10.05.16 LB Packet
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from the September 7, 2016 Landmarks Board Meeting
3. Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda
4. Discussion of Landmark Alteration, Demolition Applications issued and pending
Statistical Report
5. Public Hearings
A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to
demolish a non-contributing accessory building (barn built c. 1952) and construct a
728 sq. ft., two-car garage at 541 Marine St. in the Highland Lawn Historic District,
pursuant Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016-00213).
Owner / Applicant: Chris and Sarah Cottingham / Rachel Lee, Mosaic Architects &
Interiors
B. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building located at
2334 14th St., non-landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-
11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00191). Owner / Applicant:
Alexander Brittin / Bob Von Eschen
C. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit 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 (HIS2016-00192). Owner / Applicant:
Stewart Cohune / Ellsworth Builders, Inc.
D. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for two buildings located at
3900 Orange Ct., non-landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section
9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00229). Owner / Applicant:
Jarrow School / Faurot Construction, Inc.
6. Matters from the Landmarks Board, Planning Department, and City Attorney
A. Update and Review of Proposed Revisions to the Energy Code
B. Update Memo
C. Subcommittee Update
1) Design Guidelines and Code Revisions
2) Outreach and Engagement
3) Potential Resources
7. Debrief Meeting/Calendar Check
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD MEETING
DATE: Wednesday, October 5, 2016
TIME: 6:00 p.m.
PLACE: 1777 Broadway, Municipal Building, City Council Chambers
8. Adjournment
For more information contact James Hewat at hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov or
(303) 441-3207. You can also access this agenda via the website at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation
then select “Next Landmarks Board Meeting”.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
Board members who will be present are:
Deborah Yin
Briana Butler
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets
John Putnam or Harmon Zuckerman *Planning Board representative without a vote
Eric Budd *will be out of town and unavailable to attend this meeting.
The Landmarks Board is constituted under the Landmarks Presentation Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 4721; Title 9, Chapter 11, Boulder Revised Code, 1981) to designate
landmarks and historic districts, and to review and approve applications for Landmark
Alteration Certificates on such buildings or in such districts.
Public hearing items will be conducted in the following manner:
1. Board members will explain all ex-parte contacts they may have had regarding the
item.*
2. Those who wish to address the issue (including the applicant, staff members and
public) are sworn in.
3. A historic preservation staff person will present a recommendation to the board.
4. Board members will ask any questions to historic preservation staff.
5. The applicant will have a maximum of 10 minutes to make a presentation or
comments to the board.
6. The public hearing provides any member of the public three minutes within which
to make comments and ask questions of the applicant, staff and board members.
7. After the public hearing is closed, there is discussion by board members, during
which the chair of the meeting may permit board questions to and answers from
the staff, the applicant, or the public.
8. Board members will vote on the matter; an affirmative vote of at least three
members of the board is required for approval. The motion will state: Findings and
Conclusions.
* Ex-parte contacts are communications regarding the item under consideration that a board
member may have had with someone prior to the meeting.
All City of Boulder board meetings are digitally recorded and are available from the Central
Records office at (303) 441-3043. A full audio transcript of the Landmarks Board meeting becomes
available on the city of Boulder website approximately ten days after a meeting. Action minutes
are also prepared by a staff person and are available approximately one month after a meeting.
CITY OF BOULDER
LANDMARKS BOARD
September 7, 2016
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room
6:00 p.m.
The following are the action minutes of the August 3, 2016 City of Boulder Landmarks Board
meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period of
seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). You may also listen to
the recording on-line at: www.boulderplandevelop.net.
BOARD MEMBERS:
Deborah Yin
Eric Budd
Briana Butler
Ronnie Pelusio
Fran Sheets
*John Zuckerman, *Planning Board representative without a vote
STAFF MEMBERS:
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Holly Opansky, Landmarks Board Secretary
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
1. CALL TO ORDER
The roll having been called, Interim Chair D. Yin declared a quorum at 6:00 p.m. and the
following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by D. Yin, seconded by B. Butler, the Landmarks Board approved (5-0) the
minutes of the August 3, 2016 board meeting.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Alan Delamere, 525 Mapleton Ave., spoke in support of landmarking the Mapleton
Hospital site and in particular the smoke stake.
Kathryn Barth, 2940 20th St., spoke in support of a public hearing to review the Landmark
Alteration Certificate for the Boulder Masonic Lodge / Museum of Boulder.
4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS
ISSUED AND PENDING
Statistical Report
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and
property at 2935 19th St. as a local historic landmark, per Section 9-11-5 of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00169). Owner / Applicant: Estate of Albert and Eleanor
Bartlett
Ex-parte contacts
R. Pelusio made a site visit and lives in the neighborhood.
D. Yin did not make a site visit, but does go down the street frequently.
F. Sheets did not make a site visit, but has friends close by.
E. Budd, B. Butler, and H. Zuckerman has no ex-parte contacts.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board approve the request to forward the application to the City Council
with a recommendation to designate.
Applicant’s Presentation
Scott Youngman, 2935 19th St., is married to Lois Bartlett Youngman, Albert and
Eleanor’s third of four daughters, spoke in support of landmark designation. Clarified
that the parcel had the option to subdivide the lot into three lots, and the trust chose to
honor Albert’s contribution to open space by not subdividing the lot.
Kathryn Barth, 2940 20th St., spoke in support of a landmark designation of the building
and property. The house she lives in on 20th, was previously owned and lived in by the
Captain Clinton M. Tyler, the father of the original owner of 2935 19th St., Fred
Tyler.
Board Discussion
B. Butler noted that it is a beautiful building and that it will be protected for years to
come. E. Budd relayed that the architecture is informative, as well as the habitant’s
influence in the community is a notable piece of history. F. Sheets mentioned that this
case meets the code for 9-11-1- and 9-11-2 and highlighted and quoted a part of the
memo that states that A. Bartlett was an advocate of sustainability, being an important
voice in Boulder for containing growth to maintain our quality of life here. Bartlett
explained how seemingly small continuing rates of growth lead to vase gains over time
causing massive demand on open space and resources. He argued that societies focus on
perpetual growth as a positive goal will inevitably lead to overconsumption and
disaster, no matter how small the rate of growth. He therefore advocated complete
sustainability by reaching a zero growth rate. D. Yin, shared the importance of
remembering Mr. Bartlett’s efforts and contribution to Boulder.
Motion
On a motion by F. Sheets, and seconded by B. Butler, voted and approved (5-0) that the
Landmarks Board recommend that the city council designate the property at 2935 19th St.
as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Tyler-Monroe-Bartlett House , finding
that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-
11-2, B.R.C. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum dated September 7, 2016 as the
findings of the board.
B. Withdrawn: Public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building
and property at 1420 Alpine Ave. as a local historic landmark, per Section 9-11-5 of the
Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00145). Owner / Applicant: Kent and Mary Young
C. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the house located at 2220
Bluff St., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of
the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00148). Owner / Applicant: Julie Bragg
Ex-parte contacts
B. Butler saw this case in the LDRC.
D. Yin saw this case in the LDRC and made a site visit.
R. Pelusio and F. Sheets a made site visit.
H. Zuckerman has no ex-parte contacts.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition.
Applicant’s Presentation
Julie Bragg, 857 W. Wood St., Chicago, IL, the applicant, was not in attendance.
Mike Craychee, 2228 Bluff St., representative for the applicant, spoke in support of
demolition, foremost because the resident for a the last 10+ years has left the house in
disrepair (before Ms. Bragg bought it this year). He shared that the foundation is cracked
and convex - bowing the floor particularly apparent in the kitchen, the south (the back of
the house) hipped addition has a gap from the main house, and the electrical is
ungrounded.
In rebuttal to Ms. Daniels input (below), Mr. Craychee agreed with Ms. Daniels’
eloquent story, however noted that it is 100 years later, the neighborhood and home
have progressed (with Google and Twitter located in the town) and it is not in a
historical district. The neighbors he has spoked with are not interested in landmarking
this house nor creating a district; sharing that the direct neighbors would like something
newer, nicer, and modern in its place.
Abby Daniels, 1200 Pearl St., Executive Director of Historic Boulder, spoke in support of
preserving this structure, especially because of modest nature of the house and the story
it represents is indicative of Boulder’s humble, pioneer beings and cultural heritage.
Discussion
F. Sheets believes this case meets the 9-11-1 code for potential eligibility for individual
landmark and added that it does add to the character of the neighborhood. E. Budd
agrees with F. Sheets and also believes that no effort has been made to pursue
alternatives, nor have any projected costs to repair been investigated and reported. P.
Pelusio and B. Butler agreed with the previous. H. Zuckerman’s thought about
vernacular architecture with questionable significance is that it’s not necessary to
landmark all of them, as long as there is a physical representation of structures
landmarked/preserved. J. Hewat elaborated on options regarding preserving the house
and extending an addition to the back, especially because the house is on the front of a
large lot, relocating, and/or using tax credits. D. Yin agrees with most of the above,
except, disagrees with H. Zuckerman and believes in seeing an entire context instead of
just one sample of a style. R. Pelusio noted that the slope of the lot could contribute to
making a larger home without overshadowing the potentially preserved house.
Motion
On a motion by B. Butler, and seconded by D. Yin, voted and approved (5-0) that the
Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 2220 Bluff 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.
D. Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the house located at 1723-25
15th St., a non-landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the
Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2016-00212). Owner / Applicant: Regina Suffian / Tom
Jarmon
Ex-parte contacts
E. Budd and F. Sheets saw the case at the LDRC.
R. Pelusio and D. Yin made a site visit.
B. Butler had no ex-parte contacts.
Staff Presentation
J. Hewat, presented the case to the board, with the staff recommendation that the
Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition.
Applicant’s Presentation
Tom Jarmon, 6028 Olde Stage Rd., applicant, spoke in support of demolition especially,
because the application was submitted and approved. To clarify, he said there is no
breezeway between the buildings, and they are two buildings joined.
Sandra Weeks, 8854 Pine Cone Ln., Niwot, general contractor, spoke in support of
demolition. With regard to the block, and the “arts and design district, Ms. Weeks notes
that the property is not in character with the neighborhood. She further referenced
letters of support from the commercial architecture residents’ Adrian Sparn, Jane at
Mosaic Architecture, Harvey Hine and others. Ms. Weeks brought up the low quality
condition of the house, lacking charm, noting the new and retrofitted windows, the deck
adjustments, metal railing, and the roof. With regard to the rear structure, she pointed
out that the upper part is made of asbestos and is not cupboard, the vinyl windows. Ms.
Weeks shared the estimated cost to remodel and restore is about $200 sq. ft. (roughly
about $800,000, not to mention bringing it up to code). Lastly, since this expired
application was previously approved, she would like to see it approved again.
Board Discussion
R. Pelusio believes the scale, use, and curb cut does not benefit the neighbor; the house
itself is charming, but not the rear building. B. Butler believes too much change has
happened to the house. F. Sheets believes relocating the house could be investigated, if
nothing else. E. Budd notes that there is some historic significance to the house, there is
little community support for demolition. H. Zuckerman opportunities for the house
without the front brick wall could offer some outdoor seating. D. Yin alluded to a
similar context of the preserved house on the Pearl Street next to Peace, Love, and
Chocolate where there is a mix of commercial units and a small historic home.
Motion
On a motion by F. Sheets, and seconded by D. Yin voted and approved (4-1, E. Budd
declining because, lack of eligibility of landmark and that it has been demolition
application has been approved before) that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of
demolition for the building located at 1723-25 15th 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.
6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A. Update Memo
B. Subcommittee Update
1) Design Guidelines and Code Revisions
2) Outreach and Engagement
3) Potential resources
C. LDRC and call up process
D. Comprehensive Plan Update comments
E. Retreat agenda
F. Letter to City Council
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Approved on _______________, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________, Chairperson
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net
Historic Preservation Reviews
Between August 27, 2016 and September 23, 2016
This report shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn within the
stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 11
Mapleton Hill700 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00043
Replacement of windows and doors and restoration of historic features as detailed on drawings dated 08.26.16 and
identified as lac plans.
Application Approved Decision : 29 Sequence # :
09/01/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Downtown1247 PEARL STHIS2016-00244
Installation of externally lit wall-mounted signs and repainting of existing awnings as detailed on landmark alteration
certificate drawings dated 09.14.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 142 Sequence # :
09/14/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill436 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00269
Removal of non-historic pool and brick patio and repainting of wood elements on house with Benjamin Moore "Inner
Balance" and "Simply White as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 08.17.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 157 Sequence # :
09/06/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown1428 PEARL STHIS2016-00272
Installation of projecting non-illuminatefd blade sign "Colorado Limited" as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
application dated 08.19.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 159 Sequence # :
09/01/2016 Date : Case Manager :
By :Staff
Individual Landmark2045 WALNUT STHIS2016-00273
Addition of exterior electrical conduit at rear elevation of house next to existing service mast and painted to match
house colors as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 08.23.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 160 Sequence # :
09/12/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Individual Landmark970 AURORA AVHIS2016-00274
Construction of balcony/deck from unit F103 (non-historic building) with 42" railing, metal French doors to match
existing doors and windows on building and lowering of west (non-historic) landscaping wall as reviewed by the Ldrc
and detailed on landmark alteration certificate plans and specifications dated 09.15.2016. This proposal will also
require a Minor Modification to the existing Site Review approval for the property.
Printed on 09/28/2016 Page 1 of 4HIS Statistical Report
Landmark Alteration Certificate Reviews Case Count: 11
Application Approved Decision : 161 Sequence # :
09/15/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By : LDRC
Mapleton Hill936 MAPLETON AVHIS2016-00276
Reroof house Owens Corning"Driftwood" asphalt shingle as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application
dated 08.24.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 162 Sequence # :
09/12/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown1048 PEARL STHIS2016-00282
Installation of a non-illuminated projecting sign for John Atencio as detailed on landmark alteration certificate
application dated 08.25.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 164 Sequence # :
09/12/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Downtown2045 13TH STHIS2016-00290
Re-pointing and reconstruction of deteriorated brick elements with ASTM Type-O lime-based mortar to match existing
as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 09.08.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 168 Sequence # :
09/15/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill2424 4TH STHIS2016-00293
Installation of a replacement central air conditioning system with an outdoor condensing unit in same location as old
condenser as detailed on landmark alteration certificate application dated 09.13.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 170 Sequence # :
09/21/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Mapleton Hill453 HIGHLAND AVHIS2016-00294
Removal of bead board at west side of front porch to return to historic condition as evident in historic photograph.
Application Approved Decision : 171 Sequence # :
09/23/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition Reviews Case Count: 1
Not Landmarked3704 N 26TH STHIS2016-00287
Demolition of two accessory building as detailed on demolition application dated 09.01.2016.
Application Approved Decision : 4 Sequence # :
09/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 5
Not Landmarked45 BUCKNELL CTHIS2016-00275
Partial demolition of street-facing wall and a small portion of the roof for a front porch addition on a single family
residence built in 1955.
Application Approved Decision : 71 Sequence # :
09/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Printed on 09/28/2016 Page 2 of 4HIS Statistical Report
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 5
Not Landmarked4151 COOPER CTHIS2016-00278
Partial demolition of house constituting only the removal and replacement of siding and the removal of a portion of the
facade for a new entry area addition on house constructed in 1966.
Application Approved Decision : 72 Sequence # :
09/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Not Landmarked3060 17TH STHIS2016-00279
Complete demolition of house constructed in 1954.
Application Approved Decision : 73 Sequence # :
09/15/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Not Landmarked2921 4TH STHIS2016-00280
Complete demolition of house built in 1960.
Application Approved Decision : 74 Sequence # :
09/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Not Landmarked1255 BEREA DRHIS2016-00291
Approval limited to partial demolition of street-facing wall and construction of new front entry wall as requested in
application.
Application Approved Decision : 77 Sequence # :
09/13/2016 Date : Case Manager : James Hewat
By :Staff
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation Reviews Case Count: 1
Not Landmarked944 GRANT PLHIS2016-00284
Complete demolition of house and shed.
Application Approved Decision : 30 Sequence # :
08/31/2016 Date : Case Manager :Marcy Cameron
By : LDRC
Printed on 09/28/2016 Page 3 of 4HIS Statistical Report
Historic Preservation Reviews Summary
between 8/27/2016 and 9/23/2016
This summary shows all historic preservation cases on which the application was approved, denied or withdrawn
within the stated date range. This is based on the last action and the date shown on the main screen of the case.
Landmark Alteration Certificate
Application Approved 11
Non-Designated Accessory Demolition
Application Approved 1
Non-Designated Post-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 5
Non-Designated Pre-1940 Demo/Off Site Relocation
Application Approved 1
Printed on 09/28/2016 Page 4 of 4HIS Statistical Report
Agenda Item 5A- Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
October 5th, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to demolish a non-contributing garage (constructed in
1952), and in its place construct a new 728 sq. ft. two-car garage at
541 Marine St. in the Highland Lawn Historic District per Section 9-
11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2016-00213).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 541 Marine St.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner/Applicant: Sarah and Chris Cottingham / Rachel Lee,
Mosaic Architects & Interiors
5. Site Area: 8,369 square feet
6. Proposed Building: 728 square feet (existing building 493 sq. ft.)
7. Proposed Height: 17’ (approx.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approves a landmark alteration certificate to construct
a new, two-car garage at the contributing property at 541 Marine Street in the Highland
Lawn Historic District in that the proposed construction meets the requirements set forth
in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below, and adopts this
memorandum as findings of the board.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall
be constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the applicant shall submit, subject
to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design review
committee, architectural plans for a two car garage of about 400 sq. ft.
with a vertical mass and roof pitch/configuration complimentary to the
historic house and;
3. Architectural plans indicating exterior materials for the garage more in
keeping with the design guidelines including one-over one windows,
simplified garage doors, and details on roofing, siding, and paving
materials. The applicant shall demonstrate that the design details are in
compliance with the intent of this approval and the General Design
Guidelines.
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that with the conditions
listed above, the proposed construction of a two-car garage will be generally
consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C.,
the Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines and the General Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY:
This application calls for the demolition of an existing accessory building
and new, freestanding construction over 340 sq. ft. within the boundaries
of the Highland Lawn Historic District and, as such, requires a public
hearing per 9-11-14(3)(b) of the Boulder Revised Code.
While the existing garage is non-contributing, dating from about
1952, its form and design is complimentary to the historic house,
property and district as a whole. Staff encourages the property
owner to consider rehabilitating and reusing this 492 sq. ft.
building as a garage, but does not consider its removal would
damage or adversely affect the historic or architectural value of the
landmark property.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 3
This is reflected in the fact that during the 2005 survey and
subsequent designation of the 500 block of Marine Street, the
building was not found to be a contributing resource to the
Highland Lawn Historic District.
In the event the applicant chooses not to reuse the existing garage,
pursuant to the General and Highland Lawn Historic District Design
Guidelines, staff considers the square footage of the proposed building
should be reduced to about 400 sq. ft. in size and the design revised to
better reflect the character of the historic house in mass. Staff considers
that if the Landmarks Board approves the application to construct a two-
car garage with the suggested conditions, the revised design could be
reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Ldrc).
Staff recommends that, provided the stated conditions are met, the
Landmarks Board find that the construction of a two-car garage generally
meet meets the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, and is
consistent with the Highland Lawn Historic District Guidelines & the General
Design Guidelines, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic
character of the property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY:
Figure 1. 541 Marine St., Location Map.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 4
Figure 2. 541 Marine St., 2005
The approximately 8,369 square foot lot is located at the north side of Marine
Street between 5th and 6th streets in the Highland Lawn Historic District and
contains a one and one-half story Queen Anne house that was constructed
around 1899 and is considered contributing to the historic district. The house
features a front multi-gabled roof with horizontal wood siding, decorative
brackets and a small front porch.
Figure 3. Existing Accessory Building, North Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 5
A one and one-half story, 493 sq. ft. wood frame accessory building is located at
the rear of the property. It features a steeply pitched roof clad in corrugated
metal, and unpainted board and batten siding. The building is believed to have
been constructed about 1952. The Highland Lawn Historic District Design
Guidelines, written at the time of the district’s designation in 2005, identifies the
building as a non-contributing resource due to its construction date, outside of
the district’s period of significance (1884 to 1925).
DISTRICT HISTORY1
The Highland Lawn Historic District contains a concentration of well-preserved
buildings reflecting prevailing architectural tastes at the turn of the twentieth
century, including Queen Anne, Classic Cottage, and Edwardian Vernacular
Styles. Hannah Barker platted the middle-class neighborhood in 1884 as the
Town of Highland Lawn. The area is significant for its association with historic
persons and events and comprises an excellent collection of buildings reflecting
architectural styles of the period. The defined period of significance for the
district is from 1884 (the year of the platting of the sub-division) to 1925 (the last
year of construction for a primary building located on the block).
The Town of Highland Lawn included 19 large lots (100’ x 400’) bounded by
Boulder Creek to the north, University Street at the south, and 6th and 4th Streets
on the east and west respectively. Originally located south of Boulder’s city
limits, the town remained an independent community until 1891. Barker’s plan
for the neighborhood showed foresight: each lot included water rights in the
adjacent Anderson ditch and buyers were encouraged to plant trees
(cottonwoods were specifically excluded), and build fences around their
properties.
None of the original owners built in the neighborhood, choosing instead to
subdivide the nearly one-acre parcels into smaller lots. Most of the lots were
bisected by alleys running east – west through the district. Marine Street was
originally Vine Street and was renamed Marine Street sometime in the 1890s
after prominent early settler Marinus Smith.
Lots in the district are generally long and narrow with principal buildings
situated close together at the front of the lots and accessory buildings oriented to
the alleys. Because the alleys contain a relatively low number of buildings from
the period of significance with historic integrity, and because the district
1 Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 6
boundaries bisect the rear alleys, the alleys (located at the north and south edges
of the district) are not considered a significant historic element of the district.
Today, the Highland Lawn neighborhood survives as a well-preserved
assemblage of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century middle-class houses
with its tree lined streetscape. The district derives its significance as an early
example of planned residential design, with excellent examples of early Boulder
architecture, and for its association with individuals of local significance to the
history of the city including Jonas Anderson, Hannah Barker, Marinus Smith,
and J.J. Harris.
REQUEST:
This Landmark Alteration Certificate application requests demolition of the
existing accessory building and the construction of a new, one and one-half story
720 sq. ft. garage at the rear of the property.
Figure 4. Existing Site Plan, with footprint of house and approved rear addition (shaded).
Figure 5. Existing Accessory Building, East Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5A- Page 7
The existing one and one-half accessory building is of wood frame construction
with unpainted board and batten siding. The building measures approximately
17 ft. by 22 ft., and is located on the west property line, and is located
approximately 8 ft. from the north (rear) property line. The south wall of the
existing accessory building is located approximately 90 ft. from the existing main
house. An addition approved previously approved HIS2016-00036 (not yet
constructed) calls for the construction of a 1600 sq. ft. addition to the rear of
house. The east elevation of the accessory building features a wide garage door.
Figure 6. Alley view panorama
While the building was constructed well outside the defined period of significant
for the Highland Lawn Historic District, staff considers that some elements of the
existing building are complimentary to the historic character of the primary
house and the historic district. These elements include the steeply-pitched roof,
which complements the pitch of the house; its vertical proportions; simple
detailing; and use of traditional materials.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
Figure 7. Proposed Site Plan, with footprint of house and approved rear addition
(shaded).
Agenda Item 5A- Page 8
The proposed site plan for the property shows the proposed new garage to be
located 57’ south of the house with the previously approved rear addition, 3’
from the east property line and 9’ from the west property line. A driveway of
either permeable pavers or gravel (final material to be determined) is shown
from the garage to the alley. The application states that no mature trees will be
removed as part of the proposal.
Figure 7. North Elevation
Plans show the proposed two car garage to face onto the alley and to have a front
gable form with a shed roof portion at the east elevation. The proposed building
is shown to have a footprint of roughly 27’ by 27’ in dimension, 17’ in height and
to be clad in horizontal wood siding with shingles in the gable end. A wood door
with a cross pattern is located in the gable end, with a wood outrigger above. The
garage doors are shown to be wood, overhead doors with four lights at the top of
each door. Light fixtures flank the door opening. The wood siding is shown to be
painted green and the roof material is shown to be asphalt shingles.
Figure 8. South Elevation
The south elevation, facing the interior of the lot, features a wood, half-light
pedestrian door on the west side of the elevation, with a gabled portico above. A
Agenda Item 5A- Page 9
four-light window is shown to be located at the gable end. A light fixture is
located on the west side of the door. The shed-roof portion of the building is
shown to have a square, four-light window. The architectural details of the wide
fascia, shingled gable end and horizontal wood siding are continued to this
elevation.
Figure 9. East Elevation
The east elevation is featureless, with the exception of a solar panel system,
located on the shed-roof portion of the building. Three windows are shown on
the west elevation, each wood with 4-lights.
Figure 10. West Elevation
The architect states that the design references the existing house: “The proposed
building is 1 story in height and is set 3’-5” lower on the site than the primary
structure, due to sloping grade. Additionally, detailing, while complementary to
and taking cues from the primary structure, is modest, simple and clearly
secondary to the primary residential structure.”
“The proposed structure is complementary in both exterior material (siding,
trim, soffit, window material) and color to the primary structure, while still
Agenda Item 5A- Page 10
maintaining a subordinate nature. Scale and ornamentation in the accessory
structure have both been reduced.” See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and
not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within a historic district?
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
Agenda Item 5A- Page 11
district?
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement
of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures
compatible with the character of the historic district?
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton
Hill Historic District and the proposed new construction to replace
the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of
paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2), 9-11-18(b)(3) and (4) of this section?
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate and the board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help
interpret the ordinance. The following is an analysis of the submitted proposal
with respect to relevant guidelines. It is important to emphasize that design
guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design, and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
The Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines are intended as a
supplement to the General Guidelines for the Highland Lawn Historic District.
These Highland Lawn guidelines control when they conflict with the General
Guidelines.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable
design guidelines:
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS
2.3 Site Design: Alleys
The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the
houses, for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for
cars. A view of the backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys
have evolved into use as pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking,
they still contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. They are typically
minimally paved.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 12
Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes
including barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to
the general feeling of human scale in the alleys.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
.1
Maintain alley access for parking and
retain the character of alleys as
clearly secondary access to properties.
Rear parking is maintained by
the proposal. Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the variety and
character found in the existing
historic accessory buildings along the
alleys.
Existing accessory building was
built outside the period of
significance and as such is not
considered to be a contributing
resource.
Yes
.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human
scale of the alleys. For example,
narrower lap siding and smaller brick
are appropriate.
Proposed garage shown to be
clad in horizontal wood siding
and wood shingles similar to
finish and materials of the
original house.
Yes
.4
Buildings that were constructed after
the period of significance but are still
more than 50 years old and
contribute to the variety and
character of the alleyway should be
retained.
Existing accessory building was
built outside the period of
significance and as such is not
considered to be a contributing
resource, however, design and
character of the c.1952 are
compatible with the contributing
house and the alley scape as a
whole.
Maybe
.5
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory building so that the view of
the main house is not obscured, and
the alley does not evolve into a
tunnel-like passage.
The proposed garage spans
approximately 27’ of the 40’
wide lot and will largely
obscuring the view of the house
from the alley.
Maybe
Agenda Item 5A- Page 13
7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Structures
Accessory structures include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally accessory
structures were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages. Generally, these
structures have been adapted for the storage of cars. In most cases, accessory buildings were
located to the rear of the lot and accessed by alleys. They were subordinate in size and
detailing to the primary house. Over time they have emerged as important elements of many
lots and alleys in the district. Efforts should be made to protect the eclectic character of
alleys.
Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be evaluated
in terms of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and the district as a
whole. In the past, larger accessory structures have been allowed than may be appropriate
today.
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings
A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic districts is
the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1
Retain and preserve garages and
accessory buildings that contribute to
the overall character of the site or
district.
At the time the historic district
was established in 2005, the
building was considered to be a
non-contributing resource to the
district.
Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the character-
defining materials, features, and
architectural details of historic
garages and accessory buildings,
including roods, exterior materials,
windows and doors.
Existing accessory building is
not considered contributing to
the district.
Yes
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings.
While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be subordinate in size,
massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and
comfortable for pedestrians.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 14
Location and Orientation
.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a new
garage or accessory building if doing
so will detract from the overall
historic character of the principal
building, and the site, or if it will
require removal of a significant
historic building element or site
feature, such as a mature tree.
Construction will not require the
removal of a significant historic
site feature. The alleys in the
Highland Lawn Historic District
are not contributing elements.
However, staff considers the size
and design of the proposed
garage to incompatible with the
character of the contributing
property. Staff recommends the
applicant consider reducing the
size of the proposed garage
substantially and incorporating
design elements found on the
house into the design of the
proposed garage including roof
pitch and vertical form.
No
.2
New garages and accessory buildings
should generally be located at the rear
of the lot, respecting the traditional
relationship of such buildings to the
primary structure and the site.
The new garage is to be located at
rear of the lot. Yes
.3
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
At 27’ in width, proposed garage
will occupy most of the 40’ width
of the lot. Consider narrowing
building to avoid tunnel-like
effect.
Maybe
.4
Preserve a backyard area between the
house and the accessory buildings,
maintaining the general proportion of
built mass to open space found within
the area.
Currently, there is 90’ between
the house and garage. This
distance will decrease to 57’ with
the previously approved addition
and proposed garage. While less
distance than historically the case
in the district, staff considers
back yard space will be
maintained with the proposal.
Yes
Agenda Item 5A- Page 15
Mass and Scale
.5
New accessory buildings should take
design cues from the primary
building on the property, but be
subordinate to it in terms of size and
massing.
Staff considers the size and
design of the proposed garage to
incompatible with the character
of the contributing property. Staff
recommends the applicant
consider reducing the size of the
proposed garage substantially
and incorporating design
elements found on the house into
the design of the proposed
garage including roof pitch and
vertical form.
No
.6
New garages for single-family
residences should generally be one
story tall and shelter no more than
two cars. In some cases, a two-car
garage may be inappropriate.
Staff considers that a two-car
garage is appropriate in this
location. However, typically two
car garages are between 400 and
450 sq. ft. in size. The current
proposal calls for a 729 sq. ft.
building. Staff considers the size
of the proposed garage should be
reduced significantly to be more
consistent with this guideline.
Resolve at Ldrc.
No
.7
Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary
structure.
Roof form is lower in pitch than
that of main house. Revise design
to more closely reflect the roof of
the main house. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be
simpler in design and detail than the
primary building.
Proposed garage appears to take
cues from the approved addition
than the historic house. Consider
revising and simplifying design
including one-over one windows,
simpler garage door, and
elimination of hay-loft at alley.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.9 Materials for new garages and
accessory structures should be
Materials appear generally in
keeping with those on the main Yes
Agenda Item 5A- Page 16
compatible with those found on the
primary structure and in the district.
Vinyl siding and prefabricated
structures are inappropriate.
house and in the district.
.10
Windows, like all elements of
accessory structures, should be
simpler in detailing and smaller in
scale than similar elements on
primary structures.
Consider revising and
simplifying including one-over
one windows, simpler garage
door, and elimination of hay-loft
at alley. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.12
Garage doors should be consistent
with the historic scale and materials
of traditional accessory structures.
Wood is the most appropriate
material and two smaller doors may
be more appropriate than one large
door.
Simplify garage doors and
consider two separate doors.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.13
It is inappropriate to introduce
features or details to a garage or an
accessory building in an attempt to
create a false historical appearance.
Hay loft seems inappropriate for
contemporary garage in historic
context. Remove hayloft from
design. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
8.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.4
It is not appropriate to install solar
collectors in locations that
compromise prominent roofs. The
installation of solar collectors may be
appropriate provided it does not
detract from the historic character of
the property, landmark or historic
district.
Solar panels proposed at shed
roof on east elevation of the
accessory building. This location
on a new accessory building will
not detract from the character of
the historic district.
Yes
Agenda Item 5A- Page 17
HIGHLAND LAWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
10.3 Alleys & Accessory Buildings
While alleys play an important role in most of Boulder’s historic districts, the alleys that
form the north and south boundaries of the Highland Lawn Historic District are not
character-defining features because of their loss of historic integrity. There are a small
number of historic accessory buildings dating from the period of significance that are
considered contributing features to the district, as shown on the map above. As such, their
preservation is strongly encouraged.
.1 It is highly recommended, though
not required, that contributing
accessory buildings be treated
consistent with the guidelines of
Section 7.1 of the General Design
Guidelines.
Garage is non-contributing
though appropriate in form and
design to contributing property.
Staff encourages, though does
not recommend requiring
adaptive reuse of the existing
493 sq. ft. existing building.
Maybe
.3 The construction of new accessory
buildings should occur only at the
rear of the lot, taking access from the
alley when possible.
Proposed new building is
located at the rear of the lot and
takes access from the alley.
Yes
.4 In general, new accessory buildings
constructed in the district should be
modest in scale and detailing and
clearly secondary to the primary
building on the lot.
Staff considers that while
secondary to the main house, at
729 sq. ft., the proposed garage is
too large in scale and its size and
scale should be significantly
reduced. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
.5 Two-car garages are appropriate,
when scaled and located consistently,
from the rear of the alley, with other
garages in the district.
Size of proposed garage is
inappropriate in terms of scale
and should be reduced in size to
provide a more modest two car
garage consistent with this
guidelines. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
While the existing garage is non-contributing, dating from about 1952, its form
and design is complimentary to the historic house, property and district as a
whole. Staff encourages the property to consider rehabilitating and reusing this
492 sq. ft. building as a garage, but does not consider its removal would damage
or adversely affect the historic or architectural value of the landmark pr operty.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 18
This is opinion borne out by the lesser importance given to alleys in Highland
Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines.
Staff considers the submitted design for a new garage on the property
inappropriate. In particular, the large mass, low pitch roof and horizontal form
of the building is incompatible with the modest, vertical mass of the historic
house. If the applicant choses to move forward with new construction as
opposed to rehabilitation of the existing accessory building, staff considers that
its size should be reduced to approximately 400 sq. ft., that its form be more
vertical in mass and that it be designed with a roof and simple architectural
vocabulary more in keeping with the character of the historic house. Staff
considers that revisions that keep to these design recommendations may be
reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review committee.
FINDINGS:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, provided the above conditions are met,
the proposed demolition and proposed new construction at 541 Marine Street
will be generally consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. The proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural
features of the landmark.
2. The mass, scale, height, architectural style, arrangement, texture, color,
arrangement of color, and materials used for the proposed new
construction will be compatible with the character of the landmark.
3. The request is generally consistent with the historic preservation
ordinance and the Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines
& the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form for 541 Marine Street
Attachment B: Application and Plans
Agenda Item 5A- Page 19
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form for 541 Marine Street
Agenda Item 5A- Page 20
Agenda Item 5A- Page 21
Agenda Item 5A- Page 22
Attachment B: Application and Plans
Agenda Item 5A- Page 23
Agenda Item 5A- Page 24
Agenda Item 5A- Page 25
Agenda Item 5A- Page 26
Agenda Item 5A- Page 27
Agenda Item 5A- Page 28
Agenda Item 5A- Page 29
Agenda Item 5A- Page 30
Agenda Item 5A- Page 31
Agenda Item 5A- Page 32
Agenda Item 5A- Page 33
Agenda Item 5B - Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
October 5, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application
for the house located at 2334 14th St., a non-landmarked building
over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised
Code (HIS2016-00191).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 2334 14th St.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1900
3. Zoning: RMX-1
4. Existing House Size: 2,194 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Lot Size: 6,016 sq. ft. (approx.)
6. Owner/Applicant: Alexander J. Brittin / Bob Von Eschen
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) 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 2334 14th
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 further
analyze information on the condition of the buildings.
A 180-day stay period would expire on January 29, 2017.
Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff recommends that prior to demolition the following be submitted to
Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff for review, approval and recording
with Carnegie Library:
Agenda Item 5B - Page 2
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 17, 2016 the Planning Housing & Sustainability (PH&S) Department received a
demolition permit application for the house at 2334 14th St. The building is not located
within a designated local historic district but is over 50 years old. In 1988, the Landmarks
Board recognized the building as a Structure of Merit. The proposed work meets the
definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. On
June 29, 2016, 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.”
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 requires 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 determines that there is “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.
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 the
permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete in order to provide the
time necessary to consider alternatives to the building demolition. If impose d, a 180-day
stay period would start when the completed application was accepted by the city
manager (August 8, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on
January 29, 2016. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION
The approximately 2,194 square foot brick terrace building sits on a 6,016 square foot lot,
located on the east side of 14th St. between High St. and Mapleton Ave. The lot has a
significant slope down towards the southwest and is located within the identified
potential local and national Whittier Historic District. It was recognized as a Structure of
Merit by the City of Boulder Landmarks Board on September 6, 1989 as a good surviving
example of a turn of the twentieth-century Terrace Building.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 3
Figure 1. Location Map showing 2334 14th St.
Figure 2. West Elevation (façade), 2334 14th St., 2016.
The Terrace building type, is a distinctive residential form of architecture quite common
in Colorado at the turn of the twentieth century. Typical of the Terrace form, the
building is rectilinear in plan, features a flat roof and a full-with front porch. The house
is constructed of brick and features a tall parged stone foundation that has been
Agenda Item 5B - Page 4
remodeled into a walk-in basement unit. The upper floor is divided into two identical
units with mirrored floor plans and flanking front transom topped doors providing
entrance from the front porch Two large one over one, double-hung wood windows are
located on either side of each door, each flanked by a single black wooden shutter.
Access to the shed-roof porch is provided from the side (north) by a wooden stair with
metal railing. The porch has been partially enclosed with plywood sheets and fabric
awnings. Access to the basement unit is via two wooden doors at the base of the front
façade, one of which appears to have been covered by a plywood panel.
Figure 3. East Elevation (rear), 2334 14th St., 2016.
The northeast (rear) elevation is covered by a deteriorating wooden frame addition, that
is partially roofed with translucent plast ic sheathing. The addition wraps approximately
26’ along the southeast (side) elevation of the original brick building, forming a covered
porch. The side door of the southeast unit opens into this porch, and this unit also has a
door at its rear opening into the shed.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 5
Figure 4. South Elevation, 2334 14th St., 2016.
Figure 5. North Elevation, 2334 14th St., 2016.
Window and door openings on the original portion of the house are crowned with
segmentally arched brick voussoirs and visually supported by a protruding brick
stretcher course which runs around the perimeter of the building. There are four
Agenda Item 5B - Page 6
matching windows on each side elevation, three large double-hung wood windows and
one small wood window near the rear. All of the front and side windows are supported
by, now painted, sandstone sills. Two rear windows on the southeast side have been
covered by the frame porch.
Figure 6. North Window, 2334 14th St., 2016.
The façade of the building’s features ten courses of finely detailed decorative brickwork
and projecting corner brick corbels. The brick walls are laid in stretcher bond, and have
been painted white on all elevations, while the roof is clad in EPDM membrane roofing
Figure 7. Decorative parapet detail.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 7
Alterations
Figure 8. 2338, 2334, and 2330 14th St., c. 1900. Photo courtesy of Boulder Public Library.
2338, 2334, and 2330 14th St., 2016.
In large, the house at 2334 14th Street is intact to its historic constriction as evidenced in
the c.1900 photograph (Figure 8). The most obvious changes to the building from this
view are alterations to the front porch including relocation of the stair from the front,
removal of the denticulated porch gable, and removal of decorative railing barge
boarding.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 8
Remodeling of the basement into a living unit appears to have occurred in two stages,
with a bedroom added in 1947, followed by a kitchen the following year. A concrete
footing was inserted under the foundation and the stone foundation parged with
concrete in 1953, followed by the reconstruction of the front porch in 1956. In 1962, the
building was re-roofed in shingles, which were replaced with the current EPDM roofing
membrane in 1986.
At some point between 1979 and 1984, the wood frame shed was constructed behind the
main house. The covered porch connecting the shed and main house was added
sometime later. Since that time, the front porch has been haphazardly repaired with a
mix of plywood and MDF panels, with its lower section being entirely enclosed. At least
three original double-hung windows survive on the north elevation, while the two large
hung windows on the front porch are also likely original. Several of the original sash
have been replaced with wood windows in existing wood frames on the south face,
tough this appears to have occurred sometime ago. Evidently, two wood shutters which
would have matched the single surviving shutter on each window were removed.
Condition
The applicant describes the condition of the building in a letter dated August 2, 2016. He
states that the foundation and load bearing walls show significant lateral movement and
cracking, such that the wall is over 6” offset from the foundation in some areas. All
exterior window and door openings have structurally failures requiring repair. Staff did
observe deflection of the upper part of the south wall and some active structural
cracking though it appears the observed deflection primarily occurred prior to the 1950s
repairs.
The applicant observes that the foundation has many fractures through its stucco finish
around the entire building perimeter and that wall movement has damaged plumbing
and roof flashings, leading to interior water damage. Portions of the rubble stone
foundation are spalling. Many of the materials used in the alterations to the front porch
are not exterior-grade, and would require replacement. The porch roof has non-code
compliant framing and wooden shingle cladding. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
Cost of Repair or Restoration
In a set of condition photos submitted to city staff, the applicant provides an estimated
cost of repair for the foundation to be $233,588. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
Structure of Merit Recognition
The Landmarks Board recognizes buildings and sites that have architectural and/or
historic merit as Structures of Merit. Properties are either nominated by the property
Agenda Item 5B - Page 9
owner or by the Landmarks Board. Structure of Merit recognition is honorary and does
not provide protection or regulation. See Attachment G: Structure of Merit Records.
Following the historic building inventory survey of the Whittier neighborhood in 1988,
the Landmarks Board recognized seventeen identified terrace style buildings in Boulder,
including the building at 2334 14th St., as Structures of Merit. Two buildings, 2010-14 19th
St. and 1911-15 Pearl St., have been individually landmarked. Two others, 2535-37 5th St.
and 1815-21 17th St., are located within the boundaries of local historic districts. The
terrace building at 1433-35 13th St. was demolished since 1989.
The 1988 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Memo includes the following
description of 2334 14th St.
Address: 2334-36 14th St.
Architectural Significance: Brick construction, duplex with a shared porch covered by a
lean-to roof supported by wood columns Segmentally arched window and door
openings. Corbelled brick cornice with corner brick finials.
1929
Assessor Card: Owner A.H. and Beatrick Mae Dean
Lot 2 less 40 ft and 30 ft Lot 3, Block 10, North
Brick, stone foundation, ¾ basement, later ½ tar and gravel roof, soft floors, plaster
interior no garage
Dimensions: 30 x 47 ½
Front porch remodeled on 5/29/1957
One bedroom each side.
Occupants
1913 City Directory 2334 Paul H. Noah (Kathryn R.)
2336 C.F. Seitz (Nellie O.) Boulderado Cleaning and Pressing
and Seitz Bros.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 10
Jennie P. and Charles Russell, N.D. Photo Courtesy of
Boulder Carnegie Library.
PROPERTY HISTORY
This Terrace Duplex was part of a
complex known as Luxor Terrace
Apartments, built by prominent
Boulder pioneer and civil
engineer Charles A. Russell.1 He
was born in Sommerville,
Massachusetts on November 9,
18502 earned a Bachelor of Arts
from Tufts College in
Massachusetts in 1872, and
earned a degree in civil
engineering in 1873.3 For the next
decade he worked for the United
States Coastal Survey Department
conducting survey work along
the east coast and along the lower
reaches of the Mississippi River.4
He moved to Boulder in 1883,
where he met and married Jennie Phelps, a schoolteacher, in 1888.5
Jennie Phelps Russell, daughter of Henry Phelps, born on August 7, 1856.6 She moved to
Boulder in 1882 after being impressed by the city while visiting her sister, and soon
obtained a position as a schoolteacher. Her husband, Charles, continued his career in
civil engineering in Boulder, holding city and county engineering positions and
becoming deputy United States Mineral Surveyor for the Boulder district, as well as
serving on the Boulder City Council for many years.7 He also founded the Boulder
Pressed Brick Company and was involved in platting the North Boulder Addition to
Boulder.8 Jennie Russell’s obituary notes that, “Shortly before his death Mr. Russell built
3-double brick terraces on 14th Street near High which Mrs. Russell has been managing
since.”9 Charles Russell died on August 6, 1900, at the age of 49, due to complications
from an appendectomy.10 This places the construction of this house, and its twin, 2030
1 Daily Camera, “Mrs. Jennie Russell, Pioneer of Boulder, Dies this Morning.” June 21, 1934; Boulder Herald, “C. A.
Russell’s Death.” August 8, 1900.
2 Boulder Herald.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.; Daily Camera, June 21, 1934.
6 Daily Camera, June 21, 1934.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Boulder Herald.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 11
14th St., around late 1899-early 1900. It is very likely they are constructed with brick from
Russell’s own brickyard located nearby. The address first appears in the city directories
in 1901, when Ira D. and Callie E. Scott were the listed residents. Ira was a dentist. Jennie
Russell continued to oversee the apartments until her death on June 21, 1934. Through
this time, city directories show the property occupied by a variety of short -term, rental
occupants, none of whom remained at the property for more than five years.
Austin Phelps Russell, Jennie and Charles’ son, took over the property upon his mother’s
death. Born in Boulder in 1892, he attended Boulder public schools and the University of
Colorado, from which he graduated with an engineering degree in 1913.11 He launched
his engineering career by working as an assistant engineer with the Mount Whitney
Power and Electric Co. in Viscalia, California, before becoming a ranger and surveyor for
the U.S. Forestry Service in Colorado and Wyoming.12 He served with the 23rd engineers
during the First World War, and saw action in the 1918 Argonne offensive which ended
the war.13 Following Armistice, he again worked for the United States Forest Service and
as a city engineer for Rock Springs, Wyoming, before being appointed assistant state
engineer of Wyoming in 1939, moving to Cheyenne to accept the position.14 He sold the
property at 2334 14th St. to Leonard N. and Marine L. Blystad in 1944, and died in
Cheyenne at the age of 60 on January 21, 1952.15
The property then changed hands six times between 1944 and 1946, before it was
purchased by Warren E. and Myrtle S. Nord in 1949. During this time, the lower unit
was renovated into a third living space, with a bedroom added in 1947 followed by a
kitchen in 1948. The Nords sold the property to Alton H. and Beatrice M. Dean in 1958,
who owned the property until 1967, when H. M. and F. E. Doty acquired it. They in turn
sold it to Wesley E. and Janine R. Brittin in 1976, whose family trust granted the property
to its current owner, Alexander J. Brittin, in 2016. Through all these owners, city
directories indicate the property remained an apartment triplex, and was rented out to a
variety of short-term rental residents, ranging from chemical plant workers, to university
students, to retirees.16
11 Boulder Daily Camera, “Austin P. Russell, Wyoming Engineer, Dies in Cheyenne”
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Boulder County Public Records; Polk Boulder City Directories.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 12
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, however, additional time is needed to consider the information on
the condition and estimated cost of restoration or repair of the building.
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 E: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 2334 14th St. meets historic significance under criteria 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5.
1. Date of Construction: c. 1900
Elaboration: This house was likely constructed shortly before its builder’s death in 1900,
making it a significantly early addition to this area of Boulder.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Charles A. Russell
Elaboration: This house was built by Charles A. Russell, a prominent local engineer,
industrialist, and citizen who served as the deputy United States Miner al Surveyor
for the district, served on the city council for several years, and founded the Boulder
Pressed Brick Company.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 13
3. Development of the Community: Early multifamily rental complex
Elaboration: This house was constructed as part of a complex of three rental
properties built c. 1900, making it both an early development in North Boulder and
an unusually early example of the rental-focused properties that would eventually
become common in Boulder.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Boulder Survey of Historic Places, 1988; City of Boulder
Elaboration: In the 1988 survey, Front Range Research Associates, Inc. noted that,
despite moderate alterations, the house retains enough significance to be contributing
to the Whittier potential historic district. On September 6, 1989, it was designated a
Structure of Merit by the City of Boulder’s Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board,
as a significant example of early multifamily housing.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 2334 14th St. meets historic significance under criteria 1, 2, 4,
and 5.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Terrace
Elaboration: Terrace s brick houses are an uncommon typology, mostly unique to
Colorado. Despite its remodel from a duplex to a triplex and changes to the front
porch and a rear addition, it retains substantial historic integrity surviving as a
significant example of Terrace housing in Boulder .
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: Charles A. Russell
Elaboration: This house survives intact as part of a rental complex constructed by
prominent Boulder citizen Charles A. Russell in about 1900.
3. Artistic Merit: The brickwork including decorative brickwork, corbels, finials,
parapet and running brick course reflect a high level of masonry craftsmanship.
4. Example of the Uncommon: Terrace Style
Elaboration: The Terrace House is relatively uncommon, though distinct variant of
architecture in Boulder, and characteristic of like houses constructed at the beginning
of the 20th century in Colorado.
5. Indigenous Qualities: Locally made brick
Elaboration: Charles A. Russell, who built this house, was also the founder and
proprietor of the Boulder Pressed Brick Company. It is very likely that he used brick
from his yard in the construction of this house and its twin at 2330 14th St.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 14
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 2334 14th St. meets environmental significance under criteria
2, 4, and 5.
1. Site Characteristics: None observed
2. Compatibility with Site: Well-scaled and appropriate to site
Elaboration: This 2,194 square foot house is appropriately scaled to its 6,016 square
foot lot, and allows three family occupancy while retaining a substantial street
setback and sizable back yard.
3. Geographic Importance: None observed
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Rental complex.
Elaboration: This house was built as part of a three building rental complex along
with the house at 2340 14th and the house at 2330 14th, which is a twin of this building.
The survival of all three in a relatively intact state adds to their significance as part of
a historically significant early rental complex in North Boulder.
5. Area Integrity: Whittier Potential Historic District
Elaboration: The 1988 historic resources survey found that this house is contributing
to the character of a potential historic district in the Whittier neighborhood.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD: The Whittier neighborhood is characterized by small, single family
or duplex residential houses dating to a variety of periods, with the majority constructed
c. 1890-1930. This building contributes to this small scale residential character.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
The applicant notes that the rubble stone foundation of this building is unstable, and its
movement has caused severe structural damage to the masonry and has severed drains
and plumbing connections. He further notes that that many materials used on the rear
Agenda Item 5B - Page 15
shed and front porch are non-code compliant and not exterior grade, and will thus
require replacement. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
The applicant estimates that foundation repairs will cost $233,588. See Attachment F:
Applicant’s 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 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 January 29, 2016.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
A stay of demolition for the building at 2334 14th 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.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 16
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Attachment F: Applicant Materials
Attachment G: Structure of Merit Materials
Attachment A: Current Photographs
View from 14th Street, 2016.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 17
West (front) elevation, 2016
Northwest corner, 2016
Agenda Item 5B - Page 18
North (side) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5B - Page 19
East (Rear) elevation, 2016
South (side) Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5B - Page 20
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Agenda Item 5B - Page 21
Agenda Item 5B - Page 22
Agenda Item 5B - Page 23
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item 5B - Page 24
Agenda Item 5B - Page 25
Photo from Historic Building Inventory Record, 1988.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 26
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
1901 Ira D. (Callie E.) Scott, dentist
Jennie P. Russell 1903 Mrs. Cooper
1904 Not Listed
1906
1911 Francis J. Reinert
1913 P. H. Noah
1916 H. W. Berkley
1918 Myron Silcott
1921 Arthur Brubaker
1923 Mrs. Anna Zuckerman
1926 Not Listed
1928 A. J. Schafer
1930 Vacant
1932 Charles P. Stockdale
Austin P. Russell 1936 John P. (Eva A.) Bennet
1938
1940 Vacant
1943 Vacant
Leonard N. and Marie L.
Blystad (2/23/44);
Albert B. and Maude F. Pace
(7/21/44);
Charles W. V. Feigel
(7/22/44)
1944
Jack B. and Ruth G. Fawcett
(2/4/46);
Charles and Pearl
Thornburgh (7/26/46);
Harry V. and Fern E Gillette
(11/12/46)
1946 Edward B. McBride (Wilma S.) Plant Manager,
Watts-Hardy Dairy
1949 Eugene L. Nookel
Warren E. and Myrtle S.
Nord
1950
1951 Marvin F. Boone (Patricia A.)
Lloyd E. and Anna E.
Bussert
1954
1955 Kenneth L. Ingram (Betty K.) Student, U of C
Tom C. Stanford (4/26/58);
Alton H. and Beatrice May
Dean (7/25/58)
1958
1960 Daniel J. McGrew (Carolyn S.), Manager
Parkway Service
1965 Joel Johnson, Retired
H. M. and F. E. Doty 1967
1970 Ronald I. Shall (Jem), Employee Arapahoe
Agenda Item 5B - Page 27
Chemicals
Wesley E. and Janine R.
Brittin
1976
Alexander J. Brittin 2016
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
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.
Agenda Item 5B - Page 28
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
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 5B - Page 29
Attachment F: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item 5B - Page 30
Agenda Item 5B - Page 31
Agenda Item 5B - Page 32
Agenda Item 5B - Page 33
Agenda Item 5B - Page 34
Agenda Item 5B - Page 35
Agenda Item 5B - Page 36
Agenda Item 5B - Page 37
Agenda Item 5B - Page 38
Agenda Item 5B - Page 39
Agenda Item 5B - Page 40
Agenda Item 5B - Page 41
Agenda Item 5B - Page 42
Agenda Item 5B - Page 43
Agenda Item 5B - Page 44
Attachment G: Structure of Merit Materials
Agenda Item 5B - Page 45
Agenda Item 5B - Page 46
Agenda Item 5B - Page 47
Agenda Item 5B - Page 48
Agenda Item 5B - Page 49
Agenda Item 5B - Page 50
Agenda Item 5B - Page 51
Agenda Item 5B - Page 52
Agenda Item 5B - Page 53
Agenda Item 5B - Page 54
Agenda Item 5B - Page 55
Agenda Item 5B - Page 56
Agenda Item 5B - Page 57
Agenda Item 5B - Page 58
Agenda Item 5B - Page 59
Agenda Item 5B - Page 60
Agenda Item 5B - Page 61
Agenda Item 5B - Page 62
Agenda Item 5C - Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
October 5, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit 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 (HIS2016-00148).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1723 Marine St.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1910
3. Zoning: RH-1
4. Existing House Size: 864 sq. ft. (approx.)
5. Lot Size: 4,988 sq. ft. (approx.)
6. Owner/Applicant: Stewart Cohune / Kenneth J. Jacques
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) 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.
A 180-day stay period would expire on January 16, 2017.
Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff recommends that prior to demolition the following be submitted to
Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff for review, approval and recording
with Carnegie Library:
Agenda Item 5C - Page 2
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 17, 2016 the Planning Housing & Sustainability (PH&S) Department received a
demolition permit application for the house at 1723 Marine St. The building is not
located within a historic district, but is over 50 years old. The action proposed meets the
definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981. On
June 29, 2016, 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.”
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 requires 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 determines that there is “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.
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 the
permit application 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 (June 30, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on January
16, 2016. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION
The approximately 864 square foot vernacular wood frame house sits on a property
measuring 4,988 square feet, 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
of the subject property.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 3
Figure 1: Location Map showing 1723 Marine St.
Figure 2: 1723 Marine St., South (front) Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 4
The house features a pyramidal hipped roof and square plan with central stone chimney,
features common to 1900s-1920s vernacular housing. This distinctive 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 1920s. 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.
Alterations
Figure 3: South (front) elevation, county assessor’s photo, c. 1946.
Image courtesy Boulder Carnegie Library.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 5
Figure 4: Partial view of North
(rear) of 1723 Marine from
1427 18th St. assessor’s card, c.
1946.
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. This house is
relatively intact to its earliest recorded state following its
relocation in 1946. The most major alteration occurred in
1993, when a covered car port was added along the full
length of the north side. 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 occurred
since 1946. A single window in the center of the rear
lean-to has been removed, and its exposed rafter tails
have been covered by the carport. White metal eave
troths 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.
Condition
In a letter dated August 8, 2016, Kenneth J. Jacques evaluated the present condition of
the house. He noted that the unreinforced concrete block foundation shows visible
cracking and spalling due to water damage. He also stated that the existing main floor is
10” below the flood protection elevation required by Section 9-3-2, B.R.C. 1981. As such,
any major improvement or addition would require lifting the building over 10” to meet
the flood protection elevation. He found that the poor condition of the current
foundation would necessitate its replacement during such an alteration, and that
elevating the structure would be complicated by the presence of a free standing masonry
chimney in the center of the frame structure. See Attachment F: Applicant Materials.
Cost of Repair or Restoration
In the same letter, Jacques estimated the cost of replacing the foundation, adding
support to the chimney, and repairing interior plasterwork would entail a total cost of
$192,000. See Attachment F: 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
Agenda Item 5C - Page 6
Lula and Joseph Misclevitz, 1964. Photo courtesy of
Boulder Carnegie Library.
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
due to a large number of Swedish immigrants who moved into the area. The area
became characterized by the simple, vernacular styles favored by the immigrant
craftsmen, miners, and expressmen who made their homes in this working class
neighborhood.1
This property 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, the time the
house was relocated to its present
location. 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
here 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
1 Whitacre, Christine, and R. Laurie Simmons. “Goss-Grove Neighborhood History and Survey Results.” City of
Boulder, December, 1986.
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.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 7
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 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 the present
owner, Stewart J. Cohune, in 2013.15
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:
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.
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.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 8
(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, however, additional time is needed to consider the information on
the condition and estimated cost of restoration or repair of the building.
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 E: 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 style and
construction of this house strongly indicate it was built around 1910, a significant period of
development in the Goss-Grove Neighborhood.
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.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 9
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 1723 Marine St. meets historic significance under criteria 1.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Vernacular Wood Frame
Elaboration: This house is an intact example of a pyramidal house, a popular
vernacular house form 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.
3. Geographic Importance: None observed
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Residential character
Elaboration: This block features many older small single family residences on small,
well-vegetated lots, and this house contributes to that character.
5. Area Integrity: None Observed
Agenda Item 5C - Page 10
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 homes
dating to around the turn of the century, including a four square style 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 F: Applicant Materials
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
The applicant estimates cost of repair at $192,200. See Attachment F: 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 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
Agenda Item 5C - Page 11
demolition of the building. Section 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period
would expire on January 16, 2016.
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Agenda Item 5C - Page 12
North (front) elevation, 2016
East (side) Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5C - Page 13
Northwest corner, 2016
West (side) Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 14
1719 Marine St., 2016.
1705 Marine St., 2016.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 15
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Agenda Item 5C - Page 16
Agenda Item 5C - Page 17
Agenda Item 5C - Page 18
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item 5C - Page 19
Agenda Item 5C - Page 20
Photo from Historic Building Inventory Record, 1995.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 21
Attachment D: 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
Agenda Item 5C - Page 22
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
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
Agenda Item 5C - Page 23
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
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 o f
context might not qualify under other criteria.
Agenda Item 5C - Page 24
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item 5C - Page 25
Agenda Item 5C - Page 26
Agenda Item 5D - Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
October 5, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application
a building and accessory building located at 3900 Orange Ct., non-
landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9-11-23
of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2016-00229).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 3900 Orange Ct.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1940
3. Zoning: RL-2
4. Existing House Size: 895 sq. ft. (main), 290 sq. ft. (accessory)
5. Lot Size: 123,101 sq. ft. (approx.)
6. Owner/Applicant: Jarrow Montessori School / Michael Girodo
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff recommends that the Landmarks
Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the house and accessory buildings
located at 3900 Orange Ct., 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.
A 180-day stay period would expire on January 31, 2017.
Should the board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff recommends that prior to demolition the following be submitted to
Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) staff for review, approval and recording
with Carnegie Library:
Agenda Item 5D - Page 2
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 13, 2016 the Planning Housing & Sustainability (PH&S) Department received a
demolition permit application for two buildings at 3900 Orange Ct. The buildings are not
located within a historic district, but are over 50 years old. The action proposed meets
the definition of demolition found in Section 9-16-1 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
On July 20, 2016, 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.”
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 requires 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 determines that there is “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.
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 the
permit application 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 (August 4, 2016, when the Landmarks Board fee was paid) and expire on
January 31, 2016. Section 9-11-23 (g) and (h), B.R.C. 1981.
DESCRIPTION
The approximately 895 sq. ft. house and its 290 sq. ft. accessory building are part of the
123,101 sq. ft. campus of the Jarrow Montessori School, located on Orange Court, near
the intersection of Broadway Street and Poplar Avenue in Boulder. It is not located
within a designated or potential historic district.
Agenda Item 5D - Page 3
Figure 1. Location Map showing 3900 Orange Ct.
Figure 2. East (front) elevation, 2016
House:
The stone building features a cross-gable plan with clipped gable ends with field stone
walls that are infilled with wide lap siding. A picture window flanked by 2-over-2
double hung windows is located on the gable end of the east face, with a low, stone
planter located beneath the window. The entrance is located in the center of the building
Agenda Item 5D - Page 4
at the east, facing Broadway Street, with a non-historic single light door and is recessed
from the front wall. A two-over-two, double hung window is located near the northeast
corner of the building.
Figure 3. South (side) elevation, 2016
The south elevation features three window openings. The two openings in the stone
portion have concrete sills.
Figure 4. West (rear) elevation, 2016
The west (rear) addition features clipped gable and gable ends. The windows on the
gable portion appear to have been replaced, including a large picture window and
smaller vinyl windows.
Agenda Item 5D - Page 5
Accessory Building:
Located just west of the house, the 290 sq. ft. accessory building is also constructed of
stone with portions sheathed with lap siding. L-shaped in plan, this diminutive building
has a cross gable roof that is sheathed in asphalt shingles.
Figure 5. Accessory Building, South Elevation, 2016
While in good condition, all of the doors and windows on the accessory building appear
to have replaced in the recent past.
Figure 6. Accessory Building, North Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5D - Page 6
Figure 7. 3900 Orange Ct., Tax Assessor Card, c. 1949.
Alterations
The buildings appear to be largely intact in form to their original construction. The main
door on the former residence has been replaced, as well as a window on the north
elevation.
The windows and doors on the accessory buildings have been replaced. The openings
appear to be original.
Condition
The applicant has noted that asbestos mitigation will be required on this property. No
further indication of the condition of the building has been received to date. See
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
Cost of Repair or Restoration
The applicant estimates a cost of $300,000 to abate hazardous materials in the main
house. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Until 1920, the property was part of the considerable estate of Zena A. Whitely and
Hortense Whiteley Hellems, who were sisters and prominent Boulder citizens. Their
house at 1709 Pine Street (Whiteley-Hellems House), was designated an individual
landmark by City of Boulder in 1978. Zena and Hortense were born in Georgia, and
arrived in Boulder with their family in 1877. Both attended the University of Colorado,
Hortense graduating in 1891 and Zena in 1892. Hortense taught Greek and Latin at the
Agenda Item 5D - Page 7
State Preparatory School, (later becoming Boulder High School). In 1902, she married F.
B. R. Hellems, who was dean of the University of Colorado College of Liberal Arts from
1899 to 1929, and acting president of the university for most of 1928. She was killed in a
car accident in 1922, four years after which F. B. R. Hellems remarried to his sister-in-law
Zena. Zena Whitely died in 1958.1
The Whitely sisters sold the property to the Consolidated Realty and Investment Co. in
1920 who held the property until 1939, when it was sold to L. J. Schaefer, a miner and
laborer. Well outside the city at the time, Schaefer likely constructed the first house on
the site. In 1945 L.J. and his wife Ella sold the property to Victor C. and Julia L. Roth,
who, the next year, sold it to Howard L. and Doris O. Jones. The Joneses lived on the
property from 1947 to 1961, the longest term residents.2
Howard L. Jones was the son of Cyrus and Nannetta Goodban Jones.3 He was born in
Cortland, Nebraska on June 7, 1912, and married Doris O. Lundy on April 12, 1936, in
Colorado Springs.4 Howard obtained a position with National Bureau of Standards in
1946, and purchased the property, then addressed as 4247 Broadway Street, the same
year5. Jones was a carpenter, and had established Jones Screen Co. in a workshop on the
property by 1951.
Figure 8. Assessor’s photo of the Jones Screen Co., c 1949.
1 City of Boulder Planning Department, “Landmark Designation Memorandum: 1709 Pine Street.” City of Boulder,
July 5, 1978.
2 Polk City Directories and Boulder County Public Property Records.
3 Daily Camera, “Obituaries: Howard L. Jones.” July 14, 1985. Boulder Carnegie Library.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
Agenda Item 5D - Page 8
A 1951 Daily Camera article noted that his workshop was, “…equipped with all the
necessary modern power tools and labor saving machinery for the production of
window and door screens, storm doors and windows and sash that is the equal of any
on the market…”6 While running this business, Jones continued to work at the National
Bureau of Standards (later NIST) until his retirement in 1966.7 He and Doris had two
sons and one daughter.8 The Joneses sold this house to Dorothy F. Bailey in 1961.
Howard Jones died in Black Canyon City, Arizona, on July 6, 1985.9
Dorothy Bailey lived on the property from 1961 to 1965 likely moving here following her
1961 divorce from Clifford E. Fernald. She started TLC (Tender Loving Care) Children’s
Ranch, a nursery school, in the stone house soon after. She married Jesse W. Lofquist
sometime around 1963, when the property was transferred to joint tenancy under their
names. Between them, the couple had five children: Tom, Penelope, Michael, Kenneth,
and Pamela. Tom and Penelope were 16 that year, and Pamela, the youngest, was 10.
The Lofquists sparked a highly publicized and hard fought conflict with Boulder County
Schools when, in the winter of 1963-64, they withdrew their five children from school. At
the time, attendance at an officially approved public, private, or parochial school was
mandatory for children under the age of 16 in Colorado, and the Lofquist’s attempt to
school their children in their house through TLC Ranch caused the Boulder Valley
School District request the county court to issue an order mandating the reenrollment of
the Lofquist children. Jesse Lofquist, an ardent critic of the U.S. public education system,
went to extreme measures to fight this order hiring a certified teacher to tutor the
children in at his home, which the court indicated was an acceptable solution. However,
the tutor soon resigned.
The Lofquists continued to keep their kids out of standard schooling, and, as a result,
Jesse Lofquist was arrested on the night of January 22, 1965, on charges of contempt of
court. He posted bail the following morning, and proceeded to purchase a Volkswagen
bus, convert it into a mobile home and school, and fled the state to Cheyenne, Wyoming,
indicating they intended to dispose of their property in Boulder as soon as they could.
Since the children were no longer within the state, the county court decided the
contempt of court charges were no longer necessary, though they retained an order
stating that the Lofquist children would again face mandatory attendance if they
returned to the state.
6 Daily Camera, “Homeworkshop Club Sees Fine Carpenter Shop.” April 14, 1951. Boulder Carnegie Library.
7 Daily Camera, July 14, 1985.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
Agenda Item 5D - Page 9
The Lofquists subsequently returned to Boulder renaming the TLC as an Independent
School, claiming it was a valid private school where they enrolled their children in the
fall of 1965. State inspectors visited the home school on October 8, 1965, and found that it
did not meet minimum educational standards. Boulder Daily Camera clippings file do
not record what the Lofquist’s response was, but they evidently again left the area,
selling their house to the newly formed Jarrow Montessori School in January of 196610.
The Jarrow School has operated at this location, expanding the campus over the last fifty
years. The mission statement of the school is to “nurture the development of the whole
child through quality Montessori education. Our community supports each child’s joyful
discovery of self in the journey to becoming a confident lifelong learner and
compassionate citizen.”11
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, however, additional time is needed to consider the information on
the condition and estimated cost of restoration or repair of the building.
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 E: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
10 “Jesse Lofquist.” Boulder Carnegie Library, Daily Camera Clipping Archive.
11 Jarrow Montessori School. http://jarrow.org/mission-philosophy/
Agenda Item 5D - Page 10
Summary: The main house located at 3900 Orange Ct. meets historic significance under
criteria 1 and 4.
1. Date of Construction: c. 1940.
Elaboration: The tax assessor card and the historic building inventory form indicate the
property was constructed in 1940.
2. Association with Persons or Events: Howard L. and Doris O. Jones
Elaboration: The Joneses lived at the property from 1945 until 1961. Howard Jones
worked at the National Bureau of Standards and was a carpenter, operating a screen
shop at the property beginning in 1951. While interesting, the Joneses are not
considered to be significant historic persons on the local, state or national level.
3. Development of the Community: North Boulder
Elaboration: Constructed in 1940, the house and accessory building at 3900 Orange
Ct. are relatively early residential buildings in North Boulder and indicative of the
development patterns of the largely rural area after WW II.
4. Recognition by Authorities: Historic Building Inventory Form, 1995
Elaboration: The property was surveyed in 1995 and was found to be in good
condition with minor alterations, including replacement of wide lap siding on upper
walls and the construction of a deck facing the entrance. The survey states the
building represents a type, period or method of construction, “This house is
representative of the Bungalow style, as reflected in the stone, wood and stucco
walls; double-hung windows; and enhanced porch.” See Attachment C: Historic
Building Inventory Form.
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 3900 Orange Ct. meets historic significance under criteria 1
and 5.
1. Recognized Period or Style: Bungalow style
Elaboration: The main house has elements of very modest Craftsman Bungalow
design, including the use of local materials, low pitched roof with wide overhanging
eaves, clipped gables, half-timbering, and double-hung windows.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None Observed.
3. Artistic Merit: None Observed.
4. Example of the Uncommon: Early residential buildings
Agenda Item 5D - Page 11
Elaboration: Constructed in 1940, the house and accessory building at 3900 Orange
Ct. are relatively early residential buildings in North Boulder and indicative of the
development patterns of the largely rural area.
5. Indigenous Qualities: Field Stone
Elaboration: Both the house and the accessory building are constructed of local
fieldstone.
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The house located at 3900 Orange Ct. does not meet any criteria under
environmental significance.
1. Site Characteristics: None Observed
Elaboration: The once-residential property has been incorporated into a school
campus. The house does not retain its historic, rural residential character. The
property does not have characteristics of high quality planned or natural vegetation.
2. Compatibility with Site: None Observed.
3. Geographic Importance: None Observed
4. Environmental Appropriateness: Complementary Setting
Elaboration: The building is complementary to its setting.
5. Area Integrity: None Observed.
Elaboration: The property is not located in a designated or potential historic district.
The area around this location developed mainly in the second half of the twentieth
century, with multi-family units and residential buildings.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD:
Constructed in 1940, the house and accessory building at 3900 Orange Ct. are relatively
early residential buildings in North Boulder and are indicative of the development
patterns of the, then, largely rural area. The buildings themselves remain relatively
intact, but the character of the surrounding area has changed considerably.
CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
The applicant has submitted information on the condition of the building, indicating that
the buildings are in good condition. Recent testing has revealed asbestos on the interior,
Agenda Item 5D - Page 12
including duct wrap, joint compound, surface texture compound, and flooring materials.
Exterior materials were not tested but may also contain asbestos. The applicant found
the buildings to be in good condition, however, there are concerns with lead paint and
thermal performance of the windows. Some of the stone is chipped, and the mortar is
deteriorated in places. Extensive repointing may be needed. See Attachment F: Applicant’s
Materials.
CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
The applicant estimates a cost of $300,000 for abatement of hazardous materials. This
would not include additional costs that may be found during the course of the work. The
applicant estimates that new construction of the same floor area would be approximately
$400,000. See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT:
Staff has received no comment to date from the public on this matter.
While somewhat altered over the years, staff considers that both buildings are
substantially intact to their original c.1940 construction and are historically and
architecturally significant when evaluated against the Landmark Boards Criteria for
evaluation. The historic setting of the property has changed considerably as the Jarrow
School has evolved since 1966. For this reason, staff does not consider the buildings or
property to have environmental significance.
Staff considers imposing a stay-of-demolition to explore integration of the stone house
and accessory building into the redevelopment of the property (including analysis of
hazardous material abatement options) appropriate given the observed architectural and
historic significance of the property.
THE BOARD’S DECISION:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the buildings to be demolished do 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 buildings 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 to consider alternatives to the
Agenda Item 5D - Page 13
demolition of the building. Section 9-11-23(h), B.R.C. 1981. A 180-day stay period
would expire on January 31, 2016.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
A stay of demolition for the buildings at 3900 Orange Ct. is appropriate based on the
criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f), B.R.C. 1981 in that:
1. The two stone buildings may be eligible for individual landmark designation
based upon their architectural and historic significance;
2. The buildings may contribute to the character of the neighborhood as an intact
representative resources of the area’s past;
3. It has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to
rehabilitate the building.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Attachment E: Significance Criteria for Individual Landmarks
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item 5D - Page 14
Attachment A: Current Photographs
East (front) elevation, 2016
West (rear) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5D - Page 15
South (side) elevation, 2016
North (side) elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5D - Page 16
Accessory Building, South Elevation, 2016
Accessory Building, North Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5D - Page 17
Attachment B: Boulder County Tax Assessor Card c. 1946
Agenda Item 5D - Page 18
Agenda Item 5D - Page 19
Agenda Item 5D - Page 20
Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item 5D - Page 21
Agenda Item 5D - Page 22
Photo from Historic Building Inventory Record, 1988.
Agenda Item 5D - Page 23
Attachment D: Deed & Directory Research
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
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
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
Agenda Item 5D - Page 24
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
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.
Agenda Item 5D - Page 25
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 26
Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item 5D - Page 27
Agenda Item 5D - Page 28
Agenda Item 5D - Page 29
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Landmarks Board
From: Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
David Driskell., Executive Director of Planning, Housing + Sustainability
Dave Thacker, Building Services Manager/Chief Building Official
Kendra Tupper, Energy Services Manager
Elizabeth Vasatka, Business Sustainability Coordinator
Date: October 5, 2016
Subject: Energy Codes: Update on the City’s Long-Term Strategy and Seeking Feedback
on the Proposed Near-Term Energy Code Amendments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memo outlines the long-term strategy for Boulder’s energy codes and proposed
amendments for the next building and energy code update (late 2016). Staff has provided an
outline of the long-term strategy (Attachment A) for context, and is updating and seeking
feedback from the Landmarks Board on the proposed near-term energy code amendments
(Attachment B).
Long-Term Strategy
The City of Boulder has set an aggressive goal of adopting net zero energy (NZE) codes by
2031, and has developed a strategy and pathway to achieve that target. Staff recognizes that in
order to support the city’s Climate Commitment and sustainability goals, energy codes must
begin to address sustainability beyond just energy use such as transportation, water, indoor
environmental quality and waste. In fact, when staff projected emissions reductions out to 2050,
savings from the implementation of progressively more stringent energy codes was the largest of
any building efficiency program, including EnergySmart, SmartRegs and the Building
Performance Program.
2
Proposed elements of the long-term strategy for energy codes include:
1. Pathways for achieving high performance NZE codes including: a phased schedule for
NZE deadlines, early adopter incentives, allowance of off-site renewables, future adoption
of outcome-based codes and the encouragement of all-electric buildings.
2. A six-year cycle for major updates linked to the national code adoption schedule, with
local evaluation and updates every three years.
3. The prioritization and phasing schedule of non-energy sustainability requirements for
commercial energy codes.
Proposed Near-Term Updates
Staff has developed proposed updates to the building and energy code, which is tentatively
scheduled to be presented to City Council for consideration and adoption in late 2016. The
proposed effective date of these changes is early 2017.
Proposed near-term building and energy code updates include:
1. Restructuring and updates of the residential energy code, Green Building and Green
Points (link to the current Green Building and Green Points program); and
2. New prescriptive requirements for commercial buildings, including only allowing this
prescriptive pathway for alterations and new construction/additions with a construction
cost less than $500,000.
3. Other miscellaneous updates including: revising how multi-family units are addressed
and allowing off-site renewable energy for energy code compliance.
Questions
1. Does the Board have feedback on the proposed near-term updates?
2. Does the Board have any questions on how the city’s adopted building and/or energy codes
address historically significant buildings?
BACKGROUND
Please refer to Attachment B for an overview of energy and green codes. This Attachment
provides background information on national energy and green codes, definitions of key terms
that are used throughout this memo and a brief history of Boulder’s energy codes.
Goals and Objectives of the City’s Energy Codes
The overall long-term goal for the city’s energy code is to build high-performance, NZE
residential and commercial buildings. The objectives below are designed to support this
overarching goal:
Supporting the Climate Commitment
To achieve and sustain significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions in support of the
city’s overall Climate Commitment
3
To reach NZE codes by 2031
To support technologies and practices that will move the community towards local,
distributed and renewable energy systems (for both buildings and transportation) that
support the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity, as well as economic vitality and
community resilience
Promoting High-Performance Buildings
To promote sustainable building practices throughout the lifecycle of the building
process (e.g., waste management, water management, transportation impacts, etc.)
To promote the development and ongoing maintenance of safe, comfortable and high
performing buildings
To support energy resilience (the ability to maintain operations during grid failure)
Creating Effective and Viable Codes
To adopt codes that are feasible to update regularly, implement and enforce
To provide building owners and design professionals with viable and economically
feasible paths to comply with energy codes that are straightforward and easy to
understand
What is Net Zero Energy (NZE)?
While NZE can be defined a number of ways, in this context, NZE means:
The amount of renewable energy produced on-site, plus the amount purchased from
approved community energy systems, is equal to or greater than the annual energy
consumption of the site.
This definition makes it possible for all buildings to become NZE even with poor solar access or
other site constraints.
ANALYSIS: NEAR-TERM CODE UPDATES
As the city evaluates and updates its energy codes every three years, staff has gathered
stakeholder feedback on some of the challenges related to compliance with current codes. Staff
has drafted updates based on the feedback received which will be presented to council for
adoption in late 2016 with an effective date in early 2017. Specifically, staff is proposing the
following near-term energy code amendments:
Restructuring and updates to the current residential energy code, Green Building and
Green Points (GBGP), including amendments to the International Residential Code (IRC)
to require electric vehicle charging infrastructure
New prescriptive requirements for commercial buildings, including amendments to the
International Building Code (IBC) to require solar photovoltaic (PV)-ready and electric
vehicle charging infrastructure for multi-family and commercial buildings
4
In addition, the city plans to improve the compliance process by streamlining steps and providing
more consistent and detailed guidance. Please see the July 19, 2016 Information Packet Memo
(Attachment G) for a summary of the scope and intended outcomes of this compliance
improvement effort. Staff also plans to make a few administrative updates to clarify the common
points of confusion, such as how to consistently measure square footage in gaining compliance
with the Green Points program.
Near-Term Residential Energy Code Updates
Planned amendments to the current residential building and energy code are as follows:
1) Eliminate the point structure in the Green Building and Green Points program, and
prioritize and update key measures as mandatory (see Table 1).
2) Implement a sliding Energy Rating Index (ERI) scale based on floor area which will
require residential buildings larger than 5,000 square feet (sf) to be NZE (see
Figure 1).
3) Revise the ERI requirements for additions to impose more efficient requirements for
larger homes and additions. ERI requirements for additions will only apply if the
addition is 1,000 sf or larger – smaller additions will be required to meet the prescriptive
requirements of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).
4) Revise alterations requirements as follows:
a) Eliminate the Green Points program “point” options and the 500 sf threshold, to
provide clarity and streamline the building permit process.
b) Change the trigger for alteration requirements from measured floor area to the
percentage of the project cost1 compared to the assessed or appraised value of the
existing structure (see Table 2).
c) Mandatory efficiency measures will be required for all alterations; these include:
energy advising, energy audits and new construction regulations (see Table 2).
1 Project cost will be either the customer’s construction cost or the city’s project cost evaluation,
whichever is higher.
5
Table 1: Proposed Changes to the Point Structure of GBGP
Requirements Current
Requirements
Proposed
Requirements
Energy Performance1 ERI/HERs ERI/HERs
Waste Management2 Mandatory Mandatory
Preservation of Natural Resources: Require shading from existing
and new trees; organic, low water landscaping practices; and
stormwater management3
Optional point Mandatory
Solar Photovoltaic “Ready:” Pre-wire for solar PV and a space
allocation roof plan Optional point Mandatory
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Require the installation of
both 120-Volt and 240-Volt charging outlets in any dedicated off-street
parking space for single family homes and townhomes. For multi-
family units, require charging infrastructure (120 and 240 V outlets) for
7.5% of the parking spaces, and require Level 2 dual port charging
stations for 2.5% of the spaces.5
NA Mandatory
(NEW)
Water Efficiency: High efficiency kitchen and bathroom fixtures Optional point Covered in
IRC4
Sustainable Products: Require the use of re-used, recycled, bio-based,
environmentally certified or locally sourced materials Optional point Not required
Solar Thermal “Ready”: Require solar thermal systems to heat hot
water (water heating, space heating and/or pools and spas) Optional point Not required
Material Efficient Framing: Require efficient use of lumber and
methods to frame a house and design the structure Optional point
Not required6 Indoor Air Quality: Require means of detecting, reducing and
mitigating indoor air pollutants Optional point
Design Process and Education: Require green building design
professionals and an owner manual for efficient operation Optional point
1 Updated for both new construction (Figure 1) and additions.
2 These requirements may be revised to increase the diversion rates (based on the current recycling
markets).
3 A landscaping plan is required for new construction must be submittal with the permit. A landscape
rehabilitation plan will be required for additions and alterations.
4 Staff will increase the current requirements in the International Residential Code (IRC) to match the
current national EPA’s WaterSense Standards
5 This requirement is only triggered when there are at least 25 parking spaces.
6 An updated HERS rating software will be released in the 2017, which will incorporate these sustainability
attributes. The design manual will remain a requirement.
6
Figure 1: Proposed Changes to Efficiency Requirements for New Homes
Table 2: Alterations Requirements
Thresholds for
requirements
Project cost is
≤20% of assessed
value of existing
property
Project cost is 21‐50% of
assessed value of existing
property
Project cost is >51% of
assessed value of existing
property
Measures
All energy and building code requirements (for the scope of the alteration)
EnergySmart
Advising1
EnergySmart Audit2 and
Advising Triggers new
construction
requirements
Air sealing and insulation
in ceiling and walls3
Crawl space conditioning3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Energy Rating Index (ERI)Residential Structure Floor Area (square feet)
Current2019
2022
2017
2025
2028
2031
7
1 Homeowner must contact EnergySmart and discuss the construction project with an energy advisor
to ensure efficiency opportunities are maximized.
2 Homeowner must enroll in EnergySmart and receive an energy audit that includes a blower door
test that measures infiltration of the existing building.
3 When applicable, implement these measures to code standards.
Near-Term Commercial Energy Code Updates
Revisions to the prescriptive path of Boulder’s commercial energy code are being proposed with
the primary goal of improving usability and compliance while maintaining or increasing energy
efficiency. While the performance pathway for new construction and major alterations must
have an energy performance which is 30 percent better than IECC 2012, the prescriptive path is
limited by market availability and construction and cost feasibility per individual requirement.
The changes are described below, along with rationale for the changes.
Table 3: Proposed Changes to Commercial Energy Code
Proposed Change Rationale
When the Performance (Modeling)
Approach is Required or Allowed:
For new buildings, additions, and major
alterations (more than 50 percent of the exterior
wall area is being demolished) with a project
cost greater than or equal to $500,0002,
compliance using the modeling based
performance approach will be required.
Compliance using the prescriptive approach for
these projects will no longer be allowed.
Alterations which are not considered “major
alterations” are required to comply using the
prescriptive approach.
Performance approach compliance is designed
for new construction and major alterations that
must achieve the city’s energy requirement of
30 percent better than IECC 2012. This
requirement is so efficient that it requires the
whole building tradeoffs allowed via the
performance pathway.
For smaller scope alterations, the prescriptive
pathway is much better suited.
2 A threshold of a project cost of $500,000 was chosen as the limit for allowing the prescriptive path for new
construction and additions based on the typical costs of energy modeling require for the performance and
outcome based paths. This limit should keep the modeling costs to below 2.5 percent of the total project cost.
8
Proposed Change Rationale
Revision of Prescriptive Requirements:
The custom prescriptive pathway is being
replaced with amendments to the IECC 2012
prescriptive path. These amendments will
increase the stringency of IECC 2012
requirements up to what is allowed by federal
regulations, or what is being proposed for the
2018 version of the International Green
Conservation Code (IgCC). These changes
address insulation levels, fenestration
performance, lighting power and equipment
efficiency.
Current prescriptive requirements in the
commercial energy code are extremely
stringent, without the tradeoffs allowed
through the modeling-based performance
path. Overwhelming stakeholder feedback
indicates that the requirements are confusing
and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
achieve.
These new prescriptive requirements will
replace a complicated set of custom
requirements. Simplification of prescriptive
requirements that are based on nationally
developed standards will improve compliance
and simplify enforcement.
Operable Window/Door Shut Off:
New mandatory requirement for operable
windows and doors to have switches which will
shut off heating and cooling equipment when
doors or windows are left open.
This change prevents wasted operation of
heating and cooling equipment when doors or
windows remain opened. These requirements
are based on requirements already present in
other energy codes.
Removal of the Building Area Method:
For determining prescriptive interior lighting
power, the Space by Space Method is now the
only allowed approach.
The Space by Space Method is based on the
details of the proposed design. The Building
Area Method is an approximation based on
“typical” space allocations for a building type.
Appliance Requirements:
New mandatory requirement that appliances
installed in multi-family buildings be
EnergyStar rated.
Requiring EnergyStar appliances in new
residential occupancies will ensure that this end
use is addressed even when multi-family
buildings are covered under the commercial
energy code.
Solar “Ready” Requirements:
Mandatory requirement to identify roof
locations for installation of future solar systems
, and keep these areas clear of obstructions.
Locations for conduit and other electrical
equipment that would be required for the solar
system must also be identified. This equipment
need not be installed.
Identification and reservation of space for future
solar systems will greatly facilitate future
installation of solar systems where solar
systems are not currently required or where
larger systems may be required in the future.
9
Proposed Change Rationale
Requirements for Electric Vehicle (EV)
Charging Infrastructure:
The following will be required for offices,
industrial buildings and multi-family buildings3:
7.5% of parking spaces must have (1) 240-V
and (1) 120-V charging outlet
2.5% of parking spaces must have a Level 2,
dual port charging station installed
Lodging facilities will be required to install
charging stations (Level 2, dual port) for 1% of
parking spots (a minimum of 1).
Workplace EV charging provides employees
that live in multi-family units without EV
charging the opportunity to drive an EV. There
is also a need for EV charging facilities at
lodging facilities, as more and more rental car
agencies are beginning to offer EV options.
However, there has been very little usage in
general public charging stations provided at
commercial buildings for transient visitors.
3 There must be at least 25 parking spaces to trigger these requirements.
10
Other Miscellaneous Energy Code Updates
Table 4: Summary of Other Miscellaneous Energy Code Updates Impacting Both Residential
and Commercial Buildings
Topic Description of Update
Multi-family
Units
1) Townhomes and duplexes will be covered under residential energy code. If there
are any shared commercial spaces, they must comply with the prescriptive
requirements for the commercial energy code.
2) All other multi-family buildings are covered under the commercial energy code,
regardless of the number of stories.
Water Fixture
Use Rates
The water fixture use requirements covered under the International Plumbing Code
(IPC) and the International Residential Code (IRC) will be amended to be as
efficient as current national WaterSense standards put out by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Allow Off-Site
Renewables
Due to shading, roof space constraints and high energy intensity buildings (such as a
data center or lab), off-site renewable energy will be required for some residential
and commercial buildings to achieve NZE. Off-site renewable options will only be
allowed if all on-site renewable options have been exhausted.
Community solar gardens, but not Renewable Energy Credits (RECS), will be
allowed to meet required overall energy performance for new buildings and major
alterations.
NEXT STEPS
In terms of the next code updates, there are several more steps in the coming months. The
tentative schedule is as follows:
November 3, 2016: Planning Board will review near-term energy code amendments.
November 15, 2016: City Council First Reading of proposed energy code amendments.
December 6, 2016: City Council Second Reading of proposed energy code amendments.
Q1 2017: Amendments to energy code become effective (following 60-day grace period
after adoption)
Q1 2017: Noresco, the city’s consultant for this work, will conduct staff training and
develop supporting documentation and resources on the city’s website to help explain
the energy codes
Q2 2017: Staff will implement changes to improve energy code compliance
Once the 2018 version of the national codes are released, the city will work quickly to adopt the
2018 versions of the codes, with local amendments.
Q1 2018: Staff will review the newly released 2018 codes, including IECC 2018 and
IgCC 2018
11
Q3 2018: Staff will review the next building code update with the relevant boards,
including moving from IECC 2012 to IECC 2018 and beginning to adopt portions of
IgCC 2018
Q4 2018: Planned adoption of full set of ICC 2018 building codes, with amendments
Q1 2019: New building codes (based on ICC 2018 codes) becomes effective
12
ATTACHMENT A: LONG-TERM STRATEGY
Proposed elements of the long-term strategy for energy codes include:
1. The long-term pathway for achieving high performance, NZE codes including:
a. The allowance of off-site renewables to meet energy code requirements.
b. The adoption of an outcome-based pathway for commercial energy codes.
c. A schedule for when new buildings would need to meet a NZE code.
d. Early adopter incentives for designing NZE buildings before the requirements ARE
phased in.
e. The encouragement of all-electric buildings.
2. A six-year cycle for major updates linked to the national code adoption schedule, with
local evaluation and updates every three years (see the July 19, 2016 Information Packet
Memo for more information).
3. Prioritization and a proposed phasing schedule of adopting IgCC’s non-energy
sustainability requirements for commercial codes, and subsequently amending other
portions of the city’s codes that may currently address these issues (see the July 19, 2016
Information Packet Memo for more information).
The City of Boulder has set an aggressive goal of having NZE codes in effect by 2031, and this
recent work effort represents staff’s first attempt at charting a clear strategy and pathway to
achieve that target. The figure and table below provide more details on the key components of
the long-term strategy and illustrate when each is suggested to go into effect.
Figure 2: Long‐Term Strategy Key Component Timeline
13
Table 5: Long-Term Strategy Key Components (Post 2016/2017 Updates)
Key
Component of
Long-Term
Strategy
Description Scope Phasing
Off-Site
Renewables
Due to shading, roof space constraints and high energy
intensity buildings (such as a data center or lab), off-
site renewable energy will be required for many
buildings to achieve NZE. Off-site renewable options
will only be allowed if all on-site renewable options
have been exhausted.
Community solar gardens, but not Renewable Energy
Credits (RECS), will be allowed to meet required
overall zEPI scores for new buildings and major
renovations.
Commercial
and
Residential
2017
Require a Base
Level of
Efficiency
Prior to
Renewables
The following method will ensure that building
efficiency is prioritized before the use of renewables:
A zEPI score (commercial) or ERI (residential) is
required for overall compliance.
A zEPI score of 45 or an ERI of 50 must be
achieved through efficiency alone; renewables can
then be used to achieve the code specified energy
target (currently zEPI 38 for commercial and ERI
value of 25 to 60 for residential).
Commercial
and
Residential
2019
Outcome-Based
Codes for
Commercial
Buildings
Staff plans to pilot a voluntary outcome-based energy
code for new commercial buildings, which will be
based on the actual, measured energy consumption of
the building post-occupancy.
Outcome-based codes bring energy behavior of
occupants, maintenance and operating practices
under the purview of the codes. These factors can
account for 50 percent of a building’s energy use.
This is a new approach to energy codes; compliance
and enforcement approaches are still under
development nationally.
Data collected from the Building Performance
Program will aid this process.
Commercial
Voluntary
pilot 2019;
possibly
mandatory
in 2022
(depending
on pilot
outcome)
Schedule for
NZE
Compliance
Staff is planning a slightly accelerated schedule for
NZE for new residential and commercial buildings.
Those with low energy use intensity and high roof to
floor area ratios, can reasonably be required to be NZE
sooner than 2031. This allows NZE requirements to be
phased in over time to minimize enforcement issues,
and accelerates achievement of the city’s Climate
Commitment goals.
Commercial
and
Residential
2019 to
2031
14
Key
Component of
Long-Term
Strategy
Description Scope Phasing
Early Adopter
Incentives
Providing incentives for buildings to be NZE before
it is required by code encourages owners and design
teams to develop advanced designs and share
feasible examples for other buildings.
These incentives might include reduced city fees,
expedited plans approvals and/or positive publicity.
Commercial
and
Residential
2020
Encouragement
of All-Electric
Buildings
To support long-term goals, local code amendments
should begin encouraging all-electric buildings within
the next five years.
Many of the city’s long-term goals will eventually
require that the use of natural gas in buildings be
minimized or eliminated: the goals of having all
new buildings be NZE; moving the city towards
local, distributed and fossil-fuel-free energy
systems; and achieving and sustaining significant
greenhouse gas reductions.
Buildings that use natural gas be made net zero with
on-site or building-owned resources. They must
have a market to allow excess renewable energy to
be sold to other buildings to offset the gas
consumption.
Minimizing the use of natural gas in new buildings
facilitates the long-term achievement of a sizeable
population of net zero buildings.
Commercial
and
Residential
2022
15
ATTACHMENT B: OVERVIEW OF ENERGY AND GREEN CODES
Many components of the long-term strategy, as well as the short-term updates, rely on the
national suite of building and energy codes. This section provides background information on
those codes, definitions of key terms that are used throughout this memo, and a brief history of
Boulder’s energy codes.
The International Code Council (ICC) publishes an extensive series of model codes every three
years. In Colorado, these codes can then be adopted by local jurisdictions along with
modifications or exclusions, as desired. The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and
the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) are two such codes, and both are based on
standards developed by the America Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE).
Table 6: Summary of National Energy and Green Codes
National Code International Energy Conservation
Code (IECC)
International Green Construction
Code (IgCC)
Scope
Building energy performance – applies
to both commercial and residential
buildings
“Green Code” addressing many aspects
of sustainability beyond energy; applies
only to commercial and high-rise (>3
stories) residential buildings
Use in Boulder
Code
Residential: IECC 2012 with local
amendments (Green Building and Green
Points)
Commercial: 30 percent more stringent
than IECC 2012
Not currently adopted
Alternate
compliance via
ASHRAE
Commercial: 30% more stringent than
ASHRAE 90.1-2010
ASHRAE 189.1 (2014 is equivalent to
IgCC 2015)
Important
Notes
IECC 2015 is only slightly more
stringent than the 2012 version4, and still
far less stringent than Boulder’s current
codes. IECC 2018 is expected to have
more significant updates and changes
when released.
IgCC 20185 will be merged with the
ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2017,
reducing confusion and pulling the best
aspects from both codes.
4 IECC 2015 compared to IECC 2012: 8.7% more stringent for commercial buildings and 0.73% more
stringent for residential buildings (according to Department of Energy)
5 Planned for release in late 2017
16
While the IgCC is now available to provide green code language for commercial buildings, there
is still no suitable national model code6 for low-rise residential buildings. There are also many
voluntary residential green building programs, but most of them have third-party evaluators, cost
money to participate in and verify, have their own compliance guidelines and were not designed
to be “codified” (e.g., LEED for Homes, etc.) As a result, Boulder will continue to update and
evolve its residential green building code, the Green Building and Green Points program.
Pathways for Compliance
Energy codes have traditionally included at least two paths to compliance, prescriptive and
performance (see figure below). More recently, an additional option of outcome-based energy
codes has emerged. Mandatory requirements must be met regardless of which path is chosen.
Figure 3: Energy Code Pathways for Compliance
One limitation to both prescriptive and performance pathways is that they only address
efficiency characteristics of building design. Studies have shown that these design aspects only
account for 50 percent or less of the total energy consumption of the building. Characteristics
that are just as important include good building maintenance, efficient process and plug loads,
and operating practices by occupants and building staff.
To account for the energy performance of the entire building as used after occupancy, the
addition of outcome-based compliance is being explored for commercial buildings. This is an
approach that uses performance modeling to establish an energy consumption target during the
design stage, but final compliance is shown by monitoring of a building’s energy consumption
6 National Green Building Standard (NGBS) is the only known option, but is not recommended because the
energy chapter is not set up to guide builders to reach NZE and because it requires that certification is achieved
through the Home Innovations Research Lab, a subsidiary of the National Association of Home Builders.
17
over a period of time (typically one year) following full occupancy. A building that exceeds the
target energy consumption established at the design stage must then take corrective actions to
reduce consumption. This type of code is currently being evaluated for inclusion in IgCC, IECC,
and in several jurisdictions. It is as also being piloted in Seattle as an optional compliance path
with a lower energy target than the performance path alone (link to 2014 ACEEE paper on
Seattle’s program). Outcome-based codes verify and guarantee that new buildings are actually
performing to the efficiency levels to which they were designed, but they also feature more
complicated compliance verification and contract structures, as compliance responsibility is
spread over multiple parties, including building occupants.
Metrics for Energy Code Stringency and Compliance
As the energy codes become more stringent, new methods of showing compliance or describing
stringency are evolving. As a result, several metrics have been established to compare energy
code stringency. These metrics will be referred to later in this memo.
18
Table 7: Metrics and Energy Rating Scales
EUI (Energy Use Intensity): the total annual
energy used per square foot of gross floor area.
It is expressed in unit of kBtus (thousand British
thermal units) per square foot per year (kBtu/ft2-
yr).
HERS (Home Energy Rating System): A
nationally recognized index created by
RESNET and used as the industry standard to
measure the energy efficiency of a house. It is a
scale where 0 is a NZE house and 100 is the
energy consumption of a typical new
construction house that meets the IECC 2006
for energy efficiency.
ERI (Energy Rating Index)7: The ERI is
essentially a non-trademarked equivalent of the
HERS index. It is used as the scale for
establishing the performance path target by the
current version of the IECC for low-rise
residential buildings. Current Boulder
residential energy code requires a HERS
score/ERI ranging from 25 to 60, depending on
house size.
zEPI (Zero Energy Performance Index): This
is a scale for commercial buildings that is
similar to the ERI for residential buildings. This
scale also uses 0 for NZE buildings, but a score
of 100 is representative of the EUI of typical
existing building (opposed to new construction)
from the 2003 CBECS8 data. The current
Boulder energy code is equivalent to a zEPI
score of 38.
The metrics described the figure above can help establish more stringent energy code
requirements by specifying a lower zEPI or HERS/ERI requirement, thereby moving toward
NZE. By using these metrics, the comparison with energy code requirements throughout the
country is possible, regardless of which model code is adopted. However, compliance with the
commercial energy code requires modeling the energy usage of the reference building. This can
vary by building type, floor area and other factors. In the future, there is an opportunity to
simplify the commercial energy codes greatly by stating energy targets by building usage in
7 Because ERI is the metric used in national energy codes, the city will use this term in place of HERS.
8 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey – The Energy Information Administration (EIA) conducts
a survey of existing building energy use by building type and climate zone to form this dataset.
19
terms of Energy Use Intensity (EUI), which then eliminates the need for modeling a fictitious
reference building.
Brief History of the City’s Energy Codes
The city has a long history of “green” (also referred to as “above” or “sustainability”) code
programs, and more recently, it has acquired a reputation of boldly adopting aggressive energy
code requirements. Below is a summary and brief timeline of code and policy adoption that has
put the city at the forefront in progressive and stringent building and energy code requirements,
with supporting programs such as Energy Smart, SmartRegs, and the Building Performance
Program.
Table 8: Overview of Boulder Energy Code History
Currently, the city evaluates and amends the latest national codes on a three-year cycle, and
usually adopts the newest suite of national/international code every six years. Because the city
has not yet adopted a national green building code, such as the IgCC for commercial buildings,
other portions of the city’s codes and Design Standards currently address many non-energy
sustainability issues (such as transportation and water). Please refer to Attachment A in the July
19, 2016 Information Packet Memo for a more complete history of the city’s residential and
commercial energy codes, including a comparison of their stringency to other energy codes.
DATE: October 5th, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron
SUBJECT: Update Memo
Energy Code Updates
Please review attached memo and be prepared to provide feedback at the October 5th meeting.
Civic Area
The Civic Area webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the
Civic Area. Update at Meeting.
Historic Building Survey of the North Wing of the Boulder Public Library Complete
A Cultural Resource Re-Survey has been completed for the north wing of the Boulder Public Library (see
attached). The Civic Area Project team requested the re-survey be undertaken to gain better understanding of
the potential future planning options related to the west bookend of the Civic Area. Historic surveys are the
foundation for identifying, understanding, and preserving a community's important cultural and historic
resources.
The north wing of the library was originally surveyed in 1995 (attached) and found that it was historically
significant. The re-survey reconfirmed the historic significance and found that the building is eligible for local
landmark designation and listing in the National Register Historic Places.
This is being shared for informational purposes. It is anticipated that the survey results will be discussed in a
joint meeting of the Landmarks Board and the Library Commission to be held sometime in October or
November. The status of the entire west bookend will be discussed in more detail once the Human Services
Strategy is completed and the Library Master Plan is updated in 2017.
Atrium Building/Public Market
The Public Market team has periodically been out at the Wednesday evening or Saturday morning Boulder
Farmers’ Markets to hear from the community about what they think “Boulder’s version” of a public market
could look like. Initial input gives community members the opportunity to share some of their experiences at
other community markets, and to react to draft vision statements and draft goals. The feedback presented
Public Market workshop on September 27th with David O’Neil (leading market hall expert) where public was
given to assist the city refine the Public Market vision, goals, proposed program, and phasing that will be
presented to City Council for direction in November. Discussion is ongoing in considering whether the Atrium
Building might be used as a Market Hall on a temporary or permanent basis. Historic Boulder has agreed to
continue keeping the March 2015 application to landmark the Atrium on hold as exploration of these options
continues. Update at meeting.
University Hill Commercial District – National Register Nomination
On December 8, 2015 the City Council reviewed the University Hill Reinvestment Strategy Update (click for
memo). As part of the strategy, the city is pursing National Register designation for the commercial district.
Front Range Research Consultants is now under contract to undertake the work with view to a May 2017
review of a National Register of Historic Places by the State Review Board. Staff will be having a kick-off
meeting with the consultants the second week of October.
Grandview Conference Center
A memorandum of agreement between the City of Boulder and the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents
has been signed for cooperation in developing the Grandview site for conference center. The agreement sets
out a process for consideration of potentially historic buildings in the area.
Chautauqua Historic District
Update on Chautauqua Improvements (2A) and design guideline planning process at meeting.
Landmarks Board Retreat.
Scheduled from 12 pm-4 pm, Friday, October 21st at Old Main at the University of Colorado, 1600 Pleasant
Street, Old Main Conference Room, 1B-85. Staff and Board will collaborate on forthcoming the agenda.
Resource number: 5BL.6065 1
Temporary resource number: N/A
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
I. IDENTIFICATION
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible- NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
1. Resource number: 5BL.6065
2. Temporary resource number: N/A
3. County: Boulder
4. City: Boulder
5. Historic building name: Boulder Public Library
6. Current building name: Boulder Public Library, North Wing
7. Building address: 1001 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado
8. Owner name and address: City of Boulder, PO Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9. P.M. 6th Township 1N Range 71W
SE ¼ of SE ¼ of SE ¼ of Section 25
10. UTM reference: Zone 13: 475934 mE 4429449mN
11. USGS quad name: Boulder
Year: 2013 Map scale: 7.5' 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Blks 11 & 12 & track adjacent to Blk 11 on the west - Boulder o t & pt lot 9 Smiths addition to Boulder &
vac Riverside St & 10th St & 11th St
13. Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary of the building for the purposes of documentation
includes the building and adjacent built features, excluding the 1992 addition (south wing) to the
Boulder Public Library.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Cross-shaped plan
15. Dimensions in feet: Length 170 ft x Width 160 ft
16. Number of stories: 2
17. Primary external wall material(s): Stone
Resource number: 5BL.6065 2
Temporary resource number: N/A
18. Roof configuration: Flat
19. Primary external roof material: Unknown
20. Special features: N/A
21. General architectural description: The original 1961 Boulder Public Library, aka the North Wing, anchors
the northeast end of the City of Boulder’s Municipal Campus. Although it is connected to the southerly
additions of the library by a bridge addition that extends across Boulder Creek, for purposes of this
description it is considered separately, with the bridge and addition built in the 1974 renovation
described as a piece, and the 1992 addition shown only in the attached photographs. Its orientation is
approximately 15 degrees west of a NS axis, and for purposes of description the northwest elevation is
north and etc.
The North Wing is a blocky, low-slung Modern style building that contains some elements of the
International Style but cannot be said to fit neatly into that category, partly now due to modifications
(primarily the alteration and relocation of the main entrance). It sits between Canyon Drive on the north
and Boulder Creek on the south and faces east toward the Municipal Building. Its geometry is
essentially that of a carefully composed collection of squares and rectangles: Massing is organized in a
cruciform plan, with a square center bay surrounded on four sides by similarly sized bays. The central
and west bays carry a second story, while the entrance and north and south bays are a single story. The
entry bay extends to the east and garden courtyards lie on the east sides of the ells.
Exterior wall material is generally red sandstone, with full-height glazing on the east elevation. The
front of the building is lined with a row of tree-like squared concrete columns, with the entry columns
rising a little higher than the others and set forward. These columns are topped with wide, tapered
concrete spans that join at the top to form a long surround that extends along the east façade, turning
to define the sides of the courtyards as well. The courtyards are screened with gridded aggregate
concrete panel set between the columns. The exterior walls of the west bay and second story are faced
in solid exposed aggregate concrete panels, with a full-height section of grid panels set into the west
elevation at the rear parking lot. The main entrance of the North Wing is a fully glazed vestibule entry
with automated sliding doors. Secondary entrances are set into the interior corners of the courtyards,
and are curved, glazed walls with glazed doors, sheltered by projecting awnings. The roof of the
building is flat, with a simple white concrete cornice topping the walls.
A 1974 bridge addition extends from the south bay over Boulder Creek to a raised rectangular
addition that echoes the boxy form of the North Wing. The bridge is supported by square concrete piers
and is concrete and sided with aggregate grid panels that are similar to those found on the exterior of
the North Wing. The addition is also constructed of concrete, and is partially founded at ground level
and, at the creek side, raised on concrete piers, which have been faced in decorative tiles. Exterior walls
of the addition are glazed, concrete panel, and sandstone, with differences in material indicating
differences in interior spaces. The south side of this addition connects to the 1992 addition, which is a
Resource number: 5BL.6065 3
Temporary resource number: N/A
large, multi-story building that now houses most of the library’s events and functions. It was not
recorded for this documentation (see aerial and Photo #18).
22. Architectural style/building type: Modern Movements
23. Landscaping or special setting features: The Municipal Campus is a full city block that contains several
city-owned buildings set in a park-like setting bisected by Boulder Creek and the Boulder Creek Path.
Adjacent features to the North Wing include a rear parking lot and loading dock area. At the front of the
building, a broad paved area lies at the front façade of the building, and a public parking lot and lawn
area reach to the northeast toward the Municipal Building. Sidewalks and walkways, including and
especially the Boulder Creek Path, lace the area around the building. Boulder Creek runs to the south of
the North Wing and under the 1974 bridge addition, providing natural beauty that provides a clear
counterpoint and compliment to the strong, simple geometry of the North Wing and the 1974 Addition.
Surrounding the North Wing more closely are many mature trees of a wide variety, shrubs and lawn.
The courtyards contain gardens: The south courtyard contains a Japanese-influenced garden, with
junipers, benches, and rock-lined walkways. The north courtyard contains a vegetable garden, with
trough beds and a spiral-masonry herb bed.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A concrete ADA ramp with sandstone sidewalls and iron
handrails is located on the north side of the building at the sidewalk. It accesses the side door of the
north courtyard. Although the Municipal Campus contains many other civic buildings, the one that sits
in close conversation with the North Wing is the Municipal Building, which is a similar, Modern-style
building likewise faced in Lyons formation sandstone and also designed by the same architect.
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Construction: 1961 Estimate: Actual:
Source of information: “James M. Hunter, Colorado Architects Biographical Sketch” Produced by the
OAHP and History Colorado
26. Architect: James M. Hunter
Source of information: James Hunter, Colorado Architects Biographical Collection, OAHP
27. Builder/Contractor: Mike Campbell Construction
Source of information: https://libraryarchitecture.wikispaces.com/Boulder+Public+Library+-
+1961+Construction
28. Original owner: City of Boulder
Source of information: Boulder County Assessor Records
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions):
The North Wing was constructed in 1961. In 1974, an addition and renovation included the construction
of a bridge addition over Boulder Creek and a large, concrete addition. Research did not reveal major
alterations on the North Wing, although the Children’s Courtyard, which once sat in the southwest
Resource number: 5BL.6065 4
Temporary resource number: N/A
corner of the building’s exterior, was removed. In 1992, the construction of the new south wing of the
library also included major alterations to the North Wing, including the relocation of the entrance to the
center of the east elevation from the interior of the north courtyard, reconfiguration of the courtyard
entrances, and screening of the north courtyard’s east side. Additionally, the interior remodel was
extensive and complete. Today, little visual evidence remains of the original interior, although one
staircase is still in place.
30. Original location Moved Date of move(s):
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): Education: Library
32. Intermediate use(s): Education: Library
33. Current use(s): Education: Library
34. Site type(s): Public Library in park setting
35. Historical background: In the post-World War II period, Boulder saw a significant rise in population,
largely due to the growth of the energy and defense industry in the region and improvements in
infrastructure, like the Denver-Boulder Turnpike, which allowed for Denver workers to commute to work from
Boulder. The population expanded from around 13,000 in the 1940 census to more than 37,000 in the 1960
census (Wikipedia), and all bets were on the growth to continue (which it did). With its ability to hold only
about 40,000 volumes, 1906 Carnegie Library was quickly becoming inadequate. In 1959, Boulder voters
approved a 450,000 bond for a new library. Architect James M. Hunter, a well-known local architect whose
work included Regis College in Denver, Baseline Junior High School in Boulder, and the 1951 Municipal
Building, was chosen to design the new building. Educated at the University of Illinois, whose architecture
school emphasized European modernism, Hunter’s talent for using local materials in the service of modern
design was to come into play in the design for the new library. Choosing the site was contentious: much
discussion went into putting it in Central Park, but the public wanted open space in the city, so instead it was
decided that the Library would be sited to face the Municipal Building (Gralapp 2007). Hunter’s vision was for
more than a library; in addition, for space allowing the book collections to double in size, his plan included
gallery and event space. In 1961, the 28,300 sf library was completed at a cost of $486,437.19. The
contractor was Mike Campbell Construction, of Denver. The library included a children's department, adult
reading room, cataloging room, reference room, central services area, and auditorium, garage, stack area,
three meeting rooms, a music room, and storage. Offices were located on the mezzanine. In addition to
Library Director Claude Settlemire and Associate Director and Children’s Librarian Marcelee Gralapp, the
staff included two librarians and 13 library technicians (Celsus 2016B).
Settlemire left the library in 1966 and Gralapp took his place (she would hold the job until 2003,
overseeing two more significant expansions). By 1970, Boulder’s population had again almost doubled, to
66,000. The library needed to expand, and under Gralaap’s leadership it was determined that the best course
was to build a new Children ’s department and a non-print media center. The problem was keeping the
Resource number: 5BL.6065 5
Temporary resource number: N/A
addition above water in a 100-year floodplain. In 1971, voters approved an addition to the library and the
architecture firm of Gaston and Associates, along with the structural engineering firm of Johnson-Voiland-
Archuleta and Associates designed the addition to span the creek, as a bridge, connecting to a concrete
building on the south side of the creek. The addition added 15,000 needed square feet to the library, which
could now offer space for users to sit comfortably and listen to recordings or view visual media (Celsus
2016A). More importantly, the addition would prove worthy almost 40 years later, when the Boulder Public
Library was noted to have sustained no significant damage in the 100-year flood of 2013 (Library Journal,
2013).
In 1992, the large South Wing was added, and many, if not most, library services were relocated to that
building.
36. Sources of information:
x “James M. Hunter, Colorado Architects Biographical Sketch” Produced by the OAHP and History
Colorado
x Celsus, A Library Architecture Resource
o 2016A. The Boulder Public Library 1974 Renovation. 2016.
https://libraryarchitecture.wikispaces.com/Boulder+Public+Library+1974+Renovation+and+Ne
w+Addition. Accessed July 28, 2016.
o 2016B. The Boulder Public Library – 1961 Construction. 2016.
https://libraryarchitecture.wikispaces.com/Boulder+Public+Library+-+1961+Construction.
Accessed July 28, 2016.
x “Boulder, Colorado”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder,_Colorado#History. Accessed July 31, 2016.
x Marcelee Gralaap, oral history. Boulder Public Library, Maria Rogers Oral History Program. Interview
OH 1007-V.
x Noel, Thomas J. and Dan W. Corson. 1999. Boulder County: An Illustrated History. Heritage Media Corp.
x “After Floods, Colorado Libraries Assess the Damage, Step in With Services” by Ian Chant. Library
Journal. Octover 8, 2013. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/10/public-services/after-floods-colorado-
libraries-assess-the-damage-step-in-with-services/. Accessed July 31, 2016.
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes No Date of designation:
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
Resource number: 5BL.6065 6
Temporary resource number: N/A
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents
the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Community Planning and Development; Architecture
40. Period of significance: 1961 to 1974 (Community Planning and Development) 1961 (Architecture);
41. Level of significance: National State Local
42. Statement of significance: The North Wing of the Boulder Public Library is significant under Criterion A, at
the local level, in the area of Community Planning and Development for the important effort undertaken
by the City of Boulder to accommodate the city’s cultural and educational needs in the face of
exploding population growth in the post-World War II period. Additionally, both the North Wing the 1974
renovation and bridge building should be included as eligible under Criterion C. The North Wing is
significant at the local level in the area of Architecture as an important example of Modern architecture
that conveys high artistic value and as the work of a master for its association with architect James M.
Hunter. The 1974 addition is significant at the local level in the areas of architecture and engineering, for
its innovative architecture that embodies distinctive design and construction methods and also
possesses high artistic value. In the case of the 1974 addition, Criteria Consideration G should apply, as
the addition is not yet 50 years old, but should be considered to be endangered in the event of another
flood.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Although the North Wing has suffered
impacts to its integrity of design, most severely through the relocation of the primary entrance and the
redesign of the courtyard entrances, it still has a preponderance of its original design, materials,
workmanship, and feeling. The columns, courtyard screens, cornice, and red sandstone masonry are all
still intact, the location, setting, and association have not changed, and the building’s basic form easily
conveys its history as post-World War II modern architecture. Additionally, the integrity of the 1974
addition still allows it to convey its historic significance as a work of modern architecture and an
arresting and innovative work of structural engineering.
VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible Not Eligible Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No
Discuss: With the Municipal Building, the North Wing and the 1974 Addition carry sufficient integrity
and significance to be considered a potential historic district.
Resource number: 5BL.6065 7
Temporary resource number: N/A
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing
VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION
47. Photograph numbers: 1 through 18 (shown); 924 through 985 (on file)
Negatives filed at: Corbett AHS, Inc., Denver, CO
48. Report title: N/A
49. Date(s): May 11, 2016; July 31, 2016
50. Recorder(s): Kathleen Corbett
51. Organization: Corbett AHS, Inc.
52. Address: 4659 E. Amherst Avenue
53. Phone number(s): (925) 351-7417
NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
Resource number: 5BL.6065 8
Temporary resource number: N/A
Topo Map
Resource number: 5BL.6065 9
Temporary resource number: N/A
Sketch Map
Resource number: 5BL.6065 10
Temporary resource number: N/A
Aerial Map
Resource number: 5BL.6065 11
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photograph Location Key
Resource number: 5BL.6065 12
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photographs
Photo #: 1
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: WSW
P7310924
Front façade of the
North Wing
Photo #: 2
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: NNW
P7310925
Front Façade, showing
columns and concrete
spans and front
entrance
Resource number: 5BL.6065 13
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 3
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: NW
P7310929
Side entrance to south
courtyard
Photo #: 4
Date: 4/22/2016
Direction Facing: ENE
P4220696
South side of the
building, at the juncture
with the bridge
addition, Boulder Creek
Path running
underneath
Resource number: 5BL.6065 14
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 5
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: ESE
P7310938
Rear elevation of the
building, with rear
parking lot and loading
dock.
Photo #: 6
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: SE
P7310940
Northwest corner of the
building. Note cornice
and Lyons formation
sandstone masonry
Resource number: 5BL.6065 15
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 7
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: SSE
P7310941
North side of the building at the
side entry to the north
courtyard
Photo #: 8
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: ENE
P7310949
Interior.
Main entrance, looking out
from the gallery
Resource number: 5BL.6065 16
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 9
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: WSW
P7310951
Interior.
Gallery at the main
entrance.
Photo #: 10
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: WSW
P7310954
Interior.
Original Staircase
Resource number: 5BL.6065 17
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 11
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: N
P7310952
Interior.
Curved glazed entry to
the north courtyard
Photo #: 12
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: NE
P7310956
North Courtyard
Resource number: 5BL.6065 18
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 13
Date: 4/22/2016
Direction Facing: NW
P4220685
South courtyard looking
toward entrance to
building.
Photo #: 14
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: SE
P7310934
1974 bridge and raised
concrete addition
Resource number: 5BL.6065 19
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 15
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: SSE
P7310931
View of Boulder Creek
running under the 1974
bridge addition
Photo #: 16
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: N
P7310978
1974 Bridge Addition
Resource number: 5BL.6065 20
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 17
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: WSW
P7310969
1974 Addition
Photo #: 18
Date: 7/31/2016
Direction Facing: S
P7310983
Resource number: 5BL.6065 21
Temporary resource number: N/A
Historic Photographs: key to locations and directions
Resource number: 5BL.6065 22
Temporary resource number: N/A
Historic Photographs
Photo #: 1
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local History
Front façade of the
library at night.
Photo #:
Date: 1961
Direction Facing:
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Looking into the entry
hall from the central
area
Resource number: 5BL.6065 23
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 4
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Seating in the Fiction
area
Photo #: 5
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Reference area
Resource number: 5BL.6065 24
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 6
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
The Children’s area of
the library, facing the
Children’s courtyard.
Photo #: 7
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Children’s Courtyard
Resource number: 5BL.6065 25
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 8
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Auditorium and gallery
Photo #: 9
Date: 1962
Direction Facing:
Photo ID: Photograph
courtesy of the
Carnegie Branch Library
for Local History.
Looking into the south
courtyard from the
fiction area
Resource number: 5BL.6065 26
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo #: 10
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Looking down toward
the open central area
from the second floor
stacks.
Photo #: 11
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
Looking down into the
Fiction stacks and
seating from the central
area.
Resource number: 5BL.6065 27
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo not mapped
Date: 1962
Photograph courtesy of
the Carnegie Branch
Library for Local
History.
James Hunter, architect
of the 1961 BPL, seated,
and Claude Settlemire,
Boulder Public Library
director, standing, in
the east (fiction) area of
the new library.
Photo not mapped
Date: circa 1974
Blueprint image of the
library plan, from the
1974 renovation.
Source: Celsus, A Library Architecture Resource: The Boulder Public Library 1974 Renovation. Accessed July 28, 2016.
https://libraryarchitecture.wikispaces.com/Boulder+Public+Library+1974+Renovation+and+New+Addition
Resource number: 5BL.6065 28
Temporary resource number: N/A
Photo not mapped
Date: 1974
Photograph courtesy of the
Carnegie Branch Library for
Local History.
Looking down from the upper
level stacks to the reference
area below.
Photo not mapped
Date: 1974
Photograph courtesy of the
Carnegie Branch Library for
Local History.
Children in the Children’s area
of the Boulder Public Library.