Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20180425 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 25TH, 2018 Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Nora Berko, Richard Lai, Sheri Sanzone and Scott Kendrick. Absent was Willis Pember. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Lai corrected the word “the” to “with” in the middle of first paragraph, line 10, because it changed the context of the sentence. MOTION: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes, Ms. Berko seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT: Ms. Sanzone said she is currently working with the applicant and the contractor on a different project, but she doesn’t have a conflict and she can judge fairly. Ms. Berko said she lives too close to 232 E. Bleeker so she must recuse herself. PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Bleeker PRESENTATION: Amy Simon Ms. Simon said she walked past this project the other day and saw several mechanical flues coming out of the top of the Victorian that were not originally approved. This property is located diagonally behind the Jerome and is under construction as a duplex. She will walk the board through what was expected, what has been built and what the options are now. The mechanical equipment is all necessary for the building so they are not in a position to delete it, but it has an impact on the historic resource and she felt it is beyond staff and monitor to just accept it. There is one change that has also been proposed that will be discussed after going through the mechanical issues. Ms. Simon provided a picture of what she saw that day to the board. After the picture was taken, the contractor started to take over and make things better. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Charlie Berger of Kaegebein Fine Homebuilding, LLC alongside Bill Boehringer Mr. Berger handed out a photo that was taken earlier that day. Mr. Berger said that on the permitted set of plans, it showed the radon pipe to the left on the north side on the non-historic dormer, but did not show boiler flues or intakes or plumbing vent pipes. He said the fire place flue locations are currently approved and Ms. Simon agreed. She pointed out that one of the fireplace flues would go through the historic chimney and once the chimney was reconstructed, it was too small. Mr. Berger confirmed that and said it’s solid blocking. Ms. Simon had previously approved it so that is how it became an exposed flue. Mr. Berger explained that is how those two flues are coming out on the west side of the dormer. On the north south dormer, there is a lower fireplace flue that was always approved as well. On the permitted set of mechanical plans, it does show boiler flues coming out and says to 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 25TH, 2018 terminate three feet above the roof line. In routing all the flues, to get to the location shown on the plan, it wasn’t possible so they ran through the non-historic roof as shown and per code. After Ms. Simon brought up the roof clutter, we met with the inspectors and in order to meet code and manufacturer’s requirements, this is where they needed to come out. They did explore the option to take the flues out the north wall, but there is an inoperable window there so it wasn’t possible. Ms. Greenwood said she doesn’t know if they should be so hard and fast on not allowing vents to be on the side of buildings given this mess. She thinks they should make sure during the final, this is a line item they have to produce. On the drawings, it’s misleading. It’s very minimized in terms of scale. This is a very visible building on the west. Ms. Simon said that three fireplaces in one place is extreme. This one multiplied and turned into a larger problem. Ms. Greenwood asked if we can just tell the applicant that all of the fireplaces might not be approved because who needs it in this day and age honestly because the house is completely heated. This is a prime example of something that could have been avoided if we had better information as a board. Mr. Halferty asked if there was no other option for the combustion air intake because this seems very visual from the image that was sent. He asked if there was a way to take it in from a horizontal plane. Mr. Berger said it must be within two feet of the exhaust due to manufacturer’s recommendation. Mr. Moyer entered the meeting. Mr. Berger said they also requested from the boiler manufacturer if we could lower the boiler vent pipe by a foot and they said no. Mr. Kendrick asked if those requirements are similar for all manufacturers and Mr. Berger said yes. He said they looked at several and they all came up with the same exhaust and combustion air. Mr. Boehringer said they preferred the same things Ms. Simon had wanted. We again, prefer to have these disappear, but we’ve checked on all options with manufacturers and inspectors. Ms. Simon said the adjustment that was mentioned before was the little plumbing vent. This could apparently be moved over and hidden by the chimney stack. Mr. Berger said they’ve cut it down to what we could and now it’s not visible along Bleeker and has been lowered. At one point it was at 18 inches and then was cut down to 11 and now it is at 6. Mr. Halferty asked about the mechanical plans that were submitted and asked if they showed all of the penetrations and Mr. Berger said the all of the mechanical permits were approved by the building department showing the boiler, the combustion air and the radon. Ms. Greenwood asked If a change order was added for the extra flue and Ms. Simon said she doesn’t believe so. Ms. Simon said they need approval to begin work again. They were not given a red tag, but we should be discussing what adjustments can be made and we need a resolution to let them proceed. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 25TH, 2018 The group discussion and back and forth continued. Mr. Halferty said there has been an obvious miscommunication between the architect, contractor, owner, etc. from the beginning so we’re here dealing with it now and it’s a tough one. Ms. Greenwood asked if we can impose any penalties and Ms. Simon said we can speak with the building department about it. Mr. Berger said all of this can be removed and there is no historic resource has been damaged putting these in and we can take them out and reroute them. If another alternative route is found, we can change this. Ms. Greenwood said it’s really the owner and the architect’s fault and she realizes this isn’t Mr. Berger’s fault. Mr. Blaich noted that HPC has already given a variance on the new addition and they just keep coming back with issues. Mr. Lai said he doesn’t know what to say and he doesn’t know what solution would make him happy. There are too many things here and short of taking out the fireplaces, he doesn’t know. Ms. Greenwood said it doesn’t seem like a lot of effort has gone into this. Mr. Boehringer agreed and said we understand. Mr. Berger said he and others have run a lot of scenarios with Ms. Simon. Ms. Simon said she did not suggest any of this. Ms. Greenwood said she would like for them to come back with a plan to unify the flues along with other options of reducing the flues on the roof. We need to see it and perhaps it could be painted white. Ms. Simon clarified that reduction of flues is the goal and Mr. Berger has to convey this and unify them somehow and look at other options for the fireplace flues. Mr. Halferty said to make sure you’re presenting true and accurate info on the plans as it’s deceiving. Ms. Simon asked the board if she and Mr. Blaich have authority as staff and monitor to make the decision and Ms. Greenwood said she would like to see it first. Ms. Simon told the applicant two weeks from tonight we’ll see you back. The applicant’s exited the meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said she is working with Ms. Sanzone on one project monitoring item and she has one to talk to Ms. Berko about later. Ms. Berko reentered the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon mentioned the upcoming discussion of Lift 1A. When Ski Co. replaces Lift 1A, there is a question if they will bring it down further and she said it could potentially collide with the historic Lift 1. On May 15th, there will be a work session at City Council. We do not want you to attend so you are unbiased for the HPC hearing. We have Ms. Greenwood, Ms. Berko and Ms. Sanzone that will be out on June 20th so those of you are welcome to go to attend the work session. We want everyone to understand clearly, so please come on June 20th if you are able. She also said it is not a 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 25TH, 2018 done deal as there are two hotels that want to develop and Ski Co wants to replace Lift 1A so it’s opening an opportunity and challenge as to what will be done. Ms. Simon also mentioned the last meeting and that fun conversation about the Trustee Condos. She said she will follow up with more detail, but for a very long time, until 2000, there was very limited review and landmark designation in this area. In the 90’s is when they started selling and didn’t need HPC review so that’s not an enforcement issue. But recently, some of the neighbors did some work without approvals so we will be speaking with them and there is a concern there. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UPS: Ms. Yoon said that 533 W Hallam is going to Council on the 30th so we will report back. NEW BUSINESS: HPC Benefits Ms. Simon said she had been planning to move into a Council discussion fairly quickly as they wanted to see amendments, but with Justin Barker just resigning, they are very short staffed and it will drag this conversation out a little longer. She said they issued an online survey and Ms. Yoon will go over the results. She said they also took Council on a mobile tour which was eye opening and they now understand that the preservation process isn’t easy. She said they will go on May 29th to Council for policy resolution. Our intention is to promote to Council that we keep all benefits and improve things. Each case is unique and all benefits are important. We may want some or all of you to come to this, but is not a public meeting. Ms. Yoon went over the raw data provided in an email and she printed a version and handed out to the board. They have not analyzed the results yet, but there were 123 responses, which was very good. Overall, they received very positive feedback on all of the incentives. She is going to take this information and see what we can distill in a conversation with Council. Ms. Simon announced the board would be moving offsite to choose HPC awards and would adjourn the meeting upon arrival back to Council Chambers. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. _________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk