5C - Consideration of a demolition permit application for a building over 50 years in age (constructMEMORANDUM
March 2°d, 2005
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning
Bohdy Hedgcock, Historic Preservation Planner
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a demolition permit application
(HIS2005-00012) for the demolition of the house located at 2924 11~''
Street, pursuant to Section 10-13-23 B.R.C. for non-landmarked
buildings over fifty years oId.
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 292411~ Street.
2. Zoning: LRE (Low Density Residential Established)
3. Owner/Applicant: Donna Werner & Randy Bailey
SUMMARY:
^ This building is neither in a historic district nor locally landmarked, but is
over fifty years old and meets the criteria for demolition defined under
Section 10-13-23 B.R.C.
~ The item was referred to the full Board for a public hearing on January
19~, 2005 as a result of a determination of "probable cause° that the house
at 292411w Street might be eligible for landmark designation.
^ Constructed in 1911, the Austin House is a very well-preserved example of
vernacular wood-frame construction reflecting the early period of
residential development in the Newland sub-division.
^ Based upon analysis of the building's architecture and remarkably high
level of historic integrity, it is staff's opinion that it does have historic
significance under the criteria set forth in Section 10-13-23(g) of the B.R.C.
and the Individual Landmark Significance Criteria (1975).
^ Staff recommends that 180-day stay of the issuance of a demolition permit
be imnosed for the house at 292411'h Street.
S~\Plan~dataVonerana~I-IIST~Demos\l ith.2924\03.02.05 memo.doc
ITEM & ISSUE:
The design review committee's decision that there was "probable cause"
that the building at 2924 11~ Street may be eligible for designation as an individual
landrnark requires that this item be reviewed in a public hearing as per Section 10-13-
23(g) of the Boulder Revised Code. In this regard, the Board's decision is limited to
determining whether the building has historic significance under the relevant ~riteria
and whether or not to impose a Stay of Demolition on the property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The approximately 7,500 square foot lot on which the house stands, is located on
11~h Street between Cedar and Dellwood Avenues (unti11953 Cedar was known as 3~a
Avenue and Dellwood 4th Avenue. Originally located on lots 12-14 of the Newlands
addition the parcel is fairly typical in size for the neighborhood. (See Attachment C:
Newlands neighborhood map).
Located on the east side of the block, the 972 sq. ft., one-story house is of wood
frame construction and a Classic Cottage form building. The level of alteration to the
ariginal house is very low; a 1920 tax assessor photograph shows the building in form
and detail to be virtually identical to the building today. Character defining features of
S:1Plan\data\Iongrang~IIST1Demos\l lth.2924\03.02.05 memo.doc
Figure 1. 292411'h Street, February, 2005.
this house include its square massing, low-hip roof, and half-width engaged front porch.
The house features one-over-one, double hung windows, a south facing bay window,
and clapboard siding. A two-car, freestanding garage (also slated for demolition) is
located behind the house of the house. The property is simply landscaped, though
features several mature trees and a low-picket fence at the rear (alley-side) of the lot.
~ ~ ~ , ¢~ ~
~
~ t
r
~ ~,, t ~:,, t~
~4
~
~ ,
, ~r ,
~
r ~,~~
~ ,
- ;
_ „>
~ F
;
~
~ ~s ' ` ~ ~'~~ ~
,
~,~ r,~ ~, , }., ~
~ t' .
~~
~ ~
~
~
i -~
, ~
~
< ~., a ~
,.~
~~~, ,F,~~ r '"~ ~"~'~,~~
'~~ ~wir°' Z'*t'
~
F
~
,
~
; f~~~ ~i
.
_ :,~
,a
y
,~
¢° } ` .
~ .
'"~
- r. :~ ~
`~
'
s~ r~
s ~
4~ ~
T S ~ ~~~~ ~ ~
t •-- Y
~ ~ 1
. ~
`~ , ;
k
ti. ~~
~ ~ ~ s~ -.c~.!'~a~h`.. ~t~ .
"
, ~~
n a~~.s. ~ ~ • -
~
~ ~ v +
r ~:i
'~.'t ~
~,
,~ '~ ~,
. ~<` ~
.
-~~
~ t ~
r.
^rS~ ~:...
- l~
~ ~
~
~ i ~~
"i
~ ~
~ ~ r ~ ~ •.
~
~ "
~1~~1~ ~
' ~ ( -
~
2 ~ , •
?
1 :SS _ ~
, , .
`~~~p^Y~., ~+w __ ~M .i~ .. -. _- .5.~ jRf
E . '. _ f . . . ~ ~~ ~ .
~ -=g~ ...
~
_ ~ ~ ..
Figure 2. 292411~h Street,1929 Tax Assessor photograph
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
The Historic Preservation ordinance specifies that the Landmarks Board shall consider
and base its decision whether or not to impose a stay of demolition upon any of the
following criteria [10-13-23(g)]:
(1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with
the purposes and standards in Sections 10-13-1 and 10-13-3, B.R.C. 1981;
(2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and
definable area;
(3) The reasonable condition of the building; and
(4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair
as set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the board may not consider deterioration
caused by unreasonable neglect.
As detailed below, staff considers that the property may be eligible for designation as an
individual landmark.
S:~Plan\data~longrang~HIST1Demos\11th.2924103.02.05 memo.doc
No evidence has been provided suggesting that the condition of the building or the cost
of restoration or repair (criteria 3 and 4) are factors in the request for partial demolition.
As such, staff concentrated on criteria 1 and 2, the building's eligibility for landmark
designation and its relationship to the character of the neighborhood, in the analysis
below.
NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY
The Newland subdivision was first platted in 1891. While much of the
subdivision was populated in the 1920's, a number of lots remained undeveloped until
the late 1940s. Between 1906 and 1913 the New Home Realty Company purchased
numerous blocks of land in the Newland Subdivision. The 2900 block of 11~ Street
contains several houses constructed in the first decade of the twentieth century with the
majority of buildings dating from the post-WWII period. As is the case with most of the
Newland neighborhood, a number of houses on the block have recently been remodeled
and added to.
PROPERTY HISTORY
From 1911 to 1916 W.B. and Kate Austin are listed as having owned the subject
property. W.B. Austin was a carpenter and may have built the house himself. In 1917 the
property was sold to Elizabeth Davis who owned it unti11930 when it was sold to Frank
and Merrie Brown. Under the Brown's ownership, the property appears to have begun
its life as a rental property. Directory research indicates that between 1930 and 1960 the
property was home to at least ten different tenants ranging in occupation from cab
driver, to insurance agent, to funeral home director. From 1966 unti12003, the house was
the home of Raymond and Marjorie Urban. Raymond worked as a concrete finisher and
Marjorie as a secretary at the University of Colorado.
Research indicates that the main house was constructed in 1911 and the adjacent
garage built in 1962.
S:~P1anldatallongrang~HIST~Demos111th.2924\03.02.05 memo.doc 4
Figure 3. 292411~h Street, February, 2005.
ANALYSIS OF LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY
10-13-23(g)(1): Eligibility of the Building as an Individual Landmark.
Staff considers the house at 292411th Street to have historic sufficient significance for
designation as an individual landmark under the criterion for Architectural
Significance(B), adopted by administrative policy in 1975 (see attachment B). Furthermore staff
is of the opinion that the house is an important and well-preserved example of early twentieth
century construction in the Newland subdivision.
A. Historic Significance:
1. Date of Construction: Constructed in 1911, the subject property is over fifty years
and retains historic integrity as an example of simple frame vernacular
construction from that period. The adjacent 1962 is less than 50 years in age, and
as such, is not subject to this review.
2. Association with Historic Persons or Events: There is little documentary
information regarding the Austins, Davis', Browns, or Hibbards, who together
owned the property for 55 years. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these
persons are of local, state, or national historic significance. Likewise, none of the
listed tenants during the historic period appear to be of significance.
3. Distinction in the development of the community of Boulder: None
4. Recognition by Authorities: None
S:1P1an1data1longrang~I-iISTlDemos111th2924103.02A5 memo.doc
B. Architectural Significance:
1. Recognized Period or Style: Vernacular/Classic Cottage.
The house at 2924 is a remarkably well-preserved example of vernacular wood-
frame construction. Its square form and low-hip roof are reminiscent of classic
cottage architecture of the period, however its frame construction and lack of roof
dormer are atypical of architecture of this type. The most notable features of the
house are its low-hip roof, wide overhanging eave, half-width engaged porch
supported by a tapered post, projecting bay and one-over-one, and double hung
wood windows. Staff considers the house to retain a high degree of integrity to
the original construction as evidenced by the 1929 tax assessor's photograph of
the property. Despite the extent of change that has occurred in the neighborhood
over the years, the 1911 Austin house at 292411~ Street survives intact as an
excellent representative example of modest domestic architecture dating from the
early period of the Newlands subdivision.
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: The house is shown as first being owned by
W.B. Austin who was a local carpenter. It is possible that the house was an owner-
built interpretation of a classic-cottage; an architectural form quite common in
Boulder during the first decades of the twentieth century.
3. Artistic Merit: None.
4. Example of the Uncommon: While the house is vernacular it does exhibit
elements of the classic cottage form.
5. Indigenous Qualities: An excellent vernacular expression of classic cottage
(possible owner-built) inspired design architecture.
C. Environmental Significance: None observed.
CRITERION 2: RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD:
As discussed, the Newland subdivision in which the house is located, was first
platted in 1891 and developed primarily from the 1920s through the 1950s and its
character to that period has been altered significantly during the past two decades as a
result of demolition and new construction. Stylistically, the house is related to the early-
twentieth century development of the subdivision and survives today as a relatively rare
and intact example of modest domestic architecture from that period.
S:~Plan~data\IongrangV-IIST~Demos\l lth.2924\03.02.05 memo.doc 6
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff has received a memo from the property owner attesting to the property's
lack of historic significance (see attachment D). Two phone calls from neighbors
opposed to the demolition have also been received by staff.
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished does not have
historic significance under the criteria set forth in section 10-13-23(g) B.R.C., the city
manager shall issue a demolition permit.
If the Landmarks Board finds that the building to be demolished may have
historic significance under the criteria set forth above, the application shall be suspended
for a period not to exceed 180 days from the January 19`~, 2005 date the permit
application was accepted by the city manager as complete. [Section 10-13-23(h)]. A 180-
day stay period would expire on July 18"', 2005.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Though vernacular in design, the house at 292411~^ Street displays a high degree
of historic integrity to its original construction and as an excellent representative
example of modest domestic architecture dating from the early period of the Newlands
subdivision. When weighed against criteria set forth in Section 10-13-23(g) B.R.C and the
Individual Landmark Significance Criteria (1975) staff considers the main house to have
historic architectural significance to the City Staff recommends that a 180 day stay of
demolition be unposed in order to consider alternatives for the building.
FINDINGS:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following findings:
A 180-day stay of the issuance of demolition permit be issued for the house at 2924 ll~h
Street in that the house:
1. May be eligible Eor individual landmark designation based upon its historic and
architectural significance;
2. Is a rare intact representative example of the Newland area's early past.
S:~Plan\dataVongrang~I-IIST1Demos\l lth.2924\03.02.05 memo.doc
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Record
B: Individual Landmark Significance Criteria
C: Newlands Neighborhood Map
D: Tax Assessor Card
E: Newspaper Articles
F: Directory and Deed Research
G: CurrentPhotographs
H: Memo from property owner
S:~P1anWatauongrang~i-IIST~Demos\l lth.2924\03.02.05 memo.doc
COLORADO HISTORItAI SOCiETY
Oitice ot Archacology and Nistoric Preservation
1300 0raadvey, Denver, [olorado 80203
HISTO0.IC BUILDING INVENT00.Y RECOHD
NOT FI Attachment A
Eligible
_ Det. Not Eligibw ._.....__ .._..__,
~ Date
PROJECT NAME:--Boulder Survey of HisSOric COUNTY: CITY: , S7ATE ID NO.: SBL5243
--~--~ --- - Places.-7995 - -- - ~ Boulder Boulder ~
_ _ TEtlPORARY NO.: 1461Q5-1-37-005
[U0.0.ENT BUILDING NAME: ONNER: URBAN 0.AYMOND C& MARJORIE M
2924 1ttN ST
~aULDER CO 80304-3022
ADDRESS: 2924 ~~TH 5T
BOULOEN, CO 80304
TONNSHIP 1N FANGE 7'14
SECTION 25 NE 1/4 NE 1/4
MISTORIC NAME: U.S.G.S. ~UAO NANE: 8oulder, Colo.
'
I5~
YEA0.: 1966 (PR1979) X 7.5'
13'14
4 l0T(5): 12p
BIOCK
DISTRICT NAME: :
AOD[iLON: Newlands .
YR. OF ADDITION: 1891
FILM ROIL NO.: 95- 3 NEGATIVE NO. : LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRIICTlON:
9Y: Roger Uhitacrc 28 ~-- Boulder City Ping. ESTIMATE: nCTUAL: '1910
SOURCE:
- ~i T ,,..
.. i ~ . _. ~i?n Li s
f `
• '~
r
~ ~,. r~~,~,~` ~ f~ .
~ ~ ~ \ . , ~{} .v :1~: .
~'
~,';~
.i
~
~ Boulder County Assessor
.
r i
~~ tl •
~~ .. _
1
I~
~
, .
y
.A .
. .
~'~. ~.~
~
~ ~~A
~'
~
'
~
USE:
\ t _J.V. ~ ~
'•J •
y~
~
~ i'
;
j,.
~.
r.
*
^
~~! PRESENT:
~v,.,- ~; ~ ~ _ -
y;
,>rA'tti ;Y y t'"{ y: ''I~
y~
~,~
~1 'J
~ Residence
~
~, ~~, ,..
-~ _. .'
J~' ~
~ ~.~ _.. p.:, ,
~
y~ ?
-
~~ . ~ 1 ,=' ~~~`:~~:i-'=-_ _ '-~-•_
I
S
~
~
~/
_ '
` HISTORIC:
Residence
:
`
!
'
~__ - ' , y_ ~
. .r
'
CONDITION:
EXCELLENT % GOOD
~ - FAIR DETERIORATING
r ~
~
E7(TENT OF ALTENATIONS:
~ % XINOR MDOERATE MAJOA
p DESCRIBE:
Nonoriginal screen door; painted
~
! ~ foundatian; shutters,
'
CONTINUED YES X NO
S7YLE: Vernacular Nood Frawe . ORIGlNRL SITE X MOVED
1 ORTECS) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Yaod, Stone SQ. FOOTAGE: NATIONAI REGISTER EIIGIBILItt
972
INDIVfUUAL: YES X NO
ARCHI7'cCTURAL OESCRfPTfON:
One-story, frame dwelling uith pyramidal hipped roof viih flared, overhanging CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT:
siding; stone foundatian; brick end chimney. Porch
eaves
Yalls ctad with dro YES N~
.
p
inset under eaves at southvest corner has tapered support and stick batustrade; LOCAL IANDMARK DE516NATION: No
vood porch floor. Off-center, paneled and glazed door. Oou6le-hung, 1/1•light
wiMovs uith architrave surrounds; above ground bay vindaw on southern elevation. NAME:
OATE:
ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? X YES NO
TYPE:
Gerage
IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.:
CONTINUED? YES % NO
ADDITiONAL PAGES: YES X NO
y
PUN SHAPE: AA[HITECT: STATE ID NO.: SBL52C3
I ! I~ I i I I I Unknovn '
I ORIGINAI 04NER:
I i -
--~
~ villia~ B. AusCin (?)
!
~ ~
~ SW0.CE:
I
~ ~ ~ saace: ~
I '
~
i ~ _ Cicy Diroctory, 1413 -- - -
~ ~~ ~ 1.11_ I i_I I:. BUSLOER/CONTRACTOR:
~~ - '
~' I I ; I i I i I~ I; ~ Unknoun
:I ' ~ ili' ~I; iil .
I I ~ I i~ ~ THEME(U:
i t 1~ I i
i I I~
; i; : ~ i~, i;, SOURCE:
~ Urban Resideniial Ne~ghborhoods,
I I ! ( I! I I ~ 1 1858-present
CONSTNUCTION HISTORY (DESCRIPTION, NAMES, OATES, ETC., RELATIN6 70 MAJOR pLTERATI0N5 TO ORIGINAL STRUCNRE):
CON72NUE0 YES X NO
HlSTORICAL BACKGROUNO CDLSCU55 lMPOATANT PERSONS_AND EVENTS ASSOC211TED YfTH 7HI5 STRUCTURE):
ln 1913, this uas the hane of 4illiam 9. and Kaie Austtn. Yilliaa Austin was a carpenter and farmer. He ltved in Boulder
for 68 years and "very ~idely kfwvn not only hered but throughouc this section of the state. Austin ~as born in avon,
illinois. austin Later lived at 2%2 ttth Street. In '1918, C.R. a~d Maude ~avis lived here. C.R. Davis was a miner.
CON72NUED YES % NO,,,
SIGNIFICANCE ([HECK APPROPNIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY 8EL04): ~^
ARCHlTE[TURAL SIGNIFiCAN[E: NISTORIUL SIGNIFICAN[E:
REPRESENTS THE VORK OF A MASTER ASSOCIATED YITH SIGNIFi[ANT PERSONS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VpLUES ASSOCIATED 4ITH SIGNIFICANT EYENTS OR PPTTERNS
% 0.EPRESENTS A TYPE, PERI00, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTES i0 AN MISTORIC DISTRICT
TIER EVALUATION:
STA7EMENT OF SIGNSFICANCE:
This house is a vell preservcd example ot early tventieth century vernacular construction, az reflectcd in the hipped roof
~iLh flared eaves, the drop siding, prominent porch, and lack of archicectural details vhich uould indicate a particular
style.
CONTINUED YES X NO
0.EFERENCES (BE SPECIFIC):
8oulder Couniy Assessor records; Baulder City Directories; Boulder Daily Ca~era biographical files.
• CONTINUED YES % W
SURVEYED BY: R.L. Sim~qns/J.E. Broeker AFFLLIATION: frani Range Research Associaces, Inc. DATE: June '1995
~
/O
Attachment B
Landmark Preservation Advisory Board
Adopted 9/17/75
. ~ ~~,~
Secretary to the Board
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Individual Landmark
September 1975
On September 6, 1974, the City Council adopted Ordinance #4000 providing procedures
for the designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts in the City of Boulder. The purpose of
the ordinance is the preservation of the City's permitted cultural, historic, and azchitechual
heritage. The Landmarks Boazd is permitted by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations as it
deems necessary for its own organization and procedures. The following Significance Criteria
have been adopted by the Board to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and
equitable manner.
Historical Sienificance
The place (building, site, azea) should show character, interest or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural chazacteristics of the community, state or nation; be the site of
a historic, or prehistoric event that had an effect upon society; or exemplify te cultural, political,
economic, or social heritage of the community.
Date of Construction: This azea of consideration p]aces particular importance on
the age of the shvcture.
2. Association with Historical Persons or Events: This association could be national,
state, or local.
3. Distinction in the Develonment of the Communitv of Boulder: This is most
applicable to an institution (religious, educational, civic, etc) or business structure,
though is some cases residences might qualify. It stresses the importance of
preserving those places which demonstrate the growth during different time spans
in the history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awazeness of our cultural,
economic, social or political heritage.
4. Recognition bv Authorities: If it is recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc. the
Boulder Historical Society, local historians (Bazker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden,
Paddock, Schooland, etc), State Historical Society, The Imnrovement of Boulder,
Colorado by F.L. Olmsted, or others in published form as having historical
interest and value.
, 04.OSsignif-indiv
~~
Architectural Significance
The place should embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type
specimen, a good example of the common; be the work of an azchitect or master builder, known
nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has influenced later development;
contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a
significant innovation; or be a fine example of the uncommon.
Recognized Period/Srile: It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural
period/style, ie: Victorian, Revival styles, such as described by Historic American
Building Survey Criteria, Gineerbread Aee (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barkaz),
The History of Architectural Stvle (Mazcus/Wiffin), Architecture in San Francisco
(Gebhazd et al), History of Architecture (Flectcher), Architecture/Colorado, and
any other published source of universal or local analysis of "style."
2. Architect or Builder of Prominence: A good example of the work of an azchitect
or builder who is recognized for expertise in his field nationally, state-wide, or
locaily.
3. Artistic Merit: A skillful integration of design, material, and color which is of
excellent visual quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
4. Example of the Uncommon: Elements of azchitectural design, details, or ;-.,~
craftsmanship that aze representative of a significant innovation. -.,
5. Indi~enous Oualities: A style or material that is particularly associated with the
Boulder area.
6. Other, if applicable.
Environmental Sianificance
The place should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by
the protection of the unique natural and man-made environment.
Site Characteristics: It should be of high quality in terms of pianned or natural
vegetation.
2. Com~atibility with Site: Consideration will be given to scale, massing placement,
or other qualities of design with respect to its site.
3. Geo a hic Importance: Due to its unique location or singulaz physical
characteristics, it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the
04.OSsignif-indiv
~~
community.
4. Environmental Appronriateness: The surroundings are complementary and/or it is
situated in a manner particulazly suited to its function.
5. Area Inteeritv: Places which provide historical, architectural, or environmental
importance and continuity of an existing condition, although taken singulazly or
out of context might not qualify under other criteria.
6. Other, if applicable.
S:~PLAi~data\ComdevV-[IS'I~GEN~DesignationWbout Landmazks~signif criFindiv.wpd
04.OSsignif-indiv
/3
Attachment C
r ~~
~ ~~
~ ~e
' ~9
~
~
~
~7
~ZG
~S
~
~~
. ~
zs
~
y ~
a 1'~
~ + ~
~ i~
~d / } .i
io
A
~I
r
~
~
/~
~ W i~ -
~~
CERTIFICATE OF MAYOR 51884 , ~7ESCRIP710N
ib~~ehe Ld f~°ulC~;amumcipal .%A.IOn..w FIL[O p<9~nm a11heN Cx.ef~~clfTtNR9fW.T~meswuMelenq
Thnnis~erbfa
e(COUI~e.mOSbtedcelerade r•-Nr°~
rn ~
ex
f
en~~lFlh
~~~l
fd
n.~b
:~.l
nq
l
mb
si
n
~
~.
~
,~~M~
n
y
ce.pe bm
e
~ Dy LevRlehnaM IM Mayeq0ul 9uibenz~e Merc~(eR ey N:nanae ~~+ymM
Geuwci)a(tFeCifyo~e~lO~r,pa~aee fFei90oy fil2~~...ti..~yy/.~e/~u
N
c
l
f
F e
i
~n
reectl
e
le
,
ie
~
c
i
Tbrtl !1. Merwc NeriF alen9 C vi line TMN]I btMr norM
f ~
lhrnceCaa4ulo.
eelamAFLnefeMemaY
dREl
N
l
I
~
y
e(
w
n~NQt qp
mNfFin a
e(d~MRO~soa.Ferae4 dephfh~omwPUpon
e Y~% Ie ra ee~asd, fe• Ib Cuwpeae of o~mithnqa nfe ~ha i+oG • u'l •rGS~ OM
fhn map n j Y~'~ew~y wN/.Q.~eMn/KMGa/!
o
M1
ll q
.
~naq
an
an
~me e~ eec f~, 1Fenu OeuM .lenq e+id ~eat hna qaec sfAflwNCrs
e;sai0 3sc.!! ~ha plau e~ Eeqimm~q Euny ~II qMer~InnJ ~dtld~on
l
O
n
iha ~•~fa'y a
Gi L~ 4a a
n.fXin ~~ Cdy L~mi /~Kav y
a rccerGe.~ ~~ ~n. wf~=-. a~q. a..e ~nG R~wrtl~~ q peulG~rGau.
srcep4mq D ecka 99 fe 34 vmlua~h..
~~
~~~
noeR
IrI beaa .beree~~ fha v~A Cif4 af Oe Idv ea+ eauaed
~1v Seol ADe ((~x a G tYreaa presa fa le G~ a~G~=~~beA /' (/
ar 111.f 10 daye( ~A O.~loi W~/LF/~"1~
~ta ~'la
b G Tluqin 1e c~rfiN lbat 11~ pAerrfe ~M~e~ad fs iE[ntrnl
i4hori ImaDAry~~'~^^dAEC.{ilCGOni'!ry~E~ o~M~rt~AUNlIwEttt
M~ ydn
~
e e~
A
ai
~~d le[
4
a
b1~
W
fi
O ~ O A Me
in
y
y
nenun
pe"'~~
Rra ~yi
M ec
e
n
in
wfie
n
K
a
e
C
m
DIt
b..~n~a~id efreeband wlle a d~d~canC7eMe ublic 4a
Jlnq amadY ae~}Fr naen e(snapp~when A
Tfim ade~honel
~
ayer
~y, M
HV Ir~n~4~ ef *e e~ry o( aeulev
bs incxponfeE ~Mid
~~Atfnt CeN'
~ L
~ V..,..8~
y
i .s6k4~ ... , ~~ THIRO
.s~~ _:Li._~.I. ~ i
~~ d,6 ~,I.~.~... .. ~~ ~~ 6.~.,44=~e, l. . . ~ STRECT
:4.6!~~ ' .~: ~I,I.'~
~
et eAaV . ~
;~ b:4~ee~~tit• i ~~ li ~~,~ i
a4'~id~'u a e~ .. ~a~.,a ~ u~'.~ li~ii~,i4 ~
t'e~esra >>~'. sk
~"-' FOURTH "" '- -- '3TREC'f
I ~.
~
x
~ sy~• a . . S~a4~~v~ 't :~.~.... I
'e~t~h ~ !~~s44 :.
~
I .
., .
: s
.c ~
.
~ !0. ~1
sle a~~a'te~i~~a~r= I f _.
t ~ meehe eh~e= e:t4::i~~ 1a 4+S ~~~~t~l ,
~ip~xs ~~e ~~S~s•
~
~
J' t
~ I
nFTM
~ e
'
e'e4'etiSS:bnwa~r'...~~.
[a
x 4 ~~
I 3TREET
~~ehe ~. _4.~•
~
se . ~.
i
. .
. ..
~ ~~ :Ci ~..4C~R Il I
~ ~t. ~lG~~:11 !~4lhG ~ [4~l~t1~E22`~i7~`2.Y. ~ i~a~itY ~Lk 14i.''
I ~
i T ~n ' '
S E 31XTM A STREET
.4~ -.:., t'e'¢=toS':S'e ~~ai.'.l.•.I, c'li~e ~ :e~c. .~
4 t i
.i:7e4!e'~'e :: £ e~e~Yeb'`~Dtt~zt+ls'ta~'ts =
~~> >r l~ia a ~
q °u ~q
4 y ° 9GVCNTM e ~
~
~ STRCET
I
^ I .
V _ . I ' ' St~x~1 `::S.
. I ~ ' .etl51~ I[i-
, , 1 CIGMTt1
WI' . x_ ... F: . 4 ~. b.. l
~ I
~ ll ll ll
~ lyll li i
4
e
.~t
S~e '.
ti
N INTt1
~I ~ & '
~.
Zi
~;
i
n
Z
m I.L.LI_11.1.1.L
I
.eS4e4 e LJ- LJ-L.IJJ
i :
e A TENTM
~ ~_ ~ ~
e Oi ?a6i ~ a 4
1t ~!: 'x:1 t;ai 3:k~~ ~:~p
e SSx~k~'c~+ .t~~, .
e ~~~ ~8~ti~4~?!}h1~2~~:~42
3TREET
~
_
rn
U
n n
0
n -~(
.~ O ~
3 ~O
T ~
~ Q
o C
r ~
~
~
vO
. C.Ti
~O
SA
:
~
~ ~~
N
O
d
L-1
~`'^
~--1
~
~
l..l
d
~
h-1
O
z
<~
Appraisr.d 19 -__ _ ~.
BOULDER COUNTY REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL
04VNEft ~ t , ~ ~
HOUSE No.~_ _______ 5TREL~'T _ _ ['ITY
~,a~o,~`7`! ~ 1~, ~~ ~ n ~' ~.~` t 1--x - -
LOTS.~' RLtDCF, aDDiTip~'
~i'rar f;onstructed ~st. Life in Years
___ _---- - ~ -
---_:_. "-_-_=`_ ° -_-
~ E9TIMATE OF VALUATION ~.
----.-_____-~~ -- _ _. __ . _ _ - __
- - -- -- --~--------_q
~ HLDG. PA@T A, S1.Cf.. PM1P.T II' C,ARAGE '~
__'_ ___ "_ _" "__ _____-! __"" .. ~ _" _ _ __ _ ' __ .
j'10. CiIlb1C~'Cf~"'"_.'4'""'_"_"""__"'"__" '"""'"""_I_'__"'_"___ t ~~C,
CosCPetcaft._..--''_"'-"'_'_------------~"--'_"'-_ !, ~~~
TotalCoet°-""----ib.---'-""---"-------_.`---''3'----"'-, ~~
Porches-----_"--"'-~-'------'---~ --. _ '_-'_'-----'-" ~
Garage.'-"-'--'---'-'_-_ '-_'-'_ "------~-- ---..... .
Extrae'----•_ ~'-------------. _. .. --- ~~
,i
---°---------------- - -----... -- -- f
----------------------- - ------------_ - `
--..__.--___ ,.- ------ -
--- -- = -
TOTAL'-_-'''S'---'_'-"---5_> , . _. __.. ___.
__.
"" c Obsoleaeuce"'~": """"_'_. "_. _ . . . ,:.
j . ~
''_'Sr P6YSmat Oe~t'_a~--'--_'---_' -- ~ l ' ~ - - . - . -
-_ - - - - -- ~ - -=-. . . -
~ i.
Net Atter DeduCt~hg ~ ~'~ ~ +
Depreciation--'--I$---'--_'_, ~'~ ~`
'-S_t._ . ; ;.--'--'-- '
-"-46UCilityDep..'-~$----"'-""'3.__a:-AL"'--=-;...--_.-`~.,.1. ,..a ~~,' -,' .
PRESENT VALUE-'~~-------"'- S_l~. ~ ~:--`--''1-="-'".Y>......-.,... ~ . ~ ,~ , .,
^ ---... - .-__.- -. . -_ _'-- -
--_ .._-= -- ~ - - -- --
DE3CRIPTIO\' ~
_-,-- _-_.=-.
- -- ~ -- - - - -
w
"""" "_"'.,
Clesa of Bld ~G'-'--'- -- Hasement --'--F"--'--"-- ~
Cooatruction"f"""._____""~Ro~f______'_'_" ,7"_'___-..~_,
Char.ofConst!._________-~--.;Heatin ~''~'~~
, .. ____._. ,_--- - .. _
, ~---'--' --'--`~'="-'_'-'-, ----_-_-:'- - - -- - - - -~ ~-
~ ,Ft b' ~ Si.~3S9fARY
Exterior- '-'- -----'-------'- '' um ~n~ --~- -'°'- -------`-
--~~~ ~~ ~
Z,
Interior Finisd._"'"""""'__ ~ f.
_i.i~.~t_'_'._ ""____ "'_ U%FCR2PTIUF
. ..._ _ -_ _ '___.
~ /
Ftoora"'_"_' """""'_"" 'n . ,
_'nc. Gan:~e__.""" "" __
"
"" Bui3.~ n~ Yezr~~t a f,~. ~'~ ~ ..
. , i ~.~°~.!-,
~ Otiginal Cv.'. 9m~.r; r.-.~an!a Ch.ip
_"'_""""""
SCOZies _ iiares or Sheda _"_
""' '_' - ' -_- - - - _
_'"_"""'
, 4editions an.9 n,.i.. rq e•~r~
FiceResistinq ~ ____ _ ~ ~tn[e of f:np: . -~ -~-, tltitncr g CKti ~te ~.L 1' ~ ~>~i C.'. ~~
Fonn~'ation ' ' ' " Ln<•a3 ir,--,. __ ,_ _ -- t n~ati Ap ~ e a~~_ -- - -
t1llOLYi05ti nN
~ D SEP'i'FR3l='.T4 ir ~rsne.e
wy
G~~.-
_ ~, _ _~M
~+
02iVT
•
4` aii o ~. ~~C4T . _
5~0 }, 4 i.
i
~H
pq . ~.. . __' _"__
ti[anlh'a Hen:s.,
_
-
` 4 ltT 1 Pd f~~r ::~c
~~FliILDING PLAN
-= 'Z„ --
x..9:, r';h ~~~ _ ,~G -
.,~ ~. ~;y: .
,~.~.-. ,- .. ~
~' ~~ ~ • .. - `_ . _" z ~'
Height of Building_'-___-
ANNUAL ASSESSMP:"f 7'
.;11b1'FS YEAR ! LAND ~ PJSPADVEX&:Pf6 7
~
__'_._ "'_"_
~ 1@ i3
____- -___~ _ ', __":,__
'8 $_
, ~__ '___
«$
3 19:39
_. _- ~ j
. _ . ,... _.' __ ___.".'_'
__
S 7960
__ _. ___ :
~I
i
__.~,.__ . __ ... _.
~u -
~ 7511
~ i
~R
- - ~
~
-
' 15J2 y-- - - -
~1 ~~~ __ 1--
~~
_.
~ t4i4 ~ ~~
~
^ , _ . .~.~y _ _
_'_ _
I.~-___ __ _ _ ~i __ '_._.___ _
~__'.
. :5ar. ~ j ~ ~-
. .,~,~~ 1 -- -~~ -- __ '
d
C
C
w
d
t -- .
CLA3S OF BUIi.DING ~ $F.1C,tiT
ACl)t)A
Llf. N'1'
DESCItI l`71QN
1-Bingle HeaiAeoce _ _ .~. ~ -
i !~o, of SYon x ____. _ i ~'175~P~:Y ~'t
~
~ _ _ _ ~ :ttV ;
P.lectr.c:tp
. ._. __ , .
~ f:00dJ3 RTORIFS
2-Dup(es' "_' .
'"' '
A'OL'. ).lTl:7ti
~ b, d~ r~ie _ it;e~:
~
"
~~ __ -~__ ' `___'___
~
3-Bungalow. Apt., Crt. _
' ~ ~ ' t'.E nn«s i i ~ z
emo
~
4-FlatorTerrace_____"„'
_'_ ~Brick"__"_'_"'._.'__'_"'
i ;,~~~~~ o i ~c r, >f:rr
~
_'_;
im i
dt:
~
. i
' ,
'____' '__'. -- - _'" _
.."' _ ' '_'.'__" __ _
i . ' ~ -'_ , -_ - .~.
{Liv:n.Kam~
6
5-Apastmeet i7ouse
iC:oncrece_"" __'_'_
___"_'
, ziruc
ra
~,_._.
___' -
.
_
'__~; ."'""'_"_
""_" __'__ "''__„ .."_'
~ ,
_ .__'._
~ ~
4tone ,
: crenn:cr d'dj_e' _ _
~ ~ _.__ _
" '__'_' ' __ _._._. _. ` Uinii:y; RWm"_""__"
~ '___„_ '_""""` '__"""
-
6-Hotel_"."'.__.
__ "'_" ____'__'.- ____..
~
~
w~~a
' __
i -hw.'. Ir~.c _ _ ~
- r s•en :
r~ aa ~i;,~ct~: ~ Lir.e[iN '"
~ ---- ----------
-j - - -------- -------
?-Store Building "'----'-_'- . ---- ---
---
ITile ,
------
' - -.
- ----•-- - _
: f ~ .
""-----'-^" ------•"_-""_.
8'""_'_""_"'_"_____""' " re
eTiie -'- f; -- jr'~ 6te&AfastNook.«"_"""
4"""""_"'"_"....__'_'_'_"'
9-Office BuildinR _' __ _ _."' _ - " ____""'_.
-' '
^'
~ .
l'loy __ _' i(~n.v~rurUU^
G "'_-
'---- - - Ped ltoom"'-.-'.~--.' --_ ~- ~`~'--' -----' -' ------ - ----
,
30-Hospitdor Sanitxriu:n._"_ "'"'
R-------"""'------- _
, ~.,.,
:.~" '
'
' rl~ar' "_"_ r
"~_:.._"""_" "'"__'
t3ath Room_"""'
'_""
11--BankBuild:n _.
~i .
'___"_ - .____'_
.
'
_
"" _'
~
....
~ - _
A.Lr.-:af a„ ,i~.!c. .
.'__
""_'
t24:`~ .
_ _' _ ~
. ..
_____._. ,
.__""___...._ ___'_
i
Cuilrt f:oom'_"'"______
_"
12-T'heutre""""'_'__"_"'_. '
1?A~E3Iz:r3" ~I
Tio _ _'____ _ ~ !ie~c._____.
. . . ' _ . '___'____."__ '
.>hower f{ocm_'_"'__"__.
__"_'__"_ '__'_"""_______'
1S-Warehuase"_"'_' _
-.__' _ __- _. _;
_ ,
-- ' '- ' ' _._"'__"_._
_____.'_ ____'___"" " ~'_ .~leej»ng Porc6 __"' ' _
"'"'"_'_'_"_"_____'"__'__"'
14-FactorY"""'_'"_""'""_'__ @carter'_._ ___'____' __ ~ -___'___' .' __
_"__'_'_"_'_' e..~ . „ ,
.
Half STYLE ~ .... •, ..._ __"'_'_'_.___"'_"'_"____"_""""_'._.'
15-PablicGaraqe"'-'-'------ .________'_
-- ~--~- '--
____ -_. ___ Den
fi-PrivateGarxge-------------
Three-t ar.r.er . __ _
~ ~--- -
Gai:« ,
S.iEUg
-- -- ~
AND BaftNS
~ - - - - -~- .--'-_-----"
"_'___'_" __"___'_"___"""""___'
"ora
e Room
17-3ervice Station_______"'__
Futi____.._. .._'__ ___ -~ --"_-'-
_ ! L'in._____.__.___ -------'
."_'_"'.'`ize_ -:~- _.
-.t'w+aaf,_,._~_..._<<_'_ ~
.'-'-------'-"'-
ORlee "_"___'__'...__"""""" """"'
'
"
18-HotHouaeorGr.Houee"_ Cenc,r F?n-r -__
~ -~- . ~-_
~ __
F:at'_"""'_" I~ -.._
"'_"_"'__'in, .
Const.____"'
_'_"~
~ _"
_""'_
Ffa:.. _ "
..'_____'_"_""""_"'_"___'_""_
'
19-Poultr Aouse .""""'
y "'
Fimshed N'xi6, anr. CeiSr.r_
__ ~
: Gxrc:i~:nl
i
1
" _. _
_
' ""
'LO-HarnsorSheds____________
I Laundr
5.---. _..- ..
~ .___ _...'
~:Je^~an:.'___'_
_ . _._'_ _"-i I.UC:11.:)iP
~
_ __ _ " i
~
KU4
ESIF.FT9
_"_- I _"__' _______'_"' "'_"_'__"___""_""
"'_____""'
__'_ ' "_""""""_'_'""""_'_"" """"_""""'"_'
.'_"_'"'__'_' '
(;ON~ i'K~ ('77U y
Frame
B[I l' ~ .
~~ Tile.___"""_""""""____'
~ Stone----------"'-"--'-'--"--
(.pnerete. Yiain or liiccS_____.__
Concrr=te, Rrinforeed._ _ ____~
$:~el Fra~ne____._____.____'__.
CIi:1RAC1'Eli OF' t pASI
___ __ _
G;:eap„"_"'__ "
Nedmrn_..__'.'__._ .-.
c..~~i ---
E~tA'p I.Y.yIY.,+PY "
_ _'__"' '_ ' _"'
LcrnCO_"".'
' _ " ' _ !
_ ., n. .n „__"'_'"'_"' ""_"
.t '.t . ~-.. i
'_"_"_"__'_' '_" " ' _
- ~
, ._
~ _ ~ ___ ' hl~„c P~~~..~ f'
-- - -- ----'--
~ -- FItiISft c~.<vom4n
__
- _
__..'____ ____._. __'__ !
PI. t' 91 C; \:: -! cideu~ail.s""'_""""""""
°- -____________._ _-________ _
_
'
Unfiniahed
~."!'f:i'! K
~
t'urb:nF'._._"_"_"_______""" _________ ____
..."'__"__, __'_ „""'__'_"
'
~-•
c
~ Ylastered. Plain""'_
' "' "_~
__"'._'_"_
_'_ _
` . ...
'__'_'_ __ ____
{ P::rt~~r"_'__' '_""_""'
.__""_"
}
C.~mmonI.rs:.'
__"_ __'
, ~
I.::~~c .`n
.. ____ ...__"__"
.„•
'__"_
t„rmSeui-r__'.'______"_"__._ ,
Plaste:.:a,Ornam"______'.
"__ .' _'_'.
"_._.._'__
~ ~
P
d
Freaeed 2r~r~._.___"_.""'. Nn
, bnU~ Teb=' .______ __
__' _. ' .
~enrtary ~e~cer__"_"____"_"" ayere
____ _______ __._______' .__.."._"__"__'_,..
R'ireCutSrici.___._"___
' 1
.
' ~o. :r,~~crr!'•at:.s.____ __._ ~ . -
Ei
D:t:l
C
' P:unteAorTinted"_ ._ ___'. _ _ "'___"'______
azed Erick_____.'_"___'_'__
'N>
{''
~I~a~..s__..
_.___.__ I
"'___ . . _,
C
.
}
___,_".-_
r,~s___-.__'_______""""""'
jpftN'oUi~P~00t___._ _
____ _
- '._ _._"'_ _____ "___
WbooSidinR"'__"'"'__"'"'_. ~t`o. Lasa:,;ies_______'
. I
--.---~ . """"""'___
P.~lc-rhune_. _ iixro~rnodFlour___' _ ' _"._ _._.. ..
___._ _ _
R'ondSningle~...-_____________ ~\'e L:r.~.t.s..____"_' I
__
___ ., 3oft;coodFiniah___ "
_- - _.'______. ___.
Cemen: 9[ucco_" '___' ""'_'
'
~ \o.
, 'i
La~n~~_~. :c`'s' __ _
'
" ' ~ '_'_"' __ ____ _____________'___
Hardn~wAFiniuh_ ' ' ." _" '_ '
F:E:Itasu,r.e.__ __..
..___ ._ '_'
~ tie.
Fr.::~_
____ . . __
~
'
_ _ _ _ ""_ '
._ ________ -_- _ ""__'___
,
Tie_"_'_"___"_' _ - . _ '__ _ . . _
~
~
3tone_ _._. _ .____
_- ~ `ar~ :er-(':-,oet= ____ ~
'__"_! ~'..9CHS.Ld?IEUI'S Gtn
wo. ~IvlarblrorGoyz _. _
'_ '_ ' ' '""' '
(`mrr~quted `.ros_____" "__ ~ .
I t:~. .
i'„~ : _'_ "_- " .
' ___'~ ~ _
' ' }~a:l EourC____'__
' "'_" _' "' " __ __-'__
Terra('rttz _"
. ___'___
~
_
- _ _ __. _ _
! ~ ,r a,o::r~i-
~ . .. ~"'__"
,.
,..
Sheetrock'__'__ .. ._- -_ _'__'_'""' "__"_"""_
I~'.` .______. . .____"' __._ __- -__
;t.S?.13~G _'._~ ,
' _ '" __.__ __ __ _'."_.
~~
°
~ Celotex,___'_ _
______ __'_________'._""'__ '_.._
.
~ -
__ .
, .,
~
- ' "'"-""- ~i'uinerOLin
_ '_'_'.,"__".'_'_""_"'_______'.'____'
___._._._._ __ __ .--". -
,
'
. _'. ___. __ ,
_
_ . ' ''
. P f' ___"_ __ ' - -"_'_'"
i 1lrtttl Ceiling'"""""'""""""'___"_"""'
' ."_____"__'_""
._____ _ . __ ,
;p,. ~..
. _ ''_ ._ .
;
_ _ .. .
~~-~r'~' ... _ ... ~
_"""'""""_""""'"""""'___'_"_'"""""""'"_"""_""
~
"__'_"_ __ _ "_' _
-~_ fi lY Ir.....~.~~' _ ___ _._ ___ ~
_ ., ~_~~.
~
;.~
, ,
N~m.F.reE ~ •r, 1 r~i ~~3.i t...9, .,,, . _ ___ . - , . ,.. .~` _-_ _- ~_' _- -. _. ._-_____-___.___..__________.____-.'--
.rse..~t "'_""_ ~ _
~
_
_'__"_""_'_'_ _ "_ ' __'_"~ No:id ' ~" '~ ~ .'~ _ . "~ , u,;,. ~o,.c _ "_-_ '_'_'_""_"'_"'_"'"_""""""_"""'_"""_'__'_"___
"""""_
.~, . .,.,.
. . `
'_ ! , ,.... . . .ir~ ~ .. c . ~ ~ I
8'fA7'EUF ItBYAlli5 't P~..3Cnua'_.. '__.. _ _._.. -_-~_- .. .. ~, t L,~-m,r l ~. , s..______ _____ ___ i """""_"_""'___"""" ""'___"'"'_"""'_'_..
r ~,.
,-~Wt'` _'_ ""__' ___"'""'"'"'_""__"
__-_ _ ' '_ ' ~ ' ~ -
' '_ ' ~ P.~ -rf~_
, '- ~ {'_ 4iL _ ' _ __. """_"_.i
t:ad" ~T_'__' __' '_"_"~ C>~u ~;.i:o~___' ~
'_' ' _ _ _ . _ ' ~ "'_"'_"'"""""" """'_"_'""'""_"'_"""" __"'
' " _' " '_ _
-----
r•,..~ - _ _ -- I <'~r.~.<<<_----.._ .._... f ~. ., . - ~ ------------ ---- --- ------------------
c~~~ -- ---.._.._ --- --a --- -__--- - ~ - - -- •------ ------~- --------
.~,:w ., z ~ , ~:. ; ~ ------•------ --~_
- - -~- - _..._
- ~ - - -------------------------,__-----•------°- ---- --
~s ~e~i99q
Gladys Anna
Dorothy Urban
Aug. ~ 1914 - Dec. 9, 1999
G ladys Anna Dorothy Urban of
Boulder died Thursday, Dec.
9,1999, at ~de Horizons Nursing
Home in Wheat Ridge. She was 85.
She was bom Aug. 9,1914, in
Plymouth, ~s., to Carl Behrens
and Selma Gerber Behrens. She
married Milton John Urban on
Sept 7, 1947, in ~sconsin. He
died in 1978.
Mrs. Urban was a homemaker
and an acIIVe volunteer with Eco-
Cycle of Boulder. She moved to
Boulder in 1955 from Plymouth,
Wis.
She graduated from Plymouth
High School and the Fountain Ciry
Business College of Fond du Lac,
Wis.
She belonged to the First
Church of Christ, Scientist, in
Boulder and Boston..
Survivors include a son, John
Cazl Urban of Boulder.
Private family memorial serv-
ices will be held.
Contributions may be to the
John C. Urban Assistance Fund in
care of the Bank of Cherry Creek
in Boulder, 2835 Peazl St, Boul-
der, CO 80301.
M.P. Murphy & Associates-Fu-
neral Directors of Lafayette is in
chazge of arrangements. '
~,,~c z~ ~a~c ~~g Peter K. Urban Attachment E
Peter K. Urban of Louisville died Friday, Jan. 16, 1998, in Thornton.
He was S5.
He was born April 20, 1912, in Eastlake, Colo., to Zig Urban and
Martha Stefansld Urban. He married Floreine Jencks on June 22,
1937, in Bancroft, S.D. She died in 1988. '
Mr. Urban worked as a coal miner for 40 years in Superior and Erie.
He was a meihber of the Tri City Elks Lodge, and The Rod and Gun
Club. He enjoyed fishing, and playing birgo and cards.
Survivors include two daughters, Mary Graham of Westminster and
Trudy Symanski of Louisville; three brothers, Paul Urban, John Ur-
ban and Bert Urban, alt of Arvada; two sisters, Veronica Prather of
Rock Creek and Stella Kotowsld of Globeville; six grandchildren and
nine great-grandchildren.
He was preceded in death by hvo brothers.
A rosary will be said at 9:30 a.m. today and Mass of Christian Burial
will be at 10 a.m. today at Saint Louis Catholic Church, 902 Grant Ave.,
Louisville, with the Rev. Don Romero of6ciating. Interment will follow
in Lafayette Cemetery, Baseline Road and illth Street, Lafayette.
Contributions may be made to Tri-City Elks Lodge, 525 Main, Louis-
ville 80027.
_ Darreil.Howe Mortuacy is_ handlin¢ arraneements.
Raymond C
B'C z' $ZooL Feb. 12, 192
aymond Clifford Urban of
R Boulder died of natural
causes on Wednesday, June 19,
2002, in Boulder. He was 78.
The son ofArthur S. Urban
and Ella M. Fett Urban, he was
bom Feb. 12, 1924, in Sheboy-
gan Falls, Wis. He married
Marjorie M. Michels on Nov.
24,1961, in Boulder. She pre-
ceded him in death.
Mr. Urban served in the
Army Air Forces from 1943 to
1946.
He worked for A1 Miller Con-
crete for more than 17 years.
lifford Urban
4 - June 19, 2002
Mr. Urban enjoyed attending
air shows.
`Every weekend he would
take family for drives in the
mountains," his family said.
Survivors include a son, Ar-
thur T. Urban of Boulder.
He was preceded in death by
a brother, MIlton Urban.
A memorial service will be at 2
p.m. Wednesday at Crist Mor-
tuary Chapel, 3395 Penrose
Place, Soulder. Pete List will
officiate. Inteiment will be pri-
vate.
Rose Mazie Urbach
jan. 24, 1929 - Jan. 18, 2001
'[jyG 2 S ~A.J 2cnt
Rose Marie
Urbach of
Longmont and ,;~ .
formerly of Boul- ~rSg~'" "
der died Thurs 3 '
aav, Jan. ls, ~, ~ ;~
Z001, at Boulder
Communiry Hos
pital She was 71.
She was bom Jan. 24,1929, in Chi-
c.~o to Heimaa Skorve and Clara OI-
sen Skorve. She mairied Bob Ur-
bach on Aug. 29,1959, in Bevedy
Hills, Cali£
Mrs. Urbach was a homemaker.
She was a founding member of
Mount Hope Lutheran Church in
Boulder and later a member of Mes-
siah Lutheran Church in Loqgmont
She moved tn Boulder from Bever-
ly Hills in 1963 and ]atec to Long
mont
She enjoyed gol5ng, dancing and
~~~. ~
Survivo~s include her husband of
Longmonfi a son, J~ Urbach of Ia:
fayette; rivo daughters, Cathy Urbacl
of Weshninster and Christy Bathje o1
Chicago; and two grandchldren. '-
Funaral services will he at 1 p.m.
Tuesday at Messiah Lutheran
Cnurch, 1335 Francis St, Long-
mont, with the Rev. Kent Schne- '
gelberger officiating.
Visitation will be will be at the
church before the service. Inter-
ment will be at Louisville Ceme-
tery~.
Contribufions may be made to
the Mulfiple Sclerosis Society or'
the Diabetes Foundation, in caze
of Ahlberg Funeral Chapel, 326
Terry St., Longmont, CO 80501.
- -- - 6g
Boulder County Assessor - Property Description
Property Description
2924 11th St
City: Boulder Account-Pa e 0008403-01
Nei hborhood:
Subdivision: 170 No Bldr Park Parcel: 146125137005
Newlands STR: 25-1N-71
Class:
Desi n: Single Family Tax Area: 0010
One Story Built: 1910
Legal Dsc: Lots 13-14 & Lot 12 Less N 14.9 Ft Blk 4 Newlands Property
Address: 002924 l lth St Boulder
S uare Foota e Rooms
Level Total Finished Total: ~~
Main: 972 972 Bedrooms: ~~
Above: ~-~ 0 Baths-Full: ~~
Basement: 0 0 3/4: 0
Other: 0 0 Half: ~~
Gara e: 520
Deeds Total Account Value
Deed # Date Fee Actual: 465,000
2434415: OS/O1/03 39.00 Assessed: 37,010
791540: 08/18/65 12.65 Mill Le : 70.233
Owner
Name: Bailey Randall O& Donna L Werner Jt 50%
Address: 5652 Aurora Pl
City/SUZip: Boulder , CO 80303
Attachment F
Copyright ~ 2001 Boulder County Assessor. All Rights Reserved.
l9
Directorv and Deed Research
OWNERS OF 2924 11TH STREET:
Bold Indicates long-term ownership
Prior to 1917 W. B. and Katherine F. Austin
1917 to 1930 Elizabeth Davis
1930 to IQ47 Frank P. and Merrie E. Brown
1947 to 1965 Ross H. and Luella C. Hibbard
1965 to 2003 Raymond C and Marjorie M Urban
2003 Arthur Thomas Urban
20031o Present Randall O Bailey and Donna L. W emer
RESIDENTS OF 292411TH STREET:
Bold Indicates long-term residency
Prior to 1911 Address Not Listed in Directory
1911 to 1916 W. B. and Kate Austin (Fruit Grower, Cacpenter)
1918 ro 1921 Chazles R. and Maude Davis (mining)
1923 Clyde and Doris Anderson (building Contractor
1926 Seth A and Roberta Armstead (Lineman, MST&T)
1930 Raymond G and Louise Krough (Salesman, McAllister Hardware)
1932 William R and Ruth Ewing (agent, Prudential Insurance)
1936 Carl C and Lelah M Stephens (Public Service Co.)
1938 Henry F and Rosa Moaison (Tmcking)
1940 Clell and Lillian Hindman (Serv-U-Cab Co)
1943 John and Minnie Hammel
1949 J. Walter Geddes (Funeral Dir. - Allardice & Hubbard Mortuary)
1951 John I and Shirley Tumer (Funeral Dir. - Allardice & Hubbard Mortuary)
1953 Clyde and Marian Wiltse (Television Tech., True Electric)
1955 Dazrell D and June E. Hood (installedrepairman, MST&T Co.)
1956 to 1958 Emmett R. Zeigel (Building Contractor)
1959 to 1960 Claude L. and Marjorie Malay (Serviceman, Firesrone Stores)
1960 to 1963 Gary and Nancy Koch (USAF, Flight Instr, Jeffco Flight Service)
1964 No Return
1965 N. James and Margaret Bradley (pharmacist, Lutheran Hospital
1966 to 2003 Raymond C. and Marjorie M. Urban (Raymond listed as a Concrete Finisher for
Rite-Way Concrete, Lu Gene Homes, Concrete Applicators, Western, Millers and
Zamora, and Millers Concrete. Marjorie Iisted in 1980 as working as a Secretary
at UofC)
NOTE: Camegie Library's collection of city directories is internilttent begirming in 1869, and annual
beginning in 1958. "No Return" or "No phone" does not necessarily mean the building was
vacant.
~
F ~rA ' f -~ .+}•*~ x S~/~'~~'?Or.l ,y~ !` .t ,,~:
~ . ~ ~~ ~ •..~ ~~~~'~ti
~ # >'" ~ ~O~' + ~
x .:,~, "r ^+.''i::4~1~~~. Q! /.~_i
C.,_ .," .rf'~,~ ~ ~.• ~~ ~~'.K t.G .. . .
..,~'. . _ _ .
i.::;
....- _.z'b
x"',~"»'K*~-.....- ~,w,,y~«,~
- . . . ~ ~ .~s°.^~
~.. ~ ~.. _ ~ ~~ . .
~ ~~.
~! 'ir ~ ~~4r..
~ ~~_~
_ v
; ~ Y',.'~~. ~:
~ ` -~~._ . ,~:
l
~ . ~ .
'4 ~ ~ .
t ,
.'~1..,` ..~ .)~.,
, - -,k
~-.~~,~ ` ~ 'G:;:,~~,
~-. ~~:m..W..
~
~..su... ~~~i:.~rw+ ,~n4vk~.
~ ~ ~
~
: r~
~ ~ ~
i~y ~ -
~ ~ ~
~ i
.
-°~ ~ ,
~~ -
. ...~. . . .._. .. J:.,i. ~
~ .
~~ ~ ~
~~ ~.
~ ''; '..~.: :, - ..~. .~ ~-~:-- ~ ::.
:A C
r
,. . ~ ., ! .7 , ,1 1 ~ , . .
rt.~
~7 ~
~.i ~~
. .. ~` ~~_s . . .
~~ _.~''' ~,,.,-- '~ w"'' .
_~ .~ ' . . „ ` ~r
r ~ ~~,; ~ `~- . ,
#~"` ~ , _ ~ .. `
~ ~ d
~~~ . ~ ~ • , ~ ~ ~ ~. ~
Attachment H
TO: City of Boulder Planning Department (Attention: Bohdy
Hedgcock)
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Donna Werner and Randy Bailey, Owners of 2929 llin
Street, Boulder, CO
SUBJECT: Public hearing scheduled for March 2, 2005 to consider a
demolition permit application (HIS 2005-00012) for the
primary and accessory structures Iocated at 2924 llth
Street
DATE: 02-09-OS
Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum is to submit information in support
of a recommendation by the City of Boulder Planning Department
("Planning Department"} and a£inal determination by the Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board (~~Landmarks Board") that the residence
is not eligible for designation as an individual landmark because
the criteria for landmark status has not been met. Therefore, the
demolit'ion permit application should be approved.
Backround
On January 14, 2005, Planning and Development Services for the City
of Boulder received our demolition permit application for 2924 lltn
Street. On January 19, 2005, a representative from the Landmarks
Design Review Committee informed us that there was "probable cause
to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an
individual landmark." As a result, this matter has been set for a
public hearing in front of the Landmarks Board on March 2, 2005.
Description of Property
The structures located at 2924 llt" Street are (1)a 972 square foot
residence constructed in 1910, and (2)a garage constructed in 1962.
Please note three important facts regarding the property:
1. The residence and garage are located in the Newlands
neighborhood. The area is not considered eligible for designation
on either a National Register or as within a local historic
district.
2. The garage is less than fifty years old and should not be
considered as even eligible for designation at the public hearing.
3. In 1951, the residence underwent significant modification when
a 9 x 17 foot enclosure was added to the rear elevation of the
residence. Further, a new front door replaces the original.
CRITERIA 1(INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK ELIGIBILITY) HAS NOT BEEN MET FOR
LANDMARK STATUS
A. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Historic Buildiny Inventory Record indicates that the residence
is built in vernacular frame construction.
According to the Boulder Survey Of Historical Places, 1995,
Newlands Addition, vernacular dwellings accounted for the largest
number of recorded resources with 92o considered vernacular. The
largest majority of these were of wood frame construction.
Further, an informal survey of the five (5) surrounding blocks
demonstrates at least ten (10) examples of renovated and original
vernacula~ residences.
Finally, there was a significant modification to the residence in
1961 to enclose the rear elevation which impacts the integrity of
the residence.
B. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Historic Building Inventory Record, Boulder County Real Estate
Appraisal History, and City of Boulder Application(s) For Building
Permits confirm that no historical events are associated with the
residence.
Regarding Criteria l, there is no architectural siqnificance or
historical significance that supports the residence to be eliqible
for landmark designation with the sole exception of date of
construction. The Planning Department and Landmarks Board has
previously stated on numerous occasions that date of construction
alone is not sufficient for landmark designation.
CRITERIA 2(RELATIONSHIP TO THE CAARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD)HAS
NOT BEEN MET FOR LANDNJARK STATUS
The neighborhood is eclectic, with buildings representing a variety
of styles and periods. It has changed significantly in recent
years through demolition and new construction. As previously
indicated, an informal survey of the five (5) surrounding blocks
demonstrates no less than ten (10) examples of renovated
(vernacular) residences.
Regarding Criteria 2, given these changes, the residence should not
be eligible for landmark designation.
CRITERIA 3(CONDITION OF THE BUILDING) HAS NOT BEEN MET FOR
LANDMARK STATUS
The residence is built over unstable stone rubble foundation on
grade. There are wood posts into crawl spaces in dirt that support
uneven floors. Exterior doors need seasonal adjustments as frost
lifts and moves walls. Lead paint on interior and exterior.
surfaces require mitigation or abatement.
Regarding Criteria 3, the condition of the residence does not
support'eligibility for landmark designation.
CRITERIA 4(PROJECTED COST OF RENOVATION OR REPAIR)
No comment.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, we believe our residence is not eligible for
designation as an individual landmark because the criteria for
landmark status has not been met. Therefore, the demolition permit
application should be approved.
Thank you for your consideration.
_., .
iJc~-~L,,~~„ ~~~,~_.~.~,~
~~c~ 3 ~~y 5- ~iG~ ~ Z
l
~y ~~~.~~.~~ i3~~v~~~
~7
~,~e,,,,,~E~ 3`2~0~
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
FROM: Richard Werner, Owner of 2924 llth Street, Boulder, CO
SUBJECT: Statement at the Public Hearing scheduled for March 2,
2005 to consider a demolition permit application (HIS
2005-00012) for the primary and accessory structures
located at 2924 llt" Street
DATE: 03-02-05
My name is Richard Werner. I am one of the owners of the property
located at 2929 llth Street. The other owners are family members
who are also here tonight. Together we are the applicants for the
demolition permit that is the subject of this public hearing.
I know that it's late for all of us.
But we request your serious consideration to my statement
for two reasons:
#1-the City Planning Department has recommended a stay of the
demolition permit. If the Board agrees, then we will be prohibited
from renovating our property at this time. That would be a serious
consequence that will affect my family,
#2-because of the criteria that the Planning Department used
to make its recommendation, your decision and your reasoning
regarding your decision will dictate how this Board will deal with
similar properties that come before you for consideration of
landmark status.
By way of very quick background:
On January 6,2005, Planning and Development Services for the
City of Boulder received our demolition permit application for 2924
llth Street.
On January 19, 2005, a representative from the
Landmarks Design Review Committee informed us that there was
"probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for
designation as an individual landmark." As a result, this matter
is in front of the Board toniqht.
On February 9, 2005, we submitted facts and information to Planning
in support of a recommendation by them and a final determination by
this Board that the residence is not eligible for designation as an
individual landmark because the criteria for landmark status had
not been met. We requested that the Board approve the demolition
permit.
I will submit a copy of that Memorandum and this Statement to the
Board that I would like to be made part of your record.
On February 25, 2005, I received a Memorandum from the Planning
Department recommending that the Board not approve the issuance of
the demolition permit, and, instead, impose a 180 day stay because
the criteria for landmark status may be met.
Just now the Planning Department provided to you facts and
information to support their recommendation that a 180 day stay be
imposed because the criteria for landmark status may be met.
The purpose of my statement is to provide this Board additional
facts and information that support a determination that the
residence is not eligible for designation as an individual
landmark because the criteria for landmark status has in fact not
been met.
The Planning Department's recommendation is based on two and only
two specific findings. They are located at Page 7 of their
Memorandum. Finding number 1 is based on the property's historic
and architectural significance. Finding number 2 is based on the
property's status as an intact example of Newland's neighborhood's
early past.
I will address these findings in reverse order.
Regarding the Planning Department's finding that the property is an
example of Newland's neighborhood's early past:
The Newlands neighborhood, unlike the Mapleton Hill Historic
District, is neither within a Historic District in the City of
Boulder nor is it presently eligible for designation on a National
Register. Therefore, this Board may not consider this property in
relation to the neighborhood or area.
This Board's powers are specifically limited to a consideration
of the property alone and whether the property alone may be
eligible for designation as an individual landmark according
to the Criteria For Individual Landmark Status. The issue of
whether properties in the Newlands neighborhood can be treated
differently by this Board because the neighborhood is old or
somehow special is simply outside of your jurisdiction.
Therefore, the fact that this property is an example of Newland's
neighborhood's early past may not be used by this Board as a
criteria to determine whether it is eligible for landmark status.
No further discussion would be appropriate regarding this finding.
In past matters that were similar, this Board has been extremely
clear that its powers are limited. For example, I was here last
month when unhappy neighbors came to the Board complaining that
demolition will neqatively affect the character of their
neighborhood. Your response was that you were sympathetic to the
neighbors concerns but that you were bound to follow your duties
which are limited to deciding whether the property may meet the
criteria for landmark status.
This limitation on the Board's powers takes me to Planning
Department's second finding reqarding the property's historic and
architectural significance.
Clearly, the significant issue before the Board is the Planning
Department's second finding regarding the property's historic and
architectural significance.
There are significant facts and information that support a
determination by this Board that the residence is not eligible for
designation as an individual landmark because the criteria for
landmark status under the categories of architectural and
historical significance has not been met.
Starting with the Planning Department's analysis of the criteria of
historical significance, the Planning Department's only basis that
the property may be eligible for designation as an individual
landmark is its date of construction and the fact that it is more
than fifty (50) years old. Under the Criteria For Individual
Landmark status that the Planning Department cites to, there are
four (4) elements that can be utilized. I'm sure you know them.
Date of construction is one of them. However this Board has stated
on numerous previous occasions that date of construction alone is
not sufficient criteria for consideration for landmark status.
I will also point out that the Planning Department failed to inform
you that the property has undergone a modification to the residence
in 1951 when a 4x17 foot enclosure was added to the rear elevation
of the residence.
This is an important fact that the Board should consider. By way
of example, on July 7, 2004, this Board considered a
residence at 3141 lOt" Street for determination of landmark
eliqibility. In that case the Planning Department identified an
enclosure of the front porch and stated that "while reversible, it
significantly impacted the historical significance of the
residence."
My point is that the Planning Department should have
included information regarding the modification to the residence in
its analysis under the criteria of historical significance. That
would be one fact in support of a finding that the criteria for
landmark eligibility has not been met.
This takes me to the nuts and bolts of my comments.
Regarding the analysis of the criteria of architectural
significance, we believe that the Planning Department has
incorrectly applied the elements under the Criteria For Individual
Landmark Status that they cite to.
The Planning Department's sole basis for its recommendation under
the Architectural Significance criteria is that the property meets
element #1 of Recognized Period or Style.
Element #1 for Architectural Significance under the Criteria For
Individual Landmark Status reads as follows: "It (the property)
should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period or
style." I repeat. Specific elements of an architectural period or
style. Not two architectural period or two architectural styles.
Not various architectural styles.
In fact, the preamble to the elements states it even
clearer: " The place should embody those distinguishing
characteristics of an architectural type specimen." Not many types
of architectural specimens. An architectural specimen means one.
The reasoning behind the specificity in which the element must be
met is clear. The purpose of historic preservation is to preserve
architecture that is in some way special or outstanding.
There will be numerous properties the Board will
consider that are in some ways identified as a good example of
vernacular architecture. According to the Boulder Survey of
Historical Places, 1995, in the Newlands neighborhood alone
vernacular dwellings are identified as comprising 92$ of the
neighborhood. There may very well be properties that are special
or outstanding because they represent elements of one or an
architectural style-that being vernacular architecture. But if
this Board decides that properties that exhibit mixed architectural
styles meets the criteria for landmark status then it is opening
the door to making this determination for every single dwelling in
Newlands that is identified as vernacular in nature.
By the Planning Department's own admission, this property has
elements of at least two distinct architectural styles. For
example , the frame construction and lack of roof dormer exemplify
the vernacular architectural style. The square form, low hip roof,
wide overhanging eave and projecting bay exemplify the classic
cottage style.
For the purpose of landmark eligibility, the property must be a
good example of the vernacular style of architecture. Or the
property must be a good example of the classic cottage style of
architecture. This property exemplifies elements of at least two
architectural styles, vernacular and classic cottage. The property
does not exemplify elements of any one style.
By way of summing up, it is helpful to go back to this Board's
consideration eight (8) months ago to the Newlands residence at
3141 10 Street that I previously mentioned. In that case, the
Building Department recommended that the residence did not meet the
criteria for landmark status under the category of architectural
significance. They determined that the residence " is an example
of a vernacular bungalow with some Craftsman features and elements
of modern minimal style." But they went on to say that there were
"similar or better examples of bungalow architecture within the
city." The residence was not an example of a specific
architectural style.
The residence at 2924 11`h Street is an example of vernacular wood
frame construction. An architectural style. But it is also an
example of classic cottage architecture. Another architectural
style. The Board should make a determination regarding this
residence consistent with its previous determinations of other
similar residences that reflected multiple architectural styles.
If this Board determines that the criteria for landmark status has
been met, then it should be required to do so for every residence
that includes multiple architectural styles. The criteria for
individual landmark status is clear that this would be an incorrect
application of the elements.
, ~.
~Z~ ~~~l~~ ~~
~, ,
=
y :,
~
e,. « .
~
~ . ~~ __ _. . ~
~ ~ ., ,~ _ <.~< ~ _ ~~.~~-,~ .:,
~.x~ S i t`-~ ~T
~-~
~ u ~. ;~
~~ _
~
M =~
, ~
~~ ~ ~
~. ~ _
,. _ . ~ ~ ,
.~
- ~~'
,
e
. ~-_
,-
_ ~-
~
< ~
_~ _
~ _
_'~
,
~
„
~
F
~
~
~ . .. T
~~ ~ .
_.
~
~,°'
"° ~ ~
~~~
~ ~ ~ x
-
Y
~ ~..,
J ~ _. '-S.
t o>
, s -~~,
- . ~Nk -
_ ~i,..
.~ ,._
-s_
~_ . ... ,~. . Y ~4. M. ~C~"
R'"+~`
~~_~l .
., ,'b.;` r. _ R. ~ «„w... aae.. ~~ . ~ ~ . .
~"K ~
~r~ K ,.3k. E.
.~ ~ ;~„~- ~~ ~s _
. ~ _ ~ ~; ~ ,~~,_ ~~
~ ' ~ ~ .~~ r~ .~ ~ ~~ ~.=-.
;s" : ~~ ~. ~;
~ `~.~~ ~:`
-r~ - - r _~ ~ ~_
~` . ~ . _ , ~
?at?O c~ - i~1'h Sl
p! ~ ~ . A ~ . ~ 8'~~; ~ ~~,.' ~r t ' _
•~ `'"+~...w...,.f~~AF' - ~.~'t~ :~:~ . , , . ~at .
~ > , t . w . . ,.,. . .. , . . . . .. ,~ . ~.
z.'
~k k,
. . . ~+,?a'+> V. a.~i ~ ' M;~.. ,.~,~ 'w~`4.*4~.'~;,~'`~°^~'~.~• {~'~n •'' } ~FSi7 {'
. .. . . . . '~>. _ ~..~°`.~~g~s'~~~ ~~';A`~'>
~`~~,~+a ,~,, ~ ~ :. : ~ ~ ~ ~
`~ s~~~., . .,.~ ~. ~ ~
~~~Z I~~~ J~
~. °i.s',~;
~ ~.!..."`"' .s
~~~ .
~~~°^4' . w,. ..e.warf.~~ _.... ~ xre .. `d .". . . . ,
~ ~ ~
,~ ,~. ~, "a .. ~ ~ ~ - ~ `t,.•'~ > ~ ` ~.~ ~~r,^
Ec~. .~~ z ~ ~°~`
-i ~~ ~ 7 ~''~~^ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ..
,a _1.~ ~. > . -:,
.~...u , w. ,..,- ,~, .. . ..~: ~" ,a .3~$li, ~~{,:~
Ilk'*Y`~'~~'; '`~~r~~-0'",~°~. ~~"'~~s .~P_m~ .. .. ~ ° ~t.v~. ~ . %'r~_ ~"' . . . >~:T-
`~3Z i~th 5T
~IS~7 1 D~ ~~
~~
_ , < ' , .:
'~~ ~. t ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ f