AGENDA ITEM #1. AGENDA ITEM #2 Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the September 14 th 2016 meeting (Stettner, TeStrake, Adams, Roth, Bradley)

Transcription

1 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ROOM 113/114, CENTENNIAL HALL, TH STREET WEDNESDAY, October , 5:00 P.M. MEETING PROCEDURE: Comments from the Public are welcome at two different times during the course of the meeting: 1) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on items not scheduled on the agenda will be heard under Public Comments; and 2) Comments no longer than three (3) minutes on all scheduled agenda items will be heard as part of the Public Hearing for that agenda item. All members of the public wishing to make comments must wait to be recognized by the Historic Preservation Commission Chairperson. Please keep comments as brief as possible. The Commission will act on an agenda item after comments from the staff, the applicant, and the public have been heard. PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT: 1) Presentation by staff. 2) Opening of Public Hearing by Historic Preservation Commission Chairperson a) Presentation by applicant, not to exceed 15 minutes b) Questions by Historic Preservation Commission of staff or applicant c) Comments by members of the public (not to exceed 3 minutes). Members of the public will be called to the podium by the Historic Preservation Commission Chairperson. Members of the public to state name. d) Additional questions by Historic Preservation Commission of staff or applicant. e) Response by the applicant. f) Response by staff. g) Close of Public Hearing by Historic Preservation Commission Chairperson. 3) Deliberation, motion, and action by Historic Preservation Commission. Those matters coming before the Steamboat Springs Historic Preservation Commission to be discussed at 5:00 P.M. on October 12, 2016, Room 113/114, Centennial Hall, th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado are as follows: Call to Order: Roll Call AGENDA ITEM #1 AGENDA ITEM #2 Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the September 14 th 2016 meeting (Stettner, TeStrake, Adams, Roth, Bradley) AGENDA ITEM #3 Public Comments: The public may speak to Historic Preservation Commission on any subject not scheduled for discussion elsewhere on the agenda.

2 AGENDA ITEM #4 Public Hearing Item Administrative Review Evaluation Site Element Stone Fence Treatment th Street Applicant: 207 Ventures, LLC AGENDA ITEM #5 Subcommittee Reports: Arnold Barn update CPI reviewer visit Legacy Ranch National Register nomination (carry over from September s meeting) AGENDA ITEM #6 Staff Updates: HPC Ordinance Update Structures at Risk of Demolition (update if any) AGENDA ITEM #7 Other Business: Masonry Workshop Update (Stettner, Hewitt) Alternate Commissioner Update URAAC update from focus group & open house (carry over from September s meeting) ADJOURN The above applications are available for review and inspection during regular business hours at the Department of Planning & Community Development, th Street, Steamboat Springs, CO.

3 DRAFT1 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2016 The regular meeting of the Steamboat Springs Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at approximately 5:03 p.m. on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 in Room 113/114, th Street, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Historic Preservation Commission members in attendance were: Katie Adams, Amy Bradley, Bridget Roth, Sally TeStrake and Arianthe Stettner. Staff members present were City Planner Jake Rosenberg, Planning Director Tyler Gibbs, and Historic Preservation consultant Erica Hewitt. Robin Crossan represented City Council. 2. APPROVAL OF Minutes: August 10, 2016 Strike the part about the boundaries of the district and which areas were already divided. Strike The enterprise zone is in Steamboat on Page 7. Make sure Rocky Mountain Youth Corps is spelled correctly. Commissioner TeStrake moved to approve the August 10, 2016 meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Adams seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. None. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 4. Public Hearing: Historic Resource Designation: 1201 Lincoln Avenue, Chamber of Commerce Building STAFF PRESENTATION Jake Rosenberg: This is a nomination for the local register for the Butterfly Building. It s the Yampa Valley Land Trust Building, formerly the Chamber of Commerce Building.

4 DRAFT2 It s a city-owned structure. It s already on the national register, so we re going back and nominating it for the local register. Criteria #2: Architectural importance is significant to the community of Steamboat Springs. It is representative of Usonian architecture by a locally influential architect: Eugene Sternberg. MOTION Commissioner Bradley moved to add this property to the local historic register. Commissioner TeStrake seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously th Street 5. Informational Item: Commissioner Adams recused herself from this item since her husband is the architect of the project. STAFF PRESENTATION Jake Rosenberg: The Mark Twain House, th Street, owned by Friedman s got a variance for FAR and lot coverage to allow a second-story alteration as well as the addition of a two-car garage off the alley. This was reviewed under an alternative set of criteria we have for variances that pertain to historic structures. It was then given to consultant Jan Kaminski who looked at the proposed alterations. He recommended approval of the plans based on the design guidelines. Part of the conditions of approval for that set of variances was that the owners agree to pursue nominating the Mark Twain House for inclusion on the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places. We haven t drafted that nomination yet. Ms. Friedman is here just to get some feedback on the proposed plans. They have two plan sets, one of the variance and a more detailed plan with some of the alterations to the house. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Kate Friedman, Applicant: There are certain changes that will impact the exterior of the house, and the architect thought this might be a good opportunity to walk through those and get some feedback from the commission.

5 DRAFT3 DISCUSSION Commissioner Stettner: These plans were very clear in terms of existing and proposed, which was very helpful. The most important things in terms of the historic structure and guidelines is how does the structure appear from the street. You want to maintain the highest possible integrity on the streetscape sympathetic to the guidelines and the neighborhood character, etc. Friedman: The major change is the dormer that comes up on the right side of the house. We applied for a variance on that. The master bedroom in the house right now has a very low clearance; anybody over 5 7 would have trouble taking a shower in it. This gives us about 200 extra square feet so we can expand that bathroom. What kind of materials and color in relation to the house would we have to use that would meet the commission s approval to do that? Brian Adams, our architect, has suggested board and baton siding that would in my mind be a different color than the main color of the house but would correspond with the garage in the back, which is going to be of the same material. We are hoping to change the overall color scheme of the house; it s a very bright blue right now with some yellow in it. Because of the river rock, I d like to use some more neutral colors so everything has a more natural look to it. We haven t selected the colors yet, but that s the theme and we d like to tie this in. Brian s question was does the dormer need to be different so it s clear that it s an addition? Or is there a preference that it matches more closely the style of the house? Commissioner TeStrake: I think changing the colors is a good idea; the blue and yellow don t really work with the river rock. Commissioner Roth: We don t really have a standard for color; I think that lends to preference and personal style. Friedman: The plan would be to have the dormer complement the house but be of different material so it s clear that it s an addition. Friedman showed the dormer on the plans and showed how they may need to bring the addition out to the edge so it aligns with the whole house and supports the roof. That would change the roof line. One solution would be to run a board along the end of the rafters; another would be to bring the addition out to the edge. So it will change the side of the house, but I think to see it from the street you d need to look at it from an angle.

6 DRAFT4 Commissioner Bradley: I think for snow load and water drainage you d probably want it to come all the way out. Friedman: If I m understanding Brian correctly, there s no way to maintain those rafter tails, so the solutions are to enclose them with a board or bring everything out to the edge, which would still leave a small pop-out. Gibbs asked if the commission would be comfortable if staff worked out this issue with the architect; he mentioned he had done something similar with his house. Commissioners agreed. Friedman showed the other additions. The chimney will no longer be visible with the dormer. The chimney is something we wanted to take down anyway because it s a safety hazard and didn t inspect well. We ll leave the main fireplace chimney which is visible from the street. Gibbs speculated that this secondary chimney was probably a flu for the furnace. Stettner thought it was probably heated by coal; Friedman remembered a coal access in the basement. Commissioners didn t have a problem with removal of the chimney. Friedman: The front of the house has a river rock staircase. It s not to code because the number, depth and rise of the stairs is out of compliance, and there s no handrail. We ve owned the house since May; I ve had two kids fall already and get hurt on the stairs. So I would like to remove the river rock stairs and replace them with a wood-framed stair that matches the style of the railing with the house. The front porch is pretty ornate, so the idea would be to replicate that and put a wood staircase on so we can have a handrail and the stairs can be to code. In the winter I would think the snow removal from those stone stairs would be very difficult. Stettner: Those stone stairs are part of the river rock foundation of the house. On another structure in town, they were able to somehow build over those stone stairs and keep them as sort of a relic instead of demolishing them. I don t know whether or not that can be done with these. Friedman: I m not opposed to that idea, but I have to get from Brian whether or not we could do it. Stettner urged Friedman to see if the stairs she wants can be built over the existing stairs. For sure take some pictures.

7 DRAFT5 Gibbs: The elevation drawing shows the river rock walls on either side of the stairs being demolished. If the rise and run of the stairs is not working, that doesn t necessarily impact the walls that frame the stairs. Friedman: I m just wondering aesthetically to put the wood stairs between the two river rock walls. To be frank, I don t like them in addition to them being a safety issue. So my goal with the wood stairs was to try to come up with something that genre-wise matched the style of the house and addressed the safety issue and worked for us aesthetically. Gibbs: Is the safety issue due to the rise and run of the steps themselves? Friedman: That s part of it; it s also the surface of the stairs. It s smooth. TeStrake: I was there a couple years ago. I don t know that those steps were original. They almost look like something from the 80 s that was added on. And you re right; they re dangerous. Roth: With the removal of the stairs, how does that affect the integrity of the foundation and the remainder of the material? Friedman: I don t think it s going to impact it at all. I think we ll take it back to the foundation wall and add stairs to the front of the house. Gibbs confirmed that Friedman does not know whether the stone from the walls that frame the stair interlock with the foundation wall. Gibbs: Same with the stairs; do they actually interlock into the walls on either side where you couldn t simply remove them from between those walls cleanly in order to build steps that did meet code. I m sure Brian knows. That might be something that warrants further discussion. Friedman: As an alternative, what if we were to come up with a design that was a blend of both where rather than trying to use the original river rock that comes out on the side, we do like a pillar or something I m not sure we could use the same river rock, but something along those lines that tied that theme in but still enabled us to build something. The other problem is they re not square; they re very big. My purpose is to do something a little more streamlined that matches the lines of the house. There may be some sort of compromise where we could incorporate the river rock theme but still reduce the safety issues. That s all the changes for the front of the house. What s your level of concern with the back of the house the alley view of the house and the rear exterior? There are other changes that will be made there. Stettner: From here it appears they are minimal. There s the new dormer and removal of the chimney.

8 DRAFT6 Friedman: The decks are staying. The deck railings aren t to code, so we will be replacing those with something. Stettner: Is your thought to use something similar to what s in the front of the house? Friedman: Those decks are not original to the house; they have quite a different character. My preference would be to clean them up; maybe use a different color for them and make them more complementary to the house. They have a rustic, kind of 70 s feel to them. Our desire is to maintain and restore this house in line with the character of its original style. The dormer and garage and those kinds of things are trying to get some modern amenities to an older house, but it really is our desire to maintain the character. Stettner: That s commendable. So often people will buy a house in Old Town because it s convenient. Its character and what it contributes to the Old Town community character is not a factor. Then inch by inch we lose that. 7 th Street could be a local historic district. There s enough integrity with all the buildings, the scale and the setbacks. So being sensitive to where you are and where you live improves the whole neighborhood. The side elevation is not as crucial as the front. Just speak to the changes so we re tuned in. Friedman showed the rear changes: reducing the size of an interior window. This used to be a boarding house, so all the bathrooms were built hotel style so the sinks are outside of the bathrooms. We re going to remodel them so the sinks are inside, which requires us to move a wall in that particular room. The diamond-shaped window in the back would need to be removed because a bath/shower is going to go there. The other major change is the addition of the garage in the back. It s going to be built behind the carriage house. It won t be visible from 7 th Street. It won t block the rear view of the house. Almost the whole back yard is paved at this point; we re going to pull that out, put a garage in and then put a yard. I had two other questions: What s your role in any landscaping we would do in the front of the house whether or not that s something you re concerned about? A good example would be the sidewalk that comes from the front stairs to the city sidewalk. It s in disrepair, so we were going to tear it out and replace it. The yard is in pretty bad shape as well, so we re going to relandscape it largely in accordance with the way it was landscaped. There s some garden beds that come out in the front; we d redo those. Is that something we d need to seek your approval on? Stettner: No, it s not been something we ve addressed in the past.

9 DRAFT7 Bradley confirmed that Friedman wants to keep the curved walkway. Friedman: Would we submit our color selection for the house to you for approval? Or in general are you comfortable with us choosing something that would be more muted than it is right now? TeStrake: Sounds like you ve got the right idea. Roth: We don t have the regulatory authority to offer those suggestions. The eligibility and assessment is limited to the structures themselves. Friedman will consult with staff on the dormer. Stettner asked Friedman to look into options for preserving the river rock walls on either side of the front stairs. Friedman: Does the commissioner s opinion of the project change if they re not part of the original structure? Roth: It would be contextualized within the idea of the period of significance of the house. So what are those things that make the house important, and what are the time periods associated with them? So if the stairs were added at a time that still fed into the architectural importance of the house, then yes, that is where it becomes more important than if it was an 80 s addition or something. Part two is can you find other pictures that show the stairs as they were during the time period of significance, and could you find a way to do some type of replication of that? Roth directed Friedman to the Tread of Pioneers Museum for resources. Stettner suggested walking down 7 th Street to find houses with similar significance. She mentioned the Lestrud house on Logan. Gibbs requested to be put in touch with the architect so they can conduct a site visit to determine if the stairs or walls are part of the underlying foundation. Roth confirmed that the house is built around the chimney that the Friedman s want to remove. Friedman asked whether they need to consult on the garage. Stettner: There are design guidelines for Old Town that speak to the scale and materials. The new should not mimic the old; they should be differentiated. You ve obviously put good thought in your garage design already. I think you should be sensitive to your materials, but at this point you don t need to consult with us. You have a sensitive architect. It s new construction. The historic designation moving forward

10 DRAFT8 refers to the old construction and what we see from the street, not the alley. So I think you have some flexibility there. Roth: So with all the proposed changes, do you collectively feel that this would still be eligible for the local register? I think all the proposed changes would preclude it from being eligible for the national register. So if the suggestion is to be nominated to the local register, does this still maintain that quality? I m really on the fence about that given the changes. Stettner: There have already been a number of changes to this house before you bought it. We can see that just in terms of the front gable. Nonetheless, the materials, scale, setback, stone formation, the set-in porch, those are things that to me are character-defining. Roth: But the pop-up, the changing of the front with the changing of the stairs, taking off the chimney, further altering the roof line, those types of things. I think it s something for us to think about. Stettner: It depends on the rest of the story of the building. Roth: That s a big request to require the property owner to go through the process of nomination as a part of getting through that hoop with the BOA. Stettner: Are you suggesting that the idea of nominating it be eliminated? Roth: Maybe, depending how the commission is going to go through the process of approval. If we go further and say yes, we want you to do the nomination, I m not sure the nomination is necessarily worth it. Rather we ask for extensive documentation during the many processes of demolition. We re not going to get a good nomination without a real detailed explanation of all the architectural changes. Stettner: If this were a national registered district, the house would definitely be contributing to the district. But we don t have one, and to do a local historic district on 7 th Street, the way the rules are written now, it requires compliance of all the owners. The benefits that would accrue to being on a local register can help a homeowner financially. The other reason people want to be on a local register is that there s a pride in ownership and a pride in creating history, and ultimately it leads to enhanced property values. The chimney that can t be seen from the street and that hasn t been functional for a while being removed is not critical. TeStrake: I think with the exception of the dormer addition what you re proposing is an improvement over what it is now and may bring back more character, especially if there s spindled railings on the steps. There s already a dormer on the other side.

11 DRAFT9 Roth: I think that rather than asking the homeowner to go through the process of doing a nomination, I would ask them to do the archeology of the house to get to the point where a nomination would show whether or not it would actually be eligible. Rosenberg: The conditions from the Board of Adjustment only say that they agree to a nomination. So I think it s the purview of this commission to decide whether you want to bring that nomination forward. Stettner suggested that the commission encourage documentation of the house and the changes as they are made in case a nomination could come forward that speaks more to the associations of that historic house. Roth: As you re able to gain that documentation, depending on what you uncovered, we could help you get through the nomination process in a more efficient way, as opposed to us encouraging you to do that without having enough information for it to be successful. Stettner: The Cultural Inventory Form for this house as of 2002 gives enough information that it would be eligible for nomination to the local register. The first dormer was already there. Roth: It says on the back that the rear of the structure wasn t looked at in total. Stettner: They say it has enough remaining original elements. Gibbs: Would the factor of whether your house could be listed as a local landmark or not impact your decision of how you move forward with this proposed renovation? Friedman: I m committed to moving forward with a dormer. The stairs I could work with, but they need to be safe. The function of the house is more of a concern for me than the financial incentives of putting it on the registry. What is important to me in that context is that the house looks like an old Steamboat house for the most part. Gibbs: I think the commission feels that it is a sensitive addition; it s just going beyond what might allow the house to actually be on the register because it s starting to change the character and massing of the house in a significant way. Friedman: I certainly understand that. ACTION The commission requested the applicant document the structure and consult with staff as they move forward with their renovation and stated that the commission is happy to help in any way.

12 DRAFT10 The commission is not encouraging the applicant to pursue a nomination to the local register at this time. However, if documentation uncovers significant historic association with a person, place or event or other nominating characteristic, the applicant could bring this forward for nomination at that time. 6. Subcommittee Reports Arnold Barn Update: Stettner: The Endangered Places nomination has been submitted. The reviewer is coming to visit the site Saturday. Two commissioners will attend. Gibbs: The Council s interest in the barn has gotten the attention of the property owner. They did finally respond to Dan Foote saying we ll get back to you. Thank you very much to City Council for making this an issue. TeStrake mentioned that she s had at least a dozen people express interest in helping with the barn. Stettner: I met with someone who is a retired National Parks Service historic architect. He has done barn reconstructions all over the United States and has 30 years experience. We did a site visit today, and he s very interested in being involved in this project. Monuments/Gateway at 3 rd and Lincoln: TeStrake: We did get a response from the post office. They said the sign on that side of the street cannot be used for anything except for post office signage. So we re scrapping the idea of using 3 rd and Lincoln as a gateway. We re now focusing on a further east location, which is in the island as you come to the Old Town Hot Springs somewhere on the other side of the trees further south so it s more of an impact statement. We re working on that with the Main street design committee. Crossan highly recommended they work with URAAC as well; TeStrake said they would be. HPC Ordinance Update: 7. Staff Updates None. The commission is looking for alternates since Tracy Barnett resigned. TeStrake asked someone who had expressed their interest in the past.

13 DRAFT11 8. Other Business Camp Request: Stettner: This is for the CPI conference. Would Wednesday or Saturday be better if we did a camp for commissioners? Hewitt: Karen said she got two responses for Saturday. Stettner: Wednesday is usually the Ski Town Forum, which would be a conflict for us. Erica and I are going to the masonry restoration workshop on the 20 th. Adjournment Commissioner TeStrake moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

14 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT REPORT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM #4: Project Name: Prepared By: Cloverdale House th Street Jan M. Kaminski, HP Consultant Mountain Architecture Design Group ( x12) Project Location Through: Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): Zoning: Tyler Gibbs, AIA - Director of Planning & Community Development (Ext. 244) October 12, 2016 Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Location: 9 th Street Applicant: Request: 207 Ventures, LLC Jeremy MacGray Administrative Review Evaluation Site Element Stone Fence Staff Report - Table of Contents Section Pg I. Consultant Analysis Summary 4-2 II. Background 4-3 III. Project Description 4-3 IV. Consultant Finding 4-3 V. Principal Discussion Items 4-3 VI. Motion 4-4 VII. Attachments 4-4

15 4 Cloverdale House th Street HPC Hearing:10/12/ th Street I. CONSULTANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY The administrative review for th Street consisted of a proposal to replace a portion of significant stone fence with a contemporary and sympathetic wrought iron railing. The administrative review was subsequently called up under CDC Section (e) with reference to Design Guideline - Fences Preserve Original Fences. It is to be reviewed under Community Development Code Section (h) (5) and (m). HPC Review. HPC shall consider the application at a regularly scheduled or special meeting after the completion of the staff review. HPC shall approve, recommend modifications to, or deny the application. If the application meets HPC approval, HPC shall issue a Certificate of approval immediately. HPC shall notify the owner(s) and city council in writing immediately following any decision approving or disapproving an application. Revocation of Designation. HPC may revoke a Local Landmark, Historic Resource or Historic District designation if the property is damaged by an Act of God, Force Majeure or otherwise falls below the standards for listing the property or district originally as a Local Landmark, Historic Resource, or Historic District. Department of Planning and Community Development Page 4-2 Staff Report

16 4 Cloverdale House th Street HPC Hearing:10/12/16 II. BACKGROUND The property is recently listed on the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Staff received the following communication on September 20, 2016 from 207 Ventures, LLC: We have run into a situation at the 9th Street house that we are renovating for the Cloverdale restaurant. The stone wall along Oak street encroaches into the area that the city is going to be installing the new sidewalks this fall. Additionally, a large tree has to be removed for the sidewalk that is growing up in the middle of the wall. And finally, the wall is so deteriorated that we are having to completely dissemble it to try and rebuild it. Bottom line: the whole wall has to be removed. I am requesting the option to instead install a wrought iron fence along Oak and just restore wall along 9th street. We currently have a small wrought iron fence that is going to adorn the top of the wall on 9th in place of the rusted old pipe that acts as a temporary rail. We d like to just continue this around the corner along Oak, only full height. Staff then received the following communication on September 22, 2016 from 207 Ventures, LLC: We can surely rebuild the wall if that is what you require. We are definitely rebuilding it on 9 th because it s so prominent as the front feature of the home and we love it. I was trying to avoid the tangled mess it s going to be for the city to install the new sidewalk on Oak with the wall in its way (or even near for that matter). I can t hold off for them to build the sidewalk because the weather will keep us from being able to finish the wall this year. Additionally, the trees that have grown up need to be removed for me to rebuild the wall and that is part of the city s scope of work. We felt that the new wrought iron fence that is going to complete the stone wall on 9 th street towards the old garage would tie in nicely with a fence along Oak. IV. CONSULTANT FINDING Staff s original Administrative Review recommendation is attached (dated ). This public hearing is being held as a result of the misapplication of Design Guideline - Fences Preserve Original Fences. (CDC Section (e) An HPC member's objection must be based on an incorrectly applied standard, guideline, or other code provision. ). Staff s current recommendation is to apply the Design Guideline as stated. In conclusion, the stone wall on Oak should be retained as an important part of the historic fabric of this property and of Old Town. V. PRINCIPAL DISCUSSION ITEMS Department of Planning and Community Development Page 4-3 Staff Report

17 4 Cloverdale House th Street HPC Hearing:10/12/16 VI. 1. ALTERATION TO A RESOURCE LISTED ON THE REGISTER a. HPC has the ability to review changes in resources listed on the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places b. HPC can approve, recommend modifications, or deny treatment. c. The Owner can nevertheless proceed with consideration that the resource may or may not fall below a standard for listing on the register and risk being removed. MOTION Possible Motions 1. HPC can recommend a Certificate for Approval of the alterations to the stone fence as indicated in the Administrative Review. 2. HPC can recommend the fence be rebuilt in kind following construction of the Oak Street improvements. 3. HPC can deny the application VII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DATED Department of Planning and Community Development Page 4-4 Staff Report

18 Mountain Architecture Design Group, P.C. FROM: TO: THROUGH: JAN M. KAMINSKI, PRES. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF STEAMBOAT SPRINGS TYLER GIBBS, AIA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 SUBJECT: CLOVERDALE th STREET ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: Upon receipt of any permit application under subsection 26-84(h), (i) or (j) for the Alteration to any building, site, structure or object on the Local Register or Eligible Resource, the historic preservation staff shall review the application for compliance with the requirements of this section. Upon a determination by the historic preservation staff that the proposed Alteration will not significantly alter the historic character of such building, site, structure or object on the Local Register or Eligible Resource, the historic preservation staff may recommend approval to the HPC without referring the application for public hearing before the HPC. In determining whether the proposed Alteration will significantly alter the historic character of such building, site, structure or object on the Local Register or Eligible Resource, the historic preservation staff shall apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the Design Guidelines, this section and any other applicable provisions of the CDC. The historic preservation staff shall notify the HPC in writing of the historic preservation staff 's decision to recommend approval without a public hearing by HPC. The historic preservation staff's recommendation shall take effect upon the passage of seven (7) days from the date of notice unless any member of HPC objects thereto in writing prior to the expiration of the seven-day period. An HPC member's objection must be based on an incorrectly applied standard, guideline, or other code provision. In the event of such objection, the proposed Alteration shall be scheduled for a public hearing within thirty (30) days of the written notice from the historic preservation staff to the HPC. DATE OF RECOMMENDATION NOTICE: September 21, 2016 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 207 9th Street Property is listed on the Steamboat Springs Register of Historic Places OWNER: 207 Ventures, LLC PROPOSED ALTERATION: Staff received the following communication on September 20, 2016 from 207 Ventures, LLC: We have run into a situation at the 9 th Street house that we are renovating for the Cloverdale restaurant. The stone wall along Oak street encroaches into the area that the city is going to be installing the new sidewalks this fall. Additionally, a large tree has to be removed for the sidewalk that is growing up in the middle of the wall. And finally, the wall is so deteriorated that we are having to completely dissemble it to try and rebuild it. Bottom line: the whole wall has to be removed. P.O. Box Oak Street Steamboat Springs, Colorado Ph Fax

19 I am requesting the option to instead install a wrought iron fence along Oak and just restore wall along 9 th street. We currently have a small wrought iron fence that is going to adorn the top of the wall on 9 th in place of the rusted old pipe that acts as a temporary rail. We d like to just continue this around the corner along Oak, only full height. This resource faces 9 th street which should be deemed the primary character defining elevation for the resource. The stone fence is considered a key feature of the lot but the Oak Street sidewalk improvements are problematic since a portion of the Oak street fence is in the Right of Way. The advanced deterioration of the fence also contributes to the proposal that it be replaced with a contemporary yet sympathetic wrought iron fence along Oak Street. In general, the SOI Standards discourage removing or radically changing site features that result in diminishing character and the recommended treatment would be replacement in kind if it were not for the Oak Street improvements. The next acceptable step would be to retain the relationship between the building, side yard and Oak Street. This is being done with a fence that provides for a transparent quality as discussed in Section 1.3 of the Design Guidelines. Keeping the original stone fence on the character defining 9 th Street elevation retains the character of the original front yard relationship. Preserving this portion of the stone fence is most important to keep from radically changing this site feature and diminishing its importance beyond recognition. The addition of the wrought iron rail provides for a transition to the side yard (Oak Street) and gives a sense of construction periods. Recommendation: Consultant recommends approval of the proposal. 2