Item 5A - 1044 Maxwell Ave. LB Memo 4.23.2020
MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD
April 23rd, 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 under the procedures prescribed by chapter 1-3,
"Quasi-Judicial Hearing," B.R.C. 1981, for the removal of a rear addition and
construction of a new 769 sq. ft. addition to a contributing house, on-site relocation of a
contributing accessory building, and construction of a 259 sq. ft. garage on the property
at 1044 Maxwell Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, pursuant to Section 9-11-18
of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
Address: 1044 Maxwell Ave.
Owner: Max and Sabrina Clauson
Applicant: Joel Smiley / Laura Schaeffer
Case Number: HIS2020-00078
Case Type: Landmark Alteration Certificate
Code Section: 9-11-18, B.R.C., 1981
Site Information
Historic District: Mapleton Hill Historic District (contributing)
Zoning: RMX-1
Lot size: 10,714 sq. ft.
Existing house: 2,303 sq. ft.
Proposed addition to house: 769 sq. ft.
Proposed accessory building: 260 sq. ft
Date of construction: 1897
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board conditionally approve the application.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 1 of 48
Recommended Motion
I move the Landmarks Board adopts the staff memorandum dated April 23, 2020, as the
findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to
remove a non-historic addition, reconstruct the historic porch and construct a 769 sq. ft.
addition to the contributing house, to relocate the contributing accessory building, and
construct a 259 sq. ft. garage, as shown on plans dated March 4, 2020, finding that the
proposal 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:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the
approved plans dated March 4, 2020, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. 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:
a. Reduce the height of the addition to the house by about 2’;
b. Provide details on the proposed relocation and rehabilitation of the
contributing garage;
c. Provide details of windows, doors, trim, siding, roofing and
hardscaping.
Summary
• Because the application calls for the relocation of a building in a historic district,
review by the full Landmarks Board in a quasi-judicial hearing is required pursuant to
Section 9-11-14(b), B.R.C. 1981.
• The house at 1044 Maxwell Avenue was constructed in 1897 and the garage about
1930, both within the 1865-1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Both buildings retain historic and architectural integrity and staff considers
them to contribute to the historic character of the district.
• Staff finds that the proposed work including rehabilitation of and addition to the
house, relocation of the garage, and construction of a new accessory building is
consistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11-18(a) &
(b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines provided the recommended conditions are met.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 2 of 48
Figure 1. Tax Assessor Photograph, 1044 Maxwell Ave. c.1949. Carnegie Library for Local
History
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The property at 1044 Maxwell Ave. is located on the south side of Maxwell Ave.,
between 10th and Broadway streets in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Figure 2. Location Map, 1044 Maxwell Ave.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 3 of 48
Figure 3. 1044 Maxwell Ave., 1996.
Carnegie Library for Local History.
Character Defining Features
• Two-story wood frame house constructed in 1897;
• Hipped roof with overhanging eaves and brackets;
• (Historic) wrap-around porch with wood columns (see figure 1);
• Double-hung windows with wood surrounds and a centrally located circular
window on the primary façade;
• Shed roof frame accessory building constructed about 1930, located east of the
house.
Figure 4. 1044 Maxwell Ave., 2020.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 4 of 48
Figure 5. View of the c.1930 existing accessory building proposed for relocation. 2020.
PROPERTY HISTORY
• Property located in the Mapleton Addition, platted in 1888.
• The 1993 Historic Building Inventory form for the property identifies the house as
being constructed in 1897 and as contributing to the Mapleton Historic District.
• The 1900 Census lists John Mason and Mary Van Dusen as residents, along
with several other individuals. John was a carpenter and Mary worked as a
housekeeper. Mary was 68 when she died in 1905 and was buried in the
Columbia Cemetery in Boulder.
• Newton and Rosina Ford are listed at 1044 Maxwell Ave. in the 1913 Boulder
Directory. Newton was an insurance agent and Rosina was a stay-at-home
mother for their three children.
• There is no building permit in the records for the front addition and porch
enclosure. It was likely constructed between 1949 and 1959.
• The 2005 Accessory Building survey form completed for the property notes that
the shed roof garage was likely constructed in the first half of the 1930s and
recommends it be considered contributing to the historic district. The 1932 Tax
Assessor card indicates a 14’ x 20’ garage located on the property, while the
1949 mark-up to the tax assessor card records a 16’ x 20’ garage.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 5 of 48
Existing Conditions
Figure 6. Aerial View of 1044 Maxwell Ave., 2018.
•The property is located on the south side of Maxwell Ave., between 10th and
Broadway streets and bound by the farmer’s ditch and an alley and a steeply
rising grade to the (south), rear of the lot;
•The existing accessory building is proposed to be relocated from the middle of
the lot to the south property line, oriented parallel to the alley while a new
accessory building is proposed at the southwest corner of the property, facing
onto the alley.
Figure 7. View of the addition (east face), 2020.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 6 of 48
Figure 8. View of the accessory building and rear addition. 2020.
Figure 9. View of alley behind 1044 Maxwell Ave (looking east).
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 7 of 48
Description of Proposed Work
Figure 10. Existing Site Plan.
Figure 11. Proposed Site Plan.
Site Plan
• Proposed removal of approximately 280 sq. ft. in rear additions (date of
construction undetermined), and construction of a 769 sq. ft. two-story addition to
the contributing house∗, on-site relocation of the contributing accessory building,
∗ With the removal of the rear additions, the existing floor area of the house will be approximately 2,020 sq. ft., and with the
proposed addition 2,790 sq. ft.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 8 of 48
and construction of a 259 sq. ft. garage at the rear of property and backing onto
the alley;
• The post-1949 addition at the northeast corner (front) of the house is shown to be
removed and the wrap-around porch reconstructed based upon the 1949 tax
assessor photograph (see figure 1).
Figure 12. Proposed (left) and existing (right) North Elevation.
North Elevation (Façade)
• Small portion of the wall proposed to be removed to restore the historic side of
the front porch;
• Proposal includes the reconstruction of a second entryway off porch based upon
the 1949 tax assessor photograph.
Figure 13. Existing East Elevation.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 9 of 48
Figure 14. Existing East Elevation.
East Elevation
• Rear additions at east and south side of the house proposed to be removed;
• 769 sq. ft. hipped roof addition - height shown to be at level of existing house and
projected over a rear porch;
• Removal of the infill wall on the east elevation to restore historic side of the
porch;
• Three one-over-one, regularly spaced, double hung windows proposed on upper-
story addition with half-light door on lower level;
• Addition shown to be clad in 4” exposure clapboard siding.
Figure 15. Existing West Elevation.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 10 of 48
Figure 16. Proposed West Elevation.
West Elevation
• Upper level shown to extend over covered porch;
• Three one-over-one, regularly spaced, double hung sash proposed on upper-
story addition with two windows of same design at lower level;
• Proposed exterior walls of addition to be clad in 4” exposure clapboard siding.
Figure 17. Proposed (left) and Existing (right) South Elevation.
South Elevation
• Proposed height of the addition sits level with the existing roofline;
• Rear porch supported by two round columns;
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 11 of 48
• Four one-over-one, double hung sash proposed on upper-story addition with two
sets of mulled double-hung windows of the same configuration at lower level with
single half-light door at east side of wall.
Figure 18. Proposed Southeast Perspective.
Figure 19. North Elevation of Proposed Garage.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 12 of 48
Figure 20. East Elevation of Proposed Garage
Figure 21. West Elevation of Proposed Garage.
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 13 of 48
Figure 22. South Elevation of Proposed Garage
Garage
• Proposed construction of one-story, 260 sq. ft. flat roofed garage on alley taking
advantage of grade to provide for basement space;
• North (garden) face shown to feature sliding doors at lower level and pair of
mulled double-hung sash at upper level;
• South (alley) side shown feature bead board garage door, exposed rafter tails,
and exterior lights;
• East face shown to feature double hung windows, man door and stair from alley
to garden level while no fenestration shown at west face;
• Shown to be wood clapboard sided to match proposed addition.
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?
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 14 of 48
Staff finds the proposal to be generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in
that the proposed alteration and new construction will re-construct architectural features
of the main house, preserve the contributing garage and construct a new accessory
building that 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 the 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 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,
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
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 15 of 48
checklist of items for compliance (see attachment A for detailed Design Guideline
Analysis).
Summary
General Design Guidelines
• 2.0 Site Design
The proposal will not negatively impact the alignment, orientation, and spacing of
buildings on the property and is generally appropriate to historic context of the
neighborhood.
• 2.3 Alleys & Existing Accessory Buildings
The proposed relocation of the contributing garage to the back of the lot and
construction of the new one-car garage will contribute to the variety and general
feeling of human scale in the alleys.
• 4.0 Additions to Historic Buildings
With the exception of height, the proposed rear addition to the house is generally
consistent with these guidelines in that the existing additions to be removed are not
character-defining and the location, mass, scale and architectural detailing of the
addition are appropriate. Staff considers the height of the addition should be
lowered approximately 2’ and that this modification to the design can be reviewed by
the Landmarks design review committee.
• 7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Structures
The proposed relocation of the contributing garage to the back of the lot and its
preservation will contribute to the variety and general feeling of human scale in the
alleys.
• 7.2 New Accessory Buildings
The proposed on-car garage generally follows the character and pattern of historic
accessory buildings by taking design cues from contributing buildings on the
property and is subordinate in size, massing, and detailing. The proposed building
will maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines
The analysis above also applies to sections D. Alleys, Easements and Accessways; F.
Massing; P. Garages, Carports, and Accessory Structures; and T. Major Exterior
Renovation of the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines.
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 addition to and reconstruction of features on the contributing
house, relocation of the contributing accessory building, and construction of a
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 16 of 48
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 addition to and reconstruction of features on the contributing
house, relocation of the contributing accessory building, and new accessory
building is generally consistent with Sections 2.0 Site Design, 2.3 Alleys &
Existing Accessory Buildings; 4.0 Additions to Historic Buildings, and 7.0,
Garages and Other Accessory Buildings, of the General Design Guidelines; D.
Alleys, Easements and Accessways; F. Massing; P. Garages, Carports, and
Accessory Structures; Section S., Alleys, Easements and Accessways; and T.
Major Exterior Renovation 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 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 17 of 48
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES – SITE DESIGN, 2.0, & ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC
BUILDINGS, 4.0.
2.0 Site Design
Guideline Analysis Conforms
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic
districts and building. Individual buildings are located within a framework of
streets and public spaces that set the context for the neighborhood. How
buildings occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing,
creates much of the context of the neighborhood.
.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
Addition is proposed at rear of the
property. Traditional setbacks at
the front, side, and rear of the
property are respected in the
proposed design.
Yes
.2 Building proportions should respect
traditional patterns in the district
Proposed addition is generally
compatible with traditional building
patterns found within the district.
Proportions and style are
complimentary to the historic
building.
Yes
.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
With the new addition, the primary
house is proposed to have a 65’
setback from the rear of the
property. Construction of
proposed 11’x20’ garage with a 9’
setback from the rear will not
affect the general proportion of
built mass to open space of the
property.
Yes
2.3 Alleys & Existing Accessory Buildings
Along the alleys are historic accessory building 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.
Existing accessory building is
estimated to have been
constructed c. 1940s and is
considered contributing.
Relocation of this building will not
impact existing alley access or
character.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 1 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 18 of 48
.2 Retain and preserve the variety and
character found in the existing
historic accessory buildings along
the alleys.
Proposed relocation of the
contributing accessory building
will not impact existing character
of the alley or the building.
Yes
.5 Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so that the view
of the main house is not obscured,
and the alley does not evolve into a
tunnel-like passage.
Relocation of the accessory
building will not have a significant
impact on the existing relationship
between the house, accessory
building and alley.
Yes
4.1 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic
structures is the protection of the existing structure 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
historic building are not
destroyed, damaged or destroyed
New addition is proposed at the
rear of the contributing house.
While a portion of the upper level
south wall is proposed for
removal, no character defining
features of the building would be
damaged or destroyed and
wrapping porch is shown to be
reconstructed to historic condition.
Maybe
.2 New additions should be
constructed so that they may be
removed in the future without
damaging the historic structure.
Proposed addition attaches to the
historic building in a similar
manner as the existing addition
proposed for removal. It is
recommended that a majority of
the upper level south wall be
retained so that the new addition
could be removed with minimal
damage.
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.
No significant building elements
are proposed for removal. The
rear (originally screened-in porch)
has been altered and is not a
significant character-defining
feature of the building.
Construction of the addition
necessitates the existing historic
accessory building to be relocated
to the southeast corner of the
property. Overall, the character of
the property and bounding alley
are maintained in the proposal.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 2 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 19 of 48
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 structure, 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.
4” exposure clapboard siding
distinguishes the addition from the
historic portion of the house.
Upper level addition is slightly
inset from the sides of the historic
house, helping differentiate it.
Similar roof form and pitch help
achieve visual continuity between
the two. Consider lowering the
height of the addition to further
differentiate from and make more
subordinate to the historic house.
Resolve at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.2 Do not directly copy historic
elements. Instead, interpret
historic elements in simpler ways
in the addition.
New addition respects the primary
house in size and form. It is
subordinate to the historic house
and references it without
replicating historic elements.
Maybe
.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.
Existing house is fairly simple in
form and detailing; the addition
reflects both the form and
simplicity of the historic building
and continues the simplicity of the
historic portion of the house.
Yes
.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 generally
compatible with the historic
building and does not seek to
introduce a new stylistic elements.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 3 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 20 of 48
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. Add itions 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 increase the square
footage of the 2,295 sq. ft. (2,020
sq. ft. after removal of rear
additions) house by 769 sq. ft and
extend the upper level of the
house. Having the addition inset
from the sides of the historic
house helps to differentiate the
two, but in order to keep the
addition subordinate, it is
recommended that the roofline be
lower than that of the historic
house. Revise at the Ldrc.
Maybe
.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.
Proposed addition is generally
compatible with the mass, scale,
and materiality of the historic
building. Fenestration on east and
west elevations of the proposed
addition take cues from the
historic house and the relationship
of solids to voids is compatible
with those found on the existing
house.
Yes
.4 Reflect the original symmetry or
asymmetry of the historic
building.
Symmetry and solid to void
patterns observed in the historic
house are reflected in the design
of the new addition.
Yes
.5 Preserve the vertical and
horizontal proportion of a
building's mass.
The vertical and horizontal forms
of the house are maintained in the
proposed design. Yes
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.
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 4 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 21 of 48
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.
New addition will decrease the rear
setback of the house by roughly
12’. This will not have a significant
impact on the character of the
property, as the steep, expansive
quality of the site is maintained.
Yes
.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 and will not be visible from
Maxwell Ave. View from the alley is
largely screened by mature trees.
Yes
.3 Respect the established
orientation of the original
building and typical alignments
in the area.
Addition does not affect historic
orientation and alignments of the
building along the streetscape. Yes
.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.
New garage is proposed at the
rear of the property across the ditch
and a significant distance from the
primary house will not significantly
affect the general proportion of built
mass to open space.
Yes
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 compliment the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, re fer 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.
Dominant roofline is maintained in
proposed design. However, it is
recommended that the roofline of the
addition be lower than that of the historic
house in order to remain subordinate.
Maybe
.2 Rooflines on additions
should be lower than and
secondary to the roofline of
the original building.
Roofline of addition is shown at same
height as main house. Consider lowering
height of the addition. Resolve at the Ldrc. Maybe
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 5 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 22 of 48
.3 The existing roof form,
pitch, eave depth, and
materials should be used
for all additions.
The proposed roof proportions and
materials are generally compatible with the
historic house. Yes
.6 Use window shapes that are
found on the historic
building. Do not introduce
odd-shaped windows such
as octagonal, triangular, or
diamond-shaped
Proposal shows simple, double-hung
rectangular windows that relate to the
historic house in terms of placement and
proportion. Yes
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES – ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, 7.0
7. GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Structures
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.
Relocation of existing accessory
building to the rear of the property
will allow for it to be preserved.
Proposed location reflects historic
patterns within the district and will
contribute to the character of the
site. Details of methodology of
move should be reviewed by the
Ldrc.
Maybe
.2 Retain and preserve the character-
defining materials, features, and
details of historic garages and
accessory buildings, including
roofs, materials, windows, and
doors.
Written details on how the
accessory building will be
relocated and rehabilitated should
be provided for review by the Ldrc
prior to relocation. Maybe
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory
buildings. While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be
subordinate in size, massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is
pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
Location and Orientation
.1
It is inappropriate to introduce a
new garage or accessory building if
doing so will detract from the overall
New garage proposed at the rear of
the property and would not require
removal of a significant historic
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 6 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 23 of 48
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 or site features. Proposal
shows garage as 11’x20’, a
relatively small building that would
not detract from the primary building
or historic accessory building.
.3
Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not
evolve into tunnel-like
passageways.
Proposal shows adequate spacing
between the new accessory and
relocated accessory buildings.
Yes
.4
Preserve a backyard area between
the house and the accessory
buildings, maintaining the general
proportion of built mass to open
space found within the area.
With the new addition, the primary
house is proposed to have a 65’
setback from the rear of the
property. Construction of proposed
11’x20’ garage with a 9’ setback
from the rear will not affect the
general proportion of built mass to
open space of the property.
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.
Proposed design relates to existing
house and garage; size and
massing are appropriate.
Yes
.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.
Proposal shows a one-story, single
car garage with basement level
studio. Massing is generally
proportionate to built mass and
open space on property.
Yes
.7
Roof form and pitch should be
complementary to the primary
structure.
Roof form is proposed to be low
sloped or flat with a slight overhang
and wood brackets. This would be
complementary to the hipped roof
form of the primary building.
Yes
Materials and Detailing
.8
Accessory structures should be
simpler in design and detail than the
primary building.
As shown, garage is simpler than
the main house in design, material,
and detailing.
Yes
.9
Materials for new garages and
accessory structures should be
compatible with those found on the
primary structure and in the district.
Vinyl siding and prefabricated
structures are inappropriate.
Top portion of the garage proposed
to be clad in clapboard siding,
which is compatible with the primary
building.
Yes
.10
Windows, like all elements of
accessory structures, should be
simpler in detailing and smaller in
scale than similar elements on
primary structures.
W indows on the proposed garage
are compatible in terms of window
type, size and detailing.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 7 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 24 of 48
.11
If consistent with the architectural
style and appropriately sized and
located, dormers may be an
appropriate way to increase
storage space in garages.
N/A N/A
.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.
Proposal shows one beadboard
garage door, similar to those found
on neighboring accessory buildings.
Scale is consistent with historic
examples and appropriate for a
single-car garage.
Yes
.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.
Proposed design does not attempt
to recreate a false historic
appearance.
Yes?
.14
Carports are inappropriate in
districts where their form has no
historic precedent.
Carport is not proposed. N/A
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 role in the development patterns that give the more visible
areas their character. Alleys provide access to rear parking and garages. T hey have a
varied edge quality, with buildings both on the property lines and set back. The size and
quality of these accessory buildings varies considerably. Careful consideration should be
given to changes in traditional uses.
Guidelines: Analysis: CONFORMS?
1. The use of alleys to provide access to
the rear of properties should be
preserved.
Proposal encourages use of the
alley with construction of a new
garage. Access to the rear of the
property will be 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.
Alignment of buildings along the
alley is maintained. Relocation
of the existing accessory
building and construction of the
new garage will not impact the
human scale of the alley.
Yes
3. Buildings such as garages, sheds, etc.
which contribute to this variety should
be retained in their original form
whenever possible.
Existing accessory building is
not currently located at the alley
but is proposed for relocation to
accommodate the new addition.
Relocation will allow for it to be
retained as a contributing
building.
Yes
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 8 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 25 of 48
5. Efforts should be made to maintain the
character of the alleys in the District.
Relocation of existing accessory
building to the rear of the
property reflects historic patterns
within the district. Design of new
accessory building takes
reference from other garages in
the area. Character of the alley
will be maintained.
Yes
P GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A variety of accessory buildings has been adapted for use as garages in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures have certain
similarities. They are plain and utilitarian and are located at the rear of the property on
the alley. Materials and building elements are varied.
Guideline: Consistency:
.1 If an existing structure is to be used
as a garage the historic character of
the building should be respected. As
few changes as possible should be
made.
No exterior changes to the
existing accessory building are
shown. Yes
MAPLETON HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES –MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION,
ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES, T.
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 des ign 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.
New addition is proposed at the rear
of the contributing house. While a
portion of the upper level south wall is
proposed for removal the rear
additions have been altered outside of
the period of significance for the
district and are not character defining
features of the building.
Yes
.5 New design and construction
should always be differentiated
from older portions of a
building; however, the addition
should respect the existing roof
4” Exposure of clapboard siding
distinguishes the new addition from
the historic portion of the house.
Upper level addition is slightly inset
from the sides of the historic house,
Maybe
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 9 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 26 of 48
forms, and building scale and
massing.
helping to differentiate the two.
Existing roof form is respected in the
proposal, but it is recommended that
the roofline of the addition be lower
than that of the historic house in order
to remain subordinate. Resolve at the
Ldrc.
Attachment A - Design Guideline Analysis - Page 10 of 10 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 27 of 48
ATTACHMENT B – CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure 1. 1044 Maxwell Ave. North Elevation of Main House.
Figure 2. 1044 Maxwell Ave. North Elevation.
Attachment B - Current Photographs - Page 1 of 6 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 28 of 48
Figure 3. 1044 Maxwell Ave. Northeast Elevation.
Figure 4. 1044 Maxwell Ave. Northeast Elevation.
Attachment B - Current Photographs - Page 2 of 6 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 29 of 48
Figure 5. 1044 Maxwell Ave. Northwest Elevation.
Figure 6. 1044 Maxwell Ave. West Elevation.
Attachment B - Current Photographs - Page 3 of 6 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 30 of 48
Figure 7. 1044 Maxwell Ave. Existing Accessory Building.
Figure 8. 1044 Maxwell Ave. West Elevation of Rear Addition.
Attachment B - Current Photographs - Page 4 of 6 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 31 of 48
Figure 9. 1044 Maxwell Ave. Rear Addition.
Figure 10. 1044 Maxwell Ave. View of Backyard.
Attachment B - Current Photographs - Page 5 of 6 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 32 of 48
Figure 11. 1044 Maxwell Ave. View of Site.
Attachment B - Current Photographs - Page 6 of 6 Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 33 of 48
FARMERSDITCH5434543354325431543054295 4 2 8
5 4 2 7
5 4 26
5 4 255424
543054255420542054215420541954185 4 1 7
5 4 1 65415
5 4 1 5
54175 4 1 954165415541454135412
5410540954125413541154085 4 1 8 541854195421wmgmgas pipeline (paint)gwater pipeline (paint)gwgcocoolsanitary pipelinemanholeupupoverhead utility lineslpsanitarysewerpipelinessol30"30"8"8"6"5"14"5"20"6"7"15"5"5"7"9"5"7"7"8"6"4"8"18"13"20"18"18"7"10"5"6"18"9"8"32"7"16"MAXWELL AVEALLEY(E) GARAGE
MAIN HOUSE
(E) SHED TO BE RELOCATEDPORTION OF (E) BUILDING TO BE REMOVED
PORTION OF (E) BUILDING TO BE REMOVEDR 25'-0"
5408' - 6"
LOW POINT
A1.103/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 SITE PLAN - EXISTING
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 1 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 34 of 48
garageFARMERSDITCH5434543354325431543054295 4 2 8
5 4 2 7
5 4 26
5 4 255424
543054255420542054215420541954185 4 1 7
5 4 1 65415
5 4 1 5
54175 4 1 954165415541454135412
5410540954125413541154085 4 1 8 541854195421wmgmgas pipeline (paint)gwater pipeline (paint)gwgcocoolsanitary pipelinemanholeupoverhead utility lineslpsanitary sewer pipelinessol30"30"8"8"6"20"5"7"9"5"7"7"8"6"4"8"18"13"20"18"10"18"9"8"32"16"MAXWELL AVEALLEYMAIN HOUSE
(N) GARAGE
(E) SHED TO BE RELOCATED
R 25' - 0"
5408' - 6"
LOW POINT
ADDITION TO UPPER LEVEL
A1.203/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 2 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 35 of 48
01 -MAIN LEVEL
100' -0"
02 -UPPER LEVEL
109' -9 1/4"
03 -ROOF
124' -6 7/32"
00 -BASEMENT LEVEL
93' -1"
02 -T.O. PLATE
118' -3 3/4"
HEIGHT LIMIT: 5443' - 6"
(E) WALL TO BE
REMOVED TO
RESTORE
HISTORIC PORCH
HEIGHT LIMIT: 5443' - 6"
RESTORE
HISTORIC SIDE
PORCH
A2.103/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 3 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 36 of 48
01 -MAIN LEVEL
100' -0"
02 -UPPER LEVEL
109' -9 1/4"
03 -ROOF
124' -6 7/32"
00 -BASEMENT LEVEL
93' -1"
02 -T.O. PLATE
118' -3 3/4"
HEIGHT LIMIT: 5443' - 6"HEIGHT LIMIT: 5443' - 6"
(N) COVERED PORCH
ADDITION
A2.203/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 4 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 37 of 48
01 -MAIN LEVEL
100' -0"
02 -UPPER LEVEL
109' -9 1/4"
03 -ROOF
124' -6 7/32"
00 -BASEMENT LEVEL
93' -1"
02 -T.O. PLATE
118' -3 3/4"
(E) WINDOW TO BE REMOVED
REMOVE TO RESTORE HISTORIC SIDE PORCH
REMOVE PORTION OF BUILDING
REMOVE PORTION OF BUILDING
01 -MAIN LEVEL
100' -0"
02 -UPPER LEVEL
109' -9 1/4"
03 -ROOF
124' -6 7/32"
00 -BASEMENT LEVEL
93' -1"
02 -T.O. PLATE
118' -3 3/4"
(N) PORTION OF COVERED PORCH
(N) COVERED PORCH
(N) UPPER LEVEL ADDITION
A2.303/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 5 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 38 of 48
01 -MAIN LEVEL
100' -0"
02 -UPPER LEVEL
109' -9 1/4"
03 -ROOF
124' -6 7/32"
00 -BASEMENT LEVEL
93' -1"
02 -T.O. PLATE
118' -3 3/4"
REMOVE PORTION OF (E) BUILDING
01 -MAIN LEVEL
100' -0"
02 -UPPER LEVEL
109' -9 1/4"
03 -ROOF
124' -6 7/32"
00 -BASEMENT LEVEL
93' -1"
02 -T.O. PLATE
118' -3 3/4"
(N) COVERED
PORCH
(N) ADDITION AT UPPER LEVEL
(N) COVERED PORCH
A2.403/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 6 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 39 of 48
A3.103/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 EXISTING NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
REMOVE INFILL WALLS TO
RESTORE HISTORIC SIDE PORCH
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 7 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 40 of 48
A3.203/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 PROPOSED NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
(N) PORTION OF COVERED PORCH
(N) DOOR
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 8 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 41 of 48
A3.303/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 EXISTING SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
REMOVE PORTION OF (E) BUILDING FOR ADDITION
RELOCATE (E) SHED
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 9 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 42 of 48
A3.403/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 PROPOSED SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE
(N) ADDITION TO UPPER LEVEL
(N) COVERED PORCH
4" EXPOSURE LAP SIDING
MARVIN WOOD-WOOD WINDOWS
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 10 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 43 of 48
A3.603/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 EXISTING SITE
1 SITE PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING LM
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 11 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 44 of 48
A3.703/03/20201044 MAXWELL
1044 MAXWELL ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 PROPOSED SITE
1 SITE PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED LM
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 12 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 45 of 48
HEIGHT LIMIT: 5439' - 5"
BEAD BOARD GARAGE DOOR
LAP SIDING
EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS
A2.103/04/20201044 MAXWELL GARAGE
1044 MAXWELL AVE BOULDER, CO 80304 ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 13 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 46 of 48
00 -LOW ER LEVEL T.O. SLAB
90' -6"
HEIGHT LIMIT: 5439' - 5"
4" EXPOSURE LAP SIDING
EXPOSED CONCRETE
A2.203/04/20201044 MAXWELL GARAGE
1044 MAXWELL AVE BOULDER, CO 80304 ELEVATIONS
1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 14 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 47 of 48
A3.103/04/20201044 MAXWELL GARAGE
1044 MAXWELL AVE BOULDER, CO 80304 PERSPECTIVES
1 NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE2SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE
Attachment C - Plans and Elevations - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 15 of 15
Item 5A - 4.23.2020 LB memo - 1044 Maxwell Ave. - Page 48 of 48