Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.20200923 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jeffrey Halferty, Kara Thompson, Scott Kendrick, Roger Moyer, Sherri Sanzone. Commissioners not in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood Staff present: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jim True, City Attorney Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve the minutes from September 9th. Mr. Kendrick seconded. All in Favor, Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mike Maple resident on Gibson Ave. Mr. Maple stated that 913 Gibson Ave. is not following what HPC approved. He further stated that the original plan was to be family home however that’s not what is happening. Mr. Maple said that he contacted City staff at the end of April to discuss and asked for a review of this matter. He explained that after he met with the owner that the plan is not moving forward in the way HPC approved it. Mr. Maple asked if it is an HPC or City policy to discourage or not allow the moving of historic assets. Ms. Thompson stated that it is true, and asked Ms. Simon to explain further. Ms. Simon stated that this is Ms. Yoon’s project and they are aware of Mr. Maples's concerns. She further explained that staff has had a meeting with the contractor and their team. Mr. Maple reiterated that the current developers are not following what was approved by HPC. He further said that the new plans do not include a basement or the demolishing of the adjacent building. He explained that his parents live next door to this construction, and they will be facing an indeterminate time frame of construction. He stated that this project will be a horrible neighbor with the start and stop of construction and further reiterated that this is not what HPC approved. Ms. Yoon stated that she has met with the applicant and is in communication with them about any changes and time frame of this project. She further explained that there was a change in contractors and that can cause confusion and a pause in the project. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is still planning a full basement and was issued a permit at the end of July. Ms. Yoon said according to HPC approvals that she has updates and willing to share with Mr. Maple. She stated that it is still important to her team that the historic resource is relocated to the final location that was approved by HPC and confirmation was given. Mr. Maple stated that he disagrees with Ms. Yoon on her statement. Mr. Maple stated that this project should not have been issued a foundation permit before their demolition permit and this was done for the convenience to the owner. Ms. Yoon stated that a demolition permit is a sperate permit and the foundation permit is apart of the larger permit of the project. She followed up with an invitation to discuss this with Mr. Maple in a sperate meeting. Ms. Yoon stated how permits are issued is through the Building Department and are all in good standing. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Mr. Maple stated that the applicant’s literature is stating that the owner is selling a relocated historic resource. He said that a new owner could buy the property and change the plans. Mr. Maple stated that this is HPC's fault for allowing the relocation of a historic resource. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant has ensured they are proceeding with the construction of a foundation, in 6-8 weeks they will move the historic resource to their final location. Ms. Simon said that they cannot control the exact timeline. She explained that the Building Department has policies, checkpoints, and milestones every 6 months and there must be some kind of progress. Ms. Simon stated that they will be working with the Building Department to ensure a timely process. Mr. Maple stated that he would like to see HPC be more active and he requested to see all the approvals. Ms. Thompson reiterated Ms. Simons's point that a lot of construction projects are in the control of the Building Department. Ms. Thompson stated that she will follow up on this discussion since she is the monitor. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer stated that maybe HPC should look at introducing a timeline for a historic resource being introduced into a neighborhood. Mr. True stated that HPC needs to be careful about discussing an ongoing application without the applicant knowing or being present. Mr. True explained that it is in Mr. Maple’s right to discuss this in a public comment section and warned the commissioners about discussing this in inappropriate times in the meeting. CONFLICTS: None PROJECT MONITORING: 109 N. Second Project Monitor Review. Charles Cunniffe Architects. Dennis Chookaszian. Mr. Chookaszian stated that in the last meeting with HPC, the board encouraged them to find someone to restore the existing windows. Mr. Chookaszian said that the process is going well. Mr. Chookaszian stated that they wanted to enlarge a window and move it closer to the already existing historic window. He further explained that once they opened up the wall they found a historic window that was sealed within. Mr. Chookaszian stated that he would like to take the new historic window and move it so it can be more visible. Mr. Chookaszian said that he does not want to alter the size of the window even though it is larger than the other historic window next to it. Mr. Chookaszian showed a picture of the newly discovered window and explained the new plan of relocation. Ms. Simon stated that this was not was discussed with herself and Mr. Moyer. Ms. Simon asked if Mr. Chookaszian could show the graphics again and explain. Mr. Chookaszian apologized for the change in presentation and stated that they are not aware of the historic window. He stated that the slit window that is there is not historic and was placed there 20 to 50 years ago. Mr. Chookaszian said that once they removed the drywall that is when they discovered the historic window. He stated that they would like to relocate the historic window to were the new window was intended to go. Ms. Simon stated that this is still not what was discussed with herself and Mr. Moyer. She asked if the applicant was wanting to change the slit window and make it larger. Mr. Chookaszian stated that is incorrect that this is not the original slit window. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Ms. Thompson stated that they should not be reviewing something that Ms. Simon nor Mr. Moyer had time to review. Ms. Simon agreed with Ms. Thompson and stated cutting into a log wall is very untraversable and suggested a new site visit. Mr. Chookaszian said they would love for them to come to the site. PROJECT MONITORING: 541 Race Alley. Willis Pember Architects. Mr. Pember stated that his team has bent over backwards trying to come up with different flue options. He said that he and his team have come up with a solution that is even better than the original idea. Mr. Pember stated that the foundation later discovered is a continuous masonry CMU foundation wall. He further explained that it is not a stretch to think that this material would be used for the chimney in this period. Mr. Pember stated that new technology in heating, venting, and telecommunications has introduced itself into historic areas that have never been seen before. Mr. Pember said the three fireplaces that are being discussed are complex themselves and the equipment on them is very complex. Mr. Pember stated that the preparatory features do not lend themselves and cannot be modified for a redesign. Mr. Pember showed renderings of a metal shroud that can be fixed upon a flue to hide or disguise all the preparatory features. Mr. Pember pointed out that each cabin has a power vent that is boxy and sick out of the wall. He further explained that they should be in the chimney that is how they are designed and there is very limited ability to change them. Mr. Pember stated that he is proposing a reduction in size by 50%. He showed a rendering of the proposed footprint. Mr. Pember showed different viewpoints of the proposed chimney, showing that in a reduced size it becomes unnoticeable. Mr. Pember stated what was approved seemed to be the outlier since the colors were not matching, noise level, not low profile. He further explained that the new proposal is quitter, low profile, and more inline with the profile. Mr. Pember stated that they achieved very few things breaking the ridgeline and all the goals of not penetrating the roof. Mr. Pember showed a photo of the neighboring home that recently installed a brick retaining wall. Mr. Pember said that this is a rouge element but has sympathetic materials, color, and size. He further explained that like the neighbors retaining wall when thinking about the flues, one must consider scale, material, and color. Mr. Pember stated that the material they are proposing is brick that is recessive and modest. Mr. Pember said that they would entertain CMU. He stated the color should be black to help disguise it and metal roofing. Mr. Pember asked HPC hypothetically would today's proposal be approved in 2017. Ms. Simon stated that the exhaust box that was installed is the same material as the roof and is in fact more visible and out of character than the shaded photo that was presented. Ms. Simon pointed out that historically the flue would be metal, not brick. Mr. Halferty stated that he went to the sight and saw what was there, and what was there was not what HPC approved. Mr. Pember said what is there now is twice the size they are proposing. He said that option B has decretive flue pipes. Ms. Thompson asked if Ms. Simon or Mr. Halferty liked any of the options. Ms. Simon stated that what was approved was a simple flue with the right solution and since that was not an option the whole board should weigh in. Mr. Halferty reiterated Ms. Simon’s views. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Ms. Thompson asked the applicant why in option A and option B the flue was in two different locations. Mr. Pember showed the correct rendering that showed the correct placement of the flue. He further said that there would be no need for the extension in the brick-clad version. He clarified that the other rendering was to show both options next to each other. Ms. Thompson asked if there was room within the cabins to store the power vent. Mr. Pember said that the power vent could not fit within the cabin. That the cabins are simple forms and what you see on the outside is what you have on the inside. Ms. Thompson stated that she would be in favor of a metal finish that does not match the roof and that details can be worked out with staff and monitor. Ms. Sanzone stated she agrees with previous comments and would like to see a metal option. She said that she would not be opposed to option B with the patina galvanized finish. Ms. Sanzone stated that this option is most representative of what was there historically. Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees with the previous statements. Mr. Kendrick said that he is struggling with this situation of approving something, and that is not followed, and then having the applicant coming back trying to fix it. He further said it would have been easier to address before it was done and appropriately. Ms. Thompson agreed with Mr. Kendrick stating that this could have been avoided with a different fireplace specification. Mr. Moyer stated that this is a simple cabin keep it that way. Mr. Moyer stated that the question about the foundation is also easy to paint it black to match. Ms. Thompson stated that the board agrees that option B is the direction they want to go with refinement. Ms. Simon stated that they will work with Mr. Pember with materials and direction. She asked if the board had input on the color. Ms. Thompson stated that the flue should be galvanized, and the supporting elements should be painted dark to match the roof. Mr. Pember pointed out that there was no galvanized element in this project and what he was trying to achieve was to show that the original approval was not as good as what was presented. Mr. Pember reminded HPC that there was no review of the flues at the final review or in the conditions. He asked if HPC was in favor of a pipe element that is exposed. Ms. Thompson stated yes. Ms. Sanzone asked about the visual that showed three galvanized flues. Mr. Pember stated that it could have been white metal or even galvanized however it was interterminal at the time of final review. He further stated that the visual is a site photo with photoshopped in flues for representation. Ms. Sanzone asked to see the original historic photo. Mr. Pember stated that in this photo the flue has a copper bottom with a galvanized pipe and a rusted hood. Ms. Sanzone stated that she thought she was following along that HPC wanted the element to be visible from the park, to be similar to what was there historically, and finally the 2017 rendering that was shown represented what was approved. Ms. Simon said that she just pulled up the 2017 approval and it stated there was a representation of flues on the backside of the roof slope of a tall metal slope. Ms. Sanzone stated that with this information, option B looks great. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Ms. Thompson stated that a metal chimney and metal topper is the direction they want to go and that finishing can be worked out with staff and monitor. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that she has issued two certificates of no negative effect. Ms. Simon said the first one is for Floradora Building, 400 West Main. She explained that this is a pretty big Victorian house with a large non historic addition. Ms. Simon said the owner has been replacing non-historic windows around the property and her team has been working with him on the approvals. Ms. Simon stated the second certificates of no negative effect was issued to 520 East Cooper, Sliver Peak Apothecary. She said Silver Peak would like to clad an exterior walls with meaterial. Ms. Simon stated that since this location is below grade, they allowed it. Ms. Simon stated that Bob Blaich will be stepping down from HPC. She further said she would like to plan a virtual get together with everyone and Mr. Blaich and Nora Berko to thank them for all the years of serves. Ms. Simon stated that with Mr. Blaich stepping down there is a shortage of HPC members and recruitment needs to happen. Ms. Simon reviewed the HPC calendar for the remaining year with the board. She pointed out that they will be keeping meetings light or no meetings that fall near the holidays. NEW BUSINESS: 820 East Cooper Avenue – Minor Development Review. Colleen Loughlin from Zone 4 Architects, and Lauren Bullard Owner. Ms. Loughlin showed visual aids of the property and location of 820 E. Cooper. Ms. Loughlin stated that there are three major goals. The first being creating a more functional mudroom on the non-historic addition, secondly restore the front door to historic condition, and finally, approve the outside space for functionality and esthetics while removing a tree. Ms. Loughlin stated that the mudroom will be expanded to the northside of the lot and the new addition will have shingles to match the historic resource. Ms. Loughlin said that there will be a new tree planted in the right of way per the Parks Department and the tree that will be taken down is located right in front of the front door. Ms. Loughlin showed renderings of the proposed new mudroom extending into the rear yard to make a more functional space for the owner. Ms. Loughlin stated that the south side door will be narrowed which will be closer to the historic size of the original door. Ms. Loughlin stated that the mudroom will extend four feet four inches into the yard and the new door will be centered on the roof with two windows above. Ms. Loughlin said along with the new narrowed door there will be a sconce that will be approved by staff. She further explained the new entry door will be centered on the ridgeline over the addition. Ms. Loughlin stated that they will be working with the contractor to match the exterior siding with the new and historic. She said that staff has approved the new sconce for the new door. Ms. Loughlin showed a rendering of the landscape plan and indicated that the owner and the Parks Department have worked closely together on the plan. She pointed out that the pervious pavers in the rear would add more accessibility awhile being aesthetically pleasing and connecting to the sidewalks to the front door. Ms. Loughlin stated that they would like to extend the front façade paver to the west side yard to the rear. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Ms. Bullard gave a brief overview of her family’s dynamic. Ms. Bullard stated that she is very thankful for the staff's help in achieving a functional solution. Ms. Thompson asked about the laundry vent in the mudroom. Ms. Bullard stated that it is currently vented on the east side of the non-historic side. Mr. Kendrick asked if the applicant can discuss the front door. Ms. Bullard stated that the door is currently 36inches with original decretive trim. Ms. Bullard further explained at one point the door was enlarged and the plan is to bring it back in alignment with the decretive trim. Ms. Bullard stated that they will be using a half-white door with simple raised panels. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is wanting to enlarge an existing non-historic addition to the rear of the historic structure by adding approximately 46 SF of floor area. Ms. Yoon said that the applicant does have an interesting condition with the tree in front of their front door. She further stated that the applicant is doing a lot to restore the historic resource. Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant has taken on other restoration projects that are not documented in the memo for example the removal of a wrap-around deck. Ms. Yoon said once the deck was removed the foundation was discovered with details. Ms. Yoon stated that staff finds the pavers proposed along the foundation of the front façade to be out of character referencing Design Guideline 1.12 and 1.13. Ms. Yoon explained that this is a single-family home as it must accommodate two parking spots to meet zoning. She further explained that this is listed as a condition for this project. Ms. Yoon stated that staff is in favor of this project with a few conditions. She said the conditions include working with Engineering Department on stormwater requirements, work with the Parks Department on tree mitigation, replace front façade pavers with sod or plantings, provide details on the permeable pavers, provide a cut sheet for the new door, finally the site must provide two on-site parking. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson stated that she is in agreement with staff on their comments and recommendations. She said the biggest question is about the pavers in front of the house. Mr. Kendrick stated that he is in agreement with staff and if the applicant is ready to remove the pavers in front of the house, he could vote to move this forward. Ms. Sanzone stated that she agrees with staff and would like to be the monitor for this project. Mr. Halferty stated he agrees with staff. Mr. Moyer stated he agrees with staff. Ms. Bullard stated that the right side of the home could replace the pavers with sod or appropriate vegetation, however, on the left side she would like to keep the connector with an offset from the house. She further explained she is willing to work with staff and monitor. Ms. Thompson stated that it would not be appropriate to keep brick against the house. Ms. Bullard stated that she is on board with putting in a bed in between the house and the walkway. REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23 2020 Ms. Sanzone stated she understands the functional need of the walkway. She further asked if the board was ok with her working with the applicant on this project. Ms. Thompson stated that the front door walkway needs to be the predominant pathway. Mr. Halferty stated he agrees with previous comments. Mr. Moyer stated he agrees with previous comments. He added any sprinkler system needs to be moved away from the house. Mr. Kendrick stated he agrees with staff and the monitor. Mr. Halferty moved to approve Resolution #20-2020. Mr. Moyer seconded. ROLL CALL: Mr. Halferty, Yes; Mr. Kendrick, Yes; Mr. Moyer, Yes; Ms. Sanzone, Yes; Ms. Thompson, Yes. All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. ADJOURN: All in favor, Motion carried 5-0. ___________________________ Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk