Historic Preservation Commission Agenda May 17, 2021 5:30 pm ELECTRONIC MEETING This meeting will be held electronically. Residents interested in listening to the meeting or making public comments can join in one of two ways: 1) You can call in to 1 253 215 8782, Webinar ID # 895 1035 2332. Passcode: 945590 2) You can log in via your computer. Please visit the City’s website here to link to the meeting: https://www.louisvilleco.gov/local- government/government/boards- commissions/historic-preservation- commission HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TRAINING I. Open Government Training with City Attorney City of Louisville Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.louisvilleco.gov Historic Preservation Commission Agenda May 17, 2021 6:30 pm ELECTRONIC MEETING This meeting will be held electronically. Residents interested in listening to the meeting or making public comments can join in one of two ways: 1. You can call in to 1 253 215 8782, Webinar ID # 895 1035 2332. Passcode: 945590 2. You can log in via your computer. Please visit the City website here to link to the meeting: https://www.louisvilleco.gov/local- government/government/boards-commissions/historic-preservation- commission The Historic Preservation Commission will accommodate public comments during the meeting. Anyone may also email comments to the commission prior to the meeting at [email protected]. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes – April 19, 2021 5. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda 6. Probable Cause Determination a. 612 Grant Avenue 7. Probable Cause Determination a. 829 Lincoln Avenue 8. Items from Staff a. Staff Update memo b. HPC Project Table Update c. Bingo Card 9. Updates from Commission Members a. Update from the Historical Commission meeting 10. Discussion Items for Future Meetings 11. Adjourn Citizen Information Persons with disabilities planning to attend the meeting who need sign language interpretation, translation services, assisted listening systems, Braille, taped material, or special transportation, should contact [email protected] or 303.335.4592. A forty-eight-hour notice is requested. City of Louisville Department of Planning and Building Safety 749 Main Street, Louisville, CO 80027 303.335.4591 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.louisvilleco.gov Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2021 Virtual Meeting 6:30 PM Chair Haley called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Roll Call was taken and the following members were present: Commission Members Present: Chair Lynda Haley Gary Dunlap Keith Keller Christine Burg Andrea Klemme Commission Members Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Rob Zuccaro, Planning Director Kim Bauer, Preservation Planner Amelia Brackett Hogstad, Planning Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dunlap made a motion to approve the April 19, 2021 agenda. Seconded by Klemme. The agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Klemme made a motion to approve the March 15, 2021 minutes. Seconded by Burg. The minutes were approved unanimously as written by voice vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA Leah Angstman, Historical Commission Liaison, announced her presence and offered to answer any questions. NEW BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 950 Spruce Street and 725 Front Street Recommendation Request: A request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Special Review Use (SRU) for Use Group No. 5, Multi-Unit Dwellings; and a Final Plat to consolidate lots. Applicant: Erik Hartronft, Hartronft and Associates Owners: Split Mountain Commercial 4 LLC Staff: Rob Zuccaro City of Louisville Planning Department 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 303.335.4592 (phone) 303.335.4550 (fax) www.ci.louisville.co.us Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 2 of 11 Zuccaro described development proposal and requested that the Commission review the application from a historical context perspective, specifically regarding the third-story element, building materials, and the Design Guidelines. The building itself was not eligible for landmarking and had been converted and remodeled multiple times since it was built in 1984. Dunlap asked about the language in C3.3, asking for clarification that C3.3 specified two stories and the request was for three stories. Zuccaro confirmed and added that it was nuanced because staff was asking whether the building presented as a two- or a three-story façade. He stated that the overall building height was 36 feet, which was shorter than most three-story buildings, and that there were composite panel elements that mimicked a lower building height, while at the same time from the northeast the view was clearly of three stories. There were elements that were trying to meet the intent of the language. He added a correction from the staff report that the library was actually 34-36 feet tall, not 32 feet as was stated. Dunlap asked for background on the building that was proposed behind the Huckleberry but had never been built. Zuccaro replied that the original plan for that structure was for it to be a commercial building with a third story and a taller height. He noted that it had been designed by the same architect. The revised plan for the building had effectively removed the third story. Klemme asked about the height of the office building across the street. Zuccaro replied that it was about 34 feet high. Erik Hartronft of Hartronft Associates, architect for the plan, stated that few people had attempted to put residential in the downtown area. He noted that there was a lot of empty office space downtown and that residential buildings were important to support local businesses. He explained that the current zoning prohibited residential use without an SRU, but he noted that residential was a historic use and it would be important to maintain it for sustainability and nightlife. He described the design and intent of the proposed building. Klemme asked about the white color on the building materials. Hartronft replied that the white was to give some relief to the streetscape and to demarcate that it was a different type of use. Klemme asked how far back the deck was. Hartronft replied that it was seven-feet back from the property line. Klemme asked about the commercial space and the codes that were involved and asked about the mixed-use request. Hartronft replied that they were adding residential and the only way to do that was through the SRU, which made the development mixed-use because they were keeping commercial use on the first floor. 2 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 3 of 11 Klemme asked what would be involved if someone wanted to buy an apartment and sell in the commercial space below. Hartronft replied that he felt that commercial was already approved downtown so they didn’t have to do anything for that. Zuccaro added that if the SRU were approved and something happened to convert or end the residential space then it would no longer be allowed to be a residential use by the Code. He thought it was unlikely that you would get an SRU approved for residential use and then it wouldn’t get used as residential. He noted that there was a live/work concept in the Code and it was likely that if you wanted to have a commercial storefront you could do that and you wouldn’t lose the residential use. Haley asked about the setbacks. Hartronft replied that the first floor and the second- and third-story decks were at the property line and the third-floor building was set back. The wall line of the second and third floors was set back seven feet. Burg asked whether the horizontal siding change on the first floor in the rendering was the siding shift. Hartronft confirmed. Klemme asked if the Fischer building was being added to between the existing and new building and asked about the connecting material. Hartronft replied that the material would blend in with the Fischer building stucco and that it was not composite. He added that there was an alley walkway between the buildings where you could walk back to the parking area. Some of the residents in the Fischer building would enter through the alley. He noted that the decks were actually front porches for the residences. Otherwise, the Fischer building wasn’t really changing. Haley asked for public comment. Seeing none, she opened discussion. Dunlap, Chair Haley, and Director Zuccaro discussed the role of the Commission in the review process and how to make a motion on the item. Dunlap stated that it was a thoughtful design overall and asked about the parking requirements. Zuccaro replied that downtown there was an assumption that there would be more multi-modal and shared-use transportation and that parking got reviewed on the SRU and the PUD, which staff was addressing with the applicant. Haley shared her thoughts on the proposed height, noting that the application could have proposed a higher building, but also that two-story commercial buildings were the most represented in downtown Louisville and therefore were the standard context. She thought the proposed height was fine but questioned whether a three-story residential building was 3 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 4 of 11 representative of downtown. She stated that while there had been historically mixed-use downtown, the use was not up to the Commission. She acknowledged that there were some three-story commercial buildings and some residential buildings downtown, but they didn’t overlap. Burg noted that Front Street was not as historic as Main Street and represented an eclectic mix of time periods.