Loading...
Handouts - Landmarks - March 4, 2009 From: Brendan Watt Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:42 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: 1507 Pine Street Landmark Alteration certificate All, I live next door to the Temple Bowron House and am responding to the application for a Landmark Alteration certificate. This application is an affront to the Board and should be soundly rejected. The application fails multiple of the guidelines. The applicant got a preview of this in December and did not make meaningful design changes to bring the application in line with the guidelines. I am not even going to go into the detail of how it fails so many of the guidelines, because basically I would further waste the time and attention of the board members. Simply, I will say, the applicant wishes to convert the Temple Bowron House from a tall, graceful anchor in this neighborhood to a squat, sprawling monolith. You don't double the square footage on the North and East and maintain mass, scale, or verticality. Also, I will say, the application does not maintain a backyard between the garage and the house... another guideline violation that does not maintain the historical character of the building... we now have a McMansion with a three 2-car garages. Respectfully submitted, Brendan Watt Owner 1519 Pine Street Apt 3 Boulder, CO 80302 From: Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:28 AM To: Hewat, James Subject: Temple-Bowron House at 1507 Pine Street Mr. Hewat- My name is Neta Hittelman and I live at 1527 Pine Street, just 2 doors down from 1507 Pine. My husband, daughter and I purchased our home in 2003 and have spent a lot of time and money improving the house and the property. Although we are close to the Pearl Street mail, we feel that we live in a residential, eclectic neighborhood common to much of Boulder. The structure and property at 1507 Pine has always been a beautiful part of our neighborhood; a place that 1 would love to have been able to own myself. The porposed plan for this property will be a blight on our neighborhood! It will turn an area that has been working to improve itself into a congested, far less beautiful block with reduced parking capacity (already at a premium) and an historic property into a mini-mail. I cannot express how strongly I object to this proposal moving forward. Unfortunately, I am travelling for work this week and am not able to attend the city counsel meeting in person this coming Wednesday. Please help us to ensure that the work we have done and the joy that we get from where we live does not become a huge regret and bringer of sadness. Making the downtown area more congested is not the way to address the need for additional busisnesses nor housing. Thank you. -Meta Hittelman From: James V Downton Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:13 AM To: Hewat, James Subject: Temple-Bowron Landmark Alteration proposal Dear Landmarks Board and James Hewat: We are homeowners living at 1515 Mapleton Avenue, near the Temple-Bowron house at 1507 Pine St. We have seen and studied the proposal to make substantial additions to this historic house and are strongly opposed to it. Our opposition is based, in part, on the overwhelming size of the proposed addition, which changes the elegant vertical look of the home to a massive horizontal structure. We feel strongly that this proposed change is not in character with this important historic landmark which is a cornerstone of the Whittier Neighborhood. The proposed addition fills in the back and side yards of the lot, removing the important aesthetic of space around the historic building, which sets it out for the eye to enjoy. Also, the proposed boxy top floor with a rebuilt tower will make the tower higher than the original tower, which is at odds with historic preservation. This proposal is out of character with the Temple-Bowron house and the Whittier Neighborhood. It is too massive and too much at odds with historic preservation. Therefore, we are compelled to oppose it. Please forward this email to the members of the Landmarks Board. Sincerely, Jim and Mary Downton 1515 Mapleton Ave. From: John Koval Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:20 AM To: Hewat, James Subject: 1507 Pine Hello James - I wanted to again express our concern over the potential expansion of the above referenced property. There is already a significant parking issue in our neighborhood and this would further exasperate the problem. Coupled with that, we are concerned that this proposal continues to be put forth in the public realm with different uses, then rescinded and then tweaked with a different use and rescheduled for public hearing. So, prior to approving any addition, please ask the applicant to respond to: a. How they propose to mitigate any additional parking congestion for the occupants as well as care givers for "age restricted housing space"? b. What type of binding covenant, does the applicant propose to be place on the property to insure that this expansion will maintain its intended use - "age restricted housing space"? Thank you. John and Trish Koval 224516 th Street Boulder CO 80302 From: Cindy Schlager Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:36 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: Landmarks Board Meeting March 4th James, I reside at 2223 16th Street, a block away from the Temple-Bowron House. I am not able to attend the board meeting on March 4th, but I would like to voice my concern about the proposed plans to construct a new two story, 5000 sq. foot addition to that house. I am usually not opposed to progress or improving the Whittier neighborhood, since many of the properties are in serious need of attention and updating, but the Temple-Bowron is one of my favorite structures and I walls past it every day. I have to believe that the house, or now, office building, can be modified, updated and improved without taking such a dramatic chunk out of that corner. The plans that I saw bring that structure within 5 feet of the house next door, and completely touch the alley in the back, as well as come out significantly on the 15th street side. I rather like the idea of making it residential again, but I am against the current plan to make it so many square feet on that corner. Not to mention that there is not much recognizable of the original house after the additions are added. If I were asked to vote on this issue, I would vote "no" based on the plans that Vaida showed me. Thank you for letting me put my two cents in. Sincerely, Cindy Schlager Whittier Resident and neighbor of the Temple Bowron House. From: Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:41 PM To: Flewat, James Cc: Johnston, Julie; Council; Brautigam, Jane Subject: Landmark Alteration Certificate for 702 Spruce, etc. Dear James Hewat and the members of the Boulder Landmarks Board, I am writing in support of Edward and Marjorie Brentari's request for a Landmark Alteration Certificate to remove the eastern portion (approx. 204 sq. ft.) of their alley garage, which is on the agenda for the Landmarks Board meeting tomorrow evening. The Brentaris have been my next door neighbors since 1971, and I am aware of the difficulty that they have had over the years in trying to work out any solution with the owner of the property (the home itself is a 3-unit rental) which abuts their garage on the east side. The owner has allowed his trees to simply grow unchecked and they now jeopardize both the stability and usefulness of the eastern portion of the Brentari garage. While their garage may be old enough to have been declared a "contributing" structure in the Mapleton Hill Historic District, I feel that the District will not suffer any great loss if the eastern portion is allowed to be torn down and the remaining portion amended to make it stable for the foreseeable future. Any portion of the garage construction that is of historical interest or significance could surely be documented quite easily with photographs and written descriptions. I very much regret that I will be unable to attend the meeting itself. The Brentari proposal points up a very glaring imbalance of current Landmarks Board regulations. Projects which involve detached garages (new construction, amended structure or demolition) of very few hundred square feet require a full Landmarks Board hearing, and notification of nearby property owners/neighbors. However, the major home renovation, approved in mid-2008 and still ongoing at 608 Spruce, required no notification of nearby neighbors/property owners, was approved in-house by the Design Review Committee, and never went to the full Landmarks Board! This renovated home (extremely close in scope to a "pop and scrape") will more than double the size of the home! How did this occur? The home at 608 Spruce was declared "non-contributing". I truly feel that every structure in a neighborhood contributes something to the fabric of the neighborhood. Perhaps it's time to discontinue the terms "contributing" and "non- contributing" in the Mapleton Hill Historic District/Neighborhood (and other such districts in the city) and replace these terms perhaps with the terms "pre-World War II" and "post-World War II," which would more clearly convey to everyone, new residents as well as long-time residents, what is really being talked about. There also desperately needs to be added to the Landmarks Board regulations a regulation which would require notification and a full Landmarks Board hearing for changes to any home in the district above a certain percentage of current square footage, perhaps 25%. Perhaps this aspect comes under the proposals currently being studied and talked about as part of the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Project/Study. It is sorely needed! And while formulas for areas of buildings and lengths of walls are important, transparency and adequate neighborhood notification are what will truly contribute to neighborhood harmony and compatible development throughout the city. Up until now I don't seem to be hearing much about these vital aspects of compatibility. While the Design Review Committee and the Landmarks Board do a great job for Mapleton Hill, they are made up of dedicated volunteers who rotate in and out of their appointments. Changing the current regulations under which they operate, such as suggested above, would take some of the burden off of them, and property owners (and/or their architects, contractors, etc.) wishing to make changes would know up front just when proposals/projects would trigger public notification and full Board hearings. I would venture to guess that valuable staff time would be more efficiently spent and neighbors would be much less apt to be calling to complain about project approvals of which they knew nothing until it is/was too late. Sincerely, Vivian L. Wilson 644 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 Phone: (303) 444-1739 From: Alice Norton Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:36 PM To: Hewat, James Subject: Temple-Bowron House - 1507 Pine Street Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the City Council meeting Wednesday night at which time there will be a public hearing regarding the rehabilitation and renovation of the Temple-Bowron House at 1507 Pine Street. I wish to register my strong opposition to the renovation and massive addition as proposed. I am the owner of the Austin Cottage at 1543 Pine Street, another historic house on Pine Street at the other end of the block. To allow such a disproportionate and inappropriate change to a historic building in Boulder would be out of character and a great shame. It is important that Boulder continue to maintain its stewardship of the character, history and charm that make this city unique. Sincerely, Alice Norton From: Jeff Steinhour Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:48 AM To: Hewat, James Subject: Proposed project at 1507 Pine St Temple-Bowron House Re: Proposed multi-use project Good morning. I would like to share some thoughts regarding the proposed development at 1507 Pine St of the historically designated Temple-Bowron House. I am a home owner of a property in this neighborhood at 2233 15th St. and view this current property from my front door. I understand a hearing is proposed to discuss the current plans to turn this property into a large, multi-use office building/condo development and I would like to share my displeasure with this plan today. My wife and I purchased our 1920 home on 15th St. in early 2006 for its location but also for its aesthetic beauty and unspoiled charm. We love the neighborhood where we live because other properties there have been well-maintained and preserved. One of the most distinctive properties is the Temple-Bowron House on the corner of Pine and 15th. To allow this special property to be destroyed and altered for commercial use seems to fly in the face of what Boulder purports to stand for: retaining the charm and history of a rare beautiful location in Colorado. We feel this would do considerable damage to our property value and those of our neighbors by allowing the 1507 property to be developed in the proposed manner. We did not buy here to be subjected to crude developments like the one being proposed. We were led to believe that Boulder County and the City of Boulder took pride in its historic properties and especially the "grand dames" like the Temple-Bowron house. Current economic conditions aside, downtown Boulder and the adjacent three blocks on either side of Pearl Street are not in need of more office space or commercial real estate. Please take a look at the current amount of empty and available office property on Pearl St and in Boulder today more of this empty property is not necessary. Particularly at the expense of a home that's been preserved and respected since the late 1800s. Please reconsider allowing this development. It's unnecessary, destroys Boulder's valuable history and aesthetic appeal and undermines those homeowners who have invested in the upkeep and preservation of 100 year- old homes that make living here rare and unique. I can be reached at 305-798-5022 to discuss any details of my note you would like. I hope you will read this note at your public hearing and it contributes to halting this unnecessary and destructive need for "progress" in historic Boulder. Cordially, Jeff and Amy Steinhour 2233 15th St Boulder, CO 80302 From: Ed Byrne Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 2:54 PM To: Hewat, James Cc: 'Clifford L Neuman'; craigbundy@yahoo.com; Vicki Naber Subject: Request for Postponement of LPAB Hearing Dear Jim, As we discussed a moment ago, on behalf of the owner of 1507 Pine Street, I would like to request a postponement of the hearing scheduled to occur tomorrow evening, March 4, 2009, at 5:00pm until April 1, 2009, the date of the next regularly scheduled LPAB hearing. Our reason for requesting a postponement is to meet with representatives with the Whittier Neighborhood Association ("WNA") to discuss our proposal with them in an environment that provides more give and take than can occur at an LPAB public hearing. The WNA meets on the second Monday of the month. I have placed a call to Vicki Naber to see if we can be on their agenda on March 9th, or if she would be willing to invite attendees and other members of the WNA to an open house at 1507 Pine in the near future. 1 apologize for this late request, but it was not until yesterday that I learned there may be neighbors with concerns about the proposal. If you could send to me a copy of the letters you have recently received, I would appreciate having an opportunity to specifically invite the authors to any meetings with neighbors we can arrange. Ed Byrne ED BYRNE, PC 250 Arapahoe Avenue, Ste. 300 Boulder, CO 80302-5838 Work: (303) 447-2555 Fax: (303) 449-9349 Cell: (303) 478-8075 e-mail: edbyrne@smartlanduse.com web site: www.smartlanduse.com Dear Board members and staff: While there is not a specific rule in the Landmarks Board chapter concerning continuances, the chapter on quasi-judicial hearings, at Section 1-3-5(d), does empower the "agency," in this case the Landmarks Board, to make determinations regarding a number of matters related to such hearings. Since this is a quasi-judicial hearing, this section applies. With respect to continuances; Section 1-3-5(d) specifically empowers the Board to make determinations regarding the time and place for continued hearings. This office interprets that provision to give you the power to decide whether you wish to continue the hearing. We recommend that Mr. Byrne be given an opportunity to make his request of the Board at tonight's meeting (2-3 minutes). If you wish, you might want to open the hearing up for public input on the question of a continuance, thoughthat would not be required. You may want to consider whether people have traveled long distances to testify or may not be able to attend a future hearing, etc., especially given that the matter has been continued several times. After such testimony, the Board can decide whether it wishes to continue the matter. You may want to think about amending the agenda to move this request for a continuance to the first public hearing. If you decide not to grant the continuance, you could then hold the remainder of the hearing in its regular position as the third public hearing. An alternative route for the applicant would be to withdraw the application. At any rate, Mr. Byrne should be advised that this is a decision for the Board to make and he may make his request at tonight's meeting. 1) eG Debra S. Kalish Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office 1777 Broadway, Second Floor Boulder, Colorado 80302 303.441.3020 (main) 303.441.3092 (direct) 303.441.3859 (fax) Kalishd@bouldercolorado.gov