The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Avenue LB Memo 04.06.22 MEMORANDUM TO THE LANDMARKS BOARD April 6, 2022 STAFF David Gehr, Interim Director of Planning and Development Services Charles Ferro, Acting Comprehensive Planning Manager Lucas Markley, Attorney, City Attorney’s Office James Hewat, Principal Historic Preservation Planner Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner Faith Hamman, Historic Preservation Intern LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct a rear, two-story 1,501 sq. ft. addition to the main house at 936 Mapleton Ave., a contributing property 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: 936 Mapleton Ave. Owner/Applicant: Marybeth Emerson / Elizabeth Smith, Fanas Architecture Case Numbers: HIS2021-00313 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): 1895 Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1) Lot size: 13,783 sq. ft. Existing Building coverage: 2,260 sq. ft. Proposed New Building coverage : 761 sq. ft. Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 1 of 46 Proposed Total Building Coverage: 3,052 sq. ft. Allowed Building coverage: 3,614 sq. ft. Existing Floor Area: 2,895 sq. ft. Proposed New Floor Area: 1,501 sq. ft. Proposed Total Floor Area: 4,396 sq. ft. Allowed Floor Area: 4,692 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 April 6, 2022, as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a rear, two-story 1,501 sq. ft. addition to the main house at 936 Mapleton Ave., a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, as shown on plans dated December 3, 2021, finding that the proposal meets the Standards for Issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981 and is generally consistent with the General Design Guidelines provided the stated conditions are met. Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall be responsible for completing the work in compliance with the approved plans, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which shall be subject to final review and approval by the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) to ensure that the final design of the addition is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines and the intent of this approval: a. Revised drawings showing: i. A meaningful reduction in the perceived and real mass, scale, and height of the addition to ensure that it is subordinate to the historic house. This will likely require reducing its footprint and revising the two-story volume to a one and one-half story addition that is more roof dominated to better reflect the character of the historic house; ii. Revised dormers to better reflect the forms of those on the historic house; Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 2 of 46 iii. Restoration of the east (side) screened-in porch to its pre-1964 appearance and configuration based upon the c.1949 tax assessor photograph; iv. Feasibility of utilizing the upper-level of the pre-1929 addition to create passage from the historic house to the addition, understanding that to do so may require support from the Landmarks Board for variances from the Board of Zoning Adjustment per 9.2.3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property of the Boulder Revised Code; v. Simplification of the fenestration of the addition to better reference pattern and proportions on the historic house; elimination of the large banks of “nano doors” at rear and groupings of windows; vi. Minimize the extent to which regrading is necessary and limit the amount of mature vegetation that will be lost on the property; b. Final architectural plans that include details including details for exterior doors, windows (including placement, style, and type), lighting, paint and roofing color, composition of walls, etc. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY • A Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct a 1,550 sq. ft. rear addition (HIS2017-00107) was reviewed by the Landmarks Board on December 6, 2017, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. The same application was modified and resubmitted as a 1,510 sq. ft. addition which was reviewed by the Landmarks Board on April 4, 2018, and also withdrawn by the applicant. • The following are details from the staff memo presented to the Landmarks Board on April 4, 2018 (link). o Staff recommended denial of the December 6, 2017, proposal finding that the mass, scale and design of the proposed addition at 936 Mapleton Avenue to be significantly inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. During its deliberations, the Landmarks Board the expressed concern with the massing, scale, and location of the proposed addition and discussed ways to reduce both the real and perceived mass and scale of the construction. The applicant chose to withdraw the application prior to a motion by the board to redesign the addition, based upon the Board’s comments. o Following the December 6, 2017, hearing, staff met with the applicant and architect to discuss ways to reduce the mass and scale of the addition. The resulting revised plans call for the construction of a 1,501sq. ft. addition to the rear of the house to increase the above ground area from 1,816 sq. ft. to 3,326 sq. ft. where the previous proposal showed an addition of approximately 1,550 sq. ft. As revised, the proposed Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 3 of 46 addition was 40 sq. ft. smaller than that reviewed by the Landmarks Board at its December 6, 2018, meeting due to retention of the east shed roof porch. • A new application (HIS2021-00313) to construct a rear, two-story addition was reviewed by the LDRC on January 5, 2022, and referred to the full Landmarks Board for a review in a public hearing. • The applicant requested the Landmarks Board hearing be scheduled for April 6, 2022. • Staff finds that provided the stated conditions are met, the construction of the addition will generally meet 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. • This recommendation is based upon the understanding that the stated conditions will be reviewed and approved by the LDRC prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION • 936 Mapleton Ave. is located near 9th St. on Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The property is bounded by Mapleton Alley and the Farmers Ditch to the south and an unnamed alley to the east. Figure 1. Location map, 936 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 4 of 46 • The three buildings currently on the lot include the main house (constructed about 1894), a front gabled garage (built pre-1929) close to the main house, and an existing accessory structure (built in 1937, historically named 928 1/2 Mapleton Ave.) at the southwestern end of the lot. All three buildings are considered contributing to the historic district. Figure 2. 936 Mapleton Ave. (c. 1929 - 1949). Real Estate Appraisal record. Carnegie Library for Local History Figure 3. 936 Mapleton Ave., 1973. Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 5 of 46 Figure 4. 936 Mapleton Ave., 2021. PROPERTY HISTORY • 1895 Boulder City Directory lists the first resident to be Bellman, W.S. (a cashier for the national state bank); • By 1898 Thomas Fitzpatrick was the owner. Fitzpatrick served on the city council for more than 20 years. He was the special guest of “Buffalo Bill” Cody when Cody gave the last performance of the “Wild West Circus” in Boulder. • Fitzpatrick’s daughter, Jessie, lived in the house all her life, except during the two years when she served as field secretary for the Congregational Church. Jessie began teaching at Whittier School in 1908 and in 1924, she became principal of the school, retiring in 1947. She died in 1975. PAST ALTERATIONS • A landmark alteration certificate (LAC) was approved in 2016 for the restoration of the front porch to its c. 1929 condition (see figure 2.), and to repaint the house in an off- white color scheme. • A hipped roof addition with small shed-roof ell is located at the rear of the house. These portions of the building are visible in the 1929 Tax Assessor photograph of the house (see figure 2.) Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 6 of 46 Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 7 of 46 Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 8 of 46 Figure 8. 936 Mapleton Ave., Existing and proposed First Floor plan North Elevation (façade) • Proposed gable roof addition approx. 9” below existing north elevation gable, however grade drops 12” over the length of the addition, resulting in a perceived increase in height of the addition; • Proposed addition shown to extend approx. 8 ft. to the east and will be visible from the north (Mapleton Avenue) elevation; Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 9 of 46 Figure 9. Existing (left) and proposed (right), new construction in green, north elevation (façade) Figure 10. Existing façade (north elevation facing Mapleton Ave.) 2017. Google Street View. East Elevation • Proposed addition facing unnamed alley (see figures 2, 10 & 11); • Removal of 1964 covered porch for new entry door; • New 2nd story balcony inset into connector between historic and new sections of building; • Details for windows not provided; divided light windows shown at 2nd story; • Perceived length of the addition matches the length of the historic house, with short connector; • Privacy “pony” wall proposed at south end, creating a void in the wall; • Pitch of gable at proposed dormer not reflective of historic dormer; • Grouped windows at proposed dormer; • 2nd story balcony at south elevation visible from alley. Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 10 of 46 Figure 11. Existing above (area to be demolished in blue) and proposed below (new construction in green) east elevation Figure 12. Existing east elevation, 2017 Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 11 of 46 Figure 13. Existing east elevation, 2017 South Elevation (rear) • Proposed removal of east (1964 remodeled) covered entry porch (see figures 2 & 12); • Proposed removal of historic hipped-roof addition and chimney; • Proposed gable roof addition approx. 9” below existing north elevation gable, however grade drops 12” over the length of the addition, resulting in a perceived increase in height of the addition; • Addition protrudes approx. 8 ft. to the east; • Proposed 2nd story balconies at south elevation and west elevation; ns; nd. 14. Existing left (area to be demolished in blue) and proposed right (new construction in green) south elevation Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 12 of 46 Figure 15. Existing south elevation, 2021. West Elevation • Perceived length of the addition exceeds length of historic house at publicly visible east face; • Addition inset behind historic portion of house; • New 2nd story balcony inset behind historic portion of house; • Shed roof over grouped windows; Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 13 of 46 Figure 16. Existing above (area to be demolished in blue) and proposed below (new construction in green) west elevation Figure 17. West elevation, 2021. Figure 18. West elevation, 2021. Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 14 of 46 CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION STANDARDS FOR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATES, 9-11-18, B.R.C., 1981 (a) The Landmarks Board and the City Council shall not approve an application for a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless each such agency finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions: 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district? Provided the stated conditions are met, staff finds the proposed work will not damage exterior architectural features of the contributing house and property. 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 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. Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 15 of 46 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 addition will need to meet the City’s energy code regulations and Section 106.5 helps ensure that any alterations needed to meet the energy requirements will not detract from the historic character of the site. Although it is not included in this proposal, the property owner is encouraged to consider placement of PV Solar Panels on the addition. A separate Landmark Alteration Certificate application is required. DESIGN GUIDELINE ANALYSIS The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC). The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. Design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. See Attachment B for a complete analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the design guidelines. In this case, staff considers a rear addition to the main house at 936 Mapleton Avenue is appropriate due to the following factors: • The rear (south) face is the most appropriate location to expand the 1,801 sq. ft., 1896 house. Staff also considers that the following changes to the proposal are necessary to ensure consistency with the General Design Guidelines for Boulder’s Historic Districts and Individual Landmarks and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines: • Because the addition will be visible from Mapleton Avenue and the alley, staff considers that the perceived and real mass, scale, and height should be meaningfully reduced to ensure that it is subordinate to the historic house. This will likely require reducing its footprint and revising the two-story volume to a one and one-half story, more roof-dominated addition better reflecting the character of the historic house; • Revise side dormers to better reflect the forms of those on the historic house; • Exploration of the feasibility of restoring the east (side) screened-in porch to its pre- 1964 appearance and configuration based upon the c.1949 tax assessor photograph; • Exploration of the feasibility of utilizing the upper-level of the pre-1929 addition to create passage from the historic house to the addition, understanding that do so may require support from the Landmarks Board for variances from the Board of Zoning Adjustment per 9.2.3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property of the Boulder Revised Code; Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 16 of 46 • Simplification of the fenestration of the addition to better reference pattern and proportions on the historic house. Large banks of “nano doors” at rear are incompatible with character of main house and should be reduced; • Minimize the extent to which regrading is necessary and limit the amount of mature vegetation will be lost on the property; • Provide all material and design details including all-wood windows and doors, siding, railing, roofing and wood-decking, colors and hardscaping materials. PUBLIC COMMENT To date, staff has received no public comment regarding this application. FINDINGS Staff recommends the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings: The Landmarks Board finds that provided the stated conditions are, the project will meet 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 April 6, 2022, and the evidence provided to the Board at its April 6, 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 preserve, and will not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property; 3. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color and materials used on the addition will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site and the historic district; and 4. The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, and value of the landmark property, as it is 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 - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 17 of 46 PPlanningg && Developmentt Servicess || 17399 Broadway,, 3rdd Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880 boulderplandevelop.net Page 1 of 5 Updated March 2021 HIS - Historic Preservation Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) Application f REQUIRED MATERIALS FOR PROPOSED EXTERIOR WORK TO ALL PROPERTIES IN DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND INDIVIDUALLY LANDMARKED Signed application Current site plan and photographs of the property, including the view from the street. See page 2. Other materials defined by project type and scope. See page 5 for a checklist or required materials. f TO SUBMIT YOUR LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE (LAC)APPLICATION x Save your materials as PDFs using the naming conventions in the Online Plan Application Guide x Email application to PDSskipatrip@bouldercolorado.gov. Put Historic Preservation in the subject line. x Questions? Contact Historic Preservation staff at 303-441-1994 or historic@bouldercolorado.gov x Si necesita ayuda para traducir esta información al español, llame al 303-441-1905 f APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name Phone#Email Address Address City State Zip f OWNER CONTACT INFORMATION SAME AS APPLICANT Name Phone#Email Address Address City State Zip f PROJECT INFORMATION THE WORK WILL NEED TO MEET THE GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES ANDANY DISTRICT-SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES (LINKS BELOW). Project Address Historic District (Check one. Search the map of Landmarks and Historic Districts.) Chamberlain Chautauqua Downtown Floral Park Highland Lawn Hillside Mapleton Hill University Place West Pearl 16th Street Individual Landmark Name: Project Description Date: PLAN ✔ ✔ ✔ Fanas Architecture: Att: Elizabeth Smith 303-444-5380 Elizabeth@fanas.us 2930 Broadway #106 Boulder CO 80304 MaryBeth Emerson 720-394-1997 marybethemerson@gmail.com 535 Mapleton Ave.Boulder CO 80304 12/03/2021 936 Mapleton Ave., Boulder, CO 80304 ✔ See Narrative provide in separate pdf. Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 18 of 46 PPlanning & Development Services | 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 303-441-1880 boulderplandevelop.net Page 5 of 5 Updated March 2021 f CHECKLISTS FOR OTHER SCOPES OF WORK For the following scopes of work, check all that apply and include separate PDFs of the required documentation: Solar panels Completed application, pages 1 - 4 Solar renderings New free-standing building 340 sq. ft. or smaller New free-standing building larger than 340 sq. ft. Demolition and new construction Addition Porch Completed pages 1 - 4 Scaled architectural plans / project drawings: Side by side existing and proposed, with annotated (measurable) scale. Initial code review for new construction. See section below. Doors Windows Skylights Completed pages 1 - 4 Doors / windows replacement worksheet. This supplement will be sent to the email address included on page 1 once the LAC application is accepted. f INITIAL CODE REVIEW FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION This review is intended to identify potential zoning and building code issues for new construction only. Please fill out to the best of your ability. The verification of this form is a customer service review and does not constitute a formal review of all applicable codes and regulations. All sections of the Boulder Revised Code must still be adhered to prior to performing any work. Property information can be found on https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/property-report Proposed work is within requiredA2B/.09A Yes No Existing Proposed new Total after construction Allowed maximum Building coverage (sq. ft.) Floor area (sq. ft.) Height Will the proposed require a variance or exemption? (check all that apply): Setback variance (Section 9-7-2, B.R.C., 1981) Side yard wall articulation standards (Section 9-7-10, B.R.C., 1981) Solar exception (Section 9-9-17, B.R.C., 1981) Bulk plane requirements (Section 9-7-9, B.R.C., 1981) Exemption from maximum building coverage for accessory buildings in the rear setback (Section 9-7-ll(d), B.R.C., 1981) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2,260 792 3,052 3,614 2,895 1,501 4,396 4,692 34'-3" 33'-6"NA 35' Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 19 of 46 %RXOGHU'XUDQJR %'LQIR#IDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPZZZIDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ>ĂŶĚŵĂƌŬůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞ;>ͿƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ^ƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ ϵϯϲDĂƉůĞƚŽŶǀĞ͕ŽƵůĚĞƌ͕KϴϬϯϬϰ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭ ϵϯϲDĂƉůĞƚŽŶǀĞ͕ŽƵůĚĞƌKϴϬϯϬϰ ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǆƚĞƌŝŽƌůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ &ƌŽŶƚ;EŽƌƚŚͿůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ;ǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŵƐƚƌĞĞƚͿ Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 20 of 46 %RXOGHU'XUDQJR %'LQIR#IDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPZZZIDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP ZĞĂƌ;^ŽƵƚŚͿůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ ^ŝĚĞ;ĂƐƚͿůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 21 of 46 %RXOGHU'XUDQJR %'LQIR#IDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPZZZIDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP ^ŝĚĞ;tĞƐƚͿůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 22 of 46 %RXOGHU'XUDQJR %'LQIR#IDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPZZZIDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP ,ŝƐƚŽƌŝĐWƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ>ĂŶĚŵĂƌŬůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞ;>ͿƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ^ƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ ϵϯϲDĂƉůĞƚŽŶǀĞ͕ŽƵůĚĞƌ͕KϴϬϯϬϰ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭ ϵϯϲDĂƉůĞƚŽŶǀĞ͕ŽƵůĚĞƌKϴϬϯϬϰ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐͬŽůŽƌŚŝƉƐ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǆƚĞƌŝŽƌtĂůůDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ ƌŝĐŬ ŶĚŝĐŽƚƚƌŝĐŬ͕ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂů^ĞƌŝĞƐ͕ϭϭϱͬϴ͟ǆϮϭͬϰ͟ǆϯϱͬϴ͕͚͟ZƵďǇZĞĚ͕͛^ŵŽŽƚŚƚĞǆƚƵƌĞʹŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚʹ^ĞĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƵƚƐŚĞĞƚ ^ŝĚŝŶŐ ^ŝĚŝŶŐηϭ ^ŚĂŬĞ^ŝĚŝŶŐ͗ϳ͟ǁŽŽĚƐŚĂŬĞƐ͕ƐƚĂŐŐĞƌĞĚ͕ƉĂŝŶƚĞĚ^ŚĞƌǁŝŶtŝůůŝĂŵƐ͕͚ǆƚƌĂtŚŝƚĞ͕^tϳϬϬϲŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚ DĂƚĞƌŝĂů͗ϳ͟ǁĚƐŚĂŬĞƐŝĚŝŶŐƐƚĂŐŐĞƌĞĚ Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 23 of 46 %RXOGHU'XUDQJR %'LQIR#IDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPZZZIDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP ŽůŽƌŚŝƉ͗^ŚĞƌǁŝŶtŝůůŝĂŵƐ͕͚ǆƚƌĂtŚŝƚĞ͕͛^tͲϳϬϬϲ ^ŝĚŝŶŐηϮ >ĂƉ^ŝĚŝŶŐ͗ϰ͕͟ǁŽŽĚʹĨŝŶĂůƐƉĞĐŝĞƐd͕ƉĂŝŶƚĞĚ͕^ŚĞƌǁŝŶtŝůůŝĂŵƐ͕͚ǆƚƌĂtŚŝƚĞ͕͛^tϳϬϬϲ͕ŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚ DĂƚĞƌŝĂů͗ϰ͟ǁŽŽĚůĂƉƐŝĚŝŶŐ Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 24 of 46 %RXOGHU'XUDQJR %'LQIR#IDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRPZZZIDQDVDUFKLWHFWXUHFRP ŽůŽƌŚŝƉ͗^ŚĞƌǁŝŶtŝůůŝĂŵƐ͕͚ǆƚƌĂtŚŝƚĞ͕͛^tͲϳϬϬϲ ^ŚĞƌǁŝŶtŝůůŝĂŵƐ͕͚ǆƚƌĂtŚŝƚĞ͕͛^tϳϬϬϲ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZŽŽĨŝŶŐDĂƚĞƌŝĂů ůĂƐƐ͚͛ĂƐƉŚĂůƚƐŚŝŶŐůĞ͗KǁĞŶƐŽƌŶŝŶŐ͕͚KĂŬƌŝĚŐĞ͛ƐŚŝŶŐůĞ͕ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůWĂƚƚĞƌŶ ŽůŽƌ͗ƐƚĂƚĞ'ƌĂǇʹŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĞƋƵŝǀĂůĞŶƚ Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 25 of 46 Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 26 of 46 Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 27 of 46 4 5 '4 5 '4 5 '4 0 '3 5 ' 3 5 ' 25' 30' 2 5 ' 3 6' 37 '3 6' 3 7'38 ' 39 ' 4 4 '4 4 '4 3 '4 2 '4 1 '4 3 ' 4 3 'M A P L E T O N A V E N U E 352326('352326('352326('352326('6725<6725<6725<6725<$'',7,21$'',7,21$'',7,21$'',7,213 .0 5 ' E X S T G 6 .9 8 ' E X S T G 5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 "25' - 0"5 ' - 5 " 1 1 ' - 2 " 1 4 ' - 1 1 " 1 6 ' - 7 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 4 .4 ' E X S T G (;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*6725<6725<6725<6725<5(6,'(1&(5(6,'(1&(5(6,'(1&(5(6,'(1&((;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*'(7$&+(''(7$&+(''(7$&+(''(7$&+('*$5$*(*$5$*(*$5$*(*$5$*((;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*$&&(6625<$&&(6625<$&&(6625<$&&(6625<6758&785(6758&785(6758&785(6758&785(|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭProposed Site Plan1Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 28 of 46 4 5 '4 5 '4 5 '4 0 '3 5 ' 3 5 ' 25' 30' 2 5 ' 36 ' 37 '3 6' 3 7'38 ' 3 9 ' 4 4 '4 4 '4 3 '4 2 '4 1 '4 3 ' 4 3 'M A P L E T O N A V E N U E 1 4 .3 ' E X S T G 3 .05 ' E X S TG 6 .98 ' E X S TG (;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*'(7$&+(''(7$&+(''(7$&+(''(7$&+('*$5$*(*$5$*(*$5$*(*$5$*((;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*$&&(6625<$&&(6625<$&&(6625<$&&(6625<6758&785(6758&785(6758&785(6758&785(5 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 "25' - 0"1 4 .4 ' E X S T G (;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*(;,67,1*6725<6725<6725<6725<5(6,'(1&(5(6,'(1&(5(6,'(1&(5(6,'(1&(|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExisting Site Plan1Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 29 of 46 (;,67,1*/2:(5/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*/2:(5/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*/2:(5/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*/2:(5/(9(/3/$1352326('/2:(5/(9(/3/$1352326('/2:(5/(9(/3/$1352326('/2:(5/(9(/3/$1352326('/2:(5/(9(/3/$1 0(&+$1,&$/6725$*(|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭLower Level Floor Plan1Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 30 of 46 UP 352326('0$,1/(9(/3/$1352326('0$,1/(9(/3/$1352326('0$,1/(9(/3/$1352326('0$,1/(9(/3/$1 23' - 10"4' - 7" 30' - 5"26' - 11"39' - 11" EXISTING43' - 0" EXISTING28' - 8" EXISTING 6(7%$&.6(7%$&.(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭMain Level Floor Plan1Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 31 of 46 DN 352326('833(5/(9(/3/$1352326('833(5/(9(/3/$1352326('833(5/(9(/3/$1352326('833(5/(9(/3/$1 35,%('35,%$7+35,&/26(7%('%$7+%('6(7%$&.6(7%$&.30' - 5"19' - 2"40' - 8" EXISTING28' - 8" EXISTING (;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1(;,67,1*0$,1/(9(/3/$1|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭUpper Level Floor Plan1Attachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 32 of 46 T.O. SHEATHING MAINLEVEL100' -0"T.O. SHEATHING UPPERLEVEL110' -8 3/4"LOWEST ELEV.94' -0"29' - 3" PROPOSED34' - 3" , EXISTING|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExterior Elevations1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED STREET VIEW1/8" = 1'-0"2EXISTING STREET VIEWAttachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 33 of 46 T.O. SHEATHING MAINLEVEL100' -0"T.O. SHEATHING UPPERLEVEL110' -8 3/4"LOWEST ELEV.94' -0"33' - 6" , PROPOSED34' - 3" , EXISTING(;,67,1*352326('|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExterior Elevations1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONAttachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 34 of 46 T.O. SHEATHING MAINLEVEL100' -0"T.O. SHEATHING UPPERLEVEL110' -8 3/4"LOWEST ELEV.94' -0"34' - 3" , EXISTING|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExterior Elevations1/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING EAST ELEVATIONAttachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 35 of 46 T.O. SHEATHING MAINLEVEL100' -0"T.O. SHEATHING UPPERLEVEL110' -8 3/4"LOWEST ELEV.94' -0"33' - 6" , PROPOSED34' - 3" , EXISTING|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExterior Elevations1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"2EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONAttachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 36 of 46 T.O. SHEATHING MAINLEVEL100' -0"T.O. SHEATHING UPPERLEVEL110' -8 3/4"LOWEST ELEV.94' -0"33' - 6" , PROPOSED(;,67,1*352326('34' - 3" EXISTING|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExterior Elevations1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONAttachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 37 of 46 T.O. SHEATHING MAINLEVEL100' -0"T.O. SHEATHING UPPERLEVEL110' -8 3/4"LOWEST ELEV.94' -0"34' - 3" , EXISTING|ϭͬϴΗсϭΖͲϬΗ936 MapletonĞĐĞŵďĞƌϯ͕ϮϬϮϭExterior Elevations1/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONAttachment A - Applicant Materials Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 38 of 46 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 2.0 SITE DESIGN Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and building. Individual buildings are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that set the context for the neighborhood. How buildings occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing, creates much of the context of the neighborhood. 2.1 BUILDING ALIGNMENT, ORIENTATION, AND SPACING The pattern of setbacks is an important element in defining neighborhood character. A front yard set back serves as a transitional space between the public sidewalk and the private building entry. When repeated along the street, these yards enhance the character of the area. The relatively uniform alignment of building fronts, as well as similar spacing between primary buildings, contributes to a sense of visual continuity. Traditionally, the primary entrance of a building faced the street and, depending on the architectural style of the house, was often sheltered by a one-story porch. This feature provided an additional transition from the public to the private space and helped establish a sense of scale to the neighborhood. The primary structure generally “stepped down” to one story at the rear of the lot. This, and smaller accessory structures along the alley, helped frame the rear yard. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .7 Preserve a backyard area between the house and the garage, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. Current proposal shows the distance between the existing house and garage being half of the current distance. Consider reducing the size of the addition to increase distance between the house and garage. Maybe Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 39 of 46 3.2 ROOF DECKS AND BALCONIES Roof decks are deck areas above the first floor that are contained completely or partially in a roof mass. Balconies are railed or balustraded platforms that project from the building. Second story roof decks or balconies are characteristic of only a few architectural styles found in Boulder. They may be compatible additions, however, if located on the rear and if they are integrated into the primary structure. Second story roof decks or balconies are not appropriate for free-standing accessory buildings and garages. Any decks or balconies above the second story are inappropriate unless based on historic precedent. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .1 Locate roof decks or balconies on the rear, not on the front, of the building. Front roof decks or balconies are appropriate only if recreating a documented historic element. Proposal includes three new 2nd story balconies at the new addition, one at each south, east, and west elevation. Maybe .2 Integrate the roof deck or balcony into the structure either by setting it into the building or by incorporating it into the roof structure. East and west elevation balconies are set back and not visible from the north (front) elevation. Yes .3 Avoid cantilevered projections from the building, and use appropriately scaled brackets or supports. None Yes .4 While current code requirements must be met, new railings should be as close as possible to historic heights. In addition, sensitive design may give the appearance of the lower railing heights found on historic structures. Railings are consistent with front railings. Details and materials to be confirmed Yes 3.3 DECKS Decks are modern expressions of porches that were not found on historic buildings. Great care needs to be taken in designing decks to fit into the historic character of the house. The design elements must respect the historic character as to size, materials, railing detail, intrusion into spaces between buildings, and materials. Because decks are not traditionally found on historic structures, they should be avoided or their appearance should be minimized. Decks should be subordinate to the house in terms of scale and detailing. For second story decks, see 3.2 Roof Decks and Balconies. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .1 First floor decks are inappropriate in the front of a house. Locate a first floor deck to the rear of a building. At rear Yes .2 While current code requirements must be met, new railings should be as close as possible to historic heights. In addition, sensitive design may give the appearance of the lower railing heights found on historic structures. Privacy “pony” wall proposed at east elevation. Revise for review at Ldrc. No .3 Unpainted redwood is inappropriate; decks should be painted or stained to match the existing building. Decking material not specified – Review details at Ldrc. Maybe .4 Materials with a synthetic look and/or feel should be avoided. Decking material not specified - – Review details at Ldrc. Maybe 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. Publicly visible pre-1929 screened-in side porch (remodeled in 1929) visible in tax assessor photograph (see figure 2) is shown not to be restored, but that element removed and a new projecting (narrower), open porch with columns proposed. While the brick wall behind the side porch is being retained, it will be completely obscured by new construction. Consider restoring screened-in porch (in line with east wall of 1896 house) based upon the historic photograph. Revise for review at Ldrc. 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. See .1 above. Maybe 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. Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 40 of 46 GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS .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. Details of finishes not provided – Submit details for review by the 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 Windows in New Construction .15 Windows in additions and new structures should reflect the window patterns and proportions of the existing structure and the district and utilize similar materials. For elevations visible from public streets, the relationship of solids to voids should also be compatible. Divided light windows, grouped windows, and expansive patio doors should be revised to be more in keeping, and subordinate to those on the historic house – revise for review by Ldrc. No .16 Windows should be trimmed with materials similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally. Details not provided – review details at the Ldrc. Maybe .17 Openings should indicate floor levels, and generally should not occur between floors. Window locations generally indicate floor levels Yes .18 Symmetry or asymmetry of openings should be maintained. General pattern of openings maintained. Large grouping of windows/doors should be revised to be more in keeping with historic house - Ldrc Maybe .19 Odd window shapes such as octagons, triangles, and diamonds are generally inappropriate. None Yes 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. .10 Doors in additions and new structures should reflect the proportions (height and width) of doors in the existing structure and/or the district. Large grouping of patio doors should be revised to be more in keeping with proportion/scale of openings/doors on historic house – Ldrc. No .11 Doors should be trimmed with materials similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally. Details not provided – review at Ldrc. Maybe Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 41 of 46 4.0 ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS This section applies to buildings that are individual landmarks or are within a historic district and have been identified as Contributing, Contributing-Restorable, or Significant Newer. (see p. 7 and Glossary). Additions to non-historic structures are considered in Section 5. While the guidelines in this section do not specifically apply to those properties, they do represent design principles that should be considered in any addition. It is normal for buildings to evolve over time and additional space is needed or uses are accommodated. New additions within the historic districts are appropriate as long as they do not destroy historic features, materials, and spatial relationships that are significant to the original building and site. They also must be distinguishable from the historic architecture. New additions should not compromise the integrity of the original structure or site, whether through direct destruction of historic features and materials or indirectly through their location, size, height or scale. Additions should be compatible with, but discernible from, the historic architecture. When the original design is duplicated the addition is indistinguishable and the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Conversely, when design elements contrast too strongly with the original structure the addition will appear visually incompatible. The appropriate location of an addition to an existing building will depend on the character of the existing building and its site, adjacent buildings, and the area as a whole. While every site is unique, generally additions are most appropriate at the rear of the structure. The addition should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost. An addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character, and should be subordinate to the existing structure. The primary focus in reviewing additions will be on aspects of new construction that are visible from public streets. The guidelines will be applied most stringently to these publicly visible areas. More flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely screened from public view. 4.1 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic buildings is the protection of the existing structure and the character of the site and district. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Construct new additions so that there is the least possible loss of historic fabric and so that the character-defining features of the historic building are not destroyed, damaged, or obscured. Proposed addition is at rear of house, but results in removal of approx. 200 sq. ft. of pre-1929 addition and early rear entry porch that was remodeled in 1964. Much of the historic brick wall area is shown to be removed or covered by proposed new addition including that at the publicly visible east elevation. Revise to preserve and not cover historic east wall covered by addition; explore preserving upper level of historic rear addition to provide connector to rear addition (this may require a variance from the BOZA which could be supported under 9.2.3(h)(4) Designated Historic Property, of the Boulder Revised Code. Revise for review by the Ldrc. Maybe .2 New additions should be constructed so that they may be removed in the future without damaging the historic structure. Extent of removal/covering of wall and roof area of pre-1929 and publicly visible rear addition may be inconsistent with this guideline – see .1 above. Maybe .3 It is not appropriate to construct an addition that will detract from the overall historic character of the principal building and/or the site, or if it will require the removal of significant building elements or site features. Because of significant public visibility from Mapleton Avenue and the alley, the real and perceived mass, scale, height and form of the proposed addition will likely detract from the historic character of the property (see 4.2 & 4.3 below). Maybe 4.2 Distinction from Historic Structures All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design is duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additions should be compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Distinguish an addition from the historic structure, but maintain visual continuity between the two. One common method is to step the addition back and/or set it in slightly from the historic structure. Every project is different and successful designs may incorporate a variety of approaches. Proposed addition is slightly lower (by 9”) than the historic house, even though the grade drops at the rear (12” drop over the length of the addition). Additionally, the northeast and southeast corners of the addition extend several feet east of the east wall of the historic house. Explore reducing 31’ width of addition (historic house is 26’ wide) to lessen impact of addition at east; explore reducing height of addition by using 1 ½ story (as opposed to 2-story form) to reflect roof form and pitch of the main body of the historic house – revise and review at the Ldrc. No .2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Instead, interpret historic elements in simpler ways in the addition. Simplify roof form(s) and detailing of addition so it is more compatible with, and subordinate to the historic house - revise and review at the Ldrc. Maybe Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 42 of 46 .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 .2 Above. Maybe .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 .2 Above. Maybe 4.3 Compatibility with Historic Structures Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions should be distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic structures or the site, in mass, scale or detailing. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 An addition should be subordinate to the historic building, limited in size and scale so that it does not diminish or visually overpower the building. Addition will have public visibility from Mapleton Avenue, alley to the east and is not subordinate to the historic house in terms of mass, scale, roof form, and detailing. Reduce real and perceived mass of addition as discussed in 4.2 above. No .2 Design an addition to be compatible with the historic building in mass, scale, materials and color. For elevations visible from public streets, the relationship of solids to voids in the exterior walls should also be compatible. Addition will have considerable public visibility and should be subordinate and design simplified to ensure it is subordinate to the historic house, especially as perceived from Mapleton Avenue and east alley. Revise for review by the Ldrc. No .3 Adding a partial or full story to the historic portion of a historic building is rarely appropriate. N/A N/A .4 Reflect the original symmetry or asymmetry of the historic building. Symmetry of the original house is generally reflected in design of proposed addition. Yes .5 Preserve the vertical and horizontal proportion of a building’s mass. Proposed addition is incompatible with proportions of the historic house. Addition creates a significantly more wall- dominated and horizontal building with a perceived doubling of the building’s length when viewed from Mapleton Avenue and the east alley. Reduce real and perceived mass, scale and height to preserve and be compatible with the 1896 house. Revise and review at the Ldrc. No 4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Design new additions so that the overall character of the site, site topography, character-defining site features and trees are retained. It appears that the topography of the property will be affected by the proposed addition including the removal of trees, regrading, and the introduction of wall. Review details at Ldrc to ensure consistency with the design guidelines. Maybe .2 Locate new additions on an inconspicuous elevation of the historic building, generally the rear one. Locating an addition to the front of a structure is inappropriate because it obscures the historic facade of a building. Addition is at the rear of the historic house but extends beyond plane of the historic house at the east and will have significant visibility from Mapleton Avenue and the east alley. Redesign to significantly reduce the real and perceived mass, scale and height of the addition. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe .3 Respect the established orientation of the original building and typical alignments in the area. Addition creates a significantly more wall-dominated and horizontal building with a perceived doubling of the building’s length (see 4.3.5 above). Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No .4 Preserve a backyard area between the house and the garage, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. See Guideline 2.1.1. Submitted site plan is not scaled, however, the distance between the existing house and garage will be reduced from approx. 50 ft. to approx. 15 ft. (see 4.2.1 above). Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No 4.5 Key Building Elements Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 43 of 46 Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they complement the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? Roofs .1 Maintain the dominant roofline and orientation of the roof form to the street. Roofline of proposed addition maintains form and orientation of the historic house. Yes .2 Rooflines on additions should be lower than and secondary to the roofline of the original building. Roofline of addition not significantly lower than the historic house. Consider reducing width of addition using lower, 1 ½ story form for the addition to lower roof height. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No .3 The existing roof form, pitch, eave depth, and materials should be used for all additions. While orientation and pitch of addition roof are consistent with guideline, 2-story form is not. Consider 1 ½ story form to lower and make roof-form more subordinate as described above. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe Dormers .4 If consistent with the architectural style of a historic structure and appropriately sized and located, dormers may be an appropriate way to utilize upper story space. Introduction of shed-roof dormers may be inappropriate – consider 1 ½ story roof on addition with small gable dormers reflecting those on historic house. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe Windows .5 Maintain the proportion, general style, and symmetry or asymmetry of the existing window patterns. Fenestration of addition could be modified to better reference pattern and proportions on the historic house. Large banks of “nano doors” at rear are incompatible with character of main house. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No .6 Use window shapes that are found on the historic structure. Do not introduce odd- shaped windows such as octagonal, triangular, or diamond-shaped. N/A N/A 7. Do not add divided light windows to structures that historically did not have divided light windows. Although appearing on the existing addition to the historic house, divided light windows at the new addition are inappropriate. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No 8. Use materials and construction similar to historic windows. Do not use snap-in mullions. Details not provided. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 44 of 46 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. Details not provided. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe .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. Details not provided. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe 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? .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. While a Solar PV proposal is not included in the current application, installation on additions at the rear is appropriate. New LAC application is required for a solar installation. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. N/A 8.5 Lighting Traditionally, site lighting was very limited in residential districts. While today there is typically a need for more lighting and higher levels of illumination, both building lighting and site lighting should respect the quality of lighting that characterizes historic residential districts. When selecting specific fixtures and locations, it is also important to consider the impact of site lighting on adjacent properties. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Retain and preserve exterior lighting fixtures that contribute to the overall historic character of a building, site or district. Details not provided. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. Maybe Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 45 of 46 .2 It is inappropriate to introduce or eliminate exterior lighting fixtures if doing so will detract from the overall historic character of the building, site, or streetscape. Details not provided. N/A .3 Lighting should be functional ― not just decorative. Details not provided. N/A .4 Lighting in alleys should be low wattage and focused downward. Details not provided. N/A .5 It is inappropriate to illuminate the facades of houses in residential districts. Details not provided. N/A 8.8 Americans with Disabilities Act Places of public accommodation are required to provide access to their services and programs under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the case of historic buildings, some provision for using alternative measures exists if the property is historically or architecturally significant enough to merit such treatment. When changes to a building or site are necessary, careful consideration must be given to how the changes can be incorporated without compromising the integrity of the historic building, its character defining features, or its site. GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS? .1 Provide barrier-free access that promotes independence for the disabled to the highest degree practicable, while preserving significant historic features. Details not provided. N/A .2 The appearance of accessibility ramps or elevators should not significantly detract from the historic character of the structure. Details not provided. N/A .3 If the addition of accessibility improvements negatively impacts significant historic elements, these improvements should be designed to be reversible. Details not provided. N/A Attachment B - Design Guideline Analysis Item 5B - 936 Mapleton Ave. LB Memo 04.06.22 Page 46 of 46