Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20200722 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Roger Moyer, Scott Kendrick, Sherri Sanzone, Gretchen Greenwood. Commissioners not in attendance: Bob Blaich, Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty moved to approve the minutes from June 24th,2020. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor. Motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None CONFLICTS: Ms. Thompson has a conflict of interest with 110 Neal ave. and will not participate in the conversation. Mr. Halferty has a conflict of interest with 500 W main and will not participate in the conversation. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that at this point there is no project motoring, call up reports, or certificates of negative effects. Ms. Thompson left the meeting OLD BUSINESS: 110 Neale Avenue – Conceptual Major Development Review. Steve Wilson with Forumphi representing owners. Mr. Wilson reminded the commission that this project is a historic lot split and the historic resource is on the lot above the project. He showed updated renderings of the proposed plan and stated that the revised design reduces the roof mass at the center of the structure to create a lower connector element. Mr. Wilson stated at the last hearing HPC had a question about what trees were staying and which were going to be lost. He showed a map of trees that will not be affected and the ones that will be lost. Mr. Wilson stated that they have been working with the Parks Dept. on this tree issue. Mr. Wilson showed the new proposal renderings from all sides to showcase the elevation, he pointed out that there is no obstruction in the view plane of the historic resource on the hill. Mr. Wilson reiterated that the redesign was significantly smaller and without adding unneeded complexity. Mr. Kendrick asked how much was the roof lowered. Mr. Wilson stated that they diminished the roof by 4 feet. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon reminded the commission that this was a historic lot split and the historic resource does not sit on this lot. She further explained that they will be looking at the REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020 connecting element to the new addition which is next to the historic resource. Ms. Yoon stated that staff had concerns with the relatability with mass and scale of the new addition as it related to the historic lot. Ms. Yoon stated that the new iteration respects 11.3 in creating a scale and proportion in relation to the historic resource. She said that the staff is in favor of the updated plan. Ms. Yoon stated that other City departments have submitted comments and concerns to the commission. Ms. Yoon reviewed the conditions for this project, that the applicant needs to work with city staff and departments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ann Short neighbor of the project submitted a letter. Attached to the minutes. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that she like the redesign of the massing and is in favor of moving this project forward. Ms. Sanzone agreed with Ms. Greenwood's comments. Mr. Halferty stated that he was not at the first meeting but supports this project moving forward. Mr. Moyer asked about the covenants the neighbors agreed to. Ms. Bryan stated that the city does not get involved in these kinds of issues. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with everyone's comments and would like to see this move forward. Mr. Kendrick stated no comment. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #15-2020. Ms. Sanzone seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Kendrick Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Halferty left the meeting Ms. Thompson joined the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 500 W. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development and Residential Design Standards Review. John Broughton of Rowland + Broughton representing the project. Mr. Rowland stated that this property was a lot split on one half there sits the historic storefront and the other is a garden where the new addition will be located. Mr. Rowland stated that their mission was to build a cute single-family home on the adjacent lot. Mr. Rowland showed historic photos and Sanborn maps of what the lot looked like and then he showed new renderings of the proposed project. Mr. Broughton stated that the lot is thirty feet wide and one hundred thirty feet deep, he added that there will be ten-foot setbacks on the front and back with five-foot setbacks on the sides. Mr. Broughton stated that the structure will be twenty-five feet tall with a carved out front entry with a gable form. He explained that the carved-out portion will be placed on the back of the building. Mr. Broughton showed models to showcase the mass and scale of the proposed project next to the historic resource. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant could discuss the porch and garage design. Mr. Broughton stated that the porch has a significant amount of planter boxes built-in and said by code they will need to extend it by one foot. He said the garage door will be designed to reflect a more historic feel. Mr. Broughton said that the garage door will be a signal panel. Ms. Greenwood asked about the residential design and standards and if there was another vernation being asked for. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020 Mr. Broughton stated that the sidewall length on the second floor is fifty feet and the ground level is less than that. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the applicant requested transferable development rights in the past during the lot split and now they have chosen to build a house on the garden lot. Ms. Simon said that in this zone district there is an automatic twenty-five percent reduction in floor area for homes rather than a commercial space. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant does not need any setback variations or any other variations besides the residential design standards. Ms. Simon stated that staff finds that they meet all the HPC guidelines for new construction on a historic lot. Ms. Simon said that the mass of this project is well suited for the area and lot. Ms. Simon stated that in the resolution there is a need for restudy on two issues. Ms. Simon said that staff supports project and recommends approval with conditions. She said that there were three letters of community input submitted with the packet and two others emailed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Kendrick stated that this project looks very nice however the mass seems a little too big. He said he is ok with approval. Ms. Greenwood stated that the massing looks different from the model vs the rendering. Ms. Thompson stated her disappointment that the historic cabin to the left of the property was not shown with the model. She agrees with Mr. Kendrick that the mass is too big. Mr. Moyer stated that the mass is way too large and the front entry is unfriendly. Mr. Moyer explained that the model is a better visual than the rendering. Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with the viewpoint that the massing of the front entry is too big. Ms. Thompson stated that she could be more supportive if the front façade had a restudy referencing guideline 11.4 regarding the front elevation and front porch. Mr. Moyer stated if you look at the project, the sidewall is very tall compared to the Victorian next door. He further explained that the roof meets the wall with no overhang giving it an industrial feel and look. Mr. Moyer followed up by stating he is not ready for this to move forward and that this project needs to be reworked. Ms. Sanzone stated that she would be in support of this project moving forward and letting the applicant rework the mass facade. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is in support of the variation. He said that he feels it is the planters that make the porch feel so heavy. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in favor of moving the project forward with a restudy. Mr. Moyer stated that the applicant could do so much more, and not in favor of it going forward. Ms. Thompson stated she would like to see the applicant again before the final review. Ms. Greenwood stated that this will be a staff and monitor situation. Rachel Broughton with Rowland + Broughton stated that her team feels the project fits in with the historic storefront that sits next door. Ms. Broughton explained if you striped the front façade of the storefront you would be left with a two-story gable structure. Ms. Broughton said that she has already started a redesign on the planters on the porch and how to lower the guardrail while staying in the code. Ms. Greenwood stated that when designing porches on main street one must be delicate in design. Ms. Greenwood reiterated that she is still in favor of moving this forward with staff and monitoring. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 22, 2020 Ms. Thompson stated that she believes the applicant could come up with a thoughtful redesign and would now support it to moving forward. Mr. Kendrick stated that he feels that the overhang gives the mass a hollow feeling and suggested the second floor sift back to create more room. Mr. Moyer reiterated his stance on the unfriendly porch. Mr. Rowland stated that he is taking the commissions comments very seriously and that the next time they present to the commission HPC will be very pleased. Ms. Sanzone motioned to approve Resolution #016-2020. Mr. Kendrick seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Moyer, Yes; Mr. Kendrick Yes; Ms. Sanzone; Yes, Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Greenwood, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. Adjourn: Mr. Moyer moved to adjourn. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. ___________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk