The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5B - Request to grant Landmark Alteration Certificate for construction of a rear addition for the prMemo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Re Request for Lantlmark Alteratlon Certificate for 445 Pine MEMORANllUM September 3, 2003 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning Bohdy Hedgcock, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJ~CT: Request to grant a Landmark Alteration Certificate for construction of a rear addirion for the property at 445 Pme Street, wrthm the Mapleton Hill Histonc District. STATISTICS: 1 Site 445 Pme 2 Zonmg: LR-E (Low-Density Residential, Established) 3. Owner: Greg Hansen 4. Applicant Greg Hansen BACKGROUND: On May 14, 2003, the Planning Department received an application for a Landmark Alteratron Certificate to construct a two-story rear addition for the property at 445 Pme Street, withm the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The applicant met with the Landmarks design review committee on several occasions to discuss aiternative designs for a rear addition. The commrttee determined that the proposed addition could have a significant impact on the subject house and the Mapleton Hill Historic Dislrict. The committee therefore referred the request to the full Landmarks Board for a public hearing, as required by the Historic Preservation Ordmance. At the June 3`~ 2003 meetmg, the Board demed the request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate, based upon the determination that the design did not meet the Mapleton Hill Design Guidehnes or the criteria defined by the Histaric Preservahon Ordmance (3-1, Salance dissentmg, Durgm excused absent). Of particular concern to Board members was the overall height, scale and massing of the plan and the use of a barrel-vaulted projection with curvihneaz walls and significant glazing above the exisCmg front ridgeline. (see Attachment A: Plans Dented at June Hearcng) The apphcant and his architect met with the Design Review Committee following the demal to discuss new approaches that would allow the pro~ect to move forward The Historic Preservation Ordmance (10-13-17(c)) restricts the resubmittal of plans for "the same alteration" for one year from the date of a denial. Staff made the determination that the newly submitted plans were different enough from those derued by the Board that they could be considered. Specifically, the barrel- vaulted front projection that had been a primary factor in the dental was removed, mmimizing the visibility of the addihon from the fronC elevation. S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HISTIGENWLTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine 445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Re Request for Landmark Alteratlon Certificata for 445 Plne On July 2°d, after several addrtional discussions with staff and the Design Review Commrttee, the applicant was told by the DRC members (Hedgcock, Egger and Salance) that the project was movmg closer to meetmg the design guidelmes and could potentially be approved at the committee level if specific concerns were addressed. Addrtions are not required to be heard by the full Landmarks Board and are typically approved by the DRC. Following that determination, staff received mput from the public that the project should return to the full Landmarks Board for a public hearing rather than bemg approved at the committee ]evel. The primary concern was one of process - that a pro~ect that was denied at a public hearing should not be approved at the committee level, even a revised version There were also concerns that the project had not changed sigmficantly in terms of overall mass and scale and that it still fazled to meet the design guidelmes The applicant's architect was mformed of this request at a subsequent meetmg of the DRC on July 23`d Section 10-13-14 (a) (3) defines when a work should be referred to the full Board for a public hearmg• "If either the manager or one of the landmarks board designees determmes that the proposed work would create a significant impact or potential detriment, they shall refei the apphcahon to the landmarks board for a pubhc hearmg and shall prompfly notify the applicant to the referral." The DRC (Hedgcock, Egger, Rucker) made the determmation on the 23`d that approval could be granted at the committee level, provided specific concerns wrth the design were addressed. On August 6`", the DRC reviewed another set of plans and identified several concerns and items that needed more clarification, specifically. matenals for the addition, the extension of the front porch and introducrion of new porch support columns, and the types of windows and doors proposed. Those concerns and questions were communicated to the applicant and his archrtect that afternoon. That evemng, at the Board hearing, another request was heard from a citizen speakmg durmg pubhc participahon for the item to come back to the full Board for approval. Mr Rucker, a member of the DRC, indicated that he beheved the project could have a sigmficant impact on the histoiic district and therefore wished to refer the application to the Landmarks Board for a public hearing. Staff informed the applicant and his architect of that decision the followmg day. Staff spoke agam with the applicant and his architect and made specific suggestions to help minimize the visual impact of the proposed addition, recognizing that the overall mass, scale and height of the addition were still concerns. Proposed colors, matenals, a~d wmdow schedules were also reviewed. Most of those suggestions are reflected m the current proposal. The Board may approve or deny all or part of an apphcation for a Landmark Alteration CertiScate The Board may attach conditions to any approval and may remand the application to the Landmarks design review committee for final review and approval if necessary. S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HIST~GENWLTCERTS\Historic Distncts\Mapleton Hill\Pine 445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc 2 Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boartl Re Request tor Landmark Alteratlon Certificata for 445 Pine REQUEST: The house at 445 Pine was constructed in 1920 in the Bungalow style, and is considered contnbuting to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. (SeeAttachment C: Historic Buclding Inventory Record. ) The exishng structure is a one-story house contaznmg approximately 1,448 square feet above ground, plus an addit~ona1538 square foot basement, for a total of 1,986 square feet m the primary structure. The house features a side-gabled primary roof form with clipped eaves, and a rear-gabled addition that steps in at the sides from the front portion of the house. The existing house measures approximately 18' in height, and is set back approximately 40' from the front property line. The site contains a one- car, wood-framed garage at the rear (northwest corner) of the lot built in a complementary style to the mam house. The applicant proposes to construct a 504 square foot addition on the ground floor (with a similarly sized basement below), extendmg from the existing reaz addition by an additiona116' 9" to the north It is the same width as the existmg addition. The partial upper story addition steps in from the lower level footprint and mcludes 804 square feet and a small balcony on the reac At its highest pomt along the ridge lme, the proposed addition would rise 5' 6" above the height of the existmg one-story house, to a total height of 23'4" The addition would feature a hipped roof matching the pitch of the historic roof. A barrel-vaulted roof is proposed over the balcony A total of 2,756 square feet are proposed above ground, compared with 1,448 today. '` ~S' ij- va ~ ~~,ey$t ,.~~ ase;?~aj~'~x `~:[=~,~~y~y ~ Y~' P~'t,~,'.i~a ti ts~ ~y ~~~~~„~~~~'C~~*9S~~~i`~`t"~~;'R~~°~':, ~~t°'++~~~~~i:i~`"x~~~~ni~~n~r;;~,~'~~ .~ i '~r ~ L ~r;~"~ . w ~ t S n .. . c ~„ i~~„^, ., t i, j~a~~~~~°~'~~~:~~~9~~~;~~,. ~,a,aa ,•~~~, t,s~,a '' ~~~~4~~'~~1,,~, n,~~~~~ ~ . ~ i° ~ ~ , ' „ ;spd i~, ~ ~ ;'eoa~. ;, _ ,, ~~~~~ ty,;,s~~ ~~~~~~ ,. , ' < <,5~38~ ~ ~ ' ~, ~ 504 , ' _ ~ ~ 1;Q42 ~'; ' ~ . ~.. sti 4 r tx, ~$a~ r~ur ~, ~~'. ~~ _.z, ~~~~~t~~~ ~ ~~~ s `„~ ~ , ; ~( ~8$8 : , , ~ . ; 1a794 , ' '', ~ ~-3~7~~, ,~,r , ~ The brick on the existing rear addition would be retamed (this is not shown on the current plans, but has been agreed to by the applicant.) Materials for the new construction would be stucco on the lower level and painted cedar shmgles on the upper level, matching the existing shingles on the upper sechon of the historic home All windows aze wood with true divided lights. Lmtels and window trim are also wood. An arched metal roof covers the rear balcony Steel pipe railmg is proposed for the balcony. Colors have been selected to match existing paznt colors and to compliment the dark gray mortar on the historic building. The front porch currently is supported by thm pipe brackets. Heavier wooden brackets aze proposed. A ilagstone patio is proposed on a porhon of the rear yard. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewmg a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. (10-13-18(b), B.R.C., 1981) S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HISTGENWLTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine 445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc 3 Memo to the Landmarks Preservatlon Advisory Board Re Fequest for Landmark Alteration Certificate for 445 Pine 1 The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior archrtectural features of the landmark or the subject property withm an historic disYricC; 2. The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historical, archrtectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or the district; 3. The azchitectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existmg and proposed structures are compahble with the character of the existmg landmark and its site or the historic district ANALYSIS: The Board has adopted the Mapleton Hill Design Guedelanes to heip mterpret the Histaric Preservation Ordinance The following is an analysis of the proposed rear addition with respect to relevant guidelmes. -- ---- GUIDELINE STAFF ANALYSIS CONFORMST F. MASSING 1 Any addition to a building The proposal retains the symmetry of the existing should preserve the existing building Yes symmetry or asymmetry 2 The vert~cal or horizontal While the proposed changes increase the height of the Yes proportion of a building's mass bwlding, the overall proportion and feel remains should be preserved horizontal 3 The impact of the massing of While a partial second story is proposed, the upper story Yes large additions should be reads more like a half story with a 5 foot plate height reduced by using one story visible In comparison, the one-and-a-half story historic elements or minimum plate home on the west side of 445 P~ne is nearly 30 feet tall, heights instead of introducing a while the sub~ect property is only 23'4" tall full second story G. ROOF LINES, SKYLIGHTS and DORMERS 1 Any alterations to roof lines The roof form of the proposed addition is compatible with Yes should be sensitrve to the form, the existing roof in terms of both form and pitch pitch and symmetry of the existing roof The existmg roof form, pitch and material should be used for any additions 2 Rooflines on additions should The rootline of the addition would eMend 5'4" above the No generally be lower than and existing ridge height eecause the partial second story is secondary to the roofl~ne of the pushed back from the front of the house, it's wsibility original house from in front of the house is minimized, though it would be more visible irom The west and north S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HISl1GENWLTCERTS\Historic Distrwts\Mapleton Hill\Pine 445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc q Memo to the Landmarks Preservailon Advlsory 8oartl Re Request for Lantlmark Alteration Certificate For 445 Pine H. ROOFING MATERIALS Preserve the type and unit The proposed materials are appropriate The metal roof Yes scale of roofing materials over the rear balcony is an appropriate material for a modern addition ~, WINDOWS 4. Openings should be vertwat in All new windows are appropriate in the~r general Yes proportion dimension and proportion The squared windows at the upper story are compatible with the building style B New construction, whether a Window patterns, location and dimensions are Yes completely new bwlding or an compatible with the original building and the district addition, should reflect the wmdow pattems of the district 10 W here a pattern of smaller The squared windows ~ust below the upper story eave yes scale windows in att~c and continue this pattern found on the original house. accessory spaces nearthe roofline exists, it should be mamtained K. EXTERIOR MATERIALS 1 Existing walls, windows and Brick on ihe existing rear addition is retained, not Yes eMerior features should be covered, except for the north elevadon that will be repaired wherever possible, removed The brick from that elevation may be reused rather than removed and for detailing the foundation band on the addition replaced 2 For additions or repairs, use Similar cedar shingle is proposed for the upper story Yes materials similar in type and The transition from "existing addition" to "new addit~on" scale to those of the existing on the lower story is dist~nguished by a switch from the buddmg. existing bnck ro stucco 7 For additions, do not replicate The bwlding will contain a combination of existing Yes historic elements rather, matenals (brick), similar new materials (shingie) and new respect the historic conteM materials (stucco) that help distinguish new from old whde tying the addrtwn to the onginal building. p, PAINT SCHEMES AND COLORS 1 Color choices should not be The proposed colors are appropriate for the house and yes bright or garish disirict 2 Unpainted masonry surfaces Remaining brick will be unpamted Yes should not be painted S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HISl1GEN~ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc 5 Memo to ihe Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Re Request for Landmark Alterahon Cerldicate for 445 Pine T. MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION, ADDITIONS and SECOND STORIES 1 Ma~or renovation or the By placing the partial second story addition at the rear, Yes addition of a full or partial story the character of the historic structure is not compromised that affects the character of a Its location at the rear and the design of the second story historic structure is not minimizes its visual impact, particularly from in front of appropriate An addition to the the house The addition will be more visible from ihe rear, or in some cases to the west and the north (the alley) side, of a historic structure is generally more appropriate than raising the he~ght of the building 4 New additions should be The original side-gabled portion of the house is left intact yes designed and constructed so by the new addition The existing rear addition is that the character-defining incorporated into a new, larger addition that is designed teatures of the historic building with compatible detailing and materials are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabihtation 5 New design and consiruction The addition is appropriately differentiated from the Yes should always be differentiated original structure through materials and design The trom older portions of a hipped roof form of the addition is appropriate The building, however, the addition barrel-vaulted roof form of the rear balcony is an should respect the existing roof appropriate contemporary interpretation of a similar form forms, and building scale and on the front porch The historic bwlding's massing is massing generally low and rectangular While the addition includes a second story, the detailing reflecis those horizontal proportions SUMMARY: The first story addition and the overall proposal, mcluding materials and detailmg, clearly meet the design guidelmes. The mtroduction of a partial second story on a one-story home is more problemaric. The guidelmes state that rooflines on additions should generally be lower than and secondary to the rooflme of the original house. Because the location and design of the upper story mmitruze its visibilrty, staff believes that it may be appropriate. The original design that was demed by the Board in June failed to meet a number of the guidelines largely because of a barrel-vaulted projection that rose over the ridgeline of the histoiic house and mcluded modern detailing and significant glazing (see AttachmentA• Elevataons Den~ed at June Hearang). The current design also mcludes a partial second story, but that upper story is pushed back from the front of the house to minimize its visibility, particularly when viewed from the front. The upper story has been reduced from 960 square feet to 804 square feet. The plate height and overall height of the addition have been reduced from the earher subrruttal by one foot each In addition, the plate height appears even lower when viewed in elevation, because of the extension of the upper story eaves to cover the upper portion of the wall. By reducmg the width of the upper story, that form rests deeper within the ground floor's roof skirt, also mimmizmg the amount of wall visible m elevation. Where 6'6" of plate height were visible in the origmal submission, only Y4" are v~s~ble m the current plan. The overall height, at 23' 4", is also considerably lower than the adjacent buildings. All of these efforts have reduced the visibility and overall impact of the upper story In addition, the overall design of the addirion has been modified, through changes m materials and details, to better mtegrate wrth the historic building and meet the design guidelmes S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HIST~GENWLTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine 445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc 6 Memo to ihe Landmarks Preservailon Advisory Board Re Request tor Landmark Alteration Certificata for 445 Pine Staff believes that the proposed rear addition is compahble wrth the Historic Preservation Ordmance and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidehnes, in that rt mmimizes the visual impact of the addihon, uses appropriate materials and detailmg and compl~ments the character of the historic home. The proposed alteration to the front porch brackets and the rear yard flagstone patio are also compatible with the Historic Preservation Ordmance and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelmes. FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the followmg findings: The proposed rear addition is compatible with the Histaric Preservation Ordmance, m that it does not damage architectural features of the historic building, does not adversely affect the special character of the district, and is compatible with the character of the district in terms of architectural style and detaiimg. It also generally conforms to the Mapleton Hill Design Guidehnes. 2. The proposed front porch support brackets replace modern buildmg elements that are inappropriate with appropriate ones that are more in keeping with the style of the historic home. 3 The proposed flagstone patio meets the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines and is appropriate PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the request for a Landmuk Alteration Certificate for the construchon of a rear addihon, replacement of the existing front porch support brackets, and the construction of a rear yard flagstone patio, adophng the staff memorandum as findings of the Board, based upon plans and other materials submitted with this application. Any change from the current plans would require a Landmark Alteration Certificate. ATTACHMENTS: A Current Application and Plans B. Plans Denied at June Hearmg C: Htstoric Building Inventory Record S\PLAN\data\Comdev\HISTGENWLTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine 445\LPABmem 09 03 03 doc ~ LANDNIARK ALTEI2AT'ION CERTITICATE APPL[CA1'ION Attachment A DatcSubmitted: ____~3 PiopcrtyAddress: L~~SI~G '~J~. District: ~~y p~e,~jy~ ~-~-j ( ~ Landmark name: N A _,~ _~ Applicantname: ~G~"' ~j~uy~h Of~cePhone: '?03, yy3,"7$57 Mobile Phone: %3O3 ~ y$q • OCo 1°I Fax: 3Q3 . 4y 3~ ~t ~l ?J Reiationship to project (e ;, architect, co~tractor~: ~~/'C~ j'i"~Gt' Applicant's Mailing Address: p , $'OSOL Property owner's name: ~ y'GC( Yl y$~ Day-Time Phone: 'yZp • 2d1. '/1~ 2- - , , T ~ *Propertyo~vner'sfulladdress: LQ20 /l~a[~ 2_ ~C~Dri -~ott ~e ~~-^~ e0~ ~~3~Z *This mformarion is reqwred m order to fully process this applicarion. To assist us tn reviewing your pro~ect, please provtde a pro~ect descnption tn the space provided below Include nll of the extenor alterations proposed for the property Please bring the completed application with you to your first design revie~v meetmg If you have questions, or to schedule an appomtment for review, please contact Neil Holthouser at 303-441-4293 We [aak forward tn working with yoee o~i your proposal! PROJECT DESCRIPTION Please list all exterior alterations proposed for the property t'fu'sf~~oo-^ ac4cQi~`an ~-o ~oa,ck ~ House~aw~e w~f~Y~,~ 30` x l~'a" = 50~4 s~~, W~ neur IDasewie.H`I' av~ea b~louT: S-{ucco. ~jeconr~ flQOr acQcQiiirn-, ~ back ~~1au~e. ~huv~v~ower~ 24~ W x 32' I• - 7ro8 s;F~: - sht~yte ~~,~~q,c~ ~'1ron~' porch SuP~art b~^a~~i'S. TYP~ OF E~LTERATION Please check all that apply ~,New Addition _Roof Repair Required: _New Garage** ?~ Deck(~ear Pa'~`o~ ~Lot size (in square feet) Demolition** _Dormer(s) ( aTotal existing square feet - ~ _Window(s) _Skylight(s) Proposed additional square feet (a ove qvn~y J ' Door _Paint 17~^ ~D ~Existind height- ac'~-ua~ ~fi'oµt Fence _Porch 23~_Proposed height^ ~~ _New Roof Other (please specify): **Requtres a public heaun~ 10 02-LACappl 8 ~~ ~; ~ 0 6 u r n i a ~ ~ a~ a n ~"I~C Architecture I 8/22/03 Pfanning ~i ~ APPLICATION for LRNDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE inter~ors '~ ~ 445 Pine Street Development ~ consu~t~n9 ; WRITTEN STATEMENT /~rc hitccts,LLC ; Since our last application and public heanng on June 4"', we have met with ~ Planning Staff and Landmarks Boprd Design Review Committee June 10, July 2, July 23, and August 12, to re-design and reduce the proposed addition and amve ! at a consensus for approval. Summary of Changes: l. Setback: The second YZ floor addition has been moved back 10 feet. 2. Width: reduced by 3 feet. 3. Length: reduced by 9 feet. 4. Size: reduced by 156 square feet. 5. Hetghh reduced by 1'-8". b. Side wall height reduced by 1'-2". (5' high, to read as a half story) 7. Garage/carport addifion eliminated. 8. Front porch/column addiHon elfminated. 9. Extertor maferials proposed, as discussed with Staff and DRC: a. First floor addition: stucco with painted wood tnm. b. Top %z floor addition: sawn cedar shingle, painted, painted wood trim. c. Wmdows: painted wood, true divided lite. (double hung or fixed~. d. Roof: asphalt shingle to match existing. Curved balcony roof-metal. e. Balcony rail @ back: painted steel. The "second floor" is only Yz as big as the first floor, pushed to the back of the house, with 5' exposed side walls, 25% talier than the existing house, and virfually invisible from the street. We have ail worked senously on this home for six months. We feel strongly that the design does not compromise the origmal structure, respects the diversity of the prea, is an expression of its time, and is a creative compromise solution to the functional requirements of the owner and the aesthetic requirements of The Board. Thank you for your assistance and happy approval. , . ,~~; ~t''~~~ ' Scott coburn Architect 9 Attachment B ~~ ~____._______~.~_ . ~, ,~~-= -~ `=~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ !~ ~ ! S' ~ { ~E i =t E ~ i I ~ ~ iet~vxrsx r;a~ ,~ SOCI'fH ELEBATION ._ ~~ ~i~ ~ ~4. ;~~; iPEST EI.EV,1TIOrV ~~~ ~.~s• = iw- ~ ~ Co6urn ij ~ ~ Fy~ai~a~an ~ ~ ~ __ ,.~..a.u. i ~ .~.~rF;F.<. ~s C s,.:.a rA.- . .~rox ~wMV±Y' ~ .. a ui~) r...n _....b.~+d.~L..e. :i s ---_--~~i ~ ^~ ~ tr F 1 E , ~ i ~ ~ ^[ t U 0 I ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ a ~ ~ V ~ i C3 -~ i O t~ ~ tf`~ .t F CJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +n o`~~, ~ ~ ~ r y . i= Q `, , c, e_YT_~ o `--- .~ _,__ _ yRS~ ~3 9S {;~ ~~a~~i~~~i~~Z~ ~ 's ._ y j- _ ___ k~~ ~~-- ~ ~ _ _- J-~ . s~ -- , i .~ ` , _ _ _ _ . . _ . '-.. 6 .._ .._ - ~ ~ _ _ __~ ~_e _ ~r~YiY}S~~` ' «.._...~a.__-_a. f - s~d.~.a_ ..__~.e..°.v_ . 4 - ~ - ~v-°-~~ ~ ~ _ . -- - - ~ ~ '~ ~__ _ ,.m. _ _ _ ____,_--- - - - - - _ _~__ --- ~_<i - ~- -- - -- _ - ,wR,iw - -- - ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ :~~-~'`~`=~ j~~ E:1ST ELEVAZZQM ~.1 4'a• _ :a~ -~ -~~~II ~ j 1.'.ORTFI ET.hYdtTQN i~_l iN_~_p. ~ ~~ u $ t~ (~ V E~ 3 „ t I ~ ~,~,t~ ~- .~. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ' € ~ ~,~:, ~ ~< __~ __.: ,s q' _"_--p ` 4 . ~~ c ' SiM~ i`i ~0 _-__~ caoiuoo xtaratu~ wcterr Wfia of Ilroh~wlopY rd Nl~wrla ir~Mrv~tion 1300 YroWii+Y. ~^'~~. utordo l020S N15TORIC WILGIMG IMVEMiO~T NELOIlO ATTACHMENT C PROJECT MAME• b~~~r A+rvey of Mi~tortc COIAITY: CITY: ld B STATE ID MO.: SBL4553 ilx~s, 199~ Boulder ou er - TEIFORARY Ip.: tibt•25-i-13-011 p~pp¢r,t 6UiLDING MAME: OIMER: SCNAAL LILLIAM E i SHIRLEY L MOTHNIIGEL 4i5 PIME ST BOULDEN CO d0302 ADDRESS: 445 ~INE ST BOULDER, CO 80302 70YNSNIP 1N RAMGE 77Y SECTidI 25 SE 1/i N4 1/4 NISTORIC NNIE: U.S.G.S. OUAD MAME: Boulder, Colo. Eddy Res~dence YEAR: 1966 (VR1979) % 7.5~ 15~ CK 8 LOT(S): 41'~2 BLO : DISTRICT NAME: ADDITION: Mepleton YR. OF ADDITION: 1888 FILM ROLL NO.: 94•1 NEWTIVE MO.: LOCATION OF NEGIITIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: B~• o uh~tacre 8 Boulder Ctty PlnO. ESTIMATE: ACTUAL: 1920 SOURCE: X ` Boulder Canty Aesessor y , a '-~; - ~ ' ` l ~ ~ _ ' ~'•~rp~ ~' USE: " "~ PRESENT: ?~ .« Res idmt ~ sl ~ - NISTORIC: Restdent~al CONDITION: i~ " ~ X E%CELLENT GOOD FAIB DETERfORATING E%TENT OF ALTERATIdIS: ~~ 1f NINOR MOOERATE NAJOR _ ~t- DESCRIBE: ~ Mroupht tron reiltnp. _ ~,. CONTIMUED YES % NO SiYLE: 6~n9etow STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED 1 DATE(S) OF IqVE: MATERIALS: Br~ck, Wood, Goncrete S0. P00T11GE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY 1366 INDIVIOWL: YES % NO ~RCHRECTURAL UESCRIPTION: One•etory bnek diellinp ~ith elipped eide 9eble roof with w~dely overhenp mp CpITRIBUTING TO DIS7RICT: eaves; decoratrve beairc. Gable ends ere sMnpled and have two small wmdows with % YES NO slanted eurrovds. Off-center, peneled end 9lezed door wrth sidel~phta. Arehed ~pGL UIMOMARK DESIGNATION: No hood over mtrance wtth tnanpular braces <perttatly metal). Dable•h~ng windows with multiple/a mgle liphts; brick eille. Side porch on eest with bnek uells NAME: DATE: Brick weter dable door mtrance onto orch d etascual colum eu orts p . pp ; en table; cona~ete fwWation. Brick fecede chumey. ASSOCUITED BUILDINGS? YES % NO TYPE: IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.: Cq1tINUED~ YES % NO ADD[TIpIAL V~GES: YES I( ND I /, ARCXITECT: INcno~n SOURCE: BUILDER/CONTRACTOR: Unkrq~n SUURCE: STATE ID MO.: SBL6553 ORIGINAL 01MER: Charlec N. and Marparot E. Eddy SOURCE: Ciri Diroetory, 1923 TNEME(S): Urbn Rendentiel Meiphborhoode, 1858-precent LOMSTRUCTION HISTORY (DESCRIPTION~ MAMES, DATES, ETC., REUTIMG TO M11Jdt ALTERATIONS TO ORIGIIULL STRUCTURE): CONTINUED YES X IN NISTORICAL BACKGRWND (DISQISS IMPORTIINT PERSONS AND EVEMiS ASSOCIATED YITN TH15 STRUCTURE): This ~ea the hane of Chsrlea N. end Nsrparet E. Eddy for mmny yeen. Cl~arles Melaan Eddy was e BouLder dmtict for 52 years. Ne wae born in South Dekota in 1884 and attended the Unnersity of O~sha, reeeiving a degree in denttstry. Ne married MerDarct E. Coughlan in 1907 in Illirois. She wss born in [llinoia ia 1E86. Dr. Eddy was e mqnher of severst professional ~seociat~ona and fr~ternrl praQa. Ne died m 1958 ~d Nsrperat Eddy diad m 1%2. < CONTINUED YE8 ff MO SIGNIFIGNCE (CNECK APPRWRIATE GTEGORIEB AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOY): ' ARCNITECTURAL SIGNIflCAMCE: HISTORIGL SIGNIFIGNCE: REPRESENTS THE YORK OP A IUSTER ASSOCIATEO MITH SIGNIFICAMT PERSONS POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED YITN SICNIFIGNT EVEMTS OR PATiERNS % REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERI00, OR METNOD OF CONSTRUCTidI % LONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT TIER EVALWitpl: Lontributi~p BuildinB STAIEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEf This house is representatfve of the Bungatow etyle, populsr dur~np the early twentieth cmtury tn the United S[ates, se reflected tn the pebled roo} ~ith overhenOmC esves rd deeonHve beams, the uult~/ample lipMt ~mdows, and the erehed hood with tnenputar brsees. COIITINUED TES % NO REFERENCES (BE SPEp FIC): Boulder Canty Asaesaor, real estete mformetton; Boulder Defl/Camere bio0~aphieel fitee; Boulder Carnep~e Library, Boulder Canty Asseasor collection; Boulder C~ty Directories; Boulder Genealoyical Society, Cenwe IrWexee, 1900 and 1t LONTIMUED YES If NO SURVEYED BY: R.L. Simmons/T.N. S~mmons AFFILIATION; Front Range Research llseoeiates, Inc. DATE: J~ne 1994 !~ ~~ --- - -- -- -- --- ~ Fy ~~~ ~ 9i k , ~Li ~l~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ` 4 V ~~Y...~.d ~tmBRAn~ v - ~ o ~ ~ v ~~ a~~ g ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ Ha ~ ~, '~ ~ e;. ~:;..., ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ E~~~~~~~ - , ~.~W mw:..^~...,~.~ ;.......W ~ s ~j j ~ ~ ~ ..w~wr..~.w.~.. ~ ~~~~ ` ` #~ g i •`Yw~'XG.'t~9......'t~'x'..".~.m.w. e =- ~ ., ___ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ~~~ ~> ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ 4 ~ ~ u 5 ~ : ~ g ~ ~ c i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ a ~ 5 g q ~ ~ ~t~#~~ - - - ~ ~ ~ k ~ aa a~ ~~ ~~ g d~ >s" ~ 6 gs ~ o 'z A tl ~ pq ~ q Q ~ §~•§~ ~~ ~9 a q~ = ~ A$ g#~ ~ F e4a5 _ F @~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . •~ ~ _ - --- --- ~~:~e~ a ~n 15C~1 ~CSICIence A p U Q ~~ a c '~ddidon end (Zemodel = ; B ~~', - '+ .~ 1i5P~ne5heat ~ 3~ ~ d w : ~ . ~ ' S gaulder~Coloratlo ~ ~ a ~ _ - __ - - __' _ _ - - 4 ~o6urn fi~~allal~an A.du.<u LI.C ~S~e.'r•9 '~~ = C=~.=,m:az -dm.e.. n«e~n - ~m«~oo> I..~a ....aa,...,a~«o. I O O I i i ~ C I ~ ° ~D 4 ~ q ~ u ~ ~~ ~ c a $~ i I W ~ " I~ ~ ~ ,=Q ~ I= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mRVaa ~.n.. a/wita ~: m/u/a~ ~: r.a ~nsv+ %>-q 1 BassarEiva Praiv I/4' = I'-P ~wrta er u I c «x.e er ~w sn.e c~~ BPSEMENT R~.P PLPN ) ~ A2 , I I II - I I I II -'I~ I II~I 1~ -_I III- ' ~~ ~~ s ~ R ~ ~ w~ - "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ° ~~.~ ~~,,»~, - ~ ~`- ~ -~: ~ ~°" ------ --- -- ---- hansen Kesidence , . "'`..., ~ y ~ y~ S '~ --- F ~ ~ , ., ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ L "' /~drlihonand(Zemod~I ~ ~ s ',l ~ t ~~ ~y L..~" ~ ..~...~."~~me: ~.e.a w. ~" 1+3 Pinc ~Jtrerk ~ d r ~ ~ ~~"~wara`+~wpew.ywa.wr~ ~~dd~ , ~ob~aa ' --- - a ; ~ ~ __ _- n ::~ ~~,~'°~~ `~.~.,,._.. n -__'-"_' '_' __ -- - -° ~a~ge ~n 2 8a ^ 0 ~agg~ ~~~a- g c 3iis4~~ =~ ~ ~v~itN ; T ~ ` F N - - ~ h ~ O ~ ~ 16 b6 14 q~ I l i l l li ~~ l~ . r i 4 ~ xm ~ III I '~ ~ ~I = 6EDROON ' ~ ~I YASTER ~ I I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ I ~ i I ~I~ I f ~ I I = y~~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - I I~ ~ }o9t - c.V6E1 ~S ; o ___ ~~ ~~ MPSTEH BATH ~ ___ n~ ~ y _ _ ~~ n,iwnw~a ~~cr8~ U"~ ~ " ~C° ~ HAfl. cKaer ~8 'pt~ ~~~__ _'_'_! ~I ~oburn ~./'_11'L__ ~ ~or~-.~s.oa i viam ce>.~ i - .a. ~a>» - ~ I, .~.~ O ~.~.m ~,~.__,~ o I ~ ~I I ~ i V ~ ~ ~ i C ~ ~ I I ~ o ~ ° ~@ I I ~ a I ~ I ~ I n I 2 = U L.G. ' ; ~ I C ~ I y '^ ~q $ I I N tL] Q I ~ I Y ~ ~ F ~LL V} O PreoaMa ey u I U~acNNSE q' K.G STwt Conl~t ~ SEC649 FL'9R P_PN ~ ~M ~ 1 2nd FLOOR PLAN I/4' = p-0• .~ I- ~oburn S~a~~a~an A..M~..~. LLL ~~PW.S~cS•B Bdld~ Cdssecw~ IdepAx 1o>«1nJ1 )a3M>Ai~) ~nm..ee ~..~o6v.wd~J.wn~v. O O 1 ROOF PLAN I u~' = r-0' I I U C V ° o ~ ~ ~ @ U ~~ ° ~ 'g ~ U a ~~ C U n ~~ C Q ~ L > < !°$;'~~ a~~i~ ~ j~ '~~~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~~~ ;8~~ ~2 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~9~~ ~ ti ~f f ~ a Ija4 p' ;:~~ ~~' i p : I P7~~~~S~~I ~H o < ir. am I ww- I m~~/d ~ i lo~/zVm a.~. v.w. ~.n. n..:. ima.m w.~.. II¢/u/as ~irynse I I imT/m I I I ~~u hAmm I I I~ ~ Ic,.p,..a er ut I I I kn~cbtl q KG I ', 19wt Gant~t I I IIIrlOi' P~PA II n__ i ~ -~ I~~I ---- ' ~~ 9y k W A~ 4~ a ~ 0 2 ~ A2 ': ~ 4x ~ a ~ 0 2 ~ ti i, I I I ~ - _ I ~~- ~ - - -- i ~ r- i i ir- -- ~ i ii i ii i ~i ~ i ~ --- - i ~ - i i ---- - ~ i ~ i i i ~ i ~ I ~ i ~,_ ___________________. i ~ i ~~~_____~ ~ ~ ~~I I I ~I'_____' ~ I L ___- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ' v a a ' ~ - --, b ~ ~ i ii i ~ i i ~ ~ ' ~~-- i ~ - -- i ~ ~--- -- b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 6 ~~ n 0 0 - ~~6 F _~ ° ' -- _ 9 _98 $~ ~ enn ~~wrcecr..~aa~~ E ~ 3 ?t_ ~ ~ ~ E~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 - _ - - ~ ~ ~ « ~w...u~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ .~.... w w~'..` ~"." w+... ~y ~ ~ ~~ ~e~'..~,~'C_.~.,,~CS"~.~~p~"' ~ ~ r A O 4~ ~r a 4y`I 2 i ------ --- i f- i I r -- -~ i li i i li i i l i --- ~ i II i I II I I II __ __ I i i ~ i i i i ~ I ~ I II I I II I $ i ~ I i -- -_ ~ j ~ ~I I ~ ~ ~~_____~ ~ ~ -- - ~ ; --- - - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ i i i I I I~ i ~ A ~ Qy ~ Y ti O z 734' Nansen jZesidence {\ddipon and Rcmodc~ 1'1'3 P~ne,~jhat - - j~aulder,(,oloredo - ° ~:"fP~ im('1 a^ /~ o Be~iA `~'Q_ I ° ° o a L - ~ ~ - ~ 3 I t x a ~ N 7 5 L : O' F_ ~ N ~ 6 9~~ fC- , ~~ :~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~C b~~ 2 m G~ a ~~ ~2 ~ -- ~ ..~ ~ yc ~~ ~ a ~ a_~ E .. -- Hor~, ourc oF cmrs+~.wH .W...,...........~.y~'~'w .. - - - _ _ _ ~ g ~~~~~ p ~-`-.=~.: ~ ^ ~~ Hansen Resic~ence 4pp O ~ ~ !~ ~ ~iu~ry MM'w ~ s ~ 6 ~g( ( ~ ~~u w "~ ' .,.,~ ~~ '.,,,,-'~j„ w~,.,„.,.y {~ddi4o~andRemodel ~+ ~ ~ ~i" "~~~ ~ ~ ~r.~ ~,.~., : d.,~"~~'- ~+s P~~S~~t i ~ "`""~""~"""" ~ou~der, Cdorudo ~ q _ • -_- _ _ n w`S'i~~' Y~1~'~70L'~.~ w.... -- n - - _ - - _ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ --° yieea rof 1 , o£ ~o ~ ~ ~~ ~ V M W ~ si3s4' D -'' ~ g ~ ~ a ~ N ~ T 5 Y ~ ~ _ C S ~ '~~ ~ ~ ix ro iy