Item 5A - 936 Mapleton AveAgenda Item # 5C, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
April 4, 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
Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to construct a 1,510 sq. ft. rear addition to the
contributing house at 936 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder
Revised Code 1981 (HIS2017-00107).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 936 Mapleton Ave.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1)
3. Lot size: 13,783 sq. ft.
4. Building Size: 1,816 sq. ft.
5. Proposed new square footage: 1,510 sq. ft. above grade
6. Applicant: Steve Dodd
7. Owner: Marybeth Emerson
8. Date of Construction: 1895
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, staff considers the
proposed construction meets the standards of Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981,
Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Application, and is consistent with the
General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines. Staff
recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated April 4, 2018, as
the findings of the board and approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the
construction of a rear addition, as shown on plans dated February 7, 2018, finding that
Agenda Item # 5A Page 2
the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the accessory building
in compliance with the approved plans dated February 7, 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 the following:
i. A reduction of the footprint of the addition by decreasing
the east-west dimension of the first floor of the addition;
ii. A reduction in the height of the addition and connector to
the extent possible;
iii. A change in siding material on the addition from brick to
wood;
iv. The addition of windows to the 1st floor of the east elevation
and a reduction in the amount of glazing on the south
elevation.
3. Final architectural plans that include details for the new accessory
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.
BACKGROUND & SUMMARY:
• Constructed in 1895, within the identified 1865-1946 period of significance for
the Mapleton Hill Historic District, the house retains a high level of historic
integrity to this period. Long-term Boulder City Council member Thomas
Fitzpatrick was an early owner of the property. Staff considers the house to be
contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
• On December 6, 2017, the Landmarks Board reviewed an application for the
construction of a 1,550 sq. ft. addition to the existing 1,816 sq. ft. house.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 3
• The Landmarks Board expressed concern with the massing, scale, and
location of the proposed addition. The applicant chose to withdraw the
application prior to a motion by the Board to redesign the addition, based
upon the Board’s comments.
• On Feb. 8, 2018, the Planning, Housing and Sustainability department
received the current application for the construction of a rear addition.
• Staff considers that, provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed
construction of an addition to the 1895 house will meet the standards of
Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate
Application, and will be consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the
Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property at 936 Mapleton Ave. measures 13,783 square feet in size and is
located on the south side of Mapleton Avenue, between 9th and 10th streets. The
property is located within the boundaries of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Figure 1. Location map, 936 Mapleton Ave.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 4
Figure 2. 936 Mapleton Ave. Tax Assessor Card photograph, c.1929
Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Figure 3. View of north elevation (façade), 2017.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 5
The 1 ½ story 1,816 sq. ft. Queen Anne house was constructed about 1894. The
first story is constructed of red pressed brick with a gabled roof with two types
of shingles on gable ends. Decorated bargeboard is featured at the gable peaks
with stone window sills, segmented corbelled arch lintels, circular arch windows,
a two-sided bay window and a classically inspired full-width porch.
A front gabled roofed garage with composition roofing, wood siding, corner-
boards, and trim is situated at the east of the property. An overhead sixteen
panel door opens south to the driveway and Mapleton Ave. A double-hung
window and pedestrian door are located on the west side. The Historic Building
Inventory Record indicates the accessory building was constructed before 1932.
A gabled roof accessory building is situated at the southwest corner of the lot. It
features a four-light window in the west gable end and double-hung windows
on the lower west side; narrow wood siding changes to a wider variety at the
south shed roofed addition with one four-light window and paired multi-paned
windows. East side has gable roof over center door flanked by two, double-hung
windows. On the north side there is a one-story, one car garage attached to the
building.
All three buildings were constructed during the 1865-1946 period-of-significance
for the Mapleton Hill Historic District and retain their historic integrity. Staff
considers the buildings to be contributing to the historic character of the district.
PROPERTY HISTORY
The 1929 tax assessor card lists the date of construction for this house as 1894
while the 1986 building inventory states this house was purchased by Thomas
Fitzpatrick when it was first built in 1895 but the Boulder City Directory lists the
first resident to be Bellman, W.S. (a cashier for the national state bank). By 1898
Fitzpatrick was the owner.
Thomas Fitzpatrick was the special guest of “Buffalo Bill” Cody when Cody gave
the last performance of the “Wild West Circus” in Boulder. He served on the city
council for more than 20 years. His daughter, Jessie, lived in the house all her life,
except during the two years when she served as field secretary for the
Congregational Church. Jessie began teaching at Whittier School in 1908 and in
1924, she became principal of the school, retiring in 1947. She died in 1975.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 6
PAST ALTERATIONS
A Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) was issued in 2016 for the restoration
of the front porch to its c. 1929 appearance and to repaint the house in an off-
white color scheme. A hipped roof addition with small shed roof ell is located at
the rear of the house. These portions of the building are visible in the 1929 Tax
Assessor photograph of the house (see Figure 2.)
DECEMBER 6, 2017 PROPOSAL
Staff recommended denial of the December 6, 2017 proposal finding that the
mass, scale and design of the proposed addition at 936 Mapleton Avenue to be
significantly inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Design Guidelines. During its deliberations, the Landmarks
Board the expressed concern with the massing, scale, and location of the
proposed addition and discussed ways to reduce both the real and perceived
mass and scale of the construction. The applicant chose to withdraw the
application prior to a motion by the board to redesign the addition, based upon
the Board’s comments.
REVISED PROPOSAL
Following the December 6, 2017 hearing, staff met with the applicant and architect
to discuss ways to reduce the mass and scale of the addition. The resulting revised
plans call for the construction of a 1,510 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the house to
increase the above ground area from 1,816 sq. ft. to 3,326 sq. ft. where the previous
proposal showed an addition of approximately 1,550 sq. ft. As revised, the
proposed addition is 40 sq. ft. smaller than that reviewed by the Landmarks Board
at its December 6, 2018 meeting due to retention of the east shed roof porch.
The existing floor area of the property (including the accessory building and
garage) is currently 2,703 sq. ft. The proposed floor area on the property would
increase to 4,213 sq. ft. where the maximum floor area allowed on this property in
the Residential Low-1 (RL-1) zoned district is 4,562 sq. ft. Plans also show the
existing 345 sq. ft. basement to be enlarged to 1,447 sq. ft. in size which is not
included in the floor area calculation for the property.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 7
Figure 4. View of south elevation (rear), 2017
Figure 5. Existing Footprint.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 8
Figure 6. Proposed Footprint - 12.06.2017 Proposal
Figure 7. Proposed Footprint - Current Proposal
The main level floor area increase is 780 sq. ft. with the proposed second-story
addition area at 730 sq. ft.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 9
Figure 8 & 9. Existing and Proposed 12.06.2017 North Elevation
Figure 10. Current Proposal - North elevation
Agenda Item # 5A Page 10
Elevations show the addition to be designed with a modernist vocabulary
utilizing flat roofs with brick clad walls to complement the brick of the existing
house. The east wall of the proposed addition extends approximately 4’ beyond
the outside wall of the historic east bay window. The proposed addition is
shown to be 22’ in height, approximately 9’ lower than the 31’ tall historic house.
From Mapleton Avenue, a portion of the addition will be visible (see figure 12).
Figure 11 & 12. Existing and Proposed 12.06.2017 East Elevation
Figure 13. Current Proposal - East elevation
Agenda Item # 5A Page 11
Elevations indicate the glazed area of the east porch is to be reduced and the
door moved from the northeast to the center of the porch and facing west (see
figure 14 & 16). At the same time, the grade at the porch appears to be raised and
the stairs eliminated. The remodeled east porch is shown to be fenestrated with a
double-hung window and a ¾ light door.
The east face of the proposed addition is fenestrated with two over one, double-
hung windows. A second-story door (alternately shown as a window) opens to
an 8’ x 26’ roof deck area. A 22’ x 4’ stair well and railing is shown located along
the south end of the east wall of the addition.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 12
Figure 14 & 15. Existing and Proposed 12.06.2017 West Elevation
Figure 16. Current Proposal - West Elevation.
The west face of the proposed addition shows the truncated hipped roof (now
shown as a lower pitch shed roof), the first floor fenestrated with a pair of 8’ high
windows, and the second floor featuring a set of two over one windows.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 13
Figure 17 & 18. Existing and Proposed 12.06.2017 South Elevation
Figures 21. Current Proposal - South Elevation.
A covered 22’ x 6’ porch and balcony above is shown to project from to the 32’
wide, south face of the addition. The upper balcony is accessed via a set of five, 8’
high “nana-doors”. The first story porch is accessed by a set of eight, 8’ nana-
doors. This elevation does not appear to have changed from the proposal
reviewed by the Board at its December 6, 2017 meeting.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 14
Figure 22. Existing Northeast Perspective
Figure 23. 12.06.2017 - Northeast Perspective
Figure 24. Current Proposal - Northeast Perspective
Agenda Item # 5A Page 15
Figure 25. Current Proposal - South Alley Perspective
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsections 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, set 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 conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions
Agenda Item # 5A Page 16
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
DESIGN GUIDELINE 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?
The Queen Anne house was constructed about 1895, within the period of
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Minimally altered, the
building retains its original form, massing, scale, and materiality and should be
considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Staff considers
that provided the listed conditions are met, the current proposal will not damage
or destroy important architectural features of the historic house or property.
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 provided the listed conditions are met, the proposal will not
adversely affect the historic architectural interest or value of the Mapleton Hill
Historic District.
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 listed conditions are met, the proposed addition
and rehabilitation of and addition to the contributing house will be compatible
with the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 17
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
proposed new construction 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.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate
sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS
General Design Guidelines
2.1 Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and building.
Individual structures are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that set the context for
the neighborhood. How structures occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing,
creates much of the context of the neighborhood.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.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 current proposal shows the
distance between the existing house
and garage being half of the current
distance. This distance does not
appear to have changed from the
December 6, 2017 proposal.
Maybe
2.4 Parking and Driveways
Historically, private parking was limited to the rear of the lot with access from the alley. There are
instance where curb cuts have been added to the front yards, but these are generally alterations and do
not represent traditional parking patterns.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 18
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.5 Historically appropriate
paving material, such as
flagstone or brick, can be used
to break up larger parking
areas.
Proposal does not include details on
hardscaping on property.
Maybe
.7 Paving driveways or garage
access areas with asphalt or
concrete gives a modern look
and is generally inappropriate.
Flagstone or brick wheel strips
are the preferred alternative.
Proposal does not include details on
hardscaping on property.
Maybe
3.3 Decks
Decks are a modern expression of porches that were not found on historic buildings. Great care needs to
be taken in designing decks to fit into the character of the historic district. Because decks are not
traditionally found on historic buildings they should be avoided or their appearance minimized – they
should be subordinate to the house in terms of scale and detailing.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 First floor decks are
inappropriate in the front of a
house. Locate a first floor deck
at the rear of a house..
Balcony above porch is 133 sq. ft. and
located at the rear of the house.
Yes
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES -ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC
BUILDINGS, 4.0.
4.1 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic
buildings is the protection of the existing conditions and the character of the site and
district.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Construct new additions so that
there is a least possible loss of
historic fabric and so that the
character-defining features of the
Proposed addition is at rear of house,
and results in removal of rear dormer
and portion of hipped roof. Revised
proposal retains east porch. Staff
considers that preservation of this
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5A Page 19
historic building are not destroyed,
damaged or destroyed
feature as connection to addition
appropriate, but that historic
fenestration and materials should be
preserved on this portion of the
house. Resolve at the Ldrc.
.2 New additions should be
constructed so that they may be
removed in the future without
damaging the historic structure.
Rear wall of historic house appears to
be completely removed. Consider
retaining rear wall and creating
passage between historic house and
addition. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.3 It is not appropriate to construct
an addition that will detract from
the overall historic character of the
principal building and/or the site,
or if it will require the removal of
significant building elements or
site features.
Staff considers revisions to the design
to preserve the historic porch a better
transition between the historic house
and proposed addition. Significant
public visibility from Mapleton
Avenue, especially from the
southwest. Staff considers that
additional steps should be taken to
reduce impact of addition, especially
when viewed from Mapleton Avenue.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
4.2 Distinction from Historic Structures
All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design is
duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additional should be
compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Distinguish an addition from the
historic building, but maintain
visual continuity between the two.
One common method is to step the
addition back and/or set it in
slightly from the historic
structure.
Proposed addition is significantly
lower than the historic house, but
wider than it. Preserving historic
porch acts to distinguish and
transition between historic house and
addition. However, at 33’ in width,
the addition extends several feet east
of the east wall of the historic house.
Work to reduce width of addition and
extension at southeast corner – resolve
at Ldrc.
Maybe
.2 Do not directly copy historic
elements. Instead, interpret
In form, the addition respects the
historic house and does not seek to
replicate historic elements but could
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5A Page 20
historic elements in simpler ways
in the addition.
more clearly interpret historic
elements and proportions. Additional
fenestration on east wall of proposed
addition more in keeping with
historic house. Consider adding
another window to this wall. Resolve
at Ldrc.
.3 Additions should be simpler in
detail than the original structure.
An addition that exhibits a more
ornate style or implies an earlier
period of architecture than that of
the original is inappropriate.
In general, the addition is simpler
than the historic house but not
subordinate to it in terms of mass and
scale. Preservation of the shed roof
porch in revised scheme creates better
transition from old to new, however
staff considers additional reduction of
size, scale and architectural
vocabulary should occur. Resolve at
Ldrc.
No
.4 The architectural styles of
additions should not imitate the
historic style but must be
compatible with it. Contemporary
style additions are possible, but
require the utmost attention to
these guidelines to be successful.
The use of two distinct historic
styles, such as adding Tudor-style
half-timbering to a Classic
Cottage, is inappropriate.
Proposed addition is contemporary,
and transition at east transition is less
abrupt than in prior scheme. This
results in addition appearing less
horizontal. Additional steps should be
taken to better reference historic
elements more successfully in
proportion, fenestration, etc. Resolve
at Ldrc.
Maybe
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site
detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions should be
distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from
the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic structures or the
site, in mass, scale or detailing.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 An addition should be
subordinate to the historic
building, limited in size and scale
so that it does not diminish or
visually overpower the building.
Addition will have public visibility
from Mapleton Avenue – is not
subordinate to the historic house in
terms of width and form. Addition is
85% percent of the floor area of the
No
Agenda Item # 5A Page 21
historic house. Addition might be
sided with wood rather than brick to
further help diminish mass and scale
.2 Design an addition to be
compatible with the historic
building in mass, scale, materials
and color. For elevations visible
from public streets, the
relationship of solids to voids in
the exterior walls should also be
compatible.
Addition will have public visibility
from Mapleton Avenue – is not
subordinate to the historic house in
terms of width and form. Addition is
85% percent of the floor area of the
existing historic house. Further
refinement to proportion and shapes
of voids could better reference those
on the historic house – resolve at the
Ldrc.
Maybe
.4 Reflect the original symmetry or
asymmetry of the historic
building.
Symmetry of the original house is
generally reflected in fenestration of
the proposed addition, but proportion
and shapes of voids should be further
refined to reference those found on
the historic house. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.5 Preserve the vertical and
horizontal proportion of a
building's mass.
Highly horizontal form of proposed
addition has been visually mitigated
to be more compatible with vertical
proportions of the historic house.
Further reduce mass, scale and
consider change in materiality to
make more proportional and
harmonious with historic portion of
house. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature
trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the site or
dramatically alter its historic character.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Design new additions so that the
overall character of the site, site
topography, character-defining site
features and trees are retained.
It does not appear the topography
of the property will be significantly
affected by the proposed addition.
Yes
Agenda Item # 5A Page 22
.2 Locate new additions on an
inconspicuous elevation of the
historic building, generally the rear
one. Locating an addition to the
front of a structure is inappropriate
because it obscures the historic
facade of a building.
Addition is at the rear of the
historic house but extends beyond
plane of the historic house at the
west and will be visible from
Mapleton Avenue. Further reduce
mass, scale and width of the
addition. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.3 Respect the established orientation
of the original building and typical
alignments in the area.
Addition creates a significantly
more wall-dominated and
horizontal building with an
increase in building’s length from
48’ to 80’. Revised design is more
compatible with vertical
proportions of the historic house.
Further reduce mass, scale and
consider change in materiality to
make more proportional. Resolve
at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.4 Preserve a backyard area between
the house and the garage,
maintaining the general proportion
of built mass to open space found
within the area. See Guideline
2.1.1.
Submitted site plan is not scaled,
however, the distance between the
existing house and garage will be
reduced to half of the current
distance. Proposal approaches
maximum floor area allowed in
RL-1.
Maybe
4.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining
elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they complement
the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations
for related suggestions.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.1 Maintain the dominant
roofline and orientation of the
roof form to the street.
Roofline of proposed addition does not
maintain the orientation, though not the
roof form of the historic house though
revisions make addition appear more
vertical than in prior scheme. Take
additional steps to mitigate effects of flat
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5A Page 23
roof forms especially when viewed from
the northeast -resolve at the Ldrc.
.2 Rooflines on additions should
be lower than and secondary to
the roofline of the original
building.
Roofline of addition is significantly lower
than the historic house. Yes
.3 The existing roof form, pitch,
eave depth, and materials
should be used for all
additions.
Abrupt intersection between historic
house and addition has been mitigated
somewhat by revisions (see .1 above).
Maybe
.5 Maintain the proportion,
general style, and symmetry or
asymmetry of the existing
window patterns.
Fenestration of addition could be
modified to better reference pattern and
proportions on the historic house. Large
banks of “nana doors” at rear are
incompatible with character of main
house. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.6 Use window shapes that are
found on the historic building.
Do not introduce odd-shaped
windows such as octagonal,
triangular, or diamond-shaped
See above. Maybe
MAPLETON HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES –MAJOR EXTERIOR
RENOVATION, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES, T.
F. Massing
While the specific details of the historic architectural styles of Mapleton Hill vary considerably,
the most significant and identifiable feature of a building is its massing. Buildings of Italianate
styling are square and vertical. Bungalows are low and rectangular, while Queen Anne styling is
asymmetrical with many projections and details. Replication of stylistic detailing is not
encouraged or necessary, however, the form which defines the building, should be respected.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
1. Any addition to a building should
preserve the existing symmetry or
asymmetry.
Symmetry of the original house is
generally reflected in fenestration of
the proposed addition, but
proportions and shapes of voids could
better reference those found on the
historic house. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5A Page 24
2. The vertical or horizontal
proportion of a building’s mass
should be preserved.
Highly horizontal form of proposed
addition has been visually mitigated
to be more compatible with vertical
proportions of the historic house.
Further reduce mass, scale and
consider change in materiality to
make more proportional and
harmonious with historic portion of
house. Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
T. Major Exterior Renovation, Additions and Second Stories.
Large additions and additional stories to a building frequently change the character of the
structure. The diversity that characterizes the historic district is a result of the variety in the sizes
of buildings and the differing architectural styles. A design response that respects this diversity is
most appropriate.
Guideline
Analysis Meets
Guideline?
.4 New additions should be designed
and constructed so that the
character-defining features of the
historic building are not radically
changed, obscured, damaged or
destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation.
The east porch will be retained while
rear addition roof, dormer will be lost
in current scheme. Staff considers that
preservation of the east porch as
connection to addition appropriate,
but that historic fenestration and
materials should be preserved on this
portion of the house. Resolve at the
Ldrc.
Maybe
.5 New design and construction
should always be differentiated
from older portions of a building;
however, the addition should
respect the existing roof forms, and
building scale and massing.
Staff considers revisions to the design
to preserve the historic porch a better
transition between the historic house
and proposed addition. Significant
public visibility from Mapleton
Avenue, especially from the
southwest. Staff considers that
additional steps should be taken to
reduce impact of addition, especially
when viewed from Mapleton Avenue.
Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
With the exception of the 1960s enclosure of the rear screened porch and removal
of the front porch and balcony railings, the Queen Anne house at 936 Mapleton
Ave. is highly intact to its original construction (see figure 2) and contributes to
Agenda Item # 5A Page 25
the historic character of Mapleton Hill. Staff considers the rear of the house the
best location for construction of an addition, but that such an addition should
proportional to, and compatible with, the historic house, property and district as
a whole.
Staff considers the revised proposal has progressed in preserving the east porch
form to create a less abrupt transition from the historic house to the addition and
in reducing the perceived mass of the addition. Likewise, the more vertical
proportions of the addition are more in keeping with that of the historic portion
of the house.
Staff considers that additional steps should be explored to reduce of the real and
perceived mass of the proposed addition. These include:
- Reducing the east-west dimension of the first floor of the addition
- Lower the height of the addition and connector to the extent possible
- Change siding material on addition to wood
- Add windows to 1st floor of east elevation and reduce amount of glazing
at south elevation
Additionally, staff considers that the exterior materials and fenestration of the
east porch should be rehabilitated, and its existing configuration be preserved.
Staff considers that these revisions can be achieved through review of the
recommended conditions of approval by the Ldrc and that if these conditions are
met, the proposal will be generally consistent with the design guidelines for site
design and accessory buildings and the Standards for issuance of a landmark
alteration certificate.
FINDINGS:
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff
recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the
following findings:
1. The proposed new construction will meet the standards in Section 9-11-
18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
2. The proposed construction will be compatible with the character of the
historic house and with other buildings in the district in terms of mass,
scale, and design.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 26
3. The mass, scale, and design, of the proposed construction is consistent
with Section 9-11-18 (a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C.1981, the General Design
Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessors Card
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item # 5A Page 27
Attachment A: Tax Assessors Card
Tax Assessor Card Front, 1929.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 28
Tax Assessor Card Back, 1929.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 29
Attachment B: Current Photographs
936 Mapleton Ave., East Elevation.
936 Mapleton Ave., North elevation.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 30
936 Mapleton Ave., South Elevation.
936 Mapleton Ave., West Elevation.
Agenda Item # 5A Page 31
Attachment C: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item # 5A Page 32
Agenda Item # 5A Page 33
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