Item 5B - 409 Spruce St
Agenda Item #5A Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 7, 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 demolish an existing non-contributing house and, in its
place, construct a new 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St. in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981
(HIS2016-00341).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 409 Spruce St.
2. Date of construction: c.1900
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
4. Owner: Justin and Nancee Gold
5. Applicant: Nicholas Fiore
6. Site Area: 7,298 sq. ft. (approx.)
7. Existing House: 1,462 sq. ft. (approx.)
8. Proposed House: 3,055 sq. ft. (approx.)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board denies the application for demolition of the non-contributing house
and the construction of the proposed 3,055 sq. ft. house at 409 Spruce St., as shown on
plans dated 10/23/2016, finding that they do not meet the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and adopts the staff
memorandum dated December 7, 2016 in Matter 5B (HIS2016-00341) as the findings of
the board.
Agenda Item #5A Page 2
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the proposed demolition and
new construction would be inconsistent 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.
SUMMARY
Because this application calls for the demolition of a building and new free-standing
construction of more than 340 sq. ft., review by the full Landmarks Board in a quasi-
judicial hearing is required per Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.
The applicant has met with staff on several occasions to review design concepts and
provide feedback on the proposal.
The existing house was constructed around 1900 and was significantly modified in
the 1980s, prior to the 2001 expansion of the Mapleton Hill Historic District to
include this property. At the time the district was expanded to include this portion
of Spruce Street, the building at 409 Spruce St. was considered to be non-
contributing, due to the extent of alterations.
The 1988 historic building inventory of the property characterizes the level of
modification to be “major,” noting that the “house was extensively remodeled in
1985.” The survey states “this house, although remodeled, is representative of the
homes constructed by the working class in Boulder at the turn of the century. It is
associated with the Mathias Schons family, German immigrants who raised a large
family, many of whom worked in Boulder during the early 1900s.” See Attachment A:
Historic Building Inventory Form).
While the house was constructed during the period of significance and is generally
compatible with the streetscape, subsequent non-historic additions have comprised
the architectural integrity of the house. For this reason, staff considers the building a
non-contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Staff acknowledges the consideration that has gone into the design of the house and
finds the front portion generally compatible with the character of the historic.
However, staff considers the oblique angle of the rear addition and mass, scale,
proportion and style, to be generally inconsistent with Section 2, Site Design, and
Section 6, New Primary Buildings, of the General Design Guidelines, Section U of the
Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines and Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981.
Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction as the design is
substantially inconsistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as
per Subsections 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends denial of the demolition and proposed new construction, but
suggests that the Landmarks Board give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw
Agenda Item #5A Page 3
the application for redesign after providing direction to that end, thereby avoiding
the applicant having to wait a year to reapply pursuant to Section 9-11-17(c), B.R.C.
1981.
Figure 1. Location Map, 409 Spruce St.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property at 409 Spruce 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.
The property is associated with the Schons family, German immigrants who owned the
property from 1899 until the 1970s. Mathias and Apollonia Schons came to Boulder
from Nebraska in 1896. They lived at 409 Spruce Street from the 1900s until their deaths
in the 1930s, at which time the house appears to have passed to their daughter Susanna
and her husband William Rusch (based on burial records). Mathias and Apollonia were
the parents of Apollonia Schons Berkeley, Susanna Schons Rusch, and Nicholas Schons,
Agenda Item #5A Page 4
and others. Nicholas Schons was the father of the donor's husband, Mathias C. Schons.1
A 1974 zoning verification form indicates the owner is the estate of Apollonia Schons
and that the house had been vacant since 1945.
Figure 2. Mathias and Apollonia Schons standing in front of their house at 409 Spruce St., c.
1919. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Located on the north side of Spruce Street in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, the
property was included in the expansion of that district in 2002. The expansion included
approximately 80 properties on the southeast, north and east boundaries of the district.
At the time of designation, 409 Spruce St. identified as non-contributing to the district as
a result of non-historic alterations.
1 Electronic Catalog Description. Carnegie Branch Library.
Agenda Item #5A Page 5
Figure 3. 409 Spruce St., c.1929 (Carnegie Library)
Approximately 7,300 sq. ft. in size, the lot at 409 Spruce St. slopes to the south and
features mature vegetation, much of which is volunteer. The Farmer’s Ditch is located
directly north of the property.
Figure 4. 409 Spruce St., c.1949 (Carnegie Library
The original township of Boulder City was platted at a 15-degree angle, aligning with
Valmont Butte. This pattern extends east from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to 30th
Street, north of Canyon to Pine Street. While most lots extend perpendicularly from the
Agenda Item #5A Page 6
street, the properties on the 400 block of Spruce Street meet the street at an angle,
resulting in an unusual building envelope. The houses on this section of Spruce Street
share a uniform setback, and the building facades are aligned parallel to Spruce Street.
Figure 5. 409 Spruce St., 1984 (Carnegie Library)
ALTERATIONS
Research indicates the house was significantly remodeled beginning in 1980. The house
appears to have fallen into disrepair and was vacant in the early 1970s and upgraded to
add water and sewer service in 1974. The 1980s remodels were significant with the
house being raised to add a new foundation and basement (1980) and the raising of the
roof of the house with new projecting gables on the façade. The windows, doors and
exterior finishes appear to have all been replaced during this remodeling campaign.
Agenda Item #5A Page 7
Figure 6. 409 Spruce St., 2016.
Today, the one-and-a-half story side-gabled wood frame house features two gable
roofed dormers, a full width porch, and a bay with double hung windows. Each of the
dormers have small double hung windows. The dormers have boxed eaves are the
gable ends are clad in an alternating diamond and fish scale shingle pattern. The porch
features non-historic square supports and a simple railing, a centrally located entrance
with a multi-light door and a contemporary storm door. A double hung window is
located east of the main entry. The foundation is clad in flagstone
Figure 7. 409 Spruce St., 2016.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and, in its place, construct a two-
story house of approximately 3,055 sq. ft.
Agenda Item #5A Page 8
Figure 8. Existing Site Plan Figure 8. Proposed Site Plan
In plan, the front setback for the proposed new house is shown at approximately 13’ 7”
(determined through setback averaging for the block) and roughly the same setback as
the existing house. The existing house measures approximately 33’ wide and 36’ in
length while the width of the front portion of the proposed house is shown to measure
approximately 35’ in width while, because of the oblique angle of the building, the rear
portion of the building increases the street face of the house to 45’. The east wall of the
proposed house is shown measure approximately 75’ in length, while the west wall
measures about 77’ in length. At its highest point the house is shown to be
approximately 29’ in height, approximately the same height as the existing building.
Agenda Item #5A Page 9
Figure 9. Existing house south elevation (façade)
Figure 10. Proposed south elevation (façade)
Agenda Item #5A Page 10
Elevations call for the new house to be of frame construction, with the front, neo-
traditional portion to feature a full-width gable intersected by a smaller gable above a
projecting ell and partial width front wrapping porch. The front, gable portion of the
proposed house is shown to be 36’ in length at which point it is intersected by a flat roof
portion of notably more contemporary form, mass, and finish. At the east wall, the flat
roof portion of the house intersects the gable portion and turns ten degrees east creating
an oblique angle to the front portion of the house but in parallel with the eat property
line.
Drawings and renderings show the asymmetrical façade of the house to recall the
Edwardian Vernacular in form and to feature a wrapping, partial width shed roof front
porch and small upper screened balcony with round arch motif and Queen Anne
inspired iron spindle work. Access to the balcony is shown by way of a set of twelve
light French doors while the main gable form is shown to be clad in semi-opaque
stained, vertical wood siding and fenestrated with a small four-over-one window and a
larger one-over-one double hung sash.
A front door in in line with the porch steps and is located next to a 4’ x 6’ picture
window and a single six-over-one double hung window. A single, ¾ light door
provides access to the house at the east end of the porch.
The smaller gable roofed portion of the façade projects 5’ south and is shown to be clad
in a decorative brick. A one-over-one double hung window is located over a pair of first
level six-over-one windows on the façade.
Figure 11. Existing north (rear) elevation from Mountain View Road
Agenda Item #5A Page 11
Figure 12. Existing north (rear) elevation
When foliage is bare, Mountain View Road provides visual access to the rear of the
property. Elevations indicate the north face of the house to be distinctly more
contemporary in design with its flat roof, horizontal volumes and abstracted window
forms that will be visible from the north, at least during the winter months.
Figure 13. Proposed north (rear) elevation
The proposed east elevation shows the front neo-traditional gable form of the house to
feature a low dormer with three six light casement windows, a six-over-one double
hung window, two nine light casement sash under the porch, and a bank of three nine
light windows on the decorative brick wall. Specifications call for the structure of the
Agenda Item #5A Page 12
porch to steel and the its roof to be sheathed in standing seam metal.
Figure 14. Existing house east (side) elevation
Figure 15. Proposed east (side) elevation
The rear, flat roof portion, of the house skews about 10 degrees east of the front section
and intersects with the neo-traditional front section of the about 7’ into to the gable roof.
In contrast to the brick, the rear portion of the house is shown to be sheathed with
vertical wood siding and fenestrated with narrow horizontal windows. An 8’ section of
the second story wall is set back, and a decorative brick fireplace stack is shown to be
located at the north end of this wall.
Agenda Item #5A Page 13
Figure 16. Existing house west (side) elevation
Figure 17. Proposed west (side) elevation
Elevations show the west wall of the front portion of the house to be clad in decorative
brick with three six-over-one, double hung, a four-light window, and single pane on the
first level. The half story roof is shown to feature two, low dormers with two and four
light windows respectively.
Agenda Item #5A Page 14
Figure 18. South elevation of existing house facing onto Spruce Street
The rear portion of the house is shown to connect below the gable roof of the front
segment, to be sheathed in vertical wood siding and fenestrated with a variety
horizontal and vertical shaped windows. Two wall dormers project from the second
story of the house, each with a square, single pane window. Large windows and doors
are shown to be located on this face of the house and to be partially covered by an
attached pergola.
Figure 19. Rendering of proposed south elevation of house facing onto Spruce Street
Exterior materials shown include standing seam metal roofing on the from porch,
asphalt shingle on the gable roofs, decorative and simple brick, semi-opaque, stained
cedar vertical siding, stone lintels and metal columns and spindle work on the porch
and balcony.
Agenda Item #5A Page 15
Figure 20. Rendering of proposed south elevation from southeast
Figure 21. Rendering of proposed south elevation from southwest
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;
Agenda Item #5A Page 16
(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 about 1900, but has been significantly modified
since 1980. While the house is currently compatible with the form and details of historic
houses in the immediate streetscape, the extent of alterations has compromised its
historic integrity. While the City of Boulder encourages the reuse of existing buildings
as a sustainable approach to redevelopment, historic preservation staff does not
consider demolition of the house would be to the detriment of the historic district,
provided the proposed new construction is consistent with the General and Mapleton
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines However, staff finds that based upon analysis
against the Guidelines, the design of the proposed new construction is incompatible with
the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic district and would have an adverse effect on
the immediate streetscape (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that based on analysis with the relevant design guidelines and because
of the high visibility of the property, the mass, form and design of the rear portion of
the proposed new construction, which will be visible from Spruce Street and Mountain
View Drive, may adversely affect the special historic and architectural character of the
streetscape and the Mapleton Hill Historic District as a whole.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials
Agenda Item #5A Page 17
used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district?
Staff considers that the while the proposed mass, scale, proportion and design of the of
the front portion is generally compatible with the character of the streetscape, the rear
portion which will be visible from both Spruce Street and Mountain View Drive, is
incompatible with the character of the Mapleton Historic District and that steps should
be taken to redesign (including reorienting the rear portion) in a manner that takes cues
from and complements the historic character of the streetscape (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 Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)?
While staff does not consider the existing house to contribute to the historic character of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District, it finds that the application to replace the
demolished building does not meet the requirements of Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4),
B.R.C. 1981 because the construction of a new house will not establish a new building
with compatible features on the streetscape and it will be generally compatible and
inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis 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 following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable design
guidelines:
Agenda Item #5A Page 18
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 is a trapezoidal in shape,
approximately 50’ wide and 7,300 sq.
ft. in size. The neo-traditional portion
of the house is aligned with the other
houses on the north side of the block,
roughly parallel to Spruce Street.
However, the north portion of the
proposed house is planned at an
oblique angle to the rest of the house
and this angle will be visible from the
street and incongruent with the
alignments of historic houses in
Mapleton Hill. Redesign rear portion
of house so that walls are parallel to
side walls of front portion and more
in keeping with traditional alignments
in the historic district.
No
.2 Building proportions should
respect traditional patterns
in the district
The neo-traditional portion of the
house reflects the traditional gable-
roofed forms in the district in terms of
scale, form, and massing. However,
the contemporary portion is
dominated by a flat roof and features
oblique angles (see .1 above).
At over 75’ in length, proposed
footprint of the house may be out of
character with those in immediate
streetscape. Likewise, neo-traditional
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 19
gable and flat-roof cubic forms may
be incongruous. Consider combining
forms to reflect more traditional
building proportions and forms more
reflective of those historically found
in the district and immediate
streetscape.
.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,
addressing the street in traditional
manner, and is appropriate to the neo-
traditional, Edwardian-Vernacular
form of the front portion of the house
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
Trapezoidal lot configuration is
somewhat challenging, though its size
provides opportunity to preserve
backyard area by providing more
space at the rear of the property with
setback averaging. Proposed design
preserves general proportion of built
mass to open space.
Yes
2.2.2 Preserve street trees
whenever possible
Mature trees along the Street will not
be removed, however, large trees in
the front yard area may lost as a result
of proposed new construction.
Yes
6.0 New Primary Buildings
New construction within a historic district can enhance the existing district character if
Agenda Item #5A Page 20
the proposed design and its siting reflect an understanding of and a compatibility with
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 Edwardian Vernacular
design in front portion of house in
terms of mass, scale and proportion,
though is clearly a contemporary
interpretation. However, some
elements including front balcony and
use of materials including steel and
stained wood may be inappropriate.
Rear portion of house may be
incompatible with neo-traditional
front – redesign to better integrate
creating a visually continuity between
these two elements
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 21
.2 Interpretations of historic
styles may be appropriate if
distinguishable as new.
Proposed design for front portion of
house interprets Edwardian
Vernacular house form in clearly
contemporary way. Rear portion of
house may be incompatible with neo-
traditional front – redesign to better
integrate creating a visually
continuity between these two
elements.
Maybe
6.2 Site and Setting
New buildings 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. No
.2 Overall character of site is
retained.
Residential character will be retained,
with similar setbacks. However
oblique building angle at north will be
visible from Spruce St. and will alter
character of the site in a manner that
likely will be incompatible with
streetscape and southwest section of
Mapleton Hill. Redesign building to
better ensure that new construction be
compatible with historic character of
area (see section 6.1.2 above).
No
.3 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
setback, orientation,
spacing, and distance from
adjacent buildings.
Trapezoidal lot configuration is
unusual and presents design
challenges. The Neo-Traditional
portion of the building is compatible
in terms of setback, orientation,
spacing and distance from adjacent
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 22
buildings. However, the oblique angle
of the proposed rear portion of the
house is inconsistent with this
guideline None-the-less, the lot
provides adequate space to construct
a new house in a manner that
complies with this guideline.. Revise
design for rear portion of house to be
parallel with the front.
.4 Proportion of built mass to
open space not significantly
different from contributing
buildings.
Proposed design appears to preserve
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?
.1 Compatible with
surrounding buildings in
terms of height, size, scale,
massing, and proportions.
Proposed scale is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings. However massing and
proportion of rear portion should
better integrate with front portion of
the house and relate to historic
buildings in the district. Redesign to
ensure compatibility of forms of
house to each and to surrounding
historic buildings in the district.
No
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Redesign to ensure massing,
configuration and proportion better
reflect those found on historic
properties in Mapleton Hill (see .1
above).
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 23
.3 Historic heights and widths
as well as their ratios
maintained, especially
proportions of façade.
General proportions of the façade
elements are found in the district.
Redesign rear portion of house to
better integrate with the front and
forms of like-sized historic houses in
the district.
No
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 brick,
decorative brick, stained vertical
wood siding, standing seam metal
roofing, asphalt shingle and steel
structural elements and metal spindle
work on the front balcony. Brick,
horizontal wood siding and asphalt
shingles are traditionally found in the
historic district. Little historic
precedent for use of exposed steel
structural elements, metal roofing, or
stained wood in Mapleton Hill.
Redesign to simplify material palette
including reconsideration of use of
steel, metal roofing and stained
vertical wood siding. Provide detailed
information on all materials including
proposed path ways, patio and
retaining walls.
No
.2 Maintain a human scale by
avoiding large, featureless
surfaces and by using
traditionally sized building
components and materials.
Façade maintains a human scale with
a porch and nestle gables. However,
areas of the east wall of the house
include large featureless wall areas.
Revise to include proportion of
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 24
window/door to wall area closer to
that found on historic houses in
Mapleton Hill.
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.
Fenestration on the neo-traditional
portion of the building generally
reflects traditional window patterns.
Fenestration of building should be
redesigned to reflect more traditional
window proportions on the rear
portion of the house, placing and
scale. Use of horizontal windows
should be avoided on portions of the
building visible from the public right
of way, as little precedent on historic
buildings for such fenestration exists
in Mapleton Hill.
No
.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. No
.3 New structures should use
a roof form found in the
district or on the landmark
site
Roof form on front portion of house
typical of many historic houses in
Mapleton Hill. While simple flat roof
forms are occasionally found in the
district, gable, hipped and gambrel
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 25
roof forms are the pattern of historic
buildings in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District. Current design flat
roof of the house comprises
approximately 50% of the roof area of
the house. Consider modifying rear to
reduce flat roof area, especially that
visible from a public way.
.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.
Front porch is appropriately scaled
and located on house. The enclosed
front balcony should be simplified
and single door should provide access
as the norm for front balconies on
Edwardian-Vernacular houses of this
scale
Maybe
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
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
Agenda Item #5A Page 26
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.
The building reflects contributing
elements found in the historic
district including the gabled roof
form, use of brick, and front porch.
Residential character will be
retained with similar setbacks.
However oblique building angles,
use of structural and decorative
steel on the house will be highly
visible and alter character of the
site in a manner that likely will be
incompatible with streetscape and
southwest section of Mapleton
Hill. Redesign building to better
ensure that new construction be
compatible with historic character
of area (see sections 2 & 6 of
General Design Guidelines above).
No
.2 Building elevations visible
from streets and alleys need
the greatest sensitivity.
Front porches are an
important visual element
and should be incorporated
into new construction
except in unusual
situations.
In placement and form front porch
addresses street appropriately
taking cues from historic houses in
the district (see sections 2 & 6 of
General Design Guidelines above).
Proposed scale of front portion of
the house is generally compatible
with surrounding buildings.
However, massing and proportion
of rear portion of house appears
incongruous with front section and
adjacent historic buildings.
Redesign to simplify forms and
No
Agenda Item #5A Page 27
materials to better reflect character
of historic houses in the district.
.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.
Massing, proportion and design of
the neo-classical portion of house
reflects the historic context of the
district but is an expression of its
own time. However, the rear
portion appears inconsistent with
surrounding historic building
forms in terms of location, mass
and fenestration. Redesign to rear
portion to better integrate with
front portion of house and better
reflect character of historic houses
in the district.
No
.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.
Modeling indicates the oblique
building angle at east will result in
modern rear portion of house
being visible from the Spruce
Street. The visibility of this rear
element may alter character of the
site in a manner incompatible with
streetscape and southwest section
of Mapleton Hill, as a whole.
Consider redesign to provide for
elimination of oblique angle of rear
portion and revise to better
integrate with the neo-traditional
portion of house. While simple flat
roof forms are occasionally found
in the district, gable, hipped and
gambrel roof forms are the pattern
of historic buildings in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District.
No
.7 New construction should
utilize a roof form found in
the district.
Current design shows indicate 50%
of the roof will be flat. Consider
redesign to reduce flat roof area.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5A Page 28
.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
possible, use familiar
building components in
traditional sizes. Avoid
large featureless surfaces.
Proposed materials include two
types of brick, stained vertical
wood siding, standing seam metal
roof and structural and decorative
steel elements. Little historic
precedent for use of metal roofing,
stained wood siding or structural
or decorative steel on historic
houses in in Mapleton Hill. Revise
design to simplify material palette
including roofing, use of wood in
lieu of structural and decorative
steel and more traditional painted
wood siding. Provide detailed
information on all materials
including proposed path ways,
patio and retaining walls.
No
Staff considers that, while the existing house is compatible with the streetscape in terms
of mass, scale and design, because it was significantly altered in 1980 (well outside of
the 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), it should be
considered non-contributing. At the time the Mapleton Hill Historic District was
expanded to include this area, this building was considered non-contributing.
The historic preservation ordinance requires that in order to approve a demolition, the
Landmarks Board must find the proposal for new construction meets the standards of
Section 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3), B.R.C. 1981, ensuring compatible new construction in the
context of the historic district. In spite of many compatible elements of this design (in
particular the mass, scale and location of the front portion of the house), staff considers
that the design substantially inconsistent with the design guidelines and that redesign
likely could not be achieved through the imposition of conditions to be reviewed by the
Landmarks design review committee.
Specifically, the oblique angle of the rear addition and its incompatibility with the front
portion of the house (and streetscape) in terms of location and design is substantially
inconsistent with the Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Likewise, staff
considers the material palette should be revised and simplified to be more in keeping
with materials found on historic buildings in Mapleton Hill.
Agenda Item #5A Page 29
The construction of new houses in historic districts is relatively rare and great care
needs to be taken to ensure compatibility. Given the proposed front setback of only 14’,
and proximate location to the street, this is especially important. Staff recognizes the
considerable thought that has gone into the design of this building, and finds the front
portion to be generally contextual in terms of mass and scale. However, it also considers
that the building’s front and rear portions should be better unified to reflect the
proportion of historic buildings of similar size found in the district. Consideration
should be given to redesigning the footprint of the house to eliminate the oblique angle
of the rear portion. Likewise, consideration should also be given to reconfiguring
window proportion, spacing, and scale on elevations of the rear portion of the house
visible from public ways, to reflect more traditional patterns found in the district.
Similarly, the material palette should be simplified and revised per the Design Guideline
analysis.
For this reason, staff is recommending denial of the proposal, but suggests that if the
Board feels denial is appropriate, that it provide the applicant the opportunity to
withdraw the current proposal for redesign, after providing feedback on how they
might redesign a house be more consistent with the standards of Section 9-11-18.
Allowing the applicant to withdraw would prevent the applicant from waiting a year to
reapply per 9-11-17(c), B.R.C. 1981.
FINDINGS
Staff finds the proposed demolition and new construction to be inconsistent with
purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and finds that the proposed work does
not meet the standards specified in Section 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981. The proposed work
is also inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Board deny the application.
The issues that should be addressed by the applicant in the redesign include massing,
scale, height and materials, as well as the stylistic approach to the design of the house.
The redesign should address these issues in a manner that is more consistent with these
guidelines and with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
The Landmarks Board finds that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the project
meets the standards for an alteration certificate requirements set forth in Section 9-11--
18, “Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In
reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the information in the staff
Agenda Item #5A Page 30
memorandum dated December 2, 2015, and the evidence provided to the Board at its
December 2, 2015 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds that:
(1) The proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district. Section 9-11-
18(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981.
(2) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on the proposed construction will be incompatible with the
character of the historic district. Section 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
(3) With respect to the proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the
proposed new construction to replace the building does not meet the
requirements of s and (3) above. Section 9-11-18(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessor Card
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5A Page 31
Attachment A: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5A Page 32
Agenda Item #5A Page 33
Agenda Item #5A Page 34
Agenda Item #5A Page 35
Agenda Item #5A Page 36
Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1929.
Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1978.
Tax Assessor’s Photo, c. 1985.
Agenda Item #5A Page 37
Attachment B: Photographs
South (Front) Elevation, View from Spruce St., 2016.
East (Side) Elevation, 2016.
Agenda Item #5A Page 38
North (Rear) Elevation, 2016
West (Side) Elevation, 2016
Agenda Item #5A Page 39
Attachment C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5A Page 40
Agenda Item #5A Page 41
Agenda Item #5A Page 42
Agenda Item #5A Page 43
Agenda Item #5A Page 44
Agenda Item #5A Page 45
Agenda Item #5A Page 46
Agenda Item #5A Page 47
Agenda Item #5A Page 48
Agenda Item #5A Page 49
Agenda Item #5A Page 50
Agenda Item #5A Page 51
Agenda Item #5A Page 52
Agenda Item #5A Page 53
Agenda Item #5A Page 54
Agenda Item #5A Page 55
Agenda Item #5A Page 56
Agenda Item #5A Page 57
Agenda Item #5A Page 58
Agenda Item #5A Page 59
Agenda Item #5A Page 60
Agenda Item #5A Page 61
Agenda Item #5A Page 62
Agenda Item #5A Page 63
Agenda Item #5A Page 64
Agenda Item #5A Page 65
Agenda Item #5A Page 66
Agenda Item #5A Page 67
Agenda Item #5A Page 68
Agenda Item #5A Page 69
Agenda Item #5A Page 70
Agenda Item #5A Page 71
Agenda Item #5A Page 72
Agenda Item #5A Page 73
Agenda Item #5A Page 74
Agenda Item #5A Page 75
Agenda Item #5A Page 76
Agenda Item #5A Page 77