Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5D - 11.05.14 Memo for 405 Valley View M E M O R A N D U M November 5, 2014 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Angela Smelker, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of whether to initiate the designation of 405 Valley View Dr. as a locally designated Historic Landmark, pursuant to Section 9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981. STATISTICS: 1.Site: 405 Valley View Dr. 2.Dates of Construction: c. 1903 3.Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low) 4.Lot Size: 5,724 sq. ft. 5.Owner: Sam and Ashley Slattery 6.Applicant: Landmarks Board STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Landmarks Board does not initiate landmark designation of the property at 405 Valley View Dr. for the following reasons: The property owners have explored alternatives to the demolition of the house, including consensual landmark designation and review of the proposal by the Landmark design review committee, but have determined that none of the alternatives are suitable. See Attachment 1: Applicant Correspondence and Structural Report. The initiation of landmarking over an owners objection by the Landmarks Board has historically been used very rarely. The initiation of this p represent a reasonable balance of private property rights and the public interest. Agenda Item # 5D Page 1 There are limited staff resources available to adequately process an application for designation of a property for which there is not owner consent. SUMMARY: The purpose of this hearing is for the Landmarks Board to determine whether it is appropriate to initiate local landmark designation for the property at 405 Valley View Dr. On May 21, 2014 the Landmarks design review committee reviewed an that the building may be eligible for individual landmark designation, the application was referred to the full Landmarks Board for review. On July 2, 2014 the Landmarks Board imposed a stay-of-demolition for a period of up to 180 days in order to seek alternatives to the demolition. See Attachment 2: Demolition Memo. The 180 day stay period will expire on Nov. 23, 2014 if no action is taken by the Landmarks Board. Since the stay was imposed, the applicant has met with staff and representatives of the Landmarks Board and Historic Boulder, Inc. to discuss alternatives to the demolition including landmarking, rehabilitation, and moving the building. On May 27, 2014, the owners submitted an application to landmark the th property to explore alternatives through the landmark alteration certificate process. On June 6, 2014, the owners met with the Landmarks design review th committee (Ldrc) but, subsequently, decided they did not want to continue with that process and withdrew the application to landmark. The owners are opposed to landmark designation. See Attachment 3: Alternatives to Demolition Meeting Notes. On October 1, 2014, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule a hearing to st consider initiation of landmark designation for the property at 405 Valley View Dr. On September 30 the owners submitted a letter to the Landmarks Board and th on October 16 they submitted a structural report. See Attachment 1: Letter th and Structural Report. Staff considers that, in this case, landmark designation would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest per 9-11-1(b) and recommends the Board not initiate the application. Agenda Item # 5D Page 2 ANALYSIS: The Historic Preservation ordinance calls for the Landmarks Board to hold a public hearing to consider initiating landmark designation of a property if there is some interest in designating a property, pursuant to 9-11-3, BRC, 1981. At the October 1, 2014 board meeting, interest was expressed by a majority of st members to hold an initiation hearing in advance of the November. 23, 2014 rd expiration of the stay-of-demolition for 405 Valley View Dr. Purpose of Stays-of-Demolition The stated purposes of a stay-of-demolition are to prevent the loss of buildings time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives. Sec. 9-11-23(a), ,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. T objection by the Landmarks Board has, historically, been used only on very rare occasions. Specifically, of the approximately 75 stays-of-demolition imposed by the Board over the past ten years, only twice during that period has it initiated and recommended . 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 landmarking include: 1936 Mapleton (2008); 900 Pearl Street (2009); 1815 Mapleton Ave. (2013); 2003 Pine Street (2014); and 1922 20 Street (2014). There are also examples of stays that have been allowed th to expire (or demolition permits issued before the stay has expired) by the Board, when alternatives to demolition have not been found. recommend non-consensual designations has been exercised very sparingly over the years, carefully taking into consideration the implications and balancing private property right with the potential public benefit. Purpose and Legislative Intent The following is an analysis of whether landmarking the subject property meets the purpose and legislative intent of historic preservation as described in Section 9-11-1 (a) and (b), B.R.C. 1981: a. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and Agenda Item # 5D Page 3 areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote heritage Potentially eligible for local landmark designation, the two-story frame house at 405 Valley View Dr. represents a relatively well-preserved example of Colonial Revival residential architecture dating from the early 20 century. The house th features prominent clipped cross-gable roof forms and classical porch details. The house remains largely intact, with the exception of the porch supports (replaced with iron supports and then restored with classical columns similar to the original). The building maintains a high degree of historic integrity. See Attachment 2: Demolition Memo. While the property appears to meet local landmark designation, staff considers the initiation of landmark designation for this property inappropriate. uncil does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully Staff considers the initiation of landmark designation of this property over the property rights and the public interest. A stay-of-demolition is issued to provide historic resources. While the property is architecturally significant, its level of significance and the circumstances associated with its demolition, would make interest and private property rights. Section 9-11-3 (d) Criteria for Review states that applications received by a historic preservation organization or less than all of the property owners Agenda Item # 5D Page 4 pursuant to paragraph 9-11-3(a)(3) or (4), B.R.C. 1981, may consider, without limitation, the following criteria in making its decision: (1)There is probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11--11-2, Definitions, and 9-11- Designate Landmarks and Historic ; The house at 405 Valley View Dr. represents a relatively well-preserved example of Colonial Revival residential architecture dating from the early 20 century. th Over the course of the stay, staff, representatives of the Landmarks Board, and Historic Boulder, Inc. have met with the applicant to discuss alternatives to the demolition including rehabilitation and landmark designation, which would allow design review of the proposed addition. Staff considers that the initiation of landmark designation for this property over would be inappropriate and that, in this circumstance, designation of the property would not meet the legislative intent of balancing private property rights and the public interest as stated in 9-11- the historic preservation ordinance. (2)There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application; 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; At the demolition hearing, Historic Boulder, Inc. and one member of the public spoke in favor of a stay-of-demolition to explore alternatives. Staff has received a letter from a property owner expressing opposition to landmark designation for this property. No other responses or inquiries either in support or opposition to landmark designation have been received at this time. Agenda Item # 5D Page 5 (4)The buildings or features may need the protection provided through designation; The applicant intends to construct an addition to the house that triggers demolition review. If the demolition permit is issued, the entire building could be demolished. (5) The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate; Not applicable (6) In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; Policy 2.33 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan States that , cultural significance will be identified and protected. The city and county will encourage preservation of such resources through incentive programs, designation of landmark buildings . . ., design review, public Staff and Historic Boulder, Inc. have met with the applicant to discuss possible incentives to preserving the house. Few of the identified incentives have found to be applicable to the preservation of the house. (7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. While the property would likely individual landmarks, in this case staff does not consider that designating over the owners objection would represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and The property owners have considered alternatives to demolition, including consensual landmark designation, but oppose landmark designation. Staff considers that, in this case, initiating designation over property rights and the public interest. DECISION OF THE BOARD: If the Board chooses not to initiate landmark designation of the property, a demolition permit for the house will issue on Nov. 23, 2014. rd Agenda Item # 5D Page 6 If the Board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must do so by Attachment 4. resolution. A draft resolution is included in If initiated, the application must be heard by the Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days from the initiation date in order to provide time 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. ATTACHMENTS: 1: Applicant Letter dated Sept. 30 and Structural Report dated Oct. 16 2: 07.02.2014 Demolition Memo to the Landmarks Board 3. Alternatives to Demolition Meeting Notes 4: Draft resolution to initiate landmark designation of 405 Valley View Dr. Agenda Item # 5D Page 7 Attachment 1: Applicant Correspondence and Structural Report Agenda Item # 5D Page 8 Agenda Item # 5D Page 9 Attachment 2: 07.02.2014 Demolition Memo to the Landmarks Board M E M O R A N D U M July 2, 2014 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner Angela Smelker, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the house located at 405 Valley View Dr., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2014-00155). STATISTICS: 7.Site: 405 Valley View Dr. 8.Dates of Construction: c. 1903 9.Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low) 10.Lot Size: 5,724 sq. ft. 11.Owner/Applicant: Sam and Ashley Slattery STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Planning and Sustainability Department (CP&S) recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 405 Valley View Dr., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager, in order to further explore alternatives to demolishing the building and adopt the staff memorandum with the findings as listed below. Staff encourages the applicant to consider landmark designation of the house and its incorporation into future redevelopment plans for the site. A 180-day stay period would expire on Nov. 23, 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 10 Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to expire, staff will require that prior to demolition the following be submitted to CP&S staff for review, approval and recording with Carnegie Library: 1.A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property; 2.Black and white medium format archival quality photographs of the exterior of the house. SUMMARY: On May 16, 2014, the Community Planning and Sustainability Department received a demolition permit application for the house at 405 Valley View Dr. The building is not in a designated historic district or locally landmarked, but is over 50 years old and the proposed work meets the criteria for demolition defined in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. On May 21, 2014, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. After detailed analysis, staff considers that the property meets the significance criteria for individual landmark designation as an intact house dating from north For this reason staff recommends the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the residence located at 405 Valley View Dr., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager. : Pursuant to Section 9-11-23(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981, demolition requests for all buildings built prior to 1940 require review by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc). The Ldrc is comprised of two members of the Landmarks Board and a staff member. If, during the course of its review, the Ldrc probable cause to consider the property may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark, the issuance of the permit is stayed for up to 60 days from the date a completed application was accepted and the permit is referred to the board for a public hearing. Agenda Item # 5D Page 11 If the Landmarks Board finds that the buildings 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 it was accepted by the city manager as complete in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the building demolition. If imposed, a 180-day stay period would start when the completed application was accepted by the city manager (May 27, 2014, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on Nov. 23, 2014, per Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981. DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of 4 St. and Valley View th Dr. The property is not located in a designated or potential historic district. Until 1953, when the area was annexed into the city, Valley View Dr. was named North St. Figure 1. Location Map showing 405 Valley View Dr. Agenda Item # 5D Page 12 Figure 2. Southwest corner, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Figure 3. South elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. The building at 405 Valley View Drive is a one-and-a-half story frame dwelling with clipped cross-gable roof and overhanging eaves. The walls are clad with lap Agenda Item # 5D Page 13 siding and the flat roofed porch at southeast corner has wrought iron support. The front door is paneled with transom above. Figure 4. Façade entrance, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Figure 5. East elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. There are four double hung, one-over-one windows on the south elevation, paired on the first story and second story. A hipped roof hood is located above Agenda Item # 5D Page 14 the windows on the first story. A large brick chimney, visible in the tax assessor photograph, is located on the south elevation. A stone retaining wall runs along the south and west property line and a fence continues from the northwest corner and along the north edge of the property. A permit for the fence was issued in 2007. An earlier permit for roofing work was issued in 1993 and another for chimney repair in 1994. Figure 6. West elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 15 Figure 7. North elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Figure 8. West elevation with backyard fence in view, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. The building retains much of its original form and materiality. The c.1944 tax assessor photograph indicates the building was clad in wood siding and the roof was sheathed in wood shingles. In 1949 the roof had been replaced with Agenda Item # 5D Page 16 composition shingles, while the original wood windows and doors remain. The wrought iron porch supports visible in the 1995 Historic Building Inventory photograph have been replaced with wood columns similar to those in the c.1949 See Attachment A: Current Photographs photograph of the house. Figure 9. Tax Assessor Photo c. 1949. Figure 10. South elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 1995. Agenda Item # 5D Page 17 Today, the property is heavily vegetated with a stone wall bordering the east, west and south property lines. A dry stacked stone retaining wall, borders the south and east property lines. A low stone retaining wall is visible in the c.1949 Tax Assessor photograph and the 1995 Historic Building Inventory photograph. The existing stone wall is considerably higher than those pictured and was either added to or constructed sometime between 1995 and 2007. Figure 10a. South elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014 NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY 1 Prior to World War-II, North Boulder was predominately agricultural, consisting of crop land 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 1900s, such as the Maxwell ranch near Linden Ave., where cattle were raised, and the Wolff farm to the southeast where dairy cattle were raised and fruit trees and wheat were grown. 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 1 North Boulder Historic Overview, 1994. Agenda Item # 5D Page 18 1880. At that time, Maxwell acquired several thousand acres west of Broadway and north of what is now Hawthorn. 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 Attachment F: North Boulder Historical building boom after World War II. See Background. PROPERTY HISTORY James P. Maxwell originally owned a large parcel of land in north Boulder, including the tract now known as 405 Valley View Dr. He sold this lot to Manuel Kellogg in 1900 and repurchased it in 1903. It is likely that the house was constructed during this period, as Manuel Kellogg was a carpenter contractor, and the address first appears in city directories in 1904. Kellogg was born in Livingston, Michigan in 1867 and came to Boulder in the 1890s for the health of his first wife. She died in Boulder, and in 1897, he married Mary Green. Mary Athelia Green Kellogg was born in Minnesota in 1873 and came to Boulder in 1896. In 1906, the Kelloggs moved to California but returned in 1915 and later lived at 640 Hawthorn Ave. The Mountain Hights (sic) subdivision, of which 405 North St. was part, was platted in 1903. Herschel Godard purchased the property from James Maxwell in 1904 and the address (405 North St.) first appears in the city directories that same year. Godard and his wife lived there in 1904 and 1905. From 1910 until 1917, Charles W. and Ella M. Cochran lived at this address. Charles Cochran was born in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1872 and was employed by the telephone company as a collector and cashier from 1907 until his retirement in 1937. Prior to working for the telephone company, Mr. Cochran had operated a grocery store at 17 and Pearl St. He was th Agenda Item # 5D Page 19 a member of the Telephone Pioneers Association, Columbia Lodge No. 14, and the Elks Lodge. He married Ella May Bellman in 1890. Ella was born in 1871 in Longmont died in 1933. She was active in a Bible school. The Cochrans had a daughter. The property was purchased and sold frequently over the next decade. In 1928, Nellie Kautzsch purchased the property and lived there with her husband, George and their six children, Sara (12), Hazel (10), Felicia (8), June (5) and Herbert (1). George was born in Ohio to German parents in 1887 and worked as a miner. Nellie was born in 1898 in Colorado to Scottish parents. It is possible the Kautzsch suffered financial hardship during the Great Depression, as the property was seized by the Boulder Building & Loan Association in 1934. The association owned the house for 10 years and utilized it as a rental. In 1946, the E.O. Westermeyers purchased the house. A newspaper clipping noted that they bought the house from Miss Elizabeth Runck, a nurse at the Boulder Sanitarium. The Westermeyers taught at the Seventh Day Adventist junior academy at 9 and Portland Sts. th property in 1951 and lived there until 1998. John Hanna was born in New Mexico and worked as a landscape contractor for many years, first with Rosenberger Gardens and later with Willow Works. Anna was born in Wyoming in 1900. The Hannas married in 1920 in Denver and had three children: Marguerite, John and Betty. The current owners purchased the property in 2006. : 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. Agenda Item # 5D Page 20 In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) a board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. As detailed below, staff considers this property eligible for designation as an individual landmark. 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 See Attachment E: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria Board on Sept. 17, 1975. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house located at 405 Valley View Dr. meets historic significance under criteria 1. 1.Date of Construction: c. 1903 Elaboration: James Maxwell sold the property to Manuel Kellogg in 1900 and repurchased it in 1903. Kellogg was a carpenter contractor and the address (405 North St.) first appears in city directories in 1904. 2.Association with Persons or Events: N/A Elaboration: None of the occupants appear to have local, state or national significance. 3.Development of the Community: North Boulder Elaboration: Throughout the early 20th Century, this area of Boulder was primarily agricultural, with its earliest residents listed as farmers, gardeners, or nurserymen. This is one of the earliest houses in the neighborhood and an early example of architecture in the Mountain Heights subdivision of what was then far north Boulder Agenda Item # 5D Page 21 4.Recognition by Authorities: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Elaboration: The 1995 architect house represents vernacular residential construction in Boulder as reflected in its lack of architectural details which would distinguish a particular style; the - ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house located at 405 Valley View Dr. meets historic significance under criteria 1. 1.Recognized Period or Style: Colonial Revival Elaboration: The house represents a well-preserved example of Colonial Revival residential architecture , including the prominent clipped cross-gable roof forms and classical porch details. The house remains largely intact, with the exception of the porch supports (replaced with iron supports and then restored with classical columns similar to the original). The building maintains a high degree of historic integrity. 2.Architect or Builder of Prominence: Manuel Kellogg likely constructed the house at 405 Valley View Dr. 3.Artistic Merit: None observed 4.Example of the Uncommon: None observed. 5.Indigenous Qualities: None observed ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house located at 405 Valley View Dr. meets environmental significance under criterion 1. Agenda Item # 5D Page 22 1.Site Characteristics: The house sits on a small lot and a tall stone wall (non- historic) is located on the south and west property lines. 2.Compatibility with Site: This area of the Newlands neighborhood has residential buildings have been demolished or severely altered. 3.Geographic Importance: The house is prominently located on the corner of 4 St. and Valley View Dr. th 4.Environmental Appropriateness: None observed 5.Area Integrity: This property is significant as a representative example of early Colonial Revival architecture in north Boulder. While the Newlands area has lost much of its historic integrity as a whole, there are some notable examples of Colonial Revival architecture of the 400 block of Valley View Ave. indicative of the turn-of-the twentieth century development that took place in the Mountain Heights subdivision. CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Many of the older houses in North Boulder have been demolished and replaced with new houses, creating an eclectic mix of architectural styles. This section of 4 St. generally retains its scale and character. In the early twentieth century, the th area consisted primarily of farms, orchards and ranches; by the 1940s, residential development had begun in earnest. Many of the area residents worked as carpenters, shopkeepers, and for companies such as the Mountain States and Telephone Company. CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING Agenda Item # 5D Page 23 No information regarding the condition of the building has been submitted at this time. CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR: No information regarding the projected cost of restoration or repair has been submitted at this time. ANALYSIS: Staff considers that th Valley View Drive may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark based upon its historic and architectural significance. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT: Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter. 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 Agenda Item # 5D Page 24 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 Aug. 23, 2014. FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: A stay of demolition for the house at 405 Valley View Dr. 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 representat 3.It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Current Photographs Attachment B: Historic Building Inventory Form Attachment C: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1958 Attachment D: Deed and Directory Research Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks Attachment F: North Boulder Historical Background Agenda Item # 5D Page 25 Attachment A: Current Photographs Photo 1. View of south elevation and stone wall, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 26 Photo 2. South elevation and front porch, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Photo 3. View of front porch and door, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Photo 4. South elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 27 Photo 5. East elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 28 Photo 6. West elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Photo 6. View of stone wall along west property line, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 29 Photo 7. Northwest elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Photo 8. West elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 30 Photo 9. North elevation, 405 Valley View Dr., 2014. Photo 10. Intersection of Valley View Dr. and 4 St., 2014. th Agenda Item # 5D Page 31 Photo 11. Looking south on 4 St., 405 Valley View on left, 2014. th Photo 12. View down alley behind 405 Valley View looking east, 2014. Agenda Item # 5D Page 32 Photo 13. Looking west on Valley View Dr., 2014. Attachment B: Historic Building Inventory Form Agenda Item # 5D Page 33 Agenda Item # 5D Page 34 Agenda Item # 5D Page 35 Historic Building Inventory Form Photograph, 1995 Agenda Item # 5D Page 36 Attachment C: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card, c.1958 Agenda Item # 5D Page 37 Agenda Item # 5D Page 38 Tax Assessor Photograph, 405 Valley View Dr., c.1949 Agenda Item # 5D Page 39 Attachment D: Deed and Directory Research 405 Valley View Dr. Deed and Directory Research Lot 8 BLK 1 Mountain Heights T1N R71W SEC 25 Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory Subdivision Platted in 1903 James Maxwell 1904 H.L. & S.L. Godard - 405 North St. first (1903-1905) appears in directory Herschel Godard 1905 H.L. & S.L. Godard (1905-1906) 1906 Not Listed Anna Gorton (1906-1910) 1908 Shaver 1911 Charles and Ella Cochran. Collector, telephone company. Ella Cochran (1910-1917) 1913 Vacant 1916 1918 J.A. Snyder (1917-1922) 1921 John Sherry 1923 (1922-1924) 1926 H.G. Bryson (1924-1928) 1928 1930 Nellie Kautzsch (1928-1934) 1932 1936 1938 Boulder Building & Loan (1934-1944) 1940 1943 Multiple owners; 1946 Westermeyers taught at the Seventh Day including E.O. Adventist Jr. Academy Westermeyer 1949 Vernon Trumbo (1946-1951) 1951 1953 1955 John and Anna Hanna (1951-1956 Valley View Dr. first appears in city directory 1998) 1960 1964 Agenda Item # 5D Page 40 Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Individual Landmark September 1975 On September 6, 1975, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The 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. 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 Agenda Item # 5D Page 41 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 # 5D Page 42 Attachment F: North Boulder Historical Background Agenda Item # 5D Page 43 Agenda Item # 5D Page 44 Agenda Item # 5D Page 45 Agenda Item # 5D Page 46 Agenda Item # 5D Page 47 Agenda Item # 5D Page 48 Agenda Item # 5D Page 49 Agenda Item # 5D Page 50 Agenda Item # 5D Page 51 Agenda Item # 5D Page 52 Attachment 3: Alternatives to Demolition Meeting Notes Meeting to Discuss Alternatives to Demolition th 405 Valley View Dr. | Sept. 19, 2014 Attendees Sam Slattery, Applicant Ashley Slattery, Applicant James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner Deborah Yin, Landmarks Board Michael Schreiner, Landmarks Board Catherine Long Gates, Historic Boulder, Inc. Abby Daniels, Historic Boulder, Inc. Hugh Moore, Historic Boulder, Inc. Beverly Potter, Historic Boulder, Inc. 1.Purpose of Meeting To discuss alternatives to the demolition of the building at 405 Valley View Dr. Stay-of-demolition placed on the application at the July 2, 2014 Landmarks Board meeting and expires Nov. 23, 2014 if no action is taken by the Landmarks Board. 2.Alternatives Landmark Designation The Slatterys are opposed to designation for the following R reasons: Opposed to additional regulations on property; Believes landmarking will reduce value of home Will require a very particular buyer, do not want to impose restrictions on future owner Significant cost to make changes suggested by DRC for addition to meet design guidelines Zoning and other benefits of designation does not guidelines. Design Review/Landmark Alteration Certificate Small, rear addition proposed that removes a portion of a street- R facing wall. Design schematically reviewed by DRC when demolition process R first identified. DRC found general mass, scale and location of the proposed addition okay, but had concerns about differentiating old Agenda Item # 5D Page 53 from new and suggested simplifying the addition, using different scale of materials between new addition and house, and breaking the co-planar nature of the addition by moving the addition wall Current design constraints: No room to stand upstairs, no room R for standard size appliances downstairs Revisit design review: likely could remove rear addition (not a R character-defining feature) R Next Steps Landmarks Board will discuss whether to hold and initiation R st hearing at the Oct. 1 meeting. Agenda Item # 5D Page 54 Attachment 4: Draft resolution to initiate landmark designation of 405 Valley View Dr. RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING THE DESIGNATION OF 405 Valley View Dr. AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK. WHEREAS, on October 1, 2014, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation hearing for 405 Valley View Dr.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS BOARD OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: The City of Boulder Landmarks Board initiates the designation of 405 Valley View Dr. 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 5th day of November, 2014. This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board on November 5, 2014. Dated: _______________ Chair, Landmarks Board ATTEST: _________________________________ Secretary to the Board Agenda Item # 5D Page 55