Item 5A - 716 16th St memo
Agenda Item 5A, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
March 7, 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 II
Anthony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to construct a 7’ high masonry wall enclosing the
backyard of the contributing property located at 716 16th St. in the
16th Street Historic District per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder
Revised Code (HIS2017-00249).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 716 16th St.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
3. Owner/Applicant: Margie and Joel Ripmaster
4. Site Area: 6216 sq. ft.
5. Historic District 16th Street Historic District
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 painted wood fence on top of the existing stone retaining wall in that the proposed
construction meets the requirements set forth 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 if the applicant complies
with the conditions listed below, the new construction will be generally
consistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, and the
General Design Guidelines.
Agenda Item 5A, Page 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the house in
compliance with the approved plans dated 01/24/2018, 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 showing painted wooden fence with minimum 1”
spacing between boards on top of existing boulder retaining wall to
a height of no more than 6’ when measured from the alley;
consistent with the General Design Guidelines; and
b. Detailed plans showing rehabilitation of the existing stone
retaining wall and stone incinerator demonstrating consistency
with the General Design Guidelines, subsections (b) and (c) of Section
9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate, and the intent of this approval.
SUMMARY:
• At its September 13, 2017 meeting, the Landmarks design review
committee (Ldrc) referred the Landmark Alteration Certificate request to
construct a 6’ high masonry wall at the rear of the property at 716 16th St.
for review by the Landmarks Board in a public hearing pursuant to
Section 9-11-14(3)(b) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 finding that the
proposal may have a significant impact on the property or district.
• Constructed in 1939, the property was found to be contributing to
the 16th Street Historic District as part of landmark district
designation process in 2006. The property survives as an excellent
and relatively rare example of Mediterranean Revival architecture
from the 1930s.
• Staff considers that construction of a 6’ high masonry wall is
inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Standards
for issuance of Landmark Alteration Certificate, but that a wood
fence above the stone retaining wall to total height of 6’and
Agenda Item 5A, Page 3
minimum spacing of 1” between the slats would provide privacy
and be consistent with the guidelines and meet the standards for
Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
• Staff recommends that, provided the stated conditions of approval
are met, the Landmarks Board finds that construction of a wood
privacy fence on top of the existing retaining wall to a total height
of 6’ generally meet meets the standards in, and is consistent with
the General Design Guidelines and subsections (b) & (c) of Section 9-
11-18, B.R.C. 1981, Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate, in that the proposed work will not damage the historic
character of the property or the 16th Street Historic District.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Figure 1. 716 16th St., Location Map showing 16th Street Historic District boundary
(blue line) and 716 16th St. (shaded green) .
Agenda Item 5A, Page 4
Figure 2. 716 16th St., c.1930s. Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Figure 3. 716 16th St., 2017
Agenda Item 5A, Page 5
The 6,216 sq. ft. property at 716 16th St. is located at the east side of 16th Street
between Baseline Road and Cascade Avenue in the 16th Street Historic District.
The cross-gable brick house is an excellent and relatively rare example of
Mediterranean Revival architecture from the 1930s. Character-defining features
of the building include an octagonal entrance bay with a corbelled cornice at the
center of the façade, arched windows, a tile roof and corbelled chimney. A
concrete and brick stoop with wrought iron railing extends to the south of the
entrance.
The property is associated with Warner L. and Norma R. Imig. Warner Imig was
born in 1913 in Iowa and attended the University of Colorado and Stanford
University. Imig joined the faculty of the University of Colorado in 1937 and was
appointed the dean of the College of Music in 1951. He is recognized as having
been one of the country’s foremost choral directors, lecturing at several colleges
and universities around the country during his career. On several occasions, he
conducted the Denver Symphony and performances in a summer series at Red
Rocks Amphitheater drew critical acclaim. Imig retired as dean in 1978 to return
to teaching. That year, the University of Colorado named the music building in
his honor.
Figure 4. Location of proposed wall in alley, 2017.
DISTRICT HISTORY
The 16th Street Historic District, one of Boulder’s smallest, is located at the
southern entrance to the University Hill neighborhood. The district consists of
five properties located on the 700 block of 16th Street and was designated by the
Boulder City Council in 2006. Notable features that contributed to this decision
Agenda Item 5A, Page 6
include its unique grouping of middle-class houses reflecting the stylistic
influences of the 1930s in Boulder, including the Mediterranean Revival, Tudor
Revival and English/Norman Cottage. Baseline Road marks the southern edge of
the district with the alleyways on either side of 16th Street forming the east and
west boundaries.
Clyde and Mary Totten built all five houses in the 16th Street District during the
depression era of the 1930s. The Tottens were small-scale developers and
property managers in the University Hill neighborhood during the 1930s. They
purchased the land, designed, built, and either sold or rented the houses they
constructed in the district.
Figure 5. 704 16th St. from the alley, immediately south of 716 16th St.
The back alleys of the district are heavily vegetated and mostly open. A
Vernacular Masonry garage/apartment backs onto the alley at 704 16th St., just
west of the subject property. Constructed in 1932, this building is thought to be
the earliest in the district and to have been lived in by the Tottens as they
constructed other houses on the block. (See figure 5.) There is one masonry
(stuccoed) wall in the district on the alley across the street at 701 16th St.
Agenda Item 5A, Page 7
Figure 6. Existing boulders retaining garden at alley (2017) proposed for reconstruction.
REQUEST
The proposal calls for the removal of existing boulders (figure 6) and
construction of a 41’ long, 7’ tall concrete wall enclosing the back yard adjacent to
the alley and continuing to the south end of the yard to intersect with the
neighbor’s fence (figure 7). The length of the wall along the alley is 25’ and the
length of the wall along the south side yard to the neighbor’s fence is 16’.
Figure 7. Site plan for proposed stone wall
Agenda Item 5A, Page 8
Figure 8 shows the proposed wall retaining approximately 30” of grade on the
garden side. The wall is shown to be 8” wide, with one side of the wall to be
faced with a 4” stone veneer and the other side with “drive it plaster.” The
application indicates the stone facing will be primarily sourced from the
property.
Figure 8. Proposed Stone Wall Construction (section)
The north corner of the south wall is shown to curve into the property, extending
5’ west, parallel to the driveway (figure 7).
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION:
Subsections (b) and (c) of 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 following is analysis of the proposal against these
standards:
Agenda Item 5A, Page 9
(b)(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
an historic district?
Staff finds that the construction of a 6’ masonry wall would damage architectural
features of the historic district. However, provided the listed conditions are met,
staff finds, provided the listed conditions are met, construction of a wood fence
on top of the existing boulder retaining wall will not damage or destroy
architectural features or the historic character of the Imig property at 716 16th St.
and will be generally compatible and consistent with the General Design
Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
(b)(2) Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
The staff finds that the construction of a 6’ masonry wall would adversely affect
the special character of the property and the historic, architectural and aesthetic
interest of the historic district. However, provided the listed conditions are met,
staff finds that construction of a painted wood fence will not adversely affect the
special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of
the 16th Street Historic District as its design is generally compatible with the
General Design Guidelines in terms of mass, scale, height, and design (see Design
Guidelines Analysis section).
(b)(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 finds that the construction of a 6’ masonry wall would not be compatible
with the character of the historic district. However, provided the listed
conditions are met, staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, a
painted wood fence constructed on top of the existing boulder retaining wall will
be generally compatible with the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color
and materials used found on the property, and be compatible with the character
of the historic district (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
(b)(4) Does the proposal to demolish the building within the 16th Street Historic District
and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the
requirements of paragraphs § 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3) of this section?
N/A
Agenda Item 5A, Page 10
(c) The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of
alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled
in determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
No details regarding energy efficient design or enhanced access for the disabled
were included in the application.
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret
the historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposal
with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used as
an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES: FENCES
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. 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.
Guideline Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Retain and preserve historic fences that
contribute to the historic character of
the site or district whenever possible.
Repair deteriorated fence components
rather that replacing them.
The east (alley) side of the property
features large boulders retaining
the raised garden area. At the
northeast corner of the property is
located a 4’ stone faced incinerator
that appears to be historic. Staff
considers that the 30” retaining
boulders are historic and should be
retained in retaining existing
grade. Likewise, staff considers
Maybe
Agenda Item 5A, Page 11
that the incinerator adds to the
historic character of the property
and alley and should be retained.
Review details at the Ldrc.
.2 Where fences were not traditionally
found in the front yard and where the
streetscape character is defined by open
front yards, the introduction of new
fences in the front yard is
inappropriate.
Historically, the rear of the
property appears never to have
been enclosed by a above grade
wall or fence. Aside from retaining
boulders and the incinerator, the
property is open to the alley.
Boulder retaining wall and
incinerator should be retained.
Review details at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.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 proposal calls for the
construction of a 6’ high concrete
wall - one side to be faced with
stone the other side with what
appears to be stucco. There are no
tall masonry walls in this alley.
One masonry wall is located on the
alley across the street at 701 16th St.
Staff considers that the historic
character of the east alley of the
16th Street Historic District is open
and that a high masonry wall
would be inconsistent with its
traditional character. A painted
open wood fence constructed on
the existing boulder retaining wall
would maintain the traditional
character. Revise plan to show
painted wood fence (maximum 6’
in height when measured from
alley grade) with minimum 1”
spacing between the boards.
No
.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
Proposed masonry wall is
inconsistent with this guideline. A
lower open wood fence
constructed on the existing boulder
retaining wall would maintain the
No
Agenda Item 5A, Page 12
fences or block walls are inappropriate. traditional character. Revise plan to
show painted wood fence
(maximum 6’ in height when
measured from the alley grade)
with a minimum 1” spacing
between the boards.
.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 feet in
height with a minimum of 1" spacing
between the pickets can be reviewed at
staff level.
The proposed wall is shown to be
solid masonry and at least 6’ in
height when measured from the
alley. Staff considers constructing
such will create tunnel-like effect.
Revise plan to show painted wood
fence (maximum 6’ in height when
measured from the alley garden)
with a minimum 1” spacing
between the boards.
No
Staff considers that the proposal to construct a masonry wall at the rear of the
property is substantially inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines, but that
construction of a painted wooden fence (with minimum spacing between the
board of 1”), on top of the existing stone retaining wall would be consistent with
these guidelines and meet subsections (b) and (c) of Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981
Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the construction of the
fence with outlined conditions to be reviewed and approved by the Landmarks
design review committee.
FINDINGS:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, provided the stated conditions of
approval are met, construction of a painted wooden fence on top of the existing
stone retaining wall at 716 16th St. in the 16th Street Historic District will be
generally consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. The proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural
features of the landmark.
Agenda Item 5A, Page 13
2. The mass, scale, height, architectural style, arrangement, texture, color,
arrangement of color, and materials used for the proposed new fence will
be compatible with the character of the landmark.
3. The request is generally consistent with meet subsections (b) and (c)
of Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 Standards for Issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate and the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Attachment B: Tax Assessor Card
Attachment C: 16th Street Historic District Information
Attachment D: Applicant Materials
Attachment E: Photos
Agenda Item 5A, Page 14
Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form
Agenda Item 5A, Page 15
Agenda Item 5A, Page 16
Agenda Item 5A, Page 17
Agenda Item 5A, Page 18
Agenda Item 5A, Page 19
Attachment B: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item 5A, Page 20
Agenda Item 5A, Page 21
Attachment C: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item 5A, Page 22
Agenda Item 5A, Page 23
Attachment D: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item 5A, Page 24
Agenda Item 5A, Page 25
Agenda Item 5A, Page 26
Agenda Item 5A, Page 27
Agenda Item 5A, Page 28
Agenda Item 5A, Page 29
Agenda Item 5A, Page 30
Agenda Item 5A, Page 31
Agenda Item 5A, Page 32
Agenda Item 5A, Page 33
Attachment D: Photos
Agenda Item 5A, Page 34
Agenda Item 5A, Page 35
Agenda Item 5A, Page 36
Agenda Item 5A, Page 37
Agenda Item 5A, Page 38
Agenda Item 5A, Page 39
Agenda Item 5A, Page 40
Agenda Item 5A, Page 41
Agenda Item 5A, Page 42
Agenda Item 5A, Page 43