Item 5C - 936 Mapleton AveAgenda Item # 5C, Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M
December 6, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to construct a 1,550 sq. ft. rear addition to the
contributing house at 936 Mapleton Ave. in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District pursuant to Section 9-11-18 of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981 (HIS2017-00107).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 936 Mapleton Ave.
2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1)
3. Lot size: 13,783 sq. ft.
4. Building Size: 1,816 sq. ft.
5. Proposed new square footage: 1,550 sq. ft. above grade
6. Applicant: Steve Dodd
7. Owner: Marybeth Emerson
8. Date of Construction: 1895
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff considers the proposed construction of an addition to the 1895 house to not
meet Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate
Application, and to be largely inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and
the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board
adopt the following motion:
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated December 6, 2017,
as the findings of the board and disapprove a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the
construction of a 1,550 sq. ft. addition, as shown on plans dated November 2, 2017,
Agenda Item # 5C Page 2
finding that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark
Alteration Certificate in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981,
This recommendation is based upon staff’s opinion that the modification of the
roof form of a contributing building will be inconsistent with Section 9-11-18,
Boulder Revised Code 1981, the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines
and the General Design Guidelines.
SUMMARY:
• On Oct. 5, 2017, the applicant submitted a completed Landmark Alteration
Certificate to construct a second level addition that would require the
replacement of an existing gambrel roof to the contributing house at 936
Mapleton Ave.
• Constructed in 1895 and within the identified 1865-1946 period of significance
for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, the house retains a high level of
historic integrity to this period. Staff considers the house should be
considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
• Staff considers the proposed construction of an addition to the 1895 house to
not meet Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, Standards for Landmark Alteration
Certificate Application, and to be largely inconsistent with the General Design
Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines.
• Staff recommends that disapproval of the application, and encourages the
applicant to withdraw the current proposal for redesign.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 3
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Figure 1. 936 Mapleton Ave. Tax Assessor Card photograph, c.1929
Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History.
Figure 2. Location map, 936 Mapleton Ave.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 4
Figure 3. View of north elevation (façade), 2017.
13,783 square feet in size, the property at 936 Mapleton Ave. is located on the
south side of Mapleton Avenue, between 9th and 10th Streets.
The 1 ½ story 1,866 sq. ft. Queen Anne house was constructed about 1894. The
first story is constructed of red pressed brick with a gabled roof with two types
of shingles on gable ends. Decorated bargeboard is featured at the gable peaks.
The house features stone window sills, segmented corbelled arch lintels, circular
arch windows, a two-sided bay window and a classically inspired full-width
porch.
A front gabled roofed garage with composition roofing, wood siding, corner-
boards, and trim is situated at the east of the property. An overhead sixteen
panel door opens south to the driveway and Mapleton Ave. A double-hung
window and pedestrian door are located on the west side. The Historic Building
Inventory Record indicates the accessory building was constructed pre-1932.
A gabled roof residential building is situated at the southwest corner of the lot. It
features a four-light window in the west gable end and double-hung windows
Agenda Item # 5C Page 5
on the lower west side; narrow wood siding changes to a wider variety at the
south shed roofed addition with one four-light window and paired multi-paned
windows. East side has gable roof over center door flanked by two, double-hung
windows. On the north side there is a one-story, one car garage attached to the
building.
All three buildings were constructed during the 1865-1946 period-of-significance
for the Mapleton Hill Historic District, well preserved, and should be considered
historically contributing resources.
PROPERTY HISTORY:
The 1929 tax assessor card lists the date of construction for this house as 1894
while the 1986 building inventory states this house was purchased by Thomas
Fitzpatrick when it was first built in 1895 but the Boulder City Directory lists the
first resident to be Bellman, W.S. (a cashier for the national state bank). By 1898
Fitzpatrick was the owner.
Thomas Fitzpatrick was the special guest of “Buffalo Bill” Cody when Cody gave
the last performance of the “Wild West Circus” in Boulder. He served on the city
council for more than 20 years. His daughter, Jessie, lived in the house all her life,
except during the two years when she served as field secretary for the
Congregational Church. Jessie began teaching at Whittier School in 1908 and in
1924, she became principal of the school, retiring in 1947. She died in 1975.
PAST ALTERATIONS:
A landmark alteration certificate (LAC) was approved in 2016 for the restoration
of the front porch to its c. 1929 condition (see figure 1.), and to repaint the house
in an off-white color scheme. A hipped roof addition with small shed roof ell is
located at the rear of the house. These portions of the building are visible in the
1929 Tax Assessor photograph of the house (see figure 1.)
PROPOSED ADDITION:
Plans call for the construction of a 1,550 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the house to
increase the above ground area from 1,816 sq. ft. 3,282 sq. ft. Plans also call for
the existing 345 sq. ft. basement to be enlarged to 1447 sq. ft. in size.
The existing floor area of the property (including the accessory building and
garage) is currently 2,703 sq. ft. The proposed floor area on the property would
increase to 4,253 sq. ft. where the maximum floor area allowed on this property
in the Residential-Low-1 (RL-1) zoned district is 4,562 sq. ft.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 6
Figure 6. View of north elevation (rear), 2017.
The proposed addition shows the removal of the 40 sq. ft. shed roof addition at
the south-east side of the house (see figures 1 and 6). This addition appears to
have been a screened in porch area that was enclosed about 1964. Plans also call
for a portion of the rear hipped roof and dormer to be demolished make way for
the two-story addition.
Figure 7. Existing Footprint.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 7
Figure 8. Proposed Footprint.
The main level floor area increase is 745 sq. ft. (including replacement of the
enclosed porch) with the proposed second-story addition area at 721 sq. ft.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 8
Figure 9 & 10 Existing and Proposed North Elevation.
Elevations show the addition to be designed with a modernist vocabulary
utilizing flat roofs with brick clad walls to complement the brick of the existing
house. The east wall of the proposed addition extends approximately 4’ beyond
the outside wall of the historic east bay window. The proposed addition is
shown to be 22’ in height, approximately 9’ lower than the 31’ high historic
house.
From the north, the one-story brick element of the addition will be visible and
feature a two-over-one window.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 9
Figures 10 & 11 Existing and Proposed East Elevation.
The east face of the addition is fenestrated with two over one, double-hung
windows and an eight light door on the first floor. A second-story door
(alternately shown as a window) opens to an 8’ x 26’ roof deck area. A 22’ x 4’
stair well and railing is shown located along the south end of the east wall of the
addition.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 10
Figures 13 & 14 - Existing and Proposed West Elevation.
The west face of the proposed addition shows the truncated hipped roof (now
shown as a lower pitch shed roof), the first floor fenestrated with a set of 8’ high
windows, and the second floor featuring a set of two over one windows.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 11
Figures 15 & 16 - Existing and Proposed South Elevation.
A covered 22’ x 6’ porch and balcony above is shown to project from to the 32’
wide, south face of the addition. The upper balcony is accessed via a set of five, 8’
high “nano-doors”. The first story porch is accessed by a set of eight, 8’ nano-
doors.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 12
Figure 17 - Northeast Perspective.
Figure 18 - Southeast Perspective.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 13
Figure 19 - Southwest Perspective.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION
Subsections 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, set forth the standards the Landmarks
Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration
Certificate.
(b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark
Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural feature s of the
landmark or the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character
or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions
are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its
site or the historic district;
(4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic
district, the proposed new construction to replace the building
meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 14
(c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the
Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the
disabled.
DESIGN GUIDELINE 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?
The Queen Anne house was constructed about 1895, within the period of
significance for the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Minimally altered, the
building retains its original form, massing, scale, and materiality and should be
considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Staff considers the
current proposal not enhance and may damage architectural features of the
historic house.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district?
Staff considers the mass, scale and design of the addition to be significantly
inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines treatment of contributing buildings (see Design
Guidelines Analysis section).
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 finds that the mass, scale, form and materiality to be substantially
incompatible with the character of the historic house and the historic district and
largely inconsistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Design Guidelines.
4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District
and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the
requirements of paragraphs 9-11-18(b)(2) – (4)?
N/A
Agenda Item # 5C Page 15
ANALYSIS:
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 General 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 as an aid to appropriate design and not as a
checklist of items for compliance.
The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate
sections of the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS
General Design Guidelines
2.1 Site Design
Site design includes a variety of character-defining elements of our historic districts and building.
Individual structures are located within a framework of streets and public spaces that set the context for
the neighborhood. How structures occupy their site, in terms of alignment, orientation, and spacing,
creates much of the context of the neighborhood.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.7 Preserve a backyard area
between the house and the
garage, maintaining the
general proportion of built
mass to open space found
within the area.
Submitted site plan is not scaled,
however, the current proposal shows
the distance between the existing
house and garage being half of the
current distance.
Maybe
2.4 Parking and Driveways
Historically, private parking was limited to the rear of the lot with access from the alley. There are
instance where curb cuts have been added to the front yards, but these are generally alterations and do
not represent traditional parking patterns.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 16
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.5 Historically appropriate
paving material, such as
flagstone or brick, can be used
to break up larger parking
areas.
Proposal does not include details on
hardscaping on property.
Maybe
.7 Paving driveways or garage
access areas with asphalt or
concrete gives a modern look
and is generally inappropriate.
Flagstone or brick wheel strips
are the preferred alternative.
Proposal does not include details on
hardscaping on property.
Maybe
3.3 Decks
Decks are a modern expression of porches that were not found on historic buildings. Great care needs to
be taken in designing decks to fit into the character of the historic district. Because decks are not
traditionally found on historic buildings they should be avoided or their appearance minimized – they
should be subordinate to the house in terms of scale and detailing.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
.1 First floor decks are
inappropriate in the front of a
house. Locate a first floor deck
at the rear of a house..
Balcony above porch is 133 sq. ft. and
located at the rear of the house.
Yes
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES -ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC
BUILDINGS, 4.0.
4.1 Protection of Historic Structures and Sites
The primary concern of the Landmarks Board in reviewing additions to historic
buildings is the protection of the existing conditions and the character of the site and
district.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Construct new additions so that
there is a least possible loss of
historic fabric and so that the
character-defining features of the
historic building are not destroyed,
Proposed addition is at rear of house,
but results in removal of significant
areas of historic rear additions.
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5C Page 17
damaged or destroyed
.2 New additions should be
constructed so that they may be
removed in the future without
damaging the historic structure.
Rear wall of historic house appears to
be completely removed. Consider
retaining rear wall and creating
passage between historic house and
addition.
Maybe
.3 It is not appropriate to construct
an addition that will detract from
the overall historic character of the
principal building and/or the site,
or if it will require the removal of
significant building elements or
site features.
Staff considers the proposed design is
not compatible with the existing
house, and will detract from its
historic character which is intact to
historic period. Significant public
visibility from Mapleton Avenue,
especially from the southwest.
Visibility from the alley is unclear.
No
4.2 Distinction from Historic Structures
All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design is
duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additional should be
compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Distinguish an addition from the
historic building, but maintain
visual continuity between the two.
One common method is to step the
addition back and/or set it in
slightly from the historic
structure.
Proposed addition is significantly
lower than the historic house, but
wider than it. At 32’ in width,
southwest corner of addition extends
several feet west of the west wall of
the historic house. Transition between
flat roof and steeply pitch gable
appears to create visual discontinuity.
No
.2 Do not directly copy historic
elements. Instead, interpret
historic elements in simpler ways
in the addition.
In form, the addition respects the
historic house and does not seek to
replicate historic elements, but could
more clearly interpret historic
elements and proportions.
Maybe
.3 Additions should be simpler in
detail than the original structure.
An addition that exhibits a more
ornate style or implies an earlier
period of architecture than that of
the original is inappropriate.
In general, the addition is simpler
than the historic house but not
subordinate to it in terms of mass and
scale. Reduce size, scale and
architectural vocabulary to better
address this guideline.
No
Agenda Item # 5C Page 18
.4 The architectural styles of
additions should not imitate the
historic style but must be
compatible with it. Contemporary
style additions are possible, but
require the utmost attention to
these guidelines to be successful.
The use of two distinct historic
styles, such as adding Tudor-style
half-timbering to a Classic
Cottage, is inappropriate.
Proposed addition is contemporary,
but transition from historic house is
abrupt – highly horizontal form seems
incompatible with vertical
proportions of the main house.
Addition could better reference
historic elements more successfully in
proportion, fenestration, etc.
No
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
Introducing new construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure or site
detracts from the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions should be
distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract from
the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic structures or the
site, in mass, scale or detailing.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 An addition should be
subordinate to the historic
building, limited in size and scale
so that it does not diminish or
visually overpower the building.
Addition will have public visibility
from Mapleton Avenue – is not
subordinate to the historic house in
terms of width and form. Addition is
85% percent of the floor area of the
historic house. Wall dominated
addition on roof dominated house.
Addition might be sided with wood
rather than brick to help diminish
mass and scale
No
.2 Design an addition to be
compatible with the historic
building in mass, scale, materials
and color. For elevations visible
from public streets, the
relationship of solids to voids in
the exterior walls should also be
compatible.
Addition will have public visibility
from Mapleton Avenue – is not
subordinate to the historic house in
terms of width and form. Addition is
85% percent of the floor area of the
existing historic house. Wall
dominated addition on roof
dominated house. Proportion and
shapes of voids could better reference
those on the historic house.
No
.4 Reflect the original symmetry or
asymmetry of the historic
Symmetry of the original house is
generally reflected in fenestration of
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5C Page 19
building.
the proposed addition, but
proportions and shapes of voids could
better reference those found on the
historic house.
.5 Preserve the vertical and
horizontal proportion of a
building's mass.
Highly horizontal form of proposed
addition is not compatible with
vertical proportions of the historic
house.
No
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Additions should be designed and located so that significant site features, including mature
trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the addition should not overpower the site or
dramatically alter its historic character.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Design new additions so that the
overall character of the site, site
topography, character-defining site
features and trees are retained.
It does not appear the topography
of the property will be significantly
affected by the proposed addition.
Yes
.2 Locate new additions on an
inconspicuous elevation of the
historic building, generally the rear
one. Locating an addition to the
front of a structure is inappropriate
because it obscures the historic
facade of a building.
Addition is at the rear of the
historic house but extends beyond
plane of the historic house at the
west and will be visible from
Mapleton Avenue. Reduce mass,
scale and width of the addition.
No
.3 Respect the established orientation
of the original building and typical
alignments in the area.
Addition creates a significantly
more wall-dominated and
horizontal building with an
increase in building’s length from
48’ to 80’. Reduce mass and scale,
revise design to be more
compatible with vertical
proportions of the historic house.
No
.4 Preserve a backyard area between
the house and the garage,
maintaining the general proportion
of built mass to open space found
within the area. See Guideline
Submitted site plan is not scaled,
however, the distance between the
existing house and garage will be
reduced to have of the current
distance. Proposal approaches
Maybe
Agenda Item # 5C Page 20
2.1.1. maximum floor area allowed in
RL-1.
4.5 Key Building Elements
Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining
elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they complement
the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations
for related suggestions.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.1 Maintain the dominant
roofline and orientation of the
roof form to the street.
Roofline of proposed addition does not
maintain the form or orientation of the
historic house. Redesign for review by the
Ldrc.
No
.2 Rooflines on additions should
be lower than and secondary to
the roofline of the original
building.
Roofline of addition is significantly lower
than the historic house.
Yes
.3 The existing roof form, pitch,
eave depth, and materials
should be used for all
additions.
Roofline of proposed addition does not
maintain the form or orientation of the
historic house. Intersection between
historic house and addition is abrupt.
No
.5 Maintain the proportion,
general style, and symmetry or
asymmetry of the existing
window patterns.
Fenestration of addition could be
modified to better reference pattern and
proportions on the historic house. Large
banks of “nano doors” at rear are
incompatible with character of main
house.
No
.6 Use window shapes that are
found on the historic building.
Do not introduce odd-shaped
windows such as octagonal,
triangular, or diamond-shaped
See above. No
Agenda Item # 5C Page 21
MAPLETON HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES –MAJOR EXTERIOR
RENOVATION, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES, T.
F. Massing
While the specific details of the historic architectural styles of Mapleton Hill vary considerably,
the most significant and identifiable feature of a building is its massing. Buildings of Italianate
styling are square and vertical. Bungalows are low and rectangular, while Queen Anne styling is
asymmetrical with many projections and details. Replication of stylistic detailing is not
encouraged or necessary, however, the form which defines the building, should be respected.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
1. Any addition to a building should
preserve the existing symmetry or
asymmetry.
Symmetry of the original house is
generally reflected in fenestration of
the proposed addition, but
proportions and shapes of voids could
better reference those found on the
historic house.
Maybe
2. The vertical or horizontal
proportion of a building’s mass
should be preserved.
The addition will impact the vertical
proportions of the historic house
when viewed from Mapleton Avenue.
No
T. Major Exterior Renovation, Additions and Second Stories.
Large additions and additional stories to a building frequently change the character of the
structure. The diversity that characterizes the historic district is a result of the variety in the sizes
of buildings and the differing architectural styles. A design response that respects this diversity is
most appropriate.
Guideline
Analysis
Meets
Guideline?
.4 New additions should be designed
and constructed so that the
character-defining features of the
historic building are not radically
changed, obscured, damaged or
destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation.
The removal of the rear addition roof,
dormer and mudroom will be lost.
Maybe
.5 New design and construction
should always be differentiated
from older portions of a building;
however, the addition should
Proposed addition is distinct from
house in form, detailing and
materiality but not compatible with
the historic house in terms of form,
No
Agenda Item # 5C Page 22
respect the existing roof forms, and
building scale and massing.
scale and massing.
With the exception of the 1960s enclosure of the rear screened porch and removal
of the front porch and balcony railings, the Queen Anne house at 936 Mapleton
Avenue is highly intact to its original construction (see figure 1) and contributes
to the historic character of Mapleton Hill. Staff considers the rear of the house the
best location for construction of an addition, but that such an addition should
proportional to, and compatible with, the historic house, property and district as
a whole.
In evaluating of the current proposal against the design guidelines and standards
for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, staff is of the opinion that
significant modifications need to be made to the proposal to ensure that the
addition is subordinate to and compatible with the Queen Anne House. To this
end, staff suggests that the mass and scale of the addition be reduced and that
the design approach be reconsidered to be more in keeping with the character of
the house. This could be achieved by using the existing rear addition as a
connection between the historic house and new construction and/or constructing
a more modest one-story addition.
Staff considers issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the currently
proposed addition to the contributing house to be inconsistent with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill
Historic District Guidelines. As such, staff recommends disapproves of the
application finding that it is substantially in consistent with Section 9-11-18(a) &
(b)(1)-(4), B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Design Guidelines.
Staff encourages the applicant to withdraw the current proposal and to work
with staff to redesign the addition to be consistent with design guidelines and
standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. If the Landmarks
Board disapproves the application, a substantially similar application may not be
submitted within one year of the date of the disapproval per 9-11-17(c) of the
Boulder Revised Code 1981.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 23
FINDINGS:
Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff
recommends that the Landmarks Board disapprove the application and adopt
the following findings:
1. The proposed new construction will not meet the standards in Section
9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981.
2. The proposed construction will have an adverse effect on the value of
the landmark property, as it is incompatible in terms of mass, scale,
and design with the character of the historic house and with other
buildings in the district.
3. In terms of mass, scale, and design, the proposal is inconsistent with
Section 9-11-18 (a) & (b)(1)-(4), B.R.C.1981, the General Design
Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tax Assessors Card
B: Photographs
C: Applicant’s Materials
Agenda Item # 5C Page 24
Attachment A: Tax Assessors Card
Tax Assessor Card Front, 1929.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 25
Tax Assessor Card Back, 1929.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 26
Attachment B: Current Photographs
936 Mapleton Ave., East Elevation.
936 Mapleton Ave., North elevation .
Agenda Item # 5C Page 27
936 Mapleton Ave., South Elevation.
936 Mapleton Ave., West Elevation.
Agenda Item # 5C Page 28
Attachment C: Applicant Materials
Agenda Item # 5C Page 29
Agenda Item # 5C Page 30
Agenda Item # 5C Page 31
Agenda Item # 5C Page 32
Agenda Item # 5C Page 33
Agenda Item # 5C Page 34
Agenda Item # 5C Page 35
Agenda Item # 5C Page 36
Agenda Item # 5C Page 37
Agenda Item # 5C Page 38
Agenda Item # 5C Page 39
Agenda Item # 5C Page 40
Agenda Item # 5C Page 41
Agenda Item # 5C Page 42
Agenda Item # 5C Page 43
Agenda Item # 5C Page 44