HomeMy WebLinkAbout7B - Consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate (HIS2008-00040) for 580 Spruce St - construct a 768 sq ft free-standing two car garageMEMORANDUM
Apri12^d, 2008
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Planning Director
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 768 sq. ft. free-standing two-car
garage/wood shop at 580 Spruce Street, a non-contributing
property located in the Mapleton Hill Historic District per Section
9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-00040).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 580 Spruce Street
2. Zoning: LR-E (Low Density Residential Established)
3. Owner: Dan Hersh/1Zoger Pomainville
4. Applicant: Kristin Lewis
5. Site Area: 9,425 square feet
6. Proposed Bldg: 768 square feet
7. Proposed Ht: Approximately 12 feet
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion:
The Landmarks Board approves a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a
768 sq. ft. free-standing two-car garage/wood shop at 580 Spruce Street in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District in that the proposed new 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 project shall be
constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of
AQenda Item #7B Paee 1
S:APLT,NVdzmAlo~gnng\NISTVALTCBRTS\Hlsroric DiscncaAhlap~ecov Hdl\Spmce.580\2008 Re~iew\4-022008 LYAB memo.doc
Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit application, the applicant shall
submit, subject to the final review and approval of the Planning Director,
final architectural plans showing details regarding materials and colors,
including the following design details: windows, doors, roofing, stone
veneer and paint color (if applicable). The applicant shall demonstrate that
the design details are compliance with the intent of this approval, the
General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
This recommendation is based upon Staff's opinion that with the conditions
listed above, the proposed new construction will be generally consistent with the
conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a) & (b) (1-4) B.R.C. 1981, the General
Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY
• Because this application calls for new free-standing construction of more
than 340 sq. ft., review by the full Landmarks Board in aquasi-judicial
hearing is required per Section 9-11-14(b) of.the historic preservation
ordinance.
• In May of 2007, the Landmarks Board reviewed an application from the
current owner to demolish the house and construct a roughly 4,000 sq. ft
house and free standing garage. The applicant withdrew their request
prior to a vote of the Board.
• On February 27, 2008 the Design Review Committee met with the
applicant to review the plans. The comments were generally positive,
though some concern was raised about the overall coverage of the lot.
• The property is currently under contract and the sale of the property is
contingent upon the approval of the proposed garage/woodshop.
• Depending on the outcome of this request, the applicant may later submit
a Landmark Alteration Certificate application to construct an addition to
the non-contributing house. Schematic designs are included in this
proposal, showing the approximate area that would be altered.
• Staff finds the proposed new construction to be consistent with the criteria
for a landmark alteration certificate as per 9-11-18(a) & (b) (1-4) B.R.C., the
General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design
Guidelines.
Agenda Item #7B Page 2
S:\pLAN\data\Iongrang\HIST\ALTCBRTS\Hatonc Disricts\Mapleton HW\Speuce.580\2008 Rev~ev\4.02.2008 LPAB memo
~ ~ G
Q p~V
~ovM-A fN~fE~ S
oR ~o
a
O 580 SPRUCE ST
o
~ o
~ o
D
y ~ ~
o
Fih~ure 1. Location Map
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Sanborn Maps indicate that 580 Spruce Street (lot 5 of the Alden Smith Addition)
was first developed sometime between 1931 and 1960 when a small one-story
frame house was erected. The tax assessor records for the property give a 1956
date of construction for the existing house, though the building appears to have
been significantly added to and remodeled in the "environmental fashion"
sometime during the "1970s or 1980s. A historic inventory for the property has not
been completed due to its relatively recent date of construction. With a
construction date of 1956 (with significant alterations within the last 30 years),
the house is well out of the defined 1865-1946 period of significance for the
Mapleton Hill Historic District and is therefore non-contributing.
`..:f,^ K ~ .ir
+,ra~:'4 'z.i.s~'-ova- -''y' ~ i " 'q"
:c ~
_ s~
.,yam ,.t ~ t~ -:tF,r a -br-.~~ tr~:k .1 f
~ : ~r ~ ~n
Y c c
l~r,~urr .A'~~ir-~~uir~rib<<tin,~ Itor«t'~tf 5~SO ~~,rt<<~~• ~;r,~,~?
A#~enda Item #7R Pale 3
~1'~..AA`;1.u~r.J~,~eeir.~.~,'.III~'1,.11.11 IJ;~C~ !!rnnn I)cuxi..A1.y~l~u~nlliil`..~[ia~u.S~U','{n6y~a~.-i,~s- {U.'.,'fni;~l.l'_Alii~iruu~
< 4 s J~~ t ; ~~ilk ~.[~~ffll'1 ~n i~ f~l f^3f ; ~S'bG.
S 5 $
s. f'~r~~~!i'dt~ 7N'~ ~(..'#'"'.'{~51.•F~~~~ "!}4~ ~+,*.'tN~i~~7y,t"•'•k j°`~~~ 7 ff ` ~ittt «ik Mw
~ '~l ttk 9 '~i~~4~ ~i~ ) ate"' _zt' "I -
1 i 3 ~ ~ -
t it Ni 's- _ -~vi ~s...hr ~ "'!may """.,~'s.~"'.''
s _ • { ~
~
'`~'Z r to ~ r ~~~i~~{,_. ~ ~ ~ ~ r.~ f.
t
r ~
z
_ ~
- _ ^ l ~ ~ 1
_ ,f, i ~ c ,l
Figure Loc~7tiorr of !'ro~~osc'~~ G~rr~r~~° i~~ ~~~rr~{ru;uti
~ ii
a . ~ i~l
' { . ter, `'+~.~-r.
.z 'k _ . r
~ 3 z
i r - fF ~#P C ~ G' Fv.'t'~
' ~ ~ ` i a ~ tom`
~ = ~ ~ _
~T
~ x Z
gym-. A: y ! ~
'i - ,ir;- - 'Y' -,~i
-?.t. - .g
~ i•~.'R"t' ~ ~ i ~'!',i7"1 ~17CCf f(I ti((('~)i'~ i ~~1"U~1['7"il/ ~'Cr'((ii~i rri'i'~ 7t! ~?l?C~C~1"UflPll~, l~fd1"C~4 Z~~~~c5'
Agenda Item #7B Pa;~e 4
S:APL,1\\date`Jr,ner;u,~;,AFI151~\,~LTC~;K~1~S'~~Hiuiiric l>istriitti~`,;Alap;ciun Hill,,.1~°,ucc.JU`,Z(1U,5 Kc~ic~~~V'~.~~'.-'liOy LY.AA mrnin
- -
- _ ~
I T -
6,4RA6E ~r.~s ~ ~
' ~ f ~ ~ T ~ ' ~ au.M,,..
___1 ~ ~ r.Veor
( ~ m riok ~
~~1 t ~ 1
~ ~ ; - -
~ ~ _
- -
-
Figure 5. Proposed site plan
REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
The existing 3,239 sq. ft. building is located on a 9,425 sq. ft. lot that slopes
steeply down to Morrison Alley at the south. The proposed site is at the rear of
the property, and is currently a gravel parking cut-out. In plan, the 768 sq. ft.
garage is shown be largely banked into the hillside, facing the alley, and to have
a footprint of approximately 24' by 32'. The woodshop is located behind the
garage, and is shown to be completely buried into the grade, with its roof used as
a deck area. The garage is simply detailed; two garage doors adorn the south
side, and one door on the east side allows for access to an existing staircase. A 12'
long stone knee wall on the southwest corner of the garage is shown to follow
the curve of the grade and to retain an area of the grade. The proposal shows a
stone veneer, to match existing stone retaining walls on the lot, to clad the visible
portions of the garage.
Agenda Item #7I3 Pale 5
S:API~\N\daiaA1~>mru~~\I 11SI~\~A]:IY;I:RTS\Ilistocie Districts\Alapletun Hill\Spniee3S0\~Uflg Review\~LI12?I_~(_IS LI'r113 mein~~
Tzar rt-}c,a.
aue~V!' 'o ee ,.r~~ *o wax ~ ~ I
^_-x Jcne._ ~-c x ~ I '~~au~
eR~race -o s r*arco ~
- - - ~ - _ n ~aae .aenor~ ~ sr.-ie sui ee I
~.^a.os. - - .w.m ro .~c-..oc .ccca ,o
ccam.~ _ _'R?J
i . - i ~l rroRnc r.or~
S~GK qa- f I
raKL - i
~ n
~ 1. ~
PIIDI .~11OYWY Kwa _
ewnnx omies, aaaas n»r
a Mrwom er w~csvace
rwaa ro a+w+. _
O SOUTH ELEVATION
~ ~~s•. ~._o.
Figure 6. Proposed soutiz elevation
~ -
4
, ~.~:4
O WCST ELCVAT~Gti
Frgure 7. Proposed zoest ele~ordioir
_ ///J
~ .
h. " ~ , ,
O EAST ELEVATION
L ,;c•. rp•
Figure 8. l'ropo~~°~1 t~a~t elez~nticrn
~~~;enda Item #7B Page 6
77 ~.ea axx i
~ ~
{ 1_
_ v~ov s~
fI GARAGE
I ri'
.«r~ i
I
O BUILDING SECTION
I , b.
Figure 9. Proposed ecrst sect-ion
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION
Subsection 9-11-18(b), B.R.C. 1.981, 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
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, 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 constructions
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(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.
(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.
Agenda Item #7I3 Nape 7
ti:AI'f.i1N\dar.~\longrui~\f IIS'I-\,~\L:1'CLRTS\}listoric DistrictsV~'lapleton Flill\5prucc7ti11V?UO$ Kcvicw\d.02.2U0S LP.1I3 mcnn~
ANALYSIS
1. Does the proposed application prc>serve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy
signi ficartt exterior architectural feattrres of the Iamdrmark or the subject property zoithirc
ace historic district?
The proposed new garage would not damage or destroy the historic character of
the district. The massing and scale of the building, coupled with its integration
into the existing hillside, mature vegetation and buildings below the alley will
minimise the public visibility of the new construction.
2.Does the proposed applicatiocl advcrseli~ affect the special c{mrcute>r or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the properh~ or district?
The proposed application would not adversely affect the character of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District and the property itself is considered non-
contributing to the district. Staff considers the application to be generally
compatible with the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines, and the General Design
Gllldelllles.
3.Is tlu~ architectural stile, arran~~>~rnent, texture, color, arran,~>etrter~tt of color, and
lmaterials I~sed oil existing arTd proposed structures compatihh~ znith the character of th~~
historic' district?
f1s suhnlitted, the proposed arrangement «'ould be cc>mpatible with the
character of the historic district in terms of architechlral style, arrangement,
texhu'e, colur, arrangement of color, and material.
4. The I,~ijl~I>>rr~rks Board is regccirc~d to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
ineorporatinrc of energy-efficient desi~~n, and enhanced access for the disabled in
doternrirrirr,~~ ~nhcther to approve a l,acrrhmark Alferrctiurr C-t~rtificate.
No information has been provided regarding the iniorpuration of energy-
efficient design or enhanced access for the disabled.
h the proposed application consistercf zoith the pccrposes of Chapter 9-11, "Historic
Press°rvafion, " B.R.C. 1987 ?
The pl'oposal IS COnslstent In tel'llls of site planlling, mass, scale, materials and
architectural details and does not detract from the Mapleton Llill Historic
District. The garage will not be highly visible from the surrounding streets,
inclluling Pearl Street, whose view is obstructed by existing buildings and
mahire vegetation (see figure 4). The garage is appropriately spaced from the
A~encla Item #7I3 Ya~c S
S.`1'I.:A;A'J.it,i'I~nr~i.nu~`,f II?~I ,U'I'( I I~~I'S~IInt~~n~ f)i in.c,ALu~h r;Li~ :u~~ ;I~~~ 'nit.~k<<~~~~c`,.111??11n5I.P:Akt i.~-n~~~
surrounding alley buildings, and its mass is minimized through the use of a flat
roof and setback alignment. The height will not exceed the existing fence height,
and the 12' set back from the alley will further increase the pedestrian
friendliness of the design (see design guidelines analysis section).
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must 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.
The following is an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the applicable
design guidelines:
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.3 .Alleys
The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the houses, for
deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for cars. A view of the
backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today's alleys have evolved into use as
pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking, they still contribute to the historic
character of the neighborhood. They are typically minimally paved.
Along the alleys are historic accessory building of various shapes and sizes including barns,
chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to the general feeling of human
scale in the alleys.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.3 The use of historcally proportioned The visible part of the garage is YES
materials for building new accessory proposed to be a stone veneer, using
buildings contributes to the human stone similar to existing dry-stack
scale of the alleys. For example, stone retaining walls on the
narrower lap siding and smaller brick property.
are appropriate.
5 Maintain adequate spacing betzueen Because of the steep slope of the lot, YES
accesson~ buildings so that the viezo of the main house will still be visible
the main house is not obscured, and from the alley. The building will be
the alley does not evolve into atunnel- adequately spaced from other
like passage. Morrison alley buildings preventing
tunnel-like character.
Agenda Item #7B Pase 9
5:APLANVdacaVlong~angAHIST\ALTCE.ATS\Histocic Discnas\hlapleu>n I-I ill\Spmce.580\2008 ReviewAA.022008 LPAB memo
.7 Lighting in alleys should below Details regarding proposed lighting YES
wattage and focused downward. fixture details were not submitted,
however, the fixtures shown on the
ions are downward-facin .
2.4 Parking and Driveways
HistoricaAy parking was limited to the rear of the lot with access from the alley. There are
instances where curb cuts have been added in the front yards, but these are generally later
alterations and do not represent traditional parking patterns
GUIDELINES: .ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Maintain the traditional pattern of Proposed new garage will be YES
ark{n at the rear o the lot. accessed from the alle .
.2 Access to parking should be from the Proposed new garage will be YES
alleys whenever possible. accessed from the alley.
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory
structures. While they should take design cues from the primary building, they must be
subordinate to the primary building in size, massing and detailing. Alley buildings should
maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 It is inappropriate to introduce a new The garage is to be located at the YES
garage or accessory building if doing rear of the property and will be dug
so zvi11 detract from the overall historic into steep the grade. The low
character of the principal building and visibi]ity of the new construction as
the site, or if it will require the removal well as the existing steep site
of a significant historic building condirions will result in garage to
element or site feature, such as a have relatively low visibility.
mature tree.
2 New garages and accessory buildings The proposed location of garage is YES
should generally be located at the rear consistent with historic patterns of
of the lot, respecting the traditional garages facing onto the alley on this
relationship of such buildings to the block.
primary structure and the site.
3 Maintain adequate spacing between Proposed new construction will not YES
accessory buildings so alleys do not result in the alley becoming a
evolve into tunnel-like passagezoays. tunnel-like passageway.
Agenda Item #7B Page 10
5:\PLAN\dvm\longrang\MST\AL'rCLRTS\Hlsronc Districts\61apleron Hill\Spcuce580\2008 Review\4.022WS 1.PA6 memo
4 Preserve a backyard area between the The proposed new garage will YES
house and the accessory buildings, result in general proportion of built
maintaining the general proportion of mass to open space on the property
built mass to open space found within being maintained as the majority of
the area. the building will be constructed into
the existing grade.
.5 New accessory buildings should take The new building is compatible YES
design cues from the primary with the primary (non-contributing)
buildings on the site, but be building in terms of architectural
subordinate to it in terms of size and details and materials but is
massing. secondary to it in mass, scale and
height.
.6 New garages for single
family One story will be visible and will YES
residences should generally be one house two cars; a half story is
story tall and shelter no more than two buried into the hill and will not
cars. In some cases, atwo-car garage visually impact the alley.
may be inappropriate.
7 Roof
form and pitch should be The existing, non-contributing YES
complimentary to the primary house has a variety of roof slopes
structure. and pitches. Staff considers that a
flat roof is most appropriate because
it reduces the mass and scale of the
proposed new construction.
8 Accessory buildings should be sirnpler The proposed garage is simpler YES
in design and detail than the primary than house in scale and detail.
building.
9 Materials for nezu garages and A stone veneer is appropriate MAYBE
accesson,/ buildings should be provided it is compatible with stone
compatible with those found on the retaining walls on the property.
primary building and in the district. Additional materials, including
Vinyl siding and prefabricated garage doors, lighting fixtures, and
buildings are inappropriate. pedestrian door appear to be
generally appropriate. Details
regarding materials should be
provided for review and approval
prior to issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate.
Agenda Item #7B Paee 11
5:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS7\ALTCHRTS\His[uric Dis¢ica\blapleron HW\Spmcc580\2008 Review\4.02.2008 LPAB memo
.12 Garage doors should be consistent Two garage doors are proposed as MAYBE
with the historic scale and materials of opposed to one large door, which
traditional accessory structures. Wood are generally consistent with the
is the most appropriate material, and appropriate scale. Information
tzuo smaller doors may be more regarding garage door details
appropriate than one large door. should be provided for review and
approval prior to issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate.
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
sife 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:
.2 It is inappropriate to introduce or The three proposed lighting MAYBE
eliminate exterior lighting fixtures if fixtures are oriented downward,
doing so will detract from the overall and are appropriately scaled.
historic character of the building, site, Details should be submitted to
or streetscape. staff for review and approval
prior to the issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate.
4 Lighting in alleys should be low Proposed lighting is shown as YES
wattage and focused dozvnward. focused downward; Additional
information regarding the lighting
fixtures should be submitted to
staff for review and approval
prior to the issuance of a
Landmark Alteration Certificate.
MAPLETON HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES
D. Alleys, Easements, and Accessways
Alleys are a strong visual element of the district, and have much varieh~ of scale and detail.
They play an important part in the development patterns that give more visible areas their
character. Alleys provide access to rear parking and garages. They have a varied edge quality,
with buildings both on the property lines and set back. The size and quality of these aeeesson~
buildings varies considerably. Careful consideration should be given to changes in traditional
arses.
Agenda Item #7B Pazie 12
5:APLAN~damAlongreng\HISTVALTCERTS\Hisrodc Dumas\1~Ia01econ Hdl\Spruce5Fi0\2008 Rev{emA4.OZ2008 LPAB memo
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS:
1. The use of alleys to provide access The rear access will be preserved. YES
to the rear of properties should be
reserved.
2. Efforts should be made to protect The garage will be aligned YES
the variety of shape, size, and perpendicular to the alley, which
alignment of building along the is consistent with alley building
alleys. Alleys should maintain a alignments in the district. The
human scale and be sensitive to building will be set back 12', and
pedestrians. the half-story is setback further
and 'buried' into the hillside.
Because of the steep slope of the
site, the size and location of this
building is consistent with the
surroundin edestrian scale.
5. Efforts should be made to maintain The narrow character of Morrison YES
the character of the alleys in the Alley, with a steep slope on the
District. north edge, and adrop-off and
mature vegetation on the south
ed e, will be maintained.
10. Lighting in alleys should be low Proposed lighting is shown as YES
wattage and focused downward. focused downward; Additional
information regarding the lighting
fixtures should be provided for
review and approval prior to the
issuance of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
M. Decks/f3alconies
Decks are a modern expression of porches, but do not have a visual counterpart in historic
buildings. Great care needs to be taken with their design to make them fit into the historic
character of the house. Areas where visual conflicts arise are: size and coverage; railing, intrusion
into spaces between buildings; and materials. The residential rail height requirement under
Boulder's Uniform Building Code is 36 inches; however, historically railing zoere approximately
24 inches in height, Efforts should be made to design railing which give the appearance of lower
railing heights.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS:
1. In several cases, decks have been A deck on the roof of the garage is YES
added to roofs of houses and similar to the deck of an adjacent
garages. While there are historic building. The deck will not detract
styles which features "widow's from the form of the building.
Agenda Item #7B Pase 13
5:\PLAN\data\longcang\HISY\ALTCP,RTS\I listodc Distracts\Maple[on Hill\Spmce_580\2008 Review\4.02.2008 LPAB memo
walks" or belvederes, they are not
common to Boulder's vernacular
expressions of Victorian style and
should be contemplated only where
they are stylistically consistent with
the existing building.
P. Garages, Carports and Accessory Structures
A variety of accessory buildings have been adapted for use as garages in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures have certain similarities.
They are plain and utilitarian and are located at the rear of the property on the alley. Materials
and building elements are varied.
Large two-story garages in the historic district are rarely appropriate; they are typically only
seen on large lots with large houses, and should be clearly secondary in important to the primary
structure. Garages that are one to one and one-half stories are generally more appropriate.
GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS:
2. When garage doors are added to a Specific information regarding the MAYBE
building they should be wood. materiality of the door has not
Different types will be appropriate been submitted, but should be
for different building. Two smaller reviewed prior to the issuance of a
doors may be more appropriate Landmark Alteration Certificate.
than one large door. The proposal calls for two smaller
doors, which is consistent with the
uidelines.
3. If a new building is to be Though the flat roof of the MAYBE
constructed, design ideas might be proposed garage is somewhat
found in existing historic accessory unusual, staff and the design
building located nearby. review committee found that the
mass and scale of a gabled roof
design was too large and would
have an adverse effect on the
alley. Similar flat roof garages can
be found on the alley.
4. The new building should be The proposed garage is both YES
secondary in nature to the main smaller in scale and secondary In
house and smaller in scale. nature to the main house.
5. Accessory building should be small The simple detailing and basic YES
in scale and mass, and constructed form of the proposed garage is
in a manner which is compatible with the main house
complimentary to the character of and alley. It is clearly secondary in
the house and alley. They are clearly nature to the primary structure.
secondary in importance to the
Agenda Item #7B Patfe 14
S.APLAA\dnuiAlongcanq\HIS'C\~1.TCER'PS\H[sco[ic Dlstt[asV~faplemn HW\Spmw.580\2008 Reae~.cA4.022008 LPAB memo
primary structure.
Q. Parking
Parking is provided an the street, with an-site parking generally limited to the rear of the lot with
access from the alley. These parking patterns have contributed to the character of the District.
Because drives did not extend from the main street to the rear of the lot, and because there was
seldom parking at the sides of the houses, the rhythm of equal spacing became an important
element of the district's character.
GUIDELINES: - - ANALYSIS: CONFORMS:
2 Access to parking should be from Access is maintained from alley. YES
the alley.
Staff considers the proposed construction of a 768 sq. ft. garage and woodshop
generally appropriate in terms of site planning, mass, scale, materials, and
detailing. The proposed footprint and elevations indicate that the proposed
garage will be secondary to the main house and similar in size to other historic
out buildings in the area. Additional information regarding materials, garage
doors, pedestrian doors, colors, and lighting fixtures should be provided for
review and approval prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
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 value of
the district, as they it will be generally compatible in terms of mass,
scale, or orientation with other buildings in the district.
2. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed garage will be
generally consistent with Section 9-11-18 BRC, Sections 2, 7 and 8 of
the General Design Guidelines, and Sections D, M, P, & Q of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Letter from the Applicant
B: Photographs
C: Plans and Elevations
Agenda Item #7B Paee 15
5:APLANVdataAlonyranq\M59'VALTCCRTS\Hisronc DIs¢ias\h(apleton HIII\Sp~uce580\2008 kec~ewA4.U2.2008 LPAB memo
~~riStn ~ew'ls AttachmentA
Architects
6 March 2008
LPAB
City of Boulder
Re: 580 Spruce St.
The attached proposal is for a two car garage to replace an existing
gravel parking pad. Our clients, Daniel and Judith Hersh do not currently own
the property but are under contract to purchase it contingent upon approval
of a new two car garage. They travel frequently and have two cars they
would like to store in a secure garage. They also intend to do a modest addition
to the existing house to increase the space on the main level. At this point we are hoping
to expand the main level by about 500 sq. feet. The existing 789 sq. ft of decking on the
south side will be replaced with approximately 450 sq. ft. It is not expected that the
mature trees on the site will be impacted by the proposal. (See attached document for sq.
footage and context.)
On Feb. 27 wet met with the design review committee for comments on the proposed
garage and addition. At the meeting it was suggested we include a site plan
that includes the neighboring properties to better show the context. In general we
felt the comments were positive about the general scope and have made changes
to reflect concerns about massing.
At the meeting it was suggested that the house addition be reviewed at the April LPAB
meeting along with the garage. The owners have spent a lot of time looking at the plans
relative to their needs but at this point it would be impossible to design the proposed
additions to the level required for the meeting and if the garage is not approved, the
Hershes will not proceed with the purchase of the property. They understand that the
Landmarks Design committee will look at any proposed additions within the context of
a previously approved garage. We have included floor plans that show proposed
additions to the existing house to give the board a better context for discussion of the
garage.
1928 14'" St. #300
Boulder CO 80302
Phone 303 449.5747
Fax 303 447.2843
klareh@indra.eom
580 Spruce St-The Hershel
Background -The Hershel have a contract to purchase 580 Spruce contingent on approval of some
modest additions to the house and a 2 car garage which are important criteria for their mid 60's age and
desire to live on one floor. The current owners' application to build a new 3 story home on the property
was rejected last spring by the Landmarks Board due to its mass and scale although their application to
scrape the house was approved given the house was "non-contributing'. The Hershel do not wish to
scrape the house nor add a third story.
House -The Hershel wish to increase current 1400 sq ft. of main floor to 1900 sq ft. to accommodate a
piano, closet, family room, and new conforming stairs as well as increase passive solar exposure to
south. This can be achieved by enclosing an 8' x 10' area in northwest corner of house and expanding
existing kitchen/den over an existing deck (which rests on a lower level structure) south 8.6' and east
and west of deck each 4.5'to square off building. A new, lower roof will need to cover the existing
kitchen/den and new space on main level. In addition the existing kitchen/den floorjoists need
structural strengthening in this area.
Garage- A 20' x23' garage and a 10' x 23' woodshop is proposed off the alley. The entire woodshop and
most of the garage would be buried into the hillside. The current retaining wall and fence above at the
current rear parking cut-out (where garage will be located) is about same height as garage given the
roof will be flat thus also reducing mass. A deck would be placed on top of the roof to mimic neighbors'
terracing which exists on the two steep sloping lots to the west. The Hershel need a 2 car garage as they
travel frequently and the Spruce Street entrance is continually covered with ice in winter given trees,
northern exposure, and lack of plowing.
Porch-The front entry porch will be increased in size to 7' x 12' as the current porch is undersized for
the house proportions.
Landscaping-There are at approximately 10 deciduous and 5 coniferous trees on the property. Only 2
trees will be within 10'-15' from construction areas. The property has substantial flagstone pathways
and some terracing which will remain. The perennials have not been cared for in 4 years and will be
brought back to life or replaced. The garage deck will be used for potted herbs, vegetables, and annual
flowers. The fence along alley will probably be removed or at least made more transparent.
Building Sq Ft. Existing Kit/FR SE SW Front Total Change
Finished- Main Floor 1399 276 38 85 80 1878 479
Upper(6'ceil) 333 333 -
Lower 778 38 85 901 123
Sub-Total 2510 276 76 170 80 3147 602
Unfinished -Lower 741 (majority is ceiling height of 6' or crawl space)
Siting
Similar lot coverage as 520 Spruce St. and less than 608 Spruce St. and 2060 5`h St.
Footprint and Lot Coverage
Approx. Sq Ft (Emap) 520 Spruce 580 Spruce 608 Spruce 2060 5th
Lot Size 8400 8400 8000 6600
House/Deck/Porch 1920 22.9% 1830 21.8% 1700 21.2% 2200 33.3%
Additions 237 2.8
Garage/Deck 625 7.4 460 5.4 925 11.3 450 6.8
Total 2545 30.3% 2527 30.1% 2625 32.8% 2650 40.2%
Note: 580 Spruce St. footprint is only 2.8%for additions. Garage is 5.4% vs 11% for 608 Spruce (with
similar siting/deck above) and an estimated 7% for 520 Spruce Stand 2060 5`h St.
Square Feet (Total} Adjacent Spruce St. Houses Sq Ft and Levels
Per Assessor 2060 5th 520 550 580 600 602 608
Levels 3 3 3 2* 2 2 1
Sq Ft. Main 2040 1760 1600 1372 1254 872 1399
Upper 1736 1680 1267 330* - 433 -
Lower 2004 1680 1320 1312** 1198 ? -
Total 5780 5120 4187 3014 2452 1305 1399
With Additions 3616
* Upper level is small and non-conforming with 6' ceiling heights
Lower level has 740 sq ft which is unfinished and mostly unusable as ceiling height is also low and/or
crawl space.
iC'i
Attachment B
x
,s~
~ ~w ~
s-
a
r' ~ r ~ ~
' ~ 'c ~ r ~ K
t
- "fir ~ ,._i' tq d:» ~,.t xy t ~ ~ ~ t~ ! yu'' d
`0 r ~ # ~ ~ j
i c
~ Tr.
A~ ~ 12f J 44' .ud`94 ~~'/r t~'' a'. R'.~i-" S~+~e~'... k
.y.'h y~~ ~ ~.p'~~ :+r 17 ~ip",Y's.,w .l ' Tory v." ~+°^~'*~*1
,r v ~ ;moo' wA,, ~s 1 k r. ~ t ,r
r s
_~z~~t n Y n ~ y
s ^f
,mow: ~ ~ 7 ~ u:k~~~ ~ A~ ~ =y^s
~ ^,e ~ ~ ~ ds. .f x a'"~ F y ~ ~ ar•4w 4 4.: y.`nti p .
Y, ~ ~ u ~
s ;g ~v~ , 1 fin. , ~wr~~;
112 1 ~ ' ~wr Y . ,,..1 ~+~A F ~
I
I
~ I ~ ~ , : t~
x C
' j F r n- ~"r °k dq'~ s~}' y ,may 1 ~ .'P ,
~1rs : ._aJf• ~r,+, ; l'~ c ~ ~ , rat . ~ = ~ t'y ~ 'ti t r r 1
~ ~ ' .p 7 I ' sr' 's. 7rY~1~~7 ~ ~ ~7 g} rat ~ ~ ~ w i ~
o Eki.rt
' ~ ~ ~ i j 4 ~ .e
.:1~ ir..,,
~~h r.
~ ~ _ _
~ ~
~eta_ ~ ~jyi~t!~ ~-j ~9YPi~" PI~ y1` Y3R
x ~ 9kve ~Y"'7 ~ rA a aka+„~. 4'a'.~~ ''iro ~t '41. F~.. $ "cif ~ ,.~.~,~v .Y~.y y~+r ~-~g~ tJ
J` ~ vj rrPR ~~t ~~i(~r ~~i~~~~E ~ ~ ~ y y3
e- r~ ' ~ x i Ls xii~ ~ q' " r r aJ.t~•- _ c~KS t
y E ~ ~ 5:"', i ~ Q r. i~~~t-iw ~ tj ~~a~~.+1
~~.-fit ~~-'^4 ~ ZRd~~ ~ ~ '~W ~ 6a!FF+ M p{ ~ ~ ~ Rr.~
.tit ~ t
Yom. y ~ t { - `'~F S r + { ' Y`! _ :i ~a f A +q.-~
t ~t r ~r
i y{ # ~,j ' Y I y:~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S
! w/ . ai
z.~~-_ 'sy« - S .;q~,_ y. fig.. t ~1` . _ ~
~ ~ ~ r. ~ ~ _ tip,
:ai+,~. - sir,.: 'w. r -
` ~ G
7
''tl,. ~ - w'~S~rtrW - T~..
~ e~
~ r S~
S
I
- ~[`{i~. - y~~ CCcc
i
~ ~ ~t
v \ i I 5 ; /{j,~
I ~ P
~~s e J ~ j r ~
~ I P.~ ~.r Y f r/':.
~ 4' l t •
5~ i3~ f ti ~ rf'Sbk. f i
~ t ,
~ ~ L r<~ tRi a TrB ~'+tii x
a it'x " tf~`i~ ~ ~ ~ '1
~ cr ~ p
~
.,y
. I ~ Y
-
i r4
__-aa - _ _ ~
-
w~
~rc r,~ .
it ~dti -
~".r
r-
r n.~y
f I ,
4
>~t~I
f ~ 'k~~ai~~li ~Y. _ w..~~tt a
~ r t~ F~ ,'I+ r'~ ~,y~ '~C
f
~~~gy~
dy ' ~ ,yffr-- ~
,fit
r 'g1 P
F.R. i
I{. Y ~y
_ l?A
..fir ~ 3 ~ I ~ 1 ~ ~ i~ t' xl it ~i °F
_ !1 1(d P° f ~,s~
~ h J- y _
K tt
_ i
,
t t .
n
1~~~- ...~a'^'rr~ C f~M1. ~u ,vim ~ ~ f ..sa s....~ r.
-°?w~. -
~
~ _ ~ ~~~d ~ ~
i~ J6 ~ J •f ~ ~ bj,y ~ t
k
_ ~ ~ ~iF] s '~3£~Y~ j
4
~ d . w a" P
,~;t 'k y„gr+•'a ~-~p4,..- ~ a~
'tc 'sNMr~ t,.F ,S tn' ~J€, ~.~'k r
_ ig '~s+ v ~3 in x'~'7'>rr. Y° fi,a~ Lt u~ ~
~ ~ ~L 1 ~~~~tx ~
s - ~ i.,~..~ ~ fie, B x~~r' i7
t'1 313 a~.~..s_ ow.. ..,v -ar.., ~ ~~:i+'~8e:.~ ;u
Fe~;~.~aaw` k:.4
rl+. 1 ~ ~
* .raj }y ~
x
~
~~a t > Uy .
~ ~ ~ t
~a+~'e"~k ~'iiy~4 T l 'R ~,,.~e„-i?'^.:. , '"iY ,~.~r~r~~ Y
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
y~. aA yr, ~,,7 -;,5 -
`g.~ '~'"i ~'t.~~
..fM:. k.
~~[=Y ~C~N~cn~tiS C E.tii~`(
~ ~
~i
Vlap C)utput Pale ? ~~F?
y ~ ~ p~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~
e~~ ' 1 tea. ~ ~ ~ r~p~ , 4z r,-
' ~ ~ a y -
i~ 1 ~ T~ t, ~
A
a~
' ~ ` ~ " ~
3 ,t., sue. ..k ` _ ~ ,
j CY" ~ J ~ .
~'1 ~ 1
~
~ ~ e.
r ~ 4 ,a zas.: : ~4
n::? ~1 .
't ~ d, ~j. PQ~ 5 d R~L°~r Y '~1. R J~ k"c~,,, J:r~$} ~ ~`i .'n
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..-.^n" y~, ~ £ 45 ~ y.. ~~i xr.- ;t^,. tip ,r""
Sri ~ S v*s V` ..Y.- 'fir
a 4~, 1 # t` f .~abt t -lr,.~-. J~ ._`r"'S~M1.
' •I, 1 E
.j~l III .WC~ _ ~..••+fV #i _ b4~y~ q.. d
~ ~ l ~ ~ ~~,y5v II ~ " I 'fi`r
1i _ ~i' ~ - t'v 1 - 2
a 4r a' 1k rh ~ ~ a~ " e 4 l` f ~r,~ ~y~1~.
x;5';4 fi # ~
~ .B~Iri~ tiai~ Resaurcrs~fc af~~~ ~ ~ ~ - .x;~t~ ~ _ i
~ ~ ~~.~"ro.~:, x • m
-tea
X015&6'~1~1L~''y. ,
hits:/.`~~i~~ch.ci.houlder.co.us!scrvlet!"c~~m.~sri.c~rima~~.larima}~?ServiceNa~l~e-pds_eMap(.i?~k&ClientVersie~n=.l&Fori1~-'hruc... ~/10/?SOS
U I I
~
0
~ - - - ~ ~
I ~
11 .c J ~ i
i
~ U 5~0 SPRUCE ST.
520 I ~
~ ~ ~ I O
C r
- - - a o
i
~ ~ o
i
I~ sso i I ~
~ a
I
~ ~ I
- ~ - - ~ 550 SPRUCE ST, rv
i
_ ~ ~ 0
i J ~ I a e
- 580 ~ ~ N
- i I ~
t ^ V
_ ~ ~
I I ~ W tj e~j
~ _ ~i
- I o:
u~
` .
1 ~
- ~ - - - - - ~x
- - - ~ qo 9$
- -~_-_IT-M f~4_f~'wie+..mr~iwai° - ~ 1b'. f ~ ~ < m ~ ~
~ I - - T - ~ ~
' ~ ~~I b 6ARA6E ~ r- - --00`4
~ III / 1 i1 I
t ~ 1 a
r- ~ u ~ I --F ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
u n i ~ 1 1 Lm.m+.
i
1 ~~b - J
~ bos ~ ~ -
I-- - - - - ~ - i~ao
' ®SL~~µ
I - 608
II f ~ ~ ~9
b
t
600 SPRUCE ST. ~ N ~
TOPO MAP ~ ~ p
<<
~ ~
' ~ ~
~O SITE PLAN
ina• .r-0•
~
nw 5
~ ~ ~ a S
9
II 9
SARAGE WOOD SHOP n
~g3j
U
~I W ~
~ ~8
-mot-
®FIRST FLOOR PLAN
va•. ro•
I
WOOD SHOP
(BELOW GRADE)
ix av ma
I I ry
p~ m
bARA6E ROOF ~ p~ m O
I ~ J
`o
II
I
wl I
a I ®ROOF PLAN
i I 1e., ,.-0. ~~d
wore eeruwro
WNI CGYOIm~
Naa2 nTM1TCN y ACGGC T01Wd: m
Or OM.Nf: TO OG NA pUOIWt M1JOB - _
eTIX! VGlpl dM, DTNRD,
n ewenro aTe I r
neruwru wNie.
erare N]t0! ro a i~w~i
mince ro x rnoNV® a
A~~~e• APPROVID aI,.N6lMNV[e Ns ~ruem.
Y T0. 6N4V! LOYQ'dITLN Lr lTNltl wLL C!
eurtee ~ va. nwm ro nnowx recces ro
rev eNVae. rev erNRe wLL
A rr'wN. - - - coreecr wrM nxdraesruw. ~
'Y~i
a-wTn. - 9
wu~eAa moNO® ~
_ p Q AVJRI ITNItl /O
LJ LJ ~ D~+aAa
ware r.~- - -
0
~ ~
Y
m~
RbT R(A'R _ f
'RONCE!lLgl4Y.! M1'R ~ Y
eMAeC DWIb, 0.yRe MYT
C! rTrP/m Qf 1A16MMUCS W
PIUgt TO OIeCR ~
14i. $n
O SOUTH ELEVATION €
ve~. I,-0.. ~ ~
a.>~. nocw
/ Naxe ra.non
/ p'eMI6E TG CG rG.aNMte
/ 9TGfe NSeM dM.
/ ro ewenro dre
/ •erNrviro vUU.s.
erore NlICDI ro Q
/ NTFPiID T' LNIDMMIC9
/ arore wa wui 7Z
/ i R9 « n
/ ~ O
/ N
pp
/ 3
3
j / / / j / j / nimr r.La~
L. My ~ ii~C ~ s•4 ~ ro• ~ ~ Yr
O WEST ELEVATION 1~QD
ve•. ro'
8
viaae.ainow 3
!TQ! wme OIM.
ro eiwnxe aie
NlINNw N410. s
ra er..e - - - eTOrE vCfClFid le-
NTRWID pY
N ror ao~na ~ i
•NOS ouroN
STO!! qQ H
NI~LL RYC1O
/ O
N
~ ~ ~ ~gg
AMaae ~ ~w pr3
Y NbT M1PR H RSXXS
s- 8=
a~ ~ NY ~ ~ ~ € m
i a~
O EAST ELEVATION
~re•. ,~-0.
»Y
TG:OMN! - _ _ - - - f2RW NEON!
~ -
WOOD SHOP E9
67
GARAGE ~ ®~1
°s
~
O BUILDING SECTION ff11
va^. rro~ 4
140'-0^ ---....._T-----:----
.c ~ i
i
i ~
i -T---------~
~ -------------24'-O" i
r--------
i
j ~ ~o'-o' !-f
~
~ tFa ~ov~R ~ u~ER ~ 4
DECK LK ~ i
? O
~ i I I ~6
p, J 1
i ~ T i I ~ (Fa BRID6L
I i ~ 1 i
~ ~I
I ~ I ~
IZ
EXISTINb51TEPLAN ~L1-------- i_ J~
It'
lao~-o,.
ew
O O
.e ~ ~
z
u ~ ~
~ i
.
o b
I
w.rW rtolGAm siuam p
ra cp»mcnori mm.
4 9°~
s
O POTENTIAL FLOOR PLAN O~~
ii
ii
ii
I
I
~
ii I
~ i
i ~ ii
~t~~~~ i
~ror car~sm¢non mm.
i 1.1
4 ~ PATb
9
O O
O21 i~
POTENTIAL BASEMENT