Loading...
5A - Consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate for 1037 Pine Street (HIS2007-00283) - to rehabilitate & construct a rear ...of the main house, & construct two, two-ca-I- MEMORANDUM November 7'h, 2006 TO: Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Manager Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Intern Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate to rehabilitate and construct a rear addition to the main house, construct a 952 sq. ft. free-standing building 14' north of the main house, and to construct two, two-car carports on the alley at the contributing property located at 1037 Pine Street in the Mapleton Historic District (HIS2007- 00283). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 2. Historic District: 3. Zoning: 4. Applicant: 5. Date of Construction: 6. Historic Name(s): 7. Requested new const: 1037 Pine Street Mapleton Hill Residential-Mixed 1 (RMX-1) Kyle Callahan Main house 1891-92, rear addition, 1931. A. A. Reed House Rear addition, 952 sq. ft. secondary building, two, two-car carports STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the following motion: The Landmarks Board approves the application for the proposed rehabilitation of and addition to the existing house, and the construction of a 952 sq. ft., two- story house at the rear of the property located at 1037 Pine Street as shown on S:~PLAN~dataVongrangUIIS"IIAI.TCERTSV-Iistoric DistrictsuVIapleron Hi11~Pine1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -z- plans included in the application dated October 18t", 2007 finding that it generally meets the standards for issuance of a Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981, subject to the conditions below and adopts this memorandum as findings of the Board. This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions listed below, the proposed rehabilitation, additions, and freestanding construction of the house will be generally consistent with the conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., the General Design Guidelines, and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Prior to submitting a building permit application and final issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Applicant shall submit, subject to the review and approval of final architectural plans by the Landmarks design review committee, revisions that address the following design issues: 1. Plans will be revised to remove fill area at the north of the property, carports, and associated paving from the proposal; 2. Plans will be revised to reduce the footprint and size of the new house; 3. Plans will be revised to change the location of the new house further north and away from side property lines to provide more garden space between the buildings; 4. Plans will be revised show the preservation of the historic curving pathway at the front of the property; 5. Plans will be revised to show fenestration on the north elevation of the addition to provide for symmetry, window and door type, and void to solid ratio that is more consistent with the guidelines and ordinance; 6. Plans will be revised to show all historic windows and doors on the south, east, and west elevations of the house to be rehabilitated. 7. Plans will be revised to address the following design details: re-pointing of stone, stucco repair, windows, doors, porch rail, roofing, siding S:\PLAN\data\longrang\IIIST\ALTCERTS\IIistoric Dis[ricts\Maple[on Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.OT11.07.07 memo.doc -3- material(s) on addition and new construction, mature tree protection, hardscaping, and paint color to insure that the approval is consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines and the intent of this approval. The Applicant shall be responsible for constructing the rehabilitation, addition, and new construction in compliance with the approved plans dated October 18'h, 2007, except as modified by the above conditions of approval. SUMMARY: • This item has been referred to the full Board for public hearing as a result of proposed new free-standing construction of more than 340 sq. ft. • Property is zoned Residential Mixed-1 (RMX-1) which allows for multiple dwelling units provided each unit has 6,000 sq. ft. of land. • Because the lot is smaller than the minimum 18,000 sq. ft. required for the three non-conforming dwelling units proposed, use review is required for additions (to a maximum 10% increase of existing building square footage). • The property is considered to be a contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District and likely eligible for individual listing in both the State and National Register of Historic Places. • The proposal calls for the rehabilitation of the main house including re-pointing of masonry, stabilization of the stone base on the front porch, stucco repair, limited replacement of deteriorated wood elements on exterior walls, window repair, and reconstruction of second floor balcony rail on the south elevation, removal of c.1930 rear addition and construction of smaller 3-story rear addition, construction of 950 sq. ft. house at rear of historic building, and construction of two, two-car carports on alley. • Redevelopment of the property will necessitate a considerable amount of fill to be deposited at the north side of the property to provide space at alley grade for the proposed carports • Staff recommends approval of the proposal with a number of conditions (see Staff Recommendation above). S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Disvicts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -4- ~ A~>€{ a'~ ~ ~ ,o~f'g~t ~ y~gg~~ ~~~g,~,'P'tire;}.fi~'"g~~ ~p~j' c:'~~ rt f k%' c" i ,a~`r,= ! i ~i"'.~ t- 4 j't 3.~ k h 1 'fib ~~y„ ~ ~ .r F ~ r" t F t ~ h" ~ DNS .3° y irsX r'4' ~ a r ~2;a~' ',j .,y ~s ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ . 'r .r ~ 4 ~ 4 ~ w ~ , r ~ ~ ~r fig: ' 3• ~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ '1ST .T'~ f °_'F$ ~ ~ f '~vA YS ~ ,y /~"y YiY.~~ s ; io...-. . ~ ~ .e7 ~ ~ .a ~ Y. ~ 3 if k - ~ ,f ~ r . ~ ,,..r ~ - ~ B. - ~s_ {~i ~:n~~~ ! _ A_,A. Kr~x] E [~~us~~, s„u~hra5t ~_~_~rnrr ~~f house. EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The Tudor Revival house at 1037 Pine Street is an imposing two and one-half story stone and frame building with a footprint of approximately 2,570 sq. ft. set on anon-standard 10,752 sq. ft. lot. The terrain of the lot rises steeply from Pine Street to the alley at the north. There are several stone walls that have been constructed to retain the steeply pitched grade at the rear of the property. The house features a full width, partially enclosed porch, large double hung windows, simulated half-timbering, and wide overhanging eaves. The property at 1037 Pine Street is zoned Residential Mixed-1 (RMX-1) which allows for multiple dwelling units provided each unit has 6,000 sq. ft. of land. Currently there are nine apartments in the house which constitutes an existing, non-standard use for the property. The proposal calls for a reduction from nine to three units. Because the lot is less than the 18,000 square feet required for the three dwelling units proposed, anon-conforming use review is required. Use S:\F'LAMdata\longranglHIST\ALTCERTS\IIistoric DistrictslMapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -5- review of this project would be subject to staff review against the use review criteria with a decision subject to call-up review by the Planning Board. r ' • 1 1037 Pine Street Pine Street t h S t r . e e • . t • Figure 2. 1037 Pine Street Location Map HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE: The large Tudor- Revival inspired house at 1037 Pine Street, known as the A.A. Reed House, is an example of the work of architect Chauncey Stokes, who also designed the Greene-Earl House at 2429 Broadway. Albert A. Reed, a prominent Boulder attorney, was the original owner. Reed's interests were significant to Boulder's educational, economic, and political history. A member of the University of Colorado Law School faculty, Reed was also president of the Chamber of Commerce, a school board member, city attorney, and president of the Mercantile Bank and Trust. Reed later became president of the U.S. National Bank in Denver and was co-owner of another historic building in Boulder, the Willard Building (see Attachment A: Front Range Research Associates, Inc., Historic Building Inventory Record, 1986). In 1931, the house was converted from a single family dwelling to apartments. This included the addition of a rear addition proposed for removal as S:1I'LAMdata\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hi11\Pine.1037111.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -6- part of this proposal. The property is considered to be a contributing resource to the Mapleton Hill Historic District and likely eligible for individual listing in both the State and National Register of Historic Places. t -y ti ~ ~~h~ s.c +t~Y'cR ~~~'~ti R ~ .aR ~4 ..:5 ~ ' i`. Y N F 4L ~4 I y~, f'` sS _di _ r ~N.~ Figure 3. 1037 Pine Street, existing north (rear) elevation from alley REQUEST: Rehabilitation of House The proposal calls for the rehabilitation of the main house including re-pointing of masonry, stabilization of the stone base on the front porch, stucco repair, limited replacement of deteriorated wood elements on exterior walls, window repair, and reconstruction of second floor balcon rail on the south elevation. ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - ~ -a . I - _ t , , 1. ~y ~ 4 7 .y F ' ~-i - - - r~`~ _ - ~ - rr Figure 3. 1037 Yine Street, rendering of proposed redevelopment, from south S:\PLANldata\longrang\HISTIALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hi11\Pine.1037111.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -7- Addition at north elevation of house The applicant proposes to remove a c.1930 shed roof addition at the north (rear) elevation that was presumably constructed around the time the building was converted into a rooming house. Plans call for a new, higher rear addition to be constructed at the north elevation to contain an elevator and kitchen space for the third floor. E:. I I 1 i i ' Figure 4. 1037 Pine Street, existing north elevation __Z~ WLY MGf'd p l~7'T W I _l__._. , ~ ~ 1~{ f~T_____'_L'_____ _ ' - - .w_~ « - , `Y ~ ~r-_ j I~ -r - II 1 ' ~i ~ 1 L ~1 ~`x`a- ~ ~ro vai+ Nmr 'K____ Figure 5. 1037 Pine Street, proposed north elevation S:\PLAMdata\longrang\IIIS"I'\ALTCERTS~Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037111.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -8- New free-standing construction In the back yard and 14' northeast of the existing building, plans call for the construction of a 952 sq. ft., one and one-half story house. On the alley, two hipped roof, two-car, carports are proposed. ....--''"rte,' t r~ { a ~ ~ i .ya__ ~ r ,r ~ _ i. 1 t. r . - }~~'----+r ~ r - 4 ~ ~~F ~ ~1 ~ _ ?L -'J I;.Y Fi re 6. 1037 Pine Street, existin east elevation ~ w ,r I ~i _ ~ c ~ j it E ( ~ ! i ~ I_ ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ i~t:ri - ~ euw.,m ..e,~swm~~ ,mma -~"T PROPOSED EAST ~,F-Y~TiOjJ_ te=~o' Figure 7. 1037 Pine Street, ~r~>>osed east elevations ~ ~ x .f f - i 1Q37 PINE Proposed Ailey Eievatlon - 1QS7 Pino Figure 8. 1037 Pine Street, north elevation of proposed carports S:IPLANIdata\longranglHIST\ALTCERTS\Historic DistrictslMapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -9- Site Plan Currently the building is 6,635 sq. ft which equates to a floor area ratio for the property (excluding basement area) of .52. The site plan indicates that the existing building is to be converted and added to for a total floor area of 6,337 sq. ft. to house two residential units of approximately 3,150 sq. ft. each, where nine apartments now exist. With the proposed 952 sq. ft. new building, the habitable space on the property is shown to increase to 7,289 sq. ft. or .67. The proposed carports on the alley are shown to each be 440 sq. ft. in area. In total, the roofed area on the property is shown to be 8,169 sq. ft. The applicant has submitted data indicating that the proposed lot coverage for the property will increase from approximately 24% to 37%. The average lot coverage for the two block streetscape is approximately 29%. The proposed redevelopment of the property will necessitate a considerable amount of fill to be deposited at the north side of the property to provide space at alley grade for the proposed carports. Proposed hardscaping on the site includes paved parking area for seven cars (including four carport spaces, stairs and walkways connecting the alley parking, and garden area, significant areas of retaining wall construction, a flagstone path at the east side of the property accessed from Pine Street by a realigned stairway and walkway to the facade of the historic house. _ _ - - - ~ - - ~ , ~ - ,:T SS.~~>> L, ~ A, x'g F f'F~'9^ =y'~?' 'f 1. ~ ;~I~R°-~ i ~i ~i-'.'~R..z i . A `LYakti~a'~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ yd. ~ ~Y~p ~ 4 F j ~ t .s € r ~J~~ HI # F~~ -stip r~; it ' ~ s ~ ~s , ~ x''~ r H d ~ ) € i ° Rnt, r a A11tl~E1 f ~ ~P ~ rr ~.tr ~ tf"` ~ ,r r~{~ v ~ ~ t ~ €b'tr°~~. y t' f a ; f t~ :r' ~ J' ~ 3 ~ $ „A~k 3F~ ~ ~ " '~9 s tf if s ',,.1 4 fi ad'd's, t e P,Y 7 ~ ,~_r 1, ~ ks -.9.. ~ N Figure 9. Existing and proposed site plan. S:IPLAMdatallongrangll~IST'\ALTCERTS1Historic DistrictslMapleton Hi111Pine.1037\11.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -lo- CRITERIA FOR THE BOARD'S DECISION: The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark Alteration Certificate may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18, B.R.C. 1981. Specifically: (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 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 an historic district? Staff generally finds the proposed rehabilitation of and addition to the historic house will not damage or destroy the exterior features of the contributing house as it is generally compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines. However, the size of the new house should be reduced to be more in keeping with secondary buildings in the district and that it should be sited further north on the property to provide more garden space between it and the historic house (see design guidelines analysis section). S:\PLAN\data\longrang\IIIST\ALTCERTSU-Iistoric Districts\IVIapleton Hill\Pine.l037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -11- Staff considers the proposed carports (and associated filling and landscaping) will damage the features of the contributing property. 2. Does the proposed application adversely affecf the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district? Staff finds that the proposed rehabilitation of and addition to the contributing house generally appropriate in terms of mass, scale, and height and will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the district because it is generally compatible with the General Design Guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District Guidelines in terms of mass, scale, height, and color (see design guidelines analysis section). Staff also considers the design approach for the proposed new house generally appropriate, though, its size should be reduced and location modified to provided more garden space between it and the historic house (see design guidelines analysis section). The proposed carports are uncharacteristic of buildings in the Mapleton Hill Historic District and their construction will affect the special historic, architectural, and aesthetic character of the district. 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed sfrucfures compatible with the character of the historic district? With the exception of the proposed fill, landscaping, carports, and size and location of the new house, staff finds the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, the proposed application to be generally compatible with the character of the historic district (see design guidelines analysis section). 4. Does the proposal to demolish the building within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and the proposed new construction to replace the proposed demolished building meet the requirements of paragraphs § 9-11-18(b)(2) and (3) of this section? Not applicable 5. 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. Plans call for the construction of a universal access elevator at the north elevation of the main house. S:\PLAN\data\IongrangU-IIST\ALTCERTS\I-Iistoric Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -12- 6. Is the proposed application consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9-11, "Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981? Staff considers that provided the proposed fill at the north, associated landscaping, carports, reorientation of the front pathway to the historic house are removed from the proposal and that the size of the proposed new house is reduced and that it is set further back from the existing house (to provide for less lot coverage and increased garden space), the application will be generally consistent with the purposes of Chapter 9-11. DESIGN GUIDELINES: 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 only as an aid to appropriate design and are not intended as a checklist of items for compliance. MAPLETON HILL IIISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES VI: Ma Teton Hill Historic District Desi n Guidelines Guideline Analysis _ Conforms? T. Major Etterior Rehabilitation, - "The proposed addition is consistent with Additions, and Second Stories this section. Yes One story structures built after 1940 may lend themselves more appropriately for renovation. Whether a traditional (full) second story is appropriate will depend upon the building's context with neighboring structures and the streetsca e as a whole. U. Nezu Construction -The proposed street-facing south Mass and scale should respect elevation of the proposed new house Yes neighboring buildings and the generally consistent with those in the streetscape. Site layout, porch size streetscape. and placement, entry level and -Mass and scale of new building location, roof line, and door and inappropriate -size of building should be No window sizes and patterns should reduced significantly to that similar of harmonize with the historic secondary buildings in historic district. context. Placement of building in center of property unusual. New house should be set further back From main house and Yes closer to alley. - Roofline of new house is compatible with historic context- Yes - Door and window sizes and patterns on S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Ivlapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -13- publicly visible elevations of house consistent with idelines. L. Porches -Small portico on south elevation of Porches are the predominant visual house Yes element of houses...there are very few examples of houses without porches. M. DeckslBalconies -Balcony on proposed rear addition to Yes Second story decks in the front of a existing house. building are generally inappropriate unless incorporated into an existing element such as porch or portion of building. Unpainted redwood is Maybe inappropriate for use in the -Detail regarding balcony decking must district. be rovided. GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS - _ _ r_..:;:- Windows, the elements that surround fhem, and their relationship to one another are one of the most important character-defining elements of a historic structure and should be preserved. Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can seriously detract from its architectural character. Windows on facades visible from public streets, particularly the front fat:ade, are especially important. Guideline Meets Guideltne Ketain and prc~5erz~e e.z~i5ting historic' All historic windows on main house Yes '1 windows including their functional will be sealed, weather-stripped, and decorative features In some cases, it fitted with a storm system, if might be appropriate to use window appropriate elements from the side or rear rlezuttions to r air those on the out. 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. Guideline Meets Guideline 2 Retain and preserve the functional, Original front door ~rilL be retained proportional and decorative features of Yes a primary entrance. These features include the door and its frame, sill, head, ~amb, moldin s, and an S:\PLANldata\longranglHIST\ALTCER'I'S\Historic DistrictslMapleton Hill\Pine.1037111.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -14- ankin windows. .10 Windows in additions and new Proportions and patterns on addition No buildings should reflect window incompatible with main house -void Resolve at patterns and proportions of the to solid ratio should be addressed. DRC existing ...for elevations visible form public streets, relationship of voids to solid should also be com atible. .13 Sym~r:etry or asymmetry of openings Strong asymmetry of fenestration on No should be maintained. proposed addition incompatible with Resolve at historic house. DRC 4.0 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites Meets Guidelines? .1 Construct nezo additions so that there is The proposed addition to main Yes the least possible loss of historic fabric house does not result in the loss of and so the character-defining features of historic fabric or character defining the buildin s are not destro ed. features. .2 New additions should be constructed so Removal of the addition would not Yes that they may be removed in the future result in damage to the south without damaging the historic building. (primary), east and west (secondary) elevations of the buildin . It is not appropriate to construct an Mass, scale, and height of addition Maybe 3 addition that will detract from the generally appropriate. Fenestration Resolve at overall historic character of the on north elevation should be DRC building. sim lified. 4.2 Distinction from Historic Buildings All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. When the original design is duplicated the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Instead, additions should be compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction. 1 Distinguish an addition from the Addition may be more clearly Ma be historic structure, but maintain visual distinguished from historic house. y continuity between the two. One Resolve at common method is to step the addition DRC back and/or set it in slightly from the historic structure. Every project is different and successful designs may incorporate a variety of approaches. 2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Historic elements referenced though Maybe Instead, rote ret historic elements in fenestration and forms need to be S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HiST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -15- simpler ways in the addition. simplified and made more Resolve at symmetrical. DRC 3 Additions should be simpler in Fenestration and forms need to be Ma be detail simplified and made more y Than the original structure. An symmetrical. Resolve at addition that exhibits a more ornate DRC style or implies an earlier period of architecture than that of the on final is ina ro riate. The architectural style of additions Stylistically references house in an '4 should not imitate the historic style appropriate manner, though Maybe but must be compatible with it. fenestration and forms need to be Resolve at Contemporary style additions are simplified and made more DRC possible, but require the utmost symmetrical. attention to these guidelines to be successful. The use of two distinct historic styles, such as adding Tudor-style half-timbering to a Classic Cotta >e, is ina ~ ro ~riatc. 4.3 Com atibili withHistoric Buildings` ~ , ~ ~ Intrnducir2g rurw construction that contrasts sharply with an existing historic structure orsite detracts from the 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 detailin . An addition should be subordinate to Addition subordinate in mass and .1 the historic building, limited in size scale. Yes and scale so that it does not diminish or visuall over ower the buildin . 2 Design an addition to be compatible Fenestration and forms need to be No with the historic building in mass, scale, simplified and made more materials and color. For elevations symmetrical. Resolve at visible from public streets, the DRC relationship of solids to voids in the exterior walls should also be compatible. 4 Reflect the original symmetry or Proposed addition's symmetry of No asymmetry of the historic building. fenestration needs to be more consistent with that of main house. Resolve at DRC 5 Preserve the vertical and horizontal Horizontal and vertical proportion Yes proportion of a building's mass. of the building's mass are generally reserved. S:\PLAMdatallongrang\IIIST\ALTCERTS\I-Iistoric DistrictsuVIapleton Hi111I'ine.1037\11.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc i - 16- 4.4 Compatibili with Historic Site and Setting ` ~ , 1 Design new additions so that the Several mature trees are shown to be Ma be overall character of the site, site removed at rear of property. y topography, character-defining site Significant filling and re-grading to features and trees are retained. occur at rear of property in appropriate. Eliminate fill for carports, set smaller new building closer to alle . 2 Locate new additions on an Addition is to be constructed at the yes inconspfcuous elevation of the historic rear of the historic building. building, generally the rear one. Locating an addition to the front of a structure is inappropriate because it obscures the historic facade of a building. 3 Respect the established orientation of New house should be moved back Ma be the original building and typical and away from side property line(s) y alignments in the area. to be more in keeping with Resolve at traditional pattern of DRC secondary/accessory buildings in the district. 4 Preserve a backyard area between the Proportion of built mass and paved No house and the garage, maintaining the area will be significantly higher than genera! proportion of built mass to average for the Mapleton Hill open space found within the area. See Historic District -seven car paved Guideline 2.1.1. parking. Eliminate fill for carports, set smaller new building closer to alle . 4.5 Key Building Elements Roofs, porches, dormers, windows and doors are some of the most important character-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they compliment the historic architecture. In addition to the idelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related su estions. Maintain the dominant roofline and Maintains dominant roof form to the '1 orientation of the roof form to the street. Yes street. 2 Roofliries on additions should be lower Rooflines are lower than historic yes than and secondary to the rooflirre of the building. on final buildin . 3 The existing roof form, pitch, cave These elements on addition are yes depth, and materials should be used for generally compatible with those on all additions. historic building. S:\PLAN\datallongranglHlS"I'1ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton HilllPine.1037111.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -17- 5 Maintain the proportion, general style, Fenestration and forms need to be No and symmetry or asymmetry of the simplified and made more existing window patterns. symmetrical. Resolve at DRC 6 Use window shapes that are found on Some window and door locations, Maybe the historic structure. Uo not introduce shapes and designs on addition are odd-shaped windows such as octagonal, incompatible with historic house. Resolve at trian ular, or diamond-sha ed DRC 8 Use materials and construction similar Windows will be wood, simulated yes to historic windows. Do not use snap- divided light. in muntins. Details reviewed by DRC GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, 6.0. 6.1 Distinction-from Historic Buildin .1 Buildings should be of their uzun lirru: The proposed new house can be Yes creating contemporary interpretations described as neo-traditional of historic elements. referencing the form, massing, and detailing of the main house. I .2 Interpretations of historic styles may be Stylistically, new house very similar Yes appropriate if they are distinguishable to main house. Steps might be taken as new. to further subtly distinguish from main house. 6.2 Site and Setting Nezo hr+ilclin~~s should br drsi,ti~trcd arut located so that significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost or obscured. The size of the new buildings should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character. Buildings within: historic districts generally display a consistency in setback, orientation, spacing and distance between adjacent buildings. Therefore, the cornpatibi[ity of proposed new construction will be reviewed to ensure that these elements are maintained. 1 Conform to the design guidelines found New building location on the site not No in Section 2.0 Site Design, regarding keeping with the neighborhood. Set site and setting in developing a building back near alley and away proposed site plan. from side property lines in keeping with traditional pattern. S:\PLAMdata\longrang\I-IISTIALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037111.07.07\I 1.07.07 mcmc~.doc --~imm~e~e ~ i I~I~E -18- 2 Design new construction so that the Significant filling at rear north of No overall character of the site, site property and loss of mature trees topography, character-defining site will affect character of property. features and trees are retained. Eliminate fill area, relocate new, smaller building near alley, preserve as many trees as possible, reduce amount of paved area, preserve original curving walk to historic house. Site new construction to be compatible Location of proposed new house at No with surrounding buildings that center of rear garden, close to main contribute to the overall character of the house is unusual for the streetscape historic district in terms of setback, and district as a whole. orientation, spacing, and distance from ad'acent buildin s. 4 New construction should not be The proposed 36.2% lot coverage for No significantly different from the proposed redevelopment of the contributing historic buildings in the property higher than average 29% district in terms of the proportion of for the two block streetscape. built mass to open space on the Reduce coverage by removing individual site. See Guideline 2.1.1. carports -will reduce lots coverage to 28%. Size of new building should also be reduced and location changed to provide open space between buildin s. 5 New primary buildings should serve as Proposed carports at rear of No a guide for new accessory structures on property not characteristic of the site. Conform to the design streetscape of historic district. guidelines found in Section 7.0 New Carports should be removed from Garages and Other Accessory plan. New building should be Structures. reduced in size so that it is more in keeping with secondary/accessory buildin sin the district. 6.3 Mass and Scale. In anisiderirtg the overall conapatihility of new constri~tetiori, its height, form, massing, size and scale will all be reviewed. The overall proportion of the building's front facade is especially important to consider since it will have the most impact on the streetscape. While new construction tends to be larger than historic buildings, reflecting the needs and desires of the modern homeowner, new structures should not be so out-of--scale with the surrounding buildings as to loom over them. I Design new buildings to be compatihle The proposed new house is larger No with surrounding buildings that than those secondary/accessory contribute to the overall character of buildings found in the immediate the historic district in terms of height, streetscape in terms of height, scale, size, scale, massin ,and roportions. massin and ro ortion. Buildin S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HISTIALTCERTS1Historic DistrictslMapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -19- size should be reduced. 2 The mass and scale of new construction Location of proposed new house at No should respect neighboring buildings center of rear garden, close to main and the streetscape as a whole. house is unusual for the streetscape and district as a whole. 3 Historic heights and widths as well as The proportions of the proposed Yes their ratios should be maintained. The elevation facing Pine Street generally proportions of the front facade are appropriate and compatible with particularly important and should be surrounding historic buildings. compatible to those of surrounding historic buildiri s. 4 Anew house constructed behind an Proposed new house is diminutive Yes existing 6~istoric house should be of in comparison with the main house. lesser mass and scale than the original structure. 6.4 Materials 1 ~ti'Iater•ials ~{roicld be sinrrlar in scale, Plans call for the walls of die house Ma be proportion, texture, finish, and color and garage to be sheathed in y to those found on nearby historic traditional stucco. Details not Resolve at buildin s. rovided. DRC 2 Maintain a hurrtari scale by avoiding Plans show varied shapes, forms, on Yes large, featureless surfaces and 6y using proposed new construction. traditionally sized building corn onents and rnateriais. 6.5 Ke -Buildin Elements ~ ~ a~ Roofs, porches, downers, windows and doors are some of the most irnportantchoracter-defining elements of any building. As such, they require extra attention to assure that they compliment the historic architecture. In addition to the guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related su estions. 1 Design the spacing, placement, scale, General design and proportion of Yes orientation, proportion, and size of fenestration of proposed new house window and dvor openings in new compatible with surrounding structures to be compatible with the historic buildings. surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district, while reflecting the underlying design of the new buildin . 2 Select windows and doors for new Proposed doors and windows structures that are compatible in appear to be generally compatible. material, subdivision, proportion, Yes pnttern and detail with the windows S:IPLAN\data\longrang\HIS"1'1ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton HilllPine.1037111.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc -20- and doors of surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic district. 3 New buildings should use a roof form The proposed gable roof form and Yes found in the district or on the landmark dormer on new house are site. characteristic of the historic buildin sin the district. 4 Porches should be compatible in The proposed portico on new house yes massing and details to historic porches appears generally compatible with in the district, and should be district and appropriate to design. a pro riate to the st le o the house. 5 Dormers should be secondary to the Proposed dormers are secondary and yes main roof and should be lower than the lower than the ridge line of the roof. roofline. Oversized dormers arc irta ropriate. _ 7.2 New Accessory Buildings New accessory buildings should follow the character and pattern of historic accessory buildings. While they should take design clues from the primary building, they must be subordinate to that huilding in size, massing and detailing. AIIey buildings should maintain a scale thaf is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians. CONFOR GUIDELINES: ANALYSIS: MS .2 New garages and accessory buildings The location of proposed carports is Yes should generally be located at the rear of consistent with historic patterns of the lot, respecting the traditional garages facing onto the alley on this relationship of such buildings to the block. primary structure and the site. .3 Maintain adequate spacing between Newly constructed row of garages Maybe accessory buildings so alleys do not evolve at east. into tunnel-like passageways. .4 Preserve a backyard area between the Proposed carports will encroach No house and the accessory buildings, into steeply grading area of garden. maintaining the general proportion of Area will be filled to provide alley built mass to open space found within the grade at rear of property. Some area. backyard area between carport 1 and house. No garden area between carport 2 and proposed new house. .5 Nezu accessory building should take design The carports are quite different No cues from the primary structure on the than main house and shown to site, but 6e subordinate to it in terms of feature hipped roof forms. S:\PLAN\datallongrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Historic DistrictsVvlapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07111.07.07 memo.doc - -21- size and massing. Buildings are subordinate in side to main house. .6 New garages for single family residences Each carport to house two cars. Maybe should generally be one story tall and , shelter no more than two cars. In some cases, atwo-car garage may be inappropriate. .7 Roof form and pitch should be The form and pitch of roof does not 1`10 complimentary to the primary structure. reference historic house. .S Accessory buildings should be simpler in The proposed garage is relatively Yes design and detail than the primary simple in scale and detail. building. .9 Materials for new garages and accessory Materials as proposed, including Yes structures should be compatible with those wood and asphalt shingle roofing found on the primary structure and in the appropriate. district. Vinyl siding and prefabricated structures are inappropriate. .10 Windows, like all elements of accessory No windows, open side. N/A structures, should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on primary structures. .11 If consistent with the architectural style Not applicable N/A and appropriately sized and located, dormers may bean appropriate way to increase storage space in garages. .12 Garage doors should be consistent with the Not applicable No 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. .14 Carports are inappropriate in districts Staff is unaware of examples of No where their form has no historic historic carports in the immediate precedent.. streetscape or district as a whole. Staff considers the proposal to rehabilitate and add to the historic house to be generally consistent with the historic preservation ordinance and design guidelines, but changes to the fenestration on the north elevation need to be S:IPLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\I-tistoric Districts\Maple[on Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc _22_ more compatible with the historic building. At 952 sq. ft., staff considers the proposed new building too large and its location on the lot uncharacteristic for the historic district. Staff suggests that the footprint and size of the new building should be reduced and that its location be shifted closer to the alley as it the pattern for the district. Finally, staff considers that the proposed carports and paved parking area on the alley to be inappropriate and that this element of the design be removed. Eliminating the carports and paving, and reducing the footprint and location of the new building will provide for a more traditional pattern of development and open space that will be compatible with the historic Reed property and the larger historic district. FINDINGS: The Landmarks Board finds, based upon the application and evidence presented that the proposed Landmark Alteration Certificate application, subject to the conditions of approval above, will be consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and: 1. The proposed alteration preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district. (9-11-18(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981) 2. The proposed alteration 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. (9-11-18(b)(2), B.R.C. 1981) 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. (9-11- 18(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981) 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 (b)(3) of section 9-11-18(b)(4), B.R.C. 1981. 5. In determining whether to approve a Landmark Alteration Certificate, the Landmarks Board considered the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. (9-11-18,(c), B.R.C. 1981) S:\PLAN\data\longrang\IIIST\ALTCERTS\Eiistoric Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc -23- ATTACHMENTS: A: Historic Inventory Form B: Application Letter, Site Plan, and Elevations of proposed construction S:\PLAN\data\IongrangVIIST\ALTCERTS\Historic Districts\Mapleton Hill\Pine.1037\11.07.07\11.07.07 memo.doc Attachment A COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY NOT FOR FIELD USE Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation --ELIGIBLE 1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado DET NOT ELIG ~ HISTORIC.BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD _NOMINATED CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Boulder County '-CERTIFIED REHAB DATE ROJECT NAME: BOULDER HISTORIC PLACES State ID#: SBL535.11 Bullding Name: Temporary 96 u ng reas: PINE STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 u 1 ing Owner: ALAN AND JANET GERSTENBERGER Owner Address: 1021 SOUTH WILLIAMS DENVER, COLORADO 80209 USGS Quad: BOULDER Quad Year: 1 .5 *Legal: Tnsp 1N Range 70W Section 30 NE1 SE1 *Historic Name: A.A. REED HOUSE District Name: MAPLETON HILL HISTORIC (CERTIFIED LOCAL) ' oc ot: - Addition: SQUIRES TO BLDR WEST Year of Addition: 1874 Film Roll By: WHITACRE i m Num er: Number of Negatives: 22,23 Negative Location: BOULDER onstruct on ate: TU L -18 2 Source: BLDR COUNTY HERALD, 1891 Present Use: RESIDENTIAL Historic Use: RESIDENT A Condition: GOOD Extent of Alterations: Description: ORIGINAL If Moved, Dates Style: TUDOR Stories: 2 1 Materials: STONE, WOOD Square Footage: 4124 e Assessment: NOT ELIGIBLE District Potential: YES CONTRIBUTING oca Lan mar esignation?: YES Name: MAPLETON HILL Date: 1982 ssociated Buildings?: Type: If Inventoried, List Id Numbers: Architect: CAAUNCEY STOKES Source: BOULDER COUNTY HERALD, 1 Builder/Contractor: Source: Original Owner: ALBERT A. REED Source: BOULDER COUNTY HERALD, 1891 I 1037 Pine Street Page 2 Plan Shape: Theme(s): Architectural Description: Cut stone to the second floor. Stucco with half-timber trim covers the rest of the house. Gabled roof with exposed rafters ends and gable end beams. Large dormer window over the front entrance. The house is quite massive. Construction History: Historical Background: The Reed House was designed by Chauncey Stokes, who also designed the Greene-Earl House at 2429 Broadway. It was built in 1891-92 for Albert A. Rees an attorney who came to Boulder in 1891 from New York. He became a member of the Law Faculty at the Dniversity of Colorado and also opened a private practice. He was quite active in civic affairs during his residence in Boulde Ae was a member of the School Board, President of the Chamber of Commerce and worked with Better Boulder Party, which succeeded in voting Boulder dry in 190' Ve was the President of the Mercantile Bank and Trust from 1904 to 1912. He w. ity attorney from 1907-1910. In 1916, Reed moved to Denver and became an officer with the U.S. National Bank. Ae eventually became president of the bank. Mrs. Reed was one of [he founders in 1907 0~ the School of Missions at Chautauqua. Architectural Significance: Represents the work of a master. -C~- Possesses high artistic values. Represents a type, period or method of construction. Historical Significance: 'X- Associated with significant persons. Associated with significant events and/or patterns. 'R- Contributes to an historic district. ,Statement of Significance: The A. A. Reed Aouse is an example of the work of architect Chauncey Stokes, who also designed the Greene-Earl Aause at 2429 Broadway. Albert A. Reed, a prominent Boulder attorney, was the original owner. Reed's varied interests were significant to Boulder's educational, economic an. political history. A member of the University of Colorado Law School faculty, Reed was also president of the Chamber of Commerce, a school board member, cit; attorney, and president of the Mercantile Bank and Trust. Reed later became president of the U.S. National Bank in Denver. Albert Reed was co-owner of pother historic structure in Boulder, the.Willard Building. ~1~M1111~ ~ PpR~~ 1037 Pine Street Page 3 References: Susan Baldwin, Boulder Historic Places Inventory 1977 Boulder County Assessor's Office Daily Camera, February 12, 1951 ~ Boulder County Herald, August 26, 1891 5:1 Surveyed by Whitacre/Simmons Affiliation: Front Range Research Date: 1986 ~ ~s~#~ Attachment B City of Boulder Planning and Development Services ~ LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION Date of application: Case number: HIS 7`"'~ ~U`' ~ Property address: ~ t73 ? ~r 1~>Pi c~~ Historic District/Landmark name: o i Applicant name: Relationship to project (e.g., architect, contractor}: r 1 t G~ Phone: 30'3 ~'fj 2GlD~ Mobile phone: ._303 R~6 l ~4 ~ Fax: 303 ~ ZO Applicant's mailing address: ~ZI 30~- s'~" •~lt~2r ~o~c~0«r` CO Street City State Zip Property owners name: Mwt ~u W1.~Ot~-~ Daytime phone: 30 3 Property owner's address: /O 37 ~i I'tG ~ ~ou ~a e~` CO SD 3~~ Street City State Zip PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please list all exterior alterations proposed for the property in the space provided below. Please seiie''the following pages fouer submittal requiremnnents. All 4 pagesrmust be included in the application. 1`1G ~ ~ec~o.ia~a reS idL~nGC ~ru ~{-uI~ , x ee,e9 ca. r~10 ~->i-5 ~ f ~11a fb ex ~ ~q cxfnnlr~; o r C 1vo r~ ~~a~~.~ ~ J~~ ~ ~a; ~ s~ dC~SG r ~ t o ~ -~o t` re~-er o~.e7Ea ~ l INITIAL CODE REVIEW The following applications require initial review and sign off by a project specialist or zoning administrator rip or to acceptance of a landmark alteration certificate application. Please mark all applicable boxes. New detached construction (accessory structure, garage, new residence, shed, etc) ? Dormers ? Porches ? Fences ? All new additions THIS SECTION IS FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Zoning: ~ .Lot Size: (a, Gr Required sefibacks: Floodplain: N Prior Reviews (Use Review, PUD, etc) ~ r~r J ~ 3 `7 ~1 do = itr`~ ~ ~ ~ a,r.l ~~~~~il} Other Applications which may be r q ired~a~e~on proposed application: Preliminary Comments: Reviewed by: Date: / G''~~~~ f This section is a customer service review, and does not constitute a formal review of all applicable codes and regulations. All sections of the Boulder Revised Code must still be odhered fo rior to erformin an work. Please submit this completed application, along with the required information outlined on the following pages to a project specialist. Applications for the design review committee must be received on the Friday prior to your requested design review meeting. If you have any questions, please call (303)441-1880 and ask to speak to a historic preservation planner. We look forward to working with you on your project! ~111~ LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 2) ' Shown below and on the facing page is a list of the most common types of alterations. Please check off the type of work you are proposing and follow the application requirements listed to the right. TYPE OF STAFF REVIEW ALTERATION: City staff may review common types of applications, which involve minor alterations. This (Please check all type of review can have a quick aoorovaj turn-around providing the applicant submits a that apply) complete application form with documentation and fhe proposed alterations meet the ? Landscaping applicable design guidelines. ? Paint A complete application submittal includes: ? Roofing ? This application: Completely filled out ? Fence (rear /side yard only if ? Plans and elevations: All drawings should be to scale, with dimensions, and as maximum 5' tall with minimum detailed and clear as possible, whether or not an architect or contractor is 1 "spacing between pickets) involved. Both existing structure and proposed changes should be shown. Fences: bring to-scale drawings showing dimensions and spacing between ? Restoration of Existing Features pickets. DOWNTOWN ONLY: ? Photographs: Comprehensive color photos of the structure and of details that relate directly to the requested alteration are required. ? Commercial awning ? Samples: Color chips of paint are required. Printed samples of roofing types are ? Commercial patios helpful. ? Commercial signs TYPE of DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (LDRC) ALTERATION: City staff and two designated members of the landmarks board review applications for alterations (Please check all to buildings or special features and determine within 14 days offer a complete application is filed that apply) whether or not fhe proposed work would have a significant impact upon or be potentially ? Deck /porch detrimental to a landmark site or historic district. Large projects usually require more than one meeting and may be referred by the Committee To The full Landmarks Board for review. ? Doors /windows ? Dormers /skylights The f~ollo~" ing documentation is required to initiate review by the Design Review Committee: C~' This application: Completely filled out ? Additions ~ &Y Photographs: Photos of existing building and surrounding context ? Fence (front yard or rear /side yard if over t~ Drawings: All drawings should be to scale, with dimensions, and as detailed and clear 5' tall or less than 1 " as possible, whether or not an architect or contractor is involved. Both existing structure spacing between pickets) and proposed changes should be shown. Examples are available if needed. ? New garage /accessory The following documentation is required for final review and approval: building (340 sq. ft. and ~$caled site plans: including existing and proposed site plans under) f-/ovations: usually Ya" = 1' scale including existing and proposed elevations ? Other t~ Materials: Specific materials used should be noted on plans. Samples may be requested. ?~Colors: paint/stain color chips 1~ Photographs: photos of existing building from all sides and existing context ? Manufacturers/catalogue "tear" sheets ? Fences: bring to-scale drawings showing dimensions and spacing behveen rails. ? Details The following may be requested prior to final approval: ? Building sections ?Methods of restoration ?Study model or 3-D simulated model TIP: For large or complex projects you are encouraged to contact a Historic Preservation Planner early in your project before detailed drawings are completed. All completed applications for LDRC review must be turned in by noon on the Friday prior To the requested meeting. Please note that your requested DRC meeting may not be available due to scheduling. The Committee meets ai 9:00 a.m. every Wednesday (except holidays) at the P&DS Services Center on the 3'' floor of the Park Central building, 1739 Broadway. Please call and ask for a Historic Preservation Planner if you have questions with any of the above alterations or submittal requirements. na~ta. IIMa*-~.P+~11..~2 LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 3) LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (LPAB) TYPE OF New free-standing construction greater than 340 square feet, or the demolition or moving of ALTERATION: structures requires review by the entire Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. A public hearing is (Please check all required in order to issue an alteration certificate under these circumstances. The full board meets that apply) once a month, usually on the first Wednesday. Submittal deadlines are listed on the following page. All applications must be submitted to a project specialist by 4:OOpm 20 days prior to the hearing. ~ew free-standing Public hearings must be held within 60 days after a completed application is received. All public construction hearings for landmark alteration certificates are conducted as quasi-judicial proceedings. After a (over 340 sq. ft.) public hearing, a Notice of Disposition is served to City Council regarding the recommendation of the Landmarks Board. The City Council has 14 days to call up a decision to approve a landmark alteration certificate application made by the Landmarks Preservation Board. If the Landmarks ? Demolition preservation Board votes to deny a landmark alteration certificate application, the City Council has (includes primary 30 days in which to call up the decision. and/or accessory buildings) A complete application submittal includes The same as that required for the Design Review Committee as listed on the proceeding page plus the following items: ? Appliwtion called up from DRC L'J" Previous Page requirements (Listed under LDRC) f3~Written project description ? 10 f to ded copies of project drawings, showing existing and proposed conditions (preferably 24"x36' plans, including: • Scaled site plan (existing and proposed) • Scaled elevations for all sides of the building (existing and proposed) at 1/4" or 1/8" scale. • Sketches, as needed ? 10 copies of any color renderings or photographs, color samples, etc. (preferably no greater than 1 1 "x17' ? 1 reduced (8'/z"x 11") copy of all materials submitted At the request of staff or the board, the following may also be required as part of your application: ? Building sections ?Methods of restoration ?Study model or 3-D simulated model TIP: Projects which are required to be reviewed by the full board should be presented to staff early in your project before detailed drawings are initiated. Please contact us prior to submitting an application as these projects and reviews are usually complex. We encourage you to complete the initial code review section on page 1 of this application prior To contacting us. Call (303) 441-1880 and ask to speak with a Historic Preservation Planner. I agree to perform the work described herein, in accordance with the plans and/or specifications submitted and with all provisions of the Historic Preservation Code, Building Code, Zoning Ordinance and Health Regulations of the City of Bould r as enume ted'n the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. /~/f g /O~ Signatu a of owner or authorized agent for owner Date Contact Us: Planning & Development Services -Historic Preservation Program 1739 Broadway, 3'~ Floor Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 441-1880 Http://www. boulderhistoricpreservation. net ~.ta.1~n~ A pp.~,~ LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 4) FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date completed application received by Planning and Development Services Date of initial DRC meeting Date(s) of follow-up DRC meetings Date of Full Board Hearing Date Application Approved/Denied Date of Building Permit Review Date Case Closed Date case sent to imaging 2007 Landmark Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Dotes and Application Submittal Deadlines Landmarks Preservafion Advisory Board meetings are generally held the first Wednesday of each month at 6 p.m. in the Municipal Building, Council Chambers Room, located ai 1777 Broadway. Landmark Alteration CeAificate applications scheduled for a public hearing before the full Landmarks Board are due by 4:OOpm 20 days before the meeting date. All applications must be submiMed through a project specialist. Board Meeting Submittal Deadline January-3 December 14 February 7 January 18 March 7 February 15 April 4 March 15 May 2 April 12 June b May 17 July 4 June 14 August 1 July 12 September 5 August 16 October 3 September 13 November 7 October 18 December 5 November 15 y ~ e a j j a h a n s s o c i a t e s A r c h i t c c t u r e Architecture Reed House Apartments Conversion 1037 Pine Street -Boulder Colorado Planning Interiors Landmazks Alteration Certificate Environmental Design The Budding at 1037 Pine is falling into a state of significant disrepair. The stone mortar, over 100 yeazs old and patched in numerous places, is reverting to its natural state of sand and horsehair, endangering the structural integrity of the building and porch. Stucco is delaminating and flaking off. Exterior wood trim -once splendid - is in a state of decay -cracking and warping in the intense Boulder sunshine. Old window frames hold single-pane glass- held in place by brittle glazing compound in decaying wood frames. Roof shingles are missing in places, and flashing is patched in places to hold back water intrusion. Defective and missing roof drainage systems compound site drainage problems. Old structural defects that resulted in significant foundation settling complicate remodeling tasks. Occupant life safety is compromised by code deficient construction on both the interior and the exterior. The lot itself is overgrown and unkempt. This property is in desperate need of renewal. We aze in danger of losing this valuable piece of Boulder history, and renewal should commence in short order to prevent further decay or worse. 1. ABriefHistory The building at 1037 Pine was constructed in 1891 as a single family residence. At that time, Mapleton Hill was experiencing a significant portion of its early growth -the primary period of significance. The building lot is located near the downtown commercial core of Boulder, two blocks north of the west end of Pearl Street. The building was maintained as a single family residence until 1931. In that year, it was converted to an apaztment house, containing 7 small efficiency apartments and an owner's unit. More recently, the attic was converted to an additional apartment for a total of 9 individual units. The building continues to be operated as an apartment building. There was a 9' x 20' addition built on the northwest corner of the original structure in 1931. This addition contained kitchen facilities fox several of the of&cienry units. Off-street parking is located in the alley situated north of the building, roughly IS' higher in elevation above the main floor. 2. Neighborhood The use of the surrounding neighborhood is largely transitional residential. A number of apartment buildings and condominium buildings occur along the south side of Pine Street at 1000, 1018, 1026, and 1032. To the east resides a 5 unit condominium building at 1045 Pine. To the west resides a single Family residence and multiple family residence on one lot North of the property, on the opposite side of the alley, lies an irrigation ditch, beyond which are the single family homes that face onto Mapleton Avenue. The neighborhood was originally developed as a mixture of single and multiple family homes. Many of the lazger homes were converted to multiple dwellings, and exist as such today. There is a mixture of density and lot coverage in the neighborhood. The subject property has the lowest lot coverage in this azea, with a total building and covered porch footprint of 2,570 K _rle f, a~aLnn & A. ate {r... <tu lnc. 2 1 0 0 oPe r l f5 I r e i t. U So boulder CVI~. reado h030.^. )OJ-99d-.559 PaSe 1 ~ ~ *_.~P~pss i e a l l a h a n Fj+ s s o c i a t e s r c h i t e c t u r c SF - 23.8% coverage. The adjoining lots at 1045 Pine (east) and 1027 Pine (west) have lot coverages of 44.5% and 31.7% respectively. 3. Use and intensity The current zoning designation for the property is RMX-1, which corresponds to previous zone district MXR-E. The Use district is defined as follows: Residential -Mired l: Mixed density residential azeas with a variety of single family, detached, duplexes and multi-family units that will be maintained; and where exisfing stmctures may be renovated or rehabilitated; Although multiple dwellings are approved for a lot in this zone district, the size of the lot - 10,752 SF -precludes more than one dwelling unit. (Section 9-8 of the BRC provides that a minimum Lot area of 6,000 SF is required per dwelling unit.) The existing use as 9 efficiency apartments is an existing, non-conforming use. 4. Existing physical conditions The existing building exhibits a number of physical deficiencies and is falling into disrepair. The following is a partial list of existing physical deficiencies: Exterior conditions 1. The existing site configuration creates poor drainage -existing topography directs overlot flow from alley towards back wall of building. 2. Much of the original stonework is in need of re-pointing and repair. Past repairs are cleazly evident, and not effective at reducing the current state of degradation. 3. The stone wall of the front porch has settled significantly (3" - 4'~, and is likely the cause of structural deformations in the porch roof and deck structure. 4. Much of the original wood exterior trim is rotted and falling apart. 5. Portions of the exterior stucco aze delatninating from the substrate and the stucco is in need of replacement. Patching this stucco would be impractical - a complete replacement is recommended. 6. The windows axe single pane and low performance, resulting in significant energy loss. 7. Bedroom windows do not comply with code specified egress dimensions. 8. The exterior doors axe in need of replacement. 9. The roof fitush is in need of replacement 10. Portions of gutters are missing and in disrepair, compounding poor site drainage conditions. 11. Several plumbing vents are routed along the exterior of the building. 12. Electrical wiring and communications cables are routed along the exterior of the budding. 13. Electrical service and communication cabling is delivered overhead. 14. The roof and exterior walls axe only marginally insulated. Interior conditions 1. Significant settling has occurred to interior and perimeter structural elements causing out-of--level sloped floors in places. Pagc z A~Id~NNII#~Prlp# ~ e a ~ ~ a ~ a n ~.)s s s o c i a t e s r c~ i t e c t u r e 2. Interior doors and trim have been replaced and reconfigured over time -some of which reflects a trapezoidal shape that is the result of structural settlement and interior surface deviation from plumb and squaze. 3. Numerous life safety improvements are recommended, such as code approved stairs and railings, lighting and other electrical services, safety glazing, among others. 4. The heating system is due fox an upgrade -the current system is handled by cast iron radiators. 5. Interior finished surfaces axe in need of repair -cracked plaster and drywall, worn finishes, etc. Site conditions ~ 1. The landscape is in need of xevegetation and slope stabilization. 2. Additional landscape buffering, such as trees and fencing, should be installed to screen the neighboring properties. 3. Stairs Erom the sidewalk, onsite walkways, and metal railings should be removed and replaced with more suitable improvements. 5. Proposed tenewa! The owner of the building -Mark Trumbull -whom is the resident manager, would like to repair and renew this structure to eliminate the deficiencies listed above. However, the income-producing qualifications of the building do not support an endeavor of this magnitude. Significant structural changes aze required to correct defects and shore up the building to protect against further structural degradation. Many interior life safety improvements aze recommended. We have developed a plan whereby the building can be repaired, renewed, and improved in keeping with the evolving market Eor dwellings near the downtown core of Boulder. This plan calls for the following scope of work. Where appropriate, sections from the Mapleton Hill design guidelines aze referenced 1. Streetscape . Generally, preserve the relationship of the existing structure to the Pine Street and the adjacent buildings -additions aze set well to the back of the site. Repair and upgrade the site entry feature at the sidewalk -remove metal pipe rail, extend entry steps and walkway to reach an elevation equal to the base of the front porch. 2. Site and Landscape improvements Replace undeveloped landscape with plantings, drip irrigation system, and improve drainage away from building, primarily along the front fa4ade of the building and porch, as well as the east facing lawn. Correct drainage problems by grading the hillside level and terracing the land between the existing building and the residence. Integrate new landscape improvements (trees, turf, retaining walls). Greater detail will be provided regarding specific landscape features, along with a separate LAC submittal, as this project proceeds. 3. Alley Development /Covered parking Pav< 3 i e s s o c i a t c s A r c ~ i t e c t u r e Construct covered parking in the form of two carports (open on two sides) facing into the existing alley. The carports axe to be freestanding accessory structures positioned along the alley and NOT attached to the either the existing primary residence or the new residence. The openness of the carports will preserve the visual openness of the alley. The carport design will reflect the materials and roof shape of the primary building. Utilizing two separate structures will reduce the scale in keeping with traditional sized accessory structures. Each carport will be offset from the alley with a different setback, creating visual interest and minimising the "wall effect", maintaining a more appropriate human scale. Much improved visual screening of vehicles parked in the alley. Organize and anchor trash/rerycling containers. Create additional storage opportunities 4. Convert the existing 9 unit apartment building to 3 condominiums -two 2-story condominiums on the fast two floors, and one condominium on the third floor. Remove the addition and shed style roof that was incorporated to the north side of the building in 1931. Add an elevator enclosure to the north side of the building to provide access to the third floor condominium. Small addition to create a kitchen on the third floor. Landscape improvements to the front, side, and rear of the lot. Excavate and underpin the existing foundation as necessary, and implement structural repairs. Under-excavate and create basement space for storage, mechanical, and some Fmished habitable floor area Repair /renew exterior fmishes including stucco, stone (repointing, reconstruct where appropriate), wood trim, roof surface (shingles). Repair existing parch roof deck and improve life-safety features of deck (railing wall, railing). Repair the front porch by removing portions of stone and structure as required to stabilize the porch, repointing existing grout, and reconstruct porch to match original design with contemporary decking materials (Tendura planking, Eor example). Update interior finishes. Level all floors. Integrate life safety improvements -lighting, stairs, others. Improve windows. Sash replacement is the likely Eoxmat to be used where possible. Phoenix window restoration will provide guidance Eor each individual window as to the extent of service necessary. The upper level dwelling unit oveflooking Pine Street currently contains a number of unsafe windows that aze not adequately proportioned for egress. This condition MUST be corrected. Care has been taken in our proposed redesign to preserve existing window features, such as window location, type of operation (casement) and mullion proportion. However, windows are proposed to be removed and replaced to ensure safety and utilization of these interior spaces. Page 4 ll~wd~ INS#.,,~P+IP s~ i e a ~ ~ a h a n A r c h i t e c t u r e s s o c r a t e s 5. Add new freestanding building to the rear of the existing main residence to become a 4th condominium, which increases marketability of project and makes the project economically viable. 1 '/z story, 1 bedroom + located north east of the existing building. Use of similar features as exhibited on the primary structure -stone base, stucco above, vertical window proportions, lower pitched roof with the main roof form parallel to Pine Street, dormers. Set structure well back on the site so as to not impact the rhythm of the existing streetscape. Raise the floor elevation of the new structure to better integrate with the landforms and existing accessory structure Format as is typical in the district. 6. Challenges The ambitious scope of work has been considered relative to the dynamic state of development in downtown Boulder's core. In the recent past, a number of lazge scope residential developments have sprouted up in close proximity to the urban core. These developments are characterized by: Individual ownership of units (not apartments); Predominantly urban Feeling; Covered parking and adequate storage; 2 bedroom is the preferred size and arrangement. We propose to create a project that is consistent with these new developments. Although the zone district allows for multiple Family dwellings, the lot size would provide for only one dwelling. Thus, the current building is considered to be an existing, non-conforming structure. Current zoning regulations restrict additions structures that contain non- conforming uses to an expansion of not more than 10% of the existing habitable floor area of a building, plus the opportunity to replace all floor azea removed through demolition. In order to maintain an economically viable project, we propose to increase the Floor azea by almost 10%. The following is a chart depicting the change in floor area that we propose: Floor Area Tabulation Existin Structure Existin Chan e Pro osed Basement 983 SF -90 SF 893 SF First Floor 2,370 SF - 237 SF 2,133 SF Second Floor 2,093 SF -176 SF 1,917 SF Attic Floor 1,189 SF +205 SF 1,394 SF Total 6,635 SF -298 SF 6,337 SF Pro osed Additional Structure Existin Chan Pro osed First Floor 617 SF Second Floor 335 SF Total 952 SF Page 5 'ju/~ y ~ e / a ~ ~ a ~ a n \/~-,\l s s o C I a t c s A r c h i t c c t u r c As shown in the table above, the existing floor area of 6,635 SF would allow 663 additional square feet of floor azea. Additionally, the owner would be allowed to replace at a 1:1 ratio the 298 SF net loss of area in the existing structure, for a total increase of 961 SF. The new building contains 952 SF. Our original concept for the site development included the addition of 4 garages in the alley, similar to the garages located to the east of this site at 1045 Pine. We found that the floor azea contained within new enclosed garages would contribute to the floor azea allocation constrained by the 10% cap imposed on non-conforming uses. All of the allowable added floor area is requited to be integrated the new detached structure in order to maintain an economically viable project. Floor area within unendosed carport structures does not contribute to the 10% cap. As such, we propose to construct two carport structures as covered pazking along the alley. We have proposed a carport design that reflects some of the architectural qualities of the existing structure and the new detached structure. Although carport structures aze not widely evident in the Mapleton Hill District, we aze of the opinion that they should be approved in this instance because: The building form proposed for the carport buildings is reminiscent of the existing historic structure in form and finish. Although garages would be a preferred alternative, we cannot divert needed square footage from the condominiums. The carports would organize an otherwise disorderly alley-scape by creating a place for vehicles trash and rerycling containers to be stored. Carports by definition aze predominantly open structures, thus preserving a mote open feeling in the alley. It is our goal, through the successful implementation of this renewal project, to: preserve the viability and maintain the integrity of the existing historic structure; create a sound structure by correcting structural defects; remediate existing site drainage issues; complement the existing historic structure with a tastefully rendered second primary building that recalls the relationship between primary and subordinate structures typical of Mapleton Hill; . Clean up the visual jumble in the alley by creating a contained space for vehicle parking and ancillary functions, such as trash receptacle storage; . Clean up the existing landscape and integrate more trees; Restore the image of the existing residence to its century-old splendor. 7. Attachrteents Tl Title Sheet LM0.1 Comparative coverage analysis LM1.0 Existing site and site demolition plans LMl.l Existing and proposed lot coverage plan LM1.2 Existing and proposed site circulation plans LM1.3 Existing and proposed landscape /open space plans LM2.0 Existing and proposed exterior elevations LM2.1 Existing and proposed exterior elevations LM3.0 Proposed alley elevation LM2.0 Proposed Pine street perspective view Page 6 i I, 1 f ~ _ ~ ~ ~ , ,.1 - / - / ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ - aC t ~ - i ~ - : • ~ r, ; - - , o - ~ ' 4~ jI + 1' ~ r e ~ P~~ T ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ r - - - ~ ~ ~ ~t ,s, - ~lic;n !3 ~ , :~4~ Ali~'v~t~S~6~~,~fi~~e 31 1, i ~ s ,gip . WifN ~+~r ah < y ~.wr Y y+ ~ a ~ x ~ r ~ + m y~~{ r..m to LM3.1 AOORCSS BUILDING COVERAGE RCRLENT OC LOT AREA 933 PINE 23.3 927 PINE 26.7 9;9 PINE ,gyp W 911 PINE 21.2 Dcyy~~Y' Q 903 P 15.9 in 1 PIN 28.5% -2}O$ 101 P N 3.8 • L~9 ~ 0 7 PINE .7 -2l`!v ~ 1037 PINE 36.3 ~0 ~ 1047 PINE 44.5 ® ® ~~~\~\\\\\y 1053 PINE 30.5 -~0~.t ~e~~\~ 1103 PINE 21.3 -,~~Y ,tOg 1109 PINE 26.7 \ 4 h 4,7 V7 1 p3 2135 11th 39,6 ] ~ 1053 W 1040 PINE 49.0 L ca 1032 PINE 44,4 1p45&4l 919 ~ 1026 PINE 29.5 1016 PINE 30.4 ~ ~ X037 = 1004 PINE 34.6 2~~5 ~ 942 PINE 15.3 V ° 1027 F.re 5t. 10a3, O 928 PINE 24.8 ~ V 1017 - 920 PINE 28.8 ^l 100 916 PINE 27.9 4L X028 - 2140 9th 25.7% g}] X016 ~ 92? ~ ~ g19 X004 ~ 8uildin Covers a Per nt 1 g11 g`t g42 ® ~ ~~t PE 928 ~ : ~ soz ~t7es~i1~~11El ~pi ~ ~ ~ ® ® ~ ~ ~ a ~ A - - - - ~ - '~~E~$~~I'a,~~~1~33 ~q PINE STREET ~ bUi ~ o Y_ _Y 4 6 ~ a ~ - ~ i~vor o~ ov~va - - I _ ioz Op soz ~,~\~\~\~~\~\~p~yy 1045 1035 .o~i. 10~g SFT~~s S\. sar. ~0~~ 1005 o•enoma er: +.R. 1003 c~.o..a br. Kc. 0 ~ Buis Coveraee Cravh sMa cR~l.- J M:~eeoaicao ~rvswr Building Coverage & enei to ga rime.. M0. t~l MR PLANNING INFORMATION nrJLE.- wocLSS Nrro ~o-,.r Iw) R,. s..... D' 21 p' Zap' p' Zip' 90 Bwler. e0w2 LEC4 PESpR*NN lOf S'JVIRCS AppIrIW Cirr OC ~yLO[a c~uxT. ar a z+•rz Q cao`v.Do z E ttonE ~ rNwrcr cwvENi .vxrlcrrs eic rely ' •uEr M v.LN®- le' exa ~ _ cwso~wlJNs I - eanw cLSVrluim1 a-1 ~ -1, _ __a___~-__~__ -,ye ~ ~ yvloM ' P e ~ LOi •tt• lo.))D Sr • • ~ I WLLSUq COVED•G[ (r1Si1W 2.61) E< / 10,))D N]% >~uala-~ww~Ym - ~ - - c /~/i% ~ / j wwauo z.ll sr o i vawars c~ a r ~ ,cj s~; yj1 i wnmwc cwceecL leprc•u ~ u za 1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ BUILDING CODE REVIEW IK 1 / _ _ _ ~ occuwcr tt•sslrlailoN r¢ am ~ I v ~ ..ate , j / j/ / / / ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ oy O T I L SUtLCNG IrK m[ v r ~ ~ ~ . j% / / ~~/%j/ ~ ~j/ q V ~ l./_ i _ / ~ _ ~ / _ , / / / ~1 eK'f / / / % / / / ///j~//- I I /j~/j l ////~j i i~ ~//i / ~ r; /i i ~ :.I ~ IH« u ~%f~j/~ unl,. I i i %/i/: SHEET INDEX • • ' emema oun ~ I \ i, i w wue ~ Y•I ~'}1 a r~ i ua~ e,osuelrater~an~w w.w~ ~ i~el I~~ +~Ii~ta ' ~ /i I 2La~ I i% /~i~ i u+i ~~n""~sl~ ~9~~~~lli~~~~~;~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Y / ~ a Emn~lrra~s~eean+wln ll~f ea+ ~~~r g ~I ~ / / /i ~ ! / i / /ii //i I ~ / Ore aEV•.w. mmn.ur•„ I ~ ~f~ ye[c5 / / / I / / P rol LH2TS+M1£v1Br ~,RIl SyP3D E~ ~~•I LpIL / / r/ ~ F ~i ~ ~ ~ ~~1gg~~~~ p~13~ yir/ i r / i ~ ~ i i if ~ ~ ~~Z / / ~ / / ~ / a ~ ~f~lektsj~t ! / ~ / / ,l / ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ c "1 el ~ ~ c m ~ r w ~ / i/ / 3 t / /ii / /i / n.u ~ i i I ~/~i ~ i/i/ ~i ~ R.I~Ir~ ~ i / ~ ~ ~ r i / / t ~lrt / ~I ii i/ ii g ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~I I I I ~ ~ Floor Asa Trbu6tiao Editm lUNCnytt >nporNe OY~ J.N. i Etiiu¢ hm a Cne I.m W C ' ~ I ~ Brsrmrnl ]TO SF C 217 SF r d 1135E c 8. z m.<I ce~le~l _.___________.____misr. i.e ' Fu:cFlmr Sccood Flwr >D915F -1765F 19115E a - Artie Fbar 1189 Sr 1205 SF 1,394 SF "o`p' 103'Y PINE 6TREET E)(ISTIN6 STpE RETAMIN6 WALL STEP W STOIE end ~~r FA~IN$ Atm $TQE Twd 6,615 SF 298 SF 6,13'! SF ? ~ • PROP05ED RETAJHIN6 wnus P T, r~ r.d AddN;~m Smxlv~e Eau CLaa P rncd I - ~ Fusr Flmr 617 SF me ' Srrmd Flav 333 5F T 1. r0 Tatd 952 SF q:..i.~.....r. w O;1W'I of ~ • ` X11 xnd y 03SOdOHd ONIySIX3 r wiw~ w«a ~y 133M.LB 3NId <EO[ 133N16 d <EOl R - - ra - - - - ror as w~or.,a f~C: ~S .rwrrm aea ~ ~ o .arum .'`r' i ! v. 66} ip ] is~~~~~~g~~4 ~ I ~ ~/~/ice/ I~ I I. ~ ate. r~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of air 4 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ ~ 7 I ~Y,., ~o ~ ms's. I I ~ rC^^ ~033~1 ~ xmNa of Baer xumo p vC^ Yu,.3..^~Qi:d • 3X!15 RNl I ~ ~ ~ ;mss;-'~ i ~,o.s ~~ls~%~ ~~a~ s ~ M1~ i ' i I 311 iF19NLL5i%3 e O N I I I VE I , 1, 1~ I I I ~I I' 1j • • ~ _____~<___L I~ ~ . ~ _ i f ' , mArdrn 0®Ir~ ~f?A I ~i f ~ v : sxauu 7rfmu as ~ ~ v ~ m~+S.'Sw ~*n ~ ~ t san am woram .....~n.•r -.j_--_ v u e y e ~ ~ e~ ....L~-------- s_-~-----=----- - =IF~I - (xYOxs .m - svxrn x.wu) nam ~ (xroxs pl - msrrn lama! nanr I / _ _ - - - - M a ~pYN A 3~ aV$'.~A~N107-~ Q9SOd02Id 9NIJSIX3 .taaws ax~a ecos aaavic axia cco~ wr.a~aw1 ~ r. • ~ rt----.-.._..-. T- -r------••----- - - ~ ~~n~a ' ~ j I j j I I I I I I I I I I I I i~llf~l1{l'~~~,#~~1~` I / ~ I 8~ I I~ jj' ~ x'111 u I ~ ~ I i I' i ~j„ 1t1 t its / / r: ..a..r~.,.b. » ~ i il~i j % " j I I ~i~;~'91l, i~ilyl> I / ~ j j~ 1 Ai~~ q! 1~1(i ~ ~ i/< /i /i . //i/, / t , , , ~~1' ~~1~1 ~ ~ / I I ~ I ? iii j ;i,,: j j i , I I ~ I I j I I ~ z.~ I I I I p j j I I u . w~' ~ I I n ~ i i aFri. ~ I , i i ~~7 i i ~„a u e y e ~ I e ~ lxYOxa a~ - ®nnn xtau> nrrn Ix+aoic .o~ - 0turn ~uau~ nam 016 - - - . Z; tY~`I ~ rover • • ~ IJ 3l1 _ 03SOdONd 9NI,LS(X3 iK yoga%i..~ 133H16 3NId LE:OI .I~3H.L6 3NId LEO[ 'Y'f .tQ w ~ -r I ~ ~ ~~s.~ I ~ I ~ I ` i r r~ r~~t~ ~l)I~; ~ ~ j ~/j r r r ~ ~ ~ 7~ U r t~~l~f~~f~i1`;~if~!' ^I /j~ j~/% ~ ~ I~ '~S I am:nn+uaool . f~)9~~6'f~ rif~i('~i //i ~/rrr~%~//i~"{i~ r T / ~ , jiji 6y6y 5 / r /~//i; ~ /i/ r i • 3• / / / Liif / r. ~ ~ Vy~JIYmp V ~ j / / / j - ~ , ~ r /iii/ ~ ~X~~~x3 r / Uri ~ ~ ~ ~ I //~ji I I I D ~ - w ' I r/sir/i ~ ~ ii i/, I I I I / ~ / ~ + r 9Ymf -.~.-h.V1 ~.-7 r ~ ~ e , Ioroire oiami ~ vn~ ova awm a ~ / wm v IvMVb1 •141 , , - I . • . ~ o a ' j ? XYUf 9rm aaaao _ • . _ - `Y ~ . V _ S u e~e~~e~ 7I r~ (H1OX8 .91 - GlMA HJNY) ATlIY IHM9H9 .91 - 83MYA HAOIY) AY'f1Y IY~IZ 9°39 Wiulvb ~ ~,..3~,,.~„ :rv \ ~Oi,•I~ 1 of :.i hJ • • d ~ N ~N °~d 3dVJS~NY7 °"'O°"' s7Ma srvlMrvi3a Q3SOdONd DNI.LSIXB 3815 ONV 9N17rd 633x1 K~ i~Yb~[p° 3NO:SMSd3i5 'iWM 9NIN~V13tl 3N015 'Fl LL59f3 .L33tl.LE 3NId LEO[ 1¢¢M.L6 3Nld LEO[ lurivy pY ry'r YV c.~eau / ~r r r 6" S 4 /r f ~ r. ~ I a ~ r~r a / a 9p a ~ ~ l v r ~ ~ ~ /7~F{' y ~'/r ,4. j ~ ~ ~ ~ I . ilfff t~~ ~)f1 ;g ji~` r r% ..~~ItE~~, %i / i r~ ~ i ~ l _ /E< ~y,~/,~," ,i ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~)f ~ `ice/ ~ r ~ ~ rr '1=: ~ / i~-l~i ~ I~q ~r ~~/r//~/%/i ;f ~r r / / ~ r// < / ~ % ~ 91~ I.,- y, X17]] ~~~f' ~i~f 3 ~E. ® ,r/r rgrr~~r nor a[!%~~ ~ ~r, ~ ~ Syr ~ °I`-u ~x % r Sri ~~18~)~~f~"t~1I1~~1 ~r L%i ,i/r/ % /fir%/ r r / Y~,~ f1 n.. p~ / ~ ~ \ ? • / / r ~ ~j i / / ~ 4 a .V Si'~~ V . V~ U.s Miill®y r ~~1 ~ \ °lUY 7IIYW o r// i i ~ r/ _ ~ ~ 0.. ~;r y ~r r ~ ~ % sa~s~w~~r Sul ~ ae3¢~xae~ir % r a / / C ~ ~ r ~ r ri - N i r Gq / r ~i /i~ d' l ~ w ' ~ , r~ ~ ,1 r ~ / ~ 1 „ ~ r~ , s r r ~ ~ /i € ~ : i s ~ ~ st ~,r ',y„ j, /ri 3 • ~ [ ~ uy ~C~° _ ' ~ / r ~ p , ~ ~ o~anc anima r • • ? % ji t ; % j i r / /<r i ~a~n~iii ~uatn Pima • ammo unra ~alucm d .~R~ -tea , , , _ . o awaa ~ ~ t xan ~Ino om® c ......~r••r u e y e ~ f 6 r~ IM?OH6 .91 - ®ItlYA 1UAIY) 13r1Y - (Hy0H8 .91 - ®IIIYA ILI~YI A3TIY 7Ir~ i M 3~ Kg~e 1 R.e.a.,.,a..,. re.aa,a,+u.,..:+ow C a ~ l a ff % - ANN [.r. 4JnY~Y • -g* I tl ~ i i ~ - U N I 7 ~ ~ 0 EXISTING - i NORTN ELEVATION ~-~O ve : ra g EXISTING ~ ~ o WET •LEVATION ve . ro~ ~U// LL Existing Exterior Elevations ~I' ~ ~ It ~ 1'! . `I~ t ii1 1S1 ~i ~ i~ a~~~; q~,~~~~,~ ~'I ,~~.~„~_r~_~ 1 __tI, S~r'~ s ~~f~ ~ j t~ I _ 1 i ~ ~ f I , I , - - r ~ ";a - ~ ` 1 m ~ ~ ~ aRw.,a»,.~,rv - ~ , I a~,. y y_3lGI~.YL!®B_y ~~e~~~ poM OY J.0. 1 Mina oY R.C. ~O SneN Cw,l,~ ngTS~ a EK,+o PROPOSED •VATION PROPOSED ~ , ~,-o. WEST ELEVATION_ ve : ro~ w~"m Proposed Exterior Elevations Lhs?.l ~r Callahan o-y., u-r ® TM~. wu. 4~ ~ ~ L i ~ ~L i - - - I = V N _ - - 7 ~ EXISTING EXISTING ~ c ~1 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION ~ u6 = ro' va . r-a U Existing Exterior Elevations { gg 6 { { pa~~ ~~I~IF F F4 ~ 33 w.a,...~.~.4~ ~~I~~~i~~4;~sj~ Fk~ .,..o...n-.....~ ~~~oo ~~I! ~ FI! 7 wR.. ~ ~ ~ ~ I~F € ~~iF;~l' 2 a ' ~ ~ .f ~ ~~R~!$~illi~Flieui~~ ,R,,.~, r. I ~ ~ ~ , ~.ti.. ~ C~ i ~ I I ,n cam, oa ~ I ~ - _ r' _ I ~ .r VnCeM eY J.R. I J r mrCV4 w.pM~ . ~f" - FMa~e q' K.G rac'RM ~MPe ~e® rid ~FSeI Cenlrt PROPOSED cos PROPOSED a~.~ ~ UTH ~ V TlON ~ 'AST ELEVATION im : r~ ve : i~.o. • s~ Proposed Exterior Elevations Liv~?.o f M ~M + r ~ ~ 0 y;..~~ ~ 1027 PINE i ~j i 1037 PINE 7059 PINE ~ 1046 PINE 19 I I ~ e Existin AIFey Elevation • 1037 Pins ^^ull L~ i ~t ~•yf~ r~; ~ES ` ~ Iii~~1~~~38 aa~ ~~6'~4Sas ;f ~17l~r9 g!tk~~l ~~j~ 63~fI4E~i~t~i~s~~~ !i~ ~ B ,~i a s ~~F!lf~~~P~l~d~~ii~ r~ . ~ 1 ~ ~ - ~,,,r., ..e~ . , ~ ~ a..+~ ' - {F- _ _ t ~ ~ i i ~ 1037 PINE ( 1027 PINE i 1053 PINE 7045 PINE ' Proposed - Allsy Elevatfon • 1037 Pine n.We q: icC. SM.t Cenlmt Ff9TMB. wGV~ ~uF BfV/.11Ma • Sneel N~mper LM3.0