HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5A - 940 North StItem 5A, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
April 3, 2019
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Chris Meschuk, Interim Planning Director
Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Lucas Markley, Assistant City Attorney II
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution
to initiate the process for the designation of the property at 940
North St. (stay‐of‐demolition was imposed on Dec. 5, 2018), as an
individual landmark pursuant to Section 9‐11‐3, B.R.C. 1981.
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 940 North St.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1899‐1907; addition constructed in 1973
3. Zoning: RH‐5 (Residential High ‐ 5)
4. Lot Size: 10,181 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Building Size: 4,250 sq. ft. (County Assessor estimate)
6. Owner: Daryl Carpenter / Brady Burke, Burke Builders
7. Applicant: City of Boulder Landmarks Board
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the
property at 940 North St. for the following reasons:
The applicant has considered alternatives to the demolition of the house, as
suggested in § 9‐11‐23(h), B.R.C. 1981, including consensual landmark
designation and incorporation of the house into redevelopment plans, but
given their stated desires for the property, does not consider preservation of
the house to be feasible.
The initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection by the
Landmarks Board has historically been used very rarely.
While the c.1900 house remains largely intact to its original construction, the
historic character of the property is compromised by the large 1973 addition
at the front of the building. The property is not located in a potential historic
district.
Item 5A, Page 2
There has been little community interest in the proposed demolition during
the stay‐of‐demolition.
MOTION:
I move that the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the property at 940 North
St.
SUMMARY:
This hearing provides the Landmarks Board the opportunity to determine whether
appropriate to initiate local landmark designation for the property at 940 North St.
On Sept. 12, 2018, the Planning Department received a demolition permit application
for the house at 940 North St. a non‐designated building over 50 years old.
On Sept. 19, 2018 the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) referred the
application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was “probable
cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual
landmark.”
On Dec. 5, 2018 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: Link to
Demolition Memo).
The 180 day stay period expires on April 28, 2019.
At the time the demolition application was submitted, staff and representatives of the
Landmarks Board discussed alternatives to demolition with the applicant, including
rehabilitation and incorporating the house into redevelopment of the property.
During the stay‐of‐demolition, staff and representatives of the Landmarks Board
made a site visit with the applicant.
On March 6, the Landmarks Board scheduled a hearing to consider whether to
initiate landmark designation for the property at 940 North St.
At the Dec. 5, 2018 hearing, one person spoke in support of redevelopment of the site
to include low‐income housing. Since the application was submitted in September
2018, no public interest in the preservation of the house has been demonstrated.
The property is not located in an identified potential historic district and does not
possesses environmental significance. The 1973 addition at the front of the building
has compromised its historic architectural character, and the past residents, while
interesting, do not appear to be historically significant. For these reasons, staff
recommends the board not initiate landmark designation and that the demolition
permit be issued.
Item 5A, Page 3
Figure 1. Location Map, 940 North St.
Figure 2. 940 North St., c.1949 (left) and 2018 (right).
ANALYSIS:
Section 9‐11‐3, B.R.C. 1981, requires that the Landmarks Board hold a public hearing if it
is interested in considering initiating landmark designation of a property that it
considers may be eligible for landmark designation pursuant to Sections 9‐11‐1 and 9‐11‐
2, B.R.C. 1981. At its March 6, 2019 Landmarks Board meeting, the Board expressed an
interest in holding a hearing to consider whether initiation of landmark designation of
940 North Street is appropriate in advance of the April 28, 2019, expiration of the stay‐of‐
demolition.
Purpose of Stays of Demolition
The stated purposes of a stay‐of‐demolition are “to prevent the loss of buildings that
may have historic or architectural significance” and “to provide the time necessary to
initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives.” 9‐11‐23(a),
Purpose, B.R.C. 1981. During the course of a stay, the Board may consider a variety of
Item 5A, Page 4
options to this end, one of which is the designation of the property. The initiation of
landmarking over an owner’s objection by the Landmarks Board has occurred very
rarely over the years.
In many cases, a stay of demolition results in the avoidance of demolition through
reconsideration of projects and the subsequent preservation of buildings. Recent
examples in which stays of demolition have resulted in the applicant filing an
application for landmark designation include: 2003 Pine St. (2014), 1922 20th St. (2014),
2245 Pine St. (2015), 2949 Broadway (2016) and 1836 Pearl St. (2019). Likewise, there are
many examples of stays that have been allowed to expire (or demolition permits issued
prior the stay expiring) by the Board when reasonable alternatives to demolition have
not been found.
Standard for Initiation
The following is an analysis of the standards for determining whether to initiate the
designation of an individual landmark designation pursuant to Section 9‐11‐1, Legislative
Intent, and Section 9‐11‐2, City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic
Districts, B.R.C. 1981:
Section 9‐11‐1, Purpose and Legislative Intent
a. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and
welfare by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and areas
of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or
national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of
the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain
appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to
enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and
interest, and foster knowledge of the City’s living heritage.
Architecture
The small one‐story house was constructed between 1899 and 1907. An assessor card for
the property indicates 1899 as the date of construction, while deed and directory
research indicate it was built around 1907. An example of vernacular frame construction,
the house features a hipped‐roof and front gable that projects toward North Street,
coursed shingles, and a small window with a pedimented surround. The front window
has a transom and a surround with dentil molding. The building is clad in painted drop
siding with corner boards and the building rests on a stone foundation. The majority of
the original windows have been replaced.
Two additions were constructed in 1973 on the property: a two‐story apartment building
located at the northeast corner of the house and a two‐story building at the southeast
Item 5A, Page 5
corner of the house. The buildings are clad in T1‐11 siding and have shallowly pitched
gable roofs. The buildings are minimally connected to the original building; there are no
wall adjacencies or interior connections between the original house and 1973 buildings.
The 1995 survey did not identify the property to have architectural or historic
significance, stating “Alterations to this house have diminished its historic integrity.”
Staff considers the original building to be largely intact to its original construction, with
the exception of the replacement of the windows and removal of the porch. However,
the construction of the 1973 portions of the building has significantly diminished the
historic integrity of the property so that landmark designation in its current condition
would be difficult to justify.
Persons Associated with the Property
The house was occupied by a series of short‐term renters from 1908 until 1918, including
an advertising clerk and chef. The Hagerman family lived there from 1918 until 1972.
Henrietta (Etta) Hagerman was born in Ward, Colorado in 1874 to George and Lucy
Walker, who had travelled across the prairie by ox team from Iowa. The Walkers were
responsible for supplying lumber for many of Boulder’s early structures, and took many
photographs of Jamestown in the late 1800’s. Her father was actively involved with the
Masonic lodges of early Jamestown. She married Garrett Hagerman in Jamestown in
1894.
Garrett P. Hagerman was born in 1865 in New Jersey. Following their marriage in 1894,
the Hagermans lived in Jamestown until they moved to 940 North St. in Boulder in 1918.
Garrett continued to work as a miner and died on November 15, 1931 at the age of 66.
Etta was actively involved with the First Methodist Church.
Etta continued to live in the house until her death in 1967 at the age of 92 years old. After
Etta’s death, her daughter Hazel lived in the house with her husband Norton until 1972.
Norton was a mechanic in Boulder that worked for a local service center and with Watts
Hardy Dairy located along the 1200 block of Walnut. The Hagermans are buried in
Green Mountain Cemetery in Boulder.
While interesting, none of the owners or residents appear to meet the criteria for historic
significance on a local, state or national level.
Geographic Importance
The property is not located within an identified potential historic district as the area has
lost much of its historic character. Historically, the 900 block of North Street had a
residential character, with commercial businesses located east toward Broadway and in
Item 5A, Page 6
proximity to the Boulder Community Hospital, which was constructed beginning in
1918 and operated at Broadway and Alpine Avenue until 2017.
Figure 3. Map of Surrounding Area with approximate age of buildings.
The map in Figure 3 shows the area immediately around 940 North St. and the
approximate dates of construction for the primary buildings on the property. The
Potential Expanded Mapleton Hill Historic District is located to the southwest (9th Street
and Dewey Avenue) and the Designated Mapleton Hill Historic District is located to the
southeast (2500 block of Broadway). In this area, fourteen buildings remain that were
constructed before 1940, nineteen were constructed between 1940 and 1970, and eighteen
were constructed since 1971. Many of the lots in the 900‐1000 block of North Street
appear to have been consolidated at the time the large multi‐family buildings were
constructed. A clear development pattern or standard lot configuration is not evident in
the 2018 aerial. Given the development pattern of the area and the overall loss of historic
character, staff does not consider the area around 940 North Street to be eligible for
designation as a local historic district.
b. “The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the
city, but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and
the public interest in preserving the city’s cultural, historic, and architectural
heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that
heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives . . . .”
Staff considers efforts have been made to explore alternatives to the demolition during
the stay. A stay‐of‐demolition is issued to provide time to “explore alternatives” that
might prevent the demolition of significant historic resources. Staff considers that time
has been taken and efforts have been made to explore alternatives including looking at
rehabilitation costs using tax credits and other financial incentives. Given the diminished
Item 5A, Page 7
the historic integrity of the property, as a result of the visually overwhelming additions,
that landmark designation in its current condition would be difficult to justify.
During the course of the stay‐of‐demolition, there has been little community support for
the proposed designation. At the Dec. 5, 2018 meeting, one member of the public spoke in
support of redevelopment of the property into low‐income housing. Staff has not received
public comments since the application was submitted in September 2018.
Staff considers that the compromised architectural integrity due to inappropriate non‐
historic construction on the property, and lack of public support during the stay of
demolition, makes initiation over the owner’s objection an unreasonable balance of
private property rights and the public good.
Section 9‐11‐2, City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic
Districts
(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.
On Dec. 5, 2018 the Landmarks Board voted (3‐1; W. Jellick opposed, F. Sheets absent) to
place a stay‐of‐demolition on the building, finding that there was “probable cause” to
believe the property may be eligible for landmark designation based upon its historic
and architectural significance; that the property contributes to the character of the
neighborhood as an intact representative of the area’s past; and that it had not been
demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building.
See Attachment 2: Link to Demolition Memo for more information on the significance
of the property.
Section 9‐11‐3(d), Criteria for Review
Section 9‐11‐3 (d), Criteria for Review, applies when an application for designation is
received from a historic preservation organization or less than all of the property owners
pursuant to paragraph 9‐11‐3(a)(3) and (4), B.R.C. 1981. While not required to be
considered when the Board is considering initiation, these criteria for review may offer
some guidance to the Board in making the decision whether to initiate landmarking
itself.
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be
eligible for designation as an individual landmark or historic district
Item 5A, Page 8
consistent with the purposes and standards in sections 9‐11‐1, ʺLegislative
Intent,ʺ 9‐11‐2, ʺCity Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and
Historic Districts,ʺ and 9‐16‐1, ʺGeneral Definitions,ʺ B.R.C. 1981;
See analysis above.
(2) There are currently resources available that would allow the city manager
to complete all of the community outreach and historic analysis necessary
for the application;
Initiation of landmark designation over an owner’s objection requires additional staff
resources including outreach and analysis. There are limited staff resources available to
process applications for designation of a property with significantly diminished historic
integrity.
(3) There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
There has been limited public interest in this property during the demolition
review process. One person spoke in support of preservation at the Dec. 5,
2018 Landmarks Board hearing.
(4) The buildings or features may need the protection provided through
designation;
The demolition application for the building will issue on April 28, 2019
unless the Landmarks Board takes action.
(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, “The city and
county will identify, evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts,
sites and natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural
significance with input from the community.”
The plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over an owner’s
objection, though in some circumstances this may be appropriate. Staff and two
Item 5A, Page 9
members of the Landmarks Board have met with the owners to discuss possible
alternatives to demolition for the house. The owners have determined the
alternatives are not feasible. Given the diminished the historic integrity as a result
of visually overwhelming, non‐historic construction on the property, in its current
condition landmark designation would be difficult to justify.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Staff does not consider that designating this property over the owner’s objection
would represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the
public’s interest as outlined above.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
While it is not staff’s recommendation, if the Board chooses to initiate the designation
process, it must do so by resolution. A draft resolution is included in Attachment 1. If
initiated, the application would need to be heard by the Landmarks Board within 60 to
120 days in order to determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the
purposes and standards in Sections 9‐11‐1, Legislative Intent, and 9‐11‐2, City Council May
Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts, B.R.C. 1981. The owner must obtain a
Landmark Alteration Certificate prior to the submission of building permit applications
for the property if they choose to proceed while the application is pending, or they may
choose to wait until the application process is complete.
BOARD OPTIONS:
1. Take no action.
2. Initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the
resolution under Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENTS:
1: Draft resolution to initiate landmark designation of the property at 940 North St.
2: Dec. 5, 2018 Demolition Memo (link)
Item 5A, Page 10
ATTACHMENT 1: Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING THE DESIGNATION
OF 940 NORTH ST. AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2019 the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation hearing
for 940 North St.; and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2019, the Landmarks Board held an initiation hearing to determine
whether to initiate designation of the property at 940 North St. and determined that the property
meets the standards for initiation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LANDMARKS BOARD OF THE
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO:
The City of Boulder Landmarks Board hereby initiates the designation of 940 North St. as
an individual landmark and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the historic
preservation ordinance no fewer than sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty days from
the date of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of April 2019.
This resolution is signed by the chair of the Landmarks Board on April 3, 2019.
_____________________________________
Chair, Landmarks Board
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Secretary to the Board