Item 5A - 2110 4th St.M E M O R A N D U M
January 6th, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
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
application to demolish an existing house built in 1957 and, in its place,
construct a new 2,438 sq. ft. house at 2110 4th Street in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
(HIS2015-00254).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 2110 4th St.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner: Katrina H. Anastas Revocable Trust
4. Applicant: Angela Fedderson, Elevate Architecture
5. Site Area: 6,718 sq. ft.
6. Existing House: 840 sq. ft. (approx.)
7. Proposed House: 2,384 sq. ft.
8. Existing Garage: 327 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board approves the demolition of the non-contributing house and the
construction of the proposed 2,438 sq. ft. house at 2110 4th St. as shown on plans dated
12/10/2015, 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 conditions below
and adopts the staff memorandum dated January 6, 2015 in matter 5A (HIS2015-00254)
as findings of the board.
Agenda Item #5A Page 1 \\boulder.local\share\PLAN\Long Range Planning\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\4th.2110\01.06.2016 LB\01.06.2016 2110 4th St..docx
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that if the applicant complies with
the conditions listed below, the proposed demolition and new construction will be
generally consistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the
General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in compliance with
the approved plans dated 12/10/2015, 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 architectural plans that include revisions to ensure that the final
design of the building is:
a. Consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines; and
b. Consistent with neo-traditional interpretations of the Edwardian
Vernacular, including redesign to minimize the visual impact of the
clerestory windows at the north and south so that all windows are
traditionally proportioned, scaled and profiled, reconsider wall cladding
materials to eliminate the use of stone other than on the foundation,
elimination of standing seam roof on the porch, elimination of the bronze
fascia detail, and redesign of the east gable to be more consistent with neo-
traditional interpretations of the Edwardian Vernacular in fenestration
and materiality.
3. The Landmarks design review committee shall review details for the building,
including dormers, wall materials, fenestration patterns on the front, north and
south elevations, doors and window details including moldings, and proposed
insets, paint colors, and hardscaping on the property to ensure that the approval
is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Guidelines and the intent of this approval.
SUMMARY
• Because this application calls for complete demolition of a building and new free-
standing construction of more than 340 sq. ft., review by the full Landmarks Board
Agenda Item #5A Page 2
in a quasi-judicial hearing is required per Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981 of the
historic preservation ordinance.
• The applicant has met with staff on several occasions to review design concepts and
provide feedback on the proposal.
• The applicant submitted materials for the Dec. 2, 2015 Landmarks Board meeting,
however, after discussions with staff, the applicants chose to withdraw the
application and revise the proposed design.
• The existing house was constructed in 1957, outside the 1865-1946 period of
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. While the house features some
interesting characteristics of 1950s residential design, staff does not consider the
house to meet the definition of a “contributing” or “significant newer” building.
Staff considers the house to be a non-contributing building to the historic district.
• In terms of mass, scale, height, proportion and style, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed design is generally inconsistent with Section 2, Site Design and Section 6,
New Primary Buildings of the General Design Guidelines, and Section U of the
Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) of the Boulder Revised
Code.
• Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be consistent with the
criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C.
1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
• Staff finds the proposed new construction to be consistent with the criteria for a
Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General
Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
• Staff’s recommendation to approve the demolition and new construction is based
upon the understanding that the stated conditions will be reviewed and approved
by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) prior to the issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item #5A Page 3
Figure 1. Location Map of 2110 4th St.
PROPERTY HISTORY
According to Tax Assessor Records, the house at 2110 4th St. was constructed in 1957,
and first appears in City Directories in 1961. Dr. Robert Beatty was the first owner of the
house, living there from 1961 until his death in 1993. In the 1960s and 1970s, Robert’s
mother Marie Ellen resided there with him.
Figure 2. 2110 4th St., Tax Assessor photograph, 1944
Agenda Item #5A Page 4
Dr. Robert Beatty was born in 1917 in York, Pennsylvania
to Raymond T. and Marie Ellen Beatty. Robert received
his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from
George Washington University in 1939, a master’s degree
in electrical communication from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1943, and received his Doctor
of Engineering degree from the University of Tokyo in
Japan in 1972. In the 1940s, Robert began working for the
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C.
where he worked on underwater sound and radio-
direction finding. In 1948, he began working for the U.S.
National Bureau of Standards (NBS), also in Washington
D.C. He moved to Boulder in 1955 where he continued
work as the Chief of the Microwave Circuit Standards
with the local NBS branch.1
Aside from his work at NBS, Robert published numerous articles, co-authored a book
on Microwave Network Analysis and contributed to two NBS Monographs. He also
gave lectures to NBS employees, such as the one in 1955 titled “A Problem in
Attenuation Measurement.”2 In 1970, he was sent by NBS to Japan to be a guest worker
at the Electrotechnical Laboratory in Tanashi, Tokyo, where he also delivered lectures at
each of the Imperial Universities in Japan.
Robert married Mary S. Johnson in 1947 in Washington, D.C. but divorced a few years
before Robert purchased the house at 2110 4th St.3 Robert later married Nobuko Bowden
of Boulder.
Robert’s mother, Marie Ellen, resided at the house for nearly two decades up to her
death in 1979 at the age of 92. Marie Ellen (Ritter) was born in 1887 in Philadelphia to
William and Phoebe Ritter. She married Raymond Beatty (Robert’s father) in
Washington, D.C. Little else is known about Marie Ellen, other than she was a member
of the Daughters of the King, and was a member of St. John’s Episcopal Church, both in
York, Pennsylvania. She was also interred in York.4 After Robert’s death in 1993, the
1 “Robert W. Beatty.” Daily Camera (Boulder, CO), November 27, 1993. 2 “NBS Lecture On Wednesday At 2:30,” Daily Camera (Boulder, CO), June 20, 1955. 3 “District Court Divorces.” Daily Camera (Boulder, CO) January 14, 1959. 4 “Marie Beatty.” Daily Camera (Boulder, CO), March 28, 1979.
Figure 3. Robert Beatty, c. 1963.
Agenda Item #5A Page 5
house passed to his daughter, Sherry Stroh. The Katrina H. Anastas Revocable Trust
purchased the house in 2015.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Located on the east side of 4th St., between Spruce St. and Mountain View Rd., the
property at 2110 4th St. is part of the Mapleton Terrace addition to the city, which was
platted in 1890 by W.H. Thompson, Harold D. Thompson, and Isaac C. Dennett. For
many years 4th Street formed the western edge of the city with the land beyond in the
ownership of John Brierly who operated vegetable gardens, an orchard, and lime kilns
in the area.
Figure 4. Detail from 1911 Haines Panoramic Photo from Mt. Sanitas (approx. property in blue)
Figure 5. Detail from 1919 Tangen Panoramic Photo (approx. property in blue).
Agenda Item #5A Page 6
The property was included in the expansion of Mapleton Hill Historic District in 2002
which annexed the southwest corner of Mapleton Hill into the historic district. The
triangular lot slopes to the south and features mature vegetation, much of which is
volunteer in nature. The north side of the property is bounded by the Farmer’s ditch
along which a driveway runs providing access to the side of 2110 4th St. as well as the
rear of two properties to the east, fronting onto Spruce St.
Building permit records indicate the simple 840 sq. ft. proto-Ranch house was
constructed in 1957, and has only been moderately altered since that time. A 327 sq. ft.
stone garage likely constructed prior to 1919 faces onto 4th St. at the southwest corner of
the property. The garage is considered to be a contributing building to the Mapleton
Hill Historic District.
Figure 6. 2110 4th St., southwest corner (façade), 2015.
The modest one-story, gabled roof frame building with exposed rafter tails and faux-log
siding features a central door, a group of three double-hung windows to the left of the
door, and a group of three larger fixed windows to the right of the front door on the
facade. The building rests on a concrete foundation part of which is faced with a
sandstone veneer. A full basement is accessed by an exterior stair at the south face of
Agenda Item #5A Page 7
the house. This entrance does not appear on the tax assessor photograph (fig. 3) was
added later and likely served as access to a basement apartment.
Figure 7. 2110 4th St., Northwest corner (façade)
and side driveway adjacent to Farmer’s Ditch, 2015.
Figure 8. 2110 4th St., north elevation from ditch easement, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 8
Figure 9. 2110 4th St., East (rear) elevation from ditch easement, 2015.
Figure 10. 2110 4th St., South (side) elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 9
Figure 11. Property from north side of ditch looking down 4th St.
with contributing garage at right, 2015
Figure 12. 2110 4th St., stone garage, west elevation (façade), 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 10
Research indicates that the stone garage on the southwest corner of the property
originally belonged to the adjacent 327 Spruce St. prior to it being subdivided and a
new lot created. A 1919 panoramic photograph of the city taken from Red Rocks shows
a building in this location, but very little detail is discernible. The c.1949 tax assessor
card identifies the building as having flat tin roof. Since then the roof height appears to
have been raised, creating a lower pitch gable roof with asphalt shingles. A non-historic,
multi-panel garage door is located on the west elevation, a single divided light historic
casement window on the north elevation, and a pedestrian door is located on the east
(rear) face of the building. In spite of the non-historic change in roof and garage door,
staff considers the garage to possess a sufficient historic integrity and should be
considered a contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Figure 13. 2110 4th St., stone garage, north elevation, 2015.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and in its place construct a one
and one-half story, 2,384 sq. ft. house.
Agenda Item #5A Page 11
Figure 14. Existing Site Plan
Figure 15. Proposed Site Plan
In plan, the proposed new house is shown to be located at approximately the same
location as the existing house. The existing house is located approximately 26’ from the
west property line and the proposed house is shown to be located at the 25’ front yard
setback. The existing house measures approximately 35’ wide and 26’ long, with a 21’
by 8’ shed-roof portion located at the rear of the house. The proposed house is shown to
Agenda Item #5A Page 12
measure 45’-7” long and approximately 49’ wide with the north wall creating an
oblique angle to the north property line which runs adjacent to the Farmer’s Ditch.
Currently, the driveway provides access to at least one property to the east, although
there is no dedicated easement providing that access. The existing contributing garage
is shown to be maintained in its current location.
Elevations indicate the house to be one and one-half stories in height of frame
construction, with a cross-gable forms and two lower flat roofs at the south and north
sides of the house respectively. At its highest point the house is shown to be
approximately 30’ above grade, with the grade declining approximately 3’ from the
north to south sides of the proposed building. Drawings show the façade of the house
to feature a front-gable with 22’ x 7’ porch, a north projecting side portion set back 4’
from the front gable and a one story flat roof mud-room construction at the south side
with the same set back from the projecting gable. The tallest east-west gable form is
shown to be clad with clapboard siding, while the side portions of the building are
shown to be clad with “ledgestone”.
Figure 16. Proposed west elevation (façade)
The first floor of the façade (west elevation), is shown to be fenestrated with ¾ light
door on the porch and a set of one-over-one double hung sash and pairs of similar
windows on the west face of the north and south portions of the house. A set of three
one-over-one double hung sash is shown on the west upper-gable. A light-well is
indicated at the north end of the west elevation, however, this feature does not appear
on site or floor plans. Likewise, a basement window on the south ell on the west face is
Agenda Item #5A Page 13
shown to rise several feet above grade, but a window well in this location is not shown
in plan.
Figure 17. Proposed south (side) elevation
The south elevation measures 44’ in length, and features feature a 5’ x 10’ recessed
balcony set back 4’ from the west face of the gable. This balcony is accessed by a single
light door, flanked by two double hung windows. The upper level of the south
elevation is also shown to be fenestrated by a row of nine square casement windows
while the first floor features a door into the stone sheathed mud room accessed by stairs
to a stoop. A 24’ x 4’ light-well is shown at the south face of the house behind the mud
room ell. Three sets of slider windows at the basement level are shown to rise
approximately 3’ above ground level at the south face.
Agenda Item #5A Page 14
Agenda Item #5A Page 15
Figure 18. Proposed north (side) elevation
The north elevation of the house shows a row of seven upper-level casement windows,
a rear sliding door and a one-over-one double hung window at the west end of the
wood sided portion of the house. The projecting side gable is shown to feature one-
over-one sash and a rear facing dormer, while the one story flat roof portion features a
17’ x 14’ roof deck enclosed by steel railing and casement window. Two skylights are
shown to be located at the west end of the main gable roof.
Figure 19. Proposed east (rear) elevation
The east (rear) face of the house shows stained cedar sunscreen slats to cover a
considerable portion of the gable area while a set of four French doors is proposed to
provide access to a patio area on the ground level. The rear deck area is shown to be
accessed buy a set of French doors while fenestration at the ground level of the north
portion of the house is shown to consist of a single-light door and double hung
window. A four-light casement window and light well are shown at the south end of
the east face.
Exterior materials shown include asphalt (gable roofs) and standing seam metal roofing
(front porch), clapboard and “ledgestone” cladding, stained cedar, bronzed metal fascia
and metal clad windows and doors.
The site plan indicates construction of rear retaining walls, a rear patio and a 116 sq. ft.
accessory building, (no elevations provided). No information was provided as to
whether any changes to the contributing garage are contemplated as part of this project.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
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
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
exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district?
The existing house was constructed in 1957, well outside the 1865-1946 period of
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. While an interesting and intact
example of representative architecture from the late 1950s, staff considers the house to
be non-contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Staff finds that, provided the
listed conditions are met, the demolition of the existing house and construction of the
proposed house will not damage or destroy contributing properties in the streetscape
and will be generally compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines (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?
Agenda Item #5A Page 16
The staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed application
will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value of the district because the proposed new house will be
generally compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Guidelines 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 proposed one and two story design of the proposed house to be
reflective of Edwardian Vernacular houses in this part of the Mapleton Historic District,
yet that the design is makes clear the house is of its time. As such, the staff finds that,
provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed new construction will be generally
compatible with the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on the proposed building and will be generally compatible
with the character of the historic district in terms of mass, scale, height, setback, and
design (see Design Guidelines 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
the Land Use Code (B.R.C. 1981) paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3) of this section?
Staff finds that the application to replace the demolished building meets the
requirements of paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2), 9-11-18(b)(3) and 9-11-18(b)(4) because,
provided the listed conditions are met, the construction of a new house will establish
compatible features on the streetscape. With the stated conditions, the application is
generally compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
Once modified as suggested in the Conditions of Approval, the proposal will be
consistent in terms of site planning, mass, scale, materials and architectural details and
does not detract from the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
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
board has adopted the General Design Guidelines 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
Agenda Item #5A Page 17
appropriate design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable design
guidelines:
General Design Guidelines
2.0 Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts
and building. 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.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Locate buildings within the
range of alignments as seen
traditionally in the area,
maintaining traditional
setbacks at the front, side
and rear of the property
The property measures 67’ in
width at the west and 40’ at the
east, creating a trapezoid where
lots in Mapleton Hill are typically
50’ wide by 100’ rectangles. The
building is proposed to have a
similar front yard setback as the
existing house, and is shown to be
about 10 ft. wider than the existing
house and contained within the
front, rear and side yard setback
standards. This section of 4th St. in
Mapleton Hill does contain a
number of historic houses with
alignments similar to that
proposed. Staff considers location
and setbacks of proposed house in
keeping with traditional patterns
in Mapleton Hill.
Yes
.2 Building proportions should
respect traditional patterns
in the district
The proposed house references
traditional one and one-half story
form common to Boulder. Overall,
staff considers the proposed cross-
Yes
Agenda Item #5A Page 18
gable form, roof pitch and building
widths respects patterns found
within the district.
.3 Orient the primary building
entrance to the street
Primary entrance is oriented to the
street.
Yes
.4 Preserve original location of
the main entry and walk.
Existing house considered non-
contributing and proposed for
demolition. Walkway is proposed
in approximately the same
location.
Yes
.5 A new porch may encroach
into the existing alignment
only if it is designed
according to the guidelines
and if it is appropriate to
the architectural style of the
house.
Porch is proposed at the entry way
– encroachment into the 25’ front
yard setback is acceptable under
Residential-low 1 (RL-1) zoning
and consistent with historic pattern
in Mapleton Hill. Proportions and
shed roof porch design are
generally consistent with
guidelines and 1½ story form
proposed. Review details
including posts and materiality at
the Ldrc.
Yes
.7 Preserve a backyard area
between the house and the
garage, maintaining the
general proportion of built
mass to open space found
within the area
Lot configuration is wider and
shallower than traditional lot
pattern in the district. Proposed
design preserves general
proportion of built mass to open
space.
Yes
2.2.2 Preserve street trees
whenever possible
A mature tree along 4th St. is
shown to be preserved.
Yes
6.0 New Primary Buildings
New construction within a historic district can enhance the existing district character if
the proposed design and its siting reflect an understanding of and a compatibility with
Agenda Item #5A Page 19
the distinctive character of the district. While new construction should fit into the
historic character of the district or site, it should not replicate historic styles. Instead,
new buildings should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the historic district or
landmark site while also conveying a contemporary style. New buildings should not
overshadow existing historic structures. Fundamental characteristics to be considered
in designing compatible new structures include: site and setting, building size and
proportions, materials, and the placement and style of doors and windows.
The primary focus in reviewing new structures will be on aspects that are visible from
public streets. The guidelines will be applied most stringently to these publicly visible
areas. More flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely
screened from public view.
6.1 Distinction from Historic Structures
The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can
create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings.
While new structures must be compatible with the historic context, they must also be
recognizable as new construction.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1
Create compatible
contemporary
interpretations of historic
elements.
Contemporary interpretation of
traditional form is generally
appropriate. Ldrc should review
profile and visibility of casement
and narrow double-hung windows
at south and east to ensure
consistency with guidelines and
ordinance. Design and visibility of
rear gable treatment should be
reviewed at Ldrc for same.
Maybe
.2 Interpretations of historic
styles may be appropriate if
distinguishable as new.
Proposed design is largely neo-
traditional referencing Edwardian
Vernacular 1½ story house form
but will be clearly contemporary.
More contemporary features of the
design are evidenced at sides and
rear of house including rows of
casement windows balcony/deck
Agenda Item #5A Page 20
railing details as well as rear gable
treatment. These elements should
be resolved at Ldrc (see 6.1 above).
6.2 Site and Setting
New structures should be designed and located so that significant site features,
including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new structures should
not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within
historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and
distance
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Conform to Section 2.0 Site
Design.
See above for analysis. Yes
.2 Overall character of site is
retained.
Residential character will be
retained, with similar setbacks.
Yes
.3 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
setback, orientation,
spacing, and distance from
adjacent buildings.
Trapezoidal lot configuration is
anomalous to Mapleton Hill and
presents design challenges. None-
the-less, the proposed building
retains similar setbacks,
orientation, spacing and distance
from adjacent buildings.
Yes
.4 Proportion of built mass to
open space not significantly
different from contributing
buildings.
Proposed design preserves general
proportion of built mass to open
space.
Yes
6.3 Mass and Scale
In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing,
size and scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front façade
is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the
streetscape. While new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings,
reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not
be so out-of-scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
Agenda Item #5A Page 21
.1 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
terms of height, size, scale,
massing, and proportions.
Proposed scale is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings through utilization of
traditional 1½ story Edwardian
Vernacular building form. While
somewhat anomalous, flat roof
side and rear portions of house do
not detract and are compatible
with surrounding historic
buildings.
Yes
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Massing and scale generally
respect neighboring buildings and
streetscape as a whole.
Yes
.3 Historic heights and widths
as well as their ratios
maintained, especially
proportions of façade.
General proportions of the façade
elements are compatible with,
historic forms of like-sized historic
houses in the district.
Yes
6.4 Materials
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Materials should be similar
in scale, proportion, texture,
finish, and color to those
found on nearby historic
structures.
Proposed materials include wood
clapboard siding, “ledgestone”,
stained cedar, asphalt shingle and
standing seam metal roofing, metal
clads windows and doors, copper
fascia. Use of stone for wall
cladding relatively rare in
Mapleton Hill. Likewise, use of
stained wood elements, copper
fascia and standing seam roof not
common. Consider revision to
simplify material palette including
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 22
use of stone cladding, fascia, porch
roofing. Provide detailed
information on all materials
including proposed path ways,
patio and retaining walls. Review
at Ldrc.
.2 Maintain a human scale by
avoiding large, featureless
surfaces and by using
traditionally sized building
components and materials.
Publicly visible elevations appear
to meet this guideline.
Yes
6.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important
character-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to
assure that they complement the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines
below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Design the spacing,
placement, scale,
orientation, proportion, and
size of window and door
openings in new structures
to be compatible with the
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district, while reflecting the
underlying design of the
new building.
Rows of clerestory casement
windows on north and south sides
of house uncharacteristic of houses
in Mapleton Hill may be visible
from a public way. Consider
redesign to reduce or remove this
element from publicly visible
elevations. Other windows and
doors, especially those on publicly
visible faces, should be reviewed
by Ldrc to ensure compatibility.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 23
.2 Select windows and doors
for new structures that are
compatible in material,
subdivision, proportion,
pattern and detail with the
windows and doors of
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district
See .1 above.
.3 New structures should use
a roof form found in the
district or on the landmark
site
Current design makes use of gable
forms of locations and proportions
that are found on Edwardian
Vernacular form houses in
Mapleton Hill. While side and rear
flat roof portions of house are less
common in the Historic District,
they do relate to the historic garage
which currently has a flat roof.
Shed roof on front porch consistent
with this guideline.
Yes
.4 Porches should be
compatible in massing and
details to historic porches in
the district, and should be
appropriate to the style of
the house.
Porch form and location is
generally consistent with historic
porches on Edwardian Vernacular
houses in Mapleton Hill. Consider
open railing on porch. Review
design details of porch including
roof, posts, raining and steps at
Ldrc.
Maybe
.5 Dormers should be
secondary to the main roof
and should be lower than
the roofline. Oversized
dormers are inappropriate.
Small rear facing dormer is
proposed at rear of house. Review
details at Ldrc.
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section U. of the Mapleton
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
Agenda Item #5A Page 24
previous section are not repeated.
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines
U. New Construction
While new construction should fit into the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District, there is no intent to require historic imitation. It is appropriate that new
designs incorporate the elements that contribute to the character of the District, such as
overall mass, rooflines, windows, porches, front entries, etc. However, innovative
ways of incorporating such elements and modern expressions of detailing are strongly
encouraged.
New construction in the District should be in the character of the buildings
surrounding it. Because streetscapes vary in the District, new buildings facing the
street should respect and be consistent with the existing block pattern. Traditional site
layout, porch size and placement, front entry location, roof type, and door and
window sizes and patterns should be considered when proposing new in-fill
construction.
New buildings on the rear of a lot (including house behind a house developments)
should be of a lesser mass and scale than the original structure and more simply
detailed. New accessory buildings on the rear of a lot should be consistent with the
existing pattern of small structures that are simple and utilitarian in design.
New construction on corner lots requires an especially thoughtful approach. Each
corner lot will present a unique design challenge for a highly visible building that does
not disrupt the historic context.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 New construction should
incorporate the elements
contributing to the historic
character of the Mapleton
Hill Historic District as
identified by the Design
Guidelines.
Residential character will be
retained with similar setbacks.
Yes
.2 Building elevations visible
from streets and alleys need
the greatest sensitivity.
Front porches are an
important visual element
Proposed scale is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings. Front porch appropriate
– review details at Ldrc as outlined
in 2.6 of the General Design
Yes
Agenda Item #5A Page 25
and should be incorporated
into new construction
except in unusual
situations.
Guidelines above.
.3 New construction should
not imitate historic
buildings, but should be an
expression of its own time.
Contemporary expression of
traditional architectural
elements is encouraged.
Simplicity is an important
aspect of creating
compatible new
construction.
Design is generally neo-traditional
and references Edwardian
Vernacular in form. In addition to
materiality and finish, staff
considers integration of flat roof
elements and inset balcony to be
contemporary but compatible
design elements that will clearly
distinguish this building as of its
time.
Yes
.4 The mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
the streetscape as a whole.
Site layout, porch size and
placement, entry level and
location, roof line, and door
and window sizes and
patterns should harmonize
with the historic context
rather than compete with or
copy it.
The proposed house references
traditional one and one-half story
form common to Boulder. Overall,
staff considers the proposed cross-
gable form, roof pitch and building
widths respects patterns found
within the district. Details of
materiality, fenestration, etc.
should be reviewed and approved
by the Ldrc to ensure consistency
with the historic preservation
ordinance.
Yes
.7 New construction should
utilize a roof form found in
the district.
One and one-half story design
with cross-gable form consistent
with Edwardian Vernacular
houses in the historic district.
Yes
.8 Use building materials that
are familiar in their
dimensions and that can be
repeated. This helps to
establish a sense of scale for
new buildings. Whenever
Staff considers little historic
precedent for the use of stone
cladding on the walls of a house of
this type. More typically,
Edwardian Vernacular houses are
brick (lower) and clapboard or
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 26
possible, use familiar
building components in
traditional sizes. Avoid
large featureless surfaces.
shingle (upper). Consider revising
design to follow this pattern. Little
historic precedent for use of metal
roofing or stained wood in
Mapleton Hill. Provide detailed
information on all materials
including proposed path ways,
patio and retaining walls for
review by the Ldrc.
Staff considers that, while the existing house is an interesting example of modest, late
1950s housing on Mapleton Hill, because it was constructed well outside of the 1865-
1946 period-of-significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic district, it be considered non-
contributing. Staff also considers the proposal to construct one and one-half story neo-
traditional house in its place is generally appropriate and contextual in this section of
the Mapleton Historic District. Staff considers that the design should be revised to make
the rear gable at the east elevation more consistent with Edwardian Vernacular design,
in terms of fenestration and materiality, and that the design of the casement and narrow
double-hung windows at the south and east elevations be revised to ensure consistency
with guidelines. Staff also considers that the material palette should be revised to reflect
traditional materials, including painted wood, brick and use of stone as an accent
material.
FINDINGS
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff
recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the
following findings:
1. The demolition of the existing house is appropriate as it is non-contributing
and the proposed new construction meets the standards in 9-11-18 of the
Boulder Revised Code.
2. The proposed new house and 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.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed new house garage will
Agenda Item #5A Page 27
be generally consistent with Section 9-11-18 B.R.C., Sections 2, 7, 6 and 7 of
the General Design Guidelines, and Sections D, M, P, Q, & U of the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessor Card
B: Photographs
C: Plans and Elevations
Agenda Item #5A Page 28
Attachment A: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5A Page 29
Agenda Item #5A Page 30
Tax Assessor Card, c. 1954.
Agenda Item #5A Page 31
Attachment B: Photographs
West Elevation (façade), 2015.
View facing southeast, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 32
East elevation (rear), 2015.
South elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 33
Garage, north elevation, 2015.
Garage, west elevation, 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 34
View facing southeast, October 2015.
View facing southeast, December 2015.
Agenda Item #5A Page 35
View into property from north (Mountain View Avenue)
Historic house across from 2110 4th Street
Agenda Item #5A Page 36
Historic house across from 2110 4th Street
400 Block of Mountain View Avenue
Agenda Item #5A Page 37
400 Block of Mountain View Avenue
Agenda Item #5A Page 38
Attachment C: Plans and Elevations
Existing Site Plan
Agenda Item #5A Page 39
Proposed Site Plan
Proposed ground floor plan
Agenda Item #5A Page 40
Proposed lower level
Proposed upper level
Agenda Item #5A Page 41
Proposed roof plan
Proposed west (façade) elevation
Agenda Item #5A Page 42
Proposed east (rear) elevation
Proposed north elevation
Agenda Item #5A Page 43
Proposed south elevation
Agenda Item #5A Page 44
Proposed Exterior Material Palette
Agenda Item #5A Page 45
Modern Pitched Roof Examples
Agenda Item #5A Page 46