HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Consideration of an application to designate 4051 Broadway (HIS2008-00010) - the barn and a portion of the site - as a local historic landmarkMEMORANDUM
Apri12, 2008
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Preservation Intern
Chris Meschuk, Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Pubiic hearing and consideration of an appiication to designate the granary
and a portion of the site at 4051 Broadway Street as a local historic
landmark as per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981
(HIS2008-00010).
STATISTICS
l. Site: 4051 Broadway St
2. Zoning: RL-2 (Residential - Low 2)
3. Owner/Applicant Cornerstone, Inc
4. Lot Size: Approximately 100,444 square feet (2.48 Acres)
5. Date of Construction: 1950
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board forwards to City Council an application to designate the granary and
portion of the site at 4051 Broadway as a]ocal historic landmark, finding that it meets the
standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-ll-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C., 1981 and
adopts this staff inemorandum as findings of the board. The board recommends the landmark
boundary be established as shown and described on pages 8& 9 of the staff inemorandum dated
Apri12, 2008.
This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that the proposed designation is consistent
with the criteria specified in Section 9-11-5(c), B.R.C. 1981.
SUMMARY
• The purpose of this review is for the Board to determine whether the proposed designation of
4051 Broadway conforms with the puiposes and standards of Sections 9-11-1 Legislative
Intent and 9-11-2 Ciry Council May designate Landmarks and Historic Districts of the
Boulder Revised Code (BRC).
A~enda I[em ~i'7A Paee 1
On January 10, 2008 the owner of the property at 4051 Broadway submitted an application
for designation of the granary.
Based upon analysis of the building's history and architecture, as well as level of historic
integrity, it is staff's opinion that it has significance under the historic, architectural, and
environmental Individual Landmark Significance Criteria (1975), and the historic
preservation ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Board find that the designation of the granary at 4051 Broadway
conforms with Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 of the Boulder Revised Code and recommend to
City Council the approval of the application for landmark designation, adopting this staff
memorandum as findings of the Board.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the owner of the property at 4051 Broadway submitted a demolition permit application
for the granary on the site, in anticipation of sale and redevelopment of the property. The Design
Review Committee referred the application to the Landmarks Board for review. The public
hearing fee was never paid, and the application expired. In 2007, the property was sold, and a
site review application for the site was submitted. In November 2007, Staff gave initial
comments regarding the development, including a request that the granary on the site be
submitted for landmark designation, based on Staff's belief that the building would be eligible
for landmark designation. (See Attachment F, Site Review Comments).
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The approximately 2.48 acre site at 4051 Broadway (formerly 5151 Broadway) contains a main
house (built in 1958, not par[ of this application) and the granary. The property was outside the
city limits until annexed in 1995.
Granary
The granary was constructed in 1950 by John H. Stephens. The building measures 36 feet by 42
feet, and is of frame construction. Although many consider the building a barn, it was designed
and constructed as part of an entrepreneurial turkey fanning operation started by Mr. Stephens.
The granary was constructed to hold feed for the turkeys, which were held in pens to the west of
this building. The pens appear to have been demolished or removed sometime between 1966 and
1972, based on aerial photography research.
Leigh Stephens McCarthy, in a letter to the city in 2005 as part of her demolition request,
described the design and operation of the building. The building has a concrete foundation,
which extends approximately 4 feet above grade on the majority of the building, so that the floor
of the building is level with the bed of a delivery truck. The horizontal sliding doors on the south
end of the building open on the east and west elevations for a drive through of the grain delivery
trucks. This area was later used as a garage for motor vehicles.
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS9\Landmarks\broadway.4051\04.0208 LPAR Desgnation Mcmadoc ACenda Ite1n k7A Paee 2
'E
.
r;
c 7 ! ~ ~
~
c" ~ y -
_
. mad»,~•~+r,~..-~msp^-+~.~', . ,~t
R
*w i
. - -
i ~r _ ~ .x
xe ~ a ~:..b. wa. _ ~
.w ' ~ f
j t'.:
l r~~irn~ 1. 1~1_~! hrn~r~lir~;cl;r~rnu~~, ~ J~/„~~~1~c,~,~n(u~~lj,hr,tu.
Courtesy t{ae Ccunegie Elrctrtcli Library for-Local /flstory, I3oulder~, CO
Above the raised floor was a track system that held metal grain storage bins. The grain elevator
tower on the south side of the building, which is clad in rolled gray asphalt was constructed to
allow scoops to carry the grain from the truck into the bins.
According to Leigh Stephens McCarthy, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Stephens, no grain was raised
on the site. The building was only used for grain storage for 5 years and in 1955 the turkey
farming operation was abandoned, and the track system inside the granary was sold.
J
l
~ ~
. _
~
~a
_v_.~~ - ~
-
M i y r.
~
/ Y <j' ,
?'.wr
r
ti-- w r'`~'•
w _ ~
FiRi~re 2: 4051 L3ruacl~l~av Grari~ary March 200~Y
S:IPLAMdataAlongranglHlS'I\Landmarks\broadway.4051\04.02.08 LPAI3 Designation Memo.doc AaCnda ItCln PIlQe 3
Site
The property is approximately 2.48 acres, and contains a house constructed in 1958, the granary,
and a concrete pad which was formerly associated with the turkey pens.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION
Section 9-11-5(c) Public Hearing Before the Landmarks Board, of the historic preservation
ordinance specifies that in their review of an application for local landmark designation, "the
landmarks board shall determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes
and standards in Sections 9-11-1 Legislative Intent, and 9-11-2 City Council May Designate
Landmarks and Historic Districts".
9-11-1: Legislative Intent states:
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by
protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas of the city reminiscent
of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national history or providing
significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this
chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such
buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote
tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage.
(b) The City Council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city
but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public
interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring
that demolition of buildings and structures important to Chat heritage will be carefully
weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and
new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating
surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them.
(c) The City Council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new
construction on landmarks or structures in a historic district, the Landmarks Preservation
Advisory Board shall follow relevant city policies, including, without limitation, energy-
efficient design, access for the disabled, and creative approaches to renovation [not
applicable in this case].
9-11-2: City Council may Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts states:
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the City Council may by ordinance:
(1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an
integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having a
special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
and designate a landmark site for each landmark;
(2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of
sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and
historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a
distinct section of the city;
S:U'LAN\data\longran~\HIS'I~landmarks\broadway.4051\04.02.08 LPAB Designation Memo.doc Agenda Item #7A Pa¢e 4
(3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites,
buildings, structures, or features which aze contained in two or more
geographically separate areas, having a special character and historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value that are united together by
historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics; and
(4) Amend designations to add features or property to or from the site or
district.
(b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the
requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city.
To assist in the interpretation of the historic preservation ordinance, the Landmarks Board has
adopted significance criteria to use when evaluating applications for individual landmarks. The
criteria aze included in Attachment B.
The Board may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. Findings
must be adopted within 30 days of the hearing date. Should the Board disapprove the application,
the Board must notify City Council of that action within fourteen days of the hearing date. City
Council may call up a decision disapproving a designation. Should an application be
disapproved, the same application may not be submitted for a period of one year.
If the Board finds that the proposed designation conforms to Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2 of the
code, it shall adopt specific findings and conclusions approving or modifying and approving the
application. If the board approves the proposed designation, the application will be forwarded to
City Council (within 100 days) for a public hearing.
ANALYSIS
Staff has identified the following as key issues related to this application:
A. Does the proposed application protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas of
the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or national
history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past?
B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments
for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods,
promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City's living heritage?
C. Does the proposed application 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?
A. Does the proposed application protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and
areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state, or
national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past?
The staff finds that the proposed application will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a building,
site, and area of the City reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in local history
and provide for a significant example of an architectural style of the past to be preserved. The
S-\PLAN\data\IOngrangWlS'1llandmarks\broadway.4051\04.02.08 LPAB Designation Memo.doc A>;¢nd8 Item Pr/A Pace 5
Staff believes that the application meets the historic and architectural criteria for individual
landmarks as outlined below:
Historic Significance:
Summary: The granary at 4051 Broadway has historic significance under criteria 1 and 3.
1. Date of Construction: 1950
Elaboration:
Although the Boulder County Assessor lists the date of construction as 1958, the granary was
built in 1950. The assessor date is for the house, constructed in 1958. Although the building is
only 58 years old, it is significant for its relation to the agricultural past of north Boulder.
2. Association with Historical Persons or Events: None observed
Elaboration:
The property upon which the granary is located appears to have originally been owned by the
Maxwell family, who sometime prior to 1917 sold the property to W.W. Degge. Degge appears
to have developed Wellington Gardens, and in 1917 Consolidated Realty and Investment
Company purchased a large amount of land from Degge and the Wellington Development
Company. In 1947 Sohn Stephens, and his brother Harold purchased 5 acres of land, and split it
down the middle. In 1952 John H. Stephens purchased some property in Section 13, Township 1
north, Range 71 West from Consolidated Realty & Investment Co. The Stephens owned the
property until 2007, when it was sold the Cornerstone, Inc. Although the property was solely
owned and developed by the Stephens family, staff does not consider them to be of local, state,
or national significance. See Attachment C, directory and deed research for more information on
the Stephens.
3. Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: North Boulder Agriculture
Elaboration:
This property remained outside the city until 1995, and was part of a larger agricultural use of the
area. This area was sparsely developed and used for a variety of farming and ranching activities.
This building represents the recent past agricultural history in north Boulder which is almost
non-evident today.
4. Recognition by Authorities: None observed.
Architectural Significance:
Summary: The granary at 4051 Broadway has architectural significance under criteria 1 and 4.
1. Recognized Period/Style: Vernacular Agriculture/Granary
Elaboration:
The granary was designed in a simple vernacular style, similar to that of a barn. The granary
had 4 or 5 grain bins inside, all used for storage of feed for the turkeys. The building has a
concrete foundation, horizontal drop (or novelty) siding, and an asphalt roof. The character
defining features of the building include the small 4 light windows, center multi-story loft,
and the grain elevator tower which extends from the south side of the roof.
S:APLANVdataAlongrang\HISTlandmnrksVbroadway 4051A04.02.08 LI'AB Dev~na[ion Memo-doc Agenda Item #7A P3Qe 6
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None known
The building is believed to have been designed and built by John Stephens.
3. Artistic Merit: none observed
4. Example of the Uncommon: Granary
Elaboration:
Staff does not believe that there are many granary's remaining within the city limits, and
serves as a link to the agricultural past of Boulder.
5. Indigenous Qualities: none observed
B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize
neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the City's
living heritage?
Staff finds that the proposed application would 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. Limiting the
landmazk boundary as proposed by the owners will not affect the environmental significance
criteria, as outlined below. See page 8 & 9 for more information regarding the analysis of the
boundary.
Environmental Significance:
Summary: The property has environmental significance under criteria 3.
I. Site Characteristics: None observed
2. Compatibility with Site: None observed
3. Geographic Importance: Located in north Boulder, visibility from Wonderland Lake Open
Space.
Elaboration:
The granazy is a familiar visual landmark in north Boulder, and is highly visible from
Broadway and Wonderland Lake Open Space.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed
5. Area Integrity: None observed
S:\PLAN\dota\IongrangWI571Landmarks\broadway 4051\04.02.08 LPAB Designation Memo.doc Agenda Item #7A PaEe 7
1
C. Does the proposed application draw a reasonable balance betweelz private property
rights and the public interest in preserviig the City's cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage by ensuring that denu~lition of huildirags and sts~uctures irraportant to that
heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives?
Staff considers the landmark request draws a reasonable balance between private property rights
and the public's interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The
granary will provide a link to the area's past, while still accommodating the additional
development on the site. Staff, in working with the applicant has developed a conceptual
landmark boundary for the building. Currently, the granary is located on an outlot for the
subdivision, which includes common open space for the use of the 9 residential lots. The
boundary will extend for 10 feet to the north of the building, which fronts on the private street
providing access for the residential lots, 10 feet on the east and south of the building, and 5 feet
on the west side of the building. The northern and eastern elevations of the building are the most
visible, and the proposed boundary will allow the most visibility from Wonderland Lake open
space and Broadway.
_ . „ a:
---a-
_ -
-
a
~
. i..
F'iga~re 3: Site Plart crs of Fe~bri.~ary ?005'
S:ANLAMdataAlongran~\H[S"I\Landmarks\broadti~ay.4051\04.02.08 LPA13 Designation Memo doe A~Ctttla jtC1]] $~7A PB~~C ~
i
-
_ ti,~,...:~-~,®._..,_e
i
-
t.k~~.. =t ~ 4
1 ~j
I ;
i ~ ~ f
j ~
i
- Proposed Landmark Boundary
1 1 ,
a. _ ~ _
4' W J .
FINDINUS
The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application and evidence presented that the
proposed designation application, subject to the conditions of approval, will be consistent with
the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
1. The proposed designation will protect, enhance, and perpetuate buildings, sites, and areas of
the City reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons important in focal, state, or national
history and providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. (9-11-1(a),
B.R.C. 1981)
2. The proposed designation will 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. (9-1 I-
1(a), B.R.C. 1981)
3. The proposed designation with the amended boundary draws a reasonable balance between
private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage by ensuring that demolitionof buildings and structures important to
that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives. (9-1 l -1(b), B.R.C. 1981)
S:AP1.ANldataAIon~ranalHltiTllandmarks\broadway.4051104.02-08 LPAB Designation Mcmo.dcx AQellda Itelll #~A Pale
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Landmark Application
B: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
C: Directory & Deed Research & Stephens family history
D: Assessor Card
E: Letter from Leigh Stephens McCartney related to 2005 Demolition request
F: Site Review comments
G: Current Photographs
S:\PLAN\data\lon~ran~\H75'I~L~nrlmarks\broadway.4051\04.02.08 LPA[i Dcsi~nation Memadoc A8¢nda li¢m #7A PeE¢ 1U
Attachment A
Application for Individual Landmark
Name of Buildin s Date:
Address•
• n ~ ~eu,~+eo[t~S ~aD-"lll -m'f4y hiG~s•
Owner(s):\tlfnp ~o~A .-.~.t~.c - cow'k~~~-F Phone: 3-17~.'~.lgc~'
Address es
A ticant:~~ w... Phone: 1 - - 3 77~ alag
Address: 5 - n(
Date of Construction: ~-\~~/s
Type of Construction: 1,,~~~( 1 \ ~A~p
Architectural Style /Period: Q ~
Architect/Builder: \pl~~ }Tp,~kC
Condition of Exterior: 1' ~ ,~~p~ f
Additions /Alterations to Exterior: W~ f - ~ - d~
Date of Alteration s /Additions : ~ W k
Please attach a copy of the legal description of tlce property.
Fee S25 (if applicable)
A filing fee of $25.00 is required to file an application for designation of an individual landmark.
Should the Landmazks Boazd initiate designation of a property or azea, there is no fee involved.
I certify than e ' jor herewith submitted are true and correct to the best ojmy knowledge.
Si a
aad~55: y35 ~ S ~
Desi anon initiated b Date: ~ u
AGENDA ITEAA 1F T / I PAG~~
Attachment B
Landmark Preservation Advisory Board
Adopted 9l17J75
Secretary to the Boazd
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1974, 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.
Historical 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.
1. Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on
the age of the structure.
2. Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national,
state, or local.
3. Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most
applicable to an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure,
though is 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.
4. 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 historical
interest and value.
5. 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
AGEPdDA Il'EAA #PAGE.~.
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.
1. Recognized Period/Stvle: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural
period/style, ie: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American
Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Bazkar),
The History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco
(Gebhard et al), History of Architecture (Flectcher), Architecture/Colorado, and
any other published source of universal or local analysis of "style."
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an azchitect
or builder who is recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or
locally.
3. Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of
excellent visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
4. Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or
craftsmanship that are representative of a significant innovation.
5. Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the
Boulder area.
6. 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.
I. Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural
vegetation.
2. Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement,
or other qualities of design with respect to its site.
3. Geo ra hic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical
chazacteristics, it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
community.
4. Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is
situated in a manner particularly suited to its function.
5. 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.
6. Other, if applicable.
AGENDA ITEA4 #-~r~ PAGE ~
3
Attachtnent C
4051 Broadway Street Directory & Deed Research
Owners of 4051 Broadway
Bold indicates long-term owners
Prior [0 1917 W.W. Degge and the Wellington Development Company
1917 to 1947 Consolidated Realty & Investment Company
1947 to 1952 Harold & John H. Stephens
1952 to 2007 John H. & Catherine G. Stephens
2007 to Present Cornerstone, Inc
Residents of 4051 Broadway
Bold indicates long-term residents
Prior to 1953 Not Listed
1955 to 1987 John H. & Catherine Stephens (John listed as a turkey farmer from 1955 to
1961, no listing in 1962 or 1963, later listed as a carpenter, and FAA
employee)
1987 - 2006 Not examined
Note: The Carnegie Branch Library's collection of city directories is intermittent beginning in 1869, and
annual beginning in 1960 through 2006. "No Return" or "No phone" does not necessarily mean [he
building was vacant.
faG~Nt)A ITEn~ ~PAC~
I8 ~UnaiG99
A6 ovF;:aooo
John Howard "Steve" Stephens o~ steppe
ocr. zJ„1947,~(?st:.~, zooo.-,
John Howard "Steve Stephens died June 15, 1999, at his home in o W. Stephens of Lafayette
Boulder, Colorado, at the age of 86. He was born October 22, 1912, J die Monday, Oct. 23, 2000. e
on the Stephens farm neaz Villisca, Iowa, to Laura Ann (Workman) was 53.
and Jghn William Stephens. He graduated from Bedford High School, ° The so of Ray B. Stephens d
Bedford, Iowa, in 1930, and attended Chillicothe Business College in Fdna Wal rs Stephens, he wa born
Missouri for two yeazs before going to work as a business manager for Oct 21, 19 , in Canton, Ojtiq e
Fruehauf Trucking in Peoria, Illinois. On April 1, 1939, he married married M Derry in Lq sville,
Ohio, in 1967, a died iri 1 . He
Catherine Elizabeth Griffiths in Peoria. When World Waz II broke out he rrtarried Amy well in egas in
served in the United States Army. He rose to the rank of First Lieutenant June 1995.
and commanded a weapons platoon of the anti-aircraft artillery in France He attended ont, a Commu-
and Germany, In 1946 at the war's end he returned from service and ttity College,
bought land in Boulder; where he built his own home and lived until his Mr. Stephens ]i Lafayette for
death. He was an avid hunter, fisherman and story teller. For several 20 years and worke an elechi-
yeazs he worked two jobs to support his family. He was a master furish Bran at Rocky Flats m 1980 until
carpenter and cabinetmaker, and he raised turkeys, first on range east of 1992'
He enjoyed fis ' d camping,
Boulder and later in confinement pens he built on his land. He worked coin collecting, wa sports and
on the constrnction of the missile silos at Deer Trail, CQ and built [he using the Interne
cupola on the University Memorial Center a[ the campus of the ~ Sutvivors incl de a da titer, Mi-
University of Colorado in Boulder. In 1965 he went to work for the U.S. chelle R Stepp s ofllto ton; a
Postal Service. He transferred to the National Bureau of Standards in son, John R S hens of omton;
1966, for whom he built and rigged scientific reseazch antennas all over and a brother Kenneth S ens of
the U.S. After two yeazs of nigh[ school to become a qualified electri- Lotnsville, O 'o.
A funeral ervice will be at 0 a.m.
clan, he joined the FAA in 1968 as an electrician. He retired from [he to_ day at 'st Chapel in Bou er.
FAA in 1981. He is survived by his wife of 60 years, Catherine "Kay" Contr' ufions may be mad to
Stephens of Boulder, by twin daughters Cheryl Lynn Vmcent of the ricanCancerAssocia'on,
Wisconsin and Catherine Leigh McCarthy of Maine; by twin daughter in car of Crist Mortuary, 339
and son Joy Ellen Taylor of Missouri and John William Stephens of Fort pent se Place, Boulder, CO 80 1.
Collins, Colorado; and by eleven grandchildren, Cheryl and Stephen - - _
Vincent; Liam and Gavin McCarthy; Patrick and Levi Stephens;
Matthew, Jannette, Renee, and Tom Taylor, and Robin Taylor Wilson;
and five great-grandchildren, William Vmcent, Kayleigh Abbott, Jadelyn
Vincent, Randall Wilson, and Rachel Taylor. John Howard Stephens was
preceded in death by his twin brother, George Harold Stephens, former-
ly of Boulder, by brothers Cecil, Wilson, and lames of Iowa, and by one
sister, Mary Linette Brooke of Iowa.
Funeral services will be held on Sunday June 20, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. at
Howe Mortuary, with visitation Saturday, June 19, 1999, from 5:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Stephens will be buried in the Putman Township
Cemetery, Cuba, liinois on Wednesday, June 23, 1999.
~ George Custer
Stephens
l 9 ~ c na 19 9 9 ~uly 22, 1932 - Oa. 5, 19 9
JOhn HOWard , ~ orge Custer Stephen of
`Steve' Stephens oulder died Tuesda ,
Oa. 22, 1912 -June IS, 1999 ~ g /Y)ny 1 q qSI Oct. 1999, in Boulder. was
ohn Howazd "Steve" Stephens B tte Wilcox 67.
of Boulder died Tuesday, June He as born July 22, 1 32, in
5, 1999, in Boulder. He was 86. tephenS I{ansas~City, Mo., to Ge rge F.
He was born Oct. 22, 1912, in Apri115, 920 -May 26, 199 Ste he and Florence aster
Villisca,~Iowa, to John Stephens p
and Laura Workman Stephens. He ette Wilc Stephens of B ul- Stephen . He married osema•
married Catherine Griffiths in Pe- ~ der died dnesday, Ma 26, rie Fuch on Feb. 8, 1 59, in
oria, Ill., on April 1, 1939. 1999, in Boulde Community os- Kansas
ty, Mo.
Mr. Stephens graduated from pital. She was 79.
Bedford High School in Bedford, She was born ri] 15, 19 0, in Mr. Ste hens was signal
Iowa, in 1930. He attended Chillo- Tulsa, Okla., to Ho ace W' ox and maintenan e officer the U.S.
cothe Business College in Missou- Minnie Oswalt Wil x. Army, He s rved fo 26 years,
rifor two years, then worked as a She was ajournali t. S e alternatin etwee the United
business manager for Fruehauf worked in Italy in the 9 Os g
Trucldng in Peoria, Ill. and'60s, and in Switz din the States and ope 'th two
_ _ _
1960s and'70s. She wo ed in e, tours in Vie am. a retired
He was a lieutenant in the Army many and retired to B u der ui ~ from the mili 1974. He
during World Waz II and com- , ~
mended a weapons platoon of anti- 1988• worked in fire co trol and was
aircraft artillery in France and Ger- She grew up in C ore an amateur radio operator and
many. Springs and gradus ed fro Coia~~ the Mars direc o far Colorado
He moved to Boulder in 1946 redo College. She njoyed e
mountains. and Wyoming f 12 years.
and bought land. He raised tar- Survivors inclu e a son, Jo Sti33+ He was a Silv . Palm Ea le
keys, first on a range east of Boul- hens of Fort Co ' s; two da `,hl"+ g
der and later in confinement pens p , Scout and mor Gently acfive
he built on his land. ters, Mimi Step ens of Albuq = ~ ~ goy Scouts, r op No. 78. He
He was a master finish carpenter 4ue, N.M., and eck Stephens C'
and cabinet maker. In 1965 he Boulder. • ;R was a lifelong ember of the
went to work for the U.S. Postal No services a planned. _ Veterans of F rei Wars, a
Service. He transferred to the Na- Howe Mo ary is in charge of_, member of Re d Officers
flonal Bureau of Standazds in 1966 anangemen d Associafion d trea~urer for
and built scientific research anten- ~ Armed Forc s Communications
nas all over the United States. ~ and Electro 'cs Asso 'ation.
After two years of night school
to become a qualified electrician, Survivor include hi wife of
he joined the Federal Aviation Ad- Boulder, a~aughter, Ste-
ministration in 1968 as an electri- phens-Silb r of Monum nt; a
cian. He refired in 1981. son, Geor~e M. Stephe s of
He enjoyed hunting and fishing. Denver, and a grandson
Survivors include his wife of r
Boulder, twin daughters, Cheryl Graves~de services be
Vmcent of Wisconsin and Cather- at noon F~'day at Fort Lo an
ine McCarthy of Maine; twins JoY National cemetery, 3698 .
Taylor of Missouri and John Ste- Sherid Blvd., Denver.
phens of Fort Collins; 11 grand- tary honors will be provide by
children; and five great-grandchil- Services will be at 2 p.m. Sun- Fort Cason.
dren. day at Howe Mortuary Chapel of
He was preceded in death by his Boulder. Interment will be in the Contributions may be ma e
twin brother, George Stephens; Pusan Township Cemetery, to [he~erican Cancer Soc e-
three other brothers, Cecil Ste- Cuba, Ill. ry, Bo der County Uni[, 150
phens, Wilson Stephens and Contributions may be made to Broadway, Boulder, 80302 0
James Stephens; and one sister, American Legion Post No. 10, Hospice of Boulder County Inc.,
Mary Brooke. 4760 28th St., Boulder, Colo. 2825 Marine St., Boulder,
Visitation will be from 5 [0 7 80304, or Pleasant View Grange,
p.m. today at Howe Mortuary Cha~ 527 W. Cactus Court, Louisville, c
pel, 2121 11th St., Boulder. Colo. 80027. t~C~iVI7q iTHA~
w
. - _ -
- y,
~ Y ~F ~
~ p` »
~ `Su
a _
~ f
r
i
K ~
y~-
K n
S ~..F~
n
~ar~'"
n
-
,x -~F3~T l vb h
~ ~ ~
1 . y' .j
~:j. N' y~ S. f tk
3 tp bl 1"..
- - n ~ ~ ~ r ~ ° y '(emu-•y,~+ ~ t ~ n
e~1 »v1s ~'a~'p ~ ~A - ;mac ra'
• , F
4
~J~. : ~ - &4rt~'. gkiF~ m - ~ ~ H r~ ` ti $ xrr.:'a f*1~..r ~^4
v
'~J
,i
. _ _ - _ ~~~~tt~~~''
~ _ ~ ~ # ~ ~t ~
~ ....~..:~..um ..~~a,~.,.n ..t.~_..~. _ '.taa- ~ .~,vrJaCF~;S~i
! F2~AL E~Tr=~,"f"~ APPF~:,~;{ sAL CARD---RI.~RAL J ~
_ _
LEGAL DE5CRIPl'IUN ~ ~ -
ii C'T' P. 1'7 T *:ue ~ NuM4eR OP ACRES
:ir1c.-rya-.].3-1.,-~ ..1.
i
- - - ----i !
OWNER 5 NAMC AND ADDRESS: ~'f 11
- __~J~ 11• ~~4Vi1 * u 'QTY-.~.~ 1 .w
CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP I .aM'~a `~y1 ~ --y~
- - - _ r
~ b: 0., ,y+~.~~~ I r 1 y iaRa..^..~~h J -r M;.:..n.
NAME AppRESS DATE VOLU M1IE PAGE INSTRUMENT 1.r, 't'~'"a~f / bL
.y, _'?~Y,~:~
~ V
-____.r____-.-_ I~
--1
~ LAND VALUE ADJUSTMENTS ~ ~ > S T~ ~ I
NUM.-LP ADJUSTMENT ___!I s
ITEM D.cSCRiPT10N AcR65 .-~-PENCENT I AMOUNT LAND C .~,.,1 d~L VALUE
ADD. DeD. AD U. I DeD. , ~ - : i
ORCHARDS I ~ y
MERCHANTA3LE TIMEER I _ - _
I._...... . _ _
MINERALS OR COAL + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
n Y
WATER RIGHT ~ ~ '~b y, ~.p
I
1
_OCA710`J FACTORS `f{. , ~ 'I
DISTANCQ - a
u-
_ e~ d~
ALL WEATHER R04D My. 1"'rv+.'`rs'~_'r
-x+76.. ~ -
i YPE OF F20AD ~ ~
- ;.,H
- _ 1e .i.o,
r;, _OCAL TRA DI N., CCNTER . . _ I I ~ ROADS ANO
t
_ I
_ TOTAL X X X X h
ETHER -...._---I----_._-_---- I I--_._.._-__.__ i !
ETHER ~ TOTAL NET ADJUSTMENTS S
I
®j TOTAL ADDITION AND DEDUGTION S _ _
~''!'i[ _ .__._TOTAL .N ET ADJ USTM ENT___--__-_TS_ TOTAL FARM LAND VAt.UE S '
ANNU LASS hSSM ENT SUMMARY OF VALU 3
SUMMARY IMPROVe
YEAR CHANGE REASON LAND I TOTAL FULL APPRAISED
MENTS _
I~ ig - $ $ I VALUE
~ j
DESCRIPTION DATE
Jp - - _.T-~ - AMOUNT 19 ~ ~ ~ TOTAL LAND VALUE
19 _ ~I BUILDINGS AND IM-
d~I~~ ORIGINAL COST(IMPROV EM ENTSI{ . 19 T., ~ PROVEN F_NTS (THIS CARD} !
II
A'' -I - -
1.DDITIONS ANU BETTEkMENTS _ _ _ 19_ I_____ _ ~ CARD NO.
IT_ I ~i
L- _ _ _ _ _-T____~- . _ _
OWNER tSTIMA'1:E OF VALUE f9 _ -T V CAftD NO.
' ~kIVAT6 AI PRAISAL I 19 _ ~ I I '
_ ~ TOTAL BUILDINGS '
- - i . ___.._...__~I
N ,.,URA_NC E._____.____, J i tg _ I ~~..___..~i~..--_ AND IMPROVEMENTS
I ~ ~ . .
-
I~ ,
_I..~asl~_C}!i`~li:~ {:~~~C~l~'z'lG~f~! AN 44~.LUE CALCULA'!'°tON CARD__---_- ~~'-__._CAROs
MAl^J BUfL171t\G DESCRIf~`iiON GROUND PLAN SKE-fCH AREA••MAtN BUILDING
_LASSIrICA-rICN No.._____ BLDG. ~fo._._.__
. I INUI(:ATE Nl1 n1 t3ER STORIESI
'I'XPE A.ND LTSE ~ 120C3f ING ATTIC -~---+-i-----,-. AREA
i i I I I •T'TT-I~-~"i- ~ rTf'T-T-!-1~
arm Dwclling I Prepared Roll Finished Stairs -°-°----°-•-°---......r ~
-
?rm Barn i Built-Llp Asphait_ Percent of Ground Area: ~ x
..............C
Sllirgle: Z1~'ood....? Asphalt_...~] Finished..-_..--.-% Llnfill._---------~' ~ - x -
Ither Farcu ................................0 rlshestos.....-._....[] Slate.-----.--•--? -
on]'1: Indus.: C. !'d No......-...._? P012CHF,S ~ x
tVletal ? file: Cement ? Clay C1 - -
ulnber of booms .............-.-.....CJ Tin...--.-.-..-..? Copper............-.? Number: Open..._..---Closed..•.-_._. _ x
LIMITS A1VL) R0014IS ~ Insulated Llnfulished.._.-__---. Finished._-......... - _ x
-
xt„a ~t -----~IIII,a„•I „i - • ? TERRACES x
CLuL~ Ur.ih I Rooola ~ I
- rsASFn•Ir:I~•r xina -
I
--------I - - t'1rea: 10D~n CJ ; C7 SOro ? .
1 ~ 25i'o None._...-----•-----C flEATUvG
l _ ? Stove TOrAL
No Floor
~'~'arm Air: Pipeless _ RE;~rzcDUCTioN COST AND FINAL VALUE
1 Plastered Ccilinl7 ,
FOLii\[~<~,TION Piped .......................................C ~ I
Plastered Walls MAIN BUILDING
gists or Piers-•-------------------••-----•? Forced Circulation
Walls: ]dird-_--.._.-_.._........~ Hot Water or Vapor.........._.......? i
ITEM ~ AREA OR UNIT
12:115 F1I115hCd rtoonis: Stealn ? i, ~ NO. QUANTITY COST i TOTAL
r...
? Ne.-.....-----•------------.----_..-,c Area Gas Steam i2adiators....__---.-.....? VASE
- I
FLOORS as Floor urnaces o.._..._..-.... ; = ~ - • .
EXT11;12IrvR ~'VALLS
r SuL-floor lst...._-_.._.? 2d L1p ? Air Conditioning I ~
- i---=-
ood Frame ? ~ ~ ~
_ No 5ubiloor 1st...._? 2d LIp ? Autorr,ntic Burner or Stoker: -~---------i----
]eathing ? No blieath;ng ? J T
Construction: Oil.-..-_? Gas....-_? Coal...._-[] ~ I
>lid 1~Iasomq I Wood Ioists ~ J ADDITIONS (PLUS )
- n ~LUr~13ING I ~
sulatiom Cona'ete ol: Grade
9• ..............5'~. ArO I'inish...Fioering: C' B
O broom 0--~;WaterTO`~~y.---- _
~ard and BdIFO'rd Hardwood...--.? 5o(twrocd_....? Number of 1 fixtures: Tubs.--,----.... ~ `I
I
]Ingle: Wood.----•--•-------------------? ~
~ Tile: Sq. Ft..----•----°---•°---------_°---- Washsiands......Water Closets.....- ~.I I,~, I 1 f I 1 1 I I I~ r J I I I
I
sphalt ? Asbestos ? ........................Sg. Ft......-...------..-•-. Shower Stalls---------_.._xit. Sink ? FRONT ~ -
ncco - Automatic Water Hcater_.-.-._...[;1 ~
INTP:RIOR FINhiII pEPREC1AlIGN AND OBSOLESCENCE DEDUCTIG^JSIMiINUS)
Veneer: Com. ? Face ? Laundry Tubs ? Septic Tank ?
Wallboard or Equal--------------- C.
2 `'Call'er: I~IEitl~'C L' CUL _~J' PJastered _ Private '~V2tfr System..---.........[] A. AGE (NORMAL DEPRECIATION) I I _
C SO]iCl: CDIn. ? L'ace ? ~1V•OOd Paneling' I\Ind B. PHYSICAL CONDITfON - - - -__ie
- _I_. I
a•ete Block ? hind: C. MODERNIZATION (MINUS) - _ - ___-_-°ic
Sq. Ft . OTf-IER ITLMS D. TOTAL DEPRECIATION _ _ _ _ I ~---.^I-`___
.
TIJC Walls: S Ft E. NET CONDITION (700-D) - - ';n I
4 Natural i'ircpJa<es _
_
ROOF - I
r'rim: Hardwd .........................Rnls• Gas I•irep!aces SPECIAL OBSOLESCENCE
I';a ? Pitched ? Low ? .C.OICNOOd c RASc REPRODUCTION
r?~;.............Rtes. Outside Chimneys...-.._-.-...----......-. LOCATION (AREA No.--- cosT _ S
nm..........._? Stcep_---_.-..-..? G. OTHER _ _ _ .i
STATE OF REPAIRS
~ 11841; Sllllplf FINAL NET COND p
l T ~ H. TOTAL SPECIAL OBSOLESCENCE -
Lscellent..........• GOOd FINAL VALUE--
rv 'age..-__--_..? I~Ii1lClilt t J. FINAL NET CONDITION (100-H) XE MAIN BUiLDIf'1 $
rl,,; C] Flec.....p Gas I\one_.--C
I ~ Fair..--- Poor-..--....C]
^ DATE OF CONSIRUCTIC.N MAJOR AL'rERATIDNS OR ADGITiONS ~ IVIA.IOR ALTERATIONS OR ADDITIONS SUf~ltvtARY OF BUILDING VALUE
n ATE ACE SOIJRCE DATE I AG°_ DESCRIPTION ~ PEN CENT ~ DATE AtE DESCRIPTION - Aert CenT ~
I. + I i ~ I I I - MAIN BUILOING ~
OTHER FARM BUILDINGS GARAGE
i 2D FLOOR
ASS NO. SIZE AREA '~NALLS FLOOR ~ UNIT REPRODUCTION ~ ~
WIDTH X DEFI'1-I ROOF HCATInu LIGHiINC. PLUMDiNi:, COST C057 ~
- ~ i .F-N_` unF-- - AGE DEPRECIATION I NET VALUE MINnR BUILDINGS
- L_._._..._-_. - OTHER
I h1 120V EM ENTS
f i -I
_ . I ____-I-_~--- I
I
Attachment E
38 Montgomery Street
Bangor, Maine 04401
September 14, 2005
Mr. James Hewat
Planning and Development Services
City of Boulder
1739 Broadway, 3d Floor
Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
Re: 4051 North Broadway
Demolition Permit Application
Dear Mr. Hewat:
This is to follow up my recent telephone discussion with you. I appreciate your taking the time
to speak with me. After giving this matter a good deal of thought, I have determined to follow
your suggestion and to submit a Demolition Permit Application for the outbuilding my father
built in 1950 on his land at 4051 Broadway that my family refers to as the granary. Given that
the simply designed building was built by my father and used solely as a garage for over fifty
years, I believe there is no probable cause to believe the building is eligible for designation as an
individual landmark.
I enclose a completed Demolition Permit Application and a check for $238 in payment of the
required fee for an accessory structure permit.
Background
I am writing on behalf of my mother, Catherine G. Stephens, who is 87 years old and who
suffers from Alzheimer's Disease. She is not able to speak for herself, and since my father's
death in 1999 I have been authorized under her Power of Attorney to represent her ownership
interests in the property at 4051 Broadway. (A copy of my mother's Power of Attorney is
attached.)
My mother cannot care for herself and has been in a congregate housing facility since 2002.
Because she does not otherwise have sufficient assets to pay the cost of the long term care she
requires and likely will require for many years (her mother lived to age 99), my sisters and
brother and I earlier this year resigned to put our family home at 4051 North Broadway on the
market for sale. The projected cost of a decade of Alzheimer's care for my mother left us no
choice. When we listed the property for sale potential buyers expressed interest, and we did
enter a purchase and sale contract. The contract was terminated by the prospective buyer within
a few weeks, however, on the asserted ground that unknown landmark status for the granary
^,t~l°Pt€~ss1 P~'~~9 Vii.-~-.~~.IF
~I~~?
made financing unattainable. Since then, prospective buyers have insisted on a 20% reduction in
their offers on account of the unknown status of the granary. In a nutshell, a wood frame
structure my father built is being used against my mother to leverage a discounted purchase
price.
If our circumstances were different and if we were not obliged to sell my mother's property in
order to pay for her care, we might have other courses of action available. As things stand,
however, our only apparent recourse for efficiently resolving the question of the granary and
defending the purchase price for my mother is for us to submit the enclosed demolition permit
application.
I understand from my conversation with you that it is more usual for a property buyer to submit
such an application as part of the site review process, but in this instance my family is submitting
the application for a determination that would allow us to avoid having to sell my mother's
property at well below its fair mazket value. If at our request it can be determined that the
granary on my parent's land is not of historic value, and is not eligible for landmark status, we
will no longer be at the mercy of would-be purchasers who can use against us the specter of an
extended review process of unknown outcome.
The Building
The building at issue is a wood frame detached building 36 feet by 42 feet. My father built it in
1950. I am attaching a picture of my father, taken by my mother, in the summer of 1950, with
the as yet unfinished granary in the background. I am able to pinpoint the date of the photograph
because my father, John H. Stephens, is holding my twin brother and sister, who were born in
July 1949 and who are about a year old in the photo.
The building was not designed by an architect. It was built by my father to give him a place to
store grain to feed to turkeys he proposed to raise to supplement his carpenter's wages. My
father's attempt at raising turkeys -and thus his use of the building to store grain -was brief,
and even while the building was being so used it was a simple operation. The building's design
is solely utilitarian. It is a one-story building built on a cement foundation tall enough so the
ground floor is at the same height as the bed of a truck driving through the building. I attach a
photo of the drive-through, showing the raised first floor. Above this single floor he installed a
track system with scoops to carry delivered grain up to metal bins he hung on the ceiling for
storage. He raised the center roof so he could hang the metal bins high enough to walk under
them, and he covered the scoop track with a wooden roof extension High enough to allow the
scoops to get above the bins to dump the grain. My father never raised grain; he purchased it
from commercial suppliers.
My father's flyer at raising turkeys was unsuccessful. One year a good part of his flock was
stolen, but more importantly his part-time effort could not compete with large scale growers in
other states. By the mid Fifties he had given up his turkey sidelight and sold all his turkey
equipment, including the scoop track out of the granary. The granary's drive-through has
enough space to park two vehicles, and from 1955 on my father used the building only as a
,7
garage. The attached photo in the granary drive-through was taken on the first day of school in
September 1955. I am on the left, about to begin sixth grade with my twin sister, Lynn. My
younger brother and sister are about to begin first grade. We are waiting for my mother to take
the photo, and then we will get into my parent's 1949 Pontiac, parked behind us in the granary,
to go to school.
The granary is not associated with any historic person or with any historic event or era. It is not
a significant example of architectural styles of the past. It represents no meaningful agricultural
heritage. Turkeys were of no particular significance in Boulder's economic or cultural history,
and they certainly were not in our family. To us the granary is a symbol of an unrealistic and ill
conceived notion of my father's on which he wasted his time and his all too limited resources. I
can attest to the fact that raising turkeys was not even afull-time commitment on his part,
because my sister Lynn and I spent many long, hot summer hours when we were nine and ten
and eleven taking turns sitting by the turkeys on the back acreage all day while my father was at
work so we could run to the house and get our mother or our grandmother if a hawk or a storm
threatened. My mother paid a price for my father's folly when he built the granary, and the
granary now threatens to make her pay a final, greater price.
In Summary
Because of the rapidly escalating cost of my mother's care, we have no choice but to sell the
property and it is important to be able to obtain its full market value. The only reasonable way
for us to do that under the circumstances is to confront the potential buyers' apparent concerns
regarding the granary.
We know it is not the intention of the City's historic preservation ordinance that every old
building in the City be preserved. While we hope the granary may yet have some useful life, it is
not historically significant. It is a two-car garage with a raised roof. We respectfully ask the
Boulder Landmarks Board to determine that there is no probable cause to believe the granary is
eligible for landmark designation.
If you need any additional information, 1 would be glad to provide it. Please feel free to call me
at (207) 992-4417.
Yours truly,
Leigh Stephens McCarthy
Attachment
Enclosures
~,y ' 2
t,' n_,
..x. -
ws: 1 `S
sap, ^~v 't1~~',' JE~~~, a'
~1~''
,Y
do ?~so
i k"b,~
~.F
~
1~f
I , fem.
~
r' ~ v~o
E
j ~
Y
Att~uhment F
Site Review Comments for 4051 Broadway
November 2007
A c1950 tax assessor card indicates that the concrete block house at 4051
Broadway (John & Catherine Stephens property) was under construction during
the assessment. The assessment also includes a photograph of the newly
constructed frame barn on the property. Information provided by the Stephens
children indicates that John Stephens constructed the barn in the late 1940s to
raise turkeys. The turkey farming business was ultimately unsuccessful, and the
barn was used for storage most of its life.
An historic building inventory has not been undertaken for this property.
However, an application to demolish the house and barn was reviewed by the
Landmarks design review committee in 2005. At that time, the committee found
that the house did not appear to be of architectural or historic significance, but
referred the barn to the full Landmarks Board finding that, based upon its
unusual architecture, that it appears to be one of the last agricultural buildings in
the city, and that there was "probable cause" it may be eligible for designation as
an individual landmark.
Based upon research undertaken to date, staff is also of the opinion that the barn
is eligible for designation as a local landmark for its architectural significance as
a rare and unusual example of agricultural architecture in Boulder and for its
environmental significance as an established and familiar visual feature in the
community. As such, a condition of Site Review approval for the redevelopment
of this property would be the preservation of the building and the applicant's
submittal of a completed application to landmark the barn and a portion of the
property as per policy 2.33 Preservation of Historic and Cultural Pesot.trces of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends that the developer submit a completed landmark application
to designate the barn as soon as possible so that we can schedule a designation
hearing. This will allow for the Landmarks Board to review the proposed
landmark and boundary in the context of the larger re-development of the
property and that the subsequent Planning Board review will include the
Landmark Board's comments and recommendations. Please note that the
historic preservation ordinance (9-11-5(a)) states that once a completed
application made by the property owner is received, a public hearing must be
heard by the Landmarks Board betwee~l 60 ~C l?(1 days of the application data.
Additionally, an application for the demolition of the house will need to be re-
submitted and reviewed by the historic preservation program per Section 9-11-23
of the Boulder Revised Code.
Please contact James Hewat at 303.441.3207 if you have questions, or need more
information regarding this matter.
Revisions to the Site Review Application for 4051 Broadway
February 2008
Per the Boulder Comprehensive Plan, and as recommended by historic
preservation staff, an application to landmark the granary on the property has
been filed the city. The January 10th, 2008 submission date means that the
application will need to be heard by the Landmarks Board on either the April 2na
or May 7th. This review will provide an opportunity for comment by the
Landmarks Board regarding the proposed landmark boundary and larger
redevelopment of the property, prior to review by the Planning Board.
Historic preservation staff has some concern about the proposed landmark
boundary as shown on the submitted plans. Specifically, the proposed boundary
at the east and west (sides) of the granary are shown to be tightly drawn at just 5'
off of the building. The proposed edges of the landmark boundary should be
increased to provide adequate space between the historic building, adjacent
properties and proposed new buildings. Increasing the space at the east and west
sides will allow for higher visibility and ensure the preservation of the granary's
historic context.
I ,
.y
' v
: _ ~ _ _ r-
.
. ,
..r . - ~a ~'A
-
q,,
Pr
~,r,
M~ r".,x`'..` ~ r a''~uz
~Y`> ~
t~ r,s ~1 ~.r~A ,r~ ~~r-! ~ ..,s~l~y
` .;C "b i r z ~ , i ~1 r~ ~
y~4y"~~l ^,r K~ 'a."~;j~5 ~F
a ,v ~;'-~r _
fi ~ a~ ^~IM R ~ K
x r,~,,~ - ~»~tfxz ~
T u. .
, ,
y ~~y y i;~_ r~...~. A'L ~ ` i.;r x~, .b",r~'~ ''2 t". ''c~F,,;ti,.~yx~ ,4 ~
~k~
y y~r Y- ~ ' ~ry"" may. ~ 't:~ {{~~~~~'~1.. ~~.yy~~,, p
_
~ t
r'
~ .u. ~ ~ ~ ~
r.
~ ~
oG~ j~
a 17
_ _ ~ _ - ~+h .
1
_K ~ ~ f i4t' rP
T ~v ? r N J ~ R5'd'~ X 3 fi I~
~ Y +Wy f
' K~ ta+~,.! .n t R't q nr J * S.^rt C"''~y"' ~Z F7
, r a i" .t ~ - +M1 ~l n ~ ° ~),rv 3 ~3;iw',n:tr°'y'+1^.' ~ xo~~.~r,`,~
1
_ -
~ - _ _
t.L_~ ',w~`~it ~
1j } `l ~ ~i:Y~., II J
6 r~`{,S xf e F h eT~ '°'Yy`' .c~"~A ^•7"C'"z"i.
_£n~'~4a~ r~ . -
w... _
Y.~ .~w.,.wi.rww~ N-,. n.,m.,.•.•-...,.....,~~.~~...a. .u....a,,. w..,.,~...e.: .9..T..T..,.,,.
[ e"
-a1~ s~.:.F .r,
~ ~ Iii Yft ~
ll'~pK
r, ~'y~' yMiti~:f.~~'r~ ems' ~-,'L t~ ~fi i a*~'t : nt ~~a y ,y'
d ~
~ ~ ~ .
* ,s
'rn't t ~ e e r ~s:
i
~ 9
~ ~
f
a.~ ,t{. .
~ _ _
, +7
'K~ i RS' .'i~-e~..~y~"AT ..ra..".--.ieK/~TNV-aWRV.w~ `i
f~.~`
~ iN is
~
i