Item 5A - 541 Marine St
Agenda Item 5A- Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
October 5th, 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 to demolish a non-contributing garage (constructed in
1952), and in its place construct a new 728 sq. ft. two-car garage at
541 Marine St. in the Highland Lawn Historic District per Section 9-
11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2016-00213).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 541 Marine St.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner/Applicant: Sarah and Chris Cottingham / Rachel Lee,
Mosaic Architects & Interiors
5. Site Area: 8,369 square feet
6. Proposed Building: 728 square feet (existing building 493 sq. ft.)
7. Proposed Height: 17’ (approx.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approves a landmark alteration certificate to construct
a new, two-car garage at the contributing property at 541 Marine Street in the Highland
Lawn Historic District in that the proposed construction meets the requirements set forth
in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below, and adopts this
memorandum as findings of the board.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall
be constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of
Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the applicant shall submit, subject
to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design review
committee, architectural plans for a two car garage of about 400 sq. ft.
with a vertical mass and roof pitch/configuration complimentary to the
historic house and;
3. Architectural plans indicating exterior materials for the garage more in
keeping with the design guidelines including one-over one windows,
simplified garage doors, and details on roofing, siding, and paving
materials. The applicant shall demonstrate that the design details are in
compliance with the intent of this approval and the General Design
Guidelines.
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that with the conditions
listed above, the proposed construction of a two-car garage will be generally
consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C.,
the Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines and the General Design
Guidelines.
SUMMARY:
This application calls for the demolition of an existing accessory building
and new, freestanding construction over 340 sq. ft. within the boundaries
of the Highland Lawn Historic District and, as such, requires a public
hearing per 9-11-14(3)(b) of the Boulder Revised Code.
While the existing garage is non-contributing, dating from about
1952, its form and design is complimentary to the historic house,
property and district as a whole. Staff encourages the property
owner to consider rehabilitating and reusing this 492 sq. ft.
building as a garage, but does not consider its removal would
damage or adversely affect the historic or architectural value of the
landmark property.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 3
This is reflected in the fact that during the 2005 survey and
subsequent designation of the 500 block of Marine Street, the
building was not found to be a contributing resource to the
Highland Lawn Historic District.
In the event the applicant chooses not to reuse the existing garage,
pursuant to the General and Highland Lawn Historic District Design
Guidelines, staff considers the square footage of the proposed building
should be reduced to about 400 sq. ft. in size and the design revised to
better reflect the character of the historic house in mass. Staff considers
that if the Landmarks Board approves the application to construct a two-
car garage with the suggested conditions, the revised design could be
reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Ldrc).
Staff recommends that, provided the stated conditions are met, the
Landmarks Board find that the construction of a two-car garage generally
meet meets the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, and is
consistent with the Highland Lawn Historic District Guidelines & the General
Design Guidelines, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic
character of the property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY:
Figure 1. 541 Marine St., Location Map.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 4
Figure 2. 541 Marine St., 2005
The approximately 8,369 square foot lot is located at the north side of Marine
Street between 5th and 6th streets in the Highland Lawn Historic District and
contains a one and one-half story Queen Anne house that was constructed
around 1899 and is considered contributing to the historic district. The house
features a front multi-gabled roof with horizontal wood siding, decorative
brackets and a small front porch.
Figure 3. Existing Accessory Building, North Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 5
A one and one-half story, 493 sq. ft. wood frame accessory building is located at
the rear of the property. It features a steeply pitched roof clad in corrugated
metal, and unpainted board and batten siding. The building is believed to have
been constructed about 1952. The Highland Lawn Historic District Design
Guidelines, written at the time of the district’s designation in 2005, identifies the
building as a non-contributing resource due to its construction date, outside of
the district’s period of significance (1884 to 1925).
DISTRICT HISTORY1
The Highland Lawn Historic District contains a concentration of well-preserved
buildings reflecting prevailing architectural tastes at the turn of the twentieth
century, including Queen Anne, Classic Cottage, and Edwardian Vernacular
Styles. Hannah Barker platted the middle-class neighborhood in 1884 as the
Town of Highland Lawn. The area is significant for its association with historic
persons and events and comprises an excellent collection of buildings reflecting
architectural styles of the period. The defined period of significance for the
district is from 1884 (the year of the platting of the sub-division) to 1925 (the last
year of construction for a primary building located on the block).
The Town of Highland Lawn included 19 large lots (100’ x 400’) bounded by
Boulder Creek to the north, University Street at the south, and 6th and 4th Streets
on the east and west respectively. Originally located south of Boulder’s city
limits, the town remained an independent community until 1891. Barker’s plan
for the neighborhood showed foresight: each lot included water rights in the
adjacent Anderson ditch and buyers were encouraged to plant trees
(cottonwoods were specifically excluded), and build fences around their
properties.
None of the original owners built in the neighborhood, choosing instead to
subdivide the nearly one-acre parcels into smaller lots. Most of the lots were
bisected by alleys running east – west through the district. Marine Street was
originally Vine Street and was renamed Marine Street sometime in the 1890s
after prominent early settler Marinus Smith.
Lots in the district are generally long and narrow with principal buildings
situated close together at the front of the lots and accessory buildings oriented to
the alleys. Because the alleys contain a relatively low number of buildings from
the period of significance with historic integrity, and because the district
1 Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 6
boundaries bisect the rear alleys, the alleys (located at the north and south edges
of the district) are not considered a significant historic element of the district.
Today, the Highland Lawn neighborhood survives as a well-preserved
assemblage of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century middle-class houses
with its tree lined streetscape. The district derives its significance as an early
example of planned residential design, with excellent examples of early Boulder
architecture, and for its association with individuals of local significance to the
history of the city including Jonas Anderson, Hannah Barker, Marinus Smith,
and J.J. Harris.
REQUEST:
This Landmark Alteration Certificate application requests demolition of the
existing accessory building and the construction of a new, one and one-half story
720 sq. ft. garage at the rear of the property.
Figure 4. Existing Site Plan, with footprint of house and approved rear addition (shaded).
Figure 5. Existing Accessory Building, East Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item 5A- Page 7
The existing one and one-half accessory building is of wood frame construction
with unpainted board and batten siding. The building measures approximately
17 ft. by 22 ft., and is located on the west property line, and is located
approximately 8 ft. from the north (rear) property line. The south wall of the
existing accessory building is located approximately 90 ft. from the existing main
house. An addition approved previously approved HIS2016-00036 (not yet
constructed) calls for the construction of a 1600 sq. ft. addition to the rear of
house. The east elevation of the accessory building features a wide garage door.
Figure 6. Alley view panorama
While the building was constructed well outside the defined period of significant
for the Highland Lawn Historic District, staff considers that some elements of the
existing building are complimentary to the historic character of the primary
house and the historic district. These elements include the steeply-pitched roof,
which complements the pitch of the house; its vertical proportions; simple
detailing; and use of traditional materials.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
Figure 7. Proposed Site Plan, with footprint of house and approved rear addition
(shaded).
Agenda Item 5A- Page 8
The proposed site plan for the property shows the proposed new garage to be
located 57’ south of the house with the previously approved rear addition, 3’
from the east property line and 9’ from the west property line. A driveway of
either permeable pavers or gravel (final material to be determined) is shown
from the garage to the alley. The application states that no mature trees will be
removed as part of the proposal.
Figure 7. North Elevation
Plans show the proposed two car garage to face onto the alley and to have a front
gable form with a shed roof portion at the east elevation. The proposed building
is shown to have a footprint of roughly 27’ by 27’ in dimension, 17’ in height and
to be clad in horizontal wood siding with shingles in the gable end. A wood door
with a cross pattern is located in the gable end, with a wood outrigger above. The
garage doors are shown to be wood, overhead doors with four lights at the top of
each door. Light fixtures flank the door opening. The wood siding is shown to be
painted green and the roof material is shown to be asphalt shingles.
Figure 8. South Elevation
The south elevation, facing the interior of the lot, features a wood, half-light
pedestrian door on the west side of the elevation, with a gabled portico above. A
Agenda Item 5A- Page 9
four-light window is shown to be located at the gable end. A light fixture is
located on the west side of the door. The shed-roof portion of the building is
shown to have a square, four-light window. The architectural details of the wide
fascia, shingled gable end and horizontal wood siding are continued to this
elevation.
Figure 9. East Elevation
The east elevation is featureless, with the exception of a solar panel system,
located on the shed-roof portion of the building. Three windows are shown on
the west elevation, each wood with 4-lights.
Figure 10. West Elevation
The architect states that the design references the existing house: “The proposed
building is 1 story in height and is set 3’-5” lower on the site than the primary
structure, due to sloping grade. Additionally, detailing, while complementary to
and taking cues from the primary structure, is modest, simple and clearly
secondary to the primary residential structure.”
“The proposed structure is complementary in both exterior material (siding,
trim, soffit, window material) and color to the primary structure, while still
Agenda Item 5A- Page 10
maintaining a subordinate nature. Scale and ornamentation in the accessory
structure have both been reduced.” See Attachment F: Applicant’s Materials.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), 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?
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
Agenda Item 5A- Page 11
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?
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 (4) of this section?
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 appropriate design, and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
The Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines are intended as a
supplement to the General Guidelines for the Highland Lawn Historic District.
These Highland Lawn guidelines control when they conflict with the General
Guidelines.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable
design guidelines:
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS
2.3 Site Design: Alleys
The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the
houses, for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for
cars. A view of the backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys
have evolved into use as pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking,
they still contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. They are typically
minimally paved.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 12
Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes
including barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to
the general feeling of human scale in the alleys.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
.1
Maintain alley access for parking and
retain the character of alleys as
clearly secondary access to properties.
Rear parking is maintained by
the proposal. Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the variety and
character found in the existing
historic accessory buildings along the
alleys.
Existing accessory building was
built outside the period of
significance and as such is not
considered to be a contributing
resource.
Yes
.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human
scale of the alleys. For example,
narrower lap siding and smaller brick
are appropriate.
Proposed garage shown to be
clad in horizontal wood siding
and wood shingles similar to
finish and materials of the
original house.
Yes
.4
Buildings that were constructed after
the period of significance but are still
more than 50 years old and
contribute to the variety and
character of the alleyway should be
retained.
Existing accessory building was
built outside the period of
significance and as such is not
considered to be a contributing
resource, however, design and
character of the c.1952 are
compatible with the contributing
house and the alley scape as a
whole.
Maybe
.5
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory building so that the view of
the main house is not obscured, and
the alley does not evolve into a
tunnel-like passage.
The proposed garage spans
approximately 27’ of the 40’
wide lot and will largely
obscuring the view of the house
from the alley.
Maybe
Agenda Item 5A- Page 13
7.0 Garages & 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 buildings 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.
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings
A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic districts is
the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1
Retain and preserve garages and
accessory buildings that contribute to
the overall character of the site or
district.
At the time the historic district
was established in 2005, the
building was considered to be a
non-contributing resource to the
district.
Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the character-
defining materials, features, and
architectural details of historic
garages and accessory buildings,
including roods, exterior materials,
windows and doors.
Existing accessory building is
not considered contributing to
the district.
Yes
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.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 14
Location and Orientation
.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a new
garage or accessory building if doing
so will detract from the overall
historic character of the principal
building, and the site, or if it will
require removal of a significant
historic building element or site
feature, such as a mature tree.
Construction will not require the
removal of a significant historic
site feature. The alleys in the
Highland Lawn Historic District
are not contributing elements.
However, staff considers the size
and design of the proposed
garage to incompatible with the
character of the contributing
property. Staff recommends the
applicant consider reducing the
size of the proposed garage
substantially and incorporating
design elements found on the
house into the design of the
proposed garage including roof
pitch and vertical form.
No
.2
New garages and accessory buildings
should generally be located at the rear
of the lot, respecting the traditional
relationship of such buildings to the
primary structure and the site.
The new garage is to be located at
rear of the lot. Yes
.3
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
At 27’ in width, proposed garage
will occupy most of the 40’ width
of the lot. Consider narrowing
building to avoid tunnel-like
effect.
Maybe
.4
Preserve a backyard area between the
house and the accessory buildings,
maintaining the general proportion of
built mass to open space found within
the area.
Currently, there is 90’ between
the house and garage. This
distance will decrease to 57’ with
the previously approved addition
and proposed garage. While less
distance than historically the case
in the district, staff considers
back yard space will be
maintained with the proposal.
Yes
Agenda Item 5A- Page 15
Mass and Scale
.5
New accessory buildings should take
design cues from the primary
building on the property, but be
subordinate to it in terms of size and
massing.
Staff considers the size and
design of the proposed garage to
incompatible with the character
of the contributing property. Staff
recommends the applicant
consider reducing the size of the
proposed garage substantially
and incorporating design
elements found on the house into
the design of the proposed
garage including roof pitch and
vertical form.
No
.6
New garages for single-family
residences should generally be one
story tall and shelter no more than
two cars. In some cases, a two-car
garage may be inappropriate.
Staff considers that a two-car
garage is appropriate in this
location. However, typically two
car garages are between 400 and
450 sq. ft. in size. The current
proposal calls for a 729 sq. ft.
building. Staff considers the size
of the proposed garage should be
reduced significantly to be more
consistent with this guideline.
Resolve at Ldrc.
No
.7
Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary
structure.
Roof form is lower in pitch than
that of main house. Revise design
to more closely reflect the roof of
the main house. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be
simpler in design and detail than the
primary building.
Proposed garage appears to take
cues from the approved addition
than the historic house. Consider
revising and simplifying design
including one-over one windows,
simpler garage door, and
elimination of hay-loft at alley.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.9 Materials for new garages and
accessory structures should be
Materials appear generally in
keeping with those on the main Yes
Agenda Item 5A- Page 16
compatible with those found on the
primary structure and in the district.
Vinyl siding and prefabricated
structures are inappropriate.
house and in the district.
.10
Windows, like all elements of
accessory structures, should be
simpler in detailing and smaller in
scale than similar elements on
primary structures.
Consider revising and
simplifying including one-over
one windows, simpler garage
door, and elimination of hay-loft
at alley. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.12
Garage doors should be consistent
with the historic scale and materials
of traditional accessory structures.
Wood is the most appropriate
material and two smaller doors may
be more appropriate than one large
door.
Simplify garage doors and
consider two separate doors.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.13
It is inappropriate to introduce
features or details to a garage or an
accessory building in an attempt to
create a false historical appearance.
Hay loft seems inappropriate for
contemporary garage in historic
context. Remove hayloft from
design. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
8.2 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.4
It is not appropriate to install solar
collectors in locations that
compromise prominent roofs. The
installation of solar collectors may be
appropriate provided it does not
detract from the historic character of
the property, landmark or historic
district.
Solar panels proposed at shed
roof on east elevation of the
accessory building. This location
on a new accessory building will
not detract from the character of
the historic district.
Yes
Agenda Item 5A- Page 17
HIGHLAND LAWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES
10.3 Alleys & Accessory Buildings
While alleys play an important role in most of Boulder’s historic districts, the alleys that
form the north and south boundaries of the Highland Lawn Historic District are not
character-defining features because of their loss of historic integrity. There are a small
number of historic accessory buildings dating from the period of significance that are
considered contributing features to the district, as shown on the map above. As such, their
preservation is strongly encouraged.
.1 It is highly recommended, though
not required, that contributing
accessory buildings be treated
consistent with the guidelines of
Section 7.1 of the General Design
Guidelines.
Garage is non-contributing
though appropriate in form and
design to contributing property.
Staff encourages, though does
not recommend requiring
adaptive reuse of the existing
493 sq. ft. existing building.
Maybe
.3 The construction of new accessory
buildings should occur only at the
rear of the lot, taking access from the
alley when possible.
Proposed new building is
located at the rear of the lot and
takes access from the alley.
Yes
.4 In general, new accessory buildings
constructed in the district should be
modest in scale and detailing and
clearly secondary to the primary
building on the lot.
Staff considers that while
secondary to the main house, at
729 sq. ft., the proposed garage is
too large in scale and its size and
scale should be significantly
reduced. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
.5 Two-car garages are appropriate,
when scaled and located consistently,
from the rear of the alley, with other
garages in the district.
Size of proposed garage is
inappropriate in terms of scale
and should be reduced in size to
provide a more modest two car
garage consistent with this
guidelines. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
While the existing garage is non-contributing, dating from about 1952, its form
and design is complimentary to the historic house, property and district as a
whole. Staff encourages the property to consider rehabilitating and reusing this
492 sq. ft. building as a garage, but does not consider its removal would damage
or adversely affect the historic or architectural value of the landmark property.
Agenda Item 5A- Page 18
This is opinion borne out by the lesser importance given to alleys in Highland
Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines.
Staff considers the submitted design for a new garage on the property
inappropriate. In particular, the large mass, low pitch roof and horizontal form
of the building is incompatible with the modest, vertical mass of the historic
house. If the applicant choses to move forward with new construction as
opposed to rehabilitation of the existing accessory building, staff considers that
its size should be reduced to approximately 400 sq. ft., that its form be more
vertical in mass and that it be designed with a roof and simple architectural
vocabulary more in keeping with the character of the historic house. Staff
considers that revisions that keep to these design recommendations may be
reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review committee.
FINDINGS:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, provided the above conditions are met,
the proposed demolition and proposed new construction at 541 Marine Street
will be generally consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. The proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural
features of the landmark.
2. The mass, scale, height, architectural style, arrangement, texture, color,
arrangement of color, and materials used for the proposed new
construction will be compatible with the character of the landmark.
3. The request is generally consistent with the historic preservation
ordinance and the Highland Lawn Historic District Design Guidelines
& the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form for 541 Marine Street
Attachment B: Application and Plans
Agenda Item 5A- Page 19
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form for 541 Marine Street
Agenda Item 5A- Page 20
Agenda Item 5A- Page 21
Agenda Item 5A- Page 22
Attachment B: Application and Plans
Agenda Item 5A- Page 23
Agenda Item 5A- Page 24
Agenda Item 5A- Page 25
Agenda Item 5A- Page 26
Agenda Item 5A- Page 27
Agenda Item 5A- Page 28
Agenda Item 5A- Page 29
Agenda Item 5A- Page 30
Agenda Item 5A- Page 31
Agenda Item 5A- Page 32
Agenda Item 5A- Page 33