STAFF BRIEF. Community Planning and Development Denver Landmark Preservation

Transcription

1 Community Planning and Development Denver Landmark Preservation 201 West Colfax, Dept. 205 Denver, CO p: (720) f: (720) STAFF BRIEF This document is the staff s comparison of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, Design Guidelines for Denver Landmark Structures and Districts, the Landmark Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 30, Revised Municipal Code) and other applicable adopted area guidelines as applied to the proposed application. It is intended to provide guidance during the commission s deliberation of the proposed application. Guidelines are available at Project: #2018-COA-249 LPC Meeting: July 24, 2018 Address: 3101 E. 7 th Ave. Staff: Jessi White Historic Dist/DLM: East Seventh Avenue Historic District Year structure built: 1924 (Period of Significance: Prior to and including 1942) Council District: #10 Wayne New Applicant: Robert Blume Past Action: Meeting Date: December 6, 2016 D. Walter recused and left the room 2016-COA East 7 th Ave Description: Reconstruct Rear Addition and Dormers Motion by K. Corbett: I move to approve application #2016-COA-477 for addition & dormers construction and front dormer reconstruction at 3101 East 7 th Avenue as per guidelines 3.3, and 3.5, presented testimony, submitted documentation and information provided in the staff report. Second by: H. Vasquez Vote: Unanimous in favor (6-0, D. Walter recused), motion carries. Meeting Date: December 6, COA East 7 th Ave Description: Replace Roof Material Motion by G. Chapman: I move to deny application #2016-COA-498 for roof material change at 3101 East 7 th Avenue as per guideline 2.24, presented testimony, submitted documentation and information provided in the staff report. Second by: A. Zimmer Vote: Unanimous in favor (6-0, D. Walter recused), motion carries. Meeting Date: June 19, COA East 7 th Ave Description: Violations Motion by K. Corbett: I move to deny application #2018-COA-210 for removal of the roof tile, removal of the original door, removal of the entrance alcove brick, the addition of basement and egress windows, the addition of skylights, modifications to the east kitchen window and modifications to the rear addition and dormer additions at 3101 E. 7 th Avenue as per guideline 2.1, 2.3, 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 2.21, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, Intent Statements 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, presented testimony, submitted documentation and information provided in the staff report. Second by: H. Vasquez-Johnson Vote: Unanimous in favor (6-0), motion carries.

2 Staff Summary and Project Scope Under Review: 3101 E. 7 th Ave is located in the East Seventh Avenue Historic District on the corner of Saint Paul Street and 7 th Avenue Parkway and is a contributing structure. Work was done without proper permitting and beyond the scope of approved residential plan set. The Landmark Preservation Commission is reviewing the violation for compliance with the residential plan set, per recommendation of the City Attorney. The applicant is requesting approval for the following items: Historic House Violations- Removal of Roof Tile- The original concrete roof tile was removed from the structure. The applicant is requesting to install Capistrano concrete tile in the color Wailea Green per the LPC s recommendation on June 19, Removal of Original Door- Removal of Entrance Alcove Brick- The original arched wood panel door was removed from the structure. The applicant is requesting to install a solid wood door matching the design and appearance of the previous door per the LPC s recommendation on June 19, The original brick was removed from the entrance alcove on the front of the house. The applicant is requesting to reinstall salvaged brick matching the existing historic brick on the house per the LPC s recommendation on June 19, Addition of Basement and Egress Windows- Modifications to East Kitchen Window- Basement windows were added to the front façade and west elevation. The applicant is proposing to fill in the front façade double-basement unit on the southeast side of the façade, install two small basement windows on the southwest side of the façade, and change the basement window configuration on the west façade back to an egress window matching the size and function of the egress window that was previously in that location. The kitchen window located on the east elevation of the historic house has been elongated to have a more horizontal form. The applicant is proposing to scale the east kitchen window back down to the form shown in the approved residential plan set per the LPC s recommendation on June 19, Total Window Replacement Removal of the Front Steps All the historic windows were removed and replaced. The applicant has replaced the windows with windows that match the historic windows in general appearance, configuration, and function. The applicant removed the historic arched waterfall front steps to the home. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the steps to match the historic steps and will use salvaged brick to match the historic brick on the

3 house. Removal of a Brick Wall The house previously had a low brick wall along Saint Paul Street that was removed and replaced. The applicant is proposing to remove the intermediate brick pilasters along Saint Paul Street to meet Parkway requirements, and is requesting to extend the wall along the 7 th Avenue side of the property. Replace East Yard Fence The applicant removed an existing palisade style wood fence from the east side of the property and is requesting to put the same fence back in the same location. Addition Modifications- Rear addition roof form modifications- The rear addition roof height is several feet higher than the historic roof height, which is in conflict with the approved residential plan set. The gable roof form on the back of the rear addition modified the flared gable into a straight gable, and modified the enclosed rafters to a boxed eave return. The roof flare on the first-floor hipped roof has been modified. The second-floor windows were sunken into the first-floor hipped roof. The applicant is requesting to maintain the overall addition roof height as being higher than the historic roof height. The applicant is also requesting that the straight gable roof form on the back of the house be maintained as built. The applicant is proposing to lower the first-floor roof height as a means of maintaining the window sills above the roof line, and will be adding the eave flare back in on the first floor of the addition and will lower the pitch of the first-floor roofline. The applicant will be adding decorative molding to the boxed eave return to make them more closely match the boxed eave return on the front of the house. Finally, the applicant is requesting to maintain the hyphen roof height in its current location. Alterations to the Addition Balcony- A balcony on the west elevation was extended in length, and the roof line for the west elevation hyphen addition was extended straight back from the historic roof line instead of dropping below the roof line. The applicant is requesting to move the balcony from the west elevation to the rear north elevation to more closely reflect the original LPC approval and drawings A.5, A.8, S2.1, S3.0, and S3.1 of the approved residential plan set. The applicant is requesting that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend a variance to the Board of Adjustment for allowance of the balcony to be located in the rear 35% of the lot. Landmark staff believes that the placement of the balcony on the back of the addition is more consistent with historic development patterns and subordinate to the historic house. Dormer additions roof form modifications- The roof form for the west dormer was altered from an enclosed gable to a gable with a boxed eave return. Both the east and west dormer eaves were altered from an enclosed rafter to a boxed eave return. Additionally, the proportions of the west dormer are narrower than the ones shown in the approved residential plan set.

4 The applicant is requesting to maintain the boxed eave return on the dormers, but will be adding molding to make the eave return more closely match the eave return on the front of the house. Rear addition window modifications- A new window configuration is proposed for the gable end of the rear addition. The proposed window configuration does not match the configuration shown in the approved residential plan set. The applicant is requesting to maintain the proposed window configuration as it more closely matches the original LPC approval. Timeline- December 6, 2016-Two applications for the property came before the Commission one for the review of a new rear addition and dormers, and one for the replacement of the tile roof material. The application for the new rear addition and dormers was approved, but the application for roof replacement was denied. December 9, Following Landmark Preservation Commission review, Landmark staff issued a COA and stamped the Landmark approved plan set. January 27, The residential plan set was submitted to permitting. The applicant submitted a copy of the COA with the residential plan set, however, the Landmark approved plan set was not part of the package. A former Landmark staff person was responsible for reviewing the residential plan set for compliance with the Landmark approved plan set. However, the residential plan set was signed off by a former Landmark staff member the same day without a comparison of the Landmark approved plan set to the residential plan set. March Landmark Preservation received notice from the applicant that the roof tile had been removed from the historic structure without review and approval. Staff worked with the City inspector to confirm that the historic roofing material had been removed. Staff then worked with the applicant to put together a submittal for a replacement roof. April Landmark staff received notice from concerned community members of additional violations, including: the removal of the front door and entrance alcove brick and the addition of basement windows to the front and west elevations of the house. The inspector went to the site to photograph and confirm that that these violations had been done. Staff examined the inspector s photographs in comparison with the 2016 Landmark approved plan set. Staff determined that alterations had been made to the rear addition, dormers, wall, and fence outside of the 2016 Landmark approved plan set. Staff concluded that the approved residential plan set would need to be reviewed in comparison to the work that was occurring at the site. May Staff was notified that the historic windows had been removed and replaced. The City Inspector performed a site visit and confirmed that the windows had been replaced. While on site the City Inspector also identified that the wall along Saint Paul Street had been removed and replaced. Staff received the approved residential plan set and compared it with the 2016 Landmark approved plan set and the photographs taken by the City inspector. The comparison of these documents revealed: 1.) that the approved residential plan set differed significantly from the 2016 Landmark approved plan set; 2.) a former Landmark staff person approved the residential plan set without a detailed comparison review of the 2016 Landmark approved plan set to the residential plan set; 3.) that the applicant exceeded the scope of work laid out in the approved residential plan set. Staff consulted with the City Attorney as to which plan set should be used to assess the violations moving forward, and ascertained that it would be the residential plan set.

5 After a comparison of the photos and residential plan set it was determined that the following actions exceed the residential plan set approval: removal of the roof, door, and alcove brick, addition of basement windows, alterations to the rear addition and dormer addition roof forms, and alterations to the rear addition window and balcony. Staff scheduled a meeting with the property owner and applicant to discuss the violations and application items needed to move forward. Staff received an application, photos, and revised plans from the applicant. This application addressed the above violations for the roof, door, and alcove brick, basement windows, alterations to the rear addition, and dormer addition and addition window and balcony alteration. In addition, this application included skylights and additional alterations to the rear windows, of which work had already begun on site. A stop work order was placed on the property. The stop work order will not be lifted until all Landmark and Residential requirements are met. June The application submitted in May was reviewed by the LPC on June 19 th. The Commission made the following comments on the application at the June 19 th meeting: Removal of Roof tile- o Dooro The Commission recommends replacement with Eagle roofing, Capistrano tile in the color Waliea Green The original door should be replicated exactly, including having a solid wood design with a matching joinery style (tongue and groove with a chamfered plank edge to create the v- notch seam between door planks.) Basement Windows o o South (front) Façade Windows should be removed and the brick should be replaced in the window opening. West Elevation (southwest corner) The Commission felt that if the window that was put in is the same as the window that was there previously that they would be okay with the new window. Additionally, some Commission members felt that the use of a larger window would need to be justified in order for a change in size to be acceptable. East Kitchen Windowo The Commission recommends that the applicant match the size, location, and appearance of the east kitchen window approved in the approved residential plan set Hyphen Claddingo The Commission recommends that the applicant use a 3-coat cementitious stucco Roof Formo The Commission recommends that the roof flare, enclosed eaves, and the step down on the rear addition hyphen on the west elevation should be returned to the design of the rear addition and dormers. o The Commission recommends that the roof forms on the rear addition and dormer should match the approved residential plan set. Alterations to rear addition windows and Balcony Extension- o o The Commission recommends that the balcony match the approved residential plan set and that the flared eave seen on the roof below the balcony should be returned. The Commission stated that recessing the rear addition second floor windows into the first-floor roof line is inappropriate, and the window design and location should match the residential plan set. Staff met with the applicant after the June 19 th LPC meeting to discuss next steps. Staff made the recommendation to the applicant that they relocate the balcony on the back of the house, maintain the flared roof on the rear gable end, and add molding to the addition roof eaves to help them match the existing historic boxed eave return on the front of the house. Staff s recommendations were based on pages A5.0, A8.0, A9.0, S1.0, S2.1, S3.0, S3.1, and S4.0 of the approved residential plan set, review of the original LPC approval, and an examination of the as-built addition. The applicant agreed to Staff s recommendations with

6 the exception of adding the flared roof eave to the rear gable, and submitted a new proposal for the July 24 th LPC meeting agenda. As a part of the latest proposal, the applicant is requesting that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend a variance to the Board of Adjustment for allowance of the balcony to be located in the rear 35% of the lot. Staff feel that the new placement of the balcony is subordinate to the historic house, and more consistent with historic development patterns. Staff reviewed the updated proposed plan set against the approved residential plan set and determined that the proposed plan set showed the main addition roof line as being higher than the existing historic roof line. A review of drawings A5.0, A8.0, A9.0, S1.0, S2.1, S3.0, S3.1, and S4.0 in the approved residential plan set shows the main addition roof as being the same height as the existing historic roof. Additionally, a staff determined after reviewing photographs of the addition hyphen roof construction, that the hyphen roof height could be positioned lower on the main addition roof line, allowing the hyphen roof height to be lower than the historic roof height. Excerpted from Design Guidelines for Denver Landmark Structures & Districts, January 2016 Guideline Meets Guidelines Comments 2.1 Preserve original building materials. a. Protect original building materials from deterioration. b. Don t remove original materials in good condition or which can be repaired. The historic roof tile, door, entrance alcove brick, and windows were removed without an assessment of the materials condition. 2.3 Repair original building materials, when needed. a. Repair deteriorated building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the material. b. If disassembly of an original element is necessary for its repair or restoration, replace the disassembled components in their original configuration. The historic roof tile, door, entrance alcove brick, and windows were removed and discarded rather than repaired. 2.4 Replace original building materials in kind, if repair is not feasible. a. Replace only those materials necessary to facilitate a necessary repair. b. Use original materials, historic sizes, and original installation method to replace damaged building materials on a primary façade whenever possible. c. If use of original materials is not feasible, use only replacement materials that have proven durability and are similar in scale, finish and character to the original material. Maybe The applicant is proposing to match as closely as possible the original roof tile color and profile. An exact color match has not been found. The applicant is proposing to replicate the original door based on photographs. The applicant is proposing to use salvaged brick to match the historic brick in the alcove entrance. Finally, the replacement windows that were installed match the appearance, function, and configuration of the historic windows Maintain the pattern and proportion of Yes The historic door was removed

7 historic window and door openings. a. Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows and doors in a building wall. Modifying a window or door on the rear of a contributing structure may be considered on a façade that is not visible. b. Maintain the original size and shape of window and door openings on primary façades. c. Repair and maintain windows and doors regularly, including wood trim, glazing putty and glass panes. and discarded, but the applicant is proposing to replicate the original door in appearance. The proposed kitchen window is located on the east elevation of the house. The applicant is proposing to construct the window per the approved residential plan set and the Commission s recommendations from the June 19, 2018 meeting Preserve historic doors. a. The character-defining features of historic doors should be repaired and preserved whenever possible. b. Restore altered windows and doors, if feasible. The original door was removed and discarded Preserve historic window materials. a. Preserve historic window features including the frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and groupings of windows. b. Use special care to preserve and protect stained and leaded glass. c. Repair original windows by re-glazing and patching and splicing elements such as muntins, the frame, sill and casing. The original windows were removed and discarded Locate and design a new egress window to be as inconspicuous as possible. a. Place an egress window on a less visible façade that does not face the street, if possible. b. Align a new basement egress window or expansion of an existing window with other windows and features on the façade. c. Match a new basement egress window to a historic basement window type or use a simple single-light casement window. d. Do not place an egress window on a primary façade. Maybe An egress window was installed on the east elevation without review. The east elevation is a side elevation and the egress window will be minimally visible from the public vantage. The basement windows on the East 7 th Avenue façade will be removed and the brick replaced. The applicant is requesting the addition of two new basement windows on the southwest corner of the front façade. The new basement windows will be located where two vents were originally located on the house. Finally, the basement windows on the west

8 façade will be removed and replaced with a single egress window that matches the size and function of the egress window that was previously in that location When replacement of an original window is necessary, match the replacement design to the original. a. Match the original window size. b. Match the original window type and operation (if the original windows are wood double hung, the new windows must be either wood or clad-wood double hung, and can be double or triple glazed). c. Set windows into the same depth as the windows being replaced d. Match original window materials, or use materials that are similar in texture, durability and appearance. Match the original outward facing thickness and depth of perimeter framing material. e. Use clear, or nearly clear low-e glass. f. Closely match the original window profile. g. Match the original divided light type and pattern. h. For replacements of a divided light window, use a simple design or use applied muntins with an interstitial spacer for dividers. Applied muntins shall be installed on both sides of the glass (note that true divided light windows may be difficult to obtain with modern double glazing). i. If windows are missing, use a replacement design that matches the style, size, and material of the original windows. j. Do not use perimeter infill framing to create smaller windows. k. Do not use alternative material windows or sashes. Yes The replacement windows that were installed on the historic building closely match the appearance, configuration, and function of the historic windows Preserve and repair functional and decorative features of an original door. a. Preserve features including door frames, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, detailing, transoms, stained glass, hardware and flanking sidelights. The original door has not been preserved and repaired.

9 2.23 When replacement of an original door is necessary, match replacement design to the original. a. Only replace an original door if it is damaged beyond repair. b. Use materials that match or appear similar to that of the original door. c. When replacing an original door on a primary façade, use a design that matches or appears similar to the original door and complements the building s style. d. When replacing an original door on a non-primary façade, consider an alternative design that is in character, if a design that is similar to the original is not feasible. e. Do not use a featureless, flush face door where it is not in character. Yes The applicant is proposing to replicate the historic door in appearance. The design of the replica door is based on photographs of the original door Preserve the form, materials and features of an original historic roof. e. Avoid removing or covering original roof materials and features that are in good condition, or that can be repaired. The historic roof tile was removed and discarded rather than preserved and repaired. Additionally, the addition roof line was built higher than the historic roof line, altering the overall roof form Repair original roof materials and features, and replace only when necessary. d. If matching materials are not available or feasible, choose alternative materials, with a matching or closely matching appearance. For wood shingle roofs, a low-profile asphalt in a brown color is typically appropriate. Maybe The historic roof tile was removed rather than repaired. The applicant is requesting to replace the original roof tile with a tile that matches the profile and material. The applicant has been unable to locate a roof tile that is an exact color match to the original roof tile Minimize the visual impacts of skylights, dormers and other rooftop alterations. a. Locate a new dormer or skylight below the ridgeline of the roof. b. Locate a new dormer or skylight on a rear (preferred) or side-facing roof slope, when possible. c. Set back a side-facing gable from the front façade to minimize its visibility from the street and sidewalk. d. Set dormers back behind the roof eave and the building wall plane below to ensure that the building s original roof lines and building form are predominant. Yes A stack enclosure for gas fireplace vent has been framed out on the rear addition. The vent is located on the back of the house below the roof ridge. The rear vent will be minimally visible from the public vantage.

10 A setback of at least one foot from the adjacent wall plane is strongly recommended. e. Design a dormer to be subordinate to the overall roof mass and in scale with those on similar historic structures. f. Install a new skylight to have a low profile. i. Do not install a bubble skylight, or other form that is not flat. j. Do not install a dormer or skylight on a front-facing roof plane. k. Do not visually overwhelm the original roof, particularly street-facing elevations, with dormers, skylights and other features. Guidelines for porches, decks and balconies: 2.37 Ensure that decks are compatible with the surrounding historic context. Maybe The applicant will be relocating the balcony from the west elevation to the rear elevation. The configuration will more closely match the original LPC approval, and will reduce the visibility of the balcony from the public vantage points. Intent Statements: 3a To maintain the general appearance of a historic structure, especially from key public vantage points, when building an addition 3b To minimize damage to the original structure and preserve character defining features when building an addition 3c To avoid adversely affecting the characterdefining features of a historic district when building an addition 3d To ensure that an addition relates to the fundamental characteristics of the block while also appearing as current construction Alterations to the approved plan set have had a significant visual impact on the historic structure. The main addition roof line is higher than the historic roof height by several feet, altering the overall roof form of the addition, causing the addition to overpower the historic home. The addition hyphen on the west St. Paul St. facing elevation is the same height as the historic roof line, and is not subordinate to the main historic house. The alteration from a flared roof eave on the rear addition gable is not in keeping with other forms found on the house. The applicant has added molding to the addition boxed eave returns as a means of helping them match the historic boxed eave return found on the front of the house, but the proportions for the eave returns are still larger than those found on the historic boxed eave return. Staff feel that these items cause the alterations to compete and

11 overwhelm the historic character of the house, and do not fit within the historic context of the neighborhood. 3.1 Locate an addition to be subordinate to the original structure. Both the main roof of the addition and the addition hyphen on the west (St. Paul) facing elevation are not subordinate in height to the main historic structure. These alterations from the residential plan set add visual weight to the rear addition, rather than allowing it to be subordinate to the main historic structure. Staff feel that steps should be taken to minimize the visual impact of alterations outside of the residential plan set scope of work. 3.2 Design an addition to a historic structure to respect the character-defining features of the historic district, the surrounding historic context, and the original primary structure. a. Design an addition to be compatible with the scale, massing and rhythm of the historic structure and context. The overall scale and massing of the addition coupled with the significant alterations to the approved roof forms, including the main addition roof height, hyphen roof height, rear addition gable roof form, and the boxed eave returns, cause the addition to compete with the historic home. Revisions to the height of the main addition roof line and the hyphen roof line, the rear addition gable roof form, and the boxed eave returns are necessary to make the addition more compatible with the existing house. 3.3 Design an addition to be recognized as current construction. c. Use simplified versions of building components and details found in the surrounding historic context. d. Do not design an addition to be an exact copy of the existing style or imply an earlier period or more ornate style than that of the original structure. e. Do not design an addition to contrast starkly with the original structure. At a minimum, an acceptable design should be neutral and not detract from the district s or structure s historic character While the addition is identifiable as new construction, the overall design of the addition roof forms, and rear addition gable roof form are not simplified forms that are subordinate to and compatible with the historic structure. The alterations to the approved design contrast with the historic structure rather than blending in.

12 3.6 Design windows, doors and other features on a new addition to be compatible with the original structure and surrounding historic context. a. Incorporate windows, doors and other openings at a ratio similar to those found on nearby historic structures. For additions with public visibility, doors and windows should have similar proportions and rhythms as windows on historic façades. b. When using contemporary window patterns and designs, ensure that they respect the typical historic character and proportions of windows on the primary structure and adjacent structures. c. Proportion building features, such as brackets and trim, to reflect those seen in the surrounding historic context Yes The proposed windows in the rear addition gable match the window configuration in the original LPC approved plan set. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a window configuration on the west addition gable that better blend with the historic character of the house. 3.7 Design the roof of a new addition to be compatible with the original structure and surrounding historic context. a. Use a roof form that is consistent with the original structure s roof form and those of structures in the surrounding historic context in terms of pitch, orientation, and complexity. An addition with a pitched roof is usually inappropriate for a structure with a flat roof. The main addition roof height is several feet taller than the historic roof height, making it compete with the original roof form. Additionally, the hyphen roof line is not subordinate to the main historic house, preventing the hyphen from clearly delineating the modern addition from the historic structure. The alterations to the approved roof form on the rear addition are not compatible with roof forms found on the historic structure and in the historic district. 3.9 Design an addition to a historic residential structure to be compatible with, but differentiated from, the existing structure. a. Use subtle changes in material, color, and/or wall plane, to differentiate an addition. b. Design an addition as a simplified version of the architectural style of the original structure, or in a compatible, contemporary style. c. Consider using a lower-scale connecting element to join an addition to a historic structure, particularly for large or two-story additions. The west elevation addition hyphen is not lower in scale to the historic structure, helping to add visual weight to the rear addition rather than allowing it to be subordinate to the historic home. The lack of subordination in the hyphen roof height, coupled with the height of the main addition roof prevent the addition from being subordinate to the main historic structure causing it to compete rather than being compatible with the historic structure.

13 5.6 Where they are part of the historic context, preserve and repair historic front yard and street facing fences, masonry site walls and retaining walls. a. Replace only those portions of an original fence, site wall or retaining wall that are deteriorated. b. Preserve the character of the original mortar joints when re-pointing an original masonry site wall or retaining wall. c. Preserve an original wire fence when it is a character defining-feature of the historic district (a new chain link fence is not allowed). The wall that was previously located along St. Paul Street was removed and replaced. 5.7 Add a new front yard or street-facing fence only where at least one of the following conditions is present: a. An open front yard is not a characterdefining feature of the historic property or district b. Historic or legally built fences or site walls are present on several properties in the surrounding context/block c. It is not possible to create a usable enclosed side or rear yard area Maybe The proposed wall that will run along St. Paul Street and E. 7 th Avenue will be minimal in height and constructed using salvage brick to match the house. The proposed wall will fit within the surrounding historic context. 5.8 Design a new front yard fence to minimize impacts on the historic context. a. Design a new front yard fence to be simple, open, and low (unless taller fences are typical of the historic district or surrounding historic context). The maximum front yard fence height should be 48 or less. b. Use compatible but simplified (less ornate) versions of historic fences and walls present in the historic district or in the surrounding historic context. c. Use historic fence and wall materials present in the historic district or in the surrounding historic context. Do not use vinyl or other nontraditional fence materials. d. Do not install a new chain link fence in the front yard (an existing chain link fence should be preserved when it is a character-defining feature of the district). e. Do not install opaque fencing of any kind. A fence should be more than 50% open. Maybe The proposed wall will be simple in design, low in height, and will use materials to match the historic brick on the house. Please note that the Parks Department sent an approval that will allow the wall to be constructed in the parkway setback on July 12, 2018.

14 5.9 Add a rear yard fence consistent with historical patterns of the property and surrounding historic district. a. Locate a rear yard fence to have minimal visibility from public view. b. Situate a rear or side yard fence return at least one foot behind the front corner of a historic house façade, and to be located behind important architectural features, such as bay windows and chimneys whenever possible. c. Use a rear and side yard fence type and materials traditionally found in the historic context, such as simple iron or wooden solid or open picket fence. Only use stone, brick, or a stuccoed wall if it corresponds with the historic property and surrounding historic context. d. Design new fences to have traditional height, style and design to blend with historic building and surrounding historic context. e. When installing a wooden fence, ensure that the pickets face to the exterior and the framing faces to the inside. f. Locate a rear yard fence along traditional lot lines. If a non-traditional fence, such as a dog run, is proposed, locate in a way as to be concealed from public view. Yes The applicant will be reusing a 6 wood palisade fence that was previously located on the east side of the house behind the front façade. Recommendation: Conditions: Approval with Conditions That the main addition roof line be the same height as the historic roof line, That the hyphen roof height be lower than the historic roof height, That the flared roof be maintained on the rear gable roof on the addition, That the boxed eave return proportions match the proportions of the historic boxed eave return, or that the eaves be enclosed with no boxed return. Basis: The applicant has made several adjustments to the overall design of the plan to make it fit with the approved residential plan set and the original LPC approval. After close review of drawings A5.0, A8.0, A9.0, S1.0, S2.1, S3.0, S3.1, and S4.0 in the approved residential plan set, Staff feels that the main addition roof height should tie directly into the historic roof line rather than extending above it. Review of the as built hyphen shows that the hyphen roofline could be dropped below the historic roofline, helping to clearly delineate the addition from the historic house and allowing the addition to appear subordinate to the main house on the west elevation.

15 Staff feel that the use of a flared roof form on the rear addition gable is more appropriate, and in keeping with the residential and LPC plan sets. Additionally, the applicant has added molding to the boxed eave returns for the house to help it better match the historic boxed eave return on the front of the house. Staff feel that the proportions are still inaccurate, and that the boxed eave returns should replicate the proportions of the historic boxed eave return or that enclosed rafters should be used on the addition and dormer rooflines. Staff recommends conditional approval per guidelines 2.24, 2.37, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, and Intent Statements 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3.d. Suggested Motion: I move to approve application #2018-COA-249 for the replacement of the roof tile, replacement of the original door, replacement of the entrance alcove brick, replacement of the windows, the addition of basement and egress windows, the addition of a rear fireplace vent, modifications to the east kitchen window, modifications to the rear addition, modifications to the addition balcony, modifications to the dormer additions, installation of a brick wall and wood fence, and request of a variance to the Board of Adjustment for the balcony in the rear 35% of the zone lot at 3101 E. 7 th Avenue as per guidelines 2.24, 2.37, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, Intent Statements 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, Section C of the Denver Zoning Code, presented testimony, submitted documentation and information provided in the staff report with the condition that the main addition roof height be the same height as the historic roof, that the west hyphen roof height be lower than the historic roof height, that the rear addition gable roof eave be flared, and that the proposed eave returns match the historic eave return or be enclosed rafters. Sanborn Map 1929 with 3101 E. 7 th Ave. outlined in black.