Agenda Date: January 18, 2017
Subject:
Title
Resolution to approve a COA Application for the Culp Block, 2420 West Main Street
Body
|
Presented By: |
Dennis Swain, Senior Planner |
BACKGROUND:
On July 18, 2016, the historical preservation board approved a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness (COA) for the replacement, reconstruction, and alteration of the front and rear facades of the portion of the Culp Block formerly occupied by Jose’s Restaurant.
During construction, Bristlecone Construction, the owner and contractor for the project, discovered structural and functional issues that would not accommodate several details of the approved design of the facade. As the issues were discovered and alternatives discussed, Todd Donati, the owners’ representative for Bristlecone, shared the information with Dennis Swain of the Community Development Department. The proposed changes appear to be necessary, appear to be the best and most reasonable solutions for maintaining the integrity of the approved design, and are consistent with the adopted design guidelines.
Because the construction process was on a short time frame, the cumulative effect of the as-built revisions warrant board review, and the COA review process could not be completed in time to meet that short construction time frame, the city issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO). The TCO will be converted to a permanent Certificate of Occupancy (CO) if the board approves a COA that reflects the as-built conditions.
City code does not have a provision for amending an approved COA. As a result, the project is being reviewed as a new COA, although the review is focusing only on the changes made to the design approved by the July 18, 2016, COA.
As construction progressed and more structural information surfaced, four revisions were made to the approved design.
1) The approved design for the front façade incorporated a recently uncovered steel beam that was thought to be original to the building. However, during demolition it was found that the steel beam did not extend up to the front face of the existing parapet wall. Instead, it extended only to the bottom lintel that was holding up the parapet wall. Because of this, the steel beam could not be exposed without detrimentally altering the existing building and forcing the front facade to be rebuilt from the ground up. Mr. Swain asked Mr. Donati if a new steel beam or a metal plate or other facsimile of a steel beam could be installed to create the look of a steel beam header. While Mr. Donati answered that a facsimile could be installed, the installation promised to create more inconsistencies than it resolved, would not be or look original, and did not justify the expense. As a result, the contractor changed the design of the front facade so that the brick now extends down to the top of the metal framing of the new storefront.
2) The approved design for the front façade showed a new column being added between the front doors for structural support. After demolition of the non-historic storefront, the contractor found that the existing structure was appropriately supported and the new column was not required. It appears that not adding a new column is consistent with the historic design of the front facade, which had a wide opening, as shown in the attached photograph.
3) In the approved design of the front façade, the size and location of the horizontal mullions in the glass folding walls (doors) matched those in the aluminum and glass storefront windows. The approved dimensions were altered slightly to accommodate the differences in the location and size of the recently uncovered steel beam. To accommodate this difference, the height of the horizontal mullions of the glass folding walls and the glass and aluminum storefront are different from one another, as shown in the attached as-built photographs.
4) The design of the screen wall separating the rear patio from the adjoining parking and alley remains as it was approved except that the roll-up door was replaced by two hinged wood doors. The existing location of overhead power lines and of a gas meter for the building to the east prohibited building the steel screen wall with sufficient support for a metal roll-up door. Keeping with the design intent, the contractor added detail over the door area and created two hinged wood access doors.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Per Section 4-6-14 (C), the historical preservation board shall issue a COA for any proposed work on a historic landmark or any property in a historic district when the following criteria are met:
CRITERION 1:
The proposed work would not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape feature which contributes to its original historic designation.
The front and rear facades that were approved for demolition by the July 18, 2016, COA were non-historic. The approved new front façade took direction from the original features of the historic architecture of the building. As a result, none of recent changes made to the approved design either destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape features, which contribute to the historic designation of the Culp Block.
This criterion is met.
CRITERION 2:
Is otherwise in conformance with any applicable adopted design guidelines.
NOTE: Because 2420 West Main Street has already obtained contributing status, the applicable design guidelines for the as-built revisions are the Downtown Littleton Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
COMMERCIAL FACADES AND STOREFRONTS
3.2 Repair an altered storefront to its original design.
• Use historic photographs to determine the original character.
• If evidence of the original design is missing, a simplified interpretation of similar storefronts may be used. (See the following diagram.)
3.3 A contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront may be considered.
• Where the original storefront is missing and no evidence of its character exists, a new design that uses the traditional elements may be appropriate.
• The new design should convey the basic character of typical storefronts in the area.
• The storefront system should be in proportion to the building, with storefront components appropriately proportioned to one another.
The as-built revisions to the design are a combination of 3.1 and 3.2 - a simplified/contemporary interpretation of a traditional storefront. This design approach is consistent with that of the approved COA. The design offers a simplified, contemporary interpretation of the elements of the Culp Block’s historic storefront. The attached historic photograph demonstrates the size, orientation, and placement of the original storefront elements for which a contemporary interpretation is provided, including the kick plate, cornice, parapet, transom, windows, doors, and building materials.
This criterion is met.
CRITERION 3:
The proposed work is visually compatible with designated historic structures located on the property in terms of design, finish, materials, scale, mass and height.
While there are no other designated historic structures located on the property, the design, finishes, materials and scale of the as-built revisions are compatible with those of the original historic building.
This criterion is met.
CRITERION 4:
When the subject site is within a historic district, the board must find that the proposed work is visually compatible with the development on adjacent properties.
The as-built revisions are visually compatible with the development on adjacent properties and enhance the Main Street Historic District.
This criterion is met.
CRITERION 5:
In the case of partial demolitions, the board must find that the:
a. Partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure and
b. Impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the structure/s located on the property have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
The July 18, 2016, COA approved demolition of the front façade and partial demolition of the rear façade No additional demolition was completed with the as-built revisions.
This criterion is met.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of HPB Resolution 01-2017, approving a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness for the Culp Building at 2420 West Main Street.
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
Proposed Motion
The historical preservation board may take any of the following actions on the Resolution: approve; approve with conditions; continue to a date certain; or deny. A sample motion is provided for each option.
MOTION TO APPROVE AND/IF NECESSARY, WITH CONDITIONS
I move to APPROVE HPB Resolution 01-2017, approving the Certificate of Historic Appropriateness for the Culp Building at 2420 West Main Street, [with the following condition(s):]
Note: If conditions are necessary, include them here:
1.
2.
The foregoing approval is based on the findings that, [with the above conditions,] the proposed work:
(1) does not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape feature which contributes to the original historic designation;
(2) is in conformance with the Littleton Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines;
(3) is visually compatible with designated historic structures located on the property in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass and height;
(4) is visually compatible with the development on adjacent properties;
(5a) was required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and
(5b) the impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the structure/s located on the property have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN
I move to continue the public hearing on HPB Resolution 01-2017, concerning the certificate of historic appropriateness for the Culp Building at 2420 West Main Street, to __________ (insert date) in order to_____________________.
MOTION TO DENY
I move to DENY HPB Resolution 01-2017, concerning the Certificate of Historic Appropriateness for the Culp Building at 2420 West Main Street. The foregoing denial is based on the findings that the proposed work:
Note: Identify criterion or criteria not met and adjust motion accordingly:
(1) does not [does] detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any architectural or landscape feature which contributes to the original historic designation;
(2) is [is not] in conformance with the Littleton Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines;
(3) is [is not] visually compatible with designated historic structures located on the property in terms of design, finish, material, scale, mass and height;
(4) is [is not] visually compatible with the development on adjacent properties;
(5a) was [was not] required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and
(5b) the impacts on the historic importance and architectural integrity of the structure/s located on the property have [have not] been mitigated to the greatest extent possible.