Item 6A - 521 Maxwell Ave. WITHDRAWN
Agenda Item # 5A Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
June 1, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
William Barnum, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate application to add new round windows to the
street facing gables of the contributing houses at 521
Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Historic District, per Section
9‐11‐18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2016‐00121).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 521 Maxwell Ave.
2. Zoning: RL‐1 (Residential‐Low 1)
3. Lot size: 6,990 sq. ft.
4. Applicant: Joel Smiley, Inc.
5. Owner: Brandie Emerick
6. Date of Construction: c. 1900
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board denies the request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate to add
round windows on the south (gable end) elevations of the contributing houses at 521
Maxwell Avenue in the Mapleton Hill Historic District as shown on plans dated
04/28/2016, finding that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9‐11‐18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopts the staff
memorandum dated June 1st, 2016 as findings of the board.
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed
modifications to the contributing buildings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District
will be inconsistent with Section 9‐11‐18, Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) 1981,
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 2
and the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY:
On Apr. 28, 2016, the applicant submitted a completed Landmark Alteration
Certificate to add new circular windows on the south (street facing) gables of
the two contributing houses at 521 Maxwell Ave.
On May 11th, 2016 the Ldrc reviewed the proposal and considered the request
to add new windows on the primary elevations of contributing buildings
would require review by the full Landmarks Board in a public hearing.
Constructed around 1900 and 1906 respectively (within the identified 1865‐
1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), the two
houses at 521 Maxwell Avenue retain a high level of historic integrity to this
period. Staff consider the houses contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic
District.
Staff finds the proposed addition of window openings on the primary
elevations of the contributing buildings to be inconsistent with Section 3.7(1)
of the General Design Guidelines, Section I of the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines, as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic
Preservation (Rehabilitation), and would adversely affect the historic, and
architectural character of the property.
Staff recommends that the applicant revise the proposal to eliminate the new
round windows on the primary elevations of these two contributing
buildings and explore other alternatives to provide additional interior light.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Figure 1. Location map, 521 Maxwell Ave.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 3
The property at 521 Maxwell Ave. is located on the north side of Maxwell
Avenue, between 5th and 6th Streets. An alley runs along the north side of the
property. There are three buildings on the property: the one‐and‐a‐half story
main house, a smaller, single story dwelling to the west, and a detached garage
on the alley. The lot is 6,990 square feet in size.
Figure 2. View of south elevation (façade) of primary house, 2016.
The one‐and‐a‐half story wood frame main house on the property was
constructed around 1900 and is an example of the type of Edwardian Vernacular
house construction that was common in Colorado and around the United States
at the turn‐of‐the twentieth century. Simply but elegantly detailed, it features a
front facing gabled roof, fish scale wood shingles on the gables, clapboard and
shingle siding, a full‐width porch supported by turned spindles, and a full‐width
balcony above the porch.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 4
Figure 3. View of south elevation (façade) of secondary house, 2016.
The one‐story wood frame secondary house, located behind the main house and
along the west property line, was constructed around 1906 and is an example of
simple, vernacular wood frame construction common in Boulder during the first
half of the twentieth century. It features a front‐gabled roof with overhanging
eaves, a projecting front porch with shingled gable end supported by battered
Arts and Crafts inspired wood columns on wood‐paneled piers, and wood slat
rail.
Figure 4. View of garage, 2016.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 5
A wood frame flat roofed garage is situated at the north east corner of the
property. Side‐hinged vertical board doors face the alley on the north, and a
pedestrian entry has been added to the south side. There is a four‐light window
on the west side. The Historic Building Inventory Record indicated the accessory
building was likely constructed during the 1940’s, due to its stylistic similarity to
other nearby garages built during that period. No changes to this building are
proposed.
Figure 5. 520 Maxwell Avenue (across the street from 521 Maxwell Avenue), 2016.
Interestingly, the house directly across the street, 520 Maxwell Avenue, is nearly
identical to the main house at 521 Maxwell Avenue and was likely constructed
during the same period.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 6
PROPERTY HISTORY:
Figure 6. 521 Maxwell Ave. Tax Assessor Card photograph, c.1929
Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Figure 7. 521 Maxwell Ave, auxiliary dwelling. Tax Assessor Card photograph, c.1949
Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
As noted in the 1993 Historic Building Inventory Record, the property was
purchased by Frederick Baun from Hayes and Hawley in 1884, then purchased
by notable Boulder pioneer and former Boulder Mayor James Maxwell and
George Oliver in 1888. In 1889, it was sold to George F. Baun, and then to George
F. Oppenlander in 1890. County deed records indicate that the property was still
under Oppenlander’s ownership when the main house was constructed, around
1900. In 1904, he sold it to A. K. Toppenberg. By 1913 the main house was
occupied by John Carl and Carrie Durbin. Carrie was born in Sunshine Canyon
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 7
in 1870, and married John in 1888. The Durbins moved to Wyoming with their
eight children in 1918. Carrie died in 1954.
The smaller house on the property was originally considered a separate address
(519 Maxwell Avenue), but was combined as part of 521 Maxwell Avenue by
1934. It remains a separate dwelling, and is considered a legal, non‐standard use
in this area which is zoned Residential Low‐1 (RL‐1). The City Directories
indicate that by 1910, local laundress Flora Corbett lived in this house. By 1913,
laborer Walter M. Jewett had replaced her as the occupant.
A building permit for 519 Maxwell Avenue dating from 1935 lists Laura E.
Householder as the owner. By 1949, both houses were owned by Householder,
the daughter of Daniel S. and Catherine Householder. Daniel and Catherine
married in 1871 in Wisconsin and had 10 children, though 7 died in childhood.
Laura, born 1881, was one of the surviving children, who came to Boulder in
1914. In 1932, she lived with her father at 516 Maxwell Avenue, while her sister,
Mrs. Charles Reynolds, lived at 814 Maxwell Avenue. City registries show that
Laura had moved to 519 Maxwell Avenue by 1936. She lived in the small house
until 1960, save for briefly living in the main house around 1946. She appears to
have typically rented out whichever unit she was not living in. She never
married, and worked as a babysitter through the 1950’s. She sold 521 Maxwell to
John F. and June A Groothuis in 1960. Householder died in Lyons, Colorado on
Oct. 22nd, 1970.
ALTERATIONS
Building permit records show that the main house was repainted and reroofed in
1989. These same records show that the secondary house was sided with asbestos
shingles in 1952. As of the 1993 survey these were still in place, but were recently
removed, revealing the original wood siding. The 1909 Sanborn map, the first to
cover this area of the city, shows both buildings much as they are today. The
Sanborn map does not show the porch on the small house, indicating it may have
been added after 1931. A number of sashes on both buildings have been replaced
with vinyl windows, three of which were recently approved for replacement
with wood sash replicating the historic windows more closely (HIS2016‐00095).
The only other notable alteration is the addition of a lean‐to on the rear of the
secondary dwelling, carried out sometime between 1922 and 1931.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 8
Figure 8. 1906 Sanborn Map of 521 Maxwell Ave.
PROPOSAL:
Plans call for the addition of a round window in the street‐facing (primary
elevation) gable ends of the main and secondary houses. Drawings show the
window on the main house to be 1’6” in diameter, including frame. The
proposed round window on the secondary house is shown to be similar in
design to that proposed on the main house, though slightly smaller at 1’, 3” in
diameter. Both new windows are shown to be single light, wood‐framed.
Figure 9. Proposed South Elevation (front), photo simulation.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 9
Figure 10. Proposed South Elevation (front), rendering.
Figure 11. Existing (left) and Proposed (right) south elevations, main house.
Figure 12. Existing (left) and proposed (right) south elevations, secondary house
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 10
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsections 9‐11‐18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, set 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.
DESIGN GUIDELINE 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 houses were constructed in c.1902 and 1906, within the period of significance
for the Mapleton Hill Historic District and retain their original form, massing,
scale, and materiality and should be considered contributing to the Mapleton
Hill Historic District. Staff considers that the south faces of both houses are
“primary elevations” as defined in the General Design Guidelines and that adding
new round windows would alter the historic character of the façades of the
contributing houses, thereby damaging their historic character.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 11
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that adding new windows would alter the historic character of
the primary elevations of these contributing buildings and would have an
adverse effect on the immediate streetscape of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District.
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 finds that the proposed new round windows on the primary elevations of
the contributing buildings at 521 Maxwell Avenue to be inconsistent with Section
3.7(1), (2) and (6) of the General Design Guidelines, Section I of the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Design Guidelines, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation) and incompatible with the historic
character of the property within the Mapleton Historic District.
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?
N/A
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret
the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The following is an analysis of the
proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design
guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate
sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 12
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
3. ALTERATIONS
3.7 Windows, Storm Windows, and Shutters
Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the most
important character‐defining elements of a historic building and should be preserved… Windows on
elevations visible from public ways, particularly the façade, are especially important…
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1
Retain and preserve existing historic
windows, including their functional and
decorative features, such as frames, glass,
sashes, muntins, sills, heads, moldings,
surrounds, and hardware. Because
windows near the façade are particularly
critical to the character of historic
buildings, their protection may supercede
the protection of historic windows
elsewhere.
The proposed windows are to be
located on a primary elevation of
contributing buildings. Adding
new openings that will change the
street‐facing character of historic
buildings is inappropriate.
Redesign to eliminate the round
windows and explore alternative
ways to provide light to the
interiors of these houses.
NO
.2
Preserve original window locations; do
not move windows from their historic
placement.
There is no documentary evidence
to suggest that round windows
were ever located on the façade of
either house at 521 Maxwell
Avenue and so proposal cannot be
justified in that it will alter the
historic character of the most
important and visible faces of these
historic houses. Redesign to
eliminate the round windows and
explore alternative ways to provide
light to the interiors of these
houses.
NO
.6
The location of the window(s) proposed
for retrofit or replacement is important in
assessing their significance to a historic
building. In general, the more important
the elevation where the window is
located, the less likely that retrofit or
replacement will be appropriate.
Elevations will be categorized as
The proposed new windows are
located in a very prominent
location in the primary elevation.
Addition of new windows to on the
primary elevation only if historic
documentation exists and new
fenestration is a recreation of a
historic condition.
NO
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 13
primary, secondary or tertiary, using the
methodology set out in the Window &
Door Replacement Application and
Survey.
• Replacement of intact historic windows
on primary
elevations is rarely appropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic windows
on secondary
elevations is generally inappropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic windows
on tertiary
elevations can occur provided it does not
compromise
the historic integrity of the building.
MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines do not differentiate
between contributing and non‐contributing buildings. See Design Guideline
Analysis section.
I. Windows
Large additions and additional stories to a building frequently change the character of the
structure. The diversity that characterizes the historic district is a result of the variety in the sizes
of buildings and the differing architectural styles. A design response that respects this diversity is
most appropriate.
Guideline Analysis Meets Guideline?
.3
When replacing deteriorated
windows or adding new windows
to existing buildings, a vertically‐
proportioned, double‐hung
window which matches the
existing window should be used.
There is no evidence to suggest that
round windows were ever located on
the south (primary) elevations of
either building. Redesign to eliminate
the round windows and explore
alternative ways to provide light to
the interiors of these houses.
NO
.10
Where a pattern of smaller scale
windows in attic and accessory
spaces near the roofline exists, it
should be maintained.
This pattern does not exist on either
building, nor the very similar example
directly across the street at 520
Maxwell Avenue. Redesign to
eliminate the round windows and
explore alternative ways to provide
light to the interiors of these houses.
NO
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 14
FINDINGS:
Staff considers the two houses at 521 Maxwell to be substantially intact to their
early‐twentieth century dates of construction and are contributing elements to
the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Staff finds the proposal to add windows on
the primary elevations of these two contributing houses to be inappropriate and
that undertaking such alterations would have an adverse effect on the historic
character of the property. This interpretation of the General and Mapleton Hill
Historic Design Guidelines is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Historic Properties (Rehabilitation) which states that, “the historic
character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.”
Staff considers the proposed alteration to be inconsistent with Section 3.7 (1) of
the General Design Guidelines and Section I of the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines
and with Section 9‐11‐18 B.R.C. 1981, for issuance of a landmark alteration
certificate, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public comment had been received at the time this memo was written.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessors Cards
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
D: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 15
Attachment A: Tax Assessors Card
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 16
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 17
Attachment B: Current Photographs
521 Maxwell Ave., South Elevations (front), 2016
521 Maxwell, View from Maxwell Ave., 2016
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 18
View of north elevation (rear), 2016.
Main House, Southeast corner, 2016.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 19
East elevation (side), Secondary Dwelling, 2016.
North elevation (Rear), Secondary Dwelling, 2016.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 20
South elevation, Garage, 2016.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 21
Attachment C: Applicant Materials
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 22
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 23
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 24
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 25
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 26
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 27
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 28
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 29
ATTACHMENT D: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial
relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Memo to the Landmarks Board
Landmark Alteration Certificate for 521 Maxwell Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 30
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.
The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Rehabilitation as a treatment
When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or
additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction
at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a
treatment.
The Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties illustrate the practical application
of these treatment standards to historic properties. These Guidelines are also available
in PDF format.
The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes apply these treatment standards
to historic cultural landscapes.