HomeMy WebLinkAbout5B - Request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate for 745 Mapleton Ave. (HIS2007-00152) - remove an existing 2-story mud room/por...nstruction of a new larger addition & deckMEMORANDUM
February 6"', 2008
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate to remove an
existing two-story mud room/porch at rear of house and the
construction of a new larger addition and deck at the contributing
house located at 745 Mapleton Avenue in the Mapleton Hill historic
district per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-
00008).
STATISTICS:
1. Site:
2. Zoning:
3. Applicant/Owner:
4. Site Area:
5. Date of Construction:
6. Historic Name(s):
7. Existing to be Removed
8. Proposed New Const.
745 Mapleton Avenue
RL-1 (Residential Low-1)
Tony Grant/Briand and Kathleen Spear
12,500 square feet
1888
Giffin-Lake House
152 sq. ft.
386 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion:
The Board finds that the proposal for the removal of the existing historic rear
sleeping porch and in its place, the construction of a larger two-story addition (as
shown on drawings dated 1/17/2008) does not meet the standards in Chapter 9-
11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, and is substantially inconsistent with the General
AQenda Item #SB Page #1
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS]'~AITCERTS\Histonc Disnicts\Maplecon Hill\Mapleron745\02.06.08 LPAB Submi¢al\02.0G.08
memo.fmal.doc
Design Guidelines, in that the removal of the sleeping porch will damage the
historic character of the property, and adopts this memorandum as findings of
the Board.
This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that the proposal does not
meet the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981 and is substantially
inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines in that the work will damage the
historic character of the contributing property.
SUMMARY:
• This application calls for the removal of the historic rear facing sleeping
porch and the construction of an addition larger than that approved by
the Landmarks design review committee (LDRC) on December 12th, 2007.
At that meeting the LDRC determined that if the proposed first floor
"depth" of the proposed addition was more than 10' it would "create a
significant impact or potential detriment" and required review by the full
Landmarks Board in a public hearing per 9-11-14(a)(3).
• The existing rear sleeping porch was structurally reinforced and
rehabilitated in 2005.
• Staff considers the Giffin-Lake to be one of the most recognizable and
architecturally important historic properties in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. The rear (north) addition proposed for removal is a rare surviving
example of aturn-of-the-twentieth century sleeping porch construction in
Boulder with high visibility from Stn street and the alley to the north.
• Because of the high level of visibility, per Section 9 of the General Design
Guidelines, staff considers the north face of the house to be a secondary
elevation.
• Staff considers that removal of the sleeping porch would damage
and adversely affect the historic and architectural value of the
contributing property.
• Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board find that the proposal for the
demolition of the sleeping porch and in its place the construction of a
larger rear addition (as shown on drawings dated 1/17/ 2008), does not
meet the standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, are
substantially inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines, in that the
proposed work will damage the historic character of the property.
Agenda Item #5B PaQe #2
S:\PLAP.\data\longrang\ W S7\ALTCERTS\Hinoric Districts\Mapleton Hill\Maplemn 745\02 06.08 LPAB Submiaal\02.06.08
memo.fmal.doc
~4
3~ r
~ ~
~ ~ ~
r , 1pyA~Y i 1~
3w~ y ~ ~ ti ffi ~ ~'L 1 Y
y i .+G1
.r a `9 >
g ~X
w..~p{~" : ~ t ~ I ~ ~P~r w~T
-'~,s1J~ C "M'~~" 'XF ~ L...r.~-.'"w
1 1 _ yY2~ x..i'4 4~ ' T
3 y~r ~ cy ~ , ,j =t
~
e,'z
745 Mapleton Avenue, 1929
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Lots 44-46 of Block 3 in the Mapleton Hill addition (745 Mapleton Hill Street)
were acquired in 1895 by Fanny Lake who came to Boulder from Illinois in 1865
to study medicine at the university. Dr. Lake constructed the brick Four-square
house on the property in 1885 or 1886. h1 1888, Lake married Luman M. Giffin a
local physician and Dean of Medicine at the University of Colorado. The couple
resided in the house until 1918. The Historic Building Inventory Form outlines
subsequent residents of the property including Warren Bleeker, bomb
manufacturer and 1932 candidate for Governor of Colorado and Ralph Stutz,
earl} developer of computer memory at the National Bureau of Standards in
Boulder. (See Attachment A)
Wit11 its hipped roof, overhanging eaves, and classically inspired elements, the
Giffin-Lake house plays a prominent role in the Mapleton Hill streetscape, sited
on the corner of Mapleton and 8"~ Streets.
Agenda Item #SB Page #3
S:\PL.AN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCGRTS\Historic r)isrrins\htapleton Hill\MapletonJ45\n?.u6.118 LPAB Submiua]\02.~G.OS
mrmo.final.doc
o~ ~ ~ 0
~ Q
o
~ ~ 00 ?
f~1t~ ~-L E~ -
-
o
0
o0
Locati<m Map
Sanborn maps indicate that a small frame building was constructed at the
north-west corner of the property sometime between 1910 and 1918, replacing an
earlier outbuilding at the southeast corner. The 1918 map shows the west portion
of this building being located on the adjacent property (lot 43). Between 1922 and
1931, the Sanborn Maps indicate the building was either moved or reconstructed
several feet to the east. In 1938, a building permit for an, "addition to garage"
was issued to Eleanor Bleeker (wife of John Bleeker). This building was
rehabilitated and an adjacent garage constructed in 2005. During the same period
the main house was completely rehabilitated including the structural
reinforcement and rehabilitation of the rear (north) facing sleeping porch.
The 1994 historic building survey identifies the property as being a significant
and distinctive example of Four-square house design, of importance for its
association with local physicians Luman Moody and Fanny Lake Moody, and its
contribution to the Mapleton Hill historic district as a whole.
Agenda Item #SB Page #4
S:\PLi1N\data\]ongrang\FIIST\A1.TCF.RTS\Historic Districts\blapleton Hill\Mapleton.745\02.06.08 LPAI3 Submittal\02.06.08
memo.final.doc
~ J
f
f~l`~ ~ ~
ti~_.~ 1 ~ _ .
rte, .-~r:.e~'
~,y3y~ ~ _ ~ ~ r_:
y f
~s~~Jy'(~~jw+'. ~ ~ f ' 1v l~ ~
1496~i~, - # -y~ .y,~ F ~ ey' M-g 'yilYC.t ..r t~^'. wY
'S x ~ 'y„'~`d~ "+t '~Si 't Y~ ~~f {+~r ~ 4y'4g~~ ~k ~~~rr~,,,Y--~ d
5 ~ ~ ~rl'~j ?r~~t jib S~~Y~~ ~ ~~tq
_ X~y,.t I
-Gsv~
a 1.. .a,F
xy„^°~ ~ -„~Of"r
745 Mapleton Avenue 2008, north- east corner froth 8th Street
REQUEST:
This application requests the removal of the existing 152 sq. ft., two-story
sleeping porch located at the rear (north) elevation of the house. In its place,
plans call for the construction of a 386 sq. ft., two-story addition.
f,
~ ~
v~
~ "mat dE+.~lS H~ ~r
{ gg b 'gyp ~ Y
~ +µ7+..k. ~ ; - '4rTVt'g?F~_.•y"p~"
t -,~~w.J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;psi. ~ ~'7 -i t_ E_,
v~y -ass.
? ,y.a wr ~
, f
745 Maplelun \v~~nue 2UOS, sleeping pur~h prctpc7~cd tur renwval (lrom alley)
Currently the rear porch is slightly over 5' deep and 16' wide on the first level
Agenda
Item #SB
Pale
#5
S:\YLA1V\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\blaplen>n Hill\MapletonJ45\02.06.08 LPAB Submittal\02.OG.08
memo. final.doc
and 6' deep and 16' wide on the second-story. Roughly a third of the lower level
of the porch is unenclosed, while the second-story is completely enclosed and
cantilevered slightly over the first level. Dimensions of the proposed addition are
shown to be 12' deep and 21' wide on the first level and 6' deep and 16', 7" wide
on the second-story.
~~r•v:~~:~~r-
!
~--y
~ -
-r-+
AYE r ?
,
- - ~ ;
i ' ~ ~ ~ _ J
~ ~
~ ~ ~ rJ _ - ~ f ~ i
.1 i - - - a ~2
~ i
1 L f ~
_ -I ~ _ -I} i T!
j ~ I i 1 -
. ~ / r~
i
~ l~ .u.~- r' r~ ~ ~ - -
T.. ~ J-
~'"_--~i--_
' l 'r i ~ i i l~iV
Existing sleeping porch, east elevation Proposed addition, east elevation
I ~
- i
~ ~ T=om a .
~~1 gill, ~ ~ ! ~ I.~ ~ ~ ~L~~'.
I l
.y
~
~ a ~ ~ 4 ~p%i1 ' ~ t l ~ ~ - ~ j ~-F" ~ ~
~ . I _
~ - f . - ~ r
,S
. .
- ' " _
, l c"J
f _ .-iii.
Existing sleeping porch, north elevation Proposed addition, north elevation
Elevations show the proposed addition to rise in height from 2' from 21' to 23' in
height and to feature a shed roof design on the second-story similar in pitch to
that of the existing addition. The proposed addition is shown to be constructed
Agenda Item #SB Page #6
5:\PLAty\data\lonp,rang\HIST\AL'1'CERTS\Historic Dis[ricts\t~lapleton Hill\Map]eton.745\02.06.08 LPAB Submi[tal\02.0(1.08
memo.final.doc
upon a 3' high stone base, be sided with vertical wood siding and to be
fenestrated with single light square casement windows.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
Subsection 10-13-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
(b)Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a landmark alteration
certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage
or destroy the exterior architectural features of the [andmark;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special
historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used on existing and proposed structures are compatible
with the character of the existing landmark and its site;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
(5) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
landmarks board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation ofenergy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.
ANALYSIS:
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy
significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within
an historic district?
Response: Staff finds the existing rear sleeping-porch a highly visible character-
defining feature of the house and that its removal will damage significant
architectural features of the landmark property. The Giffin-Lake is one arguably
one of the most architecturally and historically important houses in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District and because of its prominent comer lot location is highly
visible. It is unclear whether the rear sleeping porch is original to house, but is
certainly of turn-of-the twentieth century construction and a rare survival in
Boulder. It is a notable character-defining feature of the property which is highly
visible from 8t" Street and the alley.
Agenda Item #SB Paee #7
5:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Hismric Districts\Mapleton Hill\Mapleton.745\02.06.08 LPAB Submittal\02.06.08
memo.fmal.doc
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark?
Response: Staff finds that the proposed application will adversely affect the
special character of the contributing property in that removal of the character-
defining sleeping porch will affect the property's special historic, architectural,
and aesthetic interest or value.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the
historic district?
Response: The staff Finds that the proposed new construction will be compatible
with the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials on the historic building, how considers the loss of the existing
character defining sleeping porch inappropriate.
4. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
Response: No information has been provided to suggest that energy efficient
design or accessibility has been considered beyond that required by the city's
building code.
5. Is the proposed application consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9-11, "Historic
Preservation," B.R.C. 1981?
Response: Staff considers the removal of the existing sleeping porch would
represent the loss of a character defining feature of a highly significant example
of turn-of-the twentieth century residential architecture in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District.
Design Guidelines
The Board has also adopted the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines
and the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the historic preservation
ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed new construction with
respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used only as
an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a checklist of items for
compliance.
Aeenda Item #SB Paae #8
5:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Hismnc Districts\Mapleton Hill\Maplema745\02.06.08 LPAB Submittal\02.06.08
memo.final.doc
MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Grridelirres
VI. Guidelines
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.L Porches Sleeping porch at rear of house is a
Porches are the predominant rare surviving and publicly visible No
visual element of example and should be preserved.
houses... there are very fezu
examples of houses without
porches.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.4 l Porches
. _ - _
Fr~rrt pore{tcs are a common and important visual element of many historic
buildings. The porch roof is generally supported by freestanding columns or those
resting on a masonry zuali. Wood railings are anchored with the facade of the house
plainly visible.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.l Original (historic) porches Character defining and No
should be preserved. publicly visible rear porch is to
be demolished and
reconstructed.
2 Porches or porch elements such Porch was rehabilitated in No
as railings balusters, and 2005. Current application calls
columns, should be repaired or for demolition of existing porch
replaced, following recognized and construction of new porch.
preservation rnetlrods so that the
character of the porch is not
compromised.
7 The introduction of new porches Character defining and No
that were not present historically publicly visible rear porch is to
is inappropriate on ...buildings be demolished and new porch
that are contributing to a constructed.
historic district.
~k' Exterior Materials: Walls, Siding, and Masonry
- r ^s s,,.,~w~^i, c~ ,
Agenda Item #SB Pale #9
S:\Pt.i~\data\longrang\HIS'1'\AL.TCGRTS\Historic Districts\Niapleton HID\Mapleton.745\U2.UGA8 LYAB Submittal\U2.UG.U8
memo.final.doc
i
r
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
1 Original (historic) finish Historic and 2005 restored No
materials shoadd be preserved siding will be removed.
and repaired.
FOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS
3 Windows
Windoz~~s, the elelrletits that surroutul thetrt, and tlicir rclationsliip to one artot{ter
are one of the most important character-defining elements of a historic structure
arzd should be preserved. Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a
historic structure can seriously detract from its architectural character. Windows
on facades visible from public streets, particularly the front facade, are especially
important.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Ketain and preserve existin~~> All existing windows on No
historic ioindows including their sleeping porch will be lost.
functional decorative features .
In some cases, it might be
appropriate to use window
elements from the side or rear
elevations fo repair those on the
front.
4.0 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 Currstr~~ct new additions so that The proposed addition to main No
there is the least possible loss of house will result in a loss of
historic fabric and so the publicly visible, character-
character-defining features of the defining historic sleeping
buildings are not destroyed. orch.
.2 New additions should be Approximately 14 linear feet of No
constructed so that they may be brick wall at the first story of
removed in the uture without the house will be removed to
Agenda Item #SB Pale #10
S:APLAN\dat~\longrang\HIST\AL.TCGRTS\Historic Districts\iV'Iapleton I till\niaplcton]d5\02.06.08 LPAB Suhmiual\02.06.08
memo.flnal.doc
damaging the historic building. provide open access into the
main house at north elevation.
It is not appropriate to construct Mass, scale, and height of Yes
3 ara addition that zviIl detract addition generally appropriate.
from the overall historic
character of the building.
4.2 Distinction from Historic Buildings f
A11 additions should be discernible from the historic strT~cture. 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.
1 Distinguish an addition front Existing porch and proposed Yes
the historic building, but addition are distinguished
maintain visual contimiity from historic house.
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 successfiel
designs may incorporate a
variety of approaches.
2 Do not directly copy historic Existing porch and proposed No
elements. Instead, interpret addition are simpler than
historic elements in simpler main house, though stone base
ways in the addition. on proposed addition,
inap ro riate.
3 Additions shoreld be simpler in Existing porch and proposed No
Detail than the original addition are simpler than
strucft,cre. An addition that main house, though stone base
exhibits a more ornate style or on proposed addition,
implies an earlier period of
architecture than that of the inappropriate.
on final is ina ro riate.
4 The architectural style of Existing porch and proposed yes
Agenda Item #SB Pale #11
S:APLAN\data\longtang\H1ST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Mapleton.745\02.O6.U8 LYAB Submittal\02.06.08
memo.final.doc
additions should not imitate the addition are distinguished
historic style but must be from historic house
compatible zoith it. appropriately.
Contemporan~ 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-
tirnberin~~~ to a Classic Cottage,
is ifiappropriate.
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
Introducing clew construction tl-rat contrasts sharply zwitll art existin~> ]ustoric
structure or site detracts from the visa~al continuity that marks our historic
districts. While additions should be distinguishable from the historic structure,
they n~lust riot contrast so sharply as to detract from the original building and/or
the site. Additions shoi.Ild never overwhelm historic structatres or the site, in mass,
scale or detailing.
1 An addition should be Addition subordinate i11 mass yes
subordinate to the historic and scale.
building, limited in size and
scale so that it does not diminish
or visually overpower the
building.
2 Design an addition to be Fenestration and forms are Yes
compatible with the historic generally compatible
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.
4 Reflect the original symmetry or Proposed addition's symmetry No
asymmetry of the historic of fenestration needs to be
building. more consistent with that of Resolve
main house. at DRC
5 Preserve the vertical and Horizontal and vertical Yes
Agenda Item #SB Pale #12
S:\YLAN\data\longrang\FIIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Maplctun Flill\Mapleton.745\02.06.08 LPAB Submittal\02.06.08
memo. final.doc
horizontal proportion of a proportion of the building's
building's mass. mass are generally preserved.
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
1 1)esigrt rtczv additiuras so that No mature vegetation or major Yes
the overall character of the site, changes in grading are shown.
site topography, character-
definingsite features and trees
are retained.
4.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the ii~ost ~
important character-defining elements of any building. As such, they
require extra attention to assure that they compliment the historic
architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0
Alterations Eor related sug estions.
1 Maintain the dominant roofline Maintains dominant roof form Yes
and orientation of the roof
form to the street.
to the street.
2 Rooflines on additions should be Rooflines are lower than Yes
lower than and secondary to the historic build>s1g.
roo ine of the original building.
3 The existing roof
form, pitch, These elements on addition are Yes
cave depth, and materials should generally compatible with
be used for all additions. those on historic building.
5 Maintain the proportion, Fenestration and forms are yes
general style, and symn~ietry or generally appropriate
asymmetry of the existing
window patterns.
6 Use window shapes that are Window and door shapes Yes
found on the historic structure. generally compatible.
Do not introduce odd-shaped
Agenda Item #SB Pale #13
S:APLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Maple~on.745\02.06.08 LPAB Submittal\02.06.08
mcmo.EnaLdoc
windows such as octagonal,
trian ular, or diamond-sha ed
S Use materials and construction Proposed window and door yes
similar to historic windows. Do materials are generally
not use snap-in muntins. a ro riate.
Staff considers the Giffin-Lake to be one of the most recognizable and
architecturally important historic properties in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. The rear (north) addition proposed for removal is a rare surviving
example of aturn-of-the-twentieth century sleeping porch construction in
Boulder with high visibility from 8"'street and the alley to the north. Because of
the high level of visibility, per Section 9 of the General Design Guidelines, staff
considers the north face of the house to be a secondary elevation rather than a
tertiary as is most often the case for the rear of a building. Staff also considers
that the removal of rear porch addition would result in the loss of an important
character defining feature and that would have an adverse affect on the
contributing Giffin-Lake house and the character of the immediate area of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District.
FINDINGS:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, the removal of the historic sleeping
porch at the north elevation of the Giffin-Lake house will be inconsistent with the
purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. The proposed work will damage or destroy the exterior architectural
features of the contributing property.
2. The request is substantially inconsistent with the historic preservation
ordinance and the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory form
B: Letter from Applicant
C: Photographs
D: Landmarks Design Review Committee comments
E: Application and Plans
Agenda Item #SB PaEe #14
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Mapleton.745\02.06.08 LPAB Submittal\02.06.08
memo.final.doc
~ Attachment A
coLORADO NIRTORIgL soLIETY
Offip of Arehaeo logy and Niator is Prewrvat ion NOT FOR fIEID USE
1300 Broaarq, Denver, Colorado 80207 _ Eligible _ Naainsted
_ Dot. Mot Eligible _ Certified Rehab.
XISTORIC WILDING INVENTORY RECORD Date
PROJECT NAME: Boulder 6urvay of Mistor is COl1NTY: LITT: STATE ID NO.: SBL4530
Plues, ID94 Boultler Boulder
TEMPORARY NO.: 1461-25-4-03-015
CURRENT WILDING NAME: OYNER: SLUT2 RALPX J 8 MARGARET M
745 IUIPLETON AVE
BOULDER CO 80304
ADDRESS: 745 MAPLETON AV -
BOULDER, CO 80302
TOWNSHIP iM RANGE 71W SECTJpI 25 SE 1/4 NE 1/4
HISTORIC NAME: U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: Boulder, Colo.
Giffin Residence YEAR: 1966 (PR1979) X 7.5' 15'
BLOCK: 3 LOT(S): 44-46
DISTRICT NAME: ADDITION: Mapleton YR. OF ADDITION: 1888
FILM ROLL NO.: 94-b NEWTIVF NO.: LOCATION OF MEWTIVES: DATE Of CONSTRUCTION:
BC: R. Whitacre 18 Boulder City Plnp. ESTIMATE: ACTUAL: 1902
SOURCE:
" K ~ l Old County Assecsor Card
v f
~1
vz ~ i , USE:
~l _ W - t __..r-~-~.-' .j PRESENT:
~ . , Res identiel
I
(_~-t~. _ HISTORIC:
Reeidentiel
- _ ~ CONDITION:
~ EXCELLENT X GOOD
~ ~ ~ FAIR DETERIORATING
EXTENT OF ALTERATIONS:
X MINOR MODERATE ,MINOR
DESCRIBE:
Front porch and upper porch screened.
CONTINUED YES X NO
STYLE: Foursquare STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED
2 DATE(S) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Brick, Wood, Stone S0. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
2816
INDIVIDUAL: X YES _ MO
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
Two-story brick dwelling with hipped roof with widely overhanging eaves and COIITRIWTING TO DISTRICT:
front, hipped roof dorner with hor izontel board siding end two lettitt windws. X YES NO
Brick quoins; stone Bill trouree on accord ctory. Projecting, hipped roof porch LOCAL LANDMNRK DESIGNATION: No
is screened in end has close ical column supports; brick walls with stone trim;
end brick stair wells with clone trim end stairs. Off-center, segaental arched NAME:
DATE: -
door. Vindows are sgemental arched, double-hung, with rusticated stone sills.
Bey window art west has brick base. Rr east is secondary entrance, with hipped ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? X YES ND
hood above with decorative braces. Two full-height ch inneys with stone trim. TYPE:
Stone foundation. leper story has screened in porch at corner of house with Gerepe
classical coluln supports. IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.:
CpITI WED? YES X NO
ADDITIONAL PAGES: YES X NO
aenn43~_P~~~
ARCHITECT: STATE ID NO.: SBL4530
sw~' Unkrawn
ORIGINAL OIMER:
Lunen and Fam ie Giffin
SOURCE:
SOURCE:
U.S. Census, 1900 and 1910
BUILDER/CONTRACTOR: -
Lhknown
THEME(S):
SOURCE: Urban Residential Neighborhoods,
1858-presort
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (DESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE):
CONTINUED YES X NO
RISTORIGL BACKGROUND (DISCl1SS IMPORTANT PERSONS ANO EVENTS ASSOCIATED 4ITH THIS STRUCTURE):
This was the home of prominent Boulder physician Lumen Moody Giffin, his wife, Faratie Leke Giffin, her mother, Mary Lake,
and their children. Upon his death in 1923, Giffin was cited as •the oldest physician in Boulder both in years and in
residence." Giffin was born in New York in 1850 and attended Rush Medical School in Ch ieego, He preGt Teed media ins in
Newyork until 1881, when he came to Boulder. Shortly after the organization of the university medical department, Dr.
Giffin became associated with the faculty, He was also treasurer of the medical school and its first dean. Ne was
superintendent of the un iversf ty hospital for several years, president of the Boulder County Medical Society, and surgeon
for the Union ?acif ic, Deriver 8 Culf Railroad and the Colorado Northwestern Railroad. Giffin married faro ie-Lake in
Drover in 1888 and They had five children. Mrs. Giffin was born in Chicago in-1865 .arid.cmne to study medicine et the
un fiver isty, where she met her husband. Dr, Giffin died in Boulder in 1923 end Mrs: Giffin died in 1949.
CONTINUED .~1'ES X NO
SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE GTEGIXIIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOY):
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFI GNCE: HISTORIG4, SIGNIFICANCE:
REPRESENTS THE NdtK OF A MASTER x ASSOCIYITED. VITH SIGNIFI GNT PERSONS
POSSESSES HI GM ARTISTIC VALUES ~ ASSOCIATED. -ll1TN SIGNIFIGNT EVENTS OR PATTERNS
x REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERf00, OR METHOD OF_CONSTRUC710N % CONTRIBUTES_TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT
TIER EVALUATION: lndiv ideally Signif icent 8uflding
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFIANCE:
This building is represmtat five of the FoursoNare style popular rLring the early twentieth century in the United States,
as ref leeted in the hipped roof witA overhanging eaves; twxy shape; end classical column. The house was associated with
Dr. Lumen M. Giffin, who practiced medicine in Boulder for merry years and was first dean of the university medical school,
CONTINUED YES X NO
REFERENCES (BE SPECIFIC):
Boulder Canty Assessor, real estate informmtion; Boulder Daiq Camera biographical files; Boulder Carnegie Library,
Boulder County Assessor collection; Boulder tity Directories; Bwlder Genealogical Society, Census ]ndexes, 1900 and 1910
I
SURVEYED BY: R.L. Simmons/T.H, Simmons AFF ILIATIdI: Front Range Rese 111# I(n
Attachment B
SCOTT COBURN
& ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS
December 7, 2007
To: James Hewat
Historical Preservation Planner
City of Boulder
Project: Spear Residence
745 Mapleton Ave
Boulder CO 80302
Scope: Landmark Alteration Certificate Application
Final Review and Approval
Project Description:
1 Remove existing first floor 5'x10' rear entry (north facing) mud room
and replace with 12'x21' rear entry mud room, kitchen nook and powder room.
2 Addition of 2'x16'-7' to existing rear second floor office/sun room.
3 Existing roof location and pitch to remain. Extending new roof section
and overhang to accommodate addition.
4 All exterior finish materials and colors are to match existing structure to be removed.
See exterior elevations on sheet 2 for material list of existing and new addition.
The following documents are attached for review and approval:
? LAC Application form
? Site plan
? Floor Plans (existing and new addition)
? Exterior Elevation and material list
? Photographs of the existing structure
Agerda Nem #~papsg-)~
2100 PEARL STREET SUITE $ BOULDER, CO 80302 303.443.7557
Attachment B
Brian B. & Kathleen Kelly Spear
699 Walden Road
Winnetka, Illinois 60093
City of Boulder,
Landmarks Boazd
Munidpal Building
1777 Broadway
Second Floor
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Attn: James Hewat
January 30, 2008
Deaz landmarks Boazd:
W e are writing with regard to our request for approval to replace the existing two-storey
addition on the back of our house at 745 Mapleton Avenue with one that is slightly
lazger. The current wood frame addition is a 5'4"x 10' porch on the first floor and a 6"x
17' sleeping porch on the second floor. The proposed addition, designed by Scott
Coburn, will be a 12'x21' first floor and 8' x17' second floor. The height of the new
construction will be 23', the same as the current addition It will use materials that aze
consistent with the age and style of the original construction, and where possible will
incorporate materials currently in place.
First, we would like to state that we strongly support efforts to preserve the unique
character of Boulder and particularly of the Mapleton Historic District The charm of
Mapleton hill is one of the key factors that attracted us to our current house. In the
renovation of the house, which we completed in 2005, we have made every effort, and at
not insignificant cost, to preserve and maintain the house in its historic condition. W e
have added new trees (at our expense) to replace those lost from the pazkways on
Mapleton and 8"' Street, uncovered and refurbished the extensive dentil moldings that
had been covered by vinyl sheeting, installed custom built, historically appropriate
storm windows, replaced vinyl gutters with historically appropriate copper, and
returned the lawn and Landscaping to become an attractive feature of the neighborhood.
We envision our house as one of the historic jewels of Mapleton Hill.
W e plan to live in the house for decades to come. W e lived in Boulder in the 1970's, and
have returned every yeaz since, wishing we had bought a home our first time azound.
Now that we have acquired our dream house, we want to be able to live in it in ways
that aze consistent with a 21a century lifestyle. The existing porch and sleeping porch
aze too small to be functional or to be in scale with the rest of the house. Mr. C:oburn's
plans represent the mirtimum addition that can be made to allow for the modernization
we expect, while at the same time, preserving the original external look and feel as much
as possible. The house sits on a lazge lot, the addition will be on the back, and all
materials will be consistent with those currently on the house. With only a 9 percent
Apattde Ism ~ ` ~ Psps~~_
increase in the squaze footage, we believe the construction will have min;mat impact on
the overall appeazance of the house and none on the neighborhood.
We appreciate the efforts of the landmazks Board and share your goals for a Ueautitul
community that respects its architectural history. We hope you will honor our desire to
live comfortably in our house while enhandng its appeazarue, and ask you to approve
our proposed addition.
Sincerely, ~ ~j~
Brian & Kathleen Speaz
Hpertda getrt aft ~ p~0 ~
M
~ - ~t~-~ Attachment C
L y04 ,C~
s-r ~ r~-v? ','T~y w~j ~y ask
i"~~.~'~2t'.:~t
~t `i ~ f( I >
z... b - ~ alp' 2 ~,w^~""~ I
rw,~ _ iLi .S'~ has. F F y':
It .'vzi'r 2T, t ~ fit' vim' v`• k`T
e} 1
' ~ x _ 3 L ~ ' ~ ' ~ g s ~ ~^^e~ mot,
~ ti ~
h
~e ; - r•~a ~ ~ t der
Vin: n f . - ~ S ~ ~ ~,.t ~~g x~i~ {•_{t{ N~' ~ ~ '
i~- ( t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ i r E f 3 tak
s, ~ 1 ~
~a '~f - - ~ ~
y % ~ errG .
^ k ~
I ry ° r t
;j 'U' ~ 2 ~ 5 Y 7Z~ ~~~'yyy S~~Yy. ' -.;i~ ~a~- ~ - i~ ~ .,fix S .e}y~
'~~~4' ~ " -Av-'1~~'ij i 'jt('~C~6'., L' 4v.:''` r'tvef.~. ~/''y//
i
- W ~ ;
~r
r t ~a^`~ r , ic> iW'~r ~IC ^7 1'~{.y~ 1k ~ ,.t .'"wr
~ ~ ~ iµ
s Y
i `
? r
^i~. ~.Sf ¢ i ~ r
{
w t
C i
~:yr 4;~r^d:
~
~ f ~
c.l.`, ~
"l
a ~ q
~ } t ~
' „a 5,3
j
v ..u:~
PY'f1:G.~4'~P72E7:fL`t3F
.M
°2
~'S ~ ~ ~
~ ~ x "
. `
~ ~ '
r`
r ~ w
r
y'.
dean ,a,"n., v~~?`
~ ~ ~ ' yyyy~~ 1 ~ ~ }i Attachment C
~ k A Y >
` ~ ~"P; ;ice LL t if
l~~j~'+~ Fpj t.~ ~ 'i... E. v~%# y ~ ~~Ll#3[1.,x,.
~ rte 'w ~ ~ !
sac 3T .8t~as - ~ x
y,
r
t
S 4 ~ ~ i "<t ~c ~jc.
.t J~°,i~~
,?f~~.
z ~ ; T ~ ~ t ~ ry'r;
~ ~
,ti ~i
' s ~ +e s ~ ~ . i~
~ f J R
* j
y~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~
a .
~ ~ fit _""'"."fit
~ i ' r. ~ ~ A `7
r ~ ' ~ F ~ r+' a~~ikYh' tip'. z
~,CS .g 4 ~ ~r~`f r ~ i „~!~,..~s ~~74 ~x
K ~ ~ V ~3~d~ ~ J~Y ~ s'lt y~wN +V~ ~ ~x~ A
i r', t' ~ ~ . ~ - ~ ~ ' . S 1~ T~~+q. / \ ~ St'f ~ u..C f - • r F 1/{ L~' A a y~\ ,
...M
Attachment D
Comments Sheet
Date: I)l~ , 2007
Landmark Alteration Certificate or Demolition /Moving
Address of Property: ~~{S J1/1~-Q~~,N -A,)~iJ OF
Owner's Name• SPL~~-
DRC Members• ~6dM~}-~CS ~ ~Crfi~S ~u1'IQ~- '
Remarks:
5 ~-~'~I ~ v ~ ,(,(~~-t-~=~2 ~ << ~ LO..~ s t t~ t-at f{yt~ t S ~ ~/1~
J " Nt o~ F3c=
JJO .~u ~l ~ ~L~~o vVc~ ~O (-,(~(f G~~~-~~ - 'PL
t~ -v r,~,/ 1.---
l
~ ~ ?J l./JD l~T~-F ~ C~ ~ ~~2~5 C-vi_ c> .f~-'i~
P/-r~5 5 C 0 S ~ b Cyc.-5 ~J(~ ~a ~rJ S ~Zj c~ L o ~ ~ I ,v ~
~hv P,~aS ~ ,nn ~ -~-{.,4-~~ 74- S l cr N ? ~r c,4-~~-- ~vt, '
I tP ~--c_T
- 5l~'^irtL'`~'''~ ?~~?~io~' `-to ~,o~-ho,~ t,~-rhGN - ~z~ST~nJlr
~Sllrny ~Ft/ 1 ~ C~~u~ ~ Z'T~
~4r!.' M ~"C~SY-~ (_UN S t ~G' Win- S ~/t-~ P ~S~~J ~D I~ ( `jZ 0 ~
~f~J t~l~ ~ I ~-nl I ~ t cA-~~TZ~,L. c> G 1 ~ !t't~S S .
Next steps: ~U~J~I ~ r ~ I ~1 t~l~ ~~OPD Sl1Z- ~~C. ~U~ r"`-J'
Public hearing: Y N
f
S:IPLAMdatalComdev\HISTIGEMALTCERTSILAC-app,etc\Comments
Note: These comments do not constitute a Landmark Alteration C'ertiticate.
Comments Sheet
Date: ~ ' z Z ' , 2007
Landmark Alteration Certificate ~ or Demolition /Moving
Address of Property: ~yS N A"Q~C'l~/~ +4U ~
Owner's Name• SCot't f 66ctrC,1 - -k-R~LI-~'11'~~'t- .
DRC Members• ~ W~a•^I ~`^l~
Gil-M~,J O I~JS6+t-+t 1 N
Remarks:
F~~AS( ~~oo^- -~70 tTt tIa A'T Nd/~-~ ~0 ~ C.Tb TttC n10 tiTl'k-
~„r~ ,nrc,n> rta~s~ ~ L~r~a~`~ -A-o~n.o~
c~.~r~~ t=croc~tt- 0~ 'P~.o lrto..l to ln?CK-~-SE t~ 1 n~
~ .
~ r1 S t h C-n. FTl ,J '"~+tS ~ o F 1 s~ Ft o o ti a~ oqo a t tZ a
??~F-1 t nl rw~ ~ r~ Sff~D '(1
e o F o..t S C-~ o d ~~po f~ -
~o nor "(~/~5E P~.-~ ~ -f~oJt ~ / fit' L~~
'~ji nfi .
aqc. co~Slr~c-+~ -fk~ -ta ?c~~ -won tzzu.., U..~r-~,~.~~
~pPn.01~ ~ r3oY T+~P'f ~ o~ rcc/+-n o..~ s 'l"4 Tt~o PSj
N 0 ~1"1t C•-~K r Lp (Ln1 Cam. n1 t"~ 1-0 ,~-?to-~ ~ N C l.J A N t~
Next steps: tb bI~C- w 1'Ia-1 t 5 L-r~ D(tr4an)~%Ut. S
t31~SC,o U P b rJ t~OM,M:~ ^T\~
Public hearing: Y (N )
S:\PLAMdata\ComdevV11S71GEMALT~CERTS\LAC-app,etc\CommentsPage'
Note: These comments do not constitute a Landmark Alteration C /~811f181~n#~`J
P~# 'L3
Attachment D
Comments Sheet
Hate: 12.1 L ,tom
Landmark Alteration Certificate or Demolition /Moving
Address of Property:. M"tilot.L~ nl ~i?~
Owner's Name: VVSGoiT ~~~li-~1 . ~QL~f~y'~e.T'.
DRC Members: 1~tiN ~ V V/?1. i1" WhCSO/J ~L~j ~ '
Remarks:
- pt~/uSF„ I s+' ~t~'cz- r.~ /~oR-~+ ~r~ tTZa.r
p7L~Fr+^~ ~'I"Zr~10 ~ ~ /V 'b Gro • _ Fr._
f'1~-~ (0 ~ P~U P~ lib U ~.1 lyi Z L o .
~ t-x i 5r i N r` y` I N -b e--~o~r~-E~
~.N C tA~mS F- U P ~ t i
~GaA.,~ try c. u ~ (,tyv S ~ ?J ~ t~c,o r ~v t_ C-~ s•c-~
L*-r 1 L 1 .DG~ Y"~.1 G•F ~ s•a- `~-vo ~l.- o
'pv !~-C~. w i ~ c. Tzl?-c~ u t r2 F (R-~v i L"~-~ t3
LL '~jU7f'2?>~ ~4'S GjIG.,,/~ F'tLlf+-i'(- Li-~-,P+tTt'~
-'a
Next steps:
Est ~.uu~ 'DL-~'f3~~ of ~OPtt7o~, ~~ttaUc.b Nor ~'F-Gtr
~ ~=r~u i yt,~' . Ott tSt 2.cL-'St)2w -ro ~T~.~.~
Public hearing: Y N ~ U' i~'4' R-~iS ~''t~~ ~yL~~~ ~ ~~~pQ 15t
S:\PLAMdata\Comdev~ilST\GENWLTCERTSLL.AC-app,etc\CommentsPage2.doc t ~ " ` i' ~ J
Note: These comments do not constitute a Landmark Alteration Certificate. 7
_ , "D.F fi w ~.u 1.- G f~4-~ F -l3 V ~ s t $ c C ~ Q~T ~
1-4U~S~ ~ 1p ~3 s ~ c'~- 1 L ` T~~7~--
~ o~PoSt'~ ~ ~6 ~ ( Wau~p ~'~2U~?L'~
~ u god H-~,~I-~~ ~
~tt6~ ~-~1- T ~ ~ C~'t G-~-r o ~ ~ a N Sc-c ~
~ Ga n- .gam
Attachment E
scorrcoa~nw
~assocler~s
nxcFnrects
a~oe r.... a.....
s....¦
ae~...~ co aaaaa
ne. aoa.aumaav
a.. aa.ua.oua
O O
EXISTING ADDITION '
u
u ~ ;
q RIDGE EL. 130.45 c
v
~ ~ q ~ Q
~ I
W
a ~
~ w
O
J
C7
Q O o
PROFILE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO BE REMOVED m ~ ,E
~ ~i i t t~1i1 ~{i
,L. O si~]~~~t~! ~,s
~ ,
iiTT ' a~
~ ~ ~i[I~I~II~~t~i:
F EL. 100.00 = ~ ~
wnm eu.aim.
J
J
~r
7 W
~ EL. 91.5
LOW POINT
i4 ~o EL ss.s1 4,
NEW EAST ELEVATION
~a
1~8n_I'_tJn SkPle(1
O O
Agmtds Nem ~ ~ L (v
y~~,
A~,
scorrco~mN
~ nssoctoxas
axcrvrecis
rxrr r.... en..+
r.~,.¦
r e..".. ca rwax
ne. srr.ur.reu
r.. aoawa.rw
rw.mw..vu.uu.mi
O O
ADDITION EXISTING
c ~ ~
u ;
RIDGE EL. 130.45 b ~ Q ~
2'-0"ADDED TO EXISTING OC ~
PROFILE OF 2ND FLOOR
SEE FLOOR PLAN ~ '''yyo ~
Q n
~ ,
0 0
PROFILE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE I Z
TO BE REMOVED '3 ~
/L 1 iJj~~~11~i ~ ii
r j ~ r
LL tf ,
NEW WOOD GUARD RAIL TO MATCH 5 ~ l~~lj~,J ~
EXISTING SYSTEM AND PAINT COLOR O ~ IllYiii] ttrr f+{#f
+ "r[
N 2'~1]'~I~ ~+sis ]+x
25'-0° ~ n gi(I~ ~I~l~l~ii i'~
® ~r
z m to
anm se. wuew
ly 4
EL. 92.9
El. 96.44
6'-8112"ADDED TO EXISTING NEW WEST ELEVATION
PROFILE OF 1ST FLOOR ~i a.a.ew K
FOOTPRINT 1 1~8a_I~_On s„i~.,~
SEE FLOOR PLAN Site Plen
0 0
NMa.
gemA~ ~ ~
<wr~:..°m ...nw