Loading...
5A - Landmark Alteration Certificate for 14 Kinnikinic Rd (HIS2010-00124)MEMORANDUM July 21s', 2010 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager Jessica Vaughn, Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to demolish a 1,225 sq. ft. house and in its place construct a new 1,336 sq. ft one -story house at 14 Kinnikinic Road in the Chautauqua Historic District per Section 9 -11 -18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2010- 00124). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 2. Historic District: 3. Zoning: 4. Owner: 5. Applicant: 6. Date of Construction: 7. Existing House: 8. Proposed new const: 14 Kinnikini Road Chautauqua RL -1 (Residential Low -1) Trudy Hutchings Kristin Lewis, Architect 1899, c.1928,1950s & 1980s modifications 1,225 sq. ft. 1,336 sq. ft. one -story house with screened -in porch STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion: The board approves the proposal to demolish the non - contributing building and construct a 1,336 sq. ft. one -story house (as shown on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 06.17.2010), in that it meets the standards in Chapter 9- 11-18(a) and (b)(1) -(3), B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below, and adopts this memorandum as findings of the Board. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 1_ S:WI.ANWat \iongmng \HISY�AI.TCERTSM6todc D'utrimWhau[augua \l4 Kiunickiooickb7.21.7010 mvicMine m.dm CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Applicant shall be responsible for construction of a new house at 14 Kinnikinic Road in conformance with the plans submitted with the application dated 06.17.2010, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Applicant shall submit to the Landmarks design review committee for its review and approval final architectural plans that include materials and colors for the following design details: window wells, windows, doors, roofing, siding material and paint color. This submission is necessary to ensure that the construction is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Chautauqua Park Historic District Guidelines and the intent of this approval. This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions listed above, the proposed demolition and new construction will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9- 11 -18(a) & (b)(1) -(4) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and the Chautauqua Park Historic District Design Guidelines. SUMMARY: • On June 2nd, 2010 the Landmarks Board conditionally approved the demolition of the existing cottage, finding that because of changes that have occurred to it outside of the 1898 -1930 period of significance, the property's historic integrity has been so compromised so that it cannot be considered a contributing resource to the local Landmark District. The Board's decision included a condition that the proposed new construction not exceed the existing building's size of 1,225 sq. ft. and that this and other requested revisions, including a larger screened -in porch on the east face of the cottage be reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldre), (see draft minutes from the June 2n 2010 meeting in Attachment P . • Revisions to the June 2nd plans were reviewed by the Ldre on June 9's, 2010 and indicated a building of approximately 1,300 sq. ft. in size (including a 150 sq. ft. screened porch). Because the new construction exceeds the 1,225 sq. ft. specified in the June 2nd decision the design must be reviewed by the full Landmarks Board in a public hearing. • Staff considers plans for the demolition of the non - contributing building and AGENDA TTEM #5A PAGE 2_ S: \PLAN\data \longmng \HIST\ALTCGRTS \Historic Distrias \Chautauqua \I4 Kinnickimnck \07.21.2010 mvieMmemo.doc proposed new construction in its place, to be consistent with Section 9- 11 -18, B.R.C. 1981, and not to have a detrimental effect on the historic district as a whole. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application on the condition that details regarding materials and finishes including roofing, siding, windows, and doors be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. 14 Kinnikinik Road. j �c g$ e�£IN*+ lJ - I I �C[1U � ❑ % 1 ' P T= jVIE ✓'I 0 l JAJU 1 �171A ll(P :J i I j CFIWTAUW�C•AEE11 � � Figure 1. Location Map Description and History of Property: Please see June 2- 2010 memo to the Landmarks Board in Attachment II . Request for New Construction: As mentioned, the application is requesting construction of a one -story building of 1,336 sq. ft. (including 150 sq. ft. of screened porch area) in place of the existing 1,225 sq. ft. cottage. The Board's June 2r 2010 approval of new construction on the site limited the new house to 1,225 sq. ft. in size. The current proposal exceeds the approved building size of 1,225 sq. ft. by 111 sq. ft. in order to provide for "reasonably sized" main floor living space. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 3_ S:IPLANWI.ki.. ( istoric Disftids\C1.0 UgMk14 KhUlickinoick\0721 .2010¢vimw==.dm The proposed site plan (figgre 2, shows the new construction to be largely contained within the footprint of the existing house with the same setback from Kinnikinic Road. At its western extension the new construction is shown to extend roughly 3 feet further toward the Bluebell Trait than the existing house while the east, north and south walls are to be reconstructed in their current locations (the current proposal differs from that reviewed at the June 2nd meeting which showed a portion of the west wall extending 8 feet west of the existing west wall toward the Bluebell Trail). Figure 2. Site Plan The design of the proposed new house has been modified somewhat from the June 2nd review in terms of roof form, fenestration, and porch design. The proposed new construction is shown to be simply designed and to feature a hipped roof intersected by shed roofs at the east, west, and south. The height of AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 4_ S. TLAMd ataVnngmngVIIS1\ALTCER7'Mist.do Dislric lWluutauqua \I4 Kinniddiwickb7.21.2010 mvicivU ro.dm the existing house from lowest at grade on the foundation is 18', 7" while the existing building height is 16' 6 ". i ae++'an+ma eo� s-mai�n xry.� ' . . ,.. EASTE VATNMI (Exis*WMB t) I Al Ya @; i /9 "� 1'aY �.nw4vswv RiHatl B >5% Figure 3. Existing East (front) elevation Eaves are shown to project slightly and fenestration on the house to feature one over one, double hung windows, a half width screened porch on the east face and a centrally located front door accessed by way of a flagstone stoop. Exterior walls are to be clad with wide plank siding on the east elevation and board and batten siding on the other elevations. Figure 4. Proposed East Elevation The foundation of the cottage is shown to be skirted with wood siding similar to the existing siding. Light wells are planned at the north, west, and south elevations of the cottage. No mature trees are shown to be removed as a result of the project. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 5 S: \PLAN\ data \longmngU{1ST\ALTCBRTS\Historic Dis1ricts \Chautauqua \14 Klnnickinnick \0721.2010 review \memo.doc Figure 5. Existing North (side) Elevation Figure 6. Proposed North Elevation i Figure 7. Existing West (rear) elevation AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 6_ S ;tPLAN \data\longmng \HIST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick\07.2L2010 mview\memo.doc Figure 8. Proposed West elevation Figure 9. Existing South (side) elevation "j Vn Ir 3 II:.II Figure 10. Proposed South elevation AGENDA MM #5A PAGE 7_ S: N' LAIN da ta\l..g.ug\RISTULTCERTS\Iiistoric Districia\C wauqua \14 KinnickinnkkV17.21.2010 nvierv\memo.doc Criteria for Board's Decision: The Boulder Revised Code provides that a Landmark Alteration Certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it is consistent with the purposes of the historic preservation chapter. See Section 9- 11- 18(a), B.R.C. 1981. The remainder of Section 9 -11 -18 states: (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 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 deter 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. Accordingly, when a building in an historic district is proposed for demolition, the Code requires that the Board consider the proposed new construction simultaneously with the demolition request. Demolition. In determining the appropriateness of demolition within a designated historic district, the standard for whether or not to approve the " demolition is found in Code at Section 9- 11 -18, discussed above. However, the Board is also guided by the General Design Guidelines and the design guidelines for the specific historic district. One factor for the Board to consider is whether the subject building contributes to the character of the district. The General Design Guidelines defines a AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE s_ S: NLANWaT \]..,angU11S'MLTCERTSUlis is DisnidACLautaugwU4 KinuickinuickX07.212010 revieAmema.do "contributing building" as being "built during the district's period of significance [and existing] in comparatively original condition, or [as having] been appropriately restored and dearly contribut[ing] to the historic significance of the district" "Contributing restorable" is defined as buildings that "have experienced some alteration, but that still convey some sense of history." Contributing status is based upon a combination of significance and integrity. Significance tells us why the building is important. Integrity describes the ability of the property to convey its significance. The demolition of contributing resources generally does not meet the criteria for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, as it would have an adverse effect on the special historic, architectural, and aesthetic interest and value of the district. That standard may be mitigated by questions of economic feasibility, energy - efficiency, disabled access and other city policies, per paragraphs 9- 11 -1(c) and 9- 11- 18(c), B.R.C. 1981. New Construction. When a building in a historic district is proposed for demolition, the Code requires that the Board consider the proposed new construction simultaneously with the demolition request. In other words, before the demolition can be approved, the Landmarks Board must also find that the proposed new construction will not adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district and that the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials used on the proposed structure are compatible with the character of the historic district. Analysis: 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district? Based upon the architect's physical investigations of the building, staff concurs that as much as 80% of the exterior material dating from the district's identified 1898 -1930 period of significance has been lost ( see Attachment II) Specifically, it appears that the vast majority of the building's fabric dates from 1957 or later. While the essential form of the 1899 building and c.1925 additions are intact, the loss of historic material has so affected the historic integrity of the building that it AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 9_ S:\PIAN\ data \IongtangURS'MLTCERTS\Historic D6t,ic W- hmtxugtu \I4 Kinaickinnick \07.21.2010 mvimw.wmo.doc can no longer be considered contributing to the district. Given this, staff is of the opinion that in the context of the proposed new construction, which is characteristic of cottages in Chautauqua, that demolition of the existing cottage would not damage or destroy the character defining features of the contributing property or the Chautauqua Park Historic District as a whole. As noted in the June 2nd staff memo to the Board (see Attachment 11 ), staff has inspected the interior of the building on a number of occasions and confirmed that the framing of the building is deteriorated and has been compromised by interior remodeling that has taken place over the years. Considerable work will be necessary to rehabilitate the cottage. Photographs illustrating these conditions can be found in Attachment II. 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? For the reasons outlined in question 1 above, staff finds that the demolition of this highly visible cottage would not have an adverse effect on the special historic, architectural, and aesthetic character of property and the value of the district as a whole. 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district? Staff considers the proposed new construction to be compatible with the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials in terms of mass, scale, height, setback, and design. While the proposed new construction will be clearly new construction, its mass, scale, height and design is characteristic of and compatible with historic cottages in Chautauqua Park. 4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Chautauqua Historic District and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of paragraphs § 9- 11- 18(b)(2), 9- 11- 18(b)(3), & 9- 11- 18(b)(4) of this section? Because of the significant loss of historic material and resulting loss of historic integrity staff finds that the cottage at 14 Kinnikinic Road is non - contributing. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE io_ S:\ PLAN\ data VongrangUllST\ALTCERTS\klistoric Districts\Chautauqua \I4 Klnnickinnick \07.21.2010 mviewlnm=.doc Staff also considers the proposed new building will meet the requirements of 9- 11-18(b)(2), 9- 11- 18(b)(3) and 9- 11- 18(6)(4) — see questions 1, 2, & 3 above. 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 Landmark Alteration Certificate. The applicant has included information regarding the estimated cost of lifting the house in order to construct a foundation (see Attachment II) Currently, the building is sitting on piers and grade and is unstable. Estimates given for lifting the building range from between $25,000 to $35,000. Excavation beneath the lifted house for a new foundation is estimated to cost about $10,000 more than if the existing building was demolished. In total, the applicant estimates that the cost of rehabilitating and adding to the building will cost between 14% and 16% more than the cost of constructing a new building of the same design. 6. Is the proposed application consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9 -11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981? The demolition of the non - contributing building and proposed new construction will be consistent with the legislative intent of the ordinance as set out in 9-11 - 1(a) -(c) of the Boulder Revised Code. 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 Historic Preservation Ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a checklist of items for compliance. General Design Guidelines for New Construction, 6.0. 6.1 Distinction from Historic Buildings The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be compatible with the historic context, they. must also be recognizable as new construction. .1 Buildings should be of their own time The proposed design can be Yes creating contemporary interpretations described as neo- traditional closely of historic elements. matching the diminutive scale, form, AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 11_ S:NPLAN\daW[ongmng\NTST ALTCERTMisloric Disk \Chain aqua \14 Khmickinuick\09.21.2010 review \ux: Aoe 6.2 Site and Setting Consistency massing, and simple detailing of the New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features; including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new buildings should not overpower the site or existing building. Windows, doors, dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings. Therefore, the and finishes will distinguish the compatibility of proposed new construction will be reviewed to ensure that these elements are maintained. building as contemporary Conform to the Design Guidelines The proposed building location on Yes construction. found in Section 2.0 Site Design, .2 Interpretations of historic styles may be Drawings show the proposed house Yes in keeping with the neighborhood. appropriate if they are distinguishable to interpret many of the historic a proposed site plan. The facade's orientation to as new. forms of the existing cottage in a Kinnikinic Road is consistent with historic buildings in the district in manner that will be clearly streetscape. Rear elevation will distinguishable from the historic (see extend approximately 3 feet closer to 6.1.1). 6.2 Site and Setting Consistency The proposed house is shown to New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features; including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new buildings should not overpower the site or have a footprint similar to the dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings. Therefore, the existing building. The front, side, compatibility of proposed new construction will be reviewed to ensure that these elements are maintained. 1 Conform to the Design Guidelines The proposed building location on Yes the historic pattern for the found in Section 2.0 Site Design, the site and orientation is generally adjacent buildings. neighborhood. regarding site and setting in developing in keeping with the neighborhood. New construction should not be Size of new above ground a proposed site plan. The facade's orientation to significantly different from contributing construction increasing 111 sq. ft. Kinnikinic Road is consistent with historic buildings in the district in (9 %) over the size of the existin streetscape. Rear elevation will extend approximately 3 feet closer to Bluebell Trail than is currently the case, but within the norm for buildings backing onto the trail. 2 Design new construction so that the Some cutting into the grade will be Maybe y overall character of the site, site necessary. However, it is unclear topography, character- defining site whether existing topography and features and trees are retained. trees on the property will be reserved. 3 New site construction to be compatible The proposed house is shown to Yes with surrounding buildings that have a footprint similar to the contribute to the overall character of the existing building. The front, side, historic district in terms of setback, and rear setbacks are consistent with orientation, spacing, and distance from the historic pattern for the adjacent buildings. neighborhood. 4 New construction should not be Size of new above ground Yes significantly different from contributing construction increasing 111 sq. ft. historic buildings in the district in (9 %) over the size of the existin AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 12_ S:\ PLAN\ dot oUongmng \HIS'RALTCERTS\Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14Kimiickinnick \07.21.2010 mvim\memadoc 6.3 terms of the proportion of built mass to cottage. The lot coverage and built In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing, size and Plans call for the walls of the new open space on the individual site. See mass to open space for the proposed important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetseape. While new construction construction to be covered in board Guideline 2.1.1. new construction appears within the homeowner, new structures should not be so out -of -scale with the surrounding buildings as to loon and batten and wide exposure lap over them. average for the historic pattern of the Design new buildings to be compatible The proposed new construction is yes area. with surrounding buildings that 6.3 Mass and Scale 1 In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, form, massing, size and Plans call for the walls of the new scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front fagade is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetseape. While new construction construction to be covered in board tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not be so out -of -scale with the surrounding buildings as to loon and batten and wide exposure lap over them. 1 Design new buildings to be compatible The proposed new construction is yes with surrounding buildings that generally consistent with historic contribute to the overall character of cottages found in the district in the historic district in terms of height, terms of height, scale, massing and size, scale, massing, and proportions. proportion. 2 The mass and scale of new construction Plans and elevations indicate the yes should respect neighboring buildings scale, massing and placement of the and the streetseape as a whole. proposed new construction will respect neighboring buildings and the streetseape as a whole. Design has been modified from June 2 ^d to integrate additional square footage into the roughly square footprint rather that adding rear element ro'ectin toward the Bluebell Trail. 3 Historic heights and widths as well as Proportions of the proposed house yes their ratios should be maintained. The are generally compatible with those proportions of the front fagade are of adjacent historic buildings on particularly important and should be Kinnikinic Road. compatible to those of surrounding historic buildin s. 6.4 Materials Consistency 1 Materials should be similar in scale, Plans call for the walls of the new Maybe y proportion, texture, finish, and color construction to be covered in board to those found on nearby historic and batten and wide exposure lap buildings. siding. The roof is specified to be asphalt shingle. Windows and doors specified to be painted wood. Details should be submitted to staff AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 13_ S: \PLAN\data�ongang \HISTW,'rCERTS \Historic Districts\Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick \07.21.2010 mview \memo.doc 6.5 ' Ke Buildin Elemerife Consistenc for review and approval. Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are sonic of the most important character - defining 2 Maintain a human scale by avoiding Plans for the cottage show shapes, yes large, featureless surfaces and by using forms, and sizes found on private Design the spacing, placement, scale, Fenestration shown in submitted traditionally sized building cottages in the Chautauqua Historic orientation, proportion, and size of elevations is generally compatible components and materials. District. Increased size of screened window and door openings in new with historic buildings in the in porch is more in keeping with structures to be compatible with the immediate streetscape. Increased size cottage in Chautauqua than June 2^d surrounding buildings that contribute of screened in porch is more in scheme. to the historic district, while reflecting 6.5 ' Ke Buildin Elemerife Consistenc Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are sonic of the most important character - defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they complement the historic architecture. In addition to the Guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations fir related suggestions. 1 Design the spacing, placement, scale, Fenestration shown in submitted yes orientation, proportion, and size of elevations is generally compatible window and door openings in new with historic buildings in the structures to be compatible with the immediate streetscape. Increased size surrounding buildings that contribute of screened in porch is more in to the historic district, while reflecting keeping with cottage in Chautauqua the underlying design of the new than June 2nd scheme. building. 2 Select windows and doors for new Specified 1/1 double hung wood Maybe Y buildings that are compatible in sash is compatible and reflective of material, subdivision, proportion, private cottages in the area. pattern and detail with the windows Proportion of glazed areas on west and doors of surrounding buildings elevation is somewhat greater than that contribute to the historic district. typical of historic houses. Increased size of screened in porch is more in keeping with cottage in Chautauqua than June 2nd scheme. 3 New buildings should use a roof form The roof form with minimal eave yes found in the district or on the landmark projection reflects rustic cottage site. character of other cottages in the district. 4 Porches should be compatible in The proposed screened -in porch at yes massing and details to historic porches the north east comer of the building in the district, and should be has been increased in size from June appropriate to the style of the house. 2n proposal and is characteristic of rivate cotta es in the disttict. The applicant has fully explored the option of rehabilitating and adding to the existing house and now finds the building to have little historic and structural integrity and the costs associated with its preservation prohibitive. Staff has AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 14_ S: TL ANldotn Vongmn"[STNLTCERTS\IlWoric iishicts\ChaWmgimU4 Kimickinnick\07.212010 revim\=m doc worked closely with the owner over the past two years and has inspected the premises a number of times over that period. Based upon the submitted evidence showing an almost total lack of historic integrity, staff now concurs with the applicant. While the removal of any historic building should be avoided if at all possible, the loss of historic integrity and significant costs associated with lifting and rehabilitating this building make the preservation of this building unfeasible. The proposed new design is characteristic of cottages in Chautauqua and will reestablish the streetscape on Kinnikinic Road. The traditional approach to the design of this building is appropriate given the very simple vernacular character of cottages in Chautauqua and high level of historic integrity of the district as a whole. Visual clues as to the 2010 vintage of its construction can be subtly achieved through design details such as windows, doors, siding, foundation and roofing materials. As such, staff finds that the new building is generally consistent with Section 9- 11 -18, B.R.C. 1981 and the design guidelines for new construction. Findings: As outlined in the staff recommendation, the proposed demolition and new construction at 14 Kinnikinic Road (as represented on drawings dated 06.17.2010) is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that: 1. The cottage at 14 Kinnikinic Road has lost its integrity and is a non- contributing resource to the local Landmark District, 2. The proposed demolition will not damage and destroy the special historic exterior architectural features of the Chautauqua Historic District given the reviewed plans for new construction, in its place. 3. The proposed demolition of the non - contributing building will not have an adverse effect on the historic character of the Chautauqua Historic District. 4. The request is generally consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 15 S:\PLAM data \longrang\HISTtALTCERTS\Higoric Dirtricts\Cbam ugm\14 I(ion9 ckwtickW.21.2010 mvinv\nx .dm Attachments: I: June 2nd, 2010 Landmarks Board meeting minutes (draft) II: June 2nd, 2010 memo (and attachments), to the Landmarks Board regarding 14 Kinnikinic Road. III: Proposed plans and elevations dated 06.17.2010 AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 16_ S:\ PLAN\ dale\ longrang\HISTVALTCERTSUiistoric Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick\07.21.2010 ®vicw\=mo.doc Attachment I. Draft Minutes From June 2nd, 2010 Landmarks Board Meeting. CITY OF BOULDER LANDMARKSBOARD June 2, 2010 1777 Broadway, Council Chambers Room 6 p.m. The following are the action minutes of the June 2, 2010 City of Boulder Landmarks Board meeting. A digital recording and a permanent set of these minutes (maintained for a period of seven years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303 - 441 - 3043). You may also listen to the recording on -line at: www.bouldcrt)landeveloD.net. BOARD MEMBERS: Mark Gerwing Kurt Nordback Liz Payton Lisa Podmaj ersky, Chair John Spitzer STAFF MEMBERS: Debra Kalish, Assistant City Attorney James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Kelsey Jennings, Historic Preservation Intern 1. CALL TO ORDER The roll having been called, Chair L. Podmajersky declared a quorum at 6:08 p.m. and the following business was conducted. Kurt Nordback was sworn in as the newest Landmarks Board member. On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. Payton, L. Podmajersky was elected as the chair of the Landmarks Board (5 -0). - On a motion by L. Podmajersky, seconded by L. Payton, J. Spitzer was elected as the vice -chair of the Landmarks Board (5 -0). 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by L. Podmajersky, the Landmarks Board approved (4 -0, K. Nordback abstaining), the minutes of the May 5, 2010 Board meeting. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 4. DISCUSSION OF LANDMARK ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION APPLICATIONS ISSUED AND PENDING 5. ACTION ITEMS LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE: AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 17_ SAPLAN\ data \1ongang\nI MAUCCBRTSMistoric Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick\07.212010 revioMmemo.doe A. Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to demolish a 1,225 sq. ft. house and in its place construct a new 1,387 sq. ft. one -story house at 14 Kinnikinic Road in the Chautauqua Historic District per Section 9 -11 -18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2010- 00076). Applicant: Kristin Lewis Owner: Trudy Hutchings Ex -Parte Contacts J. Spitzer visited the site and received e- mails. L. Podmajersky reviewed alterations to the building in the Design Review Committee, visited the site, and received e- mails. L. Payton reviewed alterations to the building in the Design Review Committee and visited the site. M. Gerwing visited the site. K. Nordbaek visited the site. Staff Presentation J. Hewat presented the item to the board. Applicant's Presentation Owner Trudy Hutchings made a short presentation. Project architect Kristin Lewis made a short presentation Public Hearing David Phelan, 7177 Cedarwood Circle, Boulder, CO spoke in opposition to the proposal and his fear that the new foundation would damage his cottage. Kathleen Woodberry, 400 Circle Drive, Denver, CO spoke on behalf of the Chautauqua Association Board in support of the proposal. Ed McCullough, 700 Chautauqua, Boulder, CO spoke in support of the proposal. Alice Thomas, 3102 Reba Drive, Houston, TX spoke in support of the proposal. Gaye McCullough, 700 Chautauqua, Boulder, CO spoke in support of the proposal. Motion On a motion by J. Spitzer, seconded by M. Gerwing, the Landmarks Board approved the proposal to demolish the non - contributing building and construct a 1,387 sq. ft. one -story house (in the same general form as depicted on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 02.12.2010), in that it meets the standards in Chapter 9- 11 -18(a) and (b)(1) -(3), B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below, and adopted the staff memorandum dated 6.2. 10 as findings of the Board. K. Nordback offered an amendment to the motion stating that the footprint of the new construction be limited to that of the existing and that size of the new above ground construction not exceed 1,225 sq. ft,. in order that adequate distance between the building and the Bluebell Trail may be preserved. The amendment passed (3 -2 L. Podmajersky and M. Gerwing opposed). The amended motion passed (4 -1 L. Payton opposed). L. Payton voted against the motion stating she opposed the demolition of the existing building, but was not necessarily opposed to the proposed new design. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Applicant shall be responsible for construction of a new house at 14 Kinnikinic Road in conformance with the general form of the plans submitted with the application dated 02.12.2010, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Applicant shall submit to the Landmarks design review committee for its review and approval final architectural plans that include materials and colors for the following design AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 18_ S:WTAN\data\iongrang"ST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts\ChaNaogw \I4 Kinnickinnick\07.212010 mvim\oemo.dw details: window wells, windows, doors, roofing, siding material and configuration, fenestration, porch details and paint color. This submission is necessary to ensure that the construction is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Chautauqua Park Historic District Guidelines and the intent of this approval. 6. MATTERS FROM THE LANDMARKS BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY A. Update from City Attorney B. Update Memo C. Planning Board Calendar 7. DEBRIEF MEETING /CALENDAR CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Approved on July 21", 20tO Respectfully submitted, Chairperson AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 19_ S:\PLAN\ dale \loag.g\HISMLTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kiimickuu3iuk\07.21.2010 rcvicw\nwmo.doc Attachment II: June 2nd Memorandum and Attachments to Landmarks Board Regarding 14 Kinnikinic Road I ►ri B � Sri [ �l s �: � � l 1 �l t ,�l June 2nd, 2010 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to demolish a 1,225 sq. ft. house and in its place construct a new1,387 sq. ft. one -story house at 14 Kinnikini Road in the Chautauqua Historic District per Section 9 -11 -18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2010 -00076). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 2. Historic District: 3. Zoning: 4. Owner: 5. Applicant: 6. Date of Construction: 7. Existing House: 8. Proposed new const: 14 Kinnikinic Road Chautauqua RL -1 (Residential Low -1) Trudy Hutchings Kristin Lewis, Architect 1899, c. 1928,1950s & 1980s modifications 1,225 sq. ft. 1,387 sq. ft. one -story house STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion: AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 20 So \P1.AMdahUongrang \HISTIALTCERTS \Historic DistriclsChautauquA14 Kinn ickinnick\07.21.2010 mrieeMrotaw.doc The board approves the proposal to demolish the non - contributing building and construct a 1,387 sq. ft. one -story house (as shown on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 02.12.2010), in that it meets the standards in Chapter 9- 11-18(a) and (b)(1) -(3), 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 construction of a new house at 14 Kinnikini Road in conformance with the plans submitted with the application dated 02.12.2010, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Applicant shall submit to the Landmarks design review committee for its review and approval final architectural plans that include materials and colors for the following design details: window wells, windows, doors, roofing, siding material and paint color. This submission is necessary to ensure that the construction is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Chautauqua Park Historic District Guidelines and the intent of this approval. This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions listed above, the proposed demolition and new construction will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9- 11 -18(a) & (b)(1) -(4) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and the Chautauqua Park Historic District Design Guidelines. SUMMARY: Because this application calls for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of free- standing new construction of more than 340 square feet, review by the full Landmarks Board in a public hearing is required per Section 9- 11 -14(b) of the historic preservation ordinance. An application to demolish the building and construct a new 1,538 sq. ft. house in its place was withdrawn during the September 2nd, 2009 Landmark Board's review of the proposal. Subsequently, a landmark alteration certificate was issued by the Landmarks design review committee for the rehabilitation and addition of 162 sq. ft. to the existing cottage. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 21_ S:\ PLAN\ dat aVong,*HIS'r\ALTCLRTSWistoric D stticls \C1=Muqua \14 Kim ickitmick107.21.2010 mYiew\memadoc • Based upon the applicant's consideration that very little historic material remains and the reported high cost of lifting the building to construct a new foundation, the applicant is once again requesting demolition of the cottage and in its place constructing a new one -story building. • Tax assessor records indicate that the existing building was constructed in 1899 with additions having occurred to it sometime around 1925 (within the period of significance for the district). Subsequent non - historic alterations to the building have occurred. However, staff considers the building retains its essential form and is a contributing building to the Local Landmark District. • Based upon the loss of historic fabric as documented by the applicant, staff considers the building to have lost sufficient integrity to be considered a contributing resource to the Chautauqua Historic District. • Staff considers plans for the demolition of the non - contributing building and proposed new construction in its place, to be consistent with Section 9- 11 -18, B.R.C. 1981, and not to have a detrimental effect on the historic district as a whole. • Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application on the condition that details regarding materials and finishes including roofing, siding, windows, and doors be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 22_ S:IPLANWMMougmng %HIST%ALTCERMHW . ro is DishiOWChaWauqua \14 Kivnickinnick\07.2120I0 mviewMemo.dac 4 Kinnikinik Road. ' l = P J' 0* w p ]I1G Lrn U .w iva=. awe _ i - aa mre��xp I IfIfAD II i wmwxc --------- _I�__i CHAUTAUQVA GREEN s, nI �Fl. flu,Mtx "WW Figure 1. Location Map Description and History of Property: The cottage at 14 Kinnikinic Road was constructed in 1899 as an investment property and is associated with early Boulder resident Lucy Bliss. Early photographs of the Chautauqua (figures #2 & #3) show the small hip roof cottage sheathed with board and batten siding and featuring decorative roof cresting. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 23_ S:\ PLAN \data \longraitg \HIST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \74 Kimt ickinnick \07.21.2010 review \memo.doc In 1915, Rabbi Joseph Blatt of Oklahoma City is thought to have bought the cottage and it served as his summer residence until 1946. Blatt was Rabbi of B'nai Israel, the first reform and oldest synagogue in the state of Oklahoma. Blatt summered at Chautauqua every year from 1915 until his death in 1946. The 2005 National Historic Landmark (NHL) description ( see Attachment A) of the property states that the first year of Blatt's ownership, shed roofed porch additions were built to the west, north, and south, and the porch of the east elevation of the cottage was enclosed. It describes the cottage as contributing though acknowledges non- historic changes to the building including a center paneled door and replacement windows installed in the 1980s as having affected its historic integrity. An earlier 1995 survey of Chautauqua by Front Range Associates, Inc. recommended the building to be non - contributing to the district based upon the level of change describing cottage #14 as "one of the most altered historic resources" in the district ( see Attachment Al . AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 24_ S: \PLAN\data\longmng \HISTiADCCERTS \Historic Distr lots \Cliautauqua \14 Kiu dekinnick \0721.2010 review \memo.doe Figure 2. Cottage #14,1899 The defined period of significance for the Colorado Chautauqua is 1898 -1930. Additional research indicates that the porches, referred to in the NHL nomination, were actually constructed sometime between 1924 and 1928. Furthermore, a c.1949 tax assessor photograph shows the east porch area screened, and not enclosed in 1917, as described in the NHL documentation. Additional building permit research indicates that a water main was brought to the cottage in 1942 and that in 1959 $1,200 worth of work was undertaken, AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 25_ S:\PLAN\ data \IODgrang \HIST \ALTCHRTS \Historic Districts \CUautauqua \14 Rim&kinnick \07.2L2010 revimvMemo.doc Figure 3. Cottage #14 c. 1907 Figure 4. Cottage #14 c. 1949 including new flooring and a new roof of the "screened porch" area. A second tax assessor photograph thought to date from about 1960 shows the east face of the porch having been enclosed (see figure 5). Today, the walls of the cottage are clad with wide horizontal siding some of which appears to date from the 1920s construction of the porches. A portion of the original board and batten siding is visible at the top of the north wall. Post 1960 changes to the building include 1980s replacement of significant portions of siding, windows and fenestration including center paneled door accessed by a flagstone stoop. The exposed rafter tails visible in the c.1949 photograph are obscured by an eaves trough system. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 26_ S:\ PLAN\ dataUongnng\DIST%ALTCERTMHistoric D¢victs\Chzwaugw \14 Kinnickinuk W7.212010 mvicw \m m.doc Figure 5. Cottage #14, c. 1960 �.. <4 q±NY � ^ �N a .-• _ y. Figure 6. Footprint of cottage showing dates of construction The property slopes up to the west to the Bluebell Trail from which it is publicly visible. This elevation of the building reveals the hip roof form and stone chimney of the original cottage. The rear portion of the house is supported by a concrete block foundation likely constructed in the post 1960 period. Figure 7. Cottage #14, 2009 - East elevation AGENDA TTEM #5A PAGE 27_ S: \P1.ANklata \Iongmn6 \HISML7CE2TS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kin ickhmick\07.21.2010 mvieMmenro.doc AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 28_ S:\ PLAN\ data \Ion6Biig \HISTWUrCERTS \Historic Districts\ Chautauqu4 M Kitmickimic"7.21.2010 mvim\uwu .doc Figure 8. Cottage #].4, 2009 - Northeast corner Figure 9. Cottage #14, 2009 - West elevation from Bluebell Trail The 1899 and c.1925 portions of the building were built within the period of significance, however, the applicant questions the extent of integrity given what they consider to be a significant loss of historic material ( see Fire 7 ). The 1957 addition was constructed outside of the 1898 -1930 period of significance for the Chautauqua Historic District and is, therefore, non- contributing. A 1995 historic building inventory form for the building completed by Front Range Research Associates recommended the building to be non- contributing due to alterations having "diminished" its historic integrity. This assessment is at odds with the 2005 National Historic Landmark nomination for the Colorado Chautauqua which, while acknowledging that changes have "somewhat diminished" the integrity of the building, it "retains most character - defining features of Chautauqua cottages" and should be considered contributing. In a July 2008 review of the proposal to demolish the cottage, the Chautauqua Building and Grounds committee recommended that the NHL nomination was "generous" in referring to the building as contributing as a result of alterations and that, in their opinion, it should be considered non- contributing. In a physical investigation of the building intended to more definitively date changes to the structure ( Attachment B), the applicant represents that, "The most extensive work done to the cottage occurred in 1957 when the rear, northwest addition was added. At that time the majority of the current windows were installed, the east and west elevations were sided, the screened porches were enclosed and concrete block was added to the west and south west walls. The initial investigation by Kristin Lewis Architects as to the date of the siding occurred during a site visit where an exposed lumber stamp was noticed on the east siding. The siding is also a noticeably different color than the siding adjacent to it on the north £agade." The applicant concludes that, "over 80 % of the visible exterior material is from an era considered non - contributing and does not properly convey the significance of Cottage #14." Based upon definitive evidence presented by the applicant indicating that a great majority of the building's fabric post -dates the period of significance for the district, staff considers the building to be non - contributing. This assessment is consistent with the 1995 survey of Chautauqua by Front Range Associates, Inc. finding the building to be non - contributing to the district based upon the level of change describing it as "one of the most altered historic resources" in the district (see Attachment AJ . As such, staff considers that demolition would not necessarily AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 29_ S:\ PLAN\ data \longreng \HiS11ALTCERTSUiistoric Districts \Chautauqua \14 Riimickinnick \07.21.2010 mvieMmemo.doc be inconsistent with the Chautauqua Historic District Guidelines & General Design Guidelines provided that the proposed new construction meet the requirements of paragraphs § 9- 11- 18(b)(2) -(4) of the historic preservation ordinance. Request for New Construction: In place of the existing 1,225 sq. ft. building, the applicant proposes to construct a 1,387 sq. ft. one -story house with a full basement. The proposed site plan shows the proposed new construction to be largely contained within the footprint of the existing house with roughly the same setback from Kinnikinic Road. At its west boundary the new construction is shown to extend roughly 8 feet more toward the Bluebell Trail than the existing house. Figure 10. Site Plan showing Elevations show the proposed new construction to be simply designed and almost identical in form and detail to the existing house when viewed from the AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 30_ S:\ PLAN \datalloagraug\IIIST1ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinaick\07.21.2010 mvim\ine=.dac t 1 I a li ® I 6 by n xI r- 1 I I 1 I I 8 - n - - -- - Figure 10. Site Plan showing Elevations show the proposed new construction to be simply designed and almost identical in form and detail to the existing house when viewed from the AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 30_ S:\ PLAN \datalloagraug\IIIST1ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinaick\07.21.2010 mvim\ine=.dac front and sides. It is shown to feature a central hipped roof intersected by a hipped roof at the east and shed roofs at the east, west, and south. Eaves are shown to slightly project and fenestration to feature one over one, double hung windows, a screened and a partially screened porch on the east and north faces. Exterior walls are to be clad with wide plank siding on the east elevation and board and batten siding on the other elevations. , A TMK 91011N 1 nj6m o �. Figure 12. Proposed East Elevation AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 3 1_ S: PLAN\dm\loograng \HIS MLTCERTS\Historic Diaricts\Chaohauque \14 Kinnickiuoick\0721.2010 mvicw\mnm.doc Figure 11. Existing East (front) elevation The foundation of the cottage is shown to be skirted with wood siding similar to the existing siding. Light wells are planned at the north, west, and south elevations of the cottage. The front entrance to the screened porch is shown to be accessed by way of a flagstone stoop in the same configuration as the existing. No mature trees are shown to be removed as a result of the project. Figure 1.3. Existing North (side) Elevation Figure 14. Proposed North Elevation AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 32_ S:U' LANWamUongrangMSMLTCERTSUlis toric DistriG \Chautauqua \14 KinnickinnickID721.2010 eeviewlmwmo.d.c Figure 15. Existing West (rear) elevation m e�eiesiq nnnnnll III I Figure 16. Proposed West elevation AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 33_ S:\ PLAMdetaVongmng \H[S'IMLTC&R'f'S \Historic Du1ricts\C1 autaaqua \14 KinnickiunickA7.21.2010 n:view�menro.doc autaaqua \14 KinnickiunickA7.21.2010 n:view�menro.doc f�c Figure 17. Existing South (side) elevation Criteria for Board's Decision: The Boulder Revised Code provides that a Landmark Alteration Certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it is consistent with the AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 34_ S;WLAN\ data \Iougmn&IS4nALTCERTS\Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kir uickimickl07.21.2010=Yim\nwm .dae rigure us. rroposea boum eievanon purposes of the historic preservation chapter. See Section 9- 11- 18(a), B.R.C. 1981.. The remainder of Section. 9 -11 -18 states: (b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions: (5) 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 a historic district; (6) 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; (7) 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; (8) 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. (d) 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. Accordingly, when a building in an historic district is proposed for demolition, the Code requires that the Board consider the proposed new construction simultaneously with the demolition request. Demolition. In determining the appropriateness of demolition within a designated historic district, the standard for whether or not to approve the demolition is found in Code at Section 9- 11 -18, discussed above. However, the Board is also guided by the General Design Guidelines and the design guidelines for the specific historic district. One factor for the Board to consider in is whether the subject building contributes to the character of the district. The General Design Guidelines defines a "contributing building" as being "built during the district's period of significance [and exist[ing] in comparatively original condition, or [as having] been appropriately restored and clearly contributing] to the historic significance of AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 35_ S .-\PLANMala \longang\MSI'ALTCERTS \Historic Dishicts\ChaW uqua \14 Rinnickimick\07.211010 mvioMmemo.doc the district." "Contributing restorable" is defined as buildings that "have experienced some alteration, but that still convey some sense of history." Contributing status is based upon a combination of significance and integrity. Significance tells us why the building is important. Integrity describes the ability of the property to convey its significance. The demolition of contributing resources generally does not meet the criteria for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, as it would have an adverse effect on the special historic, architectural, and aesthetic interest and value of the district. That standard may be mitigated by questions of economic feasibility, energy - efficiency, disabled access and other city policies, per paragraphs 9- 11 -1(c) and 9- 11- 18(c), B.R.C. 1981. New Construction. When a building in an historic district is proposed for demolition, the Code requires that the Board consider the proposed new construction simultaneously with the demolition request. In other words, before the demolition can be approved, the Landmarks Board must also find that the proposed new construction will not adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district and that the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials used on the proposed structure are compatible with the character of the historic district. Analysis: 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district? Based upon the architect's physical investigations of the building, staff concurs that as much as 80% of the exterior material dating from the district's identified 1898 -1930 period of significance has been lost ( see Attachment B) . Specifically, it appears that the vast majority of the building's fabric dates from 1957 or later. While the essential form of the 1899 building and c.1925 additions are intact, the loss of historic material has so affected the historic integrity of the building that it can no longer be considered contributing to the district. Given this, staff is of the opinion that in the context of the proposed new construction which is very similar to the historic cottage, that demolition of the existing cottage would not AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 36_ S:\ PLAN \data \long}ang\HIST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick \07212010 rovieMniemo.doc damage or destroy the character defining features of the contributing property or the Chautauqua Park Historic District as a whole. As was noted during the September 2009 staff memo to the Board, staff has inspected the interior of the building on a number of occasions and confirmed that the framing of the building is deteriorated and has been compromised by interior remodeling that has taken place over the years. Considerable work will be necessary to rehabilitate the cottage. Photographs indicating these conditions can be found in Attachment E. 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? For the reasons outlined in question 1 above, staff finds that the demolition of this highly visible cottage would not have an adverse effect on the special historic, architectural, and aesthetic character of property and the value of the district as a whole. 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district? Staff considers the proposed new construction to be generally compatible with the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials in terms of mass, scale, height, setback, and design. 4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Chautauqua Historic District and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of paragraphs § 9- 11- 18(b)(2), 9- 11- 18(b)(3), & 9- 11- 18(b)(4) of this section? Because of the significant loss of historic material and resulting loss of historic integrity staff finds that the cottage at 14 Kinnikinic Road is non - contributing. Staff also considers the proposed new building will meet the requirements of 9- 11-18(b)(2), 9- 11- 18(b)(3) and 9- 11- 18(b)(4) — see questions 1, 2, & 3 above. 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 Landmark Alteration Certificate. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 37_ S :\PLAN\dam \Iongmng\HISTNALTCGRTS \Historic Dishict \CLamugoa \14 Kimickionick\0721.2010 mview\==dm The applicant has included information regarding the estimated cost of lifting the house in order to construct a foundation ( see Attachment C ). Currently, the building is sitting on piers and grade and is unstable. Estimates given for lifting the building range from between $25,000 to $35,000. Excavation beneath the lifted house for a new foundation is estimated to cost about $10,000 more than if the existing building was demolished. In total, the applicant estimates that the cost of rehabilitating and adding to the building will cost between 14% and 16% more than the cost of constructing a new building of the same design. 6. Is the proposed application consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9 -11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981? The demolition of the non - contributing building and proposed new construction will be consistent with the legislative intent of the ordinance as set out in 9-11 - 1(a)-(c) of the Boulder Revised Code. 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 Historic Preservation Ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a checklist of items for compliance. General Design Guidelines for New Construction, 6.0. 6.1 Distinction from Historic Buildings The replication of historic architecture in new construction is inappropriate, as it can create a false historic context and blur the distinction between old and new buildings. While new structures must be com atlble with the historic context, they must also be recognizable as new construction. .1 Buildings should be of their own time The proposed design can be Yes creating contemporary interpretations described as neo-traditionaI closely of historic elements. matching the diminutive scale, form, massing, and simple detailing of the existing building. Windows, doors, and finishes will distinguish the building as contemporary construction. .2 Interpretations of historic styles may be Drawings show the proposed house Yes appropriate if they are distinguishable to interpret many of the historic as new, forms of the existing cottage in a AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 38_ S: \PLAN\ dam\ longeang \HIST \ALTCERTS\Histoiie Disteiets\ Chautauqua \14 Kinaickinniok \07.21,2010 mview\n1emo.doc mariner that will be clearly distinguishable from the historic (see 6.1.1). 6.2 -; Site and Setting Consistenc The proposed house is shown to New buildings should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature frees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new buildings should not overpower the site or have a footprint similar to the dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings. Therefore, the existing building. The front side, compatibility of proposed new construction will be reviewed to ensure that these elements are maintained. 1 Conform to the Design Guidelines The proposed building location on yes the historic pattern for the found in Section 2.0 Site Design, the site and orientation is generally adjacent buildings. neighborhood. regarding site and setting in developing in keeping with the neighborhood. New construction should not be Size of new above ground a proposed site plan. The fagade's orientation to significantly different from contributing construction increasing Kinnikini Road is consistent with historic buildings in the district in approximately 162 sq. ft. over that of streetscape. Rear elevation will terms of the proportion of built mass to existing cottage. The lot coverage extend approximately 8 feet closer to open space on the individual site. See and built mass to open space for the Bluebell Trail than is currently the Guideline 2.1.1. proposed new construction appears case, but within the norm for within the average for the historic buildings backing onto the trail. 2 Design new construction so that the Some cutting into the grade will be Maybe Y overall character of the site, site necessary. However, it is unclear topography, character- defining site whether existing topography and features and trees are retained. trees on the property will be reserved. 3 New site construction to be compatible The proposed house is shown to yes with surrounding buildings that have a footprint similar to the contribute to the overall character of the existing building. The front side, historic district in terms of setback, and rear setbacks are consistent with orientation, spacing, and distance from the historic pattern for the adjacent buildings. neighborhood. 4 New construction should not be Size of new above ground Yes significantly different from contributing construction increasing historic buildings in the district in approximately 162 sq. ft. over that of terms of the proportion of built mass to existing cottage. The lot coverage open space on the individual site. See and built mass to open space for the Guideline 2.1.1. proposed new construction appears within the average for the historic p attern of the area. 6.3 Mass and Scale In considering the overall compatibility of new construction, its height, f orm, massin , size and AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 39_ S:\ YI. ANldaln Vongang \HISTW.TCBRTS\Hist ®c Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Kinuickinnick107.21.2010 wview\nx =.doc 6.4 scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front fagade is especially 1 important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetscape. While new construction Plans call for the walls of the new tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not be so out -of -scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom construction to be covered inboard over them. 1 Design new buildings to be compatible The proposed new construction is Yes with surrounding buildings that generally consistent with historic contribute to the overall character of cottages found in the district in the historic district in terms of height, terns of height, scale, massing and size, scale, massing, and proportions. proportion. 2 The mass and scale of new construction Plans and elevations indicate the Yes 2 should respect neighboring buildings scale, massing and placement of the Yes and the streetscape as a whole. proposed new construction will traditionally sized building respect neighboring buildings and components and materials. the streetscape as a whole. 3 Historic heights and widths as well as Proportions of the proposed house Yes their ratios should be maintained. The are generally compatible with those proportions of the front fafade are of adjacent historic buildings on particularly important and should be Kinnikinic Road. compatible to those of surrounding historic buildings, 6.4 Materials '; • Consistent , 1 Materials should be similar in scale, Plans call for the walls of the new Maybe y proportion, texture, finish, and color construction to be covered inboard to those found on nearby historic and batten and wide exposure lap buildings. siding. The roof is specified to be asphalt shingle. Windows and doors specified to be painted wood. Details should be submitted to staff for review and approval. 2 Maintain a human scale by avoiding Plans for the cottage show shapes, Yes large, featureless surfaces and by using forms, and sizes found on private traditionally sized building cottages in the Chautauqua Historic components and materials. District. Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are scone of the most important character - defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they complement the historic architecture. In addition to the Guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related suggestions. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 40_ S:\ PLAN \dataVongmng \HISTWLTCERTS \Historic Districts\Chautauqua \14 Kinnickiwriek\07.21.2010 revicw\nremo.doc .1 Design the spacing placement, scale, Fenestration shown in submitted yes orientation, proportion, and size of elevations is generally compatible window and door openings in new with historic buildings in the structures to be compatible with the immediate streetscape. surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district, while reflecting the underlying design of the new building. 2 Select windows and doors for new Specified 1/1 double hung wood Maybe y buildings that are compatible in sash are compatible and reflective of material, subdivision, proportion, private cottages in the area. pattern and detail with the windows Proportion of glazed areas on west and doors of surrounding buildings elevation is greater than typical of that contribute to the historic district. historic houses. Screened porch characteristic of Chautauqua. 3 New buildings should use a roof form The roof form with minimal eave yes found in the district or on the landmark projection reflects the existing site. cottage and is characteristic of other cottages in the district. 4 Porches should be compatible in The proposed screened -in porch at yes massing and details to historic porches the north east corner of the building in the district, and should be is characteristic of private cottages appropriate to the style of the house. in the district. The applicant has fully explored the option of rehabilitating and adding to the existing house and now finds the building to have little historic and structural integrity and the costs associated with its preservation prohibitive. Staff has worked closely with the owner over the past two years and has inspected the premises a number of times over that period. Based upon the submitted evidence showing an almost total lack of historic integrity, staff now concurs with the applicant. While the removal of any historic building should be avoided if at all possible, the loss of historic integrity and significant costs associated with lifting and rehabilitating this building make the preservation of this building unfeasible. The proposed new design closely resembles the existing cottage and will reestablish the streetscape on Kinnikinic Road. Staff finds that the new building is generally consistent with Section 9- 11 -18, B.R.C. 1981 and the design guidelines for new construction. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 41_ S:\ PLAMda taVougmngUHSILALTCERTS\Historic Distdd NChamuqua \I4 Kinniddunick\07111010 mviewWenw.doc Findings: As outlined in the staff recommendation, the proposed demolition and proposed new construction at 14 Kinnikini Road is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that: 1. The cottage at 14 Kinnikini Road has lost its integrity and is a non- contributing resource to the local Landmark District. 2. The proposed demolition will not damage and destroy the special historic exterior architectural features of the Chautauqua Historic District given the reviewed plans for new construction, in its place. 3. The proposed demolition of the non- contributing building will not have an adverse effect on the historic character of the Chautauqua Historic District. 5. The request is generally consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Attachments: A: Historic Building Inventory form and National Historic Landmark description of property B: Information regarding changes to the building and historic integrity C: Applicant Ietter and cost estimates D: Definition of "contributing" and "non- contributing" resources from the General Design Guidelines. E: Historic & Contemporary photographs F: Existing and proposed plans and elevations G: Correspondence from Chautauqua Association Building Committee AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 42_ S:\ PLAN\dataVongmng \HIST\ALTCERTSUIistoric Districts\C m+ auqua \14 Kinnic"inick\07.21.2010 revim\me..doc Attachment A: Historic Building Inventory Form I.y.Mv...,waILRL ..Ell Office of Archaeology and Historic Presarvation - NOT FOR FIELD USE 1300 Broadway, Denver, Calorsdo 80203 _ Eligible Nominated _ Gat_ Had Eligible _ Certified Rdub. HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD Data PROJECT NAME: SoUtder IQVVQy of Hipbone COUNTY: CJtt: STATE 1D MO.: 58136153 Places ^ew!lered Resources, 1995 Sou Lder Boulder IENIPORARf No.: 7579 -o1- 1.08.020 CURRENT 81HLONG NAME: ONNEit BAIL DAVID JR R JUDY ARMS BALL Cottage Number 14 ' 14 CHAUTAUQUA PARK BOULDER CO 80302-7549 ADDRESS: KIRNIKINIC RD MUEN, CO 80302 TOMSHIP 13 RANGE 71V SECTION 01 tE 114 ME 1/4 H13YORIC NAME: Cottage Number 14 U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: Eldorado Spring, YEAR: 1963 (PR1971) X 7.5 15• BLOCK: N/A lefts): Cottage 14 DISTRICT VME: Chautauqua Perk ADDITION: COLomdo ChaUtmqua YR. OF ADDITION: 1898 FILM DOLL IA.: 939. 2 NEGATIVE NO.: LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: BY: Roger Rbitaore 32 boulder City Ping. OTINATE: ACTUAL: 1925 SOIRICE: Boulder Corry A..., N USE: PRESENT: Res idance HISTORIC: Reaidenee CONDITION: ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE EXCELLENT GOOD X FAIR DETERIORATING EXTENT OF ALTERATIONS: MINOR MODERATE X MAJOR DESCRIBE: Major remodeLing. Nonhisteric siding; security dmr7 plate glass and other . wind. alterotioAa; nnuOlt iron Tai lingo. CONTINUED- YES X NO STYLE: Veraecular Wood Frame STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED 1 DATE($) OF MOVEi ' MATERIALS: good, Concrete SO. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 969 INDIVIDUAL.: YES X NO ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION: Ona-stary hipped real duelling with overhanging saves and exposed rafters. gaits CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT: clad with wide nprhiatoP14 siding and vertioal panel aiding. Center paneled and YES - X NO LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: TO$ glazed door with seeurtey gri LLe. Plata glass and other nomhisteris windows. MaiaL chianey. Conorera block foundation. NAME: City of eouldar DATE: 09.051978 ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? Y29 N DO TYPE: IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.: CONTINUED? YES X NO AODIT10NAL PAGES: YES X NO AGENDA rPEM #5A PAGE 43_ 8:\ PL4Ndata \longrang\IiIS'MLTCERTSUliatorie Didriets\Chautauqus \14 ISinuickinnickW721.2010 tevietv\mer..doc AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 44_ S :IPLANWatali iW OgUIIST\ALTCERTS \Historic DistrictslChauieuqua\i4 Kinnicki,mick)07212010 review \ra=o.dm PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: STATE ID NO.: 5OL361.53 Unknown ORIGINAL oNNER: — UN nom SOURCE: SOURCEr BU1LDFR /CONTRACTOR: Unknown this HRENE(s): SOURCE: Recreation /TOUrian: ROOTS R — — Developers, 1865-1945 — CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (SESCRIPTION, NANES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE): CONTINUED YES x NO HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSONS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED NITN THIS STRUCTURE): This 1925 cottagm replaced an earlier, smaller Muse on the site which had been present on 1900 through 7922 Saintwrn Insurance naps. Houses near the Outside boundary of the dimutsepus grounds were typitatty *ratted by private Individuals or groups. The old Aseasser acrd indicate, that Mr. A,H, Blatt of eacchhurst, New York, was an earlier owner of the building. This cottage may have been associated With Rabbi Joseph Blatt of oklahom. He frequently conducted non-dernaninstionaL religious services at the Colorado Chautauqua and became a "cottage owning" resident. David Ball was a subsequent owner of the property and David BALL, Jr., is listed as the present owner. The original cottage on the site Was reportedly associated with Mrs. Lucy Bliss, She Ism to Boulder in about 1895 and Lived there an Pine Street until about 1915. CONTINUED YES x No SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW): ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE; REPRESENTS THE YORK DP A MASTER ASSOCIATCO UITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED UITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT TIER EVALUATION; - STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Alterations have diminished the historic property of this building. This cottage is one of the meet altered historic resources an the Colorado Chautauqua grounds. ' CONTINUED YES K NO REFERENCES CBS sPECIPTG: rwulder County Assessor information; Boulder County Assessor collection, Carnegie Library for Local History; Mary 04(e)', The Grand Assembly (*cinder, 00; First Flatiron Press, 19BT), B3; Sanborn Insurance map, 1900-1931; Boulder Daily Camara, 14 July 1935. CONTINUED YES x IW SURVEYED BY: R.L. Simmons/T.M. Simmons AFFILIATION: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. DATE: November 1995 AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 44_ S :IPLANWatali iW OgUIIST\ALTCERTS \Historic DistrictslChauieuqua\i4 Kinnicki,mick)07212010 review \ra=o.dm Attachment B: Applicant Information regarding changes to the building and historic integrity Response to Sept 2009 Memo: Analysis: 1. The applicant would argue that the proposed design retains the remaining character defining features of the cottage because it retains the shape of the existing cottage. Staff's 9/2/2010 report, pages 7 and 8, state that "The 1899 and c. 1925 portions of the building were built within the period of significance and are contributing. The 1957 addition was constructed outside the period of significance and is, therefore, non-contributing." These elevations depict the location of material that remains on the cottage from Chautauqua's period of significance from 1898-1930. The highlighted areas specifically draw attention to these locations. 2 SWfl EUVAMN (4Utb9-M G.A) WOMEN,, 2 SWfl EUVAMN (4Utb9-M G.A) � 45 SAPLAMdafa\1o.iimg\H1S 12010wvi..\.-dau M UEVAPM . uw -AS null) ' All ;:Na ,TF-VNrw�n --;"— WM �ATM (Dbtkm A. SWO � 45 SAPLAMdafa\1o.iimg\H1S 12010wvi..\.-dau M UEVAPM . uw -AS null) ' All ;:Na ,TF-VNrw�n --;"— The vertical board and batten on the north elevation is original and can be seen in the 1907 photograph. The horizontal siding was added with the 1925 additions of the screened porch. The existing material that remains from the period of significance accounts for 20% of the existing fagade. - Nm s 1�9 wuvr�wfi� - Q Vlr-NMe6 wlzs a ctsFw� 1 uor=5 19s� Mkr�R U kJ "M!5 The colored elevations above depict the year of each material on the fapade. Site visits and research helped to confirm the era of each piece. The vertical board and batten a stated above is evident in the 1907 photograph of the original cottage. The horizontal siding was added with the screened porches of 1925 and can been seen in the 1949 photo. The most extensive work done to the cottage occurred in 1957 when the rear, northwest, addition was added. At that time the majority of the current windows were installed, the east and west elevations were sided, the screened porches were enclosed and concrete block was added to the west and south west walls. The initial investigation by Kristin Lewis Architects as to the date of the siding occurred during a site visit where an exposed lumber stamp was noticed on the east siding. The siding is also a noticeably different color than the siding adjacent to it on the North fagade. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 46_ S:\PLAN\ data\ longrang \IilST\AL'I'CERTS\Historic Distrlcls\Chautauqua\I4 Kinnickinnick \07.21.2010 review\memo.doe 2 \ LAST ELEVATION tExiltug "As Built) '. -AL' Bole: li V - V 0' oi....up numA�m� 3 ., IVESTELEVATION Uusting -As Built) -._ _.... Research contained,in the American Wood Council's National Design Standard states that lumber stamps began to be used in 1924. The research also revealed that milled lumber came in different thicknesses throughout the years. The lumber milled post 1956 is the current thickness of 3 /4 ". Lumber milled prior to 1956 and between 1924 would be larger than 3 /4 ", or 25/32" and lumber milled prior to 1924 would be thicker still. To verify the ages of the siding on the house KLA measured the various siding located on Cottage #14. The horizontal siding on the east face measures at exactly 3/4" thick while the siding located on the north face noted as being associated with the 1925 construction, is slightly larger than 1 /4". This measurable fact, along with the different coloring of the two sidings lead us to conclude that only portions of the horizontal siding on the north and south elevations relate to the period of significance (see page 1 of response). Further evidence is noted in the different layers of paint on the siding from various timeframes as well as construction details such as the siding connections in the 1925 versus 1957 wood. The pictures below note the notched siding details of the 1925 construction and the excessive caulking of the 1957 siding at both the north and south east corners of the cottage to protect the joint where new siding butts against old siding. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 47_ S:\ PLAWata \longrang \HISTWLTCERTS\Hisoric Districts\Chmauqua\14 Khmickinnick \07.2L2010re iewl.ic..doc LUMBER STAMP NORTHEAST CORNER Of additional significance to note is the suspected recycling of original board and batten on the south face of the cottage when it was enclosed in 1957. Board and batten visible from the inside of the south wall of the cottage closely resembles that of the board and batten from the original portion of the cottage. It is believed that when the 1957 addition to the southwest corner of the cottage occurred, the remaining exterior board and batten from the west face of the original structure was salvaged to form the vertical siding that replaced the screened porch. In light of all the research and site observations noted above, it is clear that the majority of the exterior fagade that currently exist on Cottage #14 is not from the era of significance. The applicant agrees with Staffs previous finding that the forms of the 1899 and 1925 buildings are still intact however with the new evidence, the applicant disagrees with staff's opinion that the building retains sufficient historic integrity to be considered "contributing" or "contributing - restorable". The building does not exist in original condition and has not been appropriately restored. Over 80% of the visible exterior material is from an era considered non - contributing and does not properly convey the significance of Cottage #14. The proposed new construction would maintain the existing massing, setbacks, site spacing and roof lines currently associated with Cottage #14. The 7' -8" x 20' -2" addition at the northwest comer of the cottage would be the only deviation from the form of the existing cottage. The design of the addition had been granted an approved LAC dated February 17 2010. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 48_ S:\ PLAN\ data \longmng \HISTWLTCGRTS\Iiistoric DistrictACGautauqua \14 Khmickkmick\07.21.2010 mview\menro.doc NOTCHED DETAILING EXCESSIVE CAULKING Attachment C: Applicant letter and cost estimates kxistin lewis A r c h i t e c t s fuss o •- 01'* April2, 2010 James Hewat City of Boulder Planner 11; Historic Preservation Re: Cottage 14, Chautauqua Park, Boulder, CO Greeting% James, As you know, we are working on the rehabilitation of Cottage 14, in Chautauqua Park, for Trudy Hutchings. You are also aware that the owner bad requested demolition of the cottage and requested approval of a replacement structure prior to our being involved with the project. That application was withdrawn once it been me apparent the Landmark Board would not approve demolition of the cottage. Subsequently, our office was hired to design a remodel of the existing structure. On February 17 we received an LAC for the proposed remodel. fn conjunction with the design process, we have been meeting with house movers to discuss the process and budget. The site access at Cottage #14 is very tight so we intend to have a clear understanding of how the Lift & Hold, demolition and excavation processes will occur before we. finalize our design. As discussed in the LRDC meetings, in order to stabilize the existing building, we will need to provide a new foundation. To pour the new foundation, we will be required to lift the existing structure, excavate for a new basement and then place it in its permanent location. We have sent the approved schematic drawings to three different house movers and have met thorn at the site to discuss process, tithing and budget,'They independently have came tip with prices ranging from $50,000- 60.000. Those numbers do include excavating the basement under the building but do not include any of the foundation work or backfill. The existing structure does not meet current code standards so it does trot include the costs to re- strata» re the existing house. Prior to starling the design and meeting professional movers at the site we had an estimate of about $25,000 for budgetary purposes. Much of the reason for the increase in predicted house moving costs vs. actual estimated costs is due to the extreme conditions of Ore site and the condition of the existing structure. The limited access to the site will require Carefully planned and orchestrated handwork to remove, demo and excavation material through the front door and east facing window openings that we have been granted approval to modify. The existing house also does not have one uniform level at which to support the house to perform the lift and hold. The many historic renovations have left the existing cottage with a number of diffamet foundation types. The original portion of the cottage does sit above a crawlspace and can be lifted at the floor level. The south and west walls that once delineated the screened porch are constructed of both flume and concrete block. The concrete block will have to be removed and the southwest corner ofthe house will have to be supported just below the window sills; at a higher level than the rest of the house. We are assuming much of the existing wall on the uphill (West) side has dry rot and will have to be replaced. The same is most likely into of the existing uphill wall to the south. On three separate house visits, we were told that the entire lift and hold process will take no less than a month to complatc, 1929 14" St. #200 Boulder CO 90302 Phone 303 449.5747 Fax 303 447.2943 BlarchOndraxorn AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 49_ S:\ PLAN \data \longrang\lllgT\ALTCCRTS \Historic Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Kinniekiiinick \07.21.2010 revicw\=nio.doo As research on the history of Cottage 1114 shows, an early addition to the original cottage was a screened porch that was subsequently filled in. Our approved LAC opens up the existing closed in porch and allows for the replacemnent and relocation of all existing windows on the rest of the closed porch area in a way drat is respectful of the original screened porch design and corrects many of the flaws of the modern window replacements of the 1980'x. The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form states that the integrity of the exterior of the cottage was diminished by the modem exterior features that we have been granted approval to correct. The NPS register form also states that the cottage retains most of its chamcter- defining features of Chautauqua cottages, which after the previous statement concerning the integrity of the exterior elevations; I interpret to mean the iconic shape of the building. The goal of die renovation and addition to Cottage 914 is to revitalize a deteriorating landmark and give Trudy's family a place to congregate. I believe that if the objective of the DRC is to preserve the character - defining shape of the building, we. can do so at a much diminished cost with a new structure. The moving costs, as currently estimated, will account for over 13% of the estimated building costs for the approved addition and remodel ofthe existing cottage. ]have also met with a contractor, who I have worked with on extensive renovations in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, to review the plants and scope of work. Based on his review of the site and drawings he estimated that his additional costs to work with the existing structure will run an additional $50,000. $10,000 of those costs are for pouring the foundation under tiro existing structure after excavation. This accounts for an additional 11% of the estimated building costs. As you know, I am a preservationist and believe in saving and preserving our built history. I feel that in the case of Cottage 414, we are subjecting the homeowner to an unreasonable expense to preserve a building that is noted more for its historic shape than the integrity of its current oxterior. It is unfortunate that at the time of the demolition request there had not boon adequate research on Ilia expenses and that the proposed replacement did not respect the shape of the original structure. I suspect the Landmarks board did not have adequate information to make a more informed decision so am not surprised that they denied demolition. I would no to ask about The possibility of meeting with the board at the site to review the net I physical conditions and to answer any questions. The contractor I met with has agreed to attend the meeting to provide more detailed descriptions of his process. I also have two detailed estimates from the house movers that I can make available. The exterior features of the house conceal the actual state of construction. In fact, the siding on the front fapade is not original material as evidenced by a lumber stamp. I fear that the original structure of die cottage that would be saved may primarily he the studs, which will be covered up by new material and, additionally, will need to be re- structured. I do not take lightly the notion of demolishing a building in the historic district and understand that Ilia Landmarks Board would fact the sane way. I began working on this projoctwidh the assumption that 1 was doing a renovation and only alter a lengthy review ofthe site and structure have come to the conclusion that this is a case deserving of a second look with careful consideration of all of the current facts as they relate to the historic preservation portion of the City of Boulder's revised Code in chapter 9 -11, section f, # 3 and 4. I feel that there are very strong arguments against tine reasonable condition ofthe building as well as the reasonable cost of restoration and repair. i cannot, in good conscience, recommend preserving this building and would like the Landmark Board to re- consider demolition based on additional information. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 50_ SIPLAMdala Von Dimic XChauraugmU4 Kinnickinoick \07.21.2010mviewhmenw.doe The owner will be in Boulder on Apt4120 -21 to talk to several wntractors about renovating the cottage. Given the magnitude of unexpected costs I'm not sure whero the project stands, C dunk it would be very helpful, if possible, to have a meeting at the situ prior to the owner's arrival so as to have some general discussion about submitting for demolition prior to meeting with builders. I will call you in a couple of days to discuss this proposal. Sincerely, Kristin Lewis AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 51_ S:\ PLAN\ data Vongmng \HIST\ALTCERTS\Histode DiMicts\CHautauqua \I4 Mnnickinnick\07.21.2610 mvie)*mmo.doc krastin lewis Arah itaats April 12, 2010 James Hewat City of Boulder, Planner H (Historic Preservation) Boulder, CO 80302 Re: Cottage #14 Demo Permit; Additional Materials Dear James, As you know, we are submitting a new request for the demolition of Cottage #14 based on new information that was not available during the List (tearing. Here are some additional materials to support the new application: _ 1. Description of Proposed construction: The proposed design would be new construction in the spirit of the design previously granted with an Approved LAG The design Includes the addition of 162 square feet to the reartnorthwest) comer of the main level and 1219 square feet of basement to the existing footprint of the cottage. The proposal Corrects the existing non- historio modiftations of the exterior will, a design that mimics the patterns of College #14 in the 1925 photograph. It also restores a screen porch to the northwest comer of the cottage and new windows to reflect the size and fenestration of the 1925 era screens. The new design would also add board and batten to ft exterior In reference to the materiality of the cottage circe f 907 In addiflon to the rehabilflation of the existing horizontal siding. 2. Letter from Steve Watkins re: proposed design: Subject: Dec. 9th DRC Trudy Hutchings Cottage #14 James, In reviewing Kristin Lewis' proposed drawings for Tmdy Hutchings' collage #14, our Building and Grounds Committee offered the following comments: • Great improvement. • The schematic drawings suggest some proper restraint. • It's a little hard to understand the materiels used in the new porch enclosure. • The plans look great- what an improvement overthe previous proposal. • The window proportions, screened porch end mix of materials are all In keeping with the chareciie of Chautauqua. • The added basement is a great way to gab) additional square footage and the window wells will be barely (if at all) visible from the shiest • The siding treatment is a nice mb: of the 40's wide lap below the screened wrap amund porch and ongiftial structure's vertical board and be liens. Hope this is helpful; let me know if you have any questions! Steve Watkins Associate Facllffles/Proservation Mgr. Colorado Chautauqua Association 1920 14 St. #300 Bad der 00 00302 Phone 303 449.8747 Fax 303447.2043 aim.h(jolndmoom AGENDA ITEM 45A PAGE 52_ S:\ PLANWata \longrang\MST1ALTCF.RTS\Historic Dist is \ Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinekk \07.212010ieview \=mo.do. Kristin. lewis Arch Iiects 1 Excerpt from Chautauqua Building and Grounds Committee Meeting 717/08 notes regarding the previous demo application: "Chautauqus's Nattonal Historic Landmark Nomination includes this cottage as a contributing structure, but that In the opinion of the committee, seems quite generous. The cottage 14 description In the nomination states 'The Integrity of the building is somewhat diminished by modem exterior features....ln the 1980'sp /ate glass and other non- histodc windows were installed in each elevation. SO,, Hie cottage retains most character defining features of Chautauqua cottages.' The board discussed how datodorated the overall condition of the cottage was when the property was sold to Trudy. There Is not much of any foundation loft or any of the original structure- The committee questions whether this cottage is really a contributing resource.' In additionto the above materials, I am including two estimates from house movers who have been to tine site and seen drawings of the LAC aProved design, a copy of the approved LAC and the drawhigs that the February 17 , 2010 LAC refers to, Along with the application, I submitted Kristin's letter to you outlining our office's process with this project. In the Letter Kristin requests a site meeting with flee full board to educate them on existing information best reviewed in person. Please confirm a time for this site meeting as soon as possible so that we may coordinate a visit from a consulting contractor. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Katie ekarelc Cc: Kristin Lewis AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 53_ S:\ PLAN\ dataUungang \HIST41LTCeRTS\Hiaaric Disrticrs\ Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick \07.212010 mview\nt mdm kristi n lewls A r c k i t e e t s April 19, 2010 James Hetwat City of Boulder Planner 11 (Historic Preservation) RE: Cottage #14 Cost breakdown Dear James, To compare the cost analysis of cottage #14 built with an entirely new structure Ora remodel of the existing structure we started with n base price for of the proposed design. We took approximately two hundred dollars a square foot for the main level and one hundred tidy dollars a square foot for the basement. To this figure we have added estimates for lifting the structure, excavation, demolition, and additional costs associated with either keeping the building or building from scratch. The breakdowns of the estimated costs are as follows: Construction Base Price (2/17/10 LAC Approved Design): $200 /sq ftx 1387 sq ft (main level) =$277,400.00 $150 /sq ft x 1219 sq ft (basement) =$10,850.00 Total base price =$460,250.00 Rehabilitation of Existing Cottage and New Addition: Construction Base = $460,250.00 Lift and Hold of Building to place new foundation = $25 OOOM- $34,570,00 Fxcavatior = $8,400,00- $35,000.00 D. construction= $6,520.00- $10,000.00 " Additional cost of pouting foundation with Building overhead = $10,000.00 Additional cost of rehabbing existing structure = $40,000.00 Additional arcbitecturallengineering fees: _ $5,000 - $ 8,000 Total cost of Rehabilitation with New Addition = $555,170.00- $597,820.00 This is a 17 -23% increase In construction cost over the base price. Construction of entirely new structure: Construction Base= $460,250.00 Excavation = $6,400.00 - $25,000.00 Deconstruction/ Demolition = $9,520.00415,000.00 Total cost of new construction = $476,170.00 - 500,250 -00 This is a 3 -7% increase in construction cost over the base price. 1020 10$1, 1:200 Boulder GO 00302 Phone 303 449.$747 Fox 303447.2843 klarche9frul .eom AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 54_ S:\ PLAN \dataV.g rang \IiIST\ALTCCKTSViistoric Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinnickimuck \07.21.2010 mvicw\mcmadoc As you can see, even with the increase is the scope of work for excavation and demolition for building a new structure, the cost of construction is still significantly reduced because of the increased access to the site. If the existing structure is rehabilitated, all foundation excavation dining the lift and hold would occur with the building overhead. The removal of debris would need to be done by hand because the access on the north and south sides of the cottage is limited to only a 3' walkway and even less with a 2' over dig, The demolition of the northwest portion of the cottage that would occur inthe design with rehabilitation would all have to be removed by hand through the existing openings in the front of the building. Again, this would be necessary because of the limited site access. Site seem and the condition of the existing cottage severely impact the cost of construction. The estimates for house moving, demolition and excavation were completed by two local and reputable house moving companies. The estimates for construction costs associated with pouring a foundation under a lifted structure and rehabilitating the existing cottage were given by a local contractor with over 30 yeas of experience working with Iiistorie structures. It is the general contractor's opinion that the estimates given by the house movers, especially for excavation costs, are lower than what actual costs will be at time of construction. He will be available to answer construction questions at our afternoon site meeting prior to the hearing. At this point we are only able to give estimates, and they are wide ranging, as we have only completed the schematic design phase on this project and, depending on the direction, new construction or rehabilitation, our drawings will contain different notations. In either case, we are assuming the design will be that ofthe approved LAC. Please call its with any questions. Sincerely, Kristin Lewis AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 55_ S: \PLAN\ data \longmng\lilgT1ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 xitmickinnick \07.21.2010 revlew\memo.doc � .. . PROFESSIONAL. -- MU BLDG MOVERS, INC. _ � q 6063 S Vinewood St Littleton, CO 80120 303 - 979-0880 phone 303 - 978 -1941 fax PROPOSED PRICING 3/2/10 To: Tustin Lewis Arch [toots JOB: Colorado Cbautauqua Cottage #14 12511 E 112 Ave "Customer" Boulder, CO 80302 Professional Building Movers Inc. "PBM hereby proposes to provide labor & materials: DE- CONSTRUCTION $6,520.00 • 10' x 39' rear patio on cottage • Existing fireplace • All materials staelced in back yard • Remove front porch and rock wall RAISE COTTAGE 21'x 39' $34,570.00 • Place equipment under cottage • Provide structural bracing for stability • Raise cottage and hold for new excavation & foundation • .Upon new foundation, remove equipment EXCAVATION FOR NEW FOUNDATION $8,400.00 • Remove old foundation /haul off site for recycling • Excavate for cottage and addition EXPORT EXCESS SOILS $7,520.00 ■ 600 CY • All trucking an dump fees RACKFILL W /COMPACTION $4,700.00 • Water as needed Customer responsibilities and obli au Lions: • Utility disconnects( gas, electrical, water, sewer) Es elUsio ns: Asbestos survey or abatement, permits, tree removal, foundation, shoring along property lines, import of soils for backfill of foundation Submitted by: Pan McKuue Title: President NOTEr a standard contract will be drafted upon bid acceptance AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 56_ S:\PLAN\daW\I. .gUnS'MLTCGRTS\Histode Districts \Cbautauqua \14 Kinniekinnick\072i 2970 review \me=.doc ROCKY MOUNTAIN STRUCTURAL MOVERS, INC. 45713 Coal Creek Drive - Parker, Colorado HUM Office: 303 - 841.7000 Fax: 303.379 -4202 Website: RMStructuralmovers.com Email: rmmover0aol.com February 2, 2010 Kristen Lewis Architects Attn: Kristen Lewis 192814 Street 41300 Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: 303 - 449 -5747 Email: klarch @Indra.com PROPOSAL: EXHIBIT "A" OF RELOCATION AGREEMENT Project Address: 14 Chautauqua Park Boulder, CO 80302 Rocky Mountain Structural Movers, Inc. proposes the following specifications and estimate to: Lift and Hold of Building: $25,000.00 1) Provide all the necessary materials, labor and equipment to rig and prepare the building for lift - 2) Lift building at site approximately W to 6' above existing grade. 3) Bridge main beams in order to minimize interference of piles with excavation work. 4) Hold building in place on our equipment while dirt work is performed and foundation is farmed and poured. 5) Set building onto the new foundation with beam pockets provided by Owner. b) Remove all of RMSM's equipment. Excavation: $35,000.00 , 1) Provide all the necessary materials, labor and equipment to excavate for the foundation per engineer specs. 2) Price DOES NOT include any blasting of rock. 3) Price DOES NOT include import/export of soils. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 57 S:\ PLAN\ data \longmngURSTWLTCERTS \nistorlc DJs1ridS \Chautauqua\14 Kinnickinnick\07212010 review \memo.doc Demolition: $10,000.00 - Demo non historic fabric of building, remove debris from site. owner Responsibilities: 1) It is the property /building owners' responsibility to know what Is required of them In each municipality and to comply with all the nt'/ and county standards /codes required to relocate buildings. 2) All building inspections, asbestos reports, asbestos abatements, demolition permits, building site permits as necessary or required. 3) All utility disconnects. 4) Remove front and back porches. 5) All debris removal 6) All dirt work and site preparation as necessary to move a structure on your property. 7) New foundation for the building to set on. Foundation contractor will need to contact Bill Davis 303 - 257 -1189 to coordinate beam pocket placement In the foundation before new walls are formed and poured. Ream Pockets will be necessary for your project. 8) Secure building and project site from vandals, etc. - 9) Supply sill plate, etc as necessary per your engineers'specs. 10) All access and egress costs associated with the movement of your building. Proposed Price: please see break out prices above. RMSM will demolish and discard front and back porches for an additional $2,000.00. Thank you for the opportunity to bid your project. Upon acceptance of the above terms RMSM Will submit a relocation agreement to you that coincides with this proposal for your review and signature. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted by, William S Davis President AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE ss_ S; \PLAN\ data \longraug\R'SMLTCERTSWstoriu Districts% Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinakk\721.2010 mvimw nemo.dw Attachment D: Definition of "contributing" and "non- contributing" resources from the General Design Guidelines. Contributing Buildings Those buildings built during the district's period of significance that exist in comparatively original condition, or that have been appropriately restored, and clearly contribute to the historic significance of the district. Such buildings may have compatible additions. Contributing - Restorable Buildings Those buildings built during the district's period of significance that have original material that has been covered, or buildings that have experienced some alteration, but that still convey some sense of history. These buildings would more strongly contribute, however, if they were restored. Such buildings may have less compatible additions. Non - Contributing Buildings: Those buildings built during the district's period of significance that have been altered to such an extent that original historic elements are not interpretable, and restoration is not possible, also buildings erected outside the period of significance that are not individually significant. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 59_ S. \PLAT\dataVoov..&HSl\ALTCBRTS \Historic Dishid NChau uqua \I4 Kinnickimick\0721.2010 mview\mwm.dm Attachment E: Historic & Contemporary photographs C.1900 c.1949 AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 60_ S:\ PLAN\ data \longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Kiwickinnick \07.21.2010 review \memo.doc AGENDA ITEM #SA PAGE 61 S:UPLANl dat2P009nuglHIST1ALTCERWflistoric Diwicte\ChadtaWUa\l Kinnicici�wlck \67,Z1,ZOI0 revicw�omo.doc 2008 East elevation 2008 West elevation AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 62_ 5:0.' LAN\ data \longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick \07.21.2010 review \m =.doc Attachment F: Existing and Proposed Plans. Plan AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 63_ S:\ PLAN \dat.U.nlgang \HIST\ALTCBRTS \Historic Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Ainnickinuick \0721.2070 cevicw\ntemo.doc Et1I fUSAUJO C *N +, W - A, &N2EU LFI3E BUUU4Ntf.�. ,,. �— _ _ _ _ __ _ -- — - - �—' tai FAC,:S PATO MIOOWWA LL 4 i nnsdlEaLM scr,Hl q 1 F74�r.�10L5E P© ul - .... e. i I tMDW I Daum p HUTCHINGS RESIDENCE 4 AW "` ;>? I � �14KINNICKINNI�( p f� ' WSU`to FWAPPoNr= 75dp5Q 1 'r llfV� *'AICI 0 - .. p =IAAI S4 n, ML. GUMS (MJCL YN1 (NCLP y a R -.. ,. 'n NftYt#Iflk�SR41fD _. I VJNIi+PNWfII. —_ :. � ^x a - n UI6T APSfiLHi<I;AyIN Plan AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 63_ S:\ PLAN \dat.U.nlgang \HIST\ALTCBRTS \Historic Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Ainnickinuick \0721.2070 cevicw\ntemo.doc i (gepiAW pbdl`¢[h a0l . oilniale) L� s -taro nsMan 6Nnnin 1< IY pWRCwe •' Mt I'unledn T P I IR LnpS ._. . _i... J— ..,.f 9 I 2 EAST ELEVATION (Existing -As Built) ... _. Al Scak: 119 " >1' -0° au;rs�mann.00mtc ' Pdnted ®7516 Existing East Proposed East AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 64_ S:\PL.AN\ data \loograngUM MLTCERTS%storic Dmtcicls\CImmtauqua \14 Kinnickinnick\07.21_2010 mvim\,mnw.doc Existing West Proposed West AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 65_ S:\ PLAN\ data\ ongrang \HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Distric1s \CEaulauqua \14 Kivpickinnick \07.21,2010 review \mema,doc Existing North Z AAWMEMMEM Proposed North AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 66_ S;\ PLAN\ data \longrang\H[ST\ALTCEIZTS \Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kimlckinnick \07.21.2010 review \menw.doc Attachment G: Correspondence from Chautauqua Association Building Committee Colorado Chautauqua's Position on the Proposed Demolition of Cottage #14 Landmark Board Review May 5, 2010 The Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) stands by the motion made and unanimously approved at their regular board meeting of July 22, 2008. (see attachment) Also, please note the second paragraph of the Building and Grounds (B &G) meeting minutes of July 7, 2008 on the attachment questioning the appropriateness of the cottage being contributing to the historic district. Our B &G Committee reviewed Kristin Lewis' drawings dated December 1, 2009 and had the following comments: The schematic drawings suggest some proper restraint. It's a little hard to understand the materials used in the new porch enclosure. The plans look great- what an improvement over the previous proposal. (Z -K Building Design) The window proportions, the screened porch and mix of materials are all in keeping with the character of Chautauqua. The added basement Is a great wayto gain additional square footage and the window wells will be barely (if at all) visible from the street. The siding treatment Is a nice mix of the 40's wide lap below the screened wrap around parch and original structure's vertical board and battens. We noticed that the only difference between the 12/1/09 drawings and the current drawings dated February 1, 2010'is a simplification in the roof line which is an! mprovement. We would support the approval of a demolition permit and have no problems with the current schematic drawings. Steve Watkins Colorado Chautauqua Association Facilities /Preservation Associate Mgr. April 2010 AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 67_ S:\ PLAN\ data \Iongrang \HISTW UCERMI istode Districts\ Chautauqua \14 Kinnickinnick \07.21.2010 review\memo.doc Colorado Chautauqua Association's Position on Cottage 14 Proposed Project Motion at Regular Board Meeting duly 22, 2008 Conrad Lattes moved and Richard Foy seconded the following motion, which passed 13- 0-0: The Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) board of directors does not generally support demolition of structures that are deemed to be contributing to the district, but Cottage 14 presents a unique situation of prior alteration. Because of the degree of deterioration and modification, we believe that the proposed plans, with CCA's Building and Grounds (B &G) Committee's recommendations implemented, would make the cottage more contributory to our bistoric district. We would support the demolition if these conditions below are met. (Draft minutes- final minutes will be approved at August 18 CCA board meeting) Chautauqua Building and Grounds (B&G) Committee Meeting 717108 Cottage 14 Upgrade Proposal Members present: Cody Oreck, Kathleen Woodborry, Jim Turner, JeffMedanich, Steve Watkins. The Committee reviewed revised drawings prepared by Z-K Bolding Design dated 5/5/08 for Trudy Hutchings of a proposed upgrade to her cottage 14 on Kimuicinik Road in Chautauqua Park. The proposal includes a demolition of the existing structure and rebuilding on a slightly expanded footprint with a basement under a portion of the main floor. The existing square footage is 1250 while the proposed footage is 1475 plus 800 feet in the basement. This proposal will require a full Landmark Preservation Advisory Board review /public hearing. Chautauqua's National Historic Landmark nomination includes this cottage as a contributing structure, but that in the opinion of the committee, seems quite generous. The Cottage 14 description in the nomination states "The integrity of the building is somewhat diminished by modem exterior features.... In the 1980's plate glass and other non historic windows were installed in each elevation. Still, the cottage retains most character defining features of Chautauqua cottages." The board discussed how deteriorated the overall condition of the cottage was when the property was sold to Trudy. there's riot much of any foundation left or any of the original structure. The committee questions whether this cottage is really a contributing resource. Following are 'some of committee's commentshecommendations: Because the proposed screened porch (which we suggested being added during our first review in early January) protrudes 4.5 feet further toward the street (east) than the existing footprint, the question arose whether the entire foot print should be moved west to retain a similar setback from the street as the adjoining cottages? With the added area outside the existing footprint on the west, overall we'd like to see the proposed east and west expansions stay within the setbacks of cottage 16 next door on the north. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 68 _ S:\ PLAN\ dat a \longmng \HISTWLTCERTS\Historic Districts \Chautauqua \14 Kinniekinnick\07.21.2010 review \memo.doe Will the upgrade reflect Chautauqua's shong push toward greening and environmental sustainability? If a "scrape" and rebuild is pursued, it will come under the City's green building requirements. The site plan shows a flagstone patio on the southwest, corner of the cottage. If the mature ash tree there is removed, the committee recommends another tree be planted for passive solar shading on that west side? The proposed scale of the windows seems disproportionately small, The committee recommends larger windows similar to the one on the east elevation next to the porch at least on the east elevation, although the use of double hung windows will probably require larger windows in the bedrooms for egress siring. There are conflicting descriptions of existing treatments on the elevation drawings. The east elevation states "existing shiplap siding", while the existing siding is actually 9" lap siding. The committee suggests the use of more board and batten sidntg which was on the original 1899 cabin and the originally reviewed January drawings. It also shows an "existing screened porch ", which there currently is none and "existing windows, trim & fascia" which is now almost all single layer plate glass not the drawn double hung units. The east clevation also states "no external changes proposed ", obviously not correct. The west elevation continues with the incorrect description of the windows and aiding. The committee would litre to see revised elevation details prior to a final determination on the appropriateness of this proposal. Steve Watkins Associate Mgr. Facilities and Preservation Colorado Chautauqua Association 303 618 5115 stev @chautauruacom AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 69_ S.NPLANWat long.iu&US71ALTCERTSUrmt.ne Disaiets\Chautaugw\14 Kinnickinni.VD721.2010 wviewVm=-dw Attachment III. Applicant Letter, Information, and June 17th, 2010 Drawings For ICinnikinic Road. 18 June 2010 Landmark Alteration Certificate Application Re: Cottage 14, Chautauqua Park Written Project Description On June l&1 2010 Kristin Lewis Architects met with the Design Review Committee to review a design to replace cottage 14. We had hoped the City could separate out "conditioned" from "unconditioned" space. The design we presented was for 1185 sq, ft, of "conditioned" space with an additional 150 sq, ft. screened porch. We had hoped that the porch space could be considered an addition to the maximum allowed by the "friendly amendment" adopted at the June 2, 2010 Landmark Board Meeting. lames reviewed the issue with the city attorney and it was determined that the screened porch had to be included in the maximum sq. footage. We are requesting the Board modify the maximum allowed square footage to reflect the design presented to the DRC for a maximum of 1336 sq. ft. above ground space. Cottage 14 was purchased with 1225 sq. ft, of "conditioned" space. Alt of the historic screened porches had been completely enclosed for kitchen, bathroom and bedroom additions. The attached design has been modified to reduce the square footage from the originally approved 1,387 sq. ft. LAC to remodel the existing structure. In order to reduce the sq. footage one of the bedrooms on the main level was deleted. As a result of the full board discussion on June 2, the screened porch was extended on the front and the west (back) side of the original building footprint was extended approximately 3 ft. The view from. the west more approximates the original simple design. We. have included standard furniture on the plans to help visualize the scale of the rooms. Tltis cottage is to be used for extended family gatherings and it is important to have at least one bedroom on the mein level so it is more easily accessible for elderly family members. Steve Watkins, Facilities /Preservation Associate Manager at Chautanqua, has provided the following approximate infonriation of the site context. Cottage 13B is located to the south of Cottage 14. It is a 1.5 story structure with 1040 sq. ft. on the main level and 512 sq. on the second level for a total of 1552 above ground square footage. It is approximately 35 ft. from the bluebell trail to the west. Cottage 16 is located to the north and is a two story structure with a total of about 3168 sq. ft. above grade. It is located about 37 ft. from the bluebell trail to the west. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 70_ S:V' LAN\ dare \longrang\nIST\ALTCERTSWistoric nisrticis\ Chawauqua\ 14 Kinuickinnick\07.21.2010 mim\m Aoc Cottage 14 is currently about 44 ft. from the bluebell trail to the west. The attached proposal will put it about 43 ft. from the bluebell trail. This information came from a cultural assessment map based on miel photos. As the photos have shown, Cottage 14 sits substantially lower than the adj acent cottages. The proposed addition and volumes Inrill have little impact on the site and will continue the established variety of sire. The addition of a new screened porch will enhance the view on Kfnnikinic Road. We have decided to ask for an additional review as it was impossible to provide a reasonably sized screened porch and living space that will meet the owner's needs within the current 1225 imm. square footage. We hope the attached design reflects the intentions of the Landmark Board discussion on June 2. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 71 S:\ PLAMdala \longmng\HISTNALTCGRTSUiisWe DislricWhatontqua \14 Kinnickinnick\0721.2010 nviemAmmo.doc Q tteutal Cottage S � Yriyarely Owned [:ultagu Q Cam unity Building P w Q Reshvaxua .'N�. O Dux Office l.udging& Adminiatmli. OlTAx•a !' Colccadn Alma Nstival office °` "• fli,k,, C W.Uiet Li.n 4F ® q l' e tea O "V as COLORADO CIi iUf lU6fUAASSUCIA'I'IUIJ g� C A.501(01 NONPROFIT CORPORATION 000 E iSELINE ROAD ROULD6,lt. COW )02 ' 10 WIWW (` -HAUL \U(Q11.4.Ct7M y, e TLLEPtlONL'.....:303.4; &,82$'2 _ � .......... 16 -- OO ol NOVA R EVENTS- .... txA JP MEMBERSHIP .............eat Yn OF Gig lo �... cTT'ukFVUtDKk ® — -- MQLi�TsVNYARIW"� UUYIORIUh M AN I ,� .nn ryo F r 'R 44 R* 37 Ff. t I� 11H 9 ' u PNO\G pip 1 1 10'! �. 1W IN N 9 f Tim `;' / p PUBItc udnn (�•(./� /j (:OUIIT PtAY4H(IUNN f ""• — — — ,m A[i0 r CHAUTAUQUA GRF,F,N wm .m P-n I �2 , PYAPL Nd 6lAIR•1'.LI. AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 72_ S:\ PLAN\ dale \longteng \HIST\ALTCERTS \Historic Districts\Ckautauqua \14 KLmiekinluek \07.21,2010 review \m ,doc C ®ll llAGI # 'llk MAUTAUQUit ?ARE, 930 TDASIL+'IG111EI 13GUMIL L GG 80 -502 c a 0 u P Y 6 � U Y [y Y O O AQ� d i M n CIDYTTAGrDa #DD GUAUVAUQUA PATIM, C a n �o Y S <O nU AS ti