review by the Historic Preservation
program, potentially changing the setting of the subject property. Staff does not consider
that landmark designation of 445 College Avenue would significantly stabilize the
neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 445 College Ave. meets environmental significance under
criteria 1, 2 and 5.
1.Site Characteristics: The lot features mature landscaping, including large Pine trees.
2.Compatibility with Site: The buildings in the Kecoughtan Hills subdivision were
designed to blend into the rugged hillside and take advantage of scenic views. The
house at 445 College Ave. is carefully integrated into the steep slope of the site.
3.Geographic Importance: None observed.
4.Environmental Appropriateness: The property is complementary to its surroundings
and is consciously situated on the steeply sloped lot.
5.Area Integrity: The Kecoughtan Hills subdivision was platted in 1961 and retains
much of its original character. The houses, each consciously designed to integrate
into the dramatic sites, create a harmonious character with abundant mature
vegetation.
C.Does the proposed application draw a reasonable balance between private property rights
and the public interest
by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be
carefully weighed with other alternatives?
While the house at 445 College Avenue is an interesting representative example of mid-
century modern architecture and possesses architectural, historic and environmental
significance,
Agenda Item # 6C Page 10
simplicity of design and lack of distinctive architectural elements usually associated with
Hobart Wagener do not distinguish the house as one of the architects more
sophisticated or successful buildings.
During the course of the stay-of-demolition the owner has explored alternatives to
demolishing the house and making the building accessible for their son who suffers from
a major disability. The challenges associated with this situation have led the owners to
conclude that providing accessibility so their son so he can age in place at 445 College
See Attachments D
Avenue takes precedence over the possibility of preserving the house.
and F: Materials from the Owners and their Architect.
There has been limited public support for the landmark designation of the property.
Seven neighbors in the immediate neighborhood have spoken against the designation of
this property, both in written form and at public hearings. A letter dated November 19,
th
2014, from the Board of Directors of Historic Boulder, Inc. opposes the proposal, finding
that the significance of this property does not justify landmarking over the owners
objection. No public comment has been received supporting landmark designation over
See Attachment G: Public Comment.
In the history of the historic preservation program, individual landmark designations
.
Of the 168 designated individual landmarks since 1980 (1974 to 1979 records do not
clearly identify the initiator), 157 were initiated by the property owner. Four were
initiated by Historic Boulder, one by the Modern Architecture Preservation League
(Bandshell), and six by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Of these
designations, five are known to have beejection:
1980: 2032 14th Street Boulder Theater
1990: 646 Pearl St Arnett-Fullen House
1998: 1949 Pearl Street Campbell Grocery
2007: 1936 Mapleton Avenue Frakes House
2007: 3231 11 Street Chambers Cottage
th
Given this, staff does not
property would be inappropriate and that, in this circumstance, designation of the
property would not meet the legislative intent of balancing private property rights and
the public interest as stated in 9-11-
Agenda Item # 6C Page 11
FINDINGS
The Landmarks Board finds, that, although the property does meet the significance
,
criteria for landmark designationthe relative simplicity of design and lack of distinctive
architectural elements usually associated with Hobart Wagener buildings do not
Likewise, in this case, the historic and environmental significance of the property is not
so high as to outweigh providing an accessible
home for their son.
Based upon this information, the application and evidence presented, the proposed
designation would not be consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance in that it would not draw a reasonable balance between private
architectural heritage (9-11-1(b), B.R.C. 1981).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
B: Tax Assessor Card
C: Original Plans for 445 College Ave., 1961
D: Current Photographs
E: Letter from the Starks
F: Materials from Stephen Sparn
G: Public Comment Received Oct. 1 to Nov. 21
Agenda Item # 6C Page 12
Attachment A: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures
for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of
heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as
it deems necessary for its own organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria
have been adopted by the board to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and
equitable manner.
Historic Significance
The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be the site of
a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political,
economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the
structure.
Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state, or local.
Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to an
institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some cases
residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places which
demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to
maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder Historical
Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schooland, etc), State
Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L. Olmsted, or others in
published form as having historic interest and value.
Other, if applicable.
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen,
a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally,
state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development; contain
Agenda Item # 6C Page 13
elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant
innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style,
Historic American Building Survey Criteria
i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by,
Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The History of Architectural Style
(Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture
(Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published source of universal or local analysis
of a style.
Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or builder who is
recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally.
Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent visual
quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship that are
representative of a significant innovation.
Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area.
Other, if applicable.
Environmental Significance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the
protection of the unique natural and man-made environment.
Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation.
Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or other
qualities of design with respect to its site.
Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it
represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community.
Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is situated in a
manner particularly suited to its function.
Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental importance and
continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of context might not qualify
under other criteria.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 14
Attachment B: Tax Assessor Card
Tax Assessor Card Photograph, 445 College Ave., 1963.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 15
Agenda Item # 6C Page 16
Agenda Item # 6C Page 17
Attachment D: Original Plans for 445 College Ave., 1961
Agenda Item # 6C Page 18
Agenda Item # 6C Page 19
Agenda Item # 6C Page 20
Agenda Item # 6C Page 21
Agenda Item # 6C Page 22
Agenda Item # 6C Page 23
Agenda Item # 6C Page 24
Attachment D: Current Photographs
445 College Ave., South façade, 2014.
445 College Ave., West elevation, 2014.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 25
445 College Ave., East elevation, 2014.
445 College Ave., North elevation, 2014.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 26
445 College Ave., Non-historic accessory building 2014.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 27
Attachment E: Letter from the Starks dated Nov. 17, 2014
Agenda Item # 6C Page 28
Attachment F: Materials from Stephen Sparn dated Nov. 17, 2014
Agenda Item # 6C Page 29
Agenda Item # 6C Page 30
Agenda Item # 6C Page 31
Structural Report
Agenda Item # 6C Page 32
Agenda Item # 6C Page 33
Agenda Item # 6C Page 34
Agenda Item # 6C Page 35
Agenda Item # 6C Page 36
Attachment G: Public Comment Received Oct. 1 to Nov. 21, 2014
Inger Barron
430 College Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
October 30, 2014
Members of the Landmarks Board
James Hewat & Marcy Cameron
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
might be the work of Hobart Wagener, it is not a good example and is in very poor condition. It
would not be cost effective to restore it.
Please do not landmark this house against the wishes of the owners and the neighbors.
I plan to attend the December 3 meeting to voice this opinion.
Thank you for your consideration,
Inger Barron
Agenda Item # 6C Page 37
Robert Barron
430 College Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
October 30, 2014
Members of the Landmarks Board,
James Hewat & Marcy Cameron
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
I have lived diagonally across the street from 445 College since 1993. As a long term resident of
Boulder (since 1975), a long term member of the neighborhood, and a long term resident of a similar
house, I feel somewhat uniquely qualified to comment about the 445 College house and its
oppose
significance to our neighborhood and Boulder in general. I forcing a landmark designation on
445 College for the following reasons:
(1) The existing house is in very poor condition just as our house was when I purchased it in 1993. Energy
efficiency, accessibility, and even basic safety features like bedroom egress are not up to current codes
and standards. I know from personal experience how long and costly a process it is to take an old
poorly built house and work to re-make it into something that is up to modern standards. After 15
years of projects, we still have lots of areas with single pane windows, two prong outlets, stairs too
steep for code, and insufficient insulation. It is unrealistic to ask the Starks to bring 445 College up to
current standards.
(2) I have seen no evidence that 445 College was designed by Hobart Wagener. Even if it was shown to a
Hobie Wagener house, it is not a landmark. Wagener designed over 200 buildings according to his
obituary. Of that body of work, 445 College is not iconic and certainly does not represent his best
work. Landmarks should be real landmarks: unique and something to be treasured, not just another
mediocre example of a large body of work.
(3) The Kelloggs (former residents of 445 College) were wonderful neighbors and delightful people. That
said, they were not unique members of the community. I have worked at NCAR for 36 years and
continue to marvel at the wonderful scientists that inhabit the halls of NCAR, as well as NOAA, NIST,
and CU. William Kellogg was certainly a very accomplished scientist, but in no way unique amongst
the large scientific community in Boulder. It is unreasonable to landmark houses in Boulder just
because a scientist lived there. There is no need to preserve 445 College on the basis that Will Kellogg
lived there.
(4) Neither the neighbors nor the owners want 445 College to be designated as a historic landmark. The
city should have a serious, compelling, outstanding, gigantic reason to force a landmark designation on
a property against the wishes of the owners and neighbors. No such reason exists for 445 College.
Please do not landmark 445 College.
Sincerely,
Robert Barron
Agenda Item # 6C Page 38
Members of the Landmarks Board, James Hewat & Marcy Cameron,
I attended the public meeting of the Landmarks Board on Oct. 1 and addressed the board
regarding the decision to demolish or designate the house at 445 College Ave. as historically
significant. I spoke at this meeting, making the points noted in my letter to the board of Sept. 9,
2014, reaffirming my opposition to historic designation and support for allowing the Stark family
to proceed with demolition of the house. In this letter I again reaffirm this position for the reasons
noted earlier:
(1) The existing house is very poor condition and is of dubious historical value if it is indeed
the work of Hobart Wagener, it is not one of his better designs, as pointed out by the Landmarks
staff researcher. Moreover, it has been modified in the course of the years and thus is no longer in
its original state.
;ϮͿŽĚĞƐƚ
ĂŶĚƋƵŝƚĞŝŶŬĞĞƉŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚǁŝƚŚŝƚƐŵŝdžŽĨĞĂƌůŝĞƌĂŶĚŵŽƌĞ
ŵŽĚĞƌŶƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂůůŽĨǁŚŝĐŚďůĞŶĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶďĂĐŬĚƌŽƉ͘dŚĞ^ƚĂƌŬƐŚĂǀĞƚƌŝĞĚ͕
ƵŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůůLJ͕ƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉƉůĂŶƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŵŽĚŝĨLJƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞƚŽĨŝƚƚŚĞŝƌŶĞĞĚƐ͘
(3) If unable to proceed with their building plans the Stark family may be forced to sell the property.
Possible future investors in this property, which includes three building sites, may pursue much
greater housing density or building mass, which would negatively impact the area. Incorporating the
existing structure into a massive mega-mansion and calling it a remodel would hardly be a desirable
outcome.
(4) At a neighborhood gathering in August, no one voiced opposition
demolition of the existing house. Indeed, several neighbors appeared at the Sept. 3 meeting of the
Landmarks Board to voice their support of their plans. The Kellogg heirs have not expressed
opposition to demolition.
Again we feel that it is time to move on, that the Landmarks Board should follow the
recommendations of their staff to allow demolition. Just because a structure is old does not mean it is
worth preserving, and, as noted by Mr. Gerwing, only in exceptional cases should historical
designation override the wishes of the property owner and his/her neighbors. A prompt decision of
the Landmarks Board to permit demolition of the 445 College house would help the Stark family and
be in the interest of all concerned. Note that I plan to attend and speak at the public meeting on Dec.
3.
Sincerely yours,
Eileen Kintsch
A hard copy of this email, signed by the following neighbors, was sent to the board by regular
mail:
Eileen Walter KIntsch - 435 College Ave.
Gretchen & Neil King - 415 College Ave.
Robert Thompson - 410 College Ave.
Agenda Item # 6C Page 39
October 31, 2014
Dear Landmarks Board members and staff,
I am writing as a neighbor, a concerned citizen and someone who for many years has supported
historic preservation efforts in Boulder. I believe that time has long past for you to lift the
demolition stay on the house at 445 College Ave.
I believe that the Starks and their architect have shown cooperative diligence in working with the
staff to find a compromise short of demolition, but no solution has been found. So, on the one
hand you have an owner not will to voluntarily landmark the house.
On the other hand, you have a property of little architectural distinction and in poor condition.
that was envisioned at the time. He may actually be the architect of record. Fortunately, there are
Were the owner willing, it would be an appropriate landmarked house. However, there is a long
over-reaching to force a designation and remarkably un-strategic. The building is simply not that
preservation program.
In closing, I wish to make an additional point. The Starks applied for a demolition permit in
March. The process of determining the future of the house should not take 8 months. It is unfair
and inconsiderate to the owners, and it hurts the reputation of the preservation program Please
review the process and find a way to commit to a much shorter time frame for your decisions.
Best regards,
Susan Osborne
525 College Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
susanna.osborne@gmail.com
Agenda Item # 6C Page 40
Agenda Item # 6C Page 41