HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave 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 for exterior
modifications, including adding a front porch, flat roofs, and parapet front and rear, at 705
Mapleton Ave. 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: 705 Mapleton Ave.
Owner/Applicant: Graham Carlson / Rachel Lee
Case Numbers: HIS2021-00123
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): 1900
Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1)
Lot size: 8,318 sq. ft.
Building coverage (existing): 2495 sq. ft.
Building coverage (proposed): 2561 sq. ft.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 1 of 68
Building coverage (allowed max.): 2714 sq. ft.
Floor area (existing): 3,501 sq. ft.
Floor area (proposed): 3,723 sq. ft.
Floor area (allowed max.) 3,764 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
222 sq. ft. in additions, plus a new front porch and parapet front and rear at 705 Mapleton Ave.
in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as shown on plans dated December 29, 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 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. Overall simplification and cohesion to design approach.
ii. Offset to the west wall of the front (south) portion of the house to create
a corner as it connects back to middle portion, simplification of detailing
to limit the stone foundation to no higher than existing stone
foundation, revise front porch to all wood construction with vertical
wood railing, eliminate the use of stone lintels at windows, inset window
frames at least 3” from face of brick, eliminate the use of steel siding to
narrow wood clapboard;
iii. Reduction in height of the rear addition so it is lower than the middle and
front modules, eliminate projecting upper-level walls and bays of rear
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 2 of 68
addition, revise window proportions consistent with those of the front
and middle portions of the house, consider use of narrow clapboard
siding in lieu of wood shingle;
iv. No paint on masonry.
b. Details for exterior doors, windows (including placement, style, and type), siding,
roofing, lighting, paint, hardscaping, etc.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
• 705 Mapleton Avenue was constructed around the turn of the 20th century as a one-story
Bungalow with hipped roof and front gable over a modest front porch but underwent
extensive remodeling in the (recent) non-historic period. The 1994 Boulder Survey of
Historic Places recommended that the alterations to the house have diminished its
historic integrity.
• According to building permits, the majority of the additions and remodeling of the house
were completed in the 1970s and 1980s.
• A Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) for a new 616 sq. ft., one story, two-car garage was
approved by the Landmarks Board on 01.03.2007; the design of the garage reflected
architectural aspects of the original house design (roof pitch and detail).
• Multiple LAC applications have been received over the last few years, with proposals that
modify aspects of the house.
• On May 6, 2021, the city received the LAC application (HIS2021-00123) to modify the
exterior by adding a new front porch, flat roofs, and parapet front and rear. This application
was preliminarily reviewed by the Landmark design review committee (LDRC)) on May 19,
2021 and referred to the Landmarks Board for review in a public hearing.
• Staff finds that the proposal 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.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
• 705 Mapleton Ave is a highly visible lot located at the north corner of Mapleton Ave.
and 7th St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 3 of 68
Figure 1. Location map, 705 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
• The two buildings currently on the lot include the main house (constructed c.1900) and
an accessory building (2007).
• The main house was extensively remodeled in the “environmental style” during the
1970s and 1980s with a second story added to the Mapleton Ave. elevation, large
picture windows, and other additions that have obliterated the original house.
• Staff considers the building to be non-contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic
District due to the extensive alterations that occurred outside of the defined 1865-1946
period-of-significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 4 of 68
Figure 2. 705 Mapleton Ave, facing Mapleton Ave. Real Estate Appraisal Card, 1929 (top)
and Historic Building Survey, 1994 (below). Carnegie Library for Local History
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 5 of 68
Figure 3. 705 Mapleton Ave, facing Mapleton Ave. 2021
Figure 4: Current footprint showing additions on south, east, and north elevations.
• Two-story additions to front and rear obscure the original house, constructed c. 1900.
• Permit records indicate multiple additions and remodeling, including remodels in 1975,
1977 (a wrecking permit, mostly likely for the garage), 1980 (300 sq. ft. addition), 1987
(second story addition), and 1991.
• Prior to the Historic Building Survey in 1994, the front porch was removed, and the front
entry relocated to the east elevation.
• A 263 sq. ft. addition to the east elevation (remodeled pre-1994) was approved by LDRC
in 2016.
• Brick segmental arches and original double-hung windows remain as part of the
original house, as does a portion of the original roofline which is visible from 7th Street.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 6 of 68
Figure 5. South elevation (facing Mapleton Ave). 2021
Figure 6. East elevation (interior lot line). 2020
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 7 of 68
Figure 7. Rear (north) elevation. 2020.
Figure 8. West elevation, facing 7th Street.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 8 of 68
PROPERTY HISTORY
• A clipping from the Boulder Daily Camera from 1909 notes that Mrs. Elizabeth Turrell
Andrew along with her children bought 705 Mapleton Ave. from Mrs. Eugene Ogden.
Elizabeth Andrew was born in Colorado in 1876. She divorced her husband, Dr. Charles
F. Andrew in 1909.
• In 1913, Arthur W. and Elizabeth T. Fitzgerald lived there. Fitzgerald was associated with
Tedrow and Fitzgerald attorneys.
PROPOSAL
Site Plan
• Corner lot bordering Mapleton Ave. and 7th St.;
• No proposed changes to existing 2007 garage;
• Brick façade treatment added to existing (modified) framing;
• New 166 sq. ft. front porch proposed with 25’ front-yard setback;
• Increase in floor area of house from 2,885 sq. ft. to 3,107 sq. ft. for a total of 3,723 on the
lot where 3,764 sq. ft. is allowed in the Residential Low-1 (RL-1) zone;
• No additional proposed changes to general footprint of the existing house on west,
north or east elevations.
Figure 9. 705 Mapleton Ave. existing site plan. 2021
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 9 of 68
Figure 10. 705 Mapleton Ave. proposed site plan, 2021.
South Elevation (facing Mapleton Ave.)
• Proposed new brick form at the front (south);
• Simplification of roof form to create a flat roof behind a false front parapet;
• Dentil detail at parapet cap;
• Brick painted white;
• New 166 sq. ft. (6 ft deep) front porch with low-pitch hipped roof;
• New front entry door;
• Upper-level windows replaced with taller windows;
• Lower (new porch) windows replaced with single picture window;
• Existing brick (lower) and wood siding (upper) addition to the east lowered to a position
below parapet and clad in dark metal;
• Existing entry addition enclosed with brick façade, painted white,
• Circular window reflecting the original house gable end windows (also seen on existing
garage at gable ends).
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 10 of 68
Figure 11. 705 Mapleton Ave. south elevation proposed (top) and existing (below).
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 11 of 68
Figure 12. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed (left) and existing (right) from Mapleton Ave.
Figure 13. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed (left) and existing (right) from Mapleton Ave.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 12 of 68
Figure 14. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed.
Figure 15. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed.
West Elevation (facing 7th St.)
• Proposed new brick form and front porch;
• Brick painted white;
• Stone window lintel and sills painted;
• Simplification of roof form to flat roof behind false front parapet (front of house) and
shingle addition (rear of house);
• Removal of existing shed rooflines at rear;
• New window cutouts at southwest corner;
• Existing original windows to remain;
• New natural cedar shake siding at upper rear addition;
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 13 of 68
Figure 16. 705 Mapleton Ave. west elevation proposed (top) and existing (below).
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 14 of 68
Figure 17. 705 Mapleton Ave. west elevation (proposed) with notes.
Figure 18. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed from 7th St looking toward Mapleton Ave.
North Elevation (facing alley)
• Proposed modification to existing rear addition to replace shed roof with flat roof;
• Replace existing lap siding with natural cedar shingle shake;
• Addition of skylight at flat roof;
• New proposed 21 sq. ft. dormer with flat roof;
• New circular window reflecting the original house gable end windows (also seen on
existing garage at gable ends);
• Brick painted white;
• Dark grey horizontal siding at existing sunroom.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 15 of 68
Figure 19. 705 Mapleton Ave. north elevation proposed (top) and existing (below).
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 16 of 68
Figure 20. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed (left) and existing (right) looking toward 7th St. from the rear of
the property.
Figure 21. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed (left) and existing (right) looking from 7th St. toward Mapleton
Ave.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 17 of 68
Figure 22. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed, looking from 7th St. toward Mapleton Ave.
Figure 23. 705 Mapleton Ave. 3D model proposed, looking toward 7th and Mapleton from neighboring property.
East Elevation
• Proposed new brick form and front porch;
• Brick painted white;
• Stone window lintel and sills painted;
• Simplification of roof form to flat roof behind false front parapet (front of house) and
shingle addition (rear of house);
• Proposed modification to existing rear addition to replace shed roof with flat roof;
• New brick at entryway addition;
• New door at read upper deck;
• Replace existing lap siding with natural cedar shingle shake;
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 18 of 68
• New proposed 21 sq. ft. dormer with flat roof;
• Dark grey horizontal siding at existing sunroom.
• Existing original window openings to remain;
• New natural cedar shake siding at upper rear addition.
Figure 24. 705 Mapleton Ave. east elevation proposed (top) and existing (below).
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:
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 19 of 68
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 modifications to the non-
contributing house will not damage the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. The addition of a front porch will re-scale the size of the façade to be more
appropriate to the district. The simplification of roof lines will make the house more
complementary to the district.
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.
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 20 of 68
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.
In this case, staff considers the proposed exterior modifications and new front porch
appropriate with conditions, due to these factors:
• The current additions (1960 – 1994) are stylistically incompatible with the district and
are inappropriately scaled. The proposal achieves a new appropriate scale without
significantly changing the existing footprint of the house.
• The proposal interprets elements from multi-unit Terrace architecture, rare to the
Mapleton Hill Historic District (period of significance 1865-1946).
• The proposal does not attempt to recreate the original façade or porch. Rather, it
employs a neo-traditional design reminiscent of Terrace (multi-unit) architecture (one
example of such design can be seen a 415-455 Mapleton Avenue (see figure 25). Staff is
unaware of single-family housing (constructed during the 1865-1946 period-of-
significance) in Mapleton Hill utilizing this architecture. The addition of a front porch is
appropriate.
Figure 25. 415-433 Mapleton Ave. (undated) Carnegie Library for Local History
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 21 of 68
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 (see Attachment B):
• Review the proposal to ensure changes do not create a false sense of historic
development (see also The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,
criterion 3: Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place,
and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as adding
conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.)
• While a flat-roof form may be appropriate, consider offsetting the west wall of the
front (south) portion of the house to create a corner as it connects back to middle
portion, simplify the detailing to limit the stone foundation to no higher than
existing foundation, revise the front porch to all wood construction with vertical
wood railing, eliminate the use of stone lintels at windows, inset window frames at
3” from face of brick, eliminate the use of steel siding (consider narrow painted
wood clapboard).
• Reduce the height of the rear addition so it is subordinate in mass, scale, and height
to the middle and front of the modules, eliminate projecting upper-level walls and
bays of rear addition, revise window forms consistent to those of the front and
middle portions of the house, consider use of clapboard siding in lieu of wood
shingle.
• Revise the plans to better achieve a cohesive design that is contextually consistent,
while contemporary.
• Masonry should not be painted; revise proposal to use brick on front portion of
house that is complementary to, but distinct from the existing historic brick on the
house.
PUBLIC COMMENT
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
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 22 of 68
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 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 23 of 68
A City of BoulderW PJanning & Development Services HIS
Historic Preservation Landmark Alteration Certificate
(LAC) Application
►REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK TO ALL PROPERTIES IN DESIGNATED HISTORIC
DISJRICTS AND INDIVIDUALLY LANDMARKEDB Signed application
ff,9u rrent site plan and photographs of the property, including the view from the street. See page 2.
5J 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 informaci6n al espafiol, llame al 303-441-1905
►APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Phone#Email Address"ryo�-1.-t"1-fo'1,£ rl-eep ,..,ostti'Gcuch,'-kc�-utYl
Address City State Zip\"101 \t;t� $1l.EtT 1 �lAi1E L =� �v11.,,� ���U>80�oi-
► OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION 0 SAME AS APPLICANT
Phone#Email Address j �h��. l,,'{rl�ov, tt JV\l\�;1. wvv1 /(V�V\� City �0\11� Sta6,[) Zip 80);0t\-
Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent (Applicant):�� _________ Date: __ /2-11 / 2.-{ .
► PROJECT INFORMATION THE WORK WILL NEED TO MEET THE GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ANY
DISTRICT-SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES (LINKS BELOW).
ProjectAdd ress td? .MAPvrroJ �£, �vtvO�, (,-0. 8<P11'-t.
Historic District D Chamberlain D Highland Lawn D West Pearl D Individual Landmark
(Check one. Search the
map of Landmarks and
Historic Districts.)
D ChautauquaD Downtown□Floral Park
D Hillside D 76th StreetE( Mapleton HillD University Place
Name:
ProjectDescription �,axo� f'/\ot>,'�c¾iot\1 s I f\;l'DW <;:<?\AA'e-f: flJOT.A-6fl; /t,t({) fV£vJ
H2..0t'Cf :po�H. ft) (L ft-: MN� U>tJ[f:--iE?t1Ti'N er s rN ((l€" FAr1i1 RESIIJ@\/cc-_
Planning & Development Services I 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880 bou lderpland eve lop. net
Page 1 of 5
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 24 of 68
►EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR ALL APPLICATIONS �TT ACHED AS SEPARATE PDF
location Map /Site Plan (paste here or attach as separate PDF) -survey, /LC or screenshot of aerial map showing adjacent streets.
Photographs of each side/ elevation of the building (paste here or attach as separate PDF)
front
side
Updated March 2021
rear
side
Planning & Development Services 11739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
bou lderplandevelop.net
Page 2 of 5
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 25 of 68
►REQUIRED MATERIALS �TT ACHED 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): D LandscapingD Antenna or mechanical unitD Commercial awningD Commercial signD Commercial patio
Updated More,\ 2021 Planning & Development Servic�s I 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CCD 80306 303-441-1880
boulderpland�velop.net
Page 3 of 5
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 26 of 68
Scaled elevations (for fences, show a// dimensions including spacing between pickets*) ��� � f��l'l",C f'J>F-7-
existing proposed
existing proposed
existing proposed
existing proposed
STOP HERE IF THE SCOPE OF WORK IS LIMITED TO THESE ITEMS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): D Deck D Fence located at front of houseD Outdoor kitchen D Fence at side or rear of house*D In-ground pool or spa D Fence taller than 5� *
*Side and rear fences with max height of 5' with min r spacing between pickets
can be reviewed by staff.
Updated Morch 2021 Planning & Development Services 11739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
bou lderplandevelop.net
Page 4 of 5
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 27 of 68
► CHECKLISTS FOR OTHER SCOPES OF WORK
For the following scopes of work, check all that apply and include separate PDFs of the required documentation:
D Solar panels D Completed application, pages 1-4 D Solar renderings
(3'completed pages 1 -4 D New free-standing building 340 sq. �-or smaller D New free-standing building larger than 340 sq. �-
53"Demolition and new construction
�Scaled architectural plans I project drawings: Side by side existing and
proposed, with annotated (measurable) scale.
(3"Addition
�arch
8"'1nitial code review for new construction. See section below.
(3"'Doors 531:ompleted pages 1 -4
G'Windows
(3Skylights
O 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:/lbouldercolorado.gov/planninq/property-report
Proposed work is within required setbacks �s D No
Existing Proposed new Total a�er construction Allowed maximum
Building coverage (sq.�-)Z�q� ¢ b�f -z.0'7 I� 2-7,q JD
Floor area (sq. �-) ?;t;of rj.1.-1-,,2-f!_ 1> 7,z:� if 37 "7'-f f
Height {f,,om /�wf'-w/;11 25') i<o'-15 ry�i:,,11 2-5' -2 s-/-;/' 3s-l
Will the proposed require a variance or exemption? (check all that apply):D Setback variance (Section 9-7-2, B.R.C., 1981)D Bulk plane requirements (Section 9-7-9, B.R.C., 1981)D Side yard wall articulation standards (Section 9-7-10,
B.R.C., 1981)
D Exemption from maximum building coverage for accessory buildings
in the rear setback (Section 9-7-ll(d), B.R.C., 1981)D Solar exception (Section 9-9-17, B.R.C., 1981)
Planning & Development Services 11739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
P.O Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880
bou lderpland eve lop. net
Page5of5
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 28 of 68
December 9, 2021 (rev.1/1/2022)
City of Boulder
Landmarks Board (LB)
LB – Written Statement
705 Mapleton Avenue - Request For A Landmarks Alteration Certificate (LAC) for exterior
modifications, added square footage and new front porch for a non-contributing single family
residential structure in the Mapleton Hill Historic District
On Behalf of Graham Carlson
Introduction:
Thank you for your consideration of a LAC to allow the modification of an existing structure at
705 Mapleton Avenue. This narrative aims to present a convincing case for a more
comprehensive and cohesive exterior update to a home that has lost its way during its long
100yrs plus history.
705 Mapleton was constructed in the early 1900’s (according to a 1994 Historic Building
Inventory Record). The home was associated with a historic person of interest, as likely were
many residents who helped establish Boulder during this pivotal time in the town’s history. The
home was a single story (modest) residence and shared many architectural design and
construction details similar to neighboring homes of this time period. The home was red brick
with dark double hung windows, white trim, a shingle hip roof and a small gable-end front porch.
(South elevation view of 705 Mapleton from Mapleton Avenue, circa 1929)
This narrative will not attempt to recreate an extensive timeline of the evolution of this home
(since it has likely already been provided by Historic Preservation Staff), but will mention that this
home has undergone character altering additions and remodels almost every decade starting
in the 1960’s and continuing through today (2021). Major remodels in the 1980’s, 1990’s and 2017
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 1
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 29 of 68
are responsible for drastically changing the character of the original home including additional
square footage, loss of Mapleton Avenue street character, window and door replacements and
changes to roof forms on both the south (Mapleton) and north (alley) elevations. It appears that
the most significant character altering remodel occurred in the late 1970’s adding single sloped
roof forms at the north and south elevations; ensuring the loss of any historic character.
(South elevation view of 705 Mapleton from Mapleton Avenue, 2021)
Homeowner’s Intent And Reasons For This Request:
The current homeowner bought this residence in 2019, after the 2017 remodel which added a
finished basement and made modest (but not extensive) alterations to the exterior entry, window
and door language. While our original design conversations focused on the interior program, the
exterior was always an issue of discomfort and displeasure. The home felt disconnected from
the historic character of Mapleton Hill and lacked any clear connection to the neighborhood.
Today the homeowners are seeking to maintain the remaining historic elements of the home (of
which little remains) and provide a more complementary contextual form and corresponding
architectural language that is deserving of this Mapleton Hill Historic District, Mapleton Avenue
and 7th street corner location.
It is worth noting that a previous LAC was issued for this home in 2020 (submitted by our clients
with a different architect). While that application satisfied most interior home desires, the exterior
remained a sore spot for the reasons noted above. While this home cannot return to its original
character it is worth celebrating and contributing to the neighborhood again.
A small addition to the home is planned as part of this project along the east interior lot line, a
tertiary elevation - all within current Form and Bulk Standards – and as such it is our
understanding that it will not require a variance discussion.
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 2
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 30 of 68
(Short) History + Context:
The property comprises Lots 37 and 38, Block 3, in the Mapleton Hill Historic District and is a
non-contributing residence. It consists of a main 2-story single family residence and detached
single story garage. The home is in the RL-1 zoning district of the City of Boulder and was
approved in 1999 for an Administrative Setback Variance to grant a front yard setback of 24 feet
where 25 feet is required. The height limit for this lot (per City of Boulder definitions) is 35’.
As best as could be ascertained, the following lists modifications that were made to this home
since its conception. This information is not extensive and has been compiled from City of
Boulder and Carnegie Library records:
1921 : City of Public Works - Lay Drain Permit
1959 : Water/sewer Permit
1929 : Boulder County Real Estate Appraisal [ Exhibit A : “Historic Building Inventory, c. 1929.”]
1952 : Reroofing Permit
1960 : Building Permit - Insulate, install 3 windows in rear brick wall, reroof flat roof
1967 : Building Permit - Description of work is indecipherable (Addition?)
1970’s : Remodel (per 1999 variance Written Statement) (1974, 1975, 1977 Wrecking Permit)
1980 : Building Permit - Addition/ Bedroom-Study-Bath
1985 : Reroofing permit
1987 : Building Permit - Bedroom Addition 2nd floor
1991 : Building Permit - Reconfigure 3 bedrooms into 2
1994 : Historic Building Inventory Record - house is listed, per National Register Eligibility, as
“Not Contributing to District”.
- Per this same document, the house is noted as (Historical Significance) having been
associated with significant persons, events or patterns. (Architectural Significance)
Represents work of a master, high artistic values and represents a type, period or
method of construction.
- Alterations to this house have diminished its historic integrity.
1998 : Exterior railing Replacement
1999 : Administrative Setback Variance (ADR1999-00090) to replace sliding glass doors with bay
window in front yard setback (+1’ into setback (24’ where 25’ is required) - no change is sf)
2007 : Building Permit Application for detached 2-car garage off alley (PMT2007-00378)
2009 : Electrical Permit to install 3.36kw flush mount and grid-tied solar array (HIS2009-00050)
2017 : Building Permit (PMT2017-00012) - NE addition and basement finish, Interior remodel,
Historic approval through HIS2016-00326
2020 : LAC - HIS2020-00147 - Remodel of non-contributing house
Design Proposal:
As referenced above, this home at 705 Mapleton has evolved many times during its lifetime. It
could be said that the facade maps a timeline of “improvements” from these time periods and
yet this showcase does not easily or appropriately induct this home into the fabric of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District. Rooflines and overall proportions, in both form and window
language, are awkward and unforgiving - presenting stark elevations with little attention to
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 3
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 31 of 68
detailing or complementary forms for a home in one of the most prominent historic areas of the
City of Boulder. Horizontal lap siding is boring and dated and while some attempts have been
made to be cohesive with exterior coloring and choice of materials, the home still feels like a sore
thumb. This home doubled in size during an earlier remodel and has since been made into a dull
2-story mass.
At best, this property is challenging. We are not dealing with a blank slate and are bound by
historic guidelines, jurisdictional design criteria, finances and an erratic design language that
has allowed all historic proportions/considerations to become obscured.
After numerous conversations with a City of Boulder Historic Preservation Staff member and a
review of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines (MHHDDG), our team feels we have
arrived at an exciting and contextually appropriate update for this home. While we can’t go back
in time and erect a single-story home, we must acknowledge the value of the home as it
currently exists (square footage, building lot coverage). Our team has taken the home as it is and
offered a design proposal that is beneficial to the homeowner, neighboring Mapleton Hill
residents and supports the ongoing efforts to establish the evolving visual character of the
Mapleton Hill historic landscape.
This proposal leans on the MHHDDG suggestion that the environment of Mapleton Hill,
“demonstrates a wide combination of elements, styles, and motifs,that harmonize to create a
lively environment and an animate, fresh fabric” (p. 3). After traveling the neighborhood it is clear
that this diverse fabric is what unites this historic district. There are many varieties of home styles
harking back to the original character and a few less popular architectural styles that keep the
district feeling both old and new at the same time. This fresh, wide combination of styles is part
of the charm of Mapleton Hill.
705 Mapleton Avenue, as it exists today, has little to work with. The remaining historic elements
are sandwiched between 2-story masses, the roof language is erratic and non-cohesive, and
what remains is a home that is busy and chaotic. The proposed design presents a clarity of
forms, one that attempts to negotiate existing forms by simplifying visual character. The
proposed design is arguably more historically appropriate and stylistically more interesting than
what currently exists.
In our proposal (please reference pages A0.1 - A4.2 in the attached LAC Application), the south
mass, the entry and primary elevation, is a 2-story brick form. This material choice is a
historically appropriate material. The massing is an effort to simplify rooflines and forms. A front
porch is proposed to address Mapleton Avenue and reunite this home with more connection and
context of the streetscape, as well as soften the facade. The rear existing 2-story mass
transitions to a secondary feature that both complements and recedes in significance (via
materiality and detailing).
The Mapleton Hill Historic Design Guidelines define suggests: “based on the visual
characteristics of the historic district as it exists today” (p.1). We suggest that if all architectural
styles adhered stylistically to the most similar (gable roof massing), or most represented design
forms (hip roof form) in the district then the diversity would not exist, nor would the intrigue of
Mapleton Hill. This holds true for both historic and newly remodeled or constructed residences.
Our case below will show how the proposed design, and parapet flat roof design, is not only
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 4
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 32 of 68
appropriate and present in the direct vicinity of 705 Mapleton Avenue but is also an exciting
choice to continue the distinction and evolution of this important historic district.
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines:
VI. DESIGN GUIDELINES
This home is situated on the north side of Mapleton Avenue where original homes were
“generally smaller and simpler in detail than those south of Mapleton Avenue” (p.5). Lots are
smaller and narrower and homes were placed closer to the street. This language is true for
homes north of Mapleton Avenue, yet we see homes on the north side of Mapleton Avenue still
large and relatable to homes south of Mapleton Avenue. Some homes are 2-story [ Exhibit B :
2-story masonry homes with adjacency to 705 Mapleton Avenue along Mapleton Avenue
between the 600 and 700 block] and not necessarily simpler in detail than south Mapleton
Avenue homes.
It would be inappropriate to take the current 705 Mapleton home back to a single story mass so
we present our narrative by referencing “new construction” as necessary.
While an addition is proposed along the east home facade, a tertiary elevation, this new square
footage includes previous building coverage for the existing entry sequence and maintains side
yard spacing between the home and eastern property line.
Detailing on the proposed design is restrained yet complimentary to historic brick detailing
including a protruded brick course and modest dentil. Window language would be a modern
flush-mounted double hung window (wood or wood clad at the recommendation of the Board)
with a horizontal stone header and brick sill.
Page numbers (in parentheses) refer to pages in the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines (adopted 1985 and revised 1994), unless noted otherwise.
E. BUILDING ALIGNMENT
The attached proposal offers a modest front porch that is allowed to exist in the front yard
setback at 6 feet deep and still adhere to City of Boulder neighborhood compatibility standards.
While the pattern of alignment has already been broken with previous additions, the addition of
a front porch is “encouraged” even though it would “encroach into the existing alignment” (p. 8).
This porch was previously approved as part of a 2020 LAC application and reinstates a visible
and physical traditional approach to the house from the Mapleton Avenue street front.
Guidelines in this section suggest that existing horizontal or vertical proportions of the building
mass be preserved. The question for this project becomes whether to reference the historic
mass or existing mass. Our proposal treats this remodel as a continuation of the existing
language with reference to the original home. No design suggestion has been made without
consulting the original 1900’s home design. After so many years of modifications it would be
unrealistic, and cost prohibitive, to return to the historic form. We lean on immediate context
(within a 3 block radius) to show precedent for 2-story, wall-dominated, parapet forms on
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 5
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 33 of 68
prominent Mapleton Hill corner lots [ Exhibit C : Flat Roof structures in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District].
This design proposal is relying on the suggestions that diversity in form is contextually
appropriate to maintain the diversity of this historic district and that a few courageous design
suggestions are required to offer representations of “combinations of elements from a variety of
historical sources” (p3.).
F. MASSING
705 Mapleton gave up its historic/original character many decades ago. The single story, gable
+ hip mass that was built at the turn of the 20th century is barely visible on the west facade and
not at all from the south Mapleton Avenue facade. The attached proposal offers an entry porch,
like the original 1900’s design, on the south facing facade fronting Mapleton Avenue, thus
reinstating the primary elevation.
Any vertical or horizontal proportioning that may have historically existed was also significantly
altered in the 1980’s. The proposed design is making an effort to offer a more appropriate form
to the Mapleton Hill Historic District by “cleaning up” the 1980’s steep mono-pitch roof forms with
a more historically suggestive (flat roof) parapet design. The significance of this design decision
allows the homeowners to retain important interior spatial qualities without compromising
existing square footage. The flat roof design also sets the stage to simplify the existing forms
and allows historic language an opportunity to become more distinguished.
It is the feeling of the design team that this home may more closely align with New Construction
guidelines (section N) as opposed to reconciling massing between this existing highly modified
home versus the original design. Incremental growth and change of forms over the years has
not always helped the forms. It would be fair to say that the house has been savaged. What
remains is a busy and dramatic house that neither complements or enhances the character of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District or this highly visible corner of Mapleton Avenue and 7th Street.
G. ROOF LINES, SKYLIGHTS, AND DORMERS
The opening paragraph of this guideline states that while the most represented roof forms in the
MHHD are steeply-pitched hipped or gable roofs, most other types are also represented (p.9).
Given the narrowness of this lot and the existing second story, both a steeply-pitched hipped or
gable roof design (that align and complement the existing 7:12 roof pitch) pose challenges for
this home and increased massing more than the proposed design.
The parapet design for this home was reached through multiple design exercises and iterations
as well as consideration alongside the historic brick and gable roof that remains in-tact. Our
team feels the front and rear design strategies for a street facing square brick mass and rear
shake shingle 2nd story mass allow a differing, but complementary design language. The
proposed design does not challenge the historic home, or attempt to recreate a false
association with massing and form which has long been abandoned.
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 6
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 34 of 68
A new entry porch is proposed to have a simple, understated flat roof. No new skylights are
visible from Mapleton Avenue or 7th street, nor are any solar panels proposed that would be
visible from adjacent streets or properties. An existing roof deck on the north-east corner of the
home (interior and alley facing) will be retained.
All proposed, visible, roofing material will be asphalt shingles - the same material used to roof
the existing historic home.
l. WINDOWS
New window language for 705 Mapleton Ave. will draw from the original double hung window
language. Window proportions will also recreate a more historic window pattern and alignment
along Mapleton Avenue and 7th Street.
Along Mapleton Avenue new windows will be painted wood, double hung with a narrow modern
frame set virtually flush to the brick facade. New windows will retain historic proportions and
alignments between levels and announce themselves as new by nature of their slim profile. Arch
top detailing, visible on the 7th street historic home, will remain and be replaced at new window
locations with slab stone headers and soldier course brick sills.
New windows along 7th Street and alley north elevation will be more suggestive of a remodel in
terms of their size and shape but will incorporate leaded glass (in the bathroom mass) as a
connective detail to historic window detailing (also represented in adjacent homes to the east,
745 Mapleton Avenue). Rear windows will also be painted wood and double hung with a narrow
modern profile. Window proportions will be more extreme than historic (tall and narrow) and will
have little relationship to windows on the main level, thus creating a more distinctive “addition”
on the 2nd story.
Double hung windows reflect the window patterns of the Mapleton Hill Historic District as do
small subdivided portions of leaded glass patterns. New openings are aligned with existing floor
levels.
There will also be a nod towards the historic home with a round portal window (part of original
home gable end ventilation) at the newly enclosed south-east single story addition of the home.
No changes of any kind will be made to existing historic windows, their trim or detailing, except
for paint color as noted in section R. PAINT SCHEMES AND COLORS below.
K. EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Brick on the Mapleton Avenue, south-facing facade, is a more formal material (versus the rear
massing shake shingles) and our preference is to continue utilizing brick as the main exterior
material. We are proposing to paint all new and historic brick as our goal is to create cohesion. If
the Board finds this suggestion controversial then we would be open to painting new brick and
retaining historic red brick - although this may still present a busy exterior visual composition.
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 7
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 35 of 68
Simple brick detailing at the front mass parapet would be effective in complementing historic
brick detailing from the earlier time period of Mapleton Hill yet window detailing would be simpler
in nature than historic detailing (no arch, painted brick sill, modern narrow window frames) to
separate new from old. Slab headers, a larger scale material than brick arches, will be
introduced to signal newer alterations rather than mimicking historic conditions. New windows,
in the shake siding remodel at the rear of the house, will have no trim or detailing.
The selection of brick for Mapleton Avenue and shake shingles for the 7th Street facades are an
effort to match historic proportions. The rear mass will naturally distinguish itself by virtue of
shake siding (a historic material represented as close as an adjacent neighbor across 7th street
at 643 Mapleton Avenue). Historic elements are not attempting to be replicated yet respected in
their use. Shake shingles were also used on the gable end of the historic home entry porch.
Considering formality of form and prominence (using Mapleton Avenue as the priority approach),
hierarchy is being introduced through materiality not mass. The massing proposal along
Mapleton Avenue is 20 inches lower than allowed, to reduce the scale of this wall-dominated
facade.
L. PORCHES AND RAILINGS
This home originally had a south-facing Mapleton Avenue porch. Then the porch was removed
and relocated to the eastern facade along the interior lot line. We would like to welcome a porch
back to our design.
While no longer asymmetrically appropriate, given the changes in mass decades ago, our new
porch design will reintroduce the prominence of the south facade and compliment the historic
context of front porches along Mapleton Avenue. The porch roof will be supported by
freestanding wood columns and a masonry knee wall.
The proposed brick railing deviates from the historic porch language of this home (wood
columns and wood railings) yet is the desire of the homeowner and not atypical to the district.
Many 2 story brick homes in the MHHD have brick or masonry porch railings and still allow
homes to remain visible. [ Exhibit D : Examples of masonry porch railings in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District.]
R. PAINT SCHEMES AND COLORS
Please see attached [ Exhibit E : Paint Schemes and Colors]. Our scheme is proposing a light
painted brick home with a stone foundation and grey accents. Newly introduced brick at the
south and east forms will be painted (see section K. EXTERIOR MATERIALS). Existing horizontal
siding will remain along the east of the home. We would like to repaint all new and existing
windows and trim (including fascia, soffits and window trim) at these locations to be dark grey.
New windows at brick facades will have natural buff stone headers and painted brick sills.
The new entry porch will draw upon this proposed color scheme with dark grey columns and
fascia.
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 8
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 36 of 68
The rear mass will have natural stained shake shingles in one neutral tone. Window frames at
the rear of the house will be painted a dark grey color (no trim) to create a more cohesive design
scheme.
This scheme aligns with the guidelines by introducing one light (natural shake shingle and buff
stone) and one dark (dark grey) color and one bright color (white).
S. MISCELLANEOUS
This is an interesting section and gives pause when considering this home and proposed
alterations. Our design team has experimented with quite a few options for this home remodel
and we have considered the existing home and all of its modifications along the way.
It feels clear to us that what we can see of the historic home is valuable to maintain given what
little remains. And, while the additions to this home, both on the north and south elevations, may
have typified architectural gestures of their time period, these gestures do not contribute to the
character of the home and certainly not the character of the neighborhood. Some existing
rooflines and window patterns are either bland or inappropriate to a historic district. The most
glaring inconsistency with this home is the lack of street presence, or “curb appeal”, along
Mapleton Avenue.
This non-contributing building wants to be quiet and elegant and yet it has an important corner
location. This conundrum must be navigated and offers an exciting opportunity to walk a fine
line between remaining understated and blending in, as well as its corner lot location and high
visibility.
T. MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES
Every effort has been made in this proposal to respect and retain existing historic elements that
have integrity. Portions of the home that have been evaluated for remodel are post-1940’s
additions that have been modified beyond recognition. The impetus for this proposal originated
from the current homeowners desire to offer a more complementary home back into the fold of
the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
(It should be noted that no exterior design modifications impact the interior footprint of this home
since the approved 2020 LAC (HIS2020-00147 - Remodel of non-contributing house) application.
The singular purpose of this monumental effort to take this home once again through a major
City of Boulder process is to weave its aesthetics more completely into the neighborhood.)
All second story remodel gestures have been applied to post 1940’s elements and are simply an
attempt to simplify the external form of a home that has lost its way. With so many conflicting
rooflines and proportions it has been our team’s desire to offer a simpler and more cohesive
design language that doesn’t compete with the remaining historic character. Square forms
allow an already existing upper level to retain viable square footage and distinguish remodel
elements as differentiated from historic.
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 9
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 37 of 68
The MHHDG suggest remodels and additions be non-competitive and complementary to
historic character and immediate context. And yet, this prominent location on the corner of
Mapleton Avenue and 7th Street demands some attention. Design suggestions have been
made to recognize the significance of corner lots (with 2 facade conditions) and the reality of
Mapleton Avenue as a major historic thoroughfare in Boulder. And yet, most of the exterior of this
home is not historic and should be both recognized and differentiated as such.
The prominence of corner lots has been reflected upon for this proposal. On the north side of
Mapleton alone (still in the MHHD) exist 2 properties with flat roofs on corner lots, one of which is
on Mapleton Avenue) and a larger flat roof project on Mapleton Avenue [ Exhibit C : Flat Roof
projects in the Mapleton Hill Historic District] On the south side of Mapleton, there are some
successful precedents for flat roof additions (and some not so successful) that suggest that this
rare design language can exist in harmony alongside historic design language.
Added square footage, the portion of enclosed space taking over the existing entry sequence, is
on a tertiary facade along the eastern property line. This is perhaps the only facade that is not
extensively visible to the public.
The north side (neighborhood) of Mapleton Avenue, while in general more modest than the
southern neighborhood, also presents large scale properties along the northern boulevard and
the home at 705 Mapleton Avenue still feels petite compared to that of some of its neighbors.
The property adjacent to the west is a 2 story property and towers much higher on its raised lot.
And properties to the east, while only presenting as a story and a half, still read at a similar
height given roof slope and architectural language. [ Exhibit B : 2-story masonry homes with
adjacency to 705 Mapleton Avenue along Mapleton Avenue between the 600 and 700 block] .
Proposed materials for this project are visible in neighboring homes (brick, shingles) and are
being used in complementary and distinctive patterns and tones to suggest a modern
expression over historic. Materials on the facade are repeated across all 4 facades (existing
siding, new shingles, brick).
U. NEW CONSTRUCTION
The innovation with this proposal is the courage to suggest a design language that is both rare
and unique in the district. The flat roof parapet design is not a stranger to historic design
language appropriate to the era of this district, yet is not prolific in the district. The hope is that
the new proposal presents with enough intrigue (to satisfy this prominent corner lot) yet
downplays the truth of its modern completion. This is no simple effort and has been considered
with sincerity. As stated in the guidelines, “Each corner lot will present a unique design challenge
for a highly visible building that does not disrupt the historic context.” (p. 19).
The effort to present a contemporary expression of historic elements alongside simple,
compatible new construction is a balance we are hoping to achieve with our design.
Opportunities may exist to further simplify or distinguish the southern facade as “new
construction” yet this proposal presents a new opportunity for architectural celebration on this
lot.
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 10
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 38 of 68
In Closing :
Our team is excited by the prospect of transforming this humdrum home into something more
appropriate for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. While architecture can offer shelter, it is the
union of shelter and beauty that instills the desire to construct guidelines and preserve
character and language of transitioning times. How much is too much and how little isn’t worth
the effort? When working with an existing home it is important to remember the occupants, both
then and now, and what constitutes “appropriate”. Limitations of some sort or another always
present themselves in design projects and it becomes an exciting and revolutionary challenge to
meet these opportunities head-on.
And so we present our project to re-envision 705 Mapleton Avenue. This home has been
recreated many times before and by many hands and we hope our design suggestions are met
with an open mind and value, amongst many considerations, has been achieved. Thank you for
your time and we look forward to this continued dialogue.
Warmly,
Rachel Lee, AIA
Senior Architect, Mosaic Architects + Interiors
Attachments: 5
Exhibit A : Historic Building Inventory, c. 1929
Exhibit B : 2-story masonry homes with adjacency to 705 Mapleton Avenue along Mapleton
Avenue between the 600 and 700 block
Exhibit C : Flat Roof structures in the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Exhibit D : Examples of masonry porch railings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
Exhibit E : Paint Schemes and Colors
705 Mapleton Ave, Boulder Page 11
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 39 of 68
A0.112/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 EXISTING PHOTOS
EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (MAPLETON AVENUE)EXISTING EAST ELEVATION (INTERIOR LOT LINE)
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION (7TH STREET)EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (ALLEY)SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 40 of 68
5446.571006PIN 4RBR5448.051007PIN 4RBRWM4"/15'10"/32'12"/22'IRVIRV4 "/20'
1
0
"
/
2
5
'2 4" /5 0'5 4 4 4.8 71 1 74
PIN
5
R
B
R
1
.
5
I
N
A
C
I
L
L C OC OEPGM0 .0 05 0 0S E T PIN C AL CEM5445
5445
5445 5 4 4 6.5 71 0 06PIN 4RB R5 4 4 8.0 51 0 07PIN 4RB RWM4 "/15'1 0" /3 2'1 2" /2 2'IRVIRV4
"
/
2
0
'1 0" /2 5'2 4" /5 0'5 4 4 4.8 71 1 74
PIN
5
R
B
R
1
.
5
I
N
A
C
I
L
L C OC OEPGM0 .0 05 0 0S E T PIN C AL CEM5445
5445
5445
ALLEYMAPLETON AVE7TH STREET
EXISTING GARAGE
EXISTING
HISTORIC
HOME
(E) SKYLIGHTS
(E)
ROOF
DECK
(E) DECK, BELOW
Sidewalk Sidewalk(E) WINDOW WELL (WW)(E)WW
(E)WW
(E)WW
ENTRY SEQUENCE
front setback
25' - 0"
rear setback
25' - 0"s.setback5' - 0"side setback12' - 6"ALLEYMAPLETON AVE7TH STREET
NEW FRONT
PORCH
EXISTING GARAGE
(E) DECK, BELOW
Sidewalk SidewalkEXISTING
HISTORIC
HOME
(N)
FLAT
ROOF
(E)
ROOF
DECK
(E)
(N) FLAT
ROOF
*NOTE : All existing window wells to remain
FAR = Floor Area Ratio (per CoB)
BC = Building Coverage (per CoB)
(N) SKYLIGHT
(N) FLAT
(E)
FAR : +46sf
(Conditioned)
FAR : +155sf (Conditioned)
FAR : +116sf
(Unconditioned)
front setback
25' - 0"
6' - 0"s.setback5' - 0"(BC : Not included
166sf Front Porch)
BC : +66sf
FAR : +21sf
(Conditioned)
(N) SKYLIGHT
A1.112/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 SITE PLAN
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN - EXISTING
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
NORTHAttachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 41 of 68
A1.212/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 ISP/ SURVEY
Relative Scale
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 42 of 68
01 -MAIN LEVEL
5449' -2 5/32"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -FRONT
5457' -1 1/32"
03 -ROOF
5470' -9 15/16"
MAX HIGH PT
5479' -4 13/16"
A2.112/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 ELEVATIONS
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 43 of 68
01 -MAIN LEVEL
5449' -2 5/32"
03 -ROOF
5470' -9 15/16"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -REAR
5458' -11 13/32"
MAX HIGH PT
5479' -4 13/16"
A2.212/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 ELEVATIONS
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 44 of 68
01 -MAIN LEVEL
5449' -2 5/32"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -FRONT
5457' -1 1/32"
03 -ROOF
5470' -9 15/16"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -REAR
5458' -11 13/32"
01 -MAIN LEVEL
5449' -2 5/32"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -FRONT
5457' -1 1/32"
03 -ROOF
5470' -9 15/16"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -REAR
5458' -11 13/32"
A2.312/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 ELEVATIONS
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 45 of 68
01 -MAIN LEVEL
5449' -2 5/32"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -FRONT
5457' -1 1/32"
03 -ROOF
5470' -9 15/16"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -REAR
5458' -11 13/32"
01 -MAIN LEVEL
5449' -2 5/32"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -FRONT
5457' -1 1/32"
03 -ROOF
5470' -9 15/16"
02 -UPPER LEVEL -REAR
5458' -11 13/32"
A2.412/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 ELEVATIONS
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 46 of 68
A3.112/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 PERSPECTIVES
Scale:2 SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED
Scale:1 SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 47 of 68
A3.212/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 PERSPECTIVES
Scale:1 SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED
Scale:2 SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 48 of 68
A3.312/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 PERSPECTIVES
Scale:1 NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING
Scale:2 NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 49 of 68
A3.412/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 PERSPECTIVES
Scale:1 NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING
Scale:2 NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 50 of 68
Shaded region denotes new massing
Dashed line indicates previous ridge
4 1/2"9 3/8"Dashed line
of existing
roofline and
dormer
A4.112/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 DIAGRAM 1
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED - LANDMARKS DIAGRAM
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 51 of 68
A4.212/29/21Mapleton
705 Mapleton Ave. Boulder, CO 80304 MAPLETON STREETSCAPE
NEIGHBORING
HOME HIGH POINTPROPOSED
STREETSCAPE
HIGH POINT
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 52 of 68
...
J Jf/ ,t/
Apprais[d 19 :2 1
EST A TE APPRAISAL
(_,/
HOUSE No. 7 OS-STREET Yfl�CITY �__j_J.u_
LOTS J 7 -J g BLOCK 3 ADDITION rt).�� / .._:]� 4� 30 , Year Constructed tfv-'-v +c>Est. Life in Year
ESTIMATE OF VALUATION \
BLDG. PART A BLDG. PA.RT B GAR.AGE
No. CuBi� Feet___ - _)__Lj_ (, __ :l_Q__ ---------------�-�-�o!-'G Cost per cu . ft. _________________________________ ------�-----Total Cost ____________ $ __ ,0_;?._:i ___ $ ____ j __ �{J__ $-/._J_�--Porches __________________________________________________ -----Garag e _______________________ -o _______ /_ 3 � ____________ _
:: Ext,as ::: :::::: :::::: ::: :: : :::::::::I::::::::::::::: : ::: : : : _____
BUILDING PLAN ,:>
I /,. fJ
TOTAL ______ $ __ ..J.. __ +.:_?_.5-:°_ $ __ )_� _:'t')_ $ ___________ /'t_/ O X: I ;2. ')J-----�bsolesen ce ___ _______________ _______________ ____________t '2--
':I..Q r.PhysicaIDii ::_ ___ _l __ 3 __ )__Q ____ .!_: ______ � --.J-d---
Net �!���c?:t���:���-$ _ _Lj __ �-�,$---�-_?_�-� $��----�---/'/ }j,w-o.(\ � • .'.,?_Q % Utility Dep. ---$----�--l-�-r-------------$ ___________
PRESENT VALUE __ $ __ [ __ � __ ]_ ___ $ ______________ $ __________ _ DESCRIPTION
Class of Bldg. _________ (!___ _______ Basement _ ___________ f _____ ?_ b
'1
Constru ction ___ �V---Roof-----------�J:5-::-__ �
Char of Const. ----------------Heating _______ --�-- ---================c:::::==========:=c======H=e=i =gh=t=o=f =B=u=il=d=in=g= __ =t=_�=?..:::,: __ =_v= __ =_= __ =_= __ =_Exterior _____ -��---Plumbing _____ (.tt:R__�.__'k-__ SUMMARY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT
Interior Finish _e�-��---Light_ _________ _t_ °..�.J..L9 _____ 11 _________ D_E_S_CR_I_PT_I_ON _______ _ Floors--------�*---------Priv. Garag e __ ---�----i ____ ,1_B_u_il _di_n=g _P_e _rm_1t _____________ _
Stories ___________ L_u ____ ! _______ Barns or Sheds --------�-----Original Cost, Improvements !}_n _ly _______ _11.. / :f J/ Add1t1ons and Betterments Fire Resisting ___ --:Q _________ (._ __ State of Reps I ___ <:h<..-:.c________ Owner's Estimate of Present Value Foundation ____ 5� -+----Local Imps., ---¼--�---✓----,-Pr-i -va_t _e _A _p_p -ra-1-sa_l ______________ _
ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS1 Immrance
YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT Mortg ag e Month ly Rental ---------------$ ------------------------------ $
__________ -----Advertised for Sale -----------------------------------S ____________________________ $________________ Transferred in 19 6 Cf
Al\lOUNT YEAR LAND ThlPROVE!\IENTS TOTAL$ 1938 $ $ 1939
$ 1940 $ 1941 --1942 $ 1943 $ 1944 $ 1945 $ 1946
$7.dtfJ 1947
JCj.5& J9IJO
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 53 of 68
CLASS OF BUILDING HEIGHT ROOJ' LIGHT DE S CRIPTION ___________ ,..Ch_e..,c�k1 ____________ C,...h_e_ck1 ___________ ...,...ch_c_ck C'hec)<1 ___________________ ___;;S..;.iv_e..;;.N...;.nccm'-'b-"e111cc 1-Single Residence _______ .L__ No. of Stories__________ -�_l__ CONSTRUCTIO N Electric ity ___________________ L ROOMS STORIES2-Duplex_________________ , ____ F_
O_U_N_D
_
A_T_I_O_N
____ Wood Shmgle -------------✓-Gas _________________________ _
011_ _________________ ---------Basena't 2 3 3-Bungalow, Apt., Crt. --r------------+---1 Composition Shmgle ______ _ 4 Fl t r T Brick ___________________ _ - a O errace --------Tar and Gravel_ ________ -5-Apartment House______Concrete __________________ --7 p d p Livmg Room ______________ )_ __________ _
6 H tel S tone ---------------------JL_ repare ap r -----------Dining Room----�--------__ / ______ _ - 0 ------------------Sheet Iron ____ -----------7-Store Building _________Wood ---------------------C Tile_______________________ opper ___________________ _ 8-_________ ---------------Concrete Tile ____________ _
PRIVATE GARAGE Dmette --------e---------1-------------+�,,,.1 Kitchen ________________ _ Size __________ L Xl _jl_c._ _fl Construction __ 3..�h--__ _ Breakfast Nook_ Bed Room ______ _
_ _l ___ ------
2-, 9-0ffice Building ___ �---------------------------------Clay Tile _________________ _ 10-Hospital or Samtarium_----------------------------Slate _____________________ _ Floor--------_f¥ _____ a OJ,L, ----Roof _______ L)l_-)}�_ --�- ___ _
Bath Room _____ _ --------__ l__ 11-Bank Building -------------------------------------A b t Sh" J Toilet Room ____ _ s es os mg e ________ _ 12-Theatre _____________ ---BASEMENT Tin ______________________ _ 13-Warehouse_____________ J P..1 _,l..A �7;:: Heat ________ --------� � t?: 1)---Shower Room __ ---------------------------·--Sleepmg Porch _ �:=!:�::�;;�;::::::::::: �:�;�����:��i���::_ -:::16-Private Garage ________Three-Quarter __ _ ______ _17-Service Station ________Full_ ____________ -�--•.:-_G_ 18-Hot House or Gr. House ____ Cement Floor ____________ _ 19-Poultry House _________F1mshed Walls and Ceiling 20-Barns or Sheds _________ Laundry _________________ _
---------------------------1 Sun Room _____ _ S TY�E --����� :��-�-���-�--
Gable _____________________ ____ I I IHip _______________________ J/_ S ize ___________ Const. _______ _ Flat __________________________ S ize ___________ Const.--------,
Den ___________ _ Storage Room __ Office _________ _ Halls _________ _ Gambrel _________________ _ LO CALIMPR OVEME T S Mansard _________________ _ Leanto _________________ _ Street Pavmg _______________ _
__J __
A-Hey--Pav-frrg _______________ _ FINISH ---------------------------1 PLUMBING Sidewalks ___________________ _ Unfimshed _________ _ -✓--Curbing ____________________ _ ----------------------------EXTERIOK I Old Style-----------------
CONSTRUCTION Common Brick ------------J('._ Modern ----. --------------, ----Storm Sewer-----------------Water _________________ --------Plastered, Plai n ________ _Plastered, Orn am ________ _ Papered _______________ _ ------------+--• Pressed Brick _________________ No. Bath Tubs ____________ ,_!__ Sani·tary Sewer ------------------P . d T" d Wire Cut Brick____________ No. Shower Baths_________ El t • •· a1nte or mte -------Frame ____________________ _ Brick _____________________ _ Glazed Brick _____________ _ Tile _____________ -----------Wood Siding _____________ _ Stone _____________________ _ Wood Shingles ___________ _ Concrete, Plain or Block __ _ Cement Stucco ___________ _ Concrete, Reinforced ______ _ Kellastone _______________ _ Steel Frame _______________ _ Stone -----· ______________ _ Corrugated Iron __________ _
ec ricicy -----------------------Softwood Floor_ No. Toilets _________________ L __ G -------_L__ as------------------------------Hardwood Floor ---------No. Lavatories ___________ _ No. Urinals ______________ _ No. Laundry Tubs ________ _ No. Sinks ____ ----�---______ L_ Sanitary Closets ________ _ Cess Pool ________________ _
Telephone ________________________ S f F h 0 twood IDIS ---------
MISCELLANEOUS G ve No.
HardwoodFm1sh ________ _ Tile ____________________ _ Marble or Onyx. Wall Board ____ _
C_H_A R_A_C_T_E_R _O_F _C_O_N_S_T_ • ......;.. __ 1 Terra Cotta ----------------------------------------------Sideboards __________________ _ Sheetrock _____ _ Buffet ______ -----------------Celotex ________________ _ Tile ______________________ _ Cheap _____________________ _ Medium ___________________ _ Good ______________________ _ -7-V--
HEATING
Sto ve _____________________ � Book Cases _________________ _Hot Air __________________ .,_. B eam Ceilmg ------ui-n,----Incinerator ______________ J�--
Cabinet _____________________ _ Wainscoting ____________ _ Metal Ceiling ___________ _
-✓---
Fire Resist ing _____________ _ Hot Water ______________ _ OUTSIDE TRIM Steam ___________________ _ Sky Lights __ ----------------REMARKS Non-Fire Res1stmg _______ _
STATE OF REP AIRS I
::� -------------------·---7. Good _____________________ _ New --------------··------
l I
•------------+-�-· / No. Fireplaces ___________ _ Wood ---------------------!(_ No. Dummy Fireplaces ___ _ Terra Cotta _______________ A G d"t d 1r on 1 10ne ______ _
Refrigerator or Cooler ______ _ Bay Wmdows _______________ _ Dormer Wmdows ___________ _ Stone ____________________ _ Galv. Iron ________________ _ ------F-0-. E-L----+--I Porches _____________________ _
Concrete _________________ _ _________________________ !_ Coal --------------------·-�
��s -------- --------------;{ Electricity _______________ _
Altic Give Numbers --------------------------
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 54 of 68
6th St7th StMapleton Avenue
525 745 705 8116438th StExhibit B: Two-story masonry homes w/ adjacency to 705 Mapleton Ave.
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 55 of 68
Mapleton Avenue
Mapleton Avenue
Highland Avenue
Maxwell Avenue
Concord AvenueTO DEWEY TO DEWEY TO BROADWAY
TO BR
O
A
D
W
A
Y
Pine Street 7th St8th St8th St9th St9th St7th St6th St6th St5th St5th St4th StSpruce Stre
e
t4th St12
3
4
5
7
10
9
8
6
Highlighted flat roof
structures
705 Mapleton Ave.
Boundary of Mapleton Hill
Historic District
NO SCALE
Exhibit C: Map of flat roof structures
Mapleton Avenue
Mapleton Avenue
Highland Avenue
Maxwell Avenue
Concord AvenueTO DEWEY TO DEWEY TO BROADWAY
TO BR
O
A
D
W
A
Y
Pine Street 7th St8th St8th St9th St9th St7th St6th St6th St5th St5th St4th StSpruce Str
e
e
t4th StAdditional flat roof
structures
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 56 of 68
2
6
1 3 4 5
987 10
705 Mapleton Avenue 417-433 Mapleton Avenue 602 Maxwell Avenue 2408 8th Street 840 Mapleton Avenue
615 Spruce Street 605 Highland Avenue 2201 4th Street 2221 4th Street 2299 4th Street
Exhibit C, part 2
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 57 of 68
525 Mapleton Ave.624 Maxwell Ave.
745 Mapleton Ave.2441 7th St.
Exhibit D: Examples of masonry porch railings in the MHHD
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 58 of 68
3D Perspective:
SW Elevation
Exhibit E: Paint Schemes and Colors
3D Perspective:
SE Elevation
Parapet cap
White painted brick facade
Stone window header
Grey window trim
Grey painted porch columns
Stone porch wall cap
White painted brick porch wall
Grey fascia
White painted brick
Dark metal siding
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 59 of 68
3D Perspective:
NW Elevation
Exhibit E: Paint Schemes and Colors
3D Perspective:
NE Elevation
Natural cedar shake shingles
Grey window
(E) Brick window header, paint
(E) Windows and window trim, paint grey
(E) Stone sill
Grey window box
Grey window trim (tone-on-tone)
(E) Doors
Leaded windows
White painted brick
White painted brick
White painted brick
(E) Horizontal siding, paint grey
(N) Doors, grey
Attachment A - Applicant Materials
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 60 of 68
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BOULDER'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS &
INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS
3.0 ALTERATIONS
The difference between “alteration” and “addition” (section 4) is in the magnitude of change to the original structure. Typically, an
alteration is on a smaller scale than an addition. It usually involves elements such as adding dormers, decks, and windows. An
addition usually means adding more square footage and/or external walls. As with an addition, an alteration should preserve and
complement the historic character of the structure. It should not replicate but should be distinguishable from and simpler in design
than any historic element. For example, an added window would not have the elegantly carved frames of a
historic window. In general, simpler designs are the most successful.
3.4 Porches
Front porches are a common and important visual element of many historic building styles. The porch roof is generally supported by
freestanding columns or by columns resting on a masonry wall. Wood railings are anchored with masonry or wood balustrades. A
porch is generally open with the facade of the house plainly visible.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Original porches should be preserved. N/A N/A
.2 Deteriorated original porches and porch elements,
such as railings, balusters and columns, should be
repaired or replaced, following recognized
preservation methods so that the character of the
porch is not compromised.
N/A
N/A
.3 Maintain the height, detail and spacing of the
original balustrade if replacing, extending or adding
balustrades.
Original balustrades shown in 1929 image are wood;
proposed new porch are anchored to low masonry
wall. As proposal is not to recreate original porch,
this treatment may be appropriate. Consider
simplifying to wood balustrades. Resolve at LDRC.
Maybe
.4 Enclosing a front porch negatively impacts the
visual character of both the individual house and
the streetscape and is inappropriate.
N/A
N/A
.5 If a rear or side porch is to be enclosed, the
following guidelines apply:
•Maintain the sense of openness, scale,
proportion, and separation from the structure
of the house. The enclosure should not
obscure the main architectural details of the
porch or house.
•Keep the design and materials as simple as
possible rather than trying to match the
building facade.
N/A
N/A
.6 Rebuilding a missing original front porch is
encouraged if evidence of the original porch can be
documented.
Proposal does not attempt to recreate the original
porch (enclosed gable with Tuscan columns and
wood railings) as the front façade of the original
house is lost behind a front addition.
Maybe
.7 The introduction of new porches that were not
present historically is inappropriate on individual
landmarks and buildings that are contributing to a
historic district.
N/A. Non-contributing.
N/A
.8 Porches on new buildings or on non-contributing
buildings should be compatible with the
architecture of the building, incorporating
traditional scale and proportions with updated
design details.
Scale of front porch is appropriate to front addition
to the building and puts the building into scale
overall in the streetscape. The hipped roof is not
typical, and porches are not typical additions to the
short end of Terrace-style buildings. The clustered,
spindle porch posts proposed are more typical of a
Queen Anne or Colonial Revival, however the lack of
entablature is a very contemporary design element.
Simplify the design and resolve at LDRC.
Maybe
.9 Large, two-story tall porches are inappropriate for
front facades unless present historically.
N/A N/A
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 61 of 68
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.
The masonry at the west and east elevation, and the
stone lintels and sill the only remaining aspects of
the original house. Masonry should not be painted.
Painting the masonry, even on portions of a non-
contributing house that are not historic is
inappropriate. Resolve at LDRC.
No
.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.
New finishes adjacent to the masonry should be
reviewed to find a compatible material that
complements the original masonry of the historic
portions of the house, but is an obvious
contemporary addition. Resolve at LDRC. 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
.1 Retain and preserve existing historic windows,
including their functional and decorative features,
such as frames, glass, sashes, muntins, sills, heads,
moldings, surrounds and hardware. Because
windows near the façade are particularly critical to
the character of historic buildings, their protection
may supercede the protection of historic windows
elsewhere. In some cases, it may be appropriate to
use window elements from rear or side elevations
to repair those on the front.
While the house is non-contributing, preservation
the shape, the brick arch lintels and stone sills of the
historic windows is important to the context within
the historic district.
Yes
.2 Preserve original window locations; do not move
windows from their historic placement.
Not proposed N/A
Windows in New Construction
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 62 of 68
.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 windows on south module proposed
generally reflect the patterns and proportions of the
historic window openings on the visible west
elevation, though single light double-hung windows
may simplify design. The introduction of narrow
openings and leaded windows on the west face are
inconsistent with traditional window proportions
proposed for the south module of the house (and on
historic houses in the district. Likewise cantilevered
north bay window is uncharacteristic. Window
should be inset at least 3” to reinforce punched
opening pattern of fenestration. Resolve at Ldrc.
Maybe
.16 Windows should be trimmed with materials similar
in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those
used traditionally.
Windows styles and character vary. Simplify style and
resolve at LDRC. No
.17 Openings should indicate floor levels, and generally
should not occur between floors.
Yes Yes
.18 Symmetry or asymmetry of openings should be
maintained.
Symmetry of south elevation (façade) is more
appropriate to the district. Yes
.19 Odd window shapes such as octagons, triangles,
and diamonds are generally inappropriate.
Circular window at south and north elevations are
reflective historic house gable, but size, number and
location may be inappropriate per this guideline.
Resolve at Ldrc
Maybe
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.
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 63 of 68
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.
Placement of front door at façade is appropriate.
Resolve details of door and materials 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.
Codify materials and features and resolve at LDRC. Maybe
.5 Historic hardware, hinges, locksets, and knobs are
door features that are significant and should be
preserved.
N/A N/A
.6 Repair damaged original doors and door assemblies
whenever possible following recognized
preservation methods.
N/A N/A
.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.
N/A N/A
.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.
Resolve 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.
N/A N/A
.10 Doors in additions and new structures should
reflect the proportions (height and width) of doors
in the existing structure and/or the district.
Door proposed in proportion with entry doors.
Resolve details of door and materials at LDRC. Yes
.11 Doors should be trimmed with materials similar in
scale, proportion, finish, and character to those
used traditionally.
Resolve details of door and materials at LDRC. Maybe
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 64 of 68
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.
See section 5.0 – Additions to Non-Historic Structures.
Non-historic additions include a distinctively different roof type.
N/A
.2 Do not directly copy historic elements.
Instead, interpret historic elements in
simpler ways in the addition.
See section 5.0 – Additions to Non-Historic Structures.
Modifications to additions should be simplified in a
contemporary style rather than compete with the historic
aspects of the building (mainly the windows).
N/A
.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.
See section 5.0 – Additions to Non-Historic Structures.
Modifications to addition should be simplified in a contemporary
style.
N/A
.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.
See section 5.0 – Additions to Non-Historic Structures.
Modifications to addition should be simplified in a contemporary
style rather than trying to emulate different architectural styles.
N/A
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 65 of 68
5.0 ADDITIONS TO NON-HISTORIC STRUCTURES
This section contains guidelines for additions to buildings that have been determined to be non-contributing to a historic district. Non-
Contributing buildings include those that, although constructed during the district’s period of significance, have been altered to such
an extent that the historic integrity is lost and restoration is not possible. Buildings constructed outside the period of significance and
that are not individually significant (Individual Landmarks or Significant Newer) are also considered Non-Contributing.
In general, the guidelines for additions to non-contributing buildings are more flexible than those for historic buildings, with the
exception of site design guidelines (Section 2.0 Site Design) and the respect for the mass and scale of the district. Projects will be
evaluated based on these issues and the overall impact on the character of the district.
While non-contributing buildings are not required to follow the guidelines in Section 4.0 Additions to Historic Structures, such projects
may benefit from the design principles suggested by them.
For substantial alterations to a non-historic building, see Section 6.0 New Structures. Substantial alterations are those that would
require issuance of a demolition permit if the building were over 50 years of age.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.1 Follow the guidelines in Section 2.0 Site
Design
N/A
.2 It is not appropriate to construct an
addition that will detract from the overall
historic character of the district by
overwhelming existing buildings in mass
and scale.
The current additions (1960 – 1994) are inappropriately scaled
and architecturally incompatible with the character of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District. The proposal is more in keeping
with the historic character of the immediate streetscape, but
introduces a neo-traditional Terrace building form not common
to the district and never present on the site, while maintaining
portions of the original house and adding clearly contemporary
elements at east and north ends.
Use of painted steel siding at east was not used historically as
siding material in Mapleton Hill is incompatible with house
design. Likewise, use of shingle on rear (north) module seems
incongruous with the rest of the building -consider using
clapboard siding. Simplify materiality overall.
. Resolve to better unify design at Ldrc.
Use of stone lintels on Simplify detailing on front module of
house to remove stone lintels with brick detailing, do not
exceed height of existing stone foundation and do not continue
beneath porch, modify front porch to wood construction with
open railing, change materiality at east additions to clapboard
siding.
Maybe
.3 Alterations to non-contributing buildings
built in a recognizable architectural style
should preserve and respect that style.
Piecemeal additions (1960 – 1994) could be considered
“environmental style.” However, the proposed currently does
not embrace a particular style, rather uses components from
multiple styles (Italianate, false front, Queen Anne, etc.).
Modifications to the building should unify the design in a
manner that is contextual, but clearly of its time. Resolve at the
Ldrc.
No
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 Paint and Paint Colors
When renovating a historic building, first consider using the original color scheme. The original paint can often be discovered by
careful analysis of samples of original materials. If it is not possible to discern original paint colors, a color scheme should be based on
historic precedent within the area. The multiple, bright colors used in San Francisco, for instance, were not used in Boulder.
Historically, paint colors were more muted tones than those used today because they depended upon a far more limited source of
pigments. Most wood-clad buildings were painted entirely, generally with one base color and one or two additional accent colors on
details and trim. For masonry structures, the natural color of the brick or stone was dominant; paint was applied to wood trim
elements around doors and windows and in gable ends. s a practical matter, it is suggested that quart samples of the color scheme
should be applied to a section of building as a test before making final selection. A color on a 1" x 1" paint chip will look different on a
whole house.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.1 Preserve and protect original exterior
building surfaces and site features that
were painted by maintaining a sound paint
film on them.
N/A N/A
.2 Original materials such as brick and stone
that are unpainted should not be painted.
Masonry, historic or non-historic, should not be painted. Brick
for front module should be carefully selected to ensure
compatibility with, but distinction from existing brick.
No
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 66 of 68
.3 When repainting, select paint colors
appropriate to the historic building and
district. When possible, recreate historic
paint schemes based on samples of original
materials.
• When selecting paint schemes, a
good rule of thumb is to use a single
body color with a lighter and/or
brighter accent color.
• Historic paint colors in Boulder are
conservative, emphasizing muted
shades or tones rather than pure
hues.
• New paint colors should not be bright
or garish.
N/A N/A
8.2 Energy Efficiency
In 2006, Boulder’s City Council adopted a Climate Action Plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol goals of substantially lower emissions of
greenhouse gases. It is the city’s aim to create compatibility between historic preservation and energy efficiency goals. In the historic
districts and on individually landmarked buildings it is important to ensure that energy efficiency concerns are addressed in ways that
do not damage or diminish the historic character of the building, site or district. It is recommended that before any energy efficiency
upgrades are made a comprehensive energy audit is conducted to determine the building’s current energy loss.
In historic districts, a variety of energy-conserving site and building features illustrate the sensibility of an earlier era to climate and
energy efficiency. Thoughtfully located shade trees buffer residences and sidewalks from the summer sun. Projecting porches provide
shaded outdoor space and lessen the impact of the harsh sunlight on the building's interior. Operable windows and shutters allow
occupants to control the introduction of sunlight and breezes within the buildings. An understanding of how such historic features
enhance energy efficiency is critical to maximizing the energy efficiency of historic buildings. For more information regarding the
energy audit program and energy efficiency in historic buildings, please contact the Office of Environmental Affairs at
www.environmentalaffairs.com.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS?
.1 Retain and preserve the inherent energy-
conserving features of historic buildings
and their sites, including shade trees,
porches, and operable windows, transoms,
shutters and blinds.
Energy efficiency information was not provided in the
application, but adding a shaded front porch to a south
elevation is typically energy efficient.
Yes
.2 Increase the thermal efficiency of historic
buildings by observing traditional practices,
such as weather-stripping and caulking,
and by introducing appropriate energy
efficient features, such as storm windows
and doors. See Guidelines 3.7.23 and 3.8.9
for additional direction.
Energy efficiency information was not provided in the
application.
N/A
.3 Replace deteriorated or missing wooden
blinds and shutters with matching new
units sized to fit the opening. See Guideline
3.7.21 for additional direction.
N/A N/A
.4 It is not appropriate to install solar
collectors in locations that compromise
prominent roofs. The installation of solar
collectors may be appropriate provided it
does not detract from the historic
character of the property, landmark or
historic district.
Addition of PV solar panel was not included in the application.
However, the placement of future PV panels on the flat roof
should be considered in the design, and the panels could
possibly be hidden behind the proposed parapet.
N/A
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.
Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis
Item 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 67 of 68
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 5B - 705 Mapleton Ave LB Memo 02.02.2022 Page 68 of 68