Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190626 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Bob Blaich, Scott Kendrick, Jeffrey Halferty, Gretchen Greenwood. Absent were Nora Berko, Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone and Richard Lai. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve the minutes from June 12, Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Blaich said incase people missed it, Rowland & Broughton put an announcement on Linked In about the HPC awards. if anyone wants to look at it, he will have it. He said they posted a picture of him presenting. Mr. Halferty asked about the sidewalk in front of Kemosabe. He is good with the hitching post, etc., but asked how the paving works and what is the position of staff on this. Ms. Simon said she reached out to engineering and expressed interest in a standardized pattern. They weren’t in agreement and HPC doesn’t have purview over this. We are looking for a certain cohesiveness. Ms. Greenwood said it’s a little late. She thinks it’s kind of cute. She watched the whole process and it was noisy. She’s tired of this because it’s an unbearable amount of noise. Ms. Simon said she will make a note to talk policy. We did have issue with a granite sidewalk in front of the Jerome years ago, so it would be good to have a clearer opinion about it. Mr. Moyer mentioned that the speakers have yet to be changed at Clark’s. Ms. Simon said they are aware and will follow up with them. Ms. Greenwood said the dilapidation on Main Street by Ted Guy is unacceptable. To see the building be a slum is just not ok. Ms. Simon said it has been vacated and the building permit is moving towards issuance and they will be demolishing it soon. Mr. Moyer asked about the Main Street Bakery. Ms. Simon said there was a change in ownership and the new application is in to complete the basement and add some square footage and redo the courtyard space. You’ll be seeing this in August. Mr. Halferty said he wants to commend the board on the White House Tavern grass because it looks really nice. He thinks it’s really well done. DISCLOSURES: None. PROJECT MONITORING: 232 E. Main Amy Simon 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 Ms. Simon said this is for the replacement of the Conner gas station next to Carl’s. She had concerns with some changes that haven’t been reviewed by HPC or the project monitor. They have pulled back on some things, but we already had the ball in motion to come speak to the board and Chris Bendon will give details on all of this. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon showed an image on screen of the approval. He explained and described all of the changes to the ground floor. There will be two tenants in the building, the floor level has been raised, a mechanical room has been relocated, the doors on Main St. are operable, the roof eave is thicker. The changes to the second floor include an outdoor terrace where there was a flat roof. It will be difficult to see from Main Street. There is a new dormer that would convert the entrance to that level. On Monarch Street, the head height to the windows has been reduced by about 4 inches to accommodate floor thicknesses, the access overrun and the entrance to the second tenant space and retractable awning. Along the alley, you can see the new dormer that accesses the outdoor patio. The trash enclosure entrance has shifted slightly. Ms. Simon said that Mr. Halferty is the project monitor and the list was a little longer before but are now items that are off the table. Typically, this would have been something that she and Mr. Halferty would have reviewed and approved together. Mr. Blaich asked if the function has changed. Mr. Bendon said no, it’s still a 100% commercial building. He said it’s expected to be a bank in the larger space. We were hoping for a boutique deli/grocery type place and that could come around, but this is the current tenant planned. Ms. Greenwood said that is unfortunate and thinks it’s absurd to occupy that much space with a bank. It’s such a bizarre thing. She asked Ms. Simon what staff’s opinion is on the proposed changes. Ms. Simon the facia detail was to be thicker than what is being shown now and that was a concern, but the 3-inch difference is probably acceptable. She doesn’t think anyone will be able to see the dormer at all except maybe from the alley, so the overall form of the building seems to be unchanged from the public perspective. She said she doesn’t have any issues with the proposal. Mr. Moyer said he concurs with staff. Mr. Blaich said ditto. Mr. Halferty asked if there any changes to the approved landscape plan. Ms. Simon said that some of the changes are in the right of way, which aren’t really HPC’s concern. Mr. Bendon said they had to make some of the planters larger to accommodate the storm water runoff parameters on both sides. He showed on screen where the larger planter boxes will be. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to approve, Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Simon said there are no other project monitoring items. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said there will be no meeting on July 10th and we will see you next on July 24th. She wants to take a few moments to go over the new historic preservation ordinance that we briefly discussed in May. We can discuss this at the end of the meeting. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon said they issued one for some ground-floor window changes on the former Rustique space, which is a non-historic structure. CALL UPS: Ms. Simon said there was one Monday night for 135 E. Cooper and council did not ask to call it up. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said she has all necessary items. NEW BUSINESS: 105 E. Hallam Street Amy Simon Ms. Simon said this is for final review of a project that we saw back in April for conceptual. Final review focuses on landscape, lighting, fenestration and materials, for the most part. In general, this is consistent and there are just a few things to discuss. We are recommending approval, but there is a long list of conditions. Regarding landscaping, there is relatively little landscaping proposed for the site. The applicant is planning to lift the historic resource and dig a basement slightly bigger than the footprint and make some minor landscape improvements on the site. They are showing a gravel perimeter around the resource to make sure that no plants get too close. We have recommended that if this idea changes, HPC will need to review any larger intentions. The applicant is proposing the basement to extend slightly forward of the resource and had been working with parks on an air spading that was recently done to expose some of the roots of a cottonwood tree. Parks is asking that the basement be held back a little short of what was originally planned. Moving on to lighting, they are proposing several modest sconces and a pendant around the historic building. The lighting is shown the same on the resource and the addition, but she thinks maybe they should be different. On the topic of fenestration, both the historic house and the shed in the back, have all original windows. There is one window on the back of the historic home which will be removed. We would like HPC to have a discussion about that because normally, removing historic windows isn’t allowed. Either you can accept the proposal, or they could do a new door next to the existing window and compromise, but there should be a discussion on this topic. We also want to make sure on the new construction, that everyone is clear about how the new and old are distinguished to each other. They plan to meet this guideline through form and that was discussed at some length at HPC and will be using a gable roof. The materials have some relationship to the historic structure and the fenestration is quite different from the resource. We’ve made some suggestions that there isn’t enough of a checkmark in each of these boxes. There should be a discussion about another material, such as, brick be used to create a better relationship. There are very few brick Victorian’s in town, so we wouldn’t suggest a red brick, but maybe HPC can come up with something else. There is some deterioration of the brick on the historic home and the shed. We would like to see a preservation plan submitted for repairs. We will want to see physical samples of all exterior materials. We want representations of all exterior vents, lightwells and all are listed in the proposed resolution. This house is being lifted up and there is a 30,000 assurance and we’ve repeated the setback variations. The last thing is regarding the parking pad, but it’s not the dimension that meets the city’s minimums. The applicant is providing one space, so we need to know that you accept one space in this design. Ms. Greenwood asked if we did this at conceptual and Ms. Simon said no. Ms. Greenwood said this seems like a very long list to take care at final. Ms. Simon asked if they should assign this to staff and monitor to manage this list. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Seth Hmielowski and Melanie Noonan with Z Group Architects. Mr. Hmielowski showed the details of the fenestration and lighting plan on screen. Ms. Noonan walked the board through the existing and proposed plans. She showed where the cottonwood tree is located, which is to be removed. They will work with the parks department to build within their parameters. They showed the storm drainage plan and said it has been approved by the engineering department. Ms. Noonan showed the landscape plan and stated that it is fairly simple. They are planning for small and minimal plantings. We are looking at leaving the existing metal fence. They wanted to restore the porch exactly as they see it here. They showed pictures of an earlier porch from 1963 and 1980. We would like to have some discussion about how to restore the porch. We wouldn’t be opposed to going back to this original look, so the roof doesn’t sag. The detailing of the porch matches the edging of the facia. All of the details on the door would be kept and reused. Everything looks to be in good shape regarding the windows, but they are in desperate need of sanding and painting. Everything will be restored and reused. They showed the garage on screen and described the details. The idea is to move to a more natural wood siding, which has a lot of variation and texture to it because of the brick and mortar drawings. Mr. Hmielowski said they did look at putting brick on the addition, but it looked like a mistake and seemed a little strange. By having the two different sizes, it gives a little more texture. Ms. Noonan passed around some samples for the board to view. Ms. Simon said the roof will be greatly improved by going back to the historically accurate material. Also, they have not asked for a floor area bonus and they are currently under the allowed FAR but are going to restore the historic front porch. We have listed a lot of conditions of approval, but we have no real conflicts. The door leading to the back patio and the materials on the new addition are the only items which need discussion. Mr. Kendrick asked if they are planning to raise the house once it’s on the new foundation. Mr. Hmielowski said yes, we are raising the house. Mr. Moyer brought up removing the soffit for fire rating and replacing with drywall. There has to be a better solution than removing historic wood and replacing with something else. Ms. Noonan said this is just on the shed and not the house. Ms. Simon said they do have to meet the fire code. Mr. Moyer brought up the stucco wrap and asked if it is synthetic and Ms. Simon said yes, it’s not that old. Mr. Moyer asked if the spindles on top are the same diameter as the spindles below. Ms. Noonan said they are round and very decorative. Mr. Halferty asked what the method is for the brick. Ms. Simon said they will go underneath the brick and support it with a wood frame. We will see more detail with staff and monitor approval. Ms. Greenwood asked about roof penetrations. Ms. Noonan said there is only one on the roof that they are proposing for a new flue and showed them on screen. Ms. Simon because there is no floor area bonus requested, we can’t require them to restore the porch, so we are fortunate that they are willing to do this and work with the board on it. Ms. Greenwood said they are asking for variations. Ms. Simon said the criteria for setbacks has to do with neighborhood 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 context and impacts. Ms. Greenwood said she finds this to be incongruous with HPC’s role to not to see restoration done on these old buildings. Ms. Simon they are doing the restoration, however and Ms. Greenwood said she realizes this, but there is still a huge disconnect for her. PUBLIC COMMENT: Denise Deers Ms. Deers said the horse may already be out of the corral on this because she was layed up for three months. She resides in the alley in one of the carriage houses. She wants the board to realize the consequences of the decision they make regarding parking and for the setbacks on the rear lot line. She had to cancel physical therapy because the RFTA transit van couldn’t fit into the alley because of the three boxes that have been approved at the west end of the alley. Those people shovel into the alley and park their cards there. She has talked to parking and the police and working on it this summer with the fire department. We don’t enforce our own regulations. The problem with the 5-foot setback, is that even with a double garage, people still park their cars behind their house and stick out into the alley. We need to address the parking issues. The construction is also a huge problem because she got blocked in. This historically has a big puddle on Aspen and Hallam street and the city spent money to recreate the drainage to have the water flow from there down to a grate at Hallam and Garmisch. It’s a chronic problem all winter to get the water to flow and not back up into their basements. If you’re going to create more flow from this lot, what are we doing to increase the capacity on this storm drain. Mr. Hmielowski said they are improving the storm drain on the street. Ms. Greenwood closed the public comment. Ms. Greenwood said she wasn’t in favor of this project and didn’t vote for it. She thought it was premature. She’s not a fan of putting in double doors, she thinks it’s a floor plan issue that could have been solved in another way. Regarding the proposed wood siding on the historic resource, she doesn’t feel this project is ready. The linking to the historic resource is very clumsy on the east side. They are losing the form and she doesn’t think the materials enhance it. There should be more study on adding a compatible brick to the building versus having three different types of materials and the clunky black facia detail that doesn’t relate to the historic resource at all. There needs to be more information provided including penetrations. These projects should be more complete before they are brought to us for final review. Mr. Moyer said he is concurrence with Ms. Greenwood. He feels this needs to continue to another date. He doesn’t have an issue with the setbacks. Mr. Moyer said staff and monitor needs to be necessary for #1, #2 we can delete. Ms. Simon said there are a few examples of pendants in Aspen and the house has a pendant right now, which inspired this. Condition #5 is one of the sticklers with the window on the back. Condition #6 is regarding the materiality of the addition, condition #7, will see them present physical samples of what they’re proposing, condition #8, they have agreed to work on the restoration of the front porch. Condition #9, they talked about the den’s deck being installed on the eaves and this is being directed by the building department. Condition #10 is regarding them labeling their drawing. Mr. Moyer said #9 and #10, they can scratch out and Ms. Simon said yes. Condition #11, this has been completely vetted at this point. Ms. Greenwood said this should be provided before final. Condition #12, they will need to see 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 information on the vent locations and the rest of the conditions, are carrying forwards from conceptual and #15 is the boiler plate development order condition. Ms. Greenwood said they don’t have any problem with the setbacks. Mr. Kendrick said he does accept staff recommendation on form. The materials he does struggle with a little bit. Mr. Moyer said we have a connecting link, so we have a separation. Ms. Simon said we want this to be different. The most recent guidelines try to provide some parameters to it. This still allows a lot of room for coloring and creativity, so you have to feel they have come close enough. It is physically separated, and they have done that. Brick houses are very unique here and they shouldn’t do a red brick addition. Mr. Blaich verified that Ms. Greenwood doesn’t like the design. She said they should do something more creative with the brick. Mr. Blaich said he doesn’t have a problem with the brick as long as it doesn’t look like the original brick. Mr. Moyer said he agrees with Ms. Greenwood. Mr. Kendrick said he likes the design, he’s just having trouble envisioning it. Mr. Halferty said he thinks the project has been pretty well developed and the fact that they are under the FAR and restoring the historic porch, are great. Yes, there are variances granted, but he agrees with a lot of staff’s comments. He is in agreement with the rest of the board on the penetration in the courtyard and in the back. He is fine with staff and monitor making decisions on the materials. He doesn’t want this project to turn out like the Hotel Jerome. He feels this is a product of its own time and he is ok with staff and monitor on this. The only issue he has is the drainage, as the neighbor has stated. Ms. Simon said there is a larger neighborhood problem, so everyone is willing to work together on this. He is ok with the rest of the conditions, as far as approval. MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve resolution #13, series 2019 with the conditions indicated on the memo with #2, modification of #5 and review on #6, review on #7, Mr. Kendrick seconded. M r. Moyer made an amendment to have staff and monitor make a decision on condition #6 and bring it to the board for approval. Everyone is in agreement on this. Ms. Simon said there is one on-site parking space for this project, so we also need to add this condition, so Mr. Halferty added this amendment as well. Roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, no; Mr. Blaich, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Mr. Kendrick, yes. 3-2, motion carried. Mr. Halferty and Mr. Moyer are the project monitors. They will cover the code amendments at the next meeting. MOTION: Mr. Kendrick motioned to adjourn, Mr. Blaich seconded. All in favor, motion carried. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2019 _______________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk