[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: 466 Marine St. - Historic Preservation Demolition Review

[Cameron, Marcy]

Dear Council,

In response to Councilmember Carlisle's email, we offer the following information.

The historic preservation program reviews all demolition permit applications for buildings over 50 years old that are not in a historic district or individually landmarked. The purpose of the review is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have architectural or historic significance. The Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC), composed of two Landmarks Board members and one staff member, reviews demolition applications for primary buildings constructed before 1940.

On April 18, the LDRC reviewed the demolition application for the house at 466 Marine St., a non-designated building over 50 years old. The building was originally constructed in 1903 and was remodeled in 1998. The LDRC carefully considered the application and based its decision to grant the application on the following factors:

  *   Significant alterations to the building occurred in 1998. These non-historic alterations include the removal of the original hipped roof and construction of a second-story gable-roof addition. At that time, the west window opening on the front was converted to a door and the window was moved to the original door location. See attached PDF.
  *   The LDRC considered that the 1998 second story addition significantly altered the historic character of the building from a small one-story hipped roof box house to a 1 ½ story gable roof house to the extent that it no longer possesses historic architectural integrity.
  *   The past residents, including an electrician and employee of DOW Chemicals, were not determined to be individuals of historic significance on a local, state or national level.
  *   The property is located in the Identified Potential Expanded Highland Lawn Historic District. The LDRC found that while the house is compatible with the character of the neighborhood, the building has lost its historic and architectural integrity because the 1998 changes do not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
  *   In Boulder, the General Design Guidelines<https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/section-t-general-design-guidelines-for-historic-districts-and-individual-landmarks-1-201305201317.pdf?_ga=2.109222405.1615949257.1524493568-744879977.1493139928>, which are based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are used to provide guidance for changes to historic properties and ensure the historic and architectural integrity of our local landmarks is preserved. While the Design Guidelines do not apply to non-designated buildings like 466 Marine St., they demonstrate that the changes made in 1998 undermined the historic and architectural integrity of the property.
     *   4.1.1 Construct new additions so that there is the least possible loss of historic fabric and so that the character-defining features of the historic building are not destroyed, damaged, or obscured. The one-story hip roof form of the house was a major historic character-defining feature of the house and was replaced with a gable roofed second-story.
     *   4.1.2 New additions should be constructed so that they may be removed in the future without damaging the historic structure. The historic roof has been removed. Restoring this feature would be a major undertaking and likely require structural work to the house.
     *   4.2.1 Distinguish an addition from the historic structure, but maintain visual continuity between the two. The second story addition has popped the top of this house and is not visually distinguished from the lower level.
     *   4.2.2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Instead, interpret historic elements in simpler ways in the addition. The second-story addition changes the style of the house from a hipped box to Edwardian Vernacular, creating a false sense of history.
     *   4.3.3 Adding a partial or full story to the historic portion of a historic building is rarely appropriate. The one-story hip roof form of the house was a major historic character defining feature of the house and was replaced with a gable roofed second-story.
     *   3.8.1 Whenever possible, retain and preserve all original doors and door openings... Replacement of intact historic doors on primary elevations is rarely appropriate. The west window opening on the facade has been converted to a door and the window was moved to the original door location.


Each demolition permit application is carefully considered by the historic preservation program. We use our professional judgement and rely on our volunteer board members to assess each case, considering all available information to ensure our decisions are well-founded. While the house is compatible with the neighborhood, it clearly does not possess adequate historic or architectural integrity to consider the building potentially eligible for local landmark designation. As such, the permit allowing the full demolition of the house was appropriately granted by the LDRC.

Attached you will find a PDF showing the changes to the building.

If you have additional questions, please give me a call or send an email.

Marcy

Marcy Cameron
Historic Preservation Planner II
Customer Service - Respect - Integrity - Collaboration - Innovation
[Planning,%20Housing%2]<https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation>
(303) 441-3209
cameronm at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:cameronm at bouldercolorado.gov>

Comprehensive Planning
1739 Broadway, P.O. Box 791 | Boulder, CO 80306
BoulderHistoricPreservation.net<https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation>

From: Carlisle, Cynthia <CarlisleC at bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:29 PM
To: Council <council at bouldercolorado.gov>; HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>; Brautigam, Jane <BrautigamJ at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] historic preservation or historic demolition in Boulder?

Councilmembers and City Manager,
It has been mentioned to me that a recent Design Review Committee of the Landmarks Board-three people, THREE- decided to issue a demolition permit for 466 Marine Street.  Apparently the property was just sold to "a developer" who outbid several families at $1.7 million and wanted to add "an addition."  Then came a staff person recommending demolition to the two board members on the DRC and it's a done deal-no review by the whole board, no call up by council, no nothing.  I walked by this property this morning, looked in the windows, saw its beautiful backyard and wondered if its conversion to another kind of green wasn't at the root of this.   This is anecdotal but comes from reliable sources.  First, I would appreciate a full response from the Landmarks staff so that we may know what happened and why?  What was decided, by how many people, and why?  Secondly, I wonder if a moratorium on buildings over 50 years old is appropriate while we find out what the situation is, particularly since I've heard this demolition is one of many.
It disturbs me that while I should be studying budgetary and transportation issues, my attention gets pulled back into the city's apparent lack of oversight of important preservation processes.
Thank you for your attention and a photo will follow separately,
Cindy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180424/bf9ef460/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6525 bytes
Desc: image002.png
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180424/bf9ef460/attachment.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Alterations_466 Marine St..pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 760225 bytes
Desc: Alterations_466 Marine St..pdf
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180424/bf9ef460/attachment.pdf