5A - Handout - Public hearing and consideration of wheterh to initiate the designation of 1936 Maple: Chris Meschuk - 1936 Nlapleton Page 1~
__ .
~V f3~-i C. 1~-~ CRC)
5~
From: Theresa D Hernandez >
To: <hewatjC~?bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 3/7/2007 8:57:50 AM
Subject: 1936 Mapleton
Dear Mr. Hewat,
I send this comment on the proposed demolition of 1936 Mapleton that
will come before the board tonight. Since I may not be able to
attend the meeting, here are my comments.
I am adamantly opposed to the demolition of this historic house.
There is no reason to demolish it since it can be restored (see the
house next door to it on the west side AND the house catty-corner to
it on the northeast corner of Mapleton and 20th). If the owner
states that the costs of restoration are prohibitive, then he/she
should not have bought an old, historic home.
The brick in which the house is constructed is very similar to that
of our house, which we have been told is from Love Hill which used to
house a brick-making "factory". There are other homes in this
neighborhood with similarly historic brick. Both the brick and the
"butter" mortar used in the early 7900's between each brick are a
part of our neighborhood. The home is likely from the early 7900's
which is also an important aspect of our neighborhood's historic feel.
The corner of 20th and Mapleton is virtually intact in terms of
original homes with only the house on the south east corner being
new. The corner should remain as intact as it currently is in
keeping with the surrounding area, many historic homes, many of Love
Hill brick and many lovingly restored. One can see what happens when
an historic home is demolished by looking 2 houses west of 1936
Mapleton: a modern structure placed in the middle of historic and
older homes, seriously out of place and incongruent with the
neighborhood.
An individual should not be able to demolish an older, historic home
after they buy it because the costs are prohibitive, since the owner
should have known that at purchase. And if he/she didn't realize the
expense, then that is the risk of doing business and the neighborhood
should not have to pay for their poor business judgement.
Theresa Hernandez
2303 Mapleton Avenue
' Chris Meschuk - landmark designation 1936 Mapleton _Page 1 I
From: Robert C Pasnau <
To: <hewatj~bouldercolorado.gov>
Date: 3/5/2007 4:11:35 PM
Subject: landmark designation, 1936 Mapleton
Dear Mr. Hewat,
I understand that the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board will soon be
considering landmark designation for the house at 1936 Mapleton.
I myself live at 1837 Mapleton, and have watched over the years as the
character of my neighborhood has steadily changed. It has not all been
bad -- there have been some real eyesores that have been replaced by
beautiful new homes. But of course it is vitally impoRant to the
character of the W hittier neighborhood that it preserve something of its
historical feel. This is an issue throughout Boulder, I realize, but it
seems to me that Whittier is a part of town where these considerations
are especially important, given the age of the neighborhood and its
proximity to downtown. Moreover, the house at 1936 Mapleton is on a
highly visible corner, and so makes an important contribution to the
feel of the neighborhood.
I am mindful that the members of your committee are doubtless far better
equipped to decide these matters than I am. But I hope that your
committee will seriously consider whether this is a case where it is
appropriate to intervene.
Yours,
Robert Pasnau
ph.# 303-938-8803
1936 MAPLETON AVENUE
ESTIMATE OF ADDITIONAL COSTS
The Collaborative cost estimate
Mid-range
Less costs to be incurred in any case
with new construction:
Excavation
Foundation
Construction of shell
Structural engineering
Demolition
Add difficulty premium for
mechanical trades - estimated at
15 - 20% for plumbing, electrical, heating,
stair design, and windows
Net additional cost to renovate
$196, 000
-3,000
*
-40,000
-3,000
-20,000
3~,000 **
$165,000
*We have an estimate for a new foundation for $25,000, the
same amount shown for the replacment foundation. Therefore, we
believe the replacement foundation number shown is low.
**There currently is no interior stairway,and no heat ducting.
Main plumbing line does not work. Windows would have to be
custom-made for each opening.
~~~~L ~.~~
~~
:he COLLABORATIVE inc 2080 Pearl St, Boulder, co soaoz 303.442.3601
ATLRIAL5
D\SliRI'ATIO\
~
~.
.CSliL':~SS
"
.
s•.
~-
ts~~u~tx-
RI?SPJiI'A'PIUV
- `;k~.•
~~`- •~.
<
+' ~
~. ~
a
i .-anPo
_ ,~,
---~~
~^:/
Ol'Rlti>i~~ ~~
~': _~.' ~'~
~ ,
~~:~~
c»•r•.t_s
- ~,; ; ~,L~R-~J,"r,
713 :4=. ~i:~
u~ exvti.~•r
cn.nivc.s ,
( ~~~~~Lt P11
!~s1~~~
will:t~flRl`NI~'i~~
~i~~'~Q"
~ _ ~,~ "f
I ~
~ T .
M31'C~1 1~ 2~7
Hickman Construction, Inc.
2090 Pead Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Re; 1936 Mapleton
Dear John,
T c~?~U~ ~/~GOlLO
collabora[V@rchi.net
As per yow request, the Collaborative, inc. has examined the above subject building [o assess
the existing condition, possible remedial treatments to stabilize the structure, and the cost of the
construction associated with the remedial treatments, costs of engineering design, and owner
costs.
Our condition assessment of the subject property included direct observation and laser
measurements. The building's strengths are in its fairly irregulaz shape in plan view, lots of short
walis; early pressed brick> in good condition; and the use of softer lime mortar that has
accommodated to its limits the radical movements. The building's weaknesses are a very poor
foundation, noue or very little tie between the wythes, nonexistent and/or weak ties between
building elements: stone foundation, brick walls, wood walls, wood floors, and wood roofs. The
building's weaknesses have largely overcome its strengths. The current situation is a building
with such substantial loss of structural integrity as to make it unsuitable for its originally
intended use; a residence. My detailed summation follows this letter.
Should you have an 'ons, please feel free to contact me anydme at 303.4423601.
Re ards,
Jo n D. Feinberg, Pri cipal
th Collabora6ve, i c.
enclosure
1936 MAPLETON STREET
The building's structural problems are so extreme as to render them obvious to even the casual
observer:
Significant cracks in perpendicular to exterior walls indicative of outward rotation of
exterior walls.
2. Gaps in the baseboard comer joints, and baseboard [o floor joints up to 1.25 inches in
width, indicative of the exterior walls moving outward at the base.
3. Inclined floor slopes on the order of five inches overall, and as sharp as one inch in
twelve inches.
4. The exterior masonry walls are out of plumb and are bowed out of plane in ail directions.
5. The foundations are rolled outward at their top edge and are not level.
6. In part due to much of this movement, various joints have opened in the building
allowing for the passage of water to interior elements, causing deterioration, paRicularly
of wood struc[ural members of the upper floors.
APPROACH FOR REMEDIAL TREATMENTS
The following remedial treatments have been assessed for compliance with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, minimizing danger to constmction forces, and optimizing
effectiveness as a structural solution. These treatments have not been evaluated as to cost nor
effec[ on project feasibility. A cost estimate for each treatment does follow.
The overall treatment is to install a new foundation unde~ the building, to lift the building in
order to install the foundation, and to strengthen the masonry and s[ructure prior to the lift and
undertake comprehensive repairs to the masonry after the reset of the building on the new
foundation.
DESCRIPTION OF EACH TASK IN THE REMEDIAL TREATMENT AND THE
ANTICIPATED COSTS
A. STRUCTURAL STRENGTHENING PRIOR TO THE LIFC.
In ics current condition the building would not hold together for a normal lift. The building must
be stitched together using: interior walers at[ached by through bolts to exterior walers, ties
between the wythes with helifix screws, both cross cabling and cross bracing, attachment of
exterior walls to floor diaphragms of first and second floors, and miscellaneous
other bracing and connectors.
ESTIMATED COST RANGE: $28,000-20,000
B. LIFC AND RESET
It is anticipated that the building will be lifted straigh[ up as even after its structural
strengthening, moving it some place else on the site would represent too great a risk.
SUBCONTRACTOR PROPOSED COST: $50,000
C. EXCAVAT[ON
The excavation for the foundation will most likely include a comprehensive removal of soil
under the structure in order to install the foundation: footings, stem wall, and pads. As soils test
results are as yet unavailable, the assumptions of soil bearing strengths and shrink/swell
characteristics may change with consequently a need for a more expensive caisson and grade
beam installation. However, such change is unlikely to be of consequence in excavation costs. It
is assumed that the excavation will take place with the building suspended above the excavator's
head. Great care must be taken to stay clear of the cribbing piles.
ESTIMATED COST RANGE:$12,000-10,000
D. NEW FOUNDATION
IVew concrete foundation with spread footings, stem walls, block-outs for steel (for lift)
removal, in-fill of block-outs after steel removal, pads for center beam under bearing wall
support, and stone veneer for portion of stone wall exposed above grade.
ESTIMATED COST RANGE: $28,000-25,000
E. RESEf BUILDING ON NEW FOUNDATION
By building mover and included in overall price under"B" above, "Lift and
Reset".
F. STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO EXTERIOR MASONRY
Comprehensive repairs of the exterior masonry, to include: reconstruction of setHed corners and
areas under windows, recons[ruction of fallen jack arches, careful removal and reinstallation of
outer wythe on wes[ wall, tweaking of the out of plumb walls back into position, i~stallation of
ties between wythes and installation of connectors to floor structures. ADDITIONAL
STRUCTURAL RElI~IFORCEMENT MUST BE EXPECI'ED BECAUSE OF THE L1FT AND
DUE TO CURRENTLY HIDDEN CONDITIONS.
ESTIMA'I`ED COST RANGE: $42,000-35,000
After the above work has been completed, the site will be fairly well torn up, the interior plaster
will likely be mostly cracked with a comprehensive loss of keys, and various portions of the
floors will have been removed in order to install the connections between the floors and exterior
walls prior to the lift.
SiJNII~IARY OF DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ITEM UPPER END OF RANGE LOWER END OF RANGE
A. $28,000 $20,000
B. $50,000 $50,000
C. $12,000 $10,000
D. $28,000 $25,000
E. -0- -0-
F. $42,000 $35,000
SUBTOTAL $160,000 $140,000
CONTINGENCY $16,000 $14,000
SUPERVISION $15,840 $13,860
CONTRAC'I'OR P&O $19,100 $16,786
CONSTRUC'I'ION TOTAL $210,940 $184,646
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE CONSTRUCCION COSTS THERE WILL BE OWNER'S
COSTS FOR THE SOLIS REPORT AND PERMIT, AND A/E DESIGN COSTS OF
APPROXIMATELY $16,000.
The general conditions costs have been included in the line item costs on a pro-rated basis. No
costs have beeo set foRh for any hazardous material mitigation attendant with the above work or
with re-inhabiting the building.
I am willing to further explain the basis for the above cost projections as you may require. I
wish to gratefully acknowledge the collaboration of Dave Woodham of Atkinson-Nolan in the
condition assessment and cost estimation for your project. His letter, as well as the floor levels
evaluation, should be found as accompaniments to this letter report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our professional expertise for this structure.
~.ikinson-MOIOnCI & AsSOCI~125. InC
C.onsuliing Erxyneers
2519 SpruCe Sheet
6ould2r, COlOrodo 80302
(303) d4d-3620 • fAX (303~ 444-3239
nnp hwv~rw.ano-usa.com
Merch 5, ?A07
Mr. ]ohn Hickman
Hickman ConsWCbon, Inc.
2090 Pearl Street
BoWder, CO &1302
Dear Mr. Hiclanan:
~
~~
I have had an oppordmity to review ihe letter issuod by Mr. John Feinbwg of the
Collabo~ative, inc. dated March l, 20(Yl ~egarding the structure at 1936 Mapieton St in
Boulder, Cobredo.
t visited the struclure on March 1, 2007 an observed the sanw deficiencies ou[lined in
]otm's ~ettev I agee th~ the costs to mpair or stnbilize tluse deficiencies, as outlined in
Mr. Feinberg's lemer, aie reasonabk estirmtes of t6e expeases you wodd "mar sfauld
you decide to reuse the structure and bring just tlie building rnvebpe into geceral
wmplisnce witli the 2003 Inumetional Building Code.
Please call me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
~:/P~ u.~-~-
David B. Woodham, P.E.
' ~ ~ ~
' `:1 ~ y ~' y.~'~y ~l~
~ ~
~ ~,
~ tii
4- 4 i ~ ~`~Lyti y~%y ~
`1/' `v ~ ~3 i
a, ~ ~ 1~ I~M, 3
- , ~
4z y z 3.y 42y,, y-~~i~ f`i ~ 4
t ~ y3 ~
~,v /GLGS~~ ~~~ .~j ~y 1~1
~ 4 1 ~43'~
-~3~ ~3 ~3'~y ,-~ ~ 3 yL,,v _y
,
yz 2 / ~ ~ -~
' -."._ -~
43~ y3 y~ `+~ ~4~~i 41%~ f." - 40 } .y~%L
~ --~ 4 ~ ;. `~~ ~y `(1 ~ ~
~~ 4 ~'~y \
: yZ.. `~~~
~ ~ j `1 i v
yo%
Iz.rt ~ 2, ,~ i~ ~ o~~ t.
. ~~/ `i L~ ~4~ 4~ \ g ,
~
y o ,.
LJ ~ y o ~/~
3 ~
`i ~ ~y
4°~ y°~y y~3- ~'~ 4o'z
~ y ~ ''g u~
ya
~~
_ ~a~cN- ~\
_. __ _.. _,.. ~ ~ ' ~~ .
y E y 9
- - - ~v --
~ti
~ 9 3G t~M~TaN ~vE,
/~,` I' D` ~
i ~~ ~~ ~
_y~ ~{L% / 413,~ f yo3y ~.,.
: ~ t
~
43 ~ ~ ~~ ~~
' 9~- 41'~ ~
~ -1~M; ~ r .~ y-% ~~
, 43 l ~ ~ `~40
+ -~t i ~to 3°I3.y
. y~y ' ~ ~
L
/4z ~ ~ V
4~~' 9~~- `1o'~y `~0yv
3
y°jy 40
i
,y~ yb3y _ ~3~%
~
IzM, ~
~ ~i/ . y°3'y
~ ~~
.
39 'i ~ yo''
~~ up
( 3 y'~~
~
~
~ -~t~~- ` ~~~ `r
i~ ~
'~ (.~ ~.~.~r
~ ~
~ ,
~
~`~
1~ ~~-'
~(~~~,.vt 3 : z ~ ~,~ ~$'
~ ~ ' Y` ~ ',
f 'Ck7~1~1. ~. • ~ ~'~' ( ~ ~ ~
.~
,
Pd~~, ,
~,
,
~= ~ - - _ _.~,. _. ~ ~
~sc" ~..~/p~'~'c ~---~1 s 9~~ ` t~4a ,
~,&~~ c~ l~t-oc,v -A~, P~~ ~ !
~'~' ~~~~t.-~ q~ ~' i l~. ~u~~
i
~