Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180214 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2018 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Nora Berko, Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick, Richard Lai. Absent were Bob Blaich and Willis Pember. Staff present: James R. True, City Attorney Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sara Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve January 17th minutes, Mr. Kendrick seconded. Mr. Moyer motioned to approve January 24th minutes, Mr. Kendrick seconded. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Ms. Berko thanked the City and staff for making the Colorado Preservation conference available to them. She said it was really great and wonderful to see what is happening all around the state. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon mentioned that she issued one for 811 E. Hopkins, which is a new house on a lot that contains two miner’s cottages. The property owner asked to put a roof over a deck with no visibility issues regarding the historic structures, so she signed off on it. CALL UPS: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Simon said she has provided this to Mr. True for St. Mary’s. Mr. True stated that he has reviewed it and it is good. NEW BUSINESS: 104 S. Galena – St. Mary’s Church Amy Simon This is in for final review and there will be discussion of revisions to the front porch, details of a proposed addition. Most of the addition is below grade with no visual impacts, but there is a pavilion at ground level that is an entry to the new space and is the subject of a lot of discussion. The applicant has decided to retain what they have now, but make improvements to it. The massing in every shape and placement is resolved so the board needs to focus on the detailing. The church did not have a protected entry originally and significant snow would develop where people gather. The railings and steps will now run right towards main street to be more welcoming to the public. At the front of the building, there are two fixed arched shaped windows. Originally these were double hung and they would like to restore them as such. There are a few actions that staff has already signed off on. There are new front porch and alley light fixtures and two doors facing east and west that had solid wood panels replaced with glazing so there will be restoration to put back to the original appearance. Moving on to the social hall addition, she reminded the board to focus on material selection. The north façade is mostly glass and 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2018 she wants to make sure that mullions in the glass façade align with some sort of horizontal elements to the church to make sure of a strong relationship. She noted that a few of the materials need to be seen in person. There is a brick screen wall to be freestanding and does not attach to the pavilion itself. She said should strengthen the wording of the resolution regarding Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. Phase 1 is the front porch and window restoration. Phase 2 is the construction of the social hall. City Council has given the applicant five years of vested rights to prepare for this construction and allow them more time to fundraise and prepare. Mr. Moyer asked if the windows which were removed, were kept and no one knows what happened to them. He then asked if they will put in wood windows and Ms. Simon said it is expected to put in wood windows. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Patrick Rawley of Stan Clausen Associates and Marina Skiles of Charles Cunniffe Architects along with Father Hilton of St. Mary’s Church. Father Hilton thanked everyone for considering the proposal and said they are very pleased with the work so far and with the results of the interior work. One of the key parts of the renovation is dealing with the north face effectively and historically. It’s a two-phased project so they are hoping that the board will grant permission to continue. Welcoming and safety are the primary concerns of the entryway. They will be replacing heavy brick beams with lighter wood ones so it will be aesthetically much better than what they have now. By lightning its presence, it’s less detrimental to the historic structure. They feel this is an effective design and hope everyone on the board agrees. Mr. Rawley described plans on screen. He mentioned that the original approved plan was called up by council in 2016 and it was suggested that the above grade portion of the social hall to the rear of the lawn and that is essentially the condition being brought forth today. He pointed out the brick screen that zoning was considering a fence, not a wall. He said it is important to have an all-weather connector for people to access and is integral to the building. Ms. Skiles pointed out the size and shape of the connector. They have made this as thin and transparent as possible and it attaches to the church as short and thin as it can be. It is on either side of the historic windows and do not want to damage the historic structure at all. There are sourced bricks which are very crisp against the eroded one and the mullions are as thin as possible. The front porch, the north face and the social hall are their top priority. They want to take care of the exterior construction in the off season and have a welcoming front porch by Memorial Day so that is the critical path right now. They need a covered entry and they are going for u shaped stairs so you can go out on the sides or in the front. While the original roof was metal, the church always had a cedar shake roof so they would like to have that again and they do need gutters. They fully intend to keep the lilacs as well, which some of the parishioners had asked about. As for the windows, they would not only like for them to be double hung, but also functional to open up to a coffee shop and an office on the inside. All of the stained-glass windows on the second floor, are double hung and functioning. The church has a revocable encroachment license because the steps are on CDOT’s property. They have been working with CDOT and the Engineering department to maintain this license. Mr. Rawley played a one-minute long video for the board showing how everything will look. Mr. Kendrick asked what the material is on the new stairs. Ms. Skiles said it is snow melted concrete. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2018 Ms. Greenwood asked if they are tearing off the structure or just remodeling the existing and Ms. Skiles said just remodeling because there was damage done to the brick previously do they don’t want to mess with the brick anymore. Mr. Moyer asked which is least expensive and Ms. Skiles said they believe the presentation before them is least expensive and least intrusive to the historic face. Mr. Halferty asked if they looked at other materials for the vertical columns on the north façade because there are no other timber elements besides the shake. Ms. Skiles said they spent a lot of time looking at having no columns and making it as open as possible and looked at a thinner brick and steel, but they decided on timber because the building committee thought it was the best option to use timber that they already have from inside of the church, which was removed from the old ceiling. She also noted that the columns were drawn as 8x8. Mr. Moyer asked how they will be treated. Ms. Skiles said they would replane them, but make sure that they still maintain their character. They are too scratchy right now, but maintain character without splinters. Mr. Moyer suggested stiff brushing them and put an oil on and have the wonderful old patina. Ms. Greenwood asked if the detail of the columns will go straight up to into a wood ceiling. She also asked what their design concept was with the columns and the reasoning behind it. Ms. Skiles said that structurally, they needed a certain amount of mass so when they looked at a very thin steel column, it was much thinner because of the load capacity of the steel. As far as design, it started with structure. She said they worked through 25 designs over the last year and the design that was chosen is supposed to maintain an elegant simplicity without being as heavy as brick. Ms. Greenwood asked if they have to have four columns and Ms. Skiles said no, they don’t have to have four, they chose to. Ms. Simon clarified that since the pavilion is further down the road, some of the details don’t need to be agonized over right now. Part of the decisions will be more from staff and monitor to be pushed down the road to resolve on another day. Staff are recommending that you approve tonight and we have listed a series of conditions for both phase one and two. Mr. Moyer asked if there is a space between the screen and the wall behind it and Ms. Skiles said yes. Mr. Rawley said it’s integral to the structure and the roof is not there. He also noted that the screen is made of brick. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Simon entered a letter from Lisa Markalunas into the record and summarized it for the board. Ms. Markalunas stated that she is concerned about the lilacs being preserved and with how the connector attaches to the church. She also mentioned light spillage from the glazing on the north façade. She appreciates HPC’s efforts and just wants to minimize the impacts to the above grade part of the addition. Ms. Simon said the recommended considerations of approvals that the board can start with are pages 23 and 24 of the packet. Ms. Greenwood said she feels that the design of the addition is the best solution. She really likes the stairs and said they are welcoming and an obvious solution to help open up the entry way. The columns are a bit befuddling from a design standpoint with the sloping roof, but she likes the way they have the 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2018 metal at the base of the columns. She suggested that perhaps they could enhance or show more of the metal in a smaller detail and more at the top as it joins the underside of the roof so it takes away some of the bulkiness of the columns that she is feeling. She said she doesn’t understand why there are four. And Mr. Rawley said it’s because of the four gospels. Ms. Skiles said they are happy to take a look at that. Ms. Greenwood said that if they accentuate the black metal, perhaps it might speak a bit to the pavilion and maybe there should be some relationship visually. The pavilion is quite nice and a good solution. It’s quiet and allows the west side of the building to be prominent. She feels that it speaks to today and is in total favor of moving this forward. Mr. Halferty said this was an excellent presentation. He mentioned that he wasn’t here for the prior presentation. What strikes him as most difficult is the columns, the material and number of them and how they are grouped together, but he does understand the function and the flow of the entry. He understands trying to salvage the timber, but feels it is underdeveloped regarding spacing and being too bulky. He is completely for the exiting stairs and the railing to meet the code requirements. It’s nice that the roof is going back to cedar shake and it should be a product of its own time, but his biggest problem are the columns. Regarding the pavilion in the back, the materials and detailing is something that staff and monitor can look into. He could definitely approve of this proposal. Mr. Lai said that first of all, the pavilion is a very sensitive design project that he likes very much and it has just the right connection with the old building and yet it is very modern and will be a great asset to the street and the church itself. When he looks at the façade, he prefers the original design, but he understands the need for protection. He is a bit uneasy with the columns and wonders if the new columns really fit in with the old façade. He urged them to reconsider this a bit. He looks for handrails at his age and offered a friendly suggestion to add a single rail down the center on the north entryway, which would be helpful to the older parishioners. Would like to have an option on either side. Mr. Kendrick said he agreed with the others regarding the columns. He said they don’t seem much lighter and feels he would like to see a more developed design. He likes how it’s been opened up as well as the view to the glass and the additional access. In terms of the pavilion, he thinks it’s a great design and said it’s a very modern take and thinks it’s a great plan. Mr. Moyer said he likes the columns, but the way they meet the roof is a little strange. He likes Ms. Greenwood’s suggestions. He said he thinks there is enough spacing between them and he would put a plaque on them designating them as the original roof beams. He thinks they have done a great job and now that he understands everything that is going on with the pavilion and the connector, he thinks it is quite good. He mentioned that the brick is clever on the screen. Regarding the additional railings on the entry, keep this as simple as possible and don’t over clutter it. He thinks its fine the way it is. Ms. Berko said there isn’t much to add, but feels they have come a long long way and she is excited to see it on the inside. The entryway still feels heavy to her and she is in agreement with everyone on the columns. Ms. Greenwood mentioned the condition listed in the staff memo about not wrapping the stairs around the corners of the columns, but she finds this to be graceful and welcoming. She then asked if the board is comfortable with staff and monitor continuing to work on the columns together. The board said they are fine with it and Ms. Simon said she is fine with that as well. Ms. Greenwood said she is fine with all other conditions that staff has listed except for #1. She would like to change this to “prior to building 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2018 permit submittal, restudy the front columns for further detail to reduce the mass and study the connection of the columns to both concrete steps and to the ceiling of the porch.” MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve based on the changes to the conditions that Ms. Greenwood made, Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Project monitor: Mr. Kendrick and Mr. Halferty volunteered. Ms. Simon gave a summary of the work session with City Council that took place. She said it was a two- hour discussion about benefits. She said it was a sticky conversation and a couple of council members who have decided the benefits have gone too far and need more reflection. They feel that too much pressure is being put on historic development in regard to all of the benefits and that HPC may be giving away more than is needed to achieve their goals. They are going to begin a process of public input from historic property owners and community members to gain additional feedback. They may show some case study projects and return to council with some results. She said that the floor area bonus was a huge thing and they were not as enthusiastic about waivers being given out. Ms. Greenwood said council was very interested and didn’t know a lot about it, but want to know more about projects we are approving. A couple of the council members are in favor of wiping out bonuses completely because they feel the developers don’t need it. She said she tends to agree with them because she owns a historic home and is paying employee housing fees on it and when she sells it, she will have to pay that fee. She originally got a setback variance and that was it. She said she is proud and it’s a privilege to own a historic home. She said they seemed adamant about making cuts. Ms. Simon said they need to remember the power of goodwill so they need to find that balance. She said that Ms. Yoon pointed out that if we let go of benefits, we aren’t getting them back again. They need to be very careful with this conversation. Ms. Yoon said she thinks that we as a commission should discuss ways to allow certain benefits to certain projects. It’s a strength for them to have this toolkit so they should be more careful about applying certain bonuses to certain projects. Touching the toolkit is something we need to tread lightly on. We should keep this pool available to us. Ms. Simon agreed and said there is an inequity of how the benefits are being distributed so everyone will be hearing much more about this. Mr. Lai said he agrees with Ms. Greenwood. He said it may sound a little patronizing, but likened it to spoiling children; it doesn’t happen all at once, it happens very very gradually so we need to keep our eye on the ball. Ms. Simon said it was certainly not a historic preservation lovefest. Mr. Kendrick said that moving forward, we need to look at what the applicant really needs, not what they can get. Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon gave a quick summary and presentation of the preservation conference they attended in Denver. MOTION Mr. Halferty motioned to adjourn at 6:19 p.m., Mr. Kendrick seconded. 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2018 _____________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk