Item 5C - 2621 5th St. memo 3.4.2020MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD
March 4, 2020
Staff
Jim Robertson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Lucas Markley, Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II
Clare Brandt, Administrative Specialist II
Michelle Mikoni, Historic Preservation Intern
Landmark Alteration Certificate Request
Public hearing and consideration of a proposal to construct an attached two-car garage
at 2621 5th St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3,
"Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981 (HIS2020-00042).
Address: 2621 5th St.
Owner/Applicant: George Clements
Case Number: HIS2020-00042
Case Type: Landmark Alteration Certificate
Code Section: 9-11-18, B.R.C., 1981
Site Information
Historic District: Mapleton Hill Historic District (house non-contributing,
existing accessory building contributing)
Zoning: RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
Lot size: 11,697 sq. ft.
Proposed Accessory Building: 600 sq. ft
Date of construction: 1900 (house)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board conditionally approve the application.
Recommended Motion
I move that the Landmarks Board adopts the staff memorandum dated March 4, 2020,
as the findings of the board and, with conditions, approves the construction of two-car
garage at 2621 5th St. as shown on plans dated Feb. 5, 2020, finding that the proposal
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 1 of 34
meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-
18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Conditions
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 a free-standing garage of about 440 sq. ft.
and;
b.Final architectural plans that include details showing tree removal,
new hardscaping, door, and window details, siding, colors, roof
materials, to ensure that the final design of the building is
consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton
Historic District Design Guideline, and the intent of this approval.
Summary
•In January 2020, the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) approved the
construction of a stair and arbor at the rear of the house (HIS2020-00014) and the
replacement of non-historic siding and windows, construction of a dormer, an
increase of roof overhang from 8" to 18" and expansion of door opening on west
elevation (HIS2020-00026).
•At its January 15, 2020 meeting, the Ldrc referred the application to construct a two-
car garage addition to the non-contributing house to the full Landmarks Board in a
quasi-judicial hearing.
•The house at 2621 5th St. was constructed in 1900, within the 1865-1946 period of
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. A number of changes outside the
period-of-significance have occurred to the main house including the construction of
a second-story addition. The 1993 historic building inventory form completed for the
property identifies changes to the original Classic Cottage character of the house as
having compromised its historic integrity while the 2005 accessory building survey
found the rear garage/shed to have been constructed about 1939 and to be a
contributing building.
•Staff concurs with the historic building surveys that the main house should be
considered non-contributing and the accessory building contributing to the character
of the Mapleton Historic District.
•Staff finds that, provided the conditions of approval are met, the proposed new
construction will meet the criteria for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate as
per 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, and will be generally consistent with the
General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 2 of 34
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property at 2621 5th St. is located on 5th between Dewey and Concord Ave. near
the northwest edge of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Figure 1. Location Map, 2621 5th St.
Figure 2. Real Estate Appraisal Photo of 2621 5th St., c.1929
(Carnegie Library for Local History)
Character Defining Features
•Originally one-story Classic Cottage style brick house constructed in 1900 (see
figure 2);
•Hipped roof with overhanging, boxed eaves and hipped dormer with casement
windows;
•Projecting front porch supported by wooden posts and enclosed with wooden
balusters;
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 3 of 34
•Off-center front entry with transom and double hung windows to each side;
•Building was significantly altered with the c.1908 construction of a second-story
addition (see figure 3 & 4).
Figure 3. 2621 5th St., 1996 (Carnegie Library for Local History)
Figure 4. 2621 5th St., 2012
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 4 of 34
PROPERTY HISTORY
•The property is located in the Maxwell Addition of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District, platted in 1891.
•The 1913 Boulder Colorado Directory lists Robert and Lucy Cook as owners of
the property. Robert Cook worked as a nurse before becoming the assistant
superintendent at the Boulder Sanitarium.
•The longest residents of 2621 5th St. were Sylvester and Gertrude Beck, who
acquired ownership of the property in 1920. Sylvester worked as a cement
laborer and Gertrude raised their two children, Maud and Ivan. Gertrude outlived
her husband and remained at their home until her passing in 1944.
•There have been many short-term owners of the property, generally families of
laborers and farmers. Among the list of residents are Albert L. Hard, a truck
driver; Jose M. Deapen, a painter; and Jerome H. Landrum, a retired farmer.
•Significant alterations to the property were made about 1980 including a second-
story addition and an extension to the rear of the house.
•Staff considers the alterations to the main have impacted its historic architectural
integrity to the point that it does not contribute to the historic character of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Aerial View of 2621 5th St.
•The property located on the west side of 5th Street between Dewey and Concord
Ave. and is bound by an alley on the north.
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 5 of 34
•The proposed attached garage is located at the northwest corner of the house
and would be attached to the 1980s portion of the house.
Figure 6. View of the Property from 5th St. and abutting alley
Figure 7. View of house from the alley looking toward 5th Street
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 6 of 34
Description of Proposed Work
Figure 8. Existing Site Plan
Figure 9. Proposed Site Plan
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 7 of 34
Site Plan
•Proposed construction of a new 600 sq. ft. attached shed-roof garage at the
northwest corner of the house, located at the rear of property and backing onto
the side alley.
Figure 10. Proposed North Elevation
North Elevation
•Size of proposed garage is 23’3” x 26’2” (600 sq. ft.), bermed into grade at south.
•Proposed height of 11’2”.
•Garage is intended to complement adjacent contributing accessory building at
the rear of the property.
•Proposed post-and-beam rustic construction with rough-sawn board and batten
exterior.
•Low pitched living (vegetative) shed roof and three double-hung windows
proposed.
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 8 of 34
Figure 11. Proposed West Elevation
West Elevation
•Proposed garage shown to partially connect to north side of house and be
accessed via two garage doors (details not specified)
Figure 12. Proposed South Elevation
South Elevation.
•South wall of garage addition shown to be clad in clapboard siding and will be
visible from 5th Street.
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 9 of 34
Criteria for the Board’s Decision - Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificates,
9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981
(a) The Landmarks Board and the City Council shall not approve an
application for a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless each such agency
finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a
Landmark Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or
the subject property within a historic district?
Staff considers that if the building is reduced in size to about 440 sq. ft. and detached
from the main house it will generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that
the proposed construction of a new garage will not damage or destroy the exterior
architectural features of the property.
(2) Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
historic district?
Staff considers if the conditions are met reducing the size of the garage to about 440 sq.
ft. and constructing it as a free-standing building, proposal will not adversely affect the
special character or special historic, architectural, and value of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District as it is generally compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
(3) Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures
compatible with the character of the historic district?
Staff considers that provided the stated conditions are met, the proposed architectural
style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials will be
compatible with the character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in a historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
Does not apply to the proposed application.
(c) In determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 10 of 34
incorporation of energy-efficient design and enhanced access for the
disabled.
Information specific to economic feasibly of alternatives, incorporation or energy-
efficiency design and enhance access for the disabled was not submitted with the
application. The reuse of an existing building is inherently sustainable, and the
rehabilitation of the building will need to meet the City’s energy code regulations and
Section 106.5 helps ensure that any alterations needed to meet the energy will not
detract from the historic character of the site.
Design Guideline 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 ordinance. Design
guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
Summary
• 2.3 Site Design
o The proposed accessory building is located at the side of the lot, but
generally consistent with historic patterns;
o Alley access is maintained;
o Existing c.1980 retaining walls shown to be removed for proposed garage;
o The contributing historic shed is preserved in the proposed design;
o The proposed building is slightly set back from the alley and maintains an
appropriate distance from the existing accessory building;
o The new accessory building will be visible from 5th St.;
o Several trees will be removed for the new construction.
• 2.4 Parking and Driveways
o Existing driveway is gravel. The proposal does not include plans to pave.
• 7.0 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites
o If reduced to about 440 sq. ft. and constructed as detached building,
massing, scale, location and materiality of the proposed accessory
building are consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines;
o Building is simpler in detail and design than the historic house;
o Design of the new accessory building is compatible with the contributing
house and accessory building through the use of a low-pitched shed roof,
the use of board and batten siding, and the overall simplicity of the design;
o Staff considers the integration of these elements, direct and implied, result
in a building that is of its own time but that would not detract from the
historic character of the property and district;
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 11 of 34
o While the proposed building is smaller in size and massing to the house,
Staff recommends decreasing the size of the proposed garage to roughly
440 sq. ft. and to construct it as a detached building.
Findings
The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application and evidence presented and
provided the stated conditions are met, the proposed Landmark Alteration Certificate
application is consistent with Section 9-11-18 B.R.C., 1981., specifically that:
1. The proposed new accessory building will not adversely affect the special
character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
property or the historic district. § 9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
2. The proposed construction of a new accessory building will generally comply with
Sections 2.3, Site Design, and 7.0, Garages and Other Accessory Buildings, of
the General Design Guidelines; Section S., Alleys, Easements and Accessways,
of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines; and Section 9-11-18(b)(3) of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Design Guideline Analysis
B: Current Photographs
C: Plans and Elevations
D: Historic Building Inventory Form
Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 12 of 34
ATTACHMENT A:
General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual
Landmarks – New Accessory Building
2.1 Building Alignment, Orientation, and Spacing
Guideline Analysis Meets?
1. Locate Buildings within the
range of alignments seen
traditionally in the area
maintaining traditional setbacks
at the front, side and rear of the
property.
Existing accessory buildings in
the alley are located at the rear
of the property. The proposal
shows an attached garage at
the side of the non-contributing.
There appear to be no other
viable locations for an
accessory building on the
property.
Maybe
.6 … garages should be located at
the rear of of the lot and
accessed from the alley.
The proposed accessory
building is located at the side of
the lot and accessed from the
alley.
Maybe
.7 Preserve a backyard area
between the house and garage,
maintaining the general
proportion of built mass to open
space found within the area.
The backyard is maintained in
the proposed design. Yes
2.2 Streetscape and Landscape
7. Where existing retaining walls
are important to the character of
the property they should be
incorporated into new landscape
features. Regrading and the
introduction of new retaining
walls is inappropriate. Tall, plain
concrete retaining walls are in
appropriate.
Existing retaining walls (some of
which will be removed) appear
to have been constructed during
c.1980 remodel of property and
do not appear to be historically
significant.
Yes
2.3 Site Design: Alleys
The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the
houses, for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for
cars. A view of the backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys
have evolved into use as pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking,
they still contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. They are typically
minimally paved.
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 1 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 13 of 34
Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes
including barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes
to the general feeling of human scale in the alleys.
Guidelines Analysis Conforms?
.1
Maintain alley access for parking
and retain the character of alleys
as clearly secondary access to
properties.
Alley access is retained in the
proposal. Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the variety
and character found in the existing
historic accessory buildings along
the alleys.
The proposal does not include
the removal of the existing
contributing accessory
buildings.
Yes
.3
The use of historically
proportioned materials for building
new accessory buildings
contributes to the human scale of
the alleys. For example, narrower
lap siding and smaller brick are
appropriate.
The building is proposed to be
of post-and-beam construction,
referencing the historic shed on
the property.
Yes
.4
Structures that were constructed
after the period of significance but
are still more than 50 years old
and contribute to the variety and
character of the alleyway should
be retained.
The contributing historic shed
is preserved in the proposed
design.
Yes
.5
Maintain adequate spacing
between accessory building so
that the view of the main house is
not obscured, and the alley does
not evolve into a tunnel-like
passage.
The garage is shown to extend
23’3” across the width the
house’s rear addition. The
proposed height of the building
does not obscure the view of
the house. The building will be
slightly set back from the alley
and maintains an appropriate
distance from the existing
accessory building.
Yes
2.4 Parking and Driveways
.6
Historically appropriate paving
materials, such as flagstone or
brick, can be used to visually
break up larger parking areas
Existing driveway is laid with
gravel. The proposal does not
include plans to pave.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 2 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 14 of 34
.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.
The proposed garage access
area will be laid with gravel, as
it is currently.
Yes
7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Structures
Accessory buildings include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally
accessory structures were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages.
Generally, these structures have been adapted for the storage of cars. In most
cases, accessory building were located to the rear of the lot and accessed by alleys.
They were subordinate in size and detailing to the primary house. Over time they
have emerged as important elements of many lots and alleys in the district. Efforts
should be made to protect the eclectic character of alleys.
Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be
evaluated in terms of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and
the district as a whole. In the past, larger accessory structures have been allowed
than may be appropriate today.
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Buildings
A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic
districts is the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the
site and district.
Guidelines: analysis: conforms
.1
Retain and preserve garages and
accessory buildings that contribute to
the overall character of the site or
district. Existing accessory building
to be preserved. See
guideline 2.3.2 to 2.3.4
above.
Yes
.2
Retain and preserve the character-
defining materials, features, and
architectural details of historic garages
and accessory buildings, including
roofs, exterior materials, windows and
doors.
Yes
.3
The use of historically proportioned
materials for building new accessory
buildings contributes to the human
scale of the alleys. For example,
narrower lap siding and smaller brick
are appropriate.
Proposed materials
reference the existing
accessory building and will
contribute to the human
scale of the alley. See
guideline 2.3.3 above.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 3 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 15 of 34
.4
Buildings that were constructed after
the period of significance but are still
more than 50 years old and contribute
to the variety and character of the
alleyway should be retained.
Existing accessory building
to be preserved. See
guideline 2.3.2 to 2.3.4
above.
Yes
.5
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory building so that the view of
the main house is not obscured, and
the alley does not evolve into a tunnel-
like passage.
See guideline 2.3.5 above.
Yes
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory
buildings. While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be
subordinate in size, massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is
pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
Location and Orientation
.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a
new garage or accessory building
if doing so will detract from the
overall historic 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.
The alleys in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District are character
defining features of the district.
The new construction is approx.
600 sq. ft. and will not require
the removal of a significant
historic site feature. However,
Staff recommends decreasing
the size of the proposed garage
to approximately 440 sq. ft. and
to detach it from the house so it
free-standing. Reduction in the
width and length of the building
will likely allow the building to
be located so that there is
adequate fire separation
between it and the main house.
(Review details at the Ldrc)
Maybe
.2
New garages and accessory
buildings should generally be
located at the rear of the lot,
respecting the traditional
relationship of such buildings to
the primary structure and the site.
Proposed accessory building is
located at the side of the lot but
takes access from the alley. No
other practical location on the
property for additional
accessory building.
Maybe
.3
Maintain adequate spacing
between accessory buildings so
alleys do not evolve into tunnel-like
passageways.
The proposal maintains
adequate spacing between the
new garage and existing
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 4 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 16 of 34
accessory building and likely
will not create a tunnel-like
effect.
.4
Preserve a backyard area between
the house and the accessory
buildings, maintaining the general
proportion of built mass to open
space found within the area.
Staff considers back yard space
will be maintained with the
proposal.
Yes
Mass and Scale
.5
New accessory buildings should
take design cues from the primary
building on the property, but be
subordinate to it in terms of size
and massing.
Staff considers that the new
construction will be subordinate
in size and massing to the
house. However, Staff
recommend decreasing the size
of the proposed garage to
roughly 440 sq. ft. and make it
free-standing. Revise for Ldrc
review
Maybe
.6
New garages for single-family
residences should generally be
one story tall and shelter no more
than two cars. In some cases, a
two-car garage may be
inappropriate.
The proposed accessory
building is 1 story in height.
With a reduction to 440 sq. ft,
staff considers the height, scale
and massing of the building will
be appropriate. Revise for Ldrc
review.
Maybe
.7
Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary
structure.
Shed-roof form and pitch is
complementary to that of the
main house and adjacent
contributing building.
Yes
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be
simpler in design and detail than
the primary building.
Staff recommend decreasing
the size of the proposed garage
to roughly 440 sq. ft. and make
it free-standing. Revise for Ldrc
review
Maybe
.9
Materials for new garages and
accessory structures should be
compatible with those found on
The primary building is
constructed of brick with wood
frame additions. The proposed
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 5 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 17 of 34
the primary structure and in the
district. Vinyl siding and
prefabricated structures are
inappropriate.
new garage is shown to be
frame construction with board
and batten siding, referencing
the historic shed on the
property.
.10
Windows, like all elements of
accessory structures, should be
simpler in detailing and smaller in
scale than similar elements on
primary structures.
Proposed windows are simple,
double-hung windows, similar
to those of the primary
structure.
Yes
.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.
Little detail about doors
provided – details to Ldrc to
ensure consistency with
guideline.
Maybe
.13
It is inappropriate to introduce
features or details to a garage or
an accessory building in an
attempt to create a false historical
appearance.
Building design is of its own
time and will not create a false
sense of history.
Yes
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section VI of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Only those guidelines that further the
analysis of the proposed project are included and those that reflect what has been
evaluated in the previous section are not repeated.
B. Site
Traditional settlement patterns generally placed houses in the center of a site,
with garages, carriage houses, etc. and parking at the rear of the lot at the
alley. Sidewalks parallel streets with a planting strip between, and individual
sidewalks approach the center of the house at right angles to the house and
the street. Landscape material is concentrated near the house with trees in the
sidewalk planting strip, and as focal points of the lot.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
1.
Accessory buildings such as sheds
and garages, and driveways
should be located at the rear of the
lot as is traditional. Adding them
between existing buildings
Proposed accessory building is
located at the side of the lot. Maybe
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 6 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 18 of 34
interrupts the rhythm of the
spacing
C. Landscaping
Landscape features can form a significant part of the historic character of an area.
Landscape materials, such as the use of a specific street tree throughout an area,
can establish part of the character of a historic district. Particular trees may be
historically significant in themselves. The pattern of landscaping in an area, such as
the use of street trees, planting strips and sodded front yards, are also important.
Trees, shrubs, vines, and irrigation systems also may have a potential for damaging
exterior building features and surfaces. (See Section B. for site)
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
4.
Where strong retaining walls exist,
they should be preserved and
incorporated when introducing new
wall elements. Tall, plain concrete
walls should be discouraged.
Railroad ties should also be
discouraged.
Ares of existing retaining walls
will be removed – little detail
provided as to new
walls/hardscaping – review
details at the Ldrc.
Maybe
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 the rear of the property
is 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.
Alley will maintain a pedestrian
scale. Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 7 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 19 of 34
5. Efforts should be made to maintain
character of the alleys in the district
The proposed accessory building
is 1 story in height. With a
reduction to 440 sq. ft, staff
considers the height, scale and
massing of the building will be
appropriate. Revise for Ldrc
review
Maybe
P GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A variety of accessory buildings has been adapted for use as garages in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures
have certain similarities. They are plain and utilitarian and are located at the rear of
the property on the alley. Materials and building elements are varied.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.3 If a new structure is to be
constructed, design ideas might be
found in existing historic accessory
buildings located nearby
Historic one-story, flat roof
accessory buildings are found in
the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. The proposed garage
design references the
contributing shed present on the
property.
Yes
.4 The new building should be
secondary in nature to the main
house and smaller in scale.
New building is secondary in
nature and smaller in scale than
the main house if reduced to
about 440 sq. ft.
Maybe
.5 Accessory buildings should be
small in scale and mass, and
constructed in a manner which is
complimentary to the character of
the house and alley. They are
clearly secondary in importance to
the primary structure. Typically,
prefabricated sheds are
discouraged.
Staff recommends decreasing
the size of the proposed garage
to approximately 440 sq. ft. and
to detach it from the house so it
free-standing. Reduction in the
width and length of the building
will likely allow the building to be
located so that there is
adequate fire separation
between it and the main house.
(Review details at the Ldrc)
Maybe
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 8 of 8 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 20 of 34
ATTACHMENT B:
Current photographs
Alley view facing 5th Street
View from 5th Street
Attachment B - Current photographs - Page 1 of 1 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 21 of 34
Attachment C - plans and elevations - Page 1 of 4 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 22 of 34
Attachment C - plans and elevations - Page 2 of 4 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 23 of 34
Attachment C - plans and elevations - Page 3 of 4 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 24 of 34
Attachment C - plans and elevations - Page 4 of 4 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 25 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 1 of 9 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 26 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 2 of 9 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 27 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 3 of 9Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 28 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 4 of 9 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 29 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 5 of 9 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 30 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 6 of 9 Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 31 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 7 of 9Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 32 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 8 of 9Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 33 of 34
Attachment D - Historic Building Inventory Form - Page 9 of 9Item 5C - 3.4.2020 LB memo - 2621 5th Street - Page 34 of 34