Item 5C - 341 Spruce StAgenda Item #5C Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
January 3, 2018
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Anthony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to
demolish a non-contributing two-car garage and, in its place, construct a
new two-car garage at 341 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District
pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2017-00337).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 341 Spruce St.
2. Date of Construction: 2001 (Garage)
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
4. Historic District: Mapleton Hill
5. Owner: Nancee and Justin Gold
6. Applicant: Nicholas Fiore
7. Site Area: 8,454 sq. ft.
8. Existing Garage: 515 sq. ft.
9. Proposed Garage: 650 sq. ft. (approximately)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Board approves the demolition the non-contributing garage and in its place,
construction of a new garage at 341 Spruce St. as shown on plans dated Nov. 6, 2017, finding
that they generally meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below and adopt the staff memorandum
dated Jan. 3, 2018 as findings of the board.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in compliance with
the approved plans dated Nov. 2, 2017 except as modified by these conditions of
Agenda Item #5C Page 2
approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Landmarks
design review committee (Ldrc), for its final review and approval:
a. Revised drawings showing a more modestly scaled two-car garage, that
the roof design be revised so that it is more compatible with the roof form
and pitch of the approved house, that the dormer be reduced in scale or
eliminated from the design, and that the garage doors be changes to two
separate doors and;
b. Final architectural plans that include details for the new building,
including wall and roof materials, door and window details, and
hardscaping on the property to ensure that the final design of the building
is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Historic
District Design Guideline, and the intent of this approval.
SUMMARY
• On Nov. 6, 2017, the Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) Department
received a Landmark Alteration Certificate application for the demolition of an
existing non-contributing 515 sq. ft. one-car garage and the construction of a new
650 sq. ft. two-car garage at 341 Spruce St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
• Because the application calls for demolition of a building and new, free-standing
construction over 340 sq. ft. within a historic district, review by the full Landmarks
Board in a quasi-judicial hearing is required pursuant to Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C.
1981.
• At its May 3, 2017 meeting, the Landmarks Board conditionally approved the
demolition of the existing house and construction of a new house. The revised plans
were reviewed and approved by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (Ldrc)
on June 13, 2017 (HIS2017-00103).
• A permit for a “new detached one-car garage with studio/workspace” was issued in
2001, prior to the expansion of the Mapleton Hill Historic District to include this
section of Spruce Street. As such, the existing garage did not require review through
a Landmark Alteration Certificate application.
• Given its 2001 date of construction (well outside the defined 1865-1946 period-of-
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), staff considers the garage to be
non-contributing and finds that its demolition would not diminish the special
historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Agenda Item #5C Page 3
• Staff finds that, if the conditions of approval are met, the proposed demolition and
new construction will be consistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines,
and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
• Staff’s recommendation to approve the demolition and new construction is based
upon the understanding that the stated conditions will be reviewed and approved
by the Ldrc prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property at 341 Spruce St. is located on the north side of Spruce St. between 4th and
5th streets in the Mapleton Hill District. The property was included in the expansion of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District in 2002. The expansion included approximately 80
properties on the southeast, north and east boundaries of the district. At the time of
designation, the garage at 341 Spruce St. was identified as non-contributing resource to
the historic character of the district as a result of its 2001 date of construction.
Figure 1. Location Map, 341 Spruce St., 2017.
The property at 341 Spruce St. is approximately 8,450 sq. ft. in size, slopes to the south
and features mature vegetation, much of which is volunteer. The Farmer’s Ditch is
located directly north of the property.
The original township of Boulder City was platted at a 15-degree angle, aligning with
Valmont Butte. This pattern extends east from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to 30th
Street, north of Canyon to Pine Street. While most lots extend perpendicularly from the
Agenda Item #5C Page 4
street, the properties on the 400 block of Spruce Street meet the street at an angle,
resulting in an unusual building envelope. The houses on this section of Spruce Street
share a uniform setback, and the building facades are aligned parallel to Spruce Street.
There are few garages on the 300 block of Spruce Street. Without an alley behind the
property, most of the curb cuts are located on Spruce Street. The current and proposed
garage is shown to take access from 4th Street.
In May 2017, the Landmarks Board approved the demolition of the existing house and
the construction of a new house (HIS2017-00103).
Figure 2. South (façade) and North (rear) Elevations approved May 5, 2017.
Figure 3. East (side) Elevation approved May 5, 2017.
Agenda Item #5C Page 5
Figure 4. West (side) Elevation approved May 5, 2017.
Figure 5. View of house approved May 5, 2017, facing northwest (rendering).
Agenda Item #5C Page 6
PROPERTY HISTORY
The property at 341 Spruce St. is part of the Mapleton Terrace addition to the city,
which was platted in 1890 by W.H. Thompson, Harold D. Thompson, and Isaac C.
Dennett. For many years, 4th Street formed the western edge of the city with the land
beyond in the ownership of John Brierly who operated vegetable gardens, an orchard,
and lime kilns in the area.
The property is associated with the Schons and Rusch families, who owned the
property from 1900 until 1969. Mathias and Apollonia Schons came to Boulder from
Nebraska in 1896, and purchased 341 Spruce St. and 409 Spruce St. around 1900.
William Rusch purchased the property in 1904, and later married Susanna Schons, the
daughter of Mathias and Apollonia. The Ruschs rented the property at 341 Spruce St.
and resided there from the mid-1930s until their deaths in 1949 and 1969. Reference the
May 5, 2017 Landmarks Board memo for an expanded history of the property.
Figure 6. William Rusch standing in front of 341 Spruce St., c. 1910s.
Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
EXISTING GARAGE
The existing one-car garage was constructed in 2001 and features a gable roof (oriented
east-west) and is clad in clapboard siding. A single garage door is located on the west
elevation, with a sliding window to the south. The building is 22.2’ by 23.2 (515 sq. ft.)
and is located at the northeast corner of the lot and is accessed from 4th Street.
Agenda Item #5C Page 7
Figure 7. 341 Spruce St., Existing Accessory/Garage Building West Elevation, 2017.
Figure 8. 341 Spruce St., Existing Accessory/Garage Building South Elevation, 2017.
A covered porch is located on the south (yard) elevation, with a pair of French doors
flanked by two windows.
Agenda Item #5C Page 8
Figure 9. 341 Spruce St., Existing Accessory/Garage Building East Elevation, 2017.
Figure 10. 341 Spruce St., Existing Accessory Building North Elevation
from Mountain View Road, 2017.
Three equally-spaced double-hung windows are located on the east elevation and a
single sliding window is located on the north elevation.
Agenda Item #5C Page 9
Given the 2001 date of construction, well out of the defined 1865-1946 period-of-
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, staff considers the garage at 341
Spruce St. should be considered a non-contributing resource to the historic character of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 515 sq. ft. garage and construct a new
650 sq. ft. garage along the west setback. Drawings show a 120 sq. ft. porch to be located
at the south (garden) face of the building. The proposed upper level is shown to
function as storage space with no ceiling height area higher than 5’, 5”.
The Form and Bulk Standards in Section 9-7-8, Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones,
B.R.C., 1981, limits the cumulative coverage for accessory buildings in the rear yard
setback to 500 sq. ft. The site plan shows that 498 sq. ft. of the building will be located in
the rear setback.
Figure 11. Proposed Site Plan.
The new garage is shown to have an asymmetrical gable (salt box) roof to optimize the
performance of proposed 7.8 Kw in solar arrays. A pair of wood garage doors are
shown to be located on the north elevation, with a pedestrian door located at the east
face of the building. A 16’ wide shed-roof dormer is located on the north slope of the
roof, with four divided light casement windows. The building is clad in wood shingles
to match the design of the new house.
Agenda Item #5C Page 10
Figure 12. Proposed North Elevation.
Figure 13. Proposed South Elevation.
Plans show an orthogonal wood lattice to cover the south elevation. A single pedestrian
door and recessed shelves are also shown on this elevation. The roof is shown to have a
small recessed dormer on the west side, and 24 solar panels (7.8kw).
Agenda Item #5C Page 11
Figure 14. Proposed East Elevation.
A single window with a sliding wood panel shutter is located on the east elevation. A
single, narrow window is shown in the gable end of the west elevation.
Figure 15. Proposed West Elevation.
Agenda Item #5C Page 12
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following standards:
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy
the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a
historic district?
Staff considers the existing garage to be non-contributing to the Mapleton Hill
Historic District due to its 2001 date of construction, well outside of the 1865-
1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, and lack of
individual significance.
Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the demolition of the
existing garage and construction of a new accessory building will not damage or
destroy the historic character of the district and that the design will be generally
compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that the demolition of the non-contributing garage will not
adversely affect the special historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the
historic district?
Staff considers that provided the stated conditions are met, the proposed
materials proposed for the garage will be consistent with the character of the new
house, approved by the Landmarks Board in May 2017, and will be compatible
with contributing within the historic district.
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Agenda Item #5C Page 13
and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the
requirements of paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3) of this section?
Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the demolition of the
existing garage and construction of a new accessory building will not damage or
destroy the historic character of the district and that the design will be generally
compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Guidelines, provided the mass and scale of the new garage is
reduced (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES
While Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must
apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Landmarks
Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines and Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance for properties in this district. The
following is an analysis of the submitted proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. It
is important to emphasize that design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to
appropriate exterior modifications and design, and not as a checklist of items for
compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the applicable design
guidelines:
General Design Guidelines
2.0 Site Design
…How structures occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing,
creates much of the context of the neighborhood…
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
2.1.6
In neighborhoods with alleys,
garages should be located at
the rear of the lot and accessed from
the alley.
Proposed garage is shown at
the rear of the lot, accessed via a
driveway across adjacent
properties from 4th St.
Yes
2.1.7
Preserve a backyard area between the
house and the garage, maintaining
the general proportion of built mass
to open space found within the area
The approved house and garage
are separated by 46’ – approved
house and existing garage
separation is slightly less than
46’
Yes
Agenda Item #5C Page 14
2.3.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human
scale of the alleys. For example,
narrower lap siding and smaller
brick are appropriate.
The proposed new garage is
shown to be clad in wood
shingles and wood lattice
similar to finish and materials
of the recently-approved house.
2.3.4
Buildings that were constructed after
the period of significance but are still
more than 50 years old and
contribute to the variety and
character of the alleyway should be
retained.
The existing 2001 garage
proposed for demolition is not
part of the pre-1946 character of
the alleys in Mapleton Hill.
Yes
2.4.1 Maintain the traditional pattern of
parking at the rear of the lot.
Parking is proposed to be
maintained at the rear of the lot. Yes
2.4.2 Access to parking should be from the
alleys whenever possible. See 2.1.6 Yes
2.4.4
New curb cuts from the street are
inappropriate. When adding a garage
or significantly altering an existing
garage on the alley any front curb
cut should be vacated and closed.
No new curb cuts are proposed
as part of this proposal. Yes
2.4.7
Paving driveways or garage access
areas with asphalt or concrete gives a
modern look and is generally
inappropriate, particularly when
adjacent to unpaved alleys. Flagstone
or brick wheel strips are the preferred
alternative.
Paving is shown to be limited to
a 4’ concrete apron that spans
the width of the north elevation.
The access from 4th Street is
shown to remain unpaved.
Yes
7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Structures
Accessory buildings include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally
accessory structures were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages.
Generally, these structures have been adapted for the storage of cars. In most cases,
accessory building were located to the rear of the lot and accessed by alleys. They were
subordinate in size and detailing to the primary house. Over time they have emerged as
important elements of many lots and alleys in the district. Efforts should be made to
protect the eclectic character of alleys.
Agenda Item #5C Page 15
Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be
evaluated in terms of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and the
district as a whole. In the past, larger accessory structures have been allowed than may
be appropriate today.
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory
structures. While they should take design cues from the primary structure, they must be
subordinate to the primary structure in size, massing, and detailing. Alley buildings
should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
Location and Orientation
7.2.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a new
garage or accessory building if doing so
will detract from the overall historic
character of the principal building and
the site, or if it will require removal of a
significant historic building element or
site feature, such as a mature tree.
Building is complimentary
to the design of the
recently-approved primary
house. No mature
vegetation is shown to be
removed as part of this
proposal. Proposed garage
is located in place of
existing non-historic garage
and paving.
Yes
7.2.2
New garages and accessory buildings
should generally be located at the rear of
the lot, respecting the traditional
relationship of such buildings to the
primary structure and the site.
See 2.1.6 above; traditional
building pattern is
maintained.
Yes
7.2.3
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
Access is via driveway
(private easement
controlled by the Farmer’s
Ditch) the driveway does
not appear to be part of an
alley scape.
Maybe
7.2.4
Preserve a backyard area between the
house and the accessory buildings,
maintaining the general proportion of
built mass to open space found within
the area.
See 2.1.7 above Yes
Agenda Item #5C Page 16
Mass and Scale
7.2.5
New accessory buildings should take
design cues from the primary building
on the site, but be subordinate to it in
terms of size and massing.
Garage is designed to be
complimentary to the
recently-approved primary
house, and is subordinate
to it in size and massing.
However, at approximately
650 sq. ft., proposed garage
will be significantly larger
than two-car garages
typically approved in the
Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Revise design for
review by the Ldrc.
Maybe
7.2.6
New garages for single-family residences
should generally be one story tall and
shelter no more than two cars. In some
cases, a two-car garage may be
inappropriate.
New one and-one half
story, two-car garage is
proposed. Staff considers
that at approximately 650
sq. ft. the proposed garage
is significantly larger than
two-car garages approved
in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District. Staff
considers upper level
should not be habitable
and that reduction in size
of two-car garage should
be reviewed and approved
by the Ldrc.
Maybe
7.2.7 Roof form and pitch should be
complimentary to the primary structure.
Salt-box roof form differs
from gable roof forms on
approved main house.
Consider revising roof to
pitch and form matching
main house. Revise roof
form for review by the
Ldrc.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5C Page 17
Materials and Detailing
7.2.8
Accessory structures should be simpler
in design and detail than the primary
building.
Proposed garage is
generally simpler than the
primary house.
Yes
7.2.9
Materials for new garages and accessory
buildings should be compatible with
those found on the primary structure
and in the district. Vinyl siding and
prefabricated structures are
inappropriate.
See 2.3.3 Yes
7.2.10
Windows, like all elements of accessory
buildings, should be simpler in detailing
and smaller in scale than similar
elements on primary buildings. See
Sections 3.7 and 4.5 for additional
direction.
Staff questions function of
the 16’ wide dormer in
garage as attic space is
shown as storage and not
habitable. Staff considers
reducing the size of the
dormer will reduce the
mass of the proposed
building when viewed
from Mountain View Road
(see figure 10). Revise for
review at the Ldrc. Review
window details at the Ldrc.
Maybe
7.2.11
If consistent with the architectural style
and appropriately sized and located,
dormers may be an appropriate way to
increase storage space in garages. See
Section 3.5 and 4.5 for additional
direction.
Staff questions function of
the 16’ wide dormer in
garage as attic space is
shown as storage and not
habitable. Staff considers
reducing the size of the
dormer will reduce the
mass of the proposed
building when from
Mountain View Road (see
figure 10). Revise for
review at the Ldrc.
Maybe
7.2.12 Garage doors should be consistent with
the historic scale and materials of
Double (16’ wide) garage
door shown on the north Maybe
Agenda Item #5C Page 18
traditional accessory structures. Wood is
the most appropriate material, and two
smaller doors may be more appropriate
than one large door.
elevation. Consider
installing two separate, 8’
wide doors. Revise for
review by the Ldrc.
7.2.13
It is inappropriate to introduce features
or details to a garage or an accessory
building in an attempt to create a false
historical appearance.
Building partially
references recently-
approved new house and
does not attempt to create a
false historic appearance.
Yes
8.2 Energy Efficiency
…It is the city’s aim to create compatibility between historic preservation and energy
efficiency goals. In the historic districts and on individually landmarked buildings it is
important to ensure that energy efficiency concerns are addressed in ways that do not
damage or diminish the historic character of the building, site or district…
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
8.2.4
It is not appropriate to install solar
collectors in locations that compromise
prominent roofs. The installation of solar
collectors may be appropriate provided it
does not detract from the historic
character of the property, landmark or
historic district.
A 7.8kw solar panel system
with 24 panels is proposed
on the south elevation. Due
to the location of the garage
at the rear of the lot and
facing into the garden, the
solar panels will be
minimally visible from the
public right of way.
Yes
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to the Mapleton 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.
Agenda Item #5C Page 19
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
D ALLEYS, EASEMENTS AND ACCESSWAYS
Alleys are a strong visual element of the district, and have much variety of scale and detail.
They play an important part in the development patterns that give the more visible areas their
character. Alleys provide access to rear parking and garages. They have a varied edge quality,
with building both on the property lines and set back. The size and quality of these accessory
building varies considerably. Careful consideration should be given to changes in traditional
use.
Guideline Analysis Confor
ms?
1.
The use of alleys to provide access to
the rear of properties should be
preserved
Access to rear of property preserved. Yes
2.
Efforts should be made to protect the
variety of shape, size, and alignment of
buildings along the alleys. Alleys
should maintain a human scale and be
sensitive to pedestrians.
Access is from across easement held
by the Farmer’s Ditch ; the building is
not part of an alley scape, however
will be visible from Mountain View
Road (see figure 10).
No
3.
Building such as garages, sheds, etc.
which contribute to this variety should
be retained in their original form
whenever possible.
See 2.3.4 above. Yes
5. Efforts should be made to maintain
character of the alleys in the district
Access is from a private easement; the
building is not part of an alley scape. Maybe
Given the 2001 date of construction (well outside of the 1865-1946 period-of-significance
for the Mapleton Hill Historic District), and because the building does not meet the
definition of contributing as defined in the General Design Guidelines, staff considers the
existing garage should be considered non-contributing. Staff considers that the
proposed demolition of the existing garage is consistent with the design guidelines for
site design and accessory buildings.
While it is unclear whether the alley is a public way, and thus a defined alley scape, the
existing and proposed garage is quite visible from Mountain View Road, especially
when the leaves are off the trees. To this extent, the appearance of the building is more
important in considering the visual impact on the historic district that it were not on an
alley and with limited public visibility.
Agenda Item #5C Page 20
For these reasons, staff considers the size, mass and scale of the proposed building
should be reduced in line with the typically more modest size of garages approved
through the landmark certificate process in Mapleton Hill. Staff considers this should
include the reduction or elimination of the large north facing dormer. Staff considers
that along with review of all materials and design details, these revisions can be
conditioned as part of an approval for review by the Landmarks design review
committee.
FINDINGS
Subject to the conditions stated in the recommended motion, staff recommends that the
Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the following findings:
This decision is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance, in that:
1. The proposed demolition of the non-contributing garage will not
adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or
aesthetic interest or value of the property or the historic district. § 9-11-
18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
2. The proposed demolition will generally comply with Sections 2.3, Site Design, and
7.0, Garages and Other Accessory Buildings, of the General Design Guidelines;
Section S., Alleys, Easements and Accessways, of the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Guidelines; and Section 9-11-18(b)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Current Photos
B. Approved Plan of Primary House (HIS2017-00103)
C: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item #5C Page 21
Attachment A: Current Photos
View from 4th St. to existing garage, facing east, 2017.
View from Mountain View St., facing south, 2017.
Agenda Item #5C Page 22
View from Mountain View St., facing southwest, 2017.
View from Spruce Street, facing north, 2017.
Agenda Item #5C Page 23
Attachment B: Approved Plans of Primary House (HIS2017-00103)
Perspective view facing northwest
Perspective view of south façade
Agenda Item #5C Page 24
Approved South Façade
Approved East Elevation
Agenda Item #5C Page 25
Approved North Elevation (rear)
Approved West Elevation
Agenda Item #5C Page 26
Attachment C: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item #5C Page 27
Agenda Item #5C Page 28
Agenda Item #5C Page 29
Agenda Item #5C Page 30
Agenda Item #5C Page 31
Agenda Item #5C Page 32
Agenda Item #5C Page 33
Agenda Item #5C Page 34
Agenda Item #5C Page 35
Agenda Item #5C Page 36
Agenda Item #5C Page 37