5A - Landmark Alteration Certificate for 707 Maxwell Ave (HIS2009-00047)
MEMORANDUM
May 6"', 2009
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to add dormers and construct a two-story, 1,100 sq. ft.
rear addition to the 2,300 sq. ft. contributing house and to erect a
one and one-half story, two-car garage; all at 707 Maxwell Avenue
in the Mapleton Hill Historic District (HIS2009-00047)
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 707 Maxwell Avenue
2. Zoning: LR-1 (Low Density Residential Established)
3. Owner: Leonard Ashack
4_ Applicant: Leonard Ashack
5. Site Area: 7,000 sq. feet
6. Existing House: 2,300 sq. ft.
7. Date of construction: c.1905
8. Proposed Addition 1,100 sq. ft.
9. Proposed Garage 600 sq. ft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion:
The board denies the proposal for the reconstruction of a front facing balustrade
and addition of dormers on the sides of the main house, construction of a 1,100
sq. ft. addition to that building, and the construction of a free-standing 600 sq. ft.
garage at the rear of the property at 707 Maxwell Avenue (as shown on landmark
alteration certificate drawings dated 03.20.2009), in that it fails to meet the
standards in Chapter 9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-3), B.R.C. 1981, and is not consistent with
the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines, the General Design Guidelines,
in that the proposed work will damage the historic character of the property and
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 1
the immediate area.
SUMMARY:
• The house at 707 Maxwell Avenue is a contributing resource to the Mapleton
Hill Historic District.
• On March 251', 2009 the Landmarks design review committee referred the
application for the construction of a rear addition and construction of
dormers on the historic house. The applicant has revised the proposal and
included the construction of a 600 sq. ft. two-car garage to the application.
• Staff recommends the Landmarks Board deny the application finding that it
does not meet the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate
in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981.
~kr -•NIz4r
c• i Ir
' fir yL'~ ;7I •4 1i ;5~~ r
Figure 1. 707 Maxwell Ave, south elevation.
DESCRIPTION:
Constructed about 1905, the classic brick and wood frame four-square house at
707 Maxwell Avenue features a hip roof, wide overhanging eaves, and a full
front porch with neo-classical design elements. In 1996, the front facing dormer
was added to the house and a one-story addition at the rear of the house.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 2
t. ,
~7-.~.'+!.'t::'', - ~
Figure 2. 707 Maxwell Ave, south elevation, c.1929.
The property is considered contributing to the Mapleton Hill Historic District,
and would be considered contributing to the identified eligible National Register
District (see Attachment A Historic Building Inventory Record). Research
indicates that in 1910, the house was owned by William and Mary Donisfelder
who came to Boulder from Geneseo, Illinois in 1903. After William's death, his
daughters Edna and Lorena were declared incompetent by family and friends
and committed to an insane asylum. They later escaped from the institution. In
1930, Edna is listed as the owner of the house. She died in 1979.
7Rr
.Vo
A
4k -
I . ~fV.+ti', 4t15`(rJ f t t ""tt.4xa
Figure 3. 707 Maxwell Ave, north elevation (from alley).
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 3
REHABILITATION & ADDITIONS TO HOUSE:
Plans call for reconstruction of the balcony over the front porch and decorative
roof cresting as shown on an assumed pre-1929 photograph of the house.
• II ,4
AVI.
lI1➢
707 Maxwell Avenue, undated photo (assumed pre-1929)
Elevations show the addition to the house to be of frame construction and to
feature a projecting bay on the east elevation, two dormers, a rear porch, and two
new chimneys. Fenestration is shown to be similar to that of the main house with
one over one, double-hung and casement windows. Stylistically, the proposed
addition is similar to the Four-Square house integrating neo-classical elements on
the rear porch.
•1
Figure 4. Site Plan Showing proposed addition and free standing garage.
AGENDA ITEM 95A PAGE 4
The existing non-lustoric one-story 220 sq. ft. 1996 addition at the north (rear)
elevation of the house is to be removed to make way for a larger two story
addition. In plan, the addition is shown to feature a slightly offset hipped roof
intersecting with the hipped roof of the historic house. On the east a one-story
addition is shown to extend out beyond the plane of the main house. At the first
story, the addition is shown to extend 24 ft. from the north wall of the historic
house and to be 32 ft. wide. The second-story is shown to also be 24 ft. in length
and 20 ft in width.
- f`-
I R-O"
I:' I I ' r - o
~I7 i I T<<.~ I a ~I ;Ild l_ I! i yr
'I ~Ii ''i fi ~ h•I r i
Figure 5. Existing south elevation Proposed south elevation
~ "n' ! !I I~q raN
j
~I - s s
Figure 6. Existing north elevation Proposed north elevation
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 5
_ f ~l' I~ 11 '~I )A I I' ~ Jll it T t h((.l'~ - -
Y Y-
l~'
~ Figure 7. Existing
a I E ! _ ~I & Proposed east
II I r' ilii4 _ _ = elevation
rclntrpd~.•cu rldcjc
iirlal as In orlg,ol
at c•.~!un3 rxes. dravings
S:r~p _el~i", tP
rm.:v~ c^~P. :I ~Fropasad dorrr.ers ~ _
r
_rvood irlm
match axlstl,?
continua
aaphatt shlnyl~~
roof to mct,.
pxhtlnq, match
II~ f F C cvrvad eau-
- n/oxist(r3
~~•f -ICU. - - shinglcs !o
match
~ hOnl--rttpl
match sIzo
tzo
.I
paint
- ---rtlcol wood
I ~ otdl,,cj, paint
Frc, pcnad ndd~t" nq
frOtM•:C ^.pwcr aSd't~t~ of
rGP.' a[ h3Jso)
At 276rr the proposed addition is shown to be 2 ft. lower than the existing house.
With the removal of the 220 sq. ft. the house will be approximately 2,100 sq. ft. in
size. The proposed addition is approximately 1,100 sq. ft. in size.
AGENDA ITEM #SA PAGE 6
Z
ae-a_ ~ _<ro•
[EXT
.._7
P
P
- = _ -
_ - t
. , - -
I I
Figure 8. Existing & Proposed west elevation
PROPOSED GARAGE:
Plans also call for the construction of a two-car garage at the northeast corner of
the property facing onto the ally. The site plan shows the garage to have a three
ft. setback from the east property line and a footprint of 400 sq. ft.
r
Duey .~e.. - n7r:~ I
Figures 9&10. Proposed garage - north and south elevations
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 7
Elevations show the design of the garage to reference the four-square form and
hipped roof of the historic house. The garage is to be 19 ft. in height and to
feature two dormers providing useable second-level space. Each of the garage
doors are shown to be fenestrated with six small, four light windows. The west
and south faces of the building are shown to have sets of four-light casement
windows.
i
s do Ac. - Gcat slC_ viC.y - no!c
Figures 11 & 12. Proposed garage - east and west elevations
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) 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
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 on existing and proposed structures 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
AGENDA ITEM 95A PAGE 8
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 darnage or
destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject
property within an historic district.?
Staff finds the proposed reconstruction of the balustrade above the front porch
on the historic house and the proposed construction of the rear addition will not
damage or destroy the exterior features of the contributing house as it is
generally compatible and consistent with the Mapleton Hill and General Design
Guidelines. However, it is staff's opinion that addition of the two side dormers
will damage the architectural features of the house by altering the hipped roof
form of the building. Likewise, the size and design of the one and one-half story
garage will adversely affect the character of the property and the cumulative
effect of the proposed new construction will reduce the proportion of built mass
to open space on the property and will damage the historic character of the
property.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the property and/or district?
Staff finds that the proposed dormers and new garage will adversely affect the
special character of the property. The dormers will alter the essential form of the
hipped roof and the size and design of the garage is uncharacteristic of the
property and alleyscape. At a current FAR of approximately .33, the amount of
built mass in proportion to the lot open space on the property is slightly lower
than the average (.38) for the immediate area. With the proposed new
construction, the FAR of the property will increase to .55 (not including possible
usable area in the attic space of the main house).
3. Ts 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?
Materials proposed for the addition and freestanding construction are generally
compatible with the character of the property and historic district.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 9
c. The Landmarks Board is required to consider the economic feasibility of alternatives,
incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled in
determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate.
No information was provided.
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.
GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
ALTERATIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, 3.0:
3.1 Roofs
The roof is one of the primary character-defining features of a historic building, and the repetition of
similar roof types creates part of the visual consistency that defines a historic area. Alterations or
additions to roofs must be given careful consideration to ensure that they do not compromise the
integrity of the historic building. Typical roof shapes are gabled or hipped. Shed roofs sometimes
occt.ir on historic additions and accessory buildings.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
Maintain the roof form., slope, While proposed addition generally Maybe
height, and orientation to the preserves the profile and slope of
street,
roof when viewed from front and
sides, addition of side dormers on
roof of main house will alter
dominant hi roof form of house.
3.4 Porches
Guideline Analysis s Conforms?
1 Original porches should be preserved. Balcony on front porch roof is to be Yes
reconstructed based upon pre-1929
photograph.
2 Deteriorated original porches or porch Only deteriorated elements are to Yes
elements should be repaired or replaced be replaced.
following recognized preservation
methods.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 10
3 Maintain height spacing of original Original balustrade to be Yes
balustrade. reconstructed based upon pre-1929
photograph.
3.5 Dormers
Dormers are traditional roof elements that either cxternd the space under the main roof or seroe as
decorative elements to the main roof. They generally follow the pitch and form of the main roof and
are always secondary to the main roof massing. The introduction of dormers may dramatically change
the building's appearance, and therefore mazy not be appropriate in all circumstances.
4 The size, scale, and style of new dormers Existing south facing dormer was
should be compatible with existing
dormers on the structure. The form of added in 1996. While proposed new
roof dormers should be compatible with dormers on east and west roof areas Maybe
the main roof form. of house appear proportionate,
their addition may significantly
alter roof of house.
Dormer windows should be similar in Dormer windows are rectangular
•5 proportion to first and second floor 1/1 double-hung and in proportion. Yes
windows but smaller.
6 New dormers must be subordinate to the Each dormer is proportional to the No
main roof in terms of mass, scale and roof. However, net effect of adding
height. Notwithstanding the fact that dormers will significantly alter hip
one large dormer may give the greatest roof form of the house. Dormer at
usable space within the roof form, rear (north) elevation may be more
smaller dormers are usually the most appropriate.
appropriate. Often two small dormers
are more appropriate than one large
_ _ dorr~ier. _
3.7 Windows
Retain and preserve existing historic With exception of windows that Yes
windows including their functional will be lost to accommodate
decorative features In some cases, it addition on north elevation,
might be appropriate to use window historic windows will be retained.
elements from the side or rear elevations
to repair those on the front.
3.8 Doors
Front doors and primary entrances arc among the most important elements of historic buildings. The
original size and proportion of a front door, the details of the door, the door surround, and the
placement of the door all contribute to the character of the entrance.
Retain and preserve the functional, Historic front door is shown to be
proportional and decorative features of a retained. Yes
primary entrance. Viese features
include the door and its frame, sill, head,
jamb, moldings, and any flanking
u?rrrdOwS.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 11
ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS, 4.0.
4.1 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites
Guideline Anal sis Conforms?
Construct additions so that there is the Rear addition will result in loss of
1 No
least possible loss of historic fabric and so several windows and doors. Front
character-defining features are not facing dormer added in 1996 -
destroyed, damaged, or obscured. proposed new dormers will further
alter roof-dominated character of
the house.
An addition should be constructed so Unclear as to how much of rear
2 that they may be removed in the fiihire wall will be removed to allow for Maybe
without damaging the house. addition.
It is inappropriate to construct an Rear addition will not affect N/A
•3 addition that will detract from the overall historic character of property.
historic character of the principal However, proposed dormers will
building and/or site, or if it will require alter roof-dominated character of
the removal of significant building
house.
elements or site features.
4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting
Guideline Anal sis Conforms?
Design new additions so that the overall Applicant represents that design Yes
.1 character of the site, site topography, will not result in the removal or
character-defining site features and trees destruction of mature vegetation.
are retained.
Locate new additions on an Addition is planned for the north Yes
•2 inconspicuous elevation of the historic rear face of building and, while it
building, generally the rear one. will be visible from the alley, will
Locating an addition to the front is not obscure the facade of the house.
inappropriate because it obscures the
historic acade o a building.
3 Preserve a backyard area between the Garden area will be significantly No
house and the garage, maintaining the reduced by construction of
general proportion of built mass to open addition and proposed garage.
space found within the area. See Proportion of built mass to open
Guideline 2.1.1. space is currently lower than
average for block. Proposal will
result in built mass in being
significantly higher than average
for the block.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 12
4.3 Compatibility with Historic Buildings
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
1 Introducing new construction that At 27,6" in height, proposed
Yes
contrasts sharply with an existing addition lower than that of historic
historic structure or site detracts from the house which is 29',6".
visual continuity that marks our historic
districts. While additions should be
distinguishable from the historic
structure, they must not contrast so
sharply as to detract from the original
building and/or the site. Additions should
never overwhelm historic structures or
the site, in mass, scale or detailing.
An addition should be subordinate to the As proposed, rear addition will not
2 historic building, limited in size and diminish or visually overpower the Maybe
scale so that it does not diminish or building. However, proposed
visually overpower the building. dormers will change the essential
form of the hipped roof.
Design an addition to be compatible with Proposed rear addition is Yes
•3 the historic building in mass, scale, compatible with main house -
materials and color. For elevations visible fenestration in keeping with
from public streets, the relationship of historic house.
solids to voids in the exterior walls should
also be compatible.
5 Reflect the original symmetry or Proportion of roof form of the Yes
asymmetry of the historic building, building not adversely affected by
the ro osed addition.
4.5 Key Building Elements
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
Roofs, porches, dormers, zuiiido~vs and Rear addition maintains the NO
1 doors are some of the most important dominant roof form to the street.
character-defining elements of any However, three proposed dormers
building. As such, they require extra
attention to assure that they compliment will alter the essential form of the
the historic architecture. In addition to hipped roof and historic house as a
the guidelines below, refer also to Section whole.
3.0 Alterations or related suggestions.
z Maintain the dominant roofline and Roofline of addition is two feet
Yes
orientation of the roof form to the street. lower than historic building and
will maintain dominant roof form
when viewed from Maxwell Ave.
Rooflines on additions should be lower The proposed roof is shown to be
3 Yes
than and secondary to the roofline of the two feet lower than main house.
original building.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 13
4 The existing roof form, pitch, eave depth, Proposed form, pitch, eaves and Yes
and materials should be used for all materials consistent with historic
additions. house.
5 Maintain the proportion, general style, Proposed windows on addition are Yes
and symmetry or asymmetry of the asymmetrical and in keeping with
existing window patterns. the historic house.
Use window shapes that are found on the Proposed window shapes and
6' Yes
historic building. Do not introduce odd- designs are consistent with those
shaped windows such as octagonal, found on historic house.
triangular, or diamond-shaped
7.2 New Accessory Buildings
New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory structures.
While they should be take design clues from the primary structure, they must be subordinate to the
primary structure in size, massing and detailing. Alley buildings should maintain a scale that is
pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians.
Guideline Analysis Conforms?
1 Is is inappropriate to introduce a new Construction of the new garage will Yes
garage or accessory building if doing so not necessitate removal of an
will detract from the overall historic existing building, and will not
character of the principal building and detract from the historic character
the site, or if it will require the removal of of the district.
a significant historic building element or
site feature, such as a mature tree.
.2 New garages and accessory buildings The building location is consistent Yes
should generally be located at the rear of with historic patterns at rear of lot
the lot, respecting the traditional facing onto alley.
relationship of such buildings to the
primary structure and the site.
.3 Maintain adequate spacing between There is one other adjacent Yes
accessory buildings so alleys do not accessory building 25' to the west.
evolve into tunnel-like passageways.
.4 Preserve a backyard area between the The proposed garage will encroach No
house and the accessory buildings, upon garden space. Currently built
maintaining the general proportion of mass to open area on property
built mass to open space found within the consistent with properties in
area. immediate streetscape. With
proposed addition, general
proportion of built mass to open
space will increase significantly and
be well above average for area.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 14
.5 New accessory structures should take The proposed garage is compatible No
design cues from the primary structure with the primary historic house in
on the site, but be subordinate to it in terms of architectural details.
terms of size and massing. However, proposed dormers are
inconsistent with design of the
main house.
.G New garages for single family residences At 19' in height, proposed garage is No
should generally be one story tall and 1-1(2 stories in height. Given
shelter no more than hvo cars. In some amount of new construction
cases, a two-car garage may be
inappropriate. proposed as part of application, a
one-story may be more appropriate.
.7 Roof form and pitch should be The form and pitch of roof No
complimentary to the primary structure. reference main house. However,
proposed dormers inconsistent
with historic design of main house.
.8 Accessonj structures should be simpler in The proposed garage is simpler No
design and detail than the primary than house in scale and detail.
building. However, form of building with
dormers is incompatible with the
historic character of the main house
which originally had no dormers.
.9 Materials for new garages and accessory Materials as proposed are Yes
structures should be compatible with those appropriate.
found on the primary structure and in the
district. Vinyl siding and prefabricated
structures are inappropriate.
.10 Windows, like all elements of accessory The proportions, design and Yes
structures, should be simpler in detailing materials of proposed windows are
and smaller in scale than similar elements generally appropriate.
on primary structures.
.11 If consistent with the architectural style Proposed dormers are over scaled No
and appropriately sized and located, and inconsistent with historic
dormers may be an appropriate way to character of historic house
increase storage space in garages.
.12 Garage doors should be consistent with the Proposed doors are generally
historic scale and materials of traditional consistent. Yes
accessory structures. Wood is the most
appropriate material and two smaller doors
may be more appropriate than one large
door.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 15
MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC GUIDELINES
E. BUILDING ALIGNMENT
Traditionally, regular-sized building lots were laid our along rectilinear streets, and houses were
generally built the same distance back from the street. Houses on most blocks in the Mapleton Hill
Historic District reflect this pattern, and the regular alignment is one of the strongest visual elements of
the district. While the actual dimensions of the setback varies from Mapleton Avenue to Maxwell Street,
for instance, within their own streetscape the alignment appears uniform
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
1. The general pattern of alignment should be The alignment of the house on Yes
preserved. Open front porches are elements which the property will not be
are encouraged, if appropriate to the style of the affected by the proposal.
house, even if they encroach into the existing
alignment.
F. MASSING
While the specific details of the historic architectural styles of Mapleton Hill vary considerably, the most
significant and identifiable feature of a buildings is its massing. Buildings of Italianate styling are
square and vertical. Bungalows are low and rectangular, while Queen Anne styling is asymmetrical
with many projections and details. Replication of stylistic detailing is not encouraged or necessary,
however, the form which defines the building should be respected,
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
1. Any additions to a building should preserve The symmetry of the existing Yes
existing symmetry or asymmetry- building is reserved.
2. The vertical or horizontal proportion of a The proportions of the historic Yes
building's mass should be reserved. building will be reserved.
3. The impact of the massing of large additions The form and detailing of the Yes
should be reduced by using one story elements or historic house is carried
minimum plate heights instead of introducing a through the addition.
MI second story. Addition is lower than historic
house.
1. WINDOWS
Windows original to buildings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District are strongly vertical in
proportion, and double-hung in type. These characteristics are two very important visual elements in
the district, whether used one the grandest home or the smallest.
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
1. The window opening itself should be carefully With the exception of those Yes
preserved. It should not be made larger or smaller removed for addition, historic
or accommodate a different sized window. Every windows on the existing
effort should be made to preserve existing house will be preserved.
windows by repairing deteriorated sashes and
framed. There are methods to consolidate rotted
wood members with epoxy saturation.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 16
3. When replacing deteriorated windows or adding Vertically-proportioned, Yes
new windows to existing buildings, a vertically- double-hung windows are
proportioned, double-hung window which matches proposed.
the existing window should be used.
4. Openings should be vertical in proportion. Openings are vertical in Yes
proportion
8. New construction, whether completely new The window patterns on the Yes
building or an addition, should reflect the window addition reflect the
patterns of the district. Openings should indicate asymmetrical pattern of the
floor levels, and should not occur between floors. windows on the historic
Symmetry or asymmetry of openings should be building,
maintained.
11. Snap-in mullions or other unauthentic The proposed windows are Yes
architectural details are generally not appropriate one-over-one, double-hung
in the historic district. wooden windows.
K. EXTERIOR MATERIALS
While the materials used for the exteriors of houses have not changed substantially over the years, the
scale of the materials has. Narrower lap siding, smaller brick and shingles, used alone or in various
combinations, distinguish older homes from newer. The use of smaller-scale materials creates a texture
which characterizes historic buildings.
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
2. For additions or repairs, use materials similar in Materials for the addition Yes
type and scale to those of the existing building. reflect the type and scale of
the existing materials and are
generally compatible.
5. Where modern materials and technologies are Historic proportions and Yes
used, historic proportions and finishes should be finishes are compatible with
matched or emulated. the historic house.
6. Finish new materials to match existing ones. Proposed materials are Yes
compatible with the existing
ones.
T. MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATION, ADDITIONS AND SECOND STORIES
Large additions and additional stories to a building frequently change the character of the structure. The
diversity that characterizes the historic district is a result of the variety in the sizes of buildings and the
differing architectural styles. A design response that respects this diversity is more appropriate.
One-and-a-half story structures that were built prior to World War I present the most challenge.
Additional stories, using non-traditionally sized dormers, and raising the existing roof are not
appropriate unless the character of the structure is not compromised. Additions to the rear, or in some
situations, to the side of the building, are more likely to preserve the original character of the structure
and may be the most appropriate design response. Every attempt should be made to address the existing
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 17
fabric of the Mapleton Hill Historic District and meet the specific Mapleton Hill Design Guidelines.
Guideline: Analysis: Conforms?
1. Major renovation or the addition of a full or The addition is proposed Yes
partial story that affects the character of a directly behind the historic
historic structure is not appropriate. An building.
addition to the rear, or in some cases, to the side,
of a historic structure is generally more
appropriate than raising the height of the
building.
2. Although oversized dormers may make the best Proposed dormers are Maybe
use of interior space, they are usually not appropriately sized on the
appropriate. More than one smaller dormer is addition. Dormers on existing
usually more appropriate. house are inappropriate as they
will alter the roof dominated
form of the hipped roof.
4. New additions should be designed and Rear addition will result in loss No
constructed so that the character-defining of several windows and doors.
features of the historic building are not radically Front facing dormer added in
changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the 1996 - proposed new dormers
process of rehabilitation. will further alter roof-dominated
character of the house.
5. New design and construction should always be The addition is sensitive to the Yes
differentiated from older portions of a building; historic character of the
however, the additions should respect the building,
existing roof forms, and building scale and
massing.
Staff considers the proposed rear addition is generally consistent with General
and Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. Reconstructing the
balustrade on the front porch roof visible in the pre-1929 photograph is
consistent with the General and Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
The request to add dormers to the historic house is inconsistent with Section 3.5
(5 & 6) of the General Design Guidelines in that the cumulative effect of three
dormers on the house will alter the essential roof dominated form of the historic
house which originally had no dormers (a dormer was added to the front of the
house in the 1996). A second small dormer at the rear (north) of the house may be
appropriate.
Staff also considers the requested construction of a garage on the property to be
inconsistent with Section 7.2 (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 11) of the General Design Guidelines.
AGENDA ITEM 95A PAGE 18
Furthermore, the cumulative effect of the proposed new construction is
inconsistent with Sections 4.4.3 and 2.1 of the General Design Guidelines.
Staff encourages the applicant to revise the proposal to reduce the amount of
new construction on the property by redesigning in a'manner consistent with the
historic preservation ordinance and the General and Mapleton Hill Historic District
Design Guidelines.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
FINDINGS:
As outlined in the staff recommendation, the proposed addition and new
construction at 707 Maxwell Avenue is not consistent with the purposes and
standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance hi that:
1. The proposed addition of dormers and new garage will damage historic
features and the unique character of the property
2. The intensity of construction on the property and resulting proportion of
built mass to open space on the property will be inconsistent with historic
patterns in the neighborhood. -
3. The request is generally inconsistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance and Sections 3 & 7 of the General Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Record
B: Plans, Elevations, and applicant information
C: FAR calculation in immediate area.
AGENDA ITEM #5A PAGE 19
- Attachment A
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY
office of ArchaeotoW and Historic Preservation NOT FOR FIELD USE
1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203 _ Eligible a Nesinated
Det
HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD ° Not DatC9ble Certified Renal
PROJECT NAME: Boulder Survey of Historic Places, COUNTY: CITY: STATE ID NO.: 5BL4011
1993 Boulder Boulder
TEMPORARY NO.: 1461-25-1-23.007
CURRENT BUILDING NAME: OWNER: STONE ROBERT W i JUDY
707 MAXWELL AVE
BOULDER CO 803%
ADDRESS: 707 MAXWELL AV
BOULDER CO 803D4
TOWNSHIP 1N RANGE 71W SECTION 25 SE 1/4 WE 1,
HISTORIC NAME: U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: Boulder, Coto.
Donifelser Residence YEAR: 1966 (PR1979) X 7.58 T
BLOCK: 17 LOT(S): 15-16
DISTRICT NAME: MWI eton Hill ADDITION: Maxwell's YR. OF ADDITION: 1891
FILM ROLL NO.: 93-2 NEGATIVE NO.: LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION:
BY: Roger Whitacre 34 Boulder City Ping. ESTIMATE: 1905 ACTUAL:
SOURCE:
Field Survey
USE:
PRESENT:
Residential
_ ~i`~ :,..•c' HISTORIC:
Residential
¢ ' a CONDITION:
VOW-
- - EXCELLENT X GOOD
FAIR DETERIORATIN
1 EXTENT OF ALTERATIONS:
j V X MINOR MODERATE MAJ
Ile r } DESCRIBE:
{ r ti~
Roofing.
Et
CONTINUED YES X I
STYLE: Foursquare STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED
2 DATE(S) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Brick, Wood, Stone SQ. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
2180
INDIVIDUAL: YES X ND
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
Two-story brick and clapboard dwelling on stone foundation. Hipped roof with CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT:
flared, overhanging eaves; full-width front porch with hipped roof supported by x YES NO
Doric columns; balustrade; wood porch base and steps. Off-center door, paneled LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Yes
and glazed. Doubte-hung windows with stone sills and lintels on ground floor. .
Bay window with beveled corners on facade. Brick chimney. NAME: City of Boul., HD82-1
DATE: 10-7-1982
ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? YES it
TYPE:
IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID MOS.:
CONTINUED? YES X NO
ADDITIONAL PAGES: YES X NO
1 acv
PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: STATE ID *U.: 5BL4011
ORIGINAL OWNER:
William and Mary Donife(Geer (I
S1RlRCE:
S"CE :
U.S. Census, 1910
BUILDER/CONTRACTOR:
Unknown
THEME(S):
SOURCE: Urban Residential Neighborhood
1853-present
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (DESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIfNdS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE):
%n CONTINUED YES X
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSONS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STRUCTURE):
In 1910, the octants of this house were William and Mary Donifelser, both of whom had been born in Illinois in the 184,
The 1913 Boulder City Directory shows that William and Mary Donifelser, plus their daughters Lorena and Edna (a teacher
and student), lived here. The Donifelsers came to Boulder in 1903 from Geneseo, IL. After William died, leaving his
daughters his estate, they were declared incompetent by family and friends and put in a sanitarium. They Later escaped. I
Donifelser is Listed as the owner of the house in 1929. She died in 1976.
CONTINUED - YES
SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW);
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERN
X REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION X CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE:
This house is a modest example of the Foursquare style, popular in Colorado during the early twentieth century.
Characteristics of the style exhibited in the design of this house include the hipped roof with overhanging eaves, the
square plan, and the projecting front porch with Doric columns.
CONTINUED YES X
REFERENCES (BE SPECIFIC):
Boulder County Assessor information; Boulder Carnegie Library, Boulder County Assessor collection; Commonwealth Land Title
Ins. Co. records; molder City Directories; Boulder Daily Camera biographical files; U.S. Census, 1910.
CONTINUED YES X
SURVEYED BY: C. Shaw McLaughlin AFFILIATION: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. DATE: Jan. 1993
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation NOT FOR FIELD USE
1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203 _ Eligible Nominated
Det. Not Eligible Certified Rehab.
HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD Date
PROJECT NAME: Boulder Survey of Historic COUNTY: CITY: STATE ID NO.: 5BL4011
Places-Northern Mapleton Hill, 1993 Boulder Boulder
Tier Evaluation, 1996 TEMPORARY NO.: 1461-25-1-23-007
CURRENT BUILDING NAME: OWNER: STONE ROBERT W & JUDY
707 MAXWELL AVE
BOULDER CO 80304
ADDRESS: 707 MAXWELL AV
BOULDER CO 80304
TOWNSHIP 1N RANGE 71W SECTION 25 SE 1/4 NE 114
HISTORIC NAME: U.S.G.S. QUAD NAME: Boulder, Colo.
Donifelser Residence YEAR, 1966 (PR1979) X 7.5' 15'
BLOCK: 17 LOT(S): 15-16
DISTRICT NAME: Mapleton HiLL ADDITION: Maxwell's YR. OF ADDITION: 1891
FILM ROLL NO.: 93-2 NEGATIVE NO.: LOCATION OF NEGATIVES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION:
BY: Roger Whitacre 34 Boulder City PLng. ESTIMATE: 1905 ACTUAL:
SOURCE:
Field Survey
USE:
PRESENT:
Residential
HISTORIC:
Residential
CONDITION:
ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE EXCELLENT X GOOD
FAIR DETERIORATING
EXTENT OF ALTERATIONS:
X MINOR MODERATE MAJOR
DESCRIBE:
Painted brick.
CONTINUED YES X NO
STYLE: Foursquare STORIES: ORIGINAL SITE X MOVED
2 DATE(S) OF MOVE:
MATERIALS: Brick, Wood, Stone SQ. FOOTAGE: NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
2180
INDIVIDUAL: YES X NO
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:
Two-story brick and clapboard dwelling on stone foundation. Hipped roof with CONTRIBUTING TO DISTRICT:
flared, overhanging eaves; full-width front porch with hipped roof supported by X YES NO
Doric columns; balustrade; wood porch base and steps. Off-center door, paneled LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Yes
and glazed. Double-hung windows with stone sills and lintels on ground floor.
Bay window with beveled corners on facade. Brick chimney. NAME: City of-eoul., HD82 1
DATE: 10-7-1982
ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS? YES X NO
TYPE:
IF INVENTORIED, LIST ID NOS.:
CONTINUED? YES X NO
ADDITIONAL PAGES: YES X NO
A(, lida Item pliru _~T
PLAN SHAPE: ARCHITECT: STATE ID NO.: 5BL4011
Unknown
ORIGINAL OWNER:
William and Mary Donifelser
SOURCE:
SOURCE:
- U.S. Census, 1910
- - BUILDER/CONTRACTOR:
Unknown
THEME(S):
SOURCE: Urban Residential Neighborhoods,
_ 1858-present
CONSTRUCTION HISTORY (DESCRIPTION, NAMES, DATES, ETC., RELATING TO MAJOR ALTERATIONS TO ORIGINAL STRUCTURE):
CONTINUED YES X NO
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND (DISCUSS IMPORTANT PERSONS AND EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STRUCTURE):
In 1910, the occupants of this house were WiLLiam and Mary Donifelser, both of whom had been born in ItLinois in the 1840s.
The 1913 Boulder City Directory shows that WiLLiam and Mary Donifelser, plus their daughters Lorena and Edna (a teacher
and student), Lived here. The DonifeLsers came to Boulder in 1903 from Geneseo, IL. After WiLLiam died, Leaving his
daughters his estate, they were declared incompetent. by family and friends and put in a sanitarium. They later escaped. Edna
Donifelser is Listed as the owner of the house in 1929. She died in 1976.
CONTINUED YES X NO
SIGNIFICANCE (CHECK APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES AND BRIEFLY JUSTIFY BELOW):
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH SIGNIFICANT EVENTS OR PATTERNS
X REPRESENTS A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION X CONTRIBUTES TO AN HISTORIC DISTRICT
TIER EVALUATION: Contributing Building
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE:
This house is a modest example of the Foursquare sty Le, popular in Colorado during the early twentieth century.
Characteristics of the style exhibited in the design of this house include the hipped roof with overhanging eaves, the
square plan, and the projecting front porch with Doric columns.
CONTINUED YES X NO
REFERENCES (BE SPECIFIC):-
Boulder County Assessor information; Boulder Carnegie Library, Boulder County Assessor collection; Commonwealth Land Title
Ins. Co. records; Boulder City Directories; Boulder Daily Camera biographical files; U.S. Census, 1910.
CONTINUED YES X NO
SURVEYED BY: C. McLaughlin/R.L. Simmons AFFILIATION: Front Range Research Associates, Inc. DATE: Jan. 1993/Apr. 1996
'all No " -
Attachment B
ASHACK CONSUL TING GROUP, LL C
1900 Folsom St., Ste. 104
Boulder, CO 80302
303-247-0148 Main Office
303-448-9089 Fax BE
707 Maxwell Avenue, Boulder, Project Description
We have tried to work within the relevant guidelines; we believe we have made these
guideline revisions as per our LDRC meeting and through our discussions with city staff, if
not please help us understand.
Project Description: Modify our current rear addition of approximately 300 sqft. (and add
heat to room). Build room above addition. Incorporate dormers for storage. Construct
garage for parking & office need.
Garage: For winter protection and difficult parking with little kids due to the many rental
properties we have all around us.
We bought this home wanting this small separate space for my wife's Massage Therapy
and Rolfing practice; so she could also be at home.
Storage:
For the LDRC meeting, the dormers were drawn incorrectly.
Dormers are now drawn correctly, and to smaller dimensions than originally presented.
The definition Foursquare home in the General Design Guidelines 2007 manual has side
(and rear) dormers on the home.
This has been our home since 2005; this is our second home in Mapleton Hill historic
district, we love old homes. We agree with General Design Guidelines 2007 philosophy,
and bought this home to raise our kids and to live for many years.
Thank you,
Len & Janet Ashack
C
Aqf.~,nda Item
Ilk
is i , i.', [ 1+,y
• ~j •~a ~ a r .1, e ,
~j
.
^ 1 J
U7~ ~ ti3 ` ~ l ~r f x ~ t 'r t~ I r~
_ y•~-~ f ~ III , r _ - - ~ i'7r ~ ` ~ - ~ .
y~' R~tp * r • aY jy ~;WK a S - yi?x'ff: fir," .r u f + 'f
~IrF•'`!•,ba.{TF }i+•'a ,1._ ' . ti I - • ' ~ '1
\\\.h.t. p ; _ - i ~':la..r, -y° ~,,IT'~
YI`N' y' z ~Sr-` ~ ` ✓ ^ ~ r
~"sJ` ,a, •'4 - - .y, ~ rk.`f4+y", ~*i- 'N=rte. - •f.
►sr # "`'jam'" _ f ! -
For
~.`r`~ 4 r,• ,
al ~
i rrf "a v •v .•e. '.y~;g~ F~Y•e~- -1 uar+~':•. .-•a.:.: ~ n
14
rn I
rs>'s -x ` r
r
_ ~ _ '1,i-• ~ :.:r•X 'fix _ L ~ Y r' t ~f r r - -
-t- !;`mod •u. r ~.i~.-1 'S-r„:c _ 'R• 1~• ~~s>~~~~._
sy'" -•z pr' ~ acv. ,
,~iNC ,r - - _ t i~',; ~ ~a. ~Yt~ ~ ~ ~ - .iw• _ 1r aLf 4 . ^.Pe~- . i
+J 1_ I Irr I J ~ ~ r ~ I - -
I I~~r', :'~^"',''it1 aS: , ~,i tli i +r ~ ~
- - - f_ ~ ' z ~~Y _ ~r 'OFF e, f~"' ~ •4 e ~ n,. _ .a,
44P AN
S '+ZC-Y '~"4. rr y ffS~-,. ,_.Y~~,,,LL..~6d:~F~,'~ ~
si
F
n
r - _ - _ _ ~tr~'~y • 7,► 'rte _;q ~ y-,~ '4. 'a-o ~T`-r~ y,ti~ ~ :-'~e..,_. ` J
e, T
' "T'
7 ti.~ •i[al,~f 'r'te. } ~~.,.1. ~~n r W`r ~~.i _.l
09 7
1•
4 [
i ~ f ^ a1. ~ r~°~` .-~`~V•c" f'= J~ _ ~ 1 ~r,.~ - f r'.. _ dirt
.
I - l ~ - '.~r~•~-.l .c,+.- ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _.R ~~4+-.. ~ JY'~,Y~r+~,+ I _ Fe~'. t_ - f~•• - 1{. ~~51
"~.JIl, y.. ~Y""'"~-'-s'y- - r ,'F~-'-r~.r•• f _ _ _ _ ~_s!yly+i'; _ _ -_y E -i.
t~+ a~E~~
r - { , 1. .wv.-.=., k -'r^:.r.- rtrra r••..v.r. ~.r. - - J n ~i 1r.'~,,. „ / flit. -
it ~ f ~-_r• 46 4 y.T~~~',Sy~ti_~? ~ s - , ~ Yf_~`
1
_ ~i~. ~ ~ - 'l -"i~ vim, .s ~s ±
.rte - c~-r 3F.•T".~':•; - rte. ~_.~.5.' _ ~'ti 41 6 _r• A ~r ~ s" } ~s.~p~T~ ,y`y ` . -7 ~ •r'
• ` w.y a'• QTY'` T] . ww~ C~~ •,~'~+'►tC._e. T. .10
'e.t - -='fl w'a~~ ~ r ~-q' i- r.'dT '`T ~y9~ J~!~~•''~ - =~'"""'',r'. 'b,~ i• tL+1= ^L ~s~r
l ?tl ~ ir ~ ~ i e, S LS.. ~ F Y ~s. T+..~•'.~.. L.J.
r~=~ - y _ - •t
mv. f; _ p ~ n s s'.. .y'►~=r.' •t`~•+~`;., ' . ~ -mss ~ r r
_ - - rte- ' Cj.,• - - ` . 1~ ~s. ~ rv ✓ - - 4 { J
'fen
•s. ~ i r!.` _ s`' ~_~~'~wp~•,•,/'t_~ , - ~ tip.`-~"
OIL -!_7
It-
+1 .c iy 'mot -~r~w ~ r ~ •.yt~?'~ S r~~•.r
4~'1' ;l~r R 3 dAC • f f ts?p. f d r~ - s' J- -
^^44.. lt4 - ~fT _
j 74
' a
r
.
•L:. rr• d• ~ ,~11~wJ h! ..A•rw~ ti. ~ ry -.•~'P~ - I- ?.,y¢-.• ,Y• ti i~C
1.
_ i 11 y 1
-•:1 ='r• ` ; r.. ~ h.. - t ~ - ( hp ~ J~ 1 v z r'i 1 - ._i7 1 •.t S_ ~ .'.4'
-
-IF
hr - ; Y+~.+~2rr_°f,~„~ ~ y~~ r 1y ~ S'Y' ~ y;,•y;^ r?"~' •1'~ ~ ~a ^•y ~ r`. .
1 I. _ +r ~ it r- 1 .~YS• ~ r ~ ~ Y -!,i,--r ~ ~ ~ ~ 'y. ~ rs` ti's t t
z _
17
propose se bac
--g-arage -
1
Qorn
n
13
_ ljll. o
i u QU)
I ~ Skylight
i m
e1 ck proposed addition set
back
II' I - i',I 'llj C
II III IL I I~ ~
' ~II I I 13
I it I I I ~
I li a~-_ ~ I~~I ,I it •D ry ~
I'I I1~I!I! I III III ~I,I t ~
I I I I 11''I , ~ II 1
1 I Ilr u 1
I I I ii ' II I II I
I II
~ I II ~
I I
I II I
1 p .I ,
I
I
i
I n
, I u 1
+ I u '
I
i I I I II 1
reintroduce
ridge finial as In
original drawings
I I I
' - - - - - - - - - '
1 +
1 ~
1 +
I I I
l
site elan _
Aw d item:
~t
i
reintroduce
ridge finial as
In original
drawings
ro osed
dormers a--f-
existing house
existing _
dormer to
remain
reintroduce
low wood
railing to pro osed
match original = add tion at
at existing - - wood trim to
house strip match existing
brick to restore I - horizontal wood
original - I EN-= siding, match
unpainted finish size w/exlsting,
f I _ paint
2:
vertical wood
siding, paint
i2-7'-G " T-p"
existing to remain proposed
addition at
rear
0 elovation - south
reintroduce ridge y
at existing house, finial as in original
strip brick to drawings
restore original proposed dormers
unpainted finish
U
bric
chimney
- wood trim to
match existing
- - continue
- - - - - - - - - J - asphalt shingle
roof to match
- - - - - existing, match
- - - - - - curved cave
- - - - - - - - - . w existing
shingles to
match existing,
horizontal
~:_„"-'-~fl _ - ---•r- - - - - wood siding,
match size
III --T"~' - i-•L- 7 -•--T I ` I i = w/existing
point
vertical woad
tai'-31 4'-0° 1 , 4'-0° siding, paint
~
existing to remain proposed addition
(remove newer addition at
rear of house)
~j o (evation - east
20'-2 1/2"
proposed upper addition
proposed ter:
dormer at = is
Y~. brick chimneys c
eXTs tri -hovse; T . - - - _ - -
beyond - - - - wood trim to match
proposed
dormers at
` - continue asphalt
new addition shingle roof to match
existing, match flared
proposed bay Cave w/exlsting
at new addition - -
wd column, sim. scalloped shingles to
to existing at LIH match existing, paint
front porch
. _ horizontal wood
siding, match size
Waxisting, paint
vertical wood siding,
paint
C existing bay beyond
flagstone steps
32'-O"
proposed addition
elevation - north _
I/8" =11-0" 4.a.OG
`S
at existing
house, strip
brick to restore
brick chimney original
proposed dormers unpainted finish
wood trim to
match-exTs-tin5 - - - - - - -
continue L - - - - _
asphalt shingle
roof to match - - - = - _ - -
existing, match
Flared eave - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w/existing
scalloped _ - - - - _ - = - - _ -
- - - -
shingles to
match existing,
paint - - - _ - - - - f. i r -
horizonto I
vvood siding,
match size
TL..L
N/exlsting
paint - - - - - T -_1
MIT
vertical viood
sldlng, point
i
i
24'-o" s43'-3"
proposed addition existing to remain
DE~ elevation -1/g•• -1,-D,, 4.G.011
skylight wood trim to
- - match trim at
- existing house
asphalt shingle
and flared eave
to match
w/existing house
MMMEM horizontal wood
slding, match
size w/existing
house, paint
alley view - north
wood trim to
- match trim at
- existing house
asphalt shlncgle
- - - and f lured cove.
- to match
- ~ - _ w/existing house
° - - horizontal wood
® slding, match
size w/exlsting
house, paint
rear view -south
~ garage
Sky I Ight
riood trim to
match trim of
'T 77 existing house
asphalt 5hirc3le
and f tared cave
to match
vi/existing house
- - - - horizortal woad
siding, match
size w/existing
house, paint
side view - east
riood trim to
match trim at
- existing house
asphalt shingle
- - - - and f lured cave
to match
P4/existing house
horizontal wood
® ® ® siding, match
- size w/exfsting
house, paint
I
side vlew - west
garage
Attachment G
Address Building Size (in Lot Size (in FAR
s uare feet s care feet
705 Maxwell Ave. 1.427 7,126 .20
707 Marvell Ave. 2,300 6,399 .33
801 Maxwell Avc. 2,359 7,173 .32
805 Maxwell Ave. 4,707 7,148 .65
815 Maxwell Ave. 4,244 6,271 .67
821-823 Maxwell 2,080 8,186 .25
Ave.
814 Maxwell Ave. 1,358 4,040 .33
810 Maxwell Ave. 855 2,661 .32
806 Maxwell Ave. 2,456 5,096 .48
736 Maxwell Ave. 1,416 3,743 .37
734 Maxwell Ave. 1,725 4,217 .40
730 Maxwell Ave. 1,791 7,089 .25
Average FAR .38