Community Planning and Development Denver Landmark Preservation

201 West Colfax, Dept. 205 Denver, CO 80202

p: 720.865.2709 f: 720.865.3050

www.denvergov.org/preservation

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 www.denvergov.org/preservation

Project: #2020-COA-440 LPC Meeting: January 5, 2021 Address: 101 Race Street Staff: Brittany Bryant Historic Dist/DLM: Country Club Year structure built: N/A – vacant lot (Design Guidelines Period of Significance: 1902-1945) Council District: # 10 – Chris Hinds Applicant: Chalet Past LPC Action: Meeting Date: October 06, 2020 Description: Zone Lot Amendment Motion by G. Johnson: I move to approve the consent agenda items including 101 & 161 Race Street – Country Club, 1437 Bannock St – Civic Center, 3332 Alcott St.- Potter Highlands, 121 Lafayette St.- Country Club, 130 W 1st Ave, 126 Archer Pl and 1928 E 14th Ave. Second: G. Petri Vote: unanimous in favor (7-0-0), motion passes Meeting Date: November 3, 2020 Description: Infill, Phase I: Mass, Form & Context Motion by B. Gassman: I move to approve application #2020-COA-348 for the new infill construction Phase I: Mass, Form, & Context review at 101 Race Street, as per County Club design guidelines B1-B6, D1-D5, F1, F3 and Denver Landmark Design Guidelines 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.8, character-defining features for the Country Club historic district, presented testimony, submitted documentation and information provided in the staff report. Second: G. Johnson Vote: unanimous in favor (8-0-0), motion passes

Project Scope Under Review: Infill Construction, Phase II: Design Details Footprint: 121’-6” X 58’-7” Height: 29’-11”

Materials:

Foundation: Concrete

Roofing: Ludowici clay Spanish barrel tile, 18” profile in a mix of “burgundy” and “red”

Cladding: Laharbra cementitious stucco in ”Dove Gray” with a Barbara mission finish noted in elevation

Belt Course and Window Sills: Laharbra cementitious stucco in ”Dove Gray” with a Barbara mission finish

Windows: Aluminum clad wood, casement, awning and fixed windows with simulated divided lights with spacer bar, in “hemlock” with Low-e glazing.

Front Door: Douglas fir Secondary Doors: Aluminum clad wood with simulated divided lights

Garage Door: Ankar Park Hill Collection, Heritage Garage door, cedar

Chimney Caps: Clay Chimney pots, to match stucco color

Front Door Surrond: Cast stone by Creekside, “75% grey and 25% buff” color mix

Rear Patio Doors; Steel doors painted to match the aluminum clad widows and doors

Arcade Columns: Cast stone by Creekside, “75% grey and 25% buff” color mix

Rafters, Fascia, Porch supports & North enclosed patio shutters: Cedar

Front Door Light Fixture: Bevolo French Quarter Yoke Hanger in “Copper”

Garage Light Fixtures: Bevolo French Quarter Hanging chain in “Copper”

Tertiary Fixtures: Bevolo Contemporary Series modernist flush mount sconce in “Copper”

Steps and Porch foundation: Mortared red flagstone, no material sample/photograph provided

Patios & Walkways: Unknown, noted as mortared red flagstone in landscape plan and Oklahoma grey in floor plan no material sample/photograph provided

Site walls: Stucco with stone caps, no detail elevation provided

Driveway: Concrete Fountain: Tiered Concrete, no detail drawing provided Egress Wells: Unknown Outdoor Kitchen: Unknown

Staff Summary: The applicant, Chalet, is requesting approval to construct a new 2-story, single family residence with attached garage on a vacant lot within the Country Club Historic District. The existing vacant lot was vacant lot during the district’s period of significance and no historic structures were demolished on the site. The new infill development will feature a mostly rectangular footprint, with some variations in massing to provide visual interest, with a gable roof form. The proposed building is inspired by the Mediterranean Style development within the district. An attached garage will be accessed via a new curb cut on Race Street. The 3-bay garage will face East 1st Avenue and will be screened by an existing site wall along East 1st Ave. The proposed single-family development will have a concrete foundation. The building will be clad in stucco on all elevations. A mixed burgundy and red clay tile roof is proposed. Windows and doors will be aluminum clad wood. Windows will have a casement operation with simulated divided lights with a spacer bar. On page A-032 the windows and doors are noted to be inset 3 5/8” from the face of the wall finish. Mechanical units and associated venting and penetrations will be located at the rear of the property and on secondary elevations. Three light fixtures are proposed, a lantern style fixture at the primary entrance and at the garage, and a sconce style fixture elsewhere. Staff do have concerns over the clarity of the application materials the following issues were noted by staff:

• The landscape plan and site plan does not convey the same level of information. • In elevation, all fixtures are shown as a lantern style. The correct style light fixture should be shown and

its attachment detail. • On page A-101, the covered patio at the rear is noted as “Garage slab on grade above.” • On page A-201, there are two overlapping keynotes pointing to the door, they appear to be E-08: Douglas

Fir and E-01 for a sconce. This notation should be made legible and identify the correct element. • On page A-201, a vertical dimension overlaps two material keynotes for a window. • On page A-2020 elements that may be associated with an outdoor kitchen are shown in elevation, but no

other details are provided in plan elsewhere. • On page A-203 there are two overlapping keynotes pointing to a light fixture, they appear to for E-16, the

sconce style fixture. • On page A-351, many of the detail exterior sections note, “brick exterior,” however Staff believe a stucco

exterior is proposed. • The elevation tags note a LaHabra plaster cementitious stucco, however, a manufacture specification for

Parex USA Stucco Assemblies was provided. A genuine 3-coat stucco is required. • The patterning of the two color roof tiles has not been provided. • Details on basement egress window and window wells have not been provided and are shown in different

locations on the site plan and landscape plan.

Site work is to include a new front walkway, crushed gravel paths, a concrete driveway, a new tired concrete fountain, flagstone patios, new stucco walls, and increasing the height of the existing site wall on the south side of the site. A landscape plan has been provided, however, no materials have been provided, no dimensions provided, and no detail elevations of the raised elements have been provided including:

• Detail elevation showing the existing and proposed on the height increase on existing site wall on the south side of the site.

• A detail elevation showing the height and dimensions of the proposed tired concrete foundation. • Footprint dimensions of the proposed flagstone patios. • Detail elevations showing the height and design of all new site walls.

All hardscape elements on the site require a zoning permit and review from Denver Landmark Preservation, details on these items must be provided. At this time staff is recommending denial of the application due to lack in clarity in application materials, not over Design Details concerns. Due to the four week filing deadline that is at noon, if the Commission denies the application, the earliest the applicant could return for Commission review would be February 16, 2021. If the Commission continues the application to a date certain, the earliest to application could return would February 2, 2021. Excerpted from Design Guidelines for Country Club Historic District, May 1995 Guideline Meets Guideline? Comments B1. The front setback of a new structure should be in line with the median setback of historic properties on the block. Setbacks of 20 feet to 30 feet or more are typical and are appropriate for new construction and additions. a. In general, larger, taller structures and taller portions of structures should be set back farther from the front than smaller structures.

b. New structures should be sited to meet or exceed the median setback on the block face, not the structures with the least setback.

Yes

The proposed setback will be 54’. The adjacent structure to the north is setback 34 feet, however, the existing structure and proposed structure will be separated by is 105’ feet. The infill proposal is a tall structure and is therefore setback farther from the street than a smaller structure. Proposed setback is more than 30 feet and exceeds the median setback on the block. Setback on High street are, within the 61’-23’ range. A variety of setbacks is common within Country Club

B2. Side yard setback of a new structure of an addition should appear similar to those seen traditional in the block. In most of the district (Park Club Place excepted) lot sizes, and therefore side setbacks, vary considerably… Elsewhere, the width varies from 75 feet to a quarter block or more. In these areas, the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet may not be adequate to reinforce the district’s spacious character.

Yes

Although the proposed infill in 121’-6” by 58’-7” it sits on a 30,330 square foot zone lot with 168.69 feet of frontage along the street. The side yard setback from East 1st Ave will be 44’. The interior lot side yard setback is 27’ feet, 25 feet of which is a no build buffer zone. There is 105 feet between the proposed structure and the existing historic structure to the north. The placement of the structure on the lot maintains a sense of board side yard and

a. Maintaining the sense of broad side yards is important to the character of the district. Additions and infill structures should be designed to maintain the perception of spaciousness by varying the setback of the structure along the side and varying the height of the structure.

spaciousness that is typical of development within the Country Club Historic District.

B3. Maintain the traditional lot coverage ratio of the neighborhood. a. Maintain the sense of spaciousness seen traditionally in the neighborhood by retaining significant portions of the site as open space.

b. Historically, lot coverage ratios ranged from 18 to 30 percent, and FAR from .20 to .40. A lot coverage of less than 30 percent is recommended; although zoning allows 50 percent lot coverage. Over 30 percent lot coverage disrupts the character of the district by allowing FARs that approach 1.0.

Yes

The Country Club Design Guidelines describe this portion of the district as “large houses on large lots.” The proposed infill will have a total lot coverage of 17%. The proposed structure is very large, 5,233 square feet on a 30,330 square foot lot. The development pattern is similar to the historic structure to the north, 161 Race Street.

B4. Garages and other secondary structures should remain subordinate to the primary structure. a. Locating a secondary structure in the rear of the property is preferred.

b. A detached structure is also preferred.

Whether attached or detached, a garage should be clearly subordinate to the primary structure and set back from the primary facade of the house.

Yes

The new garage will be located at the side of the property. The garage is subordinate in height and massing to the primary structure. The doors of the garage have been oriented toward the secondary street frontage The garage is attached, the east wall of the garage is setback 14’-9” from the primary façade of the house. Proposed garage is subordinate to the primary structure in height, massing, and placement on the site. The garage have been oriented to minimize its visibility from the public right of way.

B5. Driveways should be visually subordinate in the site design. a. Provide auto access from an alley, when feasible, to eliminate the need for curb cut and driveway.

b. Where a driveway is needed, minimize the visual impact of a curb cut. Only one curb cut per property should be allowed

Yes

The proposal include a new curb cut on Race Street. The applicant has consulted with DOTI on the placement of the curb cut and driveway. There is no alley access on this block of Race Street and curb cuts are common. The proposed driveway is 13’ wide with a curb cut of 23’.

and any curb cut should be a narrow as possible.

c. Minimize the amount of hard-surface driveway that is seen in the front yard.

The driveway will be concrete.

B6. Provide a walk to the building entry from the public sidewalk. a. The sidewalk should be distinct from a driveway.

b. Concrete is the dominant material; however, other materials, including brick, stone, or modular pavers also are appropriate.

Yes/No

A walkway from the sidewalk is provided. The landscape plan indicates the walkway will be an irregular rounded mortared red flagstone. In site plan and floor plan a irregular rectangular pattern is shown. It does appear to be different materials that will make the sidewalk distinct from the driveway, however the discrepancies in the landscape plan, site plan and floor plan need to be addressed to definitively confirm.

C4. Masonry materials are appropriate for paving. A. Varity in paving materials in appropriate. Concrete is the dominant material; brick, sandstone, and modular concrete pavers also are appropriate.

No

The landscape plan indicates the walkway, patios, stairs, and porch foundation will be an irregular rounded mortared red flagstone. In site plan and floor plan an irregular pattern grey flagstone is shown. Discrepancies in the landscape plan, site plan and floor plan need to be addressed to definitively confirm site materials

D1. A new building should appear similar in mass to contributing structure in the district. a. Historically, most building ranged from 1.5 to 2 stores with 20 to 30 percent lot coverage. A new building should fit within this range.

b. The primary ridge line of a structure rarely exceeds 40 feet in width.

c. A single plane in the front façade rarely exceeds 50 feet in width. In many cases the broad side of a house faces the street.

Yes

The proposed infill development will be 2-stories in height. The proposal will have 17% lot coverage, however the existing zone lot is very large and the development pattern is similar to the historic structure to the north, 161 Race Street. The broad side of the house faces the street. The primary ridge line is 59’-6 ¾” in width. This massing is broken down by two projecting forward facing gable masses. A single plane does not exceed 50’, although the primary ridge is over 40’. The proposed massing is very similar to 222 Gaylord St, 2220 E 4th Ave, and 380 N High Street – all contributing structure to the Country Club Historic District with Mediterranean Style architecture. Therefore staff do not feel that the proposed primary ridge exceeding 40’ in width negatively impacts the surrounding historic context.

D2. A new building should appear similar in scale to those seen historically in the neighborhood. a. Front facades should appear similar in height to those seen historically in the block.

b. Taller portions should be set back farther on the lot.

b. Story heights should appear similar to those seen historically

d. Architectural details should be used to give a sense of scale.

Yes

The proposal is for a 2-story structure. A max height of 29’-11” in proposed. The height and proportions are typical of the surrounding historic context Decorative banding will be used to break up the massing between the first and second floor. The placement of this detail is consistent with Mediterranean Style architecture.

D3. A new building should have a simple rectangular form as its basic shape. a. In most cases, the primary form for the house was a single rectangular volume. In some styles, smaller, subordinates masses were attached to this primary form.

b. Exotic building forms are inappropriate. Domed or A-frame, for example, would be out of character.

Yes

A rectangular building form is proposed. An exotic building form is not proposed. The overall massing is a simple rectangular with smaller subordinate rectangular masses.

D4. A new roof should appear similar in form to those of typical historic houses. a. Pitched roofs, either hip or gable, are preferred.

b. Slopes should be within the range of those used historically, about 6/12.

Yes

A gable roof pitch is proposed. The slope will match those of similar Mediterranean Style structures within the district.

D.5 A new roof should appear similar in scale to those of typical houses seen in the block. a. In general, a ridge line should not exceed 40 feet.

b. Roof planes should be broken up with dormers and chimneys

Yes

The primary ridge line is 59’-6 ¾” in width. This massing is broken down by two projecting forward facing gable masses and chimneys. The proposed massing is very similar to 222 Gaylord St, 2220 E 4th Ave, and 380 N High Street – all contributing structure to the Country Club Historic District with Mediterranean Style architecture. Therefore staff do not feel that the proposed primary

ridge exceeding 40’ in width negatively impacts the surrounding historic context.

E1. Building materials should appear similar to those used historically. Creative use of traditional materials are encouraged in new construction. c. Stucco should appear similar to that used historically. Using panelized products in a manners that reveals large panel module is inappropriate.

d. Wood is appropriate as a secondary material for details and trim such as shingles and half-timber.

Yes/No

Stucco is proposed for the primary cladding material. The stucco will have a smooth finish typical of stucco within the district. Stucco must be a genuine three coat system. The elevation notes a cementitious stucco. However a manufacture specification for a Parex USA Stucco Assemblies was provided. Parax products vary from three coat systems to one coat systems. It is unclear to staff what the proposed application of the stucco will be. Wood will be used as an accent material.

E2 Use roof materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. a. Slate, asphalt, and tile are appropriate. Other materials such as metal shingles and concrete tiles may be appropriate if they convey a scale and texture similar to mateirals employed historically.

c. Colors should be muted; the overall texture of a roof should be uniform and consistent thoughout.

Yes/No

A clay barrel tile is proposed. This is a traditional roofing material for the Mediterranean Revival style. Two tile colors are proposed. Staff are concerned about how the color will vary and what the dominant roof color will be. Colors are to be muted and overall texture should be uniform.

F1. Clearly define the primary entrance to the house. a. Use a porch, stoop, portico or similar one-story feature to indicate the entry.

b. Orienting the entry to the street is preferred.

Yes

A one-story articulated cast stone door surround in s proposed to define the primary entrance. Primary entrance is oriented towards the street.

F3. Windows should appear similar in basic character to those seen traditionally. a. Windows that appear “punched” into the wall surface are appropriate.

b. Windows frames and sashes should have substantial depth.

c. Windows that are vertically proportioned are preferred.

d. To achieve larger areas of glass, group standard windows together.

Yes

Windows will be punched in to the wall plane. The majority of windows will be a casement style window. Windows will have simulated divided lights with a spacer bar to create shadow lines. Windows will be aluminum clad with low-e glass. Windows are vertically proportioned. Windows will be square and arched, typical types within the Country Club Historic District. Grouped and single windows are proposed.

Excerpted from Design Guidelines for Denver Landmark Structures and Districts, January 2016 Guideline Meets Guideline? Comments 4.6 Use materials that appear similar in scale, color, texture, and finish to those seen historically in the district. a. Masonry materials such as brick, stone and genuine stucco are appropriate in most districts.

c. New materials that convey characteristics similar to historic materials may be considered if they have a similar appearance, size, and shape to traditional materials.

d. Use a simple combination of materials when this is characteristic of the district.

e. Avoid using a wide range of building materials when building in the surrounding historic context use a simple combination of materials.

Yes/No

Stucco will be the primary cladding material. A genuine 3-coat stucco is required. The elevation notes a cementitious stucco. However a manufacture specification for a Parex USA Stucco Assemblies was provided. Parax products vary from three coat systems to one coat systems. It is unclear to staff what the proposed application of the stucco will be. The proposed window well material has not been noted in plan. A simple combination of materials is proposed.

4.8 Design windows, doors and other features to be compatible with the original primary structure and historic context. a. Incorporate windows, doors and other openings at a ratio similar to those found on nearby historic structures. New construction with public visibility should incorporate doors and windows with similar proportions to those in the surrounding historic context.

b. When using contemporary window patterns and designs, ensure they respect the character and proportions of windows in the surrounding historic context.

c. Maintain the typical historic placement of window headers and sills relative to cornices and belt courses.

d. Use door widths, heights, and materials that are similar to doors on historic buildings in the surrounding historic context.

Yes/No

Windows will have sill, divided lights, and will be inset into the wall plane. Windows are vertically proportioned. Windows will be square and arched, typical types within the Country Club Historic District. Grouped and single windows are proposed. Proposed glazing is low e-glass. A steel door is proposed on the rear elevation. Two egress wells are proposed. Details on the egress windows and wells have not been provided. The workout room egress is shown in a different locations on the landscape plan than is in site and floor plans. In site and floor plan, this egress is on the front façade. On the landscape plan it appears to be placed where a chimney is proposed. Egress on the front façade is typically to be avoided and typically only considered by the Commission if there are not other options.

e. Use a simplified configurations of historic doors rather than replicating a historic door exactly.

f. Use clear or near clear low-e glass in windows. 5.3 Plan new site and landscape features to respect the character-defining features of the historic district…

Yes/No

A concrete fountain is proposed in the rear yard. Details on the fountain dimension or design have not been provided.

5.9 Add rear yard fence consistent with historical patterns of the property and surrounding historic district. a. Locate a rear yard 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 material traditionally found in the historic context…

d. Design new fences to have traditional height, style and design to blend with historic building and surrounding context.

Yes/No

An existing site wall, screening the site from East 1st Ave will be modified to have a greater height. The height of the existing wall and proposed wall height has not been provided. Per zoning, all fencing over 6 feet in height is overheight. Overheight walls are common within Country Club, however, details on the request must be provided. Site walls are proposed at the rear These are noted at 36” in height. The landscape plan notes they will be stucco with a cap. A detail of all fencing/site wall must be provided.

5.16 Site and access service areas and ground-mounted mechanical equipment to minimize impacts on the historic streetscape and disruption of the pedestrian environment. a. Locate service areas and ground-mounted mechanical equipment to the side or rear of buildings.

Yes

Mechanical and associated equipment is located on secondary elevations.

5.21 Design lighting to be compatible and subordinate to historic buildings and the surrounding historic context. d. Design and orient new light fixtures to provide down-lighting.

Yes/No

Lighting will be located at the ground floor, adjacent to the front door, the patio door, the rear door, and garage man door. Lighting will be down-lighting. It is not clear to staff how fixture E-15 will attach to the wall.

All fixtures design should be accurately shown in elevation.

Recommendation: Denial Basis: Proposed Design Detail application lacks clarity.

Suggested Motion: I move to DENY application #2020-COA-440 for the new infill construction Phase II:

Design Detail review at 101 Race Street, as per County Club design guidelines B6, C4, E1, E2 and Denver

Landmark Design Guidelines 4.6, 4.8, 5.3, 5.9, and 5.21 character-defining features for the Country Club

historic district, presented testimony, submitted documentation and information provided in the staff report.

Alternative Motion: I move to CONTINUE application #2020-COA-440 for the new infill construction Phase II:

Design Detail review at 101 Race Street to February 2, 2021, as per presented testimony, submitted

documentation and information provided in the staff report.

Country Club Historic District with 101 Race Street outlined in red

1929 (corrected 1937) Sanborn Map with 101 Race Street outlined in red

END

STAFF BRIEF