The URL can be used to link to this page

6 - Update Memo August 20`h, 2008 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boazd FROM: James Hewat, Chris Meschuk SUBJEC'T': Update Memo Window and Door Replacement Application Testing of the application (see attached) was undertaken in June. Staff considers the application ready, though it may be modified somewhat as needed. Update on "Pops & Scrapes" project. Update at meeting. Selection of Board Member to Act as Liaison to Conservation Research Center Revisions to Penalties for Historic Preservation Violations The City Attorney's Office (CAO) is revising the approach developed by staff to provide: 1. criminal penalties -exploring the possibility of levying fines per day for historic preservation violations e.g. Maximum fine of $5000 x number of days a project is in violation; 2. Developing an "administrative process" through which non-criminal penalties, such as "no build" provisions, can be imposed by a judge acting as an "administrative officer". The CAO estimates a draft of revisions to the criminal penalties will be ready in September and that a draft administrative process will be complete in October. Based upon this timeline, we anticipate that the revisions will be reviewed at the December 3`d, 2008 Landmarks Board meeting. Depot Move Longitudinal steel beams were placed beneath the Depot on August 5~`. It is anticipated that the building will he moved before the Labor Day weekend. Post W W II Residential Survey Update at Meeting. New and Pending Land Use Review Applications See attached. Planning T3oard Calendar See attached. Stay-of-llemolition Status Summary, August 20"', 2008 Date c,` Date Stay Daty of Address Construction Im osed Ex iration Current Status 830 Dewey 1899 Staff has met with owner who Street 5/7/2008 9/15/2008 considers preservation of building is not economically viable. See attached letter. 1904, 1912- Staff has met with the applicant on 1918 %z Pearl c.1880 6/4/2008 10/25/2008 several occasions. See attached Street packet for request. Landmark Applications Update: • 800 Arapahoe Avenue: Awaiting City Council review pending a subdivision application. HAS is pending grant contract from the State. Continuance by board expires October 31. • 1215 Cedar -Washington School: Postponed pending resolution of site planning issues. Continued until December 1, 2008. • August 19: 1777 Broadway Municipal Building Landmark Initiation (CC public hearing) • September 16: 4051 Broadway Landrnarking 1st Reading (consent} • October 7: 4051 Broadway Landmarking 2nd Reading (public hearing) Articles and Information: "Manhattan Project Reactor Nears Landmark Status", Shannon Dininny, Associated Prers Writer, 3uly 22, 2008 "Mortar Analysis -Part 1: Mortar-Making Materials", Lorraine Schnabel in Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin, Vol. X:XX1X, No. 1 "An Island in Time", Brian Joyner in Common Cround -Preserving Our Nation's Heritage, Summer, 2aos Page 1 of 3 Chris Meschuk - 830 Dewey From: tom precourt - _ To: <hewatj@bouldercolorado.gov>, <meschukc@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: b/10/2008 S:OS:47 PM Subject: 830 Dewey Dear James and Chris, ( spoke with the representative for the estate for 830 Dewey. I explained what happened at the Landmarks Board meeting, as well as our discussion at your office after the board meeting. The estate recognizes, and appreciates, your desire to attempt to find an alternative resolution to demolition of the roof and adding a second floor to the property. As we discussed, the only alternative for expansion is out the back of this home. The estate feels this is not a practical solution to this property's limitations, and causes as many problems as it tries to solve. The estate's position is as follows: a) This is a tiny home on a tiny lot. To expand out the back would be to take up most of the lot with structural improvements, leaving very ?ittle, if anything, resembling any sort of "yard.' This is precisely what Boulderites have been fighting -homes that take up the majority of the lot with house. The complaint will be, "Why didn't they just go up instead of taking up the entire lot?" It is a contradiction to what City Council is trying to stop, particularly in that area of town. b) The layout of the home is such that there is not a practical way to add a hallway to go to a sprawling addition in the back. It would turn an already small bedroom into a tiny, unusable bedroom, and the home would snake to the back of the lot because the width of the lot is only 25 feet total, with a necessary 5 foot setback on the east side. Such an expansion would require azero-setback variance for almost the entire length of the neighbor's yard to the west, which will not be desirable for the neighbor. As it sits now, after parking in the rear carport off of the alley, one enters through the bedroom of the home, tracking snow, dirt, etc through the bedroom. Enjoyment of the back yard is through the bedroom. Carrying groceries is through the bedroom. Carrying your freshly cooked B8Q chicken is through the bedroom. Everything to the rear of the home is accesed through the bedroom. No one wants that,. which is the main problem with this home. It is easy for the Board to say it's not so bad, but they don't have to live with that situation, and today's buyers are savy, which is why this home won't sell. c) This home was found by City Staff (both of you) to have no notable historic value, per your report and recommendation to the Landmark's Board. No one of note lived in the home. No historic events happened in the home. The estate's findings concur. Neighbors showed up to the Landmarks Board meeting with hearsay rumors about the home, but nothing you were able to find in seaching your sources. fite~//('.•\l~nciiments and SettinQS\rnesccl\Local Settings\Temn\GW}00003.HTM 8/6/2008 Page 2 of 3 d) In terms of architecture, the Landmarks Board said that this home is a good example of vernacular architecture; however, it is the estate's understanding that this home was simply a cheap, Sears & Roebuck kit home and was thrown up in pieces. It was a 20' x 20' shack, The evidence 1 showed you at our meeting confirms that the back 1/3 of the home is an entire addition - on a concrete foundation while the original front is on a stacked stone foundation. The old roof is still evident in the attic, the exterior wall of the original home is behind he bedroom interior wall, and this home no longer resembles the original structure. It is missing its original style and detail. This is certainly not a "good' example that is worthy of preserving. There are many other "good" examples throughout Boulder that are still in their original state, that may in fact have other historic significance. ! can't see anyone with any architectural knowledge looking at this home and being excited about its architecture. Given these observations about the home, the estate believes this home is truly not near what the city intends to preserve with the historic review and landmarks process. It is a plain, little home on a tiny lot, has proved to have no historic significance, and has been altered well beyond its original state. What about this property would go on a landmark plaque? It is a problemmatic home that no one wants to buy because of its issues. (It is now priced $33,000 less than Boulder County's assessed value - so the county feels it is worth $450,000, but no one will pay that price in its current state. So, the estate is trying to sell it for less, but it just won't sell.) The plans for this home are modest and very fair. They retain the same style of home, keep the same rooflines in front, keep the upstairs space funcional but small, improve the entire home to a functional floorplan, and keep the entire above-grade square footage to approximately 1300 sq. ft. - still a very small, affordable home. It returns some of the original character of the neighborhood to this home. Plus, the plans retain a yard on an already small lot, as opposed to the Landmarks Board wanting us to build out and take up the majority of the lot, which doesn't make sense for the neighborhood, and makes it an unappealing property. If the lot were bigger, that might be an option. But this property has a tiny lot, which is why there is a variance process. The estate has presented a reasonable proposal to the city. It is a win-win proposal. What the Landmarks Board asks the estate to do (build out the back) makes no sense, practically or financially. (Why build a bad plan?) It creates a sprawling structure on a tiny lot, which may be even less desireable than what is there now. If this home truly had some historic significance, that would be a different story. But this home lacks this both in terms of former residents and architectural style. In closing, the estate will wait out the stay of demolition and will look forward to the city reconsidering this demolition permit in the near future. Thank you for your time and consideration, and please keep me updated on where we are in the process. Sincerely, Tom Precourt Walnut Realty files//C'~\T~~cnments and Settings\mesccl\Local Settings\Temr~\GW}00003.HTM 8/6/2008 ~~I-3C3t~~; N EV1/S Back to Story -Help Assoctobed Presa Manhattan Project reactor nears landmark status By SHANNON DININNY, Associated Press Writer fug Jul 22, 7:44 PUi ET The National Park Service's advisory board on Tuesday recommended designating the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor, which produced plutonium for one of two bombs dropped on Japan during World War II, as a national historic landmark. The unanimous vote Tuesday brings former weapons workers and local residents one step closer to preserving the historic B Reactor at south-central Washington's Hanford nuc}ear reservation. A final decision on the reactor rests with interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. "This is a great step toward preserving both the B Reactor and an important chapter of our nation's history," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a statement announcing the decision. "The B Reactor will give future generations a chance to learn about the important contribution this region made to the World War II effort and the service and sacrifice of the Hanford community." Built in just 13 months, B Reactor was the centerpiece of the federal government's top-secret effort to build the atomic bomb in the 1940s. Construction began on June 7, 1943, six months after physicist Enrico Fermi turned the theory of nuclear power into the reality of the Atomic Age. In short order, the reactor produced plutonium for the first man-made nuclear blast, the Trinity test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945, and for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on Aug. 9, 1945. The government shut down B Reactor in 1968 and decommissioned it. Eight other reactors were built at Hanford to produce plutonium for the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. The remnants of that effort today make Hanford the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup costs expected to top $50 billion. Five reactors at the site already have been dismantled and cocooned, which involves removing extra buildings around the reactors, demolishing all but the shield walls surrounding the reactor cores and sealing them in concrete. Under a cleanup schedule managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, dismantling of B Reactor could have begun as early as 2009. However, the department said it would maintain the reactor while the Park Service decided whether it should be preserved and made available for public access. r The U.S. Energy Department allows limited tours of B Reactor, with some areas blocked off for safety reasons. The department has not opposed preserving the reactor, but has said it must eventually be managed by another agency, such as the Park Service. Hank Kosmata, president of the B Reactor Museum Association in Richland, cheered the decision, noting that the reactor already has been recognized as a landmark by several engineering groups. "All those things make it more likely, I believe, that the Department of Energy will find a way to cooperate with the parks department and others to preserve it forever," he said. "That's our hope." There are more than 2,300 national historic landmarks across the country. Other sites recommended for national-landmark status Tuesday include the old Coltsville factory complex in Hartford, Conn., where Colt revo?vers and other weapons were made. Copyright ©2008 The Associated Press. Ail rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority .of The Associated Press. Copyright ©2008 Yahoo All rights reserved.Copyright/IP Policy (Terms of Service Help Feedback NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our» Privacy Policy i Z N 'i ~~I~ I ~ • ~ ' _ ii ,i ',~y: I~ Mortar Analysis Part 1: Mortar-Making Materials ' I' i ~ LORRAINE SCHNABEL I ~l,;l ,c~,ry ~rr-e Fi .1. Introduction ~ b3 ~ ;i a g <'r c)~~'~ r~ the apparatus foracid- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` digestion anal sis is Almost every repair to historic masonry requires the ~ _ ~•:;<r_~;.. ~ ~ Y use of mortar. The significance of selecting an appro- extremely sirnpte, making i ~ ~ ~ ~ n• the method hi ht acces- priate mortar, whether for repointing or rebuilding, can- s.r- _ _ L ~ ~ g y ~ 4 ~ not be underestimated due to the structural and aes~ ' , • ~ 4 . ~ sibre. arl photographs by '6 ' the author, unless other- ill ' thetic roles that mortar plays in masonry construction. , ~ , ~ II Physically inappropriate mortar can cause a repair to _ _ wise noted. I fail and can damage the original masonry. Visually t ~ t I; ~ ~„~'I~ inappropriate mortar alters the original intent of the ',~r ' • building's designer by changing our perception of the - l design. For these reasons analysis of historic mortars * ; is a topic of abiding interest to most preservation pro- !'~'~4 fessionals. The publication of Blaine Cliver's article "Tests for I'~ { the Analysis of Mortar Samples" in the AP7 eulletrn in iIi'~ 1974 acknowledged the importance of mortar analysis when designing repairs to historic masonry structures.` "w.-, The simple, accessible acid-digestion method pre- sented in his article was an importanC step in the pur- an aggregate and a binder that are combined with ~ suit of a deeper and fuller understanding of the nature water to form a coherent, plastic mass. The following of historic mortar materials and how best to evaluate discussion addresses these two primary ingredients as them (Fig. 1). However, in the subsequent 30 years they are typically found in North American mortars; ~ I. there have been many developments in our under- though the distinctive materials used in other localities are well worth reviewing, discussion of mortars from Ly standing o, historic mortar materials, in our apprecia- tion of the interactions between masonry and mortars, other countries is beyond the scope of the article. ~ II I, and in the analytical methods applied to mortars and Aggregates. Aggregate is volumetrically the most sig- •ii other cernentitious material, nificant part of any mortar. Aggregate is generally con- Accordingly, aseries of three Practice Points has sidered to be inert in a mortar, in that it does not been developed to review the rationale for mortar change during the process of mixing or curing and does analysis and to explore the current directions in the not react Gvith the other mortar ingredients.' The pri- `i field. The intent is nat to provide a comprehensive liter- mary purpose of aggregate in a mortar is to limit ature review of the subject but to present my view of shrinkage. Properly graded aggregate also improves i ~;j the subject based on nearly 20 years of experience workability, thereby permitting the addition of less water ~ and practice. Because an understanding of the cornpo- into a rnortar rnix than would otherwise be required. ~ nents of mortar and how they relate to one another is Natural sand, the most commonly used aggregate in I ~;I essential to evaluating mortar-analysis techniques, this mortar, typically is either primarily quartz or primarily first article reviews mortar-making materials; subse- carbonate (Fig. 2). Quartz sands are the product of the quent articles will cover analytical methods and buying breakdown of quartz-bearing rocks, such as granite, ~ mortar-analysis services. sandstone, schist, and gneiss. They are the typical J beach and river sands, although most sands quarried ~ I~ Mortar Materials for mortar are from ancient deposits, not modern beacf~ Historically, a variety of materials were used to make and river environments. Carbonate sands typically come If~~~1 mortars, but generally speaking mortar is composed of from marine environments and may include coral I N t E R N AT I o N A L J ~ ~~Y~'~ v ' ~ =~cY ~ > t'.' , ~.n W y ~ _ - Fl. ~ VYT, fib. 2. J l?~ ~ - _ • w erred ma.eriai is s~,bsequently expose. to high hca? A pnrliun 0! the autrr?~'; (aS ha peens with bricks and other ceramic materials), Iii sand library. A sand li- the addition of water will return the cla to a lastic Ij' brary is only useful If it is sands. Tney are found and used most commonly in state. Cla was used historicall for mortars, es e- 1' kept up to date by ire- coastal areas. Y Y P ~ cially in vernacular buildings in rural areas where lime quent replenishment with Historically, local sources of sand would have been II ~ currently available materi• used for making mortar. Transporting sand has always may not have been readily available. Clay mortars als. Sand is a natural ma- been costly due to its weight and bulk, so most sands were often used where the construction was not ex- rerial and is therefore not used in modern construction are also obtained locally. Pected to be exposed to moisture, such as in chim- e' homogeneous tnroughour Much information can be gained about the source of a Heys below the roofline, and where it could be pro- ' a deposit. Halfpint tubs sand by careful examination of the size and shape of tected from moisture by broad roof overhangs. are used because a the grains and by carefully identifying the trace (non- Mortars that are mixtures of clay and lime are ex- larger sample Is more quartz or non-carbonate) constituents. For example, tremely common in vernacular historic structures of representative of a pantie- abundant glauconite in sand suggests a marine the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I believe the ular sand than a small source; well-rounded liihic (rock) grains indicate depo- clay in such mortars was used as an extender for the Ij;~', sample. Tne sand is kept sition from a river or stream (Figs. 3 through 5). more expensive or less readily available lime. moist for use in preparing Some aggregates used in mortar are manufactured Lime is the most common historic non-hydraulic replication mixes. by crushing rock. The crushed rock is processed mortar binder. Although a chemical reaction occurs through a series of screens or sieves to provide ag- when water is added to lime, it is only through the ` gregate of proper grading. Crushed shells have also loss of water that it can become a solid material I, ~ been used as aggregate where locally abundant. again. Lime is a product of the heating (also called burning or calcining) of limestone, a type of rock made ~ Binders. There are two principal types of binders. up of calcium carbonate (CaC03). Shells that are ~,i ~ Non-hydraulic binders set through loss of water, or de- made of calcium carbonate, such as oyster shells, Ftg. 3. (left) hydration. Hydraulic binders use up water as they set; have also been used to make Ilme, though the volume I~If Mortar sample with pri- water is an essential part of the chemical reactions of shell lime produced in the U.S. pales in comparison III ~ marily quaru aggregate. that produce a hardened material. Non-hydraulic with that derived from limestone (Fig. 6). Interestingly, Tne gray and white grelns binders used historically include clay and lime; his- oyster shells were used to manufacture lime into the ~ are quartz. The grains are tonic hydraulic binders include gypsum, hydraulic Ifine, twentieth century, though it is not clear if the lime pro- angular. This photograph natural cement, and Portland cement. Tile array of duced was used for building purposes.' and the next two were modern binders is even broader, including such mate- The limestone is crushed and then heated to I~' taken through the micro- rials as masonry cement and mortar cement. 1650-1830°F (900-1000°C) in a kiln." The heating scope at loox magnifica- process drives off carbon dioxide, leaving behind cal- tlon, The mortar is ground Non-hydraalJc ,binders. Clay is a soil material that be- comes lastic and malleable when mixed with water, clam oxide, also known as quicklime: to transparency and ob p I,' served in transmitted then hardens as it dries. Unlike other non-hydraulic fight. The bright white mortar binders, there is no chemical reaction between CaC03 + heat ~ Ca0 + COZ grain ar the top of the the clay and the water; the change in the clay with the When water is added to hydrate the calcium oxide image is approximately addition of water is purely physical. Unless the hard- i;~ 20 um across. (a process called slaking), calcium hydroxide is I Flg. 4. (middle) - Mortar sample in which ~ ~ C f~~ ~ ra~~ .ir ' 'r ~~~1'rr rounded rock fragments } l"". '",I~f~_~~ form a SI n/IlCant art Of i,~ - kt~ ~i 'c~ ~ ~ , k6 ~ ~'ry -.t the a re ate. The ` fir' ~C~F a, ~Y ~ ~ : ~ tiilJ, g `1 ~ .:'21.{ _ ? J' .c~, d r N~^ iQ ~ , c~`:4~1 circular grain at the ~~.};;r ,Ks• ~ ~ .~'4:': ~ a center o/ this microscope la ; 'r T ~ ~ ` ~ ~ image is approximately ''~=3, ~ ~ t r° ,.r~ rs~ . ~ { - v; 15 urn across. w' ,r , r~ ti ~,,y. T-. MS,. _ Fi 5. ri ht a:' I Mortar sample with a X ' ~ i Y~ 1 crushed-limostone aggre ; ~ ? ~ ~ " a~ • ~ ~ ~ A gate. The bright circular t „ I~ grain near the bottom of ~ v -+.t~ ;~*j, ~a~ _ f ,3 w. ~1, . ,t this microscope Image Is Y J ~ Xr '~i ba x ~ ~ ~ h in a limestone (ragmen' ~ - ` ~ } ~Yy , ,r C. ~ I (medium gray grain. r , . _ t ~ . , ~ ,,pi , •:f! ~ ~ t~'~y'~ a.?~, I I and is approximately y , ~ + 1.~, f ~ u; 3 ri ~ 15 um across. ~ F„1~= . i~_: .'.,~~.41i~~~Y'+~' ~i `~i~'~I Z Pi2AClICE POINTS 0`. Il ~ ,i+v r z 'w ~ ? J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ''t}`r ~ _:.-°3~i~ ~ ^j'Y> f ~r-rte.? ;`-rr k S+Z.^'•-' ~s • ~ L 2 . r ~i ° r ,.r.t I ~4i_... ~ t~w._.a. . -.r formed. The slaking process is an exothermic reaction, when burned at the correct temperature. Portland and Fig. 8. (sett) meaning that a great deal of heat is generated (Figs. 7 other "manufactured" cements are produced from mix- Pile of oyster shells and 8): lures of natural materials proportioned to provide the ready for burning. The Correct composition upon heating. presence of oyster-shell Ca0 + H2O Ca(OH)2 Gypsum is a distinct type of hydraulic binder. fragments in a mortar g gyp can be indicative of a Althou h sum wi~l set under water, it is not resist- If more water than is necessary is used to hydrate ant to the action of water once set, as are hydraulic sties lime. oyster shells ~ all of the calcium oxide, the product is a wet paste or lime and cement. In the United States, gypsum has were used to rnanufac- lime putty. However, if just enough water is used to hy- been identified in Historic mortars, but it is most tom- tore lime into the twenti- ~ drate all the calcium oxide, a dry hydrate or powder mon as an additive in portland cement rather than as eth century. Photograph courtesy of 1ef(rey Price, can be produced. Bagged dry hydrate is the more `.a- a mortar binder and therefore will not be discussed Virginia lime Works. miliar form in use today; water must be added to make further here.` a mortar from a dry hydrate. To make mortar, the lime Fig. 7. (middle) ~ is mixed with sand and (if necessary) water. As a lime Additives and Admixtures Field slaking of lime. mortar loses water, it gains carbon dioxide from the air Photograph courtesy of and returns to its original form, calcium carbonates: Though available modern admixtures for mortars Jeffrey Price, Virginia abound, little study has been given to additions of ma- Lame Works. teriais to historic mortars to modify their properties. Ca{OH)2 + C02 ~ CaCU3 + H2O The most obvious additives and admixtures to historic Fig. 8. (right) mortars are those that leave behind evidence of their L'me "boiling" as it Most limestones are not pure calcium carbonate. slakes. The mist above Some contain more or less calcium-magnesium car- addition. Aesthetic additions to mortars, intended to the lime is actually bonate, or dolomite. Because dolomite will calcine at a modify their appearance, were quite common historl- steam. Photograph ~our- lower temperature than calcite, dolomitic Times slake tally. Pigment is the most obvious of these, v?ith the test' of Jeffrey Price, more slowly- The effect of the magnesium content on height of pigment use in the Victorian era; red and Virginia Lime Works. the final quality of the lime is open to debate. Early black mortars are commonly found in buildings of this twentieth-century data suggest that the initial tensile Period, Mica flake and crushed anthracite coal were strength of dolomitic lime mortars is less than that of alsC sometimes added, both of v?hich give the mortar a high-calcium lime mortar but that over time the ten- a characteristic color and sparkle. , site strength of the dolomitic lime mortar will exceed Materials were also added to change the physical that of ahigh-calcium lime mortar.fi properties of mortar. Iron filings were added to improve strength; animal hair has been noted in some mortars, Hydraulic binders. Some limestones contain clay (alu- though it may have been an accidental inclusion. ~~I mino-silicates} and quartz (silicon dioxide). When these Sometimes aggregate materials that are known to be ~~I limestones are burned, some of the calcium combines reactive with the mortar binder were added to improve with the aluminum and silicon to create calcium silt- the properties of the cured mortar. Materials such as i Cates, while the remainder forms lime, The calcium sil- fly ash and brick dust (or crushed brick or tile) have icates are hydraulic: when combined with water they historically been added to mortars to improve their form a different solid material. As they take on water, hardness by reaction between silica ar.d lime over tune these silicates become hydrated to form a gel, which to produce calcium silicates; these materials are is called the initial set. This gel then crystallizes to called pozzolans. Chlorides (including salt) to retard form a network of interlocking needles of hydrated cal- freezing have a long record of use, persisting into the ~ cium and aluminum silicates. The distinction between modern day. a hydraulic lime and a natural cement is that an ht'- Other types of additives that have been documented draulic Time will slake when water is added; a natural in the historic record include such organic materials as cement will not. The curing of a hydraulic lime is a ht'- blood, egg whites, and fruit juices.d Such additives brid process of carbonation and gel formation. were used to improve the properties of a mortar before Natural cements and portland cements were intro- or after set such as workability and durability. Being or- duced in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Natural ganic, most admixtures of this type would be expected cements predominated in the mid- to late-nineteenth to disappear from the mortar relatively rapidly, leaving century, while portland cements came into use late iri no detectable traces. the nineteenth century. Natural and portland cements are composed primarily of calcium silicates. As implied by their name, natural cements are made from rocks that contain just the right proportions of calcium, alu- minum, and silica to yield a purely hydraulic material PRncticE PoiNrs c~ 3 , . ire.-#.,-- ' 1~ i ~ Conclusions Notes Though the basic combination of binder and aggregate 1. E, alaine sliver, "Tests for the Analysis of Mortar Samples," APT I II to create a mortar is generally well understood, maters- 8ullerin 6, no. 1(1974}: 68-73. ass used for making mortar have changed through time 2. of course, reactions between the binder and certain types of ag• I , with Changes In technology and transportation sys- gregate (alkali aggregate reactions) can occur in mortars just as ~ terns. Understanding the history of technology of mor- mey do in concrete. ~ tar-making materials is critical to mortar analysis, just 3. Edwin C. Eckel, Cements, Limes, and Plasters: Their Materials, I aS understanding Current raterials technology iS Criti- Manufacture, and Properties, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley and G cal to development of suitable replacement mortars. Sons, 1922), 95-96. 4. Detailed discussions of historic limebuming technology can be f I II I found in many other sources, including Eckel. One point worth not- q q LORRAINE SCHNABEL received her BA in geology from ing is that the fuel used to heat the lime was often mixed with the ~I ~ ~ Pomona College, in Claremont, California, and her MSc in raw materials; traces of unburnt fuel can be found in the aggregate it VIII' historic preservation from Columbia University. She recently of many mortars. returned to private practice after serving as a senior architec• 5. This series of chemical reactions is often referred to as the II' i "lime cycle:' i X11 tural conservator and project manager for 14 years at two architectural firms specializing in historic preservation. 6. Eckel, 124-17.5. 1' I; " 7. George Wheeler, Director of Conservation for the Historic Preservation Program, Columbia University, personal communica- tion to the author, Nov. 2007. ,i' 'ii 8. Lauren-Brook Sickeis, "Organics vs. Synthetics: Their Use as Additives in Mortars," in Symposium on Mortars, Cements and i, Grouts Used in the Conservation of Historic Buildings, ICCROM, ~I•' Rome, 3 6 November 1981 (1982), 25-52. Iii Ili ail; I I' ~~~I'? . I'~ III I Practice Points presents essential information on technical topics related to preservation practice for both new and experienced pro• III fessionals. ii' I' ~ 2008 by the Association for Preservation Technology International. This Practice Point originally appeared in Vol. XXXIX, No. 7., of the APT Bulletin, The Journal of Preservation Technorogy. Reprint requests should be submitted in writing to the Association h i for Preservation Technology International, 3085 Stevenson Drive, i Suite 200, Springfield, IL 62703, or to info@apti.org. i, III' The Association for Preservation Technology j International ~li ' 3085 Stevenson Drive, Suite 200 fax (toil free) 888.723.424?. Springfield, IL 62703 administration@apti.org I N T E R N AT I O N A 1. 217.529.9039 www.apti.org I~ i r'i~,< " ~ s ~t~' , r / ~ .c.~ f'~ vj: { ' ~ {r a, i ~'~r7I'S Trl P HrtiTOR1C AMERICA N BU ILDI NGti SUILVF.Y , l AN ISLAND IN TIME by Brian Joyner ~ ~ IN THE NEVER-ENDING DRIVE TOWARD tULTURAI UBIpUITY-WITH A COFFEE franchise on every corner and a numbing sameness to our built environment-places such as Natchitoches, Louisiana are rare. A ~i~ transportation hub of what until the mid-rgth century was the ; American Southwest, it is a reminder of what traveling around the nation once meant: distinctive cuisine, traditions, accents, and land- _ r -~yi;., i~ 5• . stapes freighted with their own cultural history. In the modern con- ~1 ~ r , ~ 7 < text, Natchitoches is, in short, a funky little place. Today it anchors die north end of the 35-mile Cane River National Heritage Area, created by Congress in rygq to preserve a broad stretch of the Deep Srnlth that has changed little over the centuries. It is rich with tradi- rs:'.. rions that carry a visitor all the way back to the French colonial era. , F ~ ~~1,~ J L Its wealth of historic sites-including seven national historic land- ~ ~ f' `r'~ ;f' " marks and a national park--tells the story of the early European _ ~ `h r~~l~^ z , a r '.~~~#~,~i"~';,~ ; ~ presence, slavery, plantation life, the cotton econom ,and the ~ ~K~ `ra3,' z ~ c<}' ""4~s~•~ =l' ~k~` y ~ ~ 7 ~ t ~ a 1~+ ~ 5 ~ t ~ t ,I. ai ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ l ~rit 1 ~ r ><6~ r l } li 5 } r ~ k> l ' t cll~rrgeswroughtbylothcenturymechanization.Itsimportance,as '.l ,~~~~~~f,; ~~fd 1 •,t,~i•y~~~fE; ~'a ,4~ qJJ;~ ~ ~-c;>~, a^~ ,Ir", 4 ~Z1.`t i-.~.ti: f ;1~,, ~ is i.- `j expressed in the literature published by the national heritage area, is r,~~ ~ ~ ~ ,,,~r. ~ ~ r pr d ~ ~ {p: r' + > > ~ y u r ~ ~3 r~ j a~ , 0 L r<5,f '1 ~ Ip ~Y v.:~s/' F Sr In Its unique contribution to the American experience." ° , `~A ~~1 4 ~ ' ~ t f'i t X ~1 t i~~1~t 'c'~rK~~"+ x r j 3'g-' ce 7 S ~H ~ ~~~Xs; a 4 i r ~'4~ tt 4 ~ n~,~i a -.f,. ~f `~A ~V,y? Right: Plantation outbuilding in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. ~ ~ 1 .s`s~ hl r~' ~ ~'d ~ di,w',~ r o° s. ~.'l~~ ~';tf~~ ~ 1 t I7 c ~ ~ . ~ s a 1 ~ a,,, ~ F a xL; ~:y ~ t:. ~ r Known as "Piece-Sur-Piece" rom a French construction techni ue, ~'r F,, ~l>"7~~~' r~ t.- ' r~~~..,~Y ~4. ?l r ' 4 ~ S'~,,7 r 1~ s f ~ ~yii,' rh ~ these sh-I~ctures are now rare in the region. "This is a remarkable sur- , ~ Ti ~ ~ k r zA ~ ~ ~ 4 r,,, vivor," says Paul Dolinsky, who managed the NABS documentation ~ ~i s - - t x''~~, t~l ~ _ 6",~ reported in this article and is now chief of the National Park Service ~ls~ tiF b,~"~ ~~,t~~ ~ ~'fsr'r'r - ~'~r ~ ` L~- lfistoricAmericanLandscapesS:irvey.Piece-sur-Piecebueldingswere +1~;~'~~~!"' ~f'' , r~`~~~,,s'~?' e. purpose-hunt structures disassernbfed and moved as need arose. , ..,,,.~....r. 3O C O Al ',A O N G R O U N D S U f:: M E R 2 0 0 8 4 r \ rv '~'I f } '1X[>.~~~~""~s. .`t ILf~l ~ ~ L'~'~VI :II s ~ ~ r~- , I ~`y I _ Lam.- ~ gi`~: ,'Sti `r•i ~ y ~ ~j, It ~ ~I'i 1 ( ~ } ~ 3 ~2 q ' '.i I ~ I, k9~- ~ ti~~°8"''~iw~\9J,".'.~. y. ~j;X ~r ~ r.~::1 I:' - I , '~i f _ 1 ~ ('r _'i 1 :X .f-lk~-~~~ aY _ b~ef}'r~~„'s I _ 1 .lam wZv~~~ to tIf ~,7y_ >b.~• J I~ . nl CF-.: :f: ~ r: •dd - ~ , ~ . I~~`,r~Y` v°^Y f 'off, _ f 3,; 't-'t ' ~ - ~ i _ V ~ T ; ~ 1: ~ ~~I II ~ I ~rca~_ rte, 3 ~ L ~ e 11 Z 7~ ~ i r~ lq z l ~ ~ I ,t ^ >;t T r s~ 7 .+a,ifr ( _ {l~ r J ~ 2 r 'tl~ ~ k~ ~ i t~ . W I I ~ _„a~;~'~ y'~w ~ r : i .~`~'`s/,!f., ) - v ~1 r,: v Y ~ v T b -s! on. s ~ _ ~ F ~ / ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ear r Z. } .r'~ . ~.Ii ' - N ~ K, a.~'i ~,r- f ~J r a - ..t'at ~t i t '"`2 r~F ~ 2 s^ T h, ~i~~ r Sr t~.? 1lf~~~. r rl~"!t~Y ,7~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ,t ~ Y ~ ~~~AKES FOB I• ar~ -:+r ~:,r e : ~p~., q ~J ` ''rti 1~ ,may ..f'~f ~P' >j% Ley`. ~~~31 ~V - r•~ .~Y - }V+'` - . 4 ~y~ I ~1 ~ t i f The national heritage area concept is relatively recent, a way to As part of the Treaty of Paris in t763, which ended the Seven Years' gather historic and cultural sites into a loose confederation to pro- War (called the French aztd Indian War in the United States), France mote preservation and heritage tourism. Typically, the areas are char- ceded Louisiana to Spain. It was during this period that the importa- acterized by ageographical feature that defines the warp of history in tion of African slaves transformed the region from a &onrier trade the place, with the National Park Service lending its imprimatur and economy to a plantation system. The state briefly returned to French providing assistance. hands in z8oz, until the Louisiana Purchase in t8o3 turned the whole About the time the area was designated, the Historic American of hrench colonial America over to the United States. Buildings Survey of the National Park Service arrived to document the rare and irreplaceable architecture. Through acombination offactors- x; ~ ^ one of them that nature had separated the Cane River from the Red _ ~ River, effectively ending the life of Natchitoches as aport-much of the t ~ - landscape has remained tmaltered. And yet it is completely adapted to - ~ r ~ - •y ~v the needs of its occupants. The project was an opportunity to docu- ~ - mentperhaps the most compelling cultural laztdscape in the survey's 75- ~ ~ x . ~s ' .r year history. All this interest stirred a certain amount of discomfort ~ , ` along the river, whose little communities had been moving along at their f(. tix" - r own pace, relatively unbothered by the rest of the world. ' f'' ' mil; j ir~' > S lend' ~ ~ ' ad Isolation t. 'Che drive from Shreveport to Natchitoches takes you south along the x i; - •~t; ' ,y Red River on Interstate 4y, then due east on Route 6. It's yo miles at <s ~;~s ~ ~ ~ ~ u:R' most. That's the drive-the trip is a whole other matter. This is not the y ~ ~ ~ ' „ stereotypical South. The alluvial soil makes for lush, dense vegetation. - " `g'` • f last ~ r Hardwood trees flourish. Armadillos wander across the interstate. ` , t v~ - ~ i 3 Waterfowl swoop down into swamps and bogs. Trees stand out of the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,ti ~ water on their roots, giving a primordial feel. Wetlands once divided ~ ~ ~ r • -,I v^~ f, much of the area, creating individual islands. While much has filled in ~ ~ >~,~.u,;~" the geographical separation still exists. ' _ _ ~ In many ways, Natchitoches Parish very much is an island. A 1 French-Catholic enclave amidst Anglo-Protestant northern r' ~Vw Louisiana, it is more connected to the French heritage that domi- _ i~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ i Hates the southeastern portions of the state. Established in z7z4 by - - '-'-gin: y Louis Juchereau de St. Denis as a military fort, it is the oldest perma- - - - _ - _ ~ i vent settlement in the Louisiana Purchase territory. Because of its _ ~ ' ~ -_,:~•~%i access to the iviississippi and its tributaries, Natchitoches became a hub for trade with the indigenous peoples of the region (the Caddo), ~,-.z _ _ _y~~',, as well as the Spanish colonies in Texas. The town hugs the Cane r _ 3 -fit'-.;~:~< River, which made it a natural port. --:r, - f Left: The porch, or galerie," a characteristic detail in the Cane River ~~`Y region. Suited to the climate of the South, it served as a distinct social - , space, a transition between indoors and out. Right: Front Street in ~y ~'-~j~ ,may' downtown Natchitoches, the commercial centerfrom the Antebellum ~ . , _ - era to the turn of tfze century. Fronting the Cane River, it is part of the ~ national historic landmark district that anchors the heritage area. ~,c.,,~;`+~`~: c 'SH, DENSE VEGETATION. H:. ~ flourish. Armadillos wander across the interstate. Waterfowl swoop down into swamps and bogs. Trees stand out of the water on their roots, giving a primordial feel. Wetlands once divided much of the area, creating individual islands. While much has filled in, the geographical separation still exists. f n AA M n N H a n n ni n cone ne r o •r n n a Z Z THE PROJECT SAS AN OPPORTUNITYTO DOCUMENT PERHAPS By the time of the I.ousiana Purchase, a distinct group of African, •~'f,,~Y_. French, and Spanish peoples known as Creoles had become preva- lent in Natchitoches and throughout the region. The term "Creole" has different meanings depending on where you are, but the term (as well as the Spanish criollo) inferred people of full French or Spanish blood born in the New World. In Natchitoches, it referred to those who claimed French ancestry and cultural affiliation. This meant r~,t' whites and people of color both called themselves Creole. Marie TherBse Coincoin-emancipated in 1778 by French mer- ~ 11' ~ ' chant Jean Claude Thomas Pierre Metoyer, with whom she had co children-is considered the matriarch of the Cane River Creoles. A successful businesswoman, she owned a sizable amount of property. } Her son, Augustin Metoyer, established the home church for the Cane River Creoles of color, St. Augustine Catholic Church, which ' remains a cultural centerpiece for the community today. Another son, Louis Metoyer, owned Melrose Plantation. Cotton was king in the plantation economy The - soil was idea] for growing, the - ~ ~ area filled with people look- ing to capitalize on relatively uninhabited lands through- • j i ~ r out the parish. Farms large ' and small, with associated ' _ - housing and machinery, dot- ted the landscape. From t8o4 . - _ until the end of the Civil War, the cotton economy grew, • - _ -._fe w ~ bringing wealth and prestige to Natchitoches. Rait service replaced the river as the prime source of transport, allowing the city to continue as a commercial hub through the first part of the aorh century. But the railroad also led locals-particularly formerly enslaved African Americans and their descendants-out of the fields south to Alexandria and New Orleaps for opportunities in factories s . and ocher industries. The advent of the automobile did not slow the ~ ,a exodus, and the eventual demise of rail travel took the vitality out of 'e-4 . - Natchitoches. With the decline of cotton, it stagnated. ~~1 ~4S ~P_.y..m.7 Vibrant Heritage ` n~ r ~ - Despite the changes in its socioeconomic landscape, Natchitoches is ~ ~~f ~ ~ , not without its charms. The Natchitoches National HistoricLandmark ~~z~µ+Y , y • District is filled with two-story homes with multiple porches, or z,,,,,_~,' J F R; ~ y~ ~ galeries, as they are known here. The Ducournau Building, a former a~ - ~ ~ - _ .u<~ rs - hotel in downtown renovated for office and retail space, still displays .~`m ~ Y~r t its wrought iron railings on the second-level galerie, now used as seat- r°.~~` .r ~ ~ ` ing for a restaurant looking out onto the river. Down the brick-lined ` ~ -sr` f, • ~ ~ r Above: Carnal:an's Store in Cloutierville. Until it burned down in m'~' _ zoo4, Carnahan's was a rare surviving example of a country store in ~ - - - LL` the Cane River area. Says Dolinsky, "The NABS documentation is the _ - ~ only permanent archive of that building's story." Right: Structiere housing a defunct cotton girt, remnant of what was once the most zt~y,•~-. prominent industry. - - ir:~, s~~~,~;.u inc. ~o.~uii;r,r vvnn, ~4 COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2008 ' I,: 'fi! ~ MOST COMPELLING CULTURAL LANDSCAPE INTHE SURVEY'S i 'y~ ~r _ Irr~1`'1 rlll zltrs r~~~t ~ yr - f ~ . ~ cr ~r nl ciA:c c~rrr~~7r r ~ ,iL~ ~ L ~.,(ir'r ~r,'r.! r r 1'`'r(;, ~~Z j7 C h. i d~ t.lti ~ ~~y' ~ ~ .I.I~. ir~~' - r _ ~4't~' ~rr~~~~~rL~,i;l:,~~Jt r~~^L y~~l~/ti(!J ~ ~YR>,s!>.,~~1<'~.~,jci f: ! yr ~ Yt~'at ar r ~£1t7fr~" N,'~y ~ .~~'11~~(!~ S~' ~1' I ~~.,y ? ~ ~ y'~ r,~~` If_ -r' ti:•r~~ ~r t`y ..'~~~~~~(,:Y• t~~i.r ~<CI= ~ a4`i~ ' a~tii~~t's j1 }''1•r~i ~ r`. r -~y~•- t t. 1M ,~l'7~! ~ ~-Z,rr7 _ Y r {`~Z 1 ! t r It~r- !4~ ~~r tu~'rw. ~f ~ f 1 1 ~ i . I ~ ;f 1y ~.L' r(~U ! 1~ ~ r` 1. > rt ~ (S~ rT ~i~ Wr !x- r > ~ ; } r rs.''-,y , r 4 ~ •:o.~; 'Y ti tv ti ..zy { 1 II ~111~ Ja I..~~~Slr+~>~ :;~yft?,'y',e~a? ~ ~ ~ s ~~Sy~ ~ rt+ :?r,~. I,~~'I IJfIII'I.'J If illllil+ Ij cl~;y„>~,Ytry.A~.71vL~?%~I - r~`_,'3~ 7("~,y'~ ~„ti: ;:Y:• w tC~; - I I. I I11 I' I I i f ~I~~ ~I 77 .r..r ~ ~ _ ~ 1 I J~ 1 I 1 Ll~yyi(• .I 1 ~ (111!'1 Ijli1,. I I. ~IIIjJll1, IJIIjI IIi~JI, +I' ° "..n s.` ~I ti III ! 1I1 'III 1 jt; ~I~l a ,t . IIr „q~ II I I - j,j~~~,~{,~I~; la I , I Jl,i~~,i ,I i, ~ ' 1 r , ~ . ~,~,~I I ~ ~I .:t s G ` ) j; III I I'I I~ r ~11~1 ~ ~ ~ I. , 1, i,I,,~,;r ,I ( ~I III~,I,1ji1' It; j 1 I ~ Ill I~ I~ ~ I l, I I I f Lq ! I l' I~~~i I' I :;I ~ ~ I 1h r f'~ll 1 I ~'I ';l~,a i Ji! Jlfl' :1 ))i X11 i ( ~ I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I ,1,~ J t' I 1 - r ~ ~f p1 ~ I f Il i j I 1 1 I I ?n2 1 Jjj ')'111 i Il~i~ ' 1~ , J ~ 1 I } 1' I j,jl obi}~ i 7 I, I ~ i}:;Ell~i . 1IIIIi1 1~,l~ ~ r I' r ~I~~~ e I I,frl~j~l~j~,rilll g II~(~ ' }1 1n{{ CuI III r ' 7 { 4 f +JI t II~ ~ r ~ I ~I ~Ij, I~~~I; 1''J,1 (iwll~fq~ 1 :li J~tl iJ~ III ~ ~ ~ i~l' tl Ijlii ~ I I ~'I i (<iV'~i~? ! I,i~l I !~j~lll~~ ~tJ I + l; 1 1';,I I~ ,11 ~ tlll j' I I I {a ,~I,~~~~j;;~! I iri~l -•~.I 1 1, 1,~ 1 f.l t .,i ~j I.I II 11. .~yl'~ ~(1~ .1• < 9{~I 1 t ~ ' IL I 'I~ I li '~It i F ' x.11 ; ;iV JI!~ ':~I':I! I~ . I Itl ppj:~dl6i ~~tl~~ I~:,la , I~I: L~ ~ Ike! 11 I11~~11.. 1111 Ill .I~'t I~E 1. I I~i' IEJ~I~If (,.Rt.fl, I I. .!~j~ fi6 Y1 ~ Ir f~ll~''~II ~ n~'~1Jl ril I~.I'!. I'f ~a. i.;t. _ I ~i~ ~ i f ~ • IJI I • t__ , I E a - ~ s~:~ CT ~ e~,~,P, ` ~ - 1 ` {~ri.;. s•. ~Li-4 - ~ &;s n - k 11 - 1._ /r - ~'t. - is=- :'i`: - _ ~ r _ t - ;C ;r~ ~ t d w - -.~~t ten: -1~~..~~%... y ~ _ '`F _ S ~ 7'. ~ ~ "'y a' Y ~ r - _ _ J.h ~ y-. _ ~i ~ ~ C.~.t eu - ~ , ~ ~Y ~ _ ~ y. _ . tT"d~ t I rte i 1 >rn y y K t t - tc r~ _ ,d: r , 'fr ~ ~ ~~Y.~~'4 ~r~t~(.d.:"~.s, t . . '-,'s - r. ~ .r z,4 _ ~t ~ ..,X r " b ty'..- t7'~y ^ 1trt~~ ~ 1~ e 4 r ;~1 Yyb~ r s ~ r y. ~ h;ti .........>v ~.a, `4. a -~5~"~,~"`r. ff Y' ~yh~£~ COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2008 3S ~ 1, • ~~,e. ~ ~ t, _ - ii~~ ~ - COTTON ' h ~ .k 4ti n ail) I-.ll a: 2~'f iyt + ~ `~~.'L t' n ~ - - ~ ..dl _I ~i; S ~ ~`ti - ~ per....-.1 . ~s~ ~ a {I ~ _ 1 .1'C V'~ + ~1~ I \ : 'F`LT ~ ~ ^ ~ 1 a , l J 2. ~ rte.' .t'I "L..k~+: w ~ ELI ~ _ ~ (yy _ _ _ ' .1 ~f4 _ ter„ ? "t j ~ Y.i :l h _ 7 i - - - t' .'1 I I h.'. 1 ~ ry' - i' . tF. ~ ~ -ti.~o„ . v t IOf[~gt c c, • T X171.1/1-. 1 II 1.7~ ~ ~ ~ } THE PLANTATION ECONO~VIY. TI-IE SOIL SAS IDEAL FOR growing, the area filled with people looking to capitalize on relatively uninhabited lands throughout the parish. Farms large and small, with associated housing and machinery, dotted the landscape. street is Kafue-Frederick General Mercantile, the oldest general store to the river. In a contemporary GIS map drawn by the Natioral Park in the state. There is a leisurely, southern feel Most stores close by 5 Service from original plat books, one sees the arpents, as the plots azc . and everyone knows their neighbors. It could be the setting for a story called, coming off of the river like long, thin spokes. The aUees of trees of manners and friendship. Steel Magnolias was filmed here, based on that divide the properties, still maintained, are a signature part of the the screenplay by Robert Hazling, Jr., a native and owner of Oaklawn, landscape. A quick stop at Cherokee Plantation allows for a look at the an t83o French Creole plantation house in the National Register of big house. With its well-preserved exterior, it is an excellent example Historic Places. of a French Louisiana plantation hvuse with Creole-influenced con- West of the historic district, the gentility gives way to a landscape of struction techniques. Photographs do not do it justice. It is magnifi- smaller single-level dwellings and industrial remnants. The neighbor- cent. Privately owned, it is open for tours by appointment.;, hood is primarily African American, spreading southwest to where The "big houses"-places like Oaklawn and Cherokee, where the Northwc5rern State Linvcr;ity ahuts Co11e~e Avenue and the regional plantation o~~mers lived and raised their farnilics-are the main _,,,a c f t x ~ ~ ~i F ~1L ~ l7~ ' 1 r. ~ ' . = freight rail tracks. 1'he "Texas and Pacific Raihvay llepol, a building attractions for most visitors who venture down river, the area lined with Italianate design and Spanish Revival touches, awaits revitallza- with such remnants of the old South. Cane River Creole Nationrl tion. Built in r9z~, it was a place to work for the adults and a place to Historical Park, created at the same time as the heritage area, is com- play for children, when trains were not passing through. A cultural prised of two plantations, Oakland and Magnolia, to miles down center is slated to occupy the building, which will include interpreta- river from each other. Associated buildings, barns, storage, kitchens, tion of the African American story in Natchitoches. and quarters dot the rest of the landscape. Due east are the farms and plantations that provided the wealth. The quarters-initially for enslaved people and later used byshare- lluring its heyday, Natchitoches Parish vas also known for quarter croppers and tenant farmers-are usually the places whose stories go horses; today, corn, wheat, and soybeans are the staples. On the ride unspoken. Gates and her interpretive staff use them to tell Cane down river, one is continually struck by the dense lushness. The idea River's convoluted story of slavery, which does not follow the tradi- of clearing land must have been daunting. tiona! narrative to which the public has grown accustomed. Slavery, the plantation system, and Louisiana's melange of cultures engen- A COyYtpliCated HiStOry dered a very complicated social environment. People of color owned As Laura Gates; superintendent of Cane River Creole National Left: A screw press for cotton at the complex pictured on the previ- Historical Park, drives along the river, some of the recently harvested ous spread. Above left: Southwest view of the complex. Above right: winter wheat fields are being burned to ready the soil for the next crop. Cotton brushes inside. There are clouds of smoke and the air smelts of burnt wood and dried straw. Gates points out that the plots were divided so each had access COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2008 3/ .t other people of color. T'he famous Marie Therese Coincoin held as 4~w~ ~ many as t6 slaves. °l 't tJ s ; z `f'he region was truly a world unto itself. At the former Melrose _ , Plantation, one of the most-visited attractions, is a distinct structure ~yY„ ~ , • ~ r~. known as Africa House. guilt around t8oo, it was likely used for stor- ` ~ _ ~ ~ f age. With an oversized hipped roof and large ovcrhargs, some think it _ ~ ;;f'' s"~' resembles a structure one might find in an African village. Others say t ~ s ' f r , y ~*1 it looks like something from rural France of the early tyth century. On j'' ~ \ x' " ~ ;~.,f ".t the walls inside are the murals ofself-taught artist Clementine Hunter, ~ ~ .~J # ; (,~~.'µ~~,.,.r.,;; . a long-time resident, whose brightly colored renditions of life here - " N~~ ;~r' ~ have won international acclaim, depicting a world where people :4 ''`tt~ depended as much on each another as they did on the river. ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~F l ~'r-» ~ r ~ ~ 4 Capturing a Mythical South , ~ The creation of the national heritage area and park brought the i ~ ; E{ABS recording teams to Natchitoches, but it wasn't the first time. zz ~ ~ S ~ ~ - I h,ring nc~ llcpression, when HA}3S ,vas formed as a New Deal proj- y r~ , ,,,r.~ , Y F 1T _ l s M ~ L ~;.'7 a } nary ;~~r t ~,1 r ~~r~[a~~w,"' +r fit= ` ~ ` x s ~ ~ - y.i7'~~ ,SA \c J` r. ,~,+F t`~~~K11~{_ - .~---E~ ~~~G-'-h -..ti.Y .-.1~Y~`7J. y,.~~j-,e( J ~ ~ ! rn ~ iP Y. S r < ~.-c1^rl`~ - •~91~ ~4~ ~ fJ.C t"St~ r. .t d F r - t - ~ / 'c -3.;~ Jx: ~ t -w2y f ~:>>s-y~' fti ~ G~+csr tir ~i1. F~ ,9 t -.y`. r~r i t~'l ~~Y ,;r rv cmplcl~ ou o ~xl:.,t-~ h t~~[s -lnd ~iratlsu,ro [u ducument t,ir , _ nation's built herttage, this region was on the list. One architect's 'ti h % infatuation with the Lemee House at 3to Jefferson Street led to the ~ , ~ ~ creation of the Association for the Preservation of Historic ^:~Yz ~ >i ~ Natchitoches. The organization, recognizing that its town's heritage - was in jeopardy, purchased the property. The APHN, which became a prominent force, now owns Melrose Plantation and the Kate Chopin House, home of the renowned author down the road in . Cloutierville. While indirectly spurring the preservation ethos preva- lent here today, HABS then was viewed with the skepticism reserved ~ for those outside of the community. Some 6o years later, the survey- - returned. Over five years, HA$S made repeated visits to draw, meas- ure, photograph, and research. its sister groups, the Historic ' Above: Melrose Plantation, built in 1833. Raised off tl:e ground in the ~ ~ Louisiana French Colonial style, the bighouse was the centerof one of r , _ . Cane River's largest agricultural o~rerr:tions. Right: Oakland r, ' .`t -sz Plantation, built in r8zt. ~y Q fHiS iFNEAU li1CN kf000i/EHN. Pi1t.:55 ~O ::OMMON GROUND SUMMER 2008 ~ :C~J i ~ r~ I f J r,--~ ~ ~ s ~ - ~ - - :•r F %yf J Y - ~ - . ~1 = E°~' , si i. f„~. .i j c: r: . ~ ~rh,'jc' 'I ' J' ~ ~ - , i .2Y d `Y r k _ ` r Ax f~..`~ ,1 ~ i,/'..'3 ~5 .ice ~1 , i~ ' ~ t+'': - v _ h 4 . -x'44 +a~'~sl~pty*Aj t '.i fir.+., f ?4 v~ - ~ - .i :.i ~ i `1 } ~i Y ~ ^`Y^-4~1.e.~`,',,,y„~~F~ iasi t h~p~ r! I - i Y • w i 'i - • ' ' INITIALLY 4 - ~ ,~~r ~:x - ~n - , . r~ ~ , :x; ~ r 4 ..i~ ~4 ~ • i h ~ a.;" i M k~~4~ ~,..4.-y iVw yy l q~~ t ~i - -y~f>LIF ct' i~ 4 ~ a a ~a~ I iti y; ~ t u- *i~4y ~ r 3 n i~ z? ~ ~ ~ - Sit ~ ~ n 'a F ~ G 3. . ~ ~ << ti ' C~,<``' 'fir .~.i y, '9i is ~ ~ ~ ; ~ K 4.O COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2008 ~e :r :l -~'•Y I American Engineering Record and the Historic American Dolinsky thinks that the signature Piece-Sur-Piece structure serves Landscapes Survey, were part of the effort, as was the Cultural as a metaphor. Made of timbers and held together with mortise and ~ Resources Geographic [nformation Systems Unit of the National tenon construction-with a dowel at the corners to pin them in Park Service, which brought the latest technology to beat place-the building could he disassembled and moved as need arose, Creole architecture is a mix of types from European, African, and either in its original function or for some other ptupose entirely. It Native American traditions. Raised floors on posts, high-pitched was ingenious yet simple, practical yet suggestive of a deep rural wis- ~ - roofs, and the use of bousiallage, a mud-like material used for walls, dom, changeable yet unchanging. i are some of its characteristics. Natchitoches and New Orleans have some of the best examples, but the form. can he found throughout ,t d t r ~ • .ti + what was once New France. This is what the I-IABS teams came to ` .i' I capture, along with remnants of the cotton industry (documented by ~ ' ' ~ ~~:r HAER) and the distinctive system of arpents and allees (which HALS ~ c _ , ~ ' recorded as elements of the cultural landscape). ;N ; `z~c .;'ti! Nancy Morgan, former director of the national heritage area, was k*~., key in ncgouating the balance between citizen apprehension and the _ - goals of the documentation, says Paul Dolinsky, then-head of NABS • ' and now chief of HALS. The teams produced drawings, large format ~ A' photographs, and writtcn• histories of the most significant pieces of ~ ' the region's built environment, including comprehensive documenta- , ~i ~ ~ A lion of the Magnolia Cotton Gin Mill and the Badin •Roquc House, i I ' : ~ ~ ' ; s " one of only four remaining poteaux en terre (post in ground) struc- ~ :~b~i,Y ~ t ~ ~ lures left in the nation. A host of other places were recorded too, and ~ j , ' f. , ~ ~ Y _ the GIS unit produced a comprehensive, multi-layered map. In many s t ~ ~ ~s~ , I r _ ways, the work is one of the jewels in the HABS collection. The peo- ~ - _ plc got a rich document that tells their story, while the survey gained ` - ti . _ , . _ } a relationship with a region. An exhibit of the photographs taken-- ka'~1'~4- ' ~ - - • ~ ,s=~' • Q ENSLAVED PEOPLE AND LATER USED BY SHARECROPPERS AND ~ tenant farmers-are usually the places whose stories go unspoken. Gates and her interpretive staff ~ use them to tell Cane River's convoluted story of slavery, which does not follow the traditional nar- rative to which the public has grown accustomed. shown at the National Center for Preservation Technology and Brian Joyner, an editor with the National Park Service hlistorical Training, a National Park Service program housed at Northwestern Documentation Programs, edits Heritage Matters and has written State University--engendered good will among the citizens, who saw two books on preservation in diverse communities for NPS. Contact in them their individual and collective stories. The diverse resi- him at brian_joynerQnps.gov For more information on Cane River dents--country farmers, Creoles, people simply interested in preser- National Heritage Area, email info@caneriverheritage.org or go to vation-found confluence in recognizing how special the place is. www.caneriverheritage.org. Cane River Creole National Historical Thomas Whitehead, a retired professor of journalism at Park is online at www.nps.gov/earl/. The collections of the Historic Northwestern State, said that the exhibit amounted to a social bond- American Buildings Survey, the Historic American Engineering ing. Morgan said that "it's much easier to tell the story if you have the Record, and the Historic American Landscapes Survey are online at artifacts to connect to:' http:!/memory.[oc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/. The effort had a contagious effect. hTOw individual communities Left: Artrfacts of the mechanized age in the agricultural landscape. want to document their pasts and tell their stories. Katherine Above left: French influence in practical form: the once-pervasive Johnson, assistant director of the national heritage area and a native Piece-Sur-Piece building. Above rigkt; St. Augustine Catholic of Natchitoches, sees in the growth of preservation the relinquishing Church, a centerpiece of Creole adture, built in i9i6. Cts congregation of a mindset. Johnson's role as head of a grants program puts her in hasbeenavitalpartofthelsleBrevellecommunityfortwocent:~ries. touch with. multiple factions, who have come to realize that the park, the heritage area, and the recurring visits of the people from the National Park Service give them a chance to get their stories told. COMMON GROUND SUMMER 2008 L~.I a~,~„~~ City of Boulder Panning and Development Services ~ WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT APPLICATION A Landmark Alteration Certificate is required for the replacement of historic windows on buildings located in a historic district and for individual landmarks. Review by the Landmarks Design Review Committee is required for window and door replacement and the project may be referred to the full Landmarks Board for review. The condition and location of the windows or doors proposed for replacement must first be identified before submitting the replacement product information. Part I will be reviewed by staff and may be reviewed by the LDRC; if the replacement is found appropriate, a second application must then be submitted identifying the proposed windows or doors. The complete application will then be reviewed by the LDRC and may be referred to the full Landmarks Board for review. Part I: Identify existing location and condition of window(s) or door(s) proposed for replacement. The following materials are required as Part I of this application; see below for more information. ? Completed Landmark Alteration Certificate Application, Available through the Planning Department, 1739 Broadway or online at boulderhistoricpreservation.net ? Context photograph of the subject building, with labeled location of each windows or doors proposed for replacement. Photograph(s) of the building as viewed from public. right-of-ways; if the building is located on a corner or is visible from art alley, multiple photographs should be taken. Windows or doors proposed for replacement should be labeled as "A1, A2, B1, B2..." depending on the location and number of the windows. A= primary elevation (if the building is located on a corner, two elevations may be considered primary), B= secondary (side) elevation, C=tertiary (typically the rear) elevation. If only one window or door is proposed for replacement, the photograph may simply be labeled `door' ar `window'. ? Photographs of each window or door proposed for replacement, showing the condition of the window or door. A minimum of four photographs of each window or door proposed for replacement is required. 1; A photograph of the window or door from the exterior, showing the molding or other decorative features surrounding the window or door. 2. A photograph of the window or door from the exterior, showing the condition of the frame, sash, pane(s), and muntins (if applicable). 3. A photograph of the window or door from the interior, showing the condition of the frame, sash, pane(s), and muntins (if applicable). Close-up photographs of the damaged or deteriorated portion of the window or door. ? A short description of the condition of each window or door proposed for replacement. A written description for each window or door proposed for replacement should include the following: 1. Description of the location of the window (i.e. "Window Al is located on the second story on the north side of the house, which faces Dewey Avenue") 2. a) The type of window or door (i.e. screen door, multi-paneled door, French door, or double-hung, leaded glass, divided-light, casement, hopper, or transom window) as well as the materiality (i.e. wood, aluminum, glass) and operation of the window, if applicable (i.e. double- hung vs. casement window). b) Description of the condition of the window or door, including the operability and condition of the frame, sash, sill, pane(s), muntins (if applicable) and casing condition (i.e. "Window Al is a wooden, 4-over-1 double-hung window. The sash and sill are in a deteriorated state; the wood has rotted and there is an 1/8" gap when the window is fully closed. The muntins and pane are intact. Overall, the window is difficult to operate.") Please submit a complete Landmark Alteration Certificate application and required information to a historic preservation planner for review. The project will be reviewed within 14 days, and if the proposed replacement of windows or-doors is determined to be appropriate, Part II of the application shall be submitted and reviev+red within 14 days by the design review committee and may be referred to the full Landmarks Board. Part tl: Comparison of Existing Window(s) or Door(s) and Proposed Window(s) or Door(s). The following materials are required for Part II of-this application: ? Completed Landmark Alteration Certificate Application ? Completed Part I of this application ? Information regarding the proposed window(s) or door(s) Windows and doors are character-defining features of a historic building, therefore applicants are encouraged to repair rather than replace historic windows anddoors. However, if the condition of the feature is determined to be deteriorated beyond repair, it is important that the replacement feature is compatible with the style and ch~~racter of the building. Detailed photographs or drawings, including dimensions, ar a spec sheet is required for review of the proposed replacement window or door. ? Complete `Window or Door Replacement Application-Existing and Proposed Comparison' form. The attached form allows aside-by-side comparison of the existing and proposed window or .door. It is important that following characteristics are maintained: 1) the pattern and size of the 5) type of wood; openings 6} paint color; 2) proportions of the frame and 7) characteristics of the glass sash; 8) associated details such as 3) configuration of window arched tops, hoods, or other panes; decorative elements. 4) muntin profiles; The National Park Service Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows offers further guidance on repairing or choosing replacement windows. This brief is available at www.nps.g_ov. For more information on the appropriateness of window and door replacement, please refer to the General Design Guidelines, available at boulderhistoricpreservation.org or through the Long Range Planning office, located on the 4'h floor of the Park Central Building, 1739 Broadway. Window or Door Replacement Application- Existing and Proposed Comparison Location Existing Proposed Existing Type & Proposed Type & Existing Glass Proposed Size Size Materia{ Material T e Glass T e A1, front of Q-over-1 wood clad house, first 2'0 x 4'0 2'0 x 4'0 4-over-1 wooden aluminum single pane double pane floor casement casement true divided li ht wooden door with 3 A2 (front door) 3'6 x 6'6 3'6 x 6'6 panes of stained wooden door stained Glass n/a lass Window or Door Replacement Application- Existing and Proposed Comparison Location Existing Proposed Existing Type & Proposed Type & Existing Glass Proposed Size Size Material Material T e Glass T e 1904 Pearl Street Landmark Board Demolition Application Review and Update August 20``', 2008 , ~ ~ ~y - - - - r.7 _ - , NW corner of building from 19`'' and Pearl. Brad I Iahn G23 Concord Avenue Boulder, CU August 6Ch, 2008 landmarks Board 1 listaric Preservation Staff Planning and Development Services 739 Broadway, Third Ploor Boulder, CO 8030t`i RE: 1904 Pearl Street Landmarks Board Demolition Application -Update At the T:andrnarks Board hearing on June 4, 2008 the Board issued a Sray of Demolition for tlvo buildings located at 1904 Pearl Street in order to conduct further research and explore alternatives to demolition of the buildings. Since that hearing, we have conducted extensive research and evaluation to address the comments we received from the Board and Staff and explored multiple ways we could integrate the history of this site into our future redevelopment plans. This research included imrestigatian into the building and cottage condition, engineering and structural requirements and costs for restoration, tax incentives and grants, the integration of structures into future redevelopment, and relocation opportunities. ~~'r. rnet with Staff to several times to discuss these challenges and evaluate alternatives. This sire presents a unique challenge in that there was a historical use of the propert}' and its buildings by the Swedish communit}', yet the structures that are present today have been significantly altered and are in such poor condition that it is very challenging to restore them without incurring extreme costs and/or reconstructing. Based upon our extensive research, cost analysis and structural e~-ahcarian, we found the following challenges: • Restoration Challenges: The majority of the original Lund hotel has been removed, altered or is in such a condition that it would be necessar}- to reconstruct more than ~0 percent of the structure in order to retain it on site. (see Attachment A and B) • Economic Challenges: Costs are unreasonably high and incentives are not available. Restoration of the 2 story Lund Iiotcl would require extensive structural and restoration work at a cost of over X165 per square foot for engineering and masonn~ alone. The arrrent condition of the building is unuseable and the current owner is unable to lease the building at market rates. The cottage engineering and restoration would cost X100 psf. • Historical Interpretation Challenges: The degraded and altered state of the Lund Hotel building does not allow for a valuable. interpretive experience. Restoration of this building would require silmifteant reconstruction and would be cost prohibitive. The Cottage is intact with alterations and new materials but is representative of the Swedish culture and histor}-. Conclusion and Proposal The Lund Hotel. has undergone such significant detrimental renovations that the existing condition is in serious structural and physical disrepair. The casts for restoration and repair would be prohibitive and prevent redevelopment. While the Cottage is more intact, the setting has changed aver the years and keeping it onsite has similar implications to the feasibility of the project. x/G/ZOOx Page 2 With this conclusion, we focused our efforts on evaluating other potential solutions to preserve the historical integrity of the site and the original architecture that housed that significant history. We attempted to balance the solutions to provide a way to recuperate restoration costs while allowing for redevelopment of the property. VG'e idertificd two alternathJes that preserve the historic integrity and memory of the Swedish-American immigrants that inhabited this site while allowing for redevelopmment of the property. Our proposal is based upon input received from Staff, the Landmarks Board and Historic Boulder. Both proposals include preservation of the Cottage and demolition of the main building based upon the challenges described above. Scenario 1 is the preferred option because it allows the cottage to be restored and provides and new historical setting at the September School. VG'hile Scenario 2 is not our preferred option it would keep the Cottage onsite in its oriF;inal location. Scenario 1-Cottage Offsite Relocation, Restoration and Potential Landmark Designation. • Request Cottage offsite relocation request. The proposed relocation site is the September School, located one block away at 1902 Walnut Street. • Restored and located among other similar structures in a historically compatible setting. The use of the Cottage as an accessory building to the school will allow for the ongoing historical interpretation from within by the students that would inhabit the building. • Donation of the cottage to the September School, anon-profit organization, provides a Tax Incentive that will help offset costs required to restore the Cottage. • Approval of the Demolition Permit for main building located at 1904-1912 Pearl. Scenario 2 -Cottage Remains Onsite • Withdraw the demolition request for the Cottage and incorporate it into the redevelopment plans in its current condition. • Approval of the Demolition Permit for main building located at 1904-1912 Pearl. In both scenarios, we will ensure that the future redevelopment "will respect the character of the setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible" with the context of F_,ast Pearl. ~~G~e will provide reference to the historical and cultural context of the property and v~~ill commemorate the property and/or building as recommended by the Board and/or Staff. D(/e look forward to your feedback on August 20th and arriving at a positive, balanced and timely safution for all parties. Sincerely, Brad F-lahn H/6/2008 Page 3 Attachments: • Attachment A -Assessment Update • Attachment B -Letter from Current Property Owner • Attachment C -Building Condition and Masonry Cost Analysis • Attachment D -Structural Upgrade Memo • Attachment E -Pearl Street Engineering Pricing Analysis • Attachment F -Current Engineering Summary and Report • Attachment G -September School Letter of Intent Attachment A ,~.ssessment Llpdatc ATTACHMENT A Update: Addressing; Staff and Board Comments .v/ Additional Items Building Condition and Remaining Materials: • Further exploration of the physical condition of the 2°~ story facade determined that the building settlement of 6" and remora] of the brick parapet has caused un-repairable damage to the majority of the 2~~a story facade not including the removal of the first floor facade. The result is masked by the current fa4ade (see consulting study). • 'T'he 2 store brick portion of the building's rubble foundation is at grade (Picntre). In addition to the settlement noted above the west. and south walls (ie front to back) have settled S.S inches (see consulting sau3y). • E~urther exploration of the building exterior brick determined that there are multiple coats of paint on already deteriorated brick. The brick is not vene-er finished on the facade and other exterior ~~~alls of the builcGng. The brick is in such condition drat attempts to remo~re paint off the rough brick surface continues *.o remove more of the brick material. The majority of the brick part of the building is either damaged beyond repair, removed or not visible. • further etploration of the alley stntcaire confirmed new windows, doors, window and door trim, porch and. porch concrete slab previously reported. `While the siding has otil~- one coat of ~w-bite paint on the wood (historical color vas green) and has newer nails ~~-e could not determine if it ~x'as new or original. The interior walls were confirmed to be drywall with new trim. • Tire alley structure has no foundation and is resting on pieces of flagstone which have settled 2 to 3 inches in either direction from the center point. Project Economic Feasibility: Costs, Tax Incentive and Grants • Tile costs fi>r new engineering of the 2 story part of the building are estimated to be app:osimately $600,000 (see attach engineering memo and costt est.) The cost to rebuild and restore the masonry is estimated to be $225,000 (see attached study). The total cost per sf not including renovation of the interior is $265 per square foot. The costs fot the alley structure engineering and restoration are estimated to be $40,000. 'I"hese are based assumptions and will vary on the conditions encountered. • The tax credits if restoration is possible and the buildings are landmarked in total would amount to X50,000. However since the project is a mixed use building it would be for sale and the credits would not be available. ~`{~'e have not been able to find other programs or tax incentives that the buildings ~ti~ould he eligible for. The incentives even if applicable do not offset the costs. 1 • ~K'e have not been able to find anv grants that the buildings would eligible For. Historic Boulder has made attempts to contact the Swedish community for a potential grant but no funding was found available at this point. • 'The only tax benefit found is donating the alley structure by relocating it offsite. .t~gain, the costs of this are not completely ~ offset by the tam write off. The moving costs are estimated to be ~65,U00. Site Massing: • ;Discussions for retaining the existing buuldings have brought up many issues that prevent the site to be built to its current zoning and creating a marketable building. o For example presen~ing the 2 story part of the building and creating alandscape-able space between it and the potential building on the corner limits the width of the corner building to 30 feet. This does not create a marketable space, floor pate or allow for streetscape. Based on setback on the second floor the depth would be reduced further. o The alley structure and 2 stor}~ part of the building create challenges to providing ample parking on site. The setback from the alley structure and 2 stor}~ building constrains parking in such a wa}' that the new building on 19~h would not be setback from the side walk and be limited in depth. o The outcome of a feasible project is that 2 story part of the building would be surrounded as it is today but with a 2 and set back 3 story building and the facade would be the only remaining visible part of the building. The alley structure would be more enclosed than it is today by additional parking and more 2 and 3 story buildings. Neighborhood Setting: • The current zoning of the area creates a setting for buildings in which new and old buildings arc able to contribute to one another and maintain the setting of the area. The property is surrounded by a tnix of buildings old and new which is typical of East Pearl "Thus the future buildings at this location would be compatible with this environment (See East Pearl Proposed Hist District Landmark Board 1\lemo, Jan 199 and Colc>•ado 1-Iistorical Society Btulding Survey 1958), • The alley structure setting and environment has changed over the last 100 years and it i now surrounded by new 2 and 3 story buildings and parking. The buildings that provided its context at 1904 Pearl has been significantly altered and the house at 1918 Pearl on the front of the lot that the cottage is located on is no longer there. Economic Hardships: • The building no longer has an economic value and has been difficult to lease for over 1 a year. The current short-term tenant in the space is paying less than the market rate for retail space on Fast Pearl No large scale retail tenant has been interested in the 12,000 sf of retail. The owners have been under contract to sell the property for over 6 months and would have closed on the sale prior to the issuance of the stay of demolition. "I`he market value of the propert}' ~;could be 2 reduced b~J retaining the current buildings which was previously deemed non contributing b}~ the State and Cit}~. (Owner Letter attached below) • The purchaser has spent over $25,000 in due diligence on the. propert-~- and has paid the owners an additional ,°"}50,000 non refundable, to extend the closing to the purchase of the property. The purchaser has spent $10,000 to provide engineering reports, estimates and a consulting report for Landmarks Board review. Further, during the last 4 months since the app]ication was submitted and the sta~~ of demolition issued the purchaser lost its current bank financing due to uncertainties of the propert}j and market. Further delays are likely to prevent the sale from taking place. • The alley structure has no economic value (ie 9' deep Living room and 6.5' ceiling in the flat roof addition which is a 7 x 15 sf bed and bathroom) the value would not offset the restoration costs. The 450 square foot floor area of the alle}' structure counts against the buildable sf of the properh~. Conservatively the market value per square foot is X500 or X225,000 for the 450 sf building. 3 Attachment B Owner Letter July 31, 2008 Landmarks Board of Revue Municipal Building 1777 Broadway, Second Floor City of Boulder Boulder, CO 80306 Re: 1904-1914 Pearl Street Board Members, I am writing to express our extreme disappointment at the cancellation of the August 6`h Meeting of the Landmarks Board of Revue. We traveled to Boulder to meet with you on June 4`h and at that time shared with you our concerns about the status of the property at 1904-1914 Pearl Street. The Ringsby family has owned this property for 60 years, paid taxes and have acted responsibly as good landlords and citizens. At that meeting, we shared the fact that the building was the major income source for the Ringsby families in the partnership who are all retired and on fixed incomes, and that delay would cause undue hardship. At that time, we were led to believe that under the circumstances due to this hardship, we could anticipate that a decision on the demolition issue for the two structures could be expedited. Instead we find that the August 6`~' meeting has been cancelled, and are left uncertain as to when the issue will be rescheduled and resolved. At the June meeting, we also documented the fact that the Pearl Street location was surveyed by the Board in 1995. The result of that review was that the property had been remodeled so extensively there was no historical significance. Since 1995 we have had a succession of tenants who have performed additional (permitted) interior and exterior renovations, including demolition pcnnits to the Boulder Food Co-op for the two story structure in 2000. In all of these instances the permits were not reviewed or stayed by the landmarks Board. The question is why is this now an issue? What has changed in the past thirteen years to make this building historically significant today`? 1 he re:-designation of the property as historically signitcant has affected the highest and best value of the property. To bring the property back to historic condition through redevelopment would create further financial hardship to the family, in addition to the loss of income caused by this review process and the recent delay of the next scheduled meeting which was on everybody's calendar two months ago. The Ringsby Family Trust could not anticipate the reversal of the 1995 finding that the structure did not meet the criteria to be designated as historically significant. if we had, perhaps we could have operated the building with that in mind, and built up a reserve to accommodate those requirements. We believe that the Ringsby family is owed an explanation from the Landmarks Board as to why the designation on this property has been changed. We are unaware of any issues with our adjacent property owners regarding the demolition and redevelopment of this property. In fact, as discussed in June, it would benefit both the neighborhood and the city with additional work and increased property values. The Family deserves to be treated fairly in this matter instead of being punished with detrimental and unnecessary costs as a result of these delays. We need to move forward so that we can recoup lost incomes and opportunities resulting from this re-designation. Sincerely, B. D. Gailcy General Partner and Trustee Ringsby Family Trust. Cc: Mayor Mark Ruzzin Attachment C Consulting Assessment Brad Hahn August 4, 2008 623 Concord Ave Boulder, CO 80304 office 303-495-2333 mobile 303-589-3851 fax 303-SS7-6365 bradhahn(~comcast. net Re: 1904 Pearl St. -Condition and Recommendations Dear Mr. Hahn, On July 8, 2008, July 23, 2008, and July 28, 2008, I visited the property at 1904 Pearl St. and observed the configuration of the structures on the property and the condition oi'the observable masonry. I have also reviewed prior engineering reports, construction estimates, prior information packets prepared for the .Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and the relevant sections of the City of Boulder Land Use Code. My findings regarding the condition of the building and level of effort required to reconstruct and restore and the structure are below: 1. Facade -The facade of the original masonry building has been over-clad with new materials and the parapet has been removed. A small portion of the original facade was observed through an existing probe, revealing brick masonry in poor condition. The elevations of the original interior wood windowsills were measured using a laser level beam, and the results show that the windows on the east and west side have settled relative to the middle windows. The east windowsil] is S inches lower than the middle windowsills, and the west windowsill is 1.2 inches lower than the middle windowsills. Appendix X. 2. Differential Settlement The differential settlement of the corners of the original masonry structure was measured where observable by measuring differences in elevation of one continuous brick course on the west and south elevations. The maximum difference in elevation between two corners was S.S inches. 3. Side and Rear Walls (West and South) -These walls are in very poor condition. Specific deficiencies include: a. The wall is coated with several coats of paint, likely containing lead. Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219 b. Where paint is peeled away revealing the masonry below, the mortar is in deteriorated or missing. c. Many brick faces are spalled. d. The parapet has been removed down to the level of the top of the arches on the south elevation, as shown in the photograph in Appendix X. These arches are in poor condition. e. On the second floor of the west elevation, two window openings have been installed without lintels and this has caused cracking in the brick masonry, as shown in the photograph in Appendix X. f. The horizontal profile of the west wall was measured at 4 feet above the lower roof level using a laser level beam. The wall is concave inward with a maximum displacement of 1.5 inches. A plot of these measurements is shown in Appendix X. g. At the f rst floor level, the masonry walls have been extensively penetrated, and some penetrations have not been equipped with proper lintels. 4. Scope of Work -Reconstruction and restoration of the masonry of this building to a useful condition will require the following scope of work: a. Disassemble and reconstruct the east half of the 2"d floor of the facade to a level line -the facade slopes is out of level by approximately 5 inches in 20 feet. 1'he west half of the fa4ade will also likely require total reconstruction once its condition is revealed. b. Reconstruct missing parapets (all walls). c. Install Lintels or arches over window openings in west elevation. d. Remove and rebuild brick rowlock arches. e. Replace spalled and deteriorated bricks -estimate 25 percent. of the total number of bricks. f. Remove paint from all exterior masonry surfaces -contain and properly dispose oflead-containing effluents. g. Repoint 100 percent of masonry surface. h. Anchor masonry to new internal structure to resist lateral loads. Use epoxy or grouted anchors on a regular spacing as for a veneer. 5. Review of construction costs for masonry restoration -The cost estimates provided by W.E. O'Neil Construction were excellent and clear, although the condition and configuration of the masomy is so poor that the costs for masonry restoration will be much higher than the costs for repointing shown in the Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 ~ FAX 303.443.9219 i estimates. I estimate that the cost to restore, reconstruct, and anchor the existing masonry will be in excess of $240,000.00, excluding foundation work. h1 summary, the original masonry in the building is in very poor condition and will require comprehensive reconstruction and restoration for the structure to be re-used. including brick replacement, parapet reconstruction, and facade reconstruction, it will be necessary to reconstruct more than 50 percent of the structure to bring it to a safe and useful cont3guration. This would define the project as a reconstruction rather than a restoration. In my opinion, the condition of the building is so poor that it is not a good candidate for restoration. I recommend that instead the building be demolished and replaced with a useful structure that will be compatible with its neighborhood. f Sincerely, David Transue, P.E. Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219 Appendix X: Supporting Data and Photographs - - - _ J,r., t_~ ~ ~ , _ ~~!.'i' ~ ~ 8 i - - - - " Fu~ade of 194 I'n_ur/ (north elevations .claoavng stucco and faux stone over-claddlnK. The relative elevutrons of'the second floor ia~indow.> arc- shown in the chart below. Relative Elevation of 2nd Floor Facade Windowsills u, 5 d ~ 4.5 U c 4 3.5 .y 0 3 - o 2.5 2 - 1.5 °i 1 i ~ 0.5 d ~ 0 . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance from NW corner (feet) Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219 ~~yy 1 ~7• i i i i i l _ _ A.. I - - r f._ Photograph of level o/sloping ha/ha uy floor being meusured. DiJfer•ential.rettlemerrt of structuru! walls has carrrcd the.,flvors to slope. False floors ha~~e been udded in some rooms tv render- them usable. Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 ~ FAX 303.443.9219 II ~ --~T-~ - ~ - . ~ A i.:-~.-T:. ~ l Ili ' r... ~ .~-r mat. 1 /,tY Yom.: _ - ~ l ~ ~ - f'frotograpfr of sr~uth-frrcifr~ reur• ivull, east side, s6rowirrg toff-of-wall <,orrditiorts, rletc~r•iurcrted brick and mortar, and paint. fi, r - - ~ I, ~ ,1-._ - - - - ~ ~ . ~ - i ,s K _ f'hotugraph ojsuuth f~l~~in,~ r~eur ~:vull, west side, shnwingr deteriorated brick and mo~•tur and cracks• arozmd arches. Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219 ?....1~=.* vas-~ ~~'~-.'ter'-"-.rs . ~ J,.. ~ r ~:r~ ,;r. 1•. .1~'. -.ice ~..c ~ ^i°~-°i, '~~..~..-c-i•-.«+.-a. ~v -sue=-,~ - t-„~~-_ - - - ~ ~ ~ _ - _ ' _ r ~ ~ - ..p. i._.._~ _ h - ~ ~ ~ Photograph o/~irest Jucrtg side it a/I, second-floor, slto~rin,~J ~rinc(ow pertetratiotrs ~~i ithout li~ttels urtd associated cracks. This s~titll is concmu: im+~ard as shoirn in the chart !telo~v. Profile of west side wall, second floor, at 4 feet above 1 st floor roof 1.6 ' 1.4 a s ~ 1.2 U G v 1 ~o 0 0.8 0.6 0 0.4 w d ~ 0.2 ~o a 'c 0 , 0 2 ~ 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Distance from NW corner (feet) Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219 f ~I ~ 1 Z -.ice, _ 4-: - z~ ~ _ R rr ~~i _ ~ ,~4. I ° i~ .'a{ 1 l~~ l s ° f v a y~ .r _ t;.' ' `i+ j .f7 r. ~ ~ r _.1, .i. f'hotcis,~ruph of fou~ulurion conditions token dcn~ireg u~rtor renrodelirrg project. Transue Engineering Associates LLC 5735 Arapahoe Ave. Suite A-1 Boulder, CO 80303 303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219 . ~ ~ - _ ~ r r• ~ i y' ~ ~ :*3 I ~ ~ - 1 . t ~ _ ! i i Ti ,~'.'r :j _ " ~ ! ~ M ~ ' if' 1 rti~~~ N ' - ' I +y ~ r . ~ ~ ? ~ s' - Z~~~r~ 1 ~ ~~r Total alterations made to facade of building. yr~ ~i~.~~.. - • _ ~ r. =''Y r - `~-rte „A ~r...,+rwdR k r~7c~? ~~~t 4.3~r~ ~ ~ . _ • ;,•3-'fit,. ~ : . . T' ~ • .y I w'~ r~ •w~ - - - ~ _ 'ice.' :.~a-...~ ~ ~i - -y} ~~IIfT t~ s~ ~ ~ 1~i +r`( A.. 'i ~ r~ ~ ~ Attachment D Kenovation Fn~;ineering Nlemo ®JVA Incorporated ? JVA lncorporated p .1vA Incorporated Web site: 1111r:/P~ Bou9de~r~CO 80302 FooiCofh s,~CO 805242 7050 US Highway 40 www'wajva.com `J `J `III Ph: 303.444.1951 Ph: 970.225.9099 Winter Park, CO 80482 E-mail: Fax: 303.444.1957 Fax: 970.225.6923 Ph: 970.722.7677 info@jvajva.com Fax: 970.722.7679 M E M O TO: Jeff Whiteman DATE June 27, 2008 FIRM: W.E. O`Neil Construction JOB NO. 13233 ADDRESS: 229 Vallejo Street PROJECT: 1904 Pearl Street _ Denver, Colorado 80223 Structural Upgrade Page 1 of 1 Dear Jeff: We discussed alternative approaches to upgrading the existing building at 1904 Pearl Street that have different costs associated with the level of rehabilitation/renovation. The items below address the key structural components to each alternative that should assist you in developing the cost assessment. While we discussed several schemes, they al( should involve variations of the two primary thoughts below. 1. Rehabilitate the building for long term investment at market rental rates • Bolster existing rubble foundation wall at perimeter with sister 8" concrete grade beam x 30" deep. North grade beam will have pilasters to accommodate columns in storefront. • Provide new 10" x 24" wide strip footing under center bearing wall (recent photo from Brad indicates stud bearing wall without a foundation). Shore as required. Slab demolition/replacement and excavation will be required. • Reframe/bolster 2"d floor and roof with sistered 1-3/4"X14" LVL's @ 16" o.c. (level floor in process}. • Reconstruct north facade to look as it was originally constructed. Condition unknown with current stone/stucco overlay. Assume significant masonry repair or reconstruction with new welded steel moment frame to provide lateral restraint to the building below the 2"d level. Frame shall consist of W10x45 columns with a W10x45 support beam with bottom plate. Shoring wilt be required to install frame and maintain existing wood beam. W10 columns will replace existing 8x8 posts. • Fill in south and west openings in original bearing walls. Reconstruct with brick or block masonry. • Remove paint on exterior brick skin and stabilize brick face to prevent further deterioration (Contact Mike Atkinson-Noland in this regard}. • Reconstruct exterior south masonry lintels. ¦ Note that all new construction adjacent to this existing building will require foundation systems sensitive to this original building. 2. Preserve north facade only and construct new building to incorporate facade • Provide temporary shoring as necessary to allow for demolition of existing building. • Reconstruct north facade as noted above with new foundation to bolster existing rubble wall. • New construction will engage existing wall but not add any load to the original wall. cc: Brad Hahn Tom Soell, PE, President LEED Accredited Professional Attachment E Renovation Engineering Pricing July 35, 2008 Brad Hahn 623 Concord Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 Re: 1904 Pearl Street -Boulder, Colorado Pricing Analysis -Structural Rehabilitation Scenario Mr. !Jahn: Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this Schematic Pricing for the proposed Structural Rehabilitation ai 1904 Pearl Street. Please find the following budgetary items attached: - Exclusions and Qualifications related to our pricing. - Schematic Pricing related to rehabilitating existing structure acid North facade. 'I'bis pricing is purely a Structural Cost Analysis. Primarily, Divisions 7 through 16 have been excluded from our pricing (with exception of MLP safe-off for demolition). "('his pricing is base purely from the conditions known at this time and the budget does not include costs for unknown or hidden conditions. We Dope the pricing provides you with the inforn~ation required to proceed with your project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jeff Whiteman (''reconstruction Project Manager cc: l:stimatine File 08075,0 1904 Pearl Street -Structural Rehabilitation Boulder, Colorado Specific Clarifications Juiy 3, 2008 CENF.RAL COMMENTS 1. Our schematic budget pricing is based on our site visit June 19, 2008 2. We have acknowledge Structural Narrative by JVA Consulting Engineers dated June 27, 2008 SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS A. Permit and Plan Check Fees B. Use Tax C. Tap Fees D. Builders Risk Insurance Hazardous Material Removal (e.g. asbestos) F. Off-hours Work (e.g. nights & weekends) G. Weather Protection 1`l. New Mechanical work I. Nety Electrical work J. New Fire Sprinkler work K. Ncw Interior! Exterior Finishes L. Demolition of Wesi [iuilding M. New Doors and Glazing N. Modifications of Doors and Glazing O. Miscellaneous and Ornamental Metals P. New Roofing Q. Site Utilities SCENARIO #tl -ASSUMPTIONS & QUALIFICATIONS 1. Preliminary anticipation of a 10 week construction schedule (for structural work only) 2. General Conditions & Requirements for 10 week schedule. 3. Demolition of interior partitions. 4. Removal and replacement of all floor and roofing substrates. Sawcutting and patching of existing concrete slab as require for new foundation system. 6. Shoring of existing floor and roof. 7. Shoring of North Facade 8. Excavation for new concrete. 9. Interior Pad Footings for support of new colu?nns. 10. [iolster existi ng foundation wall at perimeter with l2" wide foundation wall. 11. Slab Patchin g as required. 12. A Masonry Repair Allowance of 526,200 far tuck pointing and miscellaneous repairs. 13. Masonr y infill at South and West walls. f4. Ne w steel columns, beams, and rigid frames per Structural Report. I5. Sister -frame existing floor framing and roof framing with new I x 14" LVL's at 16" o.c. 16. Ne wload-bearing furring walls ai building perimeter. l7. Ne w plywood substrate on new LVL floor and roof joists. 18. MEP Safe -off as require for demolition. 1904 Pearl Street Full Rehabflltation of Existing Datec: July 3, 2008 • Preliminary Notes Budget Comments Descnp;ion 7/3JOg Division 1 570.775 General Conditions & Requirements Divislon 2 $62,025 Sitework 8 De_m_o!_ition Division 3 $54.200 Concrete Finishes Division 4 $47,890 Masonry Division 5 5147,625 Metals Division 6 5102,500 Woods & Plastics Division 7 50 Thermal ~ M_ oisture Protection Division 8 SO Doors ~ Glazing Division 9 SO Finishes Division 10 SO Specialties Division 11 SO Equipment Division 12 $0 Furnishings Division 13 $0 Special Construction_ Division 14 SO Conveying Systems Division 15 53,850 Mechanical Division 16 53,900 Electrical Subtotal 5492,765 Builders Risk Insurance Allowance By Owner General Liability Insurance at C.95% 54.681 Subcontractor Bonds SO Permit Fees By Owner _ Plan Check Fees By Owner Use Tax B Owner Subtotal $497,446 Estimating/Construction Contingency at 5% $24,872 SP Overhead at 4% $19,898 Fee at 6% $29,847 Budget Total 5572,063 Square Footage 8.500 Cost Per Square Foot $67.30 1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co. GrOUp Phase Description Takeoff Quantit Labor Material Equip y Amount Amount Sub Amount Amount Totat Amount S /Unit 1000.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 1001 00 General Conditions Supervision, Contracts, Cost Contro etc 10 wk 55.000 55.000 5,500.00_ / wk General Conditions 8,500 sf 0 0 55,000 0 55,000 6.47 / sf 1101.00 General Requirements Bid 8 Construction Drawing Printing 1 Is 500 500 500.00 / Is Travel Expenses (1 PM Trip /week) 10 wk 500 500 50.00 / wk Hoisting Equipment 5 wk 8.000_ 8.000 1,600.00 / wk Fuel 3 mo 1,500 _ 1,500 600.00 / m0 Small Tools 10 wk 1,500 1,500 150.00_ I wk Office Trailer 0 mo 0 0 500.00 / mo Temp Elec. Installation 1 ea 500 500_ 500.00_ / ea Temp Elec Power 3 mo 375 375 125.00 / mo Job Fence & Temporary Barricades 1 Is 500_ 500 500.00_ / is Periodic Clean-up 5 wk 750 750 150.00 / wk Trash Disposal /Recycling 2 ea 900 900_ 450.00 1 ea Safely Equipment 1 Is 250 250 250.00 I IS Final Clean-up (Broom Sweep) 1 Is 500 500 500.00 / IS Protect Sign 0 Is 0 0 500.00 / Is Liability Insurance -See Summary Page 1 Is 0 0 0 00 I IS Plan Check, Permit. Use Tax -See Summary Page 1 Is 0 0 0.00 / Is General Requirements 8,500 sf 0 0 15,775 0 15,775 1.86 / sf GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 8,500 sf 0 0 70,775 0 70,775 8.33 1 sf 2000.00 SITEWORK 2100.00 Demolition Ir~~erior Wall Gemolition 8,500 sf 5,950 5,950 0.70 ! Sf MEP Demolition 8,500 sf 4,250 4,250 0.50 / sf Selective Structural Demolition {post shorrng) 1 Is 5,000 5,000 5,000.00 ! Is Selective Removal of Existing Ffaor Substrate 2,500 sf 1.125 1,125 0,45 / sf Selective Removal of Existing Roof Substrate {inGuding Roofing) 6,000 sf 3,900 :,900 0.65 sf Sawcutting of Concrete Slab at Perimeter 350 If 525 525 1.50 / If Sawcutting of Concrete at new Pad_Footings 5 ea 375 375 75.00 / ea Concrete Stab Removal 2,100 sf 4,200 4,200 2.00 I sf Dumpster Pulls 5 ea 3,750 3.750 750.00 1 ea Demolition B,SOD sf 0 29,075 0 29,075 3.42 / sf 2140.00 Shoring Shoring of 2nd Levet Floor 480 If 14,400 14,400 30.00 / If Shoring of Roof _ 2a0 If 7;200 7,200 30.00 / If Shoring of North Fascade 2 mo 5;000 5,000 2.500.00 mo Shoring 8,500 sf 0 0 26,600 0 26,600 3.13 I sf 2200.00 Earthwork Perimeter Excavation 100 cy 4,000 x,000 40.00 t cy Haul off Spoits 100 cy 600 600 6.00 cy 7!312008 SchematiGPreliminary Budget 1 of 5 1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co. Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Materia! Sub Amount Equip Total Amount 5 /Unit Amount Amount Amount Pad Footing Excavation 5 ea 1,750 _ 1,750_ 35.0.00 I ea Earthwork 8,500 sf 0 0 6,35__0 0 6,35__0 0.75 ! sf 2500.00 Site Utilities None 0 is 0 0 0.00 / Is Site Utilities 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf 2800.00 Landscaping None 0 Is 0 0 0.00 / Is Landscaping 8,500 sf 0 0 0 tt 0 0.00 / sf SITEWORK 8,500 sf 0 0 62,025 ~ 62,025 7.30 I sf 3000.00 CONCRETE 3300.00 Concrete New Pad Footings (8' x 8' x 1.5') 18 cy 6.300 6,300 350.00 / cy New Perimeter Grade Beam 340 If 28.900 28,900__ _85.00 / If Slab Patch at Pad Footings _500 sf 5,000 5,000 10.00 ! sf Slab Patch at Perimeter 1,400 sf 14,000 14,000 10.00 / sf Concrete 8,500 sf 0 0 54,200 0 54,200 6.38 / sf CONCRETE 8,500 sf 0 0 54,200 0 54,200 6.38 / sf 4000.00 MASONRY _ ~~200.00 Masonry Removal of Paint on North Fascade (5andbfasting~) _ 80 mh 3,600 3,600 45.00 / mh Fascade Masonry Tuckpointing Allowance {2 tradesmen, 4 weeks) 320 mh 17,600 17.600 55.00 / mh Misc. Masonry Material Allowance _ 1 Is 5,000 5,000 _ 5,000.00 / Is 8" CMU Infills at West Wall _ 1,280 si 23,040 23,040_ 18 00 / sf 8" CMU Infills at South Wall 125 sf 2,250 2,250 18.00 / sf Masonry 8,500 sf 0 0 47,890 0 47,890_ 5.63 / sf MASONRY 8,500 sf 0 D 47,890 0 47,890 5.63 1 sf 5000,00 METALS 5500.00 Misc. Metals New Steel Columns at 1st Floor (t6' tall @ 40 lbs. / ft) 6.50 ton 37,375 37,375_ 5,750.00 /ton New Steel Columns at 2nd Floor {16' tall @ 40 lbs. l ft) 3.00 ton 17,250 17,250 5,750.00 I ton New Steel_Beams at 2nd Floor (50 lbs. I ft) 3.00 ton 15,000 15,000 5,000.00 I ton New Steel Beams at Roof (50 lbs. / R) 1.50 lon 7,500 7,500_ 5,000.00 !ton Rigid Frames (60 lbs. / ft) _ 9 ton 58,500 58,500_ 6,500.00 ton Misc. Metals For Fascade Rehabilitation _ 2 ton 12,000 12,000 6,000.00 ton Misc. Metals 8,500 sf 0 0 147,625 0 147,625 17.37 / sf METALS 8,500 sf 0 0 147,625 0 147,625 17.37 J sf 6000.00 WOODS & PLASTICS 6100.00 Rough Carpentry Rebuild Perimeter with Bearing Walls at 1st Level 340 IF 8,500 8,500 25.00 ! If Rebuild Perimeter with Bearing Walls at 2nd Level 220 If 5,500 5.500 25.00 / If Sister 14" LVL at 2nd Level Floor (Materials) 4,500 if 27,000 27,000 6.00 / If Sister 14" LVL at 2nd Level Floor (Labor} 400 mh 18,000 18,000 45.00 / mh Sister 14" LVL at Roof (Materials) 2,250 If ' 3,500 13.500 6.00 / If 713%2008 SchematiGPreliminary Budget 2 of 5 1904 Pear; Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co. Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Material Sub Amount Equip Total Amount Unit Amount Amounl Amount Sister 14" LVL at Roof (Labor) 300 mh 13,500 13,500 45.00 / mh New 3/4" Plywood Substrate at Znd Level Floor {Material) 190 sht 7,600 7,600_ 40.00 ! Sht New 3/4" Plywood Substrate at 2nd Level Floor (Labor) 190 sht 1,900 1,900 10.00 / Sht New 3/4" Plywood Substrate at Roof (Material) 90 sht 3.600 3,600 40.00 / sht - - - New 314" Plywood Substrate at Roof {Labor) 90 sht 900 900_ 10.00 / sht _ Misc Framing Materials 1 is 2,500 2,500 2,500.00 / IS Rough Carpentry _ 8,500 sf 0 0 102,500 0 102,500 12.06 / sf 6400.00 Millwork None 0 ea 0 0 0.00 ! _ ea Millwork 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf WOODS 8. PLASTICS 8,500 sf 0 0 102,500 0 102,500 12.06 / sf 7000.00 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 7200.00 Insulation None 0 sf 0 _ 0.00 / Sf Insulation _ 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 ~ 0.00 I sf 7500.00 Roofing Misc. Patching_ 0 0 0.00_ ! Is Roofing 8,500 st 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf 7900.00 Misc. Sealants None 0 !s 0 © 0.00 / Is Misc. Sealants 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 J sf THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 J sf 8000.00 DC)C~;%~:: ~uLAZING 8200.00 Doors & Frames None _ _ _ _ 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / sf Doors 8 Frames 8_,500 .sf 0 u 0 0 0 0.00 J sf 8800.00 Glazing - None - - - 0 sf 0 _ - 0 0.00 / sf Glazing 8,500 sf 0 0 0 D 0 0.00 ! sf DOORS & GLAZING 5,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0.00 ! sf 9000.00 FIMSNES _ 9250.00 Drywall None 0 st _ 0 0 _ _ 0.00 ! Sf _ Drywall 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ! sf 9500.00 Acoustic Ceiling Tila None 0 sf _ _ _ _ _ 0_ _ 0 0.00 / sf Acoustic Ceiling Tile 8,500 sf 0 0 0 t) 0 0.00 1 sf _9650.00 Flooring .None 0 s` _ 0 C 0.00 / sf Flooring 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf 9900.00 Painting None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 ! sf Painting 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf 7/3/2008 SchematiGPreliminary Budges 3 of 5 1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co. GfOU Phase Description Takeoff Quanti Labor Material Equip P ~ Amount Amount Sub Amount Amount Totai Amount $ /Unit FIN{SHES 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf 10000.00 SPECIALTIES _ tooou.e_ wore _ _ _ 0 Is 0 0.00 ! Is Specialties 8,500 sf 0 U 0 0 0.00 1 sf ` SPECIALTIES 8,500 sf I) o 0 0 0.0o r sf 11000.00 EQUIPMENT 11900.00 Appliances None 0 ea 0 0 0.00 / ea Appliances 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0.00 / Sf EQUIPMENT 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 D 0.00 / sf 12000.00 FURNISHINGS 125D0.00 Window Treatments None 0 ea 0 D 0.00 / ea Window Treatments 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf FURNISHINGS 8,500 sf 0 D 0 0 0 0.00 I sf 13000.00 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 13000.00 Special Construction None _ _ _ _ 1 Is D 0 0.00 / IS Special Construction 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00_ I sf SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf 114000.00 CONVEYING SYSTEMS 14000.00 Conveying Systems None _ _ 1 Is - 0 0 0.00 / IS Conveying Systems 8,500 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ! sf CONVEYING SYSTEMS 8,5D0 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 I sf 15000.00 MECHANICAL 15400.00 Plumbing Safe-off for Demolition 30 mh 1,650 1,650 55.00. / mh Plumbing 8,500 sf 0 0 1,650 0 1,650 0.19_1 sf 15000.00 Fire Sprinklers Safe-off for Demolition 20 mh 1, t 00 1,100 55.00 / mh Fire Sprinklers 8,500 sf 0 1,100 0 1,100 0.13_ / Sf 15600.00 HVAC Safe-off for Demolition 20 mh 1,100 1,100 55.00 / mh HVAC 8,500 sf 0 0 1,100 0 1,100 0.13 ! sf MECHANICAL 8,500 sf G 0 3,850 3,850 0.45 t sf 16000.00 ELECTRICAL 160t)a.00 Electrical Safe-off for Demolition 60 mh _ _ 3.900 3.900 65.00 / mh Electrical 8,500 sf 0 0 3,900 0 3,900 0.46 / sf ELECTRICAL 8,500 sf 0 0 3,900 0 3,900 0.46 / sf 7/3/2008 SchematiGPrelimi~ary Budget 4 of 5 1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co. Group Phase l7escnption Takeoff Quantity Labor Material Sub Amount Equip Total Amount S / Umt Amount Amount Amount _SUBTOTAL (T.I) 8,500 sf 0 0 492,765 0 492,765 57.97 / sf 7/3/2008 Schematic/Preliminary Budget 5 of 5 Attachment H Current En~;ineerin~ Summary and Report l>04 Pearl Street Strzreturcr! Observations -.IV,4, /nc. 11 u,~ust I, 2008 Summary T'he original building has experienced significant settlement and undergone numerous modifications. Observed overframing to achieve a level floor in half of one second ]evel apartment is approximately 3" in height, and one can estimate a total settlement of approximately 6" in the eastern 25 foot building width. This magnitude of movement may have affected wood bearing conditions and framing connections along the east wall that are concealed by finishes, hence future safe use of the building requires a thorough investigation of these elements. Framing inadequacies at the upper floor and roof should also be addressed if the upper floor is to continue to be rented to the public. Given the deterioration in portions of the brick and concealment of the original storefront, it's important that close attention be paid to the north face of the building. Bolstering of the storefront with steel frames will go far in meeting present day lateral code requirements. Exterior brick exhibits significant deterioration in the upper west and south walls. A specialist in masonry preservation should examine these conditions, although it's clear portions of the south wall should be rebuilt. The detached cottage is a modest structure and one can visually estimate within its small footprint a differentia] settlement of 3" or more. Two additions and modifications detract from the character of the original building. The western roof over the porch is clearly inadequate and should be rebuilt if the building remains in use. 1.0 Structural Systems JVA's site visit was limited to the existing brick masonry and wood building that was constructed in 1888, and we also took a cursory look at the small detached cottage that was constructed near the alley. The 2-story hotel took. up two 25 foot wide lots with the eastern half extending h0 fleet to the south. The western half of the building was approximately 40 feet in length, and a single story space was built on the back end of this wing. Archived photos indicate the lower level also housed a saloon. The upper floor is compartmentalised into five apartment rooms that are principally accessed by the original flight of stairs just inside the west wall of the 1888 building. A secondary exterior stair has been added to the east side of the building and it requires exiting over the roof of the 1950's addition. in the 1950's the single story building to the west was constructed, and this work included a 60 foot single-story addition on the back of the original hotel. At that time, the entire north facade of the original 1888 building was modified. Stucco and furring were placed over the upper brick above the storefront, and an ashlar stone veneer in combination with new windows and doors replaced the original storefront. It appears a concrete foundation was poured adjacent to the stone rubble to support the stone facade. -1- 1904 Pearl Street StrtrcturalOhservatiorrs-Jt~A, Inc. ~arpt~st 1. 2008 Both buildings were again renovated in 2002 when the entire first floor was converted into the Boulder Co-Op Market. Circulation required significant new openings in the west 188$ building line and a couple of minor openings were constructed in the central north-south interior bearing wall in the original structure. Rubble foundations were bolstered at these new openings with underpinning concrete pads. Additional concrete slabs were placed in isolated areas of the original building as part of the renovation. The single story cottage to the rear of the lot was built in 1910 as a home for John Lund. It has since had two very modest additions constructed to the south. A small covered porch opens to the west. 1.1 Code and Loading Requirements Existing portions of the building that arc to remain in service will need to be designed per the 2006 International Existing Building Code {IEBC). historic Buildings shall comply with the applicable structural provisions of the existing building code depending on the degree of alterations made to the existing structure. A building may be exempt from current IBC requirements if little is done to alter the building. When extensive modifications are undertaken, the building may be fully subjected to current requirements including gravity and lateral systems, although some exemptions can be accepted by the Code Official with proper operational controls. The IEBC classifies alterations from simple "Repairs" up to "Level 3 Alterations". For example, a Level II Alteration would be applicable if one were to propose removal of a few bearing walls. In doing so, if actual stresses are not affected by more than 5%, then the affected structure need not comply with current codes. If 30°/, or more of the existing building is affected by alterations, then a complete lateral analysis for cun~ent 1BC 2006 wind and seismic forces must be performed for the entire building. Chapter 10 of the IEBC, Historic Buildings, also contains provisions for the repair of historic buildings and thus applies to this structure where repairs are necessary. Per Section 1006, a component or portion of a building or structure defined as dangerous shall be repaired, strengthened or replaced. Specific definitions for what comprises a dangerous element are listed in the appendix to this report. The definitions and loadings listed below will be used for all evaluations of the existing stnicture covered in this report and for the proposed new construction. 1.2 Existing Structural Systems Load-bearing multi-wythe brick bearing walls support the two story wood frame structure and the brick was originally supported on shallow stone nibble foundations. lt's likely the original main floor was framed with joists spatuling east-west, but given that the existing floors are now concrete slab-on-grade, it's likely that the original framed floor was abandoned and concrete -2- i </~i~ !'<<rv~/ ,Slrr~rl S1i~uc~tiu~ul Ulzc,v ~~uliu~ce ,ll!~1, lit<~ -.-~u,uct 1. ~Ui~,~' slabs were installed during the 1950's renovation. This was confirmed anecdotally to Brad 1-Iahn. Additional slab work was done during the 2002 renovation. Both halves of the building are framed with ft~ll width 2x floor, roof and ceiling joists span east- west. The roof rafters stairstep in the bearing walls so the roof can slope down from front to back. A central north-south brick bearing wall supports the framing down the middle of the building, such that the toor and roof joists all span approximately 25 feet minus the width of the walls. A dropped ceiling has been added below the second floor most likely to accommodate plumbing and mechanical system upgrades over time. In isolated areas the original Ix ceiling boards that attached directly to the bottom of the floor joists were exposed to view. A built-up wood beam consisting of 6-2x 12's supports the original brick bearing wall above the storefront line on the north face of the building. This beam appears to be supported on the original intermediate wood posts that framed the 1888 storefront. The outside brick walls support cash end of the beam. At least four new openings were placed in the original masonry bearing walls during the Co-Op Market renovation. Steel lintels were added to support the brick and new concrete underpinning pads reinforced the rubble, at these locations. Large wood ledgers are bolted to the back of the original back bearing wall to support the wood roof rafters that were needed for the 1950's addition to the south. These rafters slope down to the south and are supported on intermediate steel beam lines in the roof. The roof for this single story addition supports the building HVAC and also serves as a casual roof top deck for the apartments. As stated earlier, access to the secondary exterior stair is gained over this portion of the addition. The small cottage in the rear of the property is wood framed with a simple north-south gable. The original floor appears to be in place with floor joists sitting on the ground. Additions to the south include a room with an east-west gabled roof and the southernmost addition was built with a roof sheddin~z down to the south. 1.3 Structural Ubscrvations The original masonry bearing walls have been significantly modified on the west building line with minor modifications at the interior support lines. in general the wall performance is mixed, with some of the original walls in fair condition and signs of noticeable distress in other areas. The windows in the north facade appear to be significantly lower at the east end of the building, probably indicative of settlement in the stone rubble foundation. Brick lintels in the south wall over the original second floor window openings have partially failed and the exposed brick in the south wall exhibits signiticant weathering and deterioration where the paint has chipped away. Unusually wide mortar joints in some of the exposed walls also appear to have recessed with time Isom the face of brick Riven the wide exposure to weather. -3- 1904 Pearl Street Str•r~ct~n•al Oh.rervations - Ji'A, Inc. - Au,~r~st 1, 2008 'I'hc second floor framing in the apartments is clear spanning about 24 feet and these joists likely don't come close to meeting current building code requirements. There is dramatic slope in the second floor down to the east in the eastern half of the building. In fact, the southernmost apartment was renovated and the floor has a 3" step that attempted to correct slope in the floor. This slope is likely due to a combination of joist sag and settlement in the east building line that sits on the rubble foundation. The ceilings appear to be in reasonably good shape, although lay-in suspended ceilings exist in some locations which is often indicative of damage to the ceiling above. We did not get on the upper roof of the original building nor could we verify the roof stricture member sizes. It's probable that these roofs also don't come close to meeting current building code requirements. The back. cottage is performing reasonable well. The floor joists likely sit directly in the dirt and the floors are uneven, although I didn't detect noticeable soft areas. The roof lines exhibit noticeable sag. 1.4 Discussion/Findings Overall the original building is performing adequately and the many modifications seem to also be performing as designed. If the building were to retrain in operation as it now stands, we highly recommend addressing the exposed masonry that is deteriorating. This will likely involve significant tuckpointing and reconstruction of some of the masonry lintels. The existing rubble foundations show signs of significant settlement in the west wall and at the northwest corner. These walls may continue to perform without additional movement, but they are prone to small differential settlements. Unfortunately the original crawlspace has been filled in with concrete so one can't view the rubble walls from the inside. The significantly slope in the upper floors is a concern. At some point this condition should be fully investigated. Building settlements of this magnitude often create large gaps in the end connections that require remediation. We've seen this condition in several buildings on the Pearl Street Matl that ,1VA has previously renovated. It's interesting to note that the modifications to the original structure that took place during the Co-Op Market construction in 2002 assumed that the original structure was "adequately designed and constructed", so no work outside the new openings was performed on the 1888 building. This is stated on the structural drawings used for the renovation. The building as it stands doesn't come close to meeting current building code requirements for lateral wind and seismic forces, particularly at the north storefront. If the existing use remains as is and the neighboring 195U's addition is demolished, one must give second thought to the extent of the 2002 modifications and should they have warranted an analysis of the building systems. It's not clear that this would have been required. -4- 1904 Pear-! Street Structural Obsen~atznns J~A, Inc. .4u~>ust 1, 200$ Certainly if the entire 1888 building is renovated, the brick masonry structure must be strengthened to meet lateral requirements. This is usually accomplished with the introduction of steel frames where necessary. A steel frame in the north facade will have an added benefit of re- supporting the original upper brick fa4ade. Total. renovation will also necessitate strengthening of'the floor joists and roof rafters. While at the site we discussed saving the north facade only and demolishing the remainder of the building. This would require significant temporary shoring and the foundations would need to be assessed. While the detached cottage is modest, we understand there are discussions regarding relocating the original section to another site. It's likely this can be easily accomplished given the small footprint, but the lack of foundation and crawlspace depth will make it more difficult to raise and move. We recommend this issue be addressed with a moving subcontractor that specialises in this type of challenge. -5- 1904 Pearl Stree! Sh7rctural Observations - JyA, Inc. -August 1, 20!18 Appendix 1.0 Referenced Documents Background information was obtained from the following documents provided by Brad Hahn of Elevation Properties: ¦ 1904 Pearl Street Demolition Application Landmark Board Review (not dated) ¦ Historic photos of north and south elevations of John Lund Hotel from Carnegie Branch Library, Boulder, Colorado ¦ Construction Documents from Boulder Co-Op Market renovation of 1904 Pearl ' Street, March 2002 2.0 IEBC 2006 Structural Design Load Requirements Per IEBC Section 1.106.2, only components or portions of a historic building determined to be dangerous as defined in Section 202 require repair, strengthening or replacing. Per Section 202, dangerous is defined as: 1) The stress in a member due to factored. dead and live loads is more than 1.33 times the nominal strength allowed in the IBC. 2) Any member likely to fail or collapse and thereby injure persons 3) Any portion of a building that is not capable of resisting a wind pressure of two thirds of that specified by the 1BC for new buildings without exceeding the nominal strength permitted in the IBC. 4) The building or any portion. thereof is likely to collapse because of dilapidation, deterioration, decay, damage or instability. 5) Vertical structural members list, lean or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one third of the base. -6- Attachment G September School Letter of Intent Se tember high school September School 1902 Walnut 13oulder, Colorado 80302 August 5`°. 2008 Dear Landmarks Board and Staff, We have been offered the donation ofa cottage house located at 1904 Pearl Street to our property at 1902 Walnut Street. The owners of the cottage have agreed to relocate and renovate the cottage on our property. We understand this requires yvur approval. Our school is a community based school providing to the neighborhood and surrounding area. We feel that the relocated cottage will benefit both the community and our school. The studio space will provide us with educational opportunities and our property will provide a good permanent home for the cottage's physical and living history. We are also interested in potentially pursuing landmarking the cottage if relocated. Our large half acre property and our school mission provide assurance that these buildings are protected for the community and future students. However, we understand that our intent to consider landmarking the cottage would potentially help you in approving the relocation. 'T'hus, this is consideration we will take seriously at the board level. Based on your: approval ofthe cottage relocation, the September School will pursue an agreement with the cottage house owners to relocate and restore the cottage on our property. Sincerely, l ~i~ Dan Fox Principal September School 1902 U1~inf ~r~ Hxlcl~: CO 80002 303.443.~i .303.444.5027 f~c vaw,nc~tart~as~.crg