Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180711 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Richard Lai. Absent were Sheri Sanzone and Willis Pember. Staff present: Linda Manning, City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Greenwood said she was not here for that meeting, but she read the minutes and it seemed interesting. Mr. Blaich moved to approve the draft minutes for June 13th, 2018, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Halferty entered the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko said the Meadows is looking pretty amazing. They did it pretty quickly and amazingly. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: Ms. Simon said she is recusing herself from 330 Park and 931 Gibson. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she will speak with Mr. Halferty and Mr. Kendrick tomorrow about St. Mary’s. She will discuss by email tomorrow along with two projects to show Mr. Blaich shortly. Ms. Greenwood asked if all the projects are covered. Ms. Simon said she doesn’t think so and she has a few upcoming requests. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon reminded everyone that they have been invited to an opening reception for St. Mary’s sanctuary project on Sunday. She also sent them an email asking for a special meeting on Aug 1st. We do have a quorum, but she would like to know if anyone cannot make it. Mr. Pember is unavailable. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon issued one for 520 E. Hyman, which is the building where I Pro is for some work on the third-floor penthouse unit. We also issued one for a remodel of the space where BB’s kitchen was. She also received an application for 501 E Hyman for an addition between Clark’s and Marcus. This application is to add a new entry door to the non-historic addition. After discussing with the building department, we felt this was resolved in a way that met guidelines and did not need HPC review. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said everything is in order. CALL UP REPORTS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 333 Park and 931 Gibson Sarah Yoon 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 This involves the relocation of the historic residence to new lot on 931 Gibson. Currently, 333 Park is in the R6 zone district. The rear property faces the Roaring Fork River. 333 Park contains two historic resources, which are proposed to be relocated. It was located to this site in the 1960s from Main Street. It was designated historic in 1995. 931 Gibson is in R15A zone district. Currently, there is a residential building on this site with a demo permit that has expired. The applicant is exploring different routes for relocation. The review requests are as follows: approval of demo of non-historic additions, relocation of 2 historic resources to the new site and rescinding the historic designation from 333 Park. For 931 Gibson, the applicant is requesting approval of relocation to this site and the designation of the property to protect the historic resources, the design approval for a basement and above ground addition which has a 10-ft. connector and 10 ft. one car garage along with demolition of the residence on the current lot. The applicant is requesting dimensional variances for the front and rear yard setbacks and the 500- sq. ft. bonus. On page 2 of the staff memo, it outlines the review process as it will involve Council heavily in the review process. The applicant proposes to restore the original Sanborn map footprint configuration of the two historic resources and reorient the front façade back to street facing, which will increase its visibility. Ms. Yoon showed images of the original footprint. In reviewing the criteria for relocation, 333 Park is not in a historic district and the resource will not have any adverse impacts on area. It is an acceptable alternative in this case and they meet all three of the additional criteria. There is an argument that the current location is over 50 years and of historical importance. The applicant has proposed to restore the historical character. They have also proposed a minor addition to the rear of the resource, which is in compliance with HPC guidelines. With the relocation, staff has concerns with the changes in allowable floor area on the accepting site. The new calculations differ from what was in the packet and are being passed out at the meeting. The lot sizes are significantly different from each other so the relocation will increase the floor area by 922 ft., not including the floor area bonus. The historic resource will now allow two detached units on the site, which was not allowed prior to the relocation. Regarding the demo criteria, the demo of all non-historic additions is supported. The applicant expressed that the first design, is the preferred designed. Staff has concerns with the connector, the site placement of the garage and request of the front setback variation. The applicant has provided a revised design that redesigned the connector from 5 to 10 feet in length and the above grade addition has been reduced to a single car garage to 250 from 500. In this design, the applicant has extended the connecting element to 10 ft. and reduced the above grade addition. They also moved back the addition so the variation will only be for the front porch. They are still asking for the sub grade variation for the living space. They do request the 500-sq. ft. bonus for their preservation efforts and want it for the Gibson space and meets six of the eight criteria for the bonus. HPC may grant up to 500 sq. ft., not on rights, but merits. Staff supports relocation of the historic resource with exception of the sub grade variation. The lot can accommodate for the basement without a variation. HPC will need to determine the following issues: $150,000 deposit necessary for relocation of the outbuilding, the granting of the floor area and the total amount and the granting of the front and rear yard setbacks. Ms. Greenwood said they discussed at the site, the potential of the front porch as historic. She said it is not represented in the presentation. Ms. Yoon said the Sandborn map footprint indicated a porch. Ms. Greenwood said that needs to be communicated. She also asked what is your thinking on the setback variance for below grade and not supporting it. Ms. Yoon said the new site has the capacity for the basement and it would not require the variance. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Flynn Stewart-Severy of F&M Architects, Brian Hendry, owner and Monty Thompson of Thunder Construction Mr. Hendry introduced himself and said he has a wife, Michelle. We have four kids and two dogs and have been coming here for 16 years and spend three months a year here. We first saw the property 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 about seven years ago and we saw it for sale last summer and jumped on it. We love the house and the location. We are looking forward to restoring it to its original condition and we have spent the last year developing a plan for what we can do with the house. Ms. Adams said they have a long list of requests on the screen, but it’s a basic concept to pick up the two historic resources, remove the non- historic additions and move them to a more appropriate location and swap the historic designations. We are requesting conceptual approval for a one car garage. We are requesting a floor area bonus with a condition that it be completely allocated to a future detached home on the Gibson property and we are fine with it being allocated to below grade space. This property was constructed in 1889 by the Jacobs family and was located on a 3K sq. lot., but proposed to be on a 5K lot. The setback was 14 feet so this is part of why we feel the variance is appropriate. You can see the one story historic addition from the street and the barn along the alley. It changed hands a few times after Jacobs constructed it and in 1961 the land under the house was purchased. Mable placed an ad to sell the historic building. The Bibbig’s purchased the property and moved it to Park in 1962. The historic building has survived till today. Ms. Adams showed images of the facades as they are today. They went through four iterations within 333 Park before asking for relocation and worked on this for about a year. There are stream margin setbacks, R6 and 45-degree angle progressive height setbacks to work within. All required a lot of variances and no visibility to the street. Flynn scaled the Sanborn map and Brian found the Gibson property and we found that the Sanborn fits on this property with some massaging. We have been working with parks to find an acceptable route and we have now met with them twice and are still working with them to come up with a route that will work with everyone. Priorities are to fully restore the landmark, bring back the original Main Street configuration and have some street presence. 931 Gibson is a large flat lot and the intention is to move all the floor area not used by the landmark and designate it to a detached single- family home. There would be two homes on this lot and the floor area of a duplex on this lot is comparable to what we are asking for and we think it is better for the neighborhood. The new building would be under HPC purview since it would be a designated lot. There would be less density than the original Main Street location. Looking at context, Ms. Adams showed a map of the designated properties and showed an image of the original proposal with a two-car garage and a five-foot connector. All of the new square footage is below grade and we would be requesting the 500-sq. ft. bonus be allocated to the new home. They are fine with the preference that the bonus be used below grade. The level of restoration is not just physical, but we would be restoring context. This is a serious preservation effort going on here. We are requesting two setback variations to realign the historic addition and add the garage. The garage meets the 5 ft. above grade setback but needs the below grade variation. For the front yard setback, the preservation approach was to have the landmark be prominent along the street. The new detached building, proposed in the future, will be required to meet the 25-foot setback line and this is just for the landmark. As for the alternate option, the only way to elongate the connector from 5 to 10 feet, is to lose a garage bay. We would be pulling the landmark façade to the 25-foot setback line. We are still requesting the below grade setback variance for 5 feet. We don’t prefer the one car garage option and feel strongly that the front yard setback should match those along Main Street. We are requesting a decision tonight as we have another step to go with City Council. This is a unique project and a great opportunity. Mr. Kendrick asked when was the property designated historic. Ms. Adams said 1995. Mr. Kendrick asked if there were any incentives given at that time and Ms. Adams said no, it was a blanket designation. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Ms. Greenwood asked what part of 931 Gibson is being designated and Ms. Adams said the entire parcel. Ms. Greenwood asked why are we not seeing what is being proposed for the new building because this is a serious problem moving forward without that building. Ms. Garrow said when we looked at the code, we would prefer to see the 2nd building, but it is not required. The criteria for granting the floor area bonus are really about the preservation effort of the historic resource itself and not about the additions of the separate building, so they felt comfortable moving forward. The entire lot is being designated, so at whatever point in the future they decided to move forward with a second building, it would fall under HPC’s purview. Ms. Garrow said this is a unique proposal and made sense to them to move forward. Ms. Greenwood said she finds that to be very odd because we grapple with the bonus and mass and scale on historic properties so it feels contrary to what we do on this board. She said she has a serious problem with that and it probably should have been discussed. Ms. Garrow said that one option on the bonus is that the decision will not be made until the second structure is proposed. Ms. Greenwood said this is not what my clients have dealt with doing almost the same thing. The lack of consistency with interpretation of the codes is disturbing. Since it is in the R15 zone, when it is a duplex you can see the reason for a deep setback, so did you ever consider asking for less of a setback so you could maintain a two-car garage. Ms. Adams said we would be open to that. We wanted to be sensitive to the requests we came in with. We want to be sensitive to the neighbors and their 25- foot setbacks. Ms. Greenwood asked if they anticipate the new building will have a 25-foot setback. Ms. Adams said we would be coming in with the 25-foot setback and we understand how the board feels about setbacks. Mr. Stewart- Severy agreed with Ms. Adams and said because it comes under HPC purview, it would be addressed. Having the historic home sit in front of the new development is a nice gesture. Mr. Kendrick asked if the FAR can be based on the quality of the restoration, conditionally once the project is complete and Ms. Garrow said there is a lot of discretion given to HPC so if you wanted to add conditions based on additional review, you have the latitude to condition it. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. Alan Becker, neighbor on Matchless Drive, concerned with additional structures. We don’t know what they are going to be or look like. Mr. Becker sked what the intention for the property is and said he is concerned with what the 5-foot setback on the rear of the property means. Ms. Greenwood explained. Mr. Becker said he generally likes to know the proposed usage and intent for the additional structures. He asked what the estimated timeframe for the historic and new structures would be. Ms. Adams said Brian and Shelly own the property and they are trying to figure out the intent. They are not sure if they can fit their four kids and two dogs on the property. The historic home is about 2000 square foot of floor area and the detached structure would be about 2500 sq. ft. and 500 with the bonus. If the bonus is allocated to the basement, that is what we will do. Ms. Garrow said as staff, we struggled a little bit with what you do with the bonus and it does meet the criteria. Not knowing what a 2nd building will look like, we said if the bonus is granted, we prefer it will be located in the basement knowing it will be difficult to parse out. If HPC is uncomfortable with that language, we can remove it. Ms. Adams said if you grant the bonus, it will be 3000 square feet of FAR and that is 1000 square feet more than the landmark. Mr. Becker said my old understanding was the bonus is up to 500 sq. ft. Ms. Greenwood said that is correct. 2. David Harris, lives at 117 Neale Ave in a historic resource. He said these kinds of projects are really good things as long as they are done in a complete manner. Regarding the front yard setback, my porch sits 10 feet off the sidewalk. In zones where you have a 25-foot setback, they are dead places, so I encourage you to take a look at that. What is better than having people 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 enjoy each other. What goes along with that is a sidewalk, is there is “staff” who have decided that sidewalks are inappropriate in our neighborhoods, so please make sure there is a sidewalk. Ms. Greenwood asked if engineering is requiring you to put in a sidewalk. Ms. Garrow said it will be required. Because the zone allows there to be 2 separate buildings, you should try to master plan the site. Mr. Lai said he is not familiar with his house but if he prefers the traffic in front of your house, I would like to take a look at that. 3. Mike Maple asked when was the last time other than the relocation of Zupancis, that there was a relocation like this and how often does this happen. Ms. Garrow said it is a very unique project and there were two of these types of relocations, one in 1988 – 134 ½ West Hopkins moved and the Zupancis. There were a lot of properties moved in the 60s and 70s. This is a gigantic site and quite unusual. Mr. Maple said his family owned and occupied the adjacent property for 50 years. It’s a brilliant plan to create development in excess of 3 million dollars. This is asking for too much. The idea of two structures plus FAR bonus is asking for 18% increase of development potential. If the home was being relocated to a historic area, it may be appropriate. 4. Christine Dodaro, lives across the street. She doesn’t think the mailing said what will be built on the second part of the lot and is concerned about that. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Ms. Adams said as for the development of the second lot, it would be a single-family home. It is nice to hear mike’s comments and we have put our best foot forward with a good solution. It comes with some tradeoffs and it will be a single-family home that will meet your design guidelines. We are open to phasing in the bonus. Mr. Hendry said he is not a developer and their intention was to buy one house, but this has escalated due to scenarios that developed once we built the house. Our intention is not to disturb or be a hindrance to your mother and father. Our intention is to stay in the house. Mr. Stewart- Severy said the garage we proposed is based off the Sandborn maps and it is depicted more off a barn than anything else. The vertical height is up for debate and the original barn was taller than the single- story structure. Ms. Greenwood summarized the issues and said that staff is asking for a demo of non-historic addition, relocation of Victorian to a non-historic site creating a new landmark designation where one never existed. Staff feels like we should give them a 500-ft. bonus. Mr. Halferty said the proposed development has strong merits. The relocation would add some prominence to Gibson. He is ok with some of the variances. The FAR bonus is hard to get his hands around since it is on a lot where there is no house. It is hard to allocate whether it is sub or above grade when we don’t know the architecture. He thinks the last iteration with the garage in the back is admirable and the connecting element works. It is a large lot and the proposed foot print works. The presence towards Gibson works and conforms to the guidelines. He needs to look more at site planning for garage access. In defense of applicants they have not gone through the design of the other lot, but it would be nice to see it. The project is on its way and it is a strong restoration effort. The FAR bonus is questionable, but he is not saying it is not warranted. He is curious as to where the receiving site would be. He is in favor of the partial demo and the setback variance. He is curious of the receiving area and site location of FAR bonus. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Mr. Lai said regarding the rear setback, he is ok with it as it is reasonable with the garage. It is logical to put the barrier wall below, under it. At the beginning, he was in favor of keeping the 25 feet in the front, but has been persuaded by Mr. Harris that there may be a social advantage to it. He agrees with the chair on the 500-foot bonus, but is skeptical about bonuses generally. He would need to be persuaded that the preservation is exemplary. Mr. Kendrick said this is an interesting solution to a difficult problem. He likes that the two historic pieces are coming back together in an original configuration and is fine with the setback. He does have a problem with the FAR bonus with not knowing what the new building will look like. I know I will not be in favor of any setbacks for the new building. Moving the building is giving it a lot of value. Mr. Moyer said he is totally in favor of the renovation and removal of the additions of the resource and he is in favor of moving it to the new site. He would like to see a two-car garage and seeing it closer to the sidewalk. We know there will be a structure on the corner and recreating the vitality would be helpful. He has no issue with the rear setback. He does not have an issue with the bonus if it is underground. Most of the time, he is totally against giving any type of bonus especially redoing a resource that has been unknown for a number of years. It is interesting, we know we could have an 8000 plus structure and we are getting much less and it will creates more of a neighborhood and I’m willing to allow a little discretion. Ms. Berko said for her, underground doesn’t count and she doesn’t quite understand that. She thanked Ms. Adams for doing the research about the property. Thank you all for the public comment. It is a wonderful building that should be seen. Until Mr. Harris brought up the sidewalk and the setbacks, I wasn’t for them. I would like to see them tied to the requirement of a sidewalk. I like the revision of the 10-foot connector. I’m not sure why if you move it forward why you need the rear yard setback. He’s having a hard time with the bonus. I don’t know what is going to be there. Tying it to what Main Street was doesn’t mean much since none of us know it from there. It’s less important to recreate the Main Street situation. It leaves a potentially huge structure next door. Mr. Moyer said in the 1990s, we had a concept with shared driveways. That will happen here. Prior to that, there were a lot of projects that weren’t that great. I would like to see the sidewalk here and the new project will be set back 25 feet. Mr. Blaich said this is a commendable project. The owner and staff worked hard on getting it resolved. He heard some objections that he hadn’t considered. I would be in favor of a 2-car garage. I’ve watched that neighborhood change over the years. Ms. Greenwood personally feels, given a 6000-square foot lot, she is totally in favor of the demo and moving the structure. Being able to do that is your bonus. As Mr. Maple pointed out, you are getting a lot of development rights by getting a historic designation where one doesn’t exist. For me, you got a bonus by that. Not a square foot one, but a development one. Regarding the setbacks, I don’t think it is appropriate to have a 5 foot one for a garage you don’t access off the alley. Maybe the garage is in the wrong location. New construction should be a product of its own time. In an R zone, the rear yard setback is 10 feet. Given a site of this size, the rear set back should be 10 feet. I don’t think anyone is in favor of the 500-square foot bonus. I’m not in favor of the setback for the garage. I would rather see a lesser set back up front. The demo of the historic addition and moving it is a great idea. The whole site becoming historic is a lot to grant somebody. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2018 Ms. Garrow said that after listening to the comments, she has a suggestion. It seems like you are in favor of the demo and relocation. If you are inclined to approve the demo, relocation and change in historic designation, we can include an update to show both buildings after council approval then the floor area bonus could be awarded at conceptual. Ms. Greenwood said the conceptual major development is not ready to be assessed. Ms. Garrow said the suggestion is to take the bonus off the table. If HPC supports the design and grants the conceptual, we can make the recommendation to council to add a condition and there be an amended conceptual before final. Ms. Greenwood asked why we can’t approve the relocation and continue the conceptual. Ms. Garrow said you would only be making a recommendation to council. The issue is when council approves the ordinance, we would have no idea where the building is going. Ms. Greenwood asked what is wrong with that. She said she would push for a two-car garage. Ms. Garrow said it looks like the applicant is amenable to pulling the conceptual out and just making a recommendation on the relocation and partial demolition. Mr. Moyer said let’s keep it simple and give them the permission to move and come up with something better than what they have now. Ms. Greenwood said the restoration effort is excellent, but the garage could use some work. Mr. Stewart-Severy asked what she meant and Ms. Greenwood said this is just to be sensitive to the neighbors. With a site that large, it should be 10 feet off the property line. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve resolution #9 for recommendation to City Council to approve the relocation from 333 Park to 931 Gibson, rescinding the designation at Park and adding designation to Gibson and landmark relocating building and removing non-historic parts. This is only section 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 have been deleted. Mr. Kendrick seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Lai, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes. 7-0, motion carried. Ms. Garrow stated that if council approves the demo and relocation, the applicant will come back after city council. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 6:30 p.m. ___________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk