Loading...
6B - Public Hearing Handouts - Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a 3466 sq ft house & 440~I~i~~~ L~P~~~ I ~~~M ~~ Dear Members of Landmarks Advisory Board, 3 April 2007 As the owners of the property adjacent to 1710 Hillside Road, we appreciate this opportunity to express our objections to the current plans for a new house at the site, which the Board will be reviewing on April4th. The Roof. 1. The camber of the roof is too shallow. It would be acceptable were it steepened by 10°-20°. 2. The roof overhang (more than 12") is not in keeping with uf7v other houses in the District. 3. The bargeboards (apparently less than 6") give the roof a mean appearance. Their thinness is disguised by the rendition of shadow in the architectural sketches. A steep-roofed, one-storey house with donner windows for the attic bedrooms, similar in design to the existing houses, would be far more satisfactory. The Balconies. The balconies with their cedar shake trim are reminiscent of motels, or condominiums, and appear to be pasted on merely to break-up the 65' long frontage. There are no similar balconies in the district. The Trees. According to the plans the well-established trees and dense vegetation bordering the road will be removed, and only one ar two trees will be planted in front of the house. The large area of stucco would benefit from more trees being planted along the north elevation and this would help restore the original rural character of t11e road. 35 40 - - --- - ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 30 nr ~ ~~~3 80 year old juniper i~. _ ~ ~ --10 ~-_ 5 ~-- 40' ~ hist^ o~ all ~ 22' ., The elevation of the SW corner of 1710 is more than 40 feet above the NE corner. Violet =proposed stnicture; black= retaining walls; grey=construction footprint Retaining Walls? The constniction of retaining walls outside the stnictural perimeter is implied by the representation of windotivs opening to east and west. We assume that these retaining walls constitute an integral part of the house function, and as such must also comply with the Historic District Guidelines for Hillside road. In the following diagrams we illustrate conservative esticnates for the size and location of these retaining walls, based on the mapped contours of the site and Mr. Heuston's drawings. z.~- South T'OP East elevation of the building as depicted by Mr Heuston. BOTTOM Same elevation showing implied retaining ~;~alls. A= historic wall; B= inferred retaining wall; C= 3'G" safety railing D=Red terrain proftle at the east end of proposed house E=terrain profile at west end of the proposed house North The retaining wall shown to the west end of the house (B) starts at a height of 5' at the NW corner, and rises to 15 ' at the SW corner. It rises a further 10' southward, to meet the south retaining wall that slopes down 5' to the south side of the SE corner, where it steps down 10' tapering to less than 5' on the east side of the building. Due to its 25' height we place a safety railing above it with an elevation of 3'6". The highest part of this wall is 1 foot above the height of the house, and the mandatory railing is therefore 4'6" above the height of the house. Violations of set backs, building codes, and historic district codes ,q, ~, l. We have had to interpolate the precise location of the planned retaining walls. Their height depends on the distance from the walls of the proposed house. We assume that they must be at least 5 feet and possibly as much as 10 feet, as implied by Mr Heuston's east elevation which shows the ground falling ] 0' to the south of his house. In either case, because their construction is an integral part of the proposed dwelling, retaining walls surrounding the proposed structure would require a setback variance. 2. Although a smaller retaining wall may be possible*, we consider that a retaining wall and safety rail similar to that shown in Figure 2 mtist be considered an integral part of the design of the house, and thus violates the building code height restriction. 3. Tlle construction of the western retaining wall will endanger an >80-year-old juniper tree, through root destruction, soil-destabilization during construction, and due to a permanent lowering of the water table resulting from drainage channels presumably to be installed behind the retaining wall. This would violate the historic guideline safeguarding existing established vegetation. 4. The appearance of the house shown in the north elevation is deceptive. It does not show the retaining walls. The construction of retaining walls comparable in height to the house would violate historic district guidelines. *We note that the retaining walls can be eliminated using the house itself to retain the 20- 35° slope of the hillside. This would ensure that the house confonns to the existing topography as do all the other houses in the District. Roger and Krysia Bilham 3 April 2007 d~ ' . l ~ • ~r Sf E1 ~ D Z n ~ > ~r D S,D ~i ~ D ~ ~~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~[e.'g9a ~~$ ~ p SagE ~ ~~ i f 1 A g DAVID A. HEVSTCN RESIDENSE ~~ ~;~ !aR£ ~p~ ~ g e q w ! ~ BQl4DEA CQ 80302D ~~ ~ _ ~~ B ~i d 1N~1 Z 4 b'd"7 Co~ H~h r~ ~ ~ r. " Index ~` Apri14, 2007 ~* Landmarks Preservation Board Meetin~ ~. ~. ~. Item One: Applicant Summary - Background ~ ~, Item Two: Architect Summary - Design Improvements Item Three: Colored Home Perspective A Item Four: Attorney - Items of Concern W Item Five: Architect's Home Width Study '" Item Six: Architect's Home Sq. Footage Study " Item Seven: Historic Homes of Boulder County +~ Ollsen-Weems House - 1810 Hillside Road ~ Item Eight: Memorandum - Hillside Historic District .~ Contributing Home - 1810 Hillside Road ~ ~ . . . ~ ~. ~ ~ w Yr A r ~ ~ ~ 1r 1~ ~ ~ r Landmarks Preservation Board Meeting - April 4, 2007 Heuston Residence -1610 Hillside Road, Boulder, CO. "' Applicant Summary -Background i The lot is 12,032 Sq. Ft., almost double the typical City lot size of SOx125 Feet. The lot °' features 140' of frontage on Hillside Road, or almost 3X the frontage of a typical City of r Boulder lot within a Historic District. The footprint of the house is 1769 sq. feet, or less than I S% of the total lot. The city required front/rear setbacks provide a narrow and long "' East-West Building envelope. r The current zoning, outside of a Historic District would allow for more than 8000 sq. feet '"' of finished building space. It is my understanding that it was a resident(s) on West ~ Hillside Road that initiated the Historic District. The addition of East Hillside Road, where the property is located, was pushed through by Historic Boulder, not its residents. ^ +^ Prior to purchasing the property, on January 6`h 2006, I met with Historic Planner James Hewat in his in his office. I explained it was my desire to build a two story, "3400 sq. ^ foot, Craftsman home up on the lot with a detached two car gazage". He replied he "sees " no problem, keep the garage small". ~ The next six months after purchasing the property I reviewed the Historic General Design ~" Guidelines, primarily for New Construction. Further, I studied sq. footage, frontage ~ widths, and materials of the homes within the Historic District. In July of last year I engaged and Architect to incorporate the results of my studies, my ideas (and his) into ~' plans. ~ We worked extensively with the City's building department because of difficult setback " requirements, inclusive of the Pre-Application review process. It is universally agreed ~ that the site is challenging. A considerable amount of City Staff time, both at the Build Department, and Planning Department has be expended to date on this project. The plans W submitted at our first Landmarks Board meeting on February 7`h 2007 had been verbally ,,,, signed off by the Building Departrnent. `~ We have reached out to the neighbors and Community. On December 10"' 2006 we held ~. an Open House presenting our Designs with interested neighbors. We heazd no negative ~ comments regarding design. On Januazy 6`h 2006 I met with Historic Boulder, Inc. and completely reviewed the plans and Application file. The response was she "liked what ,. she saw" and "Cool". She saw no reason for the organization's involvement in the ~ project. ,. An Application for a Landmarks Alteration Certificate was first submitted on December ` 12, 2006 with a resultant Landmazks Board Meeting on February 7`~' 2007. At that meeting City Staff recommended the Landmarks Board approve the application. With no w+ neighbor objection to design, with no Historic Boulder concerns with regazd to design, ~ the Board voted 2 for, and three against, supporting the desired plans of the Applicant after an eight month effort. Consequently a resubmission was required. ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. r The last two months have been spent meeting with Staff on numerous occasions to address the recorded concerns of the Landmazks Board, with the inclusion of additional ~' ideas of the Historic Planner. Ninety Five hours of professional design time has been ~ expended since the last Landmarks Board Meeting. This resubmission recognizes and addresses many of the General Design Guidelines. w ~ 6.2 Sensitivity to Site: * Preserving a majestic tree on site ~ • Preserving an existing rock wall on site -• • Minimizing Site Disturbance ~ (burying gazage and hillside cut for main house) * Site plan emphasis "green spaces" " 6.3 „~ Sensitivity to Mass and Scale * The homes square footage is less than the ~ average of the four homes it shares frontage with on East Hillside Road • 25% of the homes in the District are Larger " . Simple L Design to further setback homes ,. street view. • Elevation demonstrates verticality with only .. 19' exterior wall to street. -~ • House width is less than average width of four homes it shares frontage with on i, East Hillside Road. ~ * 25% of the homes in District have longer widths „~ * The two garages that share frontage on East Hillside Road are larger in sq. footage. -- * Efforts made to alien proportions. ~ (windows, gables, walls) 6.4 "' Sensitivity to Materials .. * District Indigenous Stucco, Stone, and cedar shakes have been incorporated. " * District indigenous roofing material ~ And color have been incorporated. ~ Sensitivity to District .. * Craftsman Style Two Story Design * Detached Garage "' * Large Wood Brackets (include. Cantilevers) - * Window groupings * Have reached out to neighbors re: Design "' The application serves to preserve the Historic District as well as improve the home ,,, values therein the district. r ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ r Landmarks Preservation Board Meeting - Apri14, 2007 ^ Heuston Residence - 1610 Hillside Road. Boulder. CO. .. Architect Summary - Design Improvements since 1'~ Landmarks Board February 7`h 2007 ~. .. All parties (Board and Staffl agreed that the District Architecture was an "' `Bclectic Rustid' with "earthy and organid' elements. ~ * Introduced battered stone corners to "ground" the structure. ~ * SpeciFying cementitious hand troweled stucco with some variation +r in color as more earthy and organic. * Added stone base wainscot. ., "' Some Board members were concerned with the "Horizontality" of the structure, also width of street frontage created by the allowable building envelope. Several Boazd "~ persons recommended idea to break up plane "give the look of two structures with a "' lower roof in between". ~ * Reduced frontage width of house 11 feet (over 14%) with total reconfiguration " of floor plans. ~ ' Created narrow connector (10' long) between two structures of varied size. * Utilized different roof line heights of main structures to differentiate. "' * Introduced lower roof for connecter as recommended. ~„~ * Removed traditional horizontal Band Board. * Introduced 2levels of cementitous stucco to highlight verticality of house. ~ * Specifying stone work on one structure to differentiate structures. ,,,, * Created a perspective of house for the Landmarks Boazd to clazify the massing. ~ ,. Boazd Member suggested placing some square footage above gazage taking some mass from main house. Not possible, garage already at required height Set Back. .. .. r Board Member suggested "pushing house up hillside". Not possible, house already at reaz Set Back. .. ~ Staff Recommendations presented at meetings with Staff, Architect, and Applicant. ~ ,,,,, StafFwould like to see steeper roof pitch within confines of height set back. -- * Created two small front gables with steep pitches, increased pitch by 100%. ~, (this added benefit of increased verticality of structures) ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ,,. Staff felt fireplace/chimney was not "fitting". ~' * Removed fireplace/chimney. ~ Staff had concern with proportion of home, "should be grounded" with lesser upper level " size as compazed with lower level. ti * Introduced stone at base. ""' " Used stucco on two levels to lighten upper level. .. * Specified two smaller windows on second level. "' Staff had concern with fenestration. Thought thin windows were out of proportion. .. * Reduced main window grouping from four, to three, increasing individual ~ pane widths. r Staff had concern with fenestration. Questioned different heights of doors when utilizing ~ transom windows above some doors. * Changed doors to equal heights eliminating transom windows. "' Staff thought two 2x2 windows in west structure were placed unusually high on wall. ~ * Lowered two 2x2 windows to align with other windows. ~ ~ Staff suggested reducing width if possible with site constraints. " * Reduced structure width by eleven feet. ~ ~ r !~ r ~ r s ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ HEUSTON RESIDENCE tJ10 N~LLADE RD VIE`~/ LOOKWG SOU'fMWEST ~ ~~ 1. Archit u oV+.rn N9T FQq C9NSTRVGTI4N w '? o ..i ~ d0 Z w `° ~ ~v~ U ~j J ~ 2 Ip < O_a o rm > a 0 HEUSTON RESIDENCE .I. I~ ~ ~AT.03 a. ~~~, . ~.u~~ ~. ~ ~ ,,,,, Landmark Preservatio~ Board Meeting - April 4, 2007 Heuston Residence -1610 Hillside Road, Boulder, CO. ^ Attorney - Items of Concern Pazagraph included in Staff Packets at both Landmarks Preservation Board Meetings ~ of Februazy 7`h 2007 and Apri14, 2007 from Applicants Pre-Application Summary dated ~ 8/17/07 under item: ~ Historic Preservation: r The majority of Contributing houses in the Hillside Historic District feature "' compact footprints with narrow street facing elevations - typically less than 50 feet. r This is a false and misleading statement. "Typically less than 50 feeY' allows the reader to ~ interpret, or assume, then maybe 40 feet is a normal width. .. The Architects width analysis demonstrates that the average width of the four the homes ~" that are adjacent the Applicant, and shares road frontage with the Applicant on East ~ Hillside Road, is 65.25 Feet. ^ Architects width study indicates and overall District width of 57 Feet, acknowledging "' that Historic Guidelines allow for lazger new homes, utilizing a factor of 115 would equal an average District Width of 65.55'. ~ "" The only exception to this pattern is found at 1810 Hillside Road, which is considered a significant newer building. An additional statement notes that 1810 ~ Hillside Road is a non-contributing structure in "District History" area of Packet. ~ 1979 Publication "Historic Homes of Boulder County" recognized the "Ollsen-Weems ~ House" (1810 Hillside Road) as a significant Historical Stnzcture 28 Years Ago. ,. The "Memorandum" record from Planning Staff to the Landmarks Board regarding the original creation of the Hillside Historic District, dated March 7, 2001 determined that " "(1810 Hillside) is individually significant for its association with its Betty Weems ,,, Westfeldt, as well as a good example of Rustic Modern house, and is therefore considered contributing to the Historic District. W .~ Hillside Road is further characterized by large yards and generous spacing between houses. r .. This statement, as the additional two above, was never a part of the original Memorandum for the creation of the Hillside Historic District. r„ +. A review of the City of Boulder's Boulder Creek flood plain will cleazly explain the large ,~ yards on the north side of East Hillside Road. .. .. ~ r _ ~ _ Construction Logistics ,.. .. Only three parties from the Public spoke at the first Landmarks Boazd meeting on 2/07/07 regarding this Application - the three adjacent neighbors. In fairness to the Applicant, " we would now like to request, that if there are any additional speakers tonight, that .. they explain the how and why they chose to speak tonight. '"' The only concerns indicated by three adjacent neighbors at the previous meeting had to ~- do with construction scheduling/pazking/traffic, and road maintenance. The Applicant, on record, has a~reed to return the road to the same condition as when construction began at '"~ completion. The Applicant has also discussed with the Landmazks Board the creation of ~ additional pazking spaces for construction workers and a desire to wark with neighbors. The above items should be addressed by the Building Department permit process. Today, ~ with a Landmarks approval, construction would begin in September. Any further delay ~ would certainly cause construction to slow through the mud season, possibly a significant nuisance to the ApplicanYs neighbors. As such, we respectively request an Approval ~ tonight, and that any further design concems be remanded to the Staff level approval 'r process to expedite this application. ~ ~ Private Road ~ The Historic "General Design Guidelines" - New Primary Structures 6. ^. ,~ The primary focus in reviewing new structures will be on aspects that are visible from public streets. More flexibility will be allowed for areas largely screened from `~ public view. ~ r ~ r ~ r ~ r w. r w r A r w r ~ r r ~ Analysis of Home width of Four Homes which Share Frontage on East Hiliside Road (i.e. four homes in proximity/adjacent of Applicant) Width 1710 Hillside Road 55' 1708 Hills~de Road 63' 1709 Hillside Road 57' 1810 Hillside Road $6' '~ Total zs ~ ~ rr Average Div. x 4 65.25' ~r Applicant 65' ~ ~ r M ~ ~ W ~ 11~I ~ YI/ ~ ~ 1111 ~ A ~ • ~ A W Denver Off¢e 2301 Blake Streel ~ Soile 700 Demer Colorado 80205 ~2108 303 861 8555 Fax 303 861 3027 Davis Parinership PC , Architech Vml Off¢e 0225 Mmn $treet ~ Unrt C 101 Edwards Colorado 81632 970 926 8960 Fox 970 926 8967 ~ r Average Width Analysis - Total Hillside District 1707 West Hiilside Rd. 55 1708 West Hil~side Rd. 63 1709 West Hiilside Rd. 57 1810 West Hillside Rd. 86 1220 17th St. 36 1205 17th St. 56 1213 17th St. 58 1590 Hillside Rd 43 1600 Hiliside Rd. 70 1601 Hiliside Rd. 74 1605 Hillside Rd 40 1610 Hiliside Rd 45 Total 683 Average Width in District 57 New Construction per Historic Guidelines are allowed to be larger to accommodate trie needs of household today. A plus factor of just 15% would equal: 65.55' Average Width 25% of the Homes in the District are wider than Applicant . M e ~ ~ ~ Analysis of Gross Square Footage of Four Homes which Share Frontage on East Hillside Road (i.e. Three homes are Adjacent to Subject) House Garage 1707 Hillside Road 3891 0 ~ 1708 Hillside Road 2584 672 ~ 1709 Hiliside Road 3225 576 ~ ~y 1810 Hillside Road 4515 0 ~ Total House 14215 Totai Garage 1248 ~ Average Sq. Footage of Homes ~ which share Frontage on East 'r Hiliside Road Equals 3554 '~ Average Sq. Footage of Garages ii which share Frontage on East Hillside Road Equals 624 • ~ Applicant Sq. Footage 3466 440 s~ ~ A rr ~ r~ w ~ ~ rr r r Davis Parinership P C, Archrtects ' Demer OfFce 2301 Blake Sireet Sotle 100 Denver Colorodo 80205-2108 I 303 861 8555 Fax 303 861 3027 ' ~ I Vail Offi<e 0225 Moin Skeet ~ Unrt C 101 Edwords Colomdo 81632 970 9 26 8960 Fax 970 926 8961 ` Average Square Footage Analysis - Total Hillside District Hillside Rd Address Main/First Above Basement Garage Barrett 1 1590 905 650 Thomas 2 1600 1860 1860 1860 McAlpine3 1601 1462 1232 695 McCarty 4 1605 1294 994 1074 Levitt 5 1610 1218 784 616 Va~MeteB 121317th 1,586 1586 Manthei 7 120517th 927 819 Inez 8 1220 17th 699 559 216 Fogel 9 1707 1759 1066 1066 Bilham 10 1708 1038 856 690 Young 11 1709 1371 507 1371 Maxim 12 1810 3490 537 488 Totals House 17609 8395 11131 House Average Sq. Feet (Div by ! 12)Equals Totals Garage Garage Average Sq. Feet (Div. by 5) Equals Notes; Virtually all basements are walkout finished because of the steep grades in the district. `5580 400 280 308 400 240 `remodel 418 `3891 672 576 '4515 37135 3095 3294 472 New Construction per Historic Guidelines are allowed to be larger to accommodate the needs of households taday. A plus factor of just 15°!o wauld equal: 3560 Average House Square Footage 474 Average Garage Square Footage ' 25°/, of the Homes in the District are Larger than Applicant - , ~ ~~ ~ - ~~ ~9']~~EOC' I I ~„„~~,. ~ ..~~uu I~~~I li~lqll I~ I I i~ ii' I ~ I ~~J ,~bdbe i ~ ~ I i~nd b~~ ii ~~~ , BOULDER ~_"_~~:! I': L i GRARY I` R0000~35089 a ~ ~ ~~~_ . - :J: "~:, ~ ~ ,~ ,~ :.~' ~"t ~ : #!,k -~,. ~ ~y ~:,, ~, :_~„,. -~-. . ..-- ~ ~ ~~ , , ~ ~;: ~ il Rr~l Q~ ~~ ~ , --~~ - _ - T_ ~ _ _ ~~~~~ ,~ T ._ '~-,~=^--~~~:=,r.~.~ ~a~ ';ui~4 Ollsen-Weems House The Ollsen-Weems House nestles against the hillside at the end of a secluded lane. Boulder Creek flows along one side of the property, and cente- narian cottonwoods tower above the house and grounds. The house, at 1810 Hillside Road in Boulder, was built about 1948 by Matthew and Ellisabeth Ollsen. Originally it consisted of one large room, a kitchen, and a bath. The exterior gave the ap- pearance of an Eastern European chalet with split-log siding and cobblestone foundation. The second owners, Mr. and Mrs. Alfred W. Beffie, who purchased the property in 1950, added to the size of the house by linking it to a smaller cabin on the east; and they increased the number of rooms by partitioning the original section into a living room and two bedrooms. The Beffies also built a terraced wall against the hillside behind the house, using cobblestones Erom the creek. In 1970 Elizabeth Weems bought the house with the idea of remodeling it to suit the needs of her family. Her first project was to convert the attic into a master bedroom. She made use of the entire area by putting storage cubbyholes around the periphery and leaving the center as living space. She also added a bathroom and a sundeck. In the bedroom, and later in other parts of the house, she emphasized the line of the gables by filling them with triangles of glass, then repeated the tri- angles by placing beams beneath the peaks of the ceilings. In the process oF remodeling, the use of nearly every room was changed. This resulted in some inno- vative effects. The library, once the kitchen, now has a dainty water spigot and basin in place of the old faucets and sink. The present kitchen, which used to be a bedroom, had a large cedar closet. The closet is gone now, _ ~ ~ .a 79 ; When she added a large room to the north side of the house, Mrs. Weems left one log and cobble- stone wall in the entry hall. This combination of stone and wood contrasts effectively with white plastered walls of the new section, and also helps tie together the old and new. A two-story spiral staircase, one oE the home's dramatic touches, winds down from the master bed- room to a snug library. And from there it descends to ground-level bedrooms. The dining room, formerly the living room, has wood paneled walls and a sand- stone fireplace. Strategically placed mirrors throughout the house create interesting illusions. Some give the ef- fect oE windows by reElecting outdoor scenes; others expand rooms. The most notable change in the house was the addition of a large room extending out to the north. Built on cassons, it measures 28-by-35 feet. Large windows and one complete wall of glass combine with its height from the ground to give the room a "treehouse" effect. Three fireplaces extend along one side of the room, and a redwood deck stretches beyond the window wall. A spiral staircase descends from the deck to the front lawn and swimming pool. Beneath the room a breezeway, sheltered on the west by wooden partitions and gates, provides an- other living area. The swimming pool, designed by Mrs. Weems, is Forty-five feet long and ten Eeet wide. A massive wooden gate at the entrance to the home was designed and built by Howard Higman of Boulder. Ollsen, a mining engineer, was a native of Odessa, Ukraine. His wiEe was a native of Hungary, where the couple were married in 1923. AEter coming to Boulder in the early 1940s, Ollsen was associated with the Nederland Mines, Incorporated. Ollsen died in Boulder in 1970; Mrs. Ollsen died two years later. Mrs. Weems received a Master of Arts degree in Architecture from Rice University. In 1977 the house on Hillside Road was part of an exhibit-"Women in American Architecture"-held in connection with the National Women's Conference. Mrs. Weems was invited by the Houston chapter of Women in Archi- tecture to be one of some thirty regional and local ex- hibitors in the show. ~ ' _~ ~ ~+~ . •q ATTACHMENT C t~ E ~ .~ MEMORANDUM March 7, 2001 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Director of Long Range Planning Deon Woifenbarger, Preservation Planner Diana Lonergan, Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council conceming a request for designation of a potion of the Hillside neighborhood, as shown in Exhibit A, as a historic district under the City of Boulder Historic Preservation Code STATISTICS: Site: The area roughly being 15~' and 19~' Streets along both sides of Hillside Road; from 1590 - 1810 Hillside Road and from 1205 - 1220 17`~ Street; (see Exhibi! A: Proposed Hillside Historic District). 2. Zoning: LR-D (Low Density Residential Developing) 3. Applicant: Historic Boulder, Inc. INTRODUCTION: On December 15, 2000, the city Planning Department received an application from Historic Bouldcr, Inc. to designate a portion of the Hillside neighborhood as a local historic district. This application included the lots along Hillside Road west of 1'7`j' Street. On January 16, 2001, f-Iistoric Boulder, Inc. submitted an amendment to the initial application to include the lots along I-Iillside east of 17`h Street (see Attachment A for both applications). The district covered by the amended application is shown in Exhibit A. The purpose of this public hearing is for the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes and standards in Sections 10-13-1 and 10-13-3, B.R.C. 1981. The Board shall adopt specific written findings and conclusions approving, modifying and approving, or disapproving the proposal. Pursuant to the Preservation Ordinance, the Landmarks Board shall notify the Planning Boazd and the City Council of its approval or disapproval of the proposed designation. If the Landmarks Board disapproves the proposed desig.aation, the decision is final unless appealed to or c~lled up by the City Council. If the Landmarks Boazd approves the proposed designation, the Planning Board shall review the proposal and report to the City Council on its land use implications. In addition, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal and adopt specitic written findings and conclusions determining whether the designation meets the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 3/7/O1 RE: Proposcd Hillside Histonc District terraces, stone fence pillazs, and vegetation. Contributing structures aze those buildings built during the district's period of significance that exist in compazatively original condition, or t~iat have been appropriately altered or restored, and cleazly contribute to the historic significance of the district. Non-contributing structures are those buildings built during the district's period of significance that have been altered to such an extent that historic information is not interpretable, and restoration is not possible, or buildings erected outside the period of significance which are not individually significant. The period of significance begins in 1905, when Shattuck and Parce began thcir landscaping work in the area, and extends to 1938, when the majority of houses had bccn constructed. However, one building (1810 Hillside) is individually significant for its association with its Betty Weems Westfeldt, as well as a good example of a Rustic Modern house, and is therefore considered coniributing to the historic district. This property additionally contains a small contributing cabin (formerly 1844 Hillside) and historic landscape features. The district is signiFicant for its association with the growth and development of the ciry of Boulder during the early twentieth century and as a well preserved residential neighborhood of the same period. It is also significant for containing the residences of many prominent Boulder citizcns. It is significant in the area of landscape architecture, and for its association with landseape architect W. W. Parce and vernacular designer Edith Pollard. The neighborhood is also significant for its prominent location and its architecture, which represents popular building styles and construction techniques of the early twentieth century, as retlected in local building matcrials, tastes, and lifestyles. R~COMMENDATiON: ~ Staff recommends that the Landmazks Board recommend to City Council [he approval of the application for historic district designation of the area shown in Attachment A as a Local Historic District under the City Historic Preservation Code, adopting the staff inemorandum as presented above as findings of the Board. Staff recommends the historic district be named the Hillside Historic District. ATTACHi1~iC~1TS: ^ Exhibit A: ^ Attachmcnt A: Attachmcnt B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Proposed Hillside Historic District Applications for Designation - Historic District Significanee Critecia Historic photographs Copies of inventory forms Copies of historical reseazch Copies of plat maps