Loading...
Item 5B - 1039 Maxwell Ave Agenda Item #5B, Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M November 1, 2017 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Debra Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to replace existing wood siding with cementitious siding on a non-contributing building at 1039 Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2017-00221). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 1039 Maxwell Ave. 2. Zoning: RMX - 1 (Residential Mixed - 1) 3. Lot size: 13,765 sq. ft. 4. Historic District: Mapleton Hill 5. Applicant: Meg Ritter, Redstone Property Management 6. Owner: Maxwell Portland HOA 7. Date of Construction: c. 1979 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion: I move that the Landmarks Board approve the proposal for the replacement of wood siding with cementitious lap siding at the non-contributing condominium building at 1039 Maxwell Ave., subject to the condition below, in that the proposal generally meets the standards in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines and Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, and further, that the Board adopt this memorandum as findings of the Board. Agenda Item #5B, Page 2 CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the siding is installed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval. This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that, in this instance, if the applicant complies with the condition listed above, the proposed application of cementitious lap siding will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18 B.R.C. 1981, the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines. BACKGROUND: • The non-contributing condominium building at 1039 Maxwell Ave. was constructed about 1979 and out of the defined 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. • On July 19th, 2017, the request to install “James Hardie” lap siding on the condominium building, behind the main house on the property, was reviewed by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) and referred to the full Landmarks Board for consideration in a public hearing. • The General Design Guidelines state that materials on non-historic buildings should utilize materials similar to those traditionally found in the district. • Staff considers that the appropriateness of materials that simulate wood like cementitious siding in the historic district will be very rare, but in this case, such an installation on a non-contributing c.1979 building is likely acceptable given the age and character of the building, as well as its location, which has limited public visibility. • Staff considers, in this instance, the installation of “James Hardie” lap siding is consistent with Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code, Section 6.4.1 Materials (New Primary Structures), and Section 6.5.2, Key Building Materials, of the General Design Guidelines. Agenda Item #5B, Page 3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Figure 1. location map of 1039 Maxwell Ave. Figure 2. aerial view of 1039 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item #5B, Page 4 Property History: Zoned RMX-1 (Mixed Residential - 1) the 13,765-sq. ft. property contains four buildings housing eight condominiums. Research indicates the street facing building was constructed about 1895 and by 1898 the Boulder City Directory lists Theodore Taylor, a mail carrier, as living at this address. Figure 3. 1895 Sturtevant photograph of house at 1039 Maxwell Ave. (left of center) Figure 4. 1929 tax assessor card of 1039 Maxwell Ave. Agenda Item #5B, Page 5 By 1913, the property was owned by Howard and Laura Cox. Howard was a manager of the City Baker for a number of years and later owned and operated Howard’s Grocery at 1920 Pearl Street in Boulder. The 1929 tax assessor card lists G.W. & Marvel M. Schmitz as the owners of the property. Figure 5. 1980 tax assessor photograph The Housing Design Corporation designed and built the condominium complex at the rear of the original house about 1979. The complex is shown at the rear of the house in the 1980 Tax Assessor Photo (Figure 5.), apparently prior to significant remodeling of the building. Request: The applicant proposes to install James Hardie cementitious siding on the non- contributing c.1979 building located behind (north) of the main house. Submitted information indicates that all of the existing wood clapboard siding to be replaced with cementitious lap siding (prefinished blue) with a 4” exposure. Citing concerns with cost and the longevity of wood siding, the applicant is requesting that James Hardie cementitious lap siding (pre-finished blue to match existing, be approved for installation on the non-contributing building. Agenda Item #5B, Page 6 Figure 6. existing wood clapboard siding proposed for replacement Figure 7. HardiePlank lap siding product information CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION Subsections 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, set 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 Agenda Item #5B, Page 7 subject property within an historic district; (2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historical, 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 structures are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic district; (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. The following is an assessment of the proposal against these standards: ANALYSIS: 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within an historic district? Staff finds that because the c.1979 condominium building is non-contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District and public visibility of this building limited, in this case, the proposed replacement of the wood siding with the requested cementitious siding will not damage or destroy the property or the district. 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? Staff finds that the proposed application will not adversely affect the special character of the district as the house is the c.1979 building is non-contributing minimally visible from public ways, the proposed application of cementitious lap siding will have a minimal visual effect on adjacent properties or the district as a whole. 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? While cementitious siding has a texture that attempts to mimic wood its appearance is generally unlike traditional painted wood, because the building is non-contributing and has minimal public visibility, in this case its Agenda Item #5B, Page 8 application on the condominium building at 1039 Maxwell Ave. will not be incompatible with the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. 4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate. It is unclear as to whether wood siding of similar dimensions is less energy efficient than the proposed cementitious siding. Figure 8. Example of a house with cementitious lap siding installed DESIGN GUIDELINES ANALYSIS: While there is little specific guidance given for the replacement of siding on non- contributing buildings in historic districts, the following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with guidelines that address replacement siding on existing buildings and on new construction. Design guidelines are intended to be Agenda Item #5B, Page 9 used only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a checklist of items for compliance. General Design Guidelines: Section 6.4.1, Materials, (New Primary Structures), of these guidelines reads that, "Materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found on nearby historic buildings”. Section 6.5 Key Building Materials for new construction, reads that, “Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining elements of any building. As such they require extra attention so that they complement the historic architecture (in the district). Mapleton Historic District Design Guidelines: Section K(5), Exterior Materials, of these guidelines suggests that, “where modern materials or technologies are used, historic proportions and finishes should be used.” In the past, staff and the Landmarks Board have interpreted these guidelines to not allow simulated siding materials as they are dissimilar in finish, texture, and weathering to those traditionally used in the historic district. Perhaps most noticeable about this type of siding is the exaggerated and repetitive simulated grain pattern embossed into cementitious siding. Likewise, the reverse condition can be obtained where the material is smooth with very little texture and dis- similar to wood in appearance. Staff is unaware of any buildings in the Mapleton Hill historic district that have cementitious lap siding having been approved through the landmark alteration certificate review process. Because the Guidelines identify that replacement, “materials should be similar in scale, proportion, texture, finish, and color to those found on nearby historic buildings” the staff and the board have been consistent in recommending that real wood clapboard be used when existing clapboard siding replacement is necessary. Analysis: Submitted product information indicates that the proposed vinyl windows have a very smooth uniform texture and will weather in a manner quite unlike painted wood, metal, or metal clad windows. See Figures 3 & 4, above. Cementitious siding is a composite on concrete and wood fiber making it very hard and durable. Because it is concrete based and in siding form brittle, it is Agenda Item #5B, Page 10 prone to chipping and breakage with relatively low impact. It appears to retain the embossed texture as it ages. It is unclear how the prefinished material weathers, however when painted with latex or oil based paint the finish will dull down, and require maintenance in the form of scrapping and repainting. Cementitious siding has a relatively low thermal co-efficiency meaning that the material exhibits limited expansion and contraction with change of temperature. Figure 9. Submitted cementitious lap siding samples Cementitious vs. Wood Siding: Staff has observed fairly significant differences between the two materials in terms of texture and finish. It is unclear the differences in weathering between prefinished cementitious siding and wood. While the Guidelines state that buildings should be of their own time, they also state that materials need to be similar to nearby historic buildings in terms of color, texture, and finish. Staff considers that the appearance of cementitious Agenda Item #5B, Page 11 siding is dissimilar in appearance to wood and would be an inappropriate material to use on a historic building or addition to a historic building for this reason. However, in this case, because the house is clearly non-contributing, is not a building from the recent past of architectural interest, and has limited visibility from public ways, staff considers that application of cementitious lap siding on the condominium building at 1039 Maxwell Ave. will not have an adverse impact on the Mapleton Historic District. Findings: This decision is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that: 1. The installation of cementitious lap siding on the non-contributing condominium building at 1039 Maxwell Ave. will not damage the property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Sec. 9-11-18(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981. 2. While the texture and finish of cementitious siding is generally not compatible with the character of the historic district, because the building is non-contributing and of very limited public visibility, the proposal will not adversely affect the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Sec. 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981. 3. While the material and texture of is cementitious siding is unlike wood siding which is traditional in the district, because the c.1979 building is clearly non-contributing and has limited public visibility, the proposal will not be incompatible with the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Section 9-11-18(b)(3), of the Boulder Revised Code. 4. In making these findings, the Landmarks Board has considered the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate. ATTACHMENTS: A: Tax Assessor Card and Historic Survey Information B: Applicant Materials Agenda Item #5B, Page 12 ATTACHMENT A: Tax Assessor and Historic Survey Information 1929 tax assessor card, front 1929 tax assessor photo Agenda Item #5B, Page 13 1929 tax assessor card, back Agenda Item #5B, Page 14 1980 tax assessor card, front 1980 tax assessor photo Agenda Item #5B, Page 15 1980 tax assessor card, back Agenda Item #5B, Page 16 ATTACHMENT B: Applicant Materials MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT Historic Review for siding replacement 1039 Maxwell Avenue, Boulder Colorado Summary of Request The purpose of this request is entirely based on the current condition of the existing siding on the building located at 1039 Maxell Avenue. The existing siding and its waterproofing assembly are currently in a state of failure, and is allowing moisture and air into the livable spaces which causes discomfort and unnecessary heating and cooling expenses for the owners and tenants. Furthermore, leaving the exterior of the building in its current state could and will lead to damage that is far more extensive and costly if left alone. With that said, after an extensive review of the existing materials, it is our belief that the extent of repairs are major enough to warrant a complete replacement of the siding including the weather barrier behind the siding. Due to this information and the desire of the home owners to have a long term solution to the leaking exterior, it is our recommendation and hope that the Mapleton Hill Historic district committee approve a change in exterior material for the building and its auxiliary structure(s) located at 1039 Maxwell Avenue. Our desire is much the same as yours, in that we want to respect the character and feel of the neighborhood while bringing new life into the community. We thank you for your time and dedication to this review process, as well as your service to the city and community of Boulder. To support our request we have included the Following Items: -Overall Site maps -Site lines of the project from various streets and alleys -Existing Pictures of the building exterior -Desired replacement material information – James Hardie Siding -Example pictures of new material – 7” Cedar Mill Finish (Boothbay Blue) -Detailed specifications for new material from manufacturer Agenda Item #5B, Page 17 Overall Site Map Enlarged Site Map Agenda Item #5B, Page 18 Site overview from the South Site overview from the North Agenda Item #5B, Page 19 Street View #1 Street View #2 Agenda Item #5B, Page 20 View of the west rear side of building looking south. View of the east front side of building looking south. Agenda Item #5B, Page 21 View of the east front side of building looking south. Agenda Item #5B, Page 22 Agenda Item #5B, Page 23 Agenda Item #5B, Page 24 Proposed Replacement Material Information James Hardie Siding: HardiePlank Lap Siding 7” Exposure Finish: Select Cedarmill Body Color: Boothbay Blue Trim Color: Arctic White Agenda Item #5B, Page 25 Agenda Item #5B, Page 26 Agenda Item #5B, Page 27 Agenda Item #5B, Page 28 Agenda Item #5B, Page 29 Agenda Item #5B, Page 30