Public Comment Item 5A - 936 Mapleton Ave - Estella ColeFrom:Cameron, Marcy
To:Opansky, Holly
Cc:Hewat, James
Subject:FW: 936 Mapleton
Date:Monday, April 2, 2018 4:38:15 PM
From: E. Cole <es_cole@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 9:34 AM
To: Fran Sheets <sheetsf@colorado.edu>; Deborah Yin <dyin@may-yin-architecture.com>; Ronnie
Pelusio <ronnie@pel-ona.com>; William Jellick <wjellick@yahoo.com>; Eric Budd
<ericbudd@gmail.com>
Cc: Hewat, James <HewatJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Cameron, Marcy
<CameronM@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: 936 Mapleton
1 April 2018
Dear Members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and Preservation Staff
The revised mass, scale, and location of the proposed addition to 936 Mapleton Avenue,
which has been reduced by 40 sq.ft., is not significantly different from the proposed addition
recommended for denial of an Landmark Alteration Certificate in December 2017. The
current proposal remains inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Design Guidelines, and The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards upon which
the City’s guidelines are based.
The proposed main floor addition is not stepped back from the plane of the east façade of the
historic house, which is one of the most visible elevations due to the 10th Street R.O.W. that
runs along the east property line, and the addition is not reversible due to the removal of the
entire south (back) wall of the historic house. These two design choices are inconsistent with
the spirit and intent of the Guidelines. In addition, the SOI Standards recommend that
additions to historic buildings be subservient to the existing historic resource. The addition as
designed calls attention to itself and is visually incompatible with the 1-1/2 story brick
building.
I appreciate the analysis of the proposed alterations against the Design Guidelines; however,
with the majority of issues being listed as “Confirm: Maybe” and “Resolve at LDRC”, I feel
Staff is putting the members of the Board and the Design Review Committee in an untenable
position. I say this as a nine year member of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and
a 7-1/2 year member of the Design Review Committee, which at that time involved the same
members meeting with applicants each week. When proposals with drawings as completely
fleshed out as these were presented, it was my experience that resolution to achieve
compliance with the Guidelines and the Standards was incredibly difficult, if not impossible,
because of owner “buy-in” with the proposed alterations.
Based on the drawings presented in the Staff Memo, because the current proposal is little
changed from the December proposal that was recommended by Staff for denial, the
Landmarks Board should not send the applicant back to the Design Review Committee for
resolution, but should deny the proposal outright citing the same reasons that led Staff to
recommend denial in December.
In recent conversations with Staff, I understand that the challenges facing the LPAB now are
much different – and more challenging – than when I served on the Board in the late 1980s
and early 1990s; however, the protection of the character of our town and neighborhoods is
dependent on the Board and Design Review Committee making the difficult decisions, such as
denying this proposal for a new addition that so clearly doesn’t comply with the criteria you
are charged to uphold.
Thank you for your consideration,
Estella Cole, R.A.