4 - Application for Demolition Permit for 800 Pearl StC-Pf~b ~~~~~~~
Ac~ho~ z-~~ y
PackardDierki~~g
• 1 T il R\(. \ i \ T 1 A U
BAUCE D. D(ERK[NG
bruce~packarddierking.com
October 3, 2007
VIA ELECTRONIC MAII.
Susan Richstone
James Hewat
Chris Meschuk
City of Boulder
Planniag & Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third F1oor
Boulder, CO 80302
Re: Application for Demolition Permit for 800 Pearl Street, Boulder, Colorado (ihe
"Demo Permit Application')
Dear Susan, James and Chris:
As you know, my firm has been retained by 800 Pearl, LLC (the "Owner'~, which owns
the property located at 800 Pearl Street (the "Property") with respect to the Demo Permit
Application and the potential initiarion of an application for individual landmark designation of
the Property.
Based upon our recent meeting and subsequent conversarions with City staff, we believe
it would be worthwhile to continue discussions between the Owner and the City regarding the
Property and future redevelopment options that might preserve the existing struchue. Because of
the potential for a win-vrin solutian in this matter, it is in all parties' interest to maint~in the
status quo while these discussions are proceeding. However, we understand that due to the City
Code, it is impossible to extend the 180 day stay period, even with consent of the Owner and the
City.
Accordingly, as a good faith gesture and in order to allow our discussions to continue, I
have been authorized by the Owner to withdraw ihe Demo Permit Application conditioned upon
the agreement of the City, by and through the Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board
("LPAB"), not to seek or permii initiation of an application for individual landmark designation
of the Property. Of course, we understand that if the Owner were to seek another demolition
Pack~rd zmd Dsrking. LLC . Altmiieys at La~~
PvatcrStrezt Voicc: 303,447Ad?Q
~i9j Cam~on 8oulc~~vd Fax:303.d479451
Suitt 201i ~+~~c~.~.packarddierking.cam
6uuldec Colorado n030~
Susan Richstone, et al.
October 3, 2007
Page 2
permit or any other permit that would effectively constitute a demolition in the future, the City
would be free to exercise its rights to seek individual landmark designation at that time.
Please advise the LPAB of this offer and let me know if you have any questions or if you
need additional information.
truly
D. Dierking
a elofl
~~~ 10 ~3 ~G~
r%
Q/
~'tGEfvD4 ~T6n y
Chris Meschuk - 5653 Baseline
From: "Michael Marez" <1 _
To: <meschukc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 10/2/2007 5:12 PM
Subject: 5653 Baseline
CC: "Shane Higbee" <
Hi, Chris
At our last meeting regarding 5653 Baseline we agreed to engage the services of an expert
who could advise us as to the feasibility of preserving one or more of the farm structures on
the Baseline property. At your suggestion we contacted Winter and Company, who after a few
weeks of deliberation decided that they did not have time to work on the project we were
proposing. We then contacted Brad Buchanan an architect and preservation expert in Denver
who, upon his return from vacation indicated that our project was too small for his firm. At his
suggestion we contacted another preservation professional, Lisa Purdy, who never returned
my call. I next contacted Paul Mahoney of Knudsen Gloss Architects here in Denver. No
architect at his firm was interested in taking on the job but Mahoney put me in touch with
Jonathan Bennett of Landseer Holdings Inc. I am told that Mr. Bennett has experience with
historic renovations.
Mr.'Bennett was able to make time to get over to 5653 Baseline last week. I asked him to give
me an honest assessment of the condition of the buildings at 5653 Baseline. Given the press
of time, Mr. Bennett limited his inspection to the barn which, at our meeting with you, we all
agreed was the best candidate for possible preservation.
Mr. Bennett's report to me is attached. I had hoped that it would provide me with some
guidance as to how the barn, at least, might be economically feasible to preserve. Instead, as
a legally responsible property owner I find myself alarmed at the unsafe condition of the
structure. It seems that the costs of the preservation of the structure are, as described at one
point in the report, "inestimable".
I will see you at the meeting tomorrow
Best regards,
Michael Marez
LANDSEER HOLDINGS, INC.
Construction /Deconstruction/ Remodeling
P. O. Box 226
Boulder, CO 80306-0226
Paul Mahony
Knudson Gloss Architects
4820 Riverbend Road
Boulder, CO 80301
Dear Paul,
Per your request, on September 25, 2007, I evaluated the feasibility of the barn structure
at 5653 Baseline Road as pertaining to habitable space, gazage use, deconstruct,
Reconstruct and intact relocation.
Structural condition:
Foundation
The barn structure appeazs to be built on a rubble foundation with a Portland cement and
sand veneer. The foundation is observed to be severely degraded evidenced by numerous
cracks and missing its cement veneer at various locations. Based on its age (assumed to
be built in the eazly 1920's) it is unlikely that nay modern technology exists such as steel
reinforcement. Further, it is unclear whether any or all of the foundation is on a footing
or whether a footing is below the frost level. As a result, it is my conclusion that the
foundation as a whole is highly stmcturally suspect and if the building is to be used for
habitable space or as a garage, it would have to be replaced, the cost of which is
inestimable at this time until it can be further evaluated by a structural engineer.
Framin¢
Exterior Walls
The exterior walls are framed with full dimension rough-sawn lumber at vazious centers
from 2' to 3' and sheeted with full dimension rough-sawn planking, horizontally oriented.
Plate heights vary but average around 7' - 0". The walls have an exterior veneer of cedaz
shingles. The lumber used for studs is in reasonable good condition as was the horizontal
sheeting. The cedar shingles at the exterior of the building aze in bad condition and in
some cases weathered and highly degraded.
As a result of these observations, it is my conclusion that while the exterior walls appear
to be in some sense performing structurally, they would have to be radically re-structured
to bring them up to a level where life safety issues aze adequately addressed. In their
current condition no building code thresholds are met for all construction for either
contemplated use. As such, the exterior walls would require thorough restructuring from
the inside. It is difficult to estimate cost to accomplish since this cost could vary widely
depending on foundation issues.
~ .b- as' - ~ t K. - ~ ~ ~ ~ t 3i ~ ~ p zk r,. w~. r -.a. ~
e
r,
i ~ a "
••i
d ~i
'
rri f ~f ~ t~_
ma
~ s d
7
~
~ + ~
.;
t
t
r
o ,
c #';
,g i 6 t ~ R t~3 1 t 7~ ~` - ~ ~ ~k L ~ ~' : ~ ~' ~ tZ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
j ., Q J '7_ ~ ~ .4.. ` ,.; ~i 1 . ` A' rt 7, ~ t .:.~iC v x ~ t~ l
~ ~': ht~
! ~4
'
' ~ ~ ~ ~ Roof
The structure of the roof is comprised of two shed roofs at each side ofthe-building "
~' , ~ r '
~"
"~ ~~
~' bearing on exterior walls on the outside and two parallel interior walls on the inside of the ~ '- 5 `
' ` ` '~ '
~~ building. There is an elevated 'gable roof at the center of the building with a "ridge " ~~~
_;~ } •' <.
<
-
~ x :~ condition" running parallel to all structurally bearing walls previously described. The ~ , ~"
i
~.{.-
;, rafters are: Z" x 4" at Z' to 3' centers rough-sawn full dimension lumber and the roof ;~~
.„
~
•~ .veneer is metal. ~ s ti
1Vo roof structures meet life safety or building code thresholds. A few examples. include, ''~ ` ~ ~
inadequate rafter size throughout, the absence of collar ties at upper gable condition, no
'
~ ,
' ridge beam or ridge board at ridge of gable roof, deteriorated framing and roof veneer z ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ t
i throughout, no uplift or wind load protection exists.
` •.
.'
~~ ~ restructuring of the entire roof system is recommended.
As a result . ~:~ ~~?
,
Isi conclusion, it is difficult to estimate the financial cost of this building without some t
~
~
fundamental issues resolved: ,
.
•. '
~: ~ ~'r"
• 1. Nature of existing foundation ~. •~'
2. Habitability or adequacy as garage under current building codes such as ceiling height g
€
Costs associated with liability of leaving existing structure given life safety
3
~~ . ,.
x transgressions ~~~:
'
Deconstruction, marking and reconstruction is another possible alternative to save the
•' . ,
~ , ~ building. 'This would involve, as you know, the dismantling, storage, and reconstruction ~;
" ~^, ~,. costs. The deconstruction phase alone assuming minimal breakage, is more than $10,000. '~, ^`
,~` . The problem with this approach, considering the age & condition of the original
d
i
~
~ f
•
.. '
+ ur
ng
materials, is that there are no guarantees as to the breakage percentage ' e '
e
. j
.
{ . _
deconstruction & reconstruction, which could in turn render the building un- ~ y
.
~ i ~- .
'
constructable. :: ~
- s
$.
;
~ ,
,
Ala , ~' • -
, Moving the building intact was also considered. Based on my experience in the industry ~ 'ti;
L
~~~ and the structural issues mentioned above, successful relocation would be unlikely until <-` ,
~}`' ,= and unless restructuring as noted has been completed. Y :, ~.
'
~~ Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. k~ :~ P ~~- Y : ~ .:
~ ~ , r
... ~< ~~,
~~~
f'
,
w .
~: h tt
~t~ -
s ~a~!. k ~ ~ ~ - _ ti
-
~,.
~,~
T.' `7
`t
' ;
t ..
•
i
xTi ~r t: ~r ' 7.
7 y ~t• I ~
k
t 1^~,
a ~ i
~ ~Fd~., ' ';P,l
} ~ } r.
;r
~,
,~
~..
- j f
~~
~
~ t` ~
O
z +
- +. LL ` ~ i - r ~
~M1 S
~ _ ~