Loading...
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