Loading...
7C - Landmark Alteration Certificate (HIS2008-00055) for 1507 Pine St MEMORANDUM March 4, 2009 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration Certificate to rehabilitate the house and reconstruct the historic tower to a height of 48' and construct a new, 5,632 sq. ft. rear and side addition to the landmarked Temple-Bowron property at 1507 Pine Street per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code (HIS2008-00055). STATISTICS: 1. Site: 1507 Pine 2. Zoning: IZMX-1 (P.esidential Mixed Use-1) 3. Owner: Clifford I. Neuman 4. Applicant: Craig Bundy, Architect 5. Site Area: 13,962 sq. ft. 6. Existing Bldg: 4,867 sq. ft. 7. Proposed Addition: 5,&32 sq. ft. 8. Proposed Ht: Tower 47', 24b sq. ft. third story addition 34', two-story addition 27'. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion: The board denies the proposal for the rehabilitation and construction of a 5,&32 sq. ft. rear and side addition to the landmarked Temple-Bowron House (as shown on landmark alteration certificate drawings dated 2.5.2009), 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 General Design Guidelines, in that the proposed work will damage the historic character of the property. AGENDA ITEM #7C PAGE I S:\PLAN\data\]ongrang\HIST\t1LTCERTS\Landmarks\Pine.1507\03.04.09.1507 Pine.doc SUMMARY: • 4n March 19, 2008 the Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC) reviewed a proposal to construct an approximately 5,000 sq. ft., two-story and three -story addition at the north and east elevations of the 4,867 sq. ft. Temple-I3owron house and referred the application to the full Landmarks Board for a public hearing. • Constructed in 1883 for prominent Boulder businessman Edwin J. Temple, the property was designated an individual landmark by the Boulder City Council on January 18, 1977. • The proposal calls for the reconstruction of the front porch and historic tower based upon historic photographs of the house. • Staff considers construction of the proposed addition would damage or adversely affect the historic or architectural value of the landmark property in that the building is of high architecural or historic significance and would be overwhelmed by the new conshuction. Y~ ~ _ _ \ J~ ~`i ~ - ~ ~ ~ . T' ~ ....fit 1 ~ ~ X~ ! -u}~. ~1 ~ < < . i x.!'w~.',Lt=fit ~L's: r +~i~ ~ .h Figure 1. 1507 Pine, northwest corner AGENDA I TEM #7C PAGE S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\LandmarksU'ine.1507\03.04.09.1507 Pinc.doc PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Located at the southwest corner of Pine and 15'h Streets the 13,962 sq. ft. lot contains an imposing two and one-half story Italianate house constructed for local businessman and early regent of the University of Colorado, Edwin J. Temple. The prominent location and generous size of the lot affords the Temple- Bowron house high visibility in the potential Whittier Historic District in which it is located, especially when approached from the north, south, and west. ~j r_ Q to ,,111 1 I ~ r \ , t~ L ~ _ ~ 1,_,~ C. Figure 2. Location map REQUEST: This application requests an addition to create one non-restricted liousing unit and three age-restricted housing units and to restore the historic front porch and tower. The project calls for attached garages for all units. 'The site plan for the property shows the proposed addition to extend 32' north front the rear of the house, 2T east from the side of the house and 1T west toward 15~h Street to add approximately 5,632 sq. ft. of floor space to the existing 4,8b7 sq. ft. house. The rear (north) wall of the house is shown to be set back the required 25' and the first floor level to contain three, two-car garages to be accessed from the back alley. AC,F,NDA I'I'EIVI #7C PAGE S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\LandmarksU'ine.1507103.04.091507 Pine.doc A L L E'P i':', .I ,v , ~ H ~~I L~ } ~ , a I.RJK~i..`' ~ l,`~i PINE STREcT Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan ~ - r~ ~ ~ - _ -1. - ~~i r I:~~ i : _ - - ~s , t- ~ - _ ~ Figure 4. South elevation -existing and proposed 1'~~~~ - .r~~ ~ ~ _ i , ~d o'~" l i ~ s, I _ -t - ~ - Figure 5. West elevation -existing and proposed AGENDA ITEM #7C PAGE S:\PLAN\data\longrang\IiIS'T\AI,TCERTS\Land~narks\Pine.1507\U3.04.09.1507 Pine.doc j.r~ ~ 'I I ~ ~ ! - , lililn _ s y' s _ _ Figure 6. North elevation -existing and proposed r L_ _~~-_7- .\~L~~ _ _ - _ _ i ~ Vii-\!~~~~~~ ~u; 1~~. F_ , Figure 7. East elevation -existing and proposed Elevations show the proposed two-story addition to be more simply detailed than the main house and to feature a flat roof, stucco connector at the east elevation, double hung windows with lintels and sills, a second story bridge connecting east and west portions of the addition, and overhead two-car garage . doors facing onto the alley. Plans for the restoration of the front porch based upon the 1949 tax assessor photograph show a sfepped porch extending south, to the west side of the house, and providing access to the front door of the house. Plans also call far the reconstruction of the historic tower to a height of 47' that was removed in 1947 at the same time the original porch was removed. CRITERIA FOI2 THE BOARD'S DECISION: Subsection 9-11-18(b1-3)(c), B.R.C. 1981, sets forth conditions an application must meet in order far the Landmarks Board to issue a Landmark Alteration Certificate. (b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a landmark aiterativn certificate unless it meets the following conditions: (1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does aTOt damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark; AGENDA ITEM #7C PAGE S:\PLAMdata\longrangll-lISZ7ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Pinc.1507103.04.09.1507 Pine.doc (2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark; (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; (4) With respect to a proposal to demolish a building in an historic district, tiTe 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, ineorporatiora 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 significant exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within an historic district? Staff finds the proposed rehabilitation of the historic house and reconstruction of the tower and porch will not damage or destroy the exterior features of the contributing house as it is generally compatible and consistent with the General Design Guidelines. However, it is staff's opinion that the proposed addition will damage the architectural features of the landmarked property by overwhelming the Temple-Bowron house. The building is of high architectural significance and the primary character-defining feature of. the designated property. In terms of mass, scale, and location the proposed new construction is not consistent with the General Design Guidelines (see Design Guidelines analysis section) and will compromise the landmarked property. 2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark? Staff finds that the proposed application will adversely affect the special character of the landmark. Approximately 5,632 square feet in size, the proposed addition's location, mass, and scale is generally incompatible with the General Design Guidelines, will overwhelm the 4,867 sq. ft. historic house and have an adverse effect on the landmarked property. It may only be appropriate to construct a smaller addition to the rear of the house. AGF,~illA ITEM #7C PAGE ~P S:\PLAN\dataVongrang\HIST\AL'I'CERTS\Landmarks\Pine.1507\03.04.09.1507 Pine.doc 3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, colot•, arrangement of color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of tlTe 112StoY1C dlstYlCt~ Little detail is provided as to materials proposed for the addition other than indicatiu~g that it would be constructed of brick. Elevations do show the addition to be detailed more simply and with forms that reference th.e historic house. 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. Plans call for the construction of a universal access interior elevator in the proposed addition. Design Guidelines The board has adopted the General Design Guidelines to help interpret the 1istoric 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. GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS Windows 3.7 I~'Vindo:vs, the elements that surround them, rznd their relutiorrship to one another are one of the most important charucter-dc~ning elements of cz historic sb•ucture and should fie preserved. Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can seriously detract from IlS [IrChlteCtllYal Char'aCteY. Windows on facades visible fi•ar11 public streets, particularly the ji•orlt fa,'ade, are especially important. Guideline Meets Guideline? Detain and preserve existing historic Plans do not specify as to whether or Maybe '1 zvindozz~s includir2g their funCtloflal not the windows and. frames on the decorative features ir1 some cases, it historic house wit] be retained, might be appropriate to use zvindozv rehabilitated, or replaced. Fou r efemet2ts from the side or rear elevations to repair those on the front. 1listoric windows on the north elevation and two windows on the west will be lost to accommodate the ro osed addition. AC.ENllA ITF,M #7C YAGI: .'r' S:\PLAN\data\lonb ang1HIST'\ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Yinc.1507103.04.09.1507 Pine.doc 3.8 Doors I%ront doors and primary enb•mices ar-e 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, acrd the placement of the door all contribute to the character of thn. entrance. Guideline Meets Guideline? 2 Retain and preserve the fienefivrial, Plans do not specify as to whether or proportional and decorative features of not the doors, windows and frames Maybe a primary entrance. These features on the historic house will be retained, include the door and its frame, sill, rehabilitated, or replaced. head, jamb, moldings, and any nrzkin windows. .10 Windows in additions and new Proportions and patterns on addition No buildings should reflect wirTdow are generally compatible with main patterns and proportions of the house. North alley elevation should existing ...for elevations visible from be resolved - row of three ftvo-ca r public streets, relationship of voids to garages is uncharacteristic. solid should also be com atible. .13 Symmetry or asymrnetrt,/ of openings Symmetry of fenestration on Yes should be maintained. proposed addition appears generally com atible with historic house. 4.0 Protection of Historic Buildings and Sites Meets Guideline? .1 Construct new additions so that there is Entire wall including small rear No the least possible loss of Iistoric fabric addition, rear shed dormer and four and so the character-defining features of historic windows on the north the buildings are not destroyed. elevation will be removed or obscured by proposed addition. Reduce size of connection of addition to preserve northwest corner and as much of north wall as ossible. .2 New additions should be constructed so Removal of the addition would No that they may be removed in the ficture result in damage to the north and without datna~ing the historic building. east (both secondary) elevations of the building. North addition, dormer, and six windows will be lost as a result of ro osed addition. It is not a ro riate fo construct an Mass and scale of addition is No AGF,NllA ITEM #7L PAGE S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HISTWLTCERTS\Landmarks\I'ine.15071U3.04.09.1507 Pine.doc 3 addition that zviil detract from the inappropriate. West wall of addition overall historic character of the should be setback behind west wall building. of historic house, south elevation of addition should be setback at least to north wall of house. 4.2 Distinction from Historic Buildings Meets Guideline? All additions should be discernible from the historic structure. Where 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 front tTte Addition should be more clearly No historic structure, but maintain visual distinguished from the histoxic continuity 6etweert the hcvv. One house byway of connector, setback, common method is to step the addition and difference of material/finish. back and/or set it in slightly from the historic structure. Every project is different and successfitl designs Wray incorporate a variety of approaclzes. 2 Do not directly copy historic elements. Historic elements are generally Yes Instead, interpret historic elements in referenced through fenestration and simpler ways in rile addition. forms. 3 Additions should be simpler irT Addition is relatively simple in Yes detail than the original structure. design. An addition that exhibits a more ornate style or implies an earlier period of architecture titan drat o tlTe on irtal is ina pro riate. 4 The architectural style of additions Stylistically references house in an Yes should not imitate the historic style Uut appropriate manner. must be compatible with it. Contemporary style additions are possible, but require the utrnvst attention to these guidelines tv be successful. The use of tzvo distinct historic shjles, such as adding 1'udor- stylehalf-timbering to a Classic Cotta;e, is ina~ ro riate. 4.3 Cont atibility with Historic Buildin s Meets AGENDA ITEM #7C YAGE S:\PLAN\dataUongrang\HIST\ALTCERTS1Landmarks\I'ine.1507\03.04.09.1507 Pinedoc Guideline? Introducing new construction Hutt contrasts shazpiy with an existing histvric structure or site detracts froth the visual continuity that marks our historic districts. While additions slzouId be distinguishable from the historic structure, they must not contrast so sharply as to detract front the original building and/or the site. Additions should never overwhelm historic structures or the site, in mass, scale or detailin . 1 An addition should be subordinate to Other than 24H sq. ft. stair elevator No the historic building, lizzzited in size tower proposed addition lower than and scale so that it does not dirninish or historic house. Staff considers the visually overpower the building. addition overwhelms the historic house in trtass and scale. Reduce size si 'ficantl . 2 Design an addition to be compatible Mass and scale of addition are No with the historic building itz mass, scale, incompatible with historic house. rnaterials and color. For elevations Fenestration appears generally visible front public streets, the appropriate. Little detail provided relationship of solids to voids izz the regarding material and color. exterior walls should also be com atible. 4 Reflect the original symmmetry or Proposed addition should not No asymmetrz~ of the historic building. extend beyond west wall of historic building to preserve symmetry of historic house when viewed from Pine and 15th Streets. 5 Preserve the vertical and horizontal Mass and scale of proposed addition No proportion of a building's mass. creates form that is significantly more horizontal and is incompatible with verticali of historic house. 4.4 Compatibility with Historic Site and Setting Meets Guideline? 1 Design new additions so that the Landscaping plan not submitted, Maybe overall character of the site, site however, it appears that several topography, character-defining site mature trees would be lost as a features and trees are retained. result of the construction of the ro osed addition. 2 I ocate new additions on an Addition is to be constructed at the No inconspicuous elevation of the historic rear and side of the historic building, generall y the rear one. building. l-iowever, projection of Locating an addition to the front of a addition 1T west of the primary structure is inapproprinfe because it elevation toward 15t'l Street is highly obscures the historic facade of a conspicuous and obscures the building. historic west face of the house. ACrENDA ITEM #7C PAGE 1 f~' S:\PT AN\data\fongrang\HIST\ALTCBR'tS\Landmarks\Pine.1507\03.04.09.1507 Pine.doc 3 Respect the established orientation of Proposed addition disrupts No the nriginal building and typical established orientation of. the alignments fie the area. historic house. Addition should be set back from primary west wall (facing 15~~~ Street). At east wall, addition should be set further back (north). 4 Preserve a backyard area between the Lot coverage will more than double Maybe house and the garage, maintaining the from existing .35 floor area ratio to general proportion of built mass to .75 i.f addition is constructed open space found within the area. See resulting in elimination of backyard Guideline 2.1.1. area. Average built mass in immediate area is hi li. 4.5 Key Building l;Iements Meets Guidelines? Roofs, porches; dormers, windows and doors arc somo 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 guidelines below, refer also to Section 3.0 Alterations for related sug estions. Mair:taro the dominant roofline and Does not maintain dominant roof No '1 orierTtatiozi o the roo orrn to the f ff form to the street. street. 2 Rooflines nn additions should be lower Rooflines are lower than historic Yes than and secondary to the roofline of the building. Ort anal buildrn ~ 3 The existing roof form, pitch, eave These elements on addition are yes depth, and materials should be used for generally compatible with those on all additiorTS. the historic building. 5 Maintain the proportion, general style, General proportion, style, location Yes and symrnefr<~ or asymmetry of the and symmetry of window patterns existing window patterns. referenced in design for the addition. ~ Use window shapes that are found on Some window and door locations, Yes the historic structure. Do not introduce shapes and designs on the addition. odd-shaped windows such as octagonal, are incompatible with historic house. trian ular, or diamond-sha ed. 8 Use materials and construction similar Application does not specify type of Maybe to historic windows. Do not use snap- windows, though are drawn as one- in muntins. over-one, double hung with no muntin. AGENDA ITEM #7C PAGF / 1 S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIST\ALTCERTS1Landmarks\I'ine.1507\03.04.09.1507 Pine.doc The proposed application does not meet the conditions of Subsectioxt 9-11-18(b,1- 3)(c), B.R.C. 1981 of the Boulder Revised Code in that the addition would significantly alter the special historic character of the landmarked house by overwhelming it in mass and scale. It may only be appropriate to construct a smaller addition to the rear of the house; one that does not greatly exceed the width of the historic building. FINDINGS: As outlined in the staff recommendation, the proposed rehabilitation and construction at 1507 Pule Street is not consistent with the purposes and standards of the flistoric Preservation Ordinance in that: 1. The proposed addition would damage the special historic exterior architectural features of the Temple-Bowron house by overwhelming it in mass and scale. 2. The mass, scale, and location would have an adverse effect on the historic character of the Temple-Bowron house. 3. The request is generally inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Sections 3 & 4 of the General Design Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS: A: Designating Ordinance for 1507 Pine Street B: Application and Plans C: Photographs AGENDA ITEM #7C PAGE 1 S:\PLAN\data\tongrang\HIST\ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Pine.l 507\03.04A9.1507 Pine.doc ' t'°' Attachment A A.J UR1)INANCF I'ER'I'AIN ING 'I'U 'iiE "L•i I5•i'()I?'I PIZFSLRVA'rIUN CU~71: , " t;EiAf 1'IsR 51 Uk' •1'i°tl: Rk;V>:SEU CODE OF TI~t% CITY Ob' UUtJLI)I~IZ , 1.965, AS AZrtJ+:TdDLD; Dk:SICNATING A5 A LANDMARK TILE 'iL'MPLE-BUWKON HOUSE, 1507 1'ITdl; STREET, BC)ULDER, COLORADO; AP1U SETTILVG FORTH U.ETAILS iN ItELATIOiV TIak:KETU . GliiF.REAS, pursuant to Article III or Chanter 51, r'I~istoric 1'r~eservatian Code," of the Revised Code o.f the City of B,~ulder, 1965, as amended, the City Council may designate as a 7.and- mark a strucCure having a special character or. special his- torical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value; WHEREAS, upon the application of the Landmarks Board, landmark designation proceedings were duly coi~unenced with respect to the Temple-Bowron House, 1507 Pine Street, Boulder, Colorado; WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed landmark designation was duly held ;~efore the Landmarks Board on August 4, 197{ and thereafter the Landmarks Board re~t:sr~ed the proposed designation Co the City Council. with a copy of its report and. recommendation thzt the proposed designation be approved; WHEREAS, upon public notice as required by law a pub-• lic hearing on t'he proposed designation was duly held before the C-i_i.y Council on January 4, 1977 and upon the basis of the presentations at the said hearing the City Council finds Mat the Temple-Bowron House dons possess a special. character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest- or value ~•Jar.•.3nting its designation as a landmark; . t;"i:........ NCW, TEis~CtEFORE, B.E F'T ORDAINED BY THE CITY Ct)UFd<:7I, OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, THAT: Section 1.. Theme is hereby designated as a landmark the 'T'emple-Bowron House, 1Sfl7 Pine Street, Boulder, Colorado, and as the corresponding landmark site the real property lorated in the City or Boulder, County of Boulder, Star_c of Colorado, particularly described as follows: Block 1~:6 , Lots 7 and S . ~'he characterislCics of the Temple-Bowron House which justify its designatio~.~ include Its construction in 1883 as one~of the early Boulder residences; its association with an his- torical person of local prominence, E. J. Temple; and its geographical importance as a familiar visual feature of the community ,3ue to its unique location In view of these characteristics, the building itself as an integrated structure sliou].d be preserved . Section 2. The City Council finds that the foregoing 1.a2~cimark. designation is"necessary to promote the pub.:cic health, safety and welfare. Section 3. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and directs the City Clerk to make Bailable in his office copies of the text of the ordinance for public inspection and acquisition. The City Council further directs the Planning Department to give prompt notice of the designation to the property owner and cause a copy of this ordinance 'to be recorded, as pro- ~rided by Section 31-305(c) of the 12evised Code. IivT'RUDUCED, 1ZEF~D, AND URDERED P1J1~1.LSF!E~:U KY 'f'1'I'~.L: this da cif A . U . Y - r Fr A~tFSt: ~ ~ ~K_.._ Direr o~ Finance an Record Ex-ot~icio City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ..DUPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this zeth day of .7aruary A • D • 1977 '°""°"'•``~f ~ Mayo ' Attest: . ~ hire t o - Finance' an~Recor~c Ex-officio City Clerk - _ I Ct.. d___._-. , F, __--'__`•a ir31L ,_.-.1111 r1 rv,,L:,trl a:e3 i~. i. T,c'_t.. , Ciec.k o: i__c, in the Cwnty apd ~~.a:.u a~or.c5aid, do t,ecea7 =ertify tt>..iY r_;,r_•. fu:.uc:ui:~; •r.:.:..,:.rc- ._.._:>.i z..~ ~t 1. read r. ,irs: rea.±ing at a regular meeting of tha C::ty Ccu::cil or said ::ity, h^ld on ChE' -,_~a•,.' o= ~.D. 19 '•7 any that aEtet^aards to-uit• o:; t: C t day o.` .;"Hoary --..._•j y._._.-.~.___~- A.D. 29 77 T caused the sautes to be s.ublishza iby title only, i4it~rXR9.) in o''iac:ai i.al:cr ~~F sa:: ..:ty (th° >.~:n= heino a ?ape= <~f general circulation p:rblisacd in s.iid City), a..d that sail ~tLaica:.:or. :rte, mare crrt cayb Ga:oca ctte ?assaye oC sai3 ~=di>Sance. I hereby certify that the Eoregoi:tq ocdin3nce was ofte:uatds duty a..^.d .eyularlj pas:~a;S Gy ~-:a •~ity L'ourtcil of said City on second reading at a regular rteetinq thereof held a: the Z$tti Say of uaaut~ry J A. D. i9 77 , and c:1at thereafter, to-wit: on the 21St day of .7ariuaYy A.D. 19 7 r , Y caused the sage to he published (hy tit•le only, ~2ftX1'ltX~.) in the official paper. WTT\=,55 my hand and th.~ seal of said City of Bouldez hsreto affixe3, this 2~~)t day of `f3riu~tY;~ A.A. 19 77 ~ ~ 11~~~ Direct•r Finaace .md Record Ex officio City Clerk 1-. . Attachment B City of Boulder Planning and Development Services ~ LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION Date of application: 0~ Case number: HIS o~~ ~ Property address: l S~ ~ l/l-r- r~- 5 1. Historic DistricF/Landmark name: Ti~~"~Q~-E' e~~~~ Applicant name: GLI l~ N.1 ~v M~FN Relationship to project (e.g., architect, contractor): ~ ~it.l Phone: 3~~"~"T• Mobile phone: Fax: ~o3.~'q'~'~ q'~~ Applicant's mailing address: ~,rjp~ Q I N ~ ST• U LDt~~ G~ ~ ~ 3~ Z- Street City State Zip Properly owner's name:GL~~F µEV ~"1 Daytime phone: Property owner's address: ~,~G1 p 1 N ST . '~D V ~ _ GU ~O ~ Z„ Street City State Zip PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Please list all exterior alterations proposed for the property in the space provided below. Please see the following pages for submittal requirements. All 4 pages must be included in the application. INITIAL. CODE REVIEW The following applications require initial review and sign off by a project specialist or zoning administrator prior to acc~tance of a landmark alteration certificate application. Please mark all applicable boxes. ~ew cessory structure, garage, new residence, d, ) ? Dormers ? Porches ? Fences II new additions ad j Gt~r^t Tvlt oi' V/S pp THIS SECT"ICON IS FOR STAFF USE ONLY l Property Zoning: ILm~ ~ Lot Size: N /Required setbacks: ~S r F. ~s r r2, 35 ~S} Floodplain: _Q Prior Reviews (Use Review, PUD, etc) g(- r.{ _ S ea~k Other Applications which may be required based on proposed application: ~ ~S 2-~d S~ Preliminary Comments: ~~d~ ~t C-~w+>1 Reviewed by: _ Date: a (his section is a customer service review, and does not constitute a forrnol review of all applicable codes and regulotions. Ail sections of the Boulder Revised Code must still be adhered to rior to erformin an work. Please submit this completed application, along with the required information outlined on the following pages to a project specialisf. 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 preservoiion planner. We look forward to working with you on your project) i ~ 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, whict, involve minor alterations. This (Please check all type of review can have a quick approval turn-around providing the applicant submits a that apply) complete application form with documentation and the proposed alterations meet the ? Landscaping applicable design guidelines. ? Paint A complete a,pp>lication 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: D Photographs: Comprehensive color photos of the structure and of detoils 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 after a complete application is filed that apply) whether or not the 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 following documentation is required to initiate review by the Design Review Committee: This application: Completely filled out ? Additions Photographs: Photos of existing building and surrounding context ? Fence (front yard or rear /side yard if over ~ Drawings: All drawings should be to scale, with dimensions, and as detailed and clear 5' toll 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 Scaled site plans: including existing and proposed site plans under) Elevations: usually'/a" = 1' scale including existing and proposed elevations ? Other ,0 Materials: Specific materials used should be noted on plans. Samples may be requested. Colors: paint/stain color chips ~J Photographs: photos of existing building from all sides and existing context ? Manufacturers/catalogue "tear" sheets ? Fences: bring to-scale drawings showing dimensions and spacing between rails. ? Details The following may be requested prior to final opproval: ? Building sections ?Methods of restoration ?Study model or 3-U 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 c:ampleted applications for LDRC review must be turned in by noon on the Fridoy prior to the requested meeting- Please note that your requested DRC meeting may not be available due to scheduling. The Committee meets of 9:00 a.m. every Wednesday (except holidays) at the P&DS Services Center on the 3`~ floor of the Park Central E,uilding, 1739 Broadway. Please call and ask for a Historic Preservation Planner if you have questions with any of the above alterations or submittal requirements. LANDMARK ALTERATION CERTIFICATE APPLICATION (Page 3) LANDMARKS BOARD (LB) 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 Board. A public hearing is required in order to (Please check all issue on alteration certificate under these circumstances. The full board meets once a month, that apply) usually on the first Wednesday. Submittal deadlines are listed on the following page. All applications must be submitted to a project specialist by 4:00 pm 20 days prior to the hearing. ? New 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 o decision to approve a landmark alteration certificate application made by the Landmarks Board. If the Landmarks Board votes to ? Demolition deny a landmark alteration certificate application, the City Council has 30 days in which to call up (includes primary 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: Application called up from DRC Previous Page requirements (Listed under LDRC) Written project description 10 folded 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) ai 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") fa' 1 reduced (8 Yz"x 1 1 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 C]Methods of restoration ?Study model or 3-D simulated model T(P: 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 Boulder as enumerated in the Boulder Revised Code, 1981. . 5 d7 Signature of owner or authorized agent for owner ate Contact Us: Planning & Development Services -Historic Preservation Program 1739 Broadway, 3"~ Floor Boulder, CO 80302 (303) 441-1880 Http://www.boulderhistoricpreservation. net 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 2009 Landmarks Board Meeting Dates and Application Submittal Deadlines Landmarks Board meetings are generally held the first Wednesday of each month at 6 p.m. in the Municipal Building, Council Chambers Room, located at 1777 Broadway. Landmark Alteration Certificate applications scheduled for a public heoring before the fuN Landmarks Board are due by 4:00 pm 27 days before the meeting date. All applications must be submitted through a project specialist. Board Meeting Submittal Deadline February 4 January8 March 4 Februory 5 April 1 March 5 May 6 April 9 June 3 May 7 July 1 June 4 August 5 July 9 September 2 August b October 7 September 10 November 4 October 5 December 2 November 5 Craig Bundy Architects P.C. 1445 Pearl Street, Suite 201 Boulder, Colorado 80302 303 444 4589 ARCHI'LECT' S WKITTEN STATEMENT 4 Feb 09 Temple -Bowron House, 1507 Pine Street The property is zoned R~IX-1. The property is currently used for law offices on the first and second floors, and for residential on the third floor. It is designated as an historic landmark known as the Temple-Bowron House and is an example of the Victorian Second Empire style. 'hhe home has been rescued and restored by its current owner of 22 years. The exterior brick has been stripped of years of old paint and the interior brought back to its original standards. The proposed project would be use by right and require a two story addition to the existing three story structure that would house the following use. Per the Land Use Regulations two residential units are allowed on the site. Three age restricted units may be substituted for each of the allowed residential units. The owner has chosen to exchange one of the allowed units for three age restricted units, 60 years of age or older. The resulting in one non-restricted housing unit and three age restricted housing units. Also included is a proposal to rebuild the historic tower and porch demolished over 50 years ago. The first two floors of the existing structure will be converted back to one non-restricted residential unit. The existing third floor unit will be renovated and converted to an age restricted unit and two additional age restricted units will be built on the site along with garage space for eight cars. All units will be accessible via individual elevators. An additional component of the project will be a shared kitchen and dining room. Social services will also be provided for the residents residing in the age restricted units. The home is built in the center of a double corner lot measuring 100 feet wide and 140 feet deep. 'I"he main body of the house is set back 35 feet from the property line. The ' neighboring two houses to the east are setback only I5 feet. The existing eastern side yard setback is 32 feet where 3 feet is allowed, the existing western side yard setback is 24 feet where 12.5 feet is allowed and the existing rear yard setback is 57 feet where 25 feet is allowed. GENERAL DESIGN GULDELINE COMPLIANCE It is normal for buildings to evolve over time as additional space is needed or uses are accommodated. RTew additions within the historic districts are appropriate as long as they do not destroy historic features, materials, and spatial relationships that are significant to the original building and site. They also must be distinguishable from the historic architecture. The proposed addition would be within the required rear and side yard setbacks which are allowed per the Land Use Regulations. The design solution maintains the historic n _ ~G features, materials and spatial relationships that are significant to the original building and the site. It is normal for buildings to evolve over time, expanding into space that was once open on the site. The proposed addition is setback 87 feet from the front property line on the east side and 65 feet on the east side allowing the original structure to maintain the dominant visual importance. The addition is further separated from the existing structure by a change of material. A wall material of stone veneer will separate the existing building from the new addition on the west and east sides respectively. The change in material provides a clearly discernible line distinguishing the existing historic structure from the new allowing the historical evolution of the project to be clear. Restoration of the tower and the porch will further strengthen the visual prominence of the original structure. New additions should nvt compromise the integrity of the original structure or site, whether through direct destruction of historic.features and materials or indirectly thrvugh their location, size, height or ,scale. The owner has spent a lot of time and money lovingly restoring and preserving the integrity of this structure. His proposal will rebuild the historic tower and front porch bringing it back to its' original Level of detail. As stated previously we feel the location of the addition is appropriate. Much has been said in design review committee with regard to the placement of the addition. T'he . committee has recommended that the addition only be placed to the rear of the existing structure and would support encroachment into the rear yard setback. This however, results in a building ovex 110 feet long and because it is seen predominantly from two sides, the south and the west, it appears uncharacteristically long and violates the spatial relationship it needs with the alley. The encroachment into the rear yard setback seems forced and uncharacteristic. Care has been taken to incorporate massing and fenestrations in the addition that are compatible with the existing structure. The height is only two stories as compared to the three stories of the existing structure. Additives should be evmpatible with, but discernible frvm, the historic architecture. When the original design is duplicated the addition is indistinguishable and the historic evolution of the building becomes unclear. Conversely, when design elements contrast too strongly with the original structure the addition will appear visually incompatible. We believe the architecture of the addition's proportions, method of separation and details combine the elements that compliment the existing structure clearly defining the old from the new. We have made no attempt to copy details and filigree, but have concentrated on the massing and rhythms of the existing structure. The appropriate location of an additive tv an existing building will depend vn the character of the existing building and its site, adjacent buildings, and the area as a whole. While every site is unique, generally additions are most appropriate at the rear of the structure. The addition should be designed and located so significant site features, including mature trees, are not lost. An addition should not overpower the site or dramatically alter its historic character, and should be subordinate to the existing structure. The neighborhood as a whole has been allowed to expand undeterred over the years, from setback to setback. As in many neighborhoods, some of these expansions have ignored the historic context and same have embraced it. This particular section of 1 S`h street is no exception. In viewing the context of the block in general terms, this property (1517 Pine) is out of context. In viewing the area as a whole it seems totally within context to expand primarily to the north but also somewhat to the east and to the west. The height of the addition is a full story less than the height of the original structure. The clearly defined material separation makes a definite break between the new and old. We believe the positioning of the addition enhances the existing building and that the location of an addition at the rear of the existing structure extending to the alley to be a specific interpretation of a general statement meant to allow for discretion in evaluating design options. By using the word generally the guidelines axe considering the project as a whole and are not specifically implying that this is a rule of dcsign. Here, the original structure straddles the shared double lot line, and the front of the building is setback 1 S feet fiom the other building fronts on the block. Wrapping the addition containing the age restricted units behind and below the historic structure preserves its prominence while also protecting the trees and open space along the 15~' and Pine Street frontages. We believe this design solution to be a response to the area and neighborhood as a whole and to be in keeping with the spirit of the General Design Guidelines. We also believe the project is an appropriate design solution that restores the existing structure to its previous use while addressing a housing need that the City has specifically provided for in the in the Land Use Regulations. Ed Syrne, P.C. A Professional Legal Services Corporation 250 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 300 Boulder, CO 80302 - _5838 February 5, 2009 Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 1739 Broadway, 4`'' floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO $0306-0791 Re: Statement in Support of Landmark Alteration Certificate for 1507 Pine Street, HIS2008-00055 Dear Members of the Board, Two months ago, I was asked by Clifford Neuman, member manager of IZatna Enterprises, LLC, owner of 1507 Pine Street, to review the plans he and the architect, Craig Bundy & Associates had developed for renovation and expansion of the office building. I went to the Carnegie Library to begin my evaluation. Landmark Designation, L-76-12 (1/4/1977) On August 4, 1976, the Landmarks Board held a hearing to consider whether to designate 1507 Pine Street, the Temple-BowronHouse, as an individual landmark. The applicant, Bab Bowron, indicated he was consideruig an attempt to restore the building to "more closely resemble its original appearance," but even after being granted landmark status, he failed to do so. The condition of the structure caused staffand at least one Landmarks Board member to question its value as a landmark. The minutes reflect that the Planning staff's representative, Paul Trementozzi, mentioned some concerns that had been raised by staff: ...many changes have been made to the house since it was originally built, primarily the removal of the original roof and addition of a third story in 1947. He indicated that the location of the house serves as an entrance to the residential area on Pine Street east of 15~. Landmarks Board (LB), August 4, 1976, at 3 (attached). Board member Dale Moberg questioned designation of the house due to the many changes that had taken place, stating that he, "questioned the value of `freezing' the building in its present form by designation as a landmark." Ibid. It was at this pourt in the hearing that Mr. Trementozzi noted that attempts to restore the building were being contemplated by Mr. Bowron, "specif cally, the restoration of the tower, a porch and the removal of the white paint." Following the closing of public comment on the agenda item, the Minutes go onto state: There followed some discussion regarding Mr. Moberg's point about the changes in Land Use & Develnprnent Planning -Real Estate Traruuctions -Government & Public Relations Phone: 303.447.2555 F~tX.~ 303.449.9349 ? Cell: 303.478.8075 E-mail: edbyme@smartlanduse.com Letter to Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, 1507 Pine Street February 5, 2009 page 2 the building, and it was noted that in the case of a house such as this, where considerable change has taken place, the Board would tend tv be more liberal in its review offuture changes at the time that a Certificate of Appropriateness was sought. Mx. Moberg also expressed some concern about maintaining the quality of buildings being designated as Landmarks. He felt that tlv.s house, from the time following its original ownership to the ownership by Mr. Bowron, had been remodeled in an arbitrary fashion and that possibly this designation might set a precedent in terms of the kinds of buildings considered for designation . He stressed that he supported the restoration being planned by Mr. Bowron, and that he would Look more favorably upon designation when the restoration was complete. The Board agreed that the restoration was "going in the right direction" and felt that each building could and would have to be considered on its own merits. Id. at 4 (emphasis added). "I'he Board then voted 4-1, with Mr. Moberg dissenting, to recommend City Council approval of the Temple-Bowron I=Iouse as an individual landmark. Perhaps, the Temple-Bowron House paled somewhat in comparison to the other three structures approved for designation by the Landmarks Board that evening -the Can~egie Library, the Chautauqua Auditorium and the Green-Earl House - but it is clear that the then-existing condition of the home at 1507 Pine Street, was a Legitimate concern. The Board members approved the designation, but they remained hopeful that some of the lost qualities of the 1883 residence might be restored someday. Finally, it should be noted that the residence, though altered over time, does fairly and accurately represent the Victorian: Second Empire style which, is related to, but distinct from the Italianate and Queen Anne styles often referred to in past evaluations of 1507 Pine Street: The style is characterized principally by its distinctive roof, .five principal mansard silhouettes occur. Decorative patterns of color or texture are common in the roofing materials, as is iron cresting above the upper cornice. If a tower is present, it may have a roof silhouette different from theat of the main house . The contemporaneous Italianate and Gothic Revival styles werepart vfaPicturesque movement which looked to the romantic past for inspiration. In contxast, the Second Empire style was considered very modern, for it imitated the latest French building fashions. The distinctive roof was named fox the 17~' century Drench architect Frangois Man.sart. Its use was extensively revived in France during the reign of Napoleon III (1852-70), France's Second Empire, from which the style takes its name ...The boxy roof line was considered particularly functional because it permitted a full upper story of usable attic space. Land Use & Development Planning -Real Estate Transactions -Government & Public Relations Phony: 303.447.2555 F~iX.- 303.4499349 •3 Cell: 303.478.8075 E-mail: edbyme@smartlanduse.com _ „ ~G _ 1 Letter to Landmarks Preservation Advisory Soard,1S07 Pine Street February 5, 2009 page 3 McAlester, A Field Guide to.~4merican Houses, Alfred A. Knopf, Tnc., New Yorlc, NY (1984) at 242 - 251. The presence of the tower and the third floor with mansard roof may have been misinterpreted in the past, but can and will be clearly revealed when the proposed restoration is completed. Delivering on the Original Unfulfilled Promises As noted above, Mr. Bawron never delivered on his "plans to rebuild," and subsequent owners lacked the vision or the resources to do so as well. Twenty-two years ago, however, the Applicant purchased the property, which through Special Review had been converted from its historic residential use to an office building -thus, it should be noted, diminishing its former role as "an entrance to the residential area on Pine Street east of 15"'." ld. at 3. "The office use has continued, but one of the significant benefits to be realized from the Applicant's current plans for renovating 1507 Pine Street is re-establishment of the property's historic residential use as a 4-unit (three units will be age restricted) dwelling place -all the units will be served by private elevators, so they will be handicap accessible. While in the Applicant's care, the first step in the restoration process (once anticipated hopefully by the Landmarks Board), removal of the paint covering the original brick exterior, and tuck-pointing ofthe grout, was completed at a price in the neighborhood of$35,000. Extensive interior remodeling saved the structure, which was suffering from neglect and was in serious disrepair (due to fre damage in the upper floors and normal wear and tear below), restoring the building to its original quality of construction at a total cost (including the exterior work) of approximately $100,000. This much the Applicant has done without assistance and, for the most part, without recognition. Now, he wants to finish the restoration of the porch and the tower as part of a conversion of the S,000s.f. office building to a 1 U,000s.f., four-unit residence (including three age restricted units), on a 14,000s.f. parcel comprised of two lots, Lots 7 and 8, of Block I46 of the Boulder Fast Plat. Although the lot configurations in this area are a bit of a hodgepodge, 1507 Pine, a double lot, remains one of the largest parcels in the near vicinity, carrying the expansion proposed by the Applicant without impinging upon the Pine Street frontage (already set back 15 feet further than structures to the east), and with a minor intrusion along the 1 S~' Street frontage in the rear of the lot, adj acent to the alley. From a visual perspective, the proposed addition is tucked behind and around the historic structure, preserving the open space and trees along Pine and 15`~ Streets. This is particularly true here because the design proposed by Craig Bundy & Associates tucks the expansion behind and alongside of the landznarked structure, without diminishing in any way the historic character of the property, and while completing restoration of two of its most significant historic elements, the front porch and the tower. Replacement of the porcln and the tower further strengthen and enhance the prominence ofthe 1883 residence, while effectively minimizing the mass and scale of the proposed additions located north and east of the existing building. Staff s analysis of the proposed addition seems to be driven not by what can and will be seen by Land Use & Development Planning - Re¢Z estate Transactions Government & Public Relations Phone: 303.447.2555 ? FAX: 303.449.9349 Cell: 303.478.8075 F,-mail: edbyrne@smartlanduse.com Letter to Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board,1S07 Pine Street February 5, 2009 page 4 human beings at street level, but instead by mathematic ratios and site plan aerial views that misperceive the careful juxtaposition of the proposed addition in azeas along the alley and adjacent to 1519 Pine Street so as to avoid adverse impacts on the aesthetic interest and value of the landmark, its site, and the proposed Whittier historic District. Review Criteria See Architect's Written Statement and associated renderings and plans. General Design Guidelines §3.7.1 -Windows on the third level will all be replaced by window openings consistent with the Victorian Second Empire style; the windows used when the third floor was added were one of the glaring deficiencies that will be repaired by this project. Windows in the addition will be clearly distinguishable from, though compatible with those preserved in the existing structure, reflecting their patterns and. proportions. §3.8.2 - As has been done carefully with all the renovations to date, the fixnctional, proportional and decorative features of the primary entrance will be retained and rehabilitated. No door, flame, sill, head, jamb, moldings or flanking window replacements are contemplated at this time. §3.8.10 -See X3.7.1 above; relationship of voids to solid will also be compatible. Other design review comments have been addressed in the drawings and plans submitted herewith. §3.8.13 -Symmetry of fenestration on the proposed addition is compatible with existing structure. §4.0.1- The only portions of the historic structure that will be removed are the exterior fire escapes on the north facade and the hip roofed zoom in the northeast corner appended to the kitchen at some indeterminate tune in the past. Two of the four historic windows on the east elevation that wrill he covered by the addition, will be preserved inside; the other two will be bricked in, but discernible as such. The alleyscape along the north wall will be much improved by the project, but any addition directly behind the historic structure would conceal its north elevation, whether or not some extension to the east and west is approved. §4.0.2 -Stairs up will be floated away from the historic structure so xemoval of the addition will not result in damage, although such removal appears highly unlikely once residences are re-established at this location. One of the north windows will be converted to an entry doorway. Evan an addition lined up behind the historic lot lure-straddling structure would impact the north elevation upon its removal. Every effort will be made to permit detachment of the addition without harm to the historic structure where this is possible. §4.0.3 - Mathematically and from the air, a S,OOOs.f. addition to a S,OOOs.f. historic structure might Land Use 8c Development Planning -Real Estatei'ransactions -Government & Public Relations Phone: 303.447.2555 ~01~;4X.~ 303.449.9349 ? Cell: 303.478.8075 v F.-mail: edbyrne~smarflanduse.com Letter to Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board,lSU7 Pine Street February 5, 2009 page 5 seem to be "equal" in terms of mass and scale, but the set back and set below design prepared by the Applicant's architect shows that the addition does not detract from the overall historic character of the existing building. The design makes excellent use of the porch and tower restoration to enhance the prominence of the historic structure, while it employs the stone veneer separation and existing mature landscaping to distinguish and partially conceal the visual impact of the addition. §4.2.1 -The addition is compatible with the historic architecture but clearly recognizable as new construction. Differences of materials and finish are used, along with connectors and setbacks to accomplish this objective. See Architect's renderings and plans. §4.2.2 - .4 -Applicant agrees with staff's determination that historic elements are generally referenced appropriately in the addition through fenestration and forms that are relatively simple in design. §4.3.1 - .4 - For the reasons noted above relating to the unique characteristics of this double corner lot, the shaxed lot line-straddling placement of the historic structure upon the two lots, the fact the building's front is setback an extra 15 feet from Pine Street when compared to its neighbors, and the existence of mature trees in the frontage south and west of the project area, Applicant strongly disagrees with staff. The addition is tucked carefully below and behind the historic structure, while its visual prominence will be signif cantly enhanced by the addition of the porch and tower, plus the repair of the third floor windows, such that the addition neithex detracts from nor contrasts sharply with the Temple- Bowron House. From a visual perspective, observed from ground level on either Pine Street or 15`h Street, the visible facade of the addition is consistently dominated by the visible facade of the historic structure by a factor of three or four to one. §4.3.5 -The portions of the two-story addition that extend to the west and east of the western and eastern wal is of the existing structure are set back significantly from the Pine Street frontage and the existing trees work to further obscure their visibility. At two stories, homes behind are visible above and behind them, although the same homes can not bee seen behind the Temple-Bowron facade. The unique circumstances on this lot cause the better hidden horizontal addition to be a more compatible and distinguishable architectural response to the towered eminence of the historic structure. §4.4.1- .3 -The addition is sensitive to the overall characteristicsand unique opportunities presented by this double corner lot. By maximizing the open space in and along the Pine and 15`'' Street frontages, the 'T'emple-Bowron House remains front and center while the addition wraps it from behind xespectfully and largely out-of--view. The mature trees in the frontage areas will be saved. The tall pine tree, unfortunately, is in poor health and must be removed -this does, however, further assist in restoring the visual prominence of the historic structure, itself, while it enables the porch to be added back. Land iJce & Development Planning -Rea[ Estate Transactions -Government & Public Relations Phone: 303.447.2555 FAX.' 303.449.9349 •3 Cell: 303.478.8075 E-mail: edbyrne@smartlanduse.com Letter to Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, 1507 Pine Street February 5, 2009 page 6 §4.4.4 -The lot covexage may more than double, but on this double lot, there will still be more, and more attractive and functional, open space along Pine and 15`~ Streets. Given the edge-to-edge development up and down the 1500-block of Pine on both sides of the street, there will remain nsore open space on 1507 Pine than the built mass lot-by-Iot found within the area. §4.5.1 -When, as here, the "dominant roof line" includes an historic and significant tower element, maintenance of the roof line would, almost of necessity, detract from the landmarked structure. This guideline potentially conflicts with guideline §4.4.2, which calls for roof lines in additions to be "lower than and secondary to the roof lute of the original building. §4.5.2-.6 -Applicant agrees with staff's analysis with respect to these guidelines. _ §4.5.8 -Applicant will comply with this guideline, as shown in Architect's renderings and plans. Conclusion We believe that a fair and impartial review of the carefully designed and rendered plans for adding three age restricted dwelling units below and behind the Temple-Bowron House can and will conclude that the goals and objectives of the City's historic preservation code are met and exceeded by the Applicant's submittal. We will look forward to answering any questions the Board may have at our hearing. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and the documents submitted herewith. Sincerely, i Ed Byn cc: Clifford Neuman Craig Bundy & Associates Land Use & Development Planning -Real Estate Transactions -Government & Public Relations Phone: 303.447.2555 ? FAX.• 303.449.9349 Cell: 303.478.8075 E-mail: edbyrne@smartlanduse.com 1 ~ C~J"~:.IL AGs=IJDr"t tr~~T`L' LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES August 4, 1976 ' ATTENDING: Al Zeigel, Elizabeth Theotokatos, Gretchen King, Dale Moberg, Tom Thorpe (late). Tom Meier and Jo Frances Haywood, ex officio. The meeting of August 3 was called or order by Al Zeigel, Chairman. Mr. Moberg made a motion for approval o` the minutes of June 16, 1876. Mrs. King seconded the motion and the minutes wire approved as presented. Mr. Zeigel commented that arrangements had been made with City Council to have a wort session with them regarding the items to bE heard at the present meeting, prior to the Council-consideration of these items. The joint meeting will be head early in Spetember. AGENDA ITEM /#l: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGNATION AS AN INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK, ~L-76-9, OF THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY, LOCATED AT .1125 PINE STREET. APPLICANT: LANDMARKS BOARD/ CITY OF BOULDER Paul Trementozzi of the•Planning Staff, made the presentation on the Carnegie Library, as per the Staff memo dated July 23, 1976. He also showed slides indicating the boundaries of the site as proposed for designation, the Library as it looks at present, and various features of the architecture, par- ticularly the fluted columns on the main facade. Mr. Trementozzi indicated that the landscaping had been part of the original design of the building, as shown in original plans the Staff had reviewed, but that much of this landscaping is now greatly overgrown, detracting from the view of the main facade of the Library. Mrs. King asked, in view of the fact that the City does own the building, whether the large bushes in the front could be removed and replaced with lower growing bushes. Mr. Trementozzi indicated that this was something that should be followed up with the Parks Department, that Parks did have the capability to remove the old bushes. Mr. Zeigel then opened the meeting to the public: for comment on this item, but as no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Theotokatos then made a motion to recommend to City Council that the Carnegie Library and its site be designated as an individual landmark in the City of Boulder. Mr. Moberg seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Board . ~ ~ 3 Landmark Board Mi.. .~,s August 197b Mrs. King indicated that she has heard on and off that there is a desire to do some restoration of Chautauqua and expressed the hope that something of this kind could be done. Dena Wild commented that the'Parks Department had attempted to obtain some Federal funding for rehabilitation of the auditorium, but had been turned down. She stated, however, that this was an indication that attempts were being made to obtain money for restoration of the building. Mr. Moberg suggested that information from the research done on the audi- torium could be used to indicate the kind of restoration arhich shouic; be done. The public portion of the meeting was closed. Mrs. King then made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council the designation of the Chautauqua Auditorium and the site 97,200 square feet as an individual landmark. Mr. Thorpe seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the Board. • ~ AGENDA ITEM #{4: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGNATION AS AN _ INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK, #L-76-12, OF THE TEMPLE-BOWRON HOUSE, • LOCATED AT 1507 PINE STREET. APPLICANT: LANDMARKS BOARD/ CITY OF BOULDER Paul Trementozzi made the presentation of t:~e house at 1507 Pine Street. He showed slides o~f_.the house, at the time when it was occupied by the Temples and at present. Paul spoke to the memo of July 23, 197b, and indicated that many changes have been made to the house since it was originally built, primarily the removal of the original roof and addition of a third story in 1947. He indicated that the location of the house serves as an entrance to the residen- tial area on Pine Street east of 15th. Mr. Moberg raised some question regarding the designation of this house, specifically with respect to the changes that had taken place in the building and he questioned the value of "freezing" the building in its present form by . designation as a landmark. Paul Trementozzi answered that the present owner, Bob Bowron had at one time indicted that there would be attempts at restoration of-the building to more closely resemble its original appearance, specifically, the restoration of the tower, a porch and the removal of the white paint. This item was then opened for public comment. Bob Bowron, the resident/owner of the building, commented that with the help of Laurence Paddock he had been able to ascertain the original appearance of the house, and that he does have plans to rebuild the front porch, as well as the tower. He indicated that consideration had been given to sandblasting the bulding in order to remove the paint but that because the third floor addi- tion would then stand out as a separate entity, the decision was made to repaint the house instead. 4. Landmark Board Min Augus 1976 Jack Ogilvy, 1525 9th Street, stated that he felt that although the house was not in its original condition, and was architecturally anomalous, it, never- theless, has character and is an interesting building which merits the consider- ation of the Board. Public hearing of this item was then clos~d. There followed some discussion regarding Mr. Moberg's point about the changes in the building, and.it was noted that in the case of a house such as this, where considerable change has taken place, the Board would tend to be more libera} in its review of future changes at the time that a Certificate of Appro- priateness was sought. Mr. Moberg also expressed some concern about maintaining the quality of buildings being designated as landmarks. He felt that this house, from the time following its original ownership to the ownership by Mr. Bowron, had been re- modeled in an arbitrary fashion and that possibly this designation might set a precedent in terms of the kinds of buildings considered for designation. He stressed that he supported the restoration being planned by Mr. Bowron, and ,that he would look more favorably upon designation when the restoration was complete. - The Board agreed that the restoration was "going in the right direction" and felt that each building could and would have to be considered on its ovrn •merits. Mr. Thorpe then made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Temple-Bowron House and its sire as an individual landmark. Mrs. King seconded the motion and the Board voted 4 to 1 for its approval (Mr. Moberg dissenting). AGENDA ITEM #5~ PUBLlC NEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGNATION AS AN - INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK, #L-76-13, OF THE GREENE-EARL HOUSE, LOCATED AT 2429 BROADWAY. APPLICANT: LANDMARKS BOARD/CITY OF BOULDER Paul Trementozzi presented the report on the Greene-Earl House, as per the Staff memo of July 23, 1976• He commented on the environmental significance of the building fronting on Broadway and added that the presence of the very modern building adjacent (Boulder Valley Eye Clinic), adds contras t. and makes the older building stand out. He also commented that the interior of the building has remained vary mcuh intact, although the present owners have con- verted the building to office uses. The public hearing was then opened, but as no one wished to speak, the matter was returned to the Board. Mrs. Thectokatos commented that the community is fortunate to have a resi- dential structure which has retained its integrity so well, as a prominent feature on a main throoughfare such as Broadway, and that the contrast of the old and new buildings emphasizes the character of the Greene-Earl House. Mrs. Theotokatos then made a motion to recommend to City Council the designation of the Greene-Ea r1 House and its site as an individual landmark. Attachment L 1 , r y ~ ~ _ ~ ' { ~t r - tl yiY tt ~~•~1 i ' ~ ~C ~I tT . ' , - t ,....r.. - - I - ~I .r _ . ~'r:' ~ ' i ' ~ fiiliiilill~~ ,iliiiiii~ _ • - _ _ ~ ~ IliNllllllllll I ' r,r..~ . l C i - - .gyn.- _ - .,..~,.~+l.l.~._ - s.:~a C? 1~ / ~~~r / V I50~ J~r~i,~e n~~xn~l, COVER SHEET CkA1C Ill'\D1 It f A 1 1' F. r r r H E CONTACT INFO ~ r_ r ~ t5'°; ' 22.,5 n3~',, OWNER: 27.38 ~ ~ ' I ~C:, - r•; ` ~ CLIFFORD I. NEUMAN ~II'k" r`'22~5 ~ 1 ~ r 222 ~ 1. ` ' .i" 1507 PINE STREET . , `T~ , _ = ~ ~ BOULDER, C0 80302 ~ L. • . - - 2235 ~ ~ ~ 222 ~ ~ . = 222 _ ~ r ~~i - . - ~ , " 2225 ~ ~ s ~ , ` ` ~ Y ARCHITECT: ~ ~ i ~ t- ~ ~ ~ i5~i3''~ p1N 1' ~ ~535~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ CRAIG BUNDY ~ ~ ` ~ ' 152' ' CRAIG BUNDY ASSOCIATES • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • _ . , - 1445 PEAL STREET #201 r ` _ - BOULDER, CO 80302 ( ~ '°,',K~F~ 1 ~ ~ _ - - 303.444.4589 303.444.4143 ` ~rl ~ ~ . ~ . - ~ a >r ti ~ { - . PtiN~ , ~ ~ • ~ ~ t5a~l / - ~ ~ X53 ' ~i' i-, ~ t514 ~ 1518- ~ ~ ~ - SHEET INDEX . , - . P1 PROJECT INFORMATION ~ RKN~ pl i , pA { I S1 PROJECT SITE PLAN ` - - • N VICINITY MAP Al FLOOR PLANS (PROPOSED) PROJECT DATA A2 FLOOR PLANS (PROPOSED) - UNITASF a,577SF A3 SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED) a L_:~~~ 1507 PINE STREET, BOULDER, co A4 WEST BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED) BASEMENT 1,021 SF ~ ~ ZONING: RMX-1 (RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE-1) FiRSTFL00R 1,912 SF A5 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED) SECOND FLOOR 1,644 SF A6 EAST BUILDING ELEVATION (PROPOSED) , SITE AREA: 13,962 SF GARAGE 463 SF A7 HISTORIC TOWER RENOVATION BUILDING HEIGHT, 36' UNIT B SF 1,663 SF AS HISTORIC PORCH RENOVATION BASEMENT 92 SF A9 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS - PROPOSED HEIGH70FADDITION:29' FIRST FLOOR 216 SF A10 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS _ EXISTING BUILDING SF 5,888 SF SECOND FLOOR 1,355 SF I _ C GARAGE 435 SF H1 BUILDING HISTORY BASEMENT 1;6z~-- UNIT C SF 1,959 SF H2 BUILDING HISTORY - ~ • SECOND~o00R 1,644 SF ~ u ~ BASEMENT 125 SF ~.Ilffifiii~~! illii _ 4 THIRD FLOOR 1,512 SF FIRST FLOOR 462 SF E1 EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS ~ I~ SECOND FLOOR 1,372 SF E2 EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS ~q~ PROPOSED BUILDING SF 5,347 SF GARAGE 475 SF ~ I - [ UNITDSF 2,293 SF E3 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS ~ , BASEMENT +I Z~~~i ~ E4 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR 1,152 SF `1 SECOND FLOOR 2,904 SF BASEMENT 85 SF E5 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS (1 ST,2ND) THIRD FLOOR 246 SF FIRST FLOOR 273 SF E6 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS 3RD - SECOND FLOOR 177 SF ( ) TOTAL BUILDING SF 11,235 SF ~ THIRD FLOOR 1,758 SF 1" -100'-0" PROJECT INFORMATION GARAGE 416 SF N1 NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS TOTAL GARAGE SF 1,330 SF COMMON AREA 743 SF N2 NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS ~ rt I c ° ~ ~ ° ' P ~ , ALLEY t _ _ 100'-0"- - ~ ~ ' i;' ~ ~ ~ ~ PROPOSED ADDITION W W ~ , I , I . L..~ w i _ - i ~ o - 1507 PINE - °v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ I ~ / . ~ _ HISTORIC TOWER - / RECONSTRUCTION I -i' ~ I I i / ~ / ~ ~ ~ HISTORIC PORCH - ~ ~ • ~ - RECONSTRUCTION ~ c , ~ t _ 100'-0" - ~ - - - I C. i~ ,G J N 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN PINE STREET I; ~ ~ D 1 L. T Q NEW GARAGES ABOVE UNIT B UNIT A UNIT D UNIT C GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE ' STOR STOR. UNIT B UP r - ' KIT. STOR. ~ ENT I IP UP UP 1 ~ 1"UP ~ S. DN !y~ PatUD _ OFFICE UP UP COMMON AREA OFFICE UP UNIT D EN'iRY DN UNIT C ENTRY EXISTING BASEMENT ` UNIT A ENTRY ti HISTORIC PORCH l ADDITION BASEMENT PLAN ~Z`, FIRST FLOOR PLAN r 1116" =1'-0" 1116" =1'-O" 1 i 1 1/16"=1'-0" PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS ~~k~l~ ICI Al t R II I T E T I k t t! ~ ~I• r ~ KIl I BED #1 ~ BED #2 ~ BED #1 ~ ~ BED #it ~L. ~ 6 :i DN KIT. s = - - - ~ ~ ,i , ; lpN . I IDINING: ~ G 9EDtr2 l` ? . f C' - KIT. 1[ LNING MB ' ~ 111 - - a BEo#, i n SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~2' THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1116 =1-0 1116 -1-0 1/16"=1'-0" PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS ca:>ic oc;~ur A2 A R H I T E f T l~ R E ~ 1 t ~ . t I HISTORIC TOWER I . ADDITION ,I Z ' ~ J - CONNECTORCHANGC I,~' ~ IN MATERIAL TO UFFINF ~ EXISTING ROOF FORM ~ ~ ~ ADDfiIONFROMHISTORIC d USED ON ADDITION ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ J SIMPLIFIED FRIE7E ~ ~ Q ,r ti r _ e PROPORTIONAL TO ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - W - - _ ~ EXISTING CORBEL BAND 1 r I ' n ~ ' r 1 '1 I " f h~ o. o _ - - ~ i 'I' l i n' SIMPLIFIED CONCRETE i I ~ WINDOW HEADISILLS ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - DOUBLE WINDOWS W SIMILAR IN PROPOR MOMS k~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ABOVE FNTIZIES, T - ~ ~ C ~ ~ a-- ' I TYPICAL OFSECCND TO EXISTING S ONE t ~ ~ I-ICAD?, P~N11 SILLS ~ E ! ~ ! EMPIRE STYLE ~ i ~ " - _ _ I SIMPLIFIED ENTRY f ~ ~ ~ COLUMN ELEMENT wr~-z-~- I ~ ' I ~ ~ L i ~ % ~ ~ 'I ~ ~ ~ .1 ~ ~ rl 1 ',r ~ II I I~. i'r•1~ I ~ ~ -Cr1~.I~P 1 ~ I ._..__J___ .air ~ t ~ 1- - i ~I i C UNIT A ENTRY UNIT D ENTRY UNIT C ENTRY ROPOSED ADDITION ~ ~ PROPOSED HISTORIC PORCH ADDITI~ ~ _ _ PROPOSED ADDITION 118^ =1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION ~ I ~I L ~ I, A3 .1 ' ~ - HISTORIC TOWER ADDITION ' EXISTING ROOF FORM , USED ON ADDITION DUUHI F WINUUWS ~ t ~ ABOVE ENTRIES, I. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~r.%, TYPICAL of SECOND SIMPLIFIED FRIEZE EMPIRE STYLE ~ PROPURfIONALTO i- CONNECTOR CHANGE ~i~i~" EXISTING CORBEL BAND p. ~ i,~u IN MATERIAL TO DEFINE ADUITION FROM HISTORIC SIMPLIFIED CONCRETE r WINDOW HEADlSILLS ~ _ _ - - - - SIMILAR IN PROPORTIONS ~ ' _ ' - W TO EXISTING STONE `1 r ~ - - I ~ HEADS AND SILLS , I I - l l_ - - - _-~r-_ _ - a - ~ r - - _ ~ I j _ I o • i I ~ - ~ I~, s ; i o , 1 I ~ 1 i . I { r j ~ i _ ~ i f ~ ' _ i ~ I f ~ • _ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ -ti~i-~~- _ I ~~I-~ I ~E ~ ,~~I I~ i ~ ~ ~y UNIT 8 ENTRY PROPOSED ADDITION PORCH ADDITION 'i ~I ~ f C 118" =1'-0" WEST ELEVATION c• R :I I c, E1 1 N u, A4 t 4; C II i T E f' T l' H E !__:~_1 I ~w y 1 , HISTORIC TOWER , , , ADDITION EXISTING ROOF FORM USED ON ADDITION - - -SIMPLIFIED FRIEZE i _ _ ~ PROPORTIONAL TO / / EXISTING CORBEL BAND ~W ' I Z_ J - - - - - - - - - - - _ ' - - - i ~ ~ a _ _ 1. ~ ~ - ~ ~ a r: t J - _ r ~r _ - - - - r---- y ~ ' - ' ' _I i I I ~ - _ I_,.,., , i` o - , ~ 'y t18" = t'-0" NORTH ELEVATION I I:,~I, .II III, A5 c ~ u l i l: ~ I i r; 1l if li II ! HISTORIC TOWER ' i•., ~ ADDITION a ir' Y w I-~ _~l i I ~ EXISTING ROOF FORM ~ ~ USED ON ADDITION I ~ - - - SIMPLIFIED FRIEZE i ; r i PROPORTIONAL TO i / EXISTING CORBEL BAND I I 'jl'~i i % i ~ti: I~ ~ ~ a ~ j _ I --r _ _ f ~ T ~ I ~ ~ ~ J i~_ ~ - - ~iillli~~~~~ti~i~; - - - ~ ~ - 1 - ~ ~ , SIMPLIFIED ENTRY COLUMN ELEMENT VV PROPOSED ADDITION 7- ` ~ia° _ ~~-o" EAST ELEVATION 1~~;~~1, ~1~ A6 ~ e ~ u l I F ~ r r l i - .d 'XY F' , EE;;', . Y:. ::.b~~ ~ •7 I ~ ~ J,r/ } ~ i ~ ~ 1~ ~ Y~', ' ,i ~ ~ ~ r , , b 4~ ~ t ~ li ~ ~ ~ r r'! Yr r ORIGINAL TOWER -1905 ORIGINAL TOWER -1941 REMOVED TOWER -1964 ~a.. - REBUILT TOWER -PRESENT C ~ i i~ ~ , rT`~ - - ~ ~ - ~ -~-r.:- p i ~ FM~~~- EXISTING TOWER HISTORIC TOWER RENOVATION `2~ 12" -1'-0" - - - - - 12" =1'-0.. 12" = i'-o" HISTORIC TOWER RENOVATION ~~k~~~~ A7 ~ c ~ n i p ~ i ~ is ~ ~ 1 ; ti: . ,,,r~a ~y~ I~ ~a . ~ r' ~ mot.. ~ i I 'r'°-: ~ 'x; } ~ ~ ' 4 { ~~t! . ~ ~ - ~ ,J ~ _ ~V i ~ l ' _ - ..r .r~ r f ORIGINAL FRONT PORCH -1905 REMOVED FRONT PORCH -1964 REMOVED FRONT PORCH -CURRENT r - ~ r _ - _ _ 0 - r j,_ r = ~ PROPOSED HISTORIC FRONT PORCH ADDITION ~2^= t'-0" HISTORIC PORCH RENOVATION , ~ ~ ~ A8 I ~ e ~ u i r F~ i ~ e s FA ~a~ +f ~ ~ ~ 1-- 'I i n C- ~ ' ~ ii ~l ~ ~ ~~1~11~ ~ r ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~F ~ .1" a ~ _ ~y ~ I ~ I i _ „I~I~~~~~~ . - - c _ • 1 •~f ~ yl, SOUTHWEST PERSPECTIVE SOUTHEAST PERSPECTIVE C PERSPECTIVES ~ ~ ~t ~ , A9 ~ e ~ nit ~ ~ r i e~ s r , _ ; . 1 ` r t • ~ v ~i _ ~ _ „ r~ ' ~Abrsit ~sK r~ ~ ~ y y+. NORTHEAST PERSPECTIVE ~ " y ~ ` ter'-' /r ~ cry . y y' ~ . Y r y- _ -l"-`~f r/ .ice .,,,j~/rf,, ~ %y.i'i~ -'~,+..~'.Y r ` 2~^ tip. .'.may-. ~ 1~~ ~ ems. ~ . r TOWER PERSPECTIVE 1. C PERSPECTIVES ' is ~ r i r i ~ r ~ r. ~ ~ - _ TEMPLE-BOUVRON HISTORY i t ~ hY~ ~ fl ~ ~l ~ ~i ~ti ! ~ ? t : ~ ~ ~ Sti~~ I ! i. a ~Y f N i ~ , * , ~ `i The Second Empire style structure at 1507 Pine Street was constructed in 1883 by Edwin J, Temple. ~~~VVV , ~ The Temple's resided in the single family home until 1929 (pictured left). After the sale of the property to Mrs. Bertha Shuey in 1929, the original brick structure began to experience major alterations. Mrs. Shuey converted the structure into an apartment building. Sometime between 1929 and 1941 r r (pictured lower left), the building had been painted. In 194/, the original ornate tower and the front W ~ porch were removed, and the Queen Anne style hip roof was removed to make way for a third story i ~ addition (pictured below), With the third story addition, the structure further embodied it's Second Empire style with its mansard- ; ' ~ ~ , , , . like u per roof and 3-stor ba window elements to o alon with the existin second floor corbeled p Y Y 9 9 9 band, and double window sets over the entry element. In 1971, the house was purchased by Robert and Prissy Bowron. The Bowron's remodeled the structure's interior and exterior elements, most notably the re-introduction of a tower above the 3-story _ _ entry element. Following this renovation, the Temple-Bowron house received Landmark designation in 1977. In 1981, the property went through a special use review to change the apartment use to a mixed ' use, allowing offices on the first and second floors, while maintaining the third story apartment use. Among the conditions of approval of this use review were typical exterior restoration (painting, trim and - gutter repair, etc.) as well as a request ko demolish the existing four car garage located on the - ~ ~ M northeast of the property. The structure has remained largely unchanged from 1983 to present. The current owner Clifford - ~ ~ Neuman has taken great care to restore and maintain the historic elements of the structure. • ~'1 ~ - " Restoration of the interior was necessary, far it was in disrepair and had experienced fire damage in the upper level. Perhaps Mr. Neuman's most notable contribution to the landmarked building was to strip the exterior paint, exposing the original brick that had been hidden for about 60 years (pictured on 1 H2). TEMPLE-BOWRON -1905 NORTHEAST r ~ . T 'd ~ ~ r- ~ ~ "r~~, elf ' ' t• l ~ ~ ~ .+.v ~ - ~ . t. ~ 1 ~.1' ' ~ ti ~ t ~'r+t ~ t ' y. .~~'~i,~~'3 l r C,_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ , S . ~ f~ ~ f.~. I~ ~ ~ r ~~,1 ~ ~ ~i r ~ i~. ~ { t4 + ~ r. . ~ t ~ 'mot ~ i~ • a. 'ts+- ,K ~ 1 ~ TEMPLE-BOWRON -1941 SOUTHWEST TEMPLE-BOWRON -1965 SOUTHWEST BUILDING HISTORY ,~r.~:~~ lsl Sri H1 S - - - f y - - - - - ~ ' I~ x'1111 _ ~ ~ f r f t - L 1 ...mss > t'' 1 " ~ ' ' ~ i , r~~~ti '`t~ I`, f , ~ f ~ ~ f } ~ ~ j Ir h ~ I I ~ i - iT~ ~ I Fi lisi M ~ _ ~ - r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rte.' ~ _ i ~ _ ~s _ TEMPLE-BOWRON -1993 SOUTH TEMPLE-BOWRON -PRESENT SOUTH t~; r _ - - 1 •f 1 ~ •J 1 i r ~ _ ~ v~~ ~ r ~ ~~1~1 ~ ^ S~, ter., r r%~~` - ; • it ~ y 1, + ~ 1 , ~ ~ 3 f. tc~ r jl° T TEMPLE-BOWRON -1993 NORTH TEMPLE-BOWRON -PRESENT NORTH BUILDING HfSTORY CI;11(~ llI \U1 ~ ~ C i II I TII I T I; t l I C l i~ ' ~ ~ ~yZa ~l ~ Y~' { M1j r r 1r. qr yr i~ ~ _ t t „anti : f~`' ` ~ '~~I y" it ~'ti' r -`..hA• _ y,~,,~~~ rr + ~ S.`_ _ mac' r si. ~ _ - I Q WEST VIEW SOUTH VIEW y''~.>;~ ~ ~i•~~I ~ s~"+l ~1, '~I it J•1~,_. t ~ ~ I 1 11 S ll'~ ~ ~ t 4 I ~ l t'~~, yr l ~ _ 91. •n h, _ r , ~ III \ ~ s, _ C f NORTH VIEW SOUTHEAST VIEW EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS caaic 131 \lll E1 ,I k C II I T M: P T I' f; E _ - V ~ ~I" ~ ~ ~ i ' , ~ ' a ~ I' _,'I ~ , ~ { _ `1 i i r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1. _ 41`, ~ ~ 1 ` 1 ~,l,~ !d n'.^`'a ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~y _ r, ~ _~~1, ~ ~ ~y.•~M~•yT. ~ rd ri ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ 1 1 . ~ I . f~ ~y~!,• ~ 1_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ Ili ~R e~~ ~ '1t Wis. ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I _ !cl<t i a I 1711 ~ w•-~_ - _ - - ~G~' " i_ . ' PARTIAL WEST VIEW PARTIAL WEST VIEW p, > : ~ , ~ t t i,~ r~, j L f ~ I!I ~ i i C / - NORTHEAST VIEW SOUTHWEST VIEW EXISTING BUILDING PHOTOS a i « ~ r~ , EZ -V k f H l 'f E C I I f, 't: t i _ i~ , 1 ~ I i ~ - _ ~,1 - 1 ne~ ~ 1 ~ ~j~y1 ~ i 1 ~ --'1 - - I r j- ' - .I I l I ~ i 1 ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ i .H - - - i iii ~ ~ ~ i~ rri~_ r~i ~ ---~i ~ ~ _ ~r>~~~~' ~`~~a ~ ,EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION ~ .Y ~ A ~ ~ .a ~.Y_;.'Y.~.^lilYSCf~SZ~._ ~x~^b.~. r ~ . i~ 11[~1~~ ~ i - ~ i 1 ~ I 1/8 1 0 EXISTING ELEVATION EXISTING WEST ELEVATION ~ c ~ i i~ ; ~ ~ t r v , ~~,~r~~ l \ -l 1I 7 - - II- ~ ~I , 11 , ~ w2•._ - ~lht. - I ` ¦ 1L,~~I I~--~.r- _ - ( ~ I II ~ - - ' ! EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION_ r. ~ • _ ~ r- r ~I r - _ 4I -I - ,1 ~ ail i ~-~-=-rl~. ~ - - rfr*+~S "T M4~ki~r '•~m•' ~e c ~ - ~ -iii= ~=1 I l1 I 1=1 I 1=1 v8" =1'-0" EXISTING ELEVATIONS ~;,1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION i; , i I % I - ~ ~ 1 _ - r c T r EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 ` 1!8" =1'-0" EXISTING FLOOR PLANS ~~~:,~I, E5 I: ~ II f f I' ~ i I I: I i t EXISTING THIRD FLOOR PLAN C 1I8" _ ~'-o" EXISTING FLOOR PLANS i, ~ i r, , s , E6 ~ - ~ _ ?~3 ' ~y7"~ ~ a I - I'~ ~ f~ ;tti~~ ~,r i~ ~^t ~~~'T.~ .'~~',,{r ~f a~~, a~W i, f~ -1 l..:l. i'. iyf ~1~ b 4t'~p~ ~ ,t ` S. ~ ~ ~ ,y ~ ~ r a~, s, ~i g~ ~ . ~ yy~ {~Y~ ..1 y4..~.~~~~'~' ~~to1, ~j'• ~t ;`ti 1 ~ ~~'t~~~ ,I~t . ~ ~ ~ y nP t ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ 11A~} ~ ~s~~~ ` ~ I ~ r , , ~ , f~~l ~ _ ~ F.;, y~T1 I ~ Sl ~ ~ ~t I i ~ ~ ' ~ - PROPERTY TO WEST OF 1507 PINE 1419 PINE S~;1 PROPERTY TO NORTH OF 1507 PINE (222415TH ST) ( ) i ~1 f~~,. ~ ~ _ ~ II ~1 : I , ~ ~ It ~ ,I~i ~ r ' ~ l' / ~ ~ ' { ' ~ . 1 ~ ~ 'd p •,u°'. e _ , i _ ~ P ~ _ n. i. 1 ~'t ,:1 Al .T ~ ~ - ~ . _ r .-I. SOUTH ALLEY VIEW OF 1527 PINE ST. EAST ALLEY VIEW OF 222316TH ST. NEIGHBORHOOD PHOTOS h .1 I U f \ D l per uirr:rri er _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ .J~ ~ r` ti . _ _.v++ I ..ar a d'r,i,, ~ tLyk:. , ~ ; 1 1 .S ' y I ~ ,Met' •c i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s v ti: . Z l~~r~~~~ ~ i~ri ~~,I 111 ~ 'I,~,'~• ~I I ,7 71i r~ ~ ~d~ ~ ~1 C'~sS~ ~r~~ I~ d,111 '~I i,~;i~ I ~ .III ~ i~l ~ I ~.i~~ >j I' 1 ~~'l ~ . .i .J ~ ,~e,,~~ ~~I~t, ~ ; ~.,~q;';~~ I P ~ I,.. ~ ~ l f ~ ~ :,~r, ~ ' E ~ (~~f~ ~i~ ~ s • ~.7i ~:r~A151 .L y _ : ~ NORTH WEST VIEW OF 1535 AND 1543 PINE ST. NORTH VIEW OF 1535 AND 1543 PINE ST. I~ .11 1'. - ! '1 _ _ ~ ~ ~T Mme' I ~ h I~ti ` I ~ ~ti: 4 ~ ~ ~ ,x ~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ r - _ _ _ ~ r , lilt ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,i"},~:~ p2 ~ - ~ Il it I I ~ ~ 1 I~ 4 ~ ~ t.~l i. ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ °-5., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Wry v r~ "l~ ' r i, ~ i ~ i~ I,b ~r r ~ ~ ~ bf r ~ 'rte .f~ - ~ - , :r i+rr-~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wM '+G 'V ti Xi 6. NORTH VIEW OF 1543 PINE ST. r ~ SOUTH VIEW OF 1540 PINE ST. NEIGHBORHOODPHOTOS~, (~k.11G DI CDl N2 ~C •,r.ruirerr~ ro-: