Item 5A - 1035 Kalmia Ave
Agenda Item # 5A Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 6, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Anthony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution
to initiate the process for the designation of three accessory
buildings and a portion of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. (on
which a stay-of-demolition was imposed on an accessory building
August 2, 2017), as an individual landmark pursuant to Section 9-11-
3, B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2017-00179).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1035 Kalmia Ave.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1910-1930
3. Zoning: RR-2 (Rural Residential – 2)
4. Lot Size: 41,312 sq. ft.
5. Owner/Applicant: Kristin and Orion Creamer
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for a portion
of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. and allow the stay of demolition to expire on Jan. 2,
2018 for the following reasons:
• The owners have considered alternatives to the demolition of the accessory
building, as suggested in § 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981, including consensual landmark
designation and incorporation of the building into redevelopment plans, but do
not consider preservation of the accessory building to be feasible.
• The initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection by the
Landmarks Board has historically been used very rarely. Designation of accessory
buildings as an individual landmark over the owner’s objection is unprecedented.
• There is no imminent threat of demolition to two of the three buildings included
in the proposed landmark boundary. Building permits have issued for the
rehabilitation of two of the stone buildings. Future demolition permit
applications would be reviewed by the historic preservation program if the
Agenda Item # 5A Page 2
buildings were proposed for demolition.
• The property is not located within the boundaries of an identified potential
historic district.
• Public interest in the demolition request has been limited: Historic Boulder, Inc.
participated in the exploration of alternatives to the removal of the accessory
building and two people spoke in support of preservation of the building at the
Aug. 2, 2017 Landmarks Board hearing. Since that hearing, the Planning,
Housing and Sustainability department has received two letters supporting the
demolition of the house. See Attachment B: Letters from the Public.
• The proposed boundary, encompassing approximately half of the lot, is not in
keeping with the National Register guidelines for landmark boundaries, and
would not protect the view of the property from Kalmia Avenue, resulting in
potentially limited community benefit to designating this property.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move that the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for a portion of the property,
finding that because there is no imminent threat to the majority of the property, the property is
not located in a potential historic district, there has been a lack of community interest in the
preservation of accessory building, and the proposed boundary would not protect the view of the
property from Kalmia Avenue, initiating landmark designation over the owner’s objection would
not draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in
preserving the city’s cultural, historic and architectural heritage, and that the Landmarks Board
adopt the staff memorandum dated December 6, 2017, as the findings of the board.
ALTERNATIVE MOTION
I move that the Landmarks Board initiate landmark designation for a portion of the property
located at 1035 Kalmia Ave., finding that it meets the criteria for such a hearing per 9-11-3
“Initiation of Designation for Individual Landmarks and Historic Districts” of the Boulder
Revised Code, is consistent with the purpose and intent of 9-11-23 “Review of Permits for
Demolition”, and in balance is consistent with the goals and policies of Section 2.27 of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY
▪ The purpose of this hearing is for the Board to determine whether it is appropriate to
initiate local landmark designation for a portion of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave.
▪ In 2014, under different ownership, two demolition permit applications were
submitted for the house and five accessory buildings (HIS2014-00231 and HIS2014-
00364). Both were referred to the Landmarks Board for review and later withdrawn.
▪ On June 7, 2017, the Historic Preservation program received a demolition permit
application by the current owners for the three accessory buildings. Staff approved
the demolition of two frame buildings at the rear of the property, finding that due to
Agenda Item # 5A Page 3
their condition and lack of architectural significance, the buildings were not
potentially eligible for landmark designation. Staff communicated to the property
owners that relocation of the stone building on the property could be approved
administratively, but that demolition would require review by the full Landmarks
Board, as there was “probable cause to believe that the property may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark.”
▪ On Aug. 2, 2017, staff recommended and the Landmarks Board imposed a stay-of-
demolition for a period of up to 180 days in order to seek alternatives to the
demolition, finding that the house may be eligible for individual Landmark
designation. See Attachment C: Demolition Memo. The 180-day stay period will
expire on January 2, 2018.
▪ On Aug. 22, 2017, staff and representatives of the Landmarks Board and Historic
Boulder, Inc. met with the applicant and owner’s representative to discuss
alternatives to the demolitions, including landmark designation, relocation of the
accessory building, and the possibility of constructing an addition around the
accessory building. As stated in the analysis section of this memo, none of these
options are considered feasible by the property owners.
▪ On Nov. 1, 2017, the Landmarks Board voted (3-2, E. Budd and R. Pelusio opposed)
to schedule a hearing to consider whether to initiate landmark designation for a
portion of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. The proposed landmark boundary
identified by the Landmarks Board would extend from the accessory building to the
north, east and west property lines, encompassing approximately half of the
property. See Figure 6.
▪ For the reasons outlined in the staff recommendation above, in this case, staff
considers initiation of landmark designation over the owner’s objection
inappropriate in that it would not represent a reasonable balance of private property
rights and the public interest.
▪ Staff recommends the board not initiate landmark designation and that the
demolition permit be allowed to be issued on Jan. 2, 2018, without action by the
Landmarks Board.
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 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 Nov. 1, 2017
Landmarks Board meeting, the Board voted (3-2, R. Pelusio and E. Budd opposed) to
hold a hearing to consider whether initiation of landmark designation is appropriate in
advance of the Jan. 2, 2018 expiration of the stay-of-demolition.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 4
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.” Section 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.
In the past 10 years, approximately 60 stays-of-demolition have been imposed by the
Board. Only three times 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.
In the history of the program, two accessory buildings have been designated as
individual landmarks, without designation of the primary building.
Figure 1. Glenn Barn, 5653 Baseline Rd. Designated as an individual landmark in 2008.
In 2008, a demolition permit application was submitted for a house and four accessory
buildings at 5653 Baseline Rd. The Landmarks Board placed a stay-of-demolition on the
application, finding the property was potentially eligible for individual landmark
designation as an intact agricultural complex, example of the uncommon, and a familiar
visual landmark in the community. Through discussions during the stay-of-demolition,
Agenda Item # 5A Page 5
the demolition application was withdrawn, and two separate applications were
submitted and approved: an application to designate the barn and a portion of the
property, and an application to demolish the house and three remaining accessory
buildings.
Figure 2. Granary, 4051 Broadway. Designated as an individual landmark in 2008.
In 2005, a demolition permit application was submitted for a house and granary at 4051
Broadway in anticipation of redevelopment of the site. The application was referred to
the Landmarks Board, but the fee was never paid and the application expired. In 2007,
the property was sold and a Site Review application was submitted. As part of
redevelopment of the site, the property owner agreed to designate the granary and a
portion of the property as an individual landmark, which was approved in 2008. The
Landmarks Board also approved a Landmark Alteration Certificate to relocate the
building on the site in 2008. A separate application was submitted and approved for the
demolition of the primary house on the property as it was found not to have historic,
architectural or environmental significance.
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.
Compliance with Section 9-11-1(a)
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
Agenda Item # 5A Page 6
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.
Architecture
Constructed sometime between 1910 and1930, the three accessory buildings within the
proposed landmark boundary are relatively well-preserved examples of agricultural
accessory buildings. The hipped roof stone building is proposed for demolition; the
stone garage and parapet roof building are currently being rehabilitated by the property
owners and are not proposed for demolition. Two frame accessory buildings, located on
the northern end of the property, were approved for demolition by the historic
preservation program in July 2017 and are not included in the description of the
property.
Hipped Roof Stone Accessory Building
A one-story, hipped roof accessory building is
located at the northwest corner of the addition
to the main house. Its form and materiality is
indicative of 1920s construction with concrete
sills. Its exact date of construction is unknown.
The building measures approximately 11 ft. by
20 ft. (220 sq. ft.) and is of frame construction
faced with field stone. The window and doors
do not have lintels, but rather the openings
meet the trim board of the hipped roof and
have concrete sills below. The south elevation features a single wood casement window
and the west elevation features a centrally located wood door with a transom above.
Single-light wood casement windows are located on either side of the door. The north
elevation features a pair of single-casement windows. The east elevation mirrors the
west elevation with a centrally-located wood door. A six-light casement window is
located to the north of the door, and a second boarded up doorway is located to the
south. The opening features a lintel of stacked stone.
Figure 3. Hipped Roof Stone Building, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 7
Parapet Roof Stone Building
A one-story, flat roofed building with a stepped parapet- building is located
approximately 190 ft. from the south property
line, on the eastern edge of the lot. The
vernacular masonry building is of similar
wood frame construction as the hipped
accessory building adjacent to the main
house, with field stone facing laid in irregular
courses and concrete sills. Unlike the hipped
roof building, this building features
decorative corbeled lintels above the doors
and windows and the parapet is capped in
concrete. Although the exact date of
construction is unknown, its construction
type is indicative of the early twentieth
century.
The north (rear) elevation appears to have sustained long-term moisture issues, as the
roof drains to the north and the building does not have gutters. The building’s stone
facing is in fair condition, save this water damage water damage. The roof of this
building has collapsed. A building permit was issued in August 2017 for the
rehabilitation of and addition to this building.
Gable Roof Stone Garage
A one-and-a-half story gable roof stone garage is located
west of the stone parapet building toward the middle of the
property and approximately 200 feet from the south property
line. The building is constructed of heavy masonry with a
frame gable roof and overhanging eaves. The gable ends are
clad in horizontal wood shingle. The method of construction
and style indicates that this building was constructed around
the same time as the main house, in the 1910s.
The building appears to be in good condition, with all
original materials intact. A building permit was issued in
August 2017 for the rehabilitation of, and an addition to this
building.
The Historic Building Inventory Form (1995) notes the extent of alterations to main
house have diminished the historic integrity of the building. The accessory buildings
were not surveyed at that time.
Figure 4. Parapet Roof Stone Building, 2015.
Figure 5. Stone Garage 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 8
As a whole, the property has architectural significance as an example of the uncommon
as one of the few remaining intact agricultural complexes in north Boulder. The three
buildings feature local stone, and staff considers that the Stone Garage and Parapet Roof
Stone Building possess artistic merit for a skillful integration of design and
representation of a high level of craftsmanship. Staff does not consider the hipped roof
stone building adjacent to the main house to exhibit the same level of craftsmansh ip and
architectural interest.
Historic Significance
James and Mary Gould owned the property when the house was constructed and
resided here until their deaths in the 1930s. They operated a small farm with a “truck
and chickens” during their ownership. Arnett and Anna Ruth Snyder lived at 1035
Kalmia Avenue from 1938 to 1963. Arnett worked in retail, employed at Perry’s Shoe
Shop, Eads News, and Anglen’s Shoe shop. The property is believed to have operated as an
active farm from 1905 until 1938, and it is likely the accessory buildings were constructed
during the Gould’s ownership.
Staff finds that the families associated with the property, while interesting, did not make
significant contributions to the community on the local, state or national level.
Staff considers the property as a whole, to be historically significant as one of the few
remaining intact agricultural complexes from the early twentieth century in this area of
Boulder. While the area has become more residential in nature, this property has
retained its rural character.
Geographic Importance
This property is an example of the area's agricultural character notable from the late
nineteenth century through the late 1950s when it was annexed into the City of Boulder
in 1959. The property retains its rural character, with mature trees and a small irrigation
ditch on the eastern property line.
The intact rural character of this property may be of historic and environmental
importance or significance as a representative example of the character of this area of
Boulder during the first half of the twentieth century. However, the property is not
located within an identified potential historic district and as a whole, the area in which it
is located, has lost much of its historic agricultural character.
Proposed Landmark Boundary
At its Nov. 1, 2017 meeting, the Landmarks Board identified a proposed boundary
extending 6 ft. from the south and east walls of the hipped roof accessory building, west
Agenda Item # 5A Page 9
to the property line, and north to a point 6’ south of the eastern stone accessory building,
then extending to the north and east property lines. See Figure 6. Proposed Landmark
Boundary.
Figure 6. Proposed Landmark Boundary (approximate), 1035 Kalmia Ave.
The National Register of Historic Places Bulletin for Defining Boundaries for National Register
Properties (1997) encourages that landmark boundaries be drawn to follow historic
parcels and include areas significant to the property’s history, without a buffer area.
From a historic resource management point of view, the best practice is for a landmark
boundary to follow the property lines. Staff considers that the proposed boundary is
inconsistent with the National Register guidelines for drawing boundaries as it bisects
the property and would not protect the view into the property from Kalmia Avenue.
Furthermore, staff does not consider the application to represent a reasonable balance
between private property rights and the public good as the proposed boundary
encompasses two buildings approved for demolition (not shown in Figure 6) and two
buildings that are currently being rehabilitated by the property owners. The other four
buildings included in the proposed landmark boundary do not need protection
provided through Landmark designation. If the two stone buildings are proposed for
demolition in the future, a demolition permit application would be reviewed by the
historic preservation program.
Additionally, while staff does not consider the accessory buildings to be prominent
visual landmarks in the neighborhood or community, the proposed landmark boundary
does not protect the view of the property from Kalmia Avenue.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 10
Compliance with Section 9-11-1(b)
Section 9-11-1(b) reads as follows:
b. “The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building
in the city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property
rights and the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures
important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives . . . .”
Staff considers the initiation of landmark designation of this property inappropriate given
efforts that have been made to explore alternatives to the demolition during the stay. A
stay-of-demolition is issued to provide time to “explore alternatives” that might prevent
the demolition of significant historic resources. Staff considers that time has been taken
and efforts have been made to explore alternatives including looking at rehabilitation costs
using tax credits and other financial incentives. The owners are currently rehabilitating
the two other stone accessory buildings on the property, and they are not threatened with
demolition. Due to the proximity of the hipped-roof cottage to the main house, the modest
architecture character of the building, and the difficulty in moving the building, the
owners consider relocation or preservation of the building to be unreasonable and
impractical.
During the course of the stay-of-demolition, there has been limited community support
for the proposed designation. At the Aug. 2, 2017 meeting, Historic Boulder, Inc. spoke in
support of imposing a stay on the property to explore alternatives to the demolition. Since
that meeting, staff has received two letters in support of demolition. See Attachment B:
Letters from the Public.
Staff considers that, currently, there is no imminent threat to the historic integrity of the
property as a whole. The fact that the property is not located in an identified potential
historic district, the limited public support during the stay of demolition, and that the
proposed landmark boundary that does not protect the view of the property from
Kalmia Avenue, makes initiation over the owner’s objection an unreasonable balance of
private property rights and the public good.
Compliance with Section 9-11-2
Section 9-11-2 provides:
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may by ordinance:
(1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an
integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having
Agenda Item # 5A Page 11
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 may 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 a portion of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. as a local
landmark over the owner’s objection. Given that only one of the buildings is threatened
with demolition, the property is not located in a potential historic district, there has been
a lack of community interest in the preservation of the hipped roof accessory building,
and that the proposed boundary, encompassing the back half of the lot is not consistent
with the National Register guidelines for drawing boundaries, such a designation would
not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public
interest in preserving this property.
Criteria for Review in Considering Initiation
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 landmarking
itself. 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:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be
eligible for designation as an individual landmark or historic district
consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1,
“Legislative Intent,” 9-11-2, Definitions, and 9-11-3, “City Council May
Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,” B.R.C. 1981;
Staff considers that while the property may 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 a portion of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. as a local
landmark over the owner’s objection as only one of the buildings is threatened with
demolition, that the property is not located in a potential historic district, that there has
been a lack of community interest in the preservation of accessory build ing, and that the
proposed boundary, encompassing the back half of the lot, would not represent a
reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving
this property.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 12
(2) There are currently resources available that would a llow 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 ;
Two members of the public and a representative of Historic Boulder, Inc. spoke in
opposition of demolition of the building at the August 2, 2017 Landmarks Board hearing.
Since the hearing, staff has received two letters in support of the demolition permit
application. See Attachment B: Letters from the Public.
(4) The buildings or features may need the protection provided through
designation;
The applicant intends to demolish the hipped roof accessory building. Four other
buildings are included in the proposed landmark boundary: two frame buildings
approved for demolition by the historic preservation program, and two stone buildings
that are currently being rehabilitated and added to by the property owners. Staff considers
that the other four buildings included in the landmark boundary do not need protection
provided through designation. If the two stone buildings are proposed for demolition in
the future, a demolition permit application would be reviewed by the historic preservation
program.
Should no action be taken by the Board prior to the expiration of the stay -of-demolition
on Jan. 2, 2018, 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. See analysis of the proposed individual landmark boundary above.
(6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan;
Policy 2.27 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) states:
Agenda Item # 5A Page 13
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 historic and cultural resources through local designation when a proposal by
the private sector is subject to discretionary development review.
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 lack
of imminent threat of demolition to the majority of the buildings, that the building is not
located in a potential historic district, the lack of public interest in the preservation of the
buildings during the demolition review process, and a proposed landmark boundary
that would not protect the view of the property from Kalmia Avenue, landmark
designation over the owner’s objection is not appropriate in this case.
(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. The stone accessory buildings
are not prominent visual landmarks in the community, and the proposed landmark
boundary would encompass the northern half of the lot, which has limited visibility
from the public right of way. The proposed boundary also includes two stone buildings
that the owners are currently rehabilitating and that are not threatened with demolition.
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, the city manager will issue a demolition permit for the
house and accessory building on Jan. 2, 2018.
If the Board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by resolution. A
draft resolution is included in Attachment A. If initiated, the application shall be heard
by the Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days in order to determine whether the
proposed designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1,
Legislative Intent, and 9-11-2, City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,
B.R.C. 1981. The owner must obtain a Landmark Alteration Certificate prior to the
submission of building permit applications for the property if they choose to proceed
while the application is pending, or they may choose to wait until the application
process is complete.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 14
Board Options:
1. Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the
resolution under Attachment A.
2. Take no action and permit the stay of demolition, originally imposed on Aug. 2,
2017, to expire on Jan. 2, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Draft resolution to initiate landmark designation of the property at
1035 Kalmia Ave.
Attachment B: Letters from the Public
Attachment C: Aug. 2, 2017 Demolition Memo
Agenda Item # 5A Page 15
Attachment A: Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING
THE DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT
1035 KALMIA AVE. AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2017 the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation
hearing for a portion of the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave.; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2017, the Landmarks Board held an initiation hearing for the
property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. 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 a portion of the
property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. 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 6th day of December 2017.
This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board on December 6, 2017.
_____________________________________
Chair, Landmarks Board
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Secretary to the Board
Agenda Item # 5A Page 16
Attachment B: Letters from the Public
Agenda Item # 5A Page 17
Agenda Item # 5A Page 18
Attachment C: August 2, 2017 Demolition Memo
M E M O R A N D U M
August 2, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: David Gehr, Interim Planning Director
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Anthony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of issuance of a demolition permit
for an accessory building located at 1035 Kalmia Ave., a non-
landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23
of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2017-00179).
STATISTICS:
6. Site: 1035 Kalmia Ave.
7. Date of Construction: c. 1920 (Stone Accessory Building)
8. Zoning: RR-2 (Rural Residential – 2)
9. Lot Size: 41,312 sq. ft.
10. Owner/Applicant: Kristin and Orion Creamer
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department (PH&S) recommends that the
Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the accessory building located at
1035 Kalmia Ave., 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 demolishing the building.
Staff encourages the applicant to consider incorporation of the accessory building into
redevelopment plans for the site. A 180-day stay period would expire on January 2,
2018.
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 PH&S
staff for review, approval and recording with Carnegie Library:
Agenda Item # 5A Page 19
1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject
property;
2. Color medium format archival quality photographs of all buildings on the
property.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 7, 2017, the Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department received an
application to demolish three accessory buildings at 1035 Kalmia Ave. The building is
not in a designated historic district or locally landmarked, but is over 50 years old and
the action proposed meets the definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981. On June 21, 2017, PH&S staff 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.” The city
manager accepted a completed permit application for demolition on July 6, 2017.
In 2014, two demolition permit applications were submitted for the house and five
accessory buildings on the property. The applications (HIS2014-00231 and HIS2014-
00364) were referred to the full board for review. The first application was withdrawn
prior to the Landmarks Board meeting. The second application was reviewed in a public
hearing and a stay-of-demolition was placed on the application. Staff and
representatives of the Landmarks Board met with the applicant to discuss alternatives to
demolition. The application was withdrawn and the property was later purchased by the
current owners.
The current application was submitted for the demolition of three accessory buildings:
the two wood frame buildings and the hipped-roof stone building. Staff determined that
the frame accessory buildings are not potentially eligible for individual landmark
designation due to their deteriorated condition. Staff would support on-site relocation of
the hipped-roof stone accessory building. However, staff determined that demolition of
the stone accessory building should be reviewed by the full Landmarks Board in a public
hearing.
PURPOSE OF THE BOARD’S REVIEW:
Pursuant to section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981, demolition requests for all accessory
buildings constructed more than 50 years ago requires review by the city manager. If,
during the course of its review, the city manager 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
Agenda Item # 5A Page 20
completed application was accepted and the application 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 t o 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 (July 6, 2017, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on January
2, 2018. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located on the north side of Kalmia Avenue near the intersection
of 9th Street and Kalmia Avenue. The property is not located in a designated historic
district. The 41,312 square foot lot contains the main house and five accessory buildings.
Figure 1. Location Map showing 1035 Kalmia Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 21
Figure 2. Site Map identifying the six buildings at 1035 Kalmia Ave. The stone cottage (2) is
currently proposed for demolition.
Figure 3. Main House, c.1958 Tax Assessor Photo and current (2015).
Main House (Not Proposed for Demolition)
The one-and-a-half story frame house at 1035 Kalmia Ave. was constructed around 1913
and features cross-gable roof form with slightly overhanging eaves and a pent roof
above the first story façade. The gable end has wood shingles and paired double hung
windows. The walls are clad in lap siding with corner boards. The porch at the southeast
corner of the façade has been enclosed and clad in faux-masonry, likely dating to the
1950s. See Attachment B: Current Photographs
Agenda Item # 5A Page 22
Building #2: Hipped Roof Stone Accessory Building (Proposed for Demolition)
Figure 4. Building #2, South and West Elevations, 1035 Kalmia Ave., 2015.
Figure 5. Building #2, North and East Elevations, 1035 Kalmia Ave., 2015.
A one-story, hipped roof cottage is located at the northwest corner of the addition to the
main house. Its form and materiality is indicative of 1920s construction with concrete
sills. Its exact date of construction is unknown. The building measures approximately 11
ft. by 20 ft. (220 sq. ft.) and is constructed of field stone. The window and doors do not
have lintels, but rather the openings meet the trim board of the hipped roof and have
concrete sills below. The south elevation features a single wood casement window and
the west elevation features a centrally located wood door with a transom above. Single -
light wood casement windows are located on either side of the door. The north elevation
features a pair of single-casement windows. The east elevation mirrors the west
elevation with a centrally-located wood door. A six-light casement window is located to
the north of the door, and a second boarded up doorway is located to the south. The
opening features a lintel of stacked stone.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 23
Other Accessory Buildings On-Site
Building #3: Parapet Roof Stone Building (Not Proposed for Demolition)
A one-story, parapet-roof stone building is
located approximately 190 ft. from the south
property line, on the eastern edge of the lot.
The vernacular masonry building is similar in
construction to the hipped roof stone cottage
(Building #2), with rough faced stone laid in
irregular courses and concrete sills. The
building features decorative lintels above the
doors and windows and the parapet roof is
capped in concrete. Although the exact date of
construction is unknown, its construction type
of the early twentieth century.
The north (rear) elevation appears to have sustained long-term moisture issues, as the
roof drains to the north and the building does not have gutters. The building’s stone
elevations are in fair condition, save for some water damage on the north elevation. The
roof, however, is in poor condition due to a large opening and substantial water damage.
Building #4: Gable Roof Stone Garage (Not Proposed for Demolition)
A one-and-a-half story gable roof stone garage is located
west of the stone parapet building toward the middle of the
property and approximately 200 feet from the south property
line. The building is constructed of heave masonry with a
frame gable roof and overhanging eaves. The gable ends are
clad in horizontal wood lap siding. Due to its method of
construction and style, the building was likely constructed
around the same time as the main house in the 1910s.
The building appears to be in good condition, with all
original materials intact.
Building #5: Wood Frame Accessory Building (Approved for Demolition in 2017)
Figure 6. Building #3, 2015.
Figure 7. Building #4,
2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 24
A wood frame accessory building is located at the
western edge of the rear of the property,
approximately 250 feet from the south property line.
The date of construction of the building is unknown,
but was likely constructed before 1940. It appears in
the 1956 tax assessor photograph. The simple, one-
story building has a gable roof and horizontal siding
and rests on a stone foundation. The east elevation
(façade) features a centrally located door opening
flanked by two square window openings. The east
elevation does not have any openings and one door
and one window opening are located on the south
elevation. The west elevation features two four-light
casement windows. The building is in a state of
disrepair and does not appear to have been maintained.
Building #6: Wood Frame Barn with Stone Foundation (Approved for Demolition in
2017)
A large, gable-roofed frame barn is located at
the rear of the property at the north property
line. The one-and-a-half story building rests on
a stone foundation. The stone walls continue to
the east and likely were the foundation for an
attached enclosure. The south elevation (façade)
features a centrally located door opening,
flanked by window openings. The openings are
covered with chicken wire and the original door
does not exist. The east elevation has a small,
animal door but otherwise the north, east, and
west elevations do not have openings. The
building is in a state of advanced deterioration.
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY1
1 North Boulder Historic Overview, 1994.
Figure 8. Building #5, 2015.
Figure 9. Building #6, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 25
Prior to World War-II, North Boulder was predominately agricultural, consisting of
cropland and cattle grazing. Truck gardens, orchards, and fruit cultivation were
undertaken in small parcels of twenty acres and less. Well-known, large farms and
ranches were located in this area of Boulder in the early 1900's, such as the Maxwell
ranch to the north where cattle were raised and the Wolff farm to the southeast where
wheat, dairy cattle and fruit trees were raised.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, most land in this area of Boulder was owned by James
P. Maxwell, who had purchased the land from the U.S. Government in 1880. At that
time, Maxwell acquired several thousand acres west of Broadway and north of what is
now Hawthorne. These lands were primarily irrigated by Silver Lake Ditch (1888),
which was constructed by Maxwell to water 1,000 acres of land in north Boulder. By the
early 1900s, Maxwell began selling off the level land in small tracts of one to five acres;
many of these tracts were sold with water rights to Silver Lake Ditch. Since these tracts
were well outside of the city limits, there was no restriction as to the use of the land;
many of the owners planted orchards and truck gardens and continued this usage until
the beginning of the building boom after World War II.2
A few historic subdivisions were platted in the north Boulder area. The 1910-era
Wellington Gardens subdivision was one component of W.W. Degge’s Wellington
System of the Consolidated Realty and Investment Company. Wellington Gardens
embraced more than four square miles, including most of North Boulder north of
present-day Norwood, as well as lands to the northeast. The property was purchased
from James Maxwell and the Tyler estate and reportedly had hundreds of acres of alfalfa
under cultivation. The subdivision was planned as irrigated fruit and garden tracts,
bringing “the agricultural center of the county right to the doors of Boulder.” The
Wellington Terrace subdivision, platted on sixty acres purchased from W.W. Wolf in
1908, was also developed by Degge. Located immediately north of Wolf’s homestead on
Broadway, the Wolf Subdivision was laid out in a more typically residential manner
with smaller lots.
The area north of Iris Avenue, while adjacent to the City of Boulder, was not annexed to
the city until 1959. The first annexation of land in North Boulder north of Iris Ave.
occurred in 1954 with the acquisition of the Boulder County Hospital grounds at
Broadway and Iris. Large pieces of the area were brought into the city in 1957 and 1959,
1978, and 1990. Scores of smaller parcels in the area have also been annexed. See
Attachment F: North Boulder Historical Background.
PROPERTY HISTORY
2 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Memo: 1035 Kalmia Ave., July 25, 1995.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 26
James P. Maxwell first sold the plot of land identified as “Tract 353” along Kalmia
Avenue (then known as 9th Avenue) to James and Iva McKee in 1905. According to the
1910 U.S. Census, the McKee family operated a poultry farm at this location. James
McKee was born in Michigan around 1873. In 1901, he married Iva Southworth in
Weston, Michigan and the couple and their two sons, Donald and Roger, arrived in
Boulder by 1905. The McKee family lived in Boulder for a brief amount of time. In 1912,
they sold their land and by 1920 the U.S. Census showed the McKee family living in
Riverside, California.
The 1915 Drumm Map shows Tract 353 measuring approximately 550 ft. by 337 ft. with a
building footprint in the approximate location of the existing main house. James and
Mary Gould are shown as the owners.
The Goulds (1912-1938)
James Gould and his family moved
to Boulder from Wheeling,
Missouri in 1912 and purchased the
property from the McKees in the
same year.3 James and his wife,
Mary J., first appear in city
directories in 1913 as living at “9th
near 12th.” James Gould was born in
England around 1844 and
immigrated to the United States in 1850 with his
parents. James and Mary J. were married about
1866 in Michigan, and in the 1880s, records
show they worked as farmers in Livingston County, Missouri. The Gould’s residence
was referred to in the city directories as “near 9th avenue” from about 1913 to 1928. In
1930, the property is referred to as 909 – 9th Avenue. The main house currently on the
property was most likely constructed during the residence of the Gould family.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, James Gould is listed as a rancher and farmer. The 1920
U.S. Census notes that their property included a “truck and chickens.”
The Goulds lived on the property until their deaths in 1934 (James) and 1936 (Mary).
Boulder Daily Camera articles show that Mrs. Mary Gould was often thrown birthday
parties in her later years that many friends and family members would attend. A 1929
3 James Gould of 1035 Kalmia Avenue is not to be confused with the early Boulder pioneer by the
same name that was born in Colorado in 1876 and lived on a farm near Niwot. This James Gould
was the son of Jerome F. Gould and was married to Bertha Paulus.
Kalmia (9th Avenue)
Linden (10th Avenue) Broadway (12th Street) Figure 10. Photo of 1915 Drumm Map showing
Tract 353 outlined in red.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 27
article describes Mrs. Gould as “a woman of refinement and culture. To the children of
the neighborhood, she is known as a ‘cookie jar lady,’ with a cookie jar that is never
empty.”4
James and Mary had nine children, only five of whom survived to adulthood: Fred J.
Gould of St. Louis, MO, Edwin J. Gould of Wheeling, MO, Louis H. Gould of Wichita
Falls, TX, Mrs. Frank Moffitt of Mill Grove, MO, and Mrs. Grace Evelyn Green of
Boulder, CO.
In 1936, the property passed to the Gould’s daughter, Grace Evelyn Green. Grace was
married to George Green and they lived at 905 8th Avenue (now Juniper Avenue). In
1932, George Green is listed in the city directory as a rancher. George and Grace Evelyn
rented the house at 1035 Kalmia for a couple of years, and then sold it in 1938 to Arnett
and Anna Ruth Snyder.
The Snyders (1938-1963)
Arnett Snyder was born in Glidden, Iowa in 1884. He married Anna Ruth Bamford in
Guthrie, Oklahoma in 1908. From 1912 to 1938 Arnett and Anna Ruth lived in Neosho,
Missouri, where he owned and operated a men’s clothing store. Once they moved to
Boulder, Arnett and Anna purchased the property at 1035 Kalmia Ave. (9th Avenue was
re-named Kalmia Ave. in 1953) and lived there from 1938 to 1963. Arnett is first listed in
1949 as a repairman at Perry’s Shoe Shop that was located at 1227 Pearl St. By 1953,
Arnett was employed as a salesman at Eads News located at 1847 Broadway. In 1956,
Arnett is listed as a repairman and clerk at Anglen’s Shoe Shop (George Warren
operated Perry’s Shoe Shop for 37 years passing it to Lee Anglen in 1953). Arnett and
Anna are never listed as ranchers or farmers, so it is unknown how they used the
outbuildings at 1035 Kalmia Avenue.
Arnett and Anna had two children, Nina and William. Nina married John O’Laughlin
and she worked as a seamstress at Graham Furniture in Boulder during the 1940s and
1950s. Arnett and Anna’s son, Dr. William Snyder, worked as member of the faculty of
the department of agriculture at Cornell University beginning in the late 1940s. In 1963
Arnett and Anna moved to Commerce City to live with their daughter. Anna Ruth died
in 1971 and Arnett died in 1978 at the Mesa Vista Sanatorium.
The Birminghams (1968-1988)
4 “Mrs. Gould celebrates Her Eightieth Birthday.” Daily Camera. December, 2 ,1929 (the date is hard to read and
may not be exact).
Agenda Item # 5A Page 28
In 1968, the Snyder’s sold their portion of Tract 353 known as 1035 Kalmia Ave. to John
and Miriam Birmingham. During the 1970s, Dr. John Birmingham worked as the
assistant director of research at the Arapahoe Chemicals located at 2855 Walnut.
Birmingham was a member of the Rocky Mountain Railroad Club and was owner of the
small “Cripple Creek and Victor Narrow Gauge Railroad,” a short tourist line in
operation during the summers at Cripple Creek. He owned at least four historic
Colorado locomotives and several train cars.
According to city directories, John was employed at Arapahoe Chemicals during the
1970s. Before they purchased the house, John is listed in 1960 as a group engineer at
Beech Aircraft Corp. located at 1424 Pearl Street.
In 1988, William Kamin and Darcy Benson-Kamin purchased the property. The current
owners purchased the property in 2017.
According to deed research, the Snyders were most likely responsible for dividing tract
353 into separate lots. Exactly how it was divided is unclear, but the 1949 city directory is
the first year two new residences (811 and 1033 Kalmia) appear in addition to 1035
Kalmia on tract 353. Presently there are eight lots within tract 353.
Figure 11. Current map of tract 353 with 8 divided lots showing address and year of construction
of the main houses.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 29
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. Staff considers that the hipped-roof stone accessory building
contributes to the property’s historic and agricultural character.
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
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The hipped-roof stone accessory building located at 1035 Kalmia Avenue meets
historic significance under criteria 1 and 3.
1. Date of Construction: c. 1920s
Elaboration: The house is estimated to have been constructed around 1913. The Goulds first
appear in city directories in 1913 and the building appears on the 1915 Drumm Wall Map.
The Boulder County Tax Assessor estimates the date of construction to be 1920.
The hipped-roof stone accessory building is indicative of 1920s construction and appears in
the c.1958 tax assessor photograph. The property operated as an active farm from 1905 until
1938. It is likely the accessory buildings were constructed during the Gould’s ownership.
2. Association with Persons or Events: None Observed
Elaboration: James and Mary Gould traveled to Boulder from Wheeling, Missouri in
1912. The Goulds lived at 1035 Kalmia from 1912 until their deaths in the 1930s. They
Agenda Item # 5A Page 30
operated the property at 1035 as a small farm with a “truck and chickens” during
their ownership. The Snyders lived at 1035 Kalmia Avenue from 1938 to 1963. Arnett
was worked in retail, employed at Perry’s Shoe Shop, Eads News, and Anglen’s Shoe
shop.
3. Development of the Community: Agriculture
Elaboration: Throughout the early 20th Century, this area of Boulder, which was
outside city limits until 1959, was primarily agricultural, with its earliest residents
listed as farmers, gardeners, or nurserymen. Many more well-known, large farms
and ranches were located in this area of Boulder in the early 1900's.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Front Range Research Associates, Inc.
Elaboration: The 1995 architectural survey notes the extent of alterations to main
house have diminished the historic integrity of the building. The accessory buildings
were not surveyed at that time.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The hipped-roof stone accessory building located at 1035 Kalmia Ave. meets
historic significance under criterion 4 and 5.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Vernacular
Elaboration: The stone accessory building is typical of early twentieth century
vernacular masonry agricultural building construction.. The utilitarian building was
constructed of local fieldstone, with door and window openings designed to
maximize building efficiency.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None known
3. Artistic Merit: None observed
4. Example of the Uncommon: The hipped-roof stone accessory building is part of one of
the few intact agricultural complexes in north Boulder.
5. Indigenous Qualities: The hipped-roof stone accessory building is constructed of local
fieldstone.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The hipped-roof stone accessory building located at 1035 Kalmia Ave. meets
environmental significance under criterion 1, 2, 3, and 5.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 31
1. Site Characteristics: The accessory building sits on a large lot, retaining its rural
context.
2. Compatibility with Site: Although the original site was reduced in size, the hipped
roof accessory building remains compatible with its site and the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Geographic Importance: This property is an example of the area's agricultural
character from the late nineteenth century through the late 1950s it was annexed into
the City of Boulder in 1959. While a sense of the historic agricultural character
remains in this neighborhood, most of the area's early agricultural properties have
been altered to the point where historic integrity no longer remains or they were
demolished and replaced with larger, more modern buildings.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and is
situated in a manner particularly suited to its original agricultural setting.
5. Area Integrity: This property may provide historic and environmental importance or
significance as a representative example of the character of this area of Boulder in the
early 20th century.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD:
The property is one of the few remaining agricultural complexes from the early 20th
century in this area of Boulder. The area has become more residential in nature;
however, this property has retained its rural character.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
An inspection by staff in 2015 indicated the accessory building remained in good
condition.
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
The applicant has submitted an estimate for the relocation of the building. See
Attachment A: Applicant Materials.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT:
Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 32
THE BOARD’S DECISION:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have
significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, the city manager
shall issue a demolition permit.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have significance
under the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended for a period not to
exceed 180 days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager
as complete in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the
demolition of the building (section 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981). A 180-day stay period
would expire on January 2, 2018.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
A stay of demolition for the accessory building at 1035 Kalmia Ave. is appropriate based
on the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that:
1. The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its
historic and architectural significance;
2. The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact
representative of the area’s past;
3. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to
rehabilitate or relocate the building.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Applicant Materials
Attachment B: Current Photographs
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1956
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Attachment F: North Boulder Historical Background
Agenda Item # 5A Page 33
Attachment A: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item # 5A Page 34
Agenda Item # 5A Page 35
Attachment B: Current Photographs
View looking north, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 36
Southwest corner of property, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Northeast corner of house, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Northwest corner of house and stone cottage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 37
Northeast corner of stone cottage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
North elevation of stone cottage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 38
Northwest corner of stone cottage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
South elevation of stone cottage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 39
South (façade) elevation of stone garage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
East elevation of stone garage, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 40
East (façade) elevation of frame shed, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
North elevation of frame shed, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 41
East elevation of frame barn, 2015.
South elevation of flat roof building, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 42
West elevation of flat roof building, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
North elevation of flat roof building, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 43
View looking north into property, 1035 Kalmia Ave., 2015.
View facing northwest, 1035 Kalmia Ave, 2015.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 44
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item # 5A Page 45
Agenda Item # 5A Page 46
Agenda Item # 5A Page 47
Attachment D: Tax Assessor Card
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Agenda Item # 5A Page 48
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
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.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 49
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.
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 # 5A Page 50
Attachment F: North Boulder Historical Background
Agenda Item # 5A Page 51
Agenda Item # 5A Page 52
Agenda Item # 5A Page 53
Agenda Item # 5A Page 54
Agenda Item # 5A Page 55
Agenda Item # 5A Page 56
Agenda Item # 5A Page 57
Agenda Item # 5A Page 58
Agenda Item # 5A Page 59