5A - Landmark Alteration Certificate for 1619 Pine St. (McAllister House)
MEMORANDUM
October 7, 2009
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a Landmark Alteration
Certificate to replace four windows on the north face, two
windows on the west face, and to replace a door on the east
face of the Landmarked McAllister House located at 1619
Pine Street-, per Section 9-11-18 of the Boulder Revised Code
(HIS2009-00178).
STATISTICS:
1. Site: 1619 Pine Street
2. Zoning: RMX-1 (Residential Mixed-1)
3. Applicant: Samuel & Kathlyn Oltmans
4. Date of Construction: 1883
5. Historic Name(s): McAllister House
7. Request: Replacement of windows and door.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board make the following motion:
The Landmarks Board approves the proposal for the replacement of windows
and a door at 1619 Pine Street in that it generally meets the standards in Chapter
9-11-18 (a)(b, 1-4), B.R.C. 1981, and is generally consistent with the General Design
Guidelines, subject to the conditions below, and adopts this memorandum as
findings of the board.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall
be constructed in compliance with all approved plans on file in the City of
S:\PLAMdata%longrang\HISTIA YCERTS\Landmarks\Pitic. 1619\10.07.09 memo.doc - Agenda Item SA Page I -
Boulder Planning Department, except as modified by these conditions of
approval.
2. Prior to issuance of a landmark alteration certificate, the Applicant shall
revise the design for the bay window to more closely match the existing
one over one double hung sash in character and provide detailed
drawings of the existing and the proposed stiles, rails, and panel pattern
to ensure that those dimensions are within 1/2" of the existing.
This recommendation is based upon staff's opinion that with the conditions
listed above, the proposed construction will be generally consistent with the
conditions as specified in Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) B.R.C., and the General
Design Guidelines.
Summary:
■ The landmark McAllister house at 1619 Pine Street was
constructed in 1883, remodeled in 1894, and added to at the rear in
about 1925.
■ In August of 2009, the request to replace windows and a door on
the north, west, and east sides of the house was referred from the
Landmarks design review committee to the full Landmarks Board
for consideration in a public hearing.
■ Staff considers the north face of the house to be a "tertiary
elevation" and the windows on that elevation to be "historically
important;" the west elevation of the house "secondary" and the
windows on that face of the rear addition "historically important;"
the north face of the east elevation to be "tertiary" and the door on
that face to be "historically important."
■ Provided the conditions outlined below are met, staff considers the
requested replacement of the windows and door, consistent with
Section 9-11-18(a)&(b)(1-4) of the Boulder Revised Code, Sections 3.7 &
3.8 of the General Design Guidelines.'
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS"I'\ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Pine.1619\10.07.09 memo.doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 2 -
K
fit. Aq `
A
rY
xllt!ll~~II °1
k -ill .1,~,..~: •;~5►•1I (t
gill A,
Figure 1. 1619 Pine Street, facade
Background:
On August 191", 2009, a landmark alteration certificate application for the
Landmarked house at 1619 Pine Street was reviewed by the Landmarks design
review committee. The committee issued a landmark alteration certificate for the
replacement of non-historic windows on the west elevation of the house and new
window openings on the east face of the 1960s addition (shown as 132, B3, B4, &
B5 on application and drawings), but referred the request to replace historic
windows and a door on the north, east, and west elevations to the board for
review in a public hearing (shown as C1, B2, & B6 on application and drawings).
f ~ I ~ _ 'yam i _
ifeC lu~• c • I f3~~ 4
- - Figure 2. 1619 Pine Street, north (rear) face (Co
S:1PI.A\,.datallongrang',HIS'IIAI; I'CERTS\1,and:narks'Tine.1619',,10.07.09 mcmn.doc Agenda Item 5A Page 3 -
History of Property:
The house at 1619 Pine Street is one of the most recognizable historic properties
in Boulder not only as an exuberant example of Queen Anne architecture, but
as the fictional location of the 1970s television situational comedy "Mork and
Mindy."
The McAllister house was built in 1883 for successful local merchant Ira
McAllister who ran large lumber yards in Boulder, Louisville, and Lafayette in
the nineteenth century. The ornate character of the frame house with its varied
decorative elements was likely good advertising for McAllister's lumber business
and the great selection of milled woodwork that became available in the years
following the American Civil War.
Ira's son William McAllister (1883-1932) lived in the house for many years after
his father's death. William ran the McAllister Lumber and Supply Company at
1500 Pearl Street until the 1930s. The younger McAllister is also known to have
been educated at the state preparatory school, to have served as Boulder's fire
chief, as well as being a member of the school board and local chamber of
commerce.
The house is thought to have been remodeled in '1894 and a rear addition
constructed about 1925. Subsequent alterations to the house include a division of
the house in four apartments in 1955 and exterior changes to the c.1925 addition
in the early 1970s.
The McAllister House is one of the earlier houses to have been added to the
City's landmark inventory having been designated in 1976 by the current
owners. Designating documentation states that the property is significant as an
"almost textbook example" of Queen Anne architecture, for its association with
the McAllister family, and as a familiar visual element on east Pine Street.
Request:
The applicant proposes to replace four double-hung windows on the north
elevation, to remove two double-hung windows and install a small bay window
on the west elevation, and to replace a door on the east side of the house (see
figures 3, 4 & 5).
S:\PLAN\data\tongrattg\I IIS'r\ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Pine.1619\10.07,09 memo.doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 4 -
r.
' ~ 1 I I j o,
I ~ti•~ I.I 'i
I?•~ ,j ~ I 'k' i1 .i ! ~ i ~ ~ III ~ I
- Ii i f r1• i' ti ~
.I r
r
s 1 r.
I7 + i
Figure 3. North (rear) facing windows proposed for replacement (0)
- ~i
f ` ~t'i -..-.-i Imo.. rl. ~r ~t.,'.K~
~ 'I I ~ ~ r , ~ ~ n•
I ~ i~q I rSY" s
7
1
Figure 4. West (side) facing windows proposed for replacement (136)
S..^,PLANvd tallu-igran_ 11IS FALL CI RTS`',.i an(1:nark,Tine.1619\10.07.09 rncmo.doc -Agenda Item 5A Page 5 -
,r.
~J
r+
i -
IUr
i
44
~t
Figure 5. East (side) facing door proposed for replacement M)
Board's Decision:
The Historic Preservation Ordinance specifies that a Landmark
Alteration Permit may not be approved by the Board or City Council unless it
meets the conditions specified in Section 9-11-18 S.R.C. Specifically:
(a) The landmarks board and the city council shall not approve an
application for a landmark alteration certificate unless each such agency
finds that the proposed work is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter.
(b) Neither the landmarks board nor the city council shall approve a
landmark alteration certificate unless it meets the following conditions:
(1) The proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not
damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or
the subject property within an historic district;
S:\PLAN\dataVongrang\HIST\ALTCER'1'SVUndmarks\Pine.1619\10.07.09 memo.doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 6 -
(2) The proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or
special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the
landmark and its site or the district;
(3) The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of
color, and materials used on existing and proposed structures are
compatible with the character of the existing landmark and its site or the
historic district.
Analysis:
1, Does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore, and not damage or
destroy significant exterior architectural features of the landmark property?
Per the General Design Guidelines, the staff considers the north face of the house to
be a "tertiary elevation" and the windows on that elevation to be "historically
important;" the west elevation of the house "secondary" and the windows on
that face of the rear addition "historically important;" the north face of the east
elevation to be "tertiary" and the door on that face to be "historically important."
Provided the replacement windows and door are of wood construction and
closely match the dimensions and appearance of the existing, the application will
not damage the significant features of the landmark property.
2. Does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic,
architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark property?
Staff finds that the proposed application will not adversely affect the special
character of the house as the addition on which window and door replacement is
proposed is of marginal architectural interest in the context of the overall house.
The faces on which this work is to occur are of limited public visibility and
provided the replacement windows and door are of wood construction and
closely match the dimensions and appearance of the existing, the proposed
replacement will have a minimal visual effect on the landmark property as a
whole.
3. Is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and
materials used on existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the
landmark property?
Provided the replacement windows and door are of wood construction and
closely match the dimensions and appearance of the existing, the replacement
will be compatible with the historic character of the historic property.
S:IPLAS\dat~,:on~.mnQ`•HIST~A1 TCERTSU en~imarksV':nc.1619\10.07.09 memo.c'nc - Agenda Ite"i 5A Page 7 -
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.
Ti,e proposed windows will likely be more energy efficient than the existing
unimproved windows.
Design Guidelines
In the 2007 revisions to the General Design Guidelines there is specific guidance
given for the replacement of windows on Landmark buildings. The following is
an analysis of the proposal's compliance with guidelines that address windows
on existing buildings and on new construction. 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
ALTERATIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, 3.0:
3.7 Windows, Storm Windows, and Shutter
Windows, the elements that surround them, and their relationship to one another are one of the
most important character-defining elements of a historic building and should be preserved.
Improper or insensitive treatment of the windows on a historic structure can seriously detract from
its architectural character. The relative importance of a window depends on three factors: the
location of the window on the building, the historic significance of the window, and its condition.
Windows on elevations visible from public ways, particularly the favade, are especially important.
A window that has a high level of historic significance, regardless of its location, may also be very
important to the historic integrity of the building. The replacement of historic windows or
components including glass, should be considered only as a last resort.
At times, property owners consider replacement of their historic windows as away of improving
energy efficiency. Research indicates that, in most cases, the energy efficiency of an old window
can be increased to that of a thermal pane replacement window by weather-stripping, insulation of
weight pockets, and the application of an interior or exterior storm system. While the energy loss of
a building may be reduced by replacing or repairing historic windows, windows are only one factor
in the building's energy usage. It is strongly recommended that a comprehensive energy audit be
undertaken to identify areas for improvement. To increase a building's energy efficiency, a
combination of air sealing, additional wall and ceiling insulation, and the adjustment of
mechanical systems is generally more effective than focusing only on the repair or replacement of a
window. For more information regarding energy efficiency and energy audits for historic
buildings, lease contact the Office o Environmental Affairs at www.environmentalaftairs.com
Guideline Meets
Guideline?
Retain and preserve existing historic Windows at north and door at north
1 windows, including their functional face of east elevation are on "tertiary Maybe
and decorative features, such as elevation(s)" and "historically
S:IPLANIdafallono angllllSTlAl.7'C1:K7'S1Landmarks%Pine.1619110.07.09 mcmo.doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 8 -
tranIeS, glass, Sashes, muntins, sills, important" (see definition below).
heads, moldings, surrounds and Replacement is appropriate given
hardware. Because windows near the location at rear of house on altered
facade are particularly critical to the c.1925 addition and lack of
character of historic buildings, their
distinctiveness of windows and door
protection may supersede the
protection of historic windows in relation to larger house. Windows
elsewhere. In some cases, it may be at west are on "secondary elevation"
appropriate to use window elements and "historically important" (see
from rear or side elevations to repair definition below). Replacement is
those on the front. appropriate given location and little
(if any) public visibility (see window
and door significance matrix below).
This is provided the replacement
windows and door are of wood
construction and stiles, rails, and
pattern closely match the appearance
of the existing. More detail regarding
replacement windows and door
should be submitted prior to final
approval.
Preserve original window locations; do The proposed north windows are
2 not move windows from their historic shown to be longer than the existing Maybe
placement. and showing proportions closer to
those on the main house while the
west windows are shown to change
from a set of two, to a bay of three
windows with transom lights.
Design of bay windows should more
closely match proportions of the
existing 1/1 double hung sash.
3 Repair rather than replace the See.1 &.2 above Maybe
functional and decorative features of original windows through recognized
preservation methods. If replacement
of a feature is necessary, replace only
the deteriorated feature in kind rather
than the entire unit, matching the
materials, design and dimensions of the
on anal.
The replacement of historic windows See.1 &.2 above
5 should only be considered as a last Maybe
resort if the fabric of the window is
deteriorated beyond repair. However,
if the property owner wishes to request
a landmark alteration certificate to
replace windows on a contributing or
individually landinarked building, the
steps as outlined in the Historic
Window and Door
S:A11 LAN\&taAIcngran,g\H1ST\ALTCFR I S\Landmarks\Pine.1619\10.07.09 memo doc -Agenda Item 5A Pagc 9 -
Replacement/Retrofit Guidelines must
be followed.
The location of the window(s) proposed All elevations are on altered later
6 for retrofit or replacement is important addition to house and much simpler Maybe
in assessing their significance to a in character than that of the
historic building. In general, the more 1883/1894 construction. See .1 for
important the elevation where the
window is located, the less likely that analysis of elevation and historic
retrofit or replacement will be character of windows and door
appropriate. Elevations will be proposed for replacement.
categorized as primary, secondary or
tertiary, using the methodology set out
in the Window £t Door Replacement
Application and Survey.
• Replacement of intact
historic windows on
primary elevations is rarely
appropriate.
• Replacement of intact
historic windows on
secondary elevations is
generally inappropriate.
• Replacement of intact
historic windows on
tertiary elevations can
occur provided it does not
compromise the historic
integrity of the building.
7 The historic significance of the While all likely "historically yes
windows proposed for replacement important" the windows and door
must also be assessed. In general, the proposed for replacement are of low
more significant a window is to the significance relative to the very
building as a whole, the less likely that
a retrofit or replacement will be ornate character and highly visible
appropriate. The appropriateness of a main body of the house.
window replacement will be
determined, in part, based upon
characterization of the window as
either 'Very Historically Important',
'Historically Important', or 'Non-
Historic' (See Definitions).
S:\PLAN\datallongrang\lIST1ALTCERTS\Landmarks\Pine.1619\10.07.09 memo.doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 10 -
WINDOW & DOOR SIGNIFICANCE
Very Historically
Historically Important Non-Historic
Important
Primary Repair Repair
Elevation
Secondary Repair Reviewed
Elevation case by case c4 - .
Tertiary Repair
Elevation , i.
Guideline Meets
Guideline?
The condition of the window must be While windows and door are
8' evaluated prior to determining whether somewhat deteriorated, they can Maybe
the window or door may be repaired or likely be rehabilitated and made
replaced. The condition is to be weather tight. However, given the
determined by assessing its elements
individually. The assessment must be location and character in relation to
completed through the use of a survey the landmark as a whole, staff
that identifies the extent of considers that replacement is
deterioration in each window and appropriate provided that new
determines whether the windows may windows and door are wood and
be repaired, retrofitted, or replaced. The stiles, rails, and profile closely match
survey form documents the existing the dimensions and appearance of
condition for the window and identifies the existing. More detail regarding
which features will be repaired and
which will possibly be replaced. replacements should be submitted to
staff for review and approval.
If, through the Window & Door Replacement windows and door
.10 Application & Survey, it is determined should be of wood construction and Maybe
the window may be replaced (Class III stiles, rails, and profile closely match
& M, the window opening itself appearance of the existing. Details
should be carefully preserved. It should
not be made larger or smaller to regarding dimensions of existing and
accommodate a differently sized proposed replacement windows and
window. door should be submitted prior to
final a roval.
.11 Window & Door Application & See above.
Survey, if it is determined the window
may be replaced (Class III & IV), the
S:%PI.ANldataVongrang\[-IISVAE.TCERTSV,andmarks\Pine.1619130.07.09 memo_doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 11 -
same material as was the original is
most appropriate; however, other
materials may be considered if the
operation, dimension, profile,
durability, and finish are the same.
Synthetic materials are generally
inappropriate. Synthetic materials
rarely duplicate the surface texture,
reflective and detail qualities of
original materials.
12 If u window that is divided into several Proposed windows one over one, Maybe
panes of glass must be replaced, a double hung sash. Door to match
similar true-divided-light window that pattern of existing door. Details
matches the dimensions, profile and
detailing of the original is most regarding dimensions of existing
appropriate. High quality simulated- stiles, rails, and profile of proposed
divided-light windows may be allowed windows and door should closely
if they maintain the muntin size of the match existing. These details should
original window. Snap-in muntins or be submitted for review and
other inauthentic architectural details approval prior to final approval.
are inappropriate.
If the existing condition of the Proposed windows one over one, Maybe
.13 window(s), as documented by a double hung sash. Door to match
Window & Door Survey, indicates pattern of existing door. Details
Class III or IV damage or regarding dimensions of existing
deterioration, then the window(s) may
be retrofitted or replaced. All stiles, rails, and profile of proposed
retrofitted or replacement windows windows and door should closely
must match the historic feature as match existing. These details should
closely as possible. be submitted for review and
approval prior to final approval.
Analysis:
Staff considers the windows and door proposed for replacement to best meet the
definition of "historically important", which reads, "The feature has retained
integrity from the period of significance and is an integral part of the historic
design or is essential to the understanding of the architectural type or style."
The definition in the Guidelines for "Secondary Elevations" reads, "Typically a
side of a building that has less public visibility, and may have fewer significant
character defining features than on the facade. An elevation that has visibility
from an alley may be considered a secondary elevation." Staff considers the west
elevation to meet this definition despite its near complete lack of visibility.
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\HIS"r\ALTCERTS\I.andmarks\Pine.1619\10.07.09 mcmo.doc - Agenda Item 5A Page 12 -
The definition for "Tertiary Elevation" states that such a face, "typically has little
or no visibility from the public right of way and is usually located at the rear of
the building." Tlne rear (north) face of the building is visible from the alley, but
has been altered in the recent past and is not a character defining elevation of the
property (see figure 2). Likewise, staff considers the door proposed for
replacement to be located on a tertiary elevation as it faces the rear of the
property and has little or no public visibility.
The window and door replacement matrix indicates that replacement of
historically important doors and windows on a tertiary elevation is appropriate.
For secondary elevations, such replacement is to be considered on a case-by-case
basis. Given the very low visibility of these elevations and lack of notable
features on these windows and door in the context of this highly articulated
landmark building, staff considers replacement appropriate. This
recommendation is based upon the understanding that all the windows and door
proposed for replacement will be of wood construction and that rails, stiles, and
profile will match the existing doors and windows to within 1/z". Likewise, the
design of the bay window should be revised to more closely match the existing
one over one, double hung windows. This might include removal of the transom
element. The dimensions of the existing and proposed windows and doors
should be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a
landmark alteration certificate.
Findings:
This decision is consistent with the purposes and standards of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance in that:
1. Because they are located on an altered 1925 addition to the original, are of
limited architectural significance to the property as a whole, and will have
limited public visibility, the replacement of the historically important
windows and door on the tertiary and secondary elevations of the
landmark house at 1619 Pine Street, will not damage the property (9-11-18,
(b)1-3 B.R.C).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Historic Building Inventory Form
B: Applicant letter
C: Drawings
D: Photographs and window replacement information
S:API AN\data\fungrang\TITS'I\ALTCI?RTS\T.an(hnarT:s\I'ine.1619\10.07.09 memo,dnc -Agenda Item 5tA Pace 13 -
Attachment A
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY NOT FOR FIELD USE
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ELIGIBLE
1300 Broadway, Denver, Colorado -77DET NOT ELIG
HISTORIC BUILDING INVENTORY RECORD NOMINATED
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Boulder County -77CERTIFIED REHAB
DATE
PROJECT NAME: BOULDER HISTORIC PLACES State ID#: 5BL1483
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
",,Building-Name: CALLISTER HOUSE Temporary . 12
Building Address: 161 PINE STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
ui ding Owner: SAMUEL AND KATHLYN OLTMANS
Owner Address: 1619 PINE STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
USGS Quad: BOULDER Quad Year: 1979 7.5'
*Legal: Tnsp IN Range 70W Section 30 NE1 SWl
*Historic Name: MCALLISTER HOUSE
District Name:
Block: 145 Lot: 8-9 Addition: BOULDER OT
Year of Addition: 1859
Film Roll By: WHITACRE Film Number: BL
Number of Negatives: 26,27,28 Negative Location: BOULDER
Construction Date: ACTUAL 1883
Source: BOULDER COUNTY HERALD
Present Use: RESIDENCE Historic Use: RESIDENCE
Condition: EXCELLENT Extent of Alterations: MINOR
Description:
ORIGINAL If Moved, Date(s):
Style: QUEEN ANNE Stories: 2 1/2
Materials: WOOD Square Footage: 3412
Fie Assessment: ELIGIBLE District Potential: YES CONTRIBUTING
Local Landmark Designation?: YES Name: CITY OF BOULDER Date: 12/13/77
Associated Buildings?: YES Type: GARAGE
If Inventoried, List Id Numbers:
Architect: ROBERT BALCOMB Source: BLDR COUNTY HERALD, 6-19-1895
Builder/Contractor: Source:
Original Owner: IRA T. MCALLISTER Source:
1619 Pine Street
Plan Shape: . . • . . • • . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Theme(s):
Architectural Description:
Queen Anne style: tower with stained glass windows, porch, varied
roofline. Romanesque and Classical detailing: bargeboards, pilasters, dentil
work, arched windows.
Construction History:
Ira T. McAllister built this house in 1883. The McAllisters decided to
remodel the house in 1894. The improvements may have been designed by Robert
Balcomb, who designed the improvements to the Nicholson house. The "Herald"
stated that the improvements to the Nicholson house will be "somewhat similar
those made by I.T. McAllister lately to his residence on Pine Street." Balcom
was also the architect of the Masonic Temple and the Dodge House (2145 6th).
Historical Background:
Ira McAllister was in the lumber business. He started out in business wi
a small sawmill which developed until it included large lumber yards and
ardware, coal and other departments. This lumber company had branch yards iu
Lafayette and Louisville.
This house also became well-known in the 1970s as the television home of
"Mork and Mindy," a popular television series.
William M. McAllister lived in the house after the death of his parents.
He ran the McAllister Hardware store. He was fire chief for several years, a
member of the school board and of the Chamber of Commerce.
Architectural Significance:'
'X- Represents the work of a master.
TXT Possesses high artistic values.
Represents a type, period or method of construction.
Historical Significance:
-X- Associated with significant persons.
Associated with significant events and/or patterns.
Contributes to an historic district.
Statement of Significance:
This building, which has been well-restored, is an almost textbook examp]
of Queen Anne style architecture. The residence is a visual landmark on Pine
Street. It is also noteworthy for its association with the McAllister family;
Ira was an early lumberman in the Boulder area; William ran the McAllister
ardware business.
1619 Pine Street
References:
Susan Baldwin, Boulder Historic Places inventory 1977
Boulder County Assessor's office
Boulder County Herald (weekly), Aug. 29, 1883 5:1; Sept. 7, 1883 3:1;
Nov. 7, 1894 8:4; Nov. 21, 1894 5:3;
Jan. 16,.1895 8:1; May 25, 1895 5:1;
June 19, 1895 2:3
Daily Camera, May 21, 1921; April 28, 1932
Surveyed by Whitacre/Simmons Affiliation: Front Range Research
Date: 1986
Attachment B
Project Description
Landmark Alteration Application
1619 Pine Street
September 10, 2009
Introduction
Understanding the history of our house is key to understanding our alteration application. The
house is notable for the Pine Street fagade with its textbook Queen Anne characteristics. Multiple
changes can be seen in the building as it was expanded to the north. Later additions are less
compatible with original house characteristics than earlier alterations.
"Most Houses Change Over Time" (Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation)
Although building permit records from 1911 to 1969 report only the addition of a sleeping porch in
1925, photographs, Sanborn Insurance maps and construction details reveal a more complex
story. The lack of building permits makes it difficult to precisely date changes and additions, but
the colored footprint diagram shows additions we have been able to document.
Not All Changes Made Are of Equal Quality
With the sale of the house in 1934, it changed from being the McAllister family home to a boarding
house occupied by as many as 13 tenants. In 1955 an absentee landlord divided the house into
four apartments. The expansion and alterations which took place in an effort to provide space for
multiple boarders and rental units were done with little regard for the existing characteristics of the
house, both inside and out. Examples of egregious changes include: removal of the front stained
glass window, removal of front porch spindles and balustrade, enclosure of porches, addition of an
inappropriate unpainted deck, interior hallways blocked to create bathrooms, application of black
cork tiles to ceilings and walls to cover damaged plaster, encasement of a pocket door in
unpainted, rough cedar paneling, green paint rubbed into the original staircase to make it look
"antiqued."
Objectives
Our objectives in making changes to the exterior of the house are to correct past mistakes and
bring unity to the disparate design elements which now exist on the back of the house; to increase
useable outdoor space; to make alterations which will improve interior circulation and the
functionality of space at the back of the house.
Since purchasing the house in 1974 we have worked to restore original features of the house both
inside and out as well as to stabilize deteriorating systems and rectify previously unauthorized
work. The projects have been implemented carefully over a period of decades. With each effort
we have researched the history of the house, endeavored to use appropriate design and materials
and incorporated the best practices in preservation. The back of house is the last remaining
exterior portion of the house to be addressed. It would be ironic that after decades of change, the
structure would be frozen in time at an inauspicious point in its architectural history. Preserving
poor design, substandard construction and materials only serves to honor previous owners who
disrespected the historical integrity of this house.
Description of windows and door proposed for replacement at 1619 Pine Street
C1 four windows located on the north fayade of the first floor. The windows are on the
tertiary facade and face the alley.
The windows are wood, double-hung with damaged screens and no storms. The
windows are held open (rather, they are supposed to be held open) by a springed peg
which fits into a drilled hole; there are only two settings for openings and the top part of
the double-hung windows do not operate. Only two of the windows can be opened.
Because the springs are broken and the pegs barely fit into the holes, it is not possible to
open the windows without some kind of block or object to hold it up. Since there is no
counter weight or friction, the windows come crashing down if the block is knocked. We
are not sure of the date of the windows, or even this part of the house, although we do
know this part of the house is not original.
The sash and sills are not deteriorated. The windows fit loosely into the frames; these are
poor quality windows. The glass does not have historic properties. The lower pane on
the west end window and the upper pane on the second window to the east are cracked.
B6 Two windows located on the west side of the house, first floor, near the back. The
windows are slightly visible from the alley.
The description of condition, materiality and operation are identical to the C1 windows
with the exception of a small piece of exterior molding on the top of the windows and the
glass is not cracked.
These windows would be replaced by a bay window in order expand the dining area of
the kitchen and reduce congestion at the doorway between the dining room, kitchen and
pantry.
BS The window is located on the west facade near the back of the house. It is halfway
between the first and second floors. It is slightly visible from the alley.
This window was added in the mid-1960s when the exterior stairway to the sleeping
porch was enclosed. The window is located at the landing of the stairway and can only
be described as inappropriate. It does not open.
B4 This is a new set of do e- ng windows in a new opening to allow natural light in
and views out from amily Room. alp rove-d L--DRc-
B3 This is a new do in a new opening to allow access from the Family Room directly
~D'R c
to the outside We . 0.Qp ""e c
B2 This kitchen window ' cated on the east side of the house on the first floor. It ' rove
opens onto a small rch and cannot be seen from either the sidewalk or the alley. q ar
The window was added in the late 1960s or early 70s. It is a double-hung wood window
with vinyl tracks that do not work, and like the rest of the windows at the back of the
house, it must be propped open•vrith a block. There is no storm window.
Because the window i5 over the sink, we are proposing that it be replaced with a Marvin
wood casement 'ndow which looks like a double-hung window.
B1 This door is located on the east side of the house and faces north, opening onto a
small porch. It is not visible from the sidewalk or the alley.
The current door is not an exterior door; it is 13/8" thick and does not have insulated or
historic glass as one of our kids smashed it. The wood has rotted at the bottom and there
are big spaces between the door and the jam. Last year we added new weather stripping
which now makes the door difficult to close. The exterior frame and transom would be
left intact. The glass would be replaced with insulated glass. There is no screen door and
no storm door.
Attachment C
t
N P.
r _ . L,~ + t .i '`M' I ~ {I ll~llllll~lr; ~~~/`1 ~•i'3I1 il' ~ ~ ~ ~^~r ry '1!
few
Y. 3 . ~ F ~ / ~Y. ` y A~ k~ r ~ ~ 1R ~ir~ < ~~r • 1 i~
~ ~
}r sv ~ I•
F n Sri { f
12
Wye
Alle
- - ~ 'aR! ff,,r/ :r.t...,?~~r~sus~' `~.u•i't! Via'-' i~"~
"ire , ~ !r ~ M ° ~V• ~ , ,
~Y.. ~r:'' -.may "^'t".. • - _
owl
J For. 1 ,~'N r, -.fir :~M •r.~ ~ . - 't. ,a _
.7 {~,,,1 ' ~ ~ ,1 , ~ • ~ 1. J -y • 3
;74n ~ ;'y T' ~~rP~i~'~G'+'~ri ~ 6 y`[ii r, ~1~•t,,, i` -F~ n+~+ +-t i,' _ + : -
td r :'~}T1• t} r1 r ov~ , ~ .y ~ .f 'S ti~ r ~'.a'~ ~.1C t • ~L !f~ _ s .
d y~yh+Ar, t , y r • r~r • F r~, ~1si• 1 . i 'i. ~r is r - 'M
F•] r j 1,~~ Jas' J
z, fy, `r ~ dyyrd?~~;'' ii~yvrv'll.tlT r r ~i, r ~ •
r.
A4 .
161 cf FINE STREET, CIRCA 1 q4Q
N~
~ f 1 t
Rk.
Inc r', ~r
4P6 7
mo IF
Illivil
~ IL
Vol
I
161'1 FINE 5 TREET (FROM THE NORTH) - CIRCA 18al6
ALLEY
I I GARAGE
i I I 22201 bth STREET i I OJOVi'R~~k6 TO
, TO
. ~
15E REHOVED
AND RZPLACED
NTH NEW CAVOPY -
DECK Ti ...~_t
I I I I
anr~ _ tilr`
I
I
} I 1625 PINE STREET
V I~
r
I&Iq PINE STREET
1605 PINE STREET I6,11 PINE STREET
I I 1 „i I i
I I I O EXISTING OPENING
APPROVAL BEING REQUESTED
7)N -
FROM LPAB
EXISTING OR NEYV OPENING -
APPROVAL REGENED FROM 0E516N
I
I 1
REVIFA COMMITTEE (Sllgl0q)
OLTMANS RESIDENCE (D51TE FLAN
161a PINE STREET Inb =r-0° ailoro9
BOULDER, GO
PINE STRUT
ENCL05ED UPPER _
5LEEPING PORCH _ ESL
AND FIR5T LEVEL
ENCL05ED PORCH
ENGL05ED SHED ROOF
OUT5IDE
STAIRWAY --5ECOND 5TORY
ADDITION
ADDED
PANTRY -
ROOM5 ADDED
UP AND DOWN -
5ECOND 5TORY
OVER EXI5TIN6
BAY WINDOW
ROOF
FIREPLACE PLAN
ADDED pis°=1-o"
ADDED qi~ oio~
COVERED TURRET
PORCH ADDED
EXTERIOR 6HAN6E5
OVER THE YEAR5
1
INN
Cxq I.PGL+rD YJ `,?.fiP
E31
fwAl~.4 Gc]N~i!0.
1 I
I I
B2' B4 k
E32 INTERIOR GL05E-UP - E31 INTERIOR
CLO5E-UP
Partial East Elevation
EXISTING CONDITIONS „ar-, q,~~,09
I I
K 94
aw
a ana w
aP , . aenm III
lk, V ~
XB:2 EXTERIOR 51 EXTERIOR
CL05E-UP5 CL05E-UP5
MEN
MEN
NONE _l
Cl INTERIOR CLOSE-UP5 North Elevation EXISTING CONDITIONS CANOPY OVER APARTMENT ACCE55
va° = r-o° 9114109
i
r
oil
F
.10
t7,
Cl EXTERIOR GLOBE-0P5 Cl EXTERIOR CLOSE-UP
"7
l7fF
■ ■ _ ■ Via: ~
j,
Partial West Elevation EX15TING CONDITIONS B6 INTERIOR CLOSE-UP
- It
va° = r-a° gi~oioq
fall!
j ICI N~ ~ `
~i
LL
B5 EXTERIOR GL05E-UP B& EXTERIOR CLOSE-UP5
0
`I
NONE
MEMO
- - - REPL.AGENIENT NEIN DOOR
_ CORNER RROUND GARNER
NEI
B4
82
NUPCA4060
~ NfYV'GfSEMEN7,'iX1U>3LEHUNb" - -
- ANPO/~ TO REFLN2 E I IN6
ANPOk' FROV 1005 NUDH2032 MNDH2432 4lUDH2032
RO 05EI:;) CHAN&E Partial East Elevation
1/411 = 11-0"
OEM
North Elevation FpRofpo5E:p CHANOE5
I/4" = I'-O" 9/10/09
\O~
1 1 1
1 ' 1
I COMPOSITE _
SHINGLE ROOF _
- TO MATCH EXISTING
I WtJDHT3212
WUO 1612 - - - - -
YAJDHTI.612
m Elio
WUDH1624 I wuD 1624
WUDH2020 - E36
LAPPED WOOD
VNaH3224 SIDING MATCH -
_ MATERIAL, DIMENSION
AND DETAIL OF
NEW BAY WINDOW EXISTING
Partial West Elevation
KO 0 El CHAN&E
ppl
` 11.E ~ 1 , J'~J' y 9 t ~i ~i
-age
I ..r ,yrtV ' r ~y [ n
WO ~P:
,
Ito
216-
1 I
I+ 1 A
1. .Y.
IILLrrr_
I I ` ti-~ i ~ - III 1v
I L ~ I r
_ .r f
I' i III Y
INN
tP ■■■un.rrr■ 11
l ~t ? N
1 -Id I.
I
~ 77 I
~i i~ 7 :t I ■11'1.1
Il atl I_ r ~~li ,AI
1
qdwm
L !rt' '
1 ~ F' 11~, i 1 I~.
li s
1 II
I 5
r'
- I I
IL T,
r * I
1 v r t SI'l tr''
r II
`I A l
1
1 L
Z
(r
Y
~ 1}1111451►fNf ,11 ,
ry'
son
Nti~la~ i L
,ti, L y 7~
. M~i
Il ►I
r
Y ~1
1
1
'1 r
l
1
HEAD HEAD
l
CHECKRAIL CHECKRAIL
SILL SILK E:j- JAMB JAMB
MARVIN WOOD ULTIMATE DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW EXISTING DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW AT 1619 PINE
1 1.
A "chment D
North Facade
North Fagade
Replace lower level windows on terfiary facade
Reasons for replacement:
1, Ease of operation and safety
These windows were not designed with a system of counter balances. There are no
channels or voids for the weights; this is not a condition which can be repaired. The
windows must either be fully open at 18 inches or completely closed. These have always
been poor quality windows.
These windows are dangerous! The springs and pegs which hold the windows open are
broken and windows are currently held open with wood blocks or other handy items,
Because there are no counter weights, should the window props or pegs become
dislodged, there is nothing to impede the fall of the window. The force of the fall has the
potential to cause personal injury or property damage. Our nine-year old grandson cannot
open the windows. My husband, who is currently in a cast from knuckles to elbow, cannot
open and secure the windows. One cannot assume that only able-bodied adults with the
ability to safely operate the windows will always live in this house.
100% of the pegs for securing the windows are broken. The holes in the wood for
securing the pegs are enlarged through wear; if the peg springs worked, the pegs would
still be too short to fit in the holes.
2. Design integrity
This is not part of the original house. This was a porch with screens, not windows; the
porch was enclosed and heated at a later date. No attempt was made to match the
dimensions or character of existing windows on the house, 41 other windows on the
house have matching proportions, only the windows on the back porch addition and the
kitchen are different. Also, the exterior moulding profile was destroyed when siding was
replaced at an even later date rendering the back of the house flat with little dimensional
relief.
The windows are located on a tertiary fagade and are visible only from the alley.
Most of the windows (2 of 12 panes) do not have original wavy glass due to the tendency
to break when they fall down. Two are currently cracked.
3. Insulation
Because this room is on the north side of the house and was originally a porch which was
never insulated, it is particularly cold, sometimes never warming above 43 degrees. Our
plans include proper insulation of the walls, but the poor quality of the windows also
contributes to the lack of heat in the room. There are no storm windows, There are no
glide slots in the side sashes to accommodate a center tongue for weather stripping. The
windows are loose in their frames with a 118th inch gap at the sash.
AGF_NDA iTSM 11 PAGE a2
Please see the enclosed letter from our contractor, Bruce Tennenbaum, on the difficulty of
making these windows functional.
Replacement Windows:
AGENDA ITEM # PAGr-1G°.=
BATCO
CORPORATION
7279 Arapahoe • Boulder, Colorado 80303 • 303/442-8668
September 2, 2009
Re: Window repairs at Sam and Kay Oltmans Residence, 1619 Pine Street, Boulder,
Colorado
Batco Homes, Inc., a licensed General Contracting company, has been asked to perform an
assessment to repair the double hung windows on the ground level of the north wall, and the
kitchen windows on the west wall of the above referenced home.
Per discussions with Kay Oltmans, we have established criteria for the items necessary to be
considered acceptable repair.
These items are:
1. Function and workability
2. Safety
3. Reasonable insulation value
4. Security
5. Maintain appropriate design
The current conditions of the existing windows are somewhat dismal in regards to meeting the
above criteria. The windows are not counterbalanced, and rely on pins to hold the open window
in place. All of the pins are damaged or non-functioning, and the receiving holes in the jambs
are damaged such that the marginally working pins will not position securely in the holes. To
repair these pins would require dismantling trim to remove sashes, and attempting to find
replacement hardware suitable to repair or replace these pins. This job is complicated by the age
and condition of the wood in both the sash and jambs. It is further complicated because none of
the windows have the ability to open well enough to have the pins line up with holes, and all of
the upper sashes have been solidly painted closed and are non functioning. As a result, the
current windows are held open with an array of different sired pieces of wood. Due to the
instability of these wood pieces, slight movements have caused these windows to crash down and
break some of the panes. This current method of operation is very unsafe. Noting that each
window has only has a single pin that would hold the sash open, and only in the fully open
position, I would be very uncomfortable relying on the pin method, even after potential repair,
and would not consider them safe, nor secure. Even with repairs, I would not consider this style
window safe in a home with young children.
,rY ~~C. j'. ~ Al~ ~1,V~~~ti'(~...~ ~tix"'ti. A ,1 _"~~.I~`.~~~~'~ y~r~-~ s
Page 2 of 2
In terms of achieving a reasonable insulation value, these particular windows are sub-par to the
other weighted double hung windows throughout the house. Unlike the other windows, these
units do not have a center tongue in the glide slot, and do not seal well. They are an inferior
window of this type. The best solution would be to build and install custom exterior stone
windows, which would deem these windows non-ventable when the storm windows are in use.
It is my opinion that due to the grossly deteriorated condition of these specific windows, as well
as the inferior original quality of these windows in relation to the majority of other windows
throughout the house, repairing these windows to the satisfaction of the horneowners will not be
reasonably prudent. The expenses incurred to improve these windows would be significant, but
will still not meet the criteria listed above.
Submitted by:
Bruce Tenenbaum
President, Batco Homes, Inc.
WINDOWS - NORTH FACADE
I' I 1!
I
f - ` @
BANK OF WINDOWS FACADE CONSTRUCTION
II
1. lik,
MOULDING PROFILE:
ALTERED WHEN NEW SIDING APPLIED IN 1968 EXTERIOR VIEW
qooF,
L ; I,
I'
-dooo
e_i I
WINDOW CONSTRUCTION MOULDING PROFILE:
EXAMPLE OF WINDOWS ON ALL OTHER FACADES
AGENDA ITEM #k PAGE a
WINDOWS - INTERIOR
Y
A ~
INTERIOR VIEW OF BANK OF WINDOWS
- WT-
4DETAIL: MOULDING DETAIL: FRAME
.I
i ANNE- 4A
r•~
~ I
DETAIL: CASEMENT INTERIORVIEW
AGI~NDA ITEM # -2hPAGE 2
NEW WINDOWS
- I
5
PROPOSED NORTH WINDOW: PROPOSED NORTH WINDOW:
VIEW OF EXTERIOR DOUBLE-HUNG CLOSE-UP OF EXTERIOR DOUBLE-HUNG
NOTE:
- - PHOTOS ARE OF MANUFACTURER'S SAMPLES:
WINDOWS WILL NOT HAVE DIVIDED LIGHTS.
- WINDOW FRAMES WILL BE WOOD, NOT CLAD.
i ~
PROPOSED NORTH WINDOW:
VIEW OF INTERIOR DOUBLE-HUNG
I
C i.
0
•
ILL
1 `~I
W'
PROPOSED KITCHEN WINDOW: PROPOSED KITCHEN WINDOW:
VIEW OF EXTERIOR CASEMENT VIEW OF INTERIOR CASEMENT
PAGE a
AeNgA IT[.RUI #
I'
• ~i t
t f
t
.
S
. DESIGN POSSIBILITIES
BOTH TRADITIONAL AND MODERN AT THE SAME TIME.
Window makers of an earlier era got a lot of things right. Sophisticated lines, profiles and proportions never go
out of style. Marvin's Ultimate Double Hung combines a state-of-the-art window design with a classic style of the
past. New advancements in engineering make Ultimate Double Hung windows simple to open. Mai vin's exclusive
integraled till lever lock allows the sash to be tilted in or removed for easy cleaning. And with so many options for
sash sizes, glazing and life patterns, you can dream up the ultimate window, and Marvin can build it.
STANDARD FEATURES HARDWARE
Clear, onr-lite insulating glass SASH LOCK flE~H~ ~
Satin Taupe sash lock
i•
a
Bare wood interior
All wood brick mould casinrt (wood units)
1 ".~r° (116 corn) jarnbs
SASH LIFT FULL & HALF SCREEN.
Consider a lull screen to cover
your entire window or a half
screen that covers only the lower
portion. Choose from several
mesh and surround options.
(optional)
~27
A (-:il-:ND,a 17t:!M r r'rt
East Facade
AG Nf ) A lTEM #PAGE 2-q
East Fagade
Replace Exterior North Facing Door
Reasons for replacement:
1. Existing door is an interior door, not exterior. The thickness of the door is 1.25' vs. the
standard 1.75' for exterior doors.
2. The door is old, but not historic. As compared to other exterior doors on the house, it
differs in thickness as well as in depth of detail (see example of front door panels), The
door is similar to more than a dozen interior doors in the house and is almost identical
to the glass-paned interior pantry door, In the 1960s and `70s these interior four panel
doors were readily available at North Boulder Furniture Mart, We replaced some
damaged interior doors ourselves using that source.
3. The plate glass window is not old. It was broken and replaced by one of our children.
4. The door is a good candidate for replacement as it is not visible from any public right
of way.
5. The door is poorly insulated. It lacks insulated glass, it has been altered at the bottom
to clear carpet creating the need for a high (1,5") threshold and metal extension at the
bottom of the door and has rotted at the lower inside corner. Despite recently added
weather stripping and repair of deteriorated wood, it still requires rugs and even duct
tape to cover gaps when temperatures drop. In addition, the light weight door provides
less security than a sturdier one.
Replacement Door
1. Existing frame and transom to remain intact
2. New wood door has two lower raised panels and a thermal glass pane on top
3. We would prefer to slightly raise the paneling and door handle over that of the existing
door to use proportions in keeping with the front door. The current handle is 30.5' from
the floor as contrasted with the front door which is 31.5".
DOORS - CONTEXT
r~ I i - etc ~
9 I r M
F ~ Fs 'VIEW OF EAST FACADE FROM DRIVEWAY: VIEW OF EAST FACADE FROM DRIVEWAY:
PROPOSED CHANGE OF DOOR PROPOSED CHANGE OF DOOR
r
~ - ~,"fir: ~ _
Nl-
ry-
-
e +
SIGHT LINE: SIGHT LINE:
PROPOSED DOOR NOTVISIBLE FROM ALLEY PROPOSED DOOR FROM ALLEY
Vfi
Twill
~I
p; p t5?..; lilt
r
SIGHT LINE:
PROPOSED DOOR NOT VISIBLE FROM PINE STREET
EXTERIOR DOORS
NOTE:
THE HOUSE HAS FIVE EXTERIOR DOORS:
--TWO ARE HISTORIC
--THREE ARE OLD, BUT NOT HISTORIC
THETHREE OLD DOORS WERE ORIGINALLY FOUR-PANEL
INTERIOR DOORS. TWO OFTHESE WERE ROUTED OUT
i' TO HOLD GLASS PANES.
HISTORIC DOOR
I
HISTORIC DOOR DETAIL
H15TORIC DOOR
" ~411
OLD INTERIOR DOOR: OLD INTERIOR DOOR
DOOR ADDED WHEN STAIRWAY ENCLOSED, c. 1968
Uatalog - fund your 5nnpson Door
= Home Ca_ talog Products Support Customer Tools About Us
Your Door
Specifications
General Information
1.
Door Name: Thermal Sash (I.G.)
Door Number: 7044
Door Series: Stain Grade
Door Type: Exterior French Ft Sash
Door Species: Fir/Hemlock
Standard Features
Panels: 1-7/16" Innerbond
Moulding: na
Glass: 3/4" Insulated
Door Options
Matching Sidelights: Caming: na
7702 (7702) Standard Sizes*
Matching Transoms: Door Widths: 2-6", 2-8", 2'10", 3'0", 32",
"
Traditional (LG.) (4790) 3'4", 3'6
Glass Options: Door Heights: 68", 7'0", 8'0"
Tempered Glass "Additional sizes are available. See your Simpson
Authorized Dealer for final availability and pricing.
Maximum Weather Resistance:
Performance Series
ANY INK1k 1Nl 1,1.1 11s, _
New Search
Find a Dealer Did you see us on TV? Literature Request
Quickly locate Check out the doors Want more information?
the dealer featured on NBC's All of our literature
nearest you. The Today Show. is here for
you to view.
Enter Zip Code
littp://www. simpsondoor.com/catalog/catalog_detail.asp?ApplicationDescription=%&Speci... 9/7/2009,,?
A0rml~f~tA III °M # .,PAc. l
West Facade
West Fagade
Replace existing windows on secondary fagade with bay window and replace
roof on pantry
Reasons for replacement:
"It is normal for buildings to evolve over time as additional space is needed or uses are
accommodated." (Boulder Design Guidelines 48)
While this house has been altered and added to frequently, no changes have been made
to the exterior of the house for at least 41 years other than restoration of the front porch
and removal of an inappropriate deck. We are now at a point where we are able to do
some much needed kitchen and interior remodeling. The requested alteration reflects the
need to improve circulation through the house and eliminate an area of congestion
between the dining room and kitchen. It allows us to retain the eating space in the kitchen
without a major addition of space. (Please see existing floor plan,) The additional space
and improved kitchen access has also been planned to accommodate the needs of my
elderly mother who is frequently at our home and currently cannot get into the kitchen with
her walker,
The windows are not original and have the same problems of operation, safety and
inappropriate scale as those on the north facade (see reasons 1-3, North Fagade). The
windows are clearly replacements, installed when the pantry and chimney for central
heating were added. They awkwardly abut the added chimney and they differ in proportion
and in design from the window directly above. There is some evidence of alteration in the
lapped siding.
Design plan:
With all of the alterations made to the back of the house over time (exterior staircase
enclosed, back door overhang added, east side porch enclosed, new mismatched siding
applied), this portion of the building does not appear to be in keeping with the rest of the
house. According to the 1977 Landmarks survey, "A major two-story addition was made to
the rear of the house in 1969. Although it is not in character with the original structure,
because it is at the rear of the house, it is not seen from the street." Although that date can
be contested, the assessment of the design is accurate. The proposed alterations aim to
bring some consistency of design to the disparate and unattractive elements on this
facade.
The angles of the proposed bay, the shape and proportion of the windows and the fixed
transoms are modeled on the front turret of the house. The overall design is much simpler
and eliminates details such as the decorative panels beneath the windows, the pilasters at
the corners and the art glass in the transoms.
In addition to providing inches of extra interior space, the configuration of the roof allows
for some much needed continuity on the west fagade through the introduction of a roof
profile which would extend over the current flat and leak prone roof of the pantry. The
same profile would be used as a cap over the back door replacing the current
inappropriate overhang.
Note: Although the door overhang and window B5 replacement have been approved by the Design Review
Committee, we will only proceed with these changes if alteration B6 is approved since the design of the
former is predicated on the design characteristics of the latter.
WINDOWS - LOCATION OF PROPOSED BAY WINDOW ON WEST FACADE
VIEW OF WEST FACADE FROM YARD: VIEW OF WEST FACADE FROM YARD:
LOCATION OF BAY WINDOW LOCATION OF BAYWINDOW
I
VIEW OF WEST FACADE VIEW OF ALTERED WINDOW ON WEST FACADE
44
I II11~l~1 ~ i'Ifll~ -f1l~~~h~1~~~~ `
SIGHT LINE: SIGHT LINE:
PROPOSED BAY WINDOW NOT VISIBLE FROM PROPOSED BAY WINDOW FROM ALLEY
PINE STREET
CONTEXT
tia~ u ~ ~ Tr.A
EXISTINGWINDOW: HISTORICTURRET:
AREA FOR PROPOSED BAY WINDOW MODEL FOR PROPOSED BAY WINDOW
~i•~f94~F)Ez f 11~f~.r Ti= J/,.~-;~rt~:pl_._~~