Loading...
Item 5B - 835 Pine St memoAgenda Item # 5A Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M March 7, 2018 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Debra Kalish, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner II Tony Wiese, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. accessory building and associated retaining walls at 835 Pine St. in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, per section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2017-00359). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 835 Pine St. 2. Zoning: RL-1 (Residential-Low 1) 3. Lot size: 11,103 sq. ft. 4. Proposed sq. ft.: 1,200 sq. ft. (as measured to calculate the Floor Area Ratio) 5. Proposed footprint: 600 sq. ft. 6. Historic District: Mapleton Hill, contributing property 7. Owner: Jennifer Sullivan and Miles Corkern 8. Applicant: May Yin Architecture STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the applicant complies with the conditions listed below, staff considers the proposed construction of a two-car garage will be generally consistent with the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: The Landmarks Board adopts the staff memorandum dated Mar. 7, 2018 as the findings of the board and approves the construction of a 440 sq. ft., two-car garage and associated retaining walls, finding that they generally meet the standards for issuance of a Agenda Item # 5B Page 2 Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing the accessory building in compliance with the approved plans dated Dec. 22, 2017, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc), for its final review and approval: a. Revised plans showing the following revisions: - Locating the garage further north and east on the property - reducing the mass and scale of the proposed new garage to about 440 sq. ft. - eliminating the projecting roof forms from the design - significantly reducing the number and height of proposed retaining walls b. Final architectural plans that include details for the new accessory building, including wall and roof materials, door and window details, and hardscaping on the property to ensure that the final design of the building is consistent with the General Design Guidelines, the Mapleton Historic District Design Guideline, and the intent of this approval. SUMMARY: • Constructed about 1883 the house at 835 Pine St. retains a high level of historic integrity and is a contributing resource in Mapleton Hill Historic District. • In 2014, the Landmarks Board approved an LAC for the removal of a c.1920s addition and the construction of a new addition. • On Dec. 6, 2017, the applicant submitted a Landmark Alteration Certificate (LAC) request for the construction of a two-car garage and associated retaining walls. Agenda Item # 5B Page 3 • Staff finds the proposed construction of an accessory building to be generally consistent with the criteria for a Landmark Alteration Certificate as per 9-11- 18(a) & (b)(1)-(4) B.R.C. 1981, the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines. • This recommendation is based upon the understanding that the stated conditions will be reviewed and approved by the Landmarks design review committee (Ldrc) prior to the issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate. PROPERTY HISTORY Figure 1. 835 Pine St. Tax Assessor Card photograph c.1929. Photograph Courtesy the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History. The house at 835 Pine St. was constructed in 1882 by Ira McAllister, who sold it the next year and built a large, three-story house at 1619 Pine St. (Local Landmark 77-3). Ira McAllister established Boulder’s longest operating lumber company and was recognized as “among the pillars” of the early community. John F. and Margaret Stewart and their daughter Marvinetta Jefferson purchased the house at 835 Pine St. in 1889 and lived there for 50 years. John F. Stewart was born in Ohio in 1828 and died in this house in 1908 at the age of 80. Cited as “one of Boulder’s most highly esteemed citizens,” Stewart had settled in Evans, CO, in the early 1870s and the family moved to Boulder in 1881. Stewart was a minister in Boulder and also grew fruit. Following Margaret Stewart’s death in 1914, Marvinetta Jefferson lived here for many years. Marvinetta Jefferson taught piano lessons in the home and was the music director at the First Congregational Church. Agenda Item # 5B Page 4 The 1994 Historic Building Survey found the house to be potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and the property is considered to be contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District. DESCRIPTION The property is located on the north side of Pine St. between 8th and 9th streets, in the West Boulder addition to the city, which was platted in 1874. The approximately 2,800 sq. ft. house is located on an 11,100 sq. ft. lot. Figure 2. Location Map, 835 Pine St. Figure 3. South elevation, 835 Pine St., 2018. Agenda Item # 5B Page 5 The one-and-one-half story house was constructed around 1882 and features a steeply-pitched roof with wide, overhanging eaves and a wide frieze board. The house is clad in narrow horizontal lap siding with corner boards. It has a symmetrical façade featuring tall, narrow, two-over-two, double-hung windows with low pedimented lintels. A front gable roofed porch is supported by chamfered posts. The entrance features a paneled door with round arched panels and a transom with an oval window. PROPOSED NEW GARAGE The applicant proposes to construct a 24’ x 25’ garage with a floor area of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. as measured when calculating the Floor Area Ratio. Plans indicate the building is intended to house two cars and bicycle storage on the 600 sq. ft. upper level, while the 600 sq. ft. lower level is to be utilized as a studio. The existing house has a Floor Area of 2,783 sq. ft. with the proposed new building the Floor Area for the property would be 3,985 sq. ft. where a maximum of 4,243 sq. ft. is allowed on this RL-1 (Residential Low-1) zoned property. The accessory building is designed to be converted into an Owners’ Accessory Unit if, in the future, that use is permitted in this zoning district. An elevator is planned to provide access between the two levels. The location is proposed to allow for the required 24’ backing distance and the flat roof is proposed to stay within the 20’ height limit for accessory buildings in RL-1. Retaining walls and paved areas are shown to extend from the garage to the main house. Figure 4. Proposed Site Plan. (North is to the right). Agenda Item # 5B Page 6 Figure 5. View from 9th Street down alley – Proposed garage would be located between the two accessory buildings shown. Figure 6. Location of proposed garage/studio is between the truck and adjacent property’s garage. Agenda Item # 5B Page 7 Figure 7. View from 9th Street, looking west across adjacent property at 835 Pine St., house at left and location of proposed garage at right. Figure 8. Proposed North (alley) Elevation. Not to Scale. In elevation, the north alley face of the proposed building is shown to have two 8’ by 8’6” wood overhead garage doors while projecting roof areas extend beyond the west and south south walls. A parapet wall rises about 1’ above the main, low sloped roof of the building. Agenda Item # 5B Page 8 Figure 9. Proposed East Elevation. Not to Scale. The east elevation is shown to have a projecting roof that covers the walkway and stairs that are shown to slope down from the alley. Figure 10. Proposed West Elevation. Not to Scale. The west elevation of the proposed building is shown to be unadorned, with no window or door openings. Agenda Item # 5B Page 9 Figure 11. Proposed South Elevation. Not to Scale. The south elevation is shown to feature group of three double-hung windows on the upper level while the lower level is fenestrated with a glass pedestrian door and a wide sliding glass door. The shingled roof of the covered walkway is shown to wrap around the southeast corner of the building and extending west to shade the lower level openings. The materiality is parged concrete on the lower level and narrow wood lap siding above. CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD’S DECISION Subsection 9-11-18(b) and (c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. (b) Neither the Landmarks Board nor the City Council shall approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate unless it meets the following conditions: (1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within an historic district; (2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site or the district; (3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of Agenda Item # 5B Page 10 color, and materials used on existing and proposed constructions are compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the historic district; (4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, the proposed new construction to replace the building meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) above. (c) In determining whether to approve a landmark alteration certificate, the Landmarks Board shall consider the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. ANALYSIS 1. Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district? Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met locating the building further east and north on the property, reducing the size of the building to about 440 sq. ft., revising the sloping roof element of the design and significantly reducing the amount of new retaining walls on the property, the construction of a new accessory building will not damage or destroy contributing properties in the alley scape and will be generally compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? The staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed application will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark property as it will be generally compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines in terms of mass, scale, height, design and color (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the historic district? Staff finds that, provided the listed conditions are met, the proposed new construction will be generally compatible with the architectural form, Agenda Item # 5B Page 11 arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on the proposed building and will be generally compatible with the character of the historic district in terms of location, mass, scale, height, setback, and design (see Design Guidelines Analysis section). ANALYSIS: The Historic Preservation Ordinance sets forth the standards the Landmarks Board must apply when reviewing a request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate. The Board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the historic preservation ordinance. The following is an analysis of the proposed new construction with respect to relevant guidelines. Design guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design and not as a checklist of items for compliance. The following is an analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the appropriate sections of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines and the General Design Guidelines. GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GARAGES & OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. 2.1 Building Alignment, Orientation, and Spacing 1. Locate Buildings within the range of alignments seen traditionally in the area maintaining traditional setbacks at the front, side and rear of the property. The building is shown to extend 24’ across the 50’ width of the lot. The building will be approximately 5’ from the adjacent accessory building to the west. The contributing accessory building to the east is located approximately 30’ from the east wall of the proposed garage. Staff considers that locating the proposed accessory building approximately 15’ to the east of proposed location and closer to the alley would be more consistent with the historic patterns in Mapleton Hill alleys. Revise placement for review by the Ldrc. No Agenda Item # 5B Page 12 .6 … garages should be located at the rear of of the lot and accessed from the alley. (See 2.1.1 above) .7 Preserve a backyard area between the house and garage, maintaining the general proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. Backyard space is maintained with proposed garage. Yes 2.2 Streetscape and Landscape 7. Where existing retaining walls are important to the character of the property they should be incorporated into new landscape features. Regrading and the introduction of new retaining walls is in appropriate. Tall, plan concrete retaining walls are in appropriate. Existence of existing retaining walls unclear. Construction of proposed building shows construction of 5’ high retaining wall and steps to east of that building, 3’ retaining walls at south courtyard area of lower level of accessory building. Proposal also indicates construction of retaining walls at backyard to the main house, but little detail provided other than pebble dash concrete finish. The extent of regrading and new retaining walls should be significantly reduced in number and height. Locating a smaller building north on the property toward the alley may reduce the need to introduce retaining walls in that area. Revise for review by the Ldrc. No 2.3 Site Design: Alleys The alleys in historic districts were traditionally used for secondary access to the houses, for deliveries, and as storage places for horses and buggies, and later, for cars. A view of the backyards from the alleys was maintained. While today’s alleys have evolved into use as pedestrian paths for jogging, bicycling and dog walking, they still contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. They are typically minimally paved. Agenda Item # 5B Page 13 Along the alleys are historic accessory buildings of various shapes and sizes including barns, chicken coops, sheds and small garages. This variety contributes to the general feeling of human scale in the alleys. Guidelines Analysis Conforms? .1 Maintain alley access for parking and retain the character of alleys as clearly secondary access to properties. Alley access is retained in the proposal Yes .2 Retain and preserve the variety and character found in the existing historic accessory buildings along the alleys. Proposal does not include the removal of an existing accessory building. N/A .3 The use of historically proportioned materials for building new accessory buildings contributes to the human scale of the alleys. For example, narrower lap siding and smaller brick are appropriate. The building is proposed to be clad in narrow (4”) lap siding. Yes .4 Structures that were constructed after the period of significance but are still more than 50 years old and contribute to the variety and character of the alleyway should be retained. See 2.3.2 above. N/A .5 Maintain adequate spacing between accessory building so that the view of the main house is not obscured, and the alley does not evolve into a tunnel-like passage. The building is shown to extend 24’ across the 50’ width of the lot. The building will be approximately 5’ from the adjacent accessory building to the west. The contributing accessory building to the east is located approximately 30’ from the east wall of the proposed garage. Staff considers that locating the proposed accessory building approximately 15’ to the east of proposed and closer Maybe Agenda Item # 5B Page 14 to the alley would be more consistent with the historic patterns in Mapleton Hill alleys. Revise location at Ldrc. 2.4 Parking and Driveways .6 Historically appropriate paving materials, such as flagstone or brick, can be used to visually break up larger parking areas Width of lot along the alley appears to be paved. Consider locating garage closer to alley and preserving gravel material in front of and at sides of proposed garage. Revise at Ldrc. Maybe .7 Paving driveways or garage access areas with asphalt or concrete gives a modern look and is generally inappropriate, particularly when adjacent to unpaved alleys. Flagstone or brick wheel strips are the preferred alternative. Width of lot along the alley appears to be paved. Consider locating garage closer to alley and preserving gravel material in front of and at sides of proposed garage. Revise at Ldrc. Maybe 7.0 Garages & Other Accessory Structures Accessory buildings include barns, sheds, garages and outbuildings. Originally accessory buildings were used for storage of equipment, animals, or carriages. Generally, these buildings have been adapted for the storage of cars. In most cases, accessory building were located to the rear of the lot and accessed by alleys. They were subordinate in size and detailing to the primary house. Over time they have emerged as important elements of many lots and alleys in the district. Efforts should be made to protect the eclectic character of alleys. Both additions to existing accessory buildings and new accessory building will be evaluated in terms of how they affect the historic character of the individual site and the district as a whole. In the past, larger accessory structures have been allowed than may be appropriate today. 7.2 New Accessory Buildings New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings. While they should take design cues from the primary buildings, they must be subordinate in size, massing, and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians. Location and Orientation Agenda Item # 5B Page 15 .1 It is inappropriate to introduce a new garage or accessory building if doing so will detract from the overall historic character of the principal building, and the site, or if it will require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature, such as a mature tree. The alleys in the Mapleton Hill Historic District are character defining features of the district. Staff considers that at approximately 1,200 sq. ft. the mass, scale and height of the proposed garage will detract from the historic character of the alley of the 800 block of Pine Street between 8th and 9th streets. Staff considers that the new construction should be located further east and north on the property and reduced in footprint from 600 sq. ft. to about 440 sq. ft. Confirm removal of trees as part of the application. Revise for review by the Ldrc. No .2 New garages and accessory buildings should generally be located at the rear of the lot, respecting the traditional relationship of such buildings to the primary structure and the site. Garage should be located further east and north on the property (see 2.3.5 above) as is the pattern of historic accessory buildings in the immediate alleyscape and alleys in Mapleton Hill. Revise for review by the Ldrc. No .3 Maintain adequate spacing between accessory buildings so alleys do not evolve into tunnel-like passageways. Garage should be located further east and north on the property (see 2.3.5 above) as is the pattern of historic accessory buildings in the immediate alleyscape and alleys in Mapleton Hill. Size of garage should be reduced to further increase space between buildings. Revise for review by the Ldrc. Maybe .4 Preserve a backyard area between the house and the accessory buildings, maintaining the general Staff considers back yard space will be maintained with the proposal. Yes Agenda Item # 5B Page 16 proportion of built mass to open space found within the area. Mass and Scale .5 New accessory buildings should take design cues from the primary building on the property, but be subordinate to it in terms of size and massing. Staff considers that the new construction will be subordinate to the main house but should be located more centrally between adjacent garages, closer to the alley and reduced to about 440 sq. ft. to be more compatible with the historic accessory buildings along the alley, to provide more permeability into the property, and to avoid a tunnel-like effect. Revise for review by the Ldrc. No .6 New garages for single-family residences should generally be one story tall and shelter no more than two cars. In some cases, a two-car garage may be inappropriate. See 7.2.5 above No .7 Roof form and pitch should be complementary to the primary structure. Roof form is flat and simpler than and complementary to that of main contributing accessory building. However, there is no historic precedent for pitched roof overhand at east face. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No Materials and Detailing .8 Accessory structures should be simpler in design and detail than the primary building. Proposed garage is smaller and simpler in design than the main house, though should be located more centrally on alley, reduced in size and projecting roof forms eliminated from design. Revise design for review by the Ldrc. No .9 Materials for new garages and accessory structures should be compatible with those found on the primary structure and in the Flat roof and wood siding compatible the historic house and other accessory buildings in the Yes Agenda Item # 5B Page 17 district. Vinyl siding and prefabricated structures are inappropriate. district. Review details at the Ldrc. .10 Windows, like all elements of accessory structures, should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. Windows are shown to be simple in design. Review details at the Ldrc. Yes .12 Garage doors should be consistent with the historic scale and materials of traditional accessory structures. Wood is the most appropriate material and two smaller doors may be more appropriate than one large door. Garage doors are shown to be painted wood overhead doors, consistent in scale and materiality of traditional accessory buildings. Resolve at Ldrc. Maybe .13 It is inappropriate to introduce features or details to a garage or an accessory building in an attempt to create a false historical appearance. Building design is of its own time and will not create a false sense of history if proposed revisions are made to design. Review details at the Ldrc. Yes Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines The following section is an analysis of the proposal relative to Section VI of the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Only those guidelines that further the analysis of the proposed project are included and those that reflect what has been evaluated in the previous section are not repeated. B. Site Traditional settlement patterns generally placed houses in the center of a site, with garages, carriage houses, etc. and parking at the rear of the lot at the alley. Sidewalks parallel streets with a planting strip between, and individual sidewalks approach the center of the house at right angles to the house and the street. Landscape material is concentrated near the house with trees in the sidewalk planting strip, and as focal points of the lot. Guideline Analysis Conforms? Agenda Item # 5B Page 18 1. Accessory buildings such as sheds and garages, and driveways should be located at the rear of the lot as is traditional. Adding them between existing buildings interrupts the rhythm of the spacing New accessory building proposed at the rear of the lot. Yes C. Landscaping Landscape features can form a significant part of the historic character of an area. Landscape materials, such as the use of a specific street tree throughout an area, can establish part of the character of a historic district. Particular trees may be historically significant in themselves. The pattern of landscaping in an area, such as the use of street trees, planting strips and sodded front yards, are also important. Trees, shrubs, vines, and irrigation systems also may have a potential for damaging exterior building features and surfaces. (See Section B. for site) Guideline Analysis Conforms? 4. Where strong retaining walls exist, they should be preserved and incorporated when introducing new wall elements. Tall, plain concrete walls should be discouraged. Railroad ties should also be discouraged. New retaining walls are shown to be constructed of exposed aggregate concrete. Review height and appropriateness at the Ldrc. Maybe D ALLEYS, EASEMENTS AND ACCESSWAYS Alleys are a strong visual element of the district, and have much variety of scale and detail. They play an important part in the development patterns that give the more visible areas their character. Alleys provide access to rear parking and garages. They have a varied edge quality, with building both on the property lines and set back. The size and quality of these accessory building varies considerably. Careful consideration should be given to changes in traditional use. Guideline Analysis Conforms? 1. The use of alleys to provide access to the rear of properties should be preserved Access to rear of property preserved. Yes 2. Efforts should be made to protect the variety of shape, size, and alignment of buildings along the alleys. Alleys Garage should be located further east and north on the property (see 2.3.5 above) as is the pattern of historic accessory buildings in No Agenda Item # 5B Page 19 should maintain a human scale and be sensitive to pedestrians. the immediate alleyscape and alleys in Mapleton Hill. Revise for review by the Ldrc. 5. Efforts should be made to maintain character of the alleys in the district Staff considers that the proposed building should be moved east and north on the property, the mass and scale of the proposed building reduced to be more in scale with the contributing accessory building to create more permeability into the property and avoid a tunnel like effect on the alley. Revise for review by the Ldrc. No P GARAGES, CARPORTS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A variety of accessory buildings has been adapted for use as garages in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Whether carriage houses or sheds, these structures have certain similarities. They are plain and utilitarian and are located at the rear of the property on the alley. Materials and building elements are varied. Guideline Analysis Meets Guideline? .2 When garage doors are added to a building they should be wood. Different types will be appropriate for different buildings. Two smaller doors may be more appropriate than one large door. Drawings show two wooden overhead doors. Yes .3 If a new structure is to be constructed, design ideas might be found in existing historic accessory buildings located nearby Historic one-story, flat roof accessory buildings are found in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, however, projecting sloped roof is inconsistent with historic buildings in Mapleton Hill. Remove projecting roof areas and redesign for review by the Ldrc. Maybe Agenda Item # 5B Page 20 .4 The new building should be secondary in nature to the main house and smaller in scale. New building is secondary in nature and smaller in scale than the main house, but larger than historic accessory buildings in the alleyscape. Reduce size of building to about 440 sq. ft. No .5 Accessory buildings should be small in scale and mass, and constructed in a manner which is complimentary to the character of the house and alley. They are clearly secondary in importance to the primary structure. Typically, prefabricated sheds are discouraged. Accessory building is about 1,200 sq. ft. in size and extends 24’of the 50’ width of the lot. Location should be revised, mass and scale reduced, and design details revised as above for review by the Ldrc. No Staff considers that the proposed construction of a new accessory building should be located as far north and east on the property as possible, that it be reduced in mass and scale, and that grading of the lot be reduced to reduce the amount of new retaining walls, as outlined in the design guidelines analysis. Staff considers that these revisions can be achieved through review of the recommended conditions of approval by the Ldrc. Staff considers that if these conditions are met, the proposal will be generally consistent with the design guidelines for site design and accessory buildings and the Standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate. PUBLIC COMMENT Staff has received no public comment regarding this case. FINDINGS: Provided the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation are met, staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the application and adopt the following findings: 1. The proposed new construction meets the standards in 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code. 2. The proposed construction will not have an adverse effect on the value of the landmark property, as it will be generally compatible in terms of mass, scale, or orientation with other buildings in the district. Agenda Item # 5B Page 21 3. In terms of mass, scale, and orientation the proposed construction will be generally consistent with Section 9-11-18 B.R.C., Section 4 of the General Design Guidelines and Sections F and T of the Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: A: Applicant’s Materials B: Tax Assessors Card C: Photographs Agenda Item # 5B Page 22 Attachment A: Applicant’s Materials Agenda Item # 5B Page 23 Agenda Item # 5B Page 24 Agenda Item # 5B Page 25 Agenda Item # 5B Page 26 Agenda Item # 5B Page 27 Agenda Item # 5B Page 28 Agenda Item # 5B Page 29 Agenda Item # 5B Page 30 Agenda Item # 5B Page 31 Agenda Item # 5B Page 32 Agenda Item # 5B Page 33 Agenda Item # 5B Page 34 Agenda Item # 5B Page 35 Agenda Item # 5B Page 36 Agenda Item # 5B Page 37 Agenda Item # 5B Page 38 Agenda Item # 5B Page 39 Agenda Item # 5B Page 40 Agenda Item # 5B Page 41 Agenda Item # 5B Page 42 Agenda Item # 5B Page 43 Attachment B: Tax Assessors Card Agenda Item # 5B Page 44 Agenda Item # 5B Page 45 Tax Assessor Card, date unknown. Attachment C: Current Photographs View from Pine Street, 2017. Agenda Item # 5B Page 46 Alley Entrance at 9th St., 2017.