Item 5B - 3900 Orange CtAgenda Item # 5B Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
January 4, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution
to initiate the process for the designation of 3900 Orange Ct. as an
individual landmark as described in Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, or
in the alternative, to issue a demolition permit for the buildings, as
described in § 9-11-23(f) and (g), B.R.C. 1981, which will allow for
issuance of a demolition permit (HIS2016-00229).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 3900 Orange Ct.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1940
3. Zoning: RL-2 (Residential Low – 2)
4. Existing Building Size: 895 sq. ft. (original), 290 sq. ft. (accessory)
5. Lot Size: 123,101 sq. ft. (approx.)
6. Owner/Applicant: Jarrow Montessori School / Michael Girodo
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the
property at 3900 Orange Ct. for the following reasons:
The applicant has considered alternatives to the demolition of the original
building and accessory building, as suggested in § 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981,
including consensual landmark designation and incorporation of the original
building into redevelopment plans, however, the applicant opposes landmark
designation.
The initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection by the
Landmarks Board has historically been used very rarely.
While the property possesses a high level of architectural integrity, it does not
have a high level of historic significance for its association with past residents, nor
does it have environmental significance.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 2
There has been little community interest in the proposed demolition during the
stay of demolition.
The 180-day stay period will expire on Jan. 31, 2017.
Should the board choose to initiate landmark designation, it must do so through
resolution. See Attachment 2: Resolution.
Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff will require that prior to demolition the following be submitted to Planning,
Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff for review, approval and recording with
Carnegie Library:
1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property;
2. Measured elevation drawings of all faces of the buildings, depicting existing conditions,
fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans; and
3. Color medium format archival quality photographs of the interior and exterior of the
buildings.
MOTION:
I move that the Landmarks Board find that due to its lack of historic and environmental
significance, and the lack of public interest in preservation of the buildings during the demolition
review process, landmark designation of 3900 Orange Ct. over the owner’s objection does not
balance private property rights and the public good and adopt the staff memorandum dated Jan. 4,
2017, as the findings of the board. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of the demolition
permit, the Landmarks Board recommends that staff require archival documentation of the
property.
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 3900 Orange Ct.
On July 13, 2016, the Historic Preservation program received a demolition permit
application for two buildings at 3900 Orange Ct.
On July 20, 2016, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) referred the
application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was “probable
cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual
landmark.”
On Oct. 5, 2016 staff recommended and the Landmarks Board voted unanimously to
impose a stay-of-demolition for a period of up to 180 days in order to seek
Agenda Item # 5B Page 3
alternatives to the demolition finding that the building may be eligible for individual
Landmark designation. See Attachment C: Demolition Memo.
The 180-day stay period will expire on Jan. 31, 2017.
During the stay, staff and representatives of the Landmarks Board met on multiple
occasions with the applicant and owner’s representative to discuss alternatives to the
demolitions, including landmark designation, rehabilitation, and the possibility of
constructing an addition to the original building. Incorporation of the original
building into development plans of the site is possible, but not the school’s
preference.
On Dec. 7, 2016, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule a hearing to consider either
to initiate landmark designation or to direct staff to issue a demolition permit for the
property at 3900 Orange Ct.
To date no letters of support for or against the demolition of the buildings have been
received by staff.
Staff considers that while the original building retains a high degree of architectural
significance and is representative of the evolution of old north Boulder, initiation of
landmark designation over the owner’s objection, in this case, would not represent a
balance between private property rights and the public good. The property does not
possess a high level of historic or environmental significance, and there has been no
public interest in the preservation of the buildings during the demolition review
process.
ANALYSIS:
Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, provides that the Landmarks Board may hold a public
hearing to consider initiating landmark designation of a property if the Board finds that
the building may be eligible for landmark designation pursuant to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-
11-2, B.R.C. 1981. At the Dec. 7, 2016 Landmarks Board meeting, the Board unanimously
voted to hold a public hearing to consider either initiation of landmark designation or to
direct staff to issue the demolition permit in advance of the Jan. 31, 2017 expiration of the
stay-of-demolition.
Purpose of Stays of Demolition
The stated purposes of a stay-of-demolition are “to prevent the loss of buildings that
may have historic or architectural significance” and “to provide the time necessary to
initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives.” Sec. 9-11-
23(a), Purpose, B.R.C. 1981. During the course of a stay, the Board may consider a variety
of options to this end, one of which is the designation of the property. The initiation of
landmark designation over an owner’s objection by the Landmarks Board has
historically been used only on very rare occasions.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 4
In the past 10 years, approximately 65 stays-of-demolition have been imposed by the
Board. Only twice during that period has the Board initiated and recommended
landmark designation of a property over the owner’s objection. However, many stays
during this same period have resulted in the avoidance of demolition through
reconsideration of projects and the subsequent preservation of buildings. Recent
examples in which stays of demolition have resulted in the applicant filing an
application for landmark designation include: 1936 Mapleton (2008); 900 Pearl Street
(2009); 2003 Pine Street (2014); and 1922 20th Street (2014). Likewise, there are many
examples of stays that have been allowed to expire (or demolition permits issued prior
the stay expiring) by the Board when reasonable alternatives to demolition have not
been found.
Initiation by Board
Pursuant to Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, the decision to initiate the designation of an
individual landmark pursuant to Section 9-11-1, Legislative Intent, and Section 9-11-2,
City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts, B.R.C. 1981, is
legislative in nature. Section 9-11-1(a) reads as follows:
9-11-1, Purpose and Legislative Intent
a. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare
by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city
reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or national history or
providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the
purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values,
stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge
of the City’s living heritage.
Constructed in 1940, the original stone-clad building at 3900 Orange Ct. retains a high
degree of architectural integrity and as a relatively early residential building in North
Boulder, is reminiscent of the development patterns of the, then, largely rural area. The
building is located on the eastern portion of the three acre-campus of the Jarrow School,
maintaining its original location on the property. However, the property is not
associated with persons of local, state or national significance, and staff does not
consider the property to retain its environmental significance, due to the development of
the surrounding area and the loss of the property’s original, rural character.
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
Agenda Item # 5B Page 5
architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures
important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives . . . ”
Staff considers that the decision to initiate landmark designation over an owner’s
objection must be taken with great care. In this case, staff considers initiation of the
original building as a local landmark is not appropriate, given its moderate historic and
environmental significance and lack of public interest for preservation of the buildings
during the demolition review process.
Over the course of the stay, staff has met with the applicant multiple times to discuss
alternatives to the demolition. Through those discussions, options were identified that
would both preserve the original building and allow for successful development of the
property. However, the owner’s preference remains that the building be demolished.
While it is feasible that the original building could be incorporated into future
development, staff does not consider landmark designation of the property over the
owner’s objection to be appropriate in this case, due to the moderate level of historic and
environmental significance of the property, and the lack of public interest during the
demolition review process.
Section 9-11-2 provides:
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may be 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.
Staff considers that while the property might meet the standard for designation as an
individual landmark per Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C., 1981, in this case, it would be
inappropriate to designate the property at 3900 Orange Ct. as a local landmark over the
owner’s objection due to its moderate historic and environmental significance and lack of
public interest for preservation of the buildings during the demolition review process.
Criteria for Review
Section 9-11-3 (d), Criteria for Review, applies when an application for designation is
received from a historic preservation organization or less than all of the property owners
pursuant to paragraph 9-11-3(a)(3) and (4), B.R.C. 1981. While not required to be
considered when the Board is considering initiation, these criteria for review may offer
some guidance to the Board in making the decision whether to initiate landmark
Agenda Item # 5B Page 6
designation. In addition to the considerations included in Sections 9 -11-1 and 9-11-2,
B.R.C. 1981, discussed above, the following criteria may be considered:
(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;
Initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection requires additional staff
resources including outreach and analysis. There are limited staff resources available to
process applications for designation of a property for which there is not owner consent.
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation ;
Staff has not received any comments to date from the public on this matter. No one from
the public spoke to this item at the Oct. 5, 2016 Landmarks Board hearing.
(4) The buildings or features may need the protection provided through
designation;
The applicant intends to demolish the existing building and accessory building.
Demolition of the original building may result in the loss of historic and architectural
character of the property and the surrounding area. Should no action be taken by the
Board prior to the expiration of the stay-of-demolition on Jan. 31, 2017, the property owner
would be able to secure a demolition permit, assuming all other requirements of the
permit process have been met.
(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 2.24 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) states:
The city and county will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects,
districts, sites and natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural
significance with input from the community. The city and county will seek protection of
significant resources through local designation when a proposal by the private sector is
subject to discretionary development review.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 7
The plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over an owner’s objection
though in some circumstance this may be appropriate. Staff considers that given the
moderate historic and environmental significance of the property, and the lack of public
interest in the preservation of the buildings during the demolition review process,
landmark designation over the owner’s objection is not appropriate in this case.
In the context of a discretionary review application, it has been staff’s consistent
interpretation of BVCP Policy 2.24 to recommend that when historic resources on a
property are identified, a landmark designation application be identified as a condition
of approval. Due to the staff and the Landmarks Board determination that the building is
potentially eligible for landmark designation, it is likely that if a discretionary review
application were submitted for the property in the future, staff would recommend that
the building be preserved as part of the redevelopment plans.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
The property owners have considered alternatives to demolition, including consensual
landmark designation, but oppose landmark designation. Staff considers that, in this case,
initiating designation over the owner’s objection would not represent a reasonable balance
of private property rights and the public interest.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
If the Board chooses not to initiate landmark designation of the property and allows the
stay of demolition to expire, a demolition permit for the original building and the
accessory building will issue on Jan. 31, 2017.
If the Board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by resolution. A
draft resolution is included in Attachment 3. If initiated, the application shall be heard
by the Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days in order to determine whether the
proposed designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1,
Legislative Intent, and 9-11-2, City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,
B.R.C. 1981. The owner must obtain a landmark alteration certificate prior to the
submission of building permit applications for the property if they choose to proceed
while the application is pending, or they may choose to wait until the application
process is complete.
Board Options:
1. Direct staff to issue a demolition permit, finding that the requirements of Sec. 9-
11-23(h) have been satisfied as they relate to actions to consider in relation to the
consideration of preservation of the buildings.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 8
2. Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the
resolution under Attachment 3.
3. Take no action and permit the initially granted stay of demolition originally
imposed on Oct. 5, 2016, to remain in place until Jan. 31, 2017, so that the Board
and the applicant may continue to explore other approaches to preserve the
buildings at 3900 Orange Ct.
Applicant Option:
1. Applicant withdraw the demolition application; threat of imminent building
demolition is removed and landmark designation may be considered through
future discretionary review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1: October 5, 2016 Demolition Memo
2: Draft resolution to initiate landmark designation of the property at 3900 Orange
Ct.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 9
Attachment A: October 5, 2016 Demolition Memo
M E M O R A N D U M
October 5, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application
a building and accessory building located at 3900 Orange Ct., non-
landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23
of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2016-00229).
STATISTICS:
7. Site: 3900 Orange Ct.
8. Date of Construction: c. 1940
9. Zoning: RL-2
10. Existing House Size: 895 sq. ft. (main), 290 sq. ft. (accessory)
11. Lot Size: 123,101 sq. ft. (approx.)
12. Owner/Applicant: Jarrow Montessori School / Michael Girodo
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff recommends that the Landmarks
Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the house and accessory buildings
located at 3900 Orange Ct., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit
application was accepted by the city manager, adopting the staff memorandum with the findings
listed below, in order to explore alternatives to demolition.
A 180-day stay period would expire on January 31, 2017.
Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff recommends that prior to demolition the following be submitted to
Agenda Item # 5B Page 10
Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff for review, approval and recording
with Carnegie Library:
4. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject
property; and
5. Color medium format archival quality photographs of the interior and exterior of
the house.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 13, 2016 the Planning Housing & Sustainability (PH&S) Department received a
demolition permit application for two buildings at 3900 Orange Ct. The buildings are not
located within a historic district, but are over 50 years old. The action proposed meets
the definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
On July 20, 2016, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) referred the
application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was “probable
cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual
landmark.”
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 requires review by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc). The
Ldrc is comprised of two members of the Landmarks Board and a staff member. If,
during the course of its review, the Ldrc determines that there is “probable cause to
consider the property may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark,” the
issuance of the permit is stayed for up to 60 days from the date a completed application
was accepted and the permit is referred to the board for a public hearing.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building proposed for demolition may have
significance under the criteria in subsection (f) of Section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981, 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. If imposed, a 180 -day
stay period would start when the completed application was accepted by the city
manager (August 4, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on
January 31, 2016. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION
The approximately 895 sq. ft. house and its 290 sq. ft. accessory building are part of the
123,101 sq. ft. campus of the Jarrow Montessori School, located on Orange Court, near
Agenda Item # 5B Page 11
the intersection of Broadway Street and Poplar Avenue in Boulder. It is not located
within a designated or potential historic district.
Figure 1. Location Map showing 3900 Orange Ct.
Figure 2. East (front) elevation, 2016
House:
The stone building features a cross-gable plan with clipped gable ends with field stone
walls that are infilled with wide lap siding. A picture window flanked by 2-over-2
Agenda Item # 5B Page 12
double hung windows is located on the gable end of the east face, with a low, stone
planter located beneath the window. The entrance is located in the center of the building
at the east, facing Broadway Street, with a non-historic single light door and is recessed
from the front wall. A two-over-two, double hung window is located near the northeast
corner of the building.
Figure 3. South (side) elevation, 2016
The south elevation features three window openings. The two openings in the stone
portion have concrete sills.
Figure 4. West (rear) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item # 5B Page 13
The west (rear) addition features clipped gable and gable ends. The windows on the
gable portion appear to have been replaced, including a large picture window and
smaller vinyl windows.
Accessory Building:
Located just west of the house, the 290 sq. ft. accessory building is also constructed of
stone with portions sheathed with lap siding. L-shaped in plan, this diminutive building
has a cross gable roof that is sheathed in asphalt shingles.
Figure 5. Accessory Building, South Elevation, 2016
While in good condition, all of the doors and windows on the accessory building appear
to have replaced in the recent past.
Figure 6. Accessory Building, North Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item # 5B Page 14
Figure 7. 3900 Orange Ct., Tax Assessor Card, c. 1949.
Alterations
The buildings appear to be largely intact in form to their original construction. The main
door on the former residence has been replaced, as well as a window on the north
elevation.
The windows and doors on the accessory buildings have been replaced. The openings
appear to be original.
Condition
The applicant has noted that asbestos mitigation will be required on this property. No
further indication of the condition of the building has been received to date. See
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
Cost of Repair or Restoration
The applicant estimates a cost of $300,000 to abate hazardous materials in the main
house. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Until 1920, the property was part of the considerable estate of Zena A. Whitely and
Hortense Whiteley Hellems, who were sisters and prominent Boulder citizens. Their
house at 1709 Pine Street (Whiteley-Hellems House), was designated an individual
landmark by City of Boulder in 1978. Zena and Hortense were born in Georgia, and
Agenda Item # 5B Page 15
arrived in Boulder with their family in 1877. Both attended the University of Colorado,
Hortense graduating in 1891 and Zena in 1892. Hortense taught Greek and Latin at the
State Preparatory School, (later becoming Boulder High School). In 1902, she married F.
B. R. Hellems, who was dean of the University of Colorado College of Liberal Arts from
1899 to 1929, and acting president of the university for most of 1928. She was killed in a
car accident in 1922, four years after which F. B. R. Hellems remarried to his sister-in-law
Zena. Zena Whitely died in 1958.1
The Whitely sisters sold the property to the Consolidated Realty and Investment Co. in
1920 who held the property until 1939, when it was sold to L. J. Schaefer, a miner and
laborer. Well outside the city at the time, Schaefer likely constructed the first house on
the site. In 1945 L.J. and his wife Ella sold the property to Victor C. and Julia L. Roth,
who, the next year, sold it to Howard L. and Doris O. Jones. The Joneses lived on the
property from 1947 to 1961, the longest term residents.2
Howard L. Jones was the son of Cyrus and Nannetta Goodban Jones.3 He was born in
Cortland, Nebraska on June 7, 1912, and married Doris O. Lundy on April 12, 1936, in
Colorado Springs.4 Howard obtained a position with National Bureau of Standards in
1946, and purchased the property, then addressed as 4247 Broadway Street, the same
year5. Jones was a carpenter, and had established Jones Screen Co. in a workshop on the
property by 1951.
Figure 8. Assessor’s photo of the Jones Screen Co., c 1949.
1 City of Boulder Planning Department, “Landmark Designation Memorandum: 1709 Pine Street.” City of Boulder,
July 5, 1978.
2 Polk City Directories and Boulder County Public Property Records.
3 Daily Camera, “Obituaries: Howard L. Jones.” July 14, 1985. Boulder Carnegie Library.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 16
A 1951 Daily Camera article noted that his workshop was, “…equipped with all the
necessary modern power tools and labor saving machinery for the production of
window and door screens, storm doors and windows and sash that is the equal of any
on the market…”6 While running this business, Jones continued to work at the National
Bureau of Standards (later NIST) until his retirement in 1966.7 He and Doris had two
sons and one daughter.8 The Joneses sold this house to Dorothy F. Bailey in 1961.
Howard Jones died in Black Canyon City, Arizona, on July 6, 1985.9
Dorothy Bailey lived on the property from 1961 to 1965 likely moving here following her
1961 divorce from Clifford E. Fernald. She started TLC (Tender Loving Care) Children’s
Ranch, a nursery school, in the stone house soon after. She married Jesse W. Lofquist
sometime around 1963, when the property was transferred to joint tenancy under their
names. Between them, the couple had five children: Tom, Penelope, Michael, Kenneth,
and Pamela. Tom and Penelope were 16 that year, and Pamela, the youngest, was 10.
The Lofquists sparked a highly publicized and hard fought conflict with Boulder County
Schools when, in the winter of 1963-64, they withdrew their five children from school. At
the time, attendance at an officially approved public, private, or parochial school was
mandatory for children under the age of 16 in Colorado, and the Lofquist’s attempt to
school their children in their house through TLC Ranch caused the Boulder Valley
School District request the county court to issue an order mandating the reenrollment of
the Lofquist children. Jesse Lofquist, an ardent critic of the U.S. public education system,
went to extreme measures to fight this order hiring a certified teacher to tutor the
children in at his home, which the court indicated was an acceptable solution. However,
the tutor soon resigned.
The Lofquists continued to keep their kids out of standard schooling, and, as a result,
Jesse Lofquist was arrested on the night of January 22, 1965, on charges of contempt of
court. He posted bail the following morning, and proceeded to purchase a Volkswagen
bus, convert it into a mobile home and school, and fled the state to Cheyenne, Wyoming,
indicating they intended to dispose of their property in Boulder as soon as they could.
Since the children were no longer within the state, the county court decided the
contempt of court charges were no longer necessary, though they retained an order
stating that the Lofquist children would again face mandatory attendance if they
returned to the state.
6 Daily Camera, “Homeworkshop Club Sees Fine Carpenter Shop.” April 14, 1951. Boulder Carnegie Library.
7 Daily Camera, July 14, 1985.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 17
The Lofquists subsequently returned to Boulder renaming the TLC as an Independent
School, claiming it was a valid private school where they enrolled their children in the
fall of 1965. State inspectors visited the home school on October 8, 1965, and found that it
did not meet minimum educational standards. Boulder Daily Camera clippings file do
not record what the Lofquist’s response was, but they evidently again left the area,
selling their house to the newly formed Jarrow Montessori School in January of 196610.
The Jarrow School has operated at this location, expanding the campus over the last fifty
years. The mission statement of the school is to “nurture the development of the whole
child through quality Montessori education. Our community supports each child’s joyful
discovery of self in the journey to becoming a confident lifelong learner and
compassionate citizen.”11
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION:
Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, provides 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
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.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or
repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider
deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.
As detailed below, staff considers this property potentially eligible for designation as an
individual landmark, however, additional time is needed to consider the information on
the condition and estimated cost of restoration or repair of the building.
CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
The following is a result of staff's research of the property relative to the significance
criteria for individual landmarks as adopted by the Landmarks Board on Sept. 17, 1975.
See Attachment E: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
10 “Jesse Lofquist.” Boulder Carnegie Library, Daily Camera Clipping Archive.
11 Jarrow Montessori School. http://jarrow.org/mission-philosophy/
Agenda Item # 5B Page 18
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The main house located at 3900 Orange Ct. meets historic significance under criteria
1 and 4.
1. Date of Construction: c. 1940.
Elaboration: The tax assessor card and the historic building inventory form indicate the
property was constructed in 1940.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Howard L. and Doris O. Jones
Elaboration: The Joneses lived at the property from 1945 until 1961. Howard Jones
worked at the National Bureau of Standards and was a carpenter, operating a screen
shop at the property beginning in 1951. While interesting, the Joneses are not
considered to be significant historic persons on the local, state or national level.
3. Development of the Community: North Boulder
Elaboration: Constructed in 1940, the house and accessory building at 3900 Orange
Ct. are relatively early residential buildings in North Boulder and indicative of the
development patterns of the largely rural area after WW II.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Historic Building Inventory Form, 1995
Elaboration: The property was surveyed in 1995 and was found to be in good
condition with minor alterations, including replacement of wide lap siding on upper
walls and the construction of a deck facing the entrance. The survey states the
building represents a type, period or method of construction, “This house is
representative of the Bungalow style, as reflected in the stone, wood and stucco
walls; double-hung windows; and enhanced porch.” See Attachment C: Historic
Building Inventory Form.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 3900 Orange Ct. meets historic significance under criteria 1 and
5.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Bungalow style
Elaboration: The main house has elements of very modest Craftsman Bungalow
design, including the use of local materials, low pitched roof with wide overhanging
eaves, clipped gables, half-timbering, and double-hung windows.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None Observed.
3. Artistic Merit: None Observed.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 19
4. Example of the Uncommon: Early residential buildings
Elaboration: Constructed in 1940, the house and accessory building at 3900 Orange
Ct. are relatively early residential buildings in North Boulder and indicative of the
development patterns of the largely rural area.
5. Indigenous Qualities: Field Stone
Elaboration: Both the house and the accessory building are constructed of local
fieldstone.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 3900 Orange Ct. does not meet any criteria under
environmental significance.
1. Site Characteristics: None Observed
Elaboration: The once-residential property has been incorporated into a school
campus. The house does not retain its historic, rural residential character. The
property does not have characteristics of high quality planned or natural vegetation.
2. Compatibility with Site: None Observed.
3. Geographic Importance: None Observed
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Complementary Setting
Elaboration: The building is complementary to its setting.
5. Area Integrity: None Observed.
Elaboration: The property is not located in a designated or potential historic district.
The area around this location developed mainly in the second half of the twentieth
century, with multi-family units and residential buildings.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD:
Constructed in 1940, the house and accessory building at 3900 Orange Ct. are relatively
early residential buildings in North Boulder and are indicative of the development
patterns of the, then, largely rural area. The buildings themselves remain relatively
intact, but the character of the surrounding area has changed considerably.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
Agenda Item # 5B Page 20
The applicant has submitted information on the condition of the building, indicating that
the buildings are in good condition. Recent testing has revealed asbestos on the interior,
including duct wrap, joint compound, surface texture compound, and flooring materials.
Exterior materials were not tested but may also contain asbestos. The applicant found
the buildings to be in good condition, however, there are concerns with lead paint and
thermal performance of the windows. Some of the stone is chipped, and the mortar is
deteriorated in places. Extensive repointing may be needed. See Attachment F: Applicant’s
Materials.
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
The applicant estimates a cost of $300,000 for abatement of hazardous materials. This
would not include additional costs that may be found during the course of the work. The
applicant estimates that new construction of the same floor area would be approximately
$400,000. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT:
Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter.
While somewhat altered over the years, staff considers that both buildings are
substantially intact to their original c.1940 construction and are historically and
architecturally significant when evaluated against the Landmark Boards Criteria for
evaluation. The historic setting of the property has changed considerably as the Jarrow
School has evolved since 1966. For this reason, staff does not consider the buildings or
property to have environmental significance.
Staff considers imposing a stay-of-demolition to explore integration of the stone house
and accessory building into the redevelopment of the property (including analysis of
hazardous material abatement options) appropriate given the observed architectural and
historic significance of the property.
THE BOARD’S DECISION:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the buildings to be demolished do 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.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the buildings 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
Agenda Item # 5B Page 21
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 January 31, 2016.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
A stay of demolition for the buildings at 3900 Orange Ct. is appropriate based on the
criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that:
1. The two stone buildings may be eligible for individual landmark designation based
upon their architectural and historic significance;
2. The buildings may contribute to the character of the neighborhood as an intact
representative resources of the area’s past;
3. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to
rehabilitate the building.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item # 5B Page 22
Attachment A: Current Photographs
East (front) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item # 5B Page 23
West (rear) elevation, 2016
South (side) elevation, 2016
North (side) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item # 5B Page 24
Accessory Building, South Elevation, 2016
Accessory Building, North Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item # 5B Page 25
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Agenda Item # 5B Page 26
Agenda Item # 5B Page 27
Agenda Item # 5B Page 28
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item # 5B Page 29
Agenda Item # 5B Page 30
Photo from Historic Building Inventory Record, 1988.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 31
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
Attachment E: 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 the ordinance is the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic,
and architectural 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
Agenda Item # 5B Page 32
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 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, i.e.: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American
Building Survey Criteria, 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.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 33
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 # 5B Page 34
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item # 5B Page 35
Agenda Item # 5B Page 36
Agenda Item # 5B Page 37
Agenda Item # 5B Page 38
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution to Initiate Landmark Designation
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING
THE DESIGNATION OF 3900 ORANGE CT. AS AN
INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on Dec. 7, 2016 the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation hearing
for 3900 Orange Ct.; and
WHEREAS, on Jan. 4, 2017, the Landmarks Board held an initiation hearing to determine
whether to initiate designation of the property at 3900 Orange Ct. and determined that the property
meets the standards for initiation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS BOARD OF THE CITY OF
BOULDER, COLORADO:
The City of Boulder Landmarks Board hereby initiates the designation of 3900 Orange Ct.
as an individual landmark, 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 4th day of January 2017.
This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board on Jan. 4, 2017.
_____________________________________
Chair, Landmarks Board
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Secretary to the Board