Loading...
Item 5C - 2124 14th St. Agenda Item 5C, 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 a detached garage and, in its place, construct a new 190 sq. ft. storage building and trash enclosure at 2124 14th St. (individual landmark designation application pending), per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2017-00104). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 2124 14th St. 2. Zoning: RH-2 (Residential High-2) 3. Owner: First United Methodist Church of Boulder 4. Applicant: Shannon Cox Baker 5. Site Area: 3,645 sq. ft. (approx.) 6. Existing Garage: 264 sq. ft. (approx.) 7. Proposed Shed: 128 sq. ft. 7. Proposed Height: 9’5 ½” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: I move that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition of the c. 1930 garage and the construction of the proposed 128 sq. ft. storage shed and trash enclosure at 2124 14th St., as shown on plans dated 03/13/2017, 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 5C as findings of the board. Agenda Item 5C, Page 2 Staff recommends 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, and the General Design Guidelines. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the accessory building in compliance with the approved plans dated 03/13/2017, 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 to the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc), for its final review and approval: a. Final architectural plans that include revisions to ensure that the final design of the building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval; b. Details for the buildings including wall materials, door and window details including, and hardscaping on the property; and c. The applicant shall change the siding on new storage shed from T- 111 siding to real painted wood siding to make the shed more compatible with the main house. SUMMARY:  This application calls for the demolition of a 190 sq. ft. garage, and the construction of an 8’ x 16’ storage shed and a 9’ 10 ½” x 19’ 1 ¼” trash enclosure.  The property is a pending landmark, one of several on this block that were submitted as a condition of Site Review approval for the redevelopment of the block by the church to provide transitional housing for young people. Their designations, considered by the Landmarks Board at the Jan. 4, 2017 meeting, were continued until after the Site Review Approval for the Attention Homes Project is completed. The designation application was made as part of the site review proposal, and the owner’s support of landmark Agenda Item 5C, Page 3 designation is contingent on the approval of the Site Review.  At the Jan. 4, 2017, the Landmarks Board conditionally approved a landmark alteration certificate to remove a rear addition and relocate the building at 1424 Pine St. and to remove an accessory building on the site.  The frame garage proposed for demolition was constructed around 1932.  Staff recommends that, provided the stated conditions are met, the Landmarks Board find that the demolition of the garage and the construction of a new shed and trash enclosure generally meet meets the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a) and (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, and the General Design Guidelines, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic character of the property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY Figure 1. 2124 14th St., Location Map. Garage proposed for demolition highlighted in yellow. Agenda Item 5C, Page 4 Figure 2. 2124 14th St., 2016. The 3,645 sq. ft. lot at 2124 14th Street is located at the east side of 14th Street between Spruce and Pine streets. The one-and-a-half story masonry house on the property was constructed around 1895 and features a double front gable with decorative wood shingles (alternating scallop and diamond pattern) and double hung windows. A corbelled brick belt course defines the second floor level, while a stone water table defines the first floor. The hipped roof front porch, enclosed around 1956, features a brick foundation, with an inset entrance, and divided light windows above beadboard wood paneling. Decorative diamond and heart wood detailing adorns the wood panels. In 1896, the residents were R.H. Brenner, a clerk, B. F. Ellsworth, who operated a grocery and utensil shop, Frances Peirson, a Nurse, and Maude Peirson. Ellsworth remained at the property through 1898, but had moved away by 1900. The 1987 Survey form found the building to be significant as a boarding house in the early 1900s. In 1900, it was occupied by ten people, including Guy Adams and his wife Annie; his brother-in-law Theodore Strawn, a grocery clerk; Ira Rothergerber, law student; Addie Sullivan and Louise Fisher, dressmakers; and Burt Battles and Joseph Stamm, dairymen. Guy Adams was an early resident of Colorado, who distinguished himself by promoting the advancement of Boulder through its governmental, religious, and civic institutions. He served on the city council, as deputy county clerk and as police judge for Boulder. He organized the Boulder County Abstract Company and practiced law in Boulder for many years. Ira C. Rothgerber was a graduate of the University of Colorado Law School, who Agenda Item 5C, Page 5 later became a Denver County judge. Rothgerber was a strong supporter of the University Law School after his graduation. By 1904, Strawn, by then proprietor of Strawn and Esgar Groceries, was the sole occupant listed. In 1908, three men of the same family, Charles H., E. Glenn, and J. Guy Archibald were the residents, along with Charles’s wife, Susie. Charles was a grocer, E. Glenn was a student, and J. Guy was a Deputy Clerk for the District Court. The property was acquired by Clarence W. Burner around 1916. He lived in the house with his wife Lula, ending its history as a boarding house. Clarence worked as a salesman at a shoe store.1 Following Clarence’s death in 1934, Lulu retained ownership of the property until about 1940.2 In 1953, the use of the property was commercial when Dr. Donald P. and Esther J. Jensen lived and operated Jensen Chiropractic Clinic on the premises until 1970 when it was sold the to the First United Methodist Church, the present owner. The church rented the property out to a series of restaurants, including Nancy’s Restaurant, Vicki’s Restaurant, and finally, Lucile’s. Figure 3. Assessor’s photograph, c. 1932. Existing garage visible at center right. 1 United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1930. Ancestry.com. 2 Find A Grave. Find A Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi. Ancestry.com. Agenda Item 5C, Page 6 BACKGROUND At the Jan. 4, 2017 meeting, the Landmarks Board considered the designation of seven properties located at 1424 Pine St., 1406-08 Pine St., 1414 Pine St., 1443 Spruce St., 2118 14th St., 2124 14th St., and 2132 14th St. as local historic landmarks (see Attachment A). The applications to designate the properties came to the Landmarks Board as a condition of Site Review approval for the Church’s application to redevelop block to provide for transitional housing for at-risk youth (Attention Homes). The designations were supported by the Landmarks Board, but continued to provide the application to proceed with the Site Review application which is anticipated to be reviewed by the Planning Board this summer. Figure 4. House at 1424 Pine Street approved for relocation at Jan. 4, 2017 Landmarks Board meeting. Because exterior changes to pending landmark properties are reviewed as if they are designated, Attention Homes also submitted an application to relocate the building at 1424 Pine St. approximately 30’ west to accommodate new construction for the Attention Homes project and to remove an accessory building on that property. Agenda Item 5C, Page 7 Figure 5. Diagram of proposed relocation of house at 1424 Pine St. approved at Jan. 4, 2017 Landmarks Board meeting. Relocation and demolition of designated historic buildings is rarely encouraged, but given the short move and relatively small change in historic context in combination with the pending applications to Landmark seven properties on the block, the Landmarks Board considered that the relocation and demolition of the accessory building was consistent with the Standards for Issuance of a landmark alteration certificate (9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code). During the Jan. 4 hearing there was also a short discussion about the possibility of removing the accessory building at 2124 14th Street, but no action was taken as the removal was not being formally requested at that time. Figure 6. Garage at 1424 Pine Street approved for demolition at January 4th, 2017 Landmarks Board Meeting Agenda Item 5C, Page 8 REQUEST Figure 7. Garage at 2124 14th Street Proposed for Demolition The current Landmark Alteration Certificate application proposes the demolition of the garage at the rear of 2124 14th St., and the construction of an 8’x16’ storage shed and a 9’ 10 ½” x 19’ 1 ¼” trash enclosure. The simple frame garage proposed for demolition measures approximately 12’x22 in size. Sanborn Maps indicate it was constructed after 1931, and it appears on an assessor’s photograph of the house dating to c. 1932. Agenda Item 5C, Page 9 Figure 8. Proposed Demolition Plan. The one-story, frame building proposed for demolition is a simple one-car with a shed-roof extension at the north elevation. The building is clad in shiplap siding and has altered vehicle door on the south elevation, facing the alley. Two enclosed window openings are located on the east face and a replaced man door is located at the north end of the west face. The building appears to be in fair condition, rests on a concrete slab, and has an asphalt shingle roof. Agenda Item 5C, Page 10 Figure 9. Existing Garage, 2017. PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION Figure 10. Proposed New Construction. Agenda Item 5C, Page 11 In place of the garage, construction of a new storage building is being proposed 14’ east of the house, 6’ from the east property line and less than 1’ from the north property line. A new trash enclosure is shown 26’ from the house, 1’ from the east property line, and 6’ from the south property line is also being proposed. Figure 11. Proposed Shed, front and side elevations. Elevations indicate the new shed is to face to the east, to have a footprint of 8’ by 16’, and be 9’ 5 ½” in high. The proposal calls for clad in horizontal T1-11 textured lap siding with T4 trim and a 3’ x 6’ 8” door on the east face. The roof is shown clad in asphalt shingles. Figure 9. Proposed Shed, Rear Elevation and Plan. Agenda Item 5C, Page 12 Figure 10. Proposed Garbage Enclosure, Front and Side Elevations (not to scale). The proposed garbage enclosure is shown to face south, onto the alley, and be 19’ 1 ¼” x 9’ 10 ½” in plan and 6’ high. Plans call for it to be a wood slat fence with a double swing gateway on its south side. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. (b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions: (1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within an historic district; (2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or the district; (3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of Agenda Item 5C, Page 13 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? Staff does not consider that the demolition of the c.1930 accessory building will damage or destroy the character of the pending landmark at 2124 14th St. The garage is typical of one-car garages constructed during the early automobile period, but given the constraints posed by the redevelopment of the property and the fact seven individual landmark designation applications have been submitted through the Site Review process, staff considers removal of this building will not be diminish the character of the pending landmark. Likewise, provided the stated conditions of approval are met, staff considers the construction of a new storage building and trash enclosure will not damage or diminish the historic character of the pending landmark at 2124 14th St. 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? Provided the stated conditions of approval are met, staff does not consider that the demolition of the c.1930 accessory building or the construction of a new storage building and trash enclosure will adversely affect the historic character of the pending landmark at 2124 14th St. 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 pending landmark? Agenda Item 5C, Page 14 Provided the stated conditions of approval are met, staff considers the construction of a new storage building and trash enclosure will be compatible with the historic and architectural character of the pending landmark at 2124 14th St. 4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2), 9-11-18(b)(3) and (4) of this section? Staff finds that the removal of the existing 1932 garage will not have a significant negative impact on the pending landmark and that, provided the stated conditions of approval are met, the application to construct a new storage shed and trash enclosure meets the requirements of Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4), B.R.C. 1981 as the construction 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 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: GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2.3 Site Design: Alleys The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the houses, for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for cars. A view of the backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys have evolved into use as pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking, they still contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. They are typically minimally paved. Agenda Item 5C, Page 15 Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes including barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to the general feeling of human scale in the alleys. Guidelines Analysis Conforms? .1 Maintain alley access for parking and retain the character of alleys as clearly secondary access to properties. Rear parking is maintained by the proposal. Yes .2 Retain and preserve the variety and character found in the existing historic accessory buildings along the alleys. While the existing garage dates from about 1932, the alley has lost much of its historic character. In the context of the seven pending landmark staff considers removal of this building to be appropriate. Maybe .3 The use of historically proportioned materials for building new accessory buildings contributes to the human scale of the alleys. For example, narrower lap siding and smaller brick are appropriate. Proposed shed shown to be clad in horizontal wood siding and asphalt shingles. Garbage enclosure shown clad in wood slat fencing. These materials are compatible with historic proportion and contribute to human scale. Review details at the Ldrc. Yes .4 Buildings that were constructed after the period of significance but are still more than 50 years old and contribute to the variety and character of the alleyway should be retained. The existing accessory building was constructed about 1930 and representative of early automobile related building in Boulder. However, the alley has lost much of its character and identified as an important character defining features of the seven pending landmarks on the block. Maybe .5 Maintain adequate spacing between accessory building so that the view of the main house is not obscured, and the alley does not evolve into a tunnel-like passage. The proposed shed and garbage enclosure are less than 1’ apart. The shed is not located on the alley, however and the proposed construction does not obscure the view of the main house from Maybe Agenda Item 5C, Page 16 the alley more than the existing garage presently does. 7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Structures Accessory structures include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally accessory structures were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages. Generally, these structures have been adapted for the storage of cars. In most cases, accessory buildings were located to the rear of the lot and accessed by alleys. They were subordinate in size and detailing to the primary house. Over time they have emerged as important elements of many lots and alleys in the district. Efforts should be made to protect the eclectic character of alleys. Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be evaluated in terms of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and the district as a whole. In the past, larger accessory structures have been allowed than may be appropriate today. 7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic districts is the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .1 Retain and preserve garages and accessory buildings that contribute to the overall character of the site or district. The existing accessory building was constructed about 1932 and representative of early automobile related building in Boulder. However, the alley has lost much of its character and identified as an important character defining features of the seven pending landmarks on the block. Maybe .2 Retain and preserve the character- defining materials, features, and architectural details of historic garages and accessory buildings, including roofs, exterior materials, windows and doors. See above. Maybe Agenda Item 5C, Page 17 7.2 New Accessory Buildings New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings. While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be subordinate in size, massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians. Location and Orientation .1 It is inappropriate to introduce a new garage or accessory building if doing so will detract from the overall historic character of the principal building, and the site, or if it will require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature, such as a mature tree. The removal of the existing garage and its replacement with the shed and garbage enclosure, will not result in a significant impact to the alley and adjacent pending landmarks on the block. However, staff considers that the details of the new construction should be reviewed and approved by the Ldrc. Yes .2 New garages and accessory buildings should generally be located at the rear of the lot, respecting the traditional relationship of such buildings to the primary structure and the site. The new shed and garbage enclosure are to be located at rear of the lot. Yes .3 Maintain adequate spacing between accessory buildings so alleys do not evolve into tunnel-like passageways. See 2.3.5 above Maybe .4 Preserve a backyard area between the house and the accessory buildings, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. The proposed shed will occupy significant portion of open backyard space existing on the site, while the space opened up by demolishing the existing garage is to be occupied by parking and the garbage enclosure. However, the character of this pending landmark and others on the block has been commercial for at least fifty years and, in this context, reducing the amount of back yard area is appropriate. Maybe Agenda Item 5C, Page 18 Mass and Scale .5 New accessory buildings should take design cues from the primary building on the property, but be subordinate to it in terms of size and massing. The gabled form of the proposed shed is compatible with the primary building, and its simple detailing and small scale ensure it is subordinate to the main house. Yes .7 Roof form and pitch should be complementary to the primary structure. Roof form is simpler than and complementary to that of main house. Yes Materials and Detailing .8 Accessory structures should be simpler in design and detail than the primary building. Proposed shed’s simple detailing and small scale make it clearly subordinate to the primary building. Review details at the Ldrc. Yes .9 Materials for new garages and accessory structures should be compatible with those found on the primary structure and in the district. Vinyl siding and prefabricated structures are inappropriate. It is unclear if T1-11 siding proposed for shed is inappropriate and real wood siding should be used. It appears that the fencing on the garbage enclosure is to be left natural wood. This is not in keeping with historic pattern of painting wood that is typical of the area and the main house. Revise for review and approval by the Ldrc. No .13 It is inappropriate to introduce features or details to a garage or an accessory building in an attempt to create a false historical appearance. Proposed additions are simple in design and do not include details which might lend it a false historic appearance. Yes FINDINGS As outlined in the staff recommendation, provided the above conditions are met, the proposed relocation and proposed new construction at 2124 14th St. will be generally consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that: Agenda Item 5C, Page 19 1. The proposed demolition and new construction will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the pending landmark. 2. The mass, scale, height, architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used for the proposed new construction will be compatible with the character of the pending landmark. 3. The request is generally consistent with the historic preservation ordinance and the General Design Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: January 4th, 2017 Landmarks Board Meeting Minutes Attachment B: Assessor’s Card Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form for 2124 14th Street Attachment D: Application and Plans Agenda Item 5C, Page 20 Attachment A: Jan. 4, 2017 Landmarks Board Meeting Minutes Agenda Item 5C, Page 21 Agenda Item 5C, Page 22 Agenda Item 5C, Page 23 Agenda Item 5C, Page 24 Attachment B: Assessor’s Card for 2124 14th Street Agenda Item 5C, Page 25 Agenda Item 5C, Page 26 2124 14th St., Assessor’s Photo, C. 1932. Agenda Item 5C, Page 27 Attachment C: Historic Building Inventory Form for 2124 14th Street Agenda Item 5C, Page 28 Agenda Item 5C, Page 29 Agenda Item 5C, Page 30 Agenda Item 5C, Page 31 Attachment D: Application and Plans Agenda Item 5C, Page 32 Agenda Item 5C, Page 33 Agenda Item 5C, Page 34 Agenda Item 5C, Page 35 Agenda Item 5C, Page 36 Agenda Item 5C, Page 37 Agenda Item 5C, Page 38 Agenda Item 5C, Page 39 Agenda Item 5C, Page 40 Agenda Item 5C, Page 41 Agenda Item 5C, Page 42 Agenda Item 5C, Page 43 Agenda Item 5C, Page 44 Agenda Item 5C, Page 45 Agenda Item 5C, Page 46 Agenda Item 5C, Page 47 Agenda Item 5C, Page 48 Agenda Item 5C, Page 49 Agenda Item 5C, Page 50