HomeMy WebLinkAbout5A - Consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for the demolition of an accessory building,MEMORANDUM
February 2^d, 2005
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning
Bohdy Hedgcock, Historic Preservarion Planner
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and consideration of a request to grant a
Landmark Alteration Certificate for the demolition of a 1940
garage, and the construction of a new one-car garage, at 2424
6w Street in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. (HIS2004-
00208)
STATISTICS:
1. Site:
2. Historic District:
3. Zoning:
4. Owner/Agent:
5. Date of Construction:
6. Historic Name(s):
7. Existing Garage:
8. Requested new Garage:
2424 6~ Street
Mapleton Hill
LR-E (Low Density Residential Established)
Robert Leland
1940
Zarina property
(240 sq. ft)
(360 sq. ft., 13',6" high)
SUMMARY:
This item was referred to the full Board for public hearing as a
result of proposed demolition and construction of a new garage.
The existing garage was built within the period of significance for
the district but no longer relates architecturally to the main house.
The Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines state that
"buildings such as garages ... which contribute to the variety of
the alleyscape should be retained in their original form whenever
possible". However, staff considers that the following mitigating
S:~PLAN~data\longrang\HIS"[1ALTCERTS\Historic Distric[sVvtaple[on Htll\6th2424\02.02.05 staff report.doc
circumstances may warrant support of the proposed demolition: 1)
The current building is not usable as a garage because of its size
and location. 2) No other location on the lot is suitable for the
construction of a garage. 3) Because of alterations to the main
house the garage no longer relates to that building architecturally
or historically.
Staff considers the mass and scale of the proposed 360 sq. ft.
garage to be consistent with Secrion D of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Guidelines, New Accessory Buildings and Section 10-13-
18(a)£~(b)(1-4) of the Boulder Revised Code.
As such, based upon analysis of the building's history,
architecture, and unique conditions of the proposed new
construction, staff considers the demolition of the 1940 garage
consistent with Section 10-13-18(4) of the Boulder Revised Code and
Section D(3) of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines.
Staff recommends conditional approval of the project based upon
approval of the required variance from the Board of Zoning
Adjustment and Building Appeals, the recordation of the existing
garage before removal, and the design review committee's
approval of final plans.
BACKGROUND:
On January 5"', 2005, upon staff's recommendation, the Board continued
the hearing of the demolition of the existing out building and construction of a
new garage pending resolution of a zero lot line/maintenance easement issue at
the northeast corner of the property. The applicant has resolved this issue by
relocating the building within the 3' setback at the east property line. In the
course of revising the location, the applicant has redesigned the building
reducing the height from 15' to 13',6" and changing the original gable end roof to
a hipped form. The current submission cails for the demolition of the adjacent
1940 garage, and #he construction of a 360 sq. ft. garage which requires a variance
for a portion of the proposed south wall of the new garage that is shown to
encroach within the required 6' setback from the main house.
S:~PLAN~data\Iongrang~lllS"MLTCER7SViistoric DisMctsUlapleton Hill\6th.2424W2.02.05 staff report.doc
Figure 1- 2424 6'~ Street, Apri1,1941
PROPERTY HISTORY:
The history oE the property is summarized in the January 5'", 2005 memo
to the Landmarks Board. This information can be provided, if requested.
Figure 2- 2424 6"' Street, January, 2005.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING GARAGE:
The simply detailed, one-car frame garage is located to the east of the
original house and remains relatively unaltered. Like the original portion of the
S:\PLANldataUongrang~H[STWLTCERTS\Historic DistrictsUVlapleton Hill\bth.2424\02.02.05 siaffreport.doc 3
main house, the 240sq. ft.,12' wide, one-car garage features wide-lap siding and
a low-pitch hipped roof. The north elevation features a single-car garage door
while the west elevation of the small building is fenestrated with a panel door
and four-light wood window. A large tree has grown in ftont of the garage,
blocking vehicular access to the building.
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE:
In 1996, 2424 6'h Street was surveyed as part of the historic resource
inventory of the Mapleton Hili historic district. While constructed within the
1865-1946 period of significance, the surveyors considered the "ranch form"
main house not to be a contributing resource due to its loss of historic integrity as
a result of post-1960 additions to the house. Staff concurs with the consultanYs
analysis and recommendation of a non-contributing stahzs for this building.
The 1996 survey makes reference to an associated "garage" building on
the property. Indeed, the small building with its wide lap siding appears to have
been designed to reference the simple early ranch form of the main house. The
garage retains integrity to the original construction of 1940 which dates to within
the defined period of significance for the district of 1865-1945. Primary archival
research indicates that 2424 6th Street is not associated with events or people of
historic significance.
Staff considers the garage at 2424 6"' Street to be a contributing resource by
virtue of its 1940 date of construction though not individually historically or
architecturally'significant. While demolition would generally be inconsistent
with adopted guidelines and standards, mitigating circumstances require some
flexibility in this case.
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED NEW GARAGE:
In determining whether demolition is appropriate, the Board must also
find the new construction will be compatible with the character of the district as
per section 10-13-18.
The Board may also consider Section D(3) of the Mapleton Hill Historic
District Guidelines which states that, "buildings such as garages ... which
contribute to the variety of the alleyscape should be retained in their original
S:V'LANWataVongrangVilS'MLTCERTS\Historic DistrictsVviapleron Hill\6th.2424\02.02.05 staffreport.doc
form whenever possible'. However, staff considers that demolition of the
building may be appropriate Tiased upon the following mitigating circumstances:
1. The existing building is not usable as a garage due to its size.
Currenfly, the existing garage is approximately 19' long by 12' wide.
Typically, garages are a minimum of 21' deep in order to allow room for
parking and movement around the parked vehicle. (A standard minivan, for
example, is about 17 feet long). A large tree has grown front of the garage
blocking vehicular access.
2. The construction of a second garage on the lot is not possible.
Because of the unusual shape and small size of the lot, preserving the existing
garage locating a second accessory building on the property would be very
difficult and result in a significant loss of garden space. This condition is the
result of the (85'x76') 6460 sq. ft non-standard lot having been created when
the three original lots running east-west were sub-divided sometime before
1950. The result is a lot that is less than 3/4 the typical size in the
neighborhood.
3. Non-historic alterations to the principa11950 (Zarina) house have
diminished the historic significance of the garage.
The garage exhibits similar design elements to the original early-ranch
Zarina house (see figure 1), with its low hipped roof and wide lap siding.
While not generally identified as an historic building type in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District, this example of early ranch architecture was constructed
just within the defined period of significance. Given its marginality as a
building type and the fact that due to alterations, the main house is not a
contributing resource, staff is of the opinion that the garage no longer relates
historically or architecturally to that building or the district as a whole.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW GARAGE:
As per section 10-13-18(b)(4) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance
specifies that an Landmark Alteration Certificate may not be approved unless the
proposed new construction to replace the building does not adversely affect the
special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value of the district and that the new
construction is compatible with the character of the site and district.
S:~PLAN~data\Iongrang~EilS'Mi.TCERTSWistoric Districu~[vlapkton Hill\6th2424\02.02.05 staff report.doc
~. 1 :.----:r°'~C -J _ --~\
.y `~ ~..~~ ~ "wa'°~TM ~~ . . ~ ~ s ~ - - - -i=j =- _`'
`nc p ~,
r-a sia•.-- Z ~~• - -
~~
\
T,b porew„ a e.~d9. nr.t. -- - _; ^~ ~
S.powln^ R~,~-.en~nt•• ''k'%~'~L' : ~
~ f~'~r,;
I A ~s• x a~-e• poei~on a eo~og. ry sd'~`2C G
424 6th Street „~ ~, ~~,,r.4,..,,,..x ~ ~ --~r~~ ~.~ ,
ra~kn- r~sc-~, Tnr paaa+ a ~--
to b~ I~r. fMI~C~~c1 ~A'w \ l.. 'T ^` .. "
~~°. ~ / I `~~. ~ -
I 4'-10 ~~ ~ II
.\\ d Q,~ ~ ~ f
.\ ~
~ ~ I /
-- -- - ~ I flN~ Portb~ 01 b'ni.p ~ ------~Y - " 1 Q ~ , ~. ~. `
Ie11NM0~~ ~ r '~"
.. '~'^'~"' / / ~ ~ f ~'r::
I rM~wval ~. _ _._ . ~ - " ~ T-10 OJD'tl,L '1~-0~
j o~I~•ii6stYf9 6'v~ ----~---5~ -~- - -- -
I (dodrd GI'c4) I ~ __
I' ~I _` ` r`__- . _
i ~ ~ ~~p~i
/
,`-r~_~..
~ ~----~-
~' ~
1 ~ ~ ~~ -
~
I `
-- _ I ~ '__'-
I
.
~~ NORTH
! \1
~ e ~ _~ ~ , t
', ! ~
- -
Figure 3 - Site Plan.
In place of the existing 230 sq. ft. garage, the applicant proposes the
construction of a new, 13' x 30' (360) sq. ft. garage. The site plan shows the front
face oE the new one-car garage to be located approximately located 18' north of
the existing garage, providing a set back (and resulting driveway) of
approximately 7' from the right-of-way. The east wall of the proposed garage is
shown to be constructed with a setback of 3' from the property line to the east as
required by code. 22' of the 30' west ~vall of the new garage is shown conEorm to
the required 6' setback from the main house. However, an 8' expanse of this wall
is shown to encroach within this set back, and for this reason, a variance from the
Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals must be secured by the
applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is scheduled to
have the variance to the 6' setback from adjacent buildings heard at the ,
BOZABA's February 10"', 2005 meeting.
5:\PLAN\dataUongranglHIST~ALTCERTS~Historic DistrictslMapleton Hill\6th.242410Z.02.05 staffreport.doc 6
Elevations indicate that the proposed 13',6" high, one-car garage is to be
constructed in a form essentially similar to the existing garage with a hipped
roof. The alley Eacing (north) gable-end elevation of the garage is shown to
feature two, bi-fold garage doors, each with two-light windows. The applicant
shows the frame garage as being sheathed in clapboard similar to that approved
on the main house.
ncues to garag. --` b~^d.n sh.d --7
\ ~,
_ _ ~.;/. ~~~~'. ~
- _ _y ;~~ i1 -.I
- EI 'I
- __ __ sy~~,-~-~ ~ i ~
.r..., f ~_
'_ .:1/ r ~
~ I~OtG~NG~ QI'IQ ~
'-__.---------------- -a,-3~ ~.ngtF, or wun
--~-----' i rool r~qulrhy
Gara~e -- West Elevation aozn~A ~a~+
t/8" = t'-o" ---sa- .lab
Figure 6- west el. oE proposed garage
ANALYSIS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance outlines the standards the
Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark
Alteration Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guideliries to
help interpret the historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of
the proposed demolition and new construction with respect to relevant
S:IPLAN`~datallongrang\HISTIALTCERTSUiistoric DistrictsVvtapleton Hill\6th.2424\02.02.05 staffreport.doc ']
guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate
design and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
~~ M leton Hill Guidelines, Alle s, Easements, and Accesswa
Alleys are a strong visual element of the district, and have much variery of scale and detail. They
play an important role in the development patterns that give the more visible areas their character.
Alleys provide access to rear parking and gazages. They have a varied edge quality, with buildings
both on the property lines and set back. The size and quality of these accessory buildings varies
considerably. Careful consideration should be given to changes in tradiHonal uses.
Guidelinea: Anal eis: Conformsl
~• The use of alleys to provide The proposed garage will continue to provide
1'es
access to the rear of properties vehicular access from the alley.
should be reserved.
2~ Efforts should be made to protect The proposed garage will preserve the variety of
Ye3
the variety of shaqe, size and accessory buildings along the alley. Nearly every
alignment of buildings along the property along the alley contains an accessory •
alleys. Alleys should maintain a buildings, with sizes ranging from small one-story
human scale and be sensitive to storage sheds to larger two-car, one-and-a-half-
pedestrians. story garages. The proposed garage is compatible
in terms of size, scale, massing, placement, will
maintain a human scale and will be sensirive to
pedestrians, in that the building features simple
detailing, a compact building footprint, and will
retain an adequate amount of open frontage along
the alle .
3~ Efforts should be made to The proposed garage will maintain the character of
Yes
maintain the character of the the alley, in that the building will be small in scale
alleys in the District. and mass and will simple in its design. Staff
considers that the building will provide visual
interest along the alley.
General Design Guidelines New Accessory Buildings.
~'2 Guideline Anal sis Conforms?
•~ It is inappropriate to introduce a The property is desi~ated contributing. New
Ye3
new garage or accessory building will not detract from the overall character
building if doing so will detract of the alley-scape or the historic district.
from the overal! historic
character of the principal
buildin and the site or it will
S:~PLAN~dataVongrangWlS'MLTCERTS\Historic DistrictsVNapleron Hill\6th1424W2.02.05 staffreport.dx
requi~e ~emoval of a significant
historic building element or site
feature. '
•2 New garages and accessory New building will be located at rear and side of the
buildings should be located at lot, close to the location of the existing garage. Yes
the rear o the lot.
•3 -Maintain adequate spacing The new construc6on will not result in tunnel effect
between accessory buildings so because of setback from alley and differential Yes
that alleys don't evolve into elevation & height of each building.
tunnel-like assa es.
•4 Preserve a backyard area Backyard area will actually increase with relocation
between the house and accessory of garage. Genera( proportion of built area to open Ye3
buildings, maintaining the space is within range for defined streetscape - small
general propartion of built mass non-conforming lot has historically limited the
to o en s ace ound in the area. amount of o en s ace on ro er .
.5 New accessory buildings should Stylisrically the new garage references the existing Yes
take design cues from the garage and modest garages in the alley-scape and
qrimary building, but be will clearly be subordinate to the main house.
subordinate to it in terms of size
and massin .
.6 New garages for single family Proposed one-car garage is one and one-story tall. Yes
residences should generally be
one-story tall and shelter no
more than two cars.
~ Roof form and pitch should be Hip roof pitch and form of the proposed garage is Yeg
complimentary fo the primar~ compatible with proposed remodel and addition to
building. main house.
8 Accessory buildings should be Proposed garage is more simply detailed than Yes
simpler in design than primary proposed remodel of house.
buildrng.
9 Materials for new garages and Proposed clapboard siding is appropriate sheathing Yes
accessory 6uildings should be material.
compntible with those found on
the primary building and in the
district.
.10 Windows and other elements Proposed detailing is simpler then that of proposed Yes
should be simpler than in remodel of main house.
detailin on main house.
S:~PLANWa[a\Iongrang~Fi[S'MLTCERTSVIistmic DisMctsVvtapleton Nill\6th.2424\02.02.05 staff report doc
.11 Dormers may be appropriate
wa to increase stora e in attics. No dormers N/A
Garage doors should 6e Proposed bi-fold wood doors for single-car aze Ye3
lz consistent with the historic scale consistent with historic scale and material of historic
and materials of traditional gazages in the district.
accesso buildin s.
It is inappropriate to introduce Proposed garage is traditional in design and Yes
.13 features or details to a garage or comparible to district, but design is cleazly of its
accessory building in an Hme.
attempt to create a false sense of
history.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There has been no public comment on revised plans for the new garage.
BOARD'S DECISION
The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark
Alteration Permit may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it
meets the conditions specified in Section 10-13-18 B.R.C. Specifically:
(a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an
application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency
finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a
landmark alteration cerrificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or
the subject property within an historic district;
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historical, architeciural, 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
comparible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the
historic district; and
S:~PLAN~GataVongrangWIS7ULTCERTS\Historic DistrictsU7apleton HillU>th2424W2.02.05 stat£report.doc 10
(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) arid j~ of this section.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board conditionally approve the
request for the demolition of the existing garage on the property, and the
construction of the new garage based upon the findings outlined below. The
recommended conditions of approval are:
1. The BOZABA's approval of the variance from the required 6' setback
between buildings.
2. The final design of the new construction be reviewed and approved by
the landmarks design review committee.
3. The final design should address all design details such as roofing,
decorative details, and color.
4. The existing garage should be photographically documented by the
applicant prior to its removal.
Staff is of the opinion that if these conditions are met, the proposed
demolition and new construction is generally consistent with the conditions as
specified in Section 10-13-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
FINDINGS:
With the conditions outlined above, the proposed demolition and new
construction at 454 Highland Avenue are consistent with the purposes and
standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in that:
1 The exisHng garage is not individually, architecturally, or historically
significant and, thus, its demolition would not adversely affect the special
character of the Mapleton Hill District (10-13-18,(b)2, B.R.C).
S:~PLAN~dataVongrangWISTWLTCERTS~Eiis[oric Distric[sVvtapleron W-l6th.2424\02.02.05 staffreport.doc ~ 11
2. The proposed work will not damage or destroy the exterior aechitectural
features of the landmark or the subject property within the district.
3. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials for the proposed building will be compatibie with the
character of the existing historic district.
4. With respect to a proposal to demolish a buiiding in an historic district,
the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the
requirements of ~araQranhs (bl(2) and j~ above.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Form
B: Tax Assessor Sheets
C: Site Plan and Elevations of proposed construction
D: Photographs
S:~PLANWatapongang\HIS'IIALTCERTS~FIistaric DistrictsVNapkron Hitl\6th2424\02.02.05 staffreport.doc ~2
COLORADO HISTO0.ICAL SOCIETY
Office of prchaeolagy and HisSOric Preservet~on
1300 Broaduay, Denver, Colorado 80203
XISTORIC BUlLDING INVENTORY RE[ORD
NOT FOR FIEID USE
Eligible Naninaced
Det. Not Eligible _ CertifieE Rehab.
Date
PROJECT NAME: Boulder Survey of Nistoric CWNTY:'-~t-~ CIT(: STATE ID NO.: SBLG062
Places•NOrthern Mspletpn Hill, 1993 Boulder
~ Boulder
Tier Evsluation, '1996 ~'~' ~ TEMPORIIRY NO.: 1461-25-4-04-007
CURRENT BUILDING NI1ME: ~ "` '041NER: ZI1,R`fiMA PETER F
2424 6TH ST
- BOULDER CO 80304
AODRE55: 2424 6TH 5T
BOULDER CO 80304
TOYNSHIP 1N NANGE 71Y SECTION 25 NY 1/4 SE 1/4
HISTORIC NaME: U.S.G.S. GURD NAME: Boulder, Colo.
YERR: 1966 (PR1979) % ~.5' 15'
CK
3 - LOT(5): 24-26p
DISTRICT NAME: Mapleton Hill :
BLO
RDOITION: Mapleton YR. OF ADDITION: 1888
FIIM ROIL NO.: 93•9 NEGIITIVE NO.: LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DpTE OF CONSTRUCTION:
BY: Roger 4hicacre 6 Boulder Ciiy Ptng. ESTIMATE: ACTUAL: 19W
SOURCE
:
Boulder County a55essor
USE:
PRESENT:
Residential
NISTORIC:
Residmtial
CONDfTION:
ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE E%CELIENT X GOOD
FAIR DETERIORATING
EXTENT OF RLTERATIONS:
NINOR MODERATE X MAJOR
DESCRIBE:
Second siory eddition. New porch.
4indous nou divided horizontally
instead of 6/6. Aluminum roof over
pacio on on south side and over scoop
by front door.
CONTINUED YES X NO
STYLE: Moder~ STORIES: ORSGINAL SITE X nOVED
1 D11TE(5) OF MOVE:
MATERIRLS: Wood, Concrete Sfi. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGI9ILlTY
1017
YES X NO
A
INOIVIOU
I:
RRCXITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
One-story wood-framed duelling on concrete foundation. Hipped raof with painted CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT:
nw covered
brick chim~ey and asphalt shirgles. Side entry uith concrete stoop,
VES X NO
with aluninum avning with urought iron supports. Originel double-hung, 6/6 LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNRTION: Yes
M111COMS 110Y divided horizontatly, ~ith ~ood surrounds. Secondary swning added to
NAME: City of Boul., HD82-1
petio area on south side. DATE: 10-7-1982
~ - - ' _ „ - ~SSOCIATED BUILDINGS? % YES NO
TYPE:
Garage
IF INYENTORIED~ LIST ID NOS.:
CONTINUED? YES )( NO
pD0ITI0NRL PAGES: YES % NO
Attachment A 13
PLAN SHAPE:
-
"
'
'
--' ARCMITEC7: STATE ID NO.: SBL4062
~
~
TT^ ,
-T
~ ~~ ~ ---
~
~ ~
' ' Unknoun
_ `-1--`
i
. .
.
_'
~ OIISGINIIL OYNfR:
i'~ . ~ ~__.
~ ~ ~ `~r
"
-'
" Unknovn
i ~ ! • ~ ~ i
~
-
` SWRCE:
i i
! ~
-
~ ~ ~
. ~-- SOURCE:
~t ~'- i ~ i ' i i ,_
T
T
/
'~ ~ i,, : ~ i I ', i,' CON
RAC
OR:
BUILDER
; i , i . , ~ , ~ . . i Unknoun .
~ i i ~ ~
i ~ I I
TXEME(S):
~ ~ ~, ~
~ . ; SWR[E: Urban Resideniial NeighborMOds,
'
i i ~ ~ ~ j'-' 1858-presmt
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (DES[RIPTION, NAMES~ DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORlGINAL STRUCTURE):
CONTINUED YES X NO
HISTORILRL BACKGROUND (DIS[1155 IMPORTANT PERSONS RND EVENTS AS50[fATED YITH THIS STRU[TURE):
Previous ouners of this property have included Ted C. McPherson and Pecer F. and Laura Zarina.
CONTINUED YES % NO
SIGNIf1CANCE (CMECK APPROPRlATE CATEGOqIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOU):
RRCNITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTOAICAL SIGNIFICRNCE:
REPRESENTS THE NORK OF R Mq5TE0. ASSOCIATED YITM SIGNIFICRNT PERSONS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VAlUES ASSOCIATED YITH SIGNIFICANT EYENTS OR PAT7ERN5
REPRESEN75 A TYPE, PE0.IOD, OR METHOD Of CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTES TO RN HlSTO0.IC DiSTRICT
7IER EV~LURTlON: Noneontributing Building
SLATEMENT OF SIGNIfI[ANCE:
This house reflects stylistic influences dominant after the period of significance for che Mapleton Hill district and its
Aate of construction is /ater than ihe period of significanee. The building has also been recently remodeled, losing its
original architectural integrity. Therefare, the house is not a contribut~ng element uithin the district.
CONTINUED YES % NO
REfERENCES (BE SPEUFIU:
Boulder Gounty Asoessor infonation; BouLder Carnegie librery, Boulder County Assessor [ollection; Conwnveal,th Wnd Title
Ins. Co. rewrds; Boulder City Directories; 8oulder Daily Came~a biog~aphiwl files. -
CONTINUED YES X NO
SURVEYED BY: C. NcLaughlin/R.L. Simmons AFfIIIATION: Front Rarge Research Associates, Inc. OATE: Jan. 7993/Apr. 1996
~~
. ;
_ . , ... .... ._... .. ._ ._ ..:. .,..~__ . . ,
Appraised 19.___,.__ ,~ ~
B~ULDER COUNTY REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL ;~ ~
T ... ~. , . ,.,,
~ ~x_ _ _ e~.._.~....,.._.,.. - . ,.,.,~,,.,,~„~ ~
, ..,. .~~.r.~-~- . -------- I
~ N E K ~ ~1 ,~ ,~ t ~._..... ~ ~ J µ _ ;: .~ .. ..r ~ ~ 4_.;.,... ~ ~=
_. _ . _ _-__ _ _--- -- -- 'i
HOUSE No...r='~~ ~~ L"~ _STREET___ C ~.+_ ... -- -._. __ GITY---`~C`.~{ ~~~ ^,~,
L~TS '' j "5 .~- -~' L# -'--~~ _BLdCK-- ~-_ __ ADDITION '~ ~`~;=~ ~ :_ _ ~-c~ !_~ ._.--- - _
Year Constructed F:st, Life in Years
~ ~f
~
^~ sr
A~
n r
C7'
~ _.
~ s_.
"3
~ es
~ ~
GARAGr:
---- --I,
--~--------~
i`
'--'--'-•"il
I~ ~ ~
F3UILDING PLAN
~ ~ ;,.
, ~.
- ~;~ «~'
`r
~ -
~
i`«
~
$M:
-
~wd
0
~ ~'~
~ ~~$ ~
.'
~
~ ~ ~ y
r
~
f .
F ~.
~ a n'
~
~ ~ r
z_;
_
~.~n ~
~
t .„.
r ' `~ ~
, x~~,
~ ~'Y
. yy~,,,:~.
~. :~
i;t',
~.~I~ '.,.
~i.~ ~ 4:~' ~Y.. ~. ,~'L
F~
!
~
~~
g ~ ,!t..
~
'
. . . . .
w ~A! '1 i~~
~~
'`, ~^
w,' ~ ~ .
, R. f' ~~9~' a,,.
r~ . +r a .
~
~ %r. "'j~.Y `'~~. ~ ~K`" x•
' ' ' ~ A. . ~.i
• .i ~ ~~..,
. _._.1 ~',
.
. ,y,' :,+n;~G R.
Alley (ZO' R.O.W.)
. _..~. . . _ . . ~_ . . . . . . .
sQ :
U~TM ~ ~L - - ~ ~ . I
r~
~: '1'-10 3/8• < ~ ~~"6• ~ ~
I 2424 6th Street
~~ ~~~ ' _~
ii /i% ~
lhls portbn of 6arcx~s meeb j/
5epa~~°^ Requk°n~nts• ;
. ~ ~ ~~.
~
~- I~ ~ portlon o~ 6ar'ag~ ~/~' r
, /
„~. ~ ~.~r«,~ %i: ~ ,, ;
laarksr r,occr~: ~rhis po.~t~ton or ~ !,; /// ~ /% - - ~ ',,
to be I-M. Mrs-ratsd whw ~ ~/~~~
c~. /
, ~~~'/~' /
/,!; %~% ~
4'-10 9/9' ~/~/ ' /
~ ~ ~ ///
i~/,/ ~ ~~~
, ,, ,//
r,~ o~ ' j' /
m..e~~~~parat~ ~ 4 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~
_ R~qu~wn~'t'• . ~. ~ ~~/%~,~ ~/, ~'~
R-opos~ rernaval ' 7'-10 9/9• ~ q~„b•
01 ~x~athg trrs
(dwtwd ~-~-cb) ~
~ `
f
/ L~-
. ~
~ NORTH I
______ f
Attachment C ~
. . ...~~ . ./ ~...~ . . ~~. . . ~ 7
~.: ~
Proposed Garage at 2424 6th Street Stephen Sparn and Associates, P.C., January 18, 2005
~~~ ~ _
~~ ~ o
~, , , ~
~~ .
~ ~ ~,
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~, ~~
0 House at ~~ ~~
2424 6th St. ~ ~
~ ,
~ ,
~
~
~ ~oi ~
~ ~~ ~ ~4
_J ~ ~ .
4'-10 '~/8"
~ ~ °wparatlon Ar~a of sncroxhrr-ent ~ ~ ~
~ ri/Varlan~~ (hatched) ~ ~
T
r --------------~
in
i
-- ~ ~O i
~---- - - ~
~ . , ,~ -
' 1-C~ ' _
, ~i i , ~
,~ ~ ~ ~ G~~e , .
, , ~ n
~ ~~ , ' -
. i i i ~~7 i
i i ~
i i
~---- L-------------------------------~
lf1
- - - - ~RN iir~
', N~rc~bor's 6arags
.. ~
, ,
F~
~, .
~ ~ Pro o sed Ga,ra e Plan NORTH
~J~i/~.~~ ~~V ~ ~ ~ i-0n
~
~M+
Proposed Garage at 2424 6th Street Stephen Sparn and Associates, P.C., ~
Gara.~e -- North Elevation
1/8" = 1'-0"
Propos~d mtnlmum s~pc~'atbn ~
betwesn bulldings w(th
varlance (s~s Sit~ Plar~
3' Rec~uir~d ~
5etba~k and
Utllfty Eossmsnt
3' 4'-10 3/8"
Prop. '
Llna
f~-ccsse to
~
~
~
i
~.5---
6arci~n sh~d
a ~+~ HataFr~d ar~a la
~-------------------- ----; 8'-3' length o~ wall
t roo~ rec~ulrhg
Gara~e -- West Elevation ~~A ~~'~~
1/8" = 1'-0" baruge slab
i
i
~
~
i
---~L~
i
i
L_~~~_~~_'
Ns{ghbor's garags h
far~ound (dash~d)
18, 2005
Propoesd minlmum ssparatton
betwssn bulldings wltf~ vartan~e
(aw 5its Plar~
3' Requtr~ed
5~tlxwk cnd
Utllity Easement~
~~.. E
~._. .. r ~ ~ "" ; .. .._ ~......... .. .~ _.. ... -1
h
1/8" _
I _.. _.-
g~'qgp ~
i
t, -
"Y: ~~ ` ~ s v ,;~ ~ :. J ~t
~~~ ~~~~~~~t~- s'
~u I: ~ \\ ~~'_~ ~.'`~~"tc`-~~..' ' ~~~.f31, ,~+ ~~. ~' l. +~ ; .•~.
.r
'',
~~ T:
~~ '
:r~;*
' i
f
, ~ ~} ~ ,;
~ , Y ~~" . . ..
-,~ :,,
~.
J ~;~
~i~'"
~'.,'.J ~y:~„i~"~,~iYt ~..f '~
,~ ~j ~
. ~f i~,~~{ ~' ~~.~~
~
~
rt
A~
n
;2'
~
~
3
~
d
RS
~
~i
~ ~~
~
.~
i ~',;
~v ~
`, , F ~ ~.
w
~ ~5
~~.~ Y
,1 .- '
~~ ~
J
~ . .. ~'. ' ' \'`,
!
..~.: .. ~ ' ~ ,
/
~~~~.. ~ ~ ~~