4C - Landmark Alteration Certificate to relocate & add to a contributing garage at 652 Concord Ave (HIS2008-00254) MEMORANDUM
January 7, 2009
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation. Planner
Allison Hawes, I iistoric Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark alteration
certificate to relocate and add 218 sq. ft. to a contributing garage at
652 Concord Avenue in the Mapleton Hill Historic District per
Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-00254).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 652 Concord Avenue
2. Zoning: LR-1 (Low Density Residential Established)
3. Owner: Elizabeth Yodice & Greg Althaus
4. Applicant: Kristin Lewis, Architect
5. Site Area: 8,893 sq. feet
6. Date of construction: Pre-1929
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
With the conditions listed below, the Landmarks Board approves the request to
relocate the contributing garage on the property at 652 Concord Avenue as
requested in the revised application dated 09.04.2008, finding that it meets the
standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18,
B.R.C. 1981 and is substantially consistent with section 7 "Garages, Carports, and
Accessory Buildings", of the General Design Guidelines and section U of the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. The board adopts this memo as
findings for its decision.
S:\PLAN\data\tongrang\FIISTIALTGERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Goncord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc
yL ;
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the addition in
compliance with the approved plans dated 12.12.2008, except as modified
by these conditions of approval.
2. Prior to submitting a buildu1g permit application and final issuance of the
Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit the following,
subject to the final review and approval of the Landmarks Design Review
Committee: final architectural plans detailing the methodology for the
relocation of the building, details regarding the rehabilitation and
addition to the garage including a completed Door Replacement
Application and Survey to determine whether replacement is appropriate,
materials and colors of roofing, windows, doors, and paint colors to insure
that the approval is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines and the intent of this approval.
SUMMARY:
• The 2005 resurvey of the accessory buildings i:n the Mapleton Hill Historic
District recommended that the pre-1929 garage at 652 Concord Avenue be
considered a contributing resource to the landmark district.
• On May 14, 2008 the Landmarks design review committee reviewed and
subsequently issued a landmark alteration certificate for the construction of a
218 sq. ft. addition on the east elevation of the contributing garage.
• In order tv preserve an adjacent mature tree that an arborist has determined
would. be lost if the addition were constructed in its current location, the
applicant is now requesting that the existing garage be relocated 7' south and
5' west on the property. The applicant contends that the relocation will allow
for the proposed east addition to be constructed without harm to the tree.
• Staff recommends the Landmarks Board conditionally approve the revised
application, provided stated conditions are met, finding that it meets the
standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-
18, B.R.C. 1981.
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07A9 memo.doc
~ ~
~i ~ ~
Con;nbuting Garage
at 6;i2 Corro~d Avenue i
~ ~ '
~ ~ ~ I ¦
~i~¦
~
M~~~X ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ _ ; , ,
Figure 1. Location Map showing garage at 652 Concord Avenue
1 si i .
.
.~.t ~ ~
;s C4d~
~ \ i
.r.
]ty.- ~ ~ \
- _ I l
~ .
Iii
f ~ ; .
~ 4 ,f;
1~; ~
, `
e G'EO, 1,
R
Figure 2. Garage at b52 Concord Avenue (southeast corner)
S:\PLAN\data\tongrang\H1ST\ALTCERTS\Historic DistrictsUVlapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPERTY:
Constructed about 1901, the one and one-half story vernacular masonry house at
652 Concord Avenue features a smaller projecting gable, segmental arch
openings, and a front porch with ornamental posts and fretwork, south facing
dormer, segmental arch window openings. The Historic Building Inventory
Form (1993, Front Range) identified the house as representing a well preserved
example of vernacular Queen Anne architecture and mentions the adjacent
garage (Attachment B .The 2005 accessory building survey (Ramsay & Barth)
recorded the garage and established apre-1929 date of construction based upon
Sanborn map research. This survey recommended that the building be
considered a contributing feature to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
~ ' f G~'r t ~ ~ r':
1' 1 Y,, , , ,
l_ .
~ ~ r ~ Ism 7 ~ o ; ;ti,~ ~ ~~Y ,
try ~ J''~ 1r~1.~~~ d '
. , s. - ~y
Figure 3. Garagc in relation to contributing house
(center background) and mature trce (right mid-ground)
LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE REQUEST:
At the May 14, 2008 Landmarks design review committee meeting the applicant
requested approval to construct a 218 sq. ft. gable roof addition at the side (east)
elevation of the garage set back several feet from the alley (south) face of the
building. The design review committee considered that the proposal was
generally consistent with the design guidelines and historic preservation
ordinance, but requested revisions to the design to more clearly distinguish the
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\H1ST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc
addition from the historic building. These revisions were to be reviewed and
approved by staff.
In the interim, the applicant has determined that the proposed construction will
damage or destroy the mature tree to the east of the garage (see figure 3). To
solve this situation, the applicant proposes to move t11e garage 7' south and 5'
west on the property (see figure 4). The applicant and consulting arborist
consider that the relocation of the garage on the property will allow for the
proposed addition to be constructed without threatening the tree. The relocated
garage is shown to rest on a 6" concrete slab foundation.
Plans also call for the relocated garage to be rehabilitated. Little detail regarding
this aspect of the project is shown other than to indicate that new overhead
garage doors are to be installed on the south elevation and that new double
pedestrian doors are planned for the north (garden) elevation of the building.
Existing weathered board and batten siding is to be retained.
I, ,~.-0. ;..o: , Proposed
Mature tree - ~ „4-_ Addition
- - - to he saved - ' ~
- _ J'~' to garage
_ - a p
- ~ , I I
11
1 _ ~-J / ' l~ _II ' I ~I • 't ~
~ - . Current ~
s Location of ` ~ pro osed
SW corner p
~ . Location of
of garage SW corner
' i - -
- - - -'•-I,~._ _ mw.~"-~-- - of garage
Gf'c/ (il+RA6°- Pt-"N fC`~15TIN5 6A24~5°_ fSLOGATION i tc:7N J'J:7iT10W
•...r
Figure 4. Site Plan showing proposed location of existing and relocated garage
S:\PLA'~t\datallongrartg\HIST\AL.TCFRTS\Historic Districts u~Tarleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 merno.do~c/
:yk''~S ~"6 s`•
In addition to the relocation, the applicativn calls fora 218 sq. ft. addition tv the
east elevation of the existuzg 248 sq. ft. garage. A site plan shows the alley (south)
face of fhe addition will be set back 3' from the south elevation of the historic
garage. Elevations indicate the addition will feature a gable end roof with
proportions similar to the roof on the historic garage. Tl1e addition is shown tv be
4' inches lower than the existing building; both gables being linked by a 12', 6"
cross-gable.
EIATTEN
CtiARAGE- ~I-~- - I i , , , - - - - VERTICAL 5
EXTERIOR ~ , ; ; . , , i ,
LIGHT ~ ~ i
i I III
NG. ~ I.
FtT. I I ~ I ~ I ~ N~
i
i
I I ~ ~1 I I i -I
I - I I I' I I I,
I, Ali ~ ~ I~.,;,I
i ~I I I; ~ II ~ i,; ,
~ i I ,
NEW FE<\GE ~ ,
LOCATION i I i ~
ONG. PGUNDATI01~1__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12'-3 I I'-6" ~ ~
(E) GARAGE WORKSHOP
Figure 5. South elevatio» showing relocated and rehabilitated garage with proposed addition
- ~-i ~ ; = i ; : u LINE OF (EJ GARAGE ~
y~ ~ j -:I i ~'3 ~-GOLLEGTORS
i ! ; ;a_:_
ii I ~~I~ ~ ,
I ~ I j I I ' I I ~ I I ~ t ' j y_ i ~ ~ - !FJ 5<.es~t•, fE! Pi.~,te Hr.
;T I 1 I, ~ N I I -
I ~I ~ 1 I; ~ ~ iii _I__ ~ii~ (I ~~~ii
I,;~ ~ +1 ~ x j ~ ~ ,
II I I I O ~ f1{ ~ I t
I I I I ( I I I I i- I `i I f
I_ ~ i _ I - I ! ' - - 3 I- - ~ i
'I E-XTERIDR - -1 - - -
LIGHT ~ - - .
6i~ II'-6" 12'-3" (E) DECK/ POOL
N{ORK9HOP (E) GARAGE ~I~IEW G^" GONG. POUNDATIUN
`-NEW DOORS IN (E)
OPENING
Figure 6. North elevation showing relocated and rehabilitated garage with proposed addition
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\I-IIS"I'\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.0g9~ memo.d~yo1c(/~ ~
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
The listoric Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark Alteration
Certificate may not be approved by the Landmarks Board or City Council unless
it meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Specifically:
(b) I\Teither 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 withal a historic district;
(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;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in a 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.
ANALYSIS:
1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy the exterior architectural features of tl~e landmark or the subject property
within an historic district?
The 2005 accessory building survey of Mapleton Hill recommended the garage at
652 Concord Avenue be considered a contributing building to the Mapleton Hill
Historic District based upon assessing it to be awell-preserved example of early
twentieth-century automobile architecture.
The slight relocation of the building on the property will not damage the
character of the property or the district as a whole provided adequate steps are
taken to ensure that the building will not be damaged during the move and that
S:\PLAN\datallongrang\HIST\ALTCfiRTSIHistoric DistrictslMapleton Hill\Concord.652\0].07.09 memo.do[c~
it will be rehabilitated to (or better than) its condition prior to the move from its
original location.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special
listoric, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
The staff considers that the contributing garage is a familiar visual feature in the
district and that its presence on the alley will not be affected by the relocation.
Likewise the proposed rehabilitation and addition are generally consistent with
the guidelines. As such, staff considers the proposed relocation would not
adversely affect the special historic, architectural, and aesthetic interest or value
of the district.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed buildings compatible with the character
of the historic district?
Staff considers that the proposal will meet this condition provided the building is
rehabilitated to a state similar to (or better) than it was prior to the original move.
This determination is based upon understanding That a completed Door
Replacement Application and Survey need to be submitted for review and
approval by the L.dre, in order to determine whether replacement of the garage
doors on the historic garage is appropriate.
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District
and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet
the requirements of paragraphs § 9-11-18(b)(2) and 9-11-18(b)(3)#-13-18(b)(4) of
this section?
N/A
5. 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 Landtnark Alteration Certificate.
The proposal calls for the retention of existing solar hot water panels on the west
face of the historic building's roof.
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate. The board has adopted the Design Guidelines to help interpret the
S:\PLAN\dataUongrangU~IST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc
Historic Preservation Ordinance. 1`he following is an analysis of the proposed
demolition 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.
General Design Guidelines
3 8 Doors and Storm Doors
Front doors and primary entrances are among the most important elements of historic buildings.
The original size and proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door surround, and the
placement of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance. Property Owners may wish to
replace their historic doors to improve energy efficiency. Research indicates Hutt, in most cases,
however, the energy efficiency of an old door can be increased to that of a new replacement door by
weafher-stripping and the application of an interior or exterior storm door system. However, if a
property owner wishes to request a landmark alteration certificate to replace doors on a contributit2g
or individually landmarked building, the steps as outlined in the historic Window and Door
Replacement/ Retrofit Application Guidelines must be followed.
1 Whenever possible, retain and preserve all Doors are on primary Maybe
original doors and door openings. The location elevation, likely historic, but
of the doors}proposed for retrofit or extensively deteriorated, and
replacement is important in assessing their possibly beyond practical
significance to a historic building. In general, repair. Replacement may be
the more important the elevation, the less likely appropriate, but more
that replacement of a historic door wilt be documentation needs to be
appropriate. Elevations will be categorized us provided for review by Ldre.
pritttary, seeondart~, or tertiart~, using the
methodology set out in the Window ~ Door
Replacement Application and Survey.
2 The historic significance of the door(s) Door is likely "historically Maybe
proposed far replacement must also be assessed. important". Deteriorated
Irt general, the more significant a door is to the condition may warrant
house as a whole, the less likely that a retrofit replacement. Completed door
or replacement will be appropriate. The survey needs to be provided
appropriateness of a door replacement will be for review by Ldre.
determined, in part, based upon
characterization of the door as either `Very
HistOrlCRlll/ IntpoYt'ant', '1•IlStoi'tCally
Itnportant', or 'Non-Historic'. (See
Deft111ttOnS}.
S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hili\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc~/
.:ern,°•_'~>, ~~~,~s
3 The condition of the door(s) shall be evaluated Completed door survey needs Maybe
prior to determining whether the door(s) to be provided for review by
sl2ould be repaired or replaced. The condition is Ldre.
to be determined by assessing its elements
individually. T1ie assessment will be completed
through the use of a survey that is intended to
identify the extent of deterioration in each door
and to determine whether the door should be
repaired, retrofitted, or replaced. The survey
form documents the existing condition for the
door and identifies which features will be
repaired and which will possibly be replaced.
4 Retain and preserve the functional, Completed door survey needs Maybe
proportional and decorative features of a to be provided for review by
primary entrance. These features include the Ldre.
door and its frame, sill, head, jamb, moldings,
and any flanking windows.
5 Historic hardware, hinges, locksets, acid knobs Completed door survey needs Maybe
are door features that are significant and to be provided for review by
should be preserved. Ldre.
~ Repair damaged original doors and door Completed door survey needs Maybe
assemblies whenever possible following to be provided for review by
rr r_ognized preservation methods. Ldre.
7 If, through a Window ~ Door Application Completed door survey needs Maybe
Survey replacement is found to be appropriate, to be provided for review by
the replacement door should match the original Ldre if door replacement is
as closely as possible. If documentation of the appropriate, an overhead door
original door is not available, then the would likely be inappropriate.
appearance of the replacement door should be
based on original doors on similar historic
structures.
4 Additions to Historic Structures
It is normal for buildings to evolve over time as additional space is needed or uses are
accommodated. New additions within the historic districts are appropriate as long as they do not
destroy historic features, materials, and spatial relationships that are significant to the original
building and site. They also must be distinguishable from the historic architecture. The appropriate
location of an addition to an existing building will depend on the character of the existing building
and its site, adjacent buildings, and the area as a whole. While every site is unique, generally
additions should be desi ned and located so that si ni 'cant site eatures, includin mature trees, are
S:\PLAIV\dataVongrang\HISTIALTCLRTS\Historic DistrictsUviapicton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc /
not lost. An addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character, and
should be subordinate to the existing structure.
41 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
The primary concern of tlTe Landmark Board in reviewing additions to historic buildings is the
rotection o the existin structure and the character o the site and district.
Yes
.3 It is not appropriate to construct an addition The mass and scale of the
that will 'detract from the building and/or the proposed addition will not
site, or if it will require the removal of result in the removal of
si ni 'cant buildin elements or site eatures. si iificant buildin elements.
4 2 Distinction from Historic Structures
All additions should be discernable from the historic structure. When the original design is
duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additions
should be compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new
construction.
Yes
.1 Distinguish an addition from the historic Differences in height, scale,
structure, but maintain visual continuih~ setback and materials will
between the two. One common method is tv step distinguish addition from
the addition back and/or set it in slightly from historic garage.
the historic structure.
Yes
.2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Instead, Historic building is simple in
interpret historic elements in simpler ways in detailing -proposed addition
the addition. is a uall as sim le.
Yes
.3 Additions should be simpler in detail than the Historic building is simple in
original structure. detailing -proposed addition
is e uall as siin le.
Yes
.4 The architectural style of additions should not The addition is compatible
imitate the historic style but must be compatible with the architecture of the
with it. historic buildin .
Com atibili with Historic Structures
4.3 P tY
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or
site detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions
should be distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as
to detract from the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm
historic structures or the site, i11 mass, scale or detailin .
Yes
.1 An addition should be subordinate to the The roof of the addition is 4"
historic building, limited in size and scale so lower than existing building,
that if does not diminish or visually overpower proposed connecting cross-
the. buildin able 1' lower than historic
S:U'LAN\dataUongrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic DistrictsUvlap3eton Hill\Concord.652\Of.07.09 memo.doc
ara e.
Yes
.2 Design an addition to be compatible with the Height, mass and scale of
historic building, in mass, scale, materials and addition are compatible with
color. For elevations visible from public streets, historic buildu1g (existing 248
the relationship of solids to voids in the exterior sq. ft; proposed addition 218
walls should also be eom atible. s . ft}.
Yes
.4 Reflect the original symmetry or asymmetry of The symmetry of garage
the historic buildirt reflected u1 addition.
Yes
.5 Preserve the vertical or horizontal proportion of The rectangular massing of
a building's mass. the garage is preserved by
way of setback and general
ro onion of addition.
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including
mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the
site or dramaticall alter its historic character.
Yes
.1 Design neZV additions so that the overall The slight relocation of the
character of the site, site topography, character- historic buildings will
defining site features and trees are retained. preserve mature tree on
property. Overall density of
the site will not be
si ificantl im acted.
Maybe
.2 Locate new additions on an inconspicuous While not necessarily
elevation of the historic building, generally the inconspicuous, the addition is
rear one. proposed at the side of the
historic building and set back
three feet from the south
elevation of the historic
garage. Location of addition at
rear of garage would encroach
on arden area.
Yes
.3 Respect the established orientation of the The orientation of the
original building and typical alignments i.n the proposed addition with gable
area. end facing alley, is consistent
with aligrunents on alleys in
Ma Teton Hill.
Yes
.4 Preserve u backyard area between the house and The general proportion of
the ara e, maintainin the eneral ro onion buildin mass too ens acc~ is
S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\HISTIA.LTCERTS\Historie UistrictslA4apleton ILill\Concord.6~2\01.07.09 memo.doc
C(C. f'~
of building rnass to open space found withi~i the not affected by proposal.
area
4.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining
elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that They complement the
listoric architecture.
Yes
.2 Rooflines on additions should be lower than and The roofline of the addition is
secondary to the roofline of the original lower.
buildi~t .
Yes
.3 Existing roof
form, pitch, eave depth, and The existing roof form, pitch,
materials should be used for all additions. eave depth, and materials of
the addition are similar to the
roof of the addition.,
Yes
.5 Maintain the proportion, general style, and No windows on existing
symmetry or asyrnmetry of the existing window building. Proposed pattern of
patterns. the proportion and general
style of windows on addition
are coin atible.
Yes
.6 (Ise window shapes that are found o~i the Window shapes are simple
historic structure. and com atible.
7. GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
7.1 Existing Historic Accessory Structures
A primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing proposed changes in historic districts is
the protection of existing historic accessory structures and the character of the site and district.
GUIDET.IN1?S: ANALYSIS: CONFORMS
.1 Retain and preserve garages and The relocation of the contributing YES
accessory buildings that contribute to building will not have an adverse
the overall character of the site or effect on the character of the
district. property and the district as a whole.
.2 Retain and preserve the character- The materials, features, and details MAYBE
defining materials, features, and of the rehabilitation of, and addition
details of historic garages and to the garage after the move have
accessory buildings, including roofs, been generally specified. These
materials, windows, and doors. details should be reviewed and
S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\HIS'I1AI.TCERTS\F-Iistoric Districts\INapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.dLLo/~c//~~2/
approved by staff prior to the move.
Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines
P GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY S'TRUCTIII2ES
A variety of accessory buildings has 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 tl~e alley. Materials
and building elements are varied.
Guideline: Consistency:
1 If art existing structure is to be used The materials, features, and MAYBE
as a garage the hisforic character of details of the rehabilitation of the
the building sholcld be respected. As garage after the move have been
few changes as possible should be generally described. These details
made. should be reviewed and approved
by the staff or the Ldre prior to
the move.
Staff considers the proposed relocation of the contributing garage and addition
to the garage generally consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the
General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines. In
terms of the rehabilitation, acompleted door replacement survey needs to be
submitted and reviewed by the Landmarks design review committee in order to
determine whether replacement is appropriate. As such, staff finds the
application consistent with Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design
Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines provided the
conditions listed above are met prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
FINDINGS:
The Landmarks Board finds, with the conditions listed, that the proposed
Landmark Alteration Certificate application is consistent with the purposes and
standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and:
1. The relocation of the historic garage will not damage the contributing
architectural features of the subject property or the Mapleton I-ii].1 Historic
District.
S:\PLAN\dataVongran;\HIST\ALTCER'TS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hilf\Concord.652\01.07.09 m~mo.doc
2. The proposed demolition will not adversely affect historic architectural
and aesthetic interest of the property in the Mapleton Hill Historic
District.
3. The proposal is substantially inconsistent with sections 7.1 "Garages,
Carports, and Accessory Buildings of the General Design Guidelines and
section P of the Mapleton Hill llistnric District Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Apri12005 Cultural Resource Re-Evaluation Form for garage at 413 Spruce
B: Applicant letter
C: Site plans, existing elevations, photographs
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS`IIALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Nlapleton Hill\Concord.652\01.07.09 memo.doc
~~f~A1L7A ITf=lU1 ~ ~ PAGE S
Attachment A
Address: 652 CONCORD AV
Boulder, Colorado
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Cultural Resource Re-evaluation Form: Accessory Building Survey
1. Resource Number. 56L.3966 2. Temp. Resource Number:
3. Attachments: 4. Ofticat determination:
(Check as many as apply) OAHP USE ONLY
~ Photographs ? Determined Eligible
?o Site sketch map ? Determined Not Eligible
? Need Data
? U.S.G.S, rnap photocopy ? Nominated
? Other '
? Other ? Lis#ed
? Contributing to N.R. District
? Not Contributing to N.R. District
5. Resource Name of Primary Building
6. Purpose of this current site visit: Resurvey
7. Previous Recordings: Front Range Research Assoc. Apr. 1996
8a. Description of Accessory Building:
Barn used later as gable roofed garage with brick patterned asphalt roll Outbuilding Type:
siding, side-hinged vertical board garage door facing the alley to the Agricultural
south.
Outbuilding Material:
Wood Frame
Outbuilding Covering.
Asphalt
Outbuilding Roof Materia
Asphalt
8b. Date of Construction: pre 1929
8c. Date of Construction Source:
1931 Sanborn Map: building appears on map.
Historic Assessor's Card, Carnegie Library: 1929 note, 12'x20' barn; 1949 note building referred to as a garage.
1996 Survey: garage is an "associated building:'
9. Condition: Deteriorating
1 Da. Changes to location or Size Information:
14b. UTM Coordinates:
AQENDA ITEM ~ ~PAG~
. Cultural Resource Reevaluation Form: page 2 of 2 Address: 652 CONCORD AV
Accessory Building Survey Boulder, Colorado
Temp. Resource Number
11. Current Ownership HAILEY JANE L & G KIM .
652 CONCORD AVE
BOULDER
CO
80304
12. Other Changes, Additions or Observations:
13. Eligibility Assesment
lridividual District
National Register: NIA National Register: Contributing
Local Landmark: N!A Local: Contributing
Local{y Designated Property: NO
14. Management Recommendations: N/A
15. Photograph Types and Numbers:
Type: BMW Roll No: 4 Frame No: 14,15
16. Artifact and Fiefd Documentation Storage Location NIA
17. Report Title: Accessary Building Survey
18: Recorder(s): Kathryn Howes Barth, AIA; t.ara Ramsey 19: Date(s): Feb. 2005
20: Recorder Affiliation: Kathryn Howes Barth, AtA; Ramsey Planning and Preservation
Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203
AGENDI~ I~'~M ~ .~-.P~~e
SBL3966 652 CONCORD AV SITE PLAN
COJtiI CORD ~Y
M~Xi~J ~L1-
AGPN~a ITNM # . ~
C'' PAGE ~
g
t- .
' ~ ~ . ° . ~ i.'y ~ _
~tJ. .7Fy ~
~ `~`t, err-p t
y t ~ i
i
k 1 P1~ rte. ~i _ *~:IG'`'f ,-J{~t 'G... ~ :44r.<-'° l J.. ~ ~cr t-f.
- ~ •'iF ~ f 1 ~ y ~ k~s:. D} ,it'd _ ~~5y~ ~ ~ ~
i"~~~ { -1 - _ [ I t~' tai _ ~Sf~ ~ _y ~ FXX '.3- 1 - ,
ti ~~s ~ - ~ } if~~~ - s ~II'-~ r yy`. ~ > J l~h~-arf3-~1.:
t ,t2- dr.'z<-. ` A~' (~'c ~ ff> lS'~! 1 ~ ~ ~ . K 21t(,~i_ ~~v L _ ~ \ ~-d'ea
L i5 ~'f ~,3 ~t?- t -r
~Y~ " r i-~'~ r ~,.ur, a. }Tt ~*s3-cit :YC [ - ~ L1.
t, 7[}'.nlrf ---,t 3 r l ~ ~Z~`}, ',.`,yt,~'' + z._{^`- ~{k-_;.Y
rya'{,-~.~YV' !~`y,c~2`. [ia! f ~i ~ ,y ~ ~ - T
t ~ 1~ l i F ! - .
T 7~~SSs
I
sr r ~
_ yc~
} r4 „fit
> y r. }t it ;S 3~i '1, 4 ~::t Ir If(~.i~.r} ~4,) ~ ~ Y•I-:: s::
I a r ^j 3'~ a l: t t.s i,A ~fj r~++'•
i -i` 'i~
_ -
z {
Attachment B
~.r~stin ~.evvxs
Arc h i t e c t s
12 December 2008
LAPD Application
City of Boulder
Re: 652 Concord Avenue
Project Description:
The owners of 652 Concord are requesting pexmission to move an existing contributing
Garage. At a previous Design Review Committee Meeting the proposed addition to the
existing garage was conceptually approved pending additional specifications. Subsequently,
the owner has consulted with an Arborist regarding the proximity of the addition to a
mature adjacent tree. The arborist said the new addition was too close and would result in
significant damage to the tree with a risk of complete loss.
The proposed relocation of the historic garage 7 ft. towards the south and 5 ft. to the West will
provide the necessary clearances. The massing, offset and design of the garage and addition are
the same that were previously approved by LDRC.
The proposed method of relocation and construction of the new foundation will be submitted
for approval with the LAC application:
1928 14'" St. #300
Boulder CO 80302
Phone 303 449.5747
Fax 303 447.2843
klarch@indra.com
ac~ri~a ~~iM~ ~ ~G ~
Bonnell, Juliet
From: Hewat, James
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:05 AM
To: Ipab
Subject: FW: support of application, case HIS2008-00254
-----Original Message-----
From: Joy M Barrett [mailto:joybarrett@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:20 AM
To: Hewat, James
Subject: support of application, case HIS2008-00254
Dear Mr. Hewat,
We are sending this message to express our support for the application for a Landmark
Alteration Certificate for 652 Concord Avenue, case HI52008-00254. As residents of the same
block, we believe that the proposed relocation and small addition to the existing garage
would represent a net esthetic improvement to the neighborhood, without compromising the
historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
We appreciate both the purpose and the work of the City's Landmarks Board, and the
opportunity for input by neighbors of applicants. We urge you to approve the application by
architect Kristin Lewis and owners Elizabeth Yodice and Greg Althaus.
Thank you for considering our input.
Sincerely,
Toy Barrett, Ph.D. and Bill Hogrewe, Ph.D.
611 Concord Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304
303-545-0957
1