HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment A Residents opposing development of Mapleton Place 1-4-2006
ATTACHMENT A
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
of the City of Boulder, Colorado
1777 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Boulder, CO 80302
In Re Application of:
Mapleton Place LLC, Concerning a Landmark
Alteration Certificate for the Contributing Howe
Mortuary Building in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District
Joseph N. de Raismes Decision of the Landmarks
CAPLAN AND EARNEST LLC Preservation Advisory Board
1800 Broadway, Suite 200 dated January 4, 2006
Boulder, CO 80302-5289
Phone Number: (303) 443-8010 Callup Deadline: January 18,
Fax Number: (303) 440-3967 2006
CALLUP REQUEST OF MAPLETON AREA RESIDENTS:
Concerned Citizens Group
Jane Boas 1550 High Street
Brad Farkas 1019 Spruce Street
Scott Gwodz 928 Pine Street
David Hose 900 Pearl Street
Roger Koenig 909 Mapleton Avenue
Matt Mcconnell 1111 Pearl Street
Carla Morrison 2013 10th Street
Nancy Pierce 909 Mapleton Avenue
Gordon Reinert 1401 Pearl Street
Catherine Schweiger 628 Maxwell Avenue
Dave Watts 928 Pine Street
The above-named individuals (hereinafter, "Concerned Citizens Group") are all longtime
residents of the Mapleton Hill area. At their own expense, they have banded together to
oppose the development referred to as "Mapleton Place" which dramatically expands the
historic Howe Mortuary Building at Eleventh and Spruce Streets and erects two large
freestanding homes to the north of it. The residents feel strongly that the scale of
/a-
Mapleton Place, as proposed, overwhelms the neighborhood and is inappropriate for the
historic district. Notwithstanding this opposition, on January 4, 2006, the Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board (hereinafter, "Landmarks Board") gave "conditional
approval" to the requested certificate on a vote of 4-1 (Salance dissenting).
The Howe Mortuary Building is a single-story "Contributing Structure" located in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District at the comer of Eleventh and Spruce Streets, having a
street level footprint of 4,500 square feet. This means that the proposed addition of (i)
an extra story built atop the Contributing Structure; (ii) a three-story extension added to
the north side of the structure (raising the gross square footage of the structure to
approximately 16,000 square feet); and (iii) the erection of two large free-standing houses
to the north of the Contributing Structure; must be reviewed by the Landmarks Board and
the City Council (by callup) to determine "whether or not the proposed work would have
a significant impact upon or be potentially detrimental to a landmark site or historic
district." § 10-13-14, BRC 1981.
Though the Landmarks Board and its Staff have acknowledged that Mapleton Place is
largest development in the history of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, inexplicably, the
Landmarks Board never visited the site (two members did) and never requested that the
developer provide a model of the development prior to giving its approval. A model
finally was requested by the Design Review Committee on Wednesday, January 11.
Furthermore, the staff and Landmarks Board have persistently ignored the fact that the
application was incomplete. it omitted several critical pieces of information, such as the
plans for the second floor, third floor and roof. Based on the application, it is impossible
to calculate how much of the residential unit is to be built above the historic mortuary
building, or to calculate the actual mass of the project (indeed the documentation never
even referenced in any way the roof deck to be constructed on the top of the Contributing
Structure). Thus, the Concerned Citizens Group has had to estimate the gross square
footage proposed.
Though much of the discussion about this project had to do with its square footage, mass,
and scale, the audio transcript of the hearing reveals tremendous confusion on this topic.
This confusion was exacerbated by the fact that the only document provided in the board
package containing square footage references was a single hand drawn site plan for the
ground level only. The site plan lacked the detail to calculate square footages, leaving
the board to rely solely on the developer's own listing of the square footage of each of the
individual units which comprise the development. Each board member had to figure out
which unit or units were located in which buildings and sum them up manually. The few
square footage measurements which were provided were also confusing, as there was no
explanation of what they measured, whether they were interior measurements or exterior
measurements, what floors they included, and whether they accounted for basement
/3
space, patio space, roof deck space, porch space or enclosed garages (nine garage bays
are depicted on the ground floor plan). Naturally, the developer skewed these numbers to
support approval, as he quoted innumerable measurements and compared them
throughout the hearing to other square footage measurements without regard to whether
they represented a footprint, a carport, or a 35 foot tall monolithic structure, or whether
they included or excluded garage, basement or other space. Since no volume
measurements were taken or requested, this contributed to the distortion of the facts
which ultimately led to the project's approval. Indeed the developer convinced the board
that the building was only being expanded by 650 square feet, which is manifestly
inaccurate, counting garages, basements, etc. in the existing measurement and not in the
proposed.
The Landmark Board staff liaison readily admits that the board has never established a
baseline definition of "Square Footage" for use in its discussions. Sometimes, it means
gross square feet, other times net square feet, other times footprint. Sometimes it
includes basement space, garage space, etc., other times not. The staff even misuses
terms such as "Floor Area" which is a defined term in the Boulder Revised Code (BRC)
and well understood in the industry. Despite repeated specific objections, staff allowed
no fewer than twelve publications (including all three hearing notices mailed to local
residents) which grossly mischaracterized the scale of the ENTIRE development as
having a "combined floor area of 7000 square feet." Thus, the developer's site plan and
the Landmarks Board staff characterization conflicted with and masked the fact that the
Howe Mortuary Building alone was to be expanded into a SINGLE structure enclosing
roughly 16,000 gross square feet. Somehow, in the midst of all this confusion, the
Landmarks Board conditionally approved the project. However, it is still unclear exactly
what was approved, since the Design Review Committee is charged with making the final
decision. It was a messy process, to say the least.
Although the board articulated 15 issues to be discussed at subsequent Design Review
Committee meetings, and staff liaison James Hewitt (in an e-mail dated January 9, 2006)
agreed that, "steps should be taken to address SCALE through simplification of volumes
and fenestration," (emphasis in original), the Concerned Citizens Group has been
informed that the callup period runs from the date of conditional approval. This requires
that the City Council call up this approval now, by January 18, or lose jurisdiction over
this matter.
If the Council votes to call up the matter, it will be able to hold a single hearing in which
all of the dangling issues can be resolved, and the public will be able to react to the staff
memorandum (which was not easily obtainable prior to the last hearing), the Design
Review Committee deliberations, the model, and the many missing diagrams from the
developer's application.
In approving the developer's application under the standard set forth in § 10-13-14, BRC
1981 ("whether or not the proposed work would have a significant impact upon or be
potentially detrimental to a landmark site or historic district.") the Landmarks Board
approved what is (aside from Mapleton School) the most massive structure in the
Mapleton Historic District, just one house away from the oldest home in Boulder. The
Concerned Citizens Group emphatically disagrees with this decision which they feel was
based upon misinformation, insufficient evaluation, and a misinterpretation of the
relevant criteria, standards and guidelines. They respectfully request that the City
Council call up the Landmark Alteration Certificate to review this split decision. The
staff memorandum is attached as Exhibit A so that the City Council can note the
shallowness of the analysis and contrast it with this detailed critique of the Landmarks
Board's decision. The remainder of this document will articulate the grounds for this
request.
1. The Work Violates Standard 9 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation
The most general set of historical preservation standards are those developed by
the Secretary of the Interior. Of these, Standard 9 is the most relevant, providing
that: "The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment." Here, this standard is violated by a
three-story addition to a single-story historic structure, with the third story perched
upon the roof of the historic structure and non-historic decks extending towards
the front of the historic structure. The size of the two new houses to be built to the
north is also problematic, especially the condominium building planned for the
corner of 11th and Pine streets which the developer lists as being 4050 square feet.
2. The Work Violates the General Design Guidelines for Boulder's Historic
Districts and Individual Landmarks (July 2003)
The next most general set of historical preservation standards are those set forth in
the General Design Guidelines developed by the Landmarks Board. With regard
to Contributing Buildings, like the Howe Mortuary Building, only "compatible
additions" are permitted. (p.9). This is an exacting standard.
a. Decks and Balconies. (Omitted from staff analysis) Alterations to a roof
which are not compatible with the form, pitch, plate height and massing of
the historic roof are prohibited. (§3.1.1, p.32) Construction of a portion of a
residential unit and a deck on top of the original roof violates this guideline.
/51_~
In this case, the roof decks which extend to the front of the building and
two balconies located to the rear of the structure are both at the level of the
third story of the residential unit. This specifically violates the standard
(§3.2, p. 33), which states that: "Any decks or balconies above the second
story are inappropriate unless based on historic precedent." It is
uncontested that the roof decks and balconies are all additions to the
original Howe Mortuary Building and thus are without historic precedent.
Further, the guidelines require that all roof decks be located "on the rear of
the building." (§3.2.1, p.33) But here the roof decks extend to the front of
the building, even though they are not "re-creating a documented historic
element." This expressly violates the guidelines.
b. Compatibility with Historic Structure. Perhaps the most significant issue
with the landmark alteration certificate granted in this case is the sheer
massiveness of the addition to the original Howe Mortuary Building, which
is much larger than the size of the historic building itself. This expressly
violates the standards, which require that: "Additions should never
overwhelm historic structures or the site, in mass, scale or detailing." (§4.3,
p.44) The guidelines are even more specific, stating that: "An addition
should be subordinate to the historic building, limited in size and scale so
that it does not diminish or visually overpower the building." (§4.3.1, p.
44) Similarly, the guidelines state that: "Adding a partial or full story to the
historic portion of a historic building is rarely appropriate," (§4.3.3, p. 44).
Yet that is exactly what the developer has done by perching the residential
unit on top of the roof of the historic Howe Mortuary Building.
Although the staff has attempted to justify the addition because it is
somewhat set back from the front wall of the historic building, and thus not
fully visible from the adjacent sidewalk, there is no doubt that the addition
of a three-story structure fails to "preserve the vertical and horizontal
proportion" of the original one-story building's mass (§4.3.5, p. 44) and will
be quite visible from the street and the sides. Staffs analysis is that a partial
second/third story is acceptable in this case because: "The proposed upper
story will cover only 23% of the existing roof area (not including the decks)
and will have minimal visibility from Spruce and Pine Streets due to
setbacks." (parenthetical phrase added) In fact, the penthouse will be fully
visible from Eleventh Street and will dwarf the historic building from that
perspective. The east elevation is attached as Exhibit B and dramatically
shows how the addition overwhelms the historic structure. The same will be
true approaching on Spruce from the west. The west elevation is attached as
Exhibit C. On all of these grounds, the proposed addition is not compatible
lb
with the historic structure and thus not eligible for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
3. The work violates the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines
(Revised November 2, 1994) (Omitted from staff analysis)
The most specific historic preservation guidelines applicable to the Howe
Mortuary Building are the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. The
proposed additions to the Howe Mortuary Building violate at least eight separate
guidelines:
a. p.6: "Maintain the overall sense of size of the building when additions to a
house are being made." "The vertical or horizontal proportion of the
building's mass should be preserved." Not only has the Landmarks Board
granted the developer permission to build an extension which has a roof
line which is an entire story above the original roof line, but this story has
been allowed to extend on top of the original structure as well.
Furthermore, since the roof is flat, the third story encloses twice the mass of
a pitched roof which is the predominant style in the district. It is important
to note that the non-historic chapel which currently exists on the north end
of the historic structure has a pitched roof only a few feet higher than that
historic structure's balustrade. And the chapel is being demolished as part
of the project, so the flat roof of the historic structure is the horizontal limit
of what can be permitted. Exhibits B and C show graphically that neither
the vertical nor the horizontal dimensions of the historic structure are being
preserved.
b. p.9: "The impact of the massing of large additions should be reduced by
using one-story elements or minimum plate heights instead of introducing a
full second story." The project adds a full two stories to a one-story
building. The Howe building is defined by the fact that it is a large one
story rectangular box nearly identical in shape and size to the Mapleton
Terrace development directly across Spruce Street. Though its flat roof is
unusual, the fact that it is mirrored by a similarly shaped and sized building
across the street creates an aesthetic gateway which is literally the
southeastern boundary of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Adding a
third story to this structure, which has a footprint of over 4,000 square feet
(making this one story larger than the gross square footage of the average
house on the block) adds enormous mass to an already large building,
destroys the symmetry with' the Mapleton Terrace structure across the
street, and ruins the proportion of the existing structure. It also sets a
~7
dangerous precedent that would allow the property owner of Mapleton
Terrace to request the same expansion as is now contemplated by Mapleton
Place..
C. p.9: "Rooflines on additions should generally be lower than and secondary
to the roof line of the original house." Here, the roofline is a full story
higher than the Howe Mortuary Building, and is built at the 35 foot
maximum permitted, as measured under the Boulder code. The roofline is
also significantly higher than the roofline of the existing non-contributing
mortuary chapel, which is currently attached to the Howe building but
being demolished as part of this project.
d. p.9: "Roof decks are not a traditional feature found in the District; however,
roof decks are generally appropriate only when they are an integral part of
the design." Here, although the architect has integrated the existing
balustrade into the roof deck design, the decks will be visible from the
streets and from the neighboring properties. See Exhibits B and C. It is of
note that the major living area will be on the third story of the residence,
and that the decks will constitute outdoor living areas, totally out of context
with the historic use of third stories in the Mapleton Hill district. .
e. p.10: "Second story decks in front of the building are generally
inappropriate..." Again, the two decks are located to the front of the
building, in violation of the guideline.
f. p.14: "While there are historic styles which feature 'widow's walks' or
belvederes, they are not common to Boulder's vernacular expressions of
Victorian style and should be contemplated only where they are stylistically
consistent with the existing building." The architect contends that the
building, which is in the classical revival style, is actually a "Mediterranean
style" building, on which rooftop uses are appropriate. But no such uses
have occurred, either on this building or any other similar building in the
district. The staff memorandum characterizes the architecture as
"neoclassical," and makes no suggestion that a rooftop deck would be
"stylistically consistent." It would not.
g. p. 14: "Fire stairs should be incorporated into the interior of the building, if
possible." The residential unit to the rear of the Howe Mortuary Building
has been designed with a prominent fire stair on the western wall, which
will be quite visible from Spr6ce Street and from the three residences
directly to the west of the historic structure. See Exhibit C. In the landmark
18
hearing, the staff liaison commented to the board on the "west elevation
which is not highly visible from the public view," despite the fact that he
was provided multiple photographs taken from various points on the public
sidewalk clearly illustrating the visibility of the west elevation from over a
block away.
h. p.18: "Major renovation or the addition of a full or partial story that affects
the character of a historic structure is not appropriate." "...[T]he addition
should respect the existing roof forms, and building scale and massing."
Here, again, a massive 11,500 square-foot addition to a 4500 square-foot
historic building, and a three-story addition to a one-story historic building,
seem clearly out of scale and profoundly compromise the character, roof
forms, building scale and massing of the Howe Mortuary Building.
4. The Work Violates the Boulder Code
The Boulder code provides a legal standard for Landmark Alteration Certificate
applications:
10-13-18 Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications.
(a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an
application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency
finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
(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 historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district; [and]
(3)The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures are
compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the
historic district;
l9
This language is broad enough to include all of the standards and guidelines cited
above. However, it raises additional questions. For example, under the first
criterion, it is not all clear how the massive addition to the Howe Mortuary
Building "preserves," "enhances," or "restores" the original historic building. It
appears to do none of the three. To the extent that it overshadows the original
building, it seems, to the contrary, that it "damages" the historic structure. Under
the. second criterion, it seems that the massive increase in the size of the Howe
Mortuary Building "adversely affects" both the building and the district. Finally,
under the third criterion, the fire stairs, and the roof top decks, the balconies, the
height and the massiveness of the extension and the two new freestanding houses
all appear to compromise the architectural style of the Howe Mortuary Building
and the district. Thus, it seems clear that this proposal flunks all three of the code
tests.
5. The Landmarks Board Used Misinformation and Flawed Logic in
Conditionally Approving a Project that it Recognized Was Not Ready for
Approval
In addition to ignoring the applicable criteria, standards and guidelines, the
Landmarks Board and staff used flawed logic to justify its conditional approval of
a project that will overwhelm the historic structures around it and that it
recognized would need substantial additional work prior to final approval. This
logic included rewarding the developer because he had worked so long and hard
on the project that it should be approved; observing that the property is transitional
between the smaller historic homes in the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the
larger downtown commercial structures to the south, so it would be acceptable to
approve a still larger building; and observing that the building is atypical and non-
conforming, so the board should allow it to be expanded in an atypical fashion.
The only justification the staff liaison offered for the roof deck and Howe
Mortuary Building penthouse was that it was set back and that: "The design
Guidelines really don't address flat roofs simply because there are so few of
them.". These irrational remarks have been drawn from notes of the hearing, and
the quotes may not be precise, but they indicate the kind of mindset which,
combined with the obfuscation of the true scale of the building, could lead the
Landmarks Board to give a conditional approval, with 15 major items remaining
to be resolved. In fact, at the very first post-approval Design Review Committee
this past Wednesday, January 11, one of the approving Landmarks . Board
members suggested that the architect redesign the entire project! Thus, it seems
clear that but for the kind of pressure reflected in the above quoted remarks, the
Landmarks Board would and should have denied or deferred the project until it
was properly documented and ready for a definitive decision.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, a messy approval process threatens the integrity of the Landmark
Alteration Certificate approval process, and only the City Council can grant relief. The
Concerned Citizens Group apologizes for the need for the City Council to deal with
issues that are ordinarily resolved at the Landmarks Board level. That is particularly true
in cases like this, where a distinguished local architect is drawing the plans. But the
architect is required to follow the program, and this program is simply too much for the
neighborhood, too much for the Mapleton Hill district and too much for the Howe
Mortuary Building site. It violates the applicable criteria, standards and guidelines and is
both procedurally and substantively flawed. The process is broken, and only the City
Council can fix it. Given that this project is the largest ever undertaken in the history of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District, it would seem particularly critical that Council take
the steps necessary to insure its appropriateness. It is not enough to simply rely on the
Design Review Committee to guide this project, as it is large enough and important
enough to merit a full re-evaluation with public involvement.
Respectfully submitted this 13a' day of January, 2006.
Ryv:---
6 RM4
Jos N. e R s s
CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I hereby certify that the foregoing was either hand delivered or sent via e-mail this
13"' day of January, 2006, to the following:
James Hewat Mark Ruzzin
Planning Department 3135 5th St.
City of Boulder Boulder, CO 80306
Park Central Bldg. ruzzinm(@ci.boulder.co.us
1739 Broadway, 3`a Floor
Boulder, CO Suzy Ageton
hewati(Z,ci.boulder.co.us 301 19th St.
Boulder, CO 80302
Vince Porreca agetons(u),ci.boulder.co.us
465 Oakwood Place
Boulder, CO 80304 Robin Bohannan
sps851@icomcast.net 2814 15' St.
Boulder, CO 80304
Dave Packard bohannanr(@.ci.boulder.co.us
Packard and Dierking, LLC
2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 200 Thomas E. Eldridge
Boulder, CO 80302 1301 Canyon Bvld, #406
dave@packarddierking.co m Boulder, CO 80302
eldridget(@-ci.boulder.co.us
Bruce Dierking
Packard and Dierking, LLC Crystal Gray
2595 Canyon Blvd., Suite 200 1709 Spruce St.
Boulder, CO 80302 Boulder, CO 80302
bruce&ackarddierking com grayc(a,ci.boulder.co.us
David Gehr, Esq. Shaun McGrath
Assistant City Attorney 225 29th St.
City of Boulder Boulder, CO 780305
Municipal Building mcgraths(c_ci.boulder.co.us
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302 Richard Polk
gehrdS?,ci.boulder.co.us 1724 Norwood Ave.
Bolder, CO 80304
polki&ci.boulder.co.us
ZZ
Andy Schultheiss Frank Bruno
3370 25" St. City of Boulder
Boulder, CO 80304 City Manager
schultheissa(Z~ci.boulder.co.us Municipal Building
1777 Broadway
Jack Stoakes Boulder, CO 80302
2727 Folsom St., #110 brunof a ci.boulder.co.us
Boulder, CO 80304
stoakesj(a,ci.b oulder. co.us
i
23