5E - Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to rehabilitate and add aMEMORANDUM
August 2, 2006
TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisorv Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Director of Long Ran~e Planning
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Alice Gilbertson, Historic Preservation Intern
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration
certificate to rehabilitate and add a two-story addition to the
contributing building located at 1116 Maxwell Avenue in the
Mapleton Hill Historic District HIS2006-00154.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The level of deterioration documented appears to warrant extensive areas of masonry
reconstruction on the building at 1116 Maxwell Avenue. As such, staft recommends that
the Board issue a landmark alteration certificate for the project once the following
conditions ha~le been met:
1. That the amount of masonry wall area to be dismantled be only that
which is absolutely necessary;
2. That appropriate techniques for the repair, dismantling, and
reconstruction of the masonry be developed;
3. That the front porch be repaired in place rather than dismantled and
reconstructed;
4. That the rear addition be constructed at least 1' lower than the existing
house;
5. That details regarding conditions (1-4 above) in addition to details
relating to windows, doors, roofing, siding material, and colour be
submitted to the design review committee for review and approval prior
to the issuance of a landmark alteration certificate.
6. That variances from the required setbacks be granted by the BOZABA.
~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
~<~. ~_~~d~ark ,;:~-~ ,,,.., , ~~~:';;,~*a ,~. ~ ~6 ~~~axwa~~. Avenu~
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1116 Max~ti~ell Avenue
2. Zonin~: LR-E (Lo~~•-Density Residential, Established)
3. Owner: Christopher Spiewak
4. Applicant: Christopher Spiewak
SUMMARY:
- The application to rehabilitate and add to the contributing building at 1116
Maxwell Avenue ~vas reviewed bv the design review committee at their Jul~~ 12th
2006 meeting. The item ~vas called-up to the full board based upon consideration
that the proposed project, which calls for 50% of the wall area being removed,
constitutes a demolition.
- StrLictural analyses of the building concludes that significant areas of the
stone foundation and brick walls must be remo~~ed to provide for ne~v
poured concrete footings and a structural ti~ood framing system.
- At the same height as the historic house, the proposed south facing
addition is inconsistent with Section 4.3.1 of the General Design
Guidelines.
- Staff recommends that the Board issue a landmark alteration certificate once the
follo~~~ing conditions have been met:
1. That the amount of masonry wall area to be dismantled be only
that which is absolutelv necessarv;
2. That appropriate techniques for the repair, dismantling, and
reconstruction of the masonrv be developed;
3. That the front porch be repaired in place rather than dismantled
and reconstructed;
4. That the rear addition be constructed at least 1' lower than the
existing house;
5. That details regarding conditions (1-4 above) in addition to details
relating to windows, doors, roofing, siding material, and colour be
submitted to the design review committee for review and approval
prior to the issuance of a landmark alteration certificate.
6. That variances Erom the required setbacks be granted by the
BOZABA.
S:\NLAN\data\Ion~ran~1HIS7WLTCERTS\Historic Districts111apleton Hilllhlaxtieli.l I IG\US.OZ.OG memn.doc
~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
~e; Landmar~ A~t2rat~on Certificate for 1 1 16 Moxweli Avanue
BACKGROUND:
On July 12t'', 2006 the design review committee (dre) revie~ved the proposal to
rehabilitate and add a rear addition to the contributing house at 1116 Maxwell
Avenue. The dre considered that the extent of reconstruction to the historic house
required review by the full landmarks board. In addition, staff has met tivith the
applicant on several occasions to review the proposal. The applicant has also met with
planning staff regarding variances from non conforming setbacks and is scheduled for
hearing by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (BOZABA) on August 10t''
DESCRIPTION:
Constructed in 1894, the vernacular/masonry simplified Queen Anne house at 1116
Maxwell Avenue features a multi-gabled roof form, combined exterior use of brick and
shingle, a beveled bay window, and porch with brackets and a decorative rail. It is
considered contributing to both the local district and the potential National Register
District(see Attacl~rnent A Historic Building Inventory Record). While the brick walls
exhibit areas of structural cracking, the c.1949 tax assessor photograph indicates the
house survives relatively unaltered from its original construction.
S:\PLAN\data\Ion~ran~1HIST~ALTCERTS1Hismric DistrictsV~lapleton Hill\Maxwell.l l 16\08.02.(K~ memo.doc
3
Figure 1. 1116 Maxwell Ave. c.1949
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: Landmaric ,=~Ireration Cert~ficate for 1: 1 o M~xwe!~ ~~.~enue
Figure 2. 1116 Maxwell Avenue, 2006
PROPOSAL FOR REHABILITATION & ADDITIONS:
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the historic house and return it to its original use
as a single family home. Because of the observed extent of deterioration of the two
~vythe brick wall constructed on a shallow fieldstone foundation, the applicant
considers that 60-70% of the first floor wall area will need to be dismantled and
reconstructed using the original brick. The roof will remain is shown to remain in place
as the work on the first floor proceeds. Plans show the north (front) elevation porch to
be reconstructed using as much of the original material as possible. A diamond shape
window is proposed for the small north facing gable.
--- - _-~:~:~. - .. - - - _ __- -- -
~~ , ~
:-= _ ~ ~ ,
,:r:: -~~,,4 ~; ~
- - ~ ~ .~-.
- .:- _=_•.
-- r
- --r - -- --
,~- -'~.:-::--. --- - - --~-~- r
~ ~,~ ~ -- r~
~ -
i~~ ,' ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ I I , ~ ~
i ~: ,
I I _'__._.
-~ --- - - --- - --- --- - --
' ~ - - --- -- - _ ------ -
.i. ~xistinQ north and west elevations
-_-~ _~:~_'\ --~-~- -----~_ - ~~~_ '_=~ ^ ^ ~ r.. _ -- -----
. e ~ ~ y " _ '-~'` ~ '~
yz,
~ ~
. ~ ~ .. -+ _ ~ -- ,'~_~~ =d~
~
~r_~ . ~i~f - -- -- - - - --_- '- _.-- ----•`:
-_ 9H '_. I~lh'1 I Jl I a~
Figure 4. Proposed north and ~vest elevations
S:~PLAN\dataUongraneVilS"IIALTCERTSUiistoric Distric[sUvlapleton HiII~h1ax~celLl I IG~O8A2.(Xi memo.doc
~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: LandmarK Alteration Certifica~e for 1 i i6 Maxwel! Avenue
The proposal also includes the construction of a large west facing dormer to match the
existing dormer on the east elevation of the house. At the south (rear) of the house,
plans call for the construction of a two-story addition at the same height as the existing
house. The proposed additions to the house provide an increase of approximately 700
sq. ft. to the existing 1950 sq. ft. house.
The proposal also intends to rehabilitate the pre-1929 contributing garage located at
the south-end of the house. This will entail in-kind replacement of the asphalt roof on
the building and raising the foundation on the alley side of the garage.
CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION:
Subsection 10-13-18(b), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must
apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b) Neitlier tlte Iaridmarks board rTOr tlie cit~ coi~~zcil shall npprove c~ landrnark alteratioti
certificate ur~less it rneets the following coriditions:
(1) Tlre proposed zi~ork preserves, eriha~~ces, or restores aritl does not da~7iage or
destroi~ the exferior arc)~itectural features of the landmark or the subject property
witlziri ar~1 historic district;
(2) The yroposed zvork does riot adversely affect the specirtl cl2aracter or special
l7istoricaI, arcltitectttral, or aesthetic interest or valtce of the lartdmnrk artd its site
or the disrrict;
(3) Tlte architectural st~le, arrangerrtent, texti~re, color, arrr~~igerne~it of color, alad
rnatericzls tcsed on existing rrrid praposed straccttires nre cornpatible witli the
characfer of the exisfirig Inridrnrrrk nnd its site or the historic distrfct;
(4) Witlz respect to a proposal to der~iolish a buildirtg in an ltistoric district, the
proposed new constricction to replace the buiiding meets the recJuirements of
pcrrngrnpJis (b)(2) nrid (3) above.
(c) Irr c~etermirling zohefher fo approve a lar7dmark alter~tion certificate, the lrzndm~rks
board sliall consider the economic feasihilitt~ of aIterrirztives, incorporation of energ~
efficient desigrt, and eril2n~iced access fvr the disabled.
ANALYSIS:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board
must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. The Board
has adopted the Gerierai Design Gt~idelines to help interpret the historic preservation
S:~PLANldata\Ion~ran;U~IS'I~ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton HiI1VNaxwell.l l 1G\08.02.OG memo.doc
.. ~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: Landmork Al~eration Cer~iffcare for 1 ~ lo Maxwell Avenu~
ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed new~ construction with respect
to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to
appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
ALTERATIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, 3.0:
3.1 Roofs
Tlte roo~i~ oi<<of the primary character-defi~un~ features of a historic building, and the rc~~etitinn nf
si~r~ilnr roof types creates part of the vist~nl consistency that rlefines n historic nrea. Alterations or
lil~eilflDYiS f0 r00fs mi~st be giveri carefiil consrderntion to erisiere tltnt tliey do ~:ot co~rtpronris~' f)tt
irttegriti/ of the {tistoric struct~rre. Typical roof sltapes are gahfcd or hrpped. Shed roof_a so»teti~ries
occ~ir o~t {:i:toric ndditroris nncf accessnry birildirtgs.
Meets
Guideline?
Mai,:tnirt tlcc root {orrn, sloye,
~ ~ Proposed addition generallv
YES
height, and orientation to the preserves the profile and slope of
~tr~•ct. 1'OOf.
Porches
3.4 Meets
Guideline?
1 Ori~inal porches should be presen~ed. Porch is to be removed and MAYBE
reconstructed - remove onlv
deteriorated elements.
'2 Deteriornted ~riginal ~orches or porch Only deteriorated elements are to
~ E~
elenrents should be re~aired or replncEd be replaced.
follou~i~ig recog~ti~ed preservatio~t
nietl,od~.
3 Mailitrrin height spncing of origirial ~riginal balustrade to be retained yES
bnl ustrn~ie. - selective replacement of
deteriorated element~ c~nl~~.
3.5 Dormers
Dormer: nre traditiorinl roof~elc»<<~it~ tliat ~itlzer cxtcnd thc sp~zcc i~r~der t{ie mairi roof or scr~~e a~
decoratiz~e elements to the mnin roof. They ge~ierally follou~ the prtcl~ mtd form of the main roof an~1
nre alu~ays secoridary to fhe mrrin roof -renssin~~. Tire trttrnduCtio~t o~dornrerc rrtai~ drnnrnticrrllU cl;;u,; ~~•
tJI~ ~1illlL~lri~~'s appeararice, nnd therefore nr~~i~ ~:: ` i , ,,,,.~,:,;~~::,': ;~: ,~:1 ; :r. ;: ~r:;:.,rr. ~ <.
II
T1~t~ ~i~e, scale, nr:d stt/le of nezv dornters I
•4~ shoiifd be° i0112pllft~llc ZUItIl ~YISfJ/l~~ Proposed west facing dormer is
dorm~•r~ on the structure. Tltc: forn: of compatible and proportionate to
roo dormers should be com atible with
f p
the existing east dormer. ~ E~
~
tltr' ntain roof fornt. ~
Dornn~~ zvindozns s{tould be similnr in Dormer windows are ~
•~ proportiorr to hrst r~nd second oor I
S:~F'LANWata\IongranglHlS'i~1LTCERTS1Historic DistrictsUvlapleton Hill~~laxuell.] 116~08.02.OG memo.dcx~
~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: LanGmark Alreration Cerfifi~ate for 1 1 16 Maxwell Avenue
zvindozc~~ b~ct smnller. rectanb lar 1/1 double-hung YES
and in ro ortion.
Ne~n dormers must be scibordirinte to the Dormer is subordinate to the
6 main roof in terms of rnass, scale and roof in terms of mass, scale, and
height. Notzvithstanding the fnct thnt height.
one Irrrge dor~r:er may give the greafest
usable s~ace znithin the roof form,
snrnllc~r dormers arc usuaili~ thc mo~t
npproprinte. Often tzi~o small dormers
nrc ~rivre approprinte thari o~:e farge
doririer.
Exterior Materials - Masonry ~ '
'_'~
¢-~ f
3.6
Guidelines , _
,
Or~igiiial liistoric fz~iislt nictterial~ s/totrld Proposal calls for sib ificant MAYBE
1 ~~c preserz~ed and repaired - u~hert areas of brick walls to be
rE~niring rnasonry iese appropriate dismantled and reconstructed -
techr~ir~ues and mortnr. only areas where repair is
impossible should be
dismantled. No detail provide
regarding masonry
techni ues/materials.
Windows
$ _, ,
..x~
3.7
P.etai~i ~ind preserve existing l:istoric Historic windows will be YES
1 zoiridotos inclt~di~~g tlieir fiirictio~tnl rehabilitated.
decoratine fcature~ ... In some cases, it
might be appro~riate to iise znindow
elernents ~ronr the sid~ or rear elez~ations
to rc~~air those ori tlze tro~it.
3.8 ,. ._
Doors .
Front c~oors mid prirrian/ eiitrances are among ti:e most importmtt elenteitts of lrrstoric (~tiildiriqs. T~ie
original si~e a~2d proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door surroicnd, nnd the
~~laccn:errt of the dovr all contriGute tn the character of the cntraru~c.
_
Guideline ~ ~ , Meets
_
,
_
_ Guideline?
RetnirT nnd preserve tlre fi~nctiof~al, Original front door will be
'1' ru urtional and decoratiae catures o
P l~ f' f
retained.
YES
a pritriary e~itr~nce. These feattlres
indude tlie cioor mtd its fra»te, si(I,
hend, jnmb, rrroldir~gs, nrid any
~Rfltil)1~ Z(~111C~021?S.
S:\PLANldata\Ioneran~UilS'TIALTCERTS1Historic Disvicts~ivlapleton HillVvlaxwe11.1116\08.02.06 memo.doc
7
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: Lcndrnar~c Aiterat~on Cert~ficate for i 1 16 Maxwe~~ ,~,venue
AUUI 11V1V' 1 V ril' 1 VKlI.
4.3 Compatibility with Hit
4.U.
:+t` - -~~;.:=- - .:»" -st.:~~~-.. . - j
~:Y'. 'Y
';j:~.
- ~. - ~ , .. ._ Gl
Iritroducin~ ru~c~ construction thnt Contrnsf~ shnryly zoith an existi-ig historre structure or site
dctrnct~ from th~• z~isual cmitinuit~/ tl:nt ~nnrks our historic distrrcts, Wliilc ndditions shuuJd be
distin~uishr~ble frorrt the historic str~~cture, they must not contrast so slrar~~fy as tn detrnct from t{:e
nrr~inrrl huildir~~ mtd/or fhe site. Additions shoufd nt~z~er ot~er~Jiefm historic strtrctures or the site,
i~t irt~7~~, ~cal~ or dc•taili~tt.
1 An additiart sl:ould be st~bordinnte to
the histnrii building, Iimited in size
and scnle ~o that it docs iiot diminish or
Z~ist+alfy oz~er~~ou~cr the building.
Height of proposed addition is NO
same as historic house - should
be lo~ver than. In terms of over all
mass and scale addition is
Desi~~~T an addition to be compatibl~~ Relationship of solids to voids on
•2 ce~itJt th~~ lrrstoric bieildiri~ iii rnrrti;, scale, proposed addition is generall~• YES
mntf~rials a~id iofor. For clc°z~ations
visible~ from pi+blic streets, the eompatible with historic
rt~lnfionsltip of solyds to z~oids in the building.
3 Addi~tg n partinf or fiill story to tlie
historrc ~ortion nf n historic bt~ilding is N/A.
rarely rrpproqriate.
N/A
4 Re~I~ct tltc urigil:al sy~r>»ictry or SVmmetrv of fenestration of YES
nsyr~rr~retrir of thc historic buildin~q. proposed addition generally
consistent with that of the
historic house. Added west
dormer will add symmetry to
simplified Queen Anne house,
but appro~riately.
5 Preserz~e the verticnl a~id {iori~v~tta! Proportion of roof form of the YES
proporfivn of a building's mass. building not adversely affected
bv the nroposed addition.
I Comvatibilitv with Historic Site and Settin~ ~~~ ~"~ r~"~ :`~~~~
~'<: . r . _ . . _ _ '!:
Design nezv additions so tliat tlie ot~r~rall Little mature landscaping in
c}:nracter of the site, sit~~ topogrnplti~, YES
backyard.
chr~racter-de°fining site fentitrt~s and trees are
Locnte nzzu Rdditions on nn incor~syic;uous
el~~vnfion of the {i2St01'1C E71lIIC~111~, ~enerallt/ the
r~~ar one. Lotntin~ nn ndditio~~ to tHe front of n
strttcturc° is i~tapproprinte bec[tuse' it obsci~res
th~~ historic fncnde of n building.
2es~ect the e:tablisl~ed orientatio~t of tlte
Historic elevations of house will
be not be obscured. Addition
should be lower than existing
house.
Addition respects orientations and
YES
YES
~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservotion Advisory Board
Re: Lanamark Alterar~on Certificar2 for 11 lo Maxweli Avenuz
original Uiiildi~tg aiid typrcal afi~~n,nents in
the nrea. alignments of buildings in the
area.
Presen~e a b~ckyard nrea hctzi~~cr~ thc house Garden area is maintained on lot - YES
nnd the ~arnge, ncaintainir:~ the genernl balances need for expansion of
proportion of butlt tiias~ ro open spnce focrnd living space in a way that respects
u~ithin the aren. See Guic~elrne ?.1.1. both house and property as a
whole.
Elements
~~ _ _- ~ , ~~'~ Meets ~.
"~ Guideline?
Roofs, porches, dornters, wiizdotvs and doors are sorne of the most importnrit charncter-de~irri~2g
e[eriTerits of mii~ I~i~ilding. A~ sicch, they reqciire e.rtra atterTtiori to assi~re tF~at tlt~~~ conr~~lnricrit tlie
historic arcltitecttn~e. Iri nde~itivri to tlte gutdefines belou~, refer ezlso to Sectio~2 3.0 Alterations {or
relntect si~~gestiorr~.
Maintnin the dnminnnt roofline mid
orientntion of the raof torm tn the
strcct.
Maintains the dominant rooE YES
form to the street. Desib is
appropriate in terms of
proportion, scale, and detailing.
2 Rooflines on ndditions should be fozrer
fI71211 (I1iC~ S~CO111~(II'1/ f0 fJll' roo~lir:e of the
Roofline of addition same height NO
as historic building.
3 The esisti~~~ roaf fornr, pitclt, eni~e The proposed roof proportion is YES
d~~th, and nrntcrial, ~l~ould bc usecf for generally compatible with the
nll additio~~~. historic house.
5 Maintni~i the proportrori, gerTeral styfe, Proposed windows on addition YES
and si/~n~nch~i~ vr asi~lflmetr~ of tfre are assymmetrical and in
eXt$f1)1~T zniitctazn patterris. keeping with the historic house.
~ Clse ioinc~oio shr~pes that are fotn:d on
the historic building. Do not introduce
odd-sltaped u~i~tdou~s si~ch as octagonal,
Window shapes and designs are YES
consistent.
or
Structural analvses provided for the existing house describe areas of significant failure
of the shallow fieldstone foundation and two wythe brick walls (see Attcrchrnent B).
These conditions appear to be most pronounced on the east and south walls where
fracture, rotation, and displacement are evident. Past steps have been taken to stabilize
the walls by application of exterior steel strapping (see figt~res S£~ 6).
S:\PLAN\dataUongran~~-1I5T1ALTCERTSV-fistoric Districts\Mapleton HiII~Nlaxwell.l I16\08.0'.W memo.doc
~
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: Lanamaru Alterarion Certif~care for 1 i 16 Maxweli Avenuc
~, f~
y5~ ~ r **~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
, ~
~~f~"' ~~ ,
~
~ ~X/ ~ ~~"'-'x" _ -
~J~r~~ ~
~
~ l _ _y ` .~ ~`_
'I
J
_ . ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~ - _
~ ..-
-~'_~; =~ _
`~~~~
~~~f/ ~ ~
~ _
- ~
.,.:-
~
1
~
~
~~ ~,.
""~' ,." s
+
~'~'
~
:~~'
_. x ~
i
~
/ ~;; _ ~.+
~,.i
~~ - ~''"
~ ~
.
~~~.~,
~~
~~~
~ ,A
\ - in~~ ~
~
~
~ ~~~
- . ' ~~~~
= ~'. SF~~ Y~~- ti"~3;
rt
;
'
y ~ ` ~l~
e
? ' GiiYY~l~
f ~'n ' .
~
~~ _ Y...z
T ' ~~~
;
. . - - . . _ .
' ~
;
1 e ~
~ Yy~1~1Ri~Z3 M1 11 fl~.i~
[~ . +rY'+~J1tYif~t e7`4a'j~ ~~
:~ ,+.~.br ~a~s
~
i
~~ ~'~'
i~ils'.:~1~ ~,
'
~~.~^- _
'- ~:~ ~~ .!i r ~
, f S
. ~ r' r ~,.~.'~s
f- tY•~~ ~~
. '..''!fA' _~"-::~.OL~1.-9ti
Figure ~. Steel strapping at NE corner of house Figure 6. Cracking and displacement at SW corner
The proposal calls for between 60%-70°~~ of the existing first floor wall area be
dismantled, the existing roof to be supported K~ith temporary columnar supports. Plans
then call for a new concrete footing and faundation to be poured. Structural ~vood
framing is then to be erected upon which a single wythe of brick will face the house,
replicating the running bond and low springing arches over doors and windows. Plans
call for the concrete foundation to be faced w~ith field stone to match existing. Staff
assumes the 30% to 40% of wall to be retained will consist of only the exterior wythe
being retained, the interior being framed to pro~~ide structural support also. No details
concerning the masonry methods for the repair, dismantling, and reconstruction of the
brick walls were submitted as part of the application.
The proposal also calls for the complete removal of the front facing porch and its
reconstruction to occur from recycled elements. Repairing segments of a building in situ
is a more appropriate historic preservation approach and consistent with the design
guidelines. Plans for the rehabilitation of the garage are consistent with guidelines.
Staff considers the proposal to construct a west facing dormer and rear addition
generally consistent with the guidelines. However, plans to continue the addition at the
same height as the historic house is inconsistent with the guidelines. Steps should be
taken to lower this element below the height of the historic house.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
S \PL.4;VWataUongranolHlti~LTCERTSU-listoric Distncts\!~lapleron Hill~Maxwell.lllG~OS.OZ06 memo.doc
///
Memo to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
Re: Landmar~ ,~'rer~=ion Certiricate for 1 1 16 M~xwell Avenue
FINDINGS:
With the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation, the request for a landmark
alteration certificate to rehabilitate and add to the contributing house and rehabilitate
the contributing garage at 1116 Maxwell Avenue, will be compatible with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, in that:
1. The proposed work ~vill not damage or destroy exterior architectural
features of the subject property within an historic district.
2. The proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or
special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
3. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color,
and materials used are compatible with the character of the existing
landmark and its site or the historic district.
4. The request is generally consistent with adopted design guidelines from
the Ge~Ternl Design Guideliries, including Sections 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4.3, &
4.5.
5. The request to dismantle and reconstruct areas of masonry is appropriate
given the extent of deterioration, that it will match the existing exactly,
and therefore meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) above.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Record
B: Engineering Reports
C: Photographs
D: Plans and Elevations
l~
S:\Plan\data\IongransU-[I3'[IALTCERTS1Historic DistrictsV~1apleton Hill\Maxwell.l I 1G\08.0?.OG memo.doc
~pi,~oo ^:rraetcu ~octtrr
p~11ss ~ 1~throlo~- ~rd Mlatorit -r~wrv~tlon
il0e kod+~Y. ~~. Color~do ~OYGI
NISTORIC YUILDIMG 11NEMTORY RECORD
Not Fa FtEt~ u~
Elipibl~ Ma~in~tb
Atta c h m e n t A = o~t. Mot EliDlble _ Certlfi~d ~_
Date
pRWECT MME: bulder turvey of Nistoric Pla~aes, CGUMTY: CiTY: STATE ID MO.: 5R4042
1993 Yauldrr Baulder
TEIPC~AltT MO.: 1i61-25-~-17-002
~R£MT BU1lDIMG MAIE: QAIEIt: TIIACCER j0lpl A
126A K/LLMIA AVE
BOULDEA CD 8[J30f
ADDRESS: 1116 MAXL~LL AV
BpJLDER CO 6030~
TOWSNIP 1M RAMGE 71Y SECTIOM 25 NE 1/~ SE 1/~
N1S10R1C NAME-
~ U.S.G.S. aIAD MAIE: Boulder, Colo.
TE/lit: 19b6 (Pit1979) X T.5' iS•
BLOpC
M
A l0T(S): Zp
UISTRICT MAME: Nepleton N~ll :
/
ADDITlON: 9reeths YR. Of ADOtTION: tda2
FIIM ROII MO.: 93'6 MEGATIVE NO.: IOCATIdI Of MEC.ATIVE=: DATE Of CONSTRIICTIOM:
i1: Royer 1R~itKre Z7 4oulder Citp Plnp. EST[MATE: ACTUAL: 1d94
90URCE
~ :
_~, , ~ .. - ~ Boulder Gounty Asscssor
.. ~ ~ ~
- ~
~
. ~.r _ ~~
l1SE.
~
y:.:
~ PRESEMT:
' r .~ . "
~ -t~: 7
-
-
~ Reci~entisl
-;~ ~- _ -
,. •
F _
_~"=~ - • • '~
=
'
' HISTORIC:
~_-= _
_: , - ~
~ ` , - -- ~~~
. Residential
- -
'
-
~
.l~fG-•
~~ y _ CONDiTIOd:
~,~~ ~ ~ ~~-rT~
^ .~
~ . EXCFLLENT lI G000
fAiR OETERIORAT
IMG
~
~
`
EXTEMT OF AITERATI0M5:
` x MIMOR MOOERIITE MA~OR
DESCRIBE:
~ - Roofirty.
~ I ,; :-f
~
~ ... .. ,
~t ti ""~~II~~~~1~~ L~
`
- - ~ +:. ~„ ,~,-~
"
CONTIMUED TES X
MO
- - - -- ----- ~ - ---- --- ----- - `
S71fLE: Verneeular Oueen Ame -. .
STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X 110VED
1-1/2 DATE(S) OF MWE:
MATERIALS: Brick, Yood, Sto~e 9C. FOOTAGE: MATIOMAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
1G75
YES X MO
IMDIVIDUAL
:
ARCHITECTURIIL DESCR[PT10N:
One-r~d-s-halt-story brick and shinqled d+elli~p on sto~e fandsTion. Multi- COMTRIBUTiMG TO DISTRICT:
with overhrpirtp emc; larye frant pable and a~sller projectiny
gabled roof X TES MO
,
front pable. Front porch feetures brscket4, turned epindles, ad decorative rood ~pG~ ~p~K DESIGMATION: Yes
rail; rood porch floor. Center door, pneled and ylued. Dable-Fnny windora
rith se~oental brick arches and etone sills on prard floor; bay window with ~~ City of 8oul., HD82-1
Th
i
k
f
d
b DATE: 10-7-1982
ree
r
c
eca
e.
beveled cornerc and ornsnentat, Eastlake style brackets on
chirmeya. Raised etax wall alonp sidewalk. ASSOCIATED BUILCIMGS7 X TES M~
TTPE:
Garspe
IF tNVENTORIED, LIST ID MOS.:
COMTINUED? TES X MO
ADD1T10NAL PAGES: YES X MO
f~
.~.
-- • - ~
~ ~
' ~ ~: ,u~cHihcr:
Unk1w`n
SaRCE:
~
~
~l I LOER/CpITRACTpt:
tk~inw~n
SOURCE:
STATE iD MO.: 5i1~0~f2
OR t G I MAL QiIER:
llnlQ~c+n
90LRCE:
TMDE(S):
Urbs~ Residenti~l Mei~borhooda,
ta58-q'etent
COMSTRtJCTIOM NlSTORT (pESCRIPTIOM, NAMES, OATES, ETC., RELATING TO NAJQt ALTERAT10M5 TO ORIGIIlA1 STRUCTl1RF):
CDNTIMIED YES X NO
MISTORIGL BACKGRaJND (DISCUSS IMPORTAl1T PERSOi1S ANO EVEMTS ASSOCIATED YITN TFi15 STRUCTIJRE):
In 1898, thia ~u the houe of Pfiilip M~rrinpton, a ~iner, rd Ais ~ife rd dxiphtera. The 1401 Boulder Ctty Directory •lw
lists Philip and Ellen Narrinpton u reoi~ento. In 1913, thic house is listed in the city directory ss vacr~t.
COMTIMUED YES X MO
SIGMIFICAIICE (CMECK APPROPRIATE UTEGORIES AMO YAIEF~Y JUSTIFT aELOW):
ARCMITECTURAI SIGMIFICANLF: N1S10RIGll 5JGMIFICJIMCE:
REPRESEMTS TNE YORX OF A NASTER ASSOC[ATED YITM SIGNIFICAMT PERSONS
POSSE55E5 HIGN lUtTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED YITH SIGIIIFIGINT EVEMTS OR VATTERMS
X REPRESEMTS A TTPE, PERIUO, OR IIET11~ OF CONSTRIICTION ~' COMTRIBUTES TO AN N1510R1C DISTRICT
STATEMEMT OF SIGMIFICANCE:
This Aouse is • vernsal~r, or less det~iled, exrple of the Ouean Mne style, poFw~l~r fraw 18Q0-1910. Ch~r~cttri~tiu
reflected in this houae includr the ailti-pebled roof tor~, projectiny 9ables, casbined use of brick and ~hinplea an th~
e~cterior, the brveled bay rindor ~ith E~stleke inftuer-ced br~ctets, and porch witA bracket^ rd decorative rail.
CONi1MUED TES X a
REFEREMCES (iE SPECIFIC):
8oulder Canty Acceccor infor~atian; Boulde~ Grne9ie Library, Youlder Canty Assessor collection; Camoorwe~lth L~ Titl•
lns. Co. records; Boulder City Directories; Boulder Daily Ca~er• biopraphicsl files.
cawrrwu~ ~s x ~o
I SURVErED BY: C. Shar McL~uyhtin ~ AfFILIATIOM: Front Ranpe Rese~rch Associstes, lne. I OATE' J~n' 1943 I
Address 1116 MAXWELL AV
Boulder, Colorado
CO~ORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Cultural Resource Re-evaluation Form: Accessory Building Survey
1. Resource Number: SBL4042
3. Attachments:
(Check as many as apply)
~. Photographs
~~ Site sketch map
U.S.G.S. map photocopy
Other
Other
2. Temp. Resource Number:
4. Offical determination:
OAHP USE ONLY
_ Determined Eligible
~ Determined Not Eligible
Need Data
~ Nominated
~ Listed
= Contributing to N.R. District
~ Not Contributing to N.R. District
5. Resource Name of Primary Building
6. Purpose of this current site visit: Resurvey
7. Previous Recordings: Front Range Research Assoc. Apr. 1996
8a. Description of Accessory Building:
Gable roofed building with composition roof, wood siding,
cornerboards, and trim. Vertically paneled wood overhead garage door
with two, six-light windows faces east. A small iron door, perhaps for
deliveries, is located high on the east side of the building.
8b. Date of Construction: pre 1929
8c. Date of Construction Source:
1931 Sanborn Map: building appears on map.
Historic Assessors Card, Carnegie Librery: 1929 note indicates building exists.
Building Departrnent, Boulder: 1941 pertnit to 6uild a 20'x16' garage.
1996 Survey: garage is listed as an "associated building."
9_ Condition: Good
10a. Changes to Location or Size Information:
1Ob. UTM Coordinates:
/~
Outbuilding Type:
Garage
Outbuilding Material:
Wood Frame
Outbuilding Covering
Wood Siding
Outbuilding Roof Materia
Asphatt
.
Cultural Resource Re~valuation Form: page 2 of 2 Address: 1116 MAXWELL AV
Accessory Building Survey Boulder, Colorado
Temp. Resource Number
11. Current Ownership THACKER PARTNERSHIP LLP
3685 BUCKEYE CRT
BOULDER
CO
8D304
12. Other Changes, Additions or Observations:
13. Eligibility Assesment:
Individual
National Register: NIA
Local Landmark: N/A
Locally Designated Property: NO
District
National Register: Contributing
Local: Contributing
14. Management Recommendations: N/A
15. Photograph Types and Numbers:
Type: B&W Roll No: 8
Frame No: 34A,35A
16. Artifact and Field Documentation Storage Location N1A
17. Report Title: Accessory Building Survey
18: Recorder(s): Kathryn Howes Barth, AIA; Lara Ramsey 19: Date(s): Feb. 2005
20: Recorder A~liation: Kathryn Howes Barth, AIA; Ramsey Planning and Preservation
Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203
/~
ssiaoa?
1116 MAXWELL AV SITE PLAN
N~~X~~~. L ~~l
~<« _
r
D~ ~
~~
~'Q~-
~
~
~
c)o
~
. a .. • .. ~ . ~ c ~
Attachment B Office:303-30a-Ola6
Tcli Free 1-800-SPIEWAK
E~~~ 1 100 28th Street • Suite 51
Boulder, Colorado 80303-7422
www.spi ewakconsultinc7.c om
19 June 2006
City Of Boulder Planning and Developmcnt
1739 Broadwa~~ - Boulder, CO 803(K
To all it mav concem:
1 I 16 I~1a«vell A~~enue - I'rojecl 5timmar}'
The intenUOn with this project is to fully save, restore and improve my 1894 home, located at 111611axwell Avenue
in Boulder, CO.
It's a project that will transform the propert}' from an eztensively deteriorated c;omplet of four apartments hack into a
"penod" single f-unily home. Includin~ the salvage and rebuilding of its collapsin~ eeterior ~~•alls r foundations, the
removal of its existing 1960's one story rear addition (already goue), the addiuon of a«'est side dormer, a South side
addition, a full basement (simply as the result of the founciation replacement) and the application of malern technol-
o~y ~-nd craftsman finish throurhout.
Those intentions rem~un, however due to the eqtent of the stnictwal detenoration, lar=e sections af the e~terior walis
& foundation require rebuilding. Some of the reasons for the nccessity of d~at rebuilding ~ve summarizecl in the at-
tached reports prepared by the structural engineers, Donald Ihlenfeldt (Ihlcnfeldt &:lssociates} & John Amdt (Gebau
En~ineers).
So I am proposing a solution lhat rebuilds those failing sc;ctions of the ~vallrfo~ndation upon a modcm frame &
concrete wa11 «~ith a veneer of the original brick & fieldstone. This will be an identical footprint of the existing (plus
tl~e rear adciition). The home ~ti~ill retain the s~ilvageable W'est & Itiorthwest w~ills, and nearl} t~ie entire stn~cture of
[he e~isting wood frame roof, gable walls, etc. The fron[ porch & roof w~ill be disassembled and rebuilt identiril to
the eeisting ~vith ncarl} all its on~m,~nal post and lrim delails. The e~isting portions of the lst & 2nd floor framing (not
acceptable for joists) «~iU be recycled into intenor dcx~rs, tnm, f1«~ring, ctc.
"rhis solution, revised from my initial application, m~il:es an extensive effort to sal~•age most of the e~isting roof
fr~uning, ~able end walls, etc. This ~vill be accomplished dunn~ constniction ~~~ith [emporary shoring~support ol~ Ihe
seco~d Rooriroof while chc new~rcplaccmen[ «~alls are rebtull bcneath.
The other lustoric item at hand is in the renovation of the garage. The garage (as }'ou can sce from the pictures) is
generally in good, fairly uprighulevel shape and it has a quaint simplicity~ that gready contributes to the home and
neighborhood. Therefore I am simply lool:ing ior approval to replace its roofing (asphalt), repair (heighten) it's
below grade (alley side) foundation and paint it.
lipon review of the attached drawings and pbotos it w~ill be dear that my goalslplans for lx~th the main house and thc
garage are «~onhy of a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
~
~~
~-- i t'~ l' s" ' F. T Y° (--
!l~L~~~~'yi~~~. + ~~uvsr-oM:i i~:.~
March 22, 2006
Marc Bodian
Melton Construction, Inc.
5075 Chaparral Court #3
Boulder. CO 80301
RE: 1116 Maxwell Street
Boulder. Colorado
Dear Mr. Bodian:
As vou know I visited the site on March 20, 2006 and observed the condition of the
existing foundation and structure. The following observations were made:
The foundation consists of shallow field stone walls with no footings, with the
bottoms of the walls as little as 1'-4" below grade in some locations. These
foundation walls have experienced considerable vertical and horizontal movement
in the past. Also, at some point in the history of the building, a partial basement
was dug and the excavation has undermined these shallow foundations and
allowed even more settlement. This entire existing foundation should be removed
and replaced with a new concrete foundation.
2. The exterior walls above the foundation consist of two wythes of brick. The north,
east and south walls have settled unevenly, cracked and deteriorated to the point
that, in my opinion, they are no longer salvageable. About 2/3 of the west wall
could be saved but, as stated above, it would need a new concrete foundation
under it.
3. A large portion of the of the first floor joists are resting in the dirt and have rotted
off. The joists under a center wood stud bearing wall bear on a wood sill that is
also rotted. In other locations the joists have been modified by simply cutting
them in two to facilitate ductwork and pipes that were added. For these reasons,
the first floor should be removed and replaced in its entirely.
4. The second floor was converted from an attic at some point in the past. The
existing ceiling joists were not adequate for floor loading so joists were added in a
haphazard fashion. Most joists are still not adequate for floor loading. A stair
(Continued)
, .~ . ~ ~ " _. t a•-. _.. .,~~. .r• ~.,. .-.n- . . n,Fl~ _.
~.. , , " .. =n .
March 22. 2006
Marc Bodian
Melton Construction, lnc.
RE: 1116 Maxwell Street
Boulder. Colorado
Opening was cut through the ceiling with little regazd for supporting the edges of
the opening. The center wood stud bearing wall that supports the second floor has
but a single top plate that sags between studs, and some studs are made up of
multiple small pieces of 2x4. The entire second floor framing and bearing wall
needs to be strengthened or replaced.
5. At the roof, a large nuinber of rafters are discontinuous witb makeshift splices.
The rafters do not align with the 2"d floor joists so the tie between the tops of the
brick walls is questionable. In fact some extensive lateral movement of the tops of
the walls is discernible.
lt is my opinion that the extremely goor structural condition of this building renders it
beyond repair. With the exception of a portion of the west wall, I believe it is not
saivageable, except for reuse of some comgonents, such as undamaged bricks and
lumber.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the building should be demolished and rebuilt on a
new concrete foundation.
Very truly yours,
i i~
~,~~ ~-,
na d Ihlenfeldt, P. E_
~l
G EBA In
u~
Consul[ing S[ructural Engineers
June 13. ?006
Chris Spie~•ak
1116 Max~~~ell
Boulder, CO 8030-3
RE: l l l6 I~laxwell Avenue (Project # 0~3~0)
Existing Structural Masonry Review
Dear Chris,
~t your request. a representati~•e of ow office visited the subject site back in the fall of
?00~ and returned for another visit on May 30, 2006. The purpose of these visits w-ere to
re~~iew visible portions of the displaced residential structure and assess its prospects for
repair. Tlle building has been completely stripped of its interior to expose all ~vood
framing and interior brick surfaces.
The building is a turn of the century t~vo story ~~-ood frame roof and floor structure
supported at its perimeter by double ~~ythe brick masonry ~valls «~hich in turn are
supported b}• a stone rubble foundation generally l~-16" wide and 2~-36" deep. A partial
6' deep "cellar" appears to have been carved out under the Eastern half of a cra«~l space
and cementitious sister walls installed around its perimeter. It is difficult to ascertain
«-hether the cellar and sister walls were established with the original building
construction or incorporated suhsequent thereto.
Very noticeable fracture, rotation5 and displacements are evident throughout the interior
brick surfaces particularly at the South end of the West wall, the South ~~~all, the North
and South ends of the East wall and the East end of the North wall. 1'hese fractures varv
from 'ia" to 2" and vertical displacements in the brick bed joints appear as much as 1'/a"
to 1'/4" vertically displaced. Outward bo~v of the East ~vall along its length appears as
much as 2'/" to 3" such that the main floor joists presently have'/2" to 1" bearing in
pockets along this wall. These irregularities appear to have been an ongoing occurrence
as several steel reinforcing straps appear to have further dis}~laced or dislodged
subsequent to their installation.
~'~'e relayed to you our suspicion that these irregularities ~~~ere likeIy a result of eYpansive
soil behavior due to changino moisture contents the building and site are likely
experiencing. This condition ~L~as assessed b~~ a preliminar}• opinion rendered on your
neighbor's house to the East b~~ Scott Cox &: Associates. a geotechnical engineerin~ firm.
~~`
June 1-~. ?006
1 1 16 I~la~~~•ell ~~~enue
The conditions as existing are at the brink of localized failure, ~vhich ma~~ induce larger
area failures. Recent advancin~ drought trends will likelti~ create progression of the
displacements potentiallv perturbing such failures.
Therefore we believe the conditions warrant a rebuild of the wall and foundation
structure from the entrv door east~~~ard around to the Southwest corner window. This
effort «•ould logicall}~ include the dismantling of brick masonry for reuse as ~~eneer
backed up b}~ new~ frame construction. The new frame would be supported b~~ a
reinforced concrete foundation ~vall, supported by isolated concrete or steel helical piers
~~-ith void bet~veen. The interface with the remaining existing structure will require
detailing to allow for future differential movement. With proper shoring the interior
frame structure could be temporarily maintained if desired. Remediation of the framing
could be accomplished in accordance with observation report prepared b}~ Ihlenfeldt,
dated March 22, 2006.
Please call if you have questions regarding this information or require further assistance
de~~elopina specific remedia] solutions.
Sincerel~~,
GEI3.~iJ, INC.
Jolin Arndt, P.E.
JA/rg
a3
June 1~3. ?006
1116 I~9azwell A~~enue
Your neighbors' anticipated addition was required to be on piers and ~rade beam to
separate the new and displaced portions of the existing structure from the expansive soils.
Extrapolating this assessment to your building we see more formidable challenoe in your
building masonry construction as compared with his light frame. In addition, the heavier
and more brittle nature of your masonry construction has resulted in significantly greater
irregularity and damage ~vithin the w•all structure. Actual field measurements of the
irregularities are found in the attached figure 1 depicting vertical and lateral deviations
from plumb and level.
We note variations in level of up to 3" at the Northeast corner and plumb of about the
same. Attached photographs of interior and e~cterior pictures illustrate the consequential
inegularities appearing in the masonrv from these distortions in the way of large
gappings and dislod~ements of the brick and joint interlacing. The horizontal gaps are as
much as 2'" in the Northeast corner, 1'/~" in the Southeast corner and in the Southwest
corner. Accompanying these dislodgements are several conspicuous wavers in the
straight and level bed joint lines at the Northeast and the Southeast corners_ The afore
mentioned steel reinforcing plates were anchored to the exterior ~~all faces at both these
corners as «•ell and repointing of the gapping «~as accomplished at the exterior surface to
protect from moisture infiltrations at the gaps formed. Almost without exception these
steel reinforcements have further distorted from their initial installation and further cracks
appear in the repointed surfaces. Chunks of mortar and fractured brick were ohserved on
the interior ~~~ood floor at the Northeast corner. As the w~all distortions have occurreci, a
~~ap of up to 1:4" has opened up bet~veen the installed floor deck and the interior
masonr}~ surface indicating the East wall is movin~ out from under the let in ~~~ood floor
joists bearing along this wa1L In addition it appears the double ~vythe brick wall ~~~as laid
up without an intermittent stretcher tie coursing between the w}~thes. Consequentially the
? wythes are acting (and distorting) independent of each other further reducing ~vall
integrity. It appears the stone rubble foundation has suffered in a similar, perhaps even
more severe manner as the irre~ular stone pieces and larger mortar joints ha~~e
destabilized in the larger areas of displacement and contributed to the brick distortions
beyond the e~ctent of the soil displacement.
Based upon the existing conditions and irregularities observed ~ve are discouraged about
prospects for remediation of the masonry structure. It is apparent the reinforcements and
repairs to date have not been successful in stemming the recurrence of degradation.
Rebuilding the masonry walls (brick and rubble stone) to their original state without
revising the foundation support would only experience further problematic
displacements. Stabilization of the foundation must be accomplished to prevent future
recurrence. Because the rubble stone is so disrupted, we anticipate underpinning it with a
proper concrete beam and pier system will only~ result in partial or wholesale collapse and
not 6e worth the risk of injury to those who would attempt it.
~
, . - !~ M
. l 11 b R~v+ti
. . . --~v.~8 _-.~oc~~- ~~~v~,-,a-~ ~H
~-~.c;fF--- _~ i~,. v~~vrrr~- J u IJ E S ~ 2
~----p --------.~..._-_ --- ------------
i ---- ----
i =-=---------
! l 3'~Pc~l•a2 prytorz ~.
S/g •~ tN 7o/~4G ur,~ i..
~ M~~~/ l~,i ~ I ~,
~ 7/e j1s ~ I:~!
, ~,~.,
i A-.~. #5 ~t~ _{_ t~~~ s-.r ~ Nc~t~S I.';
L~wNw.~2~ A.~v i~~ ;
! ~~ ---- ---=--- --- ----- ~"~ ~~,
~~ . LNN6ROOla O /~.i'~ / 13~p ~~1~ ~
~ `~ D
I ~ = - _ _ = ~ _ `~~ . . : _ , ; ~:.' i~'18 ` ~u/ Cr° 2 ~~if,G ~ ~
t , ~ ; t 3'' DE~~~t7/a~/ ; ~
i ,,.,,.L • nr~.+yxTraevr nz : /
' - 2!2"N~,o ~.lr. ~ i
~ ~ 'i
_: ' ~ 5EP.4~l7•on/s Z t ~Z
C:7 ,
I ~ ~'' ,
~J `~ (
1 ' ' ~~ '
t: ~ E .
,x;. 1
~ --PG~~~f~ ~ r/2,~ >oP ~'~ aevn.nnr+c r.o~H j ~~ ;
{- ` _ _O[1Tu/rlrQ. UE~/~fT/C[~~ F~+ ~
~ ~
' "~ -_ _.. ~ - ,.;~
~~ - , ~
~ -- --- - _ -- -
~ ' : '>~
~ -- ~ --- ',
~ - v - '~ i f:;~
~ ~r '~~
~ 3` -- • -- , ;; ;'%
~ ,,:,
~ --- ---,~ ~
~ - - - ' - - - , :=~ p..(..' M B - ~°~C:tJ @ 2 -$
~ ;~ Dt@16 ROOf~~ . ' ~ ' ' ~ „ ~.ii A ~f ~~ kl/r 2 ~/~ „ pE~l~i17r ' /
~ ~ / - ' ,~: _>:~ u;'' - -' _ • - - "
3 $ -- ~ -- ":,v ::,,u_ t- _~r,:°
a _ _~.:.i t':'r
_ -~;.~~ ~;~ ~
I --d-f • ~:.i ~.t ! ~ '~
STaR . GtA9'_7 ~
. j~_~ f~~ r,.~
I '<-? ~.d ~
; ,r --- --- -- - :~ ~1 :,
' 3J~ --- ,-~ f::____---~------~, /7
~ R ~'i~ t/
I ; li
~ , ~ -\~ti;~''~~~~ K.i~~iM~
~ . .. .~ . ., . ~ =~: ; il4 ~'
~~;i~.~i'~ID.'.?;TZa~~~:_'>_'is.~~`~~i>':.~ l~'i_.r~ij:'~'L't~ ~6~~ '~
fti~ ~
I .ro~~ _~~- '~ n.~ ~/
/ i ~~ GlA°.~ET .,::F •
~ L J ~ ( ` 1 : :~~ ~ ' ~: - -:~~ - - - -~: _ ' = i .
~ l ' J \ /. !(~', ~, ~ I . 1,' ~ r l~ .
~ ` , •~'"~~ t' l ~' . ', ~ ~ ~ ~ „ ~
~ ' - - - ~ `?i i" ~ '' L~ r~D J' . .
.}.r:i_F ~~ J .
I BATtROc71~ j. i_k,'s,~c...:Z:' _ ~:C<~_:c.._.i
~ ~=~ .~'::'=--_ -_-~~<~..~~~ ..r.~.,-;'r°:T .~ ~
~ f" I ' ' ~ ~ ` ! ,.'•':•i ~`
~~y"'---"~l.v~ .. ~.~a~:l~~ ~/', ; /
I ~ ~ E;~ -" `"-`' =' ,4'
o . •~.,,: -- ci~ser r: ~
~ ~ "~- -- - -Ji~. . ~% S H~4~Q<~ I' _ i,
i ~:<;;-:' Yt??~•',}~- s' ;~ ; 56~.~2~Ti~_,tl S -7
~ ;F-~~~~si _' r~ ~ • , .r - - - - i ` _ ~ _ ~~ . s> /~g '
~j , " ~ Y
~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ i;; `* ~.Zs~`+:. ~ ~ :.~ _ - ' ~
/ R I tl ~ -~/~ ..
~~
~ LC ,~2 nHEAD cl7 , ~~ ~ 'Si ' ~ .. ,~~' ~r~UTlGVi/7.6 ' %
~ ' ~ S~AA+P 4-7lO/JS Krrc~+~+ LL '- - _ ; ~ ~ ~ ~y IA~JUtiI ,~
~ ~ 7b7~4-t , : - - - t ~ s~M '`' ~ r~AniROO,•+
( /r~ ~ ~ ~?,
n ~ ~ i; t ~
` ----- ~~_: ~~l$ f~~~:~ ~s~s ~ ~i. ~~ ~ ~~ _~~:
Z iZ ~. , ,(. ~ ,1~- .g
, -------~:;.~~i.-_.~.~~ ----- --- - ----- -- ------ -- .-:-- - ~
- . -- , -.- - - .---... _ . . .
~ ~
-----. --~-_ ;
~--~ --------,-„-----------------------
~-~~1JM~3 - _ TOP i ~ +~
: ~,~~ o~,,~~a,~ ~ a~~~~u~~ --1 _ __
Subject: RE: 1116 Maxwell Info
Date: Monday June 26, 2006 10:10am
From: David Transue <dtransue@preservationtechnologyllc.com>
To: Christopher Spiewak <chris@spiewakconsulting.com>
Hi Chris,
Sorry to have not connected with you last week - I hope that you received my message
I reviewed the attached documents and the engineer's reports. I agree that, at a
minimum, the south and east masonry walls should be replaced, as well as a majority of
the framing. In general, your plan for the structure seems reasonable - for what reasons
was it not approved? Were any feasible alternatives to wall and framing replacement
suggested?
Please call my cell (303.434.0166) if you have any questions or need any help with the
project.
Regards,
David Transue
David Transue, P.E.
Preservation Technology LLC, and
Transue Engineering Associates LLC
5735 Arapahoe Avenue
Suite A-1
Boulder CO 80303
Voice: 303.443.9180
Fax: 303.443.9219
Mobile: 303.434.0166
Email: dtransue@preservationtechnologyllc.com
www. preserva tiontech nology Ilc. com
a~
Attachment C
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303
North East Corner: Extreme Deformation
NW Corner
8 East Wall:
Extreme
Horizontal
8 Vertical
Deformation
Photos - March 2006
East Side: Foundation Separated From Wall
Re-9routeA To Fill Gap
.:~'y~'~ J'^~+i~.~'/ur.li.+~~'.If~"..._~..'
.M~ *n.:.-_~- ~: ' ~ • ,•..
f ~ 1 ~~:
~h MM-- „~. .
h
.. " . ~~~~V' _
East Side Chimney At Roof
~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
~g
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
~~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
~/
~- No-th Wall at Porch Roof -I
~ NW Corner At Windows (Typical) I
~ North Wall Shingle Details (Nice!) -~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
NE Corner: Substantial Deformation.
re corner retained solely by the top p
. '_" • ;
` .
g
.
_ ~ -_
;~_
~
I ~~
t
. t+
~ Jo'ist Cntls no longef - ~
wilhin wall. (TyPiCdl . ~)
~ t
East Wall problem) ' . . . ~
: (
~ .. ' .,~ `
- ' • .
South East Corner
_ ~~ ~ ~ _~-_
- ~_ -~
#= : ~
, x .~~,,-. ; :~~~
~ -._.-~_- .ap~:
M ~
~ ' ~~= t_-_ i~
Joiete pullnd moro
than 2" oul of wall
South End: Wall deformation at
~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
West Wall & Sill at Window
~~ _ _
~
~~ :~~ ~~:_ +~'+~
~- - ~
.~_
,, , , ,1~ -
,~~ ~~~
~.~~~`~_ ~ -~~'~,~
- ;~. _ . -- ~.
- - ~, ~=~:~~
- --
~,.y.
Framing
Examples:
e..n~e w.u.
ewi~ c.o~,
Splimd Blocklny
V ~
SW Corner: Substantial MovementlCracking All Directions
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
I Sagging Singie Top Plate 8 More 'Floating' Joists
I I
~~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
Roof Valley Bearing Point (scary)....
~, : .
. , r-
. : - _ °= ....'.' - -
- ~ :=--'-_~-.~.- .
~y ~~ c ~ •
~ ~~ ~ ' . ~ . , . ~
~ ~
. ~(~.
/ '' '
_ -'J ~~~~ ~ #.
- .. _ - -t. -~' , !
3~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
~
~ ~
~J }+ j~ ~ ~ North Gable
f I • -- Wall:
~~ __~ `--
~~
~- Non-Dimensional Rafters ~
1116 Maxwell Avenue - Boulder CO 80303 Photos - March 2006
South East Side
Garage: South Side Cracking/Tipping Foundation, SW
Corner 15" be~ow grade wlextensive rot
With BIG holes
~~