Item 5B - 341 Spruce St.
Agenda Item #5B Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
May 3, 2017
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 2,600 sq. ft. house at 341 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District, pursuant to section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
1981 (HIS2017-00103).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 341 Spruce St.
2. Date of construction: 1900
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
4. Owner: Justin and Nancee Gold
5. Applicant: Nicholas Fiore
6. Site Area: 8,454 sq. ft.
7. Existing House: 2,600 sq. ft.
8. Proposed House: 2,600 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition of the non-contributing house and the
construction of the proposed 2,600 sq. ft. house at 341 Spruce St. as shown on plans dated
04/04/2017, finding that they generally meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below and
adopt the staff memorandum dated May 3, 2017 in matter 5B (HIS2017-00103) as findings of
the board.
Agenda Item #5B Page 2
Staff considers that if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the
proposed demolition and new construction will be generally consistent with the
conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in compliance with
the approved plans dated 04/04/2017, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which
shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks design review
committee (Ldrc): final architectural plans that include revisions to ensure that
the final design of the building is:
a. Consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines; and
b. Consistent with neo-traditional interpretations of the Edwardian
Vernacular, including redesign of the dormers to simplify and make them
more traditional; reduce the size and scale of the forward chimney and
redesign it so it does not bisect the forward dormer; simplify the types of
windows; and ensure that all windows and doors are traditionally
proportioned, scaled and profiled all to ensure consistency with a
contemporary interpretation of the Edwardian Vernacular in fenestration
and materials.
3. The Ldrc shall review details for the building, including dormers, wall materials,
fenestration patterns on the front, north and south elevations, doors and window
details including moldings, and proposed insets, paint colors, and hardscaping on
the property to ensure that the approval is consistent with the General Design
Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines and the intent of this
approval.
Agenda Item #5B Page 3
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 pursuant to Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.
The applicant has met with staff to review design concepts and provide feedback on
the proposal.
The existing house was constructed in 1900 and was significantly modified in 1986
and 2001, prior to the 2002 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 341 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,” concluding that “alterations to this house have
diminished its historic integrity.” See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form).
While the house was constructed during the period of significance for the district
and is generally compatible with the streetscape, non-historic additions have
comprised the architectural integrity. For this reason, staff considers the building a
non-contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Staff finds the proposed new construction to be consistent with the criteria for a
Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General
Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Staff’s recommendation to approve the demolition and new construction is based
upon the understanding that the stated conditions will be reviewed and approved
by the Ldrc prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item #5B Page 4
Figure 1. Location Map, 341 Spruce St. Hatched line located indicates west boundary of the Mapleton Hill
Historic District.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property at 341 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.
Figure 2. C.W. Clyde Dodd (at left) c.1900
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Agenda Item #5B Page 5
The 1901 Boulder City Directory indicates the house was the residence of C.W. (Clyde)
Dodd, who likely rented. The property was owned by the Rusch family, who are
thought to have owned the property from 1904 until the 1970s.
Mathias and Apollonia Schons came to Boulder from Nebraska in 1896, and purchased
341 Spruce St. and 409 Spruce St. around 1900. The Schons lived at 409 Spruce St. from
the early 1900s until their deaths in the 1930s. They had five children, Susanna,
Catherine, Mary, Nicholas and Appolonia. The 1910 census lists the family at 409
Spruce St., together with a lodger, William Rusch. William Rusch is known to have
lived at 409 Spruce St. in the 1910s, when he worked as an employee of the streetcar
company, and again in 1929 when he worked as a laborer for the water company.
Deed research indicates that the Schons sold the neighboring property, 341 Spruce St.,
to Rusch in 1904. The 1910 Census lists Thomas Attebery, his wife, Mary and their
daughter, Pearl as residents of 341 Spruce St. Attebery worked as a “tool sharpener for
the City.” Rusch appears to have lived with the Schons at 409 Spruce Street until the
early 1920s, renting the house at 341 Spruce St. to a variety of tenants during that time.
Rusch and Susanna Schons married in 1934 and resided at 321 Spruce St. from 1934
until their deaths in 1949 and 1969, respectively.
Figure 3. William Rusch standing in front of his house at 341 Spruce St., c1910s.
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
Agenda Item #5B Page 6
Rusch was born in Germany and came to Boulder in 1893 from Nebraska. He was a
member of the Sacred Heart Church, Woodman of the Work, Boulder Lodge 566, and of
the City Employees Association. He was employed by the streetcar company and later
worked for the Water Department and the Park Department as a gardener. Susanna
(Schons) Rusch was born in Belle River, Minnesota in 1884 and came to Boulder in 1896
from Wallace, Nebraska. The Ruschs did not have children, and the property passed to
Forrest Marler in 1971. The current owners purchased the house in July of 2014.
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, 341 Spruce St. identified as non-contributing to the district
due to the extent of non-historic alterations.
Figure 4. 341 Spruce St., c1942 or 1948. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Approximately 8,450 sq. ft. in size, the lot at 341 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.
Agenda Item #5B Page 7
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
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 S treet
share a uniform setback, and the building facades are aligned parallel to Spruce Street.
Figure 5. 341 Spruce St., Historic Building Inventory Photograph, 1988.
Agenda Item #5B Page 8
Figure 6. 341 Spruce St., 2017 (southeast corner).
Figure 7. 341 Spruce St., 2017 (center).
Agenda Item #5B Page 9
ALTERATIONS
The house has been significantly modified from its original, one-story form. Permit
records indicate that an upper deck and second-story was constructed in 1988, and
siding was replaced in 1986. The two-story addition at the northeast corner of the house
was constructed in 2001. Other alterations, recorded on the 1988 survey form, include
the construction of a bay window on the façade and a greenhouse window on the east
elevation, and replacement of the doors and windows.
A garage at the rear of the property was constructed in 2001 prior to this area being
annexed into the Mapleton Historic District.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and, in its place, construct a one
and one-half story house of approximately 2,600 sq. ft.
Figure 8. Proposed Site Plan. Existing Site Plan shown in dashed red line. Not to scale.
In plan, the front setback for the proposed new house is shown at approximately 18’
from the property line (determined through setback averaging for the block) and
roughly the same setback as the existing house. The existing house measures
Agenda Item #5B Page 10
approximately 36’ wide and 50’ in length while the width of the front portion of the
proposed house is shown to measure approximately 24’ in width widening to 36’ at its
widest point. The proposed house is shown measure approximately 72’ in length and at
its highest point the house is shown to be approximately 29’ above grade where the
existing house is 24’ tall.
Figure 9. Existing south elevation (façade). Not to scale.
Figure 10. Proposed south elevation (façade). Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 11
Elevations show the new house to be a one and one-half story, of wood frame
construction designed in a neo-traditional manner with a front gable roof and full-
width front porch addressing Spruce Street. The front gable is shown to feature lattice-
work enclosing the upper balcony which accessed via a set of French doors. The lower
front porch provides access to the house through an 8’6” asymmetrically positioned
door next to which are two sets of flanking windows. The shed roof for the porch is
shown to be supported by four posts set 6’ apart.
Figure 11. Existing north (rear) elevation. Not to scale.
Figure 12. Proposed north (rear) elevation. Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 12
When foliage is bare, Mountain View Road provides visual access to the rear of the
property. Elevations show the north face of the house to feature more modern detailing
with large glazed areas and a cantilevered rear balcony.
Figure 13. Existing east (side) elevation. Not to scale.
Figure 14. Proposed east (side) elevation. Not to scale.
Elevations for the east face of the house show the gable roof extending 47’ north where
it steps down 1’ and extends another 25’ north. A set of flanking four over four, double-
hung windows are to be located 4’ from the façade. An exterior chimney, rising to 33’
in height, is located 15’ back from the façade on the east elevation. A decorative brick
hearth extends from the east wall 3’ and is 9’ tall and 9’ wide. A tapered brick stack
extends from the north end of the hearth bisecting a 27’ long shed roof dormer set 5’
below the ridge of the main roof. The dormer is shown to feature nine-light and three
light casement windows while the area below the dormer and behind the chimney is
shown to contain a fixed casement window, a narrow casement window, and a single-
Agenda Item #5B Page 13
light door. This lower portion of the house appears to be detailed with wood lattice,
similar to that on the front gable. The lower gable roof at the north end of the east face
features a true dormer with as set of four nine light casement windows below which are
located large sliding doors providing access to a patio area.
Figure 15. Existing house west (side) elevation
Figure 16. Proposed west (side) elevation
The west face of the proposed house features a set of double hung windows on the first
floor mirroring those on the east elevation and a one-story shed roof form extending 5’
out from the west wall behind which begins a 30’ long modified dormer with shed roofs
and featuring three-light casement, eight-light casement, nine-light casement, and a four
over four, double-hung window. Where the roof steps down, a modified shed roof
dormer extends 22’ north, to near the rear wall of the house. A chimney for a family
room fireplace is located at the rear portion of the west wall.
Agenda Item #5B Page 14
Figure 17. Rendering of proposed south elevation facing northeast.
Figure 18. Rendering of proposed south elevation facing northwest. Adjacent houses not shown.
Agenda Item #5B Page 15
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must
apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its
site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used on existing and proposed constructions are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic
district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
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 1986. While the existing house is compatible with the form and details of historic
houses in the immediate streetscape, staff considers that alterations have compromised
historic integrity and it should not be considered contributing to Mapleton Hill Historic
District. 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 detrimental to the historic district, provided the
proposed new construction is consistent with the General and Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines. Staff finds that based upon analysis against the Guidelines,
provided the stated conditions are met, the design of the proposed new construction is
compatible with the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic district and the immediate
streetscape (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
Agenda Item #5B Page 16
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 provided
the stated conditions of approval are met, the special historic and architectural character
of the streetscape and the Mapleton Hill Historic District will not be adversely affected
by the proposed new construction.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials
used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district?
Staff considers that, provided the stated conditions of approval are met, the proposed
mass, scale, proportion and design of the of the house will be generally compatible with
the character of the streetscape and is compatible with the character of the Mapleton
Historic District (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)?
Staff does not consider the existing house to contribute to the historic character of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District, and finds that, provided the stated conditions of
approval are met, the application to replace the building meets the requirements of
Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4), B.R.C. 1981 as the new house will be compatible with the
streetscape and is 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 #5B Page 17
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 8,454 sq. ft.
in size. The house is aligned with the
other houses on the north side of the
block, roughly parallel to Spruce Street.
Yes
.2 Building proportions should
respect traditional patterns in
the district
The house reflects the traditional gable-
roofed forms in the district in terms of
scale, form, and massing. However, the
design of multiple dormers should be
simplified and made more consistent in
form with historic dormers, especially
those that are publicly visible. Resolve at
Ldrc.
No
.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
Agenda Item #5B Page 18
.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
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 are not
proposed for removal.
Yes
6.0 New Primary Buildings
New construction within a historic district can enhance the existing district character if the
proposed design and its siting reflect an understanding of and a compatibility with 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.
The design of the house is a
contemporary interpretation of
traditional Edwardian Vernacular in
terms of mass, scale and, materials.
However, staff considers that the
dormers should be simplified and made
more traditional in placement. Staff also
considers that the exterior brick chimney
No
Agenda Item #5B Page 19
should be reduced in size and design so it
does not bisect the east dormer. Resolve
at Ldrc.
.2 Interpretations of historic
styles may be appropriate if
distinguishable as new.
Proposed design of the house interprets
the Edwardian Vernacular in a clearly
contemporary way.
Yes
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. Yes
.2 Overall character of site is
retained.
Residential character will be retained,
with similar setbacks.
Yes
.3 Compatible with surrounding
buildings in setback,
orientation, spacing, and
distance from adjacent
buildings.
Trapezoidal lot configuration is unusual
and presents design challenges. The Neo-
Traditional design of the building is
compatible in terms of setback,
orientation, spacing and distance from
adjacent buildings.
Yes
.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,
Proposed scale is generally compatible
with surrounding buildings.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5B Page 20
size, scale, massing, and
proportions.
Simplification of dormer forms and front
chimney should be made. Review at Ldrc.
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Proposed massing generally respects the
neighboring building and streetscape,
however design of dormers and chimney
should be revised per 6.1.1 and 6.3.1
above.
No
.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.
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, painted wood siding
and shakes, and asphalt shingles, all
traditionally found in the historic district.
Wood should be painted, not stained.
Lattice work on front balcony references
historic design, but should be detailed
carefully and in understated way. Bronze
finished clad windows and height of
front porch door may not be appropriate
– review porch, window, and door details
at Ldrc. Provide detailed information on
all materials including proposed path
ways, patio and retaining walls.
Maybe
.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
massing and materials. However, areas of
the west elevation include large
featureless wall areas. Revise to include
proportion of window/door to wall area
closer to that found on historic houses in
Mapleton Hill.
Maybe
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
Agenda Item #5B Page 21
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 generally reflects traditional
window patterns, though some doors and
windows appear over scaled, especially
those on facade. Consider replacing
double French door on front porch with
single door, consistent with Edwardian
vernacular houses. Simplify types of
windows on house, especially those that
will be publicly visible. Fenestration on
the west elevation should be redesigned
to reflect more traditional window
proportions and placement. Resolve at
Ldrc.
Maybe
.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. Proposed multi-light
windows should be simplified. Resolve at
Ldrc.
Maybe
.3 New structures should use a
roof form found in the district
or on the landmark site
Roof form of the house references the
Edwardian Vernacular, a prevalent style
of many historic houses in Mapleton Hill.
Dormers should be revised to follow
traditional pattern, located within and
secondary to the primary roof form.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.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. A single door at the
front balcony should provide access as
typical for front balconies on Edwardian
Vernacular houses of this scale. Lattice on
front porch should be detailed carefully
and in an understated way. Resolve at
Ldrc.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5B Page 22
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 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 wood siding, and front
porch. Residential character will be
retained with similar setbacks. (See
sections 2 & 6 of General Design
Guidelines above).
Yes
.2 Building elevations visible
from streets and alleys need
the greatest sensitivity. Front
porches are an important
visual element and should be
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
Yes
Agenda Item #5B Page 23
incorporated into new
construction except in
unusual situations.
scale of the house is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings.
.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
house reflects the historic context of
the district but is an expression of its
own time. Revise dormers and
simplify and reduce chimney. Resolve
at Ldrc.
Yes
.4 The mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and the
streetscape as a whole. Site
layout, porch size and
placement, entry level and
location, roof line, and door
and window sizes and patterns
should harmonize with the
historic context rather than
compete with or copy it.
Mass, scale, height and fenestration
generally reflects traditional window
patterns, though some doors and
windows appear over scaled,
especially those on facade. Revise
chimney and dormers and consider
replacing double French door on front
porch with single door, consistent
with Edwardian vernacular houses.
Simplify types of windows on house,
especially those that will be publicly
visible. Fenestration on the west
elevation should be redesigned to
reflect more traditional window
proportions and placement. Resolve at
Ldrc.
Maybe
.7 New construction should
utilize a roof form found in the
district.
Staff considers that the proposed
dormers should be simplified and
made more traditional in placement.
Staff also considers that the exterior
brick chimney should be reduced in
size and design so it does not bisect
the east dormer. Resolve at Ldrc.
No
.8 Use building materials that
are familiar in their
dimensions and that can be
repeated. This helps to
establish a sense of scale for
Proposed materials include brick,
decorative brick, painted wood siding
and shakes, asphalt shingles
traditionally found in the historic
district. Bronze window frames
Maybe
Agenda Item #5B Page 24
new buildings. Whenever
possible, use familiar building
components in traditional
sizes. Avoid large featureless
surfaces.
should be reviewed by Ldrc to assess
their appropriateness. Wood should
be painted, not stained. Provide
detailed information on all materials
including proposed path ways.
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 the 1980s (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 in a
local landmark historic district, 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.
Staff commends the applicant and the architect for the time and consideration they have
taken in designing a house that is, in large, compatible with the character Mapleton Hill
Historic District. While staff finds the mass, scale and location and the design approach
generally consistent with the design guidelines, it considers that aspects of the design
including the dormers, the front chimney and fenestration should be revised. Staff
considers that such revisions can be achieved through Board conditions to be reviewed
and approved by the Landmarks design review committee.
Specifically, staff considers the, the dormers should be redesigned to read as more
traditional forms found on historic buildings in the district; the front chimney should be
reduced in mass and scale and should not bisect the forward dormer; that fenestration on
the building should be simplified and in some cases windows and doors scaled with
those found on Edwardian Vernacular houses in the district; all to make the design more
consistent with the Design Guidelines and fully meet the Standards for issuance of a
landmark alteration certificate per Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981.
FINDINGS
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff recommends
that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the following findings:
1. The demolition of the existing house is appropriate as it is non -contributing
and the proposed new construction meets the standards in 9 -11-18 of the
Agenda Item #5B Page 25
Boulder Revised Code.
2. The proposed new house will not have an adverse effect on the value of the
district, as it will be generally compatible in terms of mass, scale, or orientation
with other buildings in the district.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed new house garage will be
generally consistent with Section 9-11-18, B.R.C.; Sections 27, 6 and 7 of the
General Design Guidelines, and Sections D, M, P, Q, & U of the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessor Card
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5B Page 26
Attachment A: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5B Page 27
Agenda Item #5B Page 28
Agenda Item #5B Page 29
341 Spruce St., Assessor’s photo, c. 1980.
Agenda Item #5B Page 30
Agenda Item #5B Page 31
Agenda Item #5B Page 32
341 Spruce St., Assessor’s photo, c. 1929.
Agenda Item #5B Page 33
Agenda Item #5B Page 34
Attachment B: Current Photographs
341 Spruce St., view from street, 2017.
341 Spruce St., Southeast Corner, 2016.
Agenda Item #5B Page 35
341 Spruce St., Southwest Corner, 2017.
341 Spruce St., Northeast Corner, 2017.
Agenda Item #5B Page 36
341 Spruce St., accessory building, South Elevation, 2017.
341 Spruce St., accessory building, Northeast Corner, 2017.
Agenda Item #5B Page 37
341 Spruce St., accessory building, Northwest Corner, 2017.
Agenda Item #5B Page 38
Attachment C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5B Page 39
Agenda Item #5B Page 40
Agenda Item #5B Page 41
Agenda Item #5B Page 42
Agenda Item #5B Page 43
Agenda Item #5B Page 44
Agenda Item #5B Page 45
Agenda Item #5B Page 46
Agenda Item #5B Page 47
Agenda Item #5B Page 48
Agenda Item #5B Page 49
Agenda Item #5B Page 50
Agenda Item #5B Page 51
Agenda Item #5B Page 52
Agenda Item #5B Page 53
Agenda Item #5B Page 54