Item 5A - 970 Aurora AveM E M O R A N D U M
February 3, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Angela Smelker, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate
application for changes to the south face of the landmarked St. Gertrude’s
Academy including the construction of six balconies and modifying
windows to door openings, per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised
Code (HIS2015-00313).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 970 Aurora Ave.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner: Academy Equities, LLC
4. Applicant: Jonas DiCaprio, Design Platform
5. Site Area: 104,867 sq. ft.
6. Building Area: 41,670 sq. ft. (approx.)
7. Date of Construction: 1892
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board denies the request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate to remove eight
original windows, convert six original window openings to door openings and install six
balconies on the south elevation of the landmarked Mt. St. Gertrude Academy as shown on plans
dated 12/2/2015, finding that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopts the staff
memorandum dated February 3, 2016 as findings of the board.
Agenda Item #5A Page 1
\\boulder.local\share\PLAN\Long Range Planning\HIST\ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Aurora.970\Balcony Review 2016\02.03.2016 - 970 Aurora
Ave..docx
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed modifications of
an individually landmarked buildings will be inconsistent with Section 9-11-18, Boulder
Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981, and the General Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY
• Mount St. Gertrude Academy was built in 1892, with historic additions constructed
in 1914 and 1921. The 1892 building and the 1921 additions were gutted by a fire in
1980, and the building was later renovated to become a senior housing community.
The building was individually landmarked in 1984 and listed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1994.
• In November of 2015, the applicant submitted a completed Landmark Alteration
Certificate application to modify the fenestration and install balconies on the south
elevation of the building at 970 Aurora Ave.
• Due to the extent of alteration proposed to the individually landmarked building,
the application was referred to the full Board for review on Nov. 18, 2015. Staff finds
the proposed alteration to the original windows and window openings on the south
elevation of the individually landmarked Mt. St. Gertrude Academy building to be
inconsistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate, Section 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines.
• Staff recommends that the Landmark Board deny the application and suggests the
applicant to modify the design to retain the historic windows and window openings
and explore the possibility of placing balconies on a less-visible elevation of the
building.
PROPERTY HISTORY & DESCRIPTION
Mount Saint Gertrude Academy was the first major private educational institution to
locate in Boulder, the fourth school to be built in the community, and the first major
building to be erected on University Hill.1 The historic school building is located on the
northern half of Block 27 bordered by Lincoln Place on the west, 10th Street on the east, and
Aurora Avenue on the north and currently part of a larger campus that houses “The
Academy”, a senior housing community that encompasses the entire block.
1 City of Boulder. Historic Building Inventory Form, 1987.
Agenda Item #5A Page 2
Figure 1. Location Map of 970 Aurora Ave., 2015.
Figure 2. Mt. St. Gertrude Academy shortly after completion.
Agenda Item #5A Page 3
Construction began on the Romanesque-Revival building in 1892 after being
commissioned by four Catholic Sisters of the Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, based
in Dubuque, Iowa. Designed by Denver-based architects Alexander Cazin (the 1892
building) with1921 wing additions and chapel designed by George H. Williamson, the
building has a U-shape layout facing north. The four-story building features a
rusticated stone ground level and red brick on the upper floors with the historic
entrance located at the north elevation s dominated by a large two-story stone archway,
typical of the Romanesque Revival. Following a near catastrophic fire in 1980, many of
the windows and doors were replaced. However, most of two-over-two windows on
the south elevation were spared, apparently because the fire had less of an impact on
this side of the building. Window openings on the 1892 portion of the building feature
low-arch Italianate openings while windows on the 1921 wings are square. All feature
rough-cut sandstone sills.
Sisters Mary Theodore, Thecla, Faustina, and Luminia moved to Boulder in 1890 at the
invitation of Bishop Matz of Denver. Initially, the sisters rented the Mallon house at
14th and Walnut Streets as their convent, then moved to Martha Decker's house at 13th
Street and Mapleton Ave. to be closer to the Sacred Heart Church.
In 1892, the sisters opened the “Academy”, a grand schoolhouse, at what is today 970
Aurora Avenue. At first, Mt. St. Gertrude Academy accepted boys and girls, Catholics
and non-Catholics. Within a few years, however, the enrollment was so large that the
sisters limited enrollment to only girls. Sister Mary Luminia, the principal, advertised
the Academy as a place for, "girls who desire health as well as primary education," and
those suffering from or exposed to tuberculosis to the dry, sunny climate of Boulder.
Agenda Item #5A Page 4
Figure 3. Mt. St. Gertrude Academy students and teaches, 1890s
The Academy offered elementary, secondary, and music education and in 1914, Mt. St.
Gertrude Academy began offering boarding. Boarding proved to be popular, so within
a short time the fourth story of the building was enlarged to better accommodate the
boarders. This remodel involved the removal of the gables which were replaced with
less ornate brick construction. During this period, a brick bungalow known as “Loyola”
was constructed nearby on 10th St. as a rest home for the sisters. In the late 1910s, Sister
Oswald and some “enthusiastic Boulder citizens” raised funds to further expand the
building, this time with two wings and a chapel. The project, costing $90,000, was
completed in 1921. 2
Figure 4. St. Gertrude Academy after construction of wings, 1921.
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy’s success continued as it expanded its educational offerings
and increased its involvement in community activities. However, by the 1960s the
school faltered as a shortage of funds prevented the sisters from maintaining and
repairing the buildings, so that by1969 the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
were forced sell Mt. St. Gertrude to the University of Colorado for $150,000.3 The
University used the building to house the Division of Continuing Education and the
Bureau of Conferences and Real Estate.
2 970 Aurora Ave. Landmark Designation Memorandum dated February 22, 1984.
3 970 Aurora Ave. Landmark Designation Memorandum, 5.
Agenda Item #5A Page 5
In 1980, the building caught fire, which badly damaged the original 1892 building, its
bell tower, and the two 1921 wing additions. The chapel, fortunately, was undamaged.
Following the fire, the building lay vacant until 1994 when it was listed on the National
Register for Historic Places and using historic preservation tax credits, the property was
redeveloped for use as an assisted living facility for the elderly, aptly called “The
Academy”. The redevelopment included the construction of a number of free-standing
buildings and rear additions to the school and chapel.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes to convert six original window openings to door openings and
install metal balconies onto the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stories on the south side of the historic
1892 building. Adjacent to the Academy’s current main entrance, the south elevation of
the historic building faces a parking lot and the current entrance and is has significant
visibility from 10th Street.
Figure 5. View of south elevation from 10th St., Mt. St. Gertrude Academy, 970 Aurora Ave., 2016.
Agenda Item #5A Page 6
Figure 6. Northern section of proposed site plan. Blue outline marks location of south elevation of
building for proposed balconies, 2015.
Figure 7. Existing south elevation as seen from parking lot, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 7
Figure 8. Existing south elevation. Dashed lines indicate outline of proposed balconies, black hatched
boxes indicate extent of proposed masonry demolition.
The proposed enlargement of the window openings would require the removal of six
stone sills and the brick below each opening. Eight windows (all that appear to be
historic, if not original) are proposed for removal. The width of the openings and the
arched lintels are not proposed to change. Information on the structural impact on the
arched opening below each new door opening has not been provided. Figure 7 shows
the extent of proposed masonry demolition.
Figure 9. Left: Typical window and opening proposed to be removed/enlarged; Right: Three windows
proposed for removal; window opening to be enlarged for installation of sliding glass door.
Agenda Item #5A Page 8
Six window openings on this elevation are shown to be enlarged vertically to
accommodate aluminum clad in-swing door 3 ft. in width to fit the opening of the
window. Plans note that the existing 3 ft. width and head height will remain; the
sandstone sill and brick below each window is to be removed.
Figure 10. Proposed plan for balcony on the 3rd floor, 2015.
The proposed balcony on the west unit of the second floor (Unit A102) is shown to be
fitted with a sliding glass door rather than a single door. Unlike the other balconies
where one window will be retrofitted for a door, plans for this unit show the removal of
three windows to be replaced with an aluminum clad sliding door to fit the width of the
existing opening (See Figure 8).
Figure 11. Proposed plan for balcony for Unit A102 on the 1st floor, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 9
Figure 12. Proposed south elevation with expanded openings and balconies.
Agenda Item #5A Page 10
Figure 13 & 14. Left: Existing and rendering of proposed south elevation from 10th St.;
The balconies are shown to measure 13 ft. wide by 6 ft. long, with 3’6” railings.
Proposed materials include steel frames with wood decking. Clevis connections, cables
attaching the outer corners of the balconies to the masonry, are shown to secure the
projecting balconies.
Figure 15. Rendering of proposed south elevation as seen from parking lot.
Agenda Item #5A Page 11
Figure 16. Existing balcony on the west elevation of the historic building is partially visible
behind the Chapel from Lincoln Place.
An existing steel frame balcony similar in design and composition to the proposed
balconies can be found on the 3rd floor of the west elevation, measuring 3’6” in height.
The balcony is located approximately 120 ft. from the west property line, and is
partially visually obscured by the Chapel. Other steel elements are visible on the
historic chapel, including the non-historic stair and railing.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must
apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark
and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used on existing and proposed constructions are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic
Agenda Item #5A Page 12
district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks
Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of
energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the
exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district?
The building was constructed in 1892 and individually landmarked in 1984. While
extensively modified following a near catastrophic fire in 1980, the building is a well-
preserved and intact example of the scholastic Romanesque Revival. Defining
characteristics of the building include the arched entrance, projecting square bays, and
use of rusticated stone. The building is arguable the most visually prominent building
in the University Hill neighborhood.
Staff considers the highly visible south elevation to be secondary as defined in the
General Design Guidelines. Because of its high visibility and the fact that the repetitive
rhythm of same sized openings is a historic character-defining feature of the building,
staff considers the proposed alterations to the south face (including the removal of eight
historic windows and enlarging six original window openings) does not preserve,
enhance or restore the exterior features of the historic property and that such changes
will damage and destroy the character of the existing building. The proposed alteration
is inconsistent with the treatment of individually landmarked buildings in the General
Design Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff finds that the proposed alterations to the building, including removal of historic
windows and alteration of original window openings would adversely affect the special
character and historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest and value of the property as it
is significantly inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines in terms of treatment of
historic buildings (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials
used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the existing landmark
Agenda Item #5A Page 13
and its site?
Staff finds that the proposed alterations and resulting loss of historic material to be
incompatible with the character of the landmarked site.
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within a historic district and the proposed new
construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of the Land Use
Code (B.R.C. 1981) paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3) of this section?
Not applicable.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate and the
board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The
following is an analysis of the submitted proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. It
is important to emphasize that design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to
appropriate design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable design
guidelines:
General Design Guidelines
3.0 Alterations
3.2 Roof Decks and Balconies
Roof decks are deck areas above the first floor that are contained completely or partially in a roof
mass. Balconies are railed or balustrade platforms that project from the building. Second story
roof decks or balconies are characteristic of only a few architectural styles found in Boulder.
They may be compatible additions, however, if located on the rear and if they are integrated into
the primary structure. Second story roof decks or balconies are not appropriate for free-standing
accessory buildings and garages. Any decks or balconies above the second story are
inappropriate unless based on historic precedent.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Locate roof decks or
balconies on the rear, not on
the front, of the building.
Front roof decks or
Proposed balconies will be located
on the rear of the building,
however, due to the prominent
visibility of this elevation from the
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 14
balconies are appropriate
only if recreating a
documented historic
element.
east, and its proximity to the
current primary entrance to the
building, staff considers the south
portion to be a Secondary
elevation. Balconies are not a
documented historic feature or the
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy.
.2 Integrate the roof deck or
balcony into the structure
either by setting it into the
building or by
incorporating it into the
roof structure.
Balconies are not integrated into
the structure or roof.
No
.3 Avoid cantilevered
projections from the
building, and use
appropriately scaled
brackets or supports.
Proposed balconies are
cantilevered. Clevis connection
(cable) is shown to support the
balcony.
No
.4 While current code
requirements must be met,
new railings should be as
close as possible to historic
heights. In addition,
sensitive design may give
the appearance of the lower
railing heights found on
historic structures.
Plans show proposed balconies
railings to be 3’6” tall. Proposed
cantilevered steel frame balcony
design is not based on a historic
precedent.
Maybe
3.7 Windows, Storm Windows, and Shutters
Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the
most important character-defining elements of a historic building and should be preserved.
Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can seriously detract
from its architectural character. The relative importance of a window depends on three factors:
the location of the window on the building, the historic significance of the window, and its
condition. Windows on elevations visible from public ways, particularly the façade, are
especially important. A window that has a high level of historic significance, regardless of its
location, may also be very important to the historic integrity of the building. The replacement of
Agenda Item #5A Page 15
historic windows or components, including glass, should be considered only as a last resort.
Protection of Historic Windows
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1
Retain and preserve existing
historic windows, including their
functional and decorative features,
such as frames, glass, sashes,
muntins, sills, heads, moldings,
surrounds and hardware. Because
windows near the façade are
particularly critical to the character
of historic buildings, their
protection may supersede the
protection of historic windows
elsewhere. In some cases, it may be
appropriate to use window elements
from rear or side elevations to
repair those on the front.
Proposal requires the
removal of eight historic
windows on a Secondary
elevation. The proposal also
calls for the alteration of six
original window openings,
including removal of the
existing sandstone sills and
the masonry beneath each
opening.
No
.2 Preserve original window locations;
do not move windows from their
historic placement.
While doors are proposed
be placed in original
window locations in terms
of width, masonry removal
beneath the window will be
required to create an
opening tall enough for a
door.
No
Window Replacement
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.6 The location of the window(s)
proposed for retrofit or replacement
is important in assessing their
significance to a historic building.
In general, the more important the
elevation where the window is
located, the less likely that retrofit
or replacement will be appropriate.
Due to the prominent
visibility of this elevation
from the east, staff
considers the south portion
to be a Secondary elevation.
As such, replacement of
intact historic windows on
secondary elevations is
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 16
Elevations will be categorized as
primary, secondary or tertiary,
using the methodology set out in
the Window & Door Replacement
Application and Survey.
• Replacement of intact historic
windows on primary elevations
is rarely appropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic
windows on secondary
elevations is generally
inappropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic
windows on tertiary elevations
can occur provided it does not
compromise the historic
integrity of the building.
(See “Definitions”)
inappropriate.
Secondary Elevation:
Typically a side of a building
that has less public
visibility, and may have fewer
significant character defining
features than on the façade. An
elevation that has visibility
from an alley may be
considered a secondary
elevation.
.7 The historic significance of the
windows proposed for replacement
must also be assessed. In general,
the more significant a window is to
the building as a whole, the less
likely that a retrofit or replacement
will be appropriate. The
appropriateness of a window
replacement will be determined, in
part, based upon characterization of
the window as either ‘Very
Historically Important’,
‘Historically Important’, or ‘Non-
Historic’ (See Definitions).
Staff considers the windows
on the south elevation to be
Historically Important, as
they are have “retained
integrity from the period of
significance and [are] an
integral part of the historic
design or is essential to the
understanding of the
architectural type or style.”
Staff considers the original
window openings with
stone sills and arched lintels
to be Historically
Important.
No
.10 If, through the Window & Door
Application & Survey, it is
determined the window may be
Proposal is to make
window openings larger to
accommodate doors.
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 17
replaced (Class III & IV), the
window opening itself should be
carefully preserved. It should not be
made larger or smaller to
accommodate a differently sized
window.
.11 If, through the Window & Door
Application & Survey, it is
determined the window may be
replaced (Class III & IV), the same
material as was the original is most
appropriate; however, other
materials may be considered if the
operation, dimension, profile,
durability, and finish are the same.
Synthetic materials are generally
inappropriate. Synthetic materials
rarely duplicate the surface texture,
reflective and detail qualities of
original materials.
Aluminum clad doors are
proposed to replace the
existing windows.
No
3.8 Doors and Storm Doors
Front doors and primary entrances are among the most important elements of historic
buildings. The original size and proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door
surround, and the placement of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance. Property
Owners may wish to replace their historic doors to improve energy efficiency. Research
indicates that, in most cases, however, the energy efficiency of an old door can be increased to
that of a new replacement door by weather-stripping and the application of an interior or
exterior storm door system. However, if a property owner wishes to request a landmark
alteration certificate to replace doors on a contributing or individually landmarked building, the
steps as outlined in the historic Window and Door Replacement/ Retrofit Application
Guidelines must be followed.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.7 If, through a Window &
Door Application Survey
replacement is found to be
appropriate, the
Not applicable; introduction of
new doors.
N/A
Agenda Item #5A Page 18
replacement door should
match the original as closely
as possible. If
documentation of the
original door is not
available, then the
appearance of the
replacement door should be
based on original doors on
similar historic structures.
.10 Doors in additions and new
structures should reflect the
proportions (height and
width) of doors in the
existing structure and/or
the district.
Doors are shown to be single-light
aluminum clad door. West unit on
first floor proposed to introduce a
sliding glass door. Single-light
doors have historic proportions;
sliding glass door is a modern
feature.
Maybe
.11 Doors should be trimmed
with materials similar in
scale, proportion, finish,
and character to those used
traditionally.
Original width and arched lintel
proposed to be preserved.
Treatment of proposed door sill
not detailing in application
materials.
Maybe
FINDINGS
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy at 970 Aurora Ave. was constructed in 1892, with historic
additions completed in 1914 and 1921. The property was designated as an individual
landmark in 1984 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1994.
The alterations are proposed on the south elevation (rear) of the 1892 portion of the
building. The south face is highly visible from 10th Street and retains its architectural
integrity, and as such, staff considers the south elevation to be a secondary elevation.
Proposed changes, including the removal of eight historic windows and loss of the
stone sills and original masonry, are substantially inconsistent with the historic
preservation ordinance, Chapter 9-11 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 and Section 3 of
the General Design Guidelines.
Agenda Item #5A Page 19
Staff considers issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the proposed alteration
to the individually landmarked building to be inconsistent with Section 9-11-18, B.R.C.
and the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Photographs
B: Photographs
C: Plans and Elevations
Agenda Item #5A Page 20
Attachment A: Historic Photographs
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy, north elevation, c. 1892-1910.
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy, north elevation, 1921.
Agenda Item #5A Page 21
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy, south elevation, c. 1940s.
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy, south elevation, c. 1950s.
Agenda Item #5A Page 22
Mt. St. Gertrude Academy, north elevation, 1992.
Mt. St. Gertrude, north elevation, 2002.
Agenda Item #5A Page 23
Attachment B: Current Photographs
South elevation of Mt. St. Gertrude from 10th Street, 2016
Agenda Item #5A Page 24
South Elevation of Mt. St. Gertrude from Parking Lot, 2016
Agenda Item #5A Page 25
South Elevation, Mt. St. Gertrude, summer 2015
South Elevation, Mt. St. Gertrude, Fall 2015
Agenda Item #5A Page 26
Historically Important Windows, south elevation St. Gertrude Academy 2016
Agenda Item #5A Page 27
Attachment C: Plans and Elevations
Proposed Site Plan, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 28
Proposed Site Plan, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 29
Proposed Modifications, South Elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 30
Proposed Modifications, South Elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 31
Proposed Modifications, South Elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 32
Agenda Item #5A Page 33
Proposed Modifications, South Elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 34