Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20190612 1 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2019 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:32 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Bob Blaich, Roger Moyer, Kara Thompson. Absent were Richard Lai, Nora Berko and Sheri Sanzone. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick moved to approve the minutes of May 22, Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood thanked Mr. Blaich and Mr. Halferty for presenting the HPC awards on Monday night. Ms. Simon said it was great timing because of the huge crowd that was gathered for the old and new council members. She said everyone who received the award, was very appreciative. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon said there were two items to be discussed, one of which, she and Mr. Kendrick resolved for 122 W. Main St. The second item was for 232 E. Main and we are going to wait for another meeting to talk about this one. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon said she is recusing herself from 602 E. Hyman, so she will leave before the presentation. The historical society sent out some newsletters about their summer tours, which they worked on with Ann Mullins and Harry Teague. CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said has the notices. CALL UPS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 931 Gibson – Final Major Development Sarah Yoon Ms. Yoon said 931 Gibson is designated as the receiving site for the historic Victorians which are located at 333 Park. She said with this application, they are focusing on the details of the landscape plan, material selection and the lighting plan. The applicants are in for permit for demolition of the non- historic additions and to stabilize the site. There are four conditions of approval in resolution #2, series of 2019, which was approved by HPC in February. It is important that they continue to consult with staff and monitor on preservation issues as the demolition continues. They have provided preliminary plans for the storm water and information related to the Holy Cross easement. The preliminary locations for utilities and mechanical equipment was also provided on the site plan. The last condition was related to floor area calculations on the existing house at 931 Gibson when they submit for building permit. 2 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2019 Ms. Yoon did a recap of the relocation route, which was approved and decided upon with city departments. The two historic resources will move separately and the financial assurances for this location have already been provided by the applicant. The drawing for the site plan at 931 Gibson is in the packet and represents the proposed footprint. They will be submitting for tree removal permits, but will be maintaining a lot of the existing trees on the property. Both of these plans were reviewed by staff and the parks department and they commented on the density of the proposed landscape and wanted to allow enough room for future growth. The revised plan submitted yesterday, removes some plantings and shrubs on the northwest side of the property. Engineering expressed some concern about access of the utilities. Staff feels this is an improvement, but want more dialogue related to the landscape plan with relevant city departments to make sure there is adequate access. Regarding the materials for the historic landscape, it will require an ongoing discussion with staff and monitor. The applicant is proposing a dark stone material for the front walk. Design guideline 1.6 does provide a list of more appropriate materials for this walkway. On page 25 of the packet, you’ll see the language related to the design guidelines. Staff recommends a light grey concrete material. She said there are some unknowns regarding the foundation and grade condition, so they are recommending staff and monitor approval for these details. Regarding the proposed lighting, we call for very minimal lighting along this path. We discourage and do not consider pathway lighting appropriate. For the purpose of safety conditions, there is lighting allowed, but with minimal fixtures. The revision shows reductions on the auto court side with the sconces. Staff is still asking for a further reduction and we want to make sure that this detail meets the guidelines. HPC did approve the form and fenestration design, which relates back to the historic resource. The majority of the new addition will be brick. The applicant plans to reconstruct a historic chimney and the roof material they are proposing will be a metal shingle. The ridge skylight and rear massing will have cedar shingles. Staff is recommending approval with the following eight conditions: 1. Final landscape plan discussed with all appropriate city departments and final plan approved by staff and monitor. 2. Clarity on the curb cut with 6 inches or less to preserve historic material from being covered. 3. Foundation and grade details related to the historic resource will be made with staff and monitor approval. 4. Restudy of the material leading up to the walkway 5. Reduction of the light fixtures 6. Stormwater mitigation & dripline to be gone over with the Parks department. 7. Curb cuts, gutters and sidewalk details need to be flushed out with the appropriate departments. Mr. Moyer said Ms. Yoon didn’t address protrusions on the roof or siding and suggested adding a ninth condition for this. Ms. Yoon said the applicant isn’t proposing any gutters for the historic resource, but they can speak more clearly to this. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2019 APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams of Bendon Adams, Flynn Stewart-Severy of F&M Architects, Eric Sechrist of F&M Architects, Packy Westfeldt and Elizabeth DeVore also of F&M Architecture, Monty Thompson of Thunder Construction and Ryan Vugteveen of Lift Studio. Ms. Adams said they are excited about this project and the owners are full speed ahead on wanting to move forward. She showed a historic view of the house on Main street. She said this has been a time intensive project and said that whomever takes over as project monitor, will be busy. This is a little funky and is not your typical lot in the west end that hosts this type of building. She showed a very simple material palate on screen. She said they want a traditional material with a modern application. We want a subtle conversation between the two buildings. The metal roof is in pretty bad shape on the historic resource and they brought some pieces in which fell off to show to the board. She said it’s very old and rusty. Flynn researched that this tin metal roof was manufactured in Philadelphia, so they’ve been talking to this company about some replica pieces of shingle. We need to ask you for approval to remove the bad shingles and replace with the replicas, which is a little out of the ordinary. She showed the connecting element on screen and said they are proposing to restore two windows. We are not able to do a green roof as shown at conceptual due to technical issues and we didn’t want plant material next to this beautiful landmark. We are proposing full restoration of the chimney and siding. Going into the materials, we wanted to show examples of different brick patterns. We have sample colors here proposed for the addition and we want to show how the pattern will work. She passed around a sample of the brick being proposed, which is mostly red more so than the black color. Mr. Stewart-Severy said it is 80% red tones and we are doing different detailing with the same brick and not doing different patterns. He discussed the different shingles they will use. Ms. Adams said we are happy to work with staff and monitor on the concrete if HPC doesn’t approve. We are happy to work with staff and monitor on the landscaping as well. Gibson Avenue is pretty dark and that’s why we’re proposing the lights. We have spaced out the fixtures eight feet apart and if we reduce number, it might look weird. Showed the rest of the lights on screen. This will be a heavy monitor project and trying to do it right, takes a lot of time. We are amenable to everything that Ms. Yoon put into the memo. Mr. Halferty asked them to go back over the historic resource roofing issue. Mr. Stewart-Severy said the Cortright shingles were originally over the whole house. At this point, there are about 90% of the good shingles left. We just need to replace the few bad ones and pull all of the shingles off first and do a layer of ice and water shield on top of the plywood. We will then reroof the main roof structure with the original shingles and will do the dormer and the porch roofs with the new shingles. Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Adams to pull up an elevation on screen. Mr. Kendrick asked if they could do the front porch with the original shingles as well. Mr. Stewart- Severy said yes, they will work with the staff and monitor on this and they will not be throwing out any original shingles. If there are enough to do the front porch, that would be a great approach. Mr. Moyer said the existing shingles are oxidized and Mr. Stewart-Severy agreed. Mr. Moyer asked if they can get them in Cor-Ten and Mr. Stewart-Severy said the new shingles are hard to find in Cor-Ten, but we can get a colored option. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2019 Ms. Thompson asked about the size of the transformer and if they will need to upgrade it. Mr. Thompson said they can handle that and will review with staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson asked to see the brick detail again and Ms. Adams obliged. Ms. Greenwood asked about the roof penetrations. Ms. Adams said they haven’t gotten to that point yet and will work with staff and monitor, but she promised very minimal penetrations. Ms. Greenwood said they don’t want to load staff and monitor up with all of these details that should be presented at final. Ms. Greenwood asked about the width of the front walkway. Mr. Stewart-Severy said it is three feet wide. Ms. Greenwood asked about the elevation and asked if the new building was always taller and Ms. Adams said yes. Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Adams to address what appears to be a serpentine wall and asked what landscape material is being used for the brick wall. Mr. Vugteveen said it was showing a brick wall and it is not serpentine. He explained and apologized for the serpentine look. Mr. Kendrick asked about snowmelt and Ms. Adams showed the snowmelt plan in the packet and showed him the shaded areas and said the snowmelt will be a basalt stone. Mr. Halferty asked them to address the revised pathway lighting again and Ms. Adams recapped. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Yoon if condition #1, concerning vegetation, is necessary for approval. Ms. Garrow stated that condition #1 should remain for additional review with the parks department. Mr. Kendrick said he thinks this is a difficult resource to apply the guidelines to. He feels the applicants have done a fantastic job. it’s an excellent project. He doesn’t have as many concerns as staff regarding the lighting given the location and setbacks. He thinks it’s excellent. Ms. Greenwood said she has an issue with the lighting. She was very much in support of the whole project and process during conceptual and feels they did an excellent job. She feels the lighting needs improvement in that front walkway. The idea of the asymmetrical lighting with the linear kind of spacing is more modern and it’s a real disconnect with the historic resource. She thinks if they intersperse them, it will take off the asymmetrical visual. She said it’s alarmingly odd and wants them to rethink this and is in agreement with staff. She also feels the basalt stone is too modern and contemporary for the walkway. She likes the grey color but seems too contemporary and doesn’t seem right, so she would like to rethink this as well. It’s a real disconnect for her. Mr. Halferty said it’s an excellent restoration project and they did a great job doing the discovery on the historic resource. He concurs with staff’s recommendations of approval. He would also restudy the material and lighting on the entry to the historic resource. He would like to save as much of the roof as possible and putting the shingles on the porch would be good. He feels that staff and monitor can handle the other details. Ms. Greenwood agreed that their shingle will be a real asset to the historic preservation program. It’s excellent and she loves the patina. Ms. Thompson said she agrees that it’s an excellent project. She doesn’t mind the basalt stone for the front walkway and feels that it relates to the stone border around the historic resource. The application and material should be more true to the resource. Overall, she thinks it’s a really great project. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2019 Mr. Blaich said he came prepared to go with the recommendations of staff. He thinks Ms. Greenwood and Mr. Halferty’ s concerns are valid. He spent some time in that building with Deter because he was an old ski and tennis buddy. What you’ve done with this project is fantastic. It’s very creative and the historic preservation aspects are great, and he can tell they have worked very hard on this. The overall design respects the environment and respects the original building. He is very much in favor of seeing this realized. Mr. Moyer concurred with staff’s recommendations. The color of the stone walkway is good. Ms. Greenwood’s idea of the lighting being less modern would be helpful. It’s a terrific project and feels they’ve done a really good job. He wants to reiterate that any protrusions would be acknowledged with staff and monitor. It’s going to be a lot of work for staff and monitor, but not hard work. It’s just a matter of fitting in the details. Mr. Halferty said he also recommends for staff and monitor, the final brick palate for the new addition regarding the patterning to make sure it’s consistent. Ms. Garrow said condition #4 address the materials, character and design, but we can make it more explicit and just add the language they want. She read the guideline regarding the front walkway to the board upon Ms. Greenwood’s request. They will add a restudy of the walkway to be determined with staff and monitor to work out prior to submitting for building permit. To condition #5, they will add a restudy of the light fixtures for the front walkway to be approved by staff and monitor. This will be for placement and design, not the actual fixture. Ms. Garrow asked If they want to add a condition for the roof and Ms. Greenwood said they are all in agreement with staff and monitor looking at penetrations. MOTION: Ms. Thompson moved to approve with the revisions to conditions #4 and #5, Mr. Kendrick seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Greenwood, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion carried. Ms. Thompson was named monitor and Mr. Kendrick as back up. MOTION: Mr. Blaich motioned to adjourn, Mr. Moyer seconded at 5:43 p.m. All in favor, motion carried. _________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk