HomeMy WebLinkAbout5C - Consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for 512 Marine St. (HIS2008-00012) - to construct a new 440 sq ft, one story, two car garageMEMORANDUM
February 6~, 2008
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate
to construct a new 440 square foot, one story, two car garage at the
contributing property at 512 Marine Street in the Highland Lawn
Historic District per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
(HIS2008-00012).
STATISTICS:
1. Site:
2. Zoning:
3. Owner/Applicant:
4. Lot Size:
5. Proposed construction:
512 Marine Street
RL-1 (Residential - Low 1)
Waugh and Associates/Mary Beth Emerson
10,081 sq. ft.
440 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board approves a landmark alteration certificate
to construct a new 440 square foot, one story, two car garage at the contributing property
at 512 Marine Street in the Highland Lawn Historic District in that the proposed
construction meets the requirements set forth in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C.1981, subject to
the conditions below, and adopts this memorandum as findings of the board.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be
constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of Boulder
Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
2. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall subrnit, subject to the
final review and approval of the Planning Director final architectural plans
A¢enda Item #5C Paee 1
S:~PLANWataUongrang~HIS7~ALTCERTSU-listoric Districtsu-lighland LawnVdarine.512\02.06.08 Memo.doc
showing details regarding landscaping and hardscaping. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the design details are in compliance with the intent of this
approval and the General Design Guidelines.
This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions listed above,
the proposed construction will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in
Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., and the General Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY:
• On Apri16~, 2007, the Design Review Committee approved a landmark
alteration certificate for the 'rehabilitation of historic house and addition of
dormers and rear south elevation addition, all as shown on drawings
dated 04/02/2007".
• The front gabled, brick house was constructed around 1900 and is
considered a contributing resource to the Highland Lawn Historic District.
• Though the alleyways of the Highland Lawn Historic District are not
considered contributing elements to the district, the existing accessory
building is a contributing feature.
• The proposed structure will be set back 8 feet from the existing building so
that the new construction will be secondary to the historic resource.
• The roof pitch and trim of the new construction will closely match the
existing building. The proposed siding will have a 3" exposure, similar to
the existing 2'fi" exposure. Gate type doors will be used on the proposed
construction.
• Improvements are planned for the existing structure, pending staff review
and approval.
-i - ~ FBI-IMF
k rE` ~
iw~
0
D ~ Q DD
~ ~ 0
Figure 1. Location Map, 512 Marine Street
DISTRICT HISTORY:
Aeenda Item #SC Pa¢e 2
The 10,081 sq. ft. subject property is located in the Highland Lawn Historic District,
which was designated as a local historic district by the City Council in May 2005.
tlannah Barker platted the middle-class neighborhood in 1884 as the Town of Highland
Lawn. The area is significant for its association with historic persons and events and as
an excellent collection of buildings reflecting architectural styles of the period. The Town
cif Highland Lawn included 19 large lots (100 x 400) bounded by Boulder Creek to the
north, University Street at the south, and 6~ and 4~ Streets on the east and west
respectively.
Originally located south of Boulder's city limits, the town remained an independent
community until 1891. Barker's plan for the neighborhood showed foresight: each lot
included water rights in the adjacent Anderson ditch and buyers were encouraged to
plant trees (cottonwoods were specifically excluded), and build fences around their
properties. The new town was located on a gentle slope with Flagstaff Mountain as a
backdrop, and the popular sight seeing rail line from Boulder to Eldora and Ward,
known as the "Switzerland Trail of America" was adjacent to the neighborhood on the
north side of Boulder Creek.
I~1one of the original owners built in the neighborhood, choosing instead to subdivide
the nearly one-acre parcels into smaller lots. Most of the lots were bisected by alleys
running east -west through the district. Marine Street was originally Vine Street and
was renamed Marine Street sometime in the 1890s after prominent early settler Marinas
Smith.
Lots in the district are generally long and narrow with principal buildings situated close
together at the front of the lots and accessory buildings oriented to the alleys. Because
they contain a relatively low number of buildings from the period of significance with
historic integrity, and because the district boundaries bisect the rear alleys, the alleys
(located at the north and south edges of the district) are not significant historic elements
of the district. However, the alley building on this property is one of only two accessory
buildings considered to be contributing to the district.
~ q~~ ~ s I 7
~ I 1
~ ~ 1 4 t \ ~ 300 ~ 'N~
E y
{ ~
. \
- - - - f
r
-
~ I~
Figure 2. Site Plan at 512 Marine Street
Agenda Item #5C Pale 3
{fi i1
`~4, ~ ~yp4 f t i~f ~ ~~Yx
t r P ~ }T
F~~~ )
n
;,t
k z y,.
x ~ ~ Y h. c
b I
Figure i. ~~i5tin~ ,3llct buil~iin~
REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION:
The applicant proposes the construction of a simple 440 sq. ft. garage with a footprint
that is rectangular in shape. The proposed new garage is located 19 feet from the alley on
the south edge of the property, 3 feet from the east property line, 9'8" from the existing
building, and approximately 90 feet from the main house. The north and south sides of
the garage are 20 feet in length and the building is 14'5" in height at the peak of the roof.
The secondary sides, the east and west, are 22 feet in length. The proposed fenestration is
simple; the south elevation, which faces the alleyway, is dominated by a sliding gate
garage door, which is complimentary to the door on the existing garage. The north
elevation, which faces the yard, is also simple in fenestration; it includes 2 double-hung
windows, which flank an 8 foot by 21/z foot stone planter. The east and west elevations
have no fenestration, except for a door on the west elevation. Both the trim and the pitch
of the roof reflect that of the existing garage.
-
~ sir
L
i i i --r _ ~ ~ ~ E+ i~ i~
~ J ~i
- ~ _ L
oaerw~ en~.ae ~ - - - - - - rew
owe - - - -
SOUTH ~EVAT1QfV
scaeF ~ va•~-0'
Figure 4. Existing garage and proposed new construction, south elevation
Agenda Item #SC Page 4
T ~ _
s ~ =
- _ _
--a _
-
z -
- - -
l..________________-j oas,wsvr.ae
rew arr~ae
`.,J Ei.EVATPON
5GlLLL ~ t!4'f-0'
Figure 5. Existing garage and proposed new construction, north elevation
,e;,,,~r a~.+a.eb
s
- ~
rr x uA
I! _ _
E _ _ eras
t~ _ -
1J
e*srre 6Taaacx~ L _ _ _ _ _ ` ~ ~~3P+~_ -r -
EAST ELEVATION
scams ~ va•{-p-
Figure 6. Existing garage and proposed new construction, east elevation
:Q~~K tm _ - - -
anvc r
e~rosFe
~ -
a~o„ea~,wre~ - - =
t_L-1_.------------------J
VYEST ~VATION__
Sc~ • va•.r-o-
Figure 7. Proposed new construction, west elevation
Agenda Item #SC Pale 5
_
~ ~
I ~ _
t c_C
r~ ~r ~
~ i .y, . i
~ ~ i 4
._1 ~ LJ a ii,, ~
_
f._._--1 -
Sr _ ~ _ . i,Y.,,_
NORTH B.EVA710N SOUTH 0.EVAT10N
scat , r~•t-a ,cage ~ vsv-o'
Figure 8. Main house, north elevation. Figure 9. Main house, south elevation
1
E - _ - 1 :,-.max
~ ~ -
EAST ELEVATgN
x.:.e ~ ~r.~a
Figure 10. Main house, east elevation (addition approved in prior LAC)
i
I; - $ i~~, r
-~tG-- - - -
L { i
wesT ELEVaTgr~
Figure 11. Main house, west elevation (addition approved in prior LAC)
Agenda Item #SC Pale 6
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 proposed new construction is consistent with the General Design
Gecidelines (see design guidelines analysis section) and will not compromise the
contributing property.
Z. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the property or district?
Response: Staff finds that the proposed application will not adversely affect the special
character of the property or Highland Lawn Historic District. Staff also considers that the
proposed new construction is generally compatible with the General Design Gecidelines.
3. Is the architectural style, arrarcgernent, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used
on existing and proposed straectures compatible with the character of the historic district?
Response: The staff finds the new construction will be compatible with the architectural
style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials on the historic
buildings.
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: The proposal respects the character of the setting, does not imitate
surrounding buildings, and represents a contemporary, yet compatible design for an
accessory building (see design guidelines analysis section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The Historic Preservation ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board most
apply when reviewing a request for a landmark alteration certificate and the board has
adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the ordinance. The following is
an analysis of the submitted proposal with respect to relevant guidelines. It is important
to emphasize that design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate
design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
Agenda Item #SC Page 7
The following is an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the applicable design
guidelines:
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES 1X OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, 7.0
7.1 Existin Historic Accesso Structures
.1 Retain and Preserve garages and accessory The existing garage will be preserved, YES
buildings that contribute to the overall and the new building will be set 9'8
historic character of the individual building from the edge of the existing building.
site or the district.
7.2 New Accesso Buildin s
New accessot-t/ buildings should follow the iharucter and pattern ur histur-ic ace~~ssort~ structures. bvhile thc~~
should take design cues from the primary structures, they must be subordinate in size, massing, and detailing.
Allet buiidin s should maintain a scnle that is leasant to walk aloe and con ortable or edestrians.
1 It is inappropriate to introduce a new garage The modest size and simple detailing of YES
or accessory building if doing so will detract the proposed building will not detract
from the overall historic character of the from historic character of the main
principal building, and the site, or if it will house. The plans do not show the
require removal of a signifrcant historic removal of mature trees.
building element or site feature, such as a
mature tree.
Z New garages and accessory buildings should The new building is set at the rear of YES
generally be located at the rear of the lot, the lot
respecting the traditional relationship of such
buildings to the: primary structure and the
site.
3 Maintain adequate spacing between accessory The new garage is set 9'8 feet from the MAYBE
buildings so alleys do not evolve into tunnel- contributing garage. The buildings
like passageways. 'overlap' for approximately 15 feet. The
new garage is set back 8 feet from the
south face of the contributin ara e.
4 Preserve a backyard area between the house The site plans show 90'5" between the YES
and the accesson~ buildings, maintaining the main house with the new addition, and
general proportion of built mass to open spaa~ proposed new garage, allowing
found within the area. ode uate back ands ace.
7.2 Mass and Scale
5 New accessory structures should take design The new garage is similar in design to YES
cues from the primary structure on the site, the main house, but is simpler and
but be subordinate to it in terms of size and subordinate.
massin .
6 New garages for single family residences The proposal calls for a one story, two YES
should generally be one story tall and shelter car garage. The large lot size allows for
no more than two cars. In some cases, atwo- a garage of this design.
car ara a ma in ina ro riate.
~ Roof
form and pitch should be complimentary The roof form is complimentary to both YES
to the primary strttctttre. the existing garage and the main house.
The itch of the roof matches the
Agenda Item #SC Page 8
existing garage, which is slightly
shallower than the roof pitch of the
main house.
7.2 Materials and Detailin
~ Accessorit strut tares should be simpler in The new garage is very simple in detail, YES
design and detail than the priman~ bctilding. with ver little fenestration.
9 Materials for new garages and accessory The 3" horizontal lap siding is YES
structures should be compatible with those compatible with the siding of the
found on the primary structure and in the existing accessory building, and the 1 x
district. Vinyl siding and prefabricated 4 fascia board matches that of the
structures are inappropriate. existin accessor buildin .
.10 Windows, like ali elements of accessory The two windows on the north side of YES
structures, should be simpler in detailing the new garage are double-hung, and
and smaller in scale than similar elements on are similar in size and proportion of the
primary structures. windows on the main house.
.11 If consistent with the architectural style and Not applicable N/A
appropriately s[zed and located, dormers may
be and appropriate zuay to increase storage
s ace in araQes.
12 Garage doors should be consistent with the The garage door on the new garage is YES
historic scale and materials of traditional specified as 'gate type doors', which are
accesson~ structures. Wood is the most complimentary to the doors on the
appropriate material and two smaller doors existing accessory building.
maz 6e more a ro riate than one lar e door.
1~ It is inappropriate to introduce features or No such features are proposed on the YES
details to a garage or an acccasvey building building.
in an attempt to create a false historical
a earance.
.14 Carports are inappropriate in districts where Not applicable N/A ~
their orm has no historic recedent.
BOARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark Alteration Permit may
not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it meets the conditions specified in
Section 9-11-18 B.R.C. Specifically:
(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) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or
the subject property within an historic district;
Agenda Item #SC Page 9
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(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 or the
historic district.
FINDINGS:
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff recommends
that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
1. The proposed garage will not have an adverse effect on the special character and
special historical, architectural and aesthetic interest and value of the district, as
they will be compatible in terms of mass, scale, or orientation with other buildings
in the district.
The proposed design will not have an adverse effect on the special character and
special historic, architectural and aesthetic interest and value of the district.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed garage complies with
Section 7.0(1-14), of the General Design Guidelines for Landmarks and Historic
Districts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Letter from Applicant
Attachment B: Photographs
Attachment C: Plans and F.lE:vations
Agenda Item #SC Page 10
- ~ Attachment A
~XT~LI ~c~c~OLia~C
nrchitecture ~ plnnning ~ ~ol~r deign
January 17, 2008 .
Landmarks Preservation Board ~ ~ - ~
Planning and Development Services
City of Boulder ~ ~ - ~
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791 -
RE: New Detached Garage ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
JobeSite Address: 512 Marine ~ ~ ~ -
Highland Lawn Historic District
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board members,
This application is to request approval to construct a .detached two .car garage off .
the alley located at 512 Marine. The structure will` be 440 square feet, thus
requiring Landmarks Board approval The existing residence was approved for a
` new addition through the DRC Board. and is currently being. completed.
The property has a contributing storage building on the alley, but the alley has.
been determined not to have historic value, as most of the existing alley
buildings have been replaced.;
F This proposed structure will be separated as much as possible from the existing
_ storage building and set back an additional 8 feet behind the building so as not
' ~ to overpower it. The roof pitch and trim detailing will match the existing building,.
j `c~~ The new siding will have a 3" exposure,- similar to the 2'/z" exposure currently
_ used, as well as gate type garage doors. The final color scheme for the
residence will be used on the new garage and existing storage building.
- Improvements -will. be made to the storage building ,pending.. staff review
approval. -
Thank you for your consideration, ~ '
avid W gh ~ -
~
po box 498 ~ niwot, Colorado ~ 80544 ~ 720 ~494~7602
- ~ Aerr4s r.... a Vii' - - i ~
~1 yy ~ _`i/.Y
~..Y
i 11
~ ~j ~ ~~k 1~~ f~~
~ I ~ f
{ 1/1 J
r.
ice, f* ~ _
f y, ~.F ~ "
Ike ,4 i. ~;u.r` .4.
w
y
r
~ - y
fix:-,-°.'r
# ,a
y
. x
. A, „r
- t
w
r
~A..ir '
i, r ~ ,
-
_ - _ -.rs._.~-.... _
~ _
,
~ . - -
_ _ q~rlw~w
1 ~ f " ~ r T ~
fit' r ~ 4' ~ k ~ / .n-ewT'YI' qr'F
~ y-
i
1 , r ~ .mil 1 a~~. ~r11V.
qq ..,r.r.- ~.C kF
_ ~ s I d ~...w i
.tom \
,~ners~,.:s~t ~ yr' ..t- ~ .'~M
4 ~ Y
M
~
y a , ~ ~
~ _ ?
~ }
V ~
at.MR'~~~ .~y,`3^vFj7Y~'~ Y .a'N ~ T y ~s
~ x 'Y`t',~~`y y+.5 ° X g, _v" ~ ~r ~~P a ~
~7T s .M `y~ : r F ~+1 t [ y15! ' ~ k 9 J ,ai ~ v~~
r ~ St#t a R s ~ n t ~ .r:, a . f ~,r- w ~.'S~ ° h u~.~~sa}~7~[k
rcE.S ~ y °~x. n • .v F~ r irp ~r ~ 3 ~-.#E.a~"R a gs 's. t + ~ t.:~ t ~a..~ A ~
f
~ . J ~r r ' '
i ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ry MP fff ~ s ~i,
F I. ~ r Y
1 , } r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t .f~,
~r ~ }r ~ i V 'rig'" 9
~ 1 ~
\~1[~4~ 3 ~ j~1
5~ i, ~ S'~n, 9 ~+r.~. 'PP'~.,,30...
2
r,
. ~ sr. `z
'p~
A
~X; ~.L
d:
w
- t ` . ~ ~ ~ ~
, .
. ,
P
~
~'f ~ - ..1~'~t ~ ~
. ~
I f"'r
r„y -
~ w~ ` ~
r: ` 3
mss., ~
`e.F ~ P ,y~,Y. ~
V^.`
t . ~~,1
i~l`~ t~ f
'
`~r~~ tit l~ ~ ) M'
~ 3,
1!T'` irt~ f /~4 i is ~ 'll _Q ~
~ ,n. . ~ _ fir' r .
` 1
'~~x¢[~7~~~,,gQ
y i~ ~F C, •~Y s ~ ~ M9F ~r~{{ } .CJ'..~~e~•;: I J
`SSFY
;
. ~ ~ _ I
r . -,5.
4 't
~F
,
,
. - -
k-.
tY
#v~'
N l f 3 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 'SL +~Y M1 .A v{~~ ? f ~i~ .qty ,1 '.i~~('~'
n~fT
LOT 5
~ .23 ACRES ~ s
~ 10,000 SQ. ~ ' i ~ G ~ '
d
~ Nomo
~ PO a
~ .7
aoo' q
m
~ .
n ~ /S1 N
.w
N
n6RE PLPN My .
OCLLe • uCT9 m
AO-G
~ al~nx ~
X
7
f7
E~
I I
I I i Y
I
I I
~R~
I
I
i II
dlylgYllm i {F
[i fOVYIGM ~ ,
LL-~------------------J I
I I
I
WEST ELEVATION I R I k rw
L - J / Q~
r______________ ___L O(~gs.1i
I ~ II AQ
I I
I I
~ I ~ O
~ ~ CO a
j s0lwewa ~
I I
I I
I I
L___- ~ L___ _______J
L_____ ___-_J wlw Omvu p~
1''1 GARAGE
NORTH ELEVATION SCNE ~ V4'{C [((yy~+7]'
~swar sraID e1Oin~w
i ti
w~trnrw ~
mw~n ` O.wm
Al -G
LA~/,:1 °~`N061O°'0O L______nmG/sts_______1-'" °101001°0"¢ rsOwuw
~"1 SOUTH ELEVATION cARACE ~
I\ , ~"1 EAST ELEVATION ~ , V4'{~ R
~SCALe
•
vdxC•
vd•{a 6LL~E~YATp[ON9
C7,
w•~I
Y~OIMa1i
pJ'/dYr19iA °:we ®:w°'0..:wwO. a
4•~
O•
I~Y4 0 r.~
~A • 1
~p~~! ^ FQI~`1DATICN PLAN
~ini YaZ BCAlL ~V4'i-0' fj0
W l
wwa.mw r7
A
brsres~a-- ~
ac
N
n TYPICAL WALL DETAIL y
BCAtE ~r •rC'
•wqr
~$ECTION AA A2-G
iM SCOLe•VaVO'
v l 9ECTION9 k
FOUNDATTON n
CS
A
e+
l~
8
~
Noaru $
NORTH ELEVATION COUZTYARD ELEVATION
BCAIG ~V4'iC 9CP.L! ~V9+IC
O
z~
A3
'~r
~C7 NORTH & R
I ` WEST B.EVATKNJ 11C9T
eeue ~ vaxo~ RLEVAT[ONI
1 r+
n.
Y Y YY~~
D DD ~ ~ .
o~
SOUTH eLEVAT'ION ~
6C/.ie ~vaVC a
O
y~
Pr7
w r wa
A4
east aEVa,Tror~ s s°~esr ~
scxe ~ w•t~a 6L6VAT10 5
f~
R