Loading...
5C - Consideration of a demolition permit for 1700 Bluff St (HIS2009-00034) MEMORANDUM May 6, 2009 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit for the building located at 1700 Bluff Street, per Section 9-11-23 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2009-00034) for non-landmarked buildings over fifty years old. STATISTICS: 1. Site: 1700 Bluff Street 2. Date of Construction:, 1954 3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential - Low 1) 4. Owner/Applicant: Daniel Hersh STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: The Landmarks Board approves the issuance of a demolition permit for the building located at 1700 Bluff Street in that the property does not have historic significance, lacks distinction as a significant or unique example of intact architecture to the Sunset Hill area or the city of Boulder as a whole, per the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f) B.R.C and the Individual Landmark Significance Criteria (1975). The board bases this decision upon the findings of this memorandum. SUMMARY: On March 2, 2009, the Planning Department received a demolition permit application for the house at 1700 Bluff Street Avenue. The building is not in a designated historic district or locally landmarked, but is over fifty years old and meets the criteria for demolition defined under Section 9-11-23 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. On March 11, 2009, staff referred the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing, finding there was "probable cause" to consider that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. Agenda Item # 50 Page I Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1 700 Bluff- Demolition Permit After detailed analysis, staff considers the building to be a moderately altered example of a mid-century modern house, with expressionistic and Usonian elements. Constructed in 1954 by James Haggart, staff does not consider the house to meet the criteria set forth in Section 9-11-23(f) of the B.R.C. Therefore, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board issue a permit to demolish the building. DESCRIPTION: Located in the Sunset Hills` subdivision, the house at 1700 et'yF ST -f 170) Slulf Bluff is on the south side of Bluff Street where it terminates D CL west of 181h Street. Constructed _ in 1954, the house is one-story, measuring approximately 1,426 f~ square feet in sizes- . The house was constructed in MP•P1(?t4 `~D 1954 by fames A. Haggart. Haggart was a contractor, who Figure 1: Location Map, 1700 Bluff moved to Boulder from California with his wife Marie E. and daughter Heidi in the early 1950s. Based on permit records and a telephone interview with Heidi (Haggart) Birdsey, is believed that Mr. Haggart designed and constructed the house. Stylistically, the house falls into the mid-century modern typology, which was the convergence of many international and American movements in architecture. The elements of the house at 1700 Bluff do not fall clearly into one specific style of architecture, but exhibit strong elements of Expressionism and some Usonian. The house has a irregular plan, with strong, angled, flat roof planes intersecting in layers. The result is a unique form, with expressionism elements of large overhangs, vertical oriented board and batten siding, and horizontal window openings. S:IPLAN\daa\k>nd Ong HISTFDemosANuff.1700'5.G.2009 I.R memo t;uLdoc ALenda Item SC Pai*e 2 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1 700 Bluff- Demolition Permit i 1r Yr .fit W WI it 1 '6 P I Il. - Figure 2: 1700 Bluff Assessor Photograph; April 6, 1954. Y •1 4%. 'r Olt: Figure 3: 1700 Bluff Assessor Photograph, 1978. S:\PLANldataldongrang\111ST1Demos\bluff.170015.6.2009 LB memo final.doc Agenda Item 5C Page 3 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1700 Bluff- Demolition Permit 1 . yy~ `f L. S Figure 4: 1700 Bluff, 2009. The house has been altered over time, with the following exterior alterations observed: • Enclosure of the carport, and addition of a sliding glass door on the fagade • Alteration, replacement, or enclosure of all window and door openings except one picture window on the rear • Removal or replacement of several sections of siding, possibly including a bay window at the rear. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that the Landmarks Board 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) The reasonable condition of the building; and (4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. When considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the Board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. As detailed below, staff considers this property to not be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. S:IPLAN',dataUcngrang',KIST',Demos'b1uY1.170015.G2009 Llt memo tinal.doc Atzenda Item 5C pale 4 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1700 Bluff- Demolition Permit The applicant has provided analysis of the condition of the structure, and some information regarding costs of repair. The house has been gutted through a 2008 permit by a previous owner. See Attachment E for the applicant's information. CRITERION 1: INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIBILITY The following is a result of staffs research on the property relative to the significance criteria for individual landmarks adopted by the Landmarks Board on September 17, 1975. See rlttachrnent D: Individifal Lcandinark Siggi icance Criteria HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house located at 1700 Bluff Street is not believed to have any historic significance. 1. Date of Construction: 1954 Elaboration: Based on permit research and a telephone interview with Heidi (Haggart) Birdsey, the house was constructed by Heidi's father, James A. Haggart. She did not know if an architect was involved, but as a contractor and artist she thought it possible he designed the house as well. Haggart applied for a permit to construct the single family dwelling on October 6, 1953 at a cost of 10,000. He listed "self' as the contractor. Eight days later on October 14, the permits to connect water and sewer service were also issued. Construction was completed sometime after March 1954. This date of construction does not have any significant importance in the community of Boulder. 2. Association with Persons or Events: None observed Elaboration: The house was constructed by fames A. Haggart. Haggart was native to Ottawa, Kansas, and was educated at the University of California Los Angeles and the University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee. He and his wife Marie, and daughter Heidi first lived in a house on Mapleton Hill. Haggart became heavily involved in the Arapahoe District of the Longs Peak Council of the Boy Scouts of America, eventually serving as a Vice President of the Council. In 1955, he and Marie rented their house, and spent the summer traveling in Europe, which was reported numerous times in the newspaper. In the fall of 1955, he ran for City Council. In an undated letter in the Boulder Daily Camera archives, a letter from Marie announcing her candidacy for the Board of Education. In a phone interview with Mr. & Mrs. Haggart's daughter Heidi, in 1955 her father joined the ministry and they moved to Del Norte, Colorado where he began a church. She attended Adams State College in Alamosa, where she met and married her Husband William Birdsey in 1957. That same year the Haggart's sold their house to James & Dorothy DeHaan. James worked as an engineer at Beech Aircraft. In 1962 Jerry D. and Virginia Mosley S:APLAN\dataUnngranbUt[S1'\I)cmos\b1uff.I700\5.6.2009 LB memo final.doc Ayenda Item 5C page 5 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1 700 Bluff- Demolition Permit purchased the house. Mr. Mosley worked as a chemist at Dow Chemical at Rocky Flats. After 10 years, the Mosley's sold the house to Everett Shigeta, who was working as an architect at Carl Worthington & Associates at the time. Everett later worked for the City and County of Denver as a Historic Preservation Architect for many years. In a telephone interview, Shigeta recalled purchasing the house for its aesthetics. In 1976 I. Jack Kerner and Jill Fullenwider purchased the house. The 1977 Cole City Directory lists Kerner as the Assistant District Attorney. In 1982 Kerner sold his interest in the house, and Fulenwider owned the property until 1997. It appears that Jerry Mosley may have rented the house in the mid to late 1980s based on city directory research. The house was then sold to Bradley Grunwald who owned the house for 10 years. In 2007 Alicia Walter purchased the house, and based on permit records intended to remodel the house. In 2008 the Hersh's purchased the property. Staff considers none of these residents to be of local, state, or national significance. See Attachment A: Directory arid Deed Research. 3. Development of the Community: None observed Elaboration: 4. Recognition by Authorities: None observed Elaboration: ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: Staff considers the house at 1700 Bluff Street may have architectural significance under criteria 1. 1. Recognized Period or Style: Expressionism Elaboration: The house has elements of the Expressionism style of architecture, part of the mid-century modernism movement. The angular, intersecting shed roof forms are unique, with some large overhanging eaves. The house is clad in wood board and batten siding painted green, with portions clad in red brick. The house has retained the majority of its form and mass, although the enclosure of the carport sometime after 1978 changed the appearance of the mass from a more vertical to a more horizontal feel. In addition, all of the window and door openings (except one picture window on the rear) have been replaced, modified, or enclosed. Portions of siding have been removed or replaced. All of these alterations result in an impact to the integrity of the building. Staff considers that due to this loss of integrity, the house is not a well preserved example of expressionism, mid-century modern architecture. S:\11LAN\data\1ongrang\I IIST\Dcmos\b1uff.1700\5.6.2009 1.13 memo flnal.doc Agenda item 5C Palse 6 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1 700 Eluff - Demolition Permit 2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: None observed Elaboration: It is believed that James A. Haggart designed and built the house. 3. Artistic Merit: None observed 4. Example of the Uncommon: None observed 5. Indigenous Qualities: None observed Elaboration: ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: Summary: The house at 1700 Bluff Street may have environmental significance under criterion 3. 1. Site Characteristics: None observed 2. Compatibility with Site: Placement Elaboration: To maximize views of the city, it appears that the house was consciously sited at the rear of the lot, at the crest of the land. 3. Geographic Importance: None observed 4. Environmental Appropriateness: None observed 5. Area Integrity: None observed CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD: The house at 1700 Bluff is located in the Sunset Hills subdivision of Boulder. As part of the research and context for the Post World War II Residential Architecture survey project, the following information has been gathered regarding the Sunset Hills subdivision: The Sunset Hills Subdivision is located between 13th and 19th Streets from Mapleton Avenue to Alpine Avenue and consists of 113 homes constructed between 1947 and 1962 with the majority being built through 1952 (Figure 35). The Sunset Hill Improvement Corporation was formed in 1944 by Boulder contractor Ted McPherson who renamed the western portion of the bluff S:1I'LAI data\lim~rang\H[S"I \Demos\bluff.1700\5.6.2009 113 memo linaLdoc Agenda Item 5C Page 7 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1 700 Bluff- Demolition Permit previously known as "Lovers Hill" to "Sunset Hill". Along with Boulder's city planning consultant Saco R. DeBoer, McPherson designed lots that fit the winding nature of the streets in the area. The subdivision extended from First Avenue (now Alpine) to High Street and from the alley between Broadway and 13th Street to 19`h Street (The Daily Camera, May 13, 2007). Although McPherson purchased the property in 1944, the subdivision was not officially created until June 5, 1946. McPherson sold the entire Sunset Hill property to George White, a Nebraska real estate developer who moved to Boulder in 1948. When White set about determining the style of subdivision he wanted to construct, he decided the homes on Sunset Hill should range in price from $15,000 to $20,000 (The Daily Camera, July 12, 1948). The typical lot size in Sunset Hills was 75 by 150 feet with some being 90 by 100 feet in size. White added all utilities to the properties and hired architect Glen H. Huntington (the son of famed Denver Architect Glen W_ Huntington) to design six homes along High Street, with the first being constructed at 1608 High Street. These six homes were located on the north side of the street and had hardwood floors, gas heat, modern kitchens and baths, as well as large windows. Two of the six structures included basements and a few included fireplaces. Each of these six homes had a different appearance and room layout to suggest individuality. The homes were constructed by L. Marvin Wilkins' company Wilkins, Inc and were completed in March 1949 (The Daily Camera, May 13, 2007; March 19, 1949). The Huntington homes have since been demolished and replaced with newer structures. Following the completion of the Huntington homes in 1949, White commissioned the construction of eight new residences along North Street. These less expensive homes cost between $8,500 and $8,700 in the early 1950s. Wilkins Construction proceeded to build 9 new houses on Sunset Hill and 12 along North Street in 1952 (The Daily Camera, May 1, 1952). Although Wilkins was the primary builder for Sunset Hills, at least three other construction companies completed homes in the neighborhood. Following the completion of ten new homes in 1950, Sunset Hills was considered one of the most rapidly developing residential areas of Boulder. The development of the Sunset Hills Subdivision was primarily performed by Wilkins, and this house appears to have been a custom home for the Haggart family. Based on the level of alteration that has occurred to the neighborhood, and the loss of architectural integrity of the house, staff does not consider the house to be an intact representative example of the area's past. CRITERION 3: CONDITION OF THE BUILDING AND CRITERION 4: PROJECTED COST OF RESTORATION OR REPAIR: The current condition of the building is fair. The house was gutted in 2008 and limited exterior alterations began. See Attachment E, Applicant Information for detailed SAPLAN\data\longrang\TITSTMcmosNuff:1700\5.6.2009 1.13 memo final.doc Aaenda Item 5C Page 8 Memo to Landmarks Board 05/06/2009 Re: 1700 Bluff- Demolition Permit information on the structural conditions of the house. Due to expansive soil conditions, the foundation system used on the house does not meet current standards. See page 32 of the applicant information regarding the foundation. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT: Staff has received no comments regarding the proposed demolition. THE BOARD'S DECISION: If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have historic, architectural, or environmental significance under the criteria set forth in section 9-11- 23(f) S.R.C., the city manager shall issue a demolition permit. If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have significance sunder the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended for a period not to exceed 180 days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager as complete, in order to provide the time necessary to consider alternatives to the building. [Section 9-11-23(h)]. A 180-day stay period would expire on September 16, 2009. FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: Issuance of a demolition for the building at 1700 Bluff Street is appropriate based upon the criteria set forth in section 9-11-23(f) B.R.C, in that the building: 1. Is not eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its lack of historic, architectural, or environmental significance; 2. Does not contribute significantly to the character of the neighborhood as intact representative example of the area's past. ATTACHMENTS: A: Directory and Deed Research B: Assessor Card & Permits C: Current Photographs D: Significance Criteria for an Individual Landmark E: Applicant's Information S: PLAN\datsVongrangAIIIS1'\I)cmos,bluff.1700A5.6.20(19 LB memo final.doc Agenda Item SC Page 9 Attachment A 1700 Bluff Street Deed Research Owners of 1700 Bluff Street Bold indicates long-term owners Prior to 1952 Sunset Hill, Inc 1952 to 1953 Arthur A & Christel Gurule 1953 to 1957 James A & Marie E. Haggart 1957 to 1962 James R. & Dorothy M. DeHann 1962 to 1972 Jerry D. & Virgina Mosley 1972 to 1976 Everett Y. Sigeta 1976 to 1982 Jill S. Fulenwider & I. Kack Kerner 1982 to 1997 Jill S. Fulenwider 1997 to 2007 Bradley K. Grunwald 2007 to 2008 Alicia Walter 2008 to Present Daniel A. & Judith K. Hersh Residents of 1700 Bluff Street 1953 Not Listed 1955 to1956 James Haggart (Contractor, Haggart & Co) 1958 James & Dorothy DeHann (engineer, Beech Aircraft) 1963 Jerry Mosley (Chemist, Dow Chemical) 1971 Jerry Mosley 1973 Everett Shigeta (Architect, Carl Worthington & Associates) 1977 I. Jack Kerner (Asst Dist. Attorney) 1983 to1984 Jill Fullenwilder 1985 to 1987 J. D. Mosley NOTE: The Carnegie Branch Library's collection of city directories is intermittent beginning in 1869, and annual beginning in 1958. "No Return" or "No phone" does not necessarily mean the building was vacant. Not every city directory was examined. Age W # G~ NO gym- ' ~ Apraised 1 1 prais~tl AST ' r 7 I S ctio TRACTS ~ LOTS BLOCK ADDITION I - HOUSE No. STREET CITE' - O vNE~~_ _ - - - I L: Irv Vhd'_•h x Length I Area I Height I Cubic feet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 1 r. x I I I I- - I l 1 I- - x I I I I X x f I 1 I- - x I I 1 - r. '.Pall Ratio Total Sq. Ft. Special Building NLtcs - DESCRIPTION Give Numbers - ?iGC•i iS STORIES - 1 Bascm't 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 Atic Living Room I 1 1------I------ Dining Room I--------------- 1-------- I----------I---------I - Dinette I I -1--------I- I-------- Hitchen - - I--------- I-- I- - I-°. I _ - - Breakfast Nock I......... I•..--I- - 1- - I- Bed Room - I-.~.I- I - I - - - Bath Roont I.... - f--- I - - I--- I Toilet Roo:n 1------- 1_-......I- --l I _ - Shower Rnom I------------I------I--- I---------1------- -d Sleeping Porch I•---- - I- - I---1--------I--- - Stm ROOM Den I I---- -----I---_--.- storage Room I----------- l - -I I------ I - - - Office - ..---------I I------ I- - I Halls I...------ I--- I- --I ° . Checked BY Date _ Summary of Land and Building Values ~o SUMMARY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT Pull Appraised II Description Amount Value year Land !I Improvements 1'1 Total I LAND I! Building Permit iS II 1919 I$ IIS I!$ it II Original Cost, 7mprovemcnls Only 11$ 1050 }I LI, -I Buildings and Improvements I (This Card) ~ li Additions and B_t+_erinents I!$ , 1951 Is I' ~ i" II Owner's Estimate of Present Value II I$ Il Card No. _ _ _ _ _ n II 1952 at: II Private Ap,.saI 115 II 1553 p 11$ II ! Insurance h$ ]OSA IIS 1; !Ia II C;ird No - - - 'I Mortgage I5 1955 i;$; I1S ii" II Monthly Rental 1 $ - - Total Buildings and NI I } _ 1956 11$ I!S Iln F Improvements !I Advertised for Sale 1957 I;$ 11$ 15 II 't'otal Assessed'LTmd Inlp>ovc Tra:: red in 19 1958 I $ II$ N$ 11 L'uildins's-and ments CtUILDING DESCI I17TI0N AND VALUE CALCULATION AREA-nrAIN BUILDING Cube Area POOL' INTERIOR FINISH LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS CLASSIFICATION No. ?I Type: Wallboard or Equal - - - _ - f Fat ❑ Pitched ❑ Low Street Paving _ Pla,terc d - - Alley Paving TYPE AND USE Medium ❑ Steep iAroocl Paneling: Check I Framing: Simple Sid--walks 1-Sin~,lo Residence Average ❑ Difficult Sq. FL, Water 2-D0,plex ROOFING Tile Walls: Sq. Ft...._..._.. 3-Dun;glow, Apt. CrL, Prepared Roll Trim: Harciwd- Rtes. Storm Sewer 4-Flat 'or Terl'aec Built-up A> Pholt Softwood Rms. Sarti[ary Sewer 5---Apartment House S'hinglc: LIGZITIAIG . Y (i-LIotel ~`dood L] Asphalt - Elect ❑ Gas El None Gas - - Total - _ o_nectian Cost and Final Valu 1sbestos C1 Slate _ - - Telephone [ieLt- e 7-Store Buzldin~, _S N "L'UI DIiTG Tile: HEATING 8-Auto Tourist Court Stove :!fetal ❑ Comment Cla} CHARACTER OF CONST. - - Il-Office Building E) r Warm Air: Pipcless - Poor Item I Area or ~ Unit 10-1-1 osp. or Sanitariucn Tin ❑ Copper No lQuantityl Cost I Total Piped 14ecbium - I I I 11-11-u;k Building I Insulated ------°ATTIC- - - Forcod Circulation Good Base 12-Theatre Pii;is.;cd Stairs - Hot W:Lter or Vari>or ! l Fire Resisting ! I ! 13-Warehouse Percent of Grou•ntl Area: Gas floor Furnaces No. Non-Fire Resisting ( ! 14-Factory - - c. c Stearn Finished .o Unfin- - NS (PLUS) 15-Public Garage 14-°- -h° STATE OF REPAIP,S ADDITIONS Gas Steam R.acllators - PO1~C11LS 1G-Private Garage B"d - - - - - - I l Number: Open.-.__--- CLsed Air Coll ditiotling 17-Service Station Unfinished - Fini--he_l Aut071-latiC Burner or Stoker Good 18-lIOt House or Gr. House - I I I TERRACES Oil ❑ Gas L] Coal 1'scellenR FOUNDATION s PLUMBING Kind Post or Piers. Noce G Water Only _ - - BASEMEN T p halhrooms - Tiled DEPRECIATION Walls ..............r----- Area: I - 100% ❑ 75I ❑ 50 4 I Nun-fiber ol: rixtures: % Physical DEDUCTIONS (MINUS) EXTERIOR tiVALLS 251 [3 None Washstanids Tubs `a O!~solescence ! l - - - Shtwys. I I No F'oor - - - - WVItcrclosetS wood Frame Slzcathin.> ❑ No sheathing - Plastcred Plastered S'to cr Stalls I Solid Masonry, Ceiling O Walls Automatic tiVater Heater I{~hchen Laturdrv Insulation Area Walls: Kind Sulk ❑ Pubs - - ! SIDING: Fini,?,ed Rooms: - - ~ e 3r ' - - bVoodboard - I Ato. .--------Aron OTHER ITEMS Banc 'fi1 1 oducizou - Natural and Batten Fireplaces FLOORS Gas Fireplaces Cost Stungle: Wood Sublloor 1st ❑ 2nd up Outside Chimneys Asphalt G Asbestos No Sulbfioor 1st ❑ 2nd up ~~-wz - - Final Met Condition Stucco ConstrLICtlon: Remarks: [,inal Value- - Drills Veneer: Wood Joists _ - Main Building - Cum. ❑ Face Concrete on Grade - r.eneer: S(:one ti . _ SUATd AR V OF Native -1-1 Cut ~ Finis:; Flooring: - .............,......._..._y....,_. L'UILDING VALUE _ Soltwo Bride Solid: Hardwood Coll-I. ❑ Face Tile: Sq. B't. Tam Butldt 3 Concrete Bloch Sq. I' t. Garage Date ! Age Date! of Construction urce a nte ! Age !3-tcraDotcrjOptioti lditimtslPer cent' Data I M.rijor I AJLovdjons Desr ripthon ir.tlion;,Per cent [Win-or Buildings ' I - I I I ! I I Other - Improvements eo I Size ! ( G::ItAC:E AND MINOR PUILDINGS I ;I.t°pt•odu., I f ' Class Na. l Wict[h x_Deprh s I•It. ! tired I IV,il1s ~ Fln-,r I Tiav[.I Heating ~ Iti,;hting ! Uttll fiest t Cad I Agc l Det;rea l INct Value - =I I ! - - I.- I _l- I I and- I S I I I I I I ~ I ! I I I I Ianha~auctucnts I ~ I I 1 ! ! I I I I i I ! I I I ' I I i • M. ti y ~wT _ V-Sf• • a'~ Pik a~f'1~~. - J _ A r ~i►s _ y, • F 1R d~1 GD ' • -._~+~+-~-r,-r•.-..~1.-.•-.•„-~--r- ."'""~`,~~.~.~w ~ - err r r.~' :',X~- r - i S - - - - + t t + c +r 7i ,'n'` ! •1 ~ _ ~ s t y ` e - -r f..' 1;.. 1 _ x. G S., L _ } a S - 0 - ~o y n lRJ T ~_I~~ } IA47 - 1 ':'1 N t Y _ 1. ✓ y f - +'.r f•- ~wu..- • b.t _ _ -µr a ,.:i- _..•r' ~i _ i.r.. r 1- •F•'~r$CC~'•, ~~1~ S -y,r. '•r-'F r 1 _ ~Y '1 r4.~,~ •r .nt,' 4, 1~[.Y~l.~(,~..;'-,r S _•7 C-c- r,.c'" -._r •-,r's'".'.- ti~;"r rS L:-7 ra .rrry ~•u.. .y 7•~'-"Nf-.'.~' _ 4'. 2:~r t.r~f . ..;tY z r, ..r _-rt.. ~r., C ,.~',f_f :;i~t'•~ r- ~t. - _ 4 e r rA r _'sx f-A~ * ~y5;,~:.'t ~ r :Ar n ,r. r , .r- + ~ - ~ ` .1''` F.:~...Y ~ ` - ~ l a 2.A r.rr ",lrr. `4 t - •r'.ndlr+~,-- 7r'Gi'•"...•r" l'+ r -v ;V, .f4 7{~~~5(~{3~3'~~~ 'L~: ar.~ .r•'~-~~'i~ 1.:9se~.'~e 1 IIY~ _ .r•w a ~`i~, F'~.r t- r' t s -r'r ,i, r .7Y.i .tip^•e ~ `e• •i5 ~ rl F _ - 'S'f5Y'~. ~~ti 1! 7 - ~sd ,~rr.:J l-'F. ~-'.r.i y 'd.: _ 7 _ i.~ r ~~dCC .~~~N' r3f-3•~r l;~' ~ r.~''S'~ •~rhS _1tr r ~ A,,. :t ! _ ..r, , lr r, -o: _ _ r-s• f...A~er.,..~-y~ 1 d GL ..~."t' _ ~.:x , _ } •x'h%. Y 1 ° - -z;'= {„r;r~~.-..:u -s~~r _ 1: f~~~h_~~'~ e5. ~ ~A :3 i'7,' rr.}- - 1 ' -j r•~?~,:f`r. .'a.; .r. ,w-~.' r" T~,-,'~,~ :j '°:J'°•'~'h~-y .,r.. ! ~ _.i"• _ rr,.~ ~T-:. . ~f , ~,.c-.. .~,il ~::1 a •-z J'Syv"-'e ~''`~'Kr'•' ~ f f ~ :-,r'r r ;r: _f r ri. lr~- r~ r• . ~ - }i r. Y7 f - "'~~5~ f• 1. (~.-~I 'r" _ 7 ~ Y r;•i <.,r. i 1 - Y h. •..i r._'i;. r C } tir .ta s ~ t4 ~ ~ r .1 '~17'yy'b.-.-- F `{s e G f '"-rR~{ ~i~ a;i''! rt - .J r.'~ •ly,.q.:~ bL~ - v r,: lp ~i--'~",.~r. 11'Y~ '~s: i 7^. +-.•~~~~x ..~.r--'- - e+.{~'.. , . '+~'P :z r~+ d rrr j , - •,.r,;l' " i s. , _c `r ~...r----:: 7::'e+~~.•+• • Y _ - r . [t. 'r +yi ! - ,r . -.T ~ . • ! • ~ f'ir' i # _ _ r A , - ~ r ~ 1•`f _ r .e _ is b v.: `•Y.' 5.7 w., -f w r i= 'ti: 'd r'..'0 v• _.•,.fT. •g tl•1~ •V ~,~IQ.Yf-tl'F>•;1~~ 0`{-tip r r. .rte ?Y,.4 ®•n 0~ 'J..' r+~l. . - ~'S~,.r ,,.r....•~ a..;,d•..,-.~ J ~ Gr£t 1 r.° t:-..; e 0 ,f-.'`~~lyctr -~~~a,~ ._-w•'. ~•aiw~r44 Y. ~~•~.._,,~'v-'r,;`1"•4+~'' "i''a - ..r `~4 "J'r a.r6 ,f,; r .r .R- •.~;~'.,_`~`F:e _ ~xr s.~r :,Fr'-r"'~. r>- y_r, r~. l :a. ~ _ 'i_ 4 SST ,_tr, +wi _ ' 4~~ ! _ - ~ h ~ ~ ~ -R.•; 1!~ ~--I y : i ~ L3 sa. •r' 3 Y' .e ~ r1, _ T , C; r Z'~ r. - a -=i a i rti Z ,tp..,. - t - :r".,.-•. a. ~."h s~ _ i ^'r~ ..rf .l y~~ f+ 1~•O e r `r'' _ =3 rasa nr, 'Qs;`a s `•t' pp 0 `~,r 7 19 p f~f ~~Gry~ - n>:"~ ~1~{rAK o-^ 9~~"r•.- z.~ ® lab-, t: ,;ry } ~-6 1R 4'`'>~r-. ^av ~~5'r •L ~ ~ .7,._ -~.I{]~'`y .r:~y -.~r -'`~.y 'L'; rr-~ t ~ ~~~ra. r r • «Y3Sr _1:`.1 ~1r,1;.}S y-ar._ ^r S.;r, .b' ~ r,_ ar;1".-wT is ~ ! T,~~. - i. ...fy,' a-st ♦ e .r..' ~,ti *~„r:.,. - 'r a~~ _ g ,A':.-•~' r-y r • :L_> ti::,~.Y~ S.v ~ ~ i" - •'$x t' ~1' ~ .r ~`.l • J:-J. ~~~~,5-!.. „".T"•i~CJ. :;t'~i4 f •rk. , ~..s•e -_yQ~. 1: a.?F}~`~ '4 e.- Y. _t.. 2 - r ! < i-rz4f~j 5t3 Y1' r ~r ~".,~'~.L ~ F - - • r.:.,,~ r - _ 'r' - r `lip , c.:" s',. 's, . - _ _1 r,~ ' "c`~, ;1::'.? r•S,c~"",M~ r, , La •'1*-'~`++'~._.. ..y - ~ -ti :r,-r~•~AYr« ~ i~ •ur.. fr}~~; ~y .;YA v~i.-"..-+ i::'i'.,;rr P,s S .r ct.. ~ . s . 'S r. .l + , _ d+• _ k • erJ - t S,"~-Y~y-• ,w r. J^' t r - e'..:., - .tif ~ ,p s ~ 4'• ~a~ s. "~•L':a~ rr. tt 4 y : S.'rV ~z .r:~ y,~ti~ r i. r"„Y'i. .r. {~e Yi~ ;r.' ,l~'-' tY .y `F -c.'~4'.. ia+' - ; -J'T -v P}. - ea --n `-e: ! 44 i~ 5~rf-.P•x,• .r ~r.ws t,...r; A w~ h1.,-A'`~r N,- 7` - 1e~ '4'~ f.~ D '.w.-='i~.. y{ r'~\.. ~.3~7y d A! ~"•.1!^,il~+..-Ge S•"S.s -r>~ _ r. 5 .x'11, .n, t•'. ! 4 $ - ?4 • ..7 =1~ t •_Y?•.- -•.,-.f s _ Lr ~s,~',~, sS- J- ~•r - r ~s-_;~~ •'+Iy~,.:3r .n PZr 4 -r(. ;,.,~t_ d. _ ..v j-~,w s'i~. L '+~t.,a_~r, ~9> ~ ~ f . Y o 4 • z. {~f, - a. '3Pr o-r' t, t 0 x J~. 'r...-w'~'Sfi S? r"°--,-.. " ~y ~fi~._ 7F' _ 4-.• r d 1•-• , ,•~r 4.y ~u.L;i ,.tir ,ry { a. i 4~4 G b~• r ja ! t- 27• O ® s - rh e °-.Y~ r ~ r. s s'.. G - ~%::r es'r, tij • - X,+. rr s'• c ~ ~ ~ t i t b ~ ' A t~, r r~- ;rr Y e+d y ~ ~Y~~~E•r J r '•~?L~ y.1.,eT:i ~4 ~ ? ~ r, Y:: ` ~y Jc"1!r~ ~F~ ~'r [ JriIU1'l!T (to Construct and Connect Drain with City Sewer. (to Extend the Water Service. `r Boulder. Ccilorat'.o, - TO THE CITY CLERK: 1 Permission is hereby issued to JC-.n .4 a licensed plumber, representing ---J____ L owner or owners of - Lot -_--_-J___. Mork l___----_ ___.Addition. City of Boulder, and fronting on Street, between - - and f r at . - - Streets..._, permissirinA,B,orC,connected to--------------------- Sewer Line. House No. - --~r=- - A-1emission to construct a drain--_ H•Yernrission to extend tha tfater C•Permission to extend the Water ___inchea in d;aneter Service to the following new fixtures Service to the following new fixtures • rd attach •o. same to the City to be installed and to be connected to be installed and to be cemnected Sewn, and to be I„ruled as altown *11 to s'cresaid drain now to be in- to old drain or cerslwot Previously ll;e back hereof. Said drain t to o con- n;•ct with the fulloair¢ old fixtures stalled. tonstructed. alrendv irsla:ted and connected w•Ith the water service under a Cater Water Closets Water Closets 1'elanit Preciously obtained and re- rdad. . - -ii - Sutks - Sinks - water Cb sets f lovsu,r} l.avutory Sinks i I- Gauss Itatha Laratoty Crease Traps t:ren-e T,op, - itaths Crease Trap. .15J1 tha al,. cp drain ca: structi~m ae.l :rlutnUim, to c at•tn•r.: lr rco: r•.ltut•t a•i'!: Iho Cll}• tl~•.iin•r.o•: avit lily :•ulrj-0 to the tpi-roval of ll.e Dirt-etor of P'I,lit Sertiiee :tall llw lluiltlin!• I'::peelnr. Vuect.,r 4 t•u-.e ee nud Itkood, Ex•.fil.fo CIE% 46AL PLUMBER'S PERMIT FOR TAPPING, M EM WATER RAIN Fee' for Permit N° 10099 A- 4_-_ • q, rock SA-4.4' Rftvn ng Location _A_*. - On application of Mr- - owner , of the Promises herein stated---, ! Ag 14 mased Tbbd ; .-,a. - Plumber IV -hereby permitted to connect a service pipe ;flinches in diameter ~xtv~ to be camectedc on Street, betieen _ to the . _ in& Water Y -----s---Water Closets ------1-7 -----------and ----------f,------7-R Streets, to _Urinala supply the Premises located on Lot _ f------Block-~--- in - - - - - ' / -----!_--Laundry Tube J._..Kitchen Sinks Addition to the City of Boulder, for the following purposes: -----/--Wash Bowls AU contained in a -----story-----room dwellin , frontin Hot Water Tanks on Street. House No. _ Yard Hydrants ;Lau cocks 13frector of Finance and Record, Ex -t)tflcto CU k . 1 J -IC so L),a r-04 )r 'r 6Lvk 39 s V' ~ n -?=a C~ L-;3 1 i 1 lhp .rm ~ EIrr1 pumlr No. Plmbg. Parrish No. Wuu P.LF. Srwa P.I.F. Tot1 P.I.F. ism PA F_ PA1G C1H Sdu T.r Opibn ` _ .lam ~f query \'.VI\I CITY OF BOULDER BUILDING DEPARTMENT Birildlhq Permit Fee I APPIiICATION PO* NILIDINO stArt Electrical Permit Fee • APPLICANT - FILL IN TIIIS DOUBLE FRAMED SECTION ONLY ' 1Plembino Permit Fee VALUATION f m1AS1! 8 , C-1 I.Ildi.g Addrw /7, CEty Saba Tax CLAU OF WORK Charges ON. el AypNtodw ~~Nn1t I IPL NEW AOD1110N AITEI etPA1R Other NYhr ~ ' ToW1 I Vaa of Iup+np Mail Addraaa f _C-•~' JLu,°f $in of wildlny EgNan TM i AA u*r ~L~LdlF~ T.L. N. Y -45-/165' o 44 S1.44 -No. FwNI w~M SFPa aI OrcWaAq }I FLrna L `(J S simile. C71 - Ne. Elect. Oulbh Turd Haar Area LL ~ r 3 (va ni •nr{£~{ ~p _ a ~ No. wIF« cleul._ w. of let loo Mcor 2nd Floor CLty 4 3f LA [ V/F& Std Floor Core" ccc777 No. Moths, Frpntlq of kel City Lt... No. -Td. No, FOUf{HATIpN - - he of Floau TWO kk'eht ArN of Lot Width or bf Let lr1N 4n IANrlpl a P1M de• UM dlior ,zlitif ALa•rrlai Freet.ee No. Unite Peratltad r 4 awl. ~Width & Thkkneal of Feelhq `L No. Ilnlh Cowreee 7L F.A.IL r 1 SebdM;lLen Width 91 Few•deuen Well Ch logs of Occupancy hem b Depth in Gr d New Colatnmien AAAllial Nler 3 _ i - -FRAMING - - v- Otte Come Cirg ilo,,oen) 0111,8~ low" 114.Imum Requiud P.o+rWed I. Type of Callrruttlen 1, II, 111 V Sin Spadnp Span rrquhd 1 N. Gird- IANrier tot .2 Fabt type Car1N Lw ❑ Joiu, In ri. 7. Prepeaad dd, or dN.. rypa yr~ jai". 2Ad Ff a u A. Otrupanty Grasp A. Z. C. e, E, F, O, N, 1 1 RaN T..1 DlritIm I, S, 7, a V tau. Crn.,q F S. Uu Sty e. Nra Say 1, 2. h ;w Srvd S trAriN Teudr r - Dunlpl*hl OF WOU - pmf ItOws . t" Fr w ?L,-, L--'4 41- --COV Et ING 1 ) E i a n _ ~ Erlniw w.nr pmt ~ InNr{a Wdk _ I h.rahY arknnwlailpa rhrr r hoar food Ihh i1 ttI appliCUlpn eM em rho the aW" h sort". and 1q- to foAply with 111 city adlmntn TA ,~...nd .1.r. I.w1 ggul.ll'nq buiidirlp ranurutrlnn. Front Yard `r ar_(/. /,_i ~ff a r `!r_G _•r.__ Sf,HI > ~1 Find inapaelen by, / A fevad •L~ - _ _ vv7 y/laAine Mfxm,ad _ I Field IA1p"w O.r./// / 7 F .yai d of Ifda. 1 In— Zoning Mm. 0 1-- C 9`1 77 7~O No, Bldg. Psrtnlt No. Else. psrmlt No. Plba. Permit No. Mach. Forelt No. Wolof P.I.F. Sewer P.I.F. Flood P.I.F. Data P.1, F. Paid Day. Excise TIM Date 10/~~~ L Dale DNs bats Y s x CITY OF BC)ULI]E#i - • • BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION n BLDG. ADDRESS ~ 7c-l~~~~~ I`h +f• Dote ~L It l e/ - VALUATION (Labor & Materials) $ ~ V 7~t OWHF-R1T - CONTRACTOR ~ff , CLASS OF WORK Nome I i l N bit l l Name J~3-f-'r it Now Addition Alteration _ Rep",-;)- z Office (If other than "NEW", plate complete the following: O Ii Mall Addrest Licanle No.. Z0/ Tel, No. Will this change or expand the principal z Jot) Sits 24 Hour use of the building? Yet No - W CIlyISVzIP? X k Tel. No. l~•t To[. No. _ T.I. No. Will that create another dwelling? Yet No Z DESCRIPTION OF WORK: tAc7J4'(t t' :rt. L PL' Ili Was (or it) Chit building an A rr¢.1 DEOCRIOE OLD©.USE J SO.FT aeeessory building? Yes - No N Flood Elev. Cert. Re d. ELECTRICAL PFRMIT k_ h LEGAL DESCRIPTION Temp. Conti. Pwr,/Per. No.-.- Fee_._ x Lot - Block Contractor Nome ___....r._ No..... ..___.....No. Units--_ Val- New Work Add./Rem.- Sq. Ft. Unit No, Sq. Ft. Unit No, 2 .-Fee-- Subdivision - New Svc. _ Chg. Svc.-..---- Size/Msin Baseboard Else, litq.. \ 1 ogres to perform this work in compliance Forced Air Furnace tr I hafeby state the above Is correct, and I agtso to comply with the Codes of the City of Boulder. with all City Ordinances to ulati canstruction Y 1 ry"clod by Dare - - - --,fit -'7 S nature of A bunt Rela r tun of owner or Applicant PLUMBING PERMIT { 00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Type of Conti. Oce, Group Contractor Name Lie. No. Unitt4._-_ Val._ ►ech Yee No Date New Work/Baths--- Romodal/Goths Types of FixtureslNo.- T Typos of Fixtures/No. Other... Fee- ~ pp is Approved by I agree 10 perform this work in compliance with the Codes of the City of Boulder. 7°t6M@ Impaction By: Q~ C• , Date - Im led 6 Dale S' noture of A licenl Date Z N M_ vi Bui ling Permit Fee s r~ • o-0 MECHANICAL PERMIT w C'IMPWLU Cheek Fee S Contractor Name Lie, No. _ Vol. _ Fee =4 rical Permit Fee $ New Repair Replace BTU Rating _ H.P.. Location 4.1 Hot Water Hir. Sealed Comb. Hir. Space Htr. Unit Htr. Comfort Cooling Mae onical Permit Fee $ Plumbing Permit Fee $ ry Low Pro%%. Bailer High Press. Boiler Duct Furnace Forced Air Furnace S I Ventilating Equip. -Refrigeration System Gas Piping thAr Use/Sales Tax Energy I agree to Perform this work in compliance with the Coda of the City of Boulder. j a S Park/Ree FeG $ . InspXled av Date Signature of Applicant Deta TOTAL S ~i No. awe, nPermit Na, Else. Permit No. Plbg. Permit No. Mach. Permit No. Water P.I.F. Sewer P.I.F. Flood P.I.F. Data P.I.F. Pak! Day, Exclee Tax i Data `I hI I b i Date Detd Date It S 4 $ = Tob,w Grp.-~~~ CITY OF BOULDER SUItOING PERMIT APPLICAT'iON BLDG. ADDRESS 4L1! 1 Date VALUATION (Labor & Materials) 5~~~ OWNERITENANT n t. ~3 CONTRACTOR CLASS OF WORK ~ i~•r s Noma Name ~~t• hr/V ! 1 Y ft 11~ L' New Addition Alteration Repair y Offica I ti~'I if (lf other than "NEW", please complete the following: L tJ jL ` f 1 O Mail Address License Nv.. Tel. No. - u•1 44 ,,.F Will this change or expand the principal Z Job Site 24 Hour use of the building? Yes N1 Tel. Nv. Tel. No... - Tel. No, W C11 Ist21 ~ - Will this create another dwelling? ` r-, Yes Nd~ ~-A Z DESCRIPTION OF WORK ~6 1)` , !1J l 1 Was (or is] this building an n as f)r BCflIRE FILDMUSE SOFT 1 I accessory building? yes No a Flood Elev. Cori. Ro d, ELECTRICAL PERMIT ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tamp. Conti. Pwr./Per, No- Fee- Lot _ Block Contractor Nome No.- Unit?o._._-.--Val _ New Work Add./Rem.___ Sq. Ft. Unit No. 1-__. Sq. Ft. Unit No. 2 Fae_- Subdivision New Svc. -Chg. Svc•_~___ Sira/Main~._,.___-_Bsteboard time. Htg._ 1 agree to perform this work in eampliaoce Forced Air Furnace..-.---_.._ 1 hereby state the elwve is correct, and I agree to comply r O with C ty Chdinonces regulating conthuction with Iha Codas of the City of Boulder. other_ - Z t{ lntnaeted by ❑et■ Signature of Apglieent DIM O 6' ureo q+rneror at~u r PLUMBING PERMIT J DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Type of Contt. Occ. Group Contractor Name Lie. Nv..___. No. Units__-._,-_. Val,_ Sperikiere* Yea No Data New Work/Baths Remtxfel/Baths --Types of Fixtures/No.- Types of Fixtures/Na. Other Fee- plane &pproved h t agree to perfvrtn this work in compliance with the Codes of the City of Boulder. I Fin y Date 13Q Im pacted b Date Si nature of Applicant Dale Building ermlt Fee MECHANICAL PERMIT Plan Check Fee S Contractor Name Lie. No. Val. - Fee Electrical Permit Fee $ New Repair Replace BTU Rating H.P. Location Mechanical Permit Fee $ Hot Water Hir. Sealed Comb. Hir. Space Hit. - Unit Hir. Comfort Cooling Plumbing Permit Fee S Low Press. Boiler High Press. Boilor Duct Furnace Forced Air Furnace _ 0) Ventilating Equip. Refrigeration System Gat Piping - [sthor_ Use/Sales Tax CRS ~ $ ,Q 1 agree to perform this work In compliance with the Codes of the City of Boulder. Energy 1/t ( Park/Ree Fes $ TOTAL $ Inapeeted by Date Signature of Appikent Date I Attachment C i ~ Jam' 7~'ty ~1, s ~y f. \ I ! G ' . ;1•,~1i - 1...• 1 ~ r~+j ~ +,t.!~ ~~4f`t A ^Sy., ~ibll'T' y;~~{ 'Mm y rM1P. a ~It ;ry_, 1 lot. yl v 4.1 [ 1 ; Ivl yf ,.y ~r rte, < _ { + cf~a- s 6 -`l v+ :~Y ~ _ _ tsp ~ ~-+•etr~ r~ t~~~K` 1. M 7q 9!` A Fma *ON ism- 1 I 6•~ f~~'ivC~_ Oie-..~i+`~i ik~' _ 1 y_ •t'~.•••• , r•--RL _ yob - .r J~zT~'~v`a,._=.~_~~k~~ ~ ~ i wr y.•~ y~ g~~ ~i.. ? k t kk~"` : ~ q ~ ~~r°"~" r r ~ *~~+y Y, c - ~ I . _ 1i~•I,~,~~: its ~ '4•lr~l`. MOM O'er `~w ~w~•r^~I ~ I ~ 11 I ME= "-1 I 7 'iA ` NV% 1090 v4 `.y r"Jr, . ~ x r _ ! vy ~w• 1 Iw r 4~.. °r , Yl.=. g ~ , •r 1:. w,, k s • _°9J ':.vim ~l mod. " ~,~,~~5,•: 1 Tr' J I t 1~..1 S _ A fi. tt~~ I r • I 3 ,t • ~ i I •k 1 r . I .'t t f -77 Ilk i{;; {r C t fit, j t- c.~4' .:kjl~itf~y~ tiar ` ' j'~.r i ii` . ~ 5~ 7J1fil`a~ • i~._ Y"]~- ~ T-svv's' ~ { . { 7 r ~jf 1 ~f i t .G, rX,}a . y,,~•, ~r~yr ~ ' ` ~ a IF~.R ,..rr I k.`Y,VV.~ •1 _ - far. 6 ~f t ~~5'RI J M~ ~~11 s r`k I t .~T+!1••1~ ' .l. ~J~Sy-!~ ~ 1%~l, ' 'I -`moil - r ♦~n~ Y-ret~. r S [rA• c i , ~)t} r;"d§ M_ ; '7- : ~7~ 1i''`., fJ .•f ~ n'1~' r ~ ~ ~'Ffr I.,~r r ~ r Fes- t * . i-'lc ^'1~~. .r 2.tr1.'~-1.~•'~T~'_ ~_L_~ C•'a a s Z•_ 4 i ~!Y...~YYEL-~--" _ rn1 .st.~1__ j__ ~1 r r~.,1 I ~ ~pl 1 _ ':p~ i ~r~z F W7 r rte{ ~t ,k:' ' i IV 0,44 g yr } it u t' K . r rrfif'' ray ` ~i• q ~?y, ."t'S f r j~~~~~F} a t , >c r W 1 ? - rs, ar yr3~ r•{ L-A } •s `•lt;A. A S 7! t _ ~4 /I ti' I Al d ~ ~.nr+ ! ~CJa r r t ~..ffi J'A F.I3"~~ .1~6~, 4 .rf f ~ 16. "1 1 i f 1ry'/ I ~ • (~+1 v E r rxk Isl. 7r,711 o:~ ~r MOM { ors •1ti t.' Ste, } 1~~~ n 1 •"A~St R!9~ nt •a,r<s ~ it MN a~ . fu it A 'F`'.`yr. \7 h f ~'C/Tip:, pia d., +i•a { _ •'f+ 3'1~ _ - { S~`i~ sue„? _ ~.2~1,? t►,~` • s~ ' ; 3~s. I'. 1 ,•il`!r till. t ~,IY„~~ ~ ~ 4+ tl - r ,^Hi { lea. t~ L'~1' }rt .I ~ ~ i. ~ 1 ~ 'rt 1 „L,Y• ~ to ~ c. r.j ,fit ~ } -1 Ar Ir I~ y~~if~~~.•j ~I, w~; 1 a ~ w `r _ I K _ i y .ip~ r r ~ 1 - 1 - a A.: as A III J , . ( S F I I' 1x,1 i { ,.:ia -~'I DAl if r .~y'J , t' f~• ~iG.i^r --~.i. - ~ - I•P GI"._~~- Attachment D Landmark Preservation Advisory Board Adopted 9/17/75 Secretary to the Board SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Individual Landmark September 1975 On September 6, 1974, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of the ordinance is the preservation of the City's permitted cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. The Landmarks Board is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it deems necessary for its own organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria have been adopted by the Board to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner. Historical Significance The place (building, site, area) should show character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state or nation; be the site of a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community. 1. Date of Construction: This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the structure. 2. Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national, state, or local. 3. Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder: This is most applicable to an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure, though is some cases residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of preserving those places which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or political heritage. 4. Recognition by Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the Boulder Historical Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schooland, etc), State Historical Society, The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado by F.L. Olmsted, or others in published form as having historical interest and value. 5. Other, if applicable. Architectural Significance The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a good example of the coirunon; be the work of an architect or master builder, known 04.05signif-indiv nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development; contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon. 1. Recognized Period/Style: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style, ie: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American Building Survey Criteria, Gingerbread Agee (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkar), The History of Architectural Style (Marcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Fraucisco (Gebhard et al), History of Architecture (Flectcher), Architecture/Colorado, and any other published source of universal or local analysis of "style." 2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an architect or builder who is recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or locally. 3. Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of excellent visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship. 4. Example of the Uncommon: Elements of architectural design, details, or craftsmanship that are representative of a significant innovation. 5. Indigenous Qualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area. 6. Other, if applicable. Environmental Significance The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the protection of the unique natural and man-made environment. 1. Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation. 2. Compatibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement, or other qualities of design with respect to its site. 3. Geographic Importance: Due to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community. 4. Environmental Appropriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is situated in a manner particularly suited to its function. 5. Area Integrity: Places which provide historical, architectural, or enviromnental importance and continuity of an existing condition, although taken singularly or out of context might not qualify under other criteria. 6. Other, if applicable. 04.05signif-indiv Attachment E 1700 Bluff St Report for Landmarks Board April 20, 2009 Dear Landmarks Board, Much time, effort, and expense has gone toward the preparation of this report. Although much longer than a typical report, we believe that all of the points brought up throughout this report are relevant to our case. However it should be a quick read as we have included many page breaks for organization, many pictures, and charts. We do request that you take the time to read this report in its entirety and carefully examine the points that we have made. Thank you in advance for taking the time to carefully consider the arguments that are raised herein. Sincerely, Dan and Judy Hersh. 0 Table Of Contents Summary I - Background - Argument 1: The house at 1700 Bluff is not pure mid century modern architecture or for that matter any historically significant architecture .....................2 - Argument 2: The house at 1700 Bluff has no history of famous architects, builders, owners or events ........................................................................3 - Argument 3: The house at 1700 Bluff has been substantially altered from its original form ....3 - Argument 4: The house at 1700 Bluff is in poor condition, of substandard quality and is unsalvageable .......................................................3 - Argument 5: The house we want to build is equitable and compatible with those in the neighborhood ...................................................................4 - Argument 6: The expense of the property and solar and height restrictions caused by a narrow lot and steep elevation drops, present unusual economic and physical hardships if we can not demolish the current house ...............5 -Argument 7: The public can not derive much benefit from 1700 Bluff as the house is barely visible from the public streets and visible only from the alley .............5 - Argument 8: 1700 Bluff meets few if any of the Board criteria of BRC 9-11 upon which the mid century modern house at 819 6`h St. was landmarked ..................6 Conclusions ..............................................................................................6 Exhibits ....................................................................................................7 - Exhibit A: Letters From Architects ..................................................................7 - Exhibit B: Evaluation of How 1700 Bluff Relates to Section 9-11 of Boulder Revised Code ..........................................................................15 - Exhibit C: Locations with significant examples of MCM homes ...............................23 - Exhibit D: Photos of 1700 Bluff .....................................................................26 - Exhibit E: Reports from Builder, Structural Engineer, and Soils Report Excerpt 32 - Exhibit F: Equitable Treatment with Neighbors ..................................................36 - Exhibit G. Compatibility with Neighborhood .....................................................39 - Exhibit H: Residents and Historical Significance of Residents .................................43 - Exhibit 1: Mid Century Modern Architecture Background .......................................44 - Exhibit J: What are Usonian and International Characteristics ..................................45 - Exhibit K: Could 1700 Bluff St be Considered a Significant Example of Usonian or International Style ......................................................47 - Exhibit L: What are Experssionist Characteristics, and Could 1700 Bluff be Considered a Significant example of Expressionist Architecture .................55 - Exhibit M: What Characteristics describe Rustic Modernism, Formalism, Brutalism, and Late Modernism, and Could 1700 Bluff be Considered a Significant example of any of these styles ......................................................59 -Exhibit N: Contrasting 1700 Bluff to 819 6`h St ...................................................67 0 SUMMARY Background For over two years my wife, Judy, and I have been trying to downsize in our retirement by building a smaller and more energy efficient home in downtown Boulder where we will have substantially less need for an automobile. Last year we went before this very Board to get approval for a garage at 580 Spruce St before we decided to close on our contingent purchase contract. Although you commended us on saving a house that you had previously approved for demolition (but rejected prior owner's new build plan) and voted 5-0 to approve our garage, we did not purchase the property because it seemed that the City Council was about to impose a FAR of .35 on an emergency basis. This would have not allowed us to add a 500 sq ft addition to the 2500 sq ft home plus the 500 sq ft garage, as the lot was only 8000 sq ft and the current FAR was already over, at .38. So we canceled the contract, not knowing that this new rule would not be immediately forthcoming. Bad Timing! This past summer we again had another contingent purchase contract on 1700 Bluff, a lot of 12,500+ sq ft. which would allow us to build our 3000+ sq ft house and be well under a FAR of .35. We spent 3 months and incurred a lot of expense for full surveys, architectural plans, engineers, and builder in an effort to do our due diligence. After we had resolved what we thought were all the issues, we bought the property and the hand- hewn timbers of a small c1785 barn (1100 sq ft and 12'eaves and 22'H gable peak) which will serve as framing for our living space. Not one of these professionals ever mentioned that we might not be able to demo the existing house which was far worse shape than 580 Spruce St! It is uninhabitable, small, poor quality and poor condition. Terrible Oversight! But we are not indiscriminate "scrapers" as we did early on try to integrate the house into our plans until we found out the plate had separated from a cracked slab-on-grade foundation on expansive soils and the retaining wall could not be moved to allow a redo of foundation, making the house unsalvageable in part or whole. So we are here again: this time asking for your approval to deconstruct and demolish the house on 1700 Bluff. In early March, the review board required us to seek a full Board review as the house appeared to have mid century modern architectural style and may be worth saving or landmarking. We disagree on both counts and present the following arguments in support of our position 1 Argument 1: The house at 1700 Bluff is not pure mid century modern architecture or for that matter any historically significant architecture. It is rather a "combination of builder-type construction and detailing" from the mid 1950's. That is the opinion of Carl Worthington, a leading Boulder/Denver architect with significant experience in this architectural style, familiarity with this very house as friends and business associates previously owned it, and ownership of original mid century modern homes at 2026 Balsam and 955 Linden. The 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism refers to Mr. Worthington as "an important architect who made significant contributions to the built environment in Boulder during the post-war period" -the very period at issue here. See letter in Exhibit A and photos of his homes in the Exhibit K. Other architects that we have used this past year and who recommended Carl as an expert, have also written similar opinion letters in favor of our demolition. Also attached as Exhibit A are letters from Kristen Lewis (Chairperson of Preservation Committee of Historic Boulder), Tom Hand, and Jack Weise. Although the house has some "gestures" of modernism in the form of a shed roof, it lacks many of the characteristics and elements of mid century modern architecture such as unity of design or theme (integrated roof planes), orientation of indoor-outdoor relationships (there is only a small southern picture window and side door) and quality construction. An objective detailed analysis of each characteristics of mid century modern styles was also performed and is summarized in Exhibit B along with photos of mid century modern residents in Exhibits I through M . It is not Usonion, International, Expressionist, Formalist, Brutalistic, Late Modernistic, or even Rustic Modernistic, although the poor quality might put it and any other 1950's home in this later category with respect to an element or two. These are the same conclusion of Mr. Worthington's analysis in Exhibit A. Furthermore our subjective review detailed in Exhibit B concluded it lacks a distinctive and striking appearance, essential for any significant architecture and is a mishmash of materials, styles, and poor construction compared to the many mid century modern houses highlighted in our exhibits. At the most extreme interpretation, the house could be characterized as a "sub-par" or "builder type" example of mid century modern architecture but certainly not "a significant example" of this architectural style as required by City Ordinance 9-11-1-a. The city's "Survey of Modern Architecture Boulder Colorado 1950 - 1980" inventory does not list 1700 Bluff as a significant example of mid century modern architecture. In fact, not a single mid century modern residential house was identified in the Whittier neighborhood (one school was). Instead, the Whittier neighborhood is known for much earlier 201h century style homes. The primary areas for "significant examples" of mid century modern homes are the Chautauqua, Baseline, and Flagstaff neighborhoods (See Exhibit Q. 2 Argument 2: The house at 1700 Bluff has no history of famous architects, builders, owners, or events. After conducting extensive research at Boulder's Carnegie Library, we compiled a list and timeframe of residency of the residents of 1700 Bluff St, as well as any historic significance each resident may have had. No persons of historic relevance, particularly to Boulder, have ever lived in, designed, or built 1700 Bluff St. See Exhibit H Argument 3: The house at 1700 Bluff has been substantially altered from its original form. The house at 1700 Bluff has been substantially altered from its original form over the years, including work done under a March 2008 permit, which process never raised the specter of any architectural significance. A carport has been enclosed, an entry wing at the front has been added, and the east and south windows have been relocated and replaced. See Exhibit D for photographs. Argument 4: The house at 1700 Bluff is in poor condition, of substandard quality, and is unsalvageable. The house is a small one bedroom one bath house of 1450 sq ft. (1750 with enclosed carport). It is uninhabitable now as the prior owner gutted the house of drywall and all systems. This "demolition" revealed its original condition to consist of no siding other than delaminating 5/8" plywood board and batten, no insulation, brick veneer brick, and other builder grade materials whose forms contradict one another. Most important, a slab-on-grade foundation that had cracked and separated from the bottom plate, and sits on highly expansive soils was also discovered. It is unsafe. New concrete was poured over the area of cracking as a temporary band-aid to the underlying problem. It would be a waste of resources to build or even remodel on top of this foundation. In addition, the very roof line that has mid century modern "gestures" drains into a critical retaining wall to the west. This has damaged the retaining wall over the past 50+ years, and adds further evidence that the structure suffers from poor initial design and quality, which supports the approval of a demolition permit as the only way to correct these inherent qualities of the property (See Exhibits A, and E) Additionally, the 74' west retaining wall and its structural footing would have to be rebuilt and strengthened before the inadequate slab on grade foundation system the structure rests on could even be addressed. The current slab on grade foundation system is not strong enough to support hydraulic helical pier jacking, and more conventional means of engineering a foundation system using the recommended concrete piers is not 3 plausible due to limited lot space as well as OHSA rules for heavy machinery. Even if it could be done the expense would be prohibitive. In order to secure the retaining wall, while preserving the house, it is estimated to cost between $400,000 and $600,000. After the retaining wall has been secured, it would cost an additional $100,000 to loft the structure and install a proper foundation system, for a total cost of between $500,000 and $700,000. This translates to $360 to $500 per square foot before renovation! See Exhibit E for reports from builder, structural and soils engineers. To quote Carl Worthington, this house is of "substandard" quality. Argument 5: The house we want to build is equitable and compatible with those in the neighborhood. It is equitable to approve demolition of 1700 Bluff as the former Anderson home across the street at 1710 Sunset (lot borders both Bluff and Sunset) was just demolished in the last months of 2008 without Committee or Board review. That house was a similar "builder-type" construction, 5 years older (built 1950), larger (3064 finished sq ft including garage), in habitable condition and was more historically significant. It was the residence of a prominent Boulderite Herman Anderson, who lived in the house for its entire 59 years. Herman Anderson and his family are so historically relevant to Boulder's history that an oral history was done by the Boulder Public Library for posterity. The Andersons, including sons, Dick and Bobby Anderson, are Boulder's most famous athletic family with numerous local, university, state, and national awards. See photos in Exhibit F. Additionally, the homes at 1701 Bluff and 1718 Bluff, immediately adjacent to 1700 Bluff, involved demolitions prior to their 1998 and 2002 "new construction". We recognize these houses were only 45-48 years old at the time of demolition and therefore were not required to be reviewed, but they represent the neighborhood's character. Also, 5 of total 9 houses on the 17 hundred block of Bluff are or will be "new builds." Finally, The Landmarks Board has authorized demolitions for other 50+ year old homes, some of which are better examples of mid century modern architectural styles than 1700 Bluff. 3780 23rd St is one such example. See Exhibit F. The "new build" plan for 1700 Bluff is compatible with the neighborhood. It is of similar size and scale as the immediately adjacent neighbors at 1701 and 1718 Bluff. Our plan has a similar FAR (.29-.32) as all adjacent neighbors are in the range of .28 to .32. The FAR and lot coverage of the new build plan at 1700 Bluff meets all the most restrictive recommendations in the City's Compatible Development Study and recommendations currently under consideration for an ordinance which is designed to prevent excessive new builds. It was formerly called "Pops and Scrapes". That is not the case with the new build permit for 1710 Sunset that was recently demolished without a Committee or Board review. Depending on basement configuration, that FAR is .65 to .75 or twice the proposed new rules! 4 Argument 6: The solar and height restrictions caused by a narrow lot and steep elevation drops, present unusual economic and physical hardships if we cannot demolish the current house. These constraints also negatively affect the existing house if it could be merely expanded. The unique aspects of this lot provide few options for building. We have spent considerable time and money attempting to determine how we can meet all conditions of the code and proposed ordinance and still get the 3100+ sq ft. (3500+ with loft) house and garage we want. The current FAR is .11, which is not a particularly good ratio of house to land value if we cannot add square footage. But we wanted this in town location to save energy and needed the larger lot size for a lower FAR which appears to be forthcoming from the Compatible Development Study. Second, the narrow lot size and steep drop offs created by retaining walls and elevation changes place limitations on roof height and solar requirements such that the only places to put more square footage is a second story on the western part of lot or a sprawling one story structure (or two story) to the north in front of the house. Either of these options would completely obliterate gestures of any significant architectural style the house may currently possess. By demolishing the current house and placing the proposed timber structure in its location (east with gable ends north- south), we meet all height requirements and avoid having to use the north part of lot, thus preserving the current yard and reducing lot coverage almost in half, from 28% to 18%! We plan to use only a slightly larger footprint of the existing smaller house and enclosed carport. See Kristin Lewis' letter in Exhibit A and site plan and surveys in Exhibits D and G. Argument 7: The public can not derive much benefit from 1700 Bluff as the house is barely visible from the public streets and only the east side is visible from the alley. The house is located between the dead end of 17`h St, and the cul-du-sac at the end of Bluff St. The structure is elevated about 21' above and setback between about 30' and 50' from 17th St. It is also elevated about 11' and setback between about 85'and 130' from Bluff St. See photos and topographical survey in Exhibit D. The only place one can catch a glimpse of 1700 Bluff is at the extreme west end of the lot on Bluff St, up the 10'wide driveway. However the rest of the view from Bluff St. (85%) is blocked by a steep hill and retaining wall in front of the house. The east side of house is visible from the alley. 5 Argument 8: 1700 Bluff meets few, if any of the Board criteria of BRC 9-11 upon which the mid century modern house at 819 6'h St. was landmarked. We requested staff reports on houses that were landmarked as a result of mid century modern architecture. The only report provided was for 819 6`h St. A summary of the criteria used to support the ordinance requirements in 9-11-23 for this house compared to 1700 Bluff is shown in Exhibit N. 1700 Bluff meets none of the important criteria for historic preservation that were met by 819 6th St. such as the following: recognition by authorities, recognized period and style, condition of the structure, lack of alteration, association with historical persons or events, builder and architect prominence, initial quality of construction, example of the uncommon, etc. The only similar criteria between the two houses is a subset of Site characteristics wherein both properties had foothills views. Conclusion In summary, 1700 Bluff does the meet the purpose, intent nor criteria for historic preservation as outlined in 9-11 and therefore supports approval of our permit for demolition. Our own detailed and objective analysis of subsections 9-11-1, 9-11-2, and 9- 11-23 is summarized in Exhibit B entitled "How Does 1700 Bluff Relate to the City of Boulder's Ordinance 9-11: Historic Preservation". This section states: "1700 Bluff is not particularly reminiscent of past eras, events, or persons important in local, state, or national history. No person of historical significance has ever lived in, designed, or built 1700 Bluff. No events of historical relevance have ever taken place at 1700 Bluff. As demonstrated above, and by the multiple letters from architectural experts, 1700 Bluff is not a significant example of an architectural style of the past. 1700 Bluff is also not located in an area known for mid century modern architecture, and thus does not provide an appropriate setting for a historical structure. Allowing the demolition of 1700 Bluff and subsequent construction would certainly raise property values (certainly by the standards set forth by Boulder county assessor), it would also stabilize the neighborhood, as the proposed home is much more compatible with the neighborhood than the current residence. Finally, the proposed structure would contribute to the city's living heritage as it would be the first structure in Boulder using reclaimed timbers from a 1785 barn (Exhibit B) We respectfully request your approval of our application to deconstruct and demolish the house at 1700 Bluff. Having gone through both sides of this process before Landmarks and having lived in a historic district in Denver for 20 years, we understand and appreciate the role of preservation. BRC 9-11-1(b) states, "The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city." We hope you agree with us that 1700 Bluff is an old building not worth saving. Dan and Judy Hersh 6 Exhibits Exhibit A: Letter From Carl Worthington Carl Worthington is an "important architect who made significant contributions to the built environment in Boulder during the postwar period," according to the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism: March 23, 2009 Boulder Landmarks Board City of Boulder Park Central Building 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor Boulder, CO 80302 Re: 170o Bluff Street/ Boulder Residence Dear Board Members: I have been asked by Daniel Hersh, Owner of the above mentioned property, to evaluate the existing residence at 17oo Bluff Street located in Boulder regarding its potential historic significance. I am very familiar with the house, as two of my good friends, Jack Kerner and Everett Shigeta, lived thereat separate times during the early 7o's. Following a site visit on March 21, 2009 with Mark Hartwig, Project Contractor, it appears that some remodeling has taken place between the 7o's and now. Specifically, the carport was converted into a living space, and the entrance appears to have been moved and redone. The house, even though it has some mid-century "modern" gestures, like the gentle- sloped shed roofs, is predominately a combination of "builder-type" construction and detailing. The juxtaposing roof planes are not well integrated as would be found in well-done in modern "usonian" or "shed roof" styles. The brick sill detailing is similar to mass-produced tract homes of the period. Other than the south windows, the house does not take advantage of the indoor-outdoor relationship of spaces on the site which would often characterize a "modern" 1950's house layout on a lot like this one. Having grown up in southern California, and going to USC and studying Neutra, Ellwood, Buff/Straub/Hensman, Green and Green, as well as Frank Lloyd Wright, then moving to Boulder in 1956, this house is not in these classes of mid-century modern style and integrity. Alas, it does not compare to Colorado modern homes by Haertling, Thacker, Easton, Papachristo, Wagner, Hunter or even my original home at 2026 Balsam. 7 From a quality construction point of view, it appears that the house was not built on foundations, but rather a slab-on-grade with thickened footings, which is not good considering freeze-thaw, drainage, poor insulation, and soil movement liabilities. The site has very good privacy at the end of the Bluff Street cul-de-sac, as well as great views and solar access to the south overlooking the City to the mountains. I would not recommend the Owners be restricted to using the existing substandard house as part of any new building on the site. Thank you for your consideration. Please give me a call if you have any further questions. Sincerely, CARL A. WORTHINGTON, AIA, ASLA Special Consultant to OZ Architecture CC: Daniel Hersh Mark Hartwig The following is an email exchange between Carl Worthington, and homeowner, Daniel Hersh: Subject: RE: FINAL 1700 Bluff Street Letter Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:47:28 -0600 From: CWorthingtonCOZARCH.COM To: danielhersh@hotmail.com Dan: Yes, I think that would be fine for you to summarize my findings. Will you be back in Boulder soon? Let me know if there is anything else I can help with Carl CARL A. WORTHINGTON, AIA, ASLA Special Consultant to OZ Architecture From: daniel hersh [mailto:danielhershohotmail.wmJ Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:38 PM To: Carl Worthington Cc: Mark Hartwig Subject: RE: FINAL 1700 Bluff Street Letter Carl The letter looks fine. I have one question. would it be safe for me to summarize you findings by saying to the Landmarks Board that you concluded the house was not mid century modern architecture or just not special historical architectural character? Thank you for your time and effort. Please email me the bill and I will send electronic payment. Dan Hersh 9 The following is a letter from Kristin Lewis, Architect: 13 April 2009 Landmarks Board City of Boulder Park Central Building 1739 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Re: 1700 Bluff To: Landmarks Board I was hired to consult on 1700 Bluff Street as a part of the consideration to purchase the property. My client was looking for a potential site to erect a small recycled barn structure to convert to a residence. At that point, the concept was very preliminary. We discussed what parts of the existing structure could be remodeled and if it made sense to demolish it. We carefully evaluated the existing structure and based on the poor quality of construction and the needs of my client I felt it would be best to apply for demolition. At the time, it was my thought (without doing any research) that the existing structure would not likely be something that the LAPD would determine worth Landmark status. In my opinion, it is a poor representation of a builder mid-century modern building. The original carport had been filled with a room addition thereby compromising the front fagade. I did say that the LAPD Board would have to determine if it could be demolished. At that time it was my understanding that the contractor was familiar with that process and would follow through. Later Dan Hersh contacted us to say he had a contract on the property and had developed preliminary house plans. As part of his "due diligence" he asked us to look at the height and solar issues relative to his design. I assumed the demolition issue had been resolved and unfortunately did not inquire about it. The existing structure sits well back on the site to take advantage of views. If a new structure is confined to a similar footprint or the existing structure is remolded, the site is very restrictive relative to solar and height. Due to setbacks and the fall of the grade, the structure is limited to about a 24.5 ft. height. (35 ft. is allowed on a flat site.) The allowed height falls to 13.5 ft at the east lot line setback. Given these limitations, it would be impossible to add to the current one bedroom, 1726 sq. ft. house without either adding a second level or expanding on the front facade. Either of these expansions would completely compromise the original building. A subsequent soils test shows expansive soils, making use of the current un-insulated slab foundation difficult to work with. A structural slab is recommended on expansive soils. 10 Based on research at Carnegie Library, provided by the builder, it does not seem that the current building meets the criteria for landmark designation. It will do little to foster knowledge of the city's heritage as it is a compromised representation of mid-century modern housing. Most importantly, the house is small and given the site constraints, any addition will compromise the original house. This poses an exceptional hardship on any owner. As chair of the Preservation Committee of Historic Boulder, I know that post war buildings need careful review as they are more likely, in general, to face demolition requests. I think the current survey underway of these structures will be very helpful to determine good examples that should be preserved. Hopefully there can be a proactive effort to help preserve good representative examples of mid-century modern. I can assure you, at this point, there are diverse views on the Historic Boulder Board (I am not speaking for the organization in this letter.) as to what should be preserved. I do think we all agree it is very important not to use our Landmark designation process to stop development but instead to use it to proactively enhance the understanding of our architectural heritage. I urge you not to initiate designation of this property and allow demolition of the current structure. I do believe this is a case where any upgrade or expansion will obliterate the original house due to it's location on the site. The large front yard setback, which the current proposed design maintains, is an asset to the neighborhood which could likely be lost in another expansion. Most importantly, I think the ability to moderately expand the building on this site precludes preservation of the front and existing roof. It is unfortunate that the demolition permit was not applied for prior to submittal of permit and that there was an assumption, probably fostered by me, that approval would not be difficult so proper information and research was not supplied at the time of review. I believe this oversight was the result of a focus on all the other constraints being reviewed and of faulty communication. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like additional information. Sincerely, Kristin A. Lewis 11 The following is a letter from Tom Hand, Architect: April 17, 2009 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board City of Boulder 1739 Broadway Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re: 1700 Bluff Street, Boulder Dear Members of the Landmarks Board and Staff, I have been asked by this property's Owners, the Hershs, and their Contractor, Mark Hartwig, to comment on this property's existing residential structure. An application has been made for a complete demolition. I am not an architectural historian nor do I have particular expertise in what is being called "mid-century modern" design. I am a practicing architect, and have worked in Boulder continuously since 1972.1 have made three visits to the property during this March and April. In my opinion the house structure at 1700 Bluff Street does not have redeeming architectural qualities that should prevent its complete demolition. The existing structure, due to some ill-conceived initial design features and an apparent series of haphazard remodeling projects, is currently a mess. The roof lines and positioning of the original design seem flawed in that they are visually weak and drain west, in large part, counter to the natural drainage of the site. This misdirected drainage severely damaged the concrete retaining wall on the west of the garage, and may present ongoing problems. The structure's foundation system, a concrete slab, was an expedient solution which presents risks on the expansive soil, problems for new insulation, moisture control and additions. The partial brick masonry veneer, to me, is of low or poor quality material and execution. Beyond these original design deficiencies, it is difficult to see or find any of the original structure's better qualities, that may or may not have existed. All of the windows and doors have been replaced or modified. Some are in the process of being replaced as part of a 2008 remodel which was never complete. Apparently, as part of that remodel (2008), the garage was in the process of conversion to living space and the structure's entire interior was gutted. Another prior remodeling project very poorly reconfigured and detailed the front entry. 12 The redeeming quality of the property is the site. That too has been abused with various haphazard projects. Thank you for considering these comments and opinion. Please contact me if you have questions. Thomas L. Hand, Architect cc: Daniel Hersh Mark Hartwig THOMAS HAND ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & DESIGN 4869 Darwin Court Boulder, Colorado 80301-5461 Phone & Fax (303) 444-2448 Mobile (303) 906-4776 handarc,h@comcast.net 13 The following is a letter from Jack Weise, architect: Boulder Landmarks Board April 13, 2009 City of Boulder Park Central Building 1739 Broadway, P Floor Boulder, CO 80302 Re: 1700 Bluff Street Dear Board Members: I was asked by Mark Hartwig of Boulder Custom Homes to visit the house at the above referenced address and then to comment on it's potential architectural importance. While I can appreciate trying to save and restore buildings throughout Boulder that have architectural importance, I don't feel that the house at 1700 Bluff Street warrants such consideration. After visiting the site, I came away with the impression that the house is more or less a typical builder's grade home that incorporated a couple of architectural gestures that were occurring at the time. The couple of gestures that are present feel incomplete as they were used in a piecemeal fashion and are not fully realized or incorporated into the building as a whole. For instance, the brick masonry on the house is obviously only a veneer and not treated in any way that would make it architecturally striking. There was ample opportunity to bring the brick masonry into the interior of the house along the west side that could have made a dramatic statement of bringing the outdoor materials in. Also the mortar joints are typical 318" wide joints that are flush with the brick itself. Thinner mortar lines or deeply raked joints would have been more consistent with the significant architectural movements of the time. The roof lines are maybe the most obvious architectural feature on the house with the lack of an eave on one side and a standard eave depth on the other side. While this condition does add some interest, I feel that the fact that the overhanging eaves are of a standard depth falls short of any real impact. In summary, while I can see a couple of architectural elements here and there, I feel these elements were used haphazardly and that the house, when studied as a whole, falls short of any architectural significance that would warrant protection. Sincerely, Jack Weise Weise Studios 14 EXHIBIT B: Evaluation of How 1700 Bluff St. Relates to Section 9-11: Historic Preservation of the Boulder Revised Code Overview: Sections 9-11-1, and 9-11-2 of the Boulder Revised Code use the phrases, "providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past," and "site having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value." (see below for exact verbiage). These phrases can be very difficult to evaluate and quantify. Therefore, much work went into quantifying the terms "significant," and "special." Both an extensive objective evaluation (see section below, and Exhibits J, K, L, and M) and subjective evaluation of 1700 Bluff St were completed. This report demonstrates what does and does not make a structure "significant," and "special". Before one can determine whether or not 1700 Bluff could be considered historical or landmarkable, one must first define the characteristics and qualities of the architectural style that 1700 Bluff would be considered a part of. Because 1700 Bluff was described as potentially "Mid Century Modern" by City of Boulder staff and by Landmarks board members, we shall limit our scrutiny of 1700 Bluff to the sub styles of the mid century modern movement. Please see Exhibit I for a reasonably complete, yet concise background of Mid Century Modern Architecture. Objective Evaluation of 1700 Bluff St: The purpose of this section is to provide an objective evaluation of 1700 Bluff St. Probably the best way to achieve this end is to first determine what characteristics and criteria are common and defining to a particular architectural style. This was done by discovering what characteristics and criteria experts in the field have given to each of the main sub-categories of Mid Century Modern architecture (International, Usonian, Expressionism, Rustic Modernism, Formalism, Brutalism, and Late Modernism). Then, those defining characteristics and criteria were used to evaluate whether 1700 Bluff St is consistent with those characteristics and criteria. That is what this report has done. Please look over the detailed analysis that was completed and presented in Exhibits J, K, L, and M. The conclusion of this section and those exhibits is that 1700 Bluff does not have enough defining characteristics to be considered any of the main sub-styles of mid century modern architecture. The only sub-style that comes the closest is Rustic Modernism, but only because the characteristics that define this sub-style are more "grab bag" than the rest. 15 Subjective Evaluation of 1700 Bluff St, as it compares to significant examples of mid century modern architecture throughout Boulder So far, this section of the report has focused on objectively evaluating 1700 Bluff St based on criteria that experts in the field have ascribed to the different types of mid century modern architecture. This has been both a valid and cogent method of determining what historical relevance 1700 Bluff may or may not have. However, because the art and practice of architecture (and all arts for that matter) is somewhat subjective, it is also important to include a subjective evaluation of 1700 Bluff St, particularly how it relates to and compares with other examples of mid century modern architecture that have been labeled as significant according to the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism. The following paragraphs in this subsection contain a personal evaluation from Mark Hartwig, home builder, and primary consultant for this report. It should be noted that Mark Hartwig does have a conflict of interest in this subjective portion of the report because Mark Hartwig has been hired on behalf of the homeowner. If any readers of this report disagree with any portion of this section, please take yourselves on a tour of the other structures featured in this report, and then take a look at 1700 Bluff, so you can see with your own eyes and mind what this section is attempting to convey. During my portion of the research for this report, I had the opportunity to conduct my own mini tour of many significant examples of mid century modern architecture, as highlighted by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism. I personally visited each structure presented in exhibits J, K, L, and M. After touring their exteriors, I was left with the following overall impressions of them, particularly in their contrast to 1700 Bluff St: First, all of the properties in my informal tour have a continued theme throughout the entire structure. All of the structure is tied together in a way that would be detrimental to the overall look and feel of the structure as a whole if any other part of it were removed. The homes function as a complete, integrated unit. In contrast, 1700 Bluff is much more compartmentalized. If we were to say remove the front bump out, the rest of the structure could still remain intact, without much detriment to the overall structure. All of the properties in my informal tour were architecturally distinct. It was not just roof lines, or floor plan, or even wall placement and height. It was a combination of all of these things together... the way they interact and interplay to create something when combined that is more thanjust a sum of each individual part. The central motifs of the home were carried out in all of these areas, and each area complimented the next. In contrast, 1700 Bluff has somewhat modern roof lines, and that is where it ends. The rest of the structure could easily be a kit or tract home. There is no consistency, or conservation of motif, or integrity preserved throughout the home. The roof line, walls, floor plan, and windows do not interact, compliment, or even enhance one another. All of the homes in my informal tour were striking. When I saw them, l knew that much thought went into their design. They were all visually distinct. Bluff, on the other hand, is a couple of connected boxes with a few slanted roof lines. Again, except for two roof forms, I would call 1700 Bluff plain. 16 All of the homes in the tour evoked a feeling of thought out design. When I looked at the other homes, I felt a small sense of connectivity to the original intent and thoughts of the architect. Even though I do not know what the architect's original intent was, I was able to say "yes" to what that thought produced. I was able to think, "this makes sense," and " I understand why." In contrast, I get the exact opposite reaction when I look at 1700 Bluff. I do not know why the builder chose to pair board and batten siding (which is vertically oriented) with plain red brick (which is horizontally oriented). I don't know why he chose to muddle the roof lines, paring shed roof forms with flat roof forms. I don't know why he chose to use the only slightly architecturally interesting portion of the home (which extends to the north) to highlight the driveway and carport, instead of designing a terraced garden or landscape where the driveway is. I don't know why he chose to use rectangular builder grade picture windows throughout instead of clerestory windows that would have accented the roof forms, and integrated both elements with the rest of the structure. I don't know why he chose to make the roof forms and ceilings vault to nowhere instead of vaulting them with the flatirons and southern exposure in mind to maximize views, light, and integration with the site. With the other homes in the tour, there is reason, thought, and substance behind the designs; behind 1700 Bluff's design, there is thoughtlessness, and laziness. When I see the homes in my informal tour, I think, "I understand." When I see 1700 Bluff, I ask myself, "Why?" 17 How does 1700 Bluff Relate to the City of Boulder Ordinance 9-11: Historic Preservation? The following paragraphs will include the actual language in the ordinance and discuss in italics how it relates to 1700 Bluff 9-11-1 Purpose and Legislative Intent. (a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote 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 important in local, state, or national history or providing significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. 1700 Bluff is not particularly reminiscent of past eras, events, or persons important in local, state, or national history. No person of historical significance has ever lived in, designed, or built 1700 Bluff. No events of historical relevance have ever taken place at 1700 Bluff. As demonstrated above, and by the multiple letters from architectural experts, 1700 Bluff is not a significant example of an architectural style of the past. 1700 Bluff is also not located in an area known for mid century modern architecture, and thus does not provide an appropriate setting for a historical structure. Allowing the demolition of 1700 Bluff and subsequent construction would certainly raise property values (certainly by the standards setforth by Boulder county assessor), it would also stabilize the neighborhood, as the proposed home is much more compatible with the neighborhood than the current residence. Finally, the proposed structure would contribute to the city's living heritage as it would be the first structure in Boulder using reclaimed timbers from a 1785 barn. (b) The city council does not intend by this chapter to preserve every old building in the city but instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage will be carefully weighed with other alternatives and that alterations to such buildings and structures and new construction will respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them. As has been demonstrated by this entire document, 1700 Bluff St does not have any cultural, historical, or architectural significance. 1700 Bluff St has been shown to clearly fall into the category of just a "substandard" "old building. " Therefore, preserving it would clearly go against the intent of this section of the BRC. Additionally, the proposed structure is much more compatible with the character of the setting than the current structure. Finally, due to the inherent constraints of the lot, namely the slope of the adjacent lots, and the location and orientation of the 18 current structure on the lot, any alternatives to demolition or alterations to the structure to allow for more living space would necessarily destroy the only part of the structure that shows gestures of mid century modern architecture, namely the roof forms. However, those very roof forms have contributed to drainage problems for the retaining wall, and could lead to a future retaining wall failure. (c) The city council intends that in reviewing applications for alterations to and new construction on landmarks or structures in a historic district, the landmarks board shall follow relevant city policies, including, without limitation, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled, and creative approaches to renovation. This portion has no bearing on 1700 Bluff as it is not a landmark, and is not in an historic district. 9-11-2 City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts. (a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may by ordinance: (1) Designate as a landmark an individual building or other feature or an integrated group of structures or features on a single lot or site having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and designate a landmark site for each landmark; As demonstrated by the above documentation, along with letters from architectural experts, 1700 Bluff can not be considered to have special character, or historical, or architectural value or interest. If it ever had any, its aesthetic interest and value were already compromised by the multiple alterations, and additions that have already been completed on the structure. All the architects who wrote letters, as well as the builder agree that 1700 Bluff has no aesthetic interest or value. (2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the city As demonstrated in Exhibit C, 1700 Bluff is not located in an area prevalent to mid century modern architecture. (3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings, structures, or features which are contained in two or more geographically separate areas, having a special character and historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value that are united together by historical, architectural, or aesthetic characteristics; and 19 As demonstrated in Exhibit C, 1700 Bluff is not located in an area prevalent to mid century modern architecture. (4) Amend designations to add or remove features or property to or from the site or district. Not applicable. (b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city. This portion has no bearing on 1700 Bluff as it is not a landmark, and is not in an historic district. 9-11-23 Review of Permits for Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation of Buildings Not Designated (f) Landmarks Board Public Hearings on Permits: The landmarks board shall hold a public hearing on the permit application within seventy-five days after the city manager accepts a completed application, pursuant to the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. If the landmarks board fails to hold a public hearing within seventy-five days after the city manager accepts a completed permit application, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other requirements of the permit process have been met. The landmarks board shall consider and base its decision upon any of the following criteria: (1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in sections 9-11-1, "Legislative Intent," and 9-11- 2, "City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981; See above for a complete discussion of how 1700 Bluff St relates to 9-11-1 and 9- 11-2 (2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; As discussed above, the Whittier/ Sunset Hills areas is not known for mid century modern architecture (see exhibit C). Instead, it is much more common to see Victorian houses, and homes with a more traditional character in these areas. This is precisely why the proposed construction at 1700 Bluff would be much more compatible with the character of the neighborhood than the existing structure. 20 (3) The reasonable condition of the building; and The current condition of 1700 Bluff St is quite poor. First, the property had been severely altered by a previous owner. Second, the current structure is built on a slab on grade foundation system (which has cracked and separated from the bottom plate), which lacks the structural integrity required for a residential structure built on highly expansive soils. Also, the way the seventy four foot long by eight foot fall by two feet thick retaining wall interacts with the current structure. Finally, the flat roof over the carport has drained behind the retaining wall over the years, weakening and damaging it. Please refer to Exhibit E for further discussion and justification of the previous statements. (4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. The restoration and repair of 1700 Bluff would be prohibitively expensive, probably costing between $500, 000.00 and $700, 000.00 to correct the structural issues inherent to the structure. Please refer to Exhibit E for further discussion and justification. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) of this section, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. The costs and difficulties associated with restoration or repair of 1700 Bluff are caused by the initial poor planning of the original home builder, and insufficient construction methods that were used when the structure was built. Summary To summarize, this report has conclusively shown that 1700 Bluff should not be considered for land marking, and thus the demolition permit should be issued immediately. The report has evaluated which historically relevant architectural characteristics 1700 Bluff has, as defined from objective sources (see Exhibits J-M). It was discovered that 1700 Bluff does not have enough defining characteristics to distinctly fall into any sub category of mid century modern architecture. Additionally, a subjective look at 1700 Bluff showed that it lacks the same qualities and integrity that significant examples of mid century modern architecture all contain. The report then evaluated how 1700 Bluff relates to BRC 9-11-23. This report has demonstrated objectively that all subsections of BRC 9-11-23 support an approval for demolition of 1700 Bluff St. In fact, not a single portion of BRC 9-11-23 supports a stay of demolition, or the land marking of 1700 Bluff St. Finally, the report has shown that numerous architects and historical architects (one of whom is considered by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism to be 21 "important architect who made significant contributions to the built environment in Boulder during the postwar period") all support approval of demolition because they all have evaluated 1700 Bluff to have no landmarkable or historical relevance. All of the information, exploration, and contents of this report supports the approval of 1700 Bluff St for demolition. 22 Exhibit C: Locations in Boulder where "significant" examples of mid century modern homes are clustered together in neighborhoods. The following maps show the locations of all properties featured in the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism. International - Bright Blue Usonian - Red Expressionism - Green Rustic Modernism - Aqua Blue Formalism - Yellow Brutalism - Purple Late Modernism - Maroon ldVUl ulo-~ `I'd Melody Ivmc pal P Iris Ave 157 -r. , r AVPOrl 8 T N > G NC,vlasttl • .s.ead g a ~ '~^.I Firth. J 3 ^ dalmorl Rd 118 [t... ~,h • !r • vru.t~eu; • c cr t i._rr • tt~, :III+P: ~ ~1 3 rl b 1"d y, .s ~v~ 51 rT b 119 ~ ArapahoeRd(D ArapahoeA r a• :ar. i. n .r c F • • Bo k .1 :1. ~nll LJ n v3r • Cclinr C • L1n •r r • u, ~ • - 51:, 157 ~ 7 • r LJ u' , -t Baser ne Rd o ~ 36 City pa p F r ~tici 17;ur, N ~ .ate Halllder t OWItaln Park soutt' Mauldei dnh31•';'h b I tat_ _ q. L7ew11s It?un1C ~ Roth ly steal 23 The following shows a blow up of the general Whittier and Sunset Hills neighborhoods: ~ ~ U aalb~rg V2iarewh 'b•a'~r .fry . ff~' N ;n E'aer Ave Park "tie r•: ru r-11knc: Ave 01a Norm y - rJ D. Bot,lder I " on !:urth rada Arc Cedar Ave _ ti'r t T i i 3 M1 entrai N _ LA BOUItl@r 8a!sam C' :tilbam Ave O h ra Avr Bcwlucr alc nr D. A pi 's A,6 [oniMtnrty Alp-AeAv- Alp.na Ava 1 tiosp:tal 0 aw+r S I,rir!II S' Iwrth Gt h!0`tr 'N Ae•a Crscy ti.r,•,~•- r..r~ &4 9ti bDieE"~' pve r 4,, Sd-)I:: P.Irk 1 J F'czrl!arnl ~ ~ 'y'rn. r ~ * N ig4b 1 U~% • k,a4 pram b v . - I.rdxw r:ll Ave ~ n `r ~t sd 1 ~lr i 6 ' Ammer 1.la:drlun Ave ~ V! gl 7 4x " ?sue, s, , S ct;+mIlk Svc `•R 5E ' s 1`br ~Y ~y~b ~ , r in p•Nt S a = ^lc "'51 r +n ' ' l y t CPark ail 7 srru~e ~ 118 e$'~ 51 4 [:~v:r . r:rti Wa 119 ~enl~ • = n 50 118 N 1 . cntralParti p,apahm Rd An Ve `r -•r ADZ 62 ti.13!rT1Et .f _ "NC31i06' Jr The two maps show that mid century modern homes are scattered throughout Boulder, but the scattering are typically clustered into areas and about certain streets. Typically, the neighborhoods that have a dense clustering of mid century modern homes are the Chautauqua, Baseline, and Flagstaff neighborhoods. The Broadway and 28th St corridors also show a clustering of mid century modern structures, probably because many office buildings utilize these designs for their efficiency and utility. The 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism confirms these assertions with the following paragraph: "Modern architecture from the 1940's to the 1970's is distributed throughout the city. Some areas, though, are particularly rich in fine Modern buildings. These include the Chautauqua, Baseline, and Flagstaff neighborhoods, Wonderland Hill and Table Mesa." One additional item that was discovered while researching mid century modern homes in Boulder is that a number of significant examples of this style do exist. Boulder does not have a shortage of this type of architecture, and thus no special consideration should be given to this type of architecture. Mid century modern architecture is not an 24 endangered species in Boulder. While driving through the neighborhoods where mid century modern homes were clustered together, one notices many fine examples of mid century modern homes, many of which were not even included in the The 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism. Nearly all of these homes had more character, integrity, and defining characteristics than 1700 Bluff. Neither the preceding maps, nor the direct quote from the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism suggests that the Whittier neighborhood should have any mid century modernistic homes. Therefore, there is no "probable cause" to think 1700 Bluff should be considered mid century modern based on its location. 25 Exhibit D: Photos of 1700 Bluff The following are photographs of 1700 Bluff from the lot. They show the various elevations of 1700 Bluff ► - ~^:ti!. 3a.' _ 91'x.•: _ - y1' - 1700 Bluff Front (North) Elevation _ 5~y1}~mow. ~L qqn► f - 47 1700 Bluff Rear (South) Elevation 26 y ~s~ i111111,. 9 ION 1700 Bluff East Elevation The following photographs show 1700 Bluff St from both 17`h St, and Bluff St. Please note that the structure can not be easily seen from the street, and thus the public could derive no benefit from it: ;vA tfx ~ 'f v, ~ ~ t .c` ~s~K 1 ~:~k" t y ~ •i ~ y 4+ ~,_'n~b,1~ K ~7 a ✓ -,.~f'x~lr F} --':n= - M~a y f? J r `"a 4 .mil" . Y• Y 1 '~Y 7R, Sf • • 9 h - tr j Y kike- ~c AA- M -U, 1700 Bluff from center of cul-du-sac at end of Bluff St 27 4 '1 / J+ 5 1 ~ - r.._ - -yaw 4 i~ 1700 Bluff from 17th St The exterior of 1700 Bluff has been significantly altered. The front and rear of the carport have been filled in, a new entry wing has been added, and the original picture windows have been significantly expanded and altered. 4 1 % L Wirt .'L:.- ..fir r . _ I'- ~ . 1700 Bluff front showing filled in carport and new wing of front entry 28 -jib r _ 02 Mill 1700 Bluff south elevation showing filled in carport and altered windows k r w Cr t ?pr 1, 1700 Bluff East Elevation showing altered windows The following photograph is an historical photograph taken in 1978. Please note the carport was not filled in, and the front entry wing did not exist: 29 fi A 1700 Bluff St 1978 30 The following is a topographical survey of 1700 Bluff - Topographic Survey - 1700 Bluff Street . Boulder . Colorado located to the northwest quarter of Section 90 Township 1 North . Range 70 West of the 6th P.A e Boulder County Colorado f• MX--AUA4 AA1N1r AV 1 EA$VWW TJ UiY ~ 6 '3; _la ♦F•" ~yL i"~ I Rct.i Is34414 ~ I kr~~ 7 nr /l / r" t• 1 % 1 ~ `~.~5 "Uri-; ;0 S t r ~i !'F ~ GtYµ(?F rurE 1 11 1 ~ f ` r Fl ftE51OE~Ci ~ C`pME11ED ~ ~ #t7t% V_- ~ n• Fa. FRAVE ~y ~l R~ i4 a1 r 1 . r r \i , -rD o aaa, r " Sri 1p' 1 J4• pe. 1 r~ 1~ LOJ" ~~..r_4 } -:ft-l:_'• -jo «4raa4 1 riE71vAE Q REDAR *IN .ra 1 ~ F •:.'--••7y''p\~1 CAP SET BY `'Y~ b r"Iy66y 41 .s•' ( 0 LAND OONAILTANTS ` ^ n VERY. LS 20134 EB h AR 'FI1H ~,S R I cAV ser BY 1,G.8 - 4• y n n2A 1.5 SW71£71NG t f ' 00 LS 16406 ~T v C7 p .YtlAN MH L~* : '6+ /~l , Z In WT LIT k}p PLS 27816 ~S FB:BAR '1{111 7u OM 4f By rUWN - 'l by 1,(1 RL5 27438 f' 1 , - 4 O / OR WWWE TKr VTN 1 f~.1p_` ,1f ua' 9a° 3 R 2 !K DIAl1EER S40'1y E DUS TKM 1 m N C ^9 ~i4 fx DIALETEA SHOWN a N RES~OE 6~~~ E4 C vAN a1YE rn,EE Vain *y,d 'a,, - „o NY • Q , - K DIALVER SBOrM .,A l 5~ G74' - ' I..ara _ w•. a ~~e a 5 2 SOLE/TRUWS - 1 <4*, F ti4j,R M55 T}~-- WLSI-tl44E/TSW:YB &VL 1 w' D3 .1 A• ' ~9 1~ 539 Une Table - ~V ' 14-13-o0 NEST / 166.64 FEET 1 ~ 1.5_ a r f 52-17-00 VEST 6.30 FEET 1 57-33 HEST / 66.78 FEET FU )T Y,40C J1• 1 rl ~2' "fa W.~L - Property [te MLIn 1 Q7-42-41 FAST / 10640 FEET 47 EA5fLQ4T f ~~1-4~ ,h tl 1H02-06 EAST / 97-62 FEET WC► 211961r 1 ~ 41 4 Sr4v ff WOOI OI stG M R A 75-311-12 EAST / 71-2 FEET 1 • rwian v aaAo } M-16-19 rIEST / 5&02 FEEr T q 33-46-61 MST / M62 FEET 1 / IoCW 6 AT "C-1 I YACA1E1 6 i rAl) C AS -EC . RI[ - AtMRE3 - 3ECdIG:. , ' rr t. h 31 Exhibit E: Reports from Builder and Structural Engineer Builder Report is as follows: Boulder Custom Homes, LLC April 14, 2009 Licensed General Contractor for City of Boulder, License Number LIC-0008421-09 1, Mark Hartwig, owner, operator, and manager of Boulder Custom Homes, LLC am very familiar with the structure at 1700 Bluff St, Boulder, CO 80304. The current structure contains a number of inherent issues, as outlined below. First and foremost is the building's foundation. The structure was constructed with a slab on grade foundation. Slab on grade foundations are the type that are used for storage sheds. Under current code, even detached single story garages may not be built using a slab on grade foundation. Even in the presence of good soil conditions, slab on grade foundation systems will fail over time. This lot, however, has extremely expansive soils, as noted in Exhibit E, which are harder on foundation systems than any other type of soil. According to the soils engineer, any slab on grade foundation will certainly fail over time on this lot. This is exactly what happened here, as foundation had cracked on the east side of the house, and separated from the bottom plate. This type of system certainly does not meet current building codes, and frankly, I am surprised it complied with building codes of any period. A poured pier foundation is the ONLY type of foundation system that the soils engineer, and structural engineer recommend. The previous homeowner had poured an additional slab over the original slab on grade foundation throughout the kitchen, dining, and bedroom areas, presumably due to the original slab on grade foundation failing. In addition, further inspection of the foundation around the exterior east side of the structure shows cracking between the bottom of the slab and the bottom plate, indicating that the original slab on grade foundation had failed. The second issue with 1700 Bluff is the location, and size of a retaining wall that is located near the lot's west setback. A retaining wall approximately seventy-four foot long by eight foot tall by two feet thick retaining wall which is located on the western side of the lot, and abuts the structure. It is supported laterally by a slab footer which is approximately nine inches thick and extends to the east from the wall approximately six feet. The slab footer is located less than six inches below grade. If the slab footer were to be removed, the retaining wall would become unstable. If one tried to alter the foundation of the existing structure by temporarily lifting the structure up off of the ground in order to provide it with an appropriate support system, like concrete piers, the slab footer would be in the way of both the concrete piers and of the suspended structure. Thus, piers could not be added along the entire west side of the structure. At least 20' of space to the east of the retaining wall would be required to complete the work on it, for the entire length of the retaining wall. There is no easy way to get that 20' while keeping the house intact. Redoing the retaining wall necessitates heavy machinery, and OSHA guidelines require the 20' for the types of machines we need to use. We have no place on the lot to temporarily move the house so we can get the required 20' alley for working space. The only way to maintain structural integrity of the west retaining wall would be to re-engineer the west wall of the home to be a retaining wall, complete with buttresses 32 and concrete walls. However, this would be impossible to do while keeping the structure in place because the current retaining wall is located directly next to the current structure, and impossible to do while it is temporarily lofted because there is not enough space to the east or to the north to move the structure to while the alterations are made. Even helical piles would not work because the retaining wall's six inch slab footer is in their way, (the structural engineer insists that the foundation system of the house, and the foundation system of the retaining wall must remain separated), and the lofted structure would have no place to temporarily go. The only way to build a structurally sound structure on the lot is to demolish the existing structure and start with a new structure that integrates the retaining wall to the exterior west wall, complete with buttressed structural elements. Plain and simply, the current structure is not structurally sound, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to alter its foundation to make it so. The restoration and repair of 1700 Bluff would be prohibitively expensive. As discussed above, there is not enough room on the site to temporarily move the structure away from the retaining wall to address its issues. Therefore, the retaining wall's integration with the structure's foundation would have to be corrected first, without disturbing the structure of the house. The only way to do so would be to first horizontally bore dead men into the mountainside to shore the retaining wall. Next, the slab footer could be removed. However, because the horizontal boring would have to take place inside what was once the carport, the shoring would have to be completed BY HAND. With proper equipment, the cost to do this for a wall that is Bluff's size would be about $200,000.00. By hand, the cost would probably double or triple to somewhere in the ballpark of $400,000.00 to $600,000.00. In addition, we would still need to loft the structure, and swap out foundation systems, costing an additional $100,000.00 Not only is the restoration or repair of 1700 Bluff expensive, it may not be possible as is demonstrated in the previous paragraphs. Third, the condition of the property could best be characterized as old, poor, and substandard "builder grade" house. The property had been severely, and poorly altered by a previous owner. Some of those alterations include: enclosing the front facing carport into living/ storage space, building a new front entry area, changing the location, and size of most of the homes windows, gutting the entire interior of the home (removal of all drywall, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems, and pouring an additional (non structural) slab over the existing slab on grade foundation, presumably because the old slab on grade foundation had failed Also, the existing 5/8" board and batten siding has not been maintained over the years. The plywood itself is starting to delaminate, and needs to be replaced. In addition, it appears that the retaining wall on the west side of the property has been inundated with water due to the drainage from the flat roof (that used to cover the carport). Over time, this water damage probably caused an initial failure of the retaining wall, which required the addition of a second retaining wall attached and laminated to the original, as well as the addition of the slab footer for lateral support. Also, horizontally oriented builder grade brick was paired with vertically oriented 5/8" plywood board and batten siding. The two materials conflict with one another, providing to the perception of muddled intentions. Finally, rectangular builder grade picture windows were used exclusively throughout the original structure. This choice of window style conflicts with the orientation of the roof forms. The builder grade membrane roofing material conflicts with the flatiron backdrop. If an architect, or even 33 an architecturally savvy builder been involved with the construction of 1700 Bluff St, all of these conflicts would have been avoided. To summarize, 1700 Bluff is a property that was designed, engineered, and built improperly from the start. Its foundation system is not adequate for any residential structure, given the highly expansive soil conditions. The retaining wall (and its slab footer) and narrow lot poses severe restraints on the methods that could traditionally be used to correct such foundation issues. As a result, altering the existing foundation in order to save the current structure would be very difficult and costly, if not impossible. Sincerely, Mark Hartwig 34 The following is the foundation recommendations from soils engineering report: III FOUNDATION RKOMMENOATIONS: Type AAA - Drilled Pion, 8 Inch Diameter ppf_f~'~ The structure should be supported on heavily reinforced concrete grade booms and straight shaft piers (calwans) drilled a minimum of 8 feet Into bedrock and at least 14-20 Not deep. (Refer to foundation design for actual required-pier penetration.) The plan mayT» designed for a maximum and area bearing pressure of 15 000 psf, and side area shear ►eaistance of 1,500 psf, for the portion of the pier in firm bedrock. tVw_;i1:oad plus 1/2 live-load may be used forTsizing. In addition, the piers shrould be loaded with a minimum dead-load txessure of 20,000 psf, calculated by dividing the dead-load on the pier by its end area. Provide a 4 inch void -sp=e under grade beomi - seal void prior to backfilling. Reinforce piers with two f6 (or three 05) Grade 60 mbar dowel for their full depth and to top raw of wall rebor. Roughen bottom 5 feet of hole, place concrete in hales Immediately after drilling and cleaning each hole. We should be rolled to inspect the pier drilling. Use crawl and wood floors for all Rnished habitable areas over expansiv* soils. Foundation walls should be reinforced with 04 rebor Cq 24" o.c. each way of all walls and a minimum o two Grade or ra rebor, continuous at the topj 014 bottom - J* ban minimum. Wrap all apeen-gs with two 04 rebar (refer to foundation design for detailed type and spacing). Also, use wet mud sill or ancfnoolts at 3' on center. Ghee and null floor to )olst system, grout boom pockets and solid block all joists above all beams. Hearths, dab-on-grade are not recommended. If hearths are placed in dab areas, reinforce ® 8 - 12' on center each way, top and bottom and support on piers with vertaboard (or equivalent) as are the foundation walls. Separate living afro and hearth slabs from other slabs with two 1/1' expansion joints. Envelope entire structure with 1/1" plywood or 7116• wafer board, glued and nailed around all openings. Ground Water and Drain Syshwn No water was encountered during drilling. Also, stiff clay or bedrock was ormuntered at depth below the surface. The material is relatively Impervious and tends iv trap wafer that could originate from excessive lawn irrigation, inadequate surface slope away from foundation walls, trnow melt and roinfoll . The bockftll should be correctly tamped and well doped away from foundation wal Is. In addition, ground voter conditions ate satisfactory for basement con- struction; however, any basement will extend Into relatively impervious wil, era Is some danger that water will percolate through the overlying soil and backfill and seep into the structure or become trapped upon the relatively Impervious, expansive soil due to precipation, excessive lawn irrigation or poor surface drainage after the structure Is occupied. Also, a drain system is required around ofI habitable space or basement levels below grade. The drain u e graded to the sewer line lateral trench as detailed on drain figure attached. Clean grovel and slatted, flexlplps should be placed in the lateral from the street drain to the house or lead drain to a sump; or, otherwise dayl Its drain. Refer to Appendix and drain figure for details. Slabs - Do not connect more than 2 feet of slab to foundation walls (supported upon haunches) jr rewire a crawl eooce trader all living area space other than gm%w and baseesent state e, and mcommwW wood decks in feu of concrete patios or step systems. If the owner and builder are w Ming to assume t e r sk of possible slab movement, drive and simillor slobs should be placed directly on the undisturbed soils or well compacted fill (no gravel) and should be separated from all bearing members and utility lines. Joints should be scored in reinforced slabs to control the location of any cracking (maximum 100 squa►v foot areas). Score slabs 3' away from and parallel to all foundation walls. Provide a minlmum 4 inch void space above,,, or below, partitions and utilities on dabs (five-float slabs). We recommend 04 Grade 6D rebor rehnforcemerd of minimum 24" o.c. each way for all slabs (top 1 Inch of slabs) to reduce crac king. Use structural slabs (with void) for decorative concrete and large porch founded upon walls arsd piers as are the foundation walls. AAAS-90 ( 2 ) 35 Exhibit F: Equitable Treatment with Neighbors 1. The neighboring Anderson home (now Chanin) at 1710 Sunset was scraped in the past several months. This lot borders both Bluff and Sunset and is directly north of 1700 Bluff. The home was 5 years older than 1700 Bluff and in substantially better condition as it was occupied through most of 2008. It has been the Anderson home for since 1951 (it was built in 1950), the most famous Boulder athlete family. Both Bobby and Dick Anderson were All-American football players at University of Colorado, members of Colorado's Sports Hall of Fame, and pro players with Dick being all-pro and a member of the NFL Hall of Fame. 1710 Sunset Pictures: r i r s ryy~ wr. 1710 Sunset Front Elevation l s 1710 Sunset Front Elevation 2 36 V" 46 1710 Sunset Rear Elevation 2. The next door neighbor's house at 1718 Bluff was scraped to make way for the new home built in 2002. Similarly, the home directly across street at 1701 Bluff had a scrape and new build in 1998. 3. Five of the nine properties in the 1700 block of Bluff are/will be new builds with prior scrapes; 3 since 1980, 1 late 2008 scrape, and our proposal. 4. The staff only provided us with one mid-century modern house that was demolished. That was 3780 23rd $t, a house of much better design and quality and in a neighborhood where such architecture is more prevalent. 3780 23r St 37 The following table shows the 17 hundred block of Bluff year built: North Side 1701 Bluff 1998 2-3 story 1710 Sunset 1950 Scraped in late 2008 1725 Bluff 1981 1 story 1745 Bluff 1959 1 story 3 (including recent scrape) of 4 lots are/will be "new" builds (since 1980) South Side 1700 Bluff Permit for Scrape and New Build 1718 Bluff 2002 2-3 story 1720 Bluff 1953 1 story 1730 Bluff 1951 1 story 1736 Bluff 1925 2 story 2 of 5 lots are/will be "new" builds 5 of 9 total lots in 1700 block of Bluff are/will be "new" builds 38 Exhibit G. Compatibility with Neighborhood Both immediately adjacent homes at 1701 (north) and 1718 (cast) Bluff are almost exactly what we are proposing for 1700 Bluff in size and scale. These 2 story properties average 4000 sq ft (including garages) on +/-13,000 sq ft lot, and a FAR of .30. The other 3 adjacent lots to the west are on High St., which is elevated 10-20' above Bluff and separated by a retaining wall and walking path/stairs connecting the two streets. The homes are on smaller lots (8000 sq ft) but have similar FARs (.30+) except for one home which has a double lot at 22,000 sq ft. Inappropriate scraping and new builds will be effectively controlled by the City's new Compatible Development (formerly "Pops and Scrapes") study and forthcoming ordinance. Our proposed new build plan at 1700 Bluff meets the most restrictive FAR and coverage recommendations and proposals that have been suggested for this ordinance. On our 12,700 sq ft lot GIS measurement our FAR is .32 (.29 excluding loft) and lot coverage is 0.18. The exterior of 1700 Bluff will look like many early 201h century "shingled" homes that line Sunset Blvd and many other parts of the Whittier neighborhood. I 39 The following table shows the statistics of the properties located adjacent to 1700 Bluff: Square Feet Year Property Direction House* Garage Total Lot FAR Built 1632 High St SW 2416 350 2766 8300 .33 1955 1650 High St. W 2516 - 2516 8800 .29 1955 1665 High St. W 3560 550 4110 21500 .19 1956 1718 Bluff St. E 4245 936 5181 13000 .40 2002 New 1701 Bluff St. N 3104 667 3771 14700 .26 1998 New Avg 3168 625 3793 13260 .29 Avg Excl Double Lot 3070 651 3721 11150 .33 New Builds 3675 802 4476 13850 .32 1700 Bluff Proposal 3576 479 4055 12700 .32 Less Loft a) 3176 479 3655 .29 a) 400 sq ft loft is not self enclosed room and as it is under gable eaves. Less than half space has ceiling height of 7.5' or more, although all sq ft of loft was counted. Source: Boulder Assessor Office for comparability. House square feet is finished 40 The following GIS Map shows all adjacent lots to 1700 Bluff St, including contours *TAQ A1-4. t 47 Z- k A1 _r t i -lilt 1700 Bluff and neighbors, including contour lines. 41 .01 k= _ Bluff Street ,~';1\t+~~;.r r.- ; Y -11y ` fit, ti5 Lot L Lot 1 In 1 ll.. i.6.,, • ,1b I", .gray. , ~ ~ y•,. ar!,a-l,'', 1`t•~, _ 5-1 It _ 1 •~.-.~5.► 'ti-.,K X1''•'•'1 ~ ` ~ . ;}r'id'. • r . .1, Y Lot 4 ' , .r • " Vii' . i A c ,~I ~ ~ !I it-` ~ ,..rrr■ Otto, 44 X.r„ r' F. ( v ~ 3~- , 1 ,ay o. SRC Plan 17th Street r.Ail 1700 Bluff Proposed Site Plan (no scale). 42 Exhibit H: Residents and Historical Significance of Residents of 1700 Bluff St 1954 - present Time Frame Resident Historical Significance: 1954- 1955: James Haggart, Marie Haggart none 1957-1961 Fames R DeHaan none 1962 - 1972 Jerry Moseley none 1972 - 1976 Everett Shigeta Worked as Denver's historic preservation architect for many years. Was contacted, but had no comment on 1700 Bluff (see email at end of this exhibit). 1976 - 1982 Jack Kerner none 1982 - 1997 Jill Fulenwider Possibly related to Jack Kerner; no historic significance. 1997- 2007 Bradley Grunewald none 2007- 2008 Alicia Walker none 2008 - present Daniel Hersh none Email to Mark Hartwig from Everett Shigeta, noted architectural preservation specialist: From: EM M Y SHIGETA [evdiX"ffisn.mra] Sent: Wed 3J18rJM 10:13 AM To: markQbcLMwoaWmhoaes.mm ca %kje&. 1700 BW -Bmdder Mark, Judy Blake passed on your inquiry for information on 1700 Bluff. I did live there, but long long ago and that was before I got into historic preservation. I'm sorry but I do not have any historic information on that structure. Thanks, Everett 43 Exhibit I: Mid Century Modern Architecture Background. The following text can be found under Wikipedia's entry for mid century modern. It contains a concise summary of the mid century modern movement. "Mid-Century modern is an architectural, interior and product design form that generally describes mid-20th century developments in modern design, architecture, and urban development from roughly 1933 to 1965. The term was coined in 1983 by Cara Greenberg for the title of her ground-breaking book, _Mid-Century Modern; Furniture of the 1950s_ (Random House), celebrating the style which is now recognized by scholars and museums worldwide as a significant design movement. Mid-century architecture was a further development of Frank Lloyd Wright's principles of organic architecture combined with many elements reflected in the International and Bauhaus movements. Mid-century modernism, however, was much more organic in form and less formal than the International Style. Scandinavian designers and architects were very influential at this time, with a style characterized by simplicity, democratic design and natural shapes. Like many of Wright's designs, Mid-Century architecture was frequently employed in residential structures with the goal of bringing modernism into America's post-war suburbs. This style emphasized creating structures with ample windows and open floor- plans with the intention of opening up interior spaces and bringing the outdoors in. Many Mid-century homes utilized then groundbreaking post and beam architectural design that eliminated bulky support walls in favor of walls seemingly made of glass. Function was as important as form in Mid-Century designs with an emphasis placed specifically on targeting the needs of the average American family. Examples of residential Mid-Century modern architecture are frequently referred to as the California Modern style. Pioneering builder and real estate developer Joseph Eichler was instrumental in bringing Mid-Century Modern architecture to subdivisions in California and select housing developments on the east coast. George Fred Keck, Hena P. Glass and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe created Mid-Century Modern residences in the Chicago area. Mies van der Rohe's Farnsworth House is extremely difficult to heat or cool, while Keck and Glass were pioneers in the incorporation of passive solar features in their houses to compensate for their large glass windows." In 2000, the City of boulder Commissioned a panel of experts in the field of modern architecture to conduct and produce a "2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism." Page 7 of this publication cites the types of modern buildings in Boulder. "Among the styles displayed in Boulder's residences during this time, first and foremost is the Usonian style. Usonian style residences are the single largest category of buildings in this survey. Boulder has more fine Usonian residences than any other style and type of building. Residences in other styles are also seen in Boulder dating from the target period including International Style, Expressionism, Rustic Modernism, Formalism, Brutalism and Late Modernism." 44 Exhibit J: What are Usonian and International Characteristics? According to Wikipedia's entry, "'Usonian' is a term usually referring to a group of approximately fifty middle-income family homes designed by Frank Lloyd Wright beginning in 1936 with the Jacobs House. The "Usonian Homes" were typically small, single-story dwellings without a garage or much storage, L-shaped to fit around a garden terrace on odd (and cheap) lots, and environmentally conscious with native materials, flat roofs and large cantilevered overhangs for passive solar heating and natural cooling, natural lighting with clerestory windows, and radiant-floor heating. A strong visual connection between the interior and exterior spaces is an important characteristic of all Usonian homes. The word carport was coined by Wright to describe an overhang for a vehicle to park under." Wikipedia describes International as the following:" The International style was a major architectural style of the 1920s and 1930s. The term usually refers to the buildings and architects of the formative decades of Modernism, before World War II. The term had its origin from the name of a book by Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson written to record the International Exhibition of Modern Architecture held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City in 1932 which identified, categorized and expanded upon characteristics common to Modernism across the world. As a result, the focus was more on the stylistic aspects of Modernism. Hitchcock's and Johnson's aims were to define a style of the time, which would encapsulate this modern architecture. They identified three different principles: the expression of volume rather than mass, balance rather than preconceived symmetry and the expulsion of applied ornament. All the works which were displayed as part of the exhibition were carefully selected, as only works which strictly followed the set of rules were displayed. Previous uses of the term in the same context can be attributed to Walter Gropius in Internationale Architektur, and Ludwig Hilberseimer in Internationale neue Baukunst.U The Arapahoe Acres Historic District has determined that the following characteristics define usonian architecture: " Form, Mass & Composition- Both International and Usonian Styles are architectures of volume, reflecting cubist conceptions of volume, displaying multiple blocks of varying form and scale massed within a single building. Axial symmetry is abandoned for asymmetrical composition. Both styles are horizontally oriented. Roof Forms- flat roofs predominate. International Style includes butterfly roofs; Usonian includes low pitch. Walls are eaveless or formed by extended roofs cantilevered over walls beneath. In International, cantilevers dramatize a building's horizontality. In Usonian, it also provides shelter and climate control. Windows- Glass is used as wall continuations in other materials, or where large expanses of floor to ceiling glass or dormer windows appear, form the wall itself. Ribbon-window bands emphasize horizontality as decorative functions with narrow vertical or small square windows. Size, scale and form is often determined in response to 45 site, orientation of building, or on the need for privacy, views, light, warmth or heat. Both incorporate functional sunscreens serving as decorative elements. In Usonian Style, windows are often transformed into simple geometric compositions by the use of mullions. Materials- In the International, buildings are most often designed in highly finished industrial materials like concrete, aluminum and glass. Where more natural construction materials are utilized, they are painted, stuccoed or finished to an industrial appearance. International Style buildings are most often monochromatic, frequently white. With Usonian, natural materials like glass, wood, stone, brick and concrete block are favored and often juxtapositioned dramatically. Overall horizontality of buildings is emphasized by raked, horizontal masonry joints and the use of horizontal iapboard. Usonian buildings display broad palette of earth tone colors. Brick and natural stone are exposed and wood and concrete block are painted in matching or complimentary earth tones. Both styles use same materials on building exterior that reappear inside as interior finishes, extending outward, sometimes forming defining elements of surrounding landscape. Ornament- International has no ornaments save joining of materials and forms. In Usonian, Materials form key decorations, simple, geometric ornament of rectangles, squares. Triangles also appear. Battered walls, canted eaves and balconies, angle-cut exposed beams provide dynamic, decorative contrast to overwhelming horizontality of the buildings. In both, because ornament is inherent in the materials and manner in which they are joined, the quality of design, materials, and craftsmanship is important. 46 Exhibit K: Could 1700 Bluff St be Considered a Significant Example of Usonian or International Style? The following summary shall reference the characteristics of usonian architecture defined in Exhibit J and discuss whether or not 1700 Bluff is consistent with these characteristics: 1) The "Usonian Homes" were typically small, single-story dwellings without a garage or much storage. a. 1700 Bluff is small, and single story, but the area that was once a carport has been converted to living space/ storage space. b. Therefore, 1700 Bluff only partially qualifies under this criteria. 2) L-shaped to fit around a garden terrace on odd (and cheap) lots, and environmentally conscious with native materials a. 1700 Buff is not L shaped, has no garden terrace, and does not use environmentally conscious or native materials (it is sided with brick as well as plywood with board and batten. b. Therefore, 1700 Bluff does not qualify under this criteria. 3) [F]lat roofs and large cantilevered overhangs for passive solar heating and natural cooling, natural lighting with clerestory windows, and radiant-floor heating a. Only one of] 700 Bluff's roof lines is flat. The other roof lines are pitched shed roofs. This leads to a lack of consistency, integrity, and flow of roof design. It does not possess many large cantilevered overhangs, and thus no passive solar heating or natural cooling. It does have a single small (two foot) cantilevered overhang on the south that extends for about ten feet (about one fourth of the south elevation). b. 1700 Bluff has no clerestory windows and no radiant heat system. c. Therefore, 1700 Bluff does not quay under this criteria. 4) A strong visual connection between the interior and exterior spaces is an important characteristic of all Usonian homes. a. 1700 Bluff never had a visual connection between the interior and exterior spaces. The home was never built with the building site in mind. 1700 Bluff could just as easily be transplanted to any lot in Boulder without any loss or gain from the interior exterior relationship. b. In addition, the home has been gutted under a previous building permit, and thus the interior/ exterior relationship has been completely destroyed c. Therefore, 1700 Bluff does not qualify under this criteria. 5) Both International and Usonian Styles are architectures of volume, reflecting cubist conceptions of volume, displaying multiple blocks of varying form and scale massed within a single building. Axial symmetry is abandoned for asymmetrical composition. Both styles are horizontally oriented. a. 1700 Bluff is horizontally oriented b. 1700 Bluff does not display multiple blocks of varying form and scale c. Therefore, 1700 Bluff'partly qualifies under this criteria 6) [F]lat roofs predominate. International Style includes butterfly roofs; Usonian includes low pitch. Walls are eaveless or formed by extended roofs cantilevered over 47 walls beneath. In International, cantilevers dramatize a building's horizontality. In Usonian, it also provides shelter and climate control. a. 1700 Bluff does have low pitch shed roof lines b. 1700 Bluff has approximately 1 ' eaves, which neither qualify it as eaveless or extended roof cantilevered over walls beneath. c. 1700 Bluff has no butterfly roofs d. 1700 Bluff has no cantilevered roof lines e. Therefore, 1700 Bluff does not qualify under this criteria 7) Glass is used as wall continuations in other materials, or where large expanses of floor to ceiling glass or dormer windows appear, form the wall itself. Ribbon-window bands emphasize horizontality as decorative functions with narrow vertical or small square windows. Size, scale and form is often determined in response to site, orientation of building, or on the need for privacy, views, light, warmth or heat. Both incorporate functional sunscreens serving as decorative elements. In Usonian Style, windows are often transformed into simple geometric compositions by the use of mullions. a. 1700 Bluff does have large south facing windows that are NOT original to home. b. 1700 Bluff has no ribbon bands. c. With the exception of the south window mentioned above, the size, scale, and form of the windows did not take into consideration the site, orientation of the building. d. No geometric compositions or use of mullions e. Therefore, 1700 Bluff does not qualify under these criteria. 8) In the International [style], buildings are most often designed in highly finished industrial materials like concrete, aluminum and glass. Where more natural construction materials are utilized, they are painted, stuccoed or finished to an industrial appearance. International Style buildings are most often monochromatic, frequently white. With Usonian, natural materials like glass, wood, stone, brick and concrete block are favored and often juxtapositioned dramatically. Overall horizontality of buildings is emphasized by raked, horizontal masonry joints and the use of horizontal lapboard. Usonian buildings display broad palette of earth tone colors. Brick and natural stone are exposed and wood and concrete block are painted in matching or complimentary earth tones. Both styles use same materials on building exterior that reappear inside as interior finishes, extending outward, sometimes forming defining elements of surrounding landscape. a. 1700 Bluff uses no concrete or aluminum b. No stucco was used on 1700 Bluff. c. 1700 Bluff is neither monochromatic, nor white. d Wood and stone are used, however they are not juxtaposed dramatically. e. Horizontality of building is not emphasized by the building materials. i. The structure is horizontally oriented only in it being a single story ranch, ii. The use of board and batten siding emphasizes the vertical more than the horizontal. f. Brick and paint colors are not complimentary, but are earth tones. g. Builder grade mortar joints were used These joints are not raked h. Different materials used inside and out. i. The interior materials do not relate or translate to the exterior materials. j. Therefore, 1700 Bluff does not qualify under these criteria. 48 9) International has no ornaments save joining of materials and forms. In Usonian, Materials form key decorations, simple, geometric ornament of rectangles, squares. Triangles also appear. Battered walls, canted eaves and balconies, angle-cut exposed beams provide dynamic, decorative contrast to overwhelming horizontality of the buildings. In both, because ornament is inherent in the materials and manner in which they are joined, the quality of design, materials, and craftsmanship is important. a. 1700 Bluff lacks ornament as most builder grade homes do; not as an intention to accentuate the International Style. b. Materials do not form key decorations, or simple geometric ornament c. No battered walls, no canted eaves, no balconies, no angle cut exposed beams. The preceding paragraphs have outlined the characteristics that define the usonian and international styles of modern architecture, according to Wikipedia, and the "The Arapahoe Acres Historic District". The preceding paragraphs have also shown which of these characteristics 1700 Bluff possesses. 1700 Bluff clearly does not possess nearly enough of these characteristics to be considered usonian or international style. The following structures, however, are considered significant examples of the international style by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism, and the Denver Modernism Tour. Please note the sharp contrast of these structures to 1700 Bluff: r v . ? ~y . rte. I MII:ENP%WM 4OT$i 1 1 The Clarion/ Regal Harvest House (now Millennium Hotel) 1345 28'x' St, Boulder, CO 49 i 1 s , ti • y•ktr ~ i ,rr.`~; rte rI y jr~ ti~i'G. Jf 6NF .f 4..,} ~Y ~ I~•' 11.1 d~ l'~~+ra fy~Jj ~ ~r• ~1 re ...61' - 'T JAL ~•f rSt. ~1.. slow P. Carl Worthington House 2026 Balsam, Boulder, CO _ _ • J gat _ - { 4101 E. Ellsworth, Denver, CO 50 r r' O ms's=::^;, ~.l':.,•'•,~"r,'fif'ix LI 0. 1 ►:.~,'1 233 S. Birch, Denver, CO The following are considered significant examples of the usonian style by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism, and the Denver Modernism Tour. Please note the distinct contrast to 1700 Bluff St: I Ir Hazel Barnes Hoeise 896 17`x' Si. , Boulder, CO 51 40. --tea a; _rf?~ - 1 N, 4P3 Red Arrow Apartments 2960 Broadway, Boulder, CO t.Ss~-•, f 1 Sampson House 1900 King St, Boulder, CO 52 1 a C. r y i ~ Knudsen House 420 Christmas Tree Dr, Boulder, CO f n7 { _!j psi 7°r(f'k'6 I~ IA 1~ :1:'3 nyw t.. t Carl Worthington House 955 Linden Dr, Boulder, CO 53 ~V n /1- IL r 1~` a II , n . r r - ti ' -T ~ ~ r - wr ~ ° ~ -•u L~~ it-~,~ 40 S. Bellaire, Denver, CO 54 Exhibit L: What are Expressionist Characteristics, and Could 1700 Bluff be Considered a Significant example of Expressionist Architecture? The following paragraphs shall cite the characteristics that expert sources ascribe to expressionist architecture. They will also include an evaluation of 1700 Bluff St (in italics) to determine which, if any, of these characteristics 1700 Bluff is consistent with. Wikipedia ascribes the following characteristics to expressionist architecture: "Expressionist architecture was individualistic and in many ways eschewed aesthetic dogma,' but it is still useful to develop some criteria which defines it. Though containing a great variety and differentiation, many points can be found as recurring in works of Expressionist architecture, and are evident in some degree in each of its works. 1) Distortion of form for an emotional effect. a. 1700 Bluff does not distort forms for an emotional effect. 2) Subordination of realism to symbolic or stylistic expression of inner experience. a. 1700 Bluff does not subordinate realism. 3) An underlying effort at achieving the new, original, and visionary. a. 1700 Bluff's design is neither new, original, or visionary 4) Profusion of works on paper, and models, with discovery and representations of concepts more important than pragmatic finished products. a. 1700 Bluff St is first, foremost, and entirely designed as a living quarters; not as a representation of anything. 5) Often hybrid solutions, irreducible to a single concept. a. Again, no concept is behind 1700 Bluff. 6) Themes of natural romantic phenomena, such as caves, mountains, lightning, crystal and rock formations. 10 As such it is more mineral and elemental than florid and oceanic which characterized its close contemporary art nouveau. a. The only portion of] 700 Bluff that uses natural, romantic phenomena is its roof lines, which do have a slight relation to mountains 7) Utilizes creative potential of artisan craftsmanship. a. No use of artisan craftsmanship was used for 1700 Bluff. 8) Tendency more towards the o~ than the classical. Expressionist architecture also tends more towards the romanesque and the rococo than the classical. a. 1700 Bluff is neither gothic, nor classical, nor romanesque, nor rococo. 9) Though a movement in Europe, expressionism is as eastern as western. It draws as much from Moorish, Islamic, Egyptian, and Indian art and architecture as from Roman or .Greek. a. 1700 Bluffdoes not draw from any eastern ideas, ideals, or values. 10) Conception of architecture as a work of art. a. 1700 Bluff is certainly not a work of art. It is a builder grade home. The Mid-Century Modern House in Denver, by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso ascribe the following defining characteristics to expressionist architecture: 55 1) Sculptural forms a. 1700 Bluff uses no sculptural forms 2) Dramatic site planning a. 1700 B1uffSt uses generic site planning as discussed above. It could be moved to nearly any other lot in Boulder without gaining or losing any qualities pertaining to site planning. 3) Irregularly shaped windows a. 1700 Bluff contains normally shaped windows, particularly because most of the windows in the home were replaced by the previous owner in 2008. 4) Nontraditional structural elements a. 1700 Bluff contains no nontraditional structural elements. Its walls and roofs are built with dimensional lumber, and support for these elements is also dimensional lumber 5) Experimental materials a. Again, 1700 Bluff'uses no experimental materials. Dimensional lumber is used throughout. 6) Cast-in-place concrete a. No cast-in-place concrete was used on the structure of 1700 Bluff. 7) Same materials used inside & out a. 1700 Bluff uses different materials inside and out. Even the fireplace is skim coated; not brick as outside. b. There were a number of places where the designer/ builder could have created a synergy of materials from outside to inside, but he/she chose not to. 8) Organic or geometric plans a. 1700 Bluff's plan is certainly not organic. It is only slightly geometric as it is basically 2 rectangles (as is nearly every builder grade home in the country). 9) Cantilevers a. 1700 Bluff uses no cantilevering 10) Unconventional roofs & roofs as continuations of walls a. 1700 Bluff does possess unconventional roof lines, but none of the roof lines are continuations of walls. 1700 Bluff only contains one of the ten characteristics that are common throughout expressionist architecture as defined by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso. Therefore, 1700 Bluff could not be considered a significant example of expressionist architecture. The following properties, however, are considered significant examples of expressionist architecture by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism, and the Denver Modernism Tour. Please note the distinct contrast to 1700 Bluff St: 56 'FIB , 1` 11 1111 . i.. pjo'Wpft Amm- 4101 Shangri La Dr. Denver, CO , W-,6 mot, ' £f' r~~r*L~ J 8 19 6St Boulder, CO 57 y¢~ 4 Py. !~'>t`' 'rt3 ,ray: L, A . 7i A~F' 7.;r~~~ , Y ,.tip i , t ~I +p• `1 2 _ ; f •'1l't ,j 1t ~ ti 3752 Wonderland Hill Ave, Boulder, CO 2~ J%f 2401-2403 Broadway, Boulder, CO 711 Willowbrook Lane, Boulder, CO: 4•,;A try, ~1 l .46 •r~ ~f. 'tai a ~3j` r J"~ r•~'~, ~ ' T f r ;rte t 5 550 College Ave, Boulder, CO 58 Exhibit M: What Characteristics describe Rustic Modernism, Formalism, Brutalism, and Late Modernism, and Could 1700 Bluff be Considered a Significant example of any of these styles? The following paragraphs shall cite the characteristics that expert sources ascribe to Rustic Modernism, Formalism, Brutalism, and Late Modernism architecture. They will also include an evaluation if 1700 Bluff St (in italics) to determine which, if any, of these characteristics 1700 Bluff is consistent with. The Mid-Century Modern House in Denver, by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso ascribe the following defining characteristics to Rustic Modernism architecture: 1) Use of horizontal & vertical elements a. 1700 Bluff uses only horizontal elements 2) Over-scaled proportions a. 1700 Bluff certainly does not have over scaled proportions 3) Horizontal ribbon & vertical slit windows a. 1700 Bluff has no vertical slit windows. b. 1700 Bluff now has horizontal ribbon windows, but they were installed in 2008. Previously, and originally, the windows were not ribbon. 4) Skylight & clerestory windows a. 1700 Bluff has no clearstory windows, and one skylight that was installed in 2008 5) Traditional materials of brick, stone, & shingles a. 1700 Bluff uses only one of these three materials: a builder grade brick veneer only on the exterior, which does not translate or relate to the interior spaces. b. Membrane is used instead of shingles, and no stone is used. 6) Integration of indoors & outdoors a. 1700 Bluff lacks an integration of the indoors and outdoors. b. There were many areas where integration would have been easy to achieve. However, the builder/ designer decided to leave such integration points out of'his/ her design. 7) No ornamentation Deep eaves a. 1700 Bluff does lack ornamentation, as do most builder grade homes, but also lacks eaves. 8) Prominent shed, gable, and hip roof forms a. 1700 Bluff does use shed roofforms, but not exclusively. Because most roof lines are shed, and one is, flat, the overall roof design feels inconsistent, and lacks synergy, and consistency. b. It also uses flat roofs, and uses no gables, or hips. Based on the criteria discussed above, the roof forms from 1700 Bluff may qualify as this style of architecture. However, the remaining structure clearly does not. Still, 1700 Bluff comes the closest to this style of architecture, as the pictures below confirm. However, most rustic modernism buildings were built in the late 1960's to early 1970's, whereas 1700 Bluff was built in 1954. 59 The following properties, however, are considered significant examples of rustic modernism architecture by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism: 4k A AL Wit. I Damman House, 460 College Ave, Boulder, CO s^ 7 `L .7 1466 805 Circle Dr, Boulder, CO 1300 04 1300 Canyon Blvd, Boulder, CO 60 The Mid-Century Modern House in Denver, by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso ascribe the following defining characteristics to Formalism architecture: 1) Vertical orientation a. 1700 Bluff clearly has a horizontal orientation 2) Expressed corners a. 1700 Bluff does not have particularly expressed corners, especially when compared to the examples and pictures below 3) Recessed windows a. 1700 Bluff has only one recessed window 4) Concrete or metal screen walls a. 1700 Bluff has no concrete or metal screen walls 5) Simplified arrangement of building forms a. 1 don't know what this means 6) Vertical piers a. 1700 Bluff has no vertical piers 7) No eaves a. 1700 Bluff has some eaves, but some wall/roof lines without eaves. This leads to inconsistency of design 8) Flat roofs a. 1700 Bluff has one flat roof, and the rest are shed roofs. Again, this leads to inconsistency of design 1700 Bluff does not significantly demonstrate any of the characteristics that are common throughout formalism architecture as defined by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso. Therefore, 1700 Bluff could not be considered a significant example of formalism architecture. The following properties, however, are considered significant examples of formalism architecture by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism, and the Denver Modernism Tour. Please note the distinct contrast to 1700 Bluff St: l 1909 26" st, Boulder, CO 61 mWW f ~ - 4500 E 6ch St, Denver, CO r_ N' q - 2111 Arapahoe Ave, Boulder, CO 62 The Mid-Century Modern House in Denver, by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso ascribe the following defining characteristics to Brutalism architecture: 1) Vertical orientation a. 1700 Bluff is horizontally oriented 2) Over-scaled proportions a. 1700 Bluff has no over-scaled proportions 3) Vertical, recessed windows of tinted glass a. 1700 Bluff's windows are oriented slightly horizontal, and certainly not vertical 4) Complex formal arrangement of building volumes a. 1700 Bluff certainly lacks formal arrangements of building volumes 5) Cast in place concrete or aggregate a. 1700 Bluff uses no cast concrete or agregate 6) Metals, including Cor-Ten steel a. 1700 Bluff uses no metals 7) Thick vertical piers a. 1700 Bluff has no vertical piers 8) No eaves a. 1700 Bluff has some eaves, but some wall/roof lines without eaves. This leads to inconsistency of design 9) Flat roofs a. 1700 Bluff has one flat roof, and the rest are shed roofs. Again, this leads to inconsistency of design. 1700 Bluff does not significantly demonstrate any of the characteristics that are common throughout brutalism architecture as defined by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso. Therefore, 1700 Bluff could not be considered a significant example of brutalism architecture. The following properties, however, are considered significant examples of brutalism architecture by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism, and the Denver Modernism Tour. Please note the distinct contrast to 1700 Bluff St: r~yt NCAR, 1850 Table Mesa Dr, Boulder, CO 63 i III I k ` orl' 4900 E 61" Ave, Denver, CO The Mid-Century Modern House in Denver, by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso ascribe the following defining characteristics to Late Modernism architecture: 1) Horizontal orientation a. 1700 Bluff is horizontally oriented only in that it is a single story ranch b. The vertically oriented board and batten siding expresses the vertical. 2) Ribbon windows & belt courses a. 1700 Bluff has no belt courses b. 1700 Bluff does have two sets of ribbon windows that were installed in 2008. Previously, and originally, the windows were picture windows. 3) Hooded or recessed windows a. 1700 Bluff has no hooded windows and only one incidental recessed window. 4) Large areas without glazing a. 1700 Bluff has no large areas without glazing. 5) Industrial materials a. 1700 Bluff uses no industrial materials. 6) Sculptural expression of building volumes a. 1700 Bluff uses no sculptural expression of building volumes. 7) No ornamentation a. 1700 Bluff has little ornamentation, but it does have an ornamental front door, and exterior cladding. 8) Decorative use of functional elements 64 a. 1700 Bluff does not exhibit decorative use offunctional elements. 9) Flat and shed roof forms a. 1700 Bluff does use flat and shed roof forms. While 1700 Bluff does demonstrate some of the characteristics that are common throughout late modernism architecture as defined by Michael Paglia & Diane Wray Tomasso, it does not demonstrate the key characteristics. AdditionaHy,1700 Bluff was built in 1954, whereas most late modernist structures were built in the 1970's. Therefore, 1700 Bluff could not be considered a significant example of late modernism architecture. The following properties, however, are considered significant examples of late modernism architecture by the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism, and the Denver Modernism Tour. Please note the distinct contrast to 1700 Bluff St: Pik= AL ~~Z t~ Y1►Iw1. 22214"' St, Boulder, CO 65 1 _-mar-r--- 3033 Iris Ave, Boulder, CO r f.• - 's N~"' 1 : ,J x ky~ h, Ah S-A. R~ _ ,~o a J t4 'v'i'e:. s J a~ 1~Y _ ~ i ,r~.,°•..~,-- - 4 ' ittl _ .c - E 10 Dalia, Denver, CO 66 Exhibit N: Contrasting 1700 Bluff St to 819 6th St. The Following table contrasts the elements of 819 6`h St, one of the only mid century modern homes within Boulder to be designated an individual landmark after an application for demolition was submitted. Quality/ Applicable to Applicable to Characteristic 819 6th St 1700 Bluff Designed by Yes, the eminent Hobart Wagener, NO. No architect designed architect? noted Boulder modernist architect, 1700 Bluff with over 90 residences. Orientation of House oriented obliquely on lot to House oriented parallel to lot house on lot maximize flatiron views, and lines. No thought or effort to interaction with surrounding maximize flatiron views or mountains and hills interaction with surroundin s Alterations to Yes, built in 1954 and expanded 5 No. Home has been altered home in synergy years later, both by Hobart Wagener. significantly, most of which with original Expansion added to synergy, integrity, does not add to what little design? and character of structure character it ever had Style? Expressionist: strong sculptural forms, No distinct style. Gestures of non-traditional structural elements, Usonian and Rustic. complicated and interesting swooping Muddled combination of butterfly and planar shed roof forms, shed and flat roof forms, no exposed skeletal structural systems, clearstory windows, no ribbon windows, stacked Norman distinctive horizontal or brick walls, use of same materials vertical character, no inside and out integrity of design, use of builder grade materials, different materials used inside and outside Development of Associated with the development of Associated with NO the community the local Modernist architectural movements; neither unique movement; unique and remarkable nor remarkable. It is a example of early expressionist design builder grade home, with slightly interesting roof lines Recognition by Recommended as being eligible for Authorities listing in the state and national registers in the 2000 Survey of Boulder Modernism; Designed by NONE Hobart Wagoner; significant for the special engineering features required to solve the structural requirements of the roof; identified as a contributing resource to the proposed Flatirons Park historic district 67 Relationship to Its surrounding neighborhood is an Located in a neighborhood the character of eclectic mix of architectural where traditional, and the neighborhood expression, much of which is Victorian homes are located. modernistic in inspiration; as Exhibit Exhibit C shows no C shows, it is located in a clustered residences (one school) in neighborhood, with many noted mid neighborhood that are mid century modernist homes surrounding century modernistic. it Condition of Boulder staff appraised the structure to Extensive foundation issues, structure appear to be in good condition inherent to original incorrect structurally, and to retain a very high design; not result of neglect. degree of historic integrity, Retaining wall issues. Roof drains into retaining wall. See Exhibit E for further elaboration Associations Designed by Hobart Wagener, noted Everett Shigeta, preservation with historically Boulder modernist architect, residents architect in Denver, resided relevant persons include Mahinder Uberoi, who was here for four years, from or events tenured faculty member, employed at 1972 to 1976 CU from 1963 - 2000 Recognized Expressionism- exemplifies many No distinct style. Roof has Period/ Style expressionist characteristics: strong usonian, and rustic gestures. sculptural forms, non-traditional Muddled characteristics structural elements, complicated and overall. interesting, , ribbon windows, stacked, use of same materials inside and out Builder None None Prominence Example of Yes, Entire integrated structure is Some slightly uncommon Uncommon uncommon: use of swooping butterfly roof lines, but the rest of the and planar shed roof forms, exposed structure is common skeletal structural systems, and Norman brick walls are representative of a significant innovation Initial quality of High. Designed and built well from Poor. Little to no thought construction the first. As noted, it remained in was given to the foundation good shape overall at 2008 staff design, and drainage plan evaluation Indigenous Yes, it uses building materials that No, other than minor Qualities compliment its synergy with the agreement between roof lines environment and flatirons, structure does not exhibit synergy with its environment Site Flatirons views Flatirons views Characteristics Compatibility Very Compatible- structure integrates The landscaping (particularly 68