Item 5D - 730 Maxwell AveAgenda Item #5D 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
application to construct a new one-and-a-half story accessory building, add
a door opening to an existing contributing garage, and construct a fence
around the rear of the property at 730 Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
1981 (HIS2017-00349).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 730 Maxwell Ave.
2. Date of Construction: c. 1900 (house) and 1941 (garage)
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
4. Designation: Mapleton Hill Historic District, Contributing
4. Owner: Thomas Dooley
5. Applicant: Nicholas Fiore, Mosaic Architecture
6. Site Area: 7,089 sq. ft.
7. Existing Garage: 456 sq. ft.
8. Proposed Accessory Building: 621 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a new
accessory building, add a door opening to the existing garage, and construct a fence around the
rear yard at 730 Maxwell Ave., in that, provided the conditions below are met, the proposed
alteration and new construction will meet the requirements of Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and
adopt the staff memorandum dated Jan. 3, 2018 as findings of the board.
Agenda Item #5D Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in compliance with
the approved plans dated Nov. 21, 2017, except as modified by these conditions
of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Landmarks
design review committee (Ldrc), for its final review and approval:
a. Revised plans to shift the garage dormer at least 2’ from the western edge
of the roof to be more in keeping with traditional placement of roof
dormers.
b. Reduction of the height of the fence to 5’ to provide more permeability
into the historic property, and to prevent the alleyscape from becoming
tunnel-like.
c. Final architectural plans that include details for the new building,
including wall and roof materials, door, window and fence 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. 20, 2017, the Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S) Department
received a Landmark Alteration Certificate application for the construction of a new
one-and-a-half story accessory building, addition of a door opening to an existing
contributing garage, and construction of a fence around the rear of the property at
730 Maxwell Ave. 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.
• The existing buildings were constructed in 1900 (house) and 1941 (garage), within
the 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Both
building retain historic and architectural integrity and staff considers them
contributing to the historic character of the district.
• Staff finds that, if the conditions of approval are met, the proposed new construction
and alteration to 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
Agenda Item #5D Page 3
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
Figure 1. Location Map, 730 Maxwell Ave.
The property at 730 Maxwell Ave. is located on the south side of Maxwell Ave. between
7th and 8th streets. The property is bound by alleys on the west and south. The original
one-story masonry house was constructed around 1900 and features a hipped roof with
a front-facing gable and architectural elements indicative of the Edwardian Vernacular
style, including the combined use of masonry and wood shingles on the exterior, multi-
gabled roof forms, double hung windows with stone sills, and a front porch with Doric
columns. The character-defining features of the house include its square proportion, use
of brick and wood shingles, hipped roof with flared over-hanging eaves, cornice returns
on the front gable, traditionally proportioned double-hung windows, and classical
detailing.
A two-car garage is located on the eastern property line, set back approximately 90 feet
from the front of the property. The gabled-roof garage is constructed of concrete block
and has wood siding at the gable ends. Two wood paneled overhead garage doors are
located on the west elevation. The northwest garage door has four vertical panels and
four, single-pane windows. The southwest garage door has sixteen wood panels. Two,
six-light windows are located on the south elevation. The character defining features of
Agenda Item #5D Page 4
the existing garage, constructed in 1941 and considered contributing to the character of
the historic district, include its rectangular proportion, concrete block construction with
wood siding in the gable end, multi-paneled garage doors, and symmetrically placed
divided light windows on the south elevation. The Historic Building Inventory Form
and the Accessory Building Survey found the house and garage to be contributing to
the local historic district. See Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form.
Figure 2. 730 Maxwell Ave., 2017.
Figure 3. 730 Maxwell Ave., Existing Garage, 2017.
Agenda Item #5D Page 5
PROPERTY HISTORY
The house at 730 Maxwell Ave. was constructed around 1900. Benjamin L. and Laura L.
Upson were the original owners. Upson was a grocer. The house was later owned by
A.E. and Esther V. Nelson.
Figure 4. 730 Maxwell Ave., Tax Assessor Card, c.1949.
Figure 4A. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 730 Maxwell Ave., 1931.
Agenda Item #5D Page 6
The 1910 Census lists Benjamin and Laura as residents on a farm in Segwick, Colorado,
with their five children Nellie, Nettie, Alice, Gertrude and John. Benjamin’s profession
is listed as a farmer. By 1913, the Upsons had moved back to Boulder, where Benjamin
worked as a grocer at 2523 12th St. (Broadway). Benjamin died in 1915.
The house appears to have had a series of short-term residents through the 1940s. In
1916, J.E. Stevenson lived there, and by 1926 George and Celia Judd resided here.
George worked at a clothing business at 1405 Pearl Street. In 1938, the house was owned
by John Shadley. Later owners were Clyde and Estella Thompson. Ms. Thompson was a
bookkeeper at the Boulder-Colorado Sanitarium.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION - GARAGE
The applicant proposes to construct a new 621 sq. ft. accessory building to for use as a
pottery lab and writing loft. The building is shown be rectilinear in plan, measuring 16’
by 30’8, with a footprint of 489 sq. ft. The additional floor area of 113 sq. ft. is in the
upstairs writing loft. The building is to be located 27’ from the south property line, 6’9
from the west property line, and 6’5 from the east property line. The distance between
the existing garage and new accessory building is shown to be 12’6 and the building is
to measure 17’4 in height.
Figure 5. Existing Site Plan.
Agenda Item #5D Page 7
Figure 6. Proposed Site Plan.
The new garage is to be vertically proportioned, with a gable roof and shallow eaves.
The building is to be clad in narrow lap siding, and minimally ornamented, without
corner boards or eaves.
Figure 7. Proposed West Elevation (alley).
No openings are shown on the west elevation. The exhaust fan for a gas fireplace is
located at the center of the elevation.
Agenda Item #5D Page 8
Figure 8. Proposed South Elevation (alley).
The south elevation is shown to have a single opening with a glass door, covered by a
sliding door with vertical wood siding. This elevation is set back 27’ from the alley, with
a low deck extending the width of this elevation.
Figure 9. Proposed East Elevation.
The east elevation is shown to have a full-light pedestrian door and a narrow, vertically
proportioned single-light window. The opening are placed off-center.
Agenda Item #5D Page 9
Figure 10. Proposed North Elevation.
The north elevation is shown to feature a single-light window. A dormer with two pairs
of double-hung windows is located at the east end of the elevation. The eave-less
dormer is clad in wood shingles.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION - FENCES, DECKS, PAVING
Figure 11. Proposed Site Plan, shaded to show new fences, decks and paving.
Fence design “A” shown in solid blue line, Fence design “B” in hatched orange line.
Agenda Item #5D Page 10
Fences
Figure 12. Proposed Fence Design “A” (blue solid line in Figure 11).
Plans show new fences encompassing the rear of the property. The first fence (A) begins
at the southeast corner of the main house and extends along the east property line. The
same fence design is repeated at the southwest corner of the main house, following the
west property line, and terminating at the existing accessory building. The fence has a
maximum height of 6’9” with 5” horizontal wood boards spaced 1” apart. The 4”x4”
wood posts are shown to be placed 4’ on center on the interior side of the fence. See
Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 13. Proposed Fence Design “B” (orange hatched line in Figure 11).
A second fence (“B) is proposed to extend along the south and west (alley) property
lines, and follow the concrete driveway between the existing and proposed accessory
buildings. The fence is shown to have greater transparency, with 5” horizontal boards
spaced 7” apart, with a maximum height of 5’8. See Figures 11 and 13.
Agenda Item #5D Page 11
A similar fence was approved by the Landmarks Board in 2014 for the property at 603
Highland Ave. The painted wood fence is set back 12’ from the sidewalk, measuring 4’6
in height with 6” boards spaced 1” apart.
The fence at 736 Maxwell Ave., two properties to the east of the subject property, also
has a horizontal design. The fence was approved by the Landmarks Design Review
Committee in 2014 but constructed taller than the approved height. An enforcement
case in 2014 resulted in the reduction of the height of the fence.
Paving and Decks
A concrete driveway is shown to replace the existing asphalt driveway in front of the
existing garage, with new paving between the existing and proposed accessory
buildings.
A low wood deck is to be located the south side of the new accessory building,
wrapping around the east side of the property and terminating north of the existing
garage. Details on the height and material of the deck were not included in the
application materials.
PROPOSED ALTERATION - DOOR OPENING, EXISTING GARAGE
A new pedestrian door opening with a solid-panel door is proposed to be added to the
east elevation of the existing garage. The east wall of the garage is located 4’ from the
property line, set back approximately 90’ from Maxwell Ave. and 48’ from the north
alley. As such, the east elevation of the garage is minimally visible from the public right
of way. The garage is also proposed to be painted.
Figure 14. East Elevation of existing garage with proposed new opening.
Agenda Item #5D 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 contributing to the Mapleton Hill
Historic District due to its 1941 date of construction, within the 1865-1946 period
of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The building remains
largely intact to its original construction.
Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the construction of a new
accessory building, fences and paving and alteration of the contributing garage
will not damage or destroy contributing properties in the alley scape and 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 proposed construction and alteration will not adversely
affect the special historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, but that
proposal should be revised to shift the dormer away from the roof edge to be
more in keeping with the traditional placement of dormers, and to lower the
fence height to a maximum of 5’ (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
architectural style, texture, and materials proposed for the garage will be
consistent with the character of the contributing buildings on the property and
the historic district as a whole.
Agenda Item #5D Page 13
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 FOR GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS
2.3 Site Design: Alleys
The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the houses,
for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for cars. A view of the
backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys have evolved into use as
pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking, they still contribute to the historic
character of the neighborhood. They are typically minimally paved.
Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes including
barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to the general
feeling of human scale in the alleys.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
.1
Maintain alley access for parking and
retain the character of alleys as
clearly secondary access to
properties.
The existing two-car garage was
constructed during the period of
significance (1865-1946) for the
historic district and contributes
to the historic character of the
district. The building is
proposed to be retained, thus
preserving the character of the
alley.
The proposed new garage is
shown to be clad in narrow lap
siding.
Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the variety and
character found in the existing
historic accessory buildings along the
alleys.
Yes
.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human
scale of the alleys. For example,
Yes
Agenda Item #5D Page 14
narrower lap siding and smaller brick
are appropriate.
.4
Structures 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.
Yes
.5
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory building so that the view of
the main house is not obscured, and
the alley does not evolve into a
tunnel-like passage.
An accessory building is located
on the adjacent property to the
east; however, the new
accessory building is set back
27’ from the north alley way,
which would not result in a
tunnel-like effect. The fence
along the rear of the property is
proposed at 5’8 in height with
7” spacing. Revise fence height
to a maximum of 5’ to maintain
permeability into the lot.
Maybe
2.4 Parking and Driveways
2.4.6
Historically appropriate paving
materials, such as flagstone or brick,
can be used to visually break up
larger parking areas
Proposed concrete driveway
and apron will replace an
existing asphalt paving in front
of the 1941 contributing garage.
Staff considers concrete to be an
appropriate material for the
character of the site.
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.
Yes
2.6 Fences
The appearance of the house from the sidewalk, street, and alley contributes to an area’s
character. Historically, fences were not common in Boulder. Where they existed they were
very open, low, and used to delineate space rather than to create walled-off privacy areas.
Agenda Item #5D Page 15
Rear and side yard fences were built low enough so neighbors could talk to each other over
them. The fences could be easily seen through and were built of woven wire (not chain-link),
wrought iron, or painted or opaque stained wood pickets. Elaborate wrought iron and cast
iron fences were typically found only on lots with large or grand homes.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.3
Introduce compatible new fences of
traditional materials only in locations and
configurations that are characteristic of the
historic district. New fencing should reflect
the character of historic fences in height,
openness, materials, and finish.
The proposed location of the
fence around the rear of the
lot is characteristic of this
historic district. Painted
wood with spacing between
the slats is in keeping with
the character of historic
fences. Revise height of fence
to 5’ to maintain pedestrian
scale and permeability along
the alley.
Maybe
.4
Generally, historic fences were constructed
of wrought iron, wood pickets, or woven
wire with an open appearance and a scale
that related to the main building. Cedar
stockade fences or block walls are
inappropriate.
Fence is proposed to be
constructed of wood, with an
open appearance. Scale of 6’9
fence is not in keeping with
the scale of the historic
buildings on the property.
Maybe
.5
Generally, historic wood fences were
painted or opaque stained. Transparent
stains and unfinished wood are generally
inappropriate. The side of the fence facing
the street, alley, and/or sidewalk must be
finished.
Fences are proposed to be
painted, and the posts are to
be located on the interior of
the lot.
Yes
.6
Front and rear fences should have some
degree of openness and spacing of slats so
that the main structure on the site is visible
from the street or alley. Solid wood
fencing along the rear of a lot obscures
much of the irregularity and variation that
defines the essential character of an alley
and creates an inappropriate "tunnel"
effect. Rear and side yard fences below 5
Fences are shown to have an
open character, with 1” and
7” spacing between slats;
however, 5’8 height along the
west alley and 6’9 height
along the south alley may
create a tunnel-like effect.
Revise design to 5’ height.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5D Page 16
feet in height with a minimum of 1"
spacing between the pickets can be reviewed
at staff level.
.7
Where appropriate, fences in the front yard
should be no more than 36 inches high.
This low height should be maintained along
the side yard as far as necessary to
maintain an unobstructed view of the
building's main architectural features, at
least to the front elevation of the house
and/or porch. At that point, the fence may
become gradually higher and less open.
Front yard is not proposed to
be enclosed by a fence. New
fences are shown to begin at
the rear corners of the house,
maintaining an unobstructed
view of the house and
garage’s architectural
features.
Yes
.8
Side yard fences were typically located
behind the main house, not in the front
yard. Where side yard fences do extend into
the front yard, they should be low and open
with a gradual transition in height toward
the rear yard. The portion of the side fence
that extends beyond the front
elevation of the building should not exceed
a maximum of 36 inches in height.
See 2.6.7 above. Yes
3.0 Windows and Doors
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings
Front doors and primary entrances are among the most important elements of historic buildings.
The original size and proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door surround, and the
placement of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
Whenever possible, retain and preserve
all original doors and door openings.
The location of the door(s) proposed
for retrofit or replacement is important
in assessing their significance to a
All existing doors and
windows on the contributing
garage will remain. Staff
considers the east elevation
to be “Tertiary” due to the
Agenda Item #5D Page 17
historic building. In general, the more
important the elevation, the less likely
that replacement of a historic door will
be appropriate. Elevations will be
categorized as primary, secondary, or
tertiary, using the methodology set out
in the Window & Door Replacement
Application and Survey. •
• Replacement of intact historic
doors on primary elevations is
rarely appropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic
doors on secondary elevations is
generally inappropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic
doors on tertiary elevation can
occur provided it does not
compromise the historic
integrity of the building
location of the garage 90’
from Maxwell Ave., 50’ from
the south alley, and 6’ from
the east property line. There
is minimal visibility of the
east elevation from the
public right of way.
.11
Doors should be trimmed with materials
similar in scale, proportion, finish, and
character to those used traditionally.
The trim of the new door
opening is shown to be
similar in scale and
proportion to those used
traditionally. Review details
at Ldrc.
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.
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
Agenda Item #5D Page 18
today.
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings
A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic districts is
the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1
Retain and preserve garages and accessory
buildings that contribute to the overall
character of the site or district. Existing garage to be
preserved. See guideline
2.3.1 to 2.3.4 above.
Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the character-defining
materials, features, and architectural
details of historic garages and accessory
buildings, including roofs, exterior
materials, windows and doors.
Yes
.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.
Proposed materials will
contribute to the human scale
of the alley. See guideline
2.3.3 above.
Yes
.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.
Existing garage to be
preserved. See guideline 2.3.1
to 2.3.4 above.
Yes
.5
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory building so that the view of the
main house is not obscured, and the alley
does not evolve into a tunnel-like passage.
See guideline 2.3.5 above.
Maybe
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings.
While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be subordinate in size,
massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and
comfortable for pedestrians.
Location and Orientation
.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a new
garage or accessory building if doing so
will detract from the overall historic
The alleys in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District are character-
defining features of the district.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5D Page 19
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.
Construction will not require the
removal of a significant historic site
feature.
Staff considers the location,
massing, scale and materiality of
the proposed new accessory
building will not detract from the
overall historic character of the
principal building.
.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.
Proposed accessory building is
located at the rear of the lot. Yes
.3
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
An accessory building is located 3’
from the east property line; this
condition has the potential to
create a tunnel-like effect; however,
the proposed building is to be set
back 27’ from the south alley and
6’9 from the west alley.
Yes
.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.
Staff considers the general
proportion of built mass to open
space found in the area will be
maintained with the proposal.
Yes
Mass and Scale
.5
New accessory buildings should take
design cues from the primary building
on the property, but be subordinate to it
in terms of size and massing.
The design of the new accessory
building is subordinate in size and
massing but does not take cues
from the primary building on the
property. Revise design to relate to
the historic buildings on the
property. Revise at Ldrc.
No
.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.
The accessory building is 1 ½
stories in height, measuring about
4’ higher than the adjacent
contributing garage on the
property. Staff considers the
Yes
Agenda Item #5D Page 20
height, scale and massing of the
building to be appropriate.
.7 Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary structure.
The house features a hipped roof
with gabled dormers. The
proposed accessory building has a
gable roof with a similar pitch to
the front gable, but does not seek
to replicate the contributing
buildings on the lot.
Maybe
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be simpler in
design and detail than the primary
building.
Proposed accessory building is
simple in design and detail to the
primary building.
Yes
.9
Materials for new garages and accessory
structures should be compatible with
those found on the primary structure
and in the district. Vinyl siding and
prefabricated structures are
inappropriate.
The primary building is
constructed of masonry with wood
singles in the gable ends. The
proposed new garage is shown to
be clad in narrow lap siding. The
new garage references the
simplicity of the contributing
garage and does not seek to
directly replicate the details of the
contributing buildings on the lot.
Yes
.10
Windows, like all elements of accessory
structures, should be simpler in detailing
and smaller in scale than similar
elements on primary structures.
The windows shown on the garage
dormer reference the traditionally
proportioned double-hung
windows on the primary building.
The windows on first level of the
accessory buildings are narrow
casement windows, and are
smaller in scale and simpler in
detail than the windows on the
contributing buildings.
Yes
.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 considers the dormer
proposed on the west elevation of
the accessory building is
appropriately scaled but should be
located away from the edge of the
roof.
Agenda Item #5D Page 21
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section VI of 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.
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.
Fence along west elevation at 6’9
height would not contribute to a
human scale and be sensitive to
pedestrians. Revise design to 5’
height.
No
3.
Building such as garages, sheds, etc.
which contribute to this variety should
be retained in their original form
whenever possible.
The 1941 garage contributes to the
historic character of the alley. The
existing accessory building is to be
retained in its historic form.
Yes
5. Efforts should be made to maintain
character of the alleys in the district
Staff considers the location, scale,
massing, placement and materiality to
be appropriate; Staff considers the
fence height should be reduced to
create more permeability into the
property and avoid a tunnel like effect
on the alley. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
Agenda Item #5D Page 22
O. FENCES
Traditionally, the appearance of a house has been more important than privacy from the streets, so
fences were open, for example, made of wrought iron or wood pickets. Solid wood fences are not
traditional and were not used at the fronts of houses, and the present-day addition of such a fence
interrupts the strong visual element created by uniform building alignment.
.1 Low fences are encouraged. Proposed fence design at 6’9 along the
western alley is taller than fences
typically approved in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District.
Maybe
.2 Although not typically found
within front yards, if used, a
durable material in an open design
should be used for front fences.
Painted iron or steel, or painted
wood pickets are appropriate and
might be used in conjunction with
low masonry walls. There are types
of wire fencing which are historic
and would be encouraged. Low
shrub hedges are also appropriate.
Vertical board, stockade, chain link
fences and heavy brick posts are
generally inappropriate.
While contemporary, staff does not
consider the horizontal slat wood fence
will not detract from the historic
character of the property.
Yes
.3 Fences without spaces between slats
can alter the character of a building
site and of the streetscape and
alleyscape because the historic
architectural elements that
contribute to the pattern of spacing,
setbacks, scale, details and
materials of the historic district are
blocked from view.
a. Solid or tight fences are not
appropriate
b. Every effort should be made to
allow visual penetration in the
design of fences visible from the
street or alley. The visual
impact of solid wood fencing at
Spacing is proposed as 1” for the 6’9 tall
fence along the west elevation, and 7”
spacing is proposed for the 5’8 tall fence
along the southern alley. Revise design
to reduce height of fences to 5’. Resolve
at Ldrc.
Yes
Agenda Item #5D Page 23
the rear of a lot is that the alley
becomes a visual tunnel, and
much of the irregularity and
variation that make the
essential character of an alley
are changed.
.4 Fences on the rear portion of corner
lots should have some degree of
spacing along the public right-of-
way unless the fence is set back far
enough to avoid a fortress effect.
The open spacing between boards will
provide adequate openness, but the
height should be reduced to contribute
to the pedestrian scale of the alleys.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Yes
.6 Raw wood (unfinished or
unpainted) fences are inappropriate
in the historic district. Fences
should be either painted or coated
with an opaque stain.
Fence is specified to be painted.
Yes
.7 The finish side of the fence should
face toward the street or sidewalk.
Finished side of fence will face the alleys. Yes
.8 Fences should have a regular
pattern.
Fences shown to have a regular pattern. Yes
P GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A variety of accessory buildings has been adapted for use as garages in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures have certain similarities.
They are plain and utilitarian and are located at the rear of the property on the alley. Materials
and building elements are varied.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guidel
ine?
.1 If an existing structure is to be used
as a garage the historic character of
the building should be respected. As
few changes as possible should be
made.
A pedestrian door is proposed to be
added to the east elevation of the
contributing garage. Staff considers that
due to the location of the garage, the east
elevation will have low visibility from
the public right-of-way and that the
introduction of a new door opening will
not have an adverse effect on the historic
character of the contributing garage.
Yes
Agenda Item #5D Page 24
Staff considers the massing, scale, location and materiality of the proposed garage to be
consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines. The building is simpler in detail and design than the c.1900 house
and 1941 garage on the property. The design of the new garage references the
contributing buildings on the lot through the use of a similarly-pitched, traditional
gable roof form, traditionally proportioned double-hung windows in the dormer, the
use of narrow, wood lap siding, and the overall simplicity of the design (referencing the
simple form of the 1941 garage). The barn door on the south elevation references
traditional barn doors found in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Staff considers the
integration of these elements, direct and implied, result in a building that is of its own
time but that would not detract from the historic character of the property and district.
Staff considers the proposed alteration of the contributing garage, including the
introduction of a pedestrian door on the east side and repainting the building, would
not have an adverse effect on the historic character of the building. Due to the location
of the garage, the east elevation has low visibility from the public right-of-way. Staff
considers this elevation to be tertiary.
Staff considers the proposed paving and construction of wood decks will preserve a
backyard area between the house and the accessory buildings and maintain the general
proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. The majority of the
paving is replacing an existing asphalt driveway, and staff considers the addition
paving between the existing and proposed accessory buildings will not have an adverse
effect on the character of the property or historic district.
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board approve the Landmark Alteration Certificate
request with the conditions outlined above to revise the location of the dormer on the
accessory building and to reduce the height of the fence to a maximum of 5’ to maintain
permeability into the historic property from the alley and ensure that the alley does not
become more “tunnel-like’ in character.
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:
Agenda Item #5D Page 25
1. The proposed alteration 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 construction 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: Historic Building Inventory Form
B: Tax Assessor Card
C: Photographs
D: Plans and Elevations
Agenda Item #5D Page 26
Attachment A: Survey Forms
Agenda Item #5D Page 27
Agenda Item #5D Page 28
730 Maxwell Ave., Survey Photo, 1993.
730 Maxwell Ave., Garage, 1993.
Agenda Item #5D Page 29
Agenda Item #5D Page 30
Agenda Item #5D Page 31
Agenda Item #5D Page 32
Agenda Item #5D Page 33
Attachment B: Tax Assessor’s Card
Agenda Item #5D Page 34
Agenda Item #5D Page 35
Assessor’s Card Photo, c. 1949
Agenda Item #5D Page 36
Attachment C: Current Photographs
730 Maxwell Ave., Main House, 2017.
730 Maxwell Ave., Main House, 2017.
Agenda Item #5D Page 37
730 Maxwell Ave., Contributing Garage, 2017.
730 Maxwell Ave., Contributing Garage, 2017.
Agenda Item #5D Page 38
View of East-West Alley, facing East, 2017.
View of East-West Alley, facing East, 2017.
Agenda Item #5D Page 39
View of rear of property, facing northeast, 2017.
View of North-South Alley, facing North, 2017.
Agenda Item #5D Page 40
View of property facing southeast.
View of property from south alley, facing north.
Agenda Item #5D Page 41
Attachment D: Plans and Elevations
Agenda Item #5D Page 42
Agenda Item #5D Page 43
Agenda Item #5D Page 44
Agenda Item #5D Page 45
Agenda Item #5D Page 46
Agenda Item #5D Page 47
Agenda Item #5D Page 48
Agenda Item #5D Page 49
Agenda Item #5D Page 50