HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment B Farkas, B protest of Mapleton Place meeting 1-2-2006
ATTACHMENT B
James Hewat - Re: Mapleton Place
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1/2/2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Mapleton Place
CC: Harrison, Sue Ellen; kornblum, nancy; lelandr@newsgator.com;
lomay@may-yin-architecture.com; McHeyser, Ruth; Meschuk,
Chris; rsalance@yahoo.com; twplass@aol.com
Mr. Farkas:
The "timing" for the review of this project was based upon the applicant's submission of a completed application
by the mid-December deadline, as required, for the January Landmarks Board meeting. There is certainly no
intention to minimize the public comment on this important project, as you suggest.
I am sorry to hear that you will be away for the January 4th public hearing. If you wish to send written
comments, I will distribute them to the Board members prior to the meeting. Or, if you know someone who can
represent you, they may read the comments and/or speak on your behalf during the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
James M. Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
"Brad Farkas" <Brad.Farkas@i-Hatch.com> 12/30 9:46 PM
James,
Still trying to get in touch with you to find out the best way to submit comments
for the upcoming landmark board hearing. Frankly I'm a little distressed at the
timing of this meeting. Not only were notices sent out such that anyone who
went away for the holidays would not have even seen them (I still havent seen
my notice and was fortunate enough to see the sign in front of the property), but
those that have seen them can't even get in touch with anyone on the staff to
make comments or see the plans! No doubt the timing was designed to
minimize public comment, as the meeting will pass before most people will even
know it is scheduled. Also, I haven't seen what was written in the public mailing,
but I sincerely hope that the characterization of the project was more honestly
portrayed than the last two mailings.
Given the suspicious timing of this hearing, the magnitude of the project, and its
oa7
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj 1\Local Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 2/24/2006
sordid history, I would strongly recomment that this hearing be scheduled at a
more appropriate time. It seems only fair that people in the neighborhood be
given the courtesy of being able to see the plans and attend the hearing instead
of having it be railroaded through the system at a time when everyone is
scrambling having just gotten back to work after the christmas holiday.
Respectfully Yours,
Brad Farkas
1019 Spruce
~s
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj I \Local Settings\Temp\GW }000O1.HTM 2/24/2006
James Hewat - RE: Mapleton Place
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1/3/2006 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Mapleton Place
mr. Farkas:
Thanks for your comments. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier regarding review of the drawings. I've been
out for a couple of weeks following knee surgery. As required, the drawings have been available to the public at
our office since the middle of December. I understand that the applicant has also held at least one meeting to
present revised drawings to neighbors.
Please note that if you don't agree with a Board decision, you have the option to petition City Council to call it up
as an appeal. The call-up period continues for the 14-day period immediately following the Board's decision.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas" 01102 7:26 PM
James,
As you know, this project has been contentious from the beginning and thus far every attempt to make public
comment pursuant to a board decision has been thwarted. I have personally spent over $5,000 in lost wages
and airfare to show up for multiple meetings in which the developer withdraws his application as soon as it is
apparent that things are not going his way. While I fully recognize that neither you nor the landmark board and
staff have done anything to deter public comment, they have done nothing to encourage it either, and twice
(and perhaps 3 times) allowed misleading public notice letters to be mailed to neighbors which mischaracterized
the scale of the project. I must also assume that it is within the board's power to influence the timing of the
hearing so it is held at a time when neighbors have both the opportunity to review the plans and to attend the
hearing. The reality is that I wrote to you seeking the new plans over 10 days ago, and am only now hearing
back just 48 hours before the hearing. Of course, your office is closed, which means that the earliest time any
interested party would have access to you to review the plans would only be 24 hours before the hearing.
The fact is, many people are just now getting back to their jobs after a 10 day holiday and have more pressing
matters than to chase down site plans on thier first day back in the office and to attend a hearing the day after.
The developer has done a fantastic job getting the hearing scheduled at perhaps the most impractical time of
the year for people to attend, and the landmark board staff has not only accomodated it, but even exacerbated
the situation with their inaccessability. I would ask you to consider if the public has been given their fair right to
comment when their liason has been unreachable from the time the notices would have been received until 48
hours prior to the scheduled hearing.
Fortunately, just this morning I approached several of my neighbors and was lucky that one of them had a copy
of the plans (the others had never even seen the notice), and I have enclosed my comments in the attached
Microsoft Word file. Please let me know asap if any of the reviewers have difficulty reading it, and please
forward to the relevant parties.
Kindest Regards,
Brad Farkas, 1019 Spruce
file://CADocuments and Settings\hewaj1\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 2/24/2006
From: James Hewat
To: Joyce, Heidi
Date: 2/24/2006 3:33:59 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Mapleton Place
James Hewat 01/09 6:07 PM
Mr. Farkas:
I'll try and answer your questions, the January 3rd, 2006 e-mail first.
1) I assume HC refers to "handicap" or disabled parking space here.
2) The building is not expanding to the west. In fact the existing bump out at
the north end of the west elevation is being removed under the current
proposal.
3) The applicant has not included the basement, garages, or decks in their
figures.
4) The approval given by the Board was conditional, one of the conditions
being revisions to the landscaping to be reviewed and approved at the design
review committee level.
5) The General Design Guidelines do specifiy that decks not be above the
second-story or at the front of the building. These are guidelines intended to
interpret the code, not regulations. Staff considers the unusual conditions
including the building type, historic rooftop balustrade, and rooftop deck
setbacks to be appropriate in this instance.
6) Zoning staff has determined that the proposal is "congregate housing" and
is allowed in the zoned Mixed Used Residential Established area.
7) An applicant has the option to withdraw an application at any time. In the
case of the May 4th, 2005 hearing the applicant chose to do so in order to
redesign to better meet the guidelines and to address neighbors issues
regarding the west elevation.
8) Yes, this is the largest project reviewed by the current Board (Leonard may
was appointed to the Board in the summer of 2005). Staff and the Board
recognize the importance of this significant project.
9) I'm not sure what the plans are for the power lines, but will check.
Response to your January 5th, 2006 e-mail
On January 4th, 2005 the Landmarks Board voted 4-1 (Salance dissenting) to
grant conditional approval of the project, pending review and approval by the
design review committee of design details for the former mortuary building
addition and resolution of the proposed designs for units 42 & 43.
Specifically, they found that among issues to be considered at design review
should include: § penthouse fenestration and wall treatment on the
former mortuary building addition. a re-design of the false window on
east elevation of former mortuary building addition. further
n 7
articulation of the west elevation of the former mortuary building addition.§
treatment of south elevation o` former mortuary building including
retention of windows, doors, and design of proposed porch railing.§
re-visit proportions of proposed free-standing new construction in relation to
adjacent historic architecture; esp. perceived horizontality of unit#3 on both
Pine St. and 11th Street.§ reduction of mass and scale of units #2 &
#3.§ simplification of volumes, roof forms, and lines of units #2 & #3
- strive for elegance through proportion and scale rather than applique.§
perceived height and mass of south elevation of unit #2.§
possibility of orienting unit #3 to Pine Street.§ simplification of
design of units (#3 in particular) ie. fenestration, architectural elements,
cladding materials.§ further distinguishing architecture of units 42 &
#3.§ Redesign of fenestration second-story of the east elevation and
the entire north elevation of unit #2.§ re-orientation of the stair to
unit #2 centrally and perpendicular to porch; eliminate side access.§
a reduction of the amount of deck/balcony space at the west elevations of
units #2 and #3.§ landscaping for the entire site. There was
agreement among Board members steps should be taken to address SCALE through
simplification of volumes and fenestration - the fenestration proportions and
void solid relationships need to conform more with neighborhood context as per
the General Design Guidelines and Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines.
The applicant has requested and is scheduled to attend the design review
committee meeting Wednesday January 11th at 9:30 to work on the changes as
outlined.
In terms of appealing the decision, the code reads:
10-13-16 Call-Up by City Council.
(a) The city council may call up for review any decision of the landmarks
board approving, or suspending action on a landmark alteration certificate
application by serving written notice on the board within fourteen days of the
board's decision and notifying the applicant of the call-up. It may call up
for review any decision of the landmarks board disapproving a landmark
alteration certificate by serving written notice on the board within thirty
days of the board's decision and notifying the applicant of the call-up. If
the city manager finds in writing within the original call-up period that the
council did not receive notice of a decision of the board in time to enable it
to call up the decision for review, then the manager may extend the call-up
period until the council's next regular meeting.
(b) Within sixty days after the date of a decision by the landmarks board
called up by the city council, the council shall hold a public hearing under
the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C.
1981, after publishing notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of
the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten
days before the hearing.
(c) Within thirty days after the hearing date first set, unless otherwise
mutually agreed upon by the city council and the applicant, the council shall
adopt written findings and conclusions approving or disapproving the
application. In cases of a call-up of a landmarks board decision suspending
action on an application, the council may reduce the suspension or extend it
up to one hundred eighty days from the date of the council decision. In cases
of a call up of a landmarks board approval of an application following the
A
board's suspension of action, the council may approve or disapprove the
application.
Ordinance No. 6045 (1999).
A member of the public who feels aggrieved by a decision may contact a member
(or members) of City Council to "call-up" the case. The opportunity for the
Council to do this will be at their January 17th, 2006 meeting. A notice of
disposition outlining the decision will be included in the City Council packet
for this meeting.
Finally, I will send the drawings to you via seperate e-mails as they are
quite large. The applicant did not submit floorplans with this latest
submission.
I hope that this information is what you need. Please don't hesitate to
contact me if you have questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
James M. Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
"Brad Farkas" 1/09 4:27 PM
James,
I'm concerned that I haven't received a response from you to either of the
last 2 emails I've sent (which I've copied below). Given that my latest
email has to do with the timing within which I have to act to oppose a
landmark board decision, I'm naturally concerned that it be addressed in a
timely manner. Please respond to my most important and timely question (or
refer me to someone more appropriate), lest I find myself in a fire drill to
appeal the landmark board's misguided decision (assuming that they have made
one). If it turns out that the clock has indeed been running out, I may be
paranoid, but will naturally assume the worst given the inexplicable support
of what I deem to be a grossly oversized project.
Also, has any additional information been made available with regard to this
project? All I've been able to get my hands on is a site plan and the south,
west, and east elevations, which is what you gave to my neighbor the last time
they stopped by. I still haven't seen the second floor, third floor, or roof
plans, a south elevation, any details on materials being used, or even the
staff memo to the Landmark Board which I understand was only distributed to
the board just prior to the hearing. If these items exist I would be most
appreciative if you or someone else can email or fax them to me at
212-656-1664. As you know I am on assignment in New York, and don't have
ready access to your office.
Lastly, I understand that a voice recording of the actual landmark board
hearing should be available to the public. Could you indicate how/where I
might gain access to this?
Regards,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Farkas
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:33 PM
To: 'HewatJ@ci.boulder.co.us'
Subject: Re: Mapleton Place
James,
I've heard conflicting reports as to what happened at last night's hearing.
Was any definitive decision made? When will a transcript be available? At what
point is the approval final? And most importantly, what are the parameters and
process for appealing to the city counsel?
Thanks,
Brad
From: Brad Farkas
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:41 PM
To: James Hewat
Subject: RE: Mapleton Place
James,
Thanks for the response. Don't mean to be hard on you, but as you know I am
quite passionately against the scale of this project and you happen to be in
the crossfire. A couple of questions:
1) on the Site Plan, what is the cross hatched area next to parking spot 3
marked "H.C.?
2) Also on the site plan, is the howe building being expanded to the west?
The drawing suggests not, but it is not very clear.
3) The site plan shows that the original howe building will have 4710 square
feet of congregate care facility, and 5100 square feet of condo. It appears
to me that these numbers exclude the roughly 5000 square foot basement, the
roughtly 1000 square feet of enclosed attached garage space, and roughly 2000
square feet of porch and deck space. Is this correct? If so, the true square
footage should be pointed out in the public hearing.
4) does the landscaping on the site plan mean that any landmark approval would
require its installation as shown?
5) trie historic design code clearly specifies that no roof decks should exist
either i) above the 2nd floor, or ii) at the front of the building. However
the Site plan specifies both these features. Is the staff recommending that
the guidelines be waived, or have they convinced themselves that this is
somehow consistent?
6) what exactly is the allowed use of "congregate care" ? can these units
have their own kitchens? I fear that this use is just a ploy to build at a
higher density and convert their use down the road. Most congregate care
units in this country are small one bedrooms of a few hundred square feet, not
large 1000+ square foot units.
7) how many times can the developer submit and then withdraw his application.
Can the board act on the application even if the developer tries to withdraw
it and resume his game of cat and mouse?
8) This project would seem to be the biggest project ever attempted in the
historic district during the tenure of the current landmarks board. Is this
the case? If so, is the board aware of this?
9) what will happen to the power/telephone/cable lines that are currently
being run just north of the howe chapel? Does the line on the site plan that
seperates the original building from the new construction include the existing
Howe chapel?
While this version is a small improvement over the prior (congregate care is a
lighter use than office space, and the west setback is no longer being
expanded though the overall building is just as large), it is still humongous.
For the record, if the roofline were to be limited to the height of the
existing chapel, I would be more supportive of the plan -though it would still
grossly violate the tenet of not having the roofline of an extension be higher
than the original historic building.
Regards,
Brad
From: James Hewat [mailto:HewatJ@ci.boulder.co.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 3:13 PM
To: Brad Farkas
Subject: RE: Mapleton Place
mr. Farkas:
Thanks for your comments. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier regarding
review of the drawings. I've been out for a couple of weeks following knee
surgery. As required, the drawings have been available to the public at our
office since the middle of December. I understand that the applicant has also
held at least one meeting to present revised drawings to neighbors.
Please note that if you don't agree with a Board decision, you have the option
to petition City Council to call it up as an appeal. The call-up period
continues for the 14-day period immediately following the Board's decision.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas" <Brad.Farkas@i-Hatch.com> 01/02 7:26 PM
James,
As you know, this project has been contentious from the beginning and thus far
every attempt to make public comment pursuant to a board decision has been
thwarted. I have personally spent over $5,000 in lost wages and airfare to
31
show up for multiple meetings in which the developer withdraws his application
as soon as it is apparent that things are not going his way. While I fully
recognize that neither you nor the landmark board and staff have done anything
to deter public comment, they have done nothing to encourage it either, and
twice (and perhaps 3 times) allowed misleading public notice letters to be
mailed to neighbors which mischaracterized the scale of the project. I must
also assume that it is within the board's power to influence the timing of the
hearing so it is held at a time when neighbors have both the opportunity to
review the plans and to attend the hearing. The reality is that I wrote to
you seeking the new plans over 10 days ago, and am only now hearing back just
48 hours before the hearing. Of course, your office is closed, which means
that the earliest time any interested party would have access to you to review
the plans would only be 24 hours before the hearing.
The fact is, many people are just now getting back to their jobs after a 10
day holiday and have more pressing matters than to chase down site plans on
thier first day back in the office and to attend a hearing the day after. The
developer has done a fantastic job getting the hearing scheduled at perhaps
the most impractical time of the year for people to attend, and the landmark
board staff has not only accomodated it, but even exacerbated the situation
with their inaccessability. I would ask you to consider if the public has
been given their fair right to comment when their liason has been unreachable
from the time the notices would have been received until 48 hours prior to the
scheduled hearing.
Fortunately, just this morning I approached several of my neighbors and was
lucky that one of them had a copy of the plans (the others had never even seen
the notice), and I have enclosed my comments in the attached Microsoft Word
file. Please let me know asap if any of the reviewers have difficulty reading
it, and please forward to the relevant parties.
Kindest Regards,
Brad Farkas, 1019 Spruce
From: James Hewat [mailto:HewatJ@ci.boulder.co.us]
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Brad Farkas
Cc: TWPlass@aol.com; Sue Ellen Harrison; Ruth McHeyser; Chris Meschuk;
lomay@may-yin-architecture.com; lelandr@newsgator.com; kornblumn@qwest.net;
rsalance@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Mapleton Place
Mr. Farkas:
The "timing" for the review of this project was based upon the applicant's
submission of a completed application by the mid-December deadline, as
required, for the January Landmarks Board meeting. There is certainly no
intention to minimize the public comment on this important project, as you
suggest.
3a
I am sorry to hear that you will be away for the January 4th public hearing.
If you wish to send written comments, I will distribute them to the Board
members prior to the meeting. Or, if you know someone who can represent you,
they may read the comments and/or speak on your behalf during the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information regarding
this matter.
Sincerely,
James M. Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
"Brad Farkas" - 12/30 9:46 PM
James,
Still trying to get in touch with you to find out the best way to submit
comments for the upcoming landmark board hearing. Frankly I'm a little
distressed at the timing of this meeting. Not only were notices sent out such
that anyone who went away for the holidays would not have even seen them (I
still havent seen my notice and was fortunate enough to see the sign in front
of the property), but those that have seen them can't even get in touch with
anyone on the staff to make comments or see the plans! No doubt the timing
was designed to minimize public comment, as the meeting will pass before most
people will even know it is scheduled. Also, I haven't seen what was written
in the public mailing, but I sincerely hope that the characterization of the
project was more honestly portrayed than the last two mailings.
Given the suspicious timing of this hearing, the magnitude of the project, and
its sordid history, I would strongly recomment that this hearing be scheduled
at a more appropriate time. It seems only fair that people in the
neighborhood be given the courtesy of being able to see the plans and attend
the hearing instead of having it be railroaded through the system at a time
when everyone is scrambling having just gotten back to work after the
christmas holiday.
Respectfully Yours,
Brad Farkas
1019 Spruce
James Hewat - Re: Mapleton Place
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1/11/2006 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Mapleton Place
Dear Mr. Farkas:
Thanks for your latest comments regarding the 2121 11th Street. The design review committee did meet with the
applicant to talk about a number of issues related to the project and its conditional approval. While some
progress has been made, especially regarding the perceived mass of unit #3, the applicant has been asked to
provide three-dimensional computer modeling of the block with existing and proposed buildings to help the
design review committee better understand the overall impact of the project. They are hoping to present this
information to the committee next Wednesday, January 18 at 10:30am. I have asked them to give us some still
images from this modeling to send out prior to the meeting. I can send them to you, if this would be helpful.
Alf McDonald and his wife, from 1035 Spruce Street sat in on today's review.
"Brad Farkas" > 01/10 11:09 PM
James,
I understand from third parry sources that there is a design review meeting this week to discuss certain aspects
of the Howe Mortuary expansion. Ordinarily, I would have hoped to be informed of such by your own
department, but apparently I must rely on others for such information. As a matter of fact, I've never even
received from you a copy of your staff memo, any handouts from the landmark board hearing, or any other
documentation relevant to this project. While I am grateful that you answered some of my prior questions, many
of them still remain unanswered.
Since I am unable to attend the design review meeting I would at least like to put forth some comments for
consideration. I will also apologize in advance for my usual obnoxious tone. I have spent too many late nights
reviewing this project and have become increasingly disturbed at the anomolies I have discovered. In the
design review meeting I would ask the following:
1) if possible at this juncture I still feel strongly that the roof line be maintained at a height no greater than the top
of the Howe Chapel. This is still higher than the roof of the contributing building, and would allow for attractive
clerestory windows to be installed facing the flatirons. However this would limit the mass and scale of the
building to be Oust) within parameters that don't overwhelm the surrounding structures (though it would still
violate the design guidelines). For the record, I could be supportive of this project it this one change were
made.
2) If you are hell bent on maintaining the extra story on the roof, at least do away with the roof deck. Seeing
people partying (or even lounging) on top of historic structures is highly objectionable and unheard of in
Boulder.
3) If you are determined to keep the roof deck, scale it back so the 36" railing dictated by code is not visible
south of the structure (including clear down to 3rd street). Since this railing will inevitably be visible from 11th
street and from Pine street, try to come up with a railing design that doesn't conflict with the balustrade which is
one of the strongest design elements of the building. This will be a difficult task given the slight contrast betwee
the two foot balustrade and the three foot railing (which is why there really shouldn't be a roof deck). Also, how
do you intend to address the inevitable awning or umbrella that will be installed on the roof deck?
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj 1\L.ocal Settings\Temp\GW )00001.HTM 2/24/2006
4) Require in writing that the developer not be allowed to install ANYTHING on top of the roof addition (or on any
roof surface). We don't want another eyesore like the 10 foot A/C unit which towers 45' above the corner of 9th
and Pearl. I don't care if the developer pays lip service to not installing anything there -get it in writing!
5) As per my comments submitted for public record at the landmark board hearing (which I'm told weren't even
distributed), I illustrated how highly visible the second and third floors of the extension will be on the west
elevation. The currently proposed 3 story staircase is in direct violation of the design guidelines which
discourage exactly such a feature. PLEASE have the developer move the staircase 3 feet to the east and
enclose it within the Currently proposed building envelope.
Lastly, I would like to express my grave disappointment at how you were able to recommend this project for
approval given the shoddy and incomplete documentation presented to the landmark board. Upon reviewing the
audio transcript of the hearing it was clear that the documentation provided by the developer was confusing and
misleading. Most of the board's questions were borne of the confusion resulting from the incomplete and
indecipherable site plan provided by the developer. Since no plan was offered illustrating the details of the top
floor, the roof, or even the second floor, the scale and layout of this building was utterly indiscernable.
Furthermore, in the hearing it was never even pointed out or discussed that the top floor included a roof deck
(and if it was mentioned it must have been awfully brief), and the set back and scale of the third floor portion was
obfuscated. Furthermore, the language and references used in your memo seemed to intentionally downplay
the height of the roof, and in some cases were simply wrong, nonsensical, or lacked the references to interpret.
Rather than being a balanced presentation of the facts, your memo served more as a one-sided biased
proponent for the approval of the project. This impression is further supported by the gross mischaracterization
of the project as "having a combined floor area of 7000 square feet" you repeatedly published in 3 public hearing
notices, in your own staff memo, and in the public record of the hearing. Even the developer himself
acknowledged that the square footage of ONLY the mortuary ADDITION was over 8000 square feet, and this
excluded the basement and attached parking garages. Quoting just a brief excerpt of your own memo you state:
PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE HOWE MORTUARY BUILDING:
The applicant intends to remove non-historic 1970s neo-colonial additions to the
former mortuary and in their place construct a three-story north facing (rear) addition and
rooftop addition. In plan the rear addition is shown to extend 35' north of the historic portion
of the building and to be inset at least 20' in from the east (11th Street) facing wall. The
proposed flat roofed, rooftop addition is to be set back 40' from the south (Spruce Street)
facing fagade and between 5' and 25' back from the building's east elevation.
Elevations show the existing contributing building to be 26' in height to the top of the
balustrade when measured at the southeast (11th & Pine Streets) corner. At its highest point
from grade, the proposed rear addition is shown to rise to 32' in height. The rooftop addition
to the building is shown to rise to 31' when measured from the east (11th Street) elevation.
In terms of mass and scale, while approximately 9' taller than the historic mortuary
building, because of setbacks the overall effect of the rooftop addition when viewed from
Spruce and Pine Streets will be mitigated. The rear addition is shown to rise approximately 7'
above the mortuary's rooftop balustrade. However, as shown, its scale and mass are
mitigated by setbacks, fenestration, and materials.
Though the mass and scale of the project are of paramount interest, you chose
NOT to detail the actual volume or even the footprint of the 3rd story addition,
which turns out to be a hefty 3,000 square feet -the size of many entire homes
on the block. Instead you focus the reader on the setbacks which you quote in
;Jr
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\hewaj I \Local Settings\Temp\GW }0000I.HTM 2/24/2006
terms that would require the missing roof plan to interpret. You also reference
the height of the rooftop addition as measured from the top of the balustrade, a
narrow line of columns running around the perimeter of the building that does
not add to the volume of the building (and is practically invisible when the
building is viewed from Pine Street). By including this peculiar relative
measurement, you downplay the mass of the roof addition. To include such
detail without even calling out the dimensions, area or volume of the rooftop
addition demonstrates an obvious bias towards convincing the reader that the
rooftop addition is smaller than it actually is.
You go on to state "Elevations show the existing contributing building to be 26' in height
to the top of the balustrade when measured at the southeast (11th & Pine Streets) corner. At
its highest point from grade, the proposed rear addition is shown to rise to 32' in height".
As I hope you realize, the southease corner of the contributing building is
actually on Spruce Street, not Pine. However, I'm guessing that you are really
referring not to the southest corner of the building, but rather the southeast
corner of 11th street and Pine, a half a block away. Though this is not a
particularly relevant measurement, it does allow you to quote a low number
which supports your case. It's also unclear as what you mean by "from grade",
when the relevant figure would be to quote what the Boulder Revised Code
concerns itself with: the height from the lowest point within 20 feet. I suspect
again you use this number (whatever it actually is, as I can't figure it out) to
convince all but the most careful reader that the developer is not building up to
the maximum height limit allowable by law. Of course this is exactly the case,
but for some reason you fail to point this out. In fact YOU NEVER MENTION
THIS. Wouldn't it be more relevant to call out this fact rather than measure from
a random point on another block? Also, your statement that the rooftop "is
shown to rise 31' when measured from the 11 th street elevation is nonsensical.
11th street is on a hill, so without knowing precisely where you are measuring
from this number is nonsensical. Of course, the more you quote numbers less
than 35' the more you convey the sense that the roof height you are trying to sell
is lower than legally allowed.
Even more concerning is the complete lack of detail or discussion on the roof
deck. Even a keen eye would not detect the existance of the roof deck in the
plans distributed to the board. Is there still a roof deck? If so, where is the door
to it? How large is it? Where is it referenced in the plans? Presumably if there
is a roof deck, code dictates that it requires a railing that is at least 36" high.
Naturally this railing will be closer to the south side of the building than the
rooftop addition, and will certainly be visible from the street. By declining to
provide visual detail of the roof deck to the board, as is required in the
developer's application, you deprive the board from opining on its
4
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewajI\L.ocal Settings\Temp\GW j0000l.HTM 2/24/2006
appropriateness. Consequently the resolution of details is left for the design
committee which presumably includes yourself, and excludes the board
members who have full time jobs and make less of a point to attend such
committee meetings.
That's all for now.
Regards,
Brad
rom: James Hew 3t [mailto:Hewat)@ci.boulder.co.us]
t: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:08 PM
To: rad Farkas
Cc: G r, David; McHeyser, Ruth; Meschuk, Chris; TWPlass@aol.com
Subject Re: FW: Mapleton Place
he Landmarks Board voted 4-1 (Salance senting) to grant conditional
approval of t project, pending review and approval by the desig review committee of
design det s for the former mortuary building addition and resolute of the proposed
designs f units #2 & #3.
,c vrc . .n -n z z _ r -cam
n _
penthouse fenestration and wall treatment on the former mortuary building
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewajI\Local Settings\Temp\GW 10000LHTM 2/24/2006
James Hewat - Re: Contact info
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1/12/2006 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: Contact info
Mr. Farkas:
The information was sent off to you via fedex today. Also for your information, the architect and developer have
requested to see our e-mail correspondence and I will be forwarding it to them.
Please let me know if you have quesions or need more information.
James Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
"Brad Farkas" - 01/11 9:40 PM
James,
It appears that your server may have been configured to limit the size of
outgoing attachments, which is probably why your last email to me bounced
back to you. Anyhow, I would be most appreciative if you would fedex (next
day, morning delivery) all relevant project info to me at the address you have for
me on file. My fedex number is 215466108.
1 appreciate your call today and apologize that my position may be on the
aggressive side. However, I welcome you to call me anytime to discuss your
views and to correct any errors you feel I have made in my assessment. As a
quid pro quo, I would encourage you to assist me in my efforts to call the issue
up to city council if my assessment proves accurate. As we discussed, you
seem like a nice fellow and I have no interest or intention to demean anyone as
an individual, but I feel strongly that Mapleton Place was improperly presented
and should be revisited. If even half of my argument has merit (and be
forewarned there is more to come) it would seem appropriate to simply
acknoweldge that mistakes were made and to support the re-evaluation of the
project. After all, last wednesday was the very first time the developer has
allowed this project to be acted upon in a public hearing, and given the fact that
it is the largest ever proposed for the historic district it would seem that
prudence is the most appropriate path.
Regards,
Brad
39
file://CADocuments and Settings\hewaj1\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW }000O1.HTM 2/24/2006
James Hew at - Re: Update
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1/27/2006 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Update
Mr. Farkas:
Your comments were distributed at the last design review of the Howe Mortuary project on January 18th, 2006.
The committee did not consider the height of the addition to high or the penthouse addition and rooftop deck
(each 750 sq. ft. in area) in conflict with the historic preservation ordinance. There was also discussion of the
exterior firescape and a request of the applicant to look at moving part of the construction to the north elevation
of the addition and wrapping around the west face.
There were a number of neighbors who participated in the meeting, though none of the individuals
that requested the call-up of the Board's decision by City Council were in attendance. The project will be
reviewed again on February 1st at 9:00am at 1739 Broadway in the Olmsted conference room. I strongly
encourage those that have concerns about the design to attend or send comments to this meeting.
I will send you revised drawings as they become available.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas" 01/26 4:25 PM
James,
Still trying to get an update on the Mapleton Place project. My understanding
was that the City Council requested that the public be as involved as possible in
the design review process, yet I can't seem to even i) get an email returned
letting me know when the meetings are being held, ii) confirm that my
comments were even distributed, or iii) get an update on the status of the
project. Given that you know this is a highly sensitive subject for the community
and that over a dozen Mapleton Hill residents are united in their concern I am
baffled by this apparent stonewalling. PLEASE give me an update so that I
might participate in the public process and update the constituency of
concerned citizens.
Regards,
Brad
J~
fije://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj I\Local Settings\Temp\GW )OOOOI.HTM 2/24/2006
James Hewat - Re: Mapleton Place Update and Feb 1 st DRC Meeting
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1/30/2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Mapleton Place Update and Feb 1st DRC Meeting
Dear Mr. Farkas:
The size of the "penthouse" and deck were scaled from the (1/8 scale) drawings submitted. On the plan I sent
today, the penthouse area is indicated by the hatched area extending over the historic building. The proposed
deck is shown to extend 11' south from the penthouse and be 42' from east to west. At the east side of the
penhouse the deck is 5' wide, and 4' at the west; a planter creating a four foot barrier between the west edge of
the builfing and the deck area. While it has yet to be designed, the deck will be enclosed by a light iron rail on the
south side and by the existing balustrade on the east. The floor of the deck will be set about a foot lower than the
existing roof level.
The Board considered the proposed west facing stair consitent with the guidleines and historic preservation
ordinance.
For sake of clarification, with the exception of the January 11th comments which were not received by me until
after the meeting that day (and subsequently distributed via e-mail and considered in the January 18th review) all
of your comments have been given to the board in a timely manner.
Finally, I'll look into hooking you up to tele-conference during the 9-10 review this Wednesday, if you still wish to
do this. And, of course the meeting is open to the public for those that can attend in person. The agenda for all
design review committee meetings is posted on the city's website the day before the meeting.
Let me know if you have any questions.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas" 01130 3:35 PM
James,
Thanks for returning my email, as I have been eager for an update.
First , based upon your last email, I am very pleased to learn that the 3rd floor of the Howe Mortuary construction
is only 750 square feet, as from the pictures and verbal quotes I have relied upon I believed it to be much
larger. Given that the public has not had access to the detail of the 2nd floor, 3rd floor, or roof, or even been
provided a site plan with actual measurements, I will take your word that the third floor and the roof deck are only
750 square feet each and will object to them no more. All I ask is that given our misunderstandings in the past,
you detail how you arrived at this figure and clearly indicate what may have been excluded. I'd also like
to learn what delineates the square footage of the deck, as I have never seen any reference or detail describing
its boundary or railing (if the balistrude of the original Howe building is used as the railing, then the roof deck
would de facto be the entire size of the roof) .
Many of the individuals who were a party to the call-up request drafted by the former city attorney desire to
participate in the Design Review Committee meetings, though this is your first response to three emails
requesting the dates and times of these meetings ! I am also frustrated that it took almost 2 weeks to distribute
my extensive comments (despite submitting them with only 12 hour turnaround time) and that no changes have
yet been agreed upon to address a single one of my concerns Our seeming lack of ability to stay informed
about this project or affect any changes have frankly disallusioned us to the extent that we feel our comments
0
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj I \Local Settings\Temp\GW )00001.HTM 2/24/2006
v ~uuw
are unwelcome and our concerns moot. I know your department is busy, but given the size of this project and
the strong sentiments of over a dozen Mapleton Hill residents I would greatly appreciate as much advance
notice as you can provide for upcoming meetings, and the courtesy of distributing our comments in a timely
fashion. Also, given that I am out of town and cannot arrange to fly back with such short notice, I would
appreciate the ability to participate by phone if at all possible.
Wtih regard to the height of the addition and the rooftop deck not being "in conflict with the historic preservation
ordinance", I also think we need to be clear and forthcoming. The addition's height and the deck both clearly
violate at least 4 distinct and clear guidelines of the ordinance --but the committee has determined that the
guidelines just don't apply to commercial buildings or buidlings with flat roofs. I respect the committee's
decision, but lets call a spade a spade. As you know, I think this sets a tragic precedent, but it is what it is.
Lastly, with regard to the 3 story exterior fire escape, I would be very much in favor of this being enclosed , BUT
ONLY so long as it is relocated inside the previously-approved building envelope. Conversely, I would be very
much opposed (and so should you) to simply wrapping it, as that would create an additional 35 foot height box
that would add considerable mass to the building. In any event, if your committee supports this increased mass,
I would much rather the stair be on the north side of the building and located so it does not reduce the west
setback as does the current design (ie, move it north and east so it doesn't protrude west ward-don't just move it
north). I would also expect such mass increase to be subject to approval at another hearing.
I do appreciate your providing updated drawings, though must confess disappointment that there is no West
Elevation for the Howe building (which I must therefore assume is unchanged), and the other elevations of the
Howe structure have not been materially changed (I only noticed minor changes to the fenestration).
Personally, if the scale cannot be mitigated, I would request that the 3rd floor of the Howe Building have far
fewer windows so it doesn't look like the brightly lit deck of ship at night time!
Note that i have only commented on the Howe building, but have forwarded the new drawings to other
concerned citizens who will hopefully focus on the northern structures as well.
Best Regards,
Brad
From: James Hewat [mailto:HewatJ@ci.boulder.co.us]
nt: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:21 PM
Brad Farkas
Sub' ct: Re: Update
Mr. Farka .
Your comments w distributed at the last design review of the Howe Mortuary pr ' ct on January 18th, 2006.
The committee did not sider the height of the addition to high or the penth a addition and rooftop deck
(each 750 sq. ft. in area) in flict with the historic preservation ordinanc . here was also discussion of the
exterior firescape and a request he applicant to look at moving p f the construction to the north elevation
of the addition and wrapping around west face.
There were a number of neighbors who panic ed ' e meeting, though none of the individuals
that requested the call-up of the Board's decisi ity Council were in attendance. The project will be
reviewed again on February 1 st at 9:00a 1739 Broa in the Olmsted conference room. I strongly
encourage those that have concer out the design to atte r send comments to this meeting.
I will send you revise awings as they become available.
James t
I
> "Brad Farkas" 1/26 4:25 PM
James,
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj1\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 2/24/2006
ter......, ,
James Hewat - RE: Mapleton Place Update and Feb 1st DRC Meeting
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 1 /31 /2006 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: Mapleton Place Update and Feb 1st DRC Meeting
Mr. Farkas:
In referring to the penthouse, I refer to that portion of the addition that will be constructed over the historic
building. I think this is dilineated quite clearly on the plan as the dashed (not hatched) line on the site plan. The
Penguin Dictionary of Architecture defines a penthouse as being, "a subsidiary construction built on the roof of
an existing building". Using that definintion, the 750 sq. ft. area projecting onto the mortuary building has been
referred to as the penthouse. I thought that is what you were referring to when you asked the question.
According to my calculations, the third-story of the rear addition will contain 2400 sq. ft. (plus the 750 sq. ft.
penthouse) for a total of 3150 sq. ft. The (lest I use the term) "floor area" of unit 1 is represented by the applicant
to be 5100 sq. ft..
Again, the design review committtee did consider your concerns regarding the exterior stair, but felt the proposed
construction to not conflict with the historic preservation ordinance. The Genera/ Guidelines are used only a tool
to interpret the ordinance and not a checklist for which compliance is required.
Please send me telephone number and I will ring you just after 9:00 am (11 am your time) to participate in
the design review committee meeting.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas" '11/31 1:54 PM
James,
I'd love to participate in the meeting tomorrow by teleconference. Let me know how I might dial in!
A couple of questons:
1) No offense, but we seem to still be having issues with language, as I am now unclear at what you mean by
"penthouse", and am frustrated by the consistent ambiguity in terms that coincidentally, always seem to minimize
the true scale of this project. I am therefore BEGGING you to be clear in your language, and offer a correction
when I have misinterpreted you, rather than solidify a mispercentption. This has already created a serious
conflict based upon the repeated misuse of the term "floor area" in conflict with its definition on your own web
site. If I misuse a term, please correct me and I will use the proper definition going forward.
For example, In my first email I stated "I am very pleased to learn that the 3rd floor of the Howe Mortuary
construction is only 750 square feet". Did 1 mis-interpreted your use of the word "penthouse"? I took it to refer to
the top floor of the Howe Mortuary expansion and used the dictionary definition of penthouse to mean the top
story of a building. Your meaning seems to be different, yet I still don't know what you are referring to. If I
misuse a term, or you use a term which I clearly misinterpret, it is critical that you correct the misperception
instead of simply continuing to refer to a term despite your knowledge that it is being misinterpreted. This will
prevent hard feelings going forward, especially when every misinterpretation skews to the benefit of the same
particular party,
u
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewajl\Local Settings\Temp\GW }000O1.HTM 2/24/2006
So, to be painfully clear: PLEASE CONFIRM THE INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED 3RD
FLOOR OF THE HOWE MORTUARY CONSTRUCTION. By "interior square footage" I mean the area under the
roof, delineated by the inside of the interior walls (ie, regardless if its a stairwell or whatever, if its under the roof,
it counts). If you can't/won't provide detail to allow the public to determine size measurements on their own, it is
imperative that your department be forthcoming when your answers must be relied upon as the sole source of
information. I don't mean to be obnoxious, but it is inexplicable to not have floor plans with real measurement
callouts for a project that has been ongoing for 18 months, and to have to pull teeth to get basic data! If the
architect can render 3D fly throughs, they can certainly create floor plans with measurement callouts for each
wall.
I'm also confused by your term "hatched area" which I take to mean a 2 dimensional area distinguished by
shading formed by parallel or intersecting lines. I therefore still don't know what you refer to regarding the
"penthouse". Are you referring to the dashed line on page one of the pdf you sent out yesterday? If so, I have
again been confused by language, as the dashed line does not define an area at all, only a boundary, so I
continue to be confused as to what the "penthouse" refers to or to have the information necessary to make my
own judgements as to its scale. The only "hatched area" on page one is marked "HC" and doesn't appear to be
related to the Howe Structure.
2) Please clarify what you mean by "The Board considered the proposed west facing stair consitent with the
guidleines and historic preservation ordinance". I've provided references to the guidelines which illustrate this
feature to be contrary to the guidelines. I also don't recall this being discussed and approved at the landmark
hearing, but seem to recall it being singled out for review. Therefore, for the sake of full clarity please indicate i)
whether you feel this was approved at the hearing ii) if it wasn't approved by the hearing, please indicate how it
became approved iii) if the board considers this in compliance with the guidelines, please specify the guidelines
that would allow it, and iv) if what you mean to say is that the board has waived the guideline to allow it, please
be specific about this.
I hate to be continually irritable but I am just so frustrated by this project and the many guidelines that have been
disregarded in order to approve it. At a minimum it seems fair to provide full clarity on the other aspects of the
project to allow effective public comment.
Thanks,
Brad
From: James Hewat [mailto:Hewatl@ci.boulder.co.us]
nt: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:28 PM
To: d Farkas
Subject: • Mapleton Place Update and Feb 1st DRC Meeting
Dear Mr. Farkas:
The size of the "penthouse" an k were scaled from the (1/8 scale) dra submitted. On the plan I sent
today, the penthouse area is indicate the hatched area extend' er the historic building. The proposed
deck is shown to extend 11' south from the house an 'from east to west. At the east side of the
penhouse the deck is 5' wide, and 4' at the west; er creating a four foot barrier between the west edge of
the builfing and the deck area. While it has o be de ' ed, the deck will be enclosed by a light iron rail on the
south side and by the existing balus a on the east. The flo f the deck will be set about a foot lower than the
existing roof level.
The Board consi d the proposed west facing stair consitent with the gui es and historic preservation
ordinance.
F ake of clarification, with the exception of the January 11th comments which were not rec d by me until
after the meeting that day (and subsequently distributed via e-mail and considered in the January eview) all
0
fileWC:\DocumentsandSettings\hewaj1\LocalSettings\Temp\GW)00001.HTM 2/24/2006
James Hewat - Re: Mapleton Place Redux; March 1 st Landmark
Hearing Confirmation
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 2/3/2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Mapleton Place Redux; March 1st Landmark Hearing
Confirmation
Mr. Farkas:
As far as I know, Scott Woodard is proposing to have the case heard by the full Landmarks Board at the March
1st, 2006 meeting. I'll know for sure if this is the case on February 9th.
Sincerely,
James M. Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
"Brad Farkas"
James,
Thanks again for allowing me to participate in the DRC meeting by phone, as it was VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED. My understanding from the meeting is that there will be another public landmarks board
hearing for the project on March 1 st at 6PM . Please confirm this, so I can arrange to be in town on this date! I
would also appreciate being informed as soon as possible if the date moves, for as you know I have flown in on
3 separate occaisions only to have a hearing postponed at the last second. I appreciate that it is not your
responsibility to keep me informed, but it would be very much appreciated.
Also, if we are going to have another hearing, I would request yet again that the description of the project used
for the public notice be corrected. If indeed the council has requested "that more sunshine" be focused on the
project, describing its scale properly in the public notice would seem to be consistent with this guidance.
Repeating the previously used and incorrect description that misuses terms and grossly minimizes the scale
would just be used as fodder to justify another call-up, especially given the inumerable complaints about the
inaccuracy of this description. I therefore strongly urge you, and beg you, to rewrite the description that fairly
represents the development, and would go as far as to suggest that you consult the city attorney before
deciding to reuse the language from past notices given your department's full knowledge of its
inaccuracy. Quoting the combined "floor area" in the notice is quite appropriate, so long as this is indeed what
is being quoted, and so long as it includes the floor area of existing structures such that citizens can gauge the
scale of the resulting project. Once again, given the goal of encouraging public involvement in this project I
would urge you to err towards using language that emphasizes rather than minimizes the project size.
I also respectfully request that given that we have an entire month prior to the next hearing that your department
require that the applicant make available to the public more complete documentation, including a model that
your department has the right to request. For example, as you know, I have been trying for months to acquire
the proposed floorplans for this project, as well as a full set of elevations and roof details . Most importantly, I
think it is critical, not just for this project, but for all projects, that your department mandate square footage
quotes using an agreed upon definition. It was clear in the last landmark hearing that there was great confusion
over what was being quoted, which I believe led to an incorrect decision on its approval. I would suggest
requiring the developer to provide a quote for the floor area of each floor of each structure, such that they add up
to the total floor area of the entire structure. "floor area" is well defined in the Boulder Land Use Code section
18-162. 1 would encourage the developer to be as forthcoming as possible in disclosing square footage
quotes, but it seems self-evident that a comprehensive agreed-upon baseline should be provided.
file:HCADocuments and Settings\hewaj 1 \Local Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 2/24/2006
In addition , I respectfully request that your department spend a little more time documenting and justifying any
recommended deviation from the design guidelines. Based upon my participation in the project to date, the
primary argument I have heard for waiving the design guidelines has been that "the Howe building is
commercial". In fact, the Howe building has not been in commercial use for almost 2 years. My own home (the
Squires-Tourtellot house) was also commercial, having served as the Boulder Historical Society Museum for
many years, yet proposed changes to it were still fully expected to conform to the guidelines. Furthermore,
having read the guidelines, there is no contemplation that commercial buildings be exempt , and it represents a
tragic marginalization of the historic preservation ordinance to establish such a precedent. In fact, it was barely
2 years ago that your department specifically voted to distinguish the Howe Mortuary as a historically
contributing structure, so I am confused why the same department would now try to exempt it from conformance
to the guidelines. Indeed, if the building deserves exemption from the guidelines, it should have never been
protected in the first place. I also remain confused why an existing building is allowed to be expanded well
beyond what might be built on an empty lot.
Lastly, I would appreciate clarification on the approval process itself. Based upon my observations and
interactions on this project, I am still confused on exactly what has been approved, and by what mechanism.
For example, in the DRC meetings it has been implied that the roof deck has received approval, despite the fact
that no mention of it ever appeared in staff's memo to the landmark board or in the plans provided to the public.
If this feature has been approved, it would be helpful to understand the mechanism by which one gains approval
for features which have not been applied for or documented, and if this is consistent with the policy and intent of
the historic preservation ordinance and public approval process.
If there is anything I can do to be helpful to the process, please let me know. I am easily reachable on email and
eager to see this project receive the attention it deserves.
Regards,
Brad Farkas
1019 Spruce Street
646-322-1100
7
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj1\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 2/24/2006
James Hewat - Re: Plea for Mapleton Place Documentation
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 2/9/2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Plea for Mapleton Place Documentation
Dear Mr. Farkas:
The deadline for the applicant to get the materials in is today. Of course, all information submitted will be
available for review by the public.
Let me know if you have any questions.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas"
James,
I'm still trying to get a full set of documentation for Mapleton Place, and given
the upcoming landmark board hearing I'm concerned that after 18 months either
no one from your department has seen fit to request it, or it is being witheld from
the public. As you know, I've been asking for the same thing for a very, very
long time, and neither the public nor the landmarks board can fairly assess the
project without it. Once again, here is the minimum documentation I hope to
obtain (and I'm perplexed how the board can be expected to opine without it):
- Elevations for all structures
- plans for each floor (preferably generated by autocad than by hand, unless the
developer is willing to abide by any errors). If the plans are hand drawn, I would
request callout dimensions be indicated for each wall.
- Quotations for the Net Site Acreage of the overall site, the Floor Area of each
structure, and the footprints of each structure (using your departments own
definition of Net Site Acreage and Floor Area as published on your website in
the document titled "Understanding Density and Floor Area Ratio" at
http://www.ci.boulder.co_us_/b.pildingservices/j0bs_to_pop/documents/density floc
- A scale model of the development (the Design Guidelines allow you to request
this of the developer and it would seem appropriate that you do. 3D flythroughs
are nice, but can be easily manipulated).
I would think it is also fair to request that the developer correct and clarify the
many misquotations presented in the last landmark board hearing regarding the
76
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewajI\Local Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 2/24/2006
footprint of the old buildings and the new construction (pointing out for example
that he considered the carport to be equivelant to a 35 foot building in stating
that the footprint of the howe building was only being expanded 650 square feet,
and that the 9,180 square foot quote he gave for its overall size excluded almost
the entire first floor of the new construction).
Given the number and magnitude of the Design Guidelines that are being
waived in approving this development, I would also hope that you would
dedicate more than one page of text in justifying the exemptions. If the primary
justification is that the building is commercial, then the appropriateness of this
exemption should be addressed in the proposed changes to the historic
preservation ordinance (personally I think such an exemption is misguided). In
addition, I would urge you to make the effort to at least document all of the
issues, as the exclusion from the last staff memo of any mention of the roof
deck which violates 3 distinct guidelines is inexplicable.
I remain concerned that the substantial influence wielded by the owner,
developer, and his architect has allowed the approval of a project that would be
all that impossible if proposed by an outsider. As we all know, not only was the
architect the chairperson of the landmarks board for many years, but a senior
planning board member and a Historic Boulder board member are also
associated with the project and have actively lobbied on its behalf. Given the
extent of the insider relationships at play, I would think it particularly important
that your department demonstrate that it has given this project a thorough
review. Given the paltry documentation to date, the brevity and glaring
omissions of the last staff memo, your department's seeming unwillingness to
either request or provide basic documentation on this project or respond to
repeated public inquiry, and your repeated publication of a project description
that you awknowledged was incorrect, one must assume the worst.
I would also request clarification of the scope of the next landmark board
hearing. Quoting the deputy mayor's comments in the call-up hearing, she
stated "I like the idea of strongly encouraging the board to hold a full hearing
again ...[where] we would have the opportunity to bring up objections again... if
there is a way to allow another call up, I would push for it". These are verbatim
quotes, and reviewing the transcript of the hearing, it is clear from the comments
of multiple city council members that they are recommending having a public
hearing in which we can revisit all aspects of the project, and not just a limited
set of issues. Please clarify that the landmark board and staff intends this to be
the case.
Please let me know the appropriate avenue to get the information that I seek. If
your department doesn't have it, or isn't inclined to share it, please indicate that
this is the case so I might pursue other avenues, as simply not responding to my
#?-I-
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewajl\Local Settings\Temp\GW }000O1.HTM 2/24/2006
repeated requests seems to be exactly contrary to the wishes of the city
council. Given how responsive you have been to the developer in sharing
information (including my personal emails), I respectfully request that the public
be given the same consideration. It is simply not plausible that the developer,
after lamenting the 18 months he has been working on this project, doesn't have
basic floorplans or autocad documents of the basic site plan with accurate floor
area calculations.
Respectfully yours,
Brad Farkas
1019 Spruce Street
646-322-1100
ILq
7
0
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj 1\Local Settings\Temp\GW }00001.HTM 2/24/2006
James Hewat - RE: Plea for Mapleton Place Documentation
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 2/9/2006 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: Plea for Mapleton Place Documentation
Mr. Farkas:
Sorry to not respond to your last e-mails, I assumed they were comments rather than issues you specifically
wanted me to address.
You asked for clarification of what has been approved. It is as follows, on January 5th, the Board voted 5-1
(Salance dissenting) to grant conditional approval of the project, pending review and approval by the design
review committee of design details for the mortuary addition and resolution of the proposed designs for units #2
& #3.
Specifically, they found that issues to be considered at design review should include:
• Penthouse fenestration and wall treatment on the former mortuary building addition
• A re-design of the false window on east elevation of former mortuary building addition
• Further articulation of the west elevation of the former mortuary building addition
• Treatment of south elevation of former mortuary building including retention of windows, doors,
and design of proposed porch railing
• Re-visit proportions of proposed free-standing new construction in relation to adjacent historic
architecture; esp. perceived horizontality of unit#3 on both Pine St. and 11th Street
• Reduction of height, mass, and scale of units #2 & #3
• Simplification of roof forms and lines of units #2 & #3
• Perceived height and mass of south elevation of unit #2
• Possibility of orienting unit #3 to Pine Street
• Simplification of design of units (#3 in particular) ie, fenestration, architectural elements,
cladding materials
• Further distinguishing architecture of units #2 & #3.
• Orient stair to unit #2 centrally and perpendicular to porch; eliminate side access
• Reduce amount of deck/balcony space at west elevations of units #2 and #3
• Landscaping for entire site
If resolution to these issues cannot be reached at design review, a committee member may refer the
case to the full Board for review.
I think the floor area definition you are using is the Boulder COUNTY Land Use definition, not the City's. Please
refer to 9-1-3 of the Boulder Review Code for the City's definition.
We are still trying to figure out the format of the public hearing of the project on March 1st and will let you know
when it has been decided.
Hope that this helps.
James Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
303.441.3207
1f9
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewaj1\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW )00001.HTM 2/24/2006
"Brad Farkas" <Brad.Farkas@i-Hatch.com> 02/09 4:34 PM
James,
From your email you imply that you have not given the developer guidance as to what information you require.
Is this the case? Can you mail or email me the information once it comes in?
Lastly, I'd be most appreciative if you could address the unanswered questions from my last 3 emails.
Thanks.
rom: James Hewat [mailto:Hewatl@ci.boulder.co.usJ
t: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:32 PM
To: rad Farkas
Subje : Re: Plea for Mapleton Place Documentation
Dear Mr. F kas:
The deadline fo the applicant to get the materials in is today. Of course, all information submi d will be
available for revie by the public.
Let me know if you ha any questions.
James Hewat
"Brad Farkas" <Brad.Fark @i-Hatch.com> 02/09 4:07 PM
James,
I'm still trying to get a full set of docu ntation for Mapleton Place, an iven the upcoming landmark board
hearing I'm concerned that after 18 mo s either no one from your partment has seen fit to request it, or it is
being witheld from the public. As you kno , I've been asking fort same thing for a very, very long time, and
neither the public nor the landmarks board n fairly assess the roject without it. Once again, here is the
minimum documentation I hope to obtain (an 'm perplexed w the board can be expected to opine without it):
- Elevations for all structures
- plans for each floor (preferably generated by autoc an by hand, unless the developer is willing to abide by
any errors). If the plans are hand drawn, I would r uest allout dimensions be indicated for each wall.
- Quotations for the Net Site Acreage of the o rail site, the F or Area of each structure, and the footprints of
each structure (using your departments ow definition of Net Sit Acreage and Floor Area as published on your
website in the document title d "Understa ing Density and Floor a Ratio" at
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/buildin se ices/obs to o /documentWensit floorarearatio.pdf)
-A scale model of the developme (the Design Guidelines allow you to quest this of the developer and it
would seem appropriate that y do. 3D flythroughs are nice, but can be a ily manipulated).
I would think it is also fair request that the developer correct and clarify the m y misquotations presented in
the last landmark boar earing regarding the footprint of the old buildings and the ew construction (pointing
out for example that considered the carport to be equivelant to a 35 foot building i tating that the footprint of
the howe building s only being expanded 650 square feet, and that the 9,180 square of quote he gave for
its overall size a luded almost the entire first floor of the new construction).
Given the n ber and magnitude of the Design Guidelines that are being waived in approving t ' development,
I would a o hope that you would dedicate more than one page of text in justifying the exemptions. If the primary
justific on is that the building is commercial, then the appropriateness of this exemption should be addressed in
the oposed changes to the historic preservation ordinance (personally I think such an exemption is
guided). In addition, I would urge you to make the effort to at least document all of the issues, as the
xclusion from the last staff memo of any mention of the roof deck which violates 3 distinct guidelines is
inexplicable.
file://CADocuments and Settings\hewaj1\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW )00001.HTM 2/24/2006
From: "Brad Farkas"
To: <hewatj@ci.boulder.co.us>
Date: 2/23/2006 10:46:10 PM
Subject: Continued Misrepresentations on Mapleton Place
James,
You write some very nice prose, but the deeper I look into this project
and your unquestioning support of it, the more I am concerned.
Personally, I feel that you have abused your role as the staff Iiason.
Wheras you should be doing everything you can to bring every aspect of
this project to light, you continue to purposefully under-represent the
scale of the project, withold or delay information that clarifies
critical details, publish misleading information to the public,
manipulate the landmark board's meeting minutes, and disregard the will
of the city counsel. Given your critical role and highly biased
behavior, I don't think it's even possible to have a fair hearing on the
Mapleton Place project. At this point I would suggest that you resign
your position, find a replacement who can fairly represent the project,
and delay the hearing until such time as sufficient detail be provided
to the board such that they can make an informed decision.
Below are just a few of the blatant misrepresentations and errors of
fact that I have uncovered simply by reviewing your latest emails, the
latest elevations I received from you (after you delayed fedexing them
by a week) and going over the audio transcript of the January Landmark's
Board hearing:
Beginning with your email below you state that despite my repeated
pleas, "We have not requested, nor has the applicant provided floor
plans of the buildings". As you well know, the floor plans would
quickly elucidate the fact that the square footage quotes provided by
yourself and the developer have been distorted. No less than 3 times
during the hearing did board members request second floor or roof plans.
In one of these requests the board member made it clear that no decision
could be made on the 3rd floor of the mortuary building until these
plans were provided. This important fact was suspiciously absent from
the board minutes.
Indeed the reason these floor plans are required is that without them it
is impossible to gauge the true floor area of the three buildings in the
development without spending several hours hand measuring dimensions on
the elevations. Having personally spend 5 hours with an architect's
ruler doing just this, it is clear that both yourself and the developer
continue to underepresent the scale of the buildings in this project.
Though it is presumably your job to bring facts like this to light, you
seem to have spent more time insuring that these important facts remain
undiscovered, despite the obvious confusion of the board members at the
last meeting as to why the buildings seemed larger than suggested by
their documented square footage.
Since neither you nor the developer are willing to illustrate the true
floor area of the buildings, I have been given no choice but to
calculate the figures myself which are as accurate as the hand drawn
elevations reasonably allow. Using the exterior wall measurements in my
floor area calculations, and your own definition of "floor area" put
67
forth on your web site (which excludes outdoor patios, carports,
porches, roof decks, etc), the REAL square footage of the building
projects are as follows (and I encourage you to check my work if this is
the first time you've done any measurements yourself):
Howe Mortuary Building and Expansion
Original Building: 4,108
Penthouse: 1,040 (note that you represented
this as being 750 sq ft just last week)
New Construct. 1st fl 2,562
New Construct. 2nd fl 2,562
New Construct. 1st fl 2,562
Howe Bldg Excl Bsmt 12,834
Basement 4,108
Total Howe Bldg 16,936
Note that the Howe Building ALONE will be greater than the 16,800 square
feet you are quoting for the entire development! Of course the Original
Howe building is only counted as a single story, despite the fact that
it is 2 stories high, so for the purposes of assessing mass and scale
you would add another 4,108 square feet to the total, giving the
building an equivelant mass of roughly a 21,000 square foot building. A
structure of this size, which is 4 times the size of the average home on
the block, is plainly absurd. The expanded Howe mortuary that was
conditionally approved at the last hearing was represented as being only
9,180 square feet.
Building #2
1st floor (incl garage) 1,550
2nd Floor 1,200
3rd Floor 1,200
Bay window & Dormer 50
Total Unit 42 4,000 Square Feet (versus 2,990 listed
by developer)
Much time in the last hearing was spent figuring out why unit 2 looked
so much larger than the 2,900 feet the developer claimed. In fact, not
only is the structure 33% larger than suggested, but in addition it has
a 9 foot attic space which is almost the equivelant of an additional
story.
I didn't have time to delve into the floor area of unit #3, but one must
assume the worst.
Although your refusal to get illustrative floor plans and floor area
measurements have been inexcusable and contrary to your job function, of
even greater concern is your manipulation of the board minutes of the
landmark board hearing, and purposeful deceit in the public notice for
the upcoming March 1st meeting.
Contrary your repeated claims that the Mapleton Place project is
6-9
conditionally approved pending the resolution of a short list of issues
(and you even go so far as to redact the full set of issues), and the
memorialization of this misconception in the minutes of the last board
meeting, the truth of the matter is quite different. In reviewing the
audio transcript at least 2 different board members make it clear that
the project is only conditionally approved subject to the resolution of
issues which include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, the list you have been
quoting. Furthermore your list completely ignores the fact that the
entire third floor of the Howe expansion is not approved until a roof
plan is provided.
Why you are so hell bent on getting this project approved that you would
go so far as to misrepresent so many facts is beyond me. Even reading
your description of the project submitted in your latest public notice
advertising the upcoming hearing, it is obvious you want to discourage
people from attending. Not only do you once again misquote the floor
area of the project (although not as egregiously as before), but you go
to great pains to claim that the hearing is ONLY for the "final design
features" and "will be limited to those matters that were subject to
further approval by the Design Review Committee...... This is outrageous
given the city council's guidance that the project be subjected to
another hearing in which the public would "have the opportunity to bring
up objections again" as quoted verbatim by the deputy mayor.
Furthermore, it is even contradictory to your last email to me below
which states (and which I believe to be true) that "The case will be
heard again by the full Board in a de-novo, quasi-judicial public
hearing on March 1 st, 2006 and will be subject to call-up by the City
Council, as per the desire of Landmarks Board chair, Tim Plass".
Either your email to me was false, or your have once again knowingly
misled the public to discourage them from participating in the public
process. By suggesting that Mapleton Place is basically a feta-compli,
you discourage anyone from showing up at the meeting. Why should they
bother if the project is 99% approved anyway? Indeed you should clarify
that the upcoming hearing is indeed "de-novo" and as such every aspect
of the project may be re-examined.
As for the landmark board, I only hope that they will look at this
project in a new light given the knowledge of the true size of the
structures proposed, and see this project as the inappropriate behemoth
that it is. Now that you have dissuaded the public from attending the
public hearing, the landmark board alone will have to opine on the
project without the benefit of public opinion.
Regards,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: hewatj@ci.boulder.co.us [mailto:hewatj@ci.boulder.co.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:36 AM
To: Brad Farkas
Cc: kornblumn@qwest.net; lelandr@newsgator.com; rsalance@yahoo.com;
gehrd@bouldercolorado.gov; twplass@aol.com;
mcheyserr@bouldercolorado.gov
Subject: Council Correspondence Application Correspondent Response
63
Dear Mr. Farkas:
Thanks for your recent inquiry regarding the former Howe Mortuary
redevelopment project located at 2121 11 st Street in the Mapleton Hill
historic district.
The most recent submission including a scaled site plan, scaled
elevations, and a perspective view showing the proposed development from
the southeast was received by the Planning Department on February 9th,
2006 following three design review committee meetings in January and
February. The applicant has also done some computer modeling of the
development also which is available. We have not requested, nor has the
applicant provided floor plans of the buildings, as the Landmarks Board
has purvue over only the exteriors of buildings. However, it is my
understanding is that the rehabilitated former mortuary, proposed
addition, and adjacent new construction will comprise approximately
16,800 sq. ft. of floor area (not including garage space which is shown
to be approximately 1,600 sq. ft).
The architect has hand drawn the plans and elevations. I'm not sure that
we can require them to redraw these in autocad. Our application which
can be found online at:
http://www.ci. boulder.co. us/buildingservices/apps/H istPresapps/lacapp.pd
f , requires that plans be scaled (preferably at 1/4" scale) and that
applications "illustrate clearly and accurately" a proposed project. The
Board does sometimes request a model or three-dimensional modeling to
further illustrate mass and scale. As mentioned, three dimensional
modeling was requested and has been provided by the applicant. I believe
I sent you three dimensional stills (in addition to the full set of
drawings) to your address in New York via Federal Express prior to the
February 1st, 2006 design review committee meeting which you attended
via conference call.
The case will be heard again by the full Board in a de-novo,
quasi-judicial public hearing on March 1 st, 2006 and will be subject to
call-up by the City Council, as per the desire of Landmarks Board chair,
Tim Plass.
Let me also clarify that only the a-mails which you have specifically
instructed me to share with the applicant, have been divulged to that
party.
I will forward you the complete set of drawings to your New York address
in the next several days. The staff memo will be completed on February
24th. I will e-mail you a copy then.
Thanks again for you interest in this project and let me know if you
have additional questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
James Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
L-V
330.441.3207
Original Correspondence:
James,
I'm still trying to get a full set of documentation for Mapleton Place,
and given the upcoming landmark board hearing I'm concerned that after
18 months either no one from your department has seen fit to request it,
or it is being witheld from the public. As you know, I've been asking
for the same thing for a very, very long time, and neither the public
nor the landmarks board can fairly assess the project without it. Once
again, here is the minimum documentation I hope to obtain (and I'm
perplexed how the board can be expected to opine without it):
- Elevations for all structures
- plans for each floor (preferably generated by autocad than by hand,
unless the developer is willing to abide by any errors). If the plans
are hand drawn, I would request callout dimensions be indicated for each
wall.
- Quotations for the Net Site Acreage of the overall site, the Floor
Area of each structure, and the footprints of each structure (using your
departments own definition of Net Site Acreage and Floor Area as
published on your website in the document titled "Understanding Density
and Floor Area Ratio" at
hftp://www.ci.boulder.co. us/bui ldingservices/jobs_to_pop/documents/densi
ty_f loorarearatio.pdf)
- A scale model of the development (the Design Guidelines allow you to
request this of the developer and it would seem appropriate that you do.
3D flythroughS are nice, but can be easily manipulated).
I would think it is also fair to request that the developer correct and
clarify the many misquotations presented in the last landmark board
hearing regarding the footprint of the old buildings and the new
construction (pointing out for example that he considered the carport to
be equivelant to a 35 foot building in stating that the footprint of the
howe building was only being expanded 650 square feet, and that the
9,180 square foot quote he gave for its overall size excluded almost the
entire first floor of the new construction).
Given the numberand magnitude of the Design Guidelines that are being
waived in approving this development, I would also hope that you would
dedicate more than one page of text in justifying the exemptions. If
the primary justification is that the building is commercial, then the
appropriateness of this exemption should be addressed in the proposed
changes to the historic preservation ordinance (personally I think such
an exemption is misguided). In addition, I would urge you to make the
effort to at least document all of the issues, as the exclusion from the
last staff memo of any mention of the roof deck which violates 3
distinct guidelines is inexplicable.
I remain concerned that the substantial influence wielded by the owner,
developer, and his architect has allowed the approval of a project that
would be all that impossible if proposed by an outsider. As we all
know, not only was the architect the chairperson of the landmarks board
for many years, but a senior planning board member and a Historic
Boulder board member are also associated with the project and have
actively lobbied on its behalf. Given the extent of the insider
relationships at play, I would think it particularly important that your
department demonstrate that it has given this project a thorough review.
Given the paltry documentation to date, the brevity and glaring
omissions of the last staff memo, your department's seeming
unwillingness to either request or provide basic documentation on this
project or respond to repeated public inquiry, and your repeated
publication of a project description that you awknowledged was
incorrect, one must assume the worst.
I would also request clarification of the scope of the next landmark
board hearing. Quoting the deputy mayor's comments in the call-up
hearing, she stated "I like the idea of strongly encouraging the board
to hold a full hearing again ...[where] we would have the opportunity to
bring up objections again... if there is a way to allow another call up,
I would push for it". These are verbatim quotes, and reviewing the
transcript of the hearing, it is clear from the comments of multiple
city council members that they are recommending having a public hearing
in which we can revisit all aspects of the project, and not just a
limited set of issues. Please clarify that the landmark board and staff
intends this to be the case.
Please let me know the appropriate avenue to get the information that I
seek. If your department doesn't have it, or isn't inclined to share
it, please indicate that this is the case so I might pursue other
avenues, as simply not responding to my repeated requests seems to be
exactly contrary to the wishes of the city council. Given how
responsive you have been to the developer in sharing information
(including my personal emails), I respectfully request that the public
be given the same consideration. It is simply not plausible that the
developer, after lamenting the 18 months he has been working on this
project, doesn't have basic floorplans or autocad documents of the basic
site plan with accurate floor area calculations.
Respectfully yours,
Brad Farkas
1019 Spruce Street
646-322-110
CC: <kornblumn@gwest.net>, <lelandr@newsgator.com>, <rsalance@yahoo.com>,
<gehrd@bouldercolorado.gov>, <twplass@aol.com>, <mcheyserr@bouldercolorado.gov>
t,/4
James Hewat - Re: Continued Misrepresentations on Mapleton Place
From: James Hewat
To: Farkas, Brad
Date: 2/24/2006 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Continued Misrepresentations on Mapleton Place
CC: Gehr, David; Harrison, Sue Ellen; kornblumn@qwest.net;
lelandr@newsgator.com; McHeyser, Ruth; Meschuk, Chris; Pollock,
Peter; rsalance@yahoo.com; twplass@aol.com
Dear Mr. Farkas:
Thanks for your comments, I will include them (and all of your previous correspondence) in the March 1st, 2006
Landmarks Board packet.
Sincerely,
James M. Hewat
Historic Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
303.441.3207
"Brad Farkas"
James,
Yo write some very nice prose, but the deeper I look int his project
and ur unquestioning support of it, the more I am co erned.
Person ly, I feel that you have abused your role as a staff liason.
Wheras y should be doing everything you can t bring every aspect of
this project t fight, you continue to purposeful) nder-represent the
scale of the pro ct, withold or delay informal' n that clarifies
critical details, pub . In misleading informat' n to the public,
manipulate the land rk board's meetin minutes, and disregard the will
of the city counsel. Giv your critica ole and highly biased
behavior, I don't think it's e n pos le to have a fair hearing on the
Mapleton Place project. At th p t I would suggest that you resign
your position, find a replacem who can fairly represent the project,
and delay the hearing until ch ti a as sufficient detail be provided
to the board such that th can mak n informed decision.
Below are just a few f the blatant misrep entations and errors of
fact that I have u overed simply by reviewin our latest emails, the
latest elevation received from you (after you ayed fedexing them
by a week) a going over the audio transcript of th January Landmark's
Board hea ' g:
Begin ng with your email below you state that despite my re ated
ple , "We have not requested, nor has the applicant provided r
pl s of the buildings". As you well know, the floor plans would
ickly elucidate the fact that the square footage quotes provided by
yourself and the developer have been distorted. No less than 3 times
during the hearing did board members request second floor or roof plans.
6-3
file://C:\Documents and Settings\hewajl\L.ocal Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 2/24/2006
*Kj5VLSJ~.T> 621011dg AttachmentC
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICA'
Date Submitted-0 (O l Property Address: `l7 s7
District: h~14e Landmark name: He 4J,d
Office
Applicant name: SC,,;)T / /p g"" Phone: _2o / - may -3717
Mobile Phone: ~a j~ - Fax: 7342-3- - -3~ 717
Relationship to project (e.g., architect, contractor):
Applicant's Mailing Address: /~1.0 X 7 y, /✓mlt ~.C~dG/~_ ~0 30
Property owner's name: ,ryl~Q~j~ld~rr/ /~Ll9Cr~~G.Day-Time Phone: 30 3 - ~~i'Si -3/717
Property owner's full address: Id Aox 79" 1,47c GC Lt4~s 0
0 30 b
This above information is required in order to fully process this application.
To assist us in reviewing your project, please provide a project description in the space provided below.
Include all of the exterior alterations proposed for the property. Please submit the completed
application, along with any supporting information, prior to your first design review meeting. If you
have questions, or to schedule an appointment for review, please contact James Hewat at 303.441.3207
or Bohdy Hedgcock at 303.441.4293.
We look forward to working with you on your proposal!
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Please list all exterior alterations proposed for the property.
TYPE OF ALTERATION Please check all that apply.
New Addition Roof Repair Required:
-New Garage** Deck ~,9fo size (in square feet)
Demolition** -Dormer(s) /2 total existing square feet
-Window(s) -Skylight(s) 72L5'Proposed additional square feet
-Door Paint ~ ECxisting height
-Fence -Porch 35- Proposed height
New Roof
Other (please specify): /v ~LU/ Cee?/~/A~1.GChv
**Requires a public hearing
10.02-LACappl
Page 1 of 2
What to Bring to Your Review ,
Please submit this completed application form and the supporting materials prior to the design review
meeting. To make the most of your design review, it must illustrate what you have in mind very clearly
and accurately. Final approval cannot be given without the required documentation listed below.
The followine documentation is required to initiate 'conceptual' review by the Design Review
Committee:
14hotographs (photos of existing building and surrounding context)
~rawings (sketches or scaled drawings of the proposal)
The following documentation is required for final review and approval:
!Scaled site plans
A-Elevations (usually 1/4" = 1' scale)
---Materials (brick/stone samples)
_Colors (paint/stain color chip)
photographs (photos of existing building all sides and surrounding context)
-Manufacturer's/catalogue "tear" sheet
_For fences, please bring drawings to scale showing dimensions, including spacing between rails.
It is also helpful if you provide:
vl3uilding sections 4-Tlloor plans ;iYStudy model (additions)
COMMITTEE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL:
NEXT STEPS: PUBLIC HEARING? YES No
The Design Review Committee cannot deny an alteration application, however, any one Committee member can
require a full-board hearing.
10.02-LACappl
Page 2 of 2