5D - Consideration of Landmark Alteration Certificate (HIS2008-00149) for 800 Pearl St - to rehabilitate the building and construct an addition MLMORANDUM
November 5'~, 2008
To: Landmarks Board
From: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern
Subject: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to remove approximately 3,800 sq. ft. of the at 800 Pearl
Street (penduzg landmark) and to rehabilitate the building and
construct 8,700 sq. ft. of addition to the building, per Section 9-11-18
of the Boulder Revised Code
(H1S2(108-00149)
Statistics:
1. Site: 800 Pearl Street
2. Zoning: BMS (Business -Main Street)
3. Owner Pearl Street Properties, LLC
4. Applicant: Morgan Creek Venhires
5. Site Area: 14,100 sq. ft.
6. Existing Bldg: Approximately 6,400 sq. ft.
7. Proposed Demolition Approximately 3,800 sq. ft.
7. Proposed addition: Approximately 8,700 sq. ft.
8. Proposed free standing construction: Approximately 2,600 sq. ft.
7. Proposed Ht: 38'
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion:
The Landmark Board denies the proposal for the demolition,
rehabilitation/reconstruction and new construction at 800 Pearl Street (as shown
on drawings dated October 13th, 2008), in that it fails to meet the standards in
Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, is not consistent with the General Desi~~Tn
AGENDA ITEM #Sl~ PAGE
S:\P LAN\data\longrang\I-LIST\ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Pcar 1.800\ 1 1.05.08memo.doc
Gl~idelints, and doe`s not meet the Secretary of tjie Interior's Stur~tiard5 for
Reconstruction in that the proposed work will damage the historic character of the
property.
Summary:
• On October 23~~, 2007 the demolition permit for the property was
withdrawn by the applicant to allow time for redesign of the project to
avoid demolition and possibly landmark the property.
• Staff has met with the applicant on a number of occasions to discuss the
redevelopment the site with view to a portion of the property being
landmarked.
• `l'he building at 800 Pearl Street was constructed in 1876 for Nathaniel P.
Hill as a sampling works for ore from mines in the mountains west of
Boulder. Though the building has been altered a number of times over the
years, its basic form remains intact.
• Because there is a pending local landmark application for a portion of a
property, the demolition, rehabilitation, and addition are being reviewed
as a landmark alteration certificate per 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised
Code.
® The proposal calls for the removal of approximately 3,800 sq. ft. (60%) of
the existing building. Roughly 2,500 sq. ft. (33%) proposed for demolition
was constructed after WW-II, while the remaining 1,270 slated for
demolition dates to the 1876.
• The application calls for the construction of approximately 8,700 sq. ft. of
additions and 2,600 sq. ft. of adjacent new construction.
• The proposed landmark boundary includes 5,300 sq. ft. of the 14,100 sq. ft.
lot; all exterior changes within the proposed boundary are subject to a
landmark alteration certificate.
• Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board deny the proposal for the
demolition, rehabilitation/reconstruction and new construction in that it
fails to meet the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, is not
consistent with the General Design Guidelines, and does not meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Reconstruction in that the proposed
work will damage the historic character of the property.
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 2 -
S:\PLAN1~i;,r,~\for.grang\H[S"I ~AL~I CF.RTS\L2ndmarks\Yrar1.8000 LOS.OFmcmo.doc
i
"f .lY~
i~ 7-~lc. xr.
r ~b -.a. >L u ~ ? ~
~ .rf 'tom r 1Df
r ! IJ /r j 4 ~
'7-r:i~ ~r ~ III IS~ ~ l ~tir i,/1f J~ ( ~
i - 1 ~ jt X11 r~~~ ~~ii A.
~ K ~ ~ n ' ~ i I~ _ 1l.~~ ,i'
- , , - _ _ _ . x .
k'i~;ure 1.
800 Yearl Street north~'<~est corner, 2007
Property Description:
The 14,100 square foot lot is located on the southeast corner of 8~ Street and Pearl
Street and contains a stuccoed brick building featuring a wide, low-pitch, front-
gabled roof, with aone-story flat roof addition at the rear (south) elevation.
Though the building has been altered a number of times over the years, the basic
form of 1876 building remains intact. Exterior changes include the removal of
tower sometime after 1930, the application of ccmentitious stucco to the exterior
walls sometime between 1935 and 1943, and the replacement of the six-over-six
double-hung windows and relocation of the entrance on the north elevation
sometime between 1943 and 1965. Asecond-story window has been closed, the
void covered with a sign. A still extant flat roof addition at the south side of the
building appears in a c.193U photograph (see figure 7J and was significantly
altered during the c.1950 remodel and addition. 'This property was surveyed in
1988 by the Colorado Historical Society. (See Attachment B: Historic Building
Inventory Record).
The proposed landmark boundary includes 5,000 sq. ft. of the 14,100 sq. ft. lot; all
exterior changes within the proposed boundary are subject to a landmark
alteration certificate.
AGENDA ITE1yI #SD PAGE - 3 -
S:\PLAV`,data\lou~rang\1l ISTIAI:IY:LR"TS\I ~ndmarks\PearLSOU`•.;1.05.08memo.doc
i ' c 1 l ~
~ i ~ 1
~ , ~yl tit ~ , , , ~ L.
1
tell Ali i~i~( ~ ~ 11 i~~yll
III' ~ ~ ~ ~~t ii ~ ~ ~ ,
Designated Mapleton Hill Historic District I~~~ ~II~~~'lll~ ~r (I
~ i n ~
VIII „'i I u ~ '~~~I~ ~ Q1`
~V. ~1II I I I.li.~.
pFZ ~~I ~I~ II~~!~ ~ ~ J ~I~~I~~liilll'''llll
~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j lletiignatcd
~ ~ Downtown
0 Historic ,
o
District
y
~ iit~!il
Identified Potential expanded l~~•~
Nest Pearl historic District
~ Subject Property
Figure 2. Location map
Demolition:
Because the request proposes the removal of more than 50%> of the roof and wall
area, it meets the city's definition of a demolition per 9-16 of the Boulder Revised
Code.
The application calls for the demolition of approximately 3,800 sq. ft. (60%) of the
existing h, 400 sq. ft. building. Roughly 2,500 sq. ft. (or 40% of the existing
building) proposed for demolition is flat roofed, constructed of concrete block
and built or significantly altered after WW-II. The remaining 1,270 sq. ft. (or 20%
of the existing building) features the gable roof and brick wall construction and
appears to date from the original 1876 construction (see figures 3 F~ 4).
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 4 -
S:\Pl_,ANkiataUongrangV3IST',.AI.ICI:K'i~~`I :nd~nar{s1['~ar: x00V LOS.O?zn::a:o.Jcw
i
_ ~ ~ ~
_ ~ - ~ ll
~ ` I
NORTH
i , ~n
~
1
~ O o
~ ~ a ~
r \ r
, ~ ~ ~ ~
r o
_
_ •
i • • " • ~
~ F-
•ft~ • ~ 'f; ~ Z
• • .a d.
N. .L ~
Portion of Building ~ Pro osed for Demolition ~
-
{
~ to be Preserved _
j1 a ~ O ;n ~
-c l
¦ ~ • -
ii _ ¦
• ~ 4. r7
c^
~
1 • _
_ z i i
w. _ M'1 5'Qts' 18°YV - 1'4Q'.0 i : , ~
' '
I+igure 3. Existing Site Plan showing portion of building proposed for demolition
.
- -
..r" - ~ Proposed Demolition _
~ JJJ Y '
t . ~ ~ -1-,
a ~r. i,_ rH ~ L ~
-
Figure 4. 7`h Street elevation showing areas of building proposed for demolition
Rehabi l itation/Reconstruction:
The proposal calls for the rehabilitation of the builduzg and the reconstruction of
a number of lost exterior features.
On the north (front) elevation of the building, plans show the brick storefront to
be uncovered and areas to be reconstructed to a state close to that shown in
AGENDA ITEM #5D PAGE - 5 -
S:\PLAIv'\dafaUongrang\H1S'1 \AL,TCER'I'S`•IzndmarksU'cac1.S00\l1.OS.OSmemo.dcc
photographs of the building dating from the late 19'h century (sec' fi~~>?tI•c 7 b). In
this scheme the six over six, double-hung window in the gable is to be
reconstructed and on the first floor four double-hung sash are to be
reconstructed where there were originally two windows. The proposal also calls
for a door to be inserted in roughly the same location as the door shown al the
east end of the north elevation in the c.1895 photograph.
,
~
`
FF 1
y;~ i -
7:
I~it;ure 5. North elevation of K00 Pearl Street c. ltir)ti
1 '~/J~ t
'i~'r 1
7ti t 1•, -
i
. j ~ I
Figure 6. Proposed north elevation of 800 Pearl Street
Plans also call for the reconstruction of a pitch roof tower rising from the middle
of the building's roof loosely based upon the c.1930 photograph of the building
(see figures 7 ~ 8). On the west elevation, drawings show the construction of a
dormer roughly approxunating the dormer seen u1 the c.1930 photograph and
removal of the plaster and restoration of the original brick. 'The fenestration of
the west elevation takes advantage of existing openings in addition to inserting
new openings. X111 windows shown appear to be double hung sash.
AGENDA ITF.,M #_5D PAGE - 6 -
S:'.PI. Ati'~data~I~,ngrarg~HIST~IILTCGK'ftilfandmarks\Pear1.800U L05.08:nemo.doc
\o details were provided regarding treatnlcnt of the existing building on the east
or south elevations.
_
f
N, ,r
F .,.,,~r.,,,..
c ' , ~
"tt. . j a:~
Ft'...
Figure 7. c. I')3U phucm~raph ,hu~~ ink„ west elevation of building
(portion of building at right foreground is no longer extant)
,jj~ . _ . _
_ _ - -
i' ~
. , ~ ~ t at , t
_ _ _
~ ~
Figure 7. Proposed reconst?vction of tower, dormer, and restoration of west wall.
Addition:
A roof plan for the property indicates that the proposed addition will attach
directly onto the portion of the existing building shown to be preserved. A
second-story bridge between the historic building and reconstructed tower and
addition is shown to provide vehicular entrance to a parking area for Lolita's on
the ground level. On the south the bridge is shown to connect with a flat roofed
AGENllA ITEM #SD PAGi1 - 7 -
S:\PL.AN\dataUrnigrang\HIS7IALTCIiR"rS\I,andmarks~['ear1.8000 I.OSA8ntcmo.doc
three-story construction, the first floor of which will function as parking. The
west face of the third-story of the addition is shown to be set back 8' feet and the
connecting second-story bridge set back 4' from the west elevations of the
historic building and proposed south addition.
Elevations (figures 9 10), indicate the reconstructed tower to be 36' in height,
the south addition to be 35' in height (38' to top of mechanicals), and the
connecting bridge to be 2T i.n height. The existing building is roughly 19' high.
When viewed froze the north, the connecting bridge features a saltbox form
gable. The proposed bridge and addition are shown. to be fenestrated with
double-hung windows of various sizes and French doors providing access to
west facing terraces while the tower is shown to feature several windows on the
north and west. Materials and colours are not specified, however the pitch roof
areas of. both the old and new construction are shown to be sheathed with
standing seam metal roofs.
The south addition and east (free-standing), building are shown to be
constructed out of the proposed landmark boundary and, therefore, are not part
of this review.
_ - Preserved _
Portion of ~ I' i Q-:
-I - - I
$Ulldlil~ ~ _
- - - ~"~f: - - I
ii__ i
i " ~ r_ i
r~ i
~ -•;-f ~-:-r - -
j r r ~ - ~iT
~
i ~ {
It= fi : ~ ?j I
~ 11 I-~
i f,l,_ . ~
Figure 8. Roof plan showing new construction in relation to
preserved portion o#' building (not to scale and not showing tower)
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 8 -
5:AY1.
~N\dataVcn~ra:~g\I i1S' I'\,1T,"CC;ElZ'I ;S\izndr.~::rKS'~l'car1.A00\11.US.OSmcn~o.d:~c
I I - -
I t ! i
I : ~ ~ ~ I i
I . - _ ...I,F. ~ f I 7
' -
LLEVA~ icla wEST
Figurc 9. West elevation of proposed addition
(hatched line indicates extent of proposed landmark boundary)
1
. , , ~ - .-,t
I~~ i ti r~
f''
ELEVAiIUtI NUIITH
Figurc 10. tiorth elevation of proposed addition
(hatched line indicates extent of proposed landmark boundary)
u-
r
IL r } ~ i t IX L ~ .
1~I. ~I ~ Sri TAI 1I~a ~..,1~~~i ail l 1 i,fl Irk1,..~1',.<`'~ L ~
r
Figurc 11. Rendering of development from the northwest
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 9 -
S:\YI.AN\dataUongang\I-IIS"f •~~1L1 C'Llt Cti` Lan~icr::rks`Nc~r1.30011 I .Ili ~;~mcrn.~.~_'c~c
i
Criteria for the Board's Decision:
Subsection 9-11-18(b1-3)(c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth conditions an application must
meet in order for the Landmarks Board to issue a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a landmark alteration
certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, Texture, color, arrangerr2ent of cvlor,
and materials used on existing and proposed structures are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its sife;
(4) Wit1i respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace. the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
landmarks board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
Analysis:
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district?
Staff finds the proposed demolition of the southern 27' feet (or 32%) of the 1876
building will damage or destroy the exterior features of the landmark as a whole.
Staff also considers the exterior rehabilitation and reconstruction will not restore
The historic building to a definable period and that the proposed addition will
damage the architectural features of the landmark by overwhelming it (see
Design Guidelines analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architecturaC, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark?
Staff finds that the proposed application will adversely affect the special
character of the landmark by demolishing a significant portion of the building
and that the proposed addition s height, mass, scale, and design is substantially
AGF.~IDA ITEM #SD YAGE - 10 -
S:IPLANIdataVangrang`•.IIIS"I'\A(:I CF.RT~\Land:narks\Pcari.SZOG\11.05.08memo.doc:
itlcompatible with the C;crteral Design Guidelines, ul that it will overw}u1m the
t~uilding and have an adverse effect on the landmark property.
Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
rrruterials used on existing and proposed structures compatible wit1T the character of the
{11st01'1C Clistr'iCt'
Little detail is provided ati to matzrials proposed for the addition.
4. With respect to n propnsul tc~ demolish a building in an historic district, the
proposed nezv construct ion to replace the building meets the requirerrtents of
para~~ruphs (h)(2) r~rtd rrltnvt~.
fee above.
c. T{te Lnrtdrruzr•k~ Lioctrcl is r~f'c{ttircd ttr consider tite ecort~ntric feasibility of alternatives,
incorporatiofi of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
deter•rninirtg whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Plalzs call for the construction of a universal access interior elevator in the
proposed addition. No information on the economic feasibility of alternatives
was submitted.
Design Guidelines
The Board has also adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the
historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed
new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design g~,~idelines are
intended to be used only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as
a checklist of items for compliance.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC
BUILDINGS _
Windows l
3.7
T~'indo~a:r, the elc~nteuts that surround therm, and their r<•lutiuu.~~lrr~> h~ one unother ure nm° uJ~ih~
most important character-deftnirrg elements of a historic sU•ucture and should be preserved.
Improper or insensitive treatment ujthe windows on a historic strtcchtre can seriously detract fi•on:
its architectural character. Windows on facades visible from public streets, particularly the front
facade, are especiully intportatrt.
AGENDA ITEM #5D PAGE - l I -
S:U'LAN\dataVongrangVilST\ALTCERI'~\L:+~ r:ma~ ks\f'c~r1.80U\ 1 l .O5.U8nteruo.doc
I
Guideline Meets
Guideline
Retain and preserve existing historic With the exception of three c.1950 Yes
'1 windotus itTCludin their sncfional
$ ~ steel casement windows at the north
decorative features to some cases, it end of the west elevation, all
might be appropriate to use windozrr ~~indows on the building are clearly
elements from the side or rear
elevativns to re air those on the front. non-historic.
2 Preserve original window locations; do Drawings show that the existing non- No
not move windows from their historic historic storefront is to be replaced
placement. with re-creation based loosely upon
fenestration evident in c1895
photograph (see figure S}. West
elevation fenestration to be based
upon existing openings with new
openings inserted. Fenestration of
these primary elevations should be
more closely replicate historic
conditions.
.10 ~xiStZYtg h15toY1C "1UZ11dow OpP.ningS Some of the window openings on the Maybe
should be preserved artd should not be west elevation appear to be historic.
made larger or smaller to accommodate Analysis needs to be made to further
a differently sized zvindozv determine which of these opening are
intact to historic eriod.
14 All replacement windows must match Drawings show that the existing non- No
the historic feature as closely as historic storefront is to be replaced
possible. with re-creation based loosely upon
fenestration evident in c1895
photograph (see figure 5). West
elevation fenestration to be based
upon existing openings with new
openings inserted. Fenestration of
these primary elevations should more
closely re lieate historic conditions.
3.8 Dooxs
Front doors and primary entrances are among the most importm~t elements of historic buildings.
The original size and proportion of a jrvnt door, the details of the door-, the done surround, and the
placem.er~rt of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance.
Guideline Meets
Guideline
2 Retain cmd preserve the functional, historic door at east end. of primaxy
proportional and decorative features of north elevation is no longer extant. Yes
a primary entrance. These features Plans show the historic doorway to
include t11e door and its came, sill, be recreated based u on historic
AGENDA ITEM #5D PAGE -12 -
S:\PLANldata~lono ang~EIISTIALTCERTS~Landmarks~Pear1.8001ll.O5.o8mcrno.doc
head, jamb, moldings, and any photograph (see figure 5).
ankin windows.
.10 Doors in additions and new buildings More information needs to be Maybe
should retlect door patterns and provided rci;arding proposed doors
proportions of the existing ...for on addition.
elevations visible form public streets,
relationship of voids to solid should
also be cone atible.
4.0 Protection of Historic Buildin sand Sites Meets Guidelines?
.1 Construct crew additions so that there is Proposed addition calls for the No
the least possible loss of historic. fabric removal of 3,800 sq. ft. of 6,400 sq. ft.
and so the character-defzning features of existing building. Removal of 2,500
the buildings are not destroyed. sq. ft. of c. 1950 concrete block
addition would not result in loss of
character defining feature of
building. However, 1,270 sq. ft.
portion of 1876 of pitch roof building
(see figures 3 4} is character-
defining and should be retained, not
destro ed.
.2 New additions should be cotzstructed so Removal of :1,270 sq. ft. portion of No
that they may be removed in the future 1876 portion of building is
without damn in the historic building. irreversible.
It is not appropriate to corestrrrct an Mass and scale of addition No
3 addition that will detract fr-vm the incompatible with historic building
overall historic character of the detracts from historic character of
building. the building. Steps should be taken
to distinguish historic building,
soften corutection with addition, and
simply massing and forms of
addition.
4.2 Distinction from Historic Buildin s
/11l additions should be discernible from the Iistoric structure. When the original design is
duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additions should be
compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction.
1 Distinguish urz addition from the Carulector bridge is set back 4' from No
hisforic structure, but maintain visual west face of historic building and
continuity between the two. One new distinguishable from old.
common method is to step tJze addifion However, increase in height at from
back and/or set it in slightly from the existing building to bridge is T with
historic structure. F.,very ro'ect is het lit of ro osed tower risin 15'
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 13 -
S:IPLANIdataVongrengV I1S'1"\ALTCIiRTS\Landmarks\I'car1.SUU\1 I.0>.USmcmo.doc
different and successful designs may above roof of. historic builduZg.
incorporate a variety of approaches. Connecting element at, or lower,
than height of existing building may
be more appropriate, or consider
free-standing building in lieu of
south addition.
2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Historic elements on connecting No
Instead, interpret )ristoric elements in bridge and addition are referenced
sirrlpler ways in the addition. though forms and fenestration.
However, these forms are not
simpler than those of the historic
buildin .
3 Additions should be simpler in Form of addition is more complex No
detail than the original structure. than that of historic building -
An addition that exhibits a more should be simplified. Little
orlmte style or implies an information provided regarding
earlier period of architecture than that detailing.
o the on final is ina ropriate.
4 T7ze architectural style of additions Connector roof references historic Maybe
should not imitate the historic style but form of building and south addition
Irlust be compatible witli it. more contemporary in design.
Contemporan~style additivns are number and types of forms should
possible, but require the utmost be simplified.
attention to these guidelines to be
successful. The use of fwv distinct
historic styles, such as adding Tudor-
style pal
f-timbering tv a Classic
Cotta e, is inn ~ ro riate.
4.3 Com atibilit with Historic Buildin s
Introducing new consfruction That contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site
detracts from the visual continuity that marks our histvric districts. WTzile additions should be
distinguishable from tke historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from the
Orlgltlal buIldtng and/or the site. Additions should never overwheirli histvric structures or the site,
in mass, scale or detailin .
1 ArT addition should be subordinate to As designed, connector and addition No
the historic building, limited in size will visually overwhelm the historic
and scale so that it does nor dirninislT or builduig. Increase in height at from
visually overpower the building. existing building to connecting
bridge is T with height of proposed
tower rising 15' above roof of
historic building. Connecting
element at, or lower, than height of
existing building may be more
appropriate, or consider free-
standin buildin in )ieu of south
AGENllA ITEM #5D PAGE -14 -
S:\FLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCER'f S\T.~n~Lnarks\PearL800\I 1.05.08memo.coc
additi<m.
2 Design art addition to be compatible As designed, mass and scale of No
with the historic building in mass, scale, addition incompatible with historic
materials and color. For elevatio)zs building. Little detail provided
visible from public streets, tlTe regarding fenestration, material, and
relationship of solids to voids in flu colour.
exterior walls should also be com atible.
4 Reflect the original symmetry or Proposed addition should reflect the No
asymmetry of the historic building. asymmetry of the fenestration of the
historic building -especially that of
the west wall.
5 Preserve the vertical and horizontal Horizont-il proportion of the historic No
proportion of a building's mass. building is compromised by the
removal of reaz 2T of 1876 building
and proposed addition. Lowering
connector or redesigning addition as
free-standing building may mitigate
this effect.
4.4 Com atibilit with Historic Site and Settin
1 Design new additions so That the ~Ia character-defining landscaping Yea
overall character of the site, site features on the property.
topography, dlaracter-defini)~g site
features and trees are retained.
2 1_ocate new additions on att Addition is to be constructed at the No
inconspicuous elevation of the historic rear of the 1istoric building.
building, generally the rear one. However, abrupt increase in height
locating an addition to the front of a and variety of forms will overwhelm
structure is inappropriate because it the historic building, especially
obscures the ]risforic facade of a when viewed from the west (7~h
building. Street) and the north Pearl Street (see
ure 11.).
3 Respect the established orientation o_t Proposed addition conforms with Yes
the original building and typical the historic building and buildings
alignments in the area. in the area.
4 Preserve a backyard area between the Commercial context, not applicable N/A
House and the garage, maintaining the
general proportion of built mass to
open space found within the area. See
Guideline 2.1..1.
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - I S -
S:V'LAN\dataVongranglH[5TIALTCL'R1'S\I,aadmarks\I'ca:1.80UU 1.05,08mcmo.doc
I
4.5 Ke Suildin Elements
Roofs, porches, doinlcrs, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining
elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they compliment the
historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for
related su estions.
1 Maintain the dominant roofline and Maintains roof form to the street but No
orientation of the roof
form to t1Te does not maintain historic building's
street. roof form as dominant, in part due to
removal of 27' of 1576 buildin .
2 Rooflines ort additions should be tower Rooflines are significantly higher No
than and secondary to the ronflitTe of the than historic building. Consider
original building. lowering corulecting bridge or
redesigning for free-standing
building. Three-stories on property
may be appropriate given
coznznercial context of area.
3 The existing roof
form, pitch, eave Gabie form of connector is ,Vo
depth, and materials should be used for assymetrical to give "saltbox"
all additions. appearance. Pitch on reconstructed
tower appears to be steeper than that
of historic tower. Reconstructed
dormer is significantly different to
that shown in historic photographs
(see fi arcs 5 F~ 7).
5 Maintain the proportion, general style, Though little detail provided, other Maybe
and symmetry or usytnmetry of the than French doors on west faces,
existing window pattert2s. general proportion, style, location
az~d symmetry of window patterns
referenced in design for the addition
a ears a ro riate.
6 Use window s]lapes that are found on Some window and door locations, Maybe
the historic structure. Do tTOt introduce shapes and designs on addition are
odd-shaped windows such as octagonal, incompatible with historic building
triangular, ordiamond-shaped (see. 5).
8 Llse materials and construction similar Application does not specify type of Maybe
to historic windows. Do nat use snap- windows.
itt muntins.
Design Guideline Analysis Summary:
Staff considers that the removal of the c.1950 concrete block addition is
appropriate as it is not an historic character defining .feature of the property but
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 16 -
S:\PLAN\dat::\;rn~at.:;ng\FIIS'I'\A1;1'CERTS\Landmarks\Pcar1.300\ 11.OS.o8memo.doc
that that the southern 27' feet of 1876 building should be retained. Staff also
appreciates the effort the applicant has made to rehabilitate the builduZg and
reconstruct the historic north and west elevations, tower, and dormer. I-Iowever,
staff is of the opinion that the exterior rehabilitation/reconstruction should more
closely match a historic period (since the building has experienced a number of
changes over time it would be useful to select a period and rehabilitate it based
upon a historic photograph(s) representing a particular period).
Boulder's design guidelines do not specifically address reconstruction of missing
elements on a historic building. However, the National Park Service's Secretary of
tJie Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (upon which
Boulder's design guidelines are based), advises that reconstructions should:
be based upon the accurate duplication of historic features and
elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than
on conjectural designs or the availability of different features. A
reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving
historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. A reconstruction
will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation".
In terms of the addition, staff does find that, as designed, the addition would
visually overwhelm the historic building. As suggested, the applicant might
consider lowering the connection between the historic building and addition or
designing adjacent free-standing construction in a mazuler consistent with the
General Design Guidelines for New Construction. In addition, staff considers that
steps should be taken to lessen the real or apparent mass, scale, and height while
simplifying the form and details of the addition and/or new construction.
As submitted, the application does not meet the conditions of Subsection 9-1.1-
18(b,1-3)(c), B.R.C.1981af the Boulder Revised Code in that demolition of the
south portion of the 1875 portion of the building would destroy character
defining features of the historic building, that the rehabilitation/reconstruction is
not accurate to a period of the building's history, anal that the addition would
significantly alter the special historic character of the historic building by
overwhelming it in mass, height, and scale.
However, staff appreciates the amount of work put into the project to date and
encourages the applicant to continue planning for the redevelopment for
redevelopment of the property in a manner that is consistent with the historic
preservation ordinance, the General Desi~z Guidelines, and the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Reconstruction and to take advantage of state and federal
historic preservation tax incentives.
AGENDA ITEM #SD PAGE - 17 -
S:'~PLAivA~z:auongranu\iI[S~I"SAL:fCF,RTS\Lattdmarks~Pearl.t~(10U 1.05.08memo.d;?c
Findings:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, the proposed demolition,
rehabilitation, and new construction at 800 Pearl Street will not be consistent
with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. The demolition of the south 27' feet of the 1876 building would
destroy the important historic form and features of the building.
2. The proposed rehabilitation and reconstruction of exterior features
~cvill not preserve or restore the building to a specific historic
period.
3. The proposed addition would damage the special historic exterior
architectural features of the historic building by overwhelming it in
height, mass, and scale.
4. The request is generally inconsistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, Sections 3 & 4 of the General Design Guidelines, and does
not meet the Secrcfarl~ of the Inferior's Standards for Reconstruction.
Attachments:
A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Q: Application anal Plans
C: Photographs
D: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Reconstruction
AGENDA I1'CM #SD PAGE - 18 -
S:\Pl AV\data\lun,tr.:n 'J I IS1'\ALTCER I'S'+L;mdm rks\I'car;.~00\I L0~,08ntettto.c'nc
Attachment A.
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY NOT FOR FIELD USE
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ELIGIBLE
1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado ^'DET NOT ELIG
~ HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD ~NOP4INATED
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Boulder County CERTIFIED REHAB
DATE
PROJECT NAME: BOULDER HISTORIC PLACES State IDS: 5BL2339
*Building Name: LOLITA'S AlARKET
*Building Address: 800 PEARL STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
Building Owner: THE MOUNTAINS DOWNTOVJN
Owner Address: 2336 CANYON, SUITE 101 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
USGS Quad: BOULDER Quad Year: 1966 (REV.1979)
Legal: Tnsp 1N Range 71W Section 25 1/4, 1 4
Historic Name: BOSTON & COLO. SAP4PLING WORKS
District T1ame: NOT APPLICABLE
Block: 63 Lot: 65 Addition: BOULDER WEST
Year of Addition: 1874
ilm Roll By: ROGER WHITACRE Film Number: BL-16
'umber of Negatives: 26 Negative Location: BOULDER
xConstruction Date: ESTIMATE: PRE-1890
Source: ASSESSOR/SANBORN INSURANCE MAP5
Present Use: GROCERY STORE Historic Use:`SAPSPLING 470RKS
Condition: GOOD Extent of Alterations: MAJOR
Description: NEW DISPLAY WIND04dS; STUCCO.
ORIGINAL If Moved, Date(s):
Style: VERNACULAR MASONRY Stories: 1
Materials: BRICK Square Footage: 6439
Field Assessment: NOT ELIGIBLE District Potential: NO
Local Landmark Designation?: NO Name: Date:
Associated Buildings?: NO Type:
If Inventoried, List Id Numbers:
Architect: UNKNOWN Source:
Builder/Contractor: UNKNOWN Source:
Original Owner: UNKNOWN Source:
800 Pearl Street
Plan Shape
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. .
i
. .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Theme(s):
The Urban Frontier (1860-1920).
Architectural Description:
Wide, low-pitched, front-gabled commercial building. Stuccoed.
Recessed entrance with a ribbon of display windows. Corrugated metal roof.
Construction History:
Historical Background:
Early Sanborn maps indicate that this building is located on the site
of the Boston and Colorado Sampling Works, which by 1895 had become the
W.J. Chamberlain and Company Sampling P7orks. This building is located on
the same site, and is of the same shape and size, as the crusher building
~f the sampling works. The company's assay office was located next door,
,d the 1895 Sanborn Map shows that a side track from the railroad ran
~irectly to the sampling works.
Architectural Significance:
Represents the work of a master.
Possesses high artistic values.
X Represents a type, period or method of construction.
Historical Significance:
Associated with significant persons.
X Associated with significant events and/or patterns.
Contributes to an historic district.
Statement of Significance:
Although remodeled, this grocery store appears to have once been part
of the Boston and Colorado Sampling Works, which later became the W.J.
Chamberlain and Company Sampling 47orks. Both of these early sampling
operations were important to Boulder's economy, and are representative of
the city's mining history.
References:
Boulder County Assessor's Records
Sanborn Insurance Maps
~.rveyed by Whitacre/Simmons Affiliation: Front Range Research
Date: June 1988
~ _
?'~`-r i u
~ ~ 1 ~ _ ~
I`- ~
~ ~r f ~ 1 l ' ~ ' f, ~ , ~ ~
" ~ t i ~t . ~sj x. ~ ~
~ , ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ - - ~
l ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ '
_ I _ ~ ~ fIL - - ~ ~ 1 ~
.--1 _
iii • ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~~i• ~ ~ 11
A~ x[11 ft
7l! Pl~e
- - -
r i ~ ~ F.
l r 4 r ,
i.
~ 1'
Y ? .
+ ~ ~ '
Yom,.
r~j•.~•~
~
1
•r V -1 ~r'
f
_ ~ , , ~
r
_
t
r- R
r., r~..~. _
M
P- - - _
J - ° -ti _
r-6 .r~ ~ ? 1 h 1
:S~ - ~ Wit.
~4-~t~~`~t" ~ i ,l' _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - ~ r~
v CJ
..j n
fD
n
1
n
y ,<i
_ 't I~{ L M .a w. 1
~ F
w _ - - _ .
_ ~ -
I
"e~.k
.
S r
;~~'Y.
f,~'''.
~yytf~+L~^~ ~
~6~'~', i
f~•ti. _
i
~
,t
~ 1 6 ~ii
f?+`~ ~
:L
i,
A
..1
. .l• ;
r• Y I
~ 'td
. I ,
K. , l
~ 4
~ I
I
~ i
i
} ~
~1 tit
' A~
. ~
' ~
~ ~
S I
.1 '
'
~ r '
' ~ 1 ~ ,6,`~", i
4~ i
' ~ ` ~ ~
• `1
i
~ h,. ~
I y'u`
~ 7
~ ; ~ tY
1~ } ~ c
' „ _ ~ -
r _ ° ~ ~
,
,
_ ~ .r
't:
• .
`tom, . ~ : ~ mod? .
~
c _
c,
t :li.?
TPS Standards for Reconstruction Attachment D
P
. - t . _ _
1 _
v ~
.
i 6~ _ ,
~ ~ -
I ~J
_
1.
STANDARDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION Home
_ Program in Brief
1:.::•
Publications
RECONSTRUCTION IS DEFINED AS J-;` - r
X14 ~ Tax Incentives
the act or process of depicting, by ~
means of new construction, the form, s'`'~~ ~'I ti ~ Online Education
features, and detailing of a non- : ~ ` ~ Standards and
r3r~~- ` ~ Guidelines
surviving site, landscape, building, - ~
structure, or object for the purpose ri'.• . ~ ~ ~ ''.e ` 'conferences
of replicating its appearance at a •l~ I Features
specific period of time and in its Heritage
historic location. Preservation
Services »
1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving NPS History &
Culture »
portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence search »
is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal
Contact Us »
conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public
understanding of the property.
2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in
its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological
investigation to identify and evaluate those features and
artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships.
4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of
historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or
physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different features from other historic properties. A
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standards/reconstruction.htm ~,r_a C~rv?#_`~~-"-J~ ~ "
TPS Standards for Reconstruction
reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-
surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and
texture.
5. A reconstruction w(II be clearly identified as a contemporary re-
creation.
6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be
constructed.
Reconstruction as a Treatment
When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret
a property's historic value (including the re-creation of missing
components in a historic district or site when no other property with
the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical
documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction,
Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment.
Standards and Guidelines Home »
Choosing an Appropriate Treatment »
Preservation »
Rehabilitation »
Restoration »
Reconstruction »
When the Standards are Regulatory »
PJ tional Pars ~er~ice U. U~-~»rtri~nt cF the ?r~rerior FOI„ ?rivcc; Des I,:~mcr USi~.yov
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standards/reconstruction.htm ~ _