Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit C Draft HPC Minutes.125 W Main StRegular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 11th 2020 PROJECT MONITORING: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 125 W. Main Street– Minor Development Review, Relocation, Setback Variations, Floor Area Bonus. Ms. Simon asked if the applicate could present first, so the board could have a better understanding of the project. The board agreed. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Willis Pember introduced himself as being from Willis Pember Architects representing The Ralli Dimitrius Trust , the owners. Mr. Pember stated that this a relocation hearing however the frame of the building is staying exactly where is it and the foundation as well. Mr. Pember explained that the basement will have some alterations. He explained that the basement is 6ft high and is uninhabitable. Mr. Pember stated that there are Floor FAR requests and setback variances. Mr. Pember stated that he is seeking 135 FAR bonus for not expanding the footprint rather digging down. Mr. Pember explained there will be no new architecture, that it will be contained within the historic property and non-historic addition in the rear of the property. Mr. Pember began to outline the memo that was sent. Mr. Pember explained that he has been working with engineers that came up with an inverted L made up of concrete material that will lines the interior perimeter, and this will stabilize the foundation even more. Mr. Pember explained that 10 years ago this house was sighted for demolition by neglect. At this time the foundations were reinforced, and the porch was reattached to the house. Mr. Pember showed that the engineer’s letter is in the application for the record. Mr. Pember explained that the setback variation on the west edge is within the 5 feet setback and the edge is about 3feet from property line. Mr. Pember showed that there is an egress well window on the eastside for a window that is slightly larger that is 5 feet wide rather than the standard 3 feet wide. Mr. Pember outlined Exhibit A explaining that this scope is a full exterior restoration and landscaping of 1975. Mr. Pember stated in the rear of the house adding 3 parking spots that does not impact the historical site. Mr. Pember showed a floor map with a sanborn map overlay outlining original blueprint. He further explained the detail of work that has been done. Mr. Pember showed print plans the east side wall and the replacing of the windows with a bay window for a historical look. Mr. Pember stated that he was tasked to look at handrail details for the front entry. He explained the proposal of a steel hand rail with a wood cap. Mr. Pember explained that this option would tie into the arch way around the porch and metal gate. Mr. Pember began to talk about vents and flues they identified that will need relocating. Mr. Pember points out that there is a flue on the westside that point right into a walkway. Mr. Pember references an area above the current location in an unused west facing envelope. He assured everyone that this would not affect the profile. Mr. Pember began to talk about the issue of the recessed lights and a carriage light fixture on the front porch. He proposed a recessed down facing light that will be visually less impactful. Mr. Pember wraps up his presentation talking about the roof. Mr. Pember stated that the owner would like to pursue a black roof. He provided a list of roof color choices from the owner ranging from graphic colors to plain wood shingles. Mr. Pember stated that we have black shingled roofs already down main street, west end, and the community. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 11th 2020 Mr. Moyer pointed out how toxic it used to be to stain the shingles black. Mr. Pember said that they are not looking at recreating the toxicity but rather the color. Mr. Moyer asked if there is another location for the furnace vent placement. Mr. Pember said that the other location that he vetted for the utility’s location would be the north facing wall which would be facing the street and probably not approved. Mr. Pember stated that the engineers also want the vent be placed at eye level due to snow fall heights. Ms. Greenwood asked about the windows on the eastside and expressed her displeased feelings about them. Stating that they are too wide and tall, and they are in a landing of a staircase. Mr. Pember stated that they liked the idea of the window placement for additional light. Ms. Greenwood stated that it just looks odd and doesn’t belong. Mr. Pember replied that they will defer to the field once they get in and open the wall, that there could be support beams, blocking, framing. Ms. Greenwood is this a final presentation. Ms. Simon replied this is a one-step hearing. So, any concerns need to be addressed tonight. Ms. Greenwood asked if the railings would be wood, metal, metal with wood top. Mr. Pember replied that it would metal with wood top. Ms. Greenwood pointed out that staff recommends all wood railing. Mr. Moyer asked if there was an issue with the six conditions that staff has laid out. Ms. Simon answered that the six conditions will need to be tweaked. Ms. Sanzone asked about the pervious drainage plan. Mr. Pember replied that the new standard was signed off with the 8% by the civil engineer. Ms. Simon stated that there is concern with their pervious plan that there will be ongoing maintenance. Ms. Sanzone stated that the landscape plans do not reflect what is there now. Mr. Pember replied that this is a second home and the owners would like to maintain a low upkeep landscape. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 11th 2020 Ms. Sanzone pointed out that the lilac bush might be a historic vegetation. Mr. Pember stated that the lilac bush roots have commingled with another bush that is being removed and that if one is removed the other must be as well. Ms. Sanzone asked about the tree removal that will take place and if the Parks Department was involved. Mr. Pember replied that the tree is grown on top of the house and that this is not a good situation. Ms. Sanzone asked if the neighbors where the tree sits if they are ok with this proposal. Mr. Pember stated that they have not approached them yet. He further explained that no tree was being removed more of a pruning option. Ms. Berko asked about the metal railing and how that fits into the overall design. Mr. Pember replied yes it would fit into the overall esthetic referencing the iron gate, metal fixtures on the porch. Ms. Thompson asked if the fence was historic. Mr. Pember stated that the gate was built in the early 70s, and that the fence crosses the neighboring property that they don’t want to disrupt the line. Ms. Thompson asked how they will handle the egress wall being and inch over the property line. Mr. Pember stated one sided pour. Ms. Thompson asked when the windows in the basement were added. Mr. Pember stated that there are no windows currently, but they will be adding them. Ms. Sanzone asked about curb height grade in reference to the window well. Mr. Pember replied the window wells will be as close to grade as possible. Ms. Sanzone asked at what point does the fence hit the six foot mark. Mr. Pember references the plan A102 details. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that staff supports the non-movement of the house and excavation of this property. There will be variations that are needed in result of the excavation due to the narrow space of this property. Ms. Simon explained that the lot was split in 2013 with variances and that the board should extend. Ms. Simon stated that with a light well one can come within inches of the property line to allow light into the basement with a cap on Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 11th 2020 the grade. Ms. Simon concerns in the staff memo about the lighting on the front porch. She explained historically the light fixtures that HPC would recommend either a soffit on the porch or sconces at the door not both. Ms. Simon said the focus should be on the facade of the building, and how it has been beautifully restored and has had some unique alterations. Ms. Simon stated the approval of the removal of some or the landscape would be a bonus since the house is buried by overgrowth. She pointed out that the handrails are not historic that they are not featured in historic documentations however building code will mandate there is a rail in that case staff would like to see it made of wood. Ms. Simon stated that wall vents are not allowed and historically HPC likes to see them on the roof on the non-historic section. Ms. Simon stated that staff would like to see a wood roof with no treatment or stain. This is what they would have had historically. Ms. Simon stated that the east facing windows and door are not historic in relations to the bay window, however any alterations to framing are open to review. Ms. Simon pointed out that the west facing window is historic and the proposal is to adjust the position. Ms. Simon stated that this should be backed by an investigation. Ms. Simon stated that there is a condition in the memo regarding the floor area bonus. She explains not only are they supposed to do a restoration element but also a preservation option. Ms. Simon explains that the best part of this project is that there is no addition being made, and that all the square footage is going under the house. Ms. Simon suggested if in the future if there is a change of usage that the bonus is not granted anymore, and that it will need to be earned again. Mr. Pember stated for clarification about the west facing window that they will not be seeking an adjustment or movement. Ms. Simon stated that the condition that is proposed is that there will be an inspection of historic framing for the adjustment of door 104 and same for the windows on the east facing side. PUBLIC COMMENTS: David Melton, neighbor and owner next to the project. Mr. Melton stated that his main issue with this project is not that it’s happening but how will it be completed. Mr. Melton said that the west facing wall of the project sits 7 inches from the sidewalk that separates the two properties and is heavily used by his tenants and their customers. Mr. Melton listed all his tenants that utilizes this sidewalk and will be affected by this project. Mr. Melton stated that no one from the project has reach out or gave him any notice of the project. He further asked for this project to be tabled until the project leader reaches out and makes a plan of impact. Mr. Melton voiced concern about the vent that is pointed at his building and that he supports it being moved. Mr. Melton showed photos of the sidewalk and vet to the board. Ms. Simon asked if she could please get a copy of the photos for the record. Mr. Moyer asked if the wall of the house will be moving. Ms. Simon replied that the house was not moving but being lifted. Ms. Greenwood stated that the city requires a construction management plan, and they will get involved with what is being proposed. Ms. Greenwood further explained that there are many solutions to remedy this. Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission March 11th 2020 Mr. Moyer asked if a condition should be placed that the two parties need to meet. Ms. Simon responded that is necessary and that they need to figure it out. Ms. Greenwood stated that the city has an excellent process to achieve this. Mr. Pember stated that there will be no real impact to the neighbors. That the roofing project will happen from above and the basement portion will happen within. COMMISSIONER COMENTS: Ms. Greenwood stated that the issues in the packets are spelled out clearly by staff. Ms. Greenwood agrees with staff on material for railings and roof. She continues her approval of staff lighting choices and states overall approval. Ms. Sanzone asked if the roof was beyond its life and this is why materials are being discussed. Mr. Pember replied yes that this is part of an overall renovations. Mr. Halferty stated he is in agreement staff’s memo on the subject of the windows and framing. He further agreed with staff’s memo about roofing materials and more of a natural look. He agrees with the idea of investigating the framework for new window placements. Mr. Halferty stated he is in an agreement with the recess light for the porch for main street. He agrees with staff on the material of wood for the hand rail. Mr. Halferty stated the importance of the staff monitoring and construction management. *at this point the recording equipment has stopped recording. Notes will be incomplete. Mr. Moyer stated that he agrees with staff notes and further explains he is not opposed to black shingles. He further explained the landscape should be turned into a grass lawn. Mr. Moyer said that he agrees with Ms. Greenwood and staff about lighting and vets. Mr. Blaich stated that his concerns have been dealt with. He stated if they aren’t going to upkeep the front land scape it needs to be grass. Ms. Berko stated that she did not have anything to add and, agreed with staff reconditions. Ms. Thompson stated that there was not much to add, agree with others on black shingles for the roof. Ms. Sanzone stated that HPC have never put restrictions on lawn or landscape and this was unheard of and possible an overreach. Ms. Sanzone stated that there is a lot of discrepancies with application and plans and drawings. MOTION: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve resolution #7 with conditions attached, Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Berko and Ms. Sanzone left the meeting.