Agenda Date: July 17, 2017
Subject:
Title
COA for a Garage Addition at 5647 South Louthan Street
Body
|
Presented By: |
Dennis Swain, Senior Planner |
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
Project Name: Garage Addition
Historic Name: Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence
Application Type: Certificate of Historic Appropriateness
Location: 5647 South Louthan Street
Historic District: Louthan Heights
Contributing/Non-Contributing: Contributing
Applicable Design Guidelines: Louthan Heights Historic District Design Guidelines
Applicants and Owners: Douglas and Kathleen Albrecht
Project Description: Expand the garage by adding a wing for storage and replace the existing one-car garage door with a two-car door
Staff Recommendation: APPROVAL
PROCESS:
Per Section 4-6-14(A)l(a), a COA shall be obtained from the Historical Preservation Board (HPB), in conformance with any applicable adopted design guidelines, and in addition to any other permit or other approval required by this code for any designated historic landmark structure or any property in a designated historic district.
Before the COA application process could be initiated for the expansion of a garage at 5647 South Louthan, two zoning issues had to be addressed. First, the zone district in which the property is located, R-3, requires that accessory structures, such as a garage, be set back 10’ from an alley. The prevailing setback along the Louthan / Crocker alley, including the setback of the existing garage is 0’. Applying the required setback would seriously impact the function and design compatibility of the garage expansion and create a large unusable space behind the addition. Further, the design guidelines call for retaining the original building setback.
The second issue is that the R-3 zone district requires that each lot have at least 50% unobstructed open space, which the code defines as; “An area upon which no structure may be erected or surface area utilized for storage or for vehicular movement or parking.” Because the lots in the district are smaller than the minimum size required by the zoning and because the garages are located at the rear of the lots and are accessed by long driveways that extend from the street, a high percentage of the lot is covered by driveway. For both of these issues, there are conditions that have existed with the property and that have not been created by the applicants and, therefore, can be considered “hardships”, which is essential to granting a zoning variance.
To address these issues, the owners applied for two variances from the zoning standards. On May 18, 2017, the Board of Adjustment approved the two requested variances from the zoning code:
1) A variance from the required 10' setback along the alley. The board approved a reduction to a 3'(36”) setback from the garage structure wall to the property line and 10” from the outer edge of the 16” wide roof overhang to the property line. Approving a variance that acknowledges the roof overhang is consistent with the design guidelines, which call for maintaining “roof edge depth.”
2) A variance from the 50% open space requirement. The board approved a reduction in the open space requirement to 48% of the parcel, counting all soffits; i.e. roof overhangs, on the existing house and garage as part of the site coverage that reduces the open space. Again, existing conditions and consistency with the design guidelines were cited as support for this variance.
Staff and HPB (“board”) review are the only two steps in the COA review process. If the board approves the COA application and the applicants meet all other city requirements, then the applicants can be issued a building permit for the project. If the board attaches a condition(s) to the approval, a building permit will not be issued unless the condition(s) has been met. If the board denies the COA application, a building permit will not be issued for the project.
BACKGROUND:
LOCATION MAP: 5647 SOUTH LOUTHAN
5647 South Louthan is in the Louthan Heights Historic District. It is on the west side of Louthan Street, between Littleton Boulevard on the south and Powers Avenue on the north. The garage opens to the driveway, which extends east to Louthan Street.
ARCHITECTURE:
The Louthan Heights Historic District Guidelines describes the Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence
as: a “Single-storied, clipped-gable bungalow sheathed in red, green, and oyster shell pebbledash. Key features include: clipped gable porch supported by full-height columns and enclosed by a low wall, arched porch opening, side porch entrance, deep eave overhang, bargeboard with sculpted ends, stringcourses at foundation and attic, and raised foundation. Alterations include: enclosed porch, metal storm door, gutters covering the rafter tails, stringcourse removed from the body of the house, wood fence, metal stair railing, exterior chimney, and extra-wide solid driveway. The detached one-car garage has pebble-dash stucco siding on the two sides and the back and wood siding on the front. The front eave of the garage has shingle siding.”
HISTORY:
According to the 2000 - 2001 Littleton Historic Resources Survey, “This house, previously addressed as 157 N. Logan Ave., was built in 1922 according to the Arapahoe County Assessor. An article in the Littleton Independent in 1954 reported that the house was built for Frank Servey by Charles G. Louthan. In 1932, this was the home of A.G. and Marie Stevens. Mr. Stevens was an attendant with the Littleton Gas and Oil Company. In 1948, this was the Home of Everett Burt, a partner in Roth-Burt Motor Company. In 1953, Grovanna C. Bradshaw owned the house. She lived here with her two children and Geraldine M. Schneitler. By 1957, P.C. and Frances M. Nicholson were occupants of the house. Mr. Nicholson was principal at the junior high. In 1961, this was the home of John T. Lantz, an employee at Gigantic Cleaners, and his wife Violet. A later (1978) owner was Daniel C. Lochead. He served as a Littleton councilman, volunteer fireman, Mason, and Elk. He was born in 1899 in Toronto, Ontario. He married Florence Hoar of Alamo Avenue in Littleton in 1927 and lived in the city until his death in 1978. Mr. Lochead had a real estate and insurance business at 2699 Main Street.”
CERTIFICATE OF HISTORIC APPROPRIATENESS ANALYSIS:
Per Section 4-6-14(C), the Historic Preservation Board shall issue a COA for any proposed work on a historic landmark or any property in a historic district when the following criteria are met:
CRITERION 1 - FEATURES:
The proposed work would not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape feature which contributes to its original historic designation.
Staff Response:
The proposed work will not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape feature which contributed to the historic designation of 5647 South Louthan. The applicant has located and designed the proposed garage expansion to be secondary to and compatible with the original garage. The addition of a cross-gable expansion matches the design of another garage designed and built in the neighborhood by Charles Louthan. The materials of the expansion will not attempt to replicate the pebbledash stucco; rather, in order to minimize the number of materials used on the house and garage, the homeowners will use horizontal wood siding that matches the dimensions and profile of the siding on the rear addition to the house. Installation of a new, wider, garage door will necessitate demolition of the lower portion of the east wall of the garage, but will not affect the historic upper, shingled, portion of the east wall. The portion of the east wall that will be demolished appears to be the product of a later remodeling that accommodated a newer, wider (but still not wide enough for two cars) garage door. Demolition of the lower portion of the east wall will not destroy any architectural feature which contributed to the historic designation. While the addition to the north side of the garage will require the demolition of one of the original stucco walls, that wall is not visible from the street and did not contribute significantly to the historic designation. Importantly, the changes to the historic garage will make it more usable for these and future homeowners, maintaining its integrity and extending its viability.
Applicant Response:
By maintaining as much of the original structure as possible and modeling the addition after another Louthan built garage we feel we are not destroying the architectural features of this property. We are adding much needed functionality while minimizing impact to the property and neighborhood.
CRITERION 2 - GUIDELINES:
Is otherwise in conformance with any applicable adopted design guidelines
The applicable Louthan Heights Historic District Design Guidelines provide the following direction:
P. 32 KEY FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN CONTEMPLATING EXTERIOR BUILDING CHANGES:
1. Potential impact on the character-defining features of a building or district
Staff Response:
The proposed project will have little impact on the character-defining features of the garage, particularly those that are visible from the street.
Applicant Response:
The applicants consolidated their responses. Their consolidated responses are provided below.
2. Impact on a building’s overall form and mass
Staff Response:
The proposed project will have a neutral impact on the garage’s overall form and mass, including the dominant roof plane and the form, mass, and dominance of the original garage building. The expansion will be secondary to the primary structure.
3. Visibility of changes from public vantage points
Staff Response:
The expansion will not be easily viewable from Louthan Street or from the alley. The new garage door, however, will be visible from Louthan Street, but will replace a non-original door in what appears to be a non-original lower wall. The most visible historic material, the shingled eave, will be retained.
P. 35 DESIGN GUIDELINES: DISTRICT PATTERNS
1. DO: Respect the neighborhood scale and massing
Staff Response:
The proposed expansion is located and designed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and to be consistent with other garages in the neighborhood.
2. DO: Retain the original building setback
Staff Response:
The applicants received a variance from the Board of Adjustment that allowed them to approximate the original building setback from the alley. Without that variance, the expansion would have been set back 10’ from the alley, while the existing garage is consistent with the prevailing character of other garages along the alley, which is to be set at the property line, without any setback.
3. DO: Retain driveway along the side of a lot, minimizing impact to the front lawn
Staff Response:
The existing driveway, which is on the north side of the lot, is being retained.
NOTE:
Not all of the Louthan Heights Historic District Design Guidelines are “applicable” to the proposed expansion of a garage. Those that are applicable to other issues, but are not applicable to this project, have not been included here. As a result there are gaps in the numbers of the applicable guidelines. For example, design guidelines #4 and #5 are missing from this list.
6. DO: Retain narrow ribbon driveways
Staff Response:
A previous owner replaced the original ribbon driveway with a solid concrete driveway.
P. 37 DESIGN GUIDELINES: ROOFS AND CHIMNEYS
5. DO: Retain and preserve original roof form and pitch
Staff Response:
The proposal retains the original roof form and pitch, while adding a cross-gable addition that was inspired by another house in the neighborhood constructed by Charles Louthan.
7. DO: Maintain historic eave depth and configuration
Staff Response:
The applicants received a variance from the Board of Adjustment that will allow them to retain the historic eave depth and configuration on the alley side while matching the setback on the side of the roof facing the front of the lot.
8. DO: Maintain historic roof edge depth
Staff Response:
The proposal does maintain the historic roof edge depth.
1. DON’T: Add gutters and downspouts on main roof edges
Staff Response:
Gutters and downspouts will not be added to the main roof edges.
P.40 DESIGN GUIDELINES: WALLS
PEBBLEDASH
1. DO: Preserve original intact pebbledash whenever possible
Staff Response:
Other than the north wall that will be demolished for the new addition, the existing pebbledash walls will be protected and retained. The pebbledash stucco removed from the north wall will be retained as a resource for future repairs to the house and garage.
P.48 DESIGN GUIDELINES: DOORS AND WINDOWS
1. DO: Retain and repair original wood window frames and sashes
Staff Response:
The existing windows on the north and east walls of the garage are not original to the house. The new windows on the addition will be wood double-hung to match the windows in the house.
2. DO: Maintain historic muntin/grille patterns and material (wood)
Staff Response:
The new wood windows will match those in the house.
3. DON’T: Replace existing vertical, sash, single or double-hung windows with windows that operate differently
Staff Response:
The windows that are being replaced are not original to the garage. The new windows will be double-hung to match those in the house.
4. DON’T: Replace original wood windows with vinyl, aluminum, or other modern materials
Staff Response:
The new windows will be wood.
5. DON’T: Change muntin/grille patterns
Staff Response:
The new windows will match the open muntin/grille pattern of the windows in the house.
6. DON’T: Add awnings or shutters
Staff Response:
No awnings or shutters will be added to the windows.
7. DON’T: Add, remove, or otherwise modify window or door openings on front or side elevations
Staff Response:
In order to replace the existing garage door with a double-car garage door, a window and pedestrian door will be removed from the east wall. A new wood five-panel pedestrian access door that is consistent with the original doors in the house and is consistent with a door shown on page 49 of the design guidelines will be included in the east wall of the expansion. The single window in the north wall of the garage will be removed and two wood double-hung windows will be place in the north wall of the expansion.
P. 54 DESIGN GUIDELINES - GARAGES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
1. DO: Use swing-out garage door openers or automatic carriage door openers
Staff Response:
Although the proposal is to use an overhead garage door rather than a swing-out door, the design of the door reflects the historic design of the original garage doors that remain in the neighborhood.
3. DO: Select materials that complement the materials of the house
Staff Response:
The expansion will have wood siding that matches the dimensions and profile of the siding on a back addition to the house, although the siding on the addition to the house is a newer composite that was installed prior to the creation of the design guidelines.
4. DO: Limit the size and scale of garages and accessory buildings so that they remain subordinate to the original structure
Staff Response:
The expansion will be subordinate to the garage and the garage with the expansion will continue to be subordinate to the house.
5. DO: Design expansions to existing garages so they complement the architecture, materials, and scale of the adjacent house and retain as much of the original structure as possible
Staff Response:
The expansion has been designed to complement the architecture, materials, and scale of the adjacent house and retains the majority of the original structure, including the entire west and south walls and the majority of the original roof.
6. DO: Use roof forms that complement the roof forms of the house
Staff Response:
The roof form of the expansion is the same complementary, subordinate, roof form used on an original extended garage in the neighborhood.
7. DON’T: Construct attached garages
Staff Response:
The intent of the applicants has always been to follow the historic pattern of detached garages.
8. DON’T: Replace garage doors with contemporary style overhead doors
Staff Response:
Although the proposal is to use an overhead garage door rather than a swing-out door, the design of the door reflects the historic design of the original garage doors that remain in the neighborhood.
9. DON’T: Construct carports
Staff Response:
The intent of the applicants has always been to follow the historic pattern of detached garages.
P.55 EXPANSIONS AND ADDITIONS - TIPS FOR EXPANSIONS AND ADDITIONS
A successful addition finds the balance between blending with the original design while not appearing to be part of the original design. Additions should be clearly identifiable as new construction in order to avoid creating a false sense of history.
1. Consider visibility from public vantage points within the district
2. Design additions to be simple in architectural character and detail so that they do not call undue attention
3. Ensure that the historic building remains the prominent feature
4. Reference features of the historic building and surrounding district, but do not attempt to replicate decorative features
5. Use materials similar to those found on the historic building and surrounding district, while differentiating the addition from the original with subtle changes in texture, color, or wall plane
6. Design additions to be neutral-additions should not starkly contrast with the original building or be an exact copy of the historic building
Staff Response, consolidated:
The applicants used all of these tips when conceptualizing, locating, and designing the expansion of their garage. The resulting design meets the overall intent of blending with the original design while not appearing to be part of the original design.
P. 57 DESIGN GUIDELINES: EXPANSIONS AND ADDITIONS
GENERAL
1. DO: Place additions on the rear of the house
2. DO: Design additions to be minimally visible from Louthan Street
3. DO: Design the addition to be subordinate to the original building
4. DO: Relate the design of the addition to the historic district, including scale, roof type, materials, and fenestration
5. DO: Design additions to be clearly distinguishable as of their own time
6. DO: Ensure that the historic scale and mass of the original building remains evident
8. DON’T: Make additions appear to be part of the historic building
9. DON’T: Replicate features from the original house on the addition
10. DON’T: Use features and details that take away from the original historic features of the house
Staff Responses, consolidated:
The applicants used all of these design guidelines when conceptualizing, locating, and designing the expansion of their garage. The resulting design meets the overall intent of blending with the original design while not appearing to be part of the original design.
Applicant Responses, consolidated:
We are meeting as many of the Louthan Historic District design guidelines as possible and are minimizing the impact of the addition by both its placement along back alley and where minimally visible from the street. We are off-setting the addition as required and ensuring the design addition is neutral per Louthan Historic District design guidelines.
Per the Louthan Historic District Guidelines, we are following as many of the "Do" items as we reasonably can:
DO: Select materials that complement the materials of the house - we will be using wood lap siding with a look and dimension similar to the siding used on the existing back room addition on the house. The existing siding on the back room is not wood and we considered using the same product to provide more consistency, but agreed to use wood siding in order to achieve more consistency with the design guidelines.
DO: Locate new garages and accessory buildings in rear yards and not past the centerline of the house - the proposed location of the garage meets this guideline. To accommodate the historic location of the garage, we have approval from the Board of Adjustment to place the addition to the garage close to the back alley.
DO: Limit the size and scale of garages and accessory buildings so that they remain subordinate to the original structure - the addition to the garage is small as compared to the existing structure and is barely visible from the street.
DO: Design expansions to existing garages so they complement the architecture, materials, and scale of the adjacent house and retain as much of the original structure as possible - we are maintaining 3 of the garage walls and greater than 50% of the roof structure as is, while complementing the existing style by matching another Louthan-built garage.
DO: Use roof forms that complement the roof forms of the house - we are using same/similar roof pitch and design as current structure but offsetting it.
We are also utilizing all of the tips for expansions and additions as found in the guidelines:
• Consider visibility from public vantage points within the district - other than immediate neighbors on each side, the structure is only partially visible from the street and most is blocked from the alley by current 6' wood fence.
CRITERION 3 - STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY:
The work is visually compatible with designated historic structures located on the property in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass, and height.
Staff Response:
The expansion of the garage will be compatible with the house in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass, and height.
CRITERION 4 - STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES:
The work is visually compatible with the development on adjacent properties.
Staff Response:
The garage expansion will be compatible with other garages and houses in the Louthan Street Historic District.
CRITERION 5 - PARTIAL DEMOLITION:
If there is partial demolition, it is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure and impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the structure(s) located on the property have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
Staff Response:
The demolition of the north wall of the garage is required for the renovation and expansion of the garage, which is being undertaken to make the garage function for the current and future owners. Impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the garage and house have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible by the design, finish, materials, scale, mass, and height of the expansion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that, in compliance with Section 4-6-14(C) of the Littleton City Code, the proposed Certificate of Historic Appropriateness (COA) for the Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence at 5647 South Louthan Street meets the criteria for approval. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of HPB Resolution 12 - 2017, approving the Certificate of Historic Appropriateness for the Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence at 5647 South Louthan Street.
PROPOSED MOTION:
Proposed Motion
The historical preservation board may take the following actions on the application: approve; approve with conditions; continue to a date certain; and deny. A sample motion is provided for each option.
MOTION TO APPROVE AND/IF NECESSARY, WITH CONDITIONS
I move to approve HPB Resolution 12 - 2017, approving the Certificate of Historic Appropriateness for the Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence at 5647 South Louthan Street, with the following condition(s):
1.
2.
3.
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN
I move to continue the public hearing on HPB Resolution 12 - 2017, concerning the certificate of historic appropriateness for the Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence at 5647 South Louthan Street, to __________ (insert date) in order to_____________________.
MOTION TO DENY
I move to deny HPB Resolution 12 - 2017, concerning the certificate of historic appropriateness for the Servey / Stevens / Burt Residence at 5647 South Louthan Street. The foregoing denial is based on the findings that the proposed work:
Note: Identify criterion or criteria not met and adjust motion accordingly:
1. does not [does] detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape feature which contributes to the original historic designation;
2. is [is not] in conformance with the Littleton Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines;
3. is [is not] visually compatible with designated historic structures located on the property in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass and height; and
4. is [is not] visually compatible with the development on adjacent properties.
5. is not [is] required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure and mitigates impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the garage and the house to the greatest extent possible.
Attachments:
1. HPB Resolution 12 - 2017
2. Cover Letter and Supplementary Materials
3. Drawings
4. Photo of the new windows for the garage expansion