Loading...
5C - Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to remove the roof and reMEMORANDUM March 7'", 2007 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FIZOM: Susan Richstone, Interim Long Range Planning Manager Chris Meschuck, Historic Preservation Planner Alice Gilbertson, Historic Preservation Intern James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to remove the roof of and remodel a non-contributing house and to add 2,490 sq. ft. of second-story addition at 2299 4'" Street in the Mapleton Hill historic district as per 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2007-00028). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 2. Historic District: 3. Zoning: 4. Owner/Applicant: 5. Date of Construction: 6. Site Area: 7. Proposed new const: 8. Proposed height: 2299 4'h Street Mapleton Hill RL-1 (Residential Low - 1) Thomas K. Higley/ Harvey Hine 1970 11,900 sq. ft. Construction of 2,490 sq. ft. to second-story of house. 24' from lowest point at grade to highest point on parapet (current height approximately 14') STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed demolition, reconstruction, and second story addition at 2299 5"' Street with the following conditions: 1. that final designs be reviewed and approved by the landmarks design review committee and that they should address the following design details: window and door design and placement; porch details; roof deck details; parking and curb cut; as well as details such as stucco, wood and steel elements and color. This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions listed above, the proposed remodel and additions will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 10-13-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District design Guidelines. Aeenda Item # SC Paee #i SUMMARY: ^ A proposal to add to the Davis house at 2299 4'" Street was first presented to the Design Review Committee on August 23`d, 2006 and on September 6'° the Design Review Committee referred the proposal to the full Landmarks Board citing concerns that the proposed modernist addition may have an adverse impact on the historic character of the district. • Designed with assistance from noted modernist architect Gale Abels, the Davis house was constructed in 1970 and is out of the identified (1865- 1946) period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District and, is therefore, a non-contributing building. ^ Staff does not consider the Davis house a notable example of Gale Abels' design, nor does it find that it represents an excellent example of mid- century modernist architecture in Boulder. For these reasons, staff recommends the house not be classified as significant newer as defined in the General Design Guidelines. • In terxns of mass and scale, staff is of the opinion that the remodel and additions to the main house are generally consistent with Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 of the General Design Guidelines, Site Design, Alterations, Additions to Non-Historic Buildings, Nezv Primary Structures, and Miscellaneaus, Section VI of the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines, and Section 10-13-18(ct)£~(b)(1-4) of the Boulcler Revised Code. • Based upon analysis of the building's history, architecture, and conditions of the proposed new construction, staff considers the demolition of the building consistent with Section 10-13-18(4) of the Boulder Revised Code nnd Sections T and U of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines. • Staff recommends conditional approval of the project based upon the conditions set forth in the Recommendations section of this memo. A¢enda Item # SC Paee #2 Location Map PROPERTY HISTORY: Sanborn Maps do not cover the west side of 4`'' Street south of Mapleton Avenue as this area was located in the county until the 1950's when it was annexed by the City oF Boulder. The existing house was c~nstructed in 1970 for Helen and Bob Davis, its design is reported to be a collaborative effort between local modernist architect Gales Abels and I Ielen Davis. While not a licensed architect, Davis had a strong interest in architecture and approached Abels for the design of the house. A~enda Item # SC Pa~e #3 L. (Lewis) Gale Abels was born on August 18,1927 and earned a Bachelors degree in Architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1946. He continued on to receive a Master of Architecture degree in 1952 from Harvard's Graduate School of Design, where he studied under Walter Gropius. During his early career, he worked for Eero Saarinen and Associates before moving to Colorado. He was employed by W.C. Muchow Associates before starting his own practice in Boulder in 1962. Abels love of flying carried over to his architectural practice and he has been recognized for his architectural designs of smaller, regional airports. Abels died in September of 1995. In addition to the airports for which he is perhaps best known, Abels is responsible for the design of a number of buildings in Boulder including the Tye Dental offices at 1150 Maxwell Avenue, the Tippit House at 525 Aurora, and Art Hardware at 1135 Broadway. Abels is also credited with the design of lesser known buildings in the city inciuding 27ll Mapleton Avenue, 3100 6th Street (residence), 885 Circle Drive (residence), 2299 4th Street (residence), 934 Pearl (Abels converted it to office space in 1971). The 2000 Historic Context and Survey of Modern Architecture in Boulder, Colorado 1947 -1977 prepared for the City of Boulder identifies Abels as a first-rate Modernist architect, one who may be regarded as a master of local architecture practicing in the city during the Post WW II period. The design of the Davis House is clearly modernistic reflecting the architect's mid- century training at Harvard and association with Gropius in Boston. Some architectural similarities can be seen between Abels' modernist house at 3100 6°i Street and this building. The use of light stucco with dark horizontal banding at the roofline is also similar in design to that used on the Tippit House at 525 Aurora, although the Tippit House presents a more complex fa~ade compositionally. While Abels has been identified as a post WW-II master architect, there is some question as to how directly the architect was involved the design of the Davis house. Helen Davis represents that she conceived and developed the design, then commissioned the architect to execute drawings. While the house does exhibit characteristic Abels design elements, staff does not consider it to represent one of his more notable buildings or as an excellent example of modernist architecture. As such, staff does not consider that the Davis house warrants newer significant building status; that is a building; "that (has) not yet achieved historic significance but (has) achieved architectural significance as (an) excellent example(s) of (its) period". PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The existing flat roof, one-story modernist 1,700 sq. ft. house is located on an 11,900 sq. ft. lot that slopes down steeply at the west to an intermittent creek. Highland Avenue intersects with 4"' Street in Eront of the property, essentially dead-ending into the lot. Currently, the property is quite heavily vegetated with mature tress and vegetation. The existing one-story building has an unfinished basement with a floor area of Aeenda Item # SC Paee #4 approximately 1350 sq. ft. on the main level and slightly less square footage in the walk- out basement. PROPOSED DEMOL[TION, IZECONSTRUCTION & ADDITIONS: The applicant proposes to remodel and construct 2,490 sq, ft. in additions to the existing house, approxiinat~ly 2,100 sq. ft. of which is planned to be second-story space. A~cnda Item # ~C Pa~c #~ f _ ~ ~ - y ~ ~- ~ > > .+,, ._ "-_" \ . .. .____. ~ 1..;. . _ -_- _ I ~~`. . .„ r : -,~~~ . . . il~~. I •_ _ ___ , .j . . G . t_ j.- -_-. ~ r/ . - I _ _ . . ._... _ . _ _ ~y'--'~~'~/ . . _ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1__.~II[pL!\Id _. _. . _ . Site Plan (2299 4~h Street at center) The footprint is shown to increase 286 sq. ft at the west (rear) of the house and 210 sq. ft. at the east (front) of the building. Drawings indicate the second-story addition will be setback between 3' and 16' from the east elevation and between 12' and 20' from the north side elevation. Approximately 400 sq. ft. of the second-story is shown to cantilever over the present front driveway to provide an entry to the first floor garage. A curvilinear stair tower is shown to be constructed at the southeast corner of the existing house to provide access to the second-floor. The existing curb ctrt and driveway at the front of the property is to be retained; however, both will be narrowed from the current width of approximately 21' to 11'. ~ • ~. ' ~ . . ~ ! • ,~~,.a~ , ,~ ,~ • .~ . ~F.~,~~., ~ .~{..t~ • ti e ,•~:, , . F.~ ~ . ' ";1t, ! . ~ i~ r.. ~ ~ •' ' ' -. . r . • , ~v' , "' • . r ~M~ ., ~y rr ~A. ,~ `y ' Ik . ' .~ ~~ _ ~ ~.'` ~ ,~ ~ ~ , ' . t' ~ , _ + . .~` i . ~~ 1, 5 ~ . ' :: r . ~ ' , r.r. .~ ' ` ' j .~ Y f ~ ' . .; . r p eR~~ y . ~ ..~ r :H a ~` . ' ' Y, 1 S T ; ~ 1 ~ ' , s . ; + ~ , . ~ ? ~ . .' `l • t ' t t .f e 'Iw ` i ~ 1 ,. . ^ ~~~. ! I ~ f ` .' . ~ ' ~ p,~l~.f~' ~sK \ r~ ~ , , ~ ~<~ ~,~ . } 4 ~ ' ,.~ /, i , s ~~ ~^ ~~~ ~ ' ~' ~ °" J ~ ~ ,~~ Y ~ ~ . i f''f~~ t ~.~'. ~ . ~' t~~ .' ~~ r - - ~ ` ^ . ~ I ~ i I i :a ,r ~Y I L .~ .~•., ~ ~ ~.f~._ "~"~~~':~ ~ ~~ : <:» ~'s .~ ., ..'~, 5 y ~.~ ~ '~'~ 7~ ~.i1 .~ y ~ E'~'~ ~} ~. ~ , ~. '~Y,-/_ . Q' A~r~ 7 ~Y ~ ~ i 11. ~ r1 _ _ l..= .. . , `.~ -s.~ F'i ~ ~? ._ f'tztil a~ ~~ a P~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ J , . ~ i_ ~l .. _ . . ~ ' -_ ~ ~~i ` __ _ ,. . . ~ , .-~ . . . \ . Proposed east elevation (2299 4~° Street at center) In elevation, the addition is shown to be designed in a modernistic manner with a Rat roof, strong horizontal forms, smooth unadorned surfaces, and a curvilinear glass block construction in the proposed stair tower. With the proposed addition, the height of the A~enda Itcm # ~C Pa~e #6 house is shown to increase from 14' to 24' (when measured from lowest point on grade at the foundation of the house to the highest point on the parapet). While the forms of the proposed design are clearly modernistic, consideration has been given to reference historic massing, proportions, and architectural elements found in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. In particular, steps have been taken to create a 20' x 8' porch element supported by four steel I-beam posts, providing access to an interior courtyard/driveway at the front of the house. The proposed porch is shown to be setback approximat~ly 20' from the property line and to be accessed from the sidewalk via a concrete pathway and a three step stoop. The fa~ade of the building is shown to be simply fenestrated with two sets of three flanking casement windows on the second level and a single dc~or under the porch providing access to the courtyard/driveway area. ,` .. ~- - _r ._-.i - - , ~ - ,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ af~ i_'; l I_!~ i ~~ ~<< ~~ - , ~ _ _ ~E___ ~~ ~;~ i ;~;- I ~, `~ i }~~I i f i f i-~~_:~ i, ~ it _~__ ;.~ I ' ._'~!'! ~ ~_51~.~`~ i - ----i_.~.-~~~~ ~aI I - ~ PrnnncFd On the north elevation of the house, the addition is shown to feature pairs of casement windows on the second level, four full length windows on the first floor, and a variety of smaller casement windows. A small roof deck area is shown to be accessed via a set of French doors at the west end of the north elevation. Drawings of the south elevation show the eastern-most portion of the second-story to feature four casement windows surmounted by a projecting box overhang, with the western portion of the building fenestrated with lar~e casement windows, also surmounted by projecting overhangs. No details wcre submitted regarding garage d~ors proposed beneath the cantilevered second-story. A~enda Item # SC Pa~e #7 ~ -_ - - i ,~ _. ,, __ ~. - , ,~ i~ i ~ - , ~ - ~~ . i~~ ~{..~ ~~ _ t~ a __.~ p~ ~ ~ ~_.l~ ' ~;_ , , . q `~ =~_' ~ i ;j ~ ~ ! 1~ i,~l ~_~; . m !, !I ~k ---' i, ~ I I: ~ i . . -- jk- ; I I~' I i ~ ' ' - - , ['roposed south elevation Drawings indicate the west elevation of the house will feature two sets of French doors with transoms and large square casement windows on the first floor. The second- story is shown to feature two large square (and one smaller) casement windows. As on the other elevations, windows and doors on the south face of the building will be surmottnted by projecting overhangs. ;~ ' ~ .tt - ' ; f ~ L ~;-- ~ _:~~ ~ ;; ~-~~I ~ =~~ 'I~ j _~~ ~~ ~,! ` ~ , , , _ f ~ =_t ? ~_ _~ ; ,, , ~f ~ ~.~~ ~---- -~ N ~ ~, C - i~ ~'~ _,f - '~ ~ I.~~i!~;i'~,~,~ ~'~~ !` ~' ~~ ~~II~~~ 1~~~~,~ ~l~ ~ I'~ ~' ~. ~ ~' `I _ ~~; I~ ~~ !1. I ~~ ;lo ~,j ~,', ~ ,i~~1~ j ~ =--_ ~'' ''~ , , =l - ,~_- - , -,_, I - t i ~=~ ~~:.f yi ~ ~~.~~~.~~~ Proposed west elevation In terms of detail, the proposed remodel is shown to be finished in a manner consistent with modernist ~rchitectural design with cementitious stttcco, glass block, and wood and steel elements. Proposed colours of beige (stucco), black (trim, doors, posts), and cottagc red (front porch fascia and projecting overhangs). A~enda Item # ~C Pa~e #8 CRITERIA FOR BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark Alteration Permit may not be apprc~vcd by the Board or City Council unless it meets the conditions specified in Section 10-13-18 B.R.C. Specifically: (a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (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 ~xterior 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 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; and A~enda Item # 5C Pa~e #9 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 para~ra~hs (b)(2) and ~ of this section. ANALYSIS: 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 Desi~n Gttidelines to help interpret the Ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposal with respect to Sections 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 8.0 of the General Design Gt.tidelines and Section VI of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guic~clines. 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. General Desi n Guidelines 0 5 Additions to Non-Historic Buildin s 5 0 . , . Guideline Anal sis Conforms? ?.l B~rilrlin,~ Aliy~rtirtent, .1 Orr~ri~tatiorr, ~ Spacin~ .1 I_oa7te strt~ctt~res zvithin the - Proposed porch at 20' setback within Yes rnngc of ali,qnmer~ts range of alignments in neighborhood. .2 Buildr~iYs proportions shva~lcf - 6uilding's proportions are consistent Yes respect trric~itionr~! patterns. with traditional patterns in Mapleton Hill .3 Orient burldin~ entrance to Ehe - Introduction of path and stairs leading Yes street. to pordz consistent. .5 Nezv porrh ry~ay cncronch into - Porch will encroach 5' but is consistent exi~ting nli~rimerit if rlesiqned per with guidelines and historic p<~ttern. Yes ~Quidelr~nes. I .7 Mnintairi ~qeneral propartion of - Backyard to remain open and building Yes ' bi.iilt lnnss to open spc~ce in area. footprint will not si~~ificantly change. 2.2 Streefscrrpe ~ Lcrncfserrpe: .S Provrde firont yrrrcl Jczndsca~ed in - Mature ve =etation will be retained. b Yes tradiEional manner nnd materinls. 2.4 Prrrkin,~ ~ Urivezuniis: ^ .1 Maintnin tradition of parking at - Existing park at front will be retained - Yes r•ecir of lc~t. no possibility for parking at rear. .3 Yarkrt2g in fi~ont ~ard is - Parking will be primarily concealed - no 1'es ~~~ssibility for rear parking. Widtl~ of i»appropriatc. driveway and existing curb cut reduced .6 Historicnll~ c~pyroprirrte pnving from approximately 21' to 11'. ir~rnte~•ials c~an be i~sed to break iip lnrgel• parki~r~~ arecas. .71'1nYstone or brick ~vheel strips - Concrete or paved driveway proposed. Maybe nre preferrr~~ to nsylurlt or cona•ete paving. - Concrete or paved driveway proposed. Maybe .2 Not approprinte to cortstr~~ct an - T'11e mass and scale of addition Yes rutdition t{~at ivill e~etract frorrt the consistent with buildings in the cllaracter of the district b~ streetsca e. A~enda ttem # SC Page #10 overzvhelnrin; eristing buildin~s - Footprint of house will change Yes in terms of mc~ss nrzd sccrle. minimally ancl 2"~ story addition will not overwhelm existing build'u1gs. .3 Alterntions to rton-c:ontrrbutinq - The remodel and addition is sensitive to bi~ildings bi.tilf irr n reco,Qni~nb(e and respects the existing Modernist Yes architectiirrzl sti~t~~ ~hni~ild prc~er~~E buildin~. rrt~rt re~ u~c t fhrrt ~h/!e. 6.0 New Prima Structures Guideline Anal sis Conforms? For sri~stnritirzl alteratioris to n -`I'he propi~~ed desi~n relates to the -ror~-ltistor•ic buildi~tg, follozv fundamcntal cllaractcristics of d1c IZistoric Yes guirielines irt Section 6.0 Nezo district while conveying a contemporary Structures. st le_ .1 Distinction fi•om Histo~~ic Clearly contemporary Yes S~1'UCfIIPeS: .T Cre~tc comyatible cortte~rtporar~ - Mass, scale, height, proportions, Yes interpretatiorrs of historic Eenestration reference historic buildings in elerrtcnts. the district. 2. Interpretations of hrstor•ic ~t~les - Addition and remodel of existing Yes may bt r~~proprirzte if building will be ctearly recognizable as distr~iguishnble ns nezo. new construction .2 Site nnd SettinQ .1 Conform to SectiorT 2. Site - Proposed construction is compatible Desi~rr. with setback, orientation, spacing, and yes .2 OveraJl clinrncter of sitc is distance from surrounding I~ouses. retained. - Existing footprint will change little. Yes .3 Compcrtible ~vith surroi.lndin~Q - Proportions similar to adjacent builc~in~gs in setbnck, orientatioai, contribtiting b~uildi~lgs. Yes spncing, Rnd distRnce ft•orn adjncent b~iilctin~s. .4 Proporti~m of G~tilt mnss to opc~n spnce rrot sigriifir~antl~ differ•ent 1•ojrt conh~ibattiriq UuildirTqs. .3 Mnss af~d Scnle .1 Ce>ntpatibfe zuith surrourrdin,q - Proposed construction is generally Yes buildin,~s in terms of hei,~ht, size, compatible. ~cale, mnssin~, nnd pr•oportions. .2 Mnss anc~ scc~le vf nezi> - Mass and scale are appropriate. Yes constructror~ sbrould respect nerghbo~•rn~q bi~ildin~qs anrl strc~t~cnpe. ,3 Historic hei~eytts r~nd widtlts ~is - Proposed height of 24' versus existing Yes zvell ns tl~~er~r ratios rn~ir7tair~ed, 14'. Width and depth remain the same. esperiall i~ ~roportiorts of frorzf frtcRde. .4 Mczterinl~ ."1 Matcri~zls should bc similrir ir~r - Proposed use of stucco and painted Yes Scale, p~roportior~, t~~xture, fr~tish, wood compatible with of historic nr~d color as those on historlc buildings. Mu~imal use of steel sfi~ttctt~res. compatible with modern architech~re of .2 Mnrntrrin n hurrtart ~c~le bi~ existing buildin~. u~iir,~ h~actrtinnall y sized brrildin~q - Materials are of a ro riate scale. Yes A~enda itcm # >C P~~e #11 co~~~pori~er:ts and ntc~terinls. S Keu Builcting Eletnents .1 Spncing, pl~cerrunt, scale, - Window and door openings generally Yes orrerrtation, pr-oportion, nrtcf size of compatible in terms of orientation, ze~indoiv and door openings to be proportion, and size. compcrtible with surrotinding - Window and door openings on publicly Yes co~Ttributing btsildings. visible areas of building compatible. .2 Doors and zvindozvs compatihle -- Details regarding windows and doors Maybe in »zaterial, s~ibctivision, should be provided by applicant - esp. proportion, p~tter~l, c~ttd detnil narth elevation, l" floor. u~ith fltose of siirroundin~ - Flat roof form on building not typically contribcitin~y bciildings. seen on contributing buildings in district. Yes .3 Roof structin•e reflects those However, mass, scale, height, and found in District. proportion vcry consistent and mitigates .4 Porchc~ compatible i~i mnssing effect of flat roof. nnd dctails to historic district. -Proposed pordl is compatible in terms of Yes mass, scale, orientation and height. t~etail5 modernist interpretation of <<~~~~~,~,i r<„~,,,~ 3.0 Alterations Guideline Anal sis Conforms? .1 Roofs - Poof oE acidition ~vilf hr c<~nsi~tc nt in Yes .1 Retain & preserz~e origit~~~l roof f~orm to existing roof. fc~rlrt. .2 Roof Decks an~ Bnlconies - Roof deck is located at rear and side of Yes .1 Locnte balconies ot~ renr, not the flouse. front unless recreuting a cloctt~nerzted historic element. .4 Porches - The proposed porch is consistent widl ~ .8 Porches on nezv atld non- the guidelule and traditional scale and y15 cotztribccti~~g bttildin~qs sltould be proportion are reflected however with cornprrtible zoifh rrrcltitectiu•e of the n~odernistic interpretation. b~~ilrling, incorpor~zting hzrditional scale and proportion zviNt t~pdatect cletails. ,7 Windozvs - The proposed fenestration is generally Yes Wi~r~tnzc~s on fr~cacfes visible frvm consistent with guidelines. ptiblic ~treets, particularl~ ~fre front fn~rrdc, are c~specrnll~ - Window details need to be provided. Maybe i lrrpnrtn ~~r t. .10 Windozi~s in~ adclitions arTC~ nezv - Solid/void relationship of windows Yes ~h•iictures shoi~lct reflect pntter~7s gen~rally appropriate. nnd pnrtiorts irt the distric t~~rtc~ utilize similar materials - Fenestration indicative of floor levels. Yes ."12 Openings shoa~lr~ indicate floor le'z~efs, nnd rtot occur betrt~een _ _ ~Ioors. A~cnda Item # 5C Pa~e #12 .8 Doors - The proposed front door is generally Maybe Front doors ~and prirnnry entr~inces consistent with guidelines -details need nrc crmon~Q t~~c most irriportartt to be provided. efements nf historic buildin,qs .8 Doors in adclitio~ts and nezc> - Doors are consistei~t with traditional Yes sh~uetitres shoi.~ld reflect the doors. ~71'0~101't10i15 ~j2t'1~~7t 1i1111 ZUlllt~l~ Of C~OOYS l}~ f~7~ [(lSfl'1Cf. .9 Doors should be trim~rted zuith - Door details ~leed to be provided. Maybe nzaterinls similnr in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used tr~rlitionall~. 8.0 Miscellaneous Guideline Anal sis Conforms? 1 Pnitrt nn~f Pairit Colors - Pr<>pc~s~ci colots c~~nsistent ~vith Yes .3 Select paint cvlors appropriat~ tu guicielines and seen on adjacent vuildings the historic bcrilding. on 4"' Street streetscape. The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section VI of the Map[eton 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. Mc~pleton H~ll Historic Disrrict Desi~n Gi~idelines VI. Guidelines Guideline Anal sis Conforms? T. ~Vlrzjor Exfcrior P.e»oz~atron, - Thc E~ro~~osc~d ~additi~~n i~ r~~n5istent with f~G~L1LtlOY1S~ [i311.t SCCOi1!{ StOYIL'S t~1lS tiCCtlOil. YQ5 Onc> story stritict~ires built nfter 1940 mn~ lend therrrselves rnore rr~~propriatel~ fo~• renovntior~. Whethe~~n t~~aditionnl (h~lO secorrd skor~ is nppropriate zvilI depene~ «pon the bi~ildin~g's curltext zoitl~ rleigl~rboring str•i~eture~ and the strectsca ~e as a rohole. U. Nezv Constr~iction - The proposed street-facing east elevatioi~ .4 Mass rrnrl 5cah: shoiilcf respect is reflective of the context and the mass Yes nci~qhborin~Q buildings nnd the and scale is consistent with neighboring streetscape. Site Im/oitt, porch size bt~ildings. and placement, entry levef rrnd - Mass and scale are appropriate, as are locaEion, roof line, and door and site layout, porch size and placement, and Yes zvinctozv sizes ~ind pnttei•ns s)tvt~ld entry level and location. hcrrmottize rvrth the~ hisforrc - While roof is flat roofline is compatible Yes context. historic house. - Door and wu~dow sizes and patterns on A~enda Item # 5C Pa~e #13 publicly visible elevations consistent with guidelines. Yes L. Porches - Introduction of the east-facing, visually Pord~es nre: tl~c predorninant -visual predominant front porch is consistent Yes element nf hoc~ses...there crre veri~ with the guidelines fezv examples of houses ~vithot~t pvrches. 5. Wherever open arens exist belo~v - The proposed porch is shown to be Maybe yorcl7 floors, they sltould be skirted faced wid~ solid shicco. zc~ith operr l~rttice or dense sltrttbbc:ri . M. DecksBalconies - Deck is at side/rear Yes 2. S~cond stor~ decks in the fi~ont of a buildrnQ ~re genernll y inappropriate il~nless incorparated irifo ~rn existing element sueh ~as porch or poi~tion of building. 3. Llnpairtted redzvood is - Detail rcgarding deck needs to be Maybe inappropriate for use rn the provided. district. This application represents the first proposal to construct a modernist addition to a modernist hottse in Mapleton Hill historic distriet since the area was designated in 1984. Staff has researched past examples of additions to non-contributing buildings and free- standing new construction, and determined that most designs have been executed in a neo-traditional manner. Notable exceptions are second-story additions at 726 Pine Street and 501 M~pleton Avenuc both undertaken in 1995 (see Attachment D), shortly after revisions to the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines. The memo for 501 Mapleton explained the basis for the recommendation (which was subsequently approved by the Board) as follows: "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 desi~,ms 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 detailin~ are stron~;ly 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, entry location, roof type, and door and window sizes and patterns should be considered when proposing new in-fill construction." A~enda Item # ~C Pa~c #14 In 2003, the Landmarks Board adopted the General Design Guidelines in order to provide over-arching guidance for exterior work to buildings in all of the city's historic districts. Section 5 of the Guidelines, Additions ta Non-Historic Buildings in Historic Districts states that those guidelines are "more flexible ' than those for historic buildings but should „ respect the mass and scale of the of the district", and that, "Projects will be evaluated on these issues and the overall impact on the character of the district". Section 5 also references Section 6 of the Guidelines Nezu Primary Buildings, which states that: "While new construction should fit into the historic character of the district, it should not replicate historic styles. Instead, new consfruction should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the histaric district while also conveying a contemporary style. Fundamental characteristic to be considered in designing ... include: site and setting, building size and proportions, materials, and the placement and style of doors and windows." While the proposed remodel and addition to the non-contributing house at 2299 4'h Street represents an overt contemporary design statement, staff considers it well-considered and contextual to the existing house and immediate streetscape and one that is generally consistent with the historic preservation ordinance and applicable design guidelines. FINDINGS: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed demolition, reconstruction and second story addition are generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 10-13- 18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design Guiclelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends conditional approval based upon the understanding that the applicant will submit additional details for the design as identified above when they become available for windows, doors, porch and balcony detail, stucco, parking and curb cut, decorative details, and color for final review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate. Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: 1 The existing house is not individually, architecturally, or historically significant and, thus, its demolition, reconstruction, and addition would not adversely affect the special character of the Mapleton Hill District and the proposed building will be compatible in terms of mass, scale, or orientation with other buildings in the district. (10-13-18,(b)2, B.RC). Agenda Item # SC Paee #15 2. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used the proposed remodel and addition to the house will be compatible with the character of the existing historic district. ATTACHMENTS: A: Biographical Information on Gale Abels B: Photographs C: Applicant letter, Site Plan, Elevations, construction and Perspective renderings of proposed D: Photographs of 726 Pine Street and 501 Mapleton Avenue S:\Plan\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic DistriMs\Mapleton Hill\4th.2299\03.07.07 memo with edits.doc Aeenda Item # SC Pa¢e #16 Attachment A L. Gale Abels Boulder Years In 2000, a Historic Context and Survey of Modern Architecture in Boulder, Colorado 1947 - 1977 was prepared for the City of Boulder. That report included a survey of 66 buildings considered to be the most important Modern buildings in Boulder designed by architects and constructed during that 30 year period. As mentioned in the report, every effort was made to include all the finest examples of Modern buildings designed by architects, including L. Gale Abels. Three of Abels' designs - the Tye Dental offices at 1150 Maxwell Avenue, the Tippit House at 525 Aurora, and Art Hardware at 1135 Broadway were included in the report. In addition, the authors considered Abels as one of a first-rate group of Modern architects who had spent considerable time during their professional careers in Boulder, and who may be regarded as acknowledged masters of local architecture. In addition to the three buildings included in the survey, Abels designed the following projects in Boulder: • 2711 Mapleton Avenue • 3100 6th Street (residence) • 885 Circle Drive (residence) • 2299 4th Street (residence) • 934 Pearl (Abels converted it to office space in 1971) Background L. (Lewis) Gale Abels was born on August 18, 1927 and earned a Bachelors degree in Architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1946. He continued on to earn a Master of Architecture degree in 1952 from Harvard's Graduate School of Design, where he studied under Walter Gropius. During his early career, he worked for Eero Saarinen and Associates before moving to Colorado. He was employed by W.C. Muchow Associates before starting his own practice in Boulder in 1962. Abels love of flying carried over to his architectural practice. He was known for his architectural designs of smaller, regional airports. After his semi-retirement in 1992, Abels designed only residential projects. On September 26, 1995, Abels passed away in Boulder after a battle with leukemia. 2299 4th Street The original design of the house has been reported to be a collaborative effort between Abels and Helen Davis, who with her husband Bob owned the home from its construction in 1970 to its sale to the Higleys in 2006. A~aENqd rTEEF~i # ~C PACi~ ~ S.\PLAMdata\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Hisronc D~slncts\Mapleton Hill\41h.2299\4th 2299 Gale Abels wrrteup.doc 3/1/2007 The design of the home is considered Modern and some architectural similarities can be seen between Abels' own house at 3100 6"' Street and this building. The use of light stucco with dark horizontal banding at the roofline is also similar in design to that used on the Tippit House at 525 Aurora, although the Tippit House presents a more complex fa~ade to the street. The body of work of any architect will fall along a spectrum which represents a level of importance or significance over his or her career. The 2000 context and survey report identified the Tippit House as one of Abels more significant projects in Boulder. The house at 2299 4th street, while clearly reflecting Ables' hand, was not considered as significant, and was not specifically called out. According to Boulder's General Design Guidelines, significant newer buildings are those that have achieved architectural significance as excellent examples of their period. The definition of a non-contributing building includes those erected outside the period of significance and that are not individually significant. According to these definitions, 2299 4"' Street would be considered a non-contributing building. ?C5~h11Ctp dT'~RM # S ~+f~q~ - ~~ S\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS'IIALTCERTS\Histonc D~stricts\Mapleron H~II\4th 2299\4th2299 Gale Abels writeup.doc 3/12007 Attachment 13 S~ ll _ : >,~~s'~=C~Ir :asx G`t!~t1x' . _ ~ -/S@.~.i- , .,~:~:.~~~ ~~ _~~:~,~~ ~ ~~_.~.=.~.E~~: ~ Attachment C LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (LPAB) APPLICATION CALLED UP FROM DRC February 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to remodel a non-contributing building and construct a two-story 2,490 sq.ft. addition to a height of 32'-6" at its rear all at 2299 4th Street, in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. STATISTICS 1. Site: 2299 4`" Street 2. Historic District: Mapleton Hill 3. Zoning: LRE 4. Owner/Agent: Thomas K. Higley 5. Date of Construction 1970 6 Historic Name(s) Bob & Helen Davis 7 Existing House 1,700 sq. ft. above grade 8. Request: Addition of 2,490 sq. ft. second story, renovation and addition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • Applicant Thomas K. Higley, and ApplicanYs Architect, Harvey M. Hine, appeared before the Design Review Committee of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board on August 23, 2006, September 6~" 2006 and October 11, 2006 in connection with an Application for a Landmark Alteration Certifcate to construct a 1,839 square foot second floor addition, 561 square foot main level addition, 89 square foot garage addition, and reconfigure the basement to about equal square footage. • During more than one of the DRC meetings, Bob and Helen Davis - the original owners of 2299 4~" - were also present. • The culmination of this process was a determination by the Design Review Committee at its October 11, 2006 meeting that a Public Hearing and Full Board Review were necessary • The building, in a Modernist style, was constructed in 1970 outside the period of significance, and although members of the DRC asked whether the bwlding might be a"significant newer" building, the City Staff found that the building is not "significant newer" and is therefore non-contributing. • In terms of mass and scale, the remodel and additions to the main house are generally consistent with Section 5 of the General Design Guidelines, Additions to Non-Historic Buildings, Section F of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, and Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) of the Boulder Revised Code. PROPERTY HISTORY: This application is presented in connection with the home located at 2299 4t" Street in Boulder, Colorado. This property became a part of the Mapleton Hill Historic District when the District was extended from the original legal description bounded .. "on the west by the center line of 4'" Street from Mountain View Road to the alley north of Concord Street" to include the west side of 4`". Several of the homes on this side of the street are more modern in character than much of the rest'of the District, and this is certainly true of the structure at 2299 4'", and this is perhaps why the west side of 4`" Street was not originally part of the District. The house was designed, at least in part, by Gale Ables, with substantial support and oversight by Helen Davis. Construction on the home was completed in 1970. Because the r:C:E6~9UH ~fVi a $C I~!!Q~ ~. home is modern in character, was "erected outside the period of significance," is not "individually significant," and is not a"significant newer building," it is a non-contributing building within the meaning of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines (MHHDD Guidelines). The current submission calls for the construction of 2,490 sq. ft. in additions, including construction of a 1,839 square foot second floor addition, 561 square foot main level addition, 89 square foot garage addition, and a reconfiguration of the basement to about equal square footage. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The existing one-story house has a floor area of approximately 1,700 sq.ft. above grade, is located on a large 11,802 sq.ft. lot fronting 4~" Street, and is bounded by a creek to the west. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: The building is not historically significant as defined by the Boulder Revised Code, the General Design Guidelines or the MHHDD Guidelines. According to the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, "All pre-World War I buildings are significant, and most buildings constructed through the 1930's are considered as significant." Section IV, Period of Significance. The building at 2299 4'" Street was constructed in 1970, outside the period of significance. The building was jointly designed and its construction supervised by Gale Ables and Helen Davis, who owned the home together with her husband Bob Davis until it was purchased in November 2006 by the Applicant. PROPOSED ALTERATION & ADDITIONS: Design Process The design criteria in the General Desiqn Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Desiqn Guidelines combined make an interesting design process for the addition to a "Modern" house located at 2299 4`" Street. It is our belief that the guidelines encourage the use of traditional elements such as porches, vertical windows and street front entries, to be incorporated in a s le that is consistent with the original house, ie. the architectural style know as "Modern". The guidelines recommend the use of traditional massing and proportions in conjunction with a street setback that is consistent with existing block patterns, however this is not related to the style of the house. The General Desiqn Guidelines state; "Alterations to non-contributing buildings built in a recognizable architectural style should preserve and respect that style ".."Locate structures within the range of alignment seen traditionally in the area, maintaining traditional setbacks at the front, side and rear of the property."... "In areas characterized by vertically proportioned facades, buildings with a horizontal emphasis are inappropriate." (figure 10) The Mapleton Hill Historic District Desiqn Guidelines state; "For additions, do not replicate historic elements; this practice creates a false image of what is historic."... "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 if the District, such as overall mass, rooflines, windows, porches, front entries, etc. However, innovative ways if incorporating such elements and modern expressions of detailing are strongly encouraged." :-;faF.~C~H~N/4~' `~`~'AC~s~Mr~~ James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Boulder, has stated that there are no precedents in the Mapleton Historic District where a Modern house has been added to. The "innovative ways" of incorporating traditional elements in a modern style are untested. To start the design process, we have photographed historic houses in the immediate neighborhood to understand the massing, color, composition and detailing of the traditional elements. We have been meeting with James Hewat and Alice Gilbertson to review the photographs and discuss how to use these elements in a modern vocabulary. Their response to the design process and the submitted designs has been very favorable. With their help the following design issues have been identified and addressed. Massing (figure 1) - Many of the houses in the neighborhood have similar asymmetrical massing and that is what is proposed in this application. The open porch is closest to the street. A little further back from the street than the porch is a solid bay that is one story in height and smaller in scale to the main portion of the house. The two story main structure defines the rear of the porch and typically has one to three windows on the second floor facing the street. The entire composition is asymmetrical however the elevations are well organized and aesthetically pleasing. In our design we have followed the same massing principles. Although modern in shape, the sizes of the building masses and relationships between the elements are directly derivative of the local context. Porch (figure 1+2) - Most of the houses in the vicinity have porches. The porches face the street and are very transparent. Most often the porches have four columns and three bays, however two and four bays are also prevalent. The porches have either open picket rails or are resting on a masonry knee wall. The columns are either square or round, sometimes minimally decorated and often very plain. Figure 2 shows pictures of typical square columns. The roof of the porch is low pitched adding to the horizontality of the porch. The walk leads in a straight line from the street to the porch. Usually the walk is inclined up to the house and the porch has two to three steps. The walk usually aligns with the front door of the house. The porches are very light in nature compared to the main portion of the house. As written in the Mapleton Hill Historic District Desiqn Guidelines; "The impression given by this is that the porch is an appurtenance to the house, rather than a integral part of the structure." The porch that we incorporated into the design is cognizant of all of the above. The porch has four steel H columns with concrete knee walls between the posts. A flat roof caps the columns. Two steps lead up to the porch and a front door. A mailbox, house numbers and seating add to the residential qualities of the porch. Windows (figure 3) - Windows in the neighborhood are usually vertical in proportion. Often the windows are grouped three together. Smaller single windows often square, special shape or ornately detailed are used for highlights or punctuation. We were careful to follow window patterns of the district. Most of the windows are vertical and grouped three together. Snap-in mullions are not used. Picture windows are not visible from the street. Paint schemes and colors (figure 4) - Most houses in the vicinity have similar color schemes. As stated in the Mapleton Hill Historic District Desiqn Guidelines; "Many schemes use one body color, a contrasting trim color, and a small amount of a bright accent color " Similar to other Modern houses (including other homes designed by Gale Ables), 2299 Fourth Street has a light stucco body with a 3 foot tall, dark, wood band at the roof. Dark wood walls and fences are also used as accents. Our goal is to combine the color scheme of the existing house with the Mapleton Hill Historic District Desipn Guidelines. We hope to keep the existing materials and colors of the house with an added trim color. We have chosen "cottage red" from the Benjamin Moore historic colors for our trim color. The color is a dark rust color similar to brick, common to historic ikGEP~CD4~ ~YJR #s .`~C .c~4t~F ~~~ houses both as a field and as a trim color. Refer to figure 4 for pictures of houses with similar trim color. Landscape - The existing landscape consists of overgrown juniper bushes, a 29 foot wide drive, and gravel the entire length of the sidewalk. (figure 6) The landscape does not conform to the neighborhood Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. However, the landscape does hide the blank fa~ade of the house, the lack of any street entry presence, and the lack of any architectural detail or interest. The submitted landscape plan is schematic and is subject to change. Our current thought is to follow the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. We propose street trees to match the existing street trees. The front yard wili be planted with a drought resistant grass. Shrubbery will be planted up against the house and porch. The landscape will be simple, environmentally friendly and consistent with that found generally in the historic district In the TV series Star Trek, in order to become a Captain one had to pass a test that was "a no win scenario". Of course Captain Kirk was the first candidate to actually beat the test. We hope that our goal of adding to a modern house in the historic district is not a no win scenario. We have used rigor, talent and a methological process in developing our design. We feel that we designed a Modern structure that is not only consistent with the historic fabric, it will enhance and enrich the neighborhood. We would suggest and emphasize that this application should be evaluated and judged in the proper neighborhood context and the character of specific area of the Mapleton Hill Historic District (the "District") which is the portion of the District that is on the west side of 4`" Street and also the area directly adjacent to there, south of Mapleton where Highland and Pine Streets meet 4'" Street. To judge this application out of its context or apply standards, which govern historic structures in other parts of the District, would not be correct or appropriate. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a landmark alteration certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18 B.R.C. Specifically: (a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (b) Neither the landmarks board nor the aty 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 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; and (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) of this section. ~f;~~~DU R7~hN ~SC M ElC;~ ° :/_ ANALYSIS Additions to Non-Historic Buildings, 5.0 5.0 Guidelines Analysis Conforms? .1 Follow Guidelines in Section 2.0 Site The proposed design is Yes Design generally consistent with this section in terms of setback and spacing. (f ure 10) Building's orientation to street is Yes consistent with historic houses on the street. Entrance to the house will continue to face onto 4~" Street. The location of the main entry Yes. and walk will be preserved. The garage will be located in the Yes. same area and extended slightly to create the modern version of a porch area. .2 Not appropriate to construct an Although the proposed addition Yes addition that will detract from the makes the house larger than the character of the district by original Gale Ables/Bob & Helen overwhelming existing buildings in Davis house, the design breaks terms of mass and scale. up the mass in a manner that keeps it consistent with the mass, scale and character of houses in this section of the 4~" Street and Highland portion of the Mapleton Hill Historic District .3 Alterations to non-contributing The proposal seeks to make the Yes buildings built in a recognizable house compatible with the architectural style should preserve district without overwhelming the and respect that style. character of the streetscape, and the ApplicanYs Architect, Harvey M. Hine, worked for the original architect of the home, Gale Ables. Both Gale Ables and Harvey Hine are considered outstanding Colorado architects with particular strength in modern design This proposal seeks to enhance the home in a manner entirely consistent with the Modern architectural style of the original and it preserves and respects that style. ;.r~hiad~~.F'^~~~.^~Ntl;}~ -`~~i*d~~°=~-+ Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines The Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checkiist of items for comp~iance. fts purpose is to create awareness of the character of the District before property owners propose alterations to their properties. It is recognized that there is great variety in the architecture of Mapleton Hill and that not all guidelines will be appropriate to all properties. Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines VI. (Emphasis in original) A. STREETSCAPES Guidelines Analysis Conforms? 1 Preserve the general alignment Although the original building did Yes along the street. Porches, if not include a porch, the appropriate to the house and proposed addition incorporates designed according to the the idea of a porch that is appropriate guidelines, are consistent with the appropriate encouraged even if they encroach guidelines and is consistent with into the existing alignment. (See the alignment of the other Section E. and Section L. for building houses on the street. alignment and porches) 2 Maintain the same spacing between The proposed addition maintains Yes houses. Additions to existing houses the same spacing between should be set back from the front houses and the second-story fa~ade so the visual quality of addition is set back from the spacing is preserved. front fa~ade so the visual quality of the spacing is preserved 3 Maintain the openness between the The openness between the Yes street and the house. Front yard street and the house is fences are not traditional and if used maintained with an emphasis on should be open in character and traditional elements of porch, appropriate in material. Wrought iron front door and fa~ade, and wood pickets are traditional expressed in a manner fence materials (See Section O. consistent with the architecturaf under fences). style. 4 Maintain the overall sense of size of The proposed addition respects Yes the building when additions to a the size of the existing building house are being made When adding and the buildings in the upper stories on smaller, one-story immediate neighborhood to the houses, a full second story is north, south and east The upper generally not appropriate. (See story is broken up in a manner Section T. for additions) that supports the massing and scale of the neighborhood in a manner consistent with the architectural style of the original structure. 5 Maintain the traditional approach to The proposal incorporates a Yes the house from the street front. more traditional approach to the When desirable for reasons of entry than the original by placing internal design and when the entry a swinging door in the place facing the street is still maintained, where a traditional door would other entry points may be be located. considered. 6 [Not applicable.] ~`~4..:aq~~~.. ~Y~~r,:;. `~~irC<~C~-.~ B. SITE Guidelines Analysis Conforms? 1. Accessory buildings such as sheds The proposal maintains and Yes and garages, and driveways should extends the existing garage, be located at the rear of the lot as is reinterpreting it with the facade traditional. Adding them between to offer a treatment more existing buildings interrupts the consistent with the rh thm of the spacing. nei hborhood. 2 Accessory buildings should generally N/A N/A be small in scale and mass and simpl detailed. (N/Aj 3 Sidewalks should be rectilinear and The proposed alteration Yes should maintain traditional patterns maintains the traditional parallelin the streets sidewalk patterns. 4 Traditional landscape patterns We propose street trees to Yes should be maintained, with street match the existing street trees. trees, specimen trees as focal The front yard will be planted points, and massing of shrubbery with a drought resistant grass. near the house. (See Section C. for Shrubbery will be planted up landscaping) against the house and porch. The landscape will be simple, environmentally friendly and consistent with that found generally in the historic district. 5 Satellite dishes and other No satellite dishes or other Yes ' mechanical devices should be mechanical devices will be located out of site or screened. visible from 4~" Street. F. MASSING 1 Guideline Analysis Conforms? Any addition to a building should The existing building is Yes preserve the existing symmetry or asymmetrical to the street. The asymmetry. addition preserves the asymmetry and is consistent with the other houses in the areas. 2 The vertical or horizontal proportion The current house has a blank Yes of a building's mass should be one-story fa~ade facing the preserved. street. There is no reason to preserve the horizontal quality of the existing fa~,ade. It does not fit into the historic context The new design has massing and proportions that fit into the neighborhood architecture. (fgure 10) -.t~:~~~-~c~ a~~~~ ;- J~C .~~<,~~~ . ~7 3 The impact of the massing of large The addition is not large in Yes additions should be reduced by relation to surrounding houses. using one story elements or (figure 5+ 7) The second floor minimum plate heights instead of addition has a narrow street introducing a full second story. presence and is set back from the existing first floor structure. Minimum plate heights have been utilized. T. MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES Guideline Anal sis Conforms? One story structures built after 1940 The modern structure was built Yes may lend themselves more in 1970 (after 1940) is therefore appropriately for renovation. more appropriate for renovation. Whether a traditional (full) second The building's context with story is appropriate will depend upon neighboring structures and the the building's context with streetscape as a whole strongly neighboring structures and the supports the second story as streetscape as a whole. ro osed. 1 Major renovation or the addition of a The building is neither historic Yes full or partial story that affects the nor significant. It is not character of a historic structure is not necessary to preserve the appropriate. An addition to the rear, proportions of the existing or in some cases to the side, of a far,ade. Locating the addition to historic structure is generally more the rear of the site would violate appropriate than raising the height of section 2.2.1.2 of the General a building. Design Guidelines which states: "Building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district. For example, many areas are characterized by relatively narrow lots and vertically proportioned front facades, taller than they are wide. In such an area, it would be inappropriate to introduce horizontally proportioned facades." fi ure 10 2 Although oversized dormers may NA Yes make the best use of interior space, they are usually not appropriate. More than one smaller dormer is usuall more appropriate. 3 Major exterior renovations to post- The addition is in the same style Yes 1940 structures should respect the as the modern existing house, existing structure insofar as possible. and uses the same materials as Specific Mapleton Hill Design the existing structure. The Guidelines should be consulted addition not only respects and when considering design elements. preserves the existing structure, it enhances its street appeal. The design of the renovations and additions to the existing ..r.:~~.q~i"')~.~ ~ru'~~'rlel.:." ~,,;r~GaK~~. ~~ structure is entirely consistent with its Modern design. 4 New additions should be designed Even though the structure is not Yes and constructed so that the historic, features of the existing character-defining features of the building have not been radically historic building are not radically changed or obscured. The changed, obscured, damaged or character of the structure is destroyed in the process of Modern and all changes rehabilitation. proposed respect and enhance that character. 5 New design and construction should The addition uses the same Yes always be differentiated from older architectural vocabulary as the portions of a building; however, the existing structure. Since the addition should respect the existing existing building is neither roof forms, and bwlding scale and historic nor significant, we massing. believe that blending the addition with the existing building is acceptable. Roof forms, building scale and massing of the addition respect the existing buildin . The following statements demonstrate that this application meets applicable criteria and support the approval and issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certifcate for this project. 1. "In general, the guidelines for additions to non-contributing buildings are more flexible than those for historic buildings, with the exception of site design guidelines (Section 2.0 Site Design) and the respect for the mass and scale of the district. Projects will be evaluated based on these issues and the overall impact on the character of the district " Section 5 Genera/ Design Guidelines. This encourages the applicant to be innovative in designing an addition and we feel directs the Landmarks Board to be flexible in its review of the proposal. 2. Massing and scale of the proposed house seems not to be an issue. Neither massing nor scale is at odds with the character of the homes in the neighborhood, particularly those nearby. 3. The proposed addition/alteration follows the guidelines in Section 2.0 Site Design. Section 5.1 General Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed addition/alteration does not ovenvhelm existing buildings in mass and scale and therefore does not detract from the overall character of the district. Section 5.2 General Design Guidelines. 5. The proposed addition/alteration is to a non-contributing building built in a recognizable architectural style and makes a point of preserving and respecting that style. Section 5.3 General Design Guidelines. 6. The home is modern. Homes of a modern style (i.e., 1920-Present), generally described in Section 1 4 of the GDG, includes two-story dwellings. Indeed the illustration in Section 1.4 of the General Design Guidelines is of a two story "modern" structure. 7. The Boulder Revised Code is to be understood in terms of its stated legislative intent "to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic and architectural heritage ... and its intent that "alterations to .. buildings .. and new construction will respect the character of each setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them." So it would not be missed, this language of the Ordinance - emphasizing its intent - is called out for special attention in the General Design Guidelines and placed in italics. 8. It cannot be the case, that modern architecture, which is presently in evidence throughout the district, is per se "incompatible" with the "character of the district." Where this true, the General Design Guidelines and the MHHDDG might be expected to require that modern .:~a~im§ ~ 7~'. 1~~=.~ity e:, f ~ i~~F~2~-9,~; ~ structures be replaced with older looking buildings. Instead, the language of the General Design Guidelines is unambiguous in denouncing misguided attempts to make "newer" buildings "look old." 9. The MHHDDG is particularly strident on this point. The character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District is acknowledged as diverse, and that characteristic of the district is to be respected: "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." (MHHDDG Section T.) 10. It can be strongly argued that at least two elements that contribute substantially to the "character of the districY' provide substantial support for the proposed addition/alteration at 2299. First, the MHHDDG argues that a"diversity" of "architectural styles" is a hallmark of the districYs "character." And the Site Design portion of the General Design Guidelines provides an equally strong statement to suggest that Site Design is itself a principal component of the districYs "character." Further, the additionlalteration to 2299 4`" will repair a clear violation of one of the express prov~sions of GDG 2.1.2. This provision strongly encourages an emphasis on the same verticality reflected in the surrounding neighborhood structures. (The illustration that accompanies the text of this provision of the General Design Guidelines places a large X over a structure that is horizontal - because it conflicts with the verticality of the neighboring homes.) Figure 10. 11. "Site Design (GDG 2.0). Site design includes a variety of character defining elements of our historic district and buildings. 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, create much of the context of the neighborhood. In combination with public and private walks, fences, tree lawns, landscaping and retaining walls, the site design features help to define individual sites and the relationship between public and private space in a neighborhood." Section 2.0 General Design Guidelines. The proposal in this application is entirely consistent with the context of the neighborhood and very much compatible with the character of the area where this house is located. 12. Section 2.1.2 of the GDG notes that "building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district. For example, many areas are characterized by relatively narrow lots and vertically proportioned front facades, taller than they are wide. In such an area, it would be inappropriate to introduce horizontally proportioned front facades." 13. "New construction within a historic district can enhance 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." Intro to 6.0 General Design Guidelines. This proposal is for a Modern addition to an existing Modern structure that is neither significant nor historic. 14. "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." Section 6.1 General Design Guidelines. 15. New construction should be a product of its own time. Create compatible contemporary interpretations of historic elements. Section 6.1.1. General Design Guidelines. 16. "The overall proportion of the building's front fa~ade 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 surrounding buildings as to loom over them." Section 6.3. Genera/ Design Guidelines. 17. Historic heights and widths as well as their ratios should be maintained. The proportions of the front fapade are particularly important and should be compatible to those of surrounding historic buildings. Section 6.3.3. General Design Guidelines. 5~'- . v~ ,~,.~~~r~tis~'~r~,tiaROt,. _~~~~~~~_- Based on the foregoing and the other materials submitted with this application, the applicant respectfully requests that the Landmarks Board approve this application for a Landmark Alteration Certificate for 2299 4`" Street in accordance with this application. ,. E;,-i~~~~! ,,.. i~'~ka~~ ;~ 5~ irfav~~, 3/ ,~ `~ ~ ~, ,, ,~ {{ ~_ _ __ _ _I---__. ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~t o~i f,~ /\ ~;~r _ ,°' ~-~, , , ~j_ _ ':t,~ • `i~'' J~ L ._" 1.-;~. !~ ~~~ -\ ~. ~ ~~~ "_ =i__~ -"~ ~ ~ -J ' ~ l~ i.~' Y?1 S L ' -~- L-- ~ ~ . -• .J 5 ~, -r~':,, (~ ~i1 ~' ~,.t ~ 1 _ s r ~ r ~ L } ~ , f ~ ~ i_' ~,~~^ ~ _ 7 J ~ \ t. i ~ r~` ~ i 7 i l ~ _~ ~ -~~, , \ ~ . r~ k~V~V~ ~dILY ~ ` , ~ =,~`~ 1 . ~ -- ~_-_ ` ~ - -; tL - ~ ^ :' '' ~~ ~` ~s `S " ~%'~ ~ -~~ ~ ~ py l~~j ~j ~ y I~ d , , -~ ~ = ' ~,_ ` o~n u,~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ (~ { ~ ~ ~ y ~~ t~ . , v/ ~ I ~ ~~{~ ~ ~~~j~f~ ~"'~~~~j~ luu~l "~~ ~ ` o00 .~ . 1 ~' ~, _ - `,'<~ : i I~LIi~l1lll III IIII~ll1LlIIII . - - - ~.'1 ~`~ ~ry IR"C~-} ~-f1ZF.E_-f feE~ t~, 2.ob-~ -- ~~gT ~-LEVl~fION HAR~E`~ (~IN« r_ ~ ~_O ~, ~ ` ` / ~ u \ ~~~ _ ~' , ~, ~ --- ~, F-„~~,- ~ S~.~LiFrnly aNi ry ~~n~M ~} , p 1~ = n°~t~l Noti~rn~l~ h~.~~~ LvoL' yt ~d~{ 1~3~ts Hl:rlno~ bl~ L Z u ~ ~ ~,? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-~f ~~ ~ ~ ^ Q~ ~~ ~ -._~_ _ ~i ~. _-'___-,I,~ __, _,'~-- ___ ~~~. ____.-. _ -~i -- ,~_Ir_~_, ' _-~._~~~.-~ ~ --~i, ~ t\ ..~~.. -_ .`_=1f___. .~~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S _ ~ i ~ ., l . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 I, ~ ,.~ '' 1 -- . ~ ".- - ~ ~ . 229q PoutzTH gTREET ~ ~~.5 ~5 ~ 4.00-~ ~ ~~ <.-,~ J~'t,~ c ~ ~ ~,:+... ( \~ G^- t- ' ~- _~/ J ~_=x~ Sc~u1H ELE.VAT1oN ~~ ~t'% ~~ ~ ~~ •^~ -- ~r!~_-~ 1 N I d b`I-o FIAR~/E'( }{itJE. ARL.hIITECT~ ~~~~ i , .' % ~ ~" a -~-,: i~~, <._ ~`~ t::' ___~~ -~~. --~ r-' ~. ___- -., t` :~ _ ._:~r_._'=_. ,__ ,_. ~ -.._ _.~ 1--r~ ~I L;2_`~`~ rC~UKTH_~i~P£F._T WEST F_LEVAC1oiJ ~~I~p =l,-0,1 f'k.P.~ 15 , 2 0~~ ~'I,~RVE~( liirlE hKUi h-EC'f5 . \ ~~ \I '. ~ ~ ~ SITE PLAN ~~„~ ~ ,,,.,., _ ,, ,,,, HARVEY M. HINE ARCHITECTS 2505 WALNUT STREET, SUTT'E 300 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 WWW.HINEARCH.COM 303444.8488 2299 FOURTH STREET BOULDER,COLORADO i -~--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FIRST F ,~ ~~ ~ HARVEY M. HINE ARCHITECTS 2505 WALN[1T STREET, SUITE 300 BOULDER, COLORADO 60302 WWW.HINEAACH.COM 303444.&}88 2299 FOURTH STREET BOULDER,COLORADO , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-------~ i i J n L :Ti z ~ b -.~ m ~ ~ J~ ~ ~ Sv2 ~ BASEMENT PLAN M ~, HARV~Y M. HINE ARCHITECTS ~-~' 2505 WALNO P S7'REET, SUl'I'E 300 80ULDER, COLORADO 80302 W W W HINEARCH COM 303.444 6488 2299 FOURTH STREET BOUL.DLR, COLORADO i i L - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ J PLAN '~ ~ t D ~ ~ ?,~ ~ HARVEY M. HINE ARCHITECI'S ~ 2505 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 300 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 W W W H W EARCH.COM 303.444 8488 2299 FOURTH STREET I~OULDEIZ, COLORADO SECOND FLOOR PLAN HARVEY M. HINE ARCHITEC"PS 2505 WALNUT STREE't SUITE 300 BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 W W W HINEARCH COM 303494 8488 2299 FOURTH STRE~7' BOUI.UI'sR, COLORP.DO L J Attachrne~.t D 726 Pine Street, 1996 2"°-story Addition and Remodel ^ •~ Y~ ~ ~! ~ , ti-; Y t , ~ -. ~ . . ~ ~ 1 ~. ~ .:~ ; -~ - ` ` . ~ S t . r i r/ ~ ~ ~~ ~L ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ,1, ~ ~ ~ i ° ~~ ` ~, ~. l ` 4° ; ~A "- ~ a `• ~ ~ ° ~• d~r ~ ~ .1' ~~ ~ ' • ~ ~ . ~ ~~ , . ~..~.~.y , ~ ' :-i'` - ~ ` ' ,},~-~,~ ~. ~~ ~ , ~ . i. ~. ~ r ~_ i :s. ~: ''~ i ( ~ 1 w ``~ L' ! ,~GS~ ~`sr"~ ~~ ` k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E . _: . ~I~ ~'' ~ !.'~ 1 ' Y`.,{~ ., ,~ . ~ r ~ `f- wd ~ ~ '' " ., :.~ t, ~ , ~~ ~~~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ .~r~ " t ~ ~~ . ~ ` 3 , ' m ~~ ~: ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~ k ~+' y ` .n .. : . ~ ~ ' ~~ t ,~7 - - . '-~. ; ' . . ~ ~r~a~,^rrsa~~~,r t - ~ ~ .~ ~ , ~ ;~t x ~ J ?~; ~ ~~ ~ i~~l~~: :"~ ~-. ~~.,.~4 f , ~' a. . A I . ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~... ~' ~._ ~~ ~ ::,r. ' ~ . }~,` , . _ . _ _ W ~ ,t , ~i~; ~;;1, .a~' ~,u~;~._~~, ~ ~• . . _ _ ~ m•, S~ ,"~'~^+~.... ... .._. ._ _. . -- -. ~ ~ " ; m ' ~ . _ . pL..e..~ _ ~ ~ ~-~.-o- , , ~.. ._^ .. ..,....-.:~.~.. , . ~.. - .u..l. ~ I . . ~ ~ ~.-~- . . ~ . ~. ? ~..~...a.-sv+Y .... .. .. _. . .;v»+ "'~,~„-~. . . _ . .... . ~..~ _ . . '~+~v.y_ ~.;,_ ~ _ . . .. .......+~.,.,_.-..u,.+.-k.-~ . ~....V:.a.a. : ' • . r.-" r.ew~r-' ~ . ~ . . . [__x..~ . ~ ..,, ".:.% .. ~_ ... ..,: - . ~ , . . ",. . ... . . --r••~w+c .,.._.:~' ~~-+c»..,.u~4R+~i'~k,.-JS• . ... ~ . ~ ... . _ .,w ~ ' . ~ -~ . . ..~. ~. ... .: .w..u_.~ .. , ~ _. ~. _.... ""...._. __ -.. .... _ _ ~ .w . ~. , .. ... .. .... . .- :'..~'°'~ ""'"~. .: .ty„_ ...,.w-..~. ..t . ~ , .. ::.~"y.`"'~"... ~ : ~'_ ~ .-. . ....., . "pi~i~-;~.. _.., ... 501 Manleton Avent~e. 1996 2f° Storv Addition and Remoclel •r :..t~j r " "_i~,~~.~~ ~ ~I •xr „~~'SadVr jl-A '~~ r_ • - - February 15, 2007 Site: 2299 4th Street Owner / Agent: Thomas K. Higley ,~~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ -'` • ~ ~' ~~V a~ ~ , .-. - , ~ ~ iN~ ~• ~ ~ '~, '• 1~~ 1. w~~ . r ~ , ` ~ ~'~ ~:.•: ~,~;« 1>11~~ ~1/1` 1 1 ~ ~ , ~ 1 , M'r°1 ~ ~~• 1 :ti~t' ~ ~~~ ~~r s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ; ~~' ~ ~~s ~ ~ ~ ~`r~ `N ~ ~ ~~~ ~,1* ~ ~~ i tti j. •~-~~~••~ ~ 1~ ~ r1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,1 ~~{,~•~_ ~ •~ i~~i ~f ~ L~ • ~~ It~ ~,- I, r ~~~ a ~ ~ F `~w:t ~' ,Y~•~'~-1 1.~ ' ''i~`2.~Y~1 . i '~!..vc ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,, ~ , '~ ° ~ ,+• ~ d . • 1 I • ~ .. . ; .~ - ~ ~ ~ - , -. r~ • ~ Prepared by: Harvey M. Hine Architects, P.C. LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (LPAB) APPLICATION CALLED UP FROM DRC February 15, 2007 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to remodel a non-contributing building and construct a two-story 2,490 sq.ft. addition to a height of 32'-6" at its rear all at 2299 4th Street, in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. STATISTICS: 1. Site: 2. Historic District: 3. Zoning: 4. Owner/Agent: 5. Date of Construction 6. Historic Name(s) 7. Existing House 8. Request: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 2299 4`" Street Mapleton Hill LRE Thomas K. Higley 1970 Bob & Helen Davis 1,700 sq. ft. above grade Addition of 2,490 sq. ft. second story renovation and addition. • Applicant Thomas K. Higley, and ApplicanYs Architect, Harvey M. Hine, appeared before the Design Review Committee of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board on August 23, 2006, September 6`" 2006 and October 11, 2006 in connection with an Application for a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a 1,839 square foot second floor addition, 561 square foot main level addition, 89 square foot garage addition, and reconfgure the basement to about equal square footage. • During more than one of the DRC meetings, Bob and Helen Davis - the original owners of 2299 4~" - were also present. • The culmination of this process was a determination by the Design Review Committee at its October 11, 2006 meeting that a Public Hearing and Full Board Review were necessary. • The building, in a Modernist style, was constructed in 1970 outside the period of significance, and although members of the DRC asked whether the building might be a"significant newer" building, the City Staff found that the building is not "significant newer" and is therefore non-contributing. • In terms of mass and scale, the remodel and additions to the main house are generally consistent with Section 5 of the General Design Guidelines, Additions to Non-Historic Buildings, Section F of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Gwdelines, and Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) of the Boulder Revised Code. PROPERTY HISTORY: This application is presented in connection with the home located at 2299 4`h Street in Boulder, Colorado. This property became a part of the Mapleton Hill Historic District when the District was extended from the original legal description bounded ..."on the west by the center line of 4'" Street from Mountain View Road to the alley north of Concord StreeY' to include the west side of 4'". Several of the homes on this side of the street are more modern in character than much of the rest of the District, and this is certainly true of the structure at 2299 4`", and this is perhaps why the west side of 4~" Street was not originally part of the District. The house was designed, at least in part, by Gale Ables, with substantial support and oversight by Helen Davis. Construction on the home was completed in 1970. Because the home is modern in character, was "erected outside the period of significance," is not "individually significant," and is not a"significant newer building," it is a non-contributing building within the meaning of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.) and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines (MHHDD Guidelines). The current submission calls for the construction of 2,490 sq. ft. in additions, including construction of a 1,839 square foot second floor addition, 561 square foot main level addition, 89 square foot garage addition, and a reconfguration of the basement to about equal square footage. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The existing one-story house has a floor area of approximately 1,700 sq.ft. above grade, is located on a large 11,802 sq.ft. lot fronting 4'" Street, and is bounded by a creek to the west. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: The building is not historically significant as defined by the Boulder Revised Code, the General Design Guidelines or the MHHDD Guidelines. According to the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, "All pre-World War I buildings are significant, and most buildings constructed through the 1930's are considered as significant." Section IV, Period of Significance. The building at 2299 4~" Street was constructed in 1970, outside the period of significance. The building was jointly designed and its construction supervised by Gale Ables and Helen Davis, who owned the home together with her husband Bob Davis until it was purchased in November 2006 by the Applicant. PROPOSED ALTERATION & ADDITIONS: Design Process The design criteria in the General Desiqn Guidelines and the Maoleton Hill Historic District Desipn Guidelines combined make an interesting design process for the addition to a "Modern" house located at 2299 4'" Street. It is our belief that the guidelines encourage the use of traditional elements such as porches, vertical windows and street front entries, to be incorporated in a s le that is consistent with the original house, ie. the architectural style know as "Modern". The guidelines recommend the use of traditional massing and proportions in conjunction with a street setback that is consistent with existing block patterns, however this is not related to the style of the house. The General Desian Guidelines state; "Alterations to non-contributing buildings built in a recognizable architectural style should preserve and respect that style." ... "Locate structures within the range of alignment seen traditionally in the area, maintaining traditional setbacks at the front, side and rear of the property."... "In areas characterized by vertically proportioned facades, buildings with a horizontal emphasis are inappropriate." (figure 10) The Maqleton Hill Historic District Desian Guidelines state; "For additions, do not replicate historic elements; this practice creates a false image of what is historic."... "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 if the District, such as overall mass, rooflines, windows, porches, front entries, etc. However, innovative ways if incorporating such elements and modern expressions of detailing are strongly encouraged." 2 James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Boulder, has stated that there are no precedents in the Mapleton Historic District where a Modern house has been added to. The "innovative ways" of incorporating traditional elements in a modern style are untested. To start the design process, we have photographed historic houses in the immediate neighborhood to understand the massing, color, composition and detailing of the traditional elements. We have been meeting with James Hewat and Alice Gilbertson to review the photographs and discuss how to use these elements in a modern vocabulary. Their response to the design process and the submitted designs has been very favorable. With their help the following design issues have been identifed and addressed: Massing (figure 1) - Many of the houses in the neighborhood have similar asymmetrical massing and that is what is proposed in this application. The open porch is closest to the street. A little further back from the street than the porch is a solid bay that is one story in height and smaller in scale to the main portion of the house. The two story main structure defines the rear of the porch and typically has one to three windows on the second floor facing the street. The entire composition is asymmetrical however the elevations are well organized and aesthetically pleasing. in our design we have followed the same massing prinaples. Although modern in shape, the sizes of the building masses and relationships between the elements are directly derivative of the local context. Porch (figure 1+2) - Most of the houses in the vicinity have porches. The porches face the street and are very transparent. Most often the porches have four columns and three bays, however two and four bays are also prevalent. The porches have either open picket rails or are resting on a masonry knee wall. The columns are either square or round, sometimes minimally decorated and often very plain. Figure 2 shows pictures of typical square columns. The roof of the porch is low pitched adding to the horizontality of the porch. The walk leads in a straight line from the street to the porch. Usually the walk is inclined up to the house and the porch has two to three steps. The walk usually aligns with the front door of the house. The porches are very light in nature compared to the main portion of the house. As written in the Maqleton Hill Historic District Desian Guidelines; "The impression given by this is that the porch is an appurtenance to the house, rather than a integral part of the structure." The porch that we incorporated into the design is cognizant of all of the above. The porch has four steel H columns with concrete knee walls between the posts. A flat roof caps the columns. Two steps lead up to the porch and a front door. A mailbox, house numbers and seating add to the residential qualities of the porch. Windows (figure 3) - Windows in the neighborhood are usually vertical in proportion. Often the windows are grouped three together. Smaller single windows often square, special shape or ornately detailed are used for highlights or punctuation. We were careful to follow window patterns of the district. Most of the windows are vertical and grouped three together. Snap-in mullions are not used. Picture windows are not visible from the street. Paint schemes and colors (figure 4) - Most houses in the vicinity have similar color schemes. As stated in the Mapleton Hill Historic District Desian Guidelines: "Many schemes use one body color, a contrasting trim color, and a small amount of a bright accent color." Similar to other Modern houses (including other homes designed by Gale Ables), 2299 Fourth Street has a light stucco body with a 3 foot tall, dark, wood band at the roof. Dark wood walls and fences are also used as accents. Our goal is to combine the color scheme of the existing house with the Mapleton Hill Historic District Desion Guidelines We hope to keep the existing materials and colors of the house with an added trim color. We have chosen "cottage red" from the Benjamin Moore historic colors for our trim color. The color is a dark rust color similar to brick, common to historic houses both as a field and as a trim color. Refer to fgure 4 for pictures of houses with similar trim color. Landscape - The existing landscape consists of overgrown juniper bushes, a 29 foot wide drive, and gravel the entire length of the sidewalk. (fgure 6) The landscape does not conform to the neighborhood Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. However, the landscape does hide the blank fa~ade of the house, the lack of any street entry presence, and the lack of any architectural detail or interest. The submitted landscape plan is schematic and is subject to change. Our current thought is to follow the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. We propose street trees to match the existing street trees. The front yard will be planted with a drought resistant grass. Shrubbery will be planted up against the house and porch. The landscape will be simple, environmentally friendly and consistent with that found generally in the historic district. In the TV series Star Trek, in order to become a Captain one had to pass a test that was "a no win scenario". Of course Captain Kirk was the frst candidate to actually beat the test. We hope that our goal of adding to a modern house in the historic district is not a no win scenario. We have used rigor, talent and a methological process in developing our design. We feel that we designed a Modern structure that is not only consistent with the historic fabric, it will enhance and enrich the neighborhood. We would suggest and emphasize that this application should be evaluated and judged in the proper neighborhood context and the character of specific area of the Mapleton Hill Historic District (the "DistricY') which is the portion of the District that is on the west side of 4'" Street and also the area directly adjacent to there, south of Mapleton where Highland and Pine Streets meet 4'" Street. To judge this application out of its context or apply standards, which govern historic structures in other parts of the District, would not be correct or appropriate. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a landmark alteration certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18 B.R.C. Specifically: (a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (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 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; and (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) of this section. ANALYSIS Additions to Non-Historic Buildings, 5.0 5.0 Guidelines Anal sis Conforms? .1 Follow Guidelines in Section 2.0 Site The proposed design is Yes Design generally consistent with this section in terms of setback and s acin . fi ure 10) Building's orientation to street is Yes consistent with historic houses on the street. Entrance to the house will continue to face onto 4`" Street. The location of the main entry Yes. and walk will be preserved. The garage will be located in the Yes. same area and extended slightly to create the modern version of a porch area. .2 Not appropriate to construct an Although the proposed addition Yes addition that will detract from the makes the house larger than the character of the district by original Gale Ables/Bob & Helen overwhelming existing buildings in Davis house, the design breaks terms of mass and scale. up the mass in a manner that keeps it consistent with the mass, scale and character of houses in this section of the 4`h Street and Highland portion of the Mapleton Hill Historic District .3 Alterations to non-contributing The proposal seeks to make the Yes buildings built in a recognizable house compatible with the architectural style should preserve district without overwhelming the and respect that style. character of the streetscape, and the ApplicanYs Architect, Harvey M. Hine, worked for the original architect of the home, Gale Ables. Both Gale Ables and Harvey Hine are considered outstanding Colorado architects with particular strength in modern design. This proposal seeks to enhance the home in a manner entirely consistent with the Modern architectural style of the original and it preserves and respects that style. Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines The Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. Its purpose is to create awareness of the character of the District before property owners propose alterations to their properties. It is recognized that there is great variety in the architecture of Mapleton Hill and that not all guidelines will be appropriate to all properties. Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines VI. (Emphasis in original) A. STREETSCAPES Guidelines Anal sis Conforms? 1 Preserve the general alignment Although the original building did Yes along the street. Porches, if not include a porch, the appropriate to the house and proposed addition incorporates designed according to the the idea of a porch that is appropriate guidelines, are consistent with the appropriate encouraged even if they encroach guidelines and is consistent with into the existing alignment. (See the alignment of the other Section E. and Section L. for building houses on the street. ali nment and porches) .2 Maintain the same spacing between The proposed addition maintains Yes houses. Additions to existing houses the same spacing between should be set back from the front houses and the second-story fa~ade so the visual quality of addition is set back from the spacing is preserved. front fagade so the visual quality of the spacin is preserved. 3 Maintain the openness between the The openness between the Yes street and the house. Front yard street and the house is fences are not traditional and if used maintained with an emphasis on should be open in character and traditional elements of porch, appropriate in material. Wrought iron front door and faqade, and wood pickets are traditional expressed in a manner fence materials (See Section O. consistent with the architectural under fences . s le. 4 Maintain the overall sense of size of The proposed addition respects Yes the building when additions to a the size of the existing building house are being made. When adding and the buildings in the upper stories on smaller, one-story immediate neighborhood to the houses, a full second story is noRh, south and east. The upper generally not appropriate. (See story is broken up in a manner Section T. for additions) that supports the massing and scale of the neighborhood in a manner consistent with the architectural style of the original structure. 5 Maintain the traditional approach to The proposal incorporates a Yes the house from the street front. more traditional approach to the When desirable for reasons of entry than the original by placing internal design and when the entry a swinging door in the place facing the street is still maintained, where a traditional door would other entry points may be be located. considered. 6 [Not applicable.] B. SITE Guidelines Analysis Conforms? 1. Accessory buildings such as sheds The proposal maintains and Yes and garages, and driveways should extends the existing garage, be located at the rear of the lot as is reinterpreting it with the facade traditional. Adding them between to offer a treatment more existing buildings interrupts the consistent with the rh thm of the spacin . nei hborhood. 2 Accessory buildings should generally N/A N/A be small in scale and mass and sim I detailed. [N/A] 3 Sidewalks should be rectilinear and The proposed alteration Yes should maintain traditional patterns maintains the traditional arallelin the streets. sidewalk patterns. .4 Traditional landscape patterns We propose street trees to Yes should be maintained, with street match the existing street trees. trees, specimen trees as focal The front yard will be planted points, and massing of shrubbery with a drought resistant grass. near the house. (See Section C for Shrubbery will be planted up landscaping) against the house and porch. The landscape will be simple, environmentally friendly and consistent with that found generally in the historic district. 5 Satellite dishes and other No satellite dishes or other Yes mechanical devices should be mechanical devices will be located out of site or screened visible from 4`" Street. F. MASSING 1 Guideline Anal sis Conforms? Any addition to a building should The existing building is Yes preserve the existing symmetry or asymmetrical to the street. The asymmetry. addition preserves the asymmetry and is consistent with the other houses in the areas. 2 The vertical or horizontal proportion The current house has a blank Yes of a building's mass should be one-story fa~ade facing the preserved. street. There is no reason to preserve the horizontal quality of the existing fa~ade. It does not fit into the historic context. The new design has massing and proportions that fit into the neighborhood architecture. (figure 10) 3 The impact of the massing of large The addition is not large in Yes additions should be reduced by relation to surrounding houses. using one story elements or (figure 5+ 7) The second floor minimum plate heights instead of addition has a narrow street introducing a full second story. presence and is set back from the existing first floor structure. Minimum plate heights have been utilized. T. MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES Guideline Anal sis Conforms? One story structures built after 1940 The modern structure was built Yes may lend themselves more in 1970 (after 1940) is therefore appropriately for renovation. more appropriate for renovation. Whether a traditional (full) second The building's context with story is appropriate will depend upon neighboring structures and the the building's context with streetscape as a whole strongly neighboring structures and the supports the second story as streetsca e as a whole proposed. 1 Major renovation or the addition of a The building is neither historic Yes full or partial story that affects the nor significant. It is not character of a historic structure is not necessary to preserve the appropriate. An addition to the rear, proportions of the existing or in some cases to the side, of a fa~ade. Locating the addition to historic structure is generally more the rear of the site would violate appropriate than raising the height of section 2.2.1.2 of the General a building. Design Guidelines which states: "Building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district. For example, many areas are characterized by relatively narrow lots and vertically proportioned front facades, taller than they are wide. In such an area, it would be inappropriate to introduce horizontally proportioned facades." fi ure 10 2 Although oversized dormers may NA Yes make the best use of interior space, they are usually not appropriate. More than one smaller dormer is usually more appropriate. 3 Major exterior renovations to post- The addition is in the same style Yes 1940 structures should respect the as the modern existing house, existing structure insofar as possible. and uses the same materials as Specific Mapleton Hill Design the existing structure. The Guidelines should be consulted addition not only respects and when considering design elements. preserves the existing structure, it enhances its street appeal. The design of the renovations and additions to the existing structure is entirely consistent with its Modern desi n. 4 New additions should be designed Even though the structure is not Yes and constructed so that the historic, features of the existing character-defining features of the building have not been radically historic building are not radically changed or obscured. The changed, obscured, damaged or character of the structure is destroyed in the process of Modern and all changes rehabilitation. proposed respect and enhance that character. 5 New design and construction should The addition uses the same Yes always be differentiated from older architectural vocabulary as the portions of a building; however, the existing structure. Since the addition should respect the existing existing building is neither roof forms, and building scale and historic nor significant, we massing. believe that blending the addition with the existing building is acceptable. Roof forms, building scale and massing of the addition respect the existin building. The following statements demonstrate that this application meets applicable criteria and support the approval and issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for this project. 1. "In general, the guidelines for additions to non-contributing buildings are more flexible than those for historic buildings, with the exception of site design guidelines (Section 2.0 Site Design) and the respect for the mass and scale of the district. Projects will be evaluated based on these issues and the overall impact on the character of the district." Section 5 General Design Guidelines. This encourages the applicant to be innovative in designing an addition and we feel directs the Landmarks Board to be flexible in its review of the proposal. 2. Massing and scale of the proposed house seems not to be an issue. Neither massing nor scale is at odds with the character of the homes in the neighborhood, particularly those nearby 3. The proposed addition/alteration follows the guidelines in Section 2 0 Site Design. Section 5.1 General Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed addition/alteration does not overwhelm existing buildings in mass and scale and therefore does not detract from the overall character of the district. Section 5.2 General Design Guidelines. 5. The proposed addition/alteration is to a non-contributing building built in a recognizable architectural style and makes a point of preserving and respecting that style. Section 5.3 General Design Guidelines. 6. The home is modern. Homes of a modern style (i.e., 1920-Present), generally described in Section 1.4 of the GDG, includes two-story dwellings. Indeed the illustration in Section 1.4 of the Gene~al Design Guidelines is of a two story "modern" structure. 7. The Boulder Revised Code is to be understood in terms of its stated legislative intent "to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic and architectural heritage ... and its intent that "alterations to ... buildings ... and new construction will respect the character of each setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them." So it would not be missed, this language of the Ordinance - emphasizing its intent - is called out for special attention in the General Design Guidelines and placed in italics. 8. It cannot be the case, that modern architecture, which is presently in evidence throughout the district, is per se "incompatible" with the "character of the district." Where this true, the General Design Guidelines and the MHHDDG might be expected to require that modern 9 structures be replaced with older looking buildings. Instead, the language of the General Design Guidelines is unambiguous in denouncing misguided attempts to make "newer" buildings "look old." 9. The MHHDDG is particularly strident on this point. The character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District is acknowledged as diverse, and that characteristic of the district is to be respected: "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." (MHHDDG Section T.) 10. It can be strongly argued that at least rivo elements that contribute substantially to the "character of the district" provide substantial support for the proposed addition/alteration at 2299. First, the MHHDDG argues that a"diversity" of "architectural styles" is a hallmark of the districYs "character." And the Site Design portion of the General Design Guidelines provides an equally strong statement to suggest that Site Design is itself a principal component of the districYs "character." Further, the addition/alteration to 2299 4'" will repair a clear violation of one of the express provisions of GDG 2.1.2. This provision strongly encourages an emphasis on the same verticality reflected in the surrounding neighborhood structures. (The illustration that accompanies the text of this provision of the General Design Guidelines places a large X over a structure that is horizontal - because it conflicts with the verticality of the neighboring homes.) Figure 10. 11. "Site Design (GDG 2.0). Site design includes a variety of character defining elements of our historic district and buildings. 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, create much of the context of the neighborhood. In combination with public and private walks, fences, tree lawns, landscaping and retaining walls, the site design features help to define individual sites and the relationship belween public and private space in a neighborhood." Section 2.0 General Design Guidelines. The proposal in this application is entirely consistent with the context of the neighborhood and very much compatible with the character of the area where this house is located. 12. Section 2.1.2 of the GDG notes that "building proportions should respect traditional patterns in the district. For example, many areas are characterized by relatively narrow lots and vertically proportioned front facades, taller than they are wide In such an area, it would be inappropriate to introduce horizontally proportioned front facades." 13. "New construction within a historic district can enhance 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." Intro to 6.0 General Design Guidelines. This proposal is for a Modern addition to an existing Modern structure that is neither significant nor historic 14 "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." Section 6.1 General Design Guidelines. 15. New construction should be a product of its own time. Create compatible contemporary interpretations of historic elements. Section 6.1.1. General Design Guidelines. 16. "The overall proportion of the building's front fagade 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 surrounding buildings as to loom over them." Section 6.3. General Design Guidelines. 17. Historic heights and widths as well as their ratios should be maintained. The proportions of the front fa~ade are particularly important and should be compatible to those of surrounding historic buildings. Section 6.3.3. General Design Guidelines. 10 Based on the foregoing and the other materials submitted with this application, the applicant respectfully requests that the Landmarks Board approve this application for a Landmark Alteration Certificate for 2299 4'" Street in accordance with this application. 11 ~ ~~: ,~ ;'1~ ' I: ;,a;~ : ,: },~ . ,1'~, :~ -~~, Ay. , ;y,>. ~~}~~i~~~.~'' ~ ,~ ~ ,. t~"C.~I. ~. ~}~~ :.~; ~ ~ ~ ~ . Massin g Many of the houses in the neighborhood have similar asymmetrical massing. The open porch is closest to the street. A little further back from the street than the porch is a solid bay that is one story in height and smaller in scale to the main portion of the house. The two story main structure defines the rear of the porch and typically has one to three win- dows on the second floor facing the street. The entire composition is asymmetrical how- ever the elevatians are well organized and aesthetically pleasing. FIGURE 1 i! ' ~ i. • ,~ ~ « ' 1 t~. .r I ~ ` , ti -,~1 -. ~:~: . Porches Most of the houses in the vicinity have porches. The porches face the street and are very transpar- ent. Most often the porches have four columns and three bays, however two and four bays are also prevalent. The porches have either open picket rails or are resting on a masonry knee wall. The columns are either square or round, some- times minimally decorated antl often very plain. The roof af the porch is low pitched adtling to the horizontality of the porch. FIGURE 2 1lllindows Windows in the neighborhood are usually vertical in proportion. Often the windows are grouped three together. Smaller single windows often square, special shape or ornately detailed are used for highlights or punctuation. FIGURE 3 Paint and Color Schemes Most houses in the vicinity have similar color schemes. As stated in the Mapleton Hill Historic Design Guidelines; "Many schemes use one body color, a contrasting trim color, and a small amount of a bright accent color." FIGURE 4 ~ a" ~~''`` ~; ~ ~~~,~ ~ ~.: . •<; ~~ , l,~ Sunshine Canyon Or ~ t ~'' 0c ti ~ ~01 I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L i/7 t ~ v ~ 9aplelon Av ~ ~I ~ ~ HighlandAve ~ ~ ~ : ~:~ ~; ~~.,~ ~~ a ~;~~ ~ G~ ce Q~o 5 St __~ ~ ~~~ }~ unta;n View Rd ~ 22 99 4th Street ~ Context t Existin Buildin g ~ FIGU RE 6 . ~~_ , r ,y `~'"~y '.~,,; '` ~ ,~,;~ ,~ . ,7^.y ~ r" n'' ~ > ` '4 ` ~ ~'~.~ ~?~.~ .~~~~ ~=sa._,~~ »~s ~~~~ eli~. M -~~'~--_~'1~ ~~~ ~ ~ - ~ .. . , i' • ' a -~~ ~ ~ 1 ~,~; ; ~ ` • ~.a ~ , r~, ~ •~• ~ P~'~. ~. ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~, r , , ~r ~ • e ~ °~ ~ ' " , ~~ ~~~~"Z ~~ + , ! ..~-a . '..~ ~__-~__... ~,,_ _ - ~~- - __ - _- , _,, .~ -~ =, r..- --- ~ - - ,. .~ s ` ,a+ ! ~ ~`s \ \ ~ f : • y ~ / ,~ View From East Looking West ~ ~~ View From North Looking South FIGURE 7 I "' ~ f1 . ~ M~ ~ r - 1 • ~ ~ s • ~ ~ ~ ~; 6~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~' • ,' " - • i i ~ ~ - ~ r ~~ ~ y I !~ • ~ ~~ ~ 1~ 1' 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ,~i ~ ~ • `'~` ~~ f ~ ~ • yq ~ ~~~,~,.~~• ~ ~~~`• a~ ' • + ~ , ~ r ~~ „ • ~•* v I ' . ~ ~~1 j•/ i~~ ~ `~ ~~1~ ~~`~ ti ~ ,~ ` ~ • ~,~ / ~ ~ ~ ~j r • ~~ . . ' • ~ ~ ~,. ~ ~ j , ~ i ~ ~~ ~ '~ '~ :~ w~ : i * S ~`~~r ~ o~~. . ~ 1~ 7'' ~ i 1~ ,~ ~ ~/ r ~,~ z a , ,~y ~. ~-,` ~~'~ ~; , ,.~ ~ ~~ • ` , \ . I . ~ ~ . ~! • . _ ~ + 0.e View from South Looking North ~~ ~ ~ ~1 ~,~ '' /f ti . , .~ ~ ~~ ~'~~ ~~ r~_ l ~!~ ', .~ " ~_ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~,~ `~ , ~ ; __ - : - ~ • 1 ~ ^ .~ ~ ~ ~ , ^ 4 't~'-~ ~ t P'~ 'r 'i ~v.. ;~ ~ _~ ~ ar .,~ t ~ ~ ~ ~,1 ~ y ~ ~ ,, , ~ ~ ~ / ~ - N ~,'' ` ~ . ~~ ~ ,~i - ~ Cn ~ ' _ ~ ~ ~~ - .~ ~ `#l~ ~~ ~ , ~' ~ _ v ~ r r~~ . , , _ _,, ~ i~ • ,_ , _ ~ -,~ ~.~: ~ •~ • ~ o ~. ~ ;~ ~ - , ~ I, _~: ,~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ - a ~ ~ i. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~~ ~ '~ r • ~ i~. ' o ~ / ^; ~ ~ ~ .. , ~. -~, ~ ' ~ ~' ' l ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ fr~ ~' ~: ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ m r ~' ~ .~ ~~ ~ • ~ _ I ~ ~ / ~ I'Tl ~ r /, ` ' ' - ~ ~ e ' c~ rn ~ ~ ^ ~~ i ~ ~# ~ o ~ ~ ~ \~~!~`r ' . M ~ 1 / , . ~~ f ~ `L. ~ ~ ~ ! t . ~ ~ ~ , O W ~ , I ' ` .. ~ ~ - 1 , , I-~ ~ Y ' ` ~ ~~ ' I i~ ~ ~+ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ IM ~- _ .. ~ .; _ ~ ~ - ~ ,~ f - ! • , ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i • . ~ ,~ ~~ ~ j~~ ~ >.•~'~ ~ ~ r ~• ~ yN 4^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ /~ -A ~' -~ ~~~~ ~~i,~ ~ t~ •~ r ~ ~ ~ +.,, • `'•~'+ r • ,~ ;1r ' ~• ! ~ ~ ~- • E, -* ~ -.-_ ' r .- _ r~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ =~ . ~~ - ~~ ~ ~ ' % ~- ~, ;. . . .r , ~, ,a ~' ~ ; ~^ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~, - `` ~ ( ~ + ~ i ~ / .~ ~ ~~ .. ~~f1' :~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ l~ l ~1 _ ~ ~ ~ _ Z a , ~ ~ (,~ ° ; . -~ ~ ~; ~ ~„ ~ ; ~ i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 1 ~ ~ _ , ~. ~ ~ ~. ~~ r' /~ ~ ' r ,'~ ~~~ ~ ~~1 ~ ~ ~ ~'`~ ,- ~ ~ rn o ,.~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~.;, _ ~ c~ ~ .1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~c is~ri~t~ a~~ ~r~~i~~~~a~ L~r~~~~r~s ~~~fd~~ H ~~tc~ r~ ~~ a i.~.~ ~~.~.~ The marked buil~ing is b~uilt ouui~e the ang~ of ~ypic~l se~~ac;cs anc acc~:pi~s a i i fUCii ~aCbR~ p21"C211L3b? OT ~fl~ G3C~ yard area ~nan ~G~ical. .~ ~ a ~. ~ ~ e.g ~, ~ s ~g ~v.'.~ E^'° rn ~'".aR , ~ p,,. r~y ~rw ~».i~ g ~,,. ~v rc oc' ~ F ~9 ~` ~ ~'3 °w,c~aml~~a~ r°cS~:a~si.~.•a~5n_ '~+~5 ~~:..w~~~.i,tl:~Snm ~~~e i^JS.i+aaa ~ l r'~ r~t~~~"`Y? OJ~ 52Y;~GlC,~:S'~ i;~ :i~~?~Ci'~ c~'!i °'v;;!?° ~~ i(! ~°~r~ ~^ i^T ~;~, ,] J; ~ ~ y.~. `~ ~,,~ =, n..r- -y, ~7, aC~ '%c v ~~rv~l!~"il.LJ~(.~.~. ~~ZDI~~~~! ~J~Il ~~G ~~ZrL ~. 1' ~'}r~ ~c.L," v1. ,:L?~/~ni.1l, Je~ / v. ~ JD(.ZL~ ~P~we~n tiLa ~uC~!.,'.I. JLR.Z;,~~~Y I.7.?ti~ :., y~ ~? LJ~t~~ ~T/.27i.~L:l~~` e^~i u;. , , , ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ i ro~c n= i ~ ro ^= =~ ~ .,~:,, ~vr f o-v~ ~` ,,,= r /~~'~e;~ ~~e~.~ed ~~on~ ~hE 5, ~~.; y,:e ~;ia; ~.~ w.~.ryc y, e~:; a~~;~~~e, :?; i~2 C~"OL~. T;~~'"0!Lt~cJ~'U'Ji~1~0'i"i~f'l ;tiGi~ ~";':~';Li, Oi^;~~~;:~d.u.iYG~ jf0%1~.~, cZ5 Z~1zli ~ ~S 51~~'l:~CtY SvG~CZ;'~o '/"2iZUp°~ p~'"::ry'~y'J ~~:~C~?~?~c CD~~~~~L~S ~0 ~ SZ'^S? Or ~' ~ u'~S~Li:i ~~1'L'~;!ii1:~J. ~,'2G.'1~ 0~~~~?1~`~ ~f~'..~ i?i"i;'YIJ.;~ ~!!i.'"~2YiC° G~j~ ~i~~i.u.1?2y~ TaCP~ ~~lF Si?~EEi ~±N'i~ _ C~e~vE?2G..7?~ G7': i~t~ Gl"~~i-2c*le:r~t S~~ll° vl' i.~'?P IZJtiis~,'~;1QS c~Ler~ ~r'?O~iei ° C v~' C OYl?-~~0;~'l~` ~0~"Ci1. ~'2~S T~G~~~~Yo ~YDJ1~2a ~!"lt wC.~l~'Ol!~ti~ ~?"~;~!Sl~OiZ , ~ ~ ~",''OT'Y[ ii22 ~~~b~:C ~0 ~,~1~ ~Y`~'v'~i~ S"~7Gi,4 ~~1~ ~~~~2~~? ~Si.~nl?SI2 ~ ~e"i!~e 17i sc~ 1 e ~o ~he ~~ei~ kbcr~ooa. 1'Y!u ??i'?;i~u7"~ ~~7?tiCYLIi'O ~°1'!D7"~iii~ ~~i?~~i2~ ~.OZDYI~~ ZO OYI~ ~+.DlU u"i ZI~C ~ ;'ZRY O~Lho LOt. ~~~22S,~a12a S~?'GG~~t~B~ aCC~SS01'l~~ cfi~''~ICL~C1'ZS L~i~?Zo ~Y[e C~~lEl~f r~efped frame tne rear ~rard. ~:~~~~~~o~~~ I i ^S I i ~~ ~~ ~ ,___. ._._ ~ I ... F .~ I ~'"i 3"O2.S ..:;ci"3~ ~?":`?~ 1~' `~~'-~~.:t1~~! I i ~~~DOi JOf12{: ?aC3u°S, ~UflQll i~5 `rVItI'; c il:;i"iL~~iwi °~~.vii~i:S ?.I"? IficDDt~'j.l"?a:~. ,I ~OCa ~~ 5~`~.'"UC~.7.:: ~~ 4~i? :i.~'1 '~~:E i~~ ~~ 0' a ~ c?1~i°lcr~~~~ SC~~ ~adition~':; ?n ~.~?e w ~w, ~L~~ ~~~~v ~a~La~na..~ ;e~b~cks Q.L LL~~ ~"CrLr Jl~C C:I~a ~G~ .,'t t~'i~ Nr~Ve~~~. ' ~~-.,,~ ~_ M~- r~~ c;~o~~ ~c~~ ~~ ow.~ ~ c«e~: ~~..~.~on~,~ ~a:=~__w ~~ ~-.~ _ w`~ ^C .~i_~ V~ L ~. ~'.'1 .r~..nC,~ ~r ~~, ~.:..' ~.~^,d..r_~+~ ;4~ CC.~ ~.~ .. l,~ ~ Ql:. ~~._y...;_ ~''~' _~iCiV?~ ~% !_~..~1.ni~1 ~t.'LJ w'~~ ~~rIl'~~~ 1 _'^1v(~~T_l~~i~'.~,~ _.....1~L _.~`.~~~~ ~~~;`:~'~ .~h:Cl.i ~~_C i r.~.~~.'!~'_1~,~~. `~ .,.:.1_..:': 0.:~ ~~.~^..p _~ ~ ',1/ ~'..~~ .,~ ,~':r u'.~ .,'L ~~ ~''~_,.._... .., ? i~ JC~.'...~° =_1;~..~,~.-7~ _ J- ~.,_v~'~: _.;_.~..,_ ---_.~._...~::Q~~. FI~URE 10