HomeMy WebLinkAbout5B - 11.05.14 Memo for 2250 6th St
M E M O R A N D U M
November 5, 2014
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Angela Smelker, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to
construct a 308 sq. ft. detached garage at 2250 6th St. in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
(HIS2014-00309).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 2250 6th St.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner: Bud and Chris Willis
4. Applicant: David Waugh
5. Site Area: 9,620 sq. ft.
6 Proposed Garage: 308 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
proposed new construction will be generally consistent with the conditions specified in
General Design Guidelines, Mapleton Hill Historic
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the and the
District Design Guidelines.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board
adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated November 5, 2014, as the
findings of the board and approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the proposed
construction of a garage as shown on plans dated July 11, 2014 , finding that they generally
meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C.
1981, subject to the following conditions:
Agenda Item #5B Page 1
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\6th.2250\11.05.2014 memo 2250 6th.docxdocx
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1.The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development is
constructed in compliance with approved plans dated July 11, 2014 on file in the
City of Boulder Community Planning and Sustainability Department, except as
modified by these conditions of approval.
2.
Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which
shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design review
committee: final details regarding roofing, windows and pedestrian and garage
door details. These design details shall be reviewed and approved by the
Landmarks design review committee prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall demonstrate that the design details are in compliance with
General Design Guidelines Mapleton Hill
the intent of this approval and the and the
Historic District Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY
On August 27, 2014, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) reviewed and
th
approved a Landmark Alteration Certificate for an addition and deck remodeling at
the rear of the house, pending final review of details by staff.
The proposal for a new, free-standing garage was referred to the full Landmarks
Board for review by the Ldrc.
Staff recommends that, provided the state conditions are met, the Landmarks Board
approve the request to construct a new garage in that the proposal generally meets
the standards of Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item #5B Page 2
Figure 1. Location Map, 2250 6 St.
th
PROPERTY HISTORY:
The property at 2250 6th St. is part of the Mapleton Addition to the city, which was
platted in 1888. The one-and-a-half story, Colonial Revival residence on the property
was constructed in 1922 and features a steeply-pitched side gable roof, long shed
dormer, multi-over-single light windows and a symmetrical façade. The entry features
sidelights with a fanlight above.
When the property was surveyed in 1994, it was identified
and is considered to be
-
contributing to the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
See Attachment A:
Historic Building Inventory Form.
The house was constructed for Harry B. and Ella McClure.
Mr. McClure was the manager of the Federal Gas Company,
later known as the Public Service Co., and also served as a
Boulder County treasurer. Harry was a son of the well-
known Boulder pioneer, George McClure, who brought his
family to Boulder in the 1870s when Harry was a young
child. Before moving to 2250 6 St., Harry McClure built the
th
house at 637 Pine St., which was individually landmarked in
1989 as the McClure House. Harry, Ella, and their son,
George, lived at 2250 6 St. from 1922 to 1942.
th
Figure 2. Photo of
Harry B. McClure, c. 1900.
From 1942 to 1977, a retired couple, Walter and Faith Luhnow, resided in the house and
during this time, Walter became well-known in Boulder based on his outspoken weekly
columns featured in the Boulder Daily Camera concerning local and national politics
and economics.
Agenda Item #5B Page 3
Figure 3. Tax Assessor Photograph, 2250 6th St., c.1949.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The 9,620 sq. ft. lot is located on the southeast corner of 6 St. and Highland Ave., and
th
the house fronts 6 St. The property abuts 620 Highland Ave. to the east and 2230 6 St.
thth
to the south with the lot sloping from west to east. A garage was originally located
beneath the house and accessed from 6 St. but has since been enclosed as living space.
th
Figure 4. Close up of façade, 2250 6th St., 2014
Agenda Item #5B Page 4
PROPOSED NEW GARAGE:
The applicant proposes to construct a one story, 308 sq. ft. garage.
Figure 5. Proposed site plan, 2250 6th St.
In plan, the proposed garage is shown to be located south of the house, and accessed
from 6 St., utilizing an existing curb cut, as the property is not bounded by an alley.
th
The façade of the proposed garage is shown to be is set back 30 ft. from the west
property line, behind the edge of the façade of the house. The proposed garage has a 14
ft. by 22 ft. footprint, and the north wall of the proposed garage is shown to be located
from the south property line.
Agenda Item #5B Page 5
Figure 6. Driveway and fenced in yard at south of property, 2250 6th St., 2014.
Figure 7. Proposed west elevation (left, facing 6 St.) and east elevation (right, interior lot)
th
The simple, gable roof garage in height from the west (street-
facing) elevation in height on the east elevation, as the grade drops down.
Elevations show the building to have a traditional 7:12 pitch roof, complimentary to the
steeper slope of the roof of the house. The west elevation is shown to feature a wooden
garage door with 6 small, rectangular windows while the entire building is shown to be
sheathed in wooden lap siding.
Agenda Item #5B Page 6
Figure 8. Proposed north (left, facing house) and south (right) elevations.
Drawings show the north elevation of the garage is shown to have a pedestrian door
located at the west end, and a double-hung window located at the east end while the
south elevation does not feature any fenestration.
Figure 9. Proposed garage (right) in context with the primary house (right), west facades.
Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must
apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1)The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
Agenda Item #5B Page 7
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district;
(2)The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark
and its site or the district;
(3)The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used on existing and proposed constructions are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic
district;
(4)With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c)In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks
Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of
energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore and not damage or destroy the
ǰ
exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district?
Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the construction of the proposed
General Design Guidelines
garage will be generally compatible and consistent with the
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
and (see Design Guidelines Analysis
)
section.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff finds that the proposed application will not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district because the
General Design Guidelines
proposed new garage will be generally compatible with the
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
and in terms of mass, scale, height, design
)
and color (see Design Guidelines Analysis section.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials
used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district?
Staff considers the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials of the proposed garage to be compatible with the contributing house on
the property and it will be generally compatible with the character of the historic
district in terms of mass, scale, height, setback, and design (see Design Guidelines
Agenda Item #5B Page 8
)
Analysis section.
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the
proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of
paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2), 9-11-18(b)(3) and 9-11-18(b)(4) of this section?
Not applicable.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate and the
General Design Guidelines
board has adopted the to help interpret the ordinance. The
following is an analysis of the submitted proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. It
is important to emphasize that design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to
appropriate design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
The following i
guidelines:
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
2.0Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and buildings.
Individual structures are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that set the context
for the neighborhood. How structures occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and
spacing, creates much of the context of the neighborhood. In combination with public and private
walks, fences, tree lawns, landscaping, and retaining walls, the site design features help to define the
individual sites and the relationship between public and private space in a neighborhood.
2.1Building Alignment, Orientation, and Spacing
The pattern of setbacks is an important element in defining neighborhood character. A front
yard setback serves as a transitional space between the public sidewalk and private
building entry. When repeated along the street, these yards enhance the character of the
area. The relatively uniform alignment of building fronts, as well as similar spacing
between primary buildings, contributes to a sense of visual continuity.
::
GUIDELINESANALYSISCONFORMS
Locate structures within the range of Proposed garage is located
alignments seen traditionally in the
.1Yes
aream matintaining traditional setbacks
property line, behind the front
at the front, side, and rear of the property.
plane of the house and consistent
Agenda Item #5B Page 9
with traditional setbacks in the
area. While the original garage
beneath the house was accessed by
a driveway from the existing curb
cut, there is historic precedent for
the location of garages facing the
street on north-south running
streets on Mapleton Hill.
Property is not bounded by an
In neighborhoods with alleys, garages
alley; there is historic precedent for
should be located at the rear of the lot and
.6the location of garages facing the Yes
accessed from the alley.
street on north-south running
streets on Mapleton Hill.
Preserve a backyard area between the As proposed, the backyard area will
house and the accessory buildings,
be maintained. Construction of the
maintaining the general proportion of
.7proposed garage will not Yes
built mass to open space found within the
significantly affect the amount of
area.
built mass on the property.
7.0Garages & Other Accessory Structures
Accessory structures include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally accessory structures
were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages. Generally, these structures have been
adapted for the storage of cars. In most cases, accessory building were located to the rear of the lot
and accessed by alleys. They were subordinate in size and detailing to the primary house. Over time
they have emerged as important elements of many lots and alleys in the district. Efforts should be
made to protect the eclectic character of alleys.
Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be evaluated in terms
of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and the district as a whole. In the past,
larger accessory structures have been allowed than may be appropriate today.
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings. While they
should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be subordinate in size, massing, and
detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for
pedestrians.
It is inappropriate to introduce a new
Proposed garage to be located
garage or accessory building if doing so
behind the front plane of the house,
will detract from the overall historic
.1utilizing an existing curb cut. In Yes
character of the principal building, and
terms of design, the proposed
the site, or if it will require removal of a
garage is simple and generally
Agenda Item #5B Page 10
significant historic building element or compatible in terms of detailing and
site feature, such as a mature tree.
proportion to historic buildings in
the district. Its construction will not
require the removal of significant
site features.
The property is not bounded by an
alley; when the house was
New garages and accessory buildings
constructed in 1922, the garage
should generally be located at the rear of
(incorporated into the house) was
the lot, respecting the traditional
.2accessed from 6 St. There is Yes
th
relationship of such buildings to the
historic precedent for the location of
primary structure and the site.
garages facing the street on north-
south running streets on Mapleton
Hill.
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
.3N/A
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
Preserve a backyard area between the
There is historic precedent for the
house and the accessory buildings,
location of garages facing the street
maintaining the general proportion of
.4on north-south running streets on Yes
built mass to open space found within the
Mapleton Hill. As proposed, the
area.
backyard area will be maintained;
Mass and Scale
Proposed design is subordinate in
New accessory structures should take
size to the one-and-a-half story
design cues from the primary building
house on the property, and is simply
.5Yes
on the property, but be subordinate to it
detailed, taking cues from
in terms of size and massing.
traditional accessory buildings in the
historic district.
New garages for single-family residences
should generally be one story tall and
Proposed one-car garage is one-
shelter no more than two cars. In some
.6Yes
story tall.
cases, a two-car garage may be
inappropriate.
Roof form is complementary to the
main house; it is less steep, but
Roof form and pitch should be
traditionally sloped to minimize the
.7Yes
complementary to the primary structure.
height of the proposed garage.
Materials and Detailing
Agenda Item #5B Page 11
Accessory structures should be simpler in As shown, garage is simpler than
design and detail than the primary
.8main house in design, material, and Yes
building.
detailing.
Materials for new garages and accessory
Proposed materials (wood siding,
structures should be compatible with
windows, and doors) are compatible
those found on the primary structure
.9with character of historic district. Yes
and in the district. Vinyl siding and
Submit details to staff for final
prefabricated structures are
review.
inappropriate.
Proposed design of double-hung
Windows, like all elements of accessory
window on north elevation appears
structures, should be simpler in
.10to be compatible in terms of type, Yes
detailing and smaller in scale than
size and detailing with similar
similar elements on primary structures.
elements on the primary building.
If consistent with the architectural style
and appropriately sized and located,
.11Dormers are not proposed. N/A
dormers may be an appropriate way to
increase storage space in garages.
Garage doors should be consistent with
the historic scale and materials of
Garage doors appear to be
traditional accessory structures. Wood is
consistent in terms of scale and
.12 Maybe
the most appropriate material and two
materials, submit details to staff for
smaller doors may be more appropriate
final review.
than one large door.
It is inappropriate to introduce features
or details to a garage or an accessory
.13Building is simple and of its time. Yes
building in an attempt to create a false
historical appearance.
Carports are inappropriate in districts
where their form has no historic
.14 Carport not proposed. N/A
precedent.
Agenda Item #5B Page 12
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
Mapleton
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section VI of the
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Only those guidelines that further the analysis of
the proposed project are included and those that reflect what has been evaluated in the
previous section are not repeated.
B SITE
Traditional settlement patterns generally placed houses in the center of a site, with garages, carriage
GuidelineAnalysisConforms?
Garage proposed south of the
Accessory buildings such as sheds and
primary house, fronting onto 6 St.
th
garages, and driveways should be located
and utilizing an existing curb cut.
at the rear of the lot as is traditional.
.1There is historic precedent for the
Yes
Adding them between existing buildings
location of garages facing the street
interrupts the rhythm and spacing.
on north-south running streets on
Mapleton Hill.
Garage shown to be small in scale
and mass and simply detailed, with
Accessory buildings should generally be
wood clapboard siding that
small in scale and mass and simply
2.references traditional accessory Yes
detailed. They are clearly secondary in
buildings in the historic district.
importance to the primary house.
Garage will be secondary to
primary house.
GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
P
A variety of accessory buildings has been adapted for use as garages in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures have certain similarities. They are plain
and utilitarian and are located at the rear of the property on the alley. Materials and building
elements are varied.
GuidelineAnalysisConforms?
Proposed design reflects traditional
If a new structure is to be constructed,
design of accessory buildings found
design ideas might be found in existing
Yes
3.
in the district in terms of form,
historic accessory building located nearby
materiality and detailing.
Agenda Item #5B Page 13
The new building should be secondary in
Proposed design is secondary to
nature to the main house and smaller in
main house through massing, scale Yes
4.
scale.
and simplicity.
Accessory buildings should be small in
Proposed garage is small in scale,
scale and small, and constructed in a
and of wood frame construction,
manner which is complimentary to the
compatible with the character of
character of the house and alley. They are
Yes
5.
property and historic district.
clearly secondary in importance to the
Building clearly secondary to
primary structure. Typically,
primary house.
prefabricated sheds are discouraged.
Staff considers that the design for the new garage is generally appropriate in terms of
site planning, mass, scale, material, and detailing. The building has a traditional, gable-
end roof form and is simply detailed. It will be clearly secondary to the house in terms
of massing, scale and simplicity. The corner lot is not bounded by an alley, and
there is
historic precedent for the location of garages facing the street on north-south running streets on
Staff considers that the modest, simple garage will not detract from the
Mapleton Hill.
historic character of the contributing property, streetscape along 6 St., or the historic
th
district as a whole and that the proposal meets the standards set out in Section 9-11-18
General Design GuidelinesMapleton
B.R.C. 1981. The design is consistent with the and the
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines
. Detailsincluding roofing material, windows,
doors, trim detail should be reviewed by the staff to ensure that the garage will be
compatible with the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
FINDINGS
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the
following findings:
1.The proposed new garage will not have an adverse effect on the value of the
district, as it will be generally compatible in terms of mass, scale, or
orientation with other buildings in the district.
2.In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed new garage will be
General Design
generally consistent with Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the
GuidelinesMapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
, and the .
Agenda Item #5B Page 14
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Forms
B: Assessor Card
C: Photographs
D: Plans and Elevations
E:
Agenda Item #5B Page 15
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Forms
Agenda Item #5B Page 16
Agenda Item #5B Page 17
Agenda Item #5B Page 18
Attachment B: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5B Page 19
Agenda Item #5B Page 20
Agenda Item #5B Page 21
Attachment C: Photographs
View of façade and side yard, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
Façade, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
Agenda Item #5B Page 22
South Elevation, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
View looking east from driveway, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
Agenda Item #5B Page 23
Additional view looking east from driveway, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
View of front yard looking south, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
Agenda Item #5B Page 24
North Elevation and backyard, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
East (rear) Elevation, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
Agenda Item #5B Page 25
View into backyard looking south, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
View from street looking northeast, 2250 6 St., 2014.
th
Agenda Item #5B Page 26
Attachment D: Plans and Elevations
Proposed Site Plan.
Agenda Item #5B Page 27
Proposed West Elevation showing house and garage.
Proposed North and East Elevations of garage.
Agenda Item #5B Page 28
Proposed South and West Elevations for garage.
Agenda Item #5B Page 29
Attachment E:
Agenda Item #5B Page 30
Agenda Item #5B Page 31
Agenda Item #5B Page 32
Agenda Item #5B Page 33
Agenda Item #5B Page 34