Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19940112Minutes of ~&nu&~ ~2~ 1994 305 E. CITY SHOP - ROOF SAMPLES 801 E. HYMAN - EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS - PH 220 W. MAIN - EUROPEAN FLOWER MARKET CD-PH HOPKINS - STEAK PIT 1 2 7 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COI~TTEE H~nutes of ~&nuar~ ~2, ~994 Meeting was called to order by Vice-chairman Joe Krabacher with Bill Poss, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Martha Madsen, Donnelley Erdman, Linda Smisek and Karen Day present. Roger Moyer was excused. COMMIBBIONER COMMENTS Les: The Historic Trust got $1200 for training so anyone that has any ideas let me know. We will be doing the training in the summer. MOTION: Joe made the motion to add 305 E. Hopkins, Steak Pit to the agenda; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. CITY SHOP - ROOF SAMPLES Cris Caruso, Special Projects: We are trying to stay within the architectural means. The choice corten became very costly and was not appropriate being so close to the river. Since then Newstrom- Davis and Gibson and Reno have been working with us and we have two options which are affordable to us. Rolled corrugated steel roof for the administration building which would match the existing roof. If we can find $16,000 we will continue and do the existing roof which is having problems. With this material we are getting there historically. Wood sheathing and bitchuthan will be placed on the roof and then we will have to rely on the product. There is no warranty on this roof and I did not want to do that throughout the entire project. In addition it was cost prohibitive to do the entire project ($67,000 above budget). We are looking at doing a standing seam metal roof slate gray to match the brick. We wanted to get it broken up as much as possible. We have it broken down to 12 inch seams. The brick for the building has 85% a lighter color brick and 15% a darker brick. We are tyring to age the brick by putting it on a tumbler to break up the edges which gives it an historic nature. Cris: I need direction so I can order materials. The sides of the buildings are block. Joe: We wanted them to look at corten and they have and decided it could not be done due to the costs. It will be brick walls and cracked block. They are proposing to put the rust like material as an overlay on the existing building and on the administration building. The standing seam would be on the block buildings. Cris: The block is a combination of split face and flat face. We could have gone standing seam throughout but wanted to keep as much of the historic nature with the corrugated rustic look as possible. This is as far as we could go and still have a warranty. Historic Preservation Committee Ninutes of ~anuar~ lZ, 1994 Les: I have no concern about a warranty on a roof because if they build it right it would not be a problem. Cris: It is a manufacturers warranty on the paint, fading, and if the seams shift. Jake: The thing about corten is it rusts until a certain depth then quits rusting. Cris: I have read about that and it is not necessarily true. We just cannot afford the corten. NOTION: Joe made themotion that the HPC approve the proposal as presented subject to the monitor reviewing the actual profile of the historic part of the roof/building; second by Bill. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: In Telluride they used a batten seam as opposed to a standing seam. /%MENDED MOTION~ Joe amended his motion subject to the applicant studying a batten seam rather than a standing seam; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. SOL E. HYI~N - EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS - PM Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Stan Mathis: Public notice was posted. Karen: I need to step down. MOTION: Joe made the motion to approve the extension of the vested rights of 801 E. Hyman in accordance with the memorandum presented by the Historic Preservation Officer for nine months; second by Martha. October 12, 1994 would be the extension date. All in favor except Les. Motion carries. EUROPEAN FLOWER ~KET CD-PH Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Neighbor: We looked at this and I want to know what the bulk is? Glenn Rappaport, architect: I will be glad to explain it too you. Amy: The project involves a partial demolition and an additional 500 square feet. This lot is a nonconforming size and nonconforming use so the applicant cannot demolish more that 75% Historic Preservation Committee Hinutes of ~anu&ry IZt 1994 of the building without loosing their existing rights. They cannot demolish more than 45% which is a concern in this design. They have to leave 75% of the building. Glenn: When I started this project I was trying to figure out if it could be done without going through GMP and if it had too the flower market use would have to be eliminated because the Main Street use is moving toward office/residential. This is a non- historic building on an ecclectic block. We are really pushing the definition that this is a building at all and we are required to retain 75% of it. There are non-insulated walls and the roof over the main section of the building is a fiberglass roof. The center section does not have a foundation. The front piece has a basement and there are garages in the back. The program is to do offices on the second floor and mixed uses offices/flower market on the first floor. There is not much of a budget. The lot is narrow and they need to get the floor area. If we go over 500 feet we need to go through growth management. We need to get the additional FAR for this project to work. We are hoping the HPC will make a recommendation to the P&Z in our favor that it is compatible to Main Street. Donnelley: What are the materials on the front facade. Glenn: Stone base and wood siding. The stone base may wrap around a little on each side. We are trying to do something that is straight forward. We are completely eliminating the front facade and where we are cutting in on the back of the building we are eliminating that area for legal parking spaces underneath. There is a lot of angulation going on that street. Bill: What is across the street? Glenn: The Innsbruck Inn is right across and there is one small victorian. Karen: Is there something that we can tell you to take back to your clients? Glenn: If you like a certain material or if the flat simple facade is appropriate so we can study that and come back. I also talked about awnings. Donnelley: I am working under the assumption that all we are talking about is the facade because I am not concerned what happens on .the east and other elevations. Those areas will mostly be utilitarian decisions. Along Main Street at this location most buildings have very impermanent character. If you can be successful the building should remain small and I would be looking 3 M~nutes of ~&nu&r~ L2~ ~994 at making it more substantial in material for this one elevation such as stone. Clapboard is OK but residential. This entire block on this side does not have residential character and no references. I think it would be establishing a really good precedent to do something that looked like it was staying there for awhile. I like the drawings that were presented at the meeting (q~onset) style. Karen: I would like to comment on the building as it is right now. The front area of the current building is friendly and charming that I have a hard time driving past the building without stopping and going in. The shallow little yard from the front looks like a little wilderness. It is not a formally landscaped area, very charming with clumps of flowers and trees and a path. The little steps up are very inviting. The gray and black awning is very welcoming and the little driveway beside the building. I feel something will be lost with these proposed drawings. Possibly it is the awnings. The open area on the side (driveway) will be lost. Glenn: Most of the outside driveway is not on their property. Also the intent would be to continue the flower shop. The City wants to get rid of that parking slot not that I am in favor of that. Les: I would make a strong appeal to P&Z if in return we can keep the smaller buildings onsite and get a wonderful piece of architecture. I like the ecclectic mixture on Main Street. I would prefer the peaked over the quonset style. I would like to work as close as possible to make this project go. Glenn: I feel we can pull back a little from the boundry line and we might have some overhang and look at it more carefully inside. Jake: Unless this project follows the characater guidelines I would have a hard time writing a letter of support in the increase of FAR. If on the other hand it supported some of our issues then because of the extra effort from an HPC point I would be more supportive. My feeling is something more of a Main Street look rather than residential gable presentation here. I also feel the window is very dominant and it needs broken down. The shedding of the roof this way in tight sites is very difficult from a drainage point of view. You can even see that in your pictures and if you go for special review the P&Z will flag that. Joe: We need to look at it in terms of what is in this particular block and the Main Street corridor. It is not historic and there is nothing on the block historic. So it is a question as to how it relates to the rest of the Main Street historic district. As far as the current design I would like to see it restudied. It seems like a squattie building and the design with the wide 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutss of J&nu&z~ 12, 1994 horizontal element of the windows should be restudied. As far as the special review increase to 1 to I FAR I am not sure what the HPC has to say about it. There are other provisions to increase FAR for historic landmarks but this is special review by P&Z and I do not feel we have much to say about it. Linda: I do have a connection with Karen in that it should be user friendly. Being a smaller building you can feel attached rather than if it was a larger building. It is the only building on the block that you feel you are invited into. It should be something special. Bill: I feel this is a difficult building to work with and it is in a block that has 70's architecture. It is hard to relate to any context. When you look at the map there are quite a few residence there. You will have to choose which way to go as I feel the lodges are there to stay. I have a problem with both roof shapes because they do not relate to anything that is going on there but it is difficult to find something that it should relate too. Les: What is the square footage of the building right now and what are you asking from us? Joe: 3990 on a 4500 square foot lot. Les: If this building wasn't there what would be allowed? Glenn: 3990 because you are allowed to rebuilt what is existing if it burns down but the allowable is much less. Jake: My other comment was about having to leave 75% and taking out 25%. That seems like an odd rule. Amy: I did check into it and there is nothing that HPC can do. It is a use that is not permitted in the district. Les: What is happening with the McDonalds looking at mixed used with the Log Cabin? Amy: It will happen and Glenn could sponsor the code change for expansion of uses on Main Street. Glenn: If the HPC can find a way to say that the FAR increase would be consistent with the kind of bulk that is going on Main Street in the office zone district then that might help with the P&Z process. Joe: You might remind the P&Z that they just approved the Stapleton project which is just next to my house for a special H~stor~o Press~v&t~on Committee ~inutes of ~anuaz~ 1~, L994 review to go to I to i FAR. Glenn: It is actually easy to justify and if you look at what is happening on Main Street and the trend, even the city supports other than residential. Main Street is not desirable to have more residence due to the traffic etc. Joe: The .25 to one that you would get on this lot which is eleven hundred square feet 60% of that has to be used for employee housing. Glenn: Ail we have left is the facade and that is the real designing area. Jake: Facade and massing. Glenn: I was on the Main Street sub-committee and my understanding was the people that had businesses on Main Street were comfortable at getting used to the smaller residence and the larger residences would be office uses. We were also trying to get restaurants or something like that to happen along the way. Also if the bulk of the buildings on Main Street were to get a little bit bigger it would help to buffer the west end from the traffic. Les: We had a slide show and it had infill projects that were good. I do not like the bulk on the corner because then you loose the pedestrian experience. It is a unique opportunity to do something that people look at and stop and say look at that. Joe: The HPC has always had problems with projects that aren't purely historic. I do not feel comfortable granting conceptual for this particular design and would propose tabling. Donnelley: Would it be wise for them to invest a slightly larger portion of their budget in the facade because we are looking at something more permanent. Can we agree on a certain direction so that there would be some commitment. Bill: We can make a statement that the project presented at this meeting does not meet the guidelines that are in existence. The HPC would be supportive of the FAR increase if the facade is designed to meet some of the guidelines and make a statement of these new projects infill's on Main Street. In order to get the FAR it should meet some of the Main Street district guidelines. Glenn: The general direction would be a simple shape and flat facade maybe with awnings maybe not. Use more durable materials. We also could do something with a front porch concept. The investors imply they didn't want it to look like a house with a H~storio Preservation Co~ttee ~inutes of ~anuar~ ~2~ ~994 porch. It might be more helpful for me to focus on the flat facade direction. Bill: I have two comments: Be careful on your exiting because you are close on your FAR and in the basement you will be required to have two means of egress. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that HPC table 220 W. Main St. until the next meeting to absorb and synthicize the suggestions made at this meeting; second by Jake. Ail in favor, motion carries. Bill: I am not too happy with the two designs because neither relate to the historic context. Even if the designs are different they can relate to the context of the district. Amy: There are commercial and residential guidelines and I applied residential because commercial talked about store front windows. Donnelley: I don't think either apply here. Joe: You need to come in and just tell us why your design works and what you want. Karen: I feel the lower front corner should be friendly and if it is not your tenant will loose numerous sales. I am a consumer there and as the drawing indicates presently, it is not friendly. 305 E. HOPKINS - STEAK PIT Amy: Peter Guy, owner of the Steak Pit would like to move the existing sign to the new location, Katie Reed complex. There will be no neon. On this particular building I feel the style of the existing sign is appropriate but may not be on the Katie Reed. Karen: Have other signs been relocated to new buildings? Amy: Guido's. Perter Guy, owner: I have had this sign for 26 years. Bill: Will the existing letters meet the height requirements 12 and 18 inch? Peter: Yes, they are just over 8 square feet and if you measure the tallest letter it is over 12 inches but the average is not. Historic Preservation Conittee Minutes of J&nuaz~ 12, i994 Amy: You are allowed to have one letter in each work to be as high as 18 inches. MOTION: Donnelley made the motion that the Steak Pit owned by Peter Guy be allowed to move the existing sign to the new location 305 E. Hopkins as proposed providing that the lighting remain legal within the city standards; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. Les: I like the idea of recycling signs etc. Peter Guy: I am fond of the sign even if I have to leave the neon behind. I like the mix on Main Street and would hate to see all the infill projects destroyed but numerous buildings that look the same. It is a difficult problem because you have no guidelines. Amy: The lights outside Planet Hollywood's door appeared with no globes. I do not feel they are existing and the bare light bulb is not appropriate. Jake: In our guidelines and during presentations by the public we need to make sure there is a lighting plan, roof plan and also we need to address stockade fences etc. Les: There has to be solutions to roof top equipment somewhere. Amy: At the next meeting we need to discuss 1994 goals. Bill: Draft a resolution indicating the goals. Amy: We have talked about the demolition code and John Worcester interpreted that the code states that demolition or relocation will be approved unless HPC finds that it meets the standards. Joe: We are clear that it deals with partial demolition of an inventory structure. MOTION: Martha made the motion to adjourn; in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. second by Karen. Ail Kathleen J. sTrickland Chief Deputy Clerk