5A - Consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to retrofit 12 double-hung windows with therMEMORANDUM
October 3~d, 2007
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Intern
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration
certificate to retrofit 12 double-hung windows with thermal
pane glass on the house at 516 Mapleton Avenue in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District (HIS2007-00232)
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 516 Mapleton Avenue
2. Historic District: Mapleton Hill
3. Zoning: LR-E (Low Density Residential Established)
4. Applicant: Phoenix Window Restoration Inc.
5. Owner: Dennis Goggin
6. Date of Con struction: c 1904
8. Request: Retrofit historic windows with the "Bi-Glass°
system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board approves the retrofit of the twelve double-hung windows
on the contributing house 516 Mapleton Avenue as specified in the application
dated September 16"', 2007, finding that it meets the standards for issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the
conditions below and adopts this memorandum as findings of the Board.
This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions
listed above, the proposed window retrofit will be generally consistent with the
Aeenda Item #SA Pa¢e 1
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Histonc D~stric[s\Mapleron Hill\Maple[on 516\Window RetroFt LAQ103.07
memo final.doc
conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design
Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The retrofit of windows on the front and sides (primary and secondary
elevations) of the building should be undertaken using "clear", untinted
thermal-pane glass in order to preserve the historic appearance of the
glazing.
2. The Applicant shall be responsible for undertaking the retrofit in
compliance with that described in the applicaHon dated September 16'",
2007, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
SUMMARY:
^ This item was reviewed by the Design Review Committee in
August of 2007.
^ The Dutch Colonial-Revival house with gambrel roof was
constructed in 1904 and is a contributing resource to the Mapleton
Hill Historic District.
^ The proposed "Bi-Glass System° retrofit of the one-over-one
double-hung windows includes the replacement of the single pane
glass with'/z" "clear°, untinted insulated glass; replacement of a
rope and pulley system with a"hidden" balance system in the
upper and lower sash; installation of fiberglass insulaHon in the
weight pocket cavities; installation of compression bulb weather-
stripping in the bottom, top and meeting rails; addition of felt pile
to the vertical parting bead.
• The proposed "Bi-Glass° retrofit (with'/z", °clear" un-tinted glass)
will preserve original window casings, stiles, rails and not
significantly change the exterior appearance. Such a treatment is
consistent with Sections 3J (Windows), and 8.2 (Energy Efficiency) of
the General Design Guidelines, and 9-11-IS(a)F~(b)(1-4) of the Boulder
Revised Code.
Aeenda Item #SA Paee 2
S\PI.AN\data\longrang\HISl1ALTCERTS\His[oric Dis[ric[s\Maple[on H~II\Maple[on il6\Window Retrofit LAC\103 07
memo.final.doc
: ~
. ~+~ ,
n4~`~^t ~F..,TI .^ry _
~.. ... ___.r.....}~Yi . ~
Fi~ure 1. 516 Mapleton tlvenue, ,September 2007.
BACKGROUND:
In August of 2007, the application to retrofit twelve historic double-hung
windows with the "Bi-Glass" system was revicwed by the landm~rks design
review committee (ldre). The dre considered that the potential impact of
replacing the historic glass to warrant full Board review of the apj~lication for
consistency with the historic preservation ordinance, the Gc~neral Design
Giiidelines for Historic Districts nnd Individc~al Landrnarks and the Mc~pleton Hill
Historic District.
PROPERTY HISTORY:
The two and c~ne-half story house at 516 Mapleton Avenue was constructed in
1904. It is listed in the 1913 Boulder City Directory as being thc residence of
Ernest G and Lillian Veysey. Ernest Veysey operated a jewelry and optical store
on Pearl Street until his death in 1920. Lillian Veysey was born in Wisconsin in
1887 and came to Boulder in 1907 with her sister. In 1910 she married Veysey;
after his death she operated a student house at 1033 14t'~ Street until 1940, when
she moved in Chicago to be near her children. The house is a well-preserved
example of a Dutch Colonial-Revival residential architecture and is a
Aaendx [tem #SA Pa~e 3
5:\PLAN'~dulaUungranglHIS7~IALTCERI~S1Historic DistrictslMaplcton Ilill\Mapleton.ilG\Window Rctrnfit I.AC\10.3.07
memo.final.doc
catltributing resource t~ the Mapleton [-Iill Historic District. Character-definin~
features of th~ building include the c~ne-o~~c>r-one, double-hung ~vindo~vs ~vith
stone sills ~nd lintels.
REQUEST:
The applicant proposes to retrofit t~velve dot~ble-hung wood winciows ~vith the
"Bi-Glass" system. This system calls Eor the glass to be removed and the frame,
stile, and rails to be stripped and routed out to allow Eor'/z" Low E thermal pane
glass to be installed. The upper and lower sashes are to be retrc~fitted with a
"hidden" balance system, which is to replace an insulated rope & pulley cavity.
Compression bulb weather stripping is to be added to the top, bottom, and
meeting rails; felt pile is to be added tc~ the vertical parting bead. The original
~vindow sashes, interioc and exterior wood frames, casings and trim is specified
to be retained. The proposal does not call for the decorative fixed-pane windows
on tlZe front (primary elevation) or side (secondary elevations) to be retrc~fitted.
x ;~,., ~~~
. ~ ~.~~
,
..
Jy ~ "~%,"--: ~;`
,.
. ~ ~ y ~
~~' ~ ~~"
~
.+,
• ~ k
1 t
,~ $ .~~ ~y
_
i'~ ~ ~ /.e ~ ;
'
' /~
`~
• ..
1C .
~
S,.
~ ~ ~ ;,~,y ' ~
{ '.~.~
J ~ ^~ f~
,~ /~,
`9r / N
'
/:
~' `--~
~'~ f .
~ ..,r.
~,~- ~
J
) ~
` 4L ~~~~y(~/~
' ..{?' . ' 13~' '~~~~~~
~' v
~ ~
-
~~ 5 ~
\ 9_
~ ~
~ . i ~
1
f`
! '
~\
~~
.V'
~J' ~
~ S' - ,
~/l tfi~
S~ 'L.
£ ~
,
:
~t~~
. 4
'~. . .J
~ -
\~ M1~
. ^ .. ~ i `~ `
~ ' ~
}
~r.. f
f
~ I~
~
~ ..,~
~ N -1~v„ ~ .
2.':' - . ~`.
b
.
~ ~ . ~
.
, ~i". './
~ ~'JE
~ .
E` +r~ ~ ~Tr " _
N~ ~ ,.; .
e' x,_~ `~~ ~
~
~i
~ /
~ ,
;
~~ ~ .
~T~ .„ .
)f ~'
~
y
~! ~
_., I T r y
~
~
f
i
~
~ ".'' "'Y
"~? } .
.. .~
y ,~r. ~ R _' - ~ r '~
~ A
? ., -~
~ ,~ f. +~ ~.
~
~ ~ '
r ~
~
~
~
~ ~ '
i'
'
~
.
~. .: _
- : ~
a - , y~ r .
~
I
. . -
-~';
~
, -
, . ~
••T . .
~ .,y
.
°,"kQr~ `~ r . k ~
~ ~ ~~ ~% ~
'
• /
~
~.~~
~
~~
~~ ~ -~r ~`p/I, '
;:Y,4' {
- ~~ ' ~w
~
~i .. "~`
~ ~
= Y.
~ ,~yje •"
< .
-
,
~~ 5 ~
~' { ~ ,;
_
~
~ ~
6 ~
t; '
~ ,i
~
.3. 7 ~
~` , az
•~, .,~.`
~
,4°uo;,
, ~
~; - ]
.
t ~ ~ ,l ~ •v~'-
F . /~
, r
`s '
~ ~~ ~
~
~ 4 ~ _ .
~ 1 ..
`-
,ss
'
. f
• - s '~-F" k_ ;
} ~_ _ '~
~~
~ ,~
q
,
~(:
s
+ ,
~~il~'a!~ ~ ~~~
-~~" 1~ ~ ' ,l. ~-i~..r,.~,.--.
.~ .
. . -
~ '.. -.n.~~..
!7
- ~ L
y ; St~ r .~;.,~J_
J~~f y ..t .r~... ~ _ ._ ;%s:
. ~
:~~1`.~ .
' f A .. .
.~
Figure 2. 516 Mapleton Avenue, north-east corner
A~endx Item #SA Pa~c 4
~ I'I ,1~'Jata'Jon~ran_1fIIS~1Al.`fCERI~S\Historic Districts~Mapleton Hill\Mapleton.>1G1Windo~i Retrofit LAC110.3.07
mcnn~ tinaL~oc
"
,I : ~ .
~: ~
~ ~
,
`
~ ~~~~ ~~ r
_ }
,.,
~ ~
~
.
`
.r
Figure 3. 516 Mapleton Avenue, Window proposed for retrofit, north (primary} elevation
Figure 4. 516 Ma
y~
~
~~,;~a,~',~ x .r`~ ~ --
;~~
~ * ~
i ~
~ t ~~ ~.1~~„~i'~ ~~'4
ac~`~ V`:
# ~ :~ .{~ J~~,
th. S r , a
~. ~ ^~~.
L Y :fi 1'~'` K ~., '
p ~k !°eM'k
.~ ~ "~; 4~
,~ t t
t~ ` r ~,+'~~
e.s:~
~ -
r ;;
~t ,i,.*f Y - ~, .. :f ~ ~ -
~ ~
x x ~: `~ `" ,~ t o-
i ~~',F.- >~ ~ ~~, r .
~ +lr`~^ .~ ~+~'e ~y~ ~ i
,~t~ >~~~~~r~ t '
~~~0.5~"•Y-y*~~r ~YZ ~, .
i -
,~~~~ r
L~.;r" v _ Y.'
`
. ~ . . . , w;,n.*l:~y.x•r°..a.q..,.,~....,...~...
_ ..-r., b ..
pleton nvenue, Window proposed for retrofit, west (secondary) elevation
A~enda Item #_5A Pa~e ~
S:\PLANldata\longran~lFIISTIALTCERTS1Historic DistrictslMapleton flill\Mapleton.~l6~Windu~v Retrofit LACU0.3.07
memo. tinal.doc
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Lanc~mark
Alteration Permit may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it
meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-]8 B.R.C Specifically:
1. Does the pf•oposed nF~plication preserve, enhrrnce, or• resfvre, ancl not c~ar7ra~~~e o1•
ctestro~ tlte exterio~~ architecturrzl fentrr-~es of the lnndmnrk o~• tlte sre(~ject propert~
ZUlf~1li1 Ri1 lilSfOl'IC G~IStYlCf~
Response: Staff finds the propc~sed retrofit ~vill not damage or destroy the
exterior architectural features of the prc~perty c~r the district as the retrofit will
preserve all existing wood elements of the ~vindows including sashes, interior
and exterior wood frames, casings and trim. Th~ appearance of the windc~ws will
not noticeably chln~e as a result of the retrofit as sash ~re single pane, 1/1
do~ible-hung and removal/replication ~~E mtmtins are nc~t required. While the
windows are character-defining Eeattires of the hotise, in this case replaceinent c~f
the glass, most of the glass which appears nc~t to be histc~ric, ~vill not have an
adverse impact on the historic house (see design guidelines analysis section).
2. Does the ~~~oposed ctpplicatiort adve-~sef~/ ~ffect flte speCllil C~1LTYliCfL'Y Ol' S~7E'C117I IIISt01"1C,
ni•chitectrrral, or aesthetic interest o~• z~al~le of the ~tistrict?
Response: StafE finds that the proposed application wi(l not adversely affect the
special character or special historic, ~~rchitectural, or aesthetic interest or value of
the district b~cause the proposed retrc~fit will not adversely affect character-
defining features on the fa~ade and secondary elevations and is generally
compatible with the General Design G-ridelines and tl2e Mayleton Hill Histo~~ic
District Giridelines (see design ~uidelines analysis sectic~n).
3. Is the architectc~ral st~le, arrnngement, textt~re, colol~, a~~rcrngement of color, c~ntl
rnatc~•ials used on existinq artd proposed strt~ctt~res corrtpatible zvith tl~e c'hrrracter of
tl1f~ l~ristoric ~1ish~ict?
Response: The staff Einds that the proposal t be campatible with the architectural
style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials on the
historic building.
4. The Landrnc~rks Boc~rd is reqerirecl to consider tlle economic feasillilit~ of alternc~tives,
incorporatiorr of energy-efficierrt ~esign, and enhnnced access for the disc~Uled irr
cletermining zohetlrer to appl~oz~e rr Landntcrrk Alterc~tion Certifieate.
AQcnd.t [tcm #~A Ya~c 6
S^PI.;1N'ilata',Iun~~ran~ 111ST~:\I.TC'[?RTS',Ilist~,ric I)i,trict,'\lapl~iun Ilill'\1a~~leton.>I~i,~~lndo~c Rctrofit LAC',I(i ; ll;
memu.iin;d dnc
The Landmarks Board should consider the energy-efficient gains that will be
achieved by the proposed window retrofit.
5. Is t1Te pro~osec~ a~plicntion consistent zvitlz the pe~rposes of G2apter 9-11, "Histo~~ic
Pi~eservc~tion, " S.R.C. 1981 ?
Response: The proposed window retrofit respects the character of the setting,
does not imitate surrounding buildings, and represents contemporary, yet
compatible and energy-efficient design (see design guidelines analysis
section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelirtes to Eurther help interpret the
historic preservati~n ordinance. The Eollowing is an analysis of the proposal
with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used
only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a checklist oE items
Eor compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the applicable
design guicielines:
Section 3.7 (Win~ozns, Storryz Wivtdoivs, c~rtd Shi~tters), of the Gerteral DesigYi
Gt~idclines states that "Repair of historic windows is always preferred within a
rehabilitation project. Replacement should c~nly be considered as a last resort.
Guideline .3 of this Section goes on to state that, "Repair rather than replace the
functional and decorative feahires of original windows through recognized
preservation methods. If replacement of a feature is necessary, replace only the
deteriorated feature in kind rather than the entire unit, matching the materials,
design and dimensions of the original." Guideline 8 goes onto direct that, "If a
window that is divided into several panes of glass must be replaced, a similar
true-divided-light window that m~~tches the dimensions, profile and detailing of
the original is most appropriate. High quality simulated-divided-light windows
may be allowed if they maintain thc muntin size of the original window."
Aaend~~ Item #~A Pa~e 7
S:`f'L;1~ ~I;ila`Inn,ram~11I15T1ALTCERTSUIistoric DistrictslMapleton Hill\Mapleton.il6\~Vindow Ketrotit LAC\103.07
mcmo.lin;iL~i~~c
Fis;ure 5. 516 Mapleton Avenue, 2^~ -story window proposed
for retrofit, east (secondarv) Elevation
Section 8.2 of the Ge~rrer~rzl Desig~t Gtcideli~tes states that, "Energy conservation is a
growing concern for prc~perty c>wners today. In the historic districts it is
impartant to ensure that stich cancerns are addressed in ways that do nc~t
damage or diminish the historic character of the building, site or district." None
of the guidelines specifically addresses the potential of retrofitting historic
windows with systems such as "Bi-G11ss".
'I'he ldre has approved thc retrc~fit of historic one-over-one, sin~le panc windows
with thermal panes on sevcral c~ccasions finding th3t such a treatment ~vas, in
those cases, consistent with the ordinance and applicable guidelines. However,
in this case the Idr~ referred the case tc~ the full Board over cancern that
character-defining "~ld glass" c~n significant elevations of the building might be
lost. Additionally, concern has been expressed regarding the tint oE low-E
thermal glass and resulting chan~e to the character of historic buildings
retrc~fitted ~vith such glass.
A~cnda Itcm #~iA Pa~e S
S:~PLANldataUon~ranglHIST1AI;IC'GRTti111isturic I)istrictslMapletun Hi111Mapleton.>161W'indow Keirofit LAC110.3.07
memo.tinal.doc
N5w Exleriw WooO StOp
Sealanl
VS'
/ Olass
P
Exfshng .~ Wmm Etl9e Seai yy~~ Insulated Glass ~Ja, ~
Sash
us-
Glass
After. aiginal Sash glazed wifh '12" insulated glass unit
Figure 6. Window profile showing proposed retrofit of single pane glass
Staff considers the proposed retrofit of the'/z' single-light sash on the house with
the "Bi-Glass' system as generally appropriate and in generally in compliance
with the guidelines given that little "old glass' on the fa~ade (primary) and side
(secondary) elevations of the building appears to remain and the majority of the
historic material including casings, stiles, and rails of the windows will be
preserved. However, staff does agree that the retrofit of the windows on the front
and sides of the building should be undertaken using "clear" glass without a tint
in order to preserve the historic appearance of the glazing. With this condition,
staff considers the proposed retrofit consistent with sections 3.7 and 8.2 of the
General Design Guidelines.
FINDINGS:
The proposed retrofit of the single-light windows with the "Bi-Glass° system at
516 Mapleton Avenue will be consistent with the purposes and standards of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance in that:
The retrofit of the windows with "clear" un-tinted thermal-pane glass into
the exisHng sash and frames will not adversely affect the exterior features
of the contributing house or the special character of the Mapleton Hill
District (9-11-18,(b),B.R.C).
Aeenda Item #SA Paee 9
S:\PLAN\data\IongrangWlSiIALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Mapleton 516\Window Retrofit LAC\103.07
memo.final doc
2. The proposed retrofit of the windows with "clear" un-tinted thermal-pane
glass into the existing sash and frames complies with Sections 3.7
(Windows) and 82 9(Energy Efficienc~)of the General Design Gaiidelines,
adopted by the Landmarks Board as Administrative Regulations, and the
Historic Preservation ordinance, Section 10-13-18,(b)3, of the Boulder
Revised Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Inventory Form
B: Application
C: Photographs
Aeenda Item #SA Paee 10
S:\PLAN\da[a\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Hisroric Dis[ric[s\Mapleron Hill\Maple[on.5I6\Window Re[roF[ LAC\10.3 07
memo final.doc
COIORADO HIST ~AI IETr
Office of Archaeology and Nictoric Precrrwtim
1300 Broedway, Derrver, Coioracio 802p3
HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD
.~ Attachment A
NoT FOR FIELO USE
_ Eligible Mominated
_ Det. Mot Eligible Certified Rehab.
Date
PROJECT NAME: Boulder Survey of Historic COUNTY: CIiT: STATE 1D WO.: 58L4516
Places, 1994 Boulder Boulder
TEMPORARY NO.: 1461-25-4-08-004
LURRENT BUILDiNG NAME: O~IMER: RINGER YILLIAM A 8 LYNM U
516 NAPLETON AVE
BOULDER CO 80304
ADDRESS: 516 KAPLETON AV
CO 80302
BOULDER
,
TWkSHIG 1M RAMGE 71H SECTION 25 SE 1/4 NU 1/4
HISTORIC MAME: U.S.G.S. GUAD NANE: Boutoer, Colo.
TEAR: 1966 (PR1979) X T.5' 15'
BLOCK: 5 LOT(S): 10-11
DISTRICT NAME: ADDITION: Mapleton TR. OF ADDITION: 1888
FILM ROII NO.: 94-7 NEGATIVE NO.: LOGTION DF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTIDN:
BT: R. uhitecre 4 6oulder City Ping. ESTIMATE: ACTUAL: 190G
- SOURCE:
' Boulder Canty Assessor
1 . % -/
~' ~ ~.
~
- -.~` i'
- -
, 4. Y-~~ ~ "
.
~ USE:
-~ ~~- _ ~ ~ ' . PRESENT:
-_ \ '"
,~_,
- --==-
~ Residential
--
=- -- _ "'~•, HISTORIC:
`~ -_ _~
-Y' Residential
- -
~
' ~ _ -,- ------~-.~,_ ~ ~ ~ ~
~T-"
CDND I T I ON :
-~""'~~-'0" 4~ti
k.~4~ , X EXCELLENT GOOD
~
~~
FAIR DETER[ORATI
NG
EXTENT OF ALTERATIONS:
~•, f ~
~ MINOR X MDDERATE MAJOR
+:<
,~ ~
~
DESCRIBE:
,w ; ~
}r. ~~~ ;... Peinted brick.
" ~(~( ' #y"~
,F r •i
_ ' "~I
CDNTINUED YES X MO
STYLE: Dutch Lolonial Revival STORits: ORIGINAL SITE X MO'VED
1 1/2 DATE(S) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Brick, Nood, Stone S0. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBiLITT
1652
1NDlVI WAL: YES X NO
ARCHITECTURAL OESCRIPTION:
Front gembrel roofed d+elling ~ith shingled gambrel end with lowered vent with CON7R18UT1NG TO DISTRICT:
slanted surround and paired daible-h~ng uindows with shutters. Arched verge X YES MO
board; eave return. Pent roof over first story, ~hich is cortposed of painted
LOCAL LAHDMARK DESIGNA710N: No
brick. Hipped roof, shingled dormers. Stone fourxiation. Off-center porch inset
under eaves has paired colum supports, storie stairs and wall. Off-center, NAME:
paneled and glazed door with stwie lintel arxi threshold. Dat~le-h~ng winrlows DATE:
with stone sills and lintels; small, leaded glass window on east. Bay window ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? % TES MO
with beveled edges on facade hes da~le-h~g uindows with stone sills and TYPE:
lintels; also two-story bay on west uith beveled brick on first story and Garage
shingled upper story. Painted brick chirtneys_ Hitching post in front of house. If INVENTORIED, L1ST 1D NOS.: ~
COMTINUED? TES X MO
AODITIONAL PAGES: YES X HO
It~r~~ S~ F~gE~_ ~ ~_ __
ARCHITECT:
Unkno~+n STATE ID MO.: SBLb51b
_
ORIGINAI ONNER:
Unkno~n
SOURCE:
~ SOURCE:
f
t:
BUILDER/COMTRACTO
UNcno~m
THE
E
S
M
C
):
SOURCE: Urban Residential Neighborhoods
,
1858•present
CONSTRUCTION HiSTORY CDESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATIMG TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGIIiNL STRUCTURE):
COHTINUED TES l( NO
HiSTORICAL BACKGROUND (DISGUSS 1MPORTAHT PERSOMS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED YITH THIS STRUCTl1RE):
The 1913 city directory indicates that this was the home of Ernest C. and Lillien Veyaey. Ernest Cherles Veysey operat~d
e jewelry end optical s2ore on Pearl Street uitil his death in 1920. Liltien Veysey wes born in Wisconsin in 1887 and came
to eoulder in 1907 uith her sister. In 1910, she married veysey. After his death she operated a student house at 1033
14th ~til 1940, when she moved to Chica9o to be near her children.
CONTINUED YES x NO
SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLT JUSTIFT BELOY):
ARCHiTECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTOR1C/1L SIGNtFICJ1MCE:
REPRESENTS THE HORK OF A MASTER ASSOCIATEO N1TH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED W1TN SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS
X REPRESEN7S A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CDNSTRUCTION COMTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT
TlER EVAIUATION: Contributing Building
STATEMENT OF STGNIFICAMCE:
This house is representative of the Dutch Colonial Revival style, as reflected in its gembrel roof, wood shingles, and
classical col~ms.
i
CONTINUED YES X MO
REFERENCES (BE SPECIFiC):
8oulder County Assessor, real estate information; Boulder Dail~ Camera biographical files; Boulcier Carnegie Library,
Boulcier County Assessor collection; Boulder City Directories; Boulder Genealogicat 5ociety, Census lndexes, 1900 and 1910 ~
CONTINUED YES X NO
SURVETED BY: R.L. Simnons/T.H. Sirtmons AFFiL1ATI0N: Front Renge Research Associetes, Inc. DATE: June 1994
`~~~~_Sf~ ~.~:;~~ I ~-
516 Mapleton Street
Attachment B
_
A~ ~em ~ 5 f~` ~ge # ~.~.
~.:.
~:~ _
~~ ' ~
~' a. ~
~~
~.~ .. :
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
~.~
~
~~ ._
~~
~
~.,.
~
~..... ~
A1: North Front Bay, 1st FI, left DH, 1/1 lights
~~
~.~
~~
~ ~.
i
~~
,~
~,~~ _~~ _~ga# ~ N__,
A2: North Front Bay, 1st FI, right DH, 1/1 lights
A3: North Front Bay, 1st FI, cntr DH, 1/1 lights
_ ~
~~
~
~~:
~~
~5'.~
B1: West Side Bay, 1st FI, left DH, 1/1 lights
63: West Side Bay, 1st FI, cntr DH, 1/1 lights
le
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
:~~
~~
~ ~_::~ :
~; ;.
~~=:~~r,. . .
_ ~~tF ,..
_.~ . -- . . _.
B2: West Side Bay, 1st FI, right DH, 1/1 lights
.._: ,~ -
R~ (~8f~ # _~/~' - ~ ~ ~. S/ „
C1: East, 2nd FI, single DH, 1/1 lights
C2: West, 2nd FI, (2) DHs, 1/1 lights
C3: North Front, 2nd FI, (2) DHs, 1/1 lights
~~,~_ ~/~ ~~...~1 ~ .~
~ Ciiy of Boulder Planning and Development Services Attachment C
~'.;6"
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION
DaFe of application: ~~ ~~7 Cose number. HI$
Property address: ~(~p t~~ ~~1~ {~~~ G~ Historic Distrid/landmark name: ~f~ ~~ I
APPlico~ name: f'Pt.Y/l~~ ~~•'~,*~ f E',S It..} ~~{ IRe.~i iid~ship to projed (e_e-. ~. mntraao~: ~1~~C;~LY'L
Phone: ~~~-77c'~-qy ~~ Mobile phone-',~c'~3~ zJ7l"'.-1~c~ Fmc: ~~ ~~~ -c3~ ~ ~
x 3 `-~rcR ~d 5 ~-z- ~:~~ ~k' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ S~c~-l 3;
A~Splicant's mailing address: a-"~ `C~~ ~"~~ ~
Street CitY -~ S[ate Z'ip
Property owners name: ~ x~M~ S(Y['~ /l Daylime phone: ~C )j "~ LI~~ ' ~(~~
~~ l__ q~~_ '~ Q
Property owners address: J ~ Lo ~C-~P 17Y) ~TK , I~i~ x~~~ CCI. t')~ 3~ 02
Street CdY ~ rro
PROJE~ DESC~~ION: Please lisf all exFerior oltemtions proposed for the properly i~ ihe space provided below. Please
see ihe folbwing pages for submittal requiremenh. All 4 poges must be induded in the applicafion.
To improve energy efficiency and living comfort, (12) 1/1 light double hung windows to receive the Bi-
Glass System~. Ttris includes: 1/2" Low E insula#ed glass to replace the single pane glass. T'he upper
& lower sash to be re-installed with the `7udden" balance system, replacing the rope & pulley system.
Fiberglass insulation to be added to the weight pocket cavities. Compression bulb weather-stripping
added to the bottom, top, and meeting rails, and felt pile added to the vertical parting bead. All the
original wood sashes, interior/exterior wood frame, casings, and trim to be retained.
INITIAL CODE REVIEW
The following applitations require initial review and sign off by o projecF specialist or zoning odministmtor np ~or to
acce~tance of a landmark alteration ceriificate application. Weose mark all applicable boxes.
^ New deTached consh~dion (accessory shuctwe. 9arage, new residence, shed, etc)
^ Dormers ^ Porches ~ Fences ^ All new oddifions
THIS SECTION IS FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Property Zoning: Lot Sine:
Required ~tbacls:
Floodplain:
Prior Reviews (Use Review. PUD, etc)
Olher Applications whidi may be raquired based on proposed applicaiion:
Preliminary Commenh:
Reviewed by:
Date:
This sedion is a customer service ~eview, and does nW consfilufe o fwmal review of all applicable codes and regulatims. All secfions of ~e
Please submif this completed applica6on, along wi~h ihe required informotion outlined on the following pages fo a project
specialist. Applirntions for the design review mmmi~tee must be received on the Fridoy prior to your requested design
review meeting. If you have any quesfions, plense mll (303)441-1880 and ask to speak to a hisroric preserva6on plonner.
We look forward to worldng with you on your projedl
~~g S/~' P~gei / ~'
tANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION
Shown below at~d on the facing page is a list of the most common types of aiterations. Please check off the
type of work you are proposing and follow ihe applicotion requirements listed to the right.
~n'E oF STAFF REVIEW
ALTERATION: City stoH may review common types of applications, which invoive minor alierations. This
(Please check all type of review con have a guick ooqroval tum-around providing the applicant submits a
that opply) complete application form with documentotion and the proposed alterations meet the
~ Landscaping applicable design guidelines.
^ Paint A complete aRplimtion submitlol indudes:
[] Roofing ^ This opplicafion: Completely filled out
^ fence (redr / side yarcl only if ~ P~ans and elevafions: All drawings should be to scale, wiih dimensions, and as
maximum 5' tall with minimum detailed and cfear as possible, whether or not an orchitect or controdor is
1" spocing beiween pickeh) involved. Both existing structure ond proposed chonges should be shown.
Fences: bring to-scale drawings showing dimensions and spacing between
~ RestoraYion oi fxisfing Features pickets.
DOWMOWN ONLY: ^ PhoTographs: Comprehensive color photos of the structure ond of details ihot
^ relote diredly to the requested olteration are required.
Commercial awning ~
^ ^$omples: Color chips of point are required. Printed samples of roofing types ore
Commercial patios helpful.
^ Commercial signs
TYPE OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (LDRC)
ALTE~TION: City staH and 1wo designated members oi the landmarks boord review applications for olterations
(Please check all to buildings or special feotures and determine within 14 doys after a complete applicaTion is filed
ihat apply) whether or not the proposed work would have a significant impod uQon or be potentially
^ Deck / porch detrimental to a(ondmark site or hisioric disirici. Large projects usually req~ire more than one
~ meeting and moy be referced by the Committee to the full Landmarks Board for review.
oors / windows
^ Dormers / skylighh The foltowing documentafion is required to iniTiate review by the Design Review CommiHee:
[~ This applicafion: Completely filled out
^ Additions
Q Photogrcphs: Photos of existing building and surrounding context
~ Fence (front yard or
rear / side yord if over ~ Drawings: Ali drawings should be to scole, with dimensions, ond as detailed and clenr
5' fall or Iess than 1" as possible, whether or not an architect or contractor is involved. Both exisiing situcfure
spacing beiween pickeis) e~d proposed changes should be shown. 6comp{es ore available ff needed.
~ New garo9e ~ a~~essory The following documenfotion is required for final review and opproval:
building (340 sq. (t. ond ~ Scaled site plans: including existing and proposed siie plans
under) ^ Elewtions: usually'/.° = 1' scole including existing and proposed e~evations
^ Other C7 Materiols: Specific moterials used should be noted on plans. Samples may be requested.
~ Colors: point/stain color chips
^ Photographs: photos of existing building from all sides and existing coniext
^ Manufadurers/catalogue `teor' sheets
^ Fences: bring to-scale dmwings showing dimensions ond spacing beiween rails.
^ Deiails
The following may be requesied prior to final opprowl:
^ Building sections ~vlethods of restoration ^Study model or 3-D simulated model
T~P: For iorge or compleac projects you ore encoumged to contad a Historic Preservation Planner eorly in your projed before
detailed drowings ore completed.
All comp{eted opp{imtions Sor LDRC review musF be tumed in by noon on ihe Fridoy prior to 5he requesled meeting. Please note
that your requested DRC meeting moy not be ovailable due to scheduling. The Committee meets at 9:00 a.m. every Wednesdoy
(excepi holidays) oi the P&DS $enices Center on the 3"~ Aoor of the Park Ceniral building, 1739 Broodway. Please call and ask foi
o Historic Preservaiion Plonner if you have questions with any of the above alterotions or submittol reqvirements.
Arnruia liam t ~A' l~ur! f Q
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (LPAB)
IYPE OF New free-standing construcfion greater than 340 square feet, or the demolitio~ or moving of
f~TE~T~~N: struct~res requires review by }he enfire Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. A public hearing is
(Please check all required in order to issue an aheration certificate under these circumsfances. The full board meets
that apply) once a month, usually on the first Wednesday. S~bmittal deadlines are listed on ihe following page.
All applications musi be submiMed to a projed specialist by 4:OOpm 20 days prior to The hearing.
~ New free-sfanding Public hearings must be held within 60 days afrer a completed application is received. All pvblic
conshvcfion hearings for landmark alteration certificates are conducted as quasi-~udicial proceedings. Aher a
(over 340 sq. N.) public hearing, a Notice of DisposiTion is served to City Co~ncil regarding the recommendation of
the Landmarks Board. The City Council has 14 days to cail up a decision To approve a ~andmark
^ D
lifi altemtion certificate application made by the Landmarks Preservation Board. If ihe Landmorks
emo
on Preservation Board voTes to deny a landmark alTeration certificate application, the City Council has
(includes primary 30 days in which To call up the decision.
and/or accessory
buildings) A complete application submittal includes The same as that required for the Design Review
~ plicafion called Committee os listed on the proceeding page plus the following items:
up from DRC d Previous Page requirements (Listed under LDRC)
~ Writfen project description
^ 10 folded copies of project drowings, showing exisfing and proposed conditions (preferably
24°x36") plans, including:
• Scaled site plan (existing and proposed)
• Scaled elevaTions for all sides of the building (existing and proposed) at
1 /4" or 1 /8" scale.
• Sketches, as needed
^ 10 copies of any color renderings or photographs, color samples, etc. (preferably no
greater than 11 "x17")
C+7 1 reduced (8'h"x 11'~ copy of all materials submitted
At the requesT of siaff or The board, The following may also be required as part of your application:
^ Building sedions ~lvteThods of restoration ^STudy model or 3-D sim~lated model
T~P: Projecls which are required to be reviewed by The full board should be presented to sta{f early in your project before
detailed drawings are initiated. Please contact us prior to submitting an application as These projecis and reviews are usually
complex. We encourage you To compleTe The initial code review section on page 1 of ihis applicaTion prior to contaciing ~s.
Call (303) 441-1880 and ask to speak with a Historic Preservation Planner.
I agree To perfortn the vrork described herein, in accordance wiTh the plans and/or specifications s~bmitted and with
all provis' of the Historic Preservation Code, Building Code, Zoning Ordinance and Health Regulations of the Ciiy
of Boulder as en merat Bould r Revised Code, 1981.
'- ~~% ~---- ~ ~~ -~ ~~ 7
S na of ow r or authorized o nt for owner ate
Contact Us:
Planning & Development Services - Historic Preservation Program
1739 Broadway, 3'~ Floor
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 441-1880
Http://www. boulderhistoricpreservation. net
~NeroN ~f~' P~ae# /~
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Date completed application received by Planning and Development Services
Date of initial DRC meeting
Date(s) of follow-up DRC meetings
Date of Full Board Hearing
Date Applicafion Approved/Denied
Date of Building Permit Review
Date Case Closed
Date case sent to imaging
2007 Landmark Preservalion Advisory Board Meeting Dates and Applicalion SubmiHal Deadlines
Landmarks Preservofion Advisory Board meefirgs a2 general~y held }he first Wednesdoy of evch monfh ot 6 p.m. in the Municipal
Building, Council Chambers Room, locafed ot 1777 Broadway. Landmark Alterafion Certificote applimfions uheduled for o public
hearing before the full Landmorks Bovrcl are due by 4:OOpm 20 days befo~e the meefirg dale. AI! applicntions must be submitfed
through a project speciolist.
Board Meetini
lanuary 3
February 7
March 7
Apri) 4
May2
June 6
July 4
August 1
September 5
Odo6er 3
November 7
December 5
~ Submittal Deodline
December 14
January 1 S
February 15
March 15
April 12
May 17
June 14
July 12
August 16
September 73
Odober 18
November 15
pp~ndaltem#_. S~ P~eA_~~--
Corwnents Sheet
nace: ~dlrvSC Z1~ , aoo~
!-' ~
~
o~
Landmark Alteration Certificate ~ or Demolition / Moving
Address of Property: ~ ~~t ~~GC~101~ ~ •
Owner's Name: ~NIJ t S ~!'0 G-GI^~ ,~['~a~ 1 f U1~ (/I~~Ov~ R tSC ~ U.v NTi~If'(.'~'b L
DRC Members: ~-~Mk ' S~ IK 1{~ ~~'sW 11~',
Remarks:
- i KU06sfro ~~oFrt' af -1'wC~-~~ ~a~g~ - .{-EUn~~- , l / t
5rt5~4 w rt~4 -t~,~,~,,2= ~,q.~, ~ G~c.~S .
-~„~-,ri'So,~ v~ oN fl E...S ~W I~t~c H~'Gt-o G-crtss" Z S Cf~
6~ ttn~5~ •
' w~- M~ COnls t 10~5 ~bM'T `1~~ E S!t'S~ ~ t Tt~
~~0 t~0 G-t-~ S~ 5 f-t~ U c,b N 0'r ~t ~.-~~ !TT'~s^ ~-~~-bS,
IN l'(Y~?jUT M~R~ P~ ~E ~-~'C~.af i-TT~ .
- W~iwa co~z~a~s t(~ ~a~a~E -~,.~~- s~C{stE-
M,~~ ~ ~P.E-rn.of~t'1~-p w tr~t ~t3~ - G~~ S.
~` }t-~r„1 /1T C~ n~ 5 t ~Ota~ S~.f~~?.ct~-~T -fM~n.~l~Lt ~t'~'E G~t v E--~
~/ i SftS l-~ ~ ~ ~C ~t-S1,U..- p-F ~.1U J S~ ~ ~~ ~ t~t ~! ~n•-t
D~ WIN~)O~ S `tv {-17~~~.
~'' (vn~ S l h~ ~~ ~v G-. ~Mdfl~"tifi~-F ~F ~~-"' AN d~ r o f H-c~ S't
~' rIAJ~h~ Fi~ c cr~ o Ji N -,
Nextsteps: i'-{~itA~-r `~SE' ~ti W~Ti-l" D~-b G-C.di~'.~S (1~-
~~t tt ~~ dr~c. ~l j.~ ~v~ s -~~ „~ ~- RE~C"~-of-~rt'Z~
W~t'i~} -t{~(~~t..tit/~ '~,~t~ ,-PSR- ~UI.~- ~-d I`~~Er)t €~~J .
Public hearing: Y N
S:~PLANklata~Co~rclevUil57\GEMAL7'CER7S\LAGapp,etc~CommentsPage2.doc
Note: These comments do not constitute a Iandmark Alteration Certi6cata
~s x~, ~~i W' perr ik 21
1 f/~, ~ll
Before: original Sash glazed with 1/8" clear glass
Ngrr Extariot Wootl S[op
S'ealant
~ S!3'
/ Cilass
~ClSiltl9 ~ .~ WArm Ed~e Seai
Sash
" I 1 Insulated Glass
va-
Gtass
n
~~z (:~,~
After_ original Sash glazed with 1/2" insulated glass unit
~c,~aal~~~_~[~.~~ aZ_
~- ~x~s~~ Exteriorwrwd 5[~p
i
invisible BO(393x530X24b~e9)
~r
~r
•
~
ti
ti
~
•
A..awin Nw.. & ~ K IF~.n • ~~