Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940608Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 WILLIAMS P, A NCH - AH ......... 132 W. MAIN STREET - SETBACK VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING . HOTEL JEROME - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - 330 E. MAIN STREET 303 E. MAIN STREET - PUBLIC HEARING ..... 523 W. FP3%NCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION ..... 2 8 9 9 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JIINE 8, 1994 Meeting was called to order by chairman Joe Krabacher with Donnelley Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer and Linda Smisek present. Excused were Karen Day, Martha Madsen and Tom Williams. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of April 27, 1994; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to add 303 E. Main Street to the agenda; second by Joe. Ail in favor, motion carries. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Amy: We got the grant for City Hall and at one point we might discuss roofing materials. Amy: Interviews for the new Planning Director start tomorrow. Amy: Kathy and I site-visited 604 W. Main, Lucille Price's house and there is a shed in the back yard. It is next door to the Acyra house. The shed straddles the property line. Two brothers had owned each house and they shared the shed for their coal. A few years ago an architect lived in the house and decided to remove the partition wall and it started to collapse. It is in good condition in terms of the wood but the building is deteriorating. Mrs. Price is concerned that it is a fire hazard and people have slept in there during the winter. We have a problem because whose barn is it! Neither of the property owners want it and no one wants to put the money into it to fix it up. Roger: At Williams Ranch it would be great. Amy: I think it could be moved but I do not know. It is about ten by ten. Roger: You could get the two property owners together to approve someone renovating it for use as a studio and then later they could pay rent. The renter would also have to carry a standard insurance policy. Joe: The usual procedure is to file an application. Amy: It can be saved and the application fee for off-site relocation is $1,000. Donnelley: Advertise in the paper. Amy: Round two of the inventory is coming up soon. Tom Stevens, already know, WILLIAMS RANCH - AH project manager: We are one member short as you may Stefan Albouy is no longer with us. Stefan's Family Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 and the project team have vowed to continue this project. It is a project that Stefan felt worthy of development and put a lot of time and effort into it as have we. He felt it important enough to start and we feel it important enough to finish. Christy Albouy will be taking part in the project and also Brad Reed the architect and I apologize for this crew not being able to be here at the last meeting. We have had scheduling conflicts and I think that in our absence we were not able to make an adequate presentation. I will try to go through elements of the Williams Ranch project. When we started this project there were 54 units, 16 free market and 38 deed restricted units. That is still the equation and the project has gone through several design stages with site, and architectural to reflect concerns expressed by the adjacent property owner, P&Z and City Council. The biggest thing to happen is that we have gotten away from a multi- family program and now we are concentrating on single family and duplex construction. Within the duplex construction we are combining a three bedroom unit with a one bedroom unit so that we can keep the overall structure the same size as the single family homes. The structures average about 2,000 square feet with garages. The duplexes will be combined with a large unit and a small unit so that they are still only 2,000 square feet. The structures on the site are all fairly consistent in size. One of the other concerns were the amount of open space on the parcel and the amount of active park area in the neighborhood. We have eliminated structures below the existing Salvation Ditch and that is the area closest to the Centennial Parking Lot. In our benefit it will provide a significant amount of buffer between us and Centennial. As much as Centennial doesn't want us in their back yard we are accepting them in our front yard and that is an impact. That amount of open space helps us out. We will provide a visual buffer for Centennial also. Molly Gibson Park we have an agreement in principle with the County to develop that into an active park which will include volleyball, basketball, horseshoe and picnic areas with extensive landscaping. We are concentrating tonight on the affordable housing while we will have covenants, architectural guidelines for the free market lots we are not developing those. Those will be sold and developed by the purchasers. We will be building all of the deed restricted housing. We will present the site plan for that housing. The entire 12.7 Williams Ranch parcel and is a subdivision of an existing 42 acre parcel and the remaining parcel is the mine and there is no residential on the mine parcel only the restoration. Within the 12.7 the road will come out toward the Molly Gibson and exit down onto Park Avenue. Within the AH it is single family or duplex. Units are RO and are two story construction and approximately 1800 square feet livable. Gross square footage is up around the 2,000 range. They have two car garages onto them. I will turn the specifics of the architecture over to Brad. There is a vertical drop so we are setting the buildings into the hillside so that you access high with parking, living and master bedroom and the secondary bedrooms access below. The category 2 duplex structures have a total of 8 within the four duplex structures and the units are significantly smaller. In terms of general layout the road system is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 critical and we minimumized the grade cuts that are going to be required. Our maximum grade cut is 6 1/2 feet. We will provide starter landscaping for the units which includes sod and seed areas around the homes and we will provide trees and shrubs. It will not be a lavished landscaping and people will finish their own. We don't want expansive sod but we do want some sod around the units. We have a lot of functional landscaping and screening that is taking form. Ail architecture springs out at a 1/2 dozen styles. We don't want to imitate victorian styles. We want to take the miners cottage and turn that into modern homes. We are also including some key elements of the west end. The things that work well are the distance of the units from the street, the distance of one unit to another and some of the general massing and the use of the miners cottage is a starting point. Brad Reed, architect: The book handed out explains what we want to do and what we don't want to occur. We are at a schematic level and we do not have details. What is critical about the handout is the overall style, size and bulk and the feel of the architecture that we are going for as well as the layout of the site plan. At this point we do not have a lot of visual aids and we will have a large scale model of the entire project. We will do elevations and landscaping and we will include computer images and a video fly-by is in the works. Included in the book are photos of houses that Stefan loved with reference to scale and massing and the porches. We do not want fake victorian architecture and I wan6 to make sure everyone on this committee understands that. You will not see any garage doors from the view of the city at all. In the packet are mass studies. All are 45 degree pitched roofs, 16 feet wide. We do not want the victorian feel but want the miners cottage feel. We intend to use corrugated steel rusted, shingles, wood siding etc. The floor plans are site specific. Les: Regarding the free market units will their be covenants that they have to comply with? Tom Stevens: We are going to covenant the themes that we need to carry on the project, overall style and feel and some materials. Les: I feel you will be able to get whatever amount you want for these because people will understand conceptually what is going on there. I would say get a little stricter with your covenants. Brad: We need the covenants but at the same time they need to be a little open-ended with a review board so that you don't stifle creativity because sometimes people come up with something that you never thought of and it is fantastic and you don't want to say no. Les: Most of the time that doesn't happen. Roger: As developers would you have a problem with whoever purchases Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 the land coming before HP for mass and scale? That would become part of your covenant. Tom Stevens: I can't answer that. Gary: We would have a problem with that. This is an ~uq project and we will cover the deficit that is created in building the 38 deed restricted units with the sale of the free market lots. We are terrified right now as to how available they will be and what prices they will be. We want an appropriate balance with covenants and preserve the character which will only increase the value of the free market lots. We want to minimumize further review of things that cost people time and money. Brad Reed: When you see these buildings nestled into the hill due to grade some will be higher and some lower. Roger: In looking through the booklet there was concern about many of the roof lines being the same and perhaps they could be moved a little bit. Brad: We have thought about that a lot and they will tend to look the same from the street even though they are nestled and it is a problem and some of them will be taken care of by the contours. The top loaders will have to have their roofs raised four feet in order to make the cross section of the garage work. Roger: Is there a way to pull back the garage to make it a less important element. Brad: We have taken the south side of the house as the important side because that is where people are going to live and the decks are located. I do not think the garages coming out is so bad and I like the massing of the garage and the roof shapes. Donnelley: I am glad to see you looked at what happened at Sea Side but that is only part of it. Is there the desire to have community activity and the other reason Sea Side is so successful is because there is a very sophisticated extensive architectural vocabulary within which thirty architects have worked successfully. I am happy to see simplification and now need to see sophistication in other words using victorian cottages as a departure and removing the decorating and incorporate the use of double hung windows. Establish an architectural vocabulary in which future homeowners can use in developing their own project that would give them the chance for sophistication but not letting it out of control. This is a wonderful opportunity to do that. Donnelley: You say you want covenants but you do not want to discourage people and one of the things Sea Side did was to develop an extensive architectural vocabulary where someone from outside could come in and grasp rather quickly what was being sought after for an Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 element. Tom Stevens: We are doing this project to recapture community and we have had several meeting with some of the potential buyers and half of them already know each other. What will result is one of the closest knit senses of community that we have ever seen. In terms of process we will not be there for quite awhile. The structures were meant to build off of the miners cottage concept. One of the things that Stefan wanted is a community garden and we need an active park. Brad: One thing about this community is that there is some economic strata and that is always good to have a mixture in a community. We also have some traditionally small streets and there will not be a lot of traffic. Joe: What is the average size of the free market lots? Brad: 17,000 sq. ft. and we are looking at a voluntarily reduction of FAR. I think it will be different from lot to lot. We will use a starting point and then potentially apply a reduction from there. Tom: What it comes down to is that the FAR on any of these lots is around 3200 to 3500 square feet. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Jake: By now you are aware of the character guidelines and I helped in writing the ones for the area you are in. One of the things about this area of town is that there are narrow streets and some of them stop. There are a lot of building slots. In some cases you have regular square lots and some are irregular. Possibly you can canter some of the building elements and by doing that you will increase the amount of interest in the area. The guidelines talk about orientation toward the south and west and you have done that. Topography variations which also add to the variety of this area as opposed to the west end which is all flat. Leadville is really an interesting place and has a great pattern and it is all miners cottages in every conceivable variety and variation of what can be done. That is more conceivable than modeling or patterning after Sea Side. The inclusion of metal siding and the wide variety of materials is consistent with that area of town. The higher density of small houses as opposed to larger structures. The compression of density adds to the area and I do not have a problem with that and I can relate that to City Council. I feel this is lower density than Centennial. Open space should be allowed to be functional. In this area there are little roads that dead end which are like little neighborhoods and you really haven't done that in your proposal. Also because there are no alleys over there the streets have to perform the alley functions. You have trash, pedestrians and parking and all the stuff that goes in alleys, windsurfer boards. In the miners era you would find a variety of scaled buildings, some detached and some attached. Those buildings add Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 interest. The sidewalks going down along the streets are suburban. Tom Stevens: We lost that because the City Engineering Dept., Parks and Recreation Dept. both recommended sidewalks. Jake: Is there a way to have a walk that isn't paved? Tom Stevens: The only way it will work is to get five feet of concrete off the side of the road and we hate it. It doesn't fit the project. Jake: It also doesn't fit the guidelines. Donnelley: I agree whole heartily what Jake has said and one thing that should be emphasized is that small secondary structures need to be on the site and that two units could share one for trash etc. and things that are part of daily life. Landscaping on this hillside is an architectural element. Trees should be limited to the trees that are already there. Tom Stevens: We are looking at a limited palate and one of the trees being evergreen. Les: I really agree with Jake's comment on the sidewalk. It is critical that the roofs get broken up. Don't underestimate the market because it is not always the height and hugeness of houses that people want who are moving to this area. Roger: I agree with Les and Donnelley and also that evergreens are inappropriate for that area. Also that the higher portions of the buildings are more to the west and as one becomes closer to the mine that those buildings are then the smaller ones. That way the community doesn't dominate the mine. Linda: I have nothing to add at this point but will dissolve what you have presented today. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC finds that this project meets the neighborhood character guidelines and that we will pass this recommendation on to P&Z and City Council with the following comments: That the sidewalk be eliminated because it does not fit the guidelines. That the applicant study breaking up the roof heights and that you use no indigenous tree species. Also that the applicant study the use of an outbuilding for trash etc. that are normally handled in an alley situation. That the covenants for the free market incorporate the character guidelines and that they be flagged by the architectural control committee that reviews it, second by Donnelley. Gary: I would like to make a comment about the FAR reduction being added to this motion. FAR is a starting point and the things that are critical are your character guidelines and design standards. I would hope that we can work to minimize impacts with design features Historic Preservation Conunittee Minutes of June 8, 1994 and overall patterns and materials rather than diluting ourself that you can't really do a nice 4,000 square foot house. Joe: My feeling is that it is difficult for us to reduce the FAR without seeing what the design looks like. It doesn't seem like to me even with the maximum FAR on basically a third acre that there is going to be that much massing on it. I am sure City Council will address the FAR issue. Roger: We understand your desire to ask for voluntary FAR and we would request you do not be too forthright and that you allow individual architects to have some creativity. Why don't you let HPC look at mass and scale so that we don't have something that is not compatible. If you go with the guidelines of mass and scale we probably wouldn't even have to look at it. We are working with you to help you get through City Council so it will happen by being proactive. Amy: My thought is that the FAR will be set and if you want to go beyond it you have to satisfy the guidelines so I feel there is not need for clarifications. Jake: We need to look at the criteria in the AH zone and find out if it is appropriate because of the exposure on the hill etc. My gut feeling is that it is too liberal because of the reduced standard. Gary: I appreciate the support of Joe's motion and it accomplishes what we feel are the HPC's concerns with the project at this time. We can really use your help and we hope you will communicate with City Council on the issues of sidewalks and issues about density. Joe: I would like Lo see what City Council does before we say anything. Tom Stevens: Trying to do the AH zone project is difficult as we always battle with trying to create free market value to build the affordable housing. In restricting FAR on free market lots we are restricting value on free market lots. If the value goes down you cannot build affordable housing. The zone district works the way it is now. Ute Park and East Cooper are examples that work. If it gets trimmed down anymore it will not work. Roger: In your motion you didn't strongly address that the HPC feels united as a Board that this is an exciting project and the existing density as proposed is accepted. Conceptually this is an exciting project. AMENDED MOTION: Joe amended his motion to state that the HPC strongly supports this project and that the existing density proposed is acceptable; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion. Motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 132 W. MAIN STREET - SETBACK VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARINg Amy: The applicant has discussed the need for a new entryway on the west side of the house and we gave approval for that and now they need an approval to construct steps and a railing and they need a variance for that. Four feet on the west side yard. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing, no comments. Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the request for a four foot west side yard variance and that part of this approval we request a simplified porch to be designed and approved by Staff and Monitor for 132 W. Main Street, Asia; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. Les: I have no problems with this because it is on the west side. I also feel personally anytime that there is an intrusion with setbacks on neighbors that are contiguous it is not appropriate anymore. We are violating our own historic guidelines. Martha is the monitor. Dennis Green, attorney: We would like you to consider the position of the door letting us move it a little bit forward towards the front of the building. We need this to improve the quality of the space. We want to have it between the bay window and the middle window. Joe: No motion to consider the proposal. HOTEL JEROM]~ - MINOR DEVELOPMENT- 330 E. MAIN STREET Amy: This is for a safety fence around the pool for insurance purposes. Paul Anderson, construction: I am the contractor on the project. It is an open wood fence and matching the fence exactly. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the application for 330 E. Main Street, Hotel Jerome as submitted; second by Jake. Ail in favor except Les. Motion carries 5 - 1. 303 E. MAIN STREET - PUBLIC HEARINg Jake stepped down. Chairman Joe Krabacher opened the public hearing. Chairman Joe Krabacher closed the public hearing. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the continuance of the public hearing on 303 E. Main Street to a date certain, June 22nd. second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 200 W. HOPKINS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy: The application involves adding a 4 by 6 foot opening in the west wall of this historic house in order to put in a gas fireplace. The owner didn't want to take the space away in the living area so it has to go to the outside wall. This is not a easily visible side of the house. There are no existing window and door openings. I recommend approval with the condition that none of the brackets below the soffet be damaged and that the flue be as small in size as necessary. Sally Barnett, owner: This is a gas burning fireplace. Amy: This is on the inventory but not landmarked. Sally: In 1977 a large addition was added to the back and the house is rated but not landmarked. Joe: What about these guy-wires. Sally: It is the smallest opening we could have. Joe: Does anyone have concerns about the finish or detailing of the stack and what that looks like. Sally: It is black and we thought it as a stove pipe. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC approve the application for 200 W. Hopkins partial demolition with the condition that none of the decorative brackets are damaged by this project; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Amy: The architect has stated that the drawings do not indicate what the size of the pipe will be. 523 W. FRANCIS - PARTIAL DEMOLITION Amy: If you remember this project has been before us before. Lucy Dikeou is the property owner had been asking for a site coverage variance. They wanted to construct a garage and we directed them to the Board of Adjustment who gave them the variance they wanted but would not allow them to construct a second floor on the space. It is in the code and would be extending a non-conformity. That did not satisfy their needs so they are back with a request for partial demolition. Only the part of the house that sits closest to the street is historic and the rest is an addition. They are proposing to Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 199% basically take the roof the addition and add on from there and to do their garage in the back. I felt that because the addition is not historic that I did not have a large problem with them taking the roof off but I didn't want to end up that the result would be a large external addition onto the smaller house. I asked that we require that the garage not be allowed to be more than 24 feet high because it did not meet standard 2A about its impact on the historic importa.nce of the structure. The applicant is requesting a restoration of the historic house and they are putting a bay window in. I do not know if that is the right type of window and I do not want to be adding conjectural details. I recommended that he find some evidence that the window existed or come up with a simplified window. Steve Buettow, architect: The window is on the previous permit approval. Amy: That window did not go before HPC. Due to the 50% demolition rule the owner of the house got a permit to do some demolition and that is how it occurred. We cannot take that back. Steve: The primary purpose of the addition is to get extra square feet and we have a minimum eight foot plate height and it would be a problem to lower it down as it would require a loss of square footage or additional dormers or in this case the client has antique furniture that is quite high that she wants to put in that room and it compromises that. There are a number of large trees that block out this portion of the house. The cost of construction goes up if we lower that plate and right behind the house across the alley is a much larger and non-historic type of structure that dominates our project. The roof elevations and slopes were meant to step it back with the major part of the structure being as far away from the historical and on the alley side as possible. CLARIFICATIONS Joe: What is your theory design-wise for the new addition part and why you have the new siding etc. Steve: We were trying to work with the elements that we had to begin with. We are trying to a two/house kind of concept with the older house then the newer house and then there is a definite setback area where the main door is. Joe: On the proposed north elevation it shows a dormer rising above the ridge line that is apparently new and are we reviewing that? Amy: Yes. Steve: Part of that is the old permit and we would like to extend the ridge eight foot further at the same elevation. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 Joe: Then that section intersects into the roof. The she roof comes off and a peaked roof comes on. I do not understand how that element gets attached to the historic house and it also looks like it is at an angle. Steve: It turns in. Donnelley: form. If this is all one plane the ridge dies into the roof Steve: No, that is not correct. The ridge is higher in the back. Joe: He is asking for an eight foot extension which would come into the back of the roof when drawn accurately. Donnelley: I realize that this portion was previously approved but because it is a non-traditional shingling, traditionally this would be a cut shingle fish scale or i.e bevelled. Why is this not a more traditional shingle so that it identified this portion as an historic element. It seems to be a total integration so the historic element is not adequately represented as such. That could be remedied by making this gable end applying a different shingle pattern if one wants to integrate the new work. Steve: That makes perfect sense. Roger: Was the historic gable end shingled or siding. Amy: It was boards. Steve: The design is not under review here just a partial demolition permit. Joe: With these partial demolitions one of the standards says what is the impact of the partial demolition on the historic resource and without knowing what it looks like after partial demolition is gone personally I cannot review it. I feel it is fair gain to look at this stuff. I do not like the cut shingle on the original historic house and that muddles the design and you are not sure what is new and what is old. I would like to also see if you could bring the height of the addition down a little even 18 inches. Basically the entire thing is being demolished on that side so there is something you can play with there. Les: The height is a consideration and it should be lowered a little. Joe: What is the peak cf the tallest gable? Amy: 27 feet. Joe: Max is 30 feet. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 Amy: The reason I made those comments is that we have 1 and 1/2 story deal and if we allow partial demolition we suddenly allow a practically a total demolition and we are ending up with a two story addition on the back and I have a problem with that and it effects the character of the historic building. In the front part they already have the knee walls and they went to 27 instead of so I sympathize. All I am asking is for them to do the same thing in the back. I still feel it is inappropriate on this building. Steve: A seven foot plate height could work. Joe: On the proposed north elevation this does not show the proposed dormer off the back roof. This is almost like a significant development. Amy: Yes but we do not have that authority. Steve: The purpose of that dormer being placed there at the last meeting is to accommodate an eight foot high antique bed. That is one of the reasons for the plate height problem. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the application for partial demolition for 523 W. Francis be tabled to a date certain June 22, 1994 for the following reasons: That standard number two, that the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent impacts on the historical importance of the structure has not been met because the proposed east elevation ridge line and dormer height are not consistent with the scale of the portion of the historic house and that those elements be lowered below the proposed eight foot plate height for the second story. Also that the gable end of the historic structure be clad in a material that would allow one to distinguish better between the historic structure and the new work; second by Roger. No one in favor, motion dies. Steve: Isn't the gable end an already approved item? Amy: The owners roof leaks in the back and is eager to get something going. Possibly it can be solved and we can move on. Donnelley: I would have to change my motion to say that the cladding for the new work should be changed in a way to make it significant from the historic. Steve: We would prefer to have an approval with conditions and we are amenable to reducing the height of the highest ridge down to equal the other one. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant partial demolition approval for this project at 523 W. Francis with the conditions that the ridge height, plate height of the carriage house be reduced to the same 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 8, 1994 height as the middle dormer 24 feet. The ridge line of the carriage barn will be the same height as the ridge line of the side house that is described in the plan and that the siding will be something different that what is approved. Not the same treatment as the gable end of the new addition; second by Les. Question was called by the chairman; carries 6 - 0. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk