Item 5B - 1014 Mapleton AveAgenda Item # 5B Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 6, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to construct an addition to the contributing house
and relocate the contributing garage and construct a new,
one-car garage at 1014 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised
Code, 1981 (HIS2017-00308).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1014 Mapleton Ave.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1)
3. Lot size: 14,384 sq. ft.
4. Existing floor area: 4,400 sq. ft.
5. Proposed floor area: 4,750 sq. ft.
6. Applicant: Steve Dodd
7. Owner: Marybeth Emerson
8. Date of Construction: c. 1900
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, staff considers the
proposed construction of an addition, relocating the existing garage and
constructing a new one-car garage on the property 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 Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the
Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated November 2, 2017,
as the findings of the board and approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the
Agenda Item # 5B Page 2
proposed construction and relocation shown on plans dated Nov. 2, 2107, 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 following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house, relocating
the garage and constructing a new one-car garage in compliance with the
approved plans dated Nov. 2, 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, for review and approval by the Ldrc, the
applicant shall revise the design to significantly reduce the size of the rear
deck, reduce the amount of grading at the rear of the property,
substantially reduce the amount of paving on the property to include the
elimination of paved wheel strips at the driveway.
3. 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): window and door details, wall material
details, siding material details, paint colors, roofing material details and
details regarding any 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.
SUMMARY:
• Constructed around 1900 and within the identified 1865-1946 period of
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, the house retains a high
level of historic integrity. Staff finds the house should be considered
contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The garage was
constructed sometime in the 1910s or 1920s, has a high degree of historic
integrity and should also be considered a contributing feature.
• A Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) request was received for the
construction of an addition, relocation of a contributing building and the
construction of an adjacent one-car garage on Nov. 2, 2017.
• An LAC was issued for the construction of a small rear addition and deck on
July 5, 2017. This application proposes changes to the approved addition
including a larger deck and substantial regarding and paving of the property.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 3
• Staff finds that the proposed rear addition, relocation of the contributing
garage and construction of a new one-car garage would not adversely affect
the special character and historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value
of the property or the district as a whole and is significantly consistent with
the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines, provided the suggested conditions are met, including revisions to
the design as recommended.
This recommendation is based upon the understanding that, pursuant to the
conditions of approval, revision to the design will be reviewed and approved by
the Ldrc prior to the issuance of a LAC.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
The property is located on the south side of Mapleton Avenue, between
Broadway and 9th Street, within the boundaries of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. The 4,400 sq. ft. house is located on a 14,384 sq. ft. lot. An alley is located
along the southern boundary of the lot. The grade slopes to the south and east.
Figure 1. Location map, 1014 Mapleton Ave.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 4
Figure 2. 1014 Mapleton Ave. c.1919. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Figure 3. View of north elevation and existing garage in rear, 2017.
The one-and-a-half-story dwelling was constructed in the 1890s and is a rare
Boulder example of Shingle Style-influenced architecture made fashionable at the
Agenda Item # 5B Page 5
turn-of-the twentieth century by east coast architects like John Calvin Stevens. It
features a steeply pitched front gable which flares to cover the first story. Gable
ends are shingled and curved, creating plasticity and unity of the roof and gable.
The house is in good condition and survives as one of the finest and articulated
examples of Shingle architecture in Boulder.
The south elevation (façade) features an inset porch with stone pillars. The doors
and windows feature a diamond pattern, and the door has decorative tracery. An
inset bay window is located on the gable end, and features three double-hung
windows with a diamond pattern in the upper sash. A second bay window is
located on the first level, and features 6-over-1 and 4-over-1 double hung
windows and shingles below. A cornice with dentils articulates the rusticated
stone first story.
The east elevation features a triple bank of windows and features segmental
arched windows. Two gabled dormers with flared eaves are located on the east
elevation, and mirrored on the west elevation by three similar dormers. A porch
with neo-classical columns wraps the southeast corner of the building. A
rusticated stone chimney bisects a dormer on the east elevation.
Figure 4. View of existing garage, north (left) and east (right) elevations, 2017.
A flat roofed stone garage (proposed for relocation), is located on the eastern
edge of the property, behind the house. The building is constructed of rusticated
stone, similar to the house, with rolled asphalt roofing. A side-hinged triple
wood paneled garage door with three lights in each door faces south to driveway
and Mapleton Avenue. The Historic Building Inventory Record indicates the
accessory building was constructed in 1928. It appears to be in good condition.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 6
The accessory building was surveyed in 2005 and found to be contributing to the
Mapleton Hill Historic District.
PROPERTY HISTORY:
Figure 5. 1014 Mapleton Avenue c. 1900 with dairy cart (courtesy of Carnegie Branch Library).
The 1929 Tax assessor card lists the date of construction for this house as the
1890s and 1898 Boulder City Directory indicates that this was the property of
Hiram Edwin and Harriet Parker Rowland. Hiram Rowland was a prominent
Boulder lawyer, serving as city attorney and president of the Boulder Bar
Association. He was born in New York in 1862 and came to Boulder in 1880. A
law partner with his half-brother, S.A. Giffin, their firm, Giffin and Rowland, was
considered one of the leading legal firms in the Colorado. Rowland represented
the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents for many years. He was also a
director of the Building and Loan Association, and Vice President of the Boulder
Mill and Elevator Company. Rowland married Harriet Parker in 1893. She was
the daughter of U.S. Congressman Abraham X. Parker, who represented a New
York district and was Assistant Attorney General of the United States. The
Rowlands lived here until Rowland’s sudden death in 1916.
RECENT LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPROVAL:
On July 5, 2017, the Ldrc approved the construction of a rear addition and deck
(HIS2017-00183). This application proposes changes to that approval including
enlargement of the deck, relocation of stairs, reduction in the size of the east
facing light well, construction of retaining walls and paving at driveway and
Agenda Item # 5B Page 7
new vehicle turnaround area. See section below for a comparison of the existing
building, the July 5 approved plans, and the current proposal.
PROPOSED ALTERATION:
The current proposal includes the relocation of the existing detached contributing
garage approximately 10 feet south and at an elevation of 4’, 6” below its current
location. A new 325 sq. ft. garage is proposed to be added east of the existing
relocated garage.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 8
Figure 6. July 5, 2017 LAC Site Plan (left), Current Site Plan (right)
Figure 7. Current Plan Showing relocation of existing garage and proposed new garage
A proposed site plan shows the relocation of the existing garage approximately
10 ft. southeast on the property, construction of an adjacent 325 sq. ft. flat roof
garage, and increase in size of previously approved deck from 160 sq. ft. to
approximately 300 sq. ft. Extensive grading and retaining at the back of the
house accommodates access to the garages and provides walk out basement
access. It appears the grade at the rear wall of the house will be lowered between
5 ft. and 6 ft. The site plan shows approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of brick pavers being
Agenda Item # 5B Page 9
installed for the car turn-around/patio area with wheel strips continuing along
the west side of the house to the street (no material specified for this detail).
South Elevation (Rear)
Figure 8. Existing South Elevation
Figure 9. July 5, 2017 Approved LAC drawings, South Elevation
Agenda Item # 5B Page 10
Figure 10. Current Proposal, South Elevation
The south (rear) elevation of the house shows the upper level of the historic
sleeping porch to be retained and an addition constructed below with stairs
running off the east side of the full width porch. The deck is shown to be
accessed via a six leaf “nano-wall” and an eight light single door. A trellis sun
screen is shown located over the nano-wall. The basement level is shown to be
made accessible by lowering the grade and adding a single door and three
double hung windows in the stone foundation wall. A 3 ft. high retaining wall is
shown to be constructed between the rear wall of the house and the proposed
new garage.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 11
East Elevation
Figure 11. Existing East Elevation (garage not shown)
Figure 12. July 5, 2017 Approved LAC drawings, East Elevation
Figure 13. Current Proposal, East Elevation
The east elevation shows the shingled rear addition and extending deck, stair
and proposed new garage. A 14 ft. x 3 ft. light well is shown to be located at the
Agenda Item # 5B Page 12
east wall of the addition, in place of a larger light well that was approved as part
of the July 5, 2017 LAC. Two additional basement windows and light wells are
shown to be located at the east basement level wall.
West Elevation
Figure 14. Existing West Elevation
Figure 15. July 5, 2017 Approved LAC drawings, West Elevation
Agenda Item # 5B Page 13
Figure 16. Current Proposal, West Elevation
Figure 17. Perspective rendering of west side of property
On the west elevation, the upper balcony area off the sleeping porch is shown to
be enclosed with shingle railing. The stairs accessing the deck in the July 5, 2017
proposal have been removed, and the area extending from the proposed addition
is shown to be deck area.
Figures 18. Proposed Garage, North Elevation
Agenda Item # 5B Page 14
Figures 19. Proposed Garage, East Elevation
Figures 20. Proposed Garage, West Elevation
Figures 21. Proposed Garage, South Elevation
Drawings for the relocated garage shown that it is lowered at least 4 ft., 6 in.
from its current height due to the declining grade as one moves south on the
property. It appears that the existing set of two leaf garage doors (each with six
lights) are to be replaced with a set of new doors (each with three lights).
A new 325 sq. ft. wood frame garage is shown to be constructed 4 ft. east of the
relocated garage. Elevations show the new shingled garage to be bermed into the
grade cut at the east of the building with a stair running to the higher grade at
the northeast corner of the building. The new building is shown to be
approximately the same height as the relocated garage and to be simply detailed
Agenda Item # 5B Page 15
with a single car garage door and a set of four-light four light windows on the
south and east face of the building.
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 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.
(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.
DESIGN GUIDELINE 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 Shingle Style house was constructed around 1900, within the period of
significance (1865-1940) for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The building has
been minimally altered over the years and retains a high degree of historic
architectural integrity. It should be considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill
Historic District.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 16
Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, including reducing the
size of the rear deck, minimizing the amount of regrading at the rear of the
property and reducing the amount of paved area, staff considers the proposed
relocation and new construction will preserve the historic character of the
property and the immediate streetscape and be consistent with the General Design
Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines (see Design Guidelines
Analysis section).
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, provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed alteration
will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value of the landmark property as it will be generally
compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Design
Guidelines in terms of mass, scale, height, design and color (see Design
Guidelines Analysis section).
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 finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed addition,
relocation of the existing garage, and construction of a new one-car garage will
be generally compatible with the architectural form, arrangement, texture, color,
arrangement of color, and materials used on the proposed building and will be
generally compatible with the character of the historic district in terms of mass,
scale, height, setback, and design (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret
the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The following is an analysis of the
proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design
guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 17
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate
sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines.
General Design Guidelines
2.1 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?
.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.
The topography of the property will
be affected by the regrading -
relocation of the garage and
introduction of significant areas of
paving, new retaining walls and new
stairs. Minimize regrading, reduce
height, of walls and stairs, reduce
paved areas at rear, sides and front of
property. Revise for Ldrc review.
No
2.4 Parking and Driveways
Historically, private parking was limited to the rear of the lot with access from the alley. There are
instance where curb cuts have been added to the front yards, but these are generally alterations and do
not represent traditional parking patterns.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.5 Historically appropriate
paving material, such as
flagsatone or brick, can be
used to break up larger
parking areas.
Parking turn around area and wheel
strips are proposed to enhance front
accessed parking. The existing curb
cut likely dates from the 1910s or
1920s and driveway appears to never
have been paved. Staff considers that
the amount of paved area at the sides
and rear of the property should be
No
Agenda Item # 5B Page 18
reduced and the wheel strips
eliminated from the plan, per the
intent of this this guideline. Consider
gravel driveway – review at Ldrc.
.7 Paving driveways or garage
access areas with asphalt or
concrete gives a modern look
and is generally inappropriate.
Flagstone or brick wheel strips
are the preferred alternative.
Staff considers that the amount of
paved area at the sides and rear of the
property should be reduced and the
wheel strips eliminated from the plan,
per the historic condition and the
intent of Section 2.4. Consider gravel
driveway – review at Ldrc.
Maybe
3.3 Decks
Decks are a modern expression of porches that were not found on historic buildings. Great care needs to
be taken in designing decks to fit into the character of the historic district. Because decks are not
traditionally found on historic buildings they should be avoided or their appearance minimized – they
should be subordinate to the house in terms of scale and detailing.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 First florr decks are
inappropriate in the front of a
house. Locate a first floor deck
at the rear of a house..
The approved deck was 160 sq. ft. in
size and proportional to the sleeping
porch, addition and historic house as
a whole. At approximately 300 sq. ft.,
new porch is out of scale and
character of the house. Reduce size of
deck to be more in scale with the
house – consistent with July 5, 2017
LAC approval. Review including
porch materials and finish at Ldrc.
No
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES -ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC
BUILDINGS, 4.0.
4.1 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic
buildings is the protection of the existing conditions and the character of the site and
district.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
Agenda Item # 5B Page 19
.1 Construct new additions so that
there is a least possible loss of
historic fabric and so that the
character-defining features of the
historic building are not destroyed,
damaged or destroyed
Addition is proposed at rear of
contributing house and incorporates
the upper level of the historic sleeping
porch.
Yes
.2 New additions should be
constructed so that they may be
removed in the future without
damaging the historic structure.
Unclear as to whether the lower
addition could be removed without
damage to the existing house.
Maybe
.3 It is not appropriate to construct
an addition that will detract from
the overall historic character of the
principal building and/or the site,
or if it will require the removal of
significant building elements or
site features.
In general, the proposed design is
compatible with the existing house,
and will not detract from its historic
character. Limited public visibility
from alley on the south side of the
property due to distance, grade and
mature vegetation.
Yes
4.2 Distinction from Historic Structures
All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design is
duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additional should be
compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Distinguish an addition from the
historic structure, but maintain
visual continuity between the two.
One common method is to step the
addition back and/or set it in
slightly from the historic
structure.
Proposed addition is stepped in from
sides of historic house at visually
distinct, though compatible.
Yes
.2 Do not directly copy historic
elements. Instead, interpret
historic elements in simpler ways
in the addition.
In form, the addition respects the
historic house and does not seek to
replicate historic elements.
Yes
.3 Additions should be simpler in
detail than the original structure.
An addition that exhibits a more
ornate style or implies an earlier
In general, the addition is simpler
than the historic house and
subordinate to it in scale. Review
details at Ldrc.
Yes
Agenda Item # 5B Page 20
period of architecture than that of
the original is inappropriate.
.4 The architectural styles of
additions should not imitate the
historic style but must be
compatible with it. Contemporary
style additions are possible, but
require the utmost attention to
these guidelines to be successful.
The use of two distinct historic
styles, such as adding Tudor-style
half-timbering to a Classic
Cottage, is inappropriate.
Proposed addition is generally
complementary to the historic
building and does not seek to
replicate it.
Yes
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site
detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions should be
distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from
the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic structures or the
site, in mass, scale or detailing.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 An addition should be
subordinate to the historic
building, limited in size and scale
so that it does not diminish or
visually overpower the building.
Though it may be be visible from the
public right of way, the proposed one-
story addition will not diminish or
overpower the existing building.
Yes
.2 Design an addition to be
compatible with the historic
building in mass, scale, materials
and color. For elevations visible
from public streets, the
relationship of solids to voids in
the exterior walls should also be
compatible.
With the exception of the first floor of
the south elevation, the relationship of
solids to voids on the proposed
addition are compatible with those
found on the existing house.
Yes
.4 Reflect the original symmetry or
asymmetry of the historic
building.
Symmetry of the original house is
reflected in fenestration of the
addition.
Yes
Agenda Item # 5B Page 21
.5 Preserve the vertical and
horizontal proportion of a
building's mass.
The dominant vertical massing of the
house will not be negatively affected
by the proposed addition.
Yes
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature
trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the site or
dramatically alter its historic character.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Design new additions so that the
overall character of the site, site
topography, character-defining site
features and trees are retained.
The topography of the property
will be affected by the regrading -
relocation of the garage and
introduction of significant areas of
paving, new retaining walls and
new stairs. Minimize regrading,
reduce height, of walls and stairs,
reduce paved areas at rear, sides
and front of property. Revise at
Ldrc.
No
.2 Locate new additions on an
inconspicuous elevation of the
historic building, generally the rear
one. Locating an addition to the
front of a structure is inappropriate
because it obscures the historic
facade of a building.
Addition is at the rear of the
historic house and will have
minimal public visibility.
Yes
.3 Respect the established orientation
of the original building and typical
alignments in the area.
Addition does not affect historic
orientation and alignments of the
building along the streetscape.
Yes
.4 Preserve a backyard area between
the house and the garage,
maintaining the general proportion
of built mass to open space found
within the area. See Guideline
2.1.1.
Proposed relocation of the historic
garage and construction of a one
car garage will not significantly
affect the general proportion of
built mass to open space and
creates automobile turnaround
between house and garage.
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5B Page 22
4.5 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 Meets
Guideline?
.1 Maintain the dominant
roofline and orientation of the
roof form to the street.
Roofline of proposed addition is very
small and will not affect the dominant
roofline of the historic house.
Yes
.2 Rooflines on additions should
be lower than and secondary to
the roofline of the original
building.
Roofline of addition is minimal and
dominated by existing sleeping porch roof. Yes
.3 The existing roof form, pitch,
eave depth, and materials
should be used for all
additions.
The proposed roof proportions and
materials are generally compatible with
the historic house.
Yes
.5 Maintain the proportion,
general style, and symmetry or
asymmetry of the existing
window patterns.
With exception of “nano doors” at first
level of addition fenestration consistent
with those on the historic house.
Maybe
.6 Use window shapes that are
found on the historic building.
Do not introduce odd-shaped
windows such as octagonal,
triangular, or diamond-shaped
See above. Maybe
MAPLETON HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES –MAJOR EXTERIOR
RENOVATION, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES, T.
F. Massing
While the specific details of the historic architectural styles of Mapleton Hill vary considerably,
the most significant and identifiable feature of a building is its massing. Buildings of Italianate
styling are square and vertical. Bungalows are low and rectangular, while Queen Anne styling is
asymmetrical with many projections and details. Replication of stylistic detailing is not
encouraged or necessary, however, the form which defines the building, should be respected.
Agenda Item # 5B Page 23
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
1. Any addition to a building should
preserve the existing symmetry or
asymmetry.
The proposed addition will not
impact the asymmetry of the main
house when viewed from Pine Street.
Yes
2. The vertical or horizontal
proportion of a building’s mass
should be preserved.
The addition will not impact the
vertical proportions of the historic
house.
Yes
T. Major Exterior Renovation, Additions and Second Stories.
Large additions and additional stories to a building frequently change the character of the
structure. The diversity that characterizes the historic district is a result of the variety in the sizes
of buildings and the differing architectural styles. A design response that respects this diversity is
most appropriate.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.4 New additions should be designed
and constructed so that the
character-defining features of the
historic building are not radically
changed, obscured, damaged or
destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation.
With the exception of the lower
sleeping porch area, no character
defining features of the existing house
will be affected.
Yes
.5 New design and construction
should always be differentiated
from older portions of a building;
however, the addition should
respect the existing roof forms, and
building scale and massing.
Proposed addition is distinct from
house in form, detailing and
materiality.
Yes
General Design Guidelines
7. GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Structures
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
Agenda Item # 5B Page 24
.1 Retain and preserve garages and
accessory buildings that contribute to
the overall character of the site or
district.
The existing stone garage is
proposed to be retained and
relocated to the northeast corner
of the lot. The garage will be set
10’ south and 4’,6” lower than its
current location. There will still be
visibility from the street though
less than is currently the case.
Maybe
.2 Retain and preserve the character-
defining materials, features, and
details of historic garages and
accessory buildings, including roofs,
materials, windows, and doors.
Doors are shown to be replaced.
Staff recommends the existing
doors be rehabilitated. Review at
Ldrc.
No
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
D. ALLEYS, EASEMENTS and ACCESSWAYS
Alleys are a strong visual element of the district, and have much variety of scale and detail. They
play an important role in the development patterns that give the more visible areas their character.
Alleys provide access to rear parking and garages. They have a varied edge quality, with buildings
both on the property lines and set back. The size and quality of these accessory buildings varies
considerably. Careful consideration should be given to changes in traditional uses.
Guidelines: Analysis: CONFORMS?
1. The use of alleys to provide access to the
rear of properties should be preserved.
Access to garage appears to
have been historically taken
from Mapleton Avenue. Existing
gravel driveway and curb cut
should be preserved at the front
and along the west side of the
property. Review site plan at
Ldrc
Maybe
3. Buildings such as garages, sheds, etc.
which contribute to this variety should
be retained in their original form
whenever possible.
Generally maintains character of
building in terms of orientation
and location.
Yes
P GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A variety of accessory buildings has been adapted for use as garages in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures have certain similarities. They are
Agenda Item # 5B Page 25
plain and utilitarian and are located at the rear of the property on the alley. Materials and building
elements are varied.
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
.1 If an existing structure is to be used as a
garage the historic character of the
building should be respected. As few
changes as possible should be made.
Doors are shown to be replaced.
Staff recommends the existing
doors be rehabilitated. Review
at Ldrc.
Maybe
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 proposed construction of a new
garage is in keeping with the design
of the main house and existing
garage and will not impact the
character of the principal building.
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 property takes access from
Mapleton Avenue. Location of new
garage behind the house is
appropriate, though a short distance
from the house is unusual in
Mapleton Hill.
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.
Construction of proposed one-car
garage will not affect general
proportion of built mass to open
space of the property or streetscape.
Yes
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.
Proposed design relates to existing
house and garage; size and massing
are appropriate.
Yes
.6 New garages for single-family residences
should generally be one story tall and
Proposed one-car garage is one-
story tall. Yes
Agenda Item # 5B Page 26
shelter no more than two cars. In some
cases, a two-car garage may be
inappropriate.
.7 Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary structure.
Roof form is complementary to the
historic garage and main house. Yes
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be simpler
in design and detail than the primary
building.
As shown, garage is simpler than
main house in design, material, and
detailing.
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.
Proposed materials (wood shingle
siding, windows, and doors) will be
compatible with character of the
historic district. Review details at
Ldrc.
Maybe
.10
Windows, like all elements of accessory
structures, should be simpler in
detailing and smaller in scale than
similar elements on primary structures.
Proposed design of windows on
east and elevation appears to be
compatible in terms of window
type, size and detailing with similar
elements on the primary building.
Yes
.12
Garage doors should be consistent with
the historic scale and materials of
traditional accessory structures. Wood
is the most appropriate material and
two smaller doors may be more
appropriate than one large door.
Garage doors appear to be
consistent in terms of scale and
materials. Review final details at
Ldrc.
Maybe
.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 design does not attempt
to recreate a false historic
appearance.
Yes
Constructed around 1900, the Shingle house at 1014 Mapleton Ave. is one of the
best well preserved examples of Shingle Style architecture in Boulder.
The roughly 14,000 sq. ft. property is located mid-block with steeply declining
grade to the south. These circumstances and the location of the existing historic
garage somewhat limit the ability to construct an addition at the rear of the
property. Staff considers that significant steps to mitigate the impact of the
addition including preservation of the upper sleeping porch area have been
Agenda Item # 5B Page 27
taken. However, staff considers the increase in size of the rear deck out of scale
with the addition and historic house as a whole, per section 3.3 of the General
Design Guidelines. It should be reduced significantly in size. Likewise, the extent
of regrading at the rear of the property will significantly alter the historic
character and result in the construction of tall retaining walls and stairs to
navigate the rear of the property. Staff also considers the extent of paving at the
rear and sides of the property should be substantially reduced and that the
driveway along the side of the house to the street should remain gravel (See
section 2.1 General Design Guidelines).
Pending the review of conditions by the Ldrc, including reducing the size of the
rear deck, minimizing the amount of regrading at the rear of the property and
reducing the amount of paved area including eliminating wheel strips from the
driveway, staff considers the proposed construction of an addition to be
generally consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the General Design
Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines.
Staff considers issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the proposed
addition to the contributing house, relocation of the contributing garage and
construction of a new one-car garage to be consistent with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Guidelines. As such, staff finds the application consistent with
Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1)-(3) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, provided the listed conditions are
met.
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 proposed new construction will meet the standards in Section 9-11-
18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
2. The proposed construction will not have an adverse effect on the value
of the landmark property, 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 proposal will be generally
consistent with Section 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(3), B.R.C.1981, the General
Agenda Item # 5B Page 28
Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessors Card
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
Attachment A: Tax Assessors Card
Agenda Item # 5B Page 29
1929 Tax Assessor Photo (Front)
Agenda Item # 5B Page 30
1929 Tax Assessor Card (back)
Agenda Item # 5B Page 31
1929 Tax Assessor Photo
Agenda Item # 5B Page 32
Attachment B: Current Photographs
Existing Garage East 2017
Existing Garage North 2017
Agenda Item # 5B Page 33
Existing Garage, South Elevation, 2017
North Elevation, 2017
Agenda Item # 5B Page 34
North Elevation 2017
South View 2017
Agenda Item # 5B Page 35
South View 2017
South View 2017
Agenda Item # 5B Page 36
Attachment C: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item # 5B Page 37
Agenda Item # 5B Page 38
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