Loading...
777 Broadway Applicant Letter 10.09.24777 BROADWAY Response to the Considera/on of Applica/on for Non- Designated Buildings The ini’al public hearing for 777 Broadway was held on September 9th, 2024; Landmarks Board opted to pursue staff’s recommenda’on to stay demoli’on and explore the op’on to landmark the site based on the following: • The building’s architectural significance as an example of Hobart Wagener’s signature Rus’c Modern style pyramidal roof form. • The site’s associa’on with the Alpha Phi Sorority, Alice Reeves and Llewellyn Anderson, and the Holy Spirit Associa’on for the Unifica’on of World Chris’anity. The stay was placed to explore the condi’on of the building, the cost of preserva’on, and alterna’ves based on the rela’onship to the surrounding area and value of the building. The applicant understands the Landmarks Board’s ini’a’ve and purpose and has the utmost respect for historical events and sites. The memo presented by staff for the September 9th hearing outlines the role the site has served for mul’ple owners since the 1950s, all of which centered around serving the growing needs of the Boulder community through the built environment. A tour of the property with staff and members from the Board on October 2, 2024 allowed for addi’onal discussion, including substan’al conversa’ons around challenges the building and site are facing. The applicant objects to landmarking the building and is providing addi’onal reasoning and suppor’ng details herein. Primary objec’ons to the landmarking of the building include: 1. Deteriora’ng condi’ons of the exis’ng property (Criterion 3) and the poten’al impact on surrounding proper’es 2. Substan’al costs of restora’on (Criterion 4) 3. Mee’ng the goals and policies of the City Council and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 4. Numerous significant examples of the pyramidal roof already landmarked 5. Balancing the associa’on with persons/events vs. suppor’ng the current property owner’s ministry and outreach While not suppor’ve of the landmarking process, the applicant is intent on how the site’s story con’nues to play an essen’al role serving the growing and ever-changing needs of the community. We thank you for your considera’on in these responses. 1. Deteriora+ng condi+ons of the exis+ng property (Criterion 3) and the poten+al impact on surrounding proper+es A city sanitary sewer main runs west to east under the middle of the building directly under the 1960s addi’on. The nearly 70-year old sanitary sewer main serves mul’ple apartment buildings to the west of the property. City code requires the applicant to dedicate a 25-foot u’lity easement and reroute the sanitary sewer from underneath the building and around the property. The aging sanitary sewer line will need to be replaced at some point, regardless of the use of the property. The depth of the sanitary sewer line at 11 feet below grade means that excava’on of the line would be costly and very challenging to the preserva’on of the structure, as shoring and other means and methods would need to be deployed to mi’gate the risk of the building se‘ling and deteriora’ng further. Failure of the sanitary sewer line would impact mul’ple adjacent proper’es, and ac’on will need to be taken at some point in the future. Worth no’ng, replacement, rerou’ng, and dedica’on of the 25 -foot u’lity easement have been accounted for in the conceptual redevelopment plans for the property. 2. Substan+al costs of restora+on (Criterion 4) In the criteria for review as outlined in Sec’on 9-11-1(c), the landmarks board shall follow relevant city policies, including, without limita9on, energy-efficient design, access for the disabled and crea9ve approaches to renova9on. The applicant has undertaken a detailed assessment of the current state of the building, hiring third party consultants to inspect the accessibility, building systems, energy efficiency, and structural components. The applicant performed the assessment and analysis to determine the economic feasibility of restoring and preserving the exis’ng building under its exis’ng use as a student housing project. The result of the property assessments provided insights into the substan’al and costly renova’ons that would need to occur to address cri’cal capital improvements, bring the building up to code, and make the project marketable. Taylor Kohrs, a general contractor with exper’se in remodel work, provided a detailed quote and schedule of values to address the condi’on of the building as shown below. The total cost to is nearly $5 million, a substan’al number given that this number only preserves the exis’ng building and does not increase revenues from the student housing opera’ons. The most impacful findings and largest costs derived from the 3rd party consultant’s assessments are described below: • Sanitary Sewer Line Under the 1960s Addi+on: as ar’culated above in Item 1. • MEP and Energy Code: a remodel would require improvements to all MEP and thermal barriers to meet current building code. The building currently operates on a natural gas boiler system for hea’ng and has no air handlers or cooling. The electrical service (transformer, panels, etc) is not sized for the HVAC upgrades and would need to be redone accordingly. The plumbing system is outdated and would also be redone while walls are open. • ADA Requirements: The project is currently grandfathered into ADA compliance laws that were understood at the ’me of its construc’on. Due to the extensive remodel requirement to restore the project, the project would lose its right to comply with outdated ADA regula’ons, and elevators, ramps, toilets, sinks, countertops, clearances, etc., would need to be installed, replaced, and modified to meet current ADA requirements. As two examples, there are exterior and interior steps throughout the building, and typical door widths are less than 32 inches wide in all instances. • Exterior Degrada+on: All non-masonry exteriors have decomposed and will need to be replaced. The city's energy code would require a new exterior thermal barrier be applied below the new facade. Water intrusion has been noted in mul’ple loca’ons and non-treated lumber is in direct contact with the soil. • Market Compe++veness: The building was built as a student housing project, and due to the opera’ng challenges and capital improvements needs, has fallen behind most other student housing projects in the area. To be compe’’ve in the market, the project would need new flooring, paint, fixtures, ameni’es, the cost of which cannot be supported on the current income. 3. Mee+ng the goals and policies of the City Council and Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pla In the criteria for review as outlined in Sec’on 9-11-3(d)(6), the proposed designa9on shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. As described in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the City seeks to meet the housing demand by increasing the residen’al density within certain zones and areas. The 777 Broadway project lies within the RH-5 zone, which is one of the highest density residen’al zones the City has formulated, and is directly across the street from the ever-growing University of Colorado campus. Boulder’s enrollment trajectory as described in the plan is to increase its acceptance by 30% before the year 2030, further increasing the need for student housing both on and around campus. The redevelopment proposal meets the goals of the BVCP, the zone designa’on, and adds over 170 new bedrooms along a transit-rich corridor. It is also within walking distance to the campus and commercial services. The redevelopment supports the following BVCP targets and City Council's explicit goals to increase the supply of housing in our communi’es: • BVCP, Sec’on 7 - 7.07 Mixture of Housing Types: The city and county, through their land use regula’ons and housing policies, will encourage the private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densi’es to meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of the Boulder Valley popula’on. • BVCP, Sec’on 7 - 7.10 Housing for a Full Range of Households: The city and county will encourage preserva’on and development of housing a‘rac’ve to current and future households, persons at all stages of life and abili’es, and to a variety of household incomes and configura’ons. This includes singles, couples, families with children and other dependents, extended families, non-tradi’onal households and seniors. • BVCP, Sec’on 7 - 7.14 Conversion of Residen’al Uses in the Community: The city will evaluate and revise regula’ons to reduce the opportuni’es for the conversion of residen’al uses to non- residen’al uses or to require mi’ga’on for residen’al units lost through the redevelopment of exis’ng housing or the conversion of a residen’al use to non-residen’al uses. The image below demonstrates where the City has programmed density, and the sites rela’on to the intent of the surrounding area. 4. Numerous significant examples of pyramidal roof already landmarked Hobart Wagener has designed or helped design over 140 documented sites in the City of Boulder. The legacy of the pyramidal roof is shared with at least 7 other buildings throughout the city, in prominent loca’ons, all of which have been be‘er maintained and preserved. These loca’ons include the Atrium Building and the Boulder City Post Office building among others. The Atrium Building is almost iden’cal in shape and size to 777 Broadway. The pyramidal shaped roof of 777 Broadway is by no means unique and doesn’t par’cularly add anything novel to the City’s robust collec’on of Wagener buildings. Furthermore, the Hobart por’on of the 777 Broadway building was an addi’on onto the original building built approximately 8 years earlier. As noted in the staff memo, addi’ons to exis’ng buildings were not included in the Historic Survey, a prerequisite that deemed such proper’es not part of the most significant buildings of the period. The applicant is unaware of any other addi’ons to buildings being landmarked, and doing so would be unprecedented and add an addi’onal layer of scru’ny to proper’es throughout the City. The Atrium Building - 1300 Canyon Blvd, Boulder, CO 80302 Post Office - 1905 15th St, Boulder, CO 80302 5. Balancing the associa+on of persons/events vs. suppor+ng the current property owner’s ministry and outreach As outlined in the staff memo, the history of this site has always focused on serving the growing needs of the community. Ini’ally constructed as an apartment building serving the student popula’on, it was expanded to further serve this purpose and the Alpha Phi sorority. Once the sorority moved on from the property, the building was repurposed for communal housing for the Holy Spirit Associa’on. In the early 2000s, the building was considered for transi’onal housing, before returning to student housing run by Horizons Interna’onal. Through the numerous owners and uses, the site has also served the University community at large in the various capaci’es. As a small non-profit, the 777 Broadway property is a significant asset to Horizons Interna’onal. Realizing the full value of the property is cri’cal to keeping their ministry alive as they shim from housing to focus on direct service and ministry of marginalized peoples both locally and abroad. • Alpha Phi The Alpha Phi sorority moved to and is currently opera’ng in a landmarked building located at 1015 15th Street. • Alice Reeves and Llewellyn Anderson Ms. Reeves and Ms. Anderson lived at 1921 Goss Street and 1945 Goss Street, respec’vely. Preliminary research into Goss Street indicates that the street and immediate vicinity historically contained a higher density of Black homeowners. Further research into Goss Street and the significance it played in people’s lives could serve as a more historically encompassing commemora’on of those that have chosen to make Boulder their home. • Holy Spirit Associa’on The Holy Spirit Associa’on used the building for 26 years. By the ’me they vacated the property, the building had fallen into disrepair with limited preventa’ve maintenance and upkeep. The preserva’on of this building, without any significant outside financial support to sustain its ongoing func’on risks puong the exis’ng business/property owner out of business and may cause the structure in ques’on to fall further into disrepair and ul’mately degrade to a point where it becomes a larger issue. The City, through its policies and the BVCP, is commi‘ed to suppor’ng small businesses, not destroying them, which a landmarking ac’on may unfortunately achieve. The devalua’on of the property following a substan’al outlay of capital for preserva’on with no resultant addi’onal student housing units would be substan’al and poten’ally devasta’ng.