HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Consideration of whether to initiate the designation of 1904 - 1912 and 1918 1/2 Pearl St as a Historic Landmark MEMORANDUM
October 1, 2008
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Plaiuiing Manager
James I lcwat, Preservation P1ailner
Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern
Chris 1Vleschuk, Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of whether to initiate the
designation of 1904-1912 and 1918 Pearl Street as a locally
desigizated Iistoric Landmark, per Section 9-11-3, 13.K.C. 1981.
(H1S2008-00047)
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1904-1912 Pearl Street and 191x'/z Pearl Street
2. Date of Constriction: 1876 with a 1959 addition and c. 1910 (alley house)
Coning: MU-3 (Mixed Use-3)
4. Owner: 1Zingsby Family LLLP c/o Wish Mclntire
Applicant: Brad FIahn
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation of the
property at 1904-1912 and 191$ lh Pearl Street, and recommends issuing the
demolition permit at 1904-1912 Pearl Street, if the applicant withdraws the
demolition request for the alley cottage at 1918'h Pearl Street.
SUMMARY:
¦ The purpose of this hearing is for the board to determine whether it is
appropriate to initiate local landmark designation for thr. property at 1904-1.91.2
and 1918'/z Pearl Street.
¦ On )r.~ne 4, 2008 the Landmarks Board voted to impose astay-of-demolition for a
period of up to 180 days, finding that there was "probable cause" to consider the
property may be eli~,iblr for designation as an individual landmark (See
llff:tc~>>rrr~~if 1,, ii~cn~~~ lu I.~Ii~il~n~irk~ 6o~~rdj.
1:~.F~~_.`~I~`~~v.I;;1~~~~1'ly'I;:Ii~.~~~,l ~~l~`.~1~'II1~1~~`.~'i':II~ ~~)l )-1-j~~~"~~ll.~l~.l_I~ 1!CfiallCtil IIIC Ia:il{i
1~cnda It~~nr ##713 Yd~e #1
¦ At the August 20, 2008 Landmarks Board meeting, the owner's representatives
requested that the stay be lifted for the building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street, and in
return the demolition request for the alley house at "1.918'/z Pearl Street would be
wiilulrawn.
¦ On August 20, 2008, the Landmarks Board voted to schedule an initiation
hearing for 1904-1912 and 1918 r/z Pearl Street.
• Based upon further analysis, 1904-1912 Pearl Street against the seven aspects of
integrity outlined by the National Register of Historic Places, does not retain
sufficient integrity for landmark designation. 1918 Yz Pearl Street may retain
sufficient integrity to be eligible for landmark designation.
¦ Staff recommends the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation of the
property at 1904-1912 and 1918 '/z Pearl Street.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation ordinance calls for the Landmarks Board to hold a public
hearing to consider initiating landmark designation of a property (9-11-3, BRC,
1.981). Initiation hearings are legislative, not quasi-judicial. While not required, in
reviewing whether to initiate the board may consider whether:
(L) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be
eligible for designation as an individual landmark or historic district
consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-~1,
"Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate
Landmarks and l li~ti>ric Districts," 13.R.C~. 1r~~1;
(~l There arr~ currt~i~tly r~~s~~urc~•s availriblc~ th~~l ~v~~ul~l <~Ilo~~v the city
manager to complete all of the community outreach and historic
analysis necrssary ~O1' thE' a}?phcai]011;
'There is c~~nu»~inity and neighbcu~hoo~1 suhiu~rt [~~r the prop~~st~d
designation;
~ 1 j The buildings or features may need the protections provided through
designation;
The potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate;
[n balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or
~:`~~F'I.~A~~\~i,a.i1!~_nn~ran~~{IST\Dcmns\Pc,irl 19~~1 112\10.O1.OS initiati~m me!n~~.doc
;1~cnda Item #7I3 Pale #2
1
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
ANALYSIS:
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the building or district may be eligible
for designation as an individual landmark or historic district consistent with
the pr.trposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1, 'legislative Intent," and 9-
11-2, "City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts, "
B.R.C. 1981;
9-11-1(a). "The purpose of this chapter is to prorrtote the public health, safety,
and welfare by protecting, enhancing, and perpetuating buildings, sites, and
areas of the city reminiscent of past eras, events, and persons in local, state, or
national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the
past. It is also the. purpose of this clutpter to develop and maintain appropriate
settings and envirvnnrents for such buildings sites, arrd areas tv enhance.
property values, stabilize neighbvrhvods, promote tourist trade and interest,
and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage".
The building located at 1906-1912 Pearl Street served as the Lund Hotel from its
construction in 1876 until the late 1930's. 'The 1959 addition located at 1904 Pearl
Street was built in 1959 and served various commercial business. Tile Lund Hotel
survives as a ]ink to Boulder's Swedish heritage, as it was a meeting place and social
center for many Swedish immigrants for over 60 years. The cottage at 19181/z Pearl
Street was constructed around 1910, and served as a summer house for the hotel and
may also be important to Boulder's history through its association to the Lunds.
After additional research and analysis during the stay-of-demolition period, staff
has concluded that the building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street does not retain sufficient
integrity to be eligible for designation as a local landmark. The building has been
significantly altered beyond recognition of its historic appearance, while the a]ley
cottage at 1918'h ('earl Street has not been as significantly altered as the main hotel
buildu1g and retains integrity to the historic period of ownership by the Lunds.
The National Register of Historic Places defines integrity as building that can
convey its significance. Within this concept, seven aspects or qualities are used to
evaluate integrity:
• Location
• Design
S:\PLAN\data\lon;rann\I-IIS"I'\Demos\Pear1.1904-191.2\t0.01.08 initiation memo.doc
Agenda Ite~ii #7B Page #3
• Setting
• Nlaterials
• Workmanship
• Feeling
• Association
The following is an assessment of the integrity of 1904-1912 and 1918 'h Pearl Street
usizlg these seven aspects. More detail an the definitions and interpretations of the
seven aspects of integrity are included in Attachment C.:
Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed o.r the
place where the historic event occurred.
The building at 1904-1912 Pearl has retained its integrity of location, as it has not
been moved or the location significantly altered. The alley house at 1918'/2 Pearl
Street has also retained its integrity of location.
Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,
structure, and style of a prvperty.
The building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street no longer retains integrity of design. The
building no longer exhibits its original style, and elements such as the facade
massing, fenestration, surface materials, textures, and ornamental details are lost.
however, the alley 1louse at 1918'h Pearl Street does retain integrity of design. The
original style, and detail of materials, fenestration, and form are not significantly
altered from the historic period.
Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
'bite building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street no longer retains integrity of setting. The 1959
addition significantly changed the immediate character of the site, and the former
interaction of the facade to the street/sidewalk has changed greatly with the
replacement of the storefront and entrances. The alley house at 1918'/2 Pearl Street
has also lost integrity of setting. The significance of the alley house in relation to the
main hotel building has been significantly altered given the changes to the hotel and
area around the property.
Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited
during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to
form a historic property.
The building at ] 904-1912 Pearl Street no longer retains integrity of materials. The
facade of the building has lost all historic material. The choice and combination of
S:\I'LAN\data\IongrannUIIST\llemos\Pear1.1904-1912\10.01.0$ initiation memo.doc
Agenda Rena #7B Pale #4
material no longer "reveal the preferences of those who created the property." The
building retains few, if any key exterior materials dating from its historic period of
significance (period of Lund Hotel) an the Ea~ade. Materials on the Ea~ade are
comprised of stucco and imitation stone dating from the 1950s. The west and south
sides of the building retain some of the key historic exterior materials, but have been
altered over time with Fenestration modifications, enclosure of soma portions, and
significant deterioration. While remodeled around 1930, the alley house at 19~1.8'h
Pearl Street has retained integrity of materials. The building has been altered over
time, with anon-historic addition on the south side of the building. In addition, the
porch has been altered and the windows replaced. However, the majority of the
building still displays key exterior features from the period of significance.
Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular
culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
The building at 1904-1912 1'carl Street no longer retains integrity of workmanship.
The facade of the building no longer displays evidence of artisans' labor and skill.
While some of the original brick walls remain on the side, and rear of the building,
the details IlaVe eroded, or have been covered up or painted. The alley house at
19181/z Pearl Street has retained integrity of workmanship. The physical evidence of
the artisans' labor is still evident, as most of the exterior cif the building retains its
}lISt01'tl' apf~carallc'e an~i Ill~llerla~ti.
Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic tiense of a
particular period of time.
The building at 1904-1912 ['earl Street has lost integrity of feeling, and no longer
expresses an aesthetic or historic sense of the period of time related to the period of
significance of the building, the time of the Lund Hotel. The building is reminiscent
of the 1950's, rather than the 1880's when the building was constructed. The alley
cottage at 1918'h Pearl Street has retained integrity of feeling and expresses an
aesthetic and historic sense dating to the Lund ownership during the early years of
the 20"' Century.
Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or
person and a historic property.
~f'he building ai 1904-1912 Pearl Street no longer retains integrity of association.
While t}le property is associated with the Lund Hotel, and is recognised as a place
important to the Swedish heritage of the city, the building no longer retains integrity
to convey that relationship to an observer, as the physical features no longer convey
that histori~~ r~l~~lrrlrl~•r'. '1'I~e alley ~'llttage at 1918'/ Pearl Street does retain intrti;rily
S:Af'Li~v\~lala'~~Inn~~r,iu~~1III,ti'11Ucrnu;''~f'r;~il_I~IU~1 I~!I~11U.UL(18 ini'rtt~~xi meini~.ilrc
A~encla Item #t71~ t'a~e #S
of association, as the building still conveys the historic character from the period of
the I.und's ownership u1 the early 20"' Century.
In summary, the building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street only retains integrity of location
and no longer retains integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
or association. For this reason, staff considers that there is not "probable cause" to
believe the building is eligible for local landmark designation. However, the alley
cottage at 1918'h Pearl Street does retain sufficient integrity, and there is probable
cause to believe the building may be eligible for local landmark designation.
(2) There are. currently resources available t{-tat would allow the city manager to
complete all of tyre community outreach and historic analysis necessary fir the
application;
The historic preservation program has limited resources due to current workload,
but could complete the necessary work for this application.
(3) 'There is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation;
Staff has received no community or neighborhood support for the designation of the
1904--1912 Pearl Street building. There has been community support for the
retention of the alley cottage (191.8 ~h Pearl St.) either on-site, or to be relocated to
~c~htc~rnber School.
(4) 7'he buildings or feataires may need the protections provided through
designation;
fhc 1904-1912 Pearl Street building is proposed for demolition. Ho~~ever, staff
considers that the historic and architectural integrity of the building has been so
rc~mpromised that it does not dualify for designation as an individual landmark, and
therefore needs no protection. The applicant has offered to withdraw the demolition
hermit application for 1918 '/z Pearl Street if the demolition of the 1904-1912 Pearl
Strc~rt ht+ildin~ is apprcwc~~l.
(5) Z,he p+~tertfi+tl E~uru~rlr~rle~ f>~~ the t~rol~osc~: +1i:,1ri~~t ~lrr' a{,l;~u{»~i~rte;
f\~~t ai~E~li~able.
((~j In balance, the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies
of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan; or
1'c+li~y 2.33 of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan States that," Buildings,
~1 istricts, and sites of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance
tivill be identified and protected. The city and county will encourage preservation of
ti \l'I.AN\data\longran~\TITST'\L)emos\t'ear1.1904-1912\10.01.08 initiation merno.duc
Akenda Item #7K Pale #G
such resources through incentive programs, designation of landmark buildings .
design review, public improvements, and other tools." This policy encourages
landmark designation when appropriate. Staff considers the architectural integrity
of the building is so compromised that it does not qualify for designation as an
individual landmark.
(7) The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest.
Because of its lack of architectural integrity, initiation of. the process to designate
1904-1912 Pearl Street as a landmark would not be in the public interest. However,
initiation of 197.8 Pearl Street may be in the public interest to retain a portion of
the physical past of the Lund Hotel.
ALLEY COTTAGE
The applicant has offered to withdraw the demolition request for the alley cottage at
1918 '/z Pearl Street, if deslgnatlon IS 21at mltlated, and the demolition request for the
building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street is approved. 'I1zey have presented two scenarios
(see Attaclr.ment C, Cover fetter) regarding the alley cottage, by either preserving it on
site, or moving and donating it to September School, located one block away. As the
building does not retain integrity of setting, staff considers it appropriate to considex
the relocation of the building one black away to September School, where the
building is proposed to be used as a classroom studio. Furthermore, the stay-of-
demolition process is a time to consider alternatives to the demolition of the
building, one of. which is the withdrawal of the demolition request. The applicant,
in working with staff, concluded that the 1904-1912 Pearl Street building has lost its
integrity, although the cottage is intact enough that the history of the hotel, the
Lund's, and this location as a Swedish center can be interpreted through the
building.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
if the board chooses to initiate the designation process, it must da so by resolution.
A draft resolution is included in ANachment A. If initiated, the application shall be
heard by the Landmarks Board within 60 to 120 days in order to determine whether
the proposed designation conforms with t11e purposes and standards in Sections 9-
11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate Landmarks and
Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. The owner must obtain a landmark alteration
certificate prior to the submission of building permit applications Ear the property if
they choose to proceed while the application is pending, or they may choose to wait
until the application process is complete.
S:\PLAMdata\Ion;ran~\lI1S'I'U~emos\F'ear1.1904-I912110.OL08 initiation memo.doc
A#~enda Item ##7I3 P:i~e It7
AT"I ACIIMEN'I'S:
n: Draft resolution to initiate
I~: june 4, 2008 memo to Landmarks Boaxd
C: National Register Bulletin: Assessing Integrity
/applicant informati~~n
S:\1'L.AIVldata\longrang\L11S'f\f>emos\Pear1.1904-1912\10.01.08 initiation memo.doc
A~:enda Item #7B PaQe #8
Attachment A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF'1'I I>-: LANDMARKS BOARD INITIATING
THE DESIGNATION OF 1904-1912 AND 1918 '/z PEARL
STREET AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2008 the Landmarks Board imposed astay-of-demolition on the
property at 1904-1912 and 1918'/z Pearl Street for a period of up to 180 days, and
W)-1EREAS, on August 2U, 2008 the Landmarks Board requested that an initiat5ion
hearing be scheduled for the property prior to the stay of demolition,
NOW, THEREFORE, BF. 1T RESOLVED BY "I'IIE LANDMARKS BOARD OP THE CITY
OF BOUI~ER, COLORADO:
Section 1. The City of Boulder Landmarks Board initiates the designation of 1904-1912
and 1918'h Pearl Street, and will schedule a designation hearing in accordance with the historic
preservation ordinance no fewer than sixty days and no greater than one hundred-twenty days
from the date of this resolution.
i\L)OPTI;T~ this I" d,iv ~>((>~tuh~'r. 2U0~.
C'h~~ir, l.~n~din~u-k~ f~o<crd
A'1"['I :S"I':
~a:rct;cry to the. Board
Atti<zchment B
MEMORANDUM
June 4~'', 2008
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, L«ng Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, ]-Iistoric Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application
for the buildings located at 1904-1912 Pearl Street and 1.918'/2 Pearl
Street, per Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code, :L981.
(H IS208-00047)
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1904-1912 Pearl Street and 1918 i/z Pearl Street
2. Date of Construction: 187b with a 1959 addition and c. 1910 (alley house)
3. Zoning: MU-3 (Mixed Use-3)
4. Owner: Ringsby Family LLLP c/o Wise McIntire
5. Applicant: Brad Hahn
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the t.andmarks Board adopt the following motion:
`1'he Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the buildings located at 1904-1912
and 1918'h Pearl Street, for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit
application was accepted by the city manager, in order. to explore alternatives to the
demolition of the building, and adopts the following as findings of the board:
A stay of demolition for the buildings at 1904-191.2, 1918'h Pearl Street is appropriate
based on the criteria set forth in section 9-1"1-23(f) B.R.C, in that the identified property:
A stay of demolition for the buildings at 1904-"1.912 Pearl Street and 1918'/2 Pearl Street is
appropriate based on the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f) I~.IZ.C, in that the
identified property:
Ayeuda lte~n # ~Y_~ t t,
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/07/2008
Re: 1904-1912, 1918'h Pearl Street- Demolition Permit
1. Maybe eligible for individual landmark designnation based upon its historic,
architectural, and environmental significance;
2. Contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of
the area's past;
3. Has not been demonstrated. to be unpractical or economically unfeasible to
rehabilitate and add onto the existing house.
Alternatives to be considered include rehabilitation of the building, incorporation of tlne
existing house into redevelopment plans, moving the buildings, or withdrawal of the
demolition permit. Staff encourages the applicant to consider landmark designation of
the house and a portion of the property and to incorporate the historic buildings into
~ redevelopment plans for the property. Landmark designations would make state tax
credits available to help offset the cost of rehabilitation, as well as providing the
possibility of a waiver of sales tax on building permits.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 14, 2008, the Planning Department received a demolition pexznit application for
the buildings located at 1.904-7.912 Pearl Street and 19181/2 Pearl Street. The buildings are
not individually landmarked or located in a designated historic district, but are over fifty
years old and meet the criteria for demolition defined under Section 9-11-23 of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance. On Apri123~~', 2008 the Landmarks Design Review
Committee refez-red the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing based
upon the design review comznnittee's finding of probable cause to believe that the
buildings may be eligible Ear designation as an individual Iandmark.
The building located at 1.906-1912 Pearl Street served as the Lund Hotel from its
construction in 1876 until the late 1930'x. The 1959 addition located at 1904 Pearl Street
was built in 1959 and served various commercial businesses. The cottage at 1918'h Pearl
Street served as a summer house for the lnotel and may also be important to T3oulder's
history through its association to the Lunds. The Lund Hotel survives as a Iink to
Boulder's Swedish heritage, as it was a meeting place and social center for many
Swedish immigrants for over 60 years. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board
impose astay-of-demolition in order to consider alternatives to the proposed demolition.
Agenda Ttem #f~Pa e
S:~T'LAN\dataUon~rang~HlS'TU~emos~I'earL1904-1912\06.07.2008 LPt~B memo.doc
,~9L~rric~ lu La~ulmarks 13o~ird l~(~/!li'/<UU
` [:c: 1904-]912, 1918'/z Pearl Street- faemolition Permit
DESCRIPTION:
Located in the East 13auldet. ~'~lA'ur-e 1: Location Mcq~
Addition on the south side of o -
Ll
Pearl Street, between 19'h and O
20~h Streets, the approximately
17,424 square foot lot is located
isos-isi~ P~~
on the east end of Pearl Street, a~~ ~
which boasts an eclectic mix of ~sia~iaPe~
historic buildings and newer
development of both residential
and commercial use. 1904-1012
Pearl Street first served as the ~
LLmd Hotel and more recently ~
housed the Boulder Co-op. Thy O
Lund Hotel is a two-story brick
building built in 1376, and has ~ ~ ~N~~
been extensively remodeled A
over the decades. 'I1ze concrete-
block addition at 1904 Pearl was constructed in 1959 and has been used for various
commercial purposes over the years. The small, wood frame house at 1918'/a Pearl Streei
is arresscd from the alley, locatcrl behind 1918 Pearl Streei. Mased on information in the
ri[v's C;iS system, the total btiildint~, lot rovera~e is estima[c~d ai 1 1,54 square feet.
l'fu~ t~~~~o story brick bllildin~; at I~+Ut~-1912 Pearl -StreL~i cv~~s f,uilt h~" I~>hn and Sophia
Lund in 1876, immediately after their arrival to Moulder. It served as a hotel and focal
point of the Swedish community for over 60 years, from the early 1880's until the late
1930's. The hotel was operated by John Lund until an unfortunate encounter left him
paralysed in 1900. The event later caused his death on August 23, 1907. From 1907 until
1915, his wife, Sophia operated the hotel. From 1915 until 191.8, John Wahlgren, their
son-in-law, managed the hotel. From 1918 until her death in 1939, Mrs. LLmd rented out
Tarnished rooms. From 1939 until 1946, Gertie Wahlstrom, her daughter, managed the
Lund Hotel Apartments. "fhe hotel was sold in 1951, and was immediately converted
into apartments. The lower portion of the building has served as Boulder Home
hnprovement Company, Wilson's Furniture Exchange, Gil's Furniture, Rocky Mountain
Instrument Company, Don's Cheese and Sausage Mart, Left Hand Books and Records,
and Transecon Business Consulting. In 1959, a cement block addition was constructed on
the west portion of the property (1904 Pearl Street). The building has served as Gil's
l~urnihrre Company, Gil and Hat's [,urniture Company, M~~ulder Vallcv Furniture, Hot
S~1I'I _;AV\~I:~ut\lun~ran~\IT1S~1~\I?cnrr.,AI'r;u1. 19U~1 I~~ l21(1(i.0"/.?00ti LE';A13 incnu, slur
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/07/2008
Re: 1904-1912, 197.8 r/~ Pearl Street- Demolition Permit
Point Appliance Distributor, /~nsty Busiless Center, Business F_,xpress and most recently,
the Boulder CO-C)P Market. See Attachment 1.7: Deed Directors] Research
The Lund Hotel is a two-story brick building that was constructed in a style
typical of 19th century commercial buildings, with segmented window arches, brick
parapet, typical second story window proportions, and store-front glass; afull-length
porch has since been removed. The facade of the building has been significantly altered,
with the application of sandstone, re-configuration of the store-front and second-story
windows, and the application of stucco. The alterations can be tracked through the
building permits: in 1981, metal-jamb windows and sky-lights were installed; in 1951
and again in 1970 the apartments were remodeled; u1 1976 there was a fire in the
building, most likely due to inadequate vents foe Don's Cheese and Sausage Mart,
located on the first floor of 1908 Pearl Street. The extent of the darxlage due to the dire is
unknown. See Attachment F: Sartbvrn Maps and I3uildin~J Permit Sttntrnar~
The building at 1904 Pearl Street is simply constructed, and is typical of 1950's
commercial buildings, apparent in the low, horizontal mass dominated by storefront
windows. `l~kte building appears to be intact; building permits for the property indicate
alterations regarded signs, interior walls and a new roof in 1986. Sec Attarhmertt F:
Sanborn Mays and Bttildin~~ Permit Sitrnmar~
The small cottage at 1918'h Pearl Street, constructed in a wood frame vernacular
manner, is relatively intact. An addition on the south side appears to be early; judging
from the Sanborn Insurance maps, staff estimates the addition to have been built
between 1910 and 1918. The lap-siding appears to be original; the windows have been
replaced and the porch has had minor alterations.
The buildings at 1904-1912 Pearl Street were surveyed in 1988, where it was found that
the building was in good condition and is associated with significant persons (John &
Sophia Lund), but retains little historic integrity due to extensive remodelilg. See
Attachment B: Historic Building Inventors) Form
~ 1 ~ ~ -
e ~ -
f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ -r-Jf~ T- r t t
• 1
`sit ~ r ~ ~ t ; r_ • ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ t;`; r -t.; Ise
~ ~ _ - _ ~ mad
. _ . r _ :ter--
Figt~rr-e Z: 1906-1912 Pearl Street, the Joh~a Figure 3: 1906-1912 Pear-l .Street, 2(1(ic~
Lund Hotel, tuulated photograph (Gladden,
1970)
S:U'LAN\data\longran~\HIS'T\Dernos\}'carL1904 1912\06.072008 LPAB merno.doc ~~`~',.~r;~'~~~':~" ~
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/07/2UU8 ,
Re: 1904-1912, 1918'4 Pearl Street- Demolition Permit
:t k
b ~ ~ ~ ' ' - '
+c.. RYA r~ _ 4`
~ •r! ~ ~ ~ , I
.ti,.~'Ya'
r ~ ~urc~ 4: Kerb u~ /,uud Notel, summerhou.,t r ~ lure ti: Rear oJl,und Hutr•l, kilt lu~n ur:
Imd kitchen nn lc%t; u~ulnted photogrc~j~la. ~ ~ cht. (~;la~llll~rr. I
~ ~ ~ ~ .fir J
:r ~ ~ ! n-
.s ~v , ~ a
~ . ,.K~SiCi.'.u.-'. r': a ;:/r~` 4~~~ ^`r
r•/: Imo' ~ Zf _ ~
{ }
1 ' ~ ~ I 1 I ~
I ~ I i 3 S_ ~ `w~-~}~,t~,. ~ v, . ~~~r@'341
Ili ~IIIII? _ - _ ~ ~ Aµ ~ ~ ~
'r ~ ~ ~ -
l~~r>;trre I v1.4'/ Pearl S~trrcl, ~~uml,~c lia~lurlrl Figtrre 7: 1918 %a 1'ertrl Sfrcel, 2005
G ~lrn Lund /lolel, Mrr. Lund on porcl{. (Gladden,
;'i?
^~r \ l~
~
n ~ ~
~:']'~_11V':?.a.,! _~rar~,~. IIIti1,l~~~rn l'c.n~ ~~~iil _`J t: 1~~,1 'ih;i.~1_T':Ai;niri;~,.,,~,, ">M'~'ilr,?412?~+: ~l'~
Memu r~ Landmarks li~,ard O6/U7%2008
Re: 1904-1912, 1918'1 Pearl Street- Demolition Permit
CRITERIA FOR THE 60ARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation ordinance states that the Landmarks 13aard shall consider and
base its decision upon any of the following criteria [9-11-23(f)]:
(1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark
consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 9-11-1 and 9-"11-2, B.R.C.
1981.;
(2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an
established and definable area;
(3) "f1-re reasonable condition of the building; and
(4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration
or repair as set forth uz paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the board may not consider
deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.
As detailed below, staff considers this property is eligible for designation as an
individual landmark and that demolition would have an adverse impact on the
character of the area.
Ir~f~rlilation re~ar~li?~~ the rundilion of tl~e k~uildin~; or the cotit ~~f rctitoratiun ur repair
(criteria 3 and 4) has not been received at this time. For this reason, staff has
concentrated on criteria 1 and 2 in assessing the building's eligibility for landmark
designation and its relationship to the character of the neighborhood.
CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIBILITY
The following is a result of staff's research on the property relative to the significance
criteria for individual landmarks adopted by the Landmarks Board on September 17,
197ti. See Attaclirnei~l C~: !nrliz~rrlrrnl 1.%trrrlrnnrk Si~nift~cartce Crileri~t
HISTORIC SIGNIFICnI~C'r:
Summary: Tlu~ huildinls located at 1904-1912 Pearl Street and 1918 '/z Pearl Street have
historic si~;nificanrc~ Li~~~1t~r criteri~~ 1, 2, 3 and 4.
1. llate of Construction: f ~)llh- I 12 Pearl SlrE~et: I X76; 19U=~ Pearl re~~t: I I ; I I ~ ['earl
Street c. I l ( )
S:~+.Nl_!\?~'\dat:~ll~,n"ran~~li liti"I~~I ~r~n~~.`,f'r,~rl I'~UJ I'll ~!i.'OOS LY%~L~ mcrn~~-,I~~~
~It7iU~ t(~ 1.2I1lihl~U'~~ fii~~lTlj ~t>;~~~j/~.~1~~i
Ke: 1901-1012, I~J1~ ~/z Pearl Street- UetnuliLicm Permit
Elaboration: 1906-1912 Pearl Stref~t_ /fin article from the Boulder County News dated June
30, 1876 reports that "on the opposite site of the street, (from NIr. Wolff's newly
constricted brick business u~ East Boulder), a little below, John Lawn (should be Lund) is
building a brick, 25 x 40, two stories, for railroad restaurant and saloon. See Attachment F.:
Dail1~ Camera Articles, l.cend File Excer~~t, and Flistorical Data Record. 1904 Pearl Street: In 1959,
Mr. ~Rulgsby applied for a building permit to 'build addition to business building. Use of
building: Furnihire Store; 1 floor, 2 rooms; block construction; 50' X 30"'. See Attachment F:
Sanborn Marys and Building Permit Stimmart,~. 19"18 '/2 Pearl Sh•eet:_ The small cottage first
appears on the Sanborn Insurvue maps in the 1910 Sanborn Maps.
2. Association with Persons or Events: John and Sophia Lund
Elaboration: John and Sophia Lund were prominent Swedish immigrants, and the
Lund Hotel was a major focal point and gathering spot for Swedish lmmigrants.
John Lund was born on December 16°~, 1838 in Sweden. He came to America as a bay
and later settled in Black Hawk Colorado. l,`ie brought his bride, Sophia Lindstrom
(born in Vastmanland, Sweden on September 22, 1851), from Sweden and they
married ors February 12~', 1875. Sophia found the altitude too challenging and they
soon moved to Boulder, where Sophia's sister, Mary Parsons lived. Ina 1933 Uaily
Camera article, Mrs. Lund recalls how they bought land the day after they arrived in
Boulder, on a plot they had separately chosen. They opened the John Lund 1-iotel and
Saloon in 1876, and it soon became known as a place for Swedish immigrants to
gather, particularly on weekends, when workers would come from the mines. The
hotel served as the first place Swedes would come as part of their new life in
;~merica.
Ina 1952 article from the Daily Camera, Mathilda Josephine Borgstrand, a neice of
John f ,rind, gave a first hand description of life at the hotel:
"In those days there was a white picket fence all around the place.
Gooseberries followed the fence around. In the back was a
summer house painted green with a big long table and benches
inside. We used to have lunch and cold beer out there in the
summer evenings. There was also a big red barn in back where
they kept a cow. On the front of the hotel was a platform porch
that ran full length. On the east side were big willow trees and on
the west were maples."
John Lund operated the hotel from 1876 until 1900. 1n 1900, while he was talking to a
neighbor in the hotel, he was confronted and shot by a man who either thought that
Mr. Lt~n<1 kne~~~ the where~lbol~ts of a woman (i~~i,~~ineci or real) that Mr. I~c~lson
5~'•~l'Lrly\datallr~n~~ian~~1![l~C\Ucr~~~~~\PearLl'~t)~l l~>i~~(lE~-il?.'Ott.s f,f'~\!~ n;~•inn,l~-'~ ~ ~;j
, .
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/07/2008
Re: 1904-1912, 1918 r/z Pearl Streei- Demolition Permit
fancied and was deliberately withholding the information or that Mr. Lund had
advised this woman to resist Mr. Nelson's advances. The gunshot resulted u1
paralysis, and he died, 7 years later, on August 23, 1.907, at the age of 45. Mrs. Lund
continued to operate the hotel until 1915 and again as apartment rooms from 191.8
until her death in 1939. From 1915-1918, the hotel was operated by the John
Walhgren, finer daughter's husband.
It is uncertain how many children the Lunds had; research indicates anywhere from 4
to 11, £ive of whom died in infancy. In the least, their children include Gertrude,
Jeruiie, Esther and Ernest. Gertie and Esther married brothers Oscar and Axel
Wahlstrom, another prominent Swedish family, the same .for whic}n Wahlstrom
Terrace, just north of the hotel, is associated with.
Oscar died in a tragic auto accident; FsthFr had two children, both of whom died
yorung. Gertie was a secretary for an insurance company and divorced Axel
Wahlstrom in 1922_ They had rna children. Other children may include Herman,
Albert, Oscar Alfred, and Amelia. S~~e /1 ttachrrrerzts 17, 1-; « Deed and Uirectnrl~
Pesearch, Urrili~ Cnlner•rr /lrticles, Ltnrcl File E.~•cerpt, raid Ilistoricctl Data Record, Cofitext
Report: "Northern Li~l~ts, boulder's Swedish HeritaE~e"
3. Development of the Community: Boulder's Swedish Heritage
Elaboration: The hotel served as a meeting spot and social center for the Swedish
comnnznity for over b0 years. A historic context report titled "Northern I fights:
13vulder's Swedish Heritage" tells of the early Swedish community, and. cites the I unds
as prominent Swedish immigrants:
From 1870-1900, the number of Swedish immigrants who settled in Colorado
increased swiftly, from approximately 220 to 10,7b5. They came to Boulder far the
mining prospects, and found Colorado favorable because the weather was similar to
Sweden. The Homestead Act in 18b2 also encouraged many immigrants to settle in
Colorada, while others left Sweden because a decreased need far skilled labor and
rising political conflicts.
"On their land, the Lunds built a hotel, complete with a saloozn ore
the west side. Although the saloon is not listed in the Colorado State
Business Directory after 1896, the hotel prospered. It served as an
informal social center for the burgeoning Swedish community. Lund
would greet newcomers gettirng off the train from Denver, and bring
them back to the hotel, where Sophia cooked fond froze the
homeland. 7'he Lunds also helped the immigrants find jobs and
locate or build permanent residences. The cane-story, red and brick
S:\PLAN\data\Ion;rang\EIIS`CU)ernos\Pear1.1904-1912\06.07.2008 LPnB memo.doc ,
Menir~ to Lan~imar'~~ lio~u~il U!,/(;~'/2(lU~i
Ke: 1904-1912, 1918'/z i'earl Sh•cel- Uemoliiion Permit
triplex across the street from the hotel at 1.911-1.915 Pearl Street may
have been used by some of these new comers as temporary living
quarters.
Charles Solomon Wahlsirom gave an account:
"I stayed there at the John Lund Hotel for a long titre. Mrs.
Lund did the cooking and I tell you we had wonderful meals. The
lower part of the hotel on the west side had been a saloon and
dance hall. Every evening if we felt like It we had a dance. All the
boarders were Swedish and we talked our own language. [t was
just like our own home. All the Swedes from around this part of
the country headed for the Luna Hotel. When the Moffat railroad
was being built, those Swedes who had good contracts driving
tunnels would come down for a good time. They'd been up there
seven or eight months, roughing it, and they had a good stake
(money). They had fun! There was a big ice box there in the back
where John Lund kept a keg of beer cold. We used to have good
times, let me tell you, on summer evenings out in that summer
house in the back and at dances. There were lots of Swedes here
then and they all gathered at the hotel."
The JoI1n i.>..md l Iotel Served as a focal I.>oint for Swedish immigrants and was
in~trurnental in sF ttlins~, thc~ ~~-vc•di,~h hoi_nilatiun in Rc_~tclc3er.
Recognition 1?y Authoriticti: l~)~~ ~~r~,hitechiral ~ur-~•rv, I~.~ily ~'~u>>~~ra !lrticles, 1-7r~t~~l~
c f Gv~clrler, Colorado front ISGU by Sanford Gladden, City of t3oulder Memorandums
Elaboration: The building at 1904-1912 Pearl Street was surveyed in 1.988 by the
Colorado Historical Society, who found the condition of the building to be good,
with major alterations, including 'remodeled facade; stucco; new stone facing;
remodeled windows and doors". The survey further states: "Tlze John Lund hotel
was built ca. 1877 by Colorado pioneers John and Sophia Lund, and was a focal point
of Boulder's Swedish-/lmerican community for almost 60 years. The building,
however, has been extensively remodeled and has little historic integrity." See
/1 ttachrnent B: Historic Buildirt,~ Inventory Form
In 1952, Forest Crosson of the Boulder Daily Camera interviewed Matilda Borgstrand
and Charles Wahlstrom, niece and son-in-law of John Lund, who recalled the early
days of the hotel. The article offers a vivid picture of life at the hotel in the 19'~
~~ntur~r:
n
ti \PI .~\V\~lal;iAlong;utg\I11.S7\T)rn~i~,.;AI'rtul. !'~O4 1'i l ?`,06.0?_?005 l.PF113 incin~~_~luc ~ - I
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/U7/2008
CZe: 1904-1912, 1918 '/z Pearl Street- Demolition I'ermil
I
"I (Charles Wahlstam) stayed there at the John Lt,ind Hotel for a long time. Mrs.
Lund did the cooking and I tell you we had wonderful meals. The lower part of the
hotel on the west side had been a saloon and dance hall. Every evening if we felt like
it we had a dance. Add the boarders were Swedish and we talked in our own
language. It was just Like our awn home. All the Swedes from around the contry
headed for the Lund Hotel. When the Maffat Railroad was being built, those Swedes
who had good contracts driving tunnels would come down for a good time. They'd
been up there seven ar eight months, roughing it, and they had a good stake
(money). They had fun! There was a big ice box there in the back where Jahn Lund
kept a keg of beer cold. We used to have good times let me tell you on summer
evenings out in that summer house in the back at the dances. There were lots of
Swedes here then anal they all gathered in at the hotel."
Seetlttrrchnlent F: L~ail~~ Carrlerrr /lrticles, L1utd File Excerpt, a11d HISt01•ical Data Pecord
The LLU1d Hotel is also featured in Sanford Gladden's book Hotels of Boulder, Colorado
o1n 7860 published in 1970. The book includes notable hotels and a shvrt biography
of its proprietors. The bvok repeats much of the same illfannation found in the 1952
Daily Camera article titled "Lund 1lotel Was'Home For Swedes Of The Area In Its
Early Days", and provides undated historic photographs of the hotel and alley house.
See fiE~ures 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for undated photo~r~zhs.
In 1995, designation of an East End 1listoric District was being considered. The
application was later withdrawn, but as part of the initiation process, the historic
significance of the area was search and summarized. The mennorandum to the
Landzxiarks Preservation Advisory Baard dated 1/4/1995 lists the Lund family as a
significant Boulder pioneer family and outlines their role as part of Boulder's early
Swedish community. See Attachlrlent I: Excer~ts,frorn Potential East Er1d Historic District
Menro ("1995) rz11d S1.rrz~elLo~Strlrctures Over 50 Years Old vr1 Ernst Pearl Street ("1999}
In 1999, the city of livulder conducted a survey of buildings over 50 years oid along
the east Pearl Street corridor. The survey offers a brief history of the Ltind J-1ote1, and
describes the structure:
"Extent of Alterations: Major, has new stone facing on first floor and
shicco above, a lower addition on the back. In gaod condition, could be
restored, using historic photographs, and carefully removing the stucco
to reveal the brick beneath. The original window area exist, thus window
surrounds could be easily reconstructed. 1904 Pearl, now Business
Express, is a new structure, built where the i_.uz1d orchards/garden stood.
s:~PLAMdataUon~rang~IIST~Demos~Pear1.1904-1912\06.07.2008 LYAI3 memo.doc ;~~z~:~;~ fs:-,E~,r~'~ '%'s~'1"~`_~
f~~lemr, f.<in~iinarks L'~~ar~l (ihi(l'Il:'il(!5
Ke: 19U~I-1912, 1918'/z Pearl Street- Uemolitiun Pernlit
Style: 19''' C. hotel. This is one of the last standing, original hotels in
Boulder, now in commercial use. It is also associated with important
[3oulder pioneers, and was a focal point of Boulder's Swedish-American
community for almost 60 years." See Attachment 1: Excerpts from Potential
East errd historic District Memo (1995) and Sicrve~ of Strucfarres Over 50 Years
Old on Fast Pearl Streef (1999)
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Summary: The buildings at 1904-1912 Pearl Streef and 1918 1/z Pearl Street have
architectural significance under criteria 1 and 4.
1. Recognized Period or Style: 19"' Century Commercial
Elaboration: 19't' Century Commercial; two story brick (which was covered in
stucco uz the early 195U's), store front windows, 2"~' story window proportions,
segmental arched windows, parapet. The building has been extensively
remodeled over the decades; the brick has been covered in stucco, the windows
on the second story have been replaced, the store front windows have been
reconfigured, stone was applied to the fa~adc of the building, and the upper half
of the building has been painted. Staff encourages the applicant to explore the
feasibility of restoring the building at 1906-1912 Pearl Street based on a historic
E~hotograph.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None observed
Elaboration: 'The hotel is thought to have been built by John Lund.
3. rtistic Merit: None observed
1_lalioraiion:
4. Example of the Uncommon: I~)''' Century IIotel
I:laboxation: The Lund 1-lotel is one of the few remaining hotels from the 19'h
rerltury, and the one of the few remaining historic commercial buildings on east
Pearl Street. The house at 1918'h Pearl Street is an uncommon feature; few intact
alle~~ houses remain ill il~e ~~~i~t Pearl street are~~.
5. Indigenous Qualities: N~>ne ~~bserved
ENVIIZONMEN"TAI. SIGNIFICANCE:
~_'~l'I i.:.. ~n,~~r; i~ '1:~~1L~c:~; I'c.:;l ~ir~.; la;. ~ ~ I I' 1C: i.~~n ;1. ~
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/07/2008
Re: 1904-1912, 1918'/z Pearl Street- Demolition Permit
Summary: The buildings ai 1904-1912 Pearl Street and 1918'/z Pearl Street have
environmental significance Linder criteria 2 and 6.
1. Site Characteristics: None
Elaboration:
2. Compatibility with Site: Commercial building and alley house
Elaboration: The building at 1906-1912 Pearl Street is compatible with the
surrounding buildings in terms of height, mass, and scale. It is typical of 19"'
century commercial buildings. The other buildings on the block are a mix of new
development and older residential and commercial buildi~zgs. The house at 1918
~/z Pearl Street is an uncommon feature in the east Pearl Street area; few intact
alley hoLtses remain.
3. Geographic importance: None observed
4. Elaboration:
5. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed
6. Area Integrity: None observed
Elaboration:
CRITER[ON2: RELA"flO\Stl[P'IO"I'HFCI-IARACI'E[ZO(~'l'IIL:
NEIGHBURHOOI~:
Phis property is located on the south side of Pearl Street between l9"' and 20'" Streets, an
area that is an eclectic mix of old and new commercial and residential buildings. The
buildings on the east side Lund Hotel include a 1996 commercial/residential building, a
1916 brick house, and a 1996 commercial condominium on the corner of 20''' and Pearl
Street. Across the street is the Wahlstrom Terrace, an individual landmark, another low
terrace building remodeled in 2000, and a 2005 commercial condominium on the
northeast corner of Pearl and 20°i Streets. East Pearl Street has historically been a mix of
residential and commercial buildings, and the Lund l:-lotel is a link to the early history of
cast Pearl Street, and the pattern of development of this area of Boulder.
CSR[ I'ERION 3: CONDITION OF TIIE BUILDING AND CRITERION 4:
PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR:
I~eca~_cse no informaticm has been provided by the applicant about t}~e condition of the
buildin}~s or r~_~st ~~f rc~~<<~r~~liuii i~r re~,air, titafi concentrated o1l critr~ria 1 an~1 ll~~~~
li'. 1ii.~'_ ~i~.. ,;i !II• I ~ i. I~, _ i• iii,, - F'.~.~~. ~ ~ „
Memo to Landmarks Board U6/()7/2UU8
P.c~ 19U4-1912, 1918'/z Pearl StrF~et- Demolition Permit
buildings eligibility for landmark designation and their relationship tc7 the character of
the neighborhood in making a recommendation on the appropriateness of demolition.
Staff has visited the site and, while the building appears to be in good structural
condition, the building at 1906-1912 Pearl Street has been extensively altered. The small
house at 1918'iZ Pearl Street remains intact and retains a high degree of historic integrity.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT':
Staff has received no e-mails or phone calls from neighbors or interested parties
rnncerning this project.
T>EIE BOARD'S DEC1S[ON:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the house proposed to be demolished does not have
historic significance under the criteria set forth in Section 9-1 1-23(f) B.R.C., the city
manager shall issue a demolition permit.
if the Landmarks Board finds that the house proposed for demolition may have
significance under the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended far a
period not to exceed 180 days froi~l the date the permit application was accepted by the..
city manager as complete, in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives
to the building. (Section 9-11-23(h)]. A 180-day stay period would expire on October 25,
?008.
should the Board choose to issue the demolition permit, or if the permit is allowed to
expire, staff recommends Thai demolition be conditioned upon submittal of the
i~~llo~win: to the 1'l~innin~; I )ep~irhiient for rerordin~ with C'arne~7ie f ihrarv:
1. ~ site plan ~hc>>~~in~~ the l~~~ation of all e~i~tin~; u»pr~~~•~~m~~nt~ on tl~e ~uhl~~~~t
property;
:~'Ieasured elevation and plan drawings of the building depicting existing
conditions, fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated
on the plan;
i. Black and white <~rc l~iv,~l ~l~inlity photo:;raphs of all exterior elevations.
FINDINGS:
staff recommends that the. l anclrnarks Board adopt the ;ollowint; findinfTs:
lf'I.raN\,+.;it,i`,lure;r~in~~1([IS~I\l?rn~~~~,`~J'~~;ul I~~(Ll I~11'\UG.I~I"%2.UOS LF'rAf~ nx•~r.~~ ~I~,:
1)
Memo to Landmarks Board 06/07/2008
Re: 1904-1912, 1918'/z Pearl Street- Demolition Permit
A stay of demolition for the buildings at 1904-1912 Pearl Street and 1918'/z Pearl Street is
appropriate based on the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f) B.R.C, in that the
identified property:
4. May be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its historic,
architectural, and environmental significance;
5. Contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of
the area s past;
6. Has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to
rehabilitate and add onto the existing house.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Application and Applicant Submittal
B: I-iistoric Building Inventory Dorm
C: Significant Criteria
D: Deed & Directory Research
E: Daily Camera Articles, Lund Fiie Excerpt, and Historical Data Record
F: Sanborn Maps and Building Permit Summary
G: Northern Lights: Boulder's Swedish Heritage (Context Report, 1993)
H: Gladden: Hotels of iioulder, Colorado from 7.860 Excerpt (1970)
I: Excerpts from Potential East End Historic District Memo {1995) and Survey
of Structures Over 50 Years Old on East Pearl Street (1999)
J: Current and Historic Photographs
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\IIIST\Demosll'ear1.1904-1912\06.07.2008 LPAB memo.doc , ~ z
Section VIII: Ilow to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Re••~~~ '
Attachment C
:13::x:
•
• • ~
~ •
U.S. lluartment of the Interior, National Park Service
VIII. IIOW 'lY) EVALUATE THE IN1'1?GR1TY OF A PROP ~ R'TY
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its signiCcance. 'I'o be listed in the
National Kegister- ofHistoric Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant
under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of
integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an
understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance.
Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their significance) or they do not.
Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or
qualities that, in various combinations, define integr-Ity.
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the
aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey
its significance. Ueter~nining which of these aspects are most Important to a particular
property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. The following
sections define the seven aspects and explain how they combine to produce integrity.
1. Seven Aspects of Inter
2. ~ssessirr~Integrit in Pr~ouerties
¦ De_i_'ining theE_ssuti~l Physical heatures
¦ Visibility of the Physical Futures
. Com~arin~Simi_1__a__i-
P~~~perties
¦ petermining the Reluant f~spects of Integrity
SF,V F,N ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY
. Location
. Design
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrbl 5_8.hUr. 9/ 19/2008
>ecuun v r u: r tovv to ~Zppi_y tnc tvauonal Koster t~ntena for LvaluaUon, National Regist...
. Setting
. Materials
Workmanship
[~eeling
• Association
U~ulerstandiitg tlae Aspects of I~ttegrity
Location
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred. The relationship between the properly and its location is often
important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The
actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important
in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Cxcept in rare cases, the relationship
between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. (See
Criteria Consideration I3 in Part VII: Notiv 1o Apply the Criteria Considerations, for the
conditions under which a moved property can be eligible.)
I)esil;n
1)esiKn is the combination u1' elements that create the 1'ornt, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception
+nd planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as
~~~mmunity planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes
,u~:h elements as organisation of space, proportion, s~~ale, tcrhnol~~y, ornamentation, and
ntalrt i:+f.
ir+r~Ir~•rt}'~ dcs~~~n rrl lr~~t~ i~+~t~~rr~~ I~unctrun; and tc~hnul~~,~ics .r~ ~~~cll ,+c~.thctic~. 11
+ncludes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces;
Irrttcrn of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of
+nnamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.
I resign can also apply to districts, whether they are important primarily for historic
,+~sociation, architectural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts
~i~;nificant primarily for historic association or architectural value, design concerns more
tlr~rn just the individual buildings or structures located within the boundaries. It also applies
is ~ the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial
relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings;
tl+c~ layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features, such
statues, water fow~tains, and archeological sites.
Scltin;;
Selling is the physical enviironment ol'a historic property. Wherc;as location refers to the
~Ileelllc' Illai'c' t\~ileli; ~11)I'(111C'I'l1' ~~A'~lS Illlllf (?r an ~:~'Cnl UCClll~rc'll, SCthl+~' C~'I~'C~ [i) th(. C~tc(1~U~'Ic'I
httl~:~h~~~~~~~-.nl~ti.~;u~~l'nrii~ubl+c~iir~~nsihullct+n;inrbl~inrbl5 ~.htrr+
S~.CUo1] V1fI: }-low to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Regist... _ '
of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where,
the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.
Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the
functions it was intended to serve. in addition, the way in which a property is positioned in
its environment can rei7ect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences.
']'he physical fieatures that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or
manm~lde, including such elements as:
. Topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill);
Vegetation;
Simple manmade features (paths or fences); and
Relationships between buildings and other features or open space.
These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact
boundaries of the property, but also between the prope1ly and its surroundings. This is
particularly important for districts.
Materials
Materials arc the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who
rented the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and
technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and
tll~•rrhv help define an area's sense of time and place.
:1 pr~~l+crty must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic
si~nil'icance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant
features must have been preserved. "1'he property must also be an actual historic resource, not
a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property
whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not
cli~ihle. (See Criteria Consideration C in Part VII: Ilow tv Apply the Criteria C'onsiderativrts
l~r~r the c~_,n~iitions under ~~~hlch ~l rcconstrucle~l property can be eligible.)
~Vor•knuurship
~Vorknlanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
daring any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and
~l:ill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply
to the property as a whole or to its individual components. [t can be expressed in vernacular
mc.thoc}s of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and
~n-nanu•ntnl detallln~. It call bC based UIl Common U"ad1t1o11S of Ir1nUVatlVe peI•lOd teChnl(lueS.
~~'~~rl.ln,ulhlp is important because it can fur~~ish evidence of the techno]ogy of a craft,
illu~trl(~~ the ~l~°,thetic p~inciple.~ ~~f ~l historic or prehistc,ric p~~ri~~cl, ,ind reveal inciiviclu;l(,
http://~~~ww.ups.~,uv/nr/publica[ion~ihullcllns/nrh I >/nrb] _>_S.hlm
~ectron v t1.1: riow to Apply the National Kegister Criteria for Evaluation, National Regist_._
local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic
principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting,
graining, taming, and joinery. Examples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include
Paleo-[ndian Clovis projectile points; Archaic period beveled adzes; I~Iopewellian bir-dstone
pipes; copper earspools and worked bone pendants; anti L-oquoian effigy pipes.
1<'eeling
I{ eeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense o#' a particular
period of tune. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey
the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original
design, materials, workmanship, and setting will re]ate the feeling of agricultural life in the
19th century. A grouping of prehistoric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and
located on its oz~iginal isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life.
Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property. A prvperty retains association if it is the place where the event or activity
occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling,
association requires the presence of physical Features that convey a property's historic
character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade
elements have remained intact since the 18th century will retain its quality of association
with the battle.
Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is
never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Kegister.
ASSESSING INTEGRITY IN PROPERI'll?,S
Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after
significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of integrity.
The steps in assessing integrity are:
. Define the essential physical features that must be present for a property to represent
its significance.
. Deter-rnine whether the essential physical features are visib{e enough to convey their
significance.
. Determine whether the property needs to be compared with similar properties. And,
. Determine, based on the significance and essential physical features, which aspects of
integrity are particularly vital to the property being nominated and if they are present.
Ultimately, the duestion of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrh15. 8.htm 9/ 19/2008
Section vl l l: Huw to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Regist... _
identity for which it is significant.
UI:hININC TIIE L+'SSF,N'l'IAI. PIIYSICAL FEATURF,S
All propei-[ies change over time. It is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic
physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical
features that enable it to convey its historic identity. The essential physical features are those
features that define both why a property is significant (Applicable Criteria and Areas of
Significance) and when it was significant (Periods of Significance). They are the features
without which a property can no longer he identified as, for instance, a late 19th century
dairy barn or an early 20th century commercial district.
Criteria A and I3
A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential
physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association
with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s). If the property is a site (such as a
treaty site) where there are no material cultural remains, the setting must be intact.
Archeological sites eligible under Criteria A and B must be in overall good condition with
excellent preservation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to the extent that these
remains are able to convey important associations with events or persons.
C'ritcrion C
property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique
must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A property
that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the
features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion,
pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not
eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the
nui~ority of the features that once characterised its style.
f\rclicological sites eligible under Criterion C must be in overall good condition with
r~xcellent preservation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to the extent that these
remains arc able to illustrate a site type, time period, method of construction, or work of a
m<<stcr.
('riterion U
1 ~or properties eligible under Caitcrion including archeological sites and standing
structeu-es studied for their information potential, less attention is given to their overall
~~ondition, than it they were being considered under Criteria A, 13, or C. Archeological sites,
in particular, do not exist today exactly as they were formed. 't'here are always cultural and
natural processes that alter the deposited materials and their spatial relationships.
}-or I'~~ol~~'~"ties eligible under Criterion D. integrity is ha~ecl upr~n the propei-tv's potential to
:1
I~t1p:!/ww~w.nl~~."~~~r,'r~r%put~lic~iti~~ns/I~ull~~tin~/urhl>inrbl~_ 8.1~1n~
~ecuon viii: now ro ~~ppty the tvauunat xegrster l,ntena for CvatuaUon, Natronal ltegrst...
yield specific data that addresses important research questions, such as those identified in the
historic context documentation in the Statewide Comprehensive Preservation flan or in the
research design for projects meeting the: Secretary of the Interiur',~• Sta~ulardti• for
ArcJu~~~l n~~ real I )ucccrnerrtatinrt.
Interiors
Some historic buildings are virtually defined by their exteriors, and their contribution to the
built environment can he appreciated even if their interiors are not accessible. Examples of
this would include early examples of steel-framed skyscraper construction. The great
advance in American technology and engineering made by these buildings can be read from
the outside. "The change in Ame?ican popular taste during the 19th century, from the
symmetry and simplicity of architectural styles based on classical precedents, to the
expressions of High Victorian styles, with their combination of textures, colors, and
asymmetrical forms, is readily apparent from the exteriors of these buildings.
Other buildings "are" interiors. The Cleveland Arcade, that soaring 19th century glass-
covered shopping area, can only be appreciated from the inside. Other buildings in this
category would be the great covered train sheds of the 19th century.
In some cases the loss of an interior will disqualify properties 1-rom listing in the National
Register--a historic concert hall noted for the beauty of its auditorium and its fine acoustic
qualities would be the type of property that if it were to lose its interior, it would lose its
~ value as a historic resource. In other- cases, the overarching significance of a propcrly's
exterior can overcome the adverse effect of the loss of an interior.
In borderline cases particular attention is paid to the significance of the property and the
remaining historic features.
historic I)istricls
l~or .r di<tn~t to re(~iin int~•~~~ itv a~ a wfir,l~~. the majority of the ~~,mi~~~ncni, that i».~{.r uh tl~~•
district's historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually
undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district's components must be
~crbstantially unchanged since the period of significance.
When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district's integrity, take into consideration
the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not
contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or
n~•~~ intru~i~ tl~:~t it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment.
comix~ncnt ril d~.~trict cannot contribute to the significance i)-:
it has been substantially altered since the period of the district's significance or
it clots not share Ilu, historic associations of the district.
-
httpa/~~~ww.rip.,.~;ovinripuhlirati~m~/I~irll~~t~ns/nrhl~/nrb)~_S.htm 9/19/2008
>ccuon v t??: ~ tow to ripply the National Itegrster t_:r-rterra for L;valuahon, National Kegrst... r
VISII3ILI'l'Y OF' PHYSICAI, FF.A'CUKES
Properties eligible under Criteria A, B, and C must not only retain their essential physical
features, but the features must be visible enough to convey their significance. This means
that even if a property is physically intact, its integrity is questionable if its significant
features arc concealed under modern construction. Archeological properties are often the
exception to this; by nature they usually do not require visible features to convey their
significance.
Non-Historic Exteriors
If the historic exterior building material is covered by non-historic material (such as modern
sidingj, the property can still be eligible if the significant form, features, and detailing are
not obscured. If a property's exterior is covered by anon-historic false-front or curtain wall,
the properly will not qualify under Criteria A, B, or C, because it does not retain the visual
quality necessary to convey historic or architectural significance. Such a property also
cannot be considered a contributing element in a historic district, because it does not add to
the district's sense of time and place. [f the false front, curtain wall, or non-historic siding is
removed and the original building materials are intact, then the property's integrity can be re-
evaluated.
Property Contained within Another Property
Some properties contain an earlier structure that formed the nucleus for later construction.
~'hc exterior property, if not eligible in its own right, can qualify on the basis of the interior
property only if the interior property can yield significant information about a specific
construction technique or material, such as rammed earth or tabby. The interior property
~~unno! be used as the basis for eligibility if it has been so altered that it no longer contains
the features that could provide important information, or if the presence of important
infonnatiun cannot be demonstrated.
tiunken Vessels
n sunken vessel can be eligible under Criterion C as embodying the distinctive
characteristics of a method of construction if it is structurally intact. A deterio~•ccterl sunken
vessel, no longer structurally intact, can be eligible under Criterion l~ if the remains of either
the vessel or its contents is capable of yielding significant information. For further
information, refer to National Register Bulletin: NomiJTati~i,~ Ilis•turic Vessels and
.Sluprvreck.~• to the National Ke~;is~e~r flisroric Places.
tiatural Features
natural feature that is associated with a historic event or trend, such as a rock formation
that served as a trail marker during westward expansion, must retain its historic appearance,
unobscured by modern construction or landfill. Otherwise it is not eligible, even though it
rcm~iins int<u~t.
1
http://www.nps.l~,ov/nr/publications/hut Ict~ns/in•b 1 S/nrh 15 _~s.htm I ~)/'l)US
Section V11I: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Regist...
COMPARING SIMILAR PROPL;R1'IES
For some properties, comparison with similar properties should he considered during the
evaluation of integrity. Such comparison may be important in deciding what physical
features are essential to properties of that type. In instances where it has not been determined
what physical features a property must possess in order for it to ref-feet the significance of a
historic context, comparison with similar properties should be undertaken during the
evaluation of integrity. 't'his situation arises when scholarly work has not been done on a
particular property type or when surviving examples of a property type arc extremely rare.
(See Comparing Related Yroper~ies in Part V: 1-low to L'vicelrcate a Property within its
Ilistoric Context.)
Rare Examples of a Property 'Type
Comparative information is particularly important to consider when evaluating the integrity
of a property that is a rare surviving example of its type. The property must have the
essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic character or information. The
rarity and poor condition, however, of other extant examples of the type may justify
accepting a greater degree of alteration or fewer features, provided that enough of the
property survives I~or it t~ he a significant resource.
F,ligible
. A one-morn schoolhouse that has had all original exterior siding replaced and a
replacement roof that does not exactly replicate the original roof profile can be eligible
if the other extant rare examples have received an even greaser degree of alteration,
such as the subdivision of the original one-room plan.
ut L'ligible
. :1 mill site contains information on how site patterning reflects historic functional
requirements, but parts of the site have been destroyed. The site is not eligible for its
information potential if a comparison of other mill sites reveals more intact pmperties
~~ith comhlctc tnl~,rtn;tti~,n.
I)1~;'I'h;IZ1-IININ(; 'I'IIh: IZl~:I,I~;~'~1N'I' ~1SI'EC'l'S OF INTECRI'1'Y
1~:a~~h type ol~ property clepcn~ls ~,n rerlain ~tspccts ul it~te~rity, tti~~r~• lh~ut ~~Ihcrs, lu express its
historic significance. Determining which of the aspects is most important to a particular
property requires an understanding of the property's significance and its essential physical
features.
Criteria A and B
property important for association with an event, historical pattern, or person(s) ideally
n~i~ht retain some features of all seven aspects of integrity: location. design, setting,
ni<ttrri,tls, ~~~orl:man~hip. f~reline. ;u~el ;t~.~~,ciatton. lntr;~zrily ~,1 cl~•si~~,u ;tnt! wnrkt~t;+n~hip-
blip://wwwu~ps.~ov%rtr/publications/~ulletinshtrbl ~/nrb,15_8.him 9/191?008
>ectron vtlt: t-irnv to Apply lhC National Ke~TSterLntena for t:valuat~on, National ltegrst...
however, might not be as important to the significance, and would not be relevant if the
property were a site. !1 basic integrity test for a property associated with an important event
or person is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the properly as it exists
today.
For archeological sites that arc eligible under Criteria A and (3, the seven aspects of integrity
can be applied in much the same way as they are to buildings, structures, or objects. It is
important to note, however, shat the site must have chmar.~•tralecl its ability to convey its
significance, as oplxned to sites eligible under Criterion D where only the pc.>tential to yield
information is required.
Eligible
A mid-19th century waterpowcrcci mill important for its association with an area's industrial
development is eligible if:
. it is still on its original site (Location), and
. the important features of its setting are intact (Setting), and
. it retains most of its historic materials (Materials), and
it has the basic .features expressive of its design and function, such as configuration,
proportions, and window pattcr-n (llesign).
;~'ot Eligible
mid-19th centr.rry waterpawcred mill important for its association with an area's industrial
develop,ncnt is ni,t cli~~,ihle if:
it h;~, h~~cn n~„~~d (l.,otation, Setting, heeling, and Association), or
. >uh~tantial amounts of new materials have been incorporated (Materials,
~~`orkmanship, and heeling), or
• ,t no }onger retains basic design features that convey its historic appearance or
i uc,c lion ~ l)csign, Workmanship, and Feeling).
Critcric,n
hrol~ert_y ~~i~,nil~ic~int <<~~~1~•i~ (',~ilcri~,n n,<<t ret~iin [hose }~hy~ic,:l tc.,tur~~; ll„it ~~IT,ira~•t~~rize
t}:e. type, period, or mcihcxl c,l construction that the property represents. Retention of design,
workmanship, and materials will usually be more important than location, setting, feeling,
and association. I,ocalion and setting will be important, however, for those properties whose
cicsign is a reflection of their immediate environment (such as designed landscapes and
f>ric}s*es).
I~or archeological sites that arc eligible under Criterion C, the seven aspects of integrity can
he applied in much the same way as they are to buildings, structures, or objects. It is
iTnport~mt to nc~tc, h~~~~~c~v~~r. Ih;,t [hc~ ~itc trust ha~~~ rlr~m~~~i~tr~rtrtl its ~il~il~ty tc+;on~~~~ it>
t f~; _
}-,ith:;'I~~~~~«.ni_~~. ~~~,~~/n, if~uf-,I ic:,~,c,,~>Il,i, I l~ ~ i,~s!n rh 1 ~%n rh } ~--~.htt~~ ~ 1 c)Y20OS
~ectron vlll: riow to Apply tyre Natronal Kegrster Lrrtena for Kvaluatron, Natronal Keg...
significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Criterion D where only the poteiTtial to yield
information is required.
Tligible
A 19th century wooden covered bridge, important for illustrating a construction type, is
eligible if:
. the essential features of its design are intact, such as abutments, piers, roof
configuration, and misses (Design, Workmanship, and Feeling), and
. most of the historic materials are present (Nlaterials, Workmanship, and Feeling),
and
• evidence of the craft of wooden bridge technology remains, such as the form and
assembly technidue of the trusses (Workmanship).
. Since the design of a bridge relates directly to its function as a transportation crossing,
it is also important that the bridge still be situated over a waterway (Setting,
location, Feeling, and Association)-
NotF,ligible
Fora 19th century wooden covered bridge, important for its construction type, replacement
of some materials of the flooring, siding, and roofing would not necessarily damage its
integrity. Integrity would be lost, however, if:
. the abutments, piers, or trusses were substantially altered (Design, Workmanship,
anc! ~'eclinf;) or
. considerable amounts of new materials were incorporated (Materials, Workmanship,
and Feeling).
. Because environment is a strong factor in the design of this property type, the bridge
would also be ineligible if it no longer stood in a place that conveyed its function as a
Grassing (Setting, Location, Feeling, and Association).
Criterion D
For properties eligible under Criterion D, setting and feeling may not have direct bearing on
the property's ability to yield important information. Evaluation oi~ integrity probably will
focus primarily on the location, design, materials, and perhaps workmanship.
L+'ligible
n multicomponent prehistoric site important for yielding data on changing subsistence
patterns can be eligible if:
. floral or faunal remains are found in clear association with cultural matet7al
(Materials and Association) and
http://www.nps.gov/nr/public~.rtions/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm 9/19/2008
~ecuon v tai: now to f~ppty the ivatronai xegrster l.;ntena for ~vatuatron, .vatronat xeg...
. the site exhibits stratigraphic separation of cultural components (Location).
Not L'ligible
A multicomponent prehistoric site important for yielding data on changing subsistence
patterns would not be eligible if:
. floral or faunal remains were so badly decomposed as to make identification
impossible (Materials), or
. floral or faunal remains were disturbed in such a manner as to make their association
with cultural remains ambiguous (Association), or
. the site has lost its stratigraphic context due to subsequent land alterations (Location).
EliKible
A lithic scatter site important for yielding data on lithic technology during the Late Archaic
period can be eligible if:
. the site contains lithic debitage, finished stone tools, hammerstones, or antler f7akers
(Material and Design), and
. the site contains datable material (Association).
Nol L'ligihle
A lithic scatter site important for yielding data on lithic technology during the Late Archaic
period would not be eligible if:
. the site contains natural deposits of lithic materials that are impossible to distinguish
from culturally modified lithic material (Design) or
. the site does not contain any temporal diagnostic evidence that could link the site to
the Late Archaic period (Association).
National_Re~ister (Igmc ~ Pu~lic_ati_ons Home ~ Previous_Page ~ Next
Page _ - - -
C~mments or uesti~ns
rn~
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm 9/19/2008
1
I'
Landmarks Board Meeting
October 1", 2008
1904-1912 and 1918 '/Z Pearl Street
Landmark Initiation Hearing
Applicant Board Packet
-
~p
r` ~
-
_ ~ _ •----~~7
- - _ ~ _ - t -
_ ~
- - -
st,~ Y , ~
1904-1912 Pearl Street - Pa4ade.
September 18, 2008
Landmarks Board and Historic Preservation Staff
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor
Boulder, CO 80306
Dear Landmarks Board and Staff,
Below is a summary of the actions taken by the Landmarks Board and by ourselves to determine the
opportunities and challenges involved in preserving the buildings located at 1904-1912 and l 918 '/2 Pearl
Street. We have conducted extensive research and ana]ysis into the viability of restoring these structures and
the potential for landmarking, concluding that the former Lund Hotel would not be eligible because the
architectural integrity has been so signifcantly compromised and degraded. After multiple meetings with
Staff, neighbors and Historic Boulder to discuss and identify alternatives to demolition, we feet that we have
come up with a balanced, informed solution to honor and preserve the history associated with the Cottage and
the Lund family.
Background
• June 4, 2008: the Landmarks Board issued a Stay of Demolition for two buildings located at )904-
1912and 1918 %2 ]'earl Street in order to conduct funkier research and explore alternatives to
demolition of the buildings.
• June 4 -August 20, 2008: We conducted extensive research and evaluation to address the comments
we received from the Board, Staff, and Historic Boulder and explored multiple alternatives to
demolition to preserve the history.
• August 2U, 2008: We presented two alternatives that would honor and recognize the historical
signiticance through the preservation of the Cottage. The Board voted to initiate the landmarking
process.
Challenges
• Hotel building does nut have architectural integrity. Significant elements of the original architecture
were removed in the early 1900s and the majority of the remaining brickwork and structure is in
serious disrepair. "I'he alterations represent a significant loss of character defining features and have
degraded the historic architectural integrity. The majority of the original Lund Hotel has been
removed, altered or is in such a condition t}iat it would be necessary to reconstruct more than 50
percent of the structure in order to retain it on site. (see attached criteria review for more detail)
• Hotel building !s not eligible for Landmark designation - "['he existing building has been remodeled
and altered beyond recognition. Many of the defining features have been removed as shown in the
attached photos (see "Historic Photos Before/After"). As Staff commented on August 20, 2008, the
building would not qualify for landmarking due to the integrity of the building. (see attached criteria
review for more detail)
• Cost of restoration and repair of hotel building !s prohibitwe - "I'he current condition of the building
will require the majority of it to be rebuilt. Estimated costs for rebuilding and restoring would be
$815,000. (see attached criteria review for more detail)
• Cottage has historical signif[ca~tce a~:d architectural integrity -While the architectural integrity of
the forn~er hotel has been compromised, we recognise and concur with Staff and the Board's
conclusion that there is historical significance and architectural integrity associated with the cottage.
Our proposal of preserving the "Summerhouse" Cottage wil I honor that history and allow for
continued interpretation of the people and history.
Summary of Research and Analysis:
The attached packet of information contains all of the research and evaluation that has been completed to
date and we have summarized the main findings below.
1. Masonry Report - Transue Engineering Associates
9/18/2008
Page 2
"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 fa4ade reconstruction, it will be necessary to reconstruct more than 50 percent of the
structure to briag it to a safe and useful configuration. 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."
2. Engineering Reports - JVA Consulting Engineers
"The original building has experienced significant settlement and undergone numerous modifications."
3. Engineering Cost Estimates - WF. ONeil
Cost for structural rehabilitation estimated at $572,063 and additional masonry restoration costs estimated
at $240,000 (Transue Engineering memo).
Conclusion and Proposal
The Lund 1-Intel has undergone such significant detrimental renovations that the existing condition is in serious
structural and physical disrepair. Based upon our research, and comments from Staff, we conclude that these
buildings are not eligible for Local landmark designative. However, we recognize the historical significance of
the Lund family and in order to honor that history we propose to preserve, restore and relocate the
architecturally intact Cottage to a more compatible historic site. The adaptive reuse of this structure among
other historic buildings in a school setting will ensure that the historical experience will be honored and
preserved.
In addition, we will commit to commemorating the Swedish history in the redevelopment program by
incorporating elements of the historic architecture into the new design, providing historical interpretation
opportunities within the new building through photos, signs and other interactive installments. We are open to
other ideas and suggestions for commemoration and would be sincere about [his interpretation and
implementation.
Below are two alternatives for preservation of the cottage. Scenario 1 is the preferred option because it allows
the cottage to be relocated to historical setting and provide for an ongoing historical interpretation by students
and faculty of The September School. The 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. While
Scenario 2 is not our preferred option it would keep the Cottage onsite in its original location and current
condition.
Scenario 1 -Cottage Offsite Relocation, Restoration and Potential Landmark llesignation.
• Change the demolition request for the Cottage into an offsite relocation request to September School.
• The Cottage would be restored and possibly landmarked.
• 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 site plan in its current
condition.
• Approval of the Demolition Permit for main building located at 1904-1912 Pearl.
to 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 East Pearl Street. We will
provide reference to the historical and cultural context of the property and will commemorate the property
and/or building as recommended by the Board and/or Staff We look forward to meeting with you on October
ist and arriving at a positive, balanced and timely solution for all parties.
Sincerely,
.cE~
Brad Hahn
1 J04-1912 and 1918 '/1 Pearl Street Landmarks Board Meeting - October 1" 2008
PENDING DEMO APPLICATION -1904-1912 and 1918 Pearl Street
LANDMARK CRITERION REVIEW - 9-11-23 (f)
Criterion 1. Landmark Eligibility -Historical/Architectural/Environmental
"I'he former Lund Hotel meets 1 of the 3 criteria. The building has Historical Significance.
However, the building no longer has Architectural Significance as a 19`'' century commercial
building. The majority of the building features including the faSade have been removed, significantly
altered or damaged beyond repair (Sec tune 4`s Board Presentation -Historic Photo's Before/After).
1'he site and building do not have a meatungful Environmental Significance as they arc similar to the
scale and massing of both old and new buildings in an area with no observed integrity.
The cottage meets 2 of the 3 criteria. "1'he cottage has I-listorical and Architectural Si},mificance but
no longer has Environmental Significance with the site and its surroundings. The cottage is
surrounded by parking and new construction. The historic house on the front of the lot at 1918
Pearl Street was removed. And, the former Lund Hotel which it was associated with has been
significantly altered and surrounded by large addition, it no longer provides compatibility on the site
with the cottage.
Criterion 2. Relationship to the Character of the Neighborhood -
The. former Lund I-Intel and cottage do not significantly meet this criterion. "I'he conclusion of the
City's 1995 review of the neighborhood and specifically the north side of Pearl behveen 18`h and 20`~
Streets was "Many of the most significant buildings have been dramatically altered and the block.5
contain highly incompatible, intruding buildings or older buildings which have lost their historic
integrity" (See June 4`~ Board Presentation -Previous Historical Reviews). The fornler Lund hotel
is unrecognizable in its historic context and is surrounded by a majority of new construction and
non-contributing buildings.
"I'he cottage is not visible from the street and is surrounded by new commercial and residential
buildings and parking. Many similar structures exist in the alleys behind cast Pearl Street and are
preserved in historic settings.
Criterion 3. Condition of the Building -
'I1~e former Lund Hotel is in extremely poor condition due to severe structural problems which have
significantly damaged the building and brick (See August 20'h Board Packet - F,ngineering Reports).
Further, a majority of the building has been removed or is in such a condition that it would need to
be rebuilt (See August 20'" Board Packet - Masonry Report).
"1'he cottage has serious structural problems and no real foundation exists. "['he cottage has settled in
various directions and is slightly bclo~v grade leaving many of floor jr>ists resting in soil. "11ie new
i
Page 2
13rad f Iahn
G23 Concord Avenue
Boulder, CO
August G~h, 2008
Landmarks Board
I-Iistoric Presen~aaon Staff
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third floor
Boulder, CO 80306
RE: 1904 Pearl Street Landmarks Board Demolition Application -Update
At the Landmarks Board hearing on June 4, 2008 the Board issued a Stay of Demolition for two
huildings 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 trultiple ways we could
integrate the history of this site into our future redevelopment plans.
This research included investigation 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. ~Uc rnet with Staff to
~rveral times to discuss these challenges ,Ind evaluate alternatives.
'I'I~is site presents a unique challenge in that there was a historical use of the property and its
In,ildings by the Swedish community, yet the structures that are present today ha~•e beer, significantly
tllc~rcd and are in such poor condition that it is verv challenging to restore them without incurring
~'>:u•eme costs and/or reconstructing. Based upon our extensive research, cyst analysis and structural
•,'.tlu.uion, we found the following challenges:
• Restoration Challenges: The majorit}~ of the original Lund Hotel has been removed,
;Iltered or is in such a condition that it would be necessary to reconstruct more than 50
percent of the structure in order to retain it on site.
• C:conomic Challenges: Costs are unreasonably high and incentives are not available.
Restoration of the 2 story Lund I-tote] would require extensive structural and restoration
;;~urk at a cost of over ~1GS per square foot for engineering and masonry alone. The current
r„nditior. of the buildin,tT is ur.useable and the current owner is unable to lease the building
.,t n,:_rkc-~ rate. ~I'li~~ ~~~,rt.l~~c c~n~incerin~r and restoration a~uuld cost $100 psf.
• l-listorical Ltterprct_:ttiun (:hallrn~cs: The degraded ar.d altered state of the Lund T[utcl
uulding dues r_ot allow fin• a valuable interpretive experience. Restoration of this building
•<ntld reyuirr si,tificant recc,nstntctic,n and would be cost prohibitive. The Cottage is intact
;;ith .Ilrcrallr,r;~ .In~1 n~•~; n~:ucrl.,l~ lour I~ representative of the Swedish culture and history.
CunrJusiun an_d Pro usal
'I lu• T,und I fore] has undergone such sigtificant detrimental renovations that the existing condition is
in serious structural and physical disrepair. The costs for restoration and repair would be prohibitive
uui prevent redevelopment. While the Cottage is more intact, the setting has changed over the yeah
.llhl 1«l'plll~> Ii UTlFlte 11!15 ~111111.Ir IIP.pII~~.i(l~lllti 1~~ (lle ft't1S1171liC~" ~~f tll~ ~~r,~~~t~T.
K/6/200~
Yage 3
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
sil;nif`icant history. We attempted to balance the solutions to create a way to recuperate
restoration costs while allowing for redevelopment of the property. We identified two
a]*.ernatives that preserve the historic ir,tegriry and rrcmory of the Swedish-/~merican immigrants that
inhabited this site while allowing for redevcaoprnent 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 a new historical setting at the September School. ~~rhile Scenario 2
is not our preferred option it would keep the Cottage onsite in its original location..
Scenario 1 -Cottage Offsite Relocation, Restoration and Potential Landmark
Designation.
• Request Cottage offsite relocation. 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 wixhin 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 1904-2912 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 cxnnpadble" with the context of Fast
Pearl. We will provide reference to the historical and cultural context of the property and will
commemorate the property and/or building as recommended by the Board and/or Staff. ~Y~e look
forward to your feedback on August 20th and arriving at a positive, balanced and timely solution for
all parties.
Sincerely,
Brad Hahn
8/6/2001;
Pagc 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
i'
Attachment A
Assessment Update
ATTACI IME~1T A
Update: Addressing Staff and Board Comments w/Additional Items_
Building Condition and Remaining Materials:
• I ~urther exploration of the physical condition of the 2^`~ story faSade determined that the building
settlement of 6" and removal of the brick parapet has caused un-repairable damage to the
majority of the 2^d story fa~.ade not including the removal of the first floor facade. The result
is masked by the current facade (see consulting stud}).
• The 2 story brick portion of the building's rubble foundation is at grade (Picture). In addition to
the settlement noted above the west and south walls (ic front m back) have settled 5.5 inches (see
consulting study).
• further exploration of the building exterior brick determined that there arc multiple coats of paint on
already deteriorated brick. The brick is not veneer finished on the facade and other exterior walls of
the building. The brick is in such condition that attempts to remove paint off the rough brick
surface continues to 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 exploration of thr alley structure confirmed new windows, doors, window and door
trim, porch and porch concrete slab previously reported. While the siding has only one coat of
white paint on the wood (lvstorical color was green) and has newer nails we could not determine if it
~~~as new or original. '1'hc interior walls were confirmed to be drywall with new trim.
• "f'he alley structure has no foundation and is resting on pieces of flagstone which have settled 2 to
inches in either dircciir,r In~m the i c•ntcr p,~int.
Project Economic Feasibility: Costs, Tax Incentive and Grants
• The costs for new engineering of the 2 story part of the building art estimated to be approximately
$(,00,000 (see attach engineering memo and const est.) The cost to rebuild and restore the masonry
i~ estimated to be $225,000 (see attached study). The total cost per sf not including renovation of
the interior is $165 per square foot. The costs for the alley structure engineering and
restoration are estimated to be $40,000. These are based assumptions and will vary on the
<<~nditions encountered.
• 'l he tax credits if restoration is possible and the buildings are landmarkcd in total would amount to
~~U,000. However since the project is a mixed use building it would be for sale and the credits would
rn,t be available. We have not been able to find other programs or tax incentives that the buildings
uuld he eligible for. The incentives even if applicable do not offset the costs.
1
• ~~%e have not been able: to find any 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. Again, the
costs of this are not completely offset by the tax write off. The moving costs are estimated to be
• ~G5,000.
Site Massing:
• Discussions for retaining the existing buildings have. brought up many issues that prevent the site to
be built to its current zoning and creating a marketable building.
n F'or example preserving 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 carnet building to
30 feet. This does not create a marketable space, floor plate or allow for. streetscape. Based
on setback on the second floor the depth would be reduced further.
o The alley strucatre and 2 story part of the building create challenges to providing ample
parking on site. The setback from the alley structure and 2 story building constrains parking
in such a u~ay that the new building on 19~~' would nor 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 zonuig 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 mix of buildings old and new which is typical of East Pearl. Thus the future
buildings at this location would he compatible with this environment (See East Pearl Proposed 1Iist
District Landmark 13oard demo; Jan 1995 and Colorado Historical Society Building Survey 1988),
• The alley structure setting and environment has changed over the last 100 years and it is now
surrounded by new 2 and 3 story buildings and parking. The buildings that provided its
context at 1904 Pearl has been signifrcantly 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 Last 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. "The market value of the property would be
2
rcciuccd b~~ retaining the current buildings «rhicl. was previously dcrn:ed nor: contributing b~~ the
State and Cin~. (Owner Letter attached below)
• "1'he purchaser has spent over 525,000 in due diligence oi~ the property and has paid the owners an
additional 550,000 non refundable to extend the dosing 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 application was
submitted and the stay of demolition issued the purchaser lost its current bank financing due to
uncertainties of the property and market. Further delays arc likely to prevent the sale from taking
place.
• The alley structure has no economic value (ie 9' deep living room and G.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 sduarc foot floor area of the alley structure counts against the buildable
sf of Che property. Conservatively the: market value per sduarc foot is 5500 or 5225,000 for the 450
sl 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
Rc: 1904-1914 Pearl Street
Board Members,
I am writing to express our extreme disappointment at the cancellation of the August 6`~'
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`h meeting has been
cancelled, and are left uncertain as to when the issue will be rescheduled and resolved.
i~t the June meeti?ig, 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 permits 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
last thirteen years to make this building historically significant today'?
"I'he re-designation of the property as historically significant has affected the highest and
hest 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
lass of income caused by this review process and the recent delay of the next scheduled
meeting which was on everybody's calendar ttivo 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
olerated 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. Dailey
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 303-557-6365
bradhahn@corncast.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 of 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 reduired 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
windowsill is 5 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 5.5
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
h. 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 clevation, as shown in the photograph in Appendix X. These
arches are in poor condition.
e. On the second floor of the west clevation, 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. Tl~c 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 first 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 ol'the 2"`i door ofi the fa4ade to a
level line -the facade slopes is out of level by approximately 5 inches in
20 feet. The west half of the facade will also likely require total
reconstruction once its condition is revealed.
b. Reconstnict 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 of lead-containing effluents.
g. Repoint 100 percent of masonry surface.
h. Anchor masonry to new internal structure to resist lateral loads. Ilse
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.~. O'Neil Construction were excellent and clear, although the
condition and configuration of the masonry is so poor that the costs for masonry
restoration will be much higher than the costs for repointi~lg shown in the
Transue Engineering Associates LLC
5735 Arapahoe Ave.
Suite A-1
Boulder, CO 80303
303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219
estimates. 1 estimate that the cost to restore, reconstruct, and anchor the existing
masonry will be in excess of $240,000.00, excluding foundation work.
In 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 fa4ade reconstruction, it will be
necessary to reconstruct more than 50 percent of the structure to bring it to a safe and
useful configuration. 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.
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
t- - - ~ -
~ ~ _ -
-
i ~E f
- - . _ - • - - _ _ ..r
- ~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ l~
- _
_ _ t
:.r - f
1%u~ ucJc of l )U4 I'ea+~l (rrr,rth elevutiorrj sho;i~in~ stucco acrd
fuu.x~ stone over-cladding. The relative
elevations vJ'the second.~loor windows are .rhotivn in the cha+•t below.
Relative Elevation of 2nd Ftoor Facade Windowsills
y 5
~ 4.5
c 4
3.5
.y
0 3
c 2.5
R 2
1.5
a~
~ 1
~ 0.5
w
~ 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
I,
y •I ~ `
i.
I
~ i ~ i ~
I
I
~ ,
Photogruph of (eve! gfslopiirg hulltivay fluor being measaned. Ui/ferential settlement o~'stn~ctural wulfc
hus caused the floors !v slope. Fnlse floors hove been added in some rvomr to render them usable.
Transue Engineering Associates LLC
5735 Arapahoe Ave.
Suite A-1
Boulder, CO 80303
303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219
L'
_ ~ _
' _ ~ ~ . r -
_ ~ I MfyOl .S-r
I~ 1 ~
Y. ~ - _
s I 'I-~ _ _ }~'l'~9
~ ~ , 1
~ ti~ - _ ~ ~
~
Phuto~ruph of soutJ~s fuciag roar is-all, east side, showing top-of-tiwall conditions, deteriorated brick and
1)lOYtaY, and paint.
w
ti•
~
~ _ •i 7
s TJ-L 'I ~ - - ~ ~ ~ -
~ I i~
Phuto,~raph of s~>uth-facing r~~ur ~ti~crll, west side, showing deteriorated brick and nior-tar and crncl~s around
arches.
Transue Engineering Associates LLC
5735 Arapahoe Ave.
Suite A-1
Boulder, CO 80303
303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219
r~•` .rte"--.1; - t^ ~ .-r.-.. -r' r ~-+.,7~..r- -.s*~'~ _ a-~ ~.~w
_.._T_ ~ ~ ,
r ~ , - ti
~r~ - - - :;mac;. t:
i
7.. i - ri- _ -
~ 1___.._...vr _ ~.-5,...-•-_-.ICS...:
-----r- ,
/'hntograph of west facing side ~:vull, second flour, showing evindnw penetrutivns witlrvut lintels and
arsvciated cracks. This wall is concave inward us shown in the chart helow.
Profile of west side wall, second floor, at 4 feet above 1st floor roof
1.6
' 1.4
H
°i 1.2
U
C
1
0 0.8
N
~ 0.6
N
0.4
ar
c 0.2
R
Y
N
~ ~ I
0 2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4.5
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
i E~ ' ~ ~ ~Jf
I~~ 1 ~ ~ 1
' ~ ` s.
8j t~
_
L.I
+-.-.a~n[,-,tea ~ ~„r'~ ,o -'mo'b- ~ `~,p'~ •.~h
~
v+~I - ~ 1 ~~n
' :;KKK ~k '\i „
r. _ ~ 4
k "w
~
r ~ Ii ~ C e ~t • .
Phatvbraph of
foundation conditions taken during u prior remodeling project.
Transue Engineering Associates LLC
5735 Arapahoe Ave.
Suite A-1
Boulder, CO 80303
303.443.9180 • FAX 303.443.9219
1
- l d ! _ ?
~
,
_
.o a +
~ r-
f ~ ~
, ,
_
L' ''Y s
r ~
a
Total alterations made to facade of building.
f _
1 ~ -
_ W.. ,
Y~7 ..,~~•t,~~~? .s .lam' ~ _ •~~f~ .~v. ..r w
T( . ~ _ ~ - -
I ~
- ~ : ` i ,Y:~;~ ---,rte
'ti it ,
~k , ~
~ r- 17 ~
max- 1` ~ _ ~ 14'~S. ~ ` - r
- ~ ~ . fit
'4 . ti~ V r
~ ?Yr ~ J - ~ t
_ _
_ l~ ~
- _ _ _ _.~^r
=
_ ~ _ f~~....._ _
- 'f. Y
4i u
r
1
~ . ~
~ ~ li ( ~ l ~ . r. -
1~, ~ a
F ~ _ ~ I illMllli~?l~ - -
- ~ ~~i~
.y0.%.. 'i
- .
.1 "ice ~e~~~~~~ , ~ '
Attachment D
Renovation Engineering Mcmo
®JVA, Incorporated ? JVA, Incorporated ~ JVA, Incorporated Web site:
II'\~/!//.1\ Bou9 erg,
CO 80302 FortOlColln
s,~CO 80524200 0 QXUS~Highway 40 WWW'jvajva.com
\t%„`%J` Ph: 303.444.1951 Ph: 970.225.9099 Winter Park, CO 80482 E-mail:
\\r ` 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 2nd floor and roof with sistered 1-314" 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 2nd level. Frame shall consist of
W10x45 columns with a W10x45 support beam with bottom plate. Shoring will 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.
i ~ ~ ~G~JCX.
S gned: cc: Brad Hahn
Tom Soell, PE, President
LEED Accredited Professional
14l)~l 1'cur1.5'tn•~~~ .ti'i~~rn~ltirul Ul~~srr~~cilruiic JV.1, I~7~•. 1t~;;ust 1, ?0(1~~'
Summary
The original building has experienced significant settlement and undergone numerous
modifications. Observed overframing to achieve a level floor in half of one second level
apartment is approximately 3" in height, and one can estimate a total settlcmcnt 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 stricture and one can visually estimate within its small
footprint a differential settlcmcnt 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 masony and wood building that was
constnrcted 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 60 feet 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 compartmentalized 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 6U
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 rubhlc to support the stone fa4ade.
-1-
1904 Peui•I StreE~t Str~ucttn-al Ohsc~r-vc~tior~s ,/VA, lilt - At~~,~~ust 1, 200
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 1888 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 are to remain in service will need to be designed per the
2006 International Existing Building Code (IEBC). Historic Buildings shall comply with the ,
applicable struchiral 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 cuzTent 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 current IBC 2006 wind and seismic forces must be performed
for the entire building.
Chapter lU 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 structure
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 struch~re and
the brick was originally supported on shallow stone rubble foundations. It's likely the original
main floor was framed with joists spanning east-west, but given that the existing floors are now
concrete slab-on-grade, it's likely that the original framed floor was abandoned anal concrete
-2-
jull$ Pe'cn~157~~~'il.~'lrta~ltn~~il OI~.~~rn~nliun~ ./I~-1. Inc'. Flu°it~t ?(1(l~ti'
slabs were installed during the 1950's renovation. 'I'bis was confit-nrcd anecdotally to Brad
Hahn.. Additional slab work was done during the 2002 renovation.
Both halves of the building are framed with full width 2x floor, roof and ceiling joists span east-
west. The roof rafters stairstcp 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 floor 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 lx ceiling
boards that attached directly to the bottom of the floor joists were exposed to view.
A built-up wood beam consisting of 6-2x12's supports the original brick bearing wall above the
• storefront lint on the north face of the building. This beam appears to be supported on the
- original intermediate wood pasts that framed the 1888 storefront. The outside brick walls
support each end of the beam.
At least four new openings were placed in the original masoruy 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 ratters that were needed for the 195U's
addition to the south. These rafters slope down to the south and arc supported on intermediate
steel beam lines in the roof. The roof for this single story addition supports the building }-IVAC
and also serves as a casual roof top deck for the apartments. As stated earlier, access to the
secondary exterior ,fair is gained over this portion of the addition.
The small cottage in the rear of the property is ~~-ood framed with a simple north-south gable.
"I-he 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 shedding down to the south.
1.3 Structural Observations
The original masoruy bearing walls have been significantly modified on the west building line
with minor modifications at the interior support lines. In general the wall perfor•tnance is mixed,
with some of the original walls in fair condition and signs of noticeable distress in other areas.
The windows in the north fa4acte 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 significant 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 from the face of brick given the wide exposure to weather.
1904 Pearl Street .S'tructi~ral Ohservcrlrats JVd, li~c. %l u~;trst 1, ?004
The second floor framing in the apat-tments 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.
T'he 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 structure member sizes. lt'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 remain 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. tJnfortunately the original crawlspace bas 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 Mall that .1VA has previously renovated.
lt'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
1950'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 Pern•1 St~~c~~t Stri~rturu! Ohser-vutruias Ji ;9, hzc. - Au~~u.cd 1, ?008
Certainly if the entire 188 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 specializes in
this type of challenge.
-S-
1904 Your/ .Sh•eet Sb~uctural O/~sew~tinns - JV,~, /nc. -August 1, 200b'
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 1.904 Pearl
Street, March 2002
2.0 IEBC 2006 Structural Design Load Requirements
Per IEBC Section. 1106.2, 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 IBC for new buildings without exceeding the nominal strength
pern~itted in the 1BC.
4) "I'hc 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 E
Renovation Engineering Pricing
July 25, 2008
Brad Hahn
623 Concord Ave.
Boulder, CO 80304
Re: 1904 Pearl Street - Bouldcr, Colorado
Pricing Analysis -Structural Rehabilitation Scenario
Mr. Flahn:
"!'hank you for the opportunity to provide you with this Schematic Pricing for the proposed
Structural Rehabilitation at 1904 Pearl Street.
Please find the following budgetary items attached:
- Exclusions and Qualifications related to our pricing.
- Schematic Pricing related to rehabilitating existing structure and North facade.
'T'his pricing is purely a Structural Cost Analysis. Primarily, Divisions 7 through 16 have
been excluded from our pricing (with exception of MI:P safe-off for demolition). "Phis
pricing is base purely from the conditions known at this time and the budget does not
include costs for unknown or hidden conditions.
We hope the pricing provides you with the information required to proceed with your
project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
i
( Je f Whiteman
'-Precemstruction Project Manager
cc: Estimating File 08075.0
1904 Peari Street -Structural Rehabilitation
Boulder, Colorado
Specific Clarifications
July 3, 2008
GENERAL 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
8. Use Tax
C. Tap Fees
D. Builders Risk Insurance
G. Hazardous Material Removal (e.g. asbestos)
F. Off-hours Work (e.g. nights & weekends)
G. Weather Protection
H. New Mechanical work
1. New Electrical work
J. New Fire Sprinkler work
K. New Interior /Exterior Finishes
L. Demolition of West Building
M. New Doors and Glazing
N. Modifications of Doors and Glazing
O. Miscellaneous and Ornamental Metals
P. New Roofing
Q. Site Utilities
SCENARIO #1 -ASSUMPTIONS & QUALIFICATIONS
I. 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.
5. Sawcutting and patching of existing concrete slab as require fur new foundation system.
6. Shoring of existing floor and roof.
7. Shoring ofNorth Fa~adc
8. Excavation for new concrete.
9. Interior Pad Footings for support of new columns.
10. Bolster existi ng foundation wall at perimeter with 12" wide foundation wall.
11. Slab Patchin g as required.
12. A Masonry Repair Allowance of 526,200 for tuck pointing and miscellaneous repairs.
13. Masonr y infill at South and West walls.
• l4. Ne w steel columns, beams, and rigid frames per Structural Report.
15. Sister -frame existing floor framing and roof framing with new l'/." x 14" LVL's at 16" o.c.
16. Ne wload-bearing furring walls at building perimeter.
17. Ne w plywood substrate on new LVL floor and roof joists.
18. MEP Safe -off as require for demolition.
1904 Pearl Street
Full Rehabilitation of Existing
Dated: July 3, 2008
• Preliminary Notes
Budget Comments
Descri lion 7/3/08
Division 1 570,775
General Conditions 8 Requirements
Divislon 2 $62,025 _ _ ~
Sitework 8, Demolition ~ -
Division 3 $54,200 - - " - ~ -
Concrete Finishes - - _ - - -
Division 4 _ $47,690 - - - - - -
Masonry - - - - - - - -
Divlslon 5 5147,625 - - - - ~ - - -
Metals _ - - - -
Division fi 5_102,500
Woods 8 Plastics - -
Division 7 - SO - - - - -
Thermal 8 Moisture Protection ~ - ~ -
Division 8 - gp - - - - - ~ - - - -
Doors 8 Glazing ~ - - _ - - - -
Division 9 80 - - -
Finishes - - ` ~ - - - -
Division 10 SO _ '
Specialties ~ - - - -
Division 11 SO - -
Equipment ~ - -
Division 12 SO ~ - - - -
Furnishings _ _ _ - - i - " - - -
Dlvision 13 SO ~ -
Special Construction - - -
Division 14 - SO _ - _ _
Conveying Systems _ - - - - ~ - -
Division 15 53,850 - - - - -
Mechanical - - - - - - -
Division 16 53,900
Electrical -
Subtotal $492,765
Builders Risk Insurance Allowance By Owner _
General Liability Insurance at 0.95% 54,681 ~ -
Subcontractor Bonds SO _ - ~ y
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 $572,063
Square Footage 8,500
Cost Per Square Foot 567.30
1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co.
Labor Material Equip
Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Amount Amount Sub Amount Amount Total Amount S /Unit
1000.00 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
1001 00 General Conditions
Supervision, Contracts, Cost Control, etc 10 wk 55,000 55.000 5.500.00 / wk
General Conditions sf 0 0 55,000 0 55,000_ 6.47_ I 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 / mo
Small Tools _ _ 10 wk 1.500 1,500 150.00 / wk
Office Trailer 0 mo 0 0 500.00 / m_o
Temp Elec. Installation 1 ea 500 500_ 500.00_ / ea
Temp Elec. Power 3 mo 375 _ 375 125.00 / mo
Job Fence 8 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_ / ea_
Safety Equipment 1 Is 250 _ 250 250.00 ! Is
Final Clean-up (Broom Sweep) 1 Is 500_ 500 500.00 / Is
Project Sign 0 Is 0 _ 0 500.00 / Is
Liability Insurance -See Summary Page 1 Is 0 _ 0 0.00 / Is
Plan Check, Permit, Use Tax -See Summary Page 1 Is 0 0 0.00 / Is
General Requirements sf 0 0 15,775 0 15,775 1.86 / sf
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION sf 0 0 70,775 0 70,775 8.33 I sf
2000.00 SITEWORK
2100.00 Demolition _
Interior Wall Demolition _ _ sF 5,950_ _ 5,950 0.70 1 _Sf
MEP Demolition sf 4,250 4,25_0 _ 0.50_! sf
Selective Structural Demolition (post shoring) 1 Is 5,000 5,000_ 5,00.0.00 / _Is
Selective Removal of Existing Floor Substrate 2.500 sf 1,125 1,125 0.45 ! sf
Selective Removal of Existing Roof Substrate (including Roofing) sf 3,900 _ 3,900 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 Siab Removal sf 4,200_ 4,200 2.00 ! sf _
Dumpster Pulls 5 ea 3.750 _ 3.750 750.00 / ea
Demolition _ sf 0 0 29,075 0 29,075 3.42 / Sf
_2140.00 Shoring
Shoring of 2nd Level Floor 480 If 14,400 14,400 30.00 / If
Shoring of Roof 240 If 7,200 7,200 30.00 / _ If
Shoring of North Fascade 2 mo 5,000 5,000 2,500.00_ mo
Shoring sf 0 0 26,600_ 0 26,600 3.13 ! Sf
2200.00 Earthwork
Perimeter Excavation 100 cy 4,000 4,000 40.00 / cy
Haul off Spoils 100 cy 600 600 6.00 cy
713!2008 SchematiGPreliminary Budget t of 5
1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co.
Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Material Sub Amount Equip Total Amount S I Unit
Amount Amount Amount
Pad Footing Excavation 5 ea _ 1,750 1,750_ 350.00 / ea
Earthwork sf 0 0 6,350 0 _6,350 0.75 / sf
2500.00 Site Utilities
None 0 Is 0 0 0.00 / IS
Site Utilities sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
2800.00 Landscaping
None 0 Is 0 0 0.00 / Is
Landscaping sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
SITEWORK f sf 0 0 62,025 0 62,025 7.30 / 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_ 1.0.00 / Sf
Slab Patch at Perimeter 1,400 sf 14,000 14,000 10.00 / Sf
Concrete sf 0 0 54,200 0 54,200 6.38 ! sf
CONCRETE sf 0 0 54,200 0 54,200 6.38 / sf
4000.00 _ MASONRY
4200.00 Masonry
Removal of Paint on North Fascade (Sandblasting?) _ 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_ S,DOO.DO / IS
8" CMU Infills at West Wall _ _ _ _ 1,_280 sf 23,040 23,040_ 18.00 ! Sf
.8" CMU Infills at 5ou:h Wail 125 sf 2,250 2,250 18.00 / Sf
Masonry ~ sf 0 0 47,890 0 47,890_ 5.63 / sf
MASONRY _ sf 0 0 47,890 0 47,890 5.63 I sf
5000.00 METALS
5500.00 Misc. Metals
New Steel Columns at 1st Floor (16' 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. ! ft) 3.00 ton 17,250 17,250 5,750.00 /ton
New Steel Beams at 2nd Floor (50 lbs. / ft) 3.00 ton 15,000 15,000 5,000.00 /ton
New Steel Beams at Roof (50 lbs. / ft) 1.50 ton 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. Metafs sf 0 0 147,625 0 147,625 17.37 / sf
METALS sf 0 0 147,625 0 147,625 17.37 r sf
6000.00 WOODS 8 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 8eanng Walls at 2nd Levet 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 ai Roof (Materials} 2,250 If 13.500 13.500 6.00 / If
7/3!2008 SchematiGPrelim nary Budget 2 of 5
1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co.
Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Material Sub Amount Equlp Total Amount S ! Unil
Amount Amount Amount
_ Sister 14" LVL at Roof (Labor) 300 mh 13.500 13,500_ 45.00 /_mh
New 3/a" Plywood Substrate at 2nd 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 Ro_o_f (_Labo__r) _ 90 sht 900 900_ 10.00 / sht
Misc. Framing Matena_Is _ _ _ 1 Is 2,500 2,500 _2,500.00 ! Is
Rough Carpentry sf 0 0 102,500 0 102,500 12.06 / sf
6400.00 Millwork - ~ - ~ -
None 0 ea 0 0 0.00 / ea
Millwork _ sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
WOODS 8 PLASTICS i sf 0 0 102,500 0 102,500 12.06 / sf
7000.00 THERMAL 8 MOISTURE PROTECTION _ _ _
7200.00 Insulation _ _
None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / sf
Insulation sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
7500.00 Roofing _
Misc. Patching 0 is 0 0 0.00_ / IS
Roofing sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
7900.00 Misc. Sealants _
None 0 Is _ 0 0 0.00 / IS
Misc. Sealants sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
THERMAL 8 MOISTURE PROTECTION sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
8000.00 DOORS 8 GLAZING _ _
8200.00 Doors 8 Frames _
None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / sf
Doors 8 Frames sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
8800.00 Glazing
None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / sf
Glazing sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
DOORS 8 GLAZING sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ! sf
9000.00 FINISHES
9250.00 Drywall
None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / Sf
Drywall sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / st
9500.00 Acoustic Ceiling The
None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / sf
Acoustic Ceiling Tile sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
9650.00 Flooring
None 0 sf 0 0 0.00 / sf
Flooring _ sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
9900.00 Painting
None 0 sl _ 0 0 0.00 / sf
Painting sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
7/3/2008 SchematiGPreliminary Budget 3 of 5
1904 Pearl Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neil Construction Co.
Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity labor Matenal Sub Amount Equip Total Amount 5 / Und
Amount Amount Amount
FINISHES - - ~ - sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
10000.00 SPECIALTIES _
10000.00 Specialties
None _ _ 0 Is 0_ _ 0 0.00_/ IS
Specialties sf 0 0 0 _ 0_ 0 0.00 / sf
SPECIALTIES _ _ sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 I sf
1100.0.00 EQUIPMENT
11900 00 Appliances
None 0 ea 0 0 0.00 / ea
Appliances sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / Sf
EQUIPMENT sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
12000.00 FURNISHINGS _ _
12500.00 Window Treatments
_ None _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 _ea 0 0 __0.00 / ea
Window Treatments sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
FURNISHINGS sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
13000.00 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
13000.00 Special Construction
None 1 Is 0 0 _ _ __0.0_0 1_IS
Special Construction sf 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0._00_/ sf
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION _ J sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
14000.00 CONVEYING SYSTEMS
14000.00 Conveying Systems
None 1 Is 0 0 0.00 / IS
Conveying Systems sf 0 0 0 0 D 0.00_ / sf
CONVEYING SYSTEMS I sf 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 / sf
15000.00 MECHANICAL _
15400.00 Plumbing _ _
Safe-oH for Demolition 30 mh 1,650 1,650_ 55.00 / mh
_ Plumbing sf 0 0 1,650 0 1,650 0.19 / sf_
15000.00 Fire Sprinklers _
Safe-oH for Demolition _ _ 20 mr, 1,100 1,100 55.00 / _ mh
Fire Sprinklers sf 0 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 sf 0 0 1,100 0 1,100 0.1_3 / sf
MECHANICAL sf 0 0 3,850 0 3,850 0.45 ! sf
16000.00 ELECTRICAL
16000.00 Electrical
Sate-off for Demolition 60 mh 3.900 3,900 65.00 / mh
Electrical sf 0 0 3,900 0 3,900 0.46 / sf
ELECTRICAL sf 0 0 3,900 0 3,900 0.46 / sf
7/3x2008 Schema6c/Prelimi~ary Budget 4 of 5
o.
190 Paa;l Street Rehabilitate Existing Structure W.E. O'Neii Construction Ca.
Group Phase Description Takeoff Quantity Labor Material Sub Amount Equip Total Amount S /Unit
Amount Amount Amount
SUBTOTAL (T.I) sf 0 0 492,765 0 492,765 57.97 / sf
7/3/2008 Schematic/Preliminary Budget 5 of 5
Attachment G
September School Letter of Intent
Se tembe~r
high school
September School
1902 Walnut
Boulder, 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 ofthe cottage have agreed to relocate and
renovate the cottage on our property. We understand this requires your 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 ifrelocated. Our
. large halfacrc 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.
Thus, this is consideration we will lake seriously at the board level.
Based on voui: approval ofthc cc:mage relocation, the September School will pursue an
agreement with the cottage house owners to relocate and restore the cottage on our
property.
Sincerely,
f~
G'~
llan Fox
Principal
September School
X902 Ul~int ~r~ 8xld~, CO ~0(~2. 3ai.443.i ~i.444.50Z7 fac v~v~w~tart~~d.ag
9/11 /2008
Landmarks Board Review
;Cdi i ~~i
Personal Background -Historic Preservation
Hide Slide
• Restored 2 homes in the Mapleton ii'st Dist..
• I have a Master in Urban Planning studied Hist Pres across the county and abroad.
• My family is a founding family of the State and the Colorado Historical Society as well as a
large supporter.
• I appreciate and respect your mission as a Board.
• I am here to present to you the detailed physical condition of the existing structures and the
economic and structural challenges to restoration and answer any questions in order to help
with your risessment.
• I will first orient you with the property, show bei'o~e and after pnotos, ~raphirally ,how
alterations, and provide a economic review.
• I represent the potential purchaser of the property and the current nwner. Nnte the cur•ont
owner has owned the property for over 50 and has maintained anr, improved the property
with additio^.il costs d..r the buildings structural issues.
1
9/11/2008
Presentation Overview
• Property Orientation
• Building Physical Condition
• Before and After Photos
• Graphically Show Alterations
• Previous Historical Reviews
• Economic Review
• Summary
Application Summary
• Application Background:
- The City staff contacted
- The application submitted on April 14tH
- Reviewed by Landmarks Design Committee on April 23~d
- The building was toured by City staff on May 23~d
• Community Outreach -Historic Boulder, Downtown Boulder,
Neighbors, Property Owners and Businesses.
2
9/11 /2008
4
, ~
~ ~
~ ~ -
~ ~i~~
l {
~ ` ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ .
rr1~
{1
1E' . ~ 5,
I~.~
i.._.
3
9/11 /2008
i i
Current Conditions
• In depth physical inventory of the condition of the exterior and interior of
the building has been preformed by a contractor and structural engineer.
• Interior and exterior elements of the existing building have been exposed
including removing drywall, stucco and other materials.
• The structures alterations are listed on pages 16 and 17 of the Memo and
historical building permits on pages 89 thru 92.
• The structural conditions and remaining materials are listed on the bottom
of page 17 of the Memo. The engineering letter of review is in the
materials presented.
4
9/11 /2008
_ .
y _ ,_~l _ ~ i h 6 .v
_ _ F - s r.
. - .sue=~ ! "r
r rLr T `'z ~
_ `1
_ ~
. ...III ~
' ,
t .~Y;
~ ~ d
I 'S''.
t~_,.1! ~ .i~
- - J ~I~IIII~III
5
9/11 /2008
r.
_ -~,r_ _ ;i
- _
- - -
J~~
X15. %
.
r - ~ ~ l~1 .4 ~
' i -:J;' ~
k ` ~ -
!r 1 j
' ~
I,~ ~ i i , _ ;
- - - _
~ ~ S:J
6
9/11 /2008
L
_ i ~ ~
11 _ . , ~ - _ _ _ - -
- -
_~j~~, _ - -
r -
:v.... _ _ - - - ~ _
t
• .i -4
~ 1i
~_Ili11111111
First floor alterations include removal of windows, steps, window
fronts, doors, trim on 6 posts and 3 supporting brick walls.
7
9/11 /2008
_ _
-t~
~.irr r ,
4z :r
1 ' r 'r rl l 1 ~ ~ ~if~ ~,~T
I ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .i
f~_.
•
' illl'~i~~ll
,
Fascia removed.
a.
•
.
` .
~ Ii ~ irr '~lMlf y ~.;F: i
• lr~'Ir ,
i ~ ~
iilllll1111
•Second floor windows replaced and far right window removed
•Scttling of building impact on horizontal plane i~f windows
• Vc nts?
8
9/11 /2008
J Y
~ ~ r
- _
•T'_ ~
1' K
JJ'' r Y
Y '(Y
` J ~IIIIIII III
•Roofline altered .
•Parapet roof detail on left side of building removed
' ~ I~ ,
r f .1.+. ~1
1 _ _ ~ 1~'• -
- .
?y x
1 ~ ~ ~ li
~ 11111111111
a • , r..
Total alterations made to facade of building.
9
9/11 /2008
6 r
Y ~ _ j
" ~
~
~ µ
- _ k '
,I i . 1 t~ ~ _ _ F
1 ~ hIb _ -
- i I
_ ~ -
= - T
10
9/11 /2008
-
_ i r
~ ~Z~~~
.
r:
L~
t;
a
~ ~ ps .
__~14.. _
\
H~
_ -
11
9/ 11 /2008
Ya _ ,i T
"
:;t'i ~ -
_ - ;i.
At ~ }
_ ~ s+~;
~ M
b
_ ~ - _
. ~r
.
.aw
12
9/11 /2008
~
i . a. it i. .
a
_
- ~ .,.y...
h+
I'~
. II » .a~
r--- , -
rM
~
ft`` - Y .
13
9/11/2008
i sNC ~ i ~ J r?
.1
_ _ ~ 4
a _
gnat -~T
Y
~r
Vv •1
+f .--..i\a ~IIIIIII II I1 ~~III~IIi ~~~l ~
llifl I~
=
- 91l~' ' n
i~
i
i
.a
t~
Y I
F
a,~
r~~;:
~ ~l4~ , _
14
9/11 /2008
• ~ ~
2. "u.. r7
~~Y
u:;~jt7
~ _
_ __-mss _
~ _ j -
- - I F-~" i~.~.
• ` , ~ ~ I ~ f I i ill, ( ~li~i~l
Previous H istorica I Review
• 1988 Survey -The Colorado Historical Society surveyed the building and stated
"The building, however, has been extensively remodeled and has little historic
integrity."
• 1995 Landmarks Review -The City staff and the Landmarks Eioard conducted an
extensive review of the Fast Pearl comrriercial area and an in depth review of all
the structures located in this area.
• 19955ummary-
- East End historic district application should be withdrawn
- The building located at 1906-1902 is non-contributing and most likely not
restorable.
- The alley unit at 1918 % is contributing with alterations. Note -since then the
associated contributing house on the parcel at 1918 Pearl has since been
removed.
15
9/11 /2008
~ ~
~
-
_ ~.l
Y:.
'
_ _ - -
i
Illll~hll~ _ _ ~ -
. ~ k~ . ~
, ,
Previous Historical Review
• 1988 Survey -The Colorado Historical Society surveyed the building and stated
"The building, however, has been extensively remodeled and has little historic
integrity."
• 1995 Landmarks Review -The City staff and the Landmarks Board conducted an
extensive review of the East Pearl commercial area and an in depth review of all
the structures loca±ed in this area.
• 1995 Summary -
- East End historic district application should be withdrawn
- The building located at 1906-1902 is non-contributing and most likely not
restorable.
- The alley unit at 1918 Y~ is contributing with alterations. Note -since then the
- associated contributing house on the parcel at 1918 Pearl has since been
removed.
15
9/11 /2008
~ ....a....... ~ , o ~
;r ~ I
~
~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
pI~D~ ~ ~ 0
ro ~ ~ o I
~~p boa I I
J ` 1 POiENi1AL dSi111Cr
1 ~ _
{ ~ aioiaE sow w~na
lr ¦
iTM1Cf1~1E Of MF7r
. CpIilrMfnllG
? NOKmNfAiBIJIIgO
Engineering Challenges
• The building walls have settled 6' due to collapsing rubble foundations and
expansive soils.
• The foundation is not below the frost line and would need to be replaced
to support 2nd and 3'd floor construction or renovation.
• The building structural construction does not meet current building codes.
• Engineering required to restore the building: floors, roof, walls, foundation
and facade would require all structural elements to be replaced.
• Further, it is noted that disconnecting the newer building and/or
renovating the inside of the older building even using numerous
precautions it would potentially become unstable, damaged or fall down.
16
9/11 /2008
- rtw. ....8....... ; ~
~p ° ~
~ ~ .l ~ ~I
- . D ~I
~ ~ 0 ~
a o
o ~ g l~ ~n n° ~
_ J Pon~rtu~ asnucr
i
. ~ ~ ~ EucIeIF FOR NAna
~ I
i ¦ STRUCTURE OP MEAT
CONTRIBUTING
I I NON~OITTRI9UTING
Engineering Challenges
• The building walls have settled 6' due to collapsing rubble foundations and
expansive soils.
• The foundation is not below the frost line and would need to be replaced
to support 2"d and 3'd floor construction or renovation.
• The building structural construction does not meet current building codes.
• Engineering required to restore the building: floors, roof, walls, foundation
and facade would require all structural elements to be replaced.
• Further, it is noted that disconnecting the newer building and/or
renovating the inside of the older building even using numerous
precautions it would potentially become unstable, damaged or fall down.
16
9/11 /2008
Economic Challenges
• Restoration of historic buildings and facades in general costs 2
times the cost of new construction and takes twice as long
according to building contractors who have preformed this
type of work and toured the building.
• The initial estimate for building restoration const costs is
$2.5M. The new const cost is $1M. This does not include the
additional time and money the restoration would take.
• State Tax Credits are not available for mixed-use for sale
buildings.
• Federal tax credits for commercial buildings do not apply since
currently the structures do not meet the criteria for National
Register.
Economic Challenges
• The current building does not have economic value and the
12,000 sf on the 1ST floor has been vacant for over a year
except for a temporary tenant.
• Further improvement to the existing buildings would be cost
prohibitive based on market lease rates and the current
property value. If the property remains the building owners
will incur a significant loss of value.
• The stay of demolition will cause economic hardship for the
owner and purchaser of the property
17
9/11 /2008
Summary
• The City staff and I have presented you with an in-depth assessment.
• I have oriented you with the property, show before and after photos,
graphically shown alterations, and provide a structural and economic
summary.
• We have conducted extensive exploration of the physical structures and
shown the challenges. We have reached out to the general public and
have been cooperative in the process. We have presented this in detail for
your review.
• The buildings are in poor condition. And, the costs, numerous challenges
' and economic hardships make the restoration unreasonable.
• Thus, we would like you to consider approving the application without a
stay of demolition.
18
1)04 Pearl Strcct
Demolition Application
Landmark Board Rcvicw
i
• 5 -
i'` _ - ~ ~
' , / 1 i
I
y~.. ~ - - -
-
.f
N\~' c,>rnrr cif f>uiklin~ f~rclm 19~ and Pearl.
Documentation Included: I'roperh~ Description, t1-lterauons, Physical Condition and
1ZCII7a1[lln~ ,Materials, Prc~~iaus Landmark Review Findings and Exterior and Interior Photos.
Description 1904 Pearl St. -
• T" floor retail, warehouse and offices - 2"`~ Floor w/5 apartments. One stc-pry
concrete black with Tlat roof, glass front Ea~ade and awning integrated with two
store brick structure w/ stucco and concrete foe block flagstone facade.
• I_~etached alley- structure - 450 square foot wood frame structure.
Alterations - l9(14 1'eal-I Sr.:
• Fxtcriior: Kem,xlclccl I~:u;aclc: 1" flc,ur c,,nrrctr i~k;ck loc ila~r~tune t;uin~r
with new windows and doors. 2"d story- stucco, new windows and removed
u•indc~«-. Ae«- t~•rst facin~~ ~~-indc,~~- :added. New c~tern~ll suPp~,rtin~ hnu7dau,~n
1
on cast side encrr~aching on neighboring propert}~. Repairs ireun fire. \umerous
other renovations.
• Internal: Steel beams support 25% of 2"`' stor}~ integrating first floor w/ new
openings and/or providing structural support. Concrete block, carriage bolts,
wood framing integrating and supporting old and new structures. New ceiling
framing, mechanical, electrical for entire structure. 2"`' floor apartments have
been remodeled several times including new walls, ceilings, trim, bathrooms,
kitchens, etc... Numerous other renovations
• Detached alley structure -New windows, new siding w/ one coat of paint,
porch w/ concrete floor and steel supports, additions, interior and exterior trim.
Ivtchen added in I" addition and bathroom added in 2nd addition. New
external foundation supporting north side of structure. Repairs from fire.
Interior walls show siding, indicating 2 additions -including south peak and rear
flat roof sections.
Physical Conditions and Remaining Materials: Interior and exterior elements of the
existing building have been exposed removing drywall, stucco and other materials to reveal
the fc~llc~wing:
• T:xposed brick and mortar is deteriorated and crumbling repaired with fiberglass
material on rear side of the structure w/ numerous I to 2 inch faults in the brick
and mortar.
• Rear of building -Original exterior widows, door openings, brick headers, brick
and mortar, and sills are structural and architectural damaged by the building
~cttling 4 to G inches.
• 2'd story front stucco facade is attached to brick. The top brick detail has been
partially removed to create a flat front facade. New windows and openings.
Based on the below findings faults in the brick and mortar is estimated to be 1 to
2 bricks out of level. Potentially indicating the reason for the new front facade.
• foundation -'L'he building height, windows and brick lines were surveyed
indicating 4 to 6 inches of foundation settlement the across the front and from
the front to back of the structure sloping toward the east and south. Slope of
interior floors and floor joists contlrm exterior findinln. The effect has caused
the hr-irl::uid nu~rt:cr ~~~indr~~~- and doer; t•~ tault ei~nitic-;u~rl~~.
2
Previous Landmark Review (Laura Ramsey) November 17'`' 1994 and January 4"' l 995.
• Previous Landmarks review November 1T'`, 1994: Re Fast Pearl hlistoric llistrict
- Either newer buildings or older u%hich have been extensively remodeled:
"These non-contribution buildings included: 1904 -1912 Pearl St.".
• "The building hou=ever, has been extensively remodeled, has little historic
integrity, and the staff feels it is not restorable. iti~lajor alterations: remodeled
facade, stucco, new stone facing, remodeled ~vindo~vs and doors."
• South side of Pearl St. betv,Teen 18`h and 20``' Streets should not be included in the
potential district for the following reasons: " ~~1any of the most significant
buildings have been dramatically altered; and the blocks contain highly
• incompatible , inrr-uding buildings or older buildings ~vluch have lost their
- historic integrity".
Structure Building Footprint -note whine roof in upper- left indicates the 2"`'story
T ~ Cr . ~e
' i ~
' ~ t~
x ~
~r
- ~ { GG ' ~ ~
r
rr
,
• ~ '
r
~r
I~
r
r ~ I -
~ ~r ~ ~ ~ i.
t
3
Exterior Photographs -Starting fi~orla North lsast Corner to Sc>u::h Last:
_
~i .
_L_ _
~ - - ~
i
i~
~1?, a~rnc; 01 buildin;~ fi-cnn }9'`~ and 1'car}
~ ~
i ~
- -
~ \
r
Iiui}ding facade frv:n Pearl 5t.
4
_ r
_
,i
- , -
- ~ _ _
r .''rv
1.._
f~
_ = r y7•
I ~ ' _ .
- ~ ~
- _ _ .
J`
- - -
NE corner ~f ~uildin~ and tacacle
I
I
~ --I
` _ ~
_ ~
6~?
North facade of 2 storti~ part of bullding from Pearl St.
5
~ 4
Cs'
I~ ~
i
I'
~ ~ . r
-o
North facade from Pearl St. sho~~~ing new window and door opens and foe flagstone
~
. ,
~i~', ~7
IL1 ~Y„ j
~ ~ 5\
~iT~
~1~` '~r
. '
- ,
~ ~
t .
\
\~orth East corner o{ from fa~~ade slowing foe fr<igstorc cictail.
6
~i~
i~ , ~ ,
r
_ _ i
Norrh Fast corner of front facade showing new windows and framing
_
-
~ Boa
l~t~uit t<i4adc slx~win~ new f~r~mt cntn~ ;rain i~> tlu~_~r iu~Cl in~ildin~ inCegcauon.
7
` rP ;1
r r
err- ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
,_i_ 511; ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ I .1
tl ~ I '
15 S
t:t ~'_5 f~ ' 'til'l J ~I-~~' } ',.y `
_ - c~
t
~ _ - - _ - .r
• b ~
~ 1 2
i _ J
} I
i ~I ~r - -
,~ca.e~-• • - -
~ -
5 1 ~1~' M ,
r:
N' r I
~b _
8
_ >
i ~ ;
_
_ .ti~
- ~ /
South ~k'cst corner of building; from 19~~ and allot'. ,
- -
w~ -
- -
~t
l.1
South sick of huil~lin;, Dui allc~~.
9
r ~ j1! . ~ ~ `J . F' ' J
_ _J 1 ~
` 1
r' J
l
/ 1~p _
~I~ I 1
- 1
• ~I~A,. tir ~ tip. °
East side of building
-r r ~
jl . l~
~ ~ , 1 r
~ ~
-
- .4 ~ _ _
- 'p
- ;.a _ .
~,i. ~ -
-"r:
East side of building slx~wing SE corner of building with 2^~i flr new window.
10
~I
~
~ ~ ry~,r. `
\W corner of 2~~~ su,rr
. _
ri - - _
- ~
1 " _ -,r
~ :.6' . ~
~ -
;i~ -
` ~ - ~ - -
South West side of iwilding 2~~ floor showing 2 new windows and integration to new. Brick
and mortar show several large faalts.
11
T
~ r•_~
- . 1 -
r- ' ~ ' ,
a
-1+
' < - ~
•
. gyp,
• -I
I'
i
S\\' corner c,f 2'~~' story- shcrwin~; intc~rarion «~ith nc~~~ structure.
- _ _ ~ ic; _
i -
_ r
ij ~ ~
1l.-- - -
~ICIC ~lr l1Cl~C~II',,~* ~ ~ ~r ~(1~ 1V1~1nL, ClJ~Cn~~ Vll'h'~ iA1'ti %lli 1111' and 1'C'VC COCii'.
12
~ i
- f
i ~
i
.Q~,x
bb _ j'~/ ~ l~ r.
I L~
. _
' ~
t-.
South side of 2^~~ story showing building; integr<itian.
- ~
_ ~ ~ ~a'
~ ,
-t ~
=mil' ! . i~F !_I~-
- - i
t~
.
-
jjy~~tLj~. ~ f'~w
L.R L~_ ~,V.f ` _
I ~
S`w' side of 2"~~ floor.
13
- _ .
I
~ f
h•r
t _ i
7
~ _
\Cesr side c,r ?~°'tk,ur shc,~~~rng brick mall covered wirlr fiher~lass nrirerial.
y
ti ~ -
_ _
r~ ~
1'
t~- _
1'~` -ao---
.~~r _
•t~
F~
S~,uth tide of 2^'~ flcx,r• ccn erect ~~~ith fiberglass material and showing strucrure integration.
\\'indo«~ gills and •:>ruk lines sh„~~r tc~ 4 inchc< <rt slc_,~e fi•om west to cast.
14
- - - _ ~ ~ _ r ~
_
,
T
I ~
fT y - -
~ -i.~-L"_ _ t.. _ _ - - _ _
' i --.ate -~--Lr ~ _ -
I -
r ~
, _ -
. ~ vvTT-~~~~ , I
• ~ t
?1
` 'I ,
f.ll
S~;uth I ,>«t cr,rne± c>t 2'~'~ s:vey.
- ~
_
ef; -~z _ 1
_i
_ - ~l~
- ~ ,7 _I
-1=~=
I-
. ~ , I
m
~
ye'
~ ~ ~
\~'est side of alle~~ structure showing new porch and 2 rear additions.
15
- - _ _ ~ a
i
i'.-'%"
.1:~ '
- ~ ~
'ur~~ a !9~' ~ ~
~ -A' - '~C
'?N
~ CI ~r i~+T~`I'- Jt4 rya K'~~' - 1._J.i
_S~ mow. p. .,r~~,~`~,.t ~-.1.
~ ~ i t
Alley structure from West side.
4 ~ ~ _ _ ~ - I
- r
_ ~r
. ~
I
y
-i'
a~~~
r~ r • _
l~~ ` - ~
~ _ - -•ia~
N. ~ ~
1 ~Y
r
,'fib ~ s. _ _ . - - ~ -
\V'rst side c>f allot- structure shcnving new parch w; mcretr tlo~~r.
16
1 ~p _ -
_
~ -
-
-
)~1
_ _ _ _
\t'est ~id~ of alleti structure shc,wing the 2 separate additions.
~ - _
- - - ,
r - - - -
' - ~
_~r - 7
«'rst ,«lr ut xLlrv structt~r~ s}u>~~~in;; inte~naric~n ~~t 1 ' acl~iiturn ~t-/ nru si~iu~~-
17
i
- - 1 --r
_ j
i _ _ i _ .i.~.l..z_~
~
1i ~
,1
i, r ~ ,
i
_
~1 - ~
~ ~ ~
j
\X est side cif alley- ~tructurr ~}.~,~t•in,~ . additi~~n t~~ rr.-n~ ~~f ~rructure:.
II
U~ \ r
r`
`s _
~ •1. Tom. Ir
Suuth side of alley- structure shuwin~~ neu-er d~x~t-~~•a~• ~~•hich is c~~~•ered frc~rn the interir~r.
18
~~w.,Z 1 / '~1~J G ~ X5,2 N~( ~ • ' ~
- r~ ~
1 I,
f~•
I' ~
~ ~
.
- - -
~ .s
South 1~',ast comer and side of alley structure -note there are no windows on the east side,
1 ~
J
• ~ a
1 ` 4,
7
I ~
~ ~
. .
I
l - ~ Vii- -
r
North side of alley structure showing new window, trim and siding.
19
t'. `V(7 ~ ~ y ~7~,~+ r 1, .
~
. "
~ .e
1~ ~
. ~ 1,
I
~ " r.~
I
~t
? y`~a
~ -
ti
L '}C"y` k%'. -.;_l'~~~:'Ss~1ts.?~i4 ~Jf " ~~-~N ri' `-t?1-~~A: i]1'M
North West side of alley structure
20
Interior Photographs -
Showing interior walls of 2 story structure.
-r. ~
f = v
:F ,
~ i
' ~ ~r ~ .
r -
i _,*R. ~ -
.
l~ - ~ ~
~ ~lr-_~-
i1 M ~
.
1
Int~~ri~~r «-all hu~~in~ i ~m~~rcfc I~lucl< on toy, ~,t
uric incl.
21
- k.
P _
I'
i ~ . I n1J,r _ f
~
r _
~~}:r- - .
.i
_ - 11
r
_ _ ¦
/ 'I
I4
Interior wall showing opening added nn original west esteric~r brick ~~,•all. The S\Y~' rear
corner of the original structure is 4 feet to the right of the ope~ung.
22
C.~...-- ~ r L- ~ ~ - I _ _
I
I
1
ti
New interior walls exrcndin~ fast the rear of the original structure. The rear section of the
east half of the original structure extends further than the west and can be seen though the
doorway.
23
-
i 1
-
~
~r
i
= t
- ~
• _ .
-
Rear exterior wall of the east half of the anginal structure. Brick wall shows an original
window opening and a concrete block support column to die left. T'he opening to the right
extending further to the right is a 20 foot opening in the original structure supporting; the 2^~
floor with a steel beam.
24
- _ -
• - ~~t -
Yom;:
' ~
~t
- d
,4
r
~ - ,
_
I
I_
Uct:il or prr~~uni~ J~icn~rc ~f,~,~~~in~ ~:u~lt~ ar.~i lx•ams inte~n~atin~; ul~l and nc~~,~ strucr.~res.
25
_ F
x
v y
/ ~ ~ s
_1~- ~ ~ t.
1
,x
_
(tear exterior wall of the cast half of the original structure showing the removal of the brick
wall where previously mentioned a steel beam supports the 2^~ floor. Brick shown on the
right is the rear of the cast faring; eateri~>r wall.
26
i
- '
' `
~ _
i
r,
Interior wall of original structure showing integrated plumbing and electrical. Notc the
framing tied into the brick wall is consistent of the interior ceiling drop ceiling and appear to
be structural.
27
~ ~
~ i~ ~
1
_
- .
t3ac1< iu frc~r.t ~•ic«• drnt~n h.~ll~r:~~ nl>c•nin~~ in rlu• rr:u• ~,f the c~ri«in:rl su-ui turd.
fir
~N
I',:.<r li:rl(~~t tl~r ~,ri;>inal ~tru~ tore <h~,wirl~; ncu• wirclo~~~ and dcxir uhcnin~•
28
,f'~_
~ -
1
¦
¦
¦
l~asr half cri ori~;ina1 structure -interior view of front window opervng and foe flagstone
block facade.
29
r
I
a~
'1
?c ~ ~
.
T ~
i
~i
I
V~icw frun: rant half of ongtnal structure looking though the dour tnto the u•cst Kali of the
~~ri~inal structure.
30
_ _ - - i~
~ - -
t
_ ii
_ ~ :~~~I
-w
I
~~(lest half of original stnicture showing rear wall and original door opening with rew
opening supported by a steal beam.
31
~ ~ i
t
_ ~t
S.
I
- -
1~
\1~'esr half c~Cori~inal structure sho~~-i~~;~ ne~~~ wincl~~w anal ~~<x>r openii>>s.
32
^^i
VI~~
~~2
H b~
fo
,
f~-w
.
~~'esr li;at ~~i~ ~,ri~,in>;I .n-uCurc interi~~r ~~ie.w u~ frurrt wine caw ~,i~e°nin~; suu t~,c i.>i;;~t~~ne
bl~~c~: fa4a~c.
33
• I
T
-
South ~~~cst c~>rncr ~~f the ~,ris~inal structure sh~~win~; ~~~enin~ inns ,uicliti~m.
34
r
-
_F .
.
Rear of ~~~est half of original structure sho~e~ing strucn~ral bolts and beams and mechaivcal
integration.
35
_y
~
_ _
Y
'
I
i
• 1
0
v
• { • ~ r
I
I
I
Rear of west half of original structure showing structural and mechanical intei;rativn.
36
a~7 -
~s ~
~ I
i
. T
W
.
_ _ i
'r
•
l
~ -
O(x•ning intci new structure sho~~~in~> steel su}~}~errts hrich w/ cvncrcte• hlerch hacking.
37
~ i
~ ,i
.
r
u
- t
i
I
~
t -
1
_f
r
inside of front fa~adc showing concrete block on the 1`~ floor with wood framing beams and
~c~sts.
38
~i
~
y
,1~~
i -
•
~e
'~Q_ '
f 4
~r
r'
r ..1_
~ ~
~I ~ '
'r'r
1 ~ i
1
~
Inside of front fa4ade showing concrete block on the 1~'- floor with wood framing beams and
pasts. Interior brick walls and wood beams support 2^~ story brick facade.
39
I' ~
N
2"'~ door staircase acidixi in a remodel.
i
i
l
tlt~t~t top of staircase lurrl:int' do~a~r_ {~all~~~ay.
40
I
~t ,
j~
I
iL n I~_~<~kir,~; int~~ rr;u~ li.;ll~~~~„~~
~
i~~,ut Ir,~~lan> d~~wi: h,il!~~~,i~~ of s`~~iitr;iu•.
41
r
I
4
~ n
. `
Acxn- .-car hall~~ <i~~ I~,~,I~.nt~~ tu~~~;lr~i fr~~nt ni tl,~ I,,nlr.ir.~~.
t
t
~r
t
ile~„r rear hali~~•a`• I<,ukm~; tc,~t~ard rear d~c,r u•htch ~t•as aci.i~d in a renu.aiel. Jhuwinl;
.inkin~~ t~~x,rs tc, the cast.
42
1
1
I
1
i
„ ~
iii ,
rl
?,~~i iln~,r in rear hallw.~~~ sh~~~~~in~; tlor~r lcecl sinking =1 inrhr s t~~ the rust.
43
- -
i
~ O
~i
,J
~C
ii
-
r 1~
~a7
2°~i florn- ai~artrnent facing North showing new window, framing and trim. 1l~artrnents have
been extensivel}~ remodeled several times with new walls, ceilings, trim, etc...
44
4#"+, ~ ti
~ t~
w ~r
~
h I
Q ,
I! ~
~ ; ~
i -
2^~i flcx~r kitclirn ~~~ith new ~~.~in~l~,w an~j trim n~~w bl~,cl:r~i ln~ nrit~lilx~rinLr structure.
_
III ~
1
L
±,j -
f
J +r~
2~~ $~x~r I~x~kin~ into, b.uhro~~.n.
45
i
-
i
lllle~ su-ucturc shuw~tn}; cuu~~ and n~~rtl: facing ~~,~iudu~c. Vas heater c~:closurc on rtl;ht. The
interior has been renovated with new windows, doors, trim and base board. Room is 9 Y 25
i i ie 225 sf.
~ Ii
nn i~ a.
L,' u al
1~
I
.'\llc~y~ structure fuukin}; ua~, l~~' rear ael~litivn sh~~~~~iiil; lutnc~n a~~d d~x~r leading tv 2°d rear
.:dditi~n w/mar sn~:~ll r~x,m .uul bath. Kitchen and storak;e area 8 x 15 ft ie 120 sf.
46
L
~ _ 1
7
I
• ~ ~ ~
s
llllcy structure sho~~~in~~, kitchen w/ panclin~r and nc~~~ wind~nti~.
r
,~-'.z
i
~ - ~
~ 1
Alley structure showing 2~~t addition w/ rear room and bath. 7 x 15ft ie 105 ft
47