Loading...
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