HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022
MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD
February 2, 2022
STAFF
David Gehr, Interim Director of Planning and Development Services
Charles Ferro, Acting Comprehensive Planning Manager
Lucas Markley, Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Principal Historic Preservation Planner
Clare Brandt, Interim Historic Preservation Planner
Faith Hamman, Historic Preservation Intern
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST
Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct
a 624 sq. ft. accessory building and a 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing accessory building at
845 Pine 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.
Address: 845 Pine St.
Owner/Applicant: Hae Hyong Park / Jae Park and Renee Golobic, Eleven 28 LLC
Case Numbers: HIS2021-00317
Case Type: Landmark Alteration Certificate
Code Section: 9-11-18, B.R.C., 1981
SITE INFORMATION
Historic District: Mapleton Hill Historic District
Date of construction (house): 2019
Date of construction (accessory): Pre-1931 (estimated from Sanborn Maps)
Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1)
Lot size: 10,847 sq. ft.
Building coverage (existing): 1,538 sq. ft. (house) + 233 sq. ft. (historic garage)
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 1 of 49
Building coverage (proposed): 2,503 sq. ft.
Building coverage (allowed max.): 3,241 sq. ft.
Floor Area (existing): 2,380 sq. ft. (house) + 233 sq. ft. (historic garage)
Floor Area (proposed total): 3,345 sq. ft.
Floor Area (allowed max): 4,301 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board conditionally approve the application.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated February 2, 2022, as the
findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct
a 624 sq. ft. accessory building and a 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing accessory building at
845 Pine St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as shown on plans dated November 28, 2021,
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 provided the stated conditions are met.
Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the
approved plans, 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 final review and approval by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) to
ensure that the final design of the garage and addition is consistent with the General
Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines and the intent
of this approval:
a. Revised drawings showing:
i. a reduction in gravel parking areas, in particular eliminate parking west
of proposed new garage;
ii. trees to be removed;
b. Details of rehabilitation of retaining wall at historic driveway to contributing
garage; confirm if 9th St. curb cut to contributing garage will be removed;
c. Show detail of connections between historic accessory building and proposed
stucco addition to determine no damage will occur to historic building while
applying stucco; propose alternatives to stucco that are compatible with the
alley viewscape for both the addition and the new accessory building;
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 2 of 49
d. Final architectural plans that include details including details for exterior doors,
windows (including placement, style, and type), lighting, paint and roofing color,
composition of new retaining walls.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
• A Landmark Alteration Certificate for HIS2019-00218 was issued on Jan. 8, 2020 for the
construction of a new, one and one-half story house after review by the Landmarks Board
on Sept. 4, 2019. Conditions for this application1 included:
a. Redesign of the proposed 540 sq. ft. garage to locate and possibly reorient the
building to the north side of the driveway, reducing the driveway width and
turnaround area, and use gravel;
b. Reduce the size of the 540 sq. ft. garage to one and one-half car, raise pitch of
roof to better reflect the contributing garage on the property and install a door that
better reflects the type found on historic accessory buildings in the district;
c. Uncover or reconstruct historic retaining walls and flagstone pathway, berm
landscape, and minimize the introduction of new retaining walls;
At a subsequent LDRC meeting on Jan. 8, 2020, J. Hewat, F. Sheets, and A. Daniels
requested a new LAC application for the construction of a 540 sq. ft. garage, landscaping
and resolution as to whether the historic stone wall could be reconstructed.
• On Dec. 3, 2021, the owners submitted an LAC application to construct a new 624 sq. ft. 2-
car garage and a 108 sq. ft. addition to the existing contributing accessory building.
(HIS2021-00317). Based on the Landmarks Board and LDRC’s prior request to reduce the
size of the garage, staff referred the application to the Landmarks Board for review.
• Staff finds that the construction of the garage generally meets the Standards for issuance
of a Landmark Alteration Certificate pursuant to 9-11-18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981 and is
largely consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines. With the stated conditions, staff recommends approval by the
Landmarks Board.
1 Landmarks Board Meeting Minutes, Sept. 4, 2019.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 3 of 49
• This recommendation is based upon the understanding that the stated conditions will be
reviewed and approved by the LDRC prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
• 845 Pine St. is a highly visible property located at the northwest corner of Pine St. and
9th St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Figure 1. Location map, 845 Pine St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District
• The two buildings currently on the lot include the main house (constructed 2019 – 2021)
and a (pre-1930) stone accessory building, which is considered contributing to the
historic district.
• Sanborn Maps from 1890 to 1931 illustrate a house and accessory building at the north
end of the lot.
• The map from 1895 shows a frame building with a wooden shingle roof at the location
of the historic accessory building. On the 1931 map, the accessory building is listed as
masonry with composition roof.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 4 of 49
Figure 2. 845 Pine St., former buildings constructed on the property,
demolished 1941 (left) and 2019 (right). Carnegie Library for Local History
Figure 3. 845 Pine St., south elevation of main house, 2021.
Figure 4. 845 Pine St., existing accessory building from 9th St. Google Streetview, 2021.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 5 of 49
Figure 5. Sanborn map from 1895.
Figure 6. Sanborn map from 1931.
Site Plan
• Long narrow 234’ x 50’ lot with grade rising to north;
• Mid-lot retaining walls have been removed and the area graded;
• Significant frontage on 9th St. including proposed new curb cut mid-lot (to provide
access to proposed driveway and new garage);
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 6 of 49
• Construction of new 624 sq. ft. garage upper-mid lot;
• New concrete apron and gravel parking area shown to south and west of proposed new
garage;
• Proposed new retaining wall and stone steps to south of parking area, connecting to
house with new flagstone walk;
• Proposed new retaining wall and stone steps at northwest corner of new garage to a
new flagstone walk to historic accessory building;
• 108 sq. ft. addition to contributing historic accessory building.
Figure 7. 845 Pine St., pre-construction site plan.
Figure 8. 845 Pine St., proposed site plan, 2019.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 7 of 49
Figure 9. 845 Pine St., proposed site plan, 2021.
HISTORIC ACCESSORY BUILDING
• Existing 421 sq. ft. Field stone accessory building constructed pre-1931;
• Retaining wall on the south edge of the driveway;
• Low pitched gable asphalt-shingle roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails;
• Stucco gable ends;
• Out-swing wood garage door on east elevation open to 9th St.;
• Divided light wood windows with no lintel, and two access doors on south elevation;
• Central single window on west elevation;
• North elevation faces Mapleton Alley (elevated) and the farmers ditch.
Figure 10. 845 Pine St., existing accessory building, east elevation, 2021
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 8 of 49
Figure 11. 845 Pine St., existing accessory building, south elevation, 2021
Figure 12. 845 Pine St., existing accessory building, west elevation (Mapleton Alley on left), 2021
Figure 13. 845 Pine St., existing accessory building, north elevation (Mapleton Alley in foreground), 2021
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 9 of 49
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK – ADDITION TO HISTORIC ACCESSORY BUILDING
Scope of work includes 108 sq. ft. addition, new window and door.
East Elevation (facing 9th St.)
• Proposed new cross gable-roof addition, 1.5 ft. lower than existing garage;
• Stucco finish on addition (note the existing stucco in historic gable end);
• Two new divided-light windows (details not provided);
• New interior French door behind existing garage doors to be rehabilitated (details not
provided);
• New half-round gutters and downspouts;
• New dry set retaining wall to north of historic driveway; existing retaining wall to south of
historic driveway not shown on plans.
Figure 14. Existing (top) and proposed (below) east elevation (facing 9th St.)
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 10 of 49
South Elevation (façade)
• Proposed new cross gable-roof addition;
• Stucco finish;
• New divided-light window (details not provided);
• New French door in existing opening (details not provided);
• New half-round gutters and downspouts;
• New porch light (details not provided).
Figure 15. Existing (top) and proposed (below) south elevation (façade).
West Elevation
• Proposed new cross gable-roof addition;
• Stucco finish on addition and retained in gable end;
• New window in existing opening (details not provided);
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 11 of 49
• New interior French door behind existing garage doors to be rehabilitated (details not
provided);
• New half-round gutters and downspouts;
Figure 16. Existing (top) and proposed (below) west elevation (facing Mapleton Alley).
North Elevation (facing Mapleton Alley and Farmers Ditch)
• No changes proposed.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK – NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
Scope of work includes construction of a 624 sq. ft., 15’ 7” high new two-car garage 27 ft. south
of existing south wall of contributing garage.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 12 of 49
Figure 17. 845 Pine St., proposed site plan, 2021.
Figure 18. Sanborn map from 1895 showing approx. location of original house and accessory building.
Figure 19. Proposed location, east elevation (facing 9th St.)
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 13 of 49
Figure 20. Proposed location, east elevation (facing 9th St.) Google Streetview, 2021.
East Elevation (facing 9th St.)
• New construction; with low pitched gable roof with overhanging eaves;
• Pitch of roof to match historic accessory building;
• Stucco color, gutters and downspouts, window to match main house.
Figure 21. Proposed new accessory building, east elevation (facing 9th St.)
South Elevation
• New construction;
• Two 9’ x 8’ overhead wood garage doors
• Stucco color, gutters and downspouts, window to match main house.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 14 of 49
Figure 22. Proposed new accessory building, south elevation
West Elevation
• New construction;
• New half-lite wood door;
• Stucco color, gutters and downspouts, window to match main house.
Figure 23. Proposed new accessory building, west elevation
North Elevation
• New construction;
• Stucco color, gutters and downspouts to match main house.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 15 of 49
Figure 24. Proposed new accessory building, north elevation
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?
Provided the stated conditions are met, staff finds the proposed work will be generally
consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that the proposed addition to the historic
accessory building and the proposed new garage will not damage the historic character of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District. The view of the historic accessory building from the alley will
not change; the view through the property from the alley toward 9th St. will be enhanced by the
addition of a structure approximately in the historic location of an early (c. 1895) house on the
property.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 16 of 49
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark property?
Provided the stated conditions are met, staff considers the proposed addition and new
construction will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural,
and value of the property as the changes are generally consistent 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 landmark property?
Provided the stated conditions are met, staff considers that the texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials proposed will be compatible with the designated property.
(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.
Specific 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.
Although it is not included in this proposal, the property owner is encouraged to consider
placement of PV Solar Panels on the non-historic accessory building. A separate Landmark
Alteration Certificate application is required.
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 (LAC). The Board has
adopted the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual
Landmarks and the Mapleton Hill Historic District 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.
See Attachment A for a complete analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the design
guidelines.
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 17 of 49
In this case, staff considers the proposed 624 sq. ft. accessory building and a 108 sq. ft.
addition to an existing accessory building appropriate, due to these factors:
• The location of the proposed new garage in the upper section of the mid-lot
corresponds with the approximate historic location of the main house on the site (c.
1890 - 1931.) The steep site (with the new main house not visible from the north end of
the lot) makes the addition appropriate for the site.
• Alley view of the historic accessory building will not change. The proposed addition to
the historic garage is subordinate in size, height and detailing, will not detract from the
overall historic character of the building, and will be minimally visible from the alley.
The primary structure is not visible from the alley, but the northwest corner of the
proposed new garage may be visible. As this is the approximate historic location of the
main house (c. 1890 – 1931), this is appropriate.
• The historic access to the property was from 9th St. rather than the alley, and this will
be retained. However, the historic curb cut will need to be vacated and replaced with
the new curb from 9th St. based upon required transportation engineering standards.
The parking area south of the proposed new garage is large, allowing for the garage
doors to face away from 9th St. providing adequate turning space.
• The garage doors face Pine St. and will not be visible from the alley, and will be
minimally visible from 9th St. The placement of the proposed new accessory building at
the crest of the hill, closer to the historic accessory building than to the primary
structure, complements the site. The new accessory building, while large, does not
dwarf the historic accessory building.
Staff considers that the following changes to the proposal are necessary to ensure
consistency with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual
Landmarks and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines:
• Minimize the parking area to the extent practical to reduce its visual impact; eliminate
the parking area west of the proposed new garage;
• Identify and limit removal of mature trees on site;
• Provide alternatives to stucco that are more visually compatible with the alley view
scape for both the addition and the new accessory building. Ensure that stucco will not
physically damage the existing historic structure;
• Rehabilitation plan for existing retaining wall at historic driveway to contributing
garage.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 18 of 49
Staff has received no public comment regarding this application.
FINDINGS
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
The Landmarks Board finds that with the stated conditions the project meets the standards
for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate set forth in Section 9-11-18, “Standards for
Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications,” B.R.C. 1981. In reaching this conclusion, the
Board considers the information in the staff memorandum dated February 2, 2022, and the
evidence provided to the Board at its February 2, 2022 meeting. Specifically, the Board finds, if
the stated conditions are met, that:
1. The proposal will be generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter, in that the
proposed work will not damage the historic character of the landmark property.
2. The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, and value of the landmark property as they are generally consistent with
the General Design Guidelines and will generally comply with Sections 2.0 and 3.3 of the
General Design Guidelines and Section 9-11-18(b)(3) of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Applicant Materials
Attachment B: Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 19 of 49
Planning & Development Services | 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
boulderplandevelop.net
Page 1 of 5 Updated March 2021
HIS -
Historic Preservation Landmark Alteration Certificate
(LAC) Application
REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK TO ALL PROPERTIES IN DESIGNATED HISTORIC
DISTRICTS AND INDIVIDUALLY LANDMARKED
Signed application
Current site plan and photographs of the property, including the view from the street. See page 2.
Other materials defined by project type and scope. See page 5 for a checklist or required materials.
TO SUBMIT YOUR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE (LAC) APPLICATION
•Save your materials as PDFs using the naming conventions in the Online Plan Application Guide
•Email application to PDSskipatrip@bouldercolorado.gov. Put Historic Preservation in the subject line.
•Questions? Contact Historic Preservation staff at 303-441-1994 or historic@bouldercolorado.gov
•Si necesita ayuda para traducir esta información al español, llame al 303-441-1905
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Name Phone # Email Address
Address City State Zip
OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION SAME AS APPLICANT
Name Phone # Email Address
Address City State Zip
PROJECT INFORMATION THE WORK WILL NEED TO MEET THE GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ANY
DISTRICT-SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES (LINKS BELOW).
Project Address
Historic District
(Check one. Search the
map of Landmarks and
Historic Districts.)
Chamberlain
Chautauqua
Downtown
Floral Park
Highland Lawn
Hillside
Mapleton Hill
University Place
West Pearl
16th Street
Individual Landmark
Name:
Project Description
Date:
PLAN
4
4
4
Renee Golobic 720.837.0527 renee@eleven28arch.com
boulder CO 80304
Jae Park jpark1037@gmail.com
845 Pine Street Boulder CO 80302
845 Pine Street, Boulder CO 80302
4
A new 624 sf 2-car garage and a 108sf additon to a historic structure
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 20 of 49
Planning & Development Services | 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
boulderplandevelop.net
Page 2 of 5 Updated March 2021
EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS ATTACHED AS SEPARATE PDF
Location Map / Site Plan (paste here or attach as separate PDF) - survey, ILC or screenshot of aerial map showing adjacent streets.
Photographs of each side / elevation of the building (paste here or attach as separate PDF)
front rear
side side
4
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 21 of 49
Planning & Development Services | 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
boulderplandevelop.net
Page 3 of 5 Updated March 2021
REQUIRED MATERIALS ATTACHED AS SEPARATE PDF
Color chips, samples and/or cut sheets for painting and/or roofing work (paste here or attach as separate PDF)
STOP HERE IF THE SCOPE OF WORK IS LIMITED TO THESE ITEMS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Roofing
Painting
Location of proposed work detailed on plan or mockup (paste here or attach as separate PDF)
STOP HERE IF THE SCOPE OF WORK IS LIMITED TO THESE ITEMS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Landscaping
Antenna or mechanical unit
Commercial awning
Commercial sign
Commercial patio
4
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 22 of 49
Planning & Development Services | 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
boulderplandevelop.net
Page 4 of 5 Updated March 2021
Scaled elevations (for fences, show all dimensions including spacing between pickets*)
existing proposed
existing proposed
existing proposed
existing proposed
STOP HERE IF THE SCOPE OF WORK IS LIMITED TO THESE ITEMS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Deck
Outdoor kitchen
In-ground pool or spa
Fence located at front of house
Fence at side or rear of house*
Fence taller than 5ft.*
*Side and rear fences with max height of 5’ with min 1” spacing between pickets
can be reviewed by staff.
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 23 of 49
Planning & Development Services | 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
boulderplandevelop.net
Page 5 of 5 Updated March 2021
CHECKLISTS FOR OTHER SCOPES OF WORK
For the following scopes of work, check all that apply and include separate PDFs of the required documentation:
Solar panels Completed application, pages 1 - 4
Solar renderings
New free-standing building 340 sq. ft. or smaller
New free-standing building larger than 340 sq. ft.
Demolition and new construction
Addition
Porch
Completed pages 1 - 4
Scaled architectural plans / project drawings: Side by side existing and
proposed, with annotated (measurable) scale.
Initial code review for new construction. See section below.
Doors
Windows
Skylights
Completed pages 1 - 4
Doors / windows replacement worksheet. This supplement will be sent to
the email address included on page 1 once the LAC application is accepted.
INITIAL CODE REVIEW FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
This review is intended to identify potential zoning and building code issues for new construction only. Please fill out to the best of your
ability. The verification of this form is a customer service review and does not constitute a formal review of all applicable codes and
regulations. All sections of the Boulder Revised Code must still be adhered to prior to performing any work. Property information can be
found on https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/property-report
Proposed work is within required setbacks Yes No
Existing Proposed new Total after construction Allowed maximum
Building coverage (sq. ft.)
Floor area (sq. ft.)
Height
Will the proposed require a variance or exemption? (check all that apply):
Setback variance (Section 9-7-2, B.R.C., 1981)
Side yard wall articulation standards (Section 9-7-10,
B.R.C., 1981)
Solar exception (Section 9-9-17, B.R.C., 1981)
Bulk plane requirements (Section 9-7-9, B.R.C., 1981)
Exemption from maximum building coverage for accessory buildings
in the rear setback (Section 9-7-ll(d), B.R.C., 1981)
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1771 732 2503 3241
2380 732 3112 4301
0,14'-7"15'-7",14'-1"20
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 24 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:10 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 25 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:14 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 26 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:18 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 27 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:23 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 28 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:28 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 29 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:33 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 30 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:38 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 31 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:43 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 32 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:48 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 33 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:53 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 34 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:51:59 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 35 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:52:03 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 36 of 49
ELEVEN2812/4/2021 12:52:08 PMAttachment A - Applicant MaterialsItem 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022Page 37 of 49
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BOULDER'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS &
INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS
2.0 SITE DESIGN
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.
2.1 BUILDING ALIGNMENT, ORIENTATION, AND SPACING
The pattern of setbacks is an important element in defining neighborhood character. A front yard set back serves as a transitional
space between the public sidewalk and the private building entry. When repeated along the street, these yards enhance the
character of the area. The relatively uniform alignment of building fronts, as well as similar spacing between primary buildings,
contributes to a sense of visual continuity. Traditionally, the primary entrance of a building faced the street and, depending on the
architectural style of the house, was often sheltered by a one-story porch. This feature provided an additional transition from the
public to the private space and helped establish a sense of scale to the neighborhood. The primary structure generally “stepped
down” to one story at the rear of the lot. This, and smaller accessory structures along the alley, helped frame the rear yard.
GUIDELINES: 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 new garage proposed upper mid-lot is located
where historically there was a house. The location is
appropriate. Yes
.2 Building proportions should respect traditional
patterns in the district. For example, many areas are
characterized by relatively narrow lots and vertically
proportioned front facades, taller than they are wide.
In such an area, it would be inappropriate to
introduce horizontally proportioned front facades.
Garages in the district were typically small,
converted from stables, one car. The large size of
the proposed new building is not appropriate.
However, there is a precedent for larger accessory
buildings on these lots, in particular the adjacent
neighbor at 835 Pine St. (912 sq. ft. garage
approved by Landmarks Board 5/6/2019)
Maybe
.6 In neighborhoods with alleys, garages should be
located at the rear of the lot and accessed from the
alley.
New garage is accessed from 9th St. Historic
accessory building was historically accessed from
9th St. (not the alley). Clarify is this access point will
be retained.
No
.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.
Backyard is distinguished by proposed new
retaining wall and gravel driveway. Yes
2.2 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE
The overall character of the historic districts is defined by more than the buildings. Landscape features of the streetscape, such as
the pattern of street trees and planting strips between the sidewalk and the curb, form a significant part of the historic character of
an area. Similarly, traditional landscape designs help to unify the district visually. Lawns and low plantings define open spaces
between the street and the houses. Traditionally, few front yard fences or landscaping materials obscured the view of the building
from the street. Those traditional patterns should be maintained as the districts continue to evolve.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.1 Maintain the established spacing pattern of street
trees.
Street trees will not be removed for the new garage
access. Yes
.2 Preserve street trees whenever possible. Street trees will not be removed for the new garage
access. Yes
.7 Where existing retaining walls are important to the
character of the site they should be preserved and
incorporated into new landscape features. Tall, plain
concrete retaining walls are inappropriate.
Regrading and the introduction of new retaining walls
is inappropriate.
New dry set retaining wall to north of historic
driveway is proposed. Rehabilitation of existing
retaining wall south of historic driveway is unclear.
Resolve at LDRC. Composition of new retaining
walls at new garage are not specified. Resolve at
LDRC.
Maybe
2.3 Alleys & Existing Accessory Buildings
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. 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?
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 38 of 49
.1 Maintain alley access for parking and retain the
character of alleys as clearly secondary access to
properties.
Alley view of historic accessory building will not
change. Yes
.2 Retain and preserve the variety and character
found in the existing historic accessory buildings
along the alleys.
Alley view of historic accessory building will not
change. Yes
.3 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.
Alley view of historic accessory building will not
change.
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.
Alley view of historic accessory building will not
change. 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.
Alley view of historic accessory building will not
change. Main house is not visible from alley.
However, the northwest corner of the new garage
may be visible from the alley. As this is the historic
location of the main house (c. 1890 – 1931), this is
appropriate.
Yes
2.4 PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS
Historically, private parking was limited to the rear of the lot with access from the alley. There are instances where curb cuts have
been added in the front yards, but these are generally later alterations and do not represent traditional parking patterns.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Maintain the traditional pattern of parking at the
rear of the lot.
Confirm if access to historic driveway will be
maintained. Resolve at LDRC.
New proposed driveway is mid-lot.
Maybe
.2 Access to parking should be from the alleys
whenever possible.
Access historically was from 9th St. N/A
.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.
.5 The visual impact of parking for multi-family and
commercial uses should be minimized. Common
approaches include separating parking into small
clusters, screening with buildings or landscaping,
and the use of small accessory structures.
The parking area south of the proposed new garage
is oversized allowing for the garage doors to be
faced away from 9th St. and giving adequate turning
space. Gravel parking area continues to west of
garage.
No
.6 Historically appropriate paving materials, such as
flagstone or brick, can be used to visually break
up larger parking areas.
Gravel was recommended by Landmarks Board in
previous review. Yes
.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.
Gravel was recommended by Landmarks Board in
previous review.
Yes
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 39 of 49
3.6 EXTERIOR MATERIALS: WALLS, SIDING, AND MASONRY
Brick, stone, horizontal wood-lapped siding, stucco, and wood shingles are common finish materials found in historic districts and on
historic structures. Over the years, the materials used in residential construction have not changed dramatically, but the scale of
materials has become larger. Narrower lap siding, smaller brick and shingles used alone or in various combinations often distinguish
older homes from newer ones. Brick and stone masonry were traditionally left natural while wood surfaces were painted.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Original historic finish materials should be
preserved and repaired.
• Unpainted masonry surfaces, particularly
those with historical significance, should not
be painted.
• When feasible, remove newer materials that
have been applied over historic finishes and
that have not achieved historic significance in
their own right. Removal of non-historic
materials such as stucco or permastone must
be tested to assure that the original material
will not be damaged in the process.
• When repairing masonry use appropriate
mortar, i.e., one that is softer than the
surrounding masonry.
Stucco addition to historic accessory building is
proposed. LDRC should review proposed method of
connecting to building to ensure there’s no damage
to historic structure.
Proposed repair of historic structure, if needed, will
require a separate LAC.
Maybe
.2 New finish materials should be compatible with,
but not seek to replicate, original finish materials.
• Use materials that are similar in scale,
proportion, texture and finish to those used
historically.
• Use authentic materials - materials made to
look like other materials, such as concrete
that is scored to look like brick, are not
appropriate.
Stucco to match main house differentiates the new
construction from historic, however the pale color
and smooth texture may not be appropriate adjacent
to the historic accessory building. The white
(approved) color of the garage in the adjacent
property at 935 Pine St. is jarring (from 9th St.)
Consider alternatives.
Maybe
3.7 WINDOWS, STORM WINDOWS, AND SHUTTERS
Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the most important character-defining
elements of a historic building and should be preserved. Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can
seriously detract from its architectural character. The relative importance of a window depends on three factors: the location of the
window on the building, the historic significance of the window, and its condition. Windows on elevations visible from public ways,
particularly the façade, are especially important. A window that has a high level of historic significance, regardless of its location, may
also be very important to the historic integrity of the building. The replacement of historic windows or components including glass,
should be considered only as a last resort.
At times, property owners consider replacement of their historic windows as a way of improving energy efficiency. Research indicates
that, in most cases, the energy efficiency of an old window can be increased to that of a thermal pane replacement window by
weatherstripping, insulation of weight pockets, and the application of an interior or exterior storm system. While the energy loss of a
building may be reduced by replacing or repairing historic windows, windows are only one factor in the building’s energy usage. It is
strongly recommended that a comprehensive energy audit be undertaken to identify areas for improvement. To increase a building’s
energy efficiency, a combination of air sealing, additional wall and ceiling insulation, and the adjustment of mechanical systems is
generally more effective than focusing only on the repair or replacement of a window. For more information regarding energy
efficiency and energy audits for historic buildings, please contact the Office of Environmental Affairs at
www.environmentalaffairs.com
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
Protection of Historic Windows LDRC to review window details Maybe
Windows in New Construction
.15 Windows in additions and new structures should
reflect the window patterns and proportions of the
existing structure and the district and utilize similar
materials. For elevations visible from public streets,
the relationship of solids to voids should also be
compatible.
Proposed new windows in historic building addition
match existing historic windows. LDRC to review
window details.
Proposed new windows in new construction match
house and are similar in style to historic accessory
building. Review style to ensure this is not portraying
a false narrative, possibly revise style to not match.
Resolve at LDRC.
Maybe
.16 Windows should be trimmed with materials similar
in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those
used traditionally.
LDRC to review window details.
Maybe
.17 Openings should indicate floor levels, and generally
should not occur between floors.
Single story buildings Yes
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 40 of 49
.18 Symmetry or asymmetry of openings should be
maintained.
Symmetry of building is maintained in new addition.
Paired windows on east elevation of historic building
addition may not be appropriate. Resolve at LDRC.
Maybe
.19 Odd window shapes such as octagons, triangles,
and diamonds are generally inappropriate.
None proposed
3.8 DOORS AND STORM DOORS
Front doors and primary entrances are among the most important elements of historic buildings. The original size and proportion of a
front door, the details of the door, the door surround, and the placement of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance.
Property Owners may wish to replace their historic doors to improve energy efficiency. Research indicates that, in most cases,
however, the energy efficiency of an old door can be increased to that of a new replacement door by weather-stripping and the
application of an interior or exterior storm door system. However, if a property owner wishes to request a landmark alteration
certificate to replace doors on a contributing or individually landmarked building, the steps as outlined in the historic Window and
Door Replacement/ Retrofit Application Guidelines must be followed.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Whenever possible, retain and preserve all original
doors and door openings. The location of the
door(s) proposed for retrofit or replacement is
important in assessing their significance to a
historic building. In general, the more important
the elevation, the less likely that replacement of
a historic door will be appropriate. Elevations will
be categorized as primary, secondary, or tertiary,
using the methodology set out in the Window &
Door Replacement
Application and Survey.
• Replacement of intact historic doors on
primary elevations is rarely appropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic doors on
secondary elevations is generally
inappropriate.
• Replacement of intact historic doors on
tertiary elevation can occur provided it does
not compromise the historic integrity of the
building.
Door opening preserved on historic building. New
door style to be reviewed by LDRC. Maybe
.2 The historic significance of the door(s) proposed for
replacement must also be assessed. In general, the
more significant a door is to the house as a whole,
the less likely that a retrofit or replacement will be
appropriate. The appropriateness of a door
replacement will be determined, in part, based
upon characterization of the door as either ‘Very
Historically Important’, ‘Historically Important’, or
‘Non-Historic’. (See Definitions).
Assess existing door for historic significance. Resolve
at LDRC Maybe
.3 The condition of the door(s) shall be evaluated
prior to determining whether the door(s) should be
repaired or replaced. The condition is to be
determined by assessing its elements individually.
The assessment will be completed through the use
of a survey that is intended to identify the extent of
deterioration in each doors and to determine
whether the door should be repaired, retrofitted,
or replaced. The survey form documents the
existing condition for the door and identifies which
features will be repaired and which will possibly be
replaced.
Assess existing door for condition. Resolve at LDRC Maybe
.4 Retain and preserve the functional, proportional
and decorative features of a primary entrance.
These features include the door and its frame, sill,
head, jamb, moldings, and any flanking windows.
Door opening preserved on historic building. Confirm
whether features will also be retained. Resolve at
LDRC
Maybe
.5 Historic hardware, hinges, locksets, and knobs are
door features that are significant and should be
preserved.
Assess existing door for historic significance. Resolve
at LDRC Maybe
.6 Repair damaged original doors and door assemblies
whenever possible following recognized
preservation methods.
Assess existing door for historic significance. Resolve
at LDRC Maybe
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 41 of 49
.7 If, through a Window & Door Application Survey
replacement is found to be appropriate, the
replacement door should match the original as
closely as possible. If documentation of the original
door is not available, then the appearance of the
replacement door should be based on original
doors on similar historic structures.
Assess existing door for historic significance. Review
door details and design at LDRC. Maybe
.8 Replace wood doors with wood doors. Synthetic
materials are generally inappropriate. Synthetic
materials rarely duplicate the surface texture,
reflective and detail qualities of original materials.
The use of materials matching the historic material
is recommended.
Review door details and design at LDRC. Maybe
.9 If energy conservation and heat loss are a concern,
consider using a storm door instead of replacing a
historic entry door. Generally, wood storm doors
are most appropriate. A metal storm door may be
appropriate if it is simple in design and if the frame
is durably coated so that raw metal is not visible
and fading and chalking are minimized. Vinyl storm
doors are generally inappropriate.
Review door details and design at LDRC. Maybe
.10 Doors in additions and new structures should
reflect the proportions (height and width) of doors
in the existing structure and/or the district.
Details of the proposed overhead doors in the new
construction garage should be reviewed at LDRC. The
layout (2 single doors) is appropriate for the building
and district.
Yes
.11 Doors should be trimmed with materials similar in
scale, proportion, finish, and character to those
used traditionally.
Review door details including trim finishes at LDRC. Maybe
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 42 of 49
4.0 ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES
This section applies to buildings that are individual landmarks or are within a historic district and have been identified as Contributing,
Contributing-Restorable, or Significant Newer. (see p. 7 and Glossary). Additions to non-historic structures are considered in Section 5.
While the guidelines in this section do not specifically apply to those properties, they do represent design principles that should be
considered in any addition. It is normal for buildings to evolve over time and additional space is needed or uses are accommodated.
New additions within the historic districts are appropriate as long as they do not destroy historic features, materials, and spatial
relationships that are significant to the original building and site. They also must be distinguishable from the historic architecture.
New additions should not compromise the integrity of the original structure or site, whether through direct destruction of historic
features and materials or indirectly through their location, size, height or scale. Additions should be compatible with, but discernible
from, the historic architecture. When the original design is duplicated the addition is indistinguishable and the historic evolution of the
building becomes unclear. Conversely, when design elements contrast too strongly with the original structure the addition will appear
visually incompatible.
The appropriate location of an addition to an existing building will depend on the character of the existing building and its site,
adjacent buildings, and the area as a whole. While every site is unique, generally additions are most appropriate at the rear of the
structure. The addition should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost. An
addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character, and should be subordinate to the existing structure.
The primary focus in reviewing additions will be on aspects of new construction 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.
4.1 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic buildings is the protection of the existing structure and
the character of the site and district.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.1 Construct new additions so that there is
the least possible loss of historic fabric and
so that the character-defining features of
the historic building are not destroyed,
damaged, or obscured.
Pitch of roof and exposed rafter tails will be retained. Historic
entrance to building and view from alley will not change.
Yes
.2 New additions should be constructed so
that they may be removed in the future
without damaging the historic structure.
Review details of stucco application at LDRC. Maybe
.3 It is not appropriate to construct an
addition that will detract from the overall
historic character of the principal building
and/or the site, or if it will require the
removal of significant building elements or
site features.
Proposed addition will not detract from the overall historic
character of the building and will be minimally visible from the
alleyway. Yes
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, additions should be compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new
construction.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.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. Every
project is different and successful designs
may incorporate a variety of approaches.
Proposed stucco helps distinguish the proposed addition,
however a different material may be appropriate to not damage
the historic structure and to make distinction more apparent
from the alley. Proposed alternatives at LDRC.
Maybe
.2 Do not directly copy historic elements.
Instead, interpret historic elements in
simpler ways in the addition.
Window styles may too closely copy historic elements. Resolve
at LDRC. 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.
Addition proposed is modest and simple.
Yes
.4 The architectural style 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.
Style is compatible.
Yes
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 43 of 49
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Structures
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site detracts from the visual continuity that
marks our historic districts. While additions should be distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as
to detract from the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic tructures or the site, in mass, scale or
detailing.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.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 is subordinate and set back from 9th St. Yes
.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.
Mass and scale are compatible. Resolve materials and color at
LDRC.
Maybe
.3 Adding a partial or full story to the historic
portion of a historic building is rarely
appropriate.
Not proposed
Yes
.4 Reflect the original symmetry or
asymmetry of the historic building.
Addition is asymmetrical and appropriate for the historic
building. Yes
.5 Preserve the vertical and horizontal
proportion of a building’s mass.
The massing is light and appropriate. 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.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.1 Design new additions so that the overall
character of the site, site topography,
character-defining site features and trees
are retained.
Review trees at LDRC Maybe
.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 subordinate and set back from 9th St.
Yes
.3 Respect the established orientation of the
original building and typical alignments in
the area.
The historic “vehicle” access to the building was from 9th St. and
will be retained (historic doors will be rehabilitated); the
“person” access to the accessory building will also be retained.
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.
The placement of the proposed new garage adjacent to the
historic accessory building is reminiscent of the historic
placement of the main house. A flagstone walk is proposed
between the buildings. Lawn and existing trees should be
retained as much as possible in this area.
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 complement the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also
to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
Roofs
.1 Maintain the dominant roofline and
orientation of the roof form to the street.
Roofline of proposed new construction matches historic
building in pitch and orientation. Yes
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 44 of 49
7.0 GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Accessory structures 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
buildings 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 buildings 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 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
historic character of the individual building
site or the district.
Retained 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.
Retained Yes
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
maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
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.
Resolve trees at LDRC.
Principal building not historic.
Because the new garage proposed is located where historically
there was a house and the garage doors will not be visible from
the street or alley, the addition will not detract from the overall
historic character of the site.
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.
The new garage proposed is inconsistent with the historic
pattern of garages facing onto and accessible via the alley.
However, the location proposed (upper mid-lot) is located
where historically there was a house. The location may be
appropriate because of this historic use.
Maybe
.3 Maintain adequate spacing between
accessory buildings so alleys do not evolve
into tunnel-like passageways.
Will not impact alley; adequate spacing between new proposed
garage and existing historic accessory building.
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.
Backyard area preserved between house and new accessory
building; new smaller “courtyard” area created between new
accessory building and historic accessory building.
Yes
Mass and Scale
.5 New accessory structures should take
design cues from the primary structure on
the site, but be subordinate to it in terms
of size and massing.
New proposed building is subordinate to primary structure. Not
subordinate to historic accessory building, but sizing is
balanced: Does not dwarf historic accessory building. In terms
of architectural details and materials, the proposed new garage
is secondary to the historic accessory building and the primary
house.
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.
One story, two car garage proposed. Yes
.7 Roof form and pitch should be
complimentary to the primary structure.
Roof form and pitch complimentary to existing historic
accessory building
Yes
Materials and Detailing
.8 Accessory structures should be simpler in
design and detail than the primary
building.
Simple design. Compliments and does not dwarf historic
accessory building.
Yes
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 45 of 49
.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.
Compatible materials proposed. Resolve final materials at LDRC. Maybe
.10 Windows, like all elements of accessory
structures, should be simpler in detailing
and smaller in scale than similar elements
on primary structures. See Sections 3.7 and
4.5 for additional direction.
Windows proposed match existing house and historic accessory
building. Consider simpler style. Resolve at LDRC.
Maybe
.11 If consistent with the architectural style
and appropriately sized and located,
dormers may be an appropriate way to
increase storage space in garages. See
Section 3.5 and 4.5 for additional direction.
None proposed 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.
Two single doors proposed. Resolve details at LDRC. 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.
Design is simple and subordinate to the primary building. Yes
.14 Carports are inappropriate in districts
where their form has no historic
precedent.
Not proposed N/A
MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
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.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
1. Accessory building such as
sheds and garages and
driveways should be located
at the rear of the lots as is
traditional. Adding them
between existing buildings
interrupts the rhythm of
the spacing.
The Landmarks Board requested the proposed new
accessory building not be attached to the house but
be located north of the central point of the lot. The
current proposal attempts to achieve this without
being located close to the existing historic
building. However, the proposed is between
existing buildings.
Maybe
2. Accessory building should
generally be small in scale
and mass and simply
detailed. They are clearly
secondary in importance to
the primary structure.
Smaller than primary residence, and simply
detailed. The orientation and location are evocative
of the historic primary house, since demolished (c.
1890 – 1931)
Yes
D. ALLEYS, EASEMENTS and ACCESSWAYS
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 46 of 49
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. They 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.
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
1. The use of alleys to provide
access to the rear of
properties should be
preserved.
N/A
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.
View of historic accessory building from
alley not changed.
Yes
3. Efforts should be made to
maintain the character of the
alleys in the District.
Parking area proposed west of new garage
may be visible - resolve at LDRC.
Maybe
E. BUILDING ALIGNMENT
Traditionally, regular-sized building lots were laid our along rectilinear streets, and houses
were generally built the same distance back from the street. Houses on most blocks in the
Mapleton Hill historic District reflect this pattern, and the regular alignment is one of the
strongest visual elements of the district. While the actual dimensions of the setback varies
from Mapleton Avenue to Maxwell Street, for instance, within their own streetscape the
alignment appears uniform
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
2. New building should
maintain the same
alignment where it is a
strong visual characteristic
of the streetscape.
The topography creates a unique visual
characteristic; placing the new garage in the
approx. historic location of the primary
house adds to the visual characteristic from
9th St.
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.
Large two-story garages in the historic district are rarely appropriate; they are typically only
seen on large lots with large houses. New garages should be sensitive to both the lot size
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 47 of 49
and the size of the house, and should be clearly secondary in importance to the primary
structure. Garages that are one to one-and-a-half stories are generally more appropriate.
GARAGES
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
3. If a new structure is to be
constructed, design ideas
might be found in existing
historic accessory buildings
located nearby.
Yes
4. The new building should be
secondary in nature to the
main house and smaller in
scale.
Yes
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
Yes
CARPORTS
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
3. When making such an
addition to a house or an
accessory building, care
should be taken not to
damage the materials of the
existing structure.
Connections should be made
with a minimum of damage.
Stucco addition to historic accessory building is
proposed. LDRC should review proposed
method of connecting to building to ensure
there’s no damage to historic structure.
Maybe
Q. Parking
Parking is provided on the street, with on-site parking generally limited to the rear of the lot
with access from an alley. These parking patterns have contributed to the character of the
district. Because drives did not extend from the main street to the rear of the lot, and because
there was seldom parking at the sides of the houses, the rhythm of equal spacing because
an important element of the district’s character.
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
1. On-site parking should be
limited to the rear of the lot,
except in unusual cases.
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 48 of 49
2. Access to parking should be
from the alley. Drives
should not be introduced
between structures.
Historically accessed from 9th St., not the
alley. Driveway is proposed mid lot,
between primary house and new accessory
building (rather than between historic
accessory building and new garage)
Maybe
3. When adding a garage on
the alley, any front curb cut
should be vacated and
closed.
Confirm historic accessory building curbcut
will be vacated.
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 sized and patterns should
be considered when proposing new in-fill construction.
New building on the rear of the lot (including a house behind a house development) 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.
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5A - 845 Pine St LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 49 of 49