My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 02 22
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 02 22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2021 2:45:16 PM
Creation date
10/19/2021 8:00:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
2/22/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
10/19/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />22 February 2021 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />Stephen Barsch, 743 West 6th Avenue in Denver, stated that he was the designer and he <br />explained that the existing addition occupied more footprint than the proposed addition and that <br />there had been a lot of effort to reduce the footprint and maintain some outdoor living space. <br />Dunlap stated that he was sure the applicant had looked at the window costs but he wanted to <br />make the point that insulating windows were probably a good thing for the energy use of the <br />city. <br />Barsch stated that he thought there would be an effort to make these windows true replicas. He <br />agreed that energy conservation needed to be a consideration. <br />Haley asked if they had looked into repairing the windows. <br />Barsch said that he thought the owners had but that the wood was dilapidated. <br />Haley stated that it might be good for the Commission to know the difference between repairing <br />and replicating windows and adding energy efficiency. <br />Dunlap asked about the Public Works letter regarding the driveway. <br />Zuccaro replied that the driveway was intended to be an alley -access and by policy the City <br />limits driveway cuts onto Pine Street. Any time a property had access to an alley and did not <br />have historic access to Pine the policy was to promote alley access. <br />Barsch added that there was a five-foot landscape strip between the garage and Pine Street. <br />Dunlap noted that it was a paved alley which was uncommon for Old Town. <br />Haley asked for public comments. Seeing none, she opened discussion. She stated that she <br />thought landmarking was obvious based on the criteria. Haley asked for further discussion on <br />landmark eligibility. Seeing none, she asked for comments about the alteration certificate. <br />Dunlap stated that the combination of stucco finish and the setbacks differentiated the new <br />section. He asked if the stucco would be the same color as the original structure. <br />Barsch stated that they might be slightly different shades but they would be complementary and <br />not contrasting. <br />Haley said that color was not a major aspect of differentiation because it could be changed <br />easily. <br />Haley stated that she thought it was reasonable to demolish the existing addition. She asked for <br />the date the addition had been built. <br />Zuccaro stated that he thought it was 1946. <br />Barsch stated that there were several additions including some in the 1970s. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.