Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19930210Historic Preservation Committee M~nutes of February 10, 1993 332 W. MAIN - REQUEST FOR CD EXTENSION SHOWCASE PROPERTIES 1 RESO. 2, 1993 - 533 E. MAIN, ST. MARY'S CHURCH PH . 1 232 E. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 2 205 S. MILL - MILL ST. PLAZA - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COI~ITTEE Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Don Erdman, Les Holst, Karen Day, Linda Smisek, Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery and Joe Krabacher present. Excused was Martha Madsen. MOTION~ Don made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 23, 1993; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. HOTIOH: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of Jan. 27, 1993; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION~ Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 9, 1993; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. Karen refrained from voting as eight members were present and only seven are eligible to vote. 332 W. MAIN - REQUEST FOR CD EXTENSION SHOWCASE PROPERTIES Roxanne: This is the second request for an extension of conceptual approval. They are asking for a six month extension. I would not recommend anything longer but Staff does support their request. That would take their conceptual approval up to August 12th. and at that time they would have to submit for a final or let it die. Janet Weaverson, representing Cunniffe and Associates and applicant. We would like this extension and plan on coming too the board for final within the next three months. MOTION: Les made the motion to grant a six month extension on conceptual approval of 332 W. Main which would be valid until August 12th; second by Martha. All in favor, motion carries. RESO. 2, ~993 - 533 E. li~ZN, ST. ~(ARYeS CHURCH PH Roxanne: This is a typical vested rights request by the applicant which they are allowed to do by State charter. This would provide that their final approval is valid and protect them from any significant changes in the landuse regulations for three years from the date of final approval which was May 13, 1992. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Bill: No comments from the public, public hearing closed. MOTION: Don made the motion that Resolution #2, vested rights for 533 E. Main be approved as presented; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Februar2 X0, X993 23Z E. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: This is an addition to an addition. Does an addition to an addition meet the standards especially in the roof form that the applicant has chosen to use. In order to get light the roof form is foreign for the addition and the historic resource. I am recommending tabling in order for the applicant to go back and revise the plans to keep the application alive. I also mentioned lowering the roof so that the light source could still be incorporated and that it wasn't so visible on the facade. The Board~might want to look at the windows to make sure they are compatible. Bill opened the public hearing. Wayne Stryker, architect: The owners would like to have the opportunity to have south light into this addition which means that the new roof must be higher than the previous roof. The FAR is slightly different because when I sum the existing square footage based on the construction drawings I get a number that is less than the allowable FAR so therefore the addition could be 496 square feet. If I take the approach of using the zoning code and the existing house is at its maximum FAR as a single family residence compare that then to the maximum allowable FAR for a duplex addition those two numbers are different by 420 sq. ft. Without sitting down with the zoning officer I can be positive on the number. I would like to hear comments from the Committee about the roof and shape of the windows. Possibly we would be willing to incorporate those ideas into this scheme. CLARIFICATION Roger: This addition is only visible from the rear? Wayne: As it is draw it is possible that you might see the top of the roof on the north side. It is very insignificant. Roger: Is there a fence that runs the entire length of the property? Wayne: Yes. Roger: If you were standing at the post office looking upward what portion of the building would be visible above the fence? Wayne: Most of the addition would be visible from the post office. The fence is there but you would see about half from the windows up. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Februar~ 10, 1993 Les: Is this zoned duplex? Roxanne: They have enough land to allow them a duplex, market units. They know that they have to comply with one which is up to the applicant and Housing Authority. two free ordinance Bill: On the north elevation is that a curtain wall and are the windows full height glass. Wayne: Full height glass. Ail of the materials would match the existing materials as identified in the colored photographs. Jake: On the south the roof is mansard in a vertical plane. So two sides are sloped. Wayne: That is correct. The south and north have glass. It is not a hipped mansard. Where the old house hits at each corner of the mansard roof the addition does not. Roger: So standing at the north you would see the three windows. Karen: What is the height of the interior ceilings? Wayne: The interior is 14 feet. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Don: I have a problem here historically because the addition is pretty much an assemblage of cubic volumes and what you add to the addition either has to be a continuation of the same or anything else will call attention to itself. It you wanted it quieter you should stay with something that is purely a vertical horizontal plane. I do not have much problem with the whole proposal because it is so far back and you really see it more from clark's market. However, it would be quieter and consistent if we didn't break into another vocabulary. Les: Possibly simplify to break it up a little, nothing radical. Roxanne: Does the Board find that the standards have not been met? Joe: Under the standards does it detract or is it compatible I feel this is something in between. The windows create such a large element that my eyes are drawn to that. I viewed it and it is not that visible. Possibly it should look more like the existing addition. Overall, I feel it meets the standards. Karen: I like the addition because there is a sharp separation Hiskoric Preservation committee Minutes of Feb~uaz~y X0, X993 between the existing house and the new addition. It is very clear. I feel this new addition will further complement the house and first addition. It is very simple. Because it is so few square feet 4,500 sq. ft. I feel that someone living in that space will be much more comfortable and I realize that this is not something that we rule over but even with the high ceilings it would be much more livable if they had the south light. The impact on the street is negligible than the person living in that space. I would be in favor of raising the roof height. The windows are appropriate. Roger: I feel that it meets all the standards and grant conceptual approval. The addition is not visible without looking for it and it is simple enough. Jake: The older addition is detractive to the historical resource in my mind. The new addition is an opportunity to be creative and I would like to suggest that a mansard roof be all the way around similar to the main house and that the glass be treated as a dormer inside that roof. Linda: I have always found the the original structure. The compatible. first addition unsettling toward second addition is much more Don: It is relatively a small space which is being added. I am not sure the vast amount of north light is appropriate when the real goal here is south light. Possibly produce a monitor in the roof for the south'light and keep the scale from Clark's market more consistent with the rest of the addition. Your plan shows a bathroom so there is not a need for a very tall north light. Roger: This is a good opportunity to use energy efficient windows. Bill: I think we should wait until the energy code is adopted but we all agree with the comments about the energy efficient windows. I like to allow th9 architect some artistic license in their style that they would like to proceed on their structure. It is a difficult structure since we have the new addition but I do not find it incompatible to try and relate to the historic structure and I think the design does that. Jake's comments about being a more mansard on four sides might be interesting but with the use of materials it might be too replicated. I do have some problems with the verticality of the windows. I would like to see a restudy of the windows on the north as they do not relate. Wayne Stryker, architect: We originally were thinking of making this part of the original addition but got into the 10 foot wall plate and were over FAR so we got into the mansard approach. 4 Historic P~eserv&tlon Co~ittee Minutes of Febru&r~ 10, 1993 Bill: That helps us understand why you took that approach. Jake: If we find that the mansard roof is a better plan we can give a FAR variation to accommodate that calculation. Straw Poll on proposed roof shape and height as presented; members in favor. Two opposed. five Wayne: Some glazing is important. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual approval for 232 E. Hallam and that the applicant be directed to restudy the windows and possibly look at the height of the addition; second by Roger. Les: A revision would be the only way I would vote for this. To me this addition is not soft and needs more work. It is too abrupt and too much visually. Joe: There is one group that likes it to relate to the old and one group that likes simplicity and to have it relate to the new and this is something in between that doesn't seem to fit. You need to sell this to us. Motion withdrawn. Jake: The job is to relate to the historical resource not relate to the old addition. I am clear on that. Pull out details on the historical structure that you like and simplify and bring them into the new addition that you are doing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval for 496 sq. feet to the Vigoda addition of 232 E. Hallam with the condition that the applicant restudy the fenestration (windows) on the north elevation; second by Jake. Jake: I would like to add restudy of the roof form (mansard roof). Roger: I feel that is included in the motion. Chairman Bill Poss called the question: Carried 5 to 2 - Opposed were Les and Don. Linda didn't vote. Wayne: I may do a model of just the addition for the next meeting. 205 S. MILL - MILL ST. PLAZA - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: The applicant is requesting an addition of around 875 sq. feet. A facade addition to the Mill St. plaza. This parcel is not designated but is located within the Commercial Core Historic Historic Preservation committee Minutes of Februar~ X0, X993 District. A pre-ap was held with the HPC at your last meeting. This is similar as the last presentation of addition something on to an addition that does not meet the standards. The first standard is character and compatibility to the adjacent parcel. The Mill St. Plaza is surrounded by six landmarks particularly the Katie Reid. The proposed addition is a ground level addition that project out 10 feet closer to the street edge. We find that is appropriate to have pedestrian traffic close to the sidewalk. The east elevation of the Mill St. Plaza meets the standards, the north elevation is very problematic and those were the issues that were dealt with. In regard to proportion, store front, pedestrian interaction, how the cross walk connection works, stairway, detailing, materials all those issues. We recommend a massing model be presented so you can see clearly how this will work. Because of these issues we find that Standard number 1 has not been met. Standard number 2 is character compatibility within the neighborhood which is the entire commercial core district and we also have a concern here particularly the pedestrian/ cross flow traffic and the elimination of the stairs which has entirely changed the way the entire building is working from the north. Also how the storefront windows work. The guidelines are listed beside the memo as a check list as to what works and what doesn't and why. Other concerns are listed in the memo. Standard number 3 deals with the cultural value and that standard can go either way. Enhances or detracts from the cultural value of particularly the Katie Reid project. Standard number 4 deals with architectural integrity of the designated landmark. Our recommendation is to table and continue to a date certain to.allow the applicant time to restudy per direction of the HPC. Larry Yaw, architect: This is an addition of around 875 sq. ft. The north side of the building is problematic in its present state as it has no street level entry. The display levels windows are eye level or above them and the existing stair is not an invitation to enter (too grand). The open space is not inviting. With that addition we intend to mitigate all those negatives and get a better relationship with the Katie Reid building. At the heart of the character of the building what can we intensify upon and make it a stronger personality. We did that and one of the major steps was to take the slate that is the exterior material for the building above and we brought it down into a significantly into this building so the entire facade would have the slate. There are awnings proposed. We took the dark red/brown material down into the building. Joe: What treatment are you doing on the window? Larry: We are enlarging and making bigger windows but the material will be the same as the existing brick. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Roger: Larry: Roger: Larry: edge. Roger: Larry: window Larry: Roger: Are both entrances on the Hopkins Street side airlocked? Yes. How far out are the three windows going to be bayed? Four inches, like a relief sculpture to break up the hard There was talk about a kickplate under the windows? I do not consider it to be an important detail under a within a brick wall. Kickplates are to protect something. Do you feel the proportions of the windows to the scale of the building is right on? Larry: Close enough to right on because in our research generally the windows on the lower floors were dominantly glass, historic reference. Roger: Is there room for benches? Larry: Around the project there is but not on sidewalk. Don: Is the area on the north west going to be reversible to an entrance in case of multiple tenancy? Larry: Yes, depending on who will be in there. Right now we may not have a door there and just put in a window. Roger: Would you mind having a door even though the north west is not an entrance, similar to the GAP? Larry: I have no problem with that but will discuss with owners. Roger: You don't show any lighting on the outside? Larry: There is low illumination up/down lights. CLARIFICATIONS Karen: The elimination of the north south mid-block crossing, would you explain that. Larry: The stairs are eliminated and I do not feel people use that Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 area at all. Leslie Lamont, Planner: It is a great way to connect midblock to the Wheeler etc. In the definition of open space it talks about mid-block pedestrian loops. Bill: This is a zoning issue and was it a previous application GMQS application or what? Leslie: I have not gotten an application from the applicant and when I do will review all the files. Larry: We cannot afford to solve all the problems of this building with this little addition. Bill: If this is an historic element then we would review it but if it is a P&Z issue then they should review it. Sunny Vann: OUr position would be that it is still a mid-block connection and we are prepared to argue that at P&Z and at the time we will be requesting to be exempt from the open space which is being eliminated by this addition. You should act on the application based on the architecture. This whole project is premised on the elimination of that entrance and maintaining the other stairwell which is 50 feet away and is an L turn. We would ask that you review it based on the submittal. If the Board feels closing the open space in front of the building is problematic that is an appropriate comment. Roxanne: Character compatibility within the district means a lot of things. If the Board feels this is an important thing that deals with the character of the community and how this building contributes to character then you do need to address it. This is a design consideration. COMMENTS Jake: I support this move. I feel the problems that Larry outlined are true. That open space is a no mans land and is useless as it is on the north side. I am in favor and like the differentiation of using slate and establishing its own statement but relating to the overall structure around it. Roger: I believe this project meets all the guidelines. I also like the use of the materials and solves the solution for the owner and the building. It softens and works well. I would request that the west entrance which is not an entrance but could be is in fact an entrance and always would be and the reason for that is that I would like to see the ability to pass through that area. Historic Preservation Committee l~inutss of Fsb~u&~ ~0, i993 Don: I have to take this as an addition to an existing building. I feel Larry has handled it very well and agree with Roger that the two entrances should serve as entrances. They definitely should be doors. Bringing it out to the sidewalk is a benefit. Karen: What you have done is an improvement. From a compatibility standard I feel the arched awning is much stronger as it links the second part of the building to the first part. I also feel the massing is long and plain in comparison with the massing of the adjacent building. I feel the building would be more compatible if the plane were broken up more in whatever way. I also agree that the windows should be brought down. I also liked the second stairway and it is too bad it has to go. Joe: I also feel that it meets the standards with respect to the adjacent properties in my opinion; by bringing out the building you encourage people to walk down the street. I also feel there should be the two entries. Les: I feel you are going in the right direction but personally would like to see a restudy of the massing windows. I feel the length should be broken up. Linda: I agree with most of the comments made and feel it is compatible with.the mother building. I am pleased with bringing it out to enhance the flow. Bill: I agree with the committee members and feel this is a remodel of an existing building. I had a few problems with the corner entrances because historically we only allow corner entrances on corners and this is mid-block but the committee is in support. I would rather have seen corner windows and a central entrance. By bringing the building out it strengthens the street a-lignment. The clipping of the corners allow the architect to soften it as we go back to the Lily Reid on the west end and open his entrance to the mini mall where the stairs occur. The materials are a good choice. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development for the 875 sq. feet plus or minus facade to the Mill Street Plaza building 205 S. Mill with the following two conditions: 1) The west entry is in fact an entry with a door. 2) Either through use of materials or brick a restudy is done to show the verticality of the building; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. Karen didn't vote. Historic Preservation Committee ~nu~es of Feb~ua~ 10, L993 Bill stepped down. Joe chaired. PRO~ECT-NONITOR~NG Joe: 801 is almost done and they may tear it down. 612 W. Main, nothing is happening. Lily Reid is coming along and Larry Yaw will check the mortar sampling this week. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Assistant City Clerk ,il