Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190828 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:29 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Kara Thompson, Richard Lai, Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Nora Berko, Sheri Sanzone. Absent was Gretchen Greenwood. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Jim True, City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes of August 14th, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer asked if anyone is invited to PastForward this October. Ms. Yoon said staff isn’t attending this year and Ms. Simon will elaborate more on why. Mr. Moyer said HPC’s purview is to look at a building, not into a building. We shouldn’t have to hear about what is going on inside of the building. We sat for a half hour listening to what is going on inside of the building and it doesn’t matter what is happening on the inside. Shouldn’t the applicant be told that they can bring in a hundred people, but we really don’t need to hear the history from everyone when it doesn’t concern the actual building. He said he loved hearing the stories, but time is precious. We have a lot to deal with and that is not why we’re here. Mr. Kendrick agreed. Mr. Blaich said Mr. Moyer is correct, but it was interesting to see the support of this. Mr. Moyer said that staff needs to tell the applicant that you don’t need to do this. Mr. Halferty said he doesn’t think staff had any idea that it was going to be to that extent. The goal is about the adaptive reuse concept and the building taking on a new shape. Mr. Moyer said maybe the chair should address the audience regarding purview. Ms. Simon said she feels that Ms. Greenwood did do that, and we can’t control what the public wants to say. We can try to coach people moving forward, but people were just excited about this project. It was an unusual circumstance. Mr. Lai said regarding the last meeting, he looked at the handbook when he got home, and it said we should also consider the attractiveness and economic benefit to the community on particular projects. He now agrees with Mr. Halferty more that we have a broader purview and look at everything in context. Mr. Moyer changed the subject and said they looked a while back at 5G wireless apparatus and said there is a part of this that should be considered regarding the health aspects to this as well if it’s positive or negative for the community. He asked if this is something, we want to have more info on, and Ms. Bryan said Federal regulations specifically prohibit a municipality from taking health and safety concerns into consideration. Mr. Moyer said he was having lunch today at a friend’s house and next door is a historic structure being redone on Hallam and there are innumerable protrusions on the roof. He asked if this is something we can ask about once it is over and done with and Ms. Simon said the fire place flue was approved and she hasn’t gone by recently. We went through this project meticulously, however. Mr. Moyer said that many applicants come to us and quite often don’t meet all of the guidelines and asked if HPC should look at a project like this or asked if staff can ask them to come back. He asked Ms. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2019 Simon if she feels they are getting positive input that will help them in the end or if they are wasting their time. Ms. Simon said we do our best to alert applicants if we feel they are off track. You guys are the decision makers and staff are not. The process just goes the way it goes. Mr. Moyer said HPC used to have preliminary work sessions which avoided this issue, but now we don’t have these. Ms. Simon said they are to stop doing these because of a public due process concern, so there is now required public notice. She said board and staff were giving positive comments that came back to bite sometimes, so these types of meetings aren’t encouraged any longer. Mr. Moyer asked if they should ask for models and if it should be mandatory. Ms. Simon said now it’s computer modeling. I don’t know if we can insist on a physical model from people due to cost, etc. She thinks CAD models provide a lot more info than a physical model. CONFLICTS: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Yoon has something for Ms. Thompson after the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said they have a special guest visiting from Telluride, Jonna Wensel, the Historic Preservation Director, and will be showing her around this week. We do have a number of projects coming in right now, so we may ask for a special meeting on November 20th instead of Thanksgiving eve, so we would have two in a row. She will follow up to verify a quorum. She said the National Trust for Historic Preservation conference is in Denver this year, but there was a last-minute change of venue, it’s very expensive, and we felt that it was covering a lot of info we are already familiar with. It’s a bummer, but we’re not planning on attending. We will be attending the state conference in February though. We find it to be much more affordable and useful, so we will be in touch about this one. Mr. Blaich asked about the report on the Bauhaus conference. Ms. Simon said we need to look for an agenda coming up with enough room where we can all recap. Mr. Moyer asked if they went to Telluride in the 1990’s. Ms. Simon said it was before her time. Mr. Moyer said they went there and to Crested Butte. He asked Ms. Wensel if she was there and she said no, but HPC is welcome to come back. Ms. Simon said we have a new city manager, Sara Ott, pending council approval. Mr. Moyer said the Red Ant is going to be hot on that one. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said all have been submitted and look good. OLD BUSINESS: 1020 E. Cooper Ave Ms. Simon said this will be continued to October 23rd at the applicant’s request. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2019 NEW BUSINESS: 202 E. Main St. Sarah Yoon This property is located in the mixed-use zone district and is a 3000 square foot lot. The applicant wants to change the use of the property to residential. This application will be reviewed under the land use code prior to the amendments. The miner’s cottage is located in its original location. You can see the little baby cottonwood trees, which don’t look like that anymore. The location of the historic resource is not moving forward. Maintaining the historic façade is important and there is a small spruce tree that staff is recommending being removed due to the proximity to the resource. The large cottonwoods are creating some various grade changes to the front yard. There is a full basement being proposed. The proposal calls for a large lightwell at the base of the historic porch and staff has flagged in the memo. It is street facing and doesn’t meet guidelines, so we have asked for restudy. How the resource meets the grade is an important condition. The applicant is discussing with other city depts how to deal with the stormwater and it still needs to be resolved. Staff finds that the two design guidelines relating to compatibility with the resource and the connecting element, are not met. Staff recommends additional restudy. She showed the elevations on screen and sad this lot is in between two other parcels. The proposed addition is a multi-level addition with a roof deck. These are things identified as not being compliant. The connection element is a two-story mass. Staff finds that the design doesn’t meet compatibility requirements since it deviates from form, material and fenestration. Staff is recommending reevaluation of the parking reduction due to the restudy of the addition. The applicant is requesting the full 50 square feet of floor area bonus, but we would like this to be reevaluated after the restudy of the addition as well. Staff is recommending continuation to October 9th. Ms. Berko asked for clarification on whether its conceptual or not and Ms. Yoon said yes, it’s a conceptual review. APPLICATION PRESENTATION: Jake Vickery, owner of 202 E Main along with Robert Thorpe of Robert Thorpe Architects Mr. Vickery said he hopes this process will help him get to a great project that they are all happy with. These 3000 square feet lots are so challenging and this one requires some prioritization and compromise. We want a project that optimizes both the historic preservation and the utility and value of the property. He showed the plans on screen and walked through the details and explained for the board. Ms. Sanzone asked if they have done any exploratory demolition to explain the framing and Mr. Vickery said no. Ms. Sanzone asked what the material is on the base and Mr. Vickery said it is a brick faced rubble foundation. He said that most of the house is on crawl space. It’s a 7-foot-high basement and we want to put a whole new foundation under and work with the existing brick. He said he came to HPC 6 or 8 months ago and talked about livability in basement spaces. He showed the lightwell on screen and said he is trying to get as much light and ventilation down there as possible. The roof deck would be the private outdoor space. He showed the alley view and the one car garage. The connector seems to be the biggest hinge point in the design. In terms of getting some direction on a study that you want us to go in, would be very helpful. Ms. Berko asked him to show the front elevation again. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2019 Ms. Yoon said the model that Mr. Vickery is showing is a little different than what is in the packet regarding roof forms. The packet shows gabled roof forms. Mr. Vickery said they’ve discussed with city staff and engineers on handling the storm water runoff. One of the items that has come up is the inclusion of a green roof. We considered this, but a flat roof will be more ideal for storm water runoff. Ms. Yoon said she wants to direct HPC to focus on the connector piece and section 10.6 of the criteria. These are the two areas the applicant needs the most direction on. Ms. Sanzone said the lightwell shouldn’t be visible from the front, but it appears it would be visible. Jake would like to use a railing on one location and he’s hoping that might work for everyone. Ms. Simon reminded the board that we have a policy about submitting new information the day before the meeting, so we have recommended continuation. We hope everyone is at peace with this and that you don’t approve it, as we haven’t had time to review the new items which were submitted. Mr. Lai asked why they abandoned the idea of the gable roof on the addition. Mr. Vickery said he tried a number of roofs and has a flat roof study. There are three options, and any would work for him. He chose the intermediate composite one, but he could go any direction at this point. Mr. Lai asked him if he had an illustration of the gable roof and Mr. Vickery said yes and showed the example on screen. Mr. Kendrick asked how they addressed the concerns regarding design guideline 10.6, other than materials and Mr. Vickery said the one thing he has done most recently is to change the siding and he is hoping to work through the window issues. Mr. Kendrick asked if they had any drawings of the connector being within the guidelines and Mr. Vickery said yes, he has a lot of them. We have 3 ft in the front yard that is more than the 10-foot required minimum, so we already lost that three feet to keep the alignment of the resource where it is. The connector comes in under the eave and meets that criteria, but it’s more than 6 feet wide and then he wouldn’t be able to do the lightwell. Ms. Berko asked if there are more variations being asked for and Mr. Vickery said yes, side yard variations for the addition in the back. Mr. Kendrick said he didn’t quite follow how the conditions are met for the setback variations. Mr. Vickery explained with a color-coded plan on screen. Ms. Yoon said she can explain staff’s rationale. She said with exhibit 8.2, they get into more detail. We feel the alignment and patterns are consistent and keep within the current configuration. This will be dependent on the design configuration of the new addition proposal. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Simon said that Mr. Vickery is right, this is a little site with all departments coming at it. It’s a lot to manage and is zoned mixed use and it could have been proposed for commercial development at a much higher floor area. We all understand there is a need for balance. The connector has been an important aspect of most historic preservation projects. It’s not just about who can see what, but also about creating some distance. We want to keep to a narrow width to stay away from demolishing too much. Jake has ideas about what’s important and what’s not. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2019 Ms. Sanzone said the guidelines speak to important landscape and site features. The cottonwoods are mature, and we don’t know the health or quality so far, but she wants to elevate the recommendation of the importance of those trees. She feels that an extra effort should be made to work with the trees and protect them. Mr. Halferty agrees with the staff recommendation. It is a challenging project with the square footage and entities. Sections 10.6 and 10.9 are difficult and challenging guidelines, so we can appreciate their effort. The various roof forms included in the packet are hard for them to evaluate, but he again, appreciates their effort. As far as the floor area bonus goes, the preservation plan needs to be very detailed. He’s ok with the parking reduction. He needs to see more info on the trees, but somewhat agrees with Ms. Sanzone on this. As far as the lightwell, personally he can support it on the west side, but going back to how it’s detailed on the east side, may be a better approach than having it on the historic front facade. Hopefully we’ve given you enough comments on the connecting piece. He appreciates the massing study. You do have a historic resource there, an important one on an important street, so do what you can to shave down the program. He highly encourages them to reread and restudy 10.6 and 10.9. He looks forward to seeing it after the restudy. Ms. Berko said she understands the constrictions and compromises of the site, but with a 3000 square foot lot, the project has to respect the smaller size. She’d like to see it come back with a proper connector. She’d like to see the height have a good relationship to the resource. She thinks the parking is really important because the west end isn’t a parking lot. Everyone has two cars and it’s a burden on the neighborhood not to have two parking places. She would not like to see the street facing lightwell at all on the historic resource. Ms. Thompson agrees with the comments regarding the linking element as it is really important. She knows there are a lot of constraints on the site, so she would be open to seeing a slightly shorter connector element if the design was appropriate. She does think they should consider how the height is measured with the zoning code above that lightwell and potentially discuss with a zoning officer and will significantly impact the massing in the back. She doesn’t think the height they currently have will be approved through zoning. She echoes Mr. Halferty’ s comments about the study on how much they could build and said it’s interesting, but not really applicable because you do have a historic resource, so you do have to deal with that in how you design the addition. Mr. Lai said he concurs with staff and the comments that have been made. They need to deal with the shear bulk of the addition. He’d like to see more of the gabled theme of the asset being repeated, but he feels like the one that was shown, was a little bit forced. The addition shouldn’t have as much bulk as it has. Mr. Moyer said on page 9, he put a star by #2 and a little note regarding the floor area that it must be an amazing project and he circled parking. Under #3, it’s better to the west, so he concurs with staff on items 1-8 and on the connecting element. The purpose is to show space, pure and simple. It’s got to be there. He may accept a little less as well, as Ms. Thompson mentioned. He was surprised that they didn’t address these items point by point in the presentation. It’s not our job to design it for you and it’s just too big. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2019 Mr. Kendrick said there is not enough information to make a decision. He is concerned with the mass as well. He is conflicted on the parking. He does like encouraging the bikes or electric vehicles, so if it helps take a car off the road, he likes the lack of parking. It’s just too soon to make a decision on this. Mr. Blaich said he didn’t hear them address the various materials on the addition. Form has been discussed, fenestration. Is there no concern about materials? Mr. Moyer said it’s not necessary to discuss this yet since it’s so conceptual. Ms. Thompson agreed to discuss that next time. She said she did appreciate onsite, the experience of the alley, but she said after seeing the model, she could really see how massive the addition is to the alley experience. That perspective should be considered when looking at the massing. Ms. Berko said in the massing, you do see that staircase, which is a little bothersome. It really does need to be in proportion to the lot size. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to continue the project to October 9th. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Ms. Sanzone motioned to adjourn, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk