Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180411 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 Chairperson Greenwood called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora Berko, Richard Lai. Absent were Willis Pember, Sheri Sanzone and Scott Kendrick. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy 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: MOTION: Mr. Blaich moved to approve the minutes from March 14th and March 28th, Mr. Moyer seconded. Mr. Lai made a correction to the March 14th minutes. He said he mentioned Bach not Beethoven in that meeting. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Berko thanked Ms. Simon and Ms. Yoon for their presentation with Council. Ms. Greenwood agreed and said they used excellent photographs and the organization was excellent and everyone should see it. Mr. Lai said he wanted to speak about bonuses on oversized buildings. He said there are two types of historic resources: museum type and adaptive and reused, which HPC most often work with. His view on bonuses is that he would like to reserve the 500 sq. ft. max for museum type preservation. Even with adaptive reused, they should reserve the bonus for a job that becomes a real asset to the community. When I look at what I’ve seen, I think we’re doing a really good job, but afraid we are not doing a great service for the zone district of Hallam and Bleeker. He said the present applicant is exempt on what he is going to say. He said it’s ok to preserve a Yorkie or chihuahua, but they are not doing a great service with a Saint Bernard or a Great Dane behind the Yorkie. He said we shouldn’t have developers coming expecting the max 500 sq. ft. If they do an excellent job, we can reward that, but it has to be asset to the neighborhood or community. He mentioned abstaining from the 533 W. Hallam St. project. Ms. Greenwood said Mr. Lai has the opportunity sitting on the board to have his own philosophy and vote on projects accordingly, but she doesn’t feel like this is the time and place for this discussion and would like to move on. Andrea asked if he wants to abstain. Ms. Greenwood asked if he is conflicted and if he mentioned that he would like to abstain. He said he would like to abstain on 533 W. Hallam St. Ms. Bryan asked what his reason is. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Mr. Lai said his reason is apparent. He said he has no personal interest in 533 W. Hallam except his philosophy and would like to abstain. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that he has been voting on it previously. Ms. Bryan said philosophical reasons aren’t really a reason to abstain and pointed out that he did vote in the past. She asked if he agreed to understand and analyze the guidelines fairly. Ms. Garrow said that they should ask the applicant team how they feel about Mr. Lai voting on their project after what they just heard and Ms. Adams said that if Mr. Lai has a conflict, that is for him to decide. Ms. Bryan said that if he cannot judge the project fairly and impartially, then he should conflict out. Mr. Lai said that while it’s true, he voted in the past; he would like to conflict out. Ms. Greenwood said that is fine because there is a quorum. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 PROJECT MONITORING: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon apologized to Mr. Blaich and Mr. Moyer for being left out of the HPC tour with City Council. She said they had to draw names out of a hat since everyone wanted to go. Council was taken around yesterday to show them HP projects and successes they’ve had with the bonuses and benefits. She said there is a survey going around right now and so far, they’ve had over 100 respondents. April 17th is the closing date. She said she will talk to HPC at the next meeting regarding improvements to the benefits and the code language will be presented the day after Memorial Day. Policy resolution will be at Council on May 14th and the actual code language will be presented to them on May 28th. We are moving along in response to their response to raise the bar a little bit. She continued on to say that at the next meeting, it is time to start thinking about the annual HPC awards and have an update on benefits. She will get a van from the Rec dept. again and do a tour on projects completed over the past year to get out and about. Ms. Greenwood said this is great and it’s good to get out in the field and see how the FAR and bonuses are used. It’s good to discuss these things again and very informative. Ms. Yoon said it’s nice to look at the benefits with Council and others on board. It was a good visual of what we do and see on paper and brings it more to life. Ms. Simon mentioned one last item regarding City Council and the owners in areas of Lift One, are talking about extending lift service downhill closer to Dean Street. There is a potential impact to the historic remains in this area. On May 15th, there is going to be a council work session and depending on the outcome, there will be a discussion in front of HPC so we may need some advice from Ms. Bryan on if you all should attend the work session. There will be lots of newspaper coverage so you guys should know what is going on. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said the first one was continued and she has part of the notice for the second item. Ms. Simon said it’s just the posting so she should have everything. CALL UPS: None. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Simon said they are switching the order of agenda items. Item B. 533 W. Hallam Street will go first. PRESENTATION: 533 W. Hallam Street Sarah Yoon She sent an email to everyone the previous day regarding updates on staff’s position. She will do a comparison to bring everyone up to date. This is a historic Victorian located on a corner lot, 6000 square feet. It has a strong street presence with very large trees on the property. We are currently on the third conceptual design hearing for the property. The new design was submitted yesterday and since the March 14th meeting, the applicant has redesigned the addition to address the location of the garage relative to the rear setback. It now sits two feet inside the rear property line with the required setback of five feet so they will need a three-foot setback variation. The out building keeps the structure within the property line. The repositioning of the doors will not swing beyond the property line. The relocation of the historic resource is still consistent with the March proposal and will not require a setback variation on the front. The change occurred with the size of the light well and have 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 been increased to 4x4, which will require a dimensional variation on the east and rear lot lines. The increase does account for about 236 square foot increase in the floor area. The most significant change from the proposal in the packet, is due to the massing on the above grade addition and the roof form. The height of the one-story addition has been increased and a window was removed from that addition and simplifies the form and has a different roof massing that has been changed with the new submission. The modifications were made in the second story addition. If you look at roof plan, you get an idea of the simplification and allows for a more consistent reading of the new gables. In regard to the criteria for the bonus, the applicant’s consistent undertaking of preservation efforts does deserve the bonus. The revision does take into consideration the second-floor massing. This new application requests the full 500 square foot bonus. They increased the light wells in the basement, so the extra square footage is not going into the second story addition, but into the basement. We do recommend approval for version 4.1 that has been presented and staff does support the 500-square foot bonus including the following conditions: 1. They will require a developed landscape plan for final since that is not being reviewed or approved at this time and include storm water mitigation in this plan addressing the drywells. Ms. Berko asked why the window wells got bigger and Ms. Yoon said that will be covered in the presentation. Ms. Greenwood asked if there are any conditions staff is requesting for approval. Ms. Yoon said there are not any besides the ones she already mentioned. Ms. Simon said they have a draft resolution being passed around, which is different than the one in the original packet, which lists the aforementioned conditions and other standard conditions including the 30,000 assurance, which is required anytime you lift a house. APPLICANT: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Andy Wisnoski and Bill Poss of Poss Architecture Ms. Adams said she will focus on the three items that were outstanding in the March hearing. The Duncan’s worked hard to restudy the second-floor office. The second floor living space is set back another five feet, which is consistent with what they’ve shown since November. The second-floor balcony projects to the property line. The requested setback variation is compatible with the alleyway, which she showed on screen. Issue number 2 was regarding mass and scale, so they have removed the second-floor office and reduced the above grade floor area. They have instead, focused on the basement and the light wells. They have simplified the roof forms and are well below the height limit to be consistent with next door. She said the connector was also slightly reduced and the stairway was redesigned. Ms. Adams said it feels like they have been responsive to HPC and have listened to all asks. One of the guidelines HPC has, 10.8, is to do with placing the massing away from the landmark and locate under the building in the basement, which is where they focused. They have increased the light wells from 3x3 to 4x4, but the location hasn’t increased as they are pushed more into the basement. As for the roof forms, they are proposing mostly gables. She said they feel they meet all eight of the review criteria and showed the existing vs restored project on the screen. The patterns are similar to the historic building. She said she feels lucky to have an out building to retain and protect ad said they do have a 3D model which Mr. Wisnoski can show as well. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 Mr. Poss said he brought boards and hard copies in addition to the on-screen presentation. To answer Ms. Greenwood’s question of why they wanted bigger light wells, she said they’ve made larger rooms down below so they would like larger light wells for more light. He continued to go over the plans on the boards and showed the areas of comparison. Ms. Adams stated that they felt they had clear direction to take back to the Duncan’s after the last meeting and they now feel like they’ve meet everything the board was asking and gave up the upper floor office. The Duncan’s have worked hard to meet the requirements and have given up some important things like the upper level office and are proud of the project under the old guidelines. She is looking forward to hearing the boards comments on the changes. Mr. Moyer asked if the current perimeter fence is metal or wrought iron. Ms. Adams said yes. Mr. Moyer said all of the drawings show a white picket fence so he wanted to know if the metal will be changed or if they will maintain it. Ms. Adams said they will be developing a landscape plan and will do a site visit to see what is appropriate. Ms. Berko asked for the above grade square footage. Mr. Poss said it is 2136. Ms. Greenwood noted the 550-square foot garage. She asked if they added square footage for the attic space and Mr. Poss said no, it was reduced. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Halferty said he feels the project complies to guidelines regarding mass and scale. The rhythms along 5th have gotten much better as well as the connecting element. The linking element is in perfect proportion and conforms to the guidelines and it’s clever how the applicants have used the subgrade space. He appreciates the shed. There was cost involved for the clients to remove the non-conforming additions and open up the front porch on Hallam so he can support the proposal as is. Mr. Blaich said that Mr. Halferty said it all for him so he has nothing more to add. He’s very positive about this and said it has come a long way. It’s close to his house so he feels it’s a major improvement to that area. Mr. Moyer said that Mr. Halferty said it well enough. Ms. Berko thanked the applicant for listening to the board. She said she can support most of it, but she still feels as though guideline 10.6 isn’t being met. She said the back module, for her, dwarfs the historic resource. She supports the underground setback for the alley, but she has a real problem with the garage. In that, the bonus she can’t support all of it. She said it was noted in the staff memo, the addition is four times its size, which is not compatible in size and scale for her. She can support most of it, but there are a couple things she’s struggling with. The rear yard setback for the garage and the floor area bonus are her thorns. Ms. Greenwood said she is impressed with the effort the applicant has made to understand the boards comments and move forward. The direction from complexity to simplicity has definitely been a success on this latest proposal. She doesn’t think it competes on a massing scale with the historic resource. She feels they do meet the guidelines and she can now support it. She understands how FAR works and they have done a remarkable job getting it below grade and appreciates the effort that was made. She feels 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 this was a good solution. She one hundred percent supports it. She doesn’t have a problem with the setbacks in the alley and thinks this is a worthy project and supports the 500-square foot bonus. Ms. Greenwood supports the resolution as written by staff. Ms. Yoon said they need to make some revisions regarding the rear setback and side yard setbacks are corrected. There will be a 3-foot rear yard reduction for the garage, an 8 ft. reduction for all of the above grade, a one ft. 9-inch reduction for the out building, a two-foot reduction on the east side yard for the light wells and an 8-foot 9-inch reduction for the combined side yard. Ms. Simon said the measurements in the resolution are not quite correct, but it was a very minimal change, which Ms. Yoon just listed off. Ms. Simon said the applicant would like us to add to following clarification: if there are any discrepancies, refer to the floor plan presented in the packet to HPC. The conditions are as follows: 1. As Ms. Yoon listed above and followed by the clarification statement by the applicant. 2. The landscape plan will be developed and reviewed at a later date, including storm water mitigation. 3. 30,000 bond for relocating the home. 4. Development application submitted within one year. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve with the conditions listed, Mr. Halferty seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Berko, a reluctant yes. 5-0 all in favor, motion carried. PRESENTATION: 51 Meadows Rd. Sarah Yoon This is one of eight landmark trustee townhomes designed by Herbert Bayer and was built in 1965. It is one of the AspenModern designations. Staff was unable to locate the original drawings for this location, so they went by historical photographs and building permit info. They did reach out the Denver Art Museum, where the Herbert Bayer archives are located so they may have a lead on getting some of the old drawings. HPC has asked to conduct a minor development review for the applicant. They are asking for review of the following items: they are adding a small modest addition located on the rear of the building, which will be up to 55 sq. feet. They will replace some of the existing windows and doors and enlarge some of the windows. They would like to widen the fire place enclosure and they would like to replace the existing pavers in the front. Going off of the west elevation, it shows the planter boxes that are located on the rear of the building and this is the foundation the applicant would like to use. They are not sure if the existing planter was an original feature, but in terms of mass and scale, the addition is very small, so staff does support this. The addition is to span the bottom level crawl space and the main level will be a relocation of the powder room and an extension to the entry level. In terms of the architectural features, they are proposing to replace all windows and doors on the west, south and east sides. There were some, which they want to be a replacement in kind and is noted that different properties have designated the original windows as double hung. We do ask that the applicant replace what is being taken out back to the original double hung. There are different proportions proposed on the west elevation and a different type of window than what was suggested. It does appear that originally the rear façade had fewer windows. In terms of what is existing, the new proposal is a little 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 different than what was there so we are asking that cut sheets be provided and they should go over proportions with staff and monitor. In the packets, it is noted that the three windows, also on south elevation, suggest a window glazing that is not historic, which is an LCD unit proposed. Because this is not a feature on any of the trustee houses, staff would like them to look at and reconsider interior blinds as needed. Regarding the chimney enclosure, we do believe that is original. The enlargement needs to be taken into consideration and we want to keep the original proportion the same. In terms of the proposal for replacing the paver material, but they want to keep as much integrity in terms of material as they can so staff recommends concrete. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions are: 1. Restudy window configurations on the rear shingle façade and work with staff and monitor. 2. Provide cut sheets for new windows and doors on the front façade and work with staff and monitor. 3. Front façade window replacement taken back to the double hung window type. 4. Replacement of concrete paver to remain concrete. 5. Keep dimension of the fire box on the rear façade. 6. Re-look at glazing on the LCD. Mr. Moyer clarified that by “rear” they are referring to the west side. The front of the building is the east side. Ms. Yoon confirmed. My Moyer asked if there are 12 units and Ms. Simon said there are 11. Ms. Greenwood said she designed the new ones and the original designs were by Doug McPherson who she said she can contact for the original designs. Ms. Yoon said there were 8 originally designed by Herbert Bayer. Mr. Moyer asked about the shingles underneath the window and asked what state they were in originally. Ms. Simon said it may have been a painted metal. She said it is hard to make out in the photographs, but it was not a shingle. Mr. Halferty exited the meeting. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Luis Menendez of Menendez Architects with the home owners Ricki and John McHugh Mr. Menendez said the owners are longtime locals and business owners. Ms. McHugh is an interior designer and has been instrumental in the design of the improvements to her home. Because these units have been altered so much and all in different ways, please consider this in context of that reality. He brought a series of photos to help understand the conditions. The unit is #51. This project is within a modest budget. The sliding glass doors showing on the screen are not original. None of the windows are original and have all been possibly enlarged from the originals. In hopes of bringing it closer to the original configuration, we are proposing to replace the sliding glass doors with windows instead of doors. We would mull them together with the upper windows, eliminating the structure in between the upper and lower windows. On the existing south wall, they are replacing the sliding glass door with windows. This is something similar to what has been done in other units as well. The units are all inconsistent with each other and he showed examples on screen. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 Mr. Halferty re-entered the meeting. Regarding not widening the fireplace box, the information they have tells them that it is not an original feature. John Sarpa is the president of the home owner’s association there and wrote a letter stating that in the original trustee townhomes, there were stoves and not fireplaces in 1984. He stated that most owners changed the location of the stove and made them fireplaces as did Merrill Ford who owned #51. Mr. Menendez said they also have a letter from a close friend of the previous homeowner, who remodeled the unit and distinctly recalled there was no fireplace where it currently is, but also had a corner wood stove. Additionally, they have opened up the fireplace and gotten the model number and sent it to the manufacturer who said that model is from 1997. The existing fireplace is in bad condition and needs to be replaced and to install a new one, they need to widen the hole five inches on each side so it is not a big difference. The third condition is regarding the LCD window, which is in the master bathroom. If you stand back a way, you can’t discern if it’s obscure or clear glass. The LCD privacy glass is just one form other options that can be used. They can flip the switch and then it becomes clear when they do not need privacy so it is not always obscure and is the best of both worlds. This is solely for privacy because the neighbor can look directly into the bathroom. On the east façade, staff wants double hung windows to match the original design. Mr. Menendez showed the elevation on screen and said the two lower windows are casement windows. They would like to replace as the same window function as currently exists so casements and fixed at the bottoms and a double hung on top. Unit 61 was the most recently remodeled unit and they were allowed to install a casement window with a simulated divided light so it appears as a double hung window. The owners are willing to do the same thing and prefer the function of the casement and has better thermal properties. Mr. Menendez said that regarding the installation of painted metal panel in lieu of shingles, the application has no objection there. As for the requirement for cut sheets, he has brought three sets here to the meeting. He said it’s an aluminum clad wood window and a Pella brand, which is very similar to what the neighbor has used. The concrete walkway definitely needs to be replaced and there is a question of what the material ought to be and may very well have been concrete, but the owners would prefer something more attractive. He showed an example of unit 61 on the screen, which used a stamped concrete. They also showed a tile that is currently being used in the remodel of the restaurant at the meadows and is cut in the same pattern as the concrete. Ms. McHugh said that one of the driving reasons to change the windows on the southern face is because when Merrill Ford remodeled, they used a header that is quite large and blocks the view of the mountains so they would like to open that back up. The sliding glass doors becoming windows would just make it easier to see. The fireplace has consumed her for the past three weeks trying to find a fireplace to fit in the existing hole and cannot find one. It’s obsolete and illegal and there are no replacement parts for the current one. Regarding the privacy frosted glass, her neighbor’s office looks right into her shower so they plan to fog it just for showering and then will unfog it. The windows we are proposing to replace are consistent with unit 61 and then those units would be identical in the front 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 and would provide some consistency. The front walkway is dangerous as is so they would really like to do a similar tile as the neighbors. Ms. Simon said she wants to be clear on the inconsistency among the units since they were only just designated in 1995. She said they only have two land use files for approved projects and there have been a number of things that did not get proper approval by owners. These are Herbert Bayer designed units and there are some verified characteristics and materials that he used. We are looking to unify and stop the hodge podge of units. Please keep in mind, we want to make sure these are coherent and consistent moving forward as these are important historically designated properties. The unit which was remodeled next door, she doesn’t believe that they recently approved a faux mullion to make it look double hung. She said their priority is to restore. Ms. Berko asked Ms. Simon to point out which features she is specifically referring to. Ms. Simon said staff could be wrong about the firebox and maybe it’s not original, but she knows the pathway to the front would not have been tile in Bayer’s time since he used concrete. Ms. McHugh said they collect Herbert Bayer art and respect his art and don’t feel they are diverting from what it currently looks like. Ms. Greenwood asked if Mr. Sarpa has any photos and Mr. Moyer confirmed that he worked in Ms. Ford’s unit many years ago and the fireplace is not original. He painted the units in the 1970’s. Ms. Greenwood said a freestanding corner stove is very European and is more consistent historically. If she had to guess, by looking at the framing around it, they have been replaced and now Mr. Moyer just confirmed that. Mr. Halferty asked regarding fenestrations, which glazing does staff have the most issue with and Ms. Yoon said that it was just the glazing with the LCD window. Mr. Moyer asked if they have the same decks as the other units and Ms. McHugh said that’s true. Ms. Greenwood asked about the homeowner’s process and Ms. McHugh said they submitted plans to HOA and to Mr. Sarpa along with the other owners and they said they had no problem and then Mr. Sarpa wrote the letter. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ms. Greenwood suggested that the board discuss based on the resolution and the west façade windows. She said she wants to come to a consensus on items 1 and 2 to restudy the window and to widen the fire box. Ms. Greenwood said that widening the box is fine with her. Mr. Moyer agreed and said we should drop that and everyone is fine with that. Regarding the window restudy, Ms. Greenwood is fine with and Mr. Blaich is fine with it and said they don’t need restudy. Let’s go with what’s being presented. All in favor. Regarding item #3, they feel the addition is minor and unobtrusive so there is no issue there and staff is ok with this too. Regarding item #4 and the glazing, it’s a really good solution and she feels window treatments can be more distracting. A window unit that goes foggy, is a simple solution. Mr. Halferty is good with this too and Mr. Blaich so no problem. There is no issue for Mr. Moyer. Regarding item #5 and the east façade, Ms. Greenwood feels this is a reasonable request by staff to request double hung windows. The original is double hung on the east side. Ms. Yoon said that with the photos they have, they’ve seen double hung for another unit. Mr. Halferty said we should do staff and monitor on this. Ms. Simon said we’re happy to look back on this, but it could have been an 9 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 11TH, 2018 egress issue for the other unit and why those faux double hung windows were allowed. Ms. Greenwood feels that staff and monitor can handle this and the same for item #6. Regarding item #7, the cut sheets have already submitted. Regarding item #8 and the front walkway, it’s too bad all units aren’t similar. I would assume concrete would have been used. Even though materials in the Meadows have been approved by HPC, it holds no bearing on this project. Concrete can be done in a beautiful manner. I would say that would be the correct historic choice and stamped concrete is so wrong. Mr. Blaich said we should get this clarified. Ms. Berko said that’s not the point and it’s about integrity and the historic resource. We don’t want to continue making mistakes. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that it isn’t historic material used by unit 61. Ms. Greenwood is in favor of staff’s recommendation on this one. Mr. Moyer said that Herbert Bayer used simple, inexpensive and local materials. In keeping with him, it’s natural organic cement. Ms. Greenwood said she would like an update and/or outreach on these items. Mr. Moyer said they’ve gotten everything they’ve requested except for the walkway. Ms. Berko said if there is any way of restoring the original façade, she would encourage that if it’s being messed with. Ms. Greenwood clarified the resolution would be in terms of the conditions in terms of 4, 5, 6 and 7. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve based on the conditions which we discussed, Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Lai, yes. 6-0 all in favor motion carried. PROJECT MONITOR: Ms. Berko volunteered. Ms. Greenwood motioned to adjourn, Mr. Halferty seconded at 6:43 p.m. ____________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk