Item 5D - 531 Maxwell Ave
Agenda Item #5D Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
August 1, 2018
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Charles Ferro, Interim Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Caleb Gasparek, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate
application to demolish an existing non-contributing house and, in its place,
construct a new 1,620 sq. ft. house; demolish a 110 sq. ft. shed; and construct
a free-standing 500 sq. ft., two-car garage at 531 Maxwell Ave. in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder
Revised Code 1981 (HIS2018-00204).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 531 Maxwell Ave.
2. Date of construction: 1946, 1950 (house), c.1960 (shed)
3. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
4. Owner: Elizabeth Garnsey
5. Applicant: Joel Smiley
6. Property Area: 6,980 sq. ft.
7. Existing House: 1,444 sq. ft.
8. Proposed House: 1,620 sq. ft.
9. Proposed Garage: 500 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In staff’s opinion, if the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, the
proposed demolition and new construction will be generally consistent with the
conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the
Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
Agenda Item #5B Page 2
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated Aug. 1, 2018 as the
findings of the board and approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the demolition and new
construction at 531 Maxwell Ave., subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the alterations are completed
in compliance with plans dated July 2, 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 the following, which
shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks Design
Review Committee (Ldrc):
a. Revised drawings showing:
i. more traditional fenestration of the façade;
ii. a rear porch supported by columns;
iii. a slightly narrowed garage to lessen exposure on the alley;
iv. an increase in the pitch of the garage roof; and
v. a more traditional automobile garage two-door configuration and
b. Final architectural plans that include details including wall and roof
materials, porch details and materials, door and window details, and
proposed hardscaping on the property to ensure that the final design of
the building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton
Hill Historic District Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval.
SUMMARY
• Because this application calls for the demolition of a building and new free-standing
construction of more than 340 sq. ft., 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 applicant has met with staff on two occasions to review design concepts and
provide feedback on the proposal.
• Originally constructed in 1946 and added to in 1950, the house was constructed
during the post-World War II period and, arguably, at the end of the district’s
period of significance (1865-1946). The house has been significantly altered since
1950 with replacement of windows, siding, the addition of a carport and a cupola.
Staff considers the building to be non-contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Likewise, staff does not consider the shed proposed for removal to be a
contributing resource to the Mapleton Historic District.
• With the stated conditions, staff considers that the proposed demolition and
Agenda Item #5B Page 3
new construction is generally consistent with the historic preservation
ordinance the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines.
Property Description
The 6,980 sq. ft. lot at 531 Maxwell Ave. is located on the north side of Maxwell
Avenue, between 5th and 6th streets in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. An
alley runs along the north edge of the property.
Figure 1. Location Map showing 531 Arapahoe Ave.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Figure 2. Tax Assessor Photograph, c. 1950.
Agenda Item #5B Page 4
The 500 block of Maxwell Avenue first appears in the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps in
1906. The maps between 1906 and 1931 record a one-story, frame dwelling at the rear of
the property and the property is addressed as 535 Maxwell Ave. The 1931-1960 Sanborn
map shows the current one-story house located with a setback similar to that of others
on the block.
Figure 3. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1931.
Figure 4. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1931-1960.
Boulder County Deed records show that Ralph E. Dove owned the property from 1943
until 1962, initially residing in the house and later renting it out. Renters included
dentist Duane C. Botts in 1951 and Ronald Stokes, an insurance representative, in 1961.
Agenda Item #5B Page 5
From 1962 to 1985, the property was owned by the Petty family. Roy Petty was born in
Missouri around 1893 and worked as a letter carrier in Boulder. Roy and Eleanor had
two sons Thomas and Leslie. The property passed to Thomas and his wife Carol Lee in
1970. The current owner purchased the property in 2017.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Figure 5. South elevation of 531 Maxwell Ave., 2018 (House proposed for demolition).
At approximately 1,444 sq. ft. in size, this is a single-story, wood frame house with a
low-pitched roof, overhanging eaves and an irregular floor plan. In plan, the house is a
single split-level building with the western portion slightly raised from the remaining
building, likely reflecting the 1950 addition. A single cupola with a shed style roof is
located towards the front of the building and represents a post-1950 alteration to the
house.
A large picture window with flanking double-hung sash is located on the building’s
facade. A pair of double-hung windows is located directly east on this elevation. The c.
1950 photograph (Figure 2) indicates that the double-hung sash were originally six-light
casement windows.
Agenda Item #5B Page 6
Figure 6. East Elevation, 531 Maxwell Ave., 2018 (House proposed for demolition).
The front door is setback several feet on the west side of the façade in the same location
as the door shown in the 1950 photograph. A small picture window is located next to
front door and also appears to be have been replaced.
Figure 7. West Elevation, 531 Maxwell Ave., 2018 (House proposed for demolition).
The c.1950 tax assessor card photograph (Figure 2) indicates the lower half of the house
originally sheathed with horizontal “sliced log” siding, and the upper portion of the
exterior walls sided with vertical boards. Currently, the exterior walls are sided with
narrow painted clapboard siding and corner boards.
Agenda Item #5B Page 7
Figure 8. North Elevation, 531 Maxwell Ave., 2018 (House proposed for demolition).
DATE OF CONSTRUCTION & ALTERATIONS
Boulder County Tax Assessor records gives the date of construction for the house at 531
Maxwell Ave. as 1950 while a building permit for plumbing at 535 Maxwell Avenue
was issued by the City of Boulder in 1946. It is unclear whether this plumbing permit
was for an existing or new building on the property, then identified as 535 Maxwell
Avenue. In 1950, a permit was issued for the construction of a 24’ x30’ “addition to
dwelling” at 531 Maxwell Avenue with a value of $4,000. A Boulder County Tax
Assessor photograph taken of the property shortly after the house was constructed
shows a very shallow pitch shed roof building with a slight higher low pitch gable-roof
addition. The site plan on the tax assessor card shows the rear addition as being 24’ x
30’ (see Attachment D) and likely permitted in 1950. In any case, if the front portion of
the house was constructed in 1946, it was built in last year of the identified 1865-1946
period-of-significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. A (now demolished)
detached carport was permitted in 1967.
In 1997, a Landmark Alteration Certificate was issued for the construction of a rear
addition. The house appears to retain its general massing and scale from its 1950 state
(see Figure 2), though alterations have changed its character materially and stylistically.
Staff considers that, based upon the borderline (1946-1950) dates of construction and
because the house was subsequently altered, materially and in design, the house should
be considered non-contributing to the Mapleton Historic District.
Agenda Item #5B Page 8
Figure 9. East face of post-1960 shed proposed for demolition.
The shed at the rear of the property was constructed after 1961, outside the period-of-
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. A carport was approved in 1967 and
has since been demolished.
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION
Plans propose demolishing the existing house and shed and, in their place, constructing
a 1,620 sq. ft., 1 ½ story, neo-traditional house and a detached 500 sq. ft. two-car garage
at the rear of the property.
Figure 10. Existing Site Plan. Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 9
Figure 11. Proposed Site Plan. Not to scale.
In the site plan, the front setback for the proposed new house is shown as
approximately 25’ from the property line, roughly the same setback as the existing
house and generally aligned with the adjacent historic houses. Both proposed buildings
are rectilinear in shape and neo-traditional in form.
Figure 12. Existing south elevation (façade). Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 10
Figure 13. Proposed south elevation. Not to scale.
Elevations show a one and one-half story wood frame neo-traditional clapboarded
house with a front gabled roof and a full-width front porch fronting onto Maxwell Ave.
A wide single, double-hung window and west door is shown on the south wall under
the front porch roof. A pair of double-hung windows is located above the front porch
on the second story. Little detail has been provided on materials or finishes, though the
proposed porch hip roof is shown to be supported by four narrow columns.
Figure 14. Existing east (side) elevation. Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 11
Figure 15. Proposed east (side) elevation. Not to scale.
Drawings show a shed-roof wall dormer located on the east elevation of the house, with
a traditional window pattern of double-hung windows on the first level. A glass slot
slices the elevation toward the rear of the house while a skylight is located near the
south end of the roof. A hipped roof is cantilevered over the rear porch.
Figure 16. Existing west (side) elevation. Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 12
Figure 17. Proposed west (side) elevation. Not to scale.
The west elevation is very similar in design to the east elevation, with a shed-roof wall
dormer with a pair of double-hung windows, and traditionally scaled and placed
double-hung windows on the first level. The building is shown to be clad in narrow
clapboard siding.
Figure 18. Existing north (rear) elevation. Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 13
Figure 19. Proposed north (rear) elevation. Not to scale.
The north (rear) elevation is shown to feature a group of three large glass sliding doors
that occupy the majority of the first level of the elevation. A pedestrian door is located
at the east end of the elevation and two double-hung windows are located in the gable
end. The cantilevered hipped roof projects over the rear porch.
Figure 20. Proposed perspective south (front). Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 14
Figure 21. Existing and proposed street massing. Not to scale.
Figure 22. Location of proposed garage (white fence, right center) at alley looking east
Agenda Item #5B Page 15
Figure 23. Location of proposed garage (white fence, left center) at alley looking west
Figure 24. Proposed garage north (left) and south (right) elevations. Not to scale.
A simply designed, 500 sq. ft. garage is proposed at the northwest corner of the
property approximately 23’ north of the rear wall of the proposed house. The pitch of
the gable-roof garage is lower than that of the main house while the north (alley)
elevation features a single, 10’ wide overhead garage door. The south elevation, facing
the interior of the lot, shows a single pedestrian door at the east side of the elevation.
Agenda Item #5B Page 16
Figure 25. Proposed garage east and west (side) elevations. Not to scale.
The proposed east face of the garage features a single pedestrian door, while the west
elevation lacks any fenestration.
Figure 26. Proposed perspective garage. Not to scale.
Agenda Item #5B Page 17
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b), 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 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 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.
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 existing house was constructed in 1946 with a 1950 addition (period of significance
for the Mapleton Hill Historic District is 1865-1946), but has been significantly modified
since that time with the replacement of windows, doors, and siding and the
construction of a rooftop cupola and a 1997 rear addition. While the existing house is
not incompatible with historic houses in the immediate streetscape, staff considers that
the 1946-1950 date of construction and post-1950 alterations are such that is should not
be considered contributing to Mapleton Hill Historic District. Likewise, staff does not
consider the c.1960 shed to be contributing to the district.
While the City of Boulder encourages the reuse of existing buildings as a sustainable
approach to redevelopment, historic preservation staff does not consider the demolition
of the house would be detrimental to the historic district, provided the proposed new
construction is consistent with the General and Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines. Staff finds that based upon analysis against the Guidelines, provided the
stated conditions are met, the design of the proposed new construction will be
compatible with the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic district and the immediate
streetscape (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
Agenda Item #5B Page 18
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historical,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers that based on analysis with the relevant design guidelines and provided
the stated conditions of approval are met, the special historic and architectural character
of the streetscape and the Mapleton Hill Historic District will not be adversely affected
by the proposed new construction.
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 of approval are met, the proposed
mass, scale, proportion and design of the of the house and garage will be generally
compatible with the character of the streetscape and with the character of the Mapleton
Historic District (see Design Guidelines Analysis section).
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the
proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of
the Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)?
Staff does not consider the existing house or shed to contribute to the historic character
of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, and finds that, provided the stated conditions of
approval are met, the proposal to replace these buildings meets the requirements of
Sections 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4), B.R.C. 1981 as the new house will be compatible with the
streetscape and is generally compatible and inconsistent with the General Design
Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines (see Design Guidelines
Analysis section).
(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.
No information has been provided to suggest that energy efficient design or
accessibility has been considered beyond that required by the city’s building code
specific to this building.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate and the
board has adopted the General Design Guidelines and Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The following is an analysis of the
submitted proposal with respect to these guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to
be used as an aid to appropriate design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
Agenda Item #5B Page 19
General Design Guidelines
2.0 Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of historic districts and buildings.
Individual buildings 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?
.1 Locate buildings within the
range of alignments as seen
traditionally in the area,
maintaining traditional
setbacks at the front, side and
rear of the property
The property is rectangular in shape,
approximately 50’ wide and 6,980 sq. ft.
in size. The proposed house is aligned
with the other houses on the north side of
the block, roughly parallel to Maxwell
Avenue.
YES
.2 Building proportions should
respect traditional patterns in
the district
The house reflects the traditional gable-
roofed forms in the district in terms of
scale, form, and massing. Review details
at Ldrc.
YES
.3 Orient the primary building
entrance to the street
Primary entrance is oriented to the street. YES
.4 Preserve original location of
the main entry and walk.
Existing house considered non-
contributing and proposed for
demolition. Walkway is proposed in
approximately the same location as
historic properties in the streetscape.
YES
.5 A new porch may encroach
into the existing alignment
only if it is designed according
to the guidelines and if it is
appropriate to the
architectural style of the
house.
Porch is proposed at the entry way,
addressing the street in traditional
manner, and is appropriate to the neo-
traditional, Edwardian-Vernacular
inspired form of the house.
YES
.7 Preserve a backyard area
between the house and the
garage, maintaining the
general proportion of built
mass to open space found
Proposed design preserves general
proportion of built mass to open space
and size of house is modest and in
keeping with historic buildings in the
district, though space between rear wall
MAYBE
Agenda Item #5B Page 20
within the area of house and garage less than typical of
historic properties in the district. Resolve
at Ldrc.
2.2.2 Preserve street trees whenever
possible
It does not appear that mature trees along
the street are proposed for removal.
Confirm at Ldrc.
MAYBE
6.0 New Primary Buildings
New construction within a historic district can enhance the existing district character if the proposed
design and its siting reflect an understanding of and a compatibility with the distinctive character of the
district. While new construction should fit into the historic character of the district or site, it should not
replicate historic styles. Instead, new buildings should relate to the fundamental characteristics of the
historic district or landmark site while also conveying a contemporary style. New buildings should not
overshadow existing historic structures. Fundamental characteristics to be considered in designing
compatible new structures include: site and setting, building size and proportions, materials, and the
placement and style of doors and windows.
The primary focus in reviewing new buildings will be on aspects that are visible from public streets. The
guidelines will be applied most stringently to these publicly visible areas. More flexibility will be allowed
for rear elevations and other areas largely screened from public view.
6.1 Distinction from Historic Buildings
The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false
historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be
compatible with the historic context, they must also be recognizable as new construction.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1
Create compatible
contemporary interpretations
of historic elements.
The design of the house is a
contemporary interpretation of the
Edwardian Vernacular in terms of mass,
scale and, materials. Review details at
Ldrc.
YES
.2 Interpretations of historic
styles may be appropriate if
distinguishable as new.
Proposed design of the house interprets
the Edwardian Vernacular in a clearly
contemporary way.
6.2 Site and Setting
New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features, including
mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new structures should not overpower the site or
dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within historic districts generally display a
consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance.
Agenda Item #5B Page 21
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Conform to Section 2.0 Site
Design.
See above for analysis. YES
.2 Overall character of site is
retained.
Residential character will be retained,
with similar setbacks.
YES
.3 Compatible with surrounding
buildings in setback,
orientation, spacing, and
distance from adjacent
buildings.
The proposed building appears generally
compatible in terms of setback,
orientation, spacing and distance from
adjacent buildings.
YES
.4 Proportion of built mass to
open space not significantly
different from contributing
buildings.
Proposed design appears to preserve
general proportion of built mass to open
space.
YES
6.3 Mass and Scale
In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing, size and scale
will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front façade is especially important to
consider since it will have the most impact on the streetscape. While new construction tends to be larger
than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures
should not be so out-of-scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Compatible with surrounding
buildings in terms of height,
size, scale, massing, and
proportions.
Scale, height, massing and proportions
appear compatible with surrounding
buildings.
YES
.2 Mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and
streetscape.
Proposed massing generally respects the
neighboring building and streetscape.
YES
.3 Historic heights and widths as
well as their ratios
maintained, especially
proportions of façade.
General proportions of the façade
elements are found in the district.
YES
Agenda Item #5B Page 22
6.4 Materials
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Materials should be similar in
scale, proportion, texture,
finish, and color to those found
on nearby historic structures.
Proposed materials include brick,
decorative brick, painted wood siding
and shakes, and asphalt shingles, all
traditionally found in the historic district.
Wood should be painted, not stained.
Lattice work on front balcony references
historic design, but should be detailed
carefully and in understated way. Bronze
finished clad windows and height of
front porch door may not be appropriate
– review porch, window, and door details
at Ldrc. Provide detailed information on
all materials including proposed path
ways, patio and retaining walls.
.2 Maintain a human scale by
avoiding large, featureless
surfaces and by using
traditionally sized building
components and materials.
Façade generally maintains a human
scale with a massing and materials.
However, little detail has been provided
about windows, doors and decorative
elements which should be resolved at the
Ldrc.
MAYBE
6.5 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 Conforms?
.1 Design the spacing,
placement, scale, orientation,
proportion, and size of
window and door openings in
new structures to be
compatible with the
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district, while reflecting the
underlying design of the new
Fenestration generally reflects traditional
window patterns, though use and
location of picture window and location
of gable end windows on upper-story
appear unresolved. Resolve fenestration
and detailing at Ldrc.
MAYBE
Agenda Item #5B Page 23
building.
.2 Select windows and doors for
new buildings that are
compatible in material,
subdivision, proportion,
pattern and detail with the
windows and doors of
surrounding buildings that
contribute to the historic
district
See .1 above. Resolve at Ldrc. MAYBE
.3 New buildings should use a
roof form found in the district
or on the landmark site
Roof form of the house references the
Edwardian Vernacular, a prevalent form
found in Mapleton Hill. Low-pitch roof of
proposed not consistent with that of
house. Consider narrowing garage and
increasing pitch to be in more keeping
with proposed pitch on house while
staying within 20’ height limit for
accessory buildings. Resolve at Ldrc.
MAYBE
.4 Porches should be compatible
in massing and details to
historic porches in the district
and should be appropriate to
the style of the house.
Front porch is appropriately scaled and
located on house though details including
materials, columns etc. are not provided
with the application. Rear porch is shown
to be cantilevered which is inconsistent
with traditional forms in Mapleton Hill
Resolve at Ldrc.
MAYBE
General Design Guidelines (Garages)
2.0 Site Design
…How buildings occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing, creates
much of the context of the neighborhood…
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
2.1.6
In neighborhoods with alleys, garages
should be located at
the rear of the lot and accessed from the
alley.
Proposed garage is shown at the
rear of the lot, accessed via the
alley. YES
2.1.7
Preserve a backyard area between the
house and the garage, maintaining the
general proportion of built mass to open
The proposed house and garage
are separated by approximately
23’ – consider reducing depth of MAYBE
Agenda Item #5B Page 24
space found within the area garage and providing more
space between it and house.
Resolve at Ldrc.
2.3.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human scale
of the alleys. For example, narrower lap
siding and smaller brick are appropriate.
The proposed new garage is
shown to be clad with narrow
clapboard similar to proposed
house and historic houses in the
district. Review material details
at the Ldrc.
YES
2.4.1 Maintain the traditional pattern of
parking at the rear of the lot.
Parking is proposed to be
maintained at the rear of the lot. YES
2.4.2 Access to parking should be from the
alleys whenever possible. See 2.1.6 YES
2.4.4
New curb cuts from the street are
inappropriate. When adding a garage or
significantly altering an existing garage
on the alley any front curb cut should be
vacated and closed.
No new curb cuts are proposed
as part of this proposal. YES
2.4.7
Paving driveways or garage access areas
with asphalt or concrete gives a modern
look and is generally inappropriate,
particularly when adjacent to unpaved
alleys. Flagstone or brick wheel strips
are the preferred alternative.
Paving details not provided.
Review at Ldrc. YES
7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Buildings
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 today.
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory
structures. While they should take design cues from the primary structure, they must be
subordinate to the primary structure in size, massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should
Agenda Item #5B Page 25
maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
Location and Orientation
7.2.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a new garage or
accessory building if doing so will detract from
the overall historic character of the principal
building and the site, or if it will require removal
of a significant historic building element or site
feature, such as a mature tree.
Building generally
complimentary to the
design of the proposed
house. No mature
vegetation is shown to be
removed as part of this
proposal. Proposed garage
is located in place of
existing non-historic shed
proposed for demolition.
YES
7.2.2
New garages and accessory buildings should
generally be located at the rear of the lot,
respecting the traditional relationship of such
buildings to the primary house and the site.
See 2.1.6 above; traditional
building pattern is
maintained.
YES
7.2.3
Maintain adequate spacing between accessory
buildings so alleys do not evolve into tunnel-like
passageways.
There are a number of
accessory buildings in this
alley (see figures 21 & 22).
Width of garage might be
reduced to 20’ reducing
exposure along alley and
minimizing potential of this
section becoming “tunnel-
like”. Resolver at Ldrc
MAYBE
7.2.4
Preserve a backyard area between the house and
the accessory buildings, maintaining the general
proportion of built mass to open space found
within the area.
See 2.1.7 above MAYBE
Mass and Scale
7.2.5
New accessory buildings should take design cues
from the primary building on the site, but be
subordinate to it in terms of size and massing.
Garage is designed to be
complimentary to the
proposed new house and is
subordinate to it in size and
massing. Narrowing
building will reduce
exposure on alley and allow
pitch to steepen – more in
YES
Agenda Item #5B Page 26
character with house.
Resolve at Ldrc.
7.2.6
New garages for single-family residences should
generally be one story tall and shelter no more
than two cars. In some cases, a two-car garage
may be inappropriate.
Garage shown as one-story
- may be reduced in size
slightly as suggested in
7.2.5. Resolve at Ldrc.
MAYBE
7.2.7 Roof form and pitch should be complimentary to
the primary structure.
Consider narrowing
building to raise pitch of to
make more complimentary
to main house with 20’
height limit for accessory
buildings. Revise roof form
for review by the Ldrc.
MAYBE
Materials and Detailing
7.2.8 Accessory structures should be simpler in design
and detail than the primary building.
Proposed garage is
generally simpler than the
primary house.
YES
7.2.9
Materials for new garages and accessory
buildings should be compatible with those found
on the primary structure and in the district.
Vinyl siding and prefabricated structures are
inappropriate.
The proposed new garage is
shown to be clad with
narrow clapboard similar to
proposed house and
historic houses in the
district. Review material
details at the Ldrc.
YES
7.2.10
Windows, like all elements of accessory buildings,
should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale
than similar elements on primary buildings. See
Sections 3.7 and 4.5 for additional direction.
Windows and door simple
in detailing and smaller in
scale than proposed house.
Large overhead door may
be inappropriate. Resolve at
the Ldrc.
MAYBE
7.2.12
Garage doors should be consistent with the
historic scale and materials of traditional
accessory structures. Wood is the most
appropriate material, and two smaller doors may
be more appropriate than one large door.
Double (10’ wide) overhead
garage door may be over
scaled - Consider installing
two separate, 8’ wide doors.
Resolve for review by the
Ldrc.
MAYBE
7.2.13 It is inappropriate to introduce features or details
to a garage or an accessory building in an attempt
Building references
proposed new house and YES
Agenda Item #5B Page 27
to create a false historical appearance. does not attempt to create a
false historic appearance.
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines. Only those guidelines that further the analysis of the proposed project are
included and those that reflect what has been evaluated in the previous section are not
repeated.
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
D Alleys, Easements and Accessways
Alleys are a strong visual element of the district, and have much variety of scale and detail. They play
an important part in the development patterns that give the more visible areas their character. Alleys
provide access to rear parking and garages. They have a varied edge quality, with building both on the
property lines and set back. The size and quality of these accessory building varies considerably.
Careful consideration should be given to changes in traditional use.
Guideline Analysis Conforms
?
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.
Reduction in width of garage suggested
as discussed in 7.2.3 above. Resolve
above.
MAYBE
U. New Construction
While new construction should fit into the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District, there is no intent
to require historic imitation. It is appropriate that new designs incorporate the elements that contribute to the
character of the District, such as overall mass, rooflines, windows, porches, front entries, etc. However,
innovative ways of incorporating such elements and modern expressions of detailing are strongly
encouraged.
New construction in the District should be in the character of the buildings surrounding it. Because
streetscapes vary in the District, new buildings facing the street should respect and be consistent with the
existing block pattern. Traditional site layout, porch size and placement, front entry location, roof type, and
door and window sizes and patterns should be considered when proposing new in-fill construction.
Agenda Item #5B Page 28
New buildings on the rear of a lot (including house behind a house developments) should be of a lesser mass
and scale than the original structure and more simply detailed. New accessory buildings on the rear of a lot
should be consistent with the existing pattern of small structures that are simple and utilitarian in design.
New construction on corner lots requires an especially thoughtful approach. Each corner lot will present a
unique design challenge for a highly visible building that does not disrupt the historic context.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 New construction should
incorporate the elements
contributing to the historic
character of the Mapleton Hill
Historic District as identified
by the Design Guidelines.
The building reflects contributing
elements found in the historic
district.t Residential character will be
retained with similar setbacks. (See
sections 2 & 6 of General Design
Guidelines above).
YES
.2 Building elevations visible
from streets and alleys need
the greatest sensitivity. Front
porches are an important
visual element and should be
incorporated into new
construction except in
unusual situations.
In placement and form front porch
addresses street appropriately taking
cues from historic houses in the
district (see sections 2 & 6 of General
Design Guidelines above). Proposed
scale of the house is generally
compatible with surrounding
buildings.
YES
.3 New construction should not
imitate historic buildings, but
should be an expression of its
own time. Contemporary
expression of traditional
architectural elements is
encouraged. Simplicity is an
important aspect of creating
compatible new construction.
Massing, proportion and design of the
house reflects the historic context of
the district but is an expression of its
own time.
YES
.4 The mass and scale of new
construction should respect
neighboring buildings and the
streetscape as a whole. Site
layout, porch size and
placement, entry level and
location, roof line, and door
and window sizes and patterns
should harmonize with the
historic context rather than
Mass, scale, height and fenestration
generally reflects traditional window
patterns. Refine windows and
placement on façade to better reflect
historic. Resolve at Ldrc.
MAYBE
Agenda Item #5B Page 29
compete with or copy it.
.7 New construction should
utilize a roof form found in the
district.
Staff considers that the proposed front
gable, one and one half-story form
with wall dormers is characteristic of
historic houses in the streetscape.
YES
.8 Use building materials that
are familiar in their
dimensions and that can be
repeated. This helps to
establish a sense of scale for
new buildings. Whenever
possible, use familiar building
components in traditional
sizes. Avoid large featureless
surfaces.
While little detail provided about
proposed materials and detailing,
simplicity of clapboard siding and
traditional building components
appear generally appropriate. Review
details at Ldrc.
YES
While the existing house is not incompatible with historic houses in the immediate
streetscape, staff considers that the 1946-1950 date of construction and post-1950
alterations are such that the house should not be considered contributing to Mapleton
Hill Historic District. Likewise, staff does not consider the c.1960 shed to be
contributing to the district.
The historic preservation ordinance requires that in order to approve a demolition in a
local landmark historic district, the Landmarks Board must find the proposal for new
construction meets the standards of Section 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3), B.R.C. 1981, ensuring
compatible new construction in the context of the historic district.
Staff commends the applicant and the owner for the time and consideration they have
taken in designing a house that is, in large, compatible with the character Mapleton Hill
Historic District. While staff finds the mass, scale and location and the design approach
generally consistent with the design guidelines, it considers that some refinement in
design is still necessary. Staff considers that such revisions can be achieved through
Board conditions to be reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review
committee.
Specifically, staff considers the fenestration of the façade should be refined, the
cantilevered rear porch supported by columns, the garage reduced somewhat in size
and the pitch of its roof modified to better reflect that of the proposed house, all to make
the design more consistent with the Design Guidelines and fully meet the Standards for
Agenda Item #5B Page 30
issuance of a landmark alteration certificate per Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981.
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 demolition of the existing house and shed appropriate as they are non-
contributing and the proposed new construction meets the standards in 9-11-
18 of the Boulder Revised Code.
2. The proposed new house and garage will not have an adverse effect on the
value of the district, as it will be generally compatible in terms of mass, scale,
or orientation with other buildings in the district.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed new house and garage
will be generally consistent with Section 9-11-18, B.R.C.; Sections 2, 6 and 7 of
the General Design Guidelines, and Sections D & U of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Current Photographs
B: Applicant’s Material
C: Neighborhood History
D: Deed and Directory Research
E: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5B Page 31
Attachment A: Current Photographs
Agenda Item #5B Page 32
Agenda Item #5B Page 33
Agenda Item #5B Page 34
Agenda Item #5B Page 35
Attachment B: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item #5B Page 36
Agenda Item #5B Page 37
Agenda Item #5B Page 38
Agenda Item #5B Page 39
Agenda Item #5B Page 40
Agenda Item #5B Page 41
Agenda Item #5B Page 42
Agenda Item #5B Page 43
Attachment C: Neighborhood History
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY
As Boulder began to grow during the 1870s
and 1880s with impetus from development of
the university, the arrival of railroads, and the
prosperity of the mines, new residential
suburbs were platted by developers. In 1872,
residents such as developer James Maxwell
started an Immigration Society to encourage
the arrival of new settlers. One of the early
residential subdivisions was Squire’s Addition
to West Boulder, platted in 1874 by prominent
pioneers Samuel Breath, F.A. Squires, and
George and Maria Tourtellot. The addition
included Hill Street (now Mapleton), the
north side of Highland between 5th and 8th
Streets, extending to the north side of Pine between 8th and 10th, and a block extending
from Highland to Spruce on the west side of 8th Street. Six tracts, outlots 1-6, were
unsubdivided in the northern half of the addition.
Maxwell’s Addition to Boulder was filed in
1888 by pioneer residents and business
partners James P. Maxwell and George S.
Oliver. The development included an area
from 4th to 9th between Portland Place and
Maxwell Avenue. In 1883, the firm of Maxwell
and Oliver, surveyors, was housed in the First
National Bank building. James P. Maxwell
was on of Boulder’s most illustrious early
settlers. Born in Wisconsin in 1839, Maxwell
arrived in Colorado with his father, James A.
Maxwell, in 1859. Maxwell mined in Gilpin County until 1868 and, in partnership with
C.M. Tyler, built a steam saw mill on South Boulder Creek. In 1867, Maxwell purchased
Tyler’s interest in a saw mill near Boulder and operated it with his father for two years.
In 1870 he moved to Boulder, where he served as Deputy U.S. Surveyor. In 1872
Maxwell was elected to the territorial legislature. He became a member of the first state
legislature and served as president of the senate. In 1878, Maxwell was elected mayor of
Boulder and in 1880 became county treasurer. He built the Silver Lake Ditch and
developed the Maxwell Addition as well as serving as director and president of the
Houses on crest of Mapleton Hill show the McInnes
house built in 1905 and to the right, the Klinger
house built in 1891, with the mountains in the
background. C.1905
Farmer’s Ditch at 1039 Mapleton Ave, c1911
Agenda Item #5B Page 44
First National Bank, Maxwell was vice president of the company which platted
Mapleton Addition.
At the time of its creation, the area encompassing Mapleton Addition was “wind-swept
and barren, “without any trees. The Improvement Company planted over two hundred
silver maples and cottonwood trees to make the site more attractive in about 1890,
before the houses of the subdivision were built. Landscape architect Frederick Law
Olmsted later noted that the silver maple was a brittle, short-lived tree, thus a poor
choice for Boulder’s environment. The landscaping was to be maintained with irrigation
by the Silver Lake Ditch, a project of James Maxwell.
The proximity of the Sanitarium made the
neighborhood a popular residential area for
workers at the health facility. Francis M.
Wilcox, first manager of the Boulder
Sanitarium and its chaplin, as well as pastor
of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, lived
at 2439 6th. Charles Long, who resided at 421
Concord in 1913 was a registered nurse who
worked as superintendent of the Gentleman’s
Bath Room Department at the Boulder
Sanitarium. Robert R. Cook, assistant
superintendent at the Sanitarium, lived at 2621 5th in 1913. Several people who came to
Boulder to recover their health also lived in the neighborhood, perhaps drawn by the
closeness of the Sanitarium. Dr. T.S. Whitelock, a physician who brought his wife to the
Sanitarium to benefit her lungs in 1898, lived at 2443 6th in 1900.
The northern portion of the Mapleton Hill neighborhood became a popular residential
area, principally for working and middle class residents, in contrast to the southern
portion which attracted wealthier residents and more substantial homes. The area
contained affordable dwellings which attracted a number of widowed and single
women, as well as railroad workers, clerks, miners, laborers, small business owners,
and various types of builders and contractors.
Glass Plate Negative by J.B. Sturtevant 1895.
Sanitarium Grounds under construction.
Agenda Item #5B Page 45
Attachment D: Deed and Directory Research
531 Maxwell Ave
Deed and Directory Research
LOTS 33-34 BLK 13 MAXWELLS
03589539
GE GARNSEY ELIZABETH GR ERICKSON DARREN A WARRANTY DEED 05/01/2017
L 33~34 B 13 TR U BLD MAXWELLS ADDITION AMENDED
03086633
GE ERICKSON DARREN A GR ELDER MEIGHAN W + WARRANTY DEED 07/19/2010
L 33~34 B 13 TR U BLD MAXWELLS ADDITION AMENDED
02365621
GE ELDER MEIGHAN
W + GR ELDER LIVING
TRUST +
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 12/03/2002
SEC T R TR L 33 ETAL B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION AMENDED
02365621
GR ELDER LIVING
TRUST + GE MUIR MATTHEW
D +
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 12/03/2002
SEC T R TR L 33 ETAL B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION AMENDED
02042159
GE ELDER LIVING TRUST + GR ELDER JOSEPH M + WARRANTY DEED 05/03/2000
SEC T R TR L 33 ET B 13 MAXWELLS ADD AMEND
01612745
GE ELDER JOSEPH M
DINA P GR MORRISON
ROBERT B +
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 05/30/1996
SEC T R TR L 33 ET B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION
00837330
GE MORRISON
ROBERT B + GR ANDERSON
MARGOT
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 03/30/1987
SEC T R TR L 33 ET B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION
00700841
GE ANDERSON MARGOT
M GR PETTY THOMAS L CAROL
LEE
WARRANTY
DEED 07/19/1985
SEC T R TR L 33 ET B 13 MAXWELLS AMENDED
90957259
GE PETTY THOMAS L
CAROL LEE GR PETTY
ELEANOR M
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 10/15/1970
SEC T R TR L 33 ET L 13 MAXWELLS AMENDED
90709045
1249
0093 GE PETTY ELEANOR
M + GR DOVE RALPH
E +
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 09/17/1962
L 33~34 B 13 TR U BLD MAXWELLS ADDITION
90709045
1249
0093 GR DOVE RALPH
E + GE PETTY ROY
S +
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 09/17/1962
L 33~34 B 13 TR U BLD MAXWELLS ADDITION
90461891 0820 GR DOVE RALPH E GE PASTORE WARRANTY DEED 04/19/1948
Agenda Item #5B Page 46
0479 MARGARET + CHARLES S
CECIL F
JOINT TENANCY
SEC T R TR PT L 33 B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION
90461891
0820
0479 GR STIERS
MARGARET + GE
PASTORE
CHARLES S CECIL
F
WARRANTY DEED
JOINT TENANCY 04/19/1948
SEC T R TR PT L 33 B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION
90402475
0724
0559 GR STIERS
MARGARET GE STIERS
MARGARET +
WARRANTY DEED
JOINT TENANCY 03/08/1943
SEC T R TR PT L 33 B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION
90401523
0724
0265 GE DOVE RALPH
E + GR STIERS
MARGARET
WARRANTY DEED JOINT
TENANCY 01/18/1943
SEC T R TR L 33 ET B 13 MAXWELLS ADDITION
90374591
0688
0397 GR STIERS
MARGARET GE STIERS
MARGARET +
WARRANTY DEED
JOINT TENANCY 06/25/1940
SEC T R TR L 33 ETAL B 13 MAXWELLS ADD
DEED AND DIRECTORY RESEARCH
Owner (Deeds) Date Occupant(s)/Directory
House constructed (tax assessor card) – 1950
Margaret Stiers
1940-1948
1940-1948
No List
Ralph E. Dove
1943-1962 1949 Ralph E. Dove (owner, first appearance in city
directory)
1951 Duane C. Botts (dentist)
Roy S. Petty 1950-
?
Eleanor M. Petty
1962-1970
1961 Ronald E. Stokes (claim rep. Aetna Causalty &
Security)
Agenda Item #5B Page 47
Thomas L and
Carol Lee Petty
1970-1985
1971 Roy S. Petty (Listed in directory as owner)
Margot M.
Anderson 1985-
1987
Robert B. Morrison
1987-1996
Joseph M. & Dina
P. Elder 1996-
2000
Elder Living Trust
2000-2002
Matthew D. Muir
2002-?
Meighan W. Elder
2002-2010
Darren A. Erickson
2010-2017
Elizabeth Garnsey
2017-Present
Agenda Item #5B Page 48
Attachment E: Tax Assessor Card
Agenda Item #5B Page 49