Item 5B - 1723 Marine St Memo 10.14.2020
MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD
October 14, 2020
Staff
Charles Ferro, Interim Comprehensive Planning Manager
Lucas Markley, Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
Clare Brandt, Administrative Specialist II
Consideration of Demolition Permit
Public hearing and consideration of a demolition application for the house located at 1723
Marine St., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the
Boulder Revised Code, 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, "Quasi-
Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. (HIS2020-00243).
Property Information
Address: 1723 Marine St.
Owner: Dirk Stribrny, Evernest Holdings, LLC
Applicant: Kenneth J. Jacques
Case Type: Non-Designated Demolition
Code Section: 9-11-23, B.R.C., 1981
Date of Construction: c.1910
Zoning: RH-1
Existing House Size: 864 sq. ft. (approx.)
Lot Size: 4,988 sq. ft. (approx.)
Legal Description: TRACT 131-B1 BO 31-1N-70 BOOK 906 PAGE 80 BCR
Staff Recommendation
Staff 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 1723
Marine St., for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was
accepted by the city manager, adopting the staff memorandum with the findings listed below, in
order to explore alternatives to demolition for the building.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 1 of 31
A 180-day stay period would expire on February 28, 2021.
Findings
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
A stay of demolition for the house at 1723 Marine St. is appropriate based on the criteria set
forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that:
1. The property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic
and architectural significance;
2. The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact
representative of the area’s past;
3. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate
the building.
Alternative Motion Language
If the Landmarks Board chooses to approve the demolition, staff recommends the following
motion language:
I move the Landmarks Board approve the demolition of 1723 Marine St., finding 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.
Should the board choose to approve the demolition application, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff recommends that prior to demolition the following be submitted to staff for review,
approval and recording with Carnegie Library:
1. A site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject property;
and
2. Color medium format archival quality photographs of the interior and exterior of the
house.
Summary
• On August 14, 2020 the Planning & Development Services (P&DS) Department received
an application to demolish the house at 1723 Marine St.
• The building is not located within a historic district, but is over 50 years old. The
proposed work meets the definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder
Revised Code 1981.
• On August 19, 2020, 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.”
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 2 of 31
• A demolition application (HIS2016-00192) was previously reviewed by the Landmarks
Board in 2016. The Landmarks Board placed a stay-of-demolition on the property and
met with the owner once. Subsequently, the application was withdrawn and later sold to
the current owner.
• Staff finds that the property meets the significance criteria for individual landmark
designation and recommends the Landmarks Board issue a stay-of-demolition for a
period not to exceed 180 days from the day the application was accepted by the city
manager.
• A 180-day stay period would expire on Feb. 21, 2021.
Purpose of the Board’s Review
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 comprises two
members of the Landmarks Board and a staff member. If, during the course of its review, the
Ldrc determines that there is “probable cause” to consider that the building 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.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building proposed for demolition may have significance
under the criteria in subsection (f) of Section 9-11-23, B.R.C. 1981, the application shall be
suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date it was accepted by the city
manager as complete, in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the
building’s demolition. If imposed, a 180-day stay period would start when the completed
application was accepted by the city manager (September 1, 2020, when the Landmarks Board
fee was paid) and expire on Feb. 28, 2021. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
Property Description
Approximately 864 square foot in size, the vernacular wood frame house sits on a 4,988 sq. ft.
lot, located on Marine Street between 17th and 18th streets, one block east of Boulder High
School. It is not located in a potential or designated historic district. The Hillside Historic District
is located two blocks south, and the potential local and National Register of Historic Places
Boulder High School Historic District is located one block west, and the potential Whittier local
historic district is located one block north.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 3 of 31
Figure 1. Location Map, 1723 Marine St.
Figure 2. 1723 Marine St., South (front) Elevation, 2020.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 4 of 31
Character-Defining Features
The house features a pyramidal hipped roof and square plan with central stone chimney,
features common to early twentieth-century hipped-box vernacular houses. This distinctive hip-
roof construction technique reduces the need for expensive lengthy purlins and rafters versus a
standard hipped or gable roof, making this typology popular for low-cost residential construction
during the first half of the twentieth century. Based upon form and materiality, the 1995 Historic
Resources Survey estimated the original construction date as c. 1910. The house has a rectilinear
plan, rather than the square typical of pyramidal houses, as a result of a shed roofed lean-to
along its north side, which was likely an early addition. This is supported by a partial view of this
addition on the c. 1946 assessor’s card of the neighboring property, which shows that the
addition originally featured exposed rafter tails, a Craftsman detail typical of the period. The
hipped roof, open front porch is supported by two unadorned square wood posts. The porch
floor is a tapered pad of concrete, covered in red-orange stucco, topped by ceramic tiles. The
symmetrical façade features a central, six light wooden entry door (likely a replacement),
flanked by a pair of double-hung wood windows that appear to be historic. The sides of the
original mass feature a symmetrically composed pair of windows matching those of the front
elevation, while each side of the lean-to is penetrated by a door. There are two windows on the
back side, facing into the carport. The walls are clad in light blue painted wooden lap siding with
white painted wood trim, and the roof is clad in light grey asphalt shingles. A narrow strip of the
concrete block foundation is exposed around the perimeter of the house.
Figure 3. 1723 Marine St., South (front) Elevation, 2020.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 5 of 31
Figure 4. 1723 Marine St., North (rear) Elevation, 2020.
Figure 5. South (front) elevation, county assessor’s photo, c. 1946.
Image courtesy Boulder Carnegie Library.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 6 of 31
Alterations
Boulder County assessor’s records indicate that this house was
relocated to its present site in 1946. Its original location and
exact age have not been determined, though the house
appears relatively intact to its recorded state following its
relocation in 1946.
In 1993, a covered car port was added along the full length of
the north side of the house. Minor alterations to the façade,
including removal of shutters from the windows and wooden
trellises from the front porch, replacement of the front door,
and addition of corner trim, have also occurred since 1946. A
single-window in the center of the rear shed-roof addition has
been removed, and its exposed rafter tails have been covered
by the carport. White metal eave troughs and downspouts
were added after 1995. The house has been re-roofed several
times with asphalt shingles. In 2001, a six-foot wooden privacy
fence was constructed around the perimeter of the property.
Scope of Demolition
Full demolition of the building is proposed.
Condition
In a document dated August 7, 2020 (See Attachment A: Applicant Materials) architect and
owner representative Kenneth J. Jacques evaluated the condition of the house. His observations
include:
1. The existing main floor is more than 10” below the flood protection elevation. The Per
City of Boulder Revised Code section 9-3-2, any substantial improvement or any addition
of any size would require that the entire building be elevated above the flood protection
elevation. (Note: the property is in the 100-year floodplain)
2. There are existing gas appliances, a water heater and furnace, that are installed directly
on the main floor 10” below the flood protection elevation. These appliances are not
high enough to be safe from flooding; there is insufficient ceiling height to elevate these
appliances to meet current codes.
3. The unreinforced CMU foundation is in poor condition and is unable to resist the lateral
force of flood waters. Our structural engineer has determined the existing foundation
design is unable to prevent the building from floating in a flood, unable to resist the
lateral forces of flood waters and unable to support the forces involved in lifting the
building to a new position. As a result, the existing foundation cannot be upgraded to
meet current codes and would need to be completely replaced.
Figure 6. Partial view of North
(rear) of 1723 Marine from 1427
18th St. assessor’s card, c. 1946.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 7 of 31
4. There are existing floor drains, shower drains and toilets that are installed below the
flood protection elevation. It is not possible to protect these from flooding without
elevating the whole building.
5. This structure is not unique; there are at least 10 examples of identical or similar
buildings within a 5 block radius of the project. See supporting documents titled ‘Similar
Properties’.
6. Elevating the building presents a unique challenge in that the roof is supported by the
interior brick chimney. This requires that the brick be lifted simultaneously with the
wood framing. A steel frame must be fabricated in the crawlspace that supports both the
brick and the wood floor joists. There is less than 18" of clearance in the crawlspace, to
provide access several 4' deep trenches must be hand dug below the existing chimney
and house foundations and all steel field fabricated within the crawl space area. Also the
interior of the house is finished in plaster over wood lathe. This type of construction has
very poor shear resistance and is expected to be heavily damaged during the process of
jacking.
Cost of Repair or Restoration
Jacques estimated the cost of replacing the foundation, elevating the building, adding support to
the chimney, and repairing interior plasterwork would cost $192,200. This is approximately
$213/sq. ft. for repair costs. See Attachment A: Applicant Materials.
Property History
The property at 1723 Marine St. is located in Culver’s Addition, which was added to the city in
1874 by Robert Culver, a prominent Boulder citizen, farmer, and developer. Culver came to
Boulder in 1863, and later bought a sizable tract of land in this area. He retained a portion as his
farm, and sold parcels for residential development. The new development was annexed into the
city in 1874, becoming an early residential area. The southern side of the neighborhood
developed slowly, with few houses appearing south of Arapahoe Avenue until the 1890s. The
area was fully developed by the 1910s, mostly inhabited by Swedish immigrants. Architecturally,
the area was characterized by simple, vernacular buildings favored by the immigrant craftsmen,
miners, and expressmen who made their homes in this working class neighborhood.1
The lot 1723 Marine Street was owned by local banker Charles Buckingham, who sold it to Elliott
A. Van Dyke in 1919. It was then held by five other owners until being purchased by Charles N.
Alden in 1944. Alden obtained several city construction permits, including one for repairs and
remodeling of a house granted in December of 1944 and one for connecting to the city water
and sewer lines granted in March 1945, when the house was relocated to its present location.
1 Whitacre, Christine, and R. Laurie Simmons. “Goss-Grove Neighborhood History and Survey Results.” City of Boulder,
December, 1986.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 8 of 31
Alden subsequently sold the house to Lois S. and Raymond
C. Hammond in 1945. The Hammonds worked at the
Temple Annex Barber and Beauty Shop, located at 1330
Pearl St. They did not reside at the property long, selling
the property to Ronald D. and Emma L. Hoog in early 1946.
The Hoogs resold it later that same year to Nelson E.
McPherson, a student who lived there with Margaret M.
McPherson, widow of Elmer McPherson. As of 1951, Lula
Mary Misclevitz and her husband, Joseph C. Misclevitz,
were the listed residents, evidently renting the house from
the McPhersons. The Misclevitzes purchased the property
in May of 1952, and resided there until 1985.2
Lula was born to Elza A. and Wynona Crawford Beason on
July 31, 1898, in Hebron, Nebraska.3 Joseph was born in
Chicago on November 14, 1892.4 His father, Frank
Misclevitz, was a native of Germany who immigrated to
Chicago in 1887 and married Veronice, Joseph’s mother, in
1888.5 Lula and Joseph were married on February 3, 1914,
in Thedford, Nebraska.6 The couple remained in Nebraska
for ten years before moving to Colorado in 1924, and to
Boulder in 1928.7
Joseph began his long career as a Boulder barber working at the shop of Claude Reed from 1928
to 1941, and later opened his own shop, “Joe’s” at 1914 Broadway.8 He lost the lease on his
shop in late 1949, and went to work at Slavec’s Barber Shop, 1643 Pearl St., before reopening
“Joe’s” at a new location, 1023 Pearl St., in 1956.9 He retired in 1959, ending a 31-year career.10
Lula (who was also known as Lulu) Misclevitz was a prominent member of Boulder’s Rebekah
Lodge No. 5, where she was installed as Vice Grand in 1951.11
Joseph and Lula had two sons and two daughters.12 Their two sons, Willis and Frank, both served
in the U.S. Navy. Willis served on the battleship USS Colorado in the early 1930s, and Frank was
2 Polk Directories for Boulder, Colorado; Boulder County Public Records.
3 Daily Camera, “Obituaries: Lula Misclevitz” 7 November 1985. Boulder Carnegie Library.
4 Daily Camera, “Obituaries: Joseph Misclevitz” 17 May 1978. Boulder Carnegie Library.
5 Daily Camera, “Joe Misclevitz Home from Father’s Funeral.” 27 December 1947. Boulder Carnegie Library.
6 Daily Camera, “Mr., Mrs. Joe Misclevitz to Celebrate Anniversary.” 29 January 1964. Boulder Carnegie Library.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid; Daily Camera, “Joe Misclevitz Opens his Own Barber Shop.” 29 September, 1941. Boulder Carnegie Library.
9 Daily Camera, “Joe Misclevits now at Slavec Barber Shop.” 15 December, 1949. Boulder Carnegie Library.; Daily
Camera, “Joe Misclevitz Opens Barbershop at 1023 Pearl.” 14 February, 1956. Boulder Carnegie Library.
10 Daily Camera, 29 January 1964.
11 Daily Camera, “Lulu Misclevitz was Installed Vice Grand of Rebekah Lodge No. 5.” March 24, 1951. Boulder Carnegie
Library.
12 Daily Camera, 29 January 1964.
Figure 7. Lula and Joseph
Misclevitz, 1964. Photo courtesy of
Boulder Carnegie Library.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 9 of 31
involved in several actions in the closing battles of the Pacific Theatre of the Second World War
while serving on the escort carrier USS Vella Gulf.13
Joseph Misclevitz died on May 15, 1978.14 Lula continued to reside at 1723 Marine St., and was
joined by her son Willis, who had by then retired, in 1983. Following Lula’s death on November
4, 1985, her estate sold the property to Robert S. and Gladys M. Baca in 1986. Gladys became
sole owner of the property in 1992, before selling it to Margit J. Baker in 2003. Baker placed the
property into the care of the Barker Family Living Trust “A” in 2008, which, via real estate firm
XChange Solutions, Inc., sold it to Stewart J. Cohune in 2013.15 The current owner purchased the
property in June 2020.
Criteria for the Board’s Decision:
Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, provides that the Landmarks Board “shall consider and base its
decision upon any of the following criteria:
(1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent
with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-11-2, B.R.C. 1981;
(2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an
established and definable area;
(3) The reasonable condition of the building; and
(4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set
forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) …, the board may not consider deterioration caused by
unreasonable neglect.
As detailed below, staff considers this property potentially eligible for designation as an
individual landmark.
CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
The following is a result of staff's research of the property relative to the significance criteria for
individual landmarks as adopted by the Landmarks Board on Sept. 17, 1975. See Attachment F:
Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 1723 Marine St. meets historic significance under criteria 1.
1. Date of Construction: c. 1910
Elaboration: The Historic Building Inventory estimates the date of construction as 1910.
Though the exact date of construction is unknown due to its relocation, the form and
13 Daily Camera, “Willis Misclevitz of U.S. Colorado Home on Furlough.” 7 August, 1933. Boulder Carnegie Library.;
Daily Camera, “Frank Misclevitz en Route to States after Experiencing Typhoons at Japan.” 17 October 1945. Boulder
Carnegie Library.
14 Daily Camera, 17 May 1978.
15 Boulder County Public Records.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 10 of 31
construction of this house are representative of building constructed in the early twentieth
century.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Joseph and Lula Misclevitz.
Elaboration: Joseph worked as a barber in Boulder for 31 years, operating two barber shops
during his career. Lula Misclevitz was Vice Grand of Rebekah Lodge No. 5 in Boulder. The
Misclevistzs resided at the property from 1951 until 1985.
3. Development of the Community: None Observed.
4. Recognition by Authorities: 1995 Scattered Resources Survey
Elaboration: The 1995 Historic Resources Survey noted that, although somewhat altered, the
house retains sufficient integrity to be significant as a reflection of early twentieth century
vernacular construction.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 1723 Marine St. meets historic significance under criterion 1.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Vernacular Wood Frame
Elaboration: This house is an intact example of a pyramidal “hipped box” house, a popular
vernacular house form in Boulder during the early 20th century. Aside from replacement of
the front door and addition of a carport at the rear of the house, few changes appear to have
occurred to it since 1946.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Unknown
3. Artistic Merit: None observed.
4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed.
5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 1723 Marine St. meets environmental significance under
criteria 1 2, and 4.
1. Site Characteristics: Varied and mature vegetation
Elaboration: This 4,988 square foot parcel features is enhanced by a several types of high
quality vegetation, including mature trees.
2. Compatibility with Site: Well-scaled and appropriate to site
Elaboration: This small, 864 square foot house is well scaled and appropriately located on its
lot. The house’s large setback allows it to integrate with the rich vegetation on the site,
lending it an appropriately subtle visual impact from the street.
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 11 of 31
3. Geographic Importance: None observed
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Residential character
Elaboration: This block features many older residences on small, well-vegetated lots, and
this house contributes to that character.
5. Area Integrity: None Observed
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: Though this
section of Goss Grove has been substantially redeveloped into medium-density residential
housing, this block features other houses dating to around the turn-of-the-century, including a
Four Square house next door at 1719 Marine St. and a Shingle-style house at the corner of
Marine and 17th streets.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
The applicant has noted that there is cracking and spalling in the foundation, and that the floor
level of the house is not compliant with flood safety code. The applicant argues that these two
factors ensure that the foundation would likely have to be entirely replaced, a process made
more difficult and costly by the presence of a free standing masonry chimney at the center of
the frame house. See Attachment A: Applicant Materials
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
The applicant estimates cost of repair at $192,200. See Attachment A: Applicant Materials
Neighborhood Comment
Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter.
The Board’s Decision
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have significance
under the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981, the city manager shall issue a
demolition permit.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have significance under the
criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 12 of 31
from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete in order to
provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the demolition of the building. Section 9-
11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period would expire on February 28, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Applicant’s Materials
Attachment B: Photographs, 2016
Attachment C: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment D: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Attachment E: Historic Building Inventory Form (link)
Attachment F: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 13 of 31
Project Address: _____________________________________ Date of Application: __________________
CONTACT INFO
Applicant’s Name: ______________________________________________________________________
Email: _______________________________ Phone: ________________________________
Owner’s Name: _________________________________________________________________________
Email: _______________________________ Phone: ________________________________
Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
BUILDING TYPE AND DATE OF CONSTRUCTION
□Pre-1940 Primary Building, constructed in _________
□Post-1940 Primary Building, constructed in ________
□Accessory Building(s) Over 50 Years Old, constructed in ________
Description:
Estimated date(s) of alteration:
SCOPE OF WORK
□Full Demolition
□On-Site Relocation
□Off-Site Relocation
□Removal of more than 50% of the roof
□Removal of more than 50% of the exterior walls
□Removal or construction in front of a street-facing wall (includes
replacement siding)
APPLICATION MATERIALS – Printed on 8 ½ x 11 paper (single-sided preferred)
□Color photographs of each side of the building(s)□A survey or site plan that clearly indicates which building(s) are proposed for demolition□Application Fee - Paid through CSS (credit card fee applies) or in-person at the P&DS Services Center)
Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent: ___________________________________________________
Printed Name: ___________________________________________________________________________
Historic Preservation approval is valid for 180 days and cannot be extended.
If demolition permit application is not finalized within that period, a new application is required.
City of Boulder, Planning and Sustainability
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION REVIEW APPLICATION
For Non-Designated Buildings Over 50 Years Old
For Office Use Only
Date Received Time Received Case Number Previous HIS case(s):
1723 Marine Street 8-7-20
Kenneth J. Jacques (architect)
kengorific@earthlink.net 303-642-2320
Dirk Stribrny
dirkstribrny@gmail.com 610-585-4060
Dirk Stribrny c/o Evernest Holdings, LLC
4 Southwinds Lane
Malvern, PA 19355
X
X
X
X
X
Kenneth J. Jacques
Kenneth J. Jacques, architect
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 14 of 31
FOR STAFF USE – Submit with Application
Demolition Review for: ☐ Primary Building ☐ Accessory Building(s) Address:_________________________
Date of Review: ________________________ HIS2018-_____________ ☐ LDRC Review ☐ Administrative Review
LDRC Members: ____________________(LB) _____________________(LB) _____________________(staff)
Applicant(s) present (LDRC): ________________________________________________________________________
Property Information
Date of Construction: ________________ Survey Form? Yes / No Tax Assessor Card? Yes / No
Estimated Date of Alterations: _________________________________________________________________
Scope of Work ☐ Full Demolition ☐ On-Site Relocation ☐ Removal of more than 50% of the roof ☐ Off-Site Relocation ☐ Removal of more than 50% of the exterior walls ☐ Removal or construction in front of a street-facing wall
1. Is the building potentially eligible for designation as an individual landmark? Yes / No
☐ Potential Architectural Significance
Recognized Period/Style; Architect or Builder of Prominence; Artistic Merit; Example of the Uncommon; Indigenous
Qualities
☐ Potential Historic Significance
Date of Construction; Association with Historical Persons or Events; Distinction in the Development of the Community of
Boulder; Recognition by Authorities
☐ Potential Environmental Significance
Site Characteristics; Compatibility with Site; Geographic Importance; Environmental Appropriateness; Area Integrity
2. Does the scope of work constituting a demolition have a significant impact or potentially detrimental
effect on the potential historic resource? Yes / No
Next Steps
☐ Approve application for full demolition. Approval is valid for 180 days and cannot be extended.
☐ Approve application for partial demolition based on plans dated ___________.
If scope of work changes, new demolition permit application is required.
Approval is valid for 180 days and cannot be extended.
☐ Refer application to the full Landmarks Board for review; $1504 fee required
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 15 of 31
Historic Preservation Demolition Review for Non-Designated Buildings Over 50 Years Old
For Applicant Use – Do not submit with application
Demolition Request Review
Fee Level of Review Estimated Time of Initial Review Initial Review Post-1940 Primary Building Demo/Off-
Site Relocation $51 Staff Level Within 14 days
Accessory Building Demolition $51 Staff Level Within 14 days
On-Site Relocation $51 Staff Level Within 14 days
Pre-1940 Primary Building Demo/Off-
Site Relocation $282
Landmarks
Design Review
Committee
(LDRC)
LDRC meets each Wednesday;
applications submitted by noon Friday
typically reviewed the following
Wednesday. LB Review Application Referred to Landmarks
Board for Review in a Public Hearing $1504 Landmarks Board
The Landmarks Board typically meets
the first Wednesday of the month. The
deadline for the meeting is 28 days
prior.
Review will not begin until the fee is paid.
Pay fee at the P&DS Services Center front desk or log into CSS to pay fees online.
What is the purpose of this review? Reference Section 9-11-23 Boulder Revised Code, 1981.
The purpose of the review of permit applications for demolition, on-site relocation and off-site relocation of buildings that
are over fifty years old is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historical or architectural significance. The
purpose of this section is also to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to
consider alternatives for the building.
What Happens Next?
Within 14 days, staff or the Landmarks Design Review Committee will make an initial determination to either approve
the application or refer it to the Landmarks Board.
If the Application is referred to the Landmarks Board, a public hearing fee of $1,504 is required to proceed.
If the Application is Approved, submit the approval letter with your Building Permit Application (partial
demolition) or your Demolition Permit Application (full demolition).
• Approved for a Partial Demolition: If the building is found to be potentially eligible for local landmark
designation but the scope of work is not detrimental to that historic character, partial demolition will be
approved (i.e. removal of a 1990s addition from a 1900s house). The historic preservation approval will
reference the attached plan set. If the scope of demolition changes, a new application is required.
• Approved for a Full Demolition: If the building is not found to be potentially eligible for local landmark
designation, full demolition of the building will be approved.
Can the historic preservation approval be extended?
The historic preservation approval is valid for 180 days and cannot be extended. If the application isn’t finalized within
this period, a new historic preservation demolition review application is required.
Questions?
Contact Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II at (303) 441-3209 or cameronm@bouldercolorado.gov.
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 16 of 31
1723 Marine Street: demolition narrative
last rev: 8-7-20
Project Data
address 1723 Marine Street
use single family residence with attached carport
const. date 1940
Owner
Evernest Holdings, LLC
4 Southwinds Lane
Malvern, PA 19355
610-585-4060 (mobile)
dirkstribrny@gmail.com
contact : Dirk Stribrny
Project Manager
IBB Construction Management
lou@ibbmanage.com
970-485-4550
contact : Lou Fishman
Proposed demolition
100% demolition of an existing 1 story bungalow style home built in 1940. The demolition is
also to include removal of an existing attached carport, existing covered entry and detached
shed.
Floor area of existing structures (to be removed)
first floor above ground, finished 840 sq ft
carport area 198 sq ft
covered entry area 50 sq ft
detached shed 128 sq ft (post 1980 construction)
total area to be removed 1216 sq ft
Field Observations, condition of existing structure
The original 1 story wood frame home was built in 1940, portions of the carport and covered
entry appear to be newer, post 1940 construction. The detached storage shed appears to be
post 1980 construction. The house is a wood frame single story structure on a CMU foundation.
This particular style of home is not unique and is very common in the neighborhood.
I was able to find 8 examples of almost identical homes within a 4 block radius.
This property is located in the 100 year flood plain. The unreinforced block foundation does not
appear to be waterproofed and has visible cracking and spalling resulting from water damage.
There are numerous existing conditions that make it difficult to rehabilitate the building.
1. The existing main floor is more than 10” below the flood protection elevation. The Per City of
Boulder Revised Code section 9-3-2, any substantial improvement or any addition of any size
would require that the entire building be elevated above the flood protection elevation.
2. There are existing gas appliances, a water heater and furnace, that are installed directly on
the main floor 10” below the flood protection elevation. These appliances are not high enough
to be safe from flooding; there is insufficient ceiling height to elevate these appliances to meet
current codes.
3. The unreinforced CMU foundation is in poor condition and is unable to resist the lateral force
of flood waters. Our structural engineer has determined the existing foundation design is unable
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 17 of 31
to prevent the building from floating in a flood, unable to resist the lateral forces of flood waters
and unable to support the forces involved in lifting the building to a new position. As a result the
existing foundation cannot be upgraded to meet current codes and would need to be completely
replaced.
4. There are existing floor drains, shower drains and toilets that are installed below the flood
protection elevation. It is not possible to protect these from flooding without elevating the whole
building.
5. This structure is not unique; there are at least 10 examples of identical or similar buildings
within a 5 block radius of the project. See supporting documents titled ‘Similar Properties’.
6. Elevating the building presents a unique challenge in that the roof is supported by the interior
brick chimney. This requires that the brick be lifted simultaneously with the wood framing. A
steel frame must be fabricated in the crawlspace that supports both the brick and the wood floor
joists. There is less than 18" of clearance in the crawlspace, to provide access several 4' deep
trenches must be hand dug below the existing chimney and house foundations and all steel field
fabricated within the crawl space area. Also the interior of the house is finished in plaster over
wood lathe. This type of construction has very poor shear resistance and is expected to be
heavily damaged during the process of jacking.
Initial cost estimate for lifting the house above the flood protection elevation...
- installing new micro-piles, replacing the existing CMU walls with a new reinforced
concrete grade beam and elevating the building by a minimum of 12”
$1384 a linear foot x 123 linear feet of foundation = $170.2K
-steel frame and support of interior chimney = $15.K
- repairs to plaster walls & ceilings = $10.K
total cost to elevate building is estimated at $192.2K or 127% of the building's assessed
value (based on current Boulder County tax records, actual structure value = $ 151,600)
PREPARED BY:
Kenneth J. Jacques, Architect
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 18 of 31
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 19 of 31
1723 Marine Street
built 1940 840 sq ft
structure value $151,600
(tax data base 8-7-20)
1723 Marine Street
exterior elevations
Front Elevation: South Left Elevation: West
Rear Elevation: NorthRight Elevation: East
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 20 of 31
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 21 of 31
N
carport
existing1 story frameresidence
shed
SCALE: 1" = 20'1 1723 Marine St - Site Plan
20
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 22 of 31
1723 Marine Street
built 1940 840 sq ft
structure value $151,600
(tax data base 8-7-20)
1834 Marine St
built 1900
927 sq. ft.
structure value $127,400
1933 Grove St
built 1911
1052 sq. ft.
structure value $205,200
2002 Grove St
built 1910
1176 sq. ft.
structure value $145,200
Similar Properties within a 4 block radius
proposed demolition
1 of 4
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 23 of 31
2012 Grove St
built 1900
1416 sq. ft.
structure value $155,900
2242 Grove St
built 1947
899 sq. ft.
structure value $144,300
2035 Grove St
built 1957
structure value $125,600
2252 Goss St
built 1900
762 sq. ft.
structure value $162,600
Similar Properties within a 4 block radius 2 of 4
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 24 of 31
2251 Spruce st
built 1905
1006 sq. ft.
structure value $557,400
2419 Spruce St
built 1927
1066 sq. ft.
structure value $ 363,000
2212 Pine St
built 1940
1800 sq ft (with addition)
structure value $466,700
2213 Pine St
built 1910
1024 sq. ft.
structure value $ 258,100
Similar Properties within a 4 block radius 3 of 4
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 25 of 31
Attachment B: Photographs, 2016
North (front) elevation, 2016
East (side) Elevation, 2016
Attachement B - Photographs, 2016
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 26 of 31
Northwest corner, 2016
West (side) Elevation, 2016.
Attachement B - Photographs, 2016
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 27 of 31
1719 Marine St., 2016.
1705 Marine St., 2016.
Attachement B - Photographs, 2016
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 28 of 31
Attachment C: Deed & Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
Elliott A. Van Dyke 1919
Frank Roosa 1920
Anna H. Day 1926
O. K. and Celta C. Joseph 1942
1943 Not listed
Lola I. Miner (2/29/44);
Charles N. Alden (11/9/44)
1944
Lois Stover Hammond 1945
Ronald D. and Emma L. Hoog (2/14/46);
Nelson E. McPherson (10/16/46)
1946 Raymond C. Hammond (Lois: Temple Annex Barber and
Beauty Shop)
1949 Mrs. Margaret M. McPherson (Wid. Elmer)
1951 J. C. Misclevits (Lula), barber at Slavec Barber Shop
Joseph C. and Lula Misclevitz 1952
1953 Jos. C. Misclevitz (Lula), barber Slavec Barber Shop
1960 Jos. C. Misclevitz (Lula); Lula M. Mrs., Finisher, Marlowe
Cleaners
1965 Jos. C. Misclevitz (Lula); Lula B., Presser, Boulder Laundry
and Cleaners
1970 Jos. C. Misclevitz (Lula), Retired
1975 Jos. C. Misclevitz (Lula), Retired
1980 Lula M. Misclevits (o)
1983 Lula M. Misclevits (o); Willis J., Retired
1984
1985
Robert Stephen Baca and Gladys Margarita Baca 1986
1987 Robert Baca
Gladys Margarita Baca 1992
Margit J. Baker 2003
The Baker Family Living Trust “A” 2008
XChange Solutions, Inc. (4/22/13)
Stewart J. Cohune (5/30/13);
2013
Attachment C - Deed and Directory Research
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 29 of 31
Attachment F: 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
purpose of the ordinance is the preservation of the City’s permitted cultural, historic, and
architectural heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules
and regulations as it deems necessary for its own organization and procedures. The
following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the board to help evaluate each
potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner.
Historic Significance
The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be
the site of a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the
cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age
of the structure.
Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state,
or local.
Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to
an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though in some
cases residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places
which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in
order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage.
Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder
Historical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock,
Schooland, etc), State Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L.
Olmsted, or others in published form as having historic interest and value.
Other, if applicable.
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type
specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an architect or master builder,
known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later
development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship
which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
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
Attachment F: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 30 of 31
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.
Attachment F: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Item 5B - 1723 Marine Street Page 31 of 31