Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920708Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 WORKSESSION - WAGNER PARK RITZ SITE ICE RINK 624 E. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING VESTED RIGHTS 100 E. BLEEKER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 1 3 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION coMMITTEE Minutes of July 8,1992 Meeting was called to order by Don Erdman with Bill PosS, Jake vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day and Linda Smisek present. Les Holst, Joe Krabacher and Martha Madsen were excused. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of May 27, 1992; second by Linda. Ail in favor, motion carries. WORKSESSION - WAGNER pARK RITZ SITE ICE RINK · Diane Moore, Planning Director: Presented overview of Wagner Park & Ritz site ice rink. The actual Ritz ice rink sheet 60 by 100 feet with two structure onsite. One is for maintenance with a portion below grade and the other is a two story structure which would be a skate rental building. They also have a concession i itz site is a landscaped park area. This area. A portion of the ~ ...... as o~osed to what is being is a permanent outdoor rlnK.str~cuu£= ~ ' ice rink'ln proposed for Wagn~r.Par~ which is temporary being converted twi~e a year. For clarification there will only be one new the city. What we want to do now is extend the date for i~suance of the certificate of occupancy for the Ritz from October this year to October 1993. We will then have an approved rink on the Ritz site. If the Koch rink is approved'the Ritz site becomes a park $750,000 will go in escrow for operations of the Koch site. If Koch is not approved the Ritz rink will go forward and construct the rink by October 1, 1993. Diane: The ~och process will be a four ~tep process a~d HPC will ss. We are trying to determine what is be involved in ~he ~oce__= ~e ize for an outdoor rink in the really the best £oca=lon unu m=~ s such as cost, visual city. We looked at riding, issues environmental, circulation and dIfferent activities taking place. Roger: What is the size of an olympic ice sheet? Diane: 100 by 200. Craig Hansen, Design Workshop: We studied the use patterns and looked at the proximity to the mall in relationship to Cooper and Hyman and entire mall area. During the mining days that parcel had buildings and was dense. In the fire of 1884 the Claradon burnt down and rebuilt and burnt down again at the turn of the century. After that it became a piece of open space in the town. Sometime between the 20"s and the 40's it was official deemed a park. In the 1950's it was used as a parking lot. So that was the progress, it was infill during the mining days, then infill and open space.. Diane: The transfer of Wagner Park to the city has trails involved and it will occur within the next two months. From an historic point of view it never really was a park and sort of became one. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 Craig: What it is is open space used as a playing field and does not meet the standards for a park from the National Association of Parks standards. There are neighborhood parks, community parks and city parks and regional parks and it doesn't fit any of those categories and it is too small to be a ball field and too big to be a vest pocket park and doesn't fit anything traditional. Michael Erneman, architect: Cooper was attached during the 1920's. And in the 1940 photographs it still snows people playing ball but going across the gravel. We ranked all our research with a matrix and came up with a plan. How does the ice rink make life better in the community and how does it effect the park in summer. People go round and round with nothing to draw them. The rink is better situationed on an axis with Cooper Street. A service structure would be at the far end. Jake: How did it come to be an olympic size rink. Michael: Exhibition hockey if it would ever occur is far more exciting; the cost from a normal hockey rink which is 85 by 200 to 100 by 200 is not significant in the context of all. If we cover it up in the summer the impact is the same. Aspen does not have a full size rink. Having a small open rink was totally incompatible with covering it back up in the summer and having a playing field there. Diane: We are looking at 200 to 300 people a day using the rink. A typical recreational skater skates for an hour or and hour and 1/2. Peak time is 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Michael: The 85 by 100 isn't big enough for speed skaters, figure skaters and hockey players. Obviously there has to be a management of ice time. The space presently is dead in the winter. Don: Is this cost effective for the city? Michael: It will throw money back to the city and is cost effective. Don: As historic preservationists we need to talk about the physical implications. Bill: We had always talked about the "three great ladies, Little Nell, Hotel Jerome and the Ritz and that people will go to the different hotels and utilize that circulation. Karen: Behind McDonalds the traffic is heavy with tourists etc. It has been my theory that on the Savannah site we should have a place of quiet and stillness not more confusion, a park. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 Michael: I couldn't agree more. Ail the buildings around the Savannah site are three and four story and to have the vest pocket park would make it a soft urban space. There will be a entrance to the park and identified. Roger: Will the roof tops be used for viewing etc.? Michael: They could be and I would like some shape to this building. Diane: We are trying to set this up that it would not be operated by the city and contract it out. 624 E. HOPKINS - PUBLIC HEARING VESTED RIGHTS Bill Stepped down Don chaired Don Erdman opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson: Staff recommends adoption resolution for three years. of the vested right MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the vested rights resolution; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. 100 E. BLEEKER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Don Erdman opened the public hearing. Kim: The project consists of adding a second level detached accessory dwelling unit above an existing garage which is not an historic structure but is located on an historic parcel. Ed Grosse is the owner and Sven Alstrom is presenting the project. In addition to conceptual development for the structure itself you have to make a finding on setbacks and parking variations. One parking space is suggested for an ADU however it is not a code requirement. Four standards are to be considered by the HPC. There is an encroachment of the existing garage structure into the rear alley and across the property line on the west side 1.4 feet on the west and 1.8 feet into the alley. The applicant met with city Staff Encroachment Committee and site visited and it is the Encroachment Committee's finding that will be recommended to the Engineering Department that the encroachment not be granted to prolong the encroachment to the west. So what that means to the applicant is that in the course of the redevelopment of the garage the rear wall would have to be moved to where it is no longer encroaching into the alley. 1.8 feet would be lost along the 3 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 alley. The proposed ADU on your sketches shows that the accessory unit is dropped back to within the setback area so the new structure will not enlarge the encroachment. The variation .proposed or requested is part of this accessory unit are only for zero lot lines. Roger: Regarding the finding recommended by the Planning office stating that they recommend approval of conceptual finding that the setback and parking variations are more compatible should be disregarding due to the findings of the Encroachment Committee. Klm: I believe so but you can make a forwarding recommendation to Engineering but Engineering as of today had composed a letter to Mr. Grosse describing that the review committee was not willing to approve the encroachment. Sven Alstrom: I am trying to present a conceptual development that I feel is appropriate, small scale and gets us an ADU. We knew that we were dealing with encroachments because the existing building is encroaching. I designed it so that it did not increase any non-conformity, left the existing encroachments there. I guess HPC cannot be at odds with the engineering. In Roxanne's memo she was basically asking you to support what we had shown but I guess HPC doesn't have authority to make judgments on encroachments. Don: The existing encroachment does not appear to impede any required city activity in the alley, i.e. snow plowing, trash collecting. So, the encroachment is not an hindrance to vehicular access. Does the city have any problem with the present encroachment? Kim: No they don't. The opinion of the Eng. Dept. is the fact that this building is going to have its roof removed and a second level added which is a major project and now is the time to clear up the 1 1/2 foot encroachment into the alley.. Once the second story is put on that encroachment will remain for years and years. Roger: Would it be possible for the owner to live with a 1.8 foot reduction? Sven: It becomes difficult and HPC needs to look at the entire thing. I understand what they are saying about the encroachments and we do not feel we will impede any activities on the alley. Because of the separation between the different buildings which is currently ten feet we would propose to make that 6.6 feet and if we have to subtract another 1.8 feet then I do thing we have a problem because we have a minimum square footage area that we have to have on the second floor to have an ADU and right now the net usable is only 392 square feet and it is real hard to slip Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 everything down. Roger: Could the lower part of the building be brought in and the upper come out. Sven: No. Kim: Sven is correct in saying that moving the building over would not be an easy task. I do not feel the city is contemplating moving the entire building over. The easiest thing to do would be to build a new wall at the 1.8 feet and the existing wall taken off. It would end up creating a two story face on the alley up to the gable which would lessen the detail on that side of the building. Having made a site visit and seeing the inside of the garage what occurs on that side of the space on the inside is shelving and counterspace. We did not see equipment, mechanical or concrete walls that would be of great difficulty to move or remove. That would allow the ADU to remain the same size and layout. Ed Grosse: Is there not a requirement on parking 'per space? Does it help to have space inside the garage? Sven: He has two existing bedrooms and under the ordinance he does not have to have parking. Ed Grosse: If you take 1.8 feet off that, the second car will not fit. Kim: It shows a one car garage? Ed Grosse: Yes it does but I can fit two in and always have. Roger: I was already to approve this until.I read this and tried to figure out how we are going to make a finding of the encroachment. Don: We do have development review standards that need to be met and what is being suggested now is to move the lower story wall 1.8 feet back from the alley to be on the property line. It does have implications regarding development review standards as far as compatibility because it gives us quite a different kind of elevation. The Board should address that. Jake: We don't have any preview over an existing condition so we can't answer to that letter? Kim: When Roxanne called in I explained the letter and she said moving the wall in would not have any impact to the historic Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 structure itself and proceed. With this being a conceptual approval you should be making suggestions to treatment of the elevation with the understanding that this section of the roof will not be there. Don: Sven has already said moving the garage over would further reduce the separation between buildings and right now a variation is being asked for that. Kim: At that point we would have to discuss impacts and compatibility with the historic structure. Jake: The minimum separation between buildings needs to be five feet. Sven:. We have 6.6. Jake: We don't have move ability on this so are choices are to move the entire garage and have less distance between the buildings or build a smaller building. Sven: My opinion was to leave the encroachment and where do you draw the line on building separation. From the balcony you would have less than two foot separation. If we have to give up the encroachment our compromise would be to get a variance for the separation. We would be asking for that variation per the final. Don closed the public hearing. Committee Member Comments Karen: Any rented space under 400 feet is small and close and they need storage. Storage already exists downstairs in the garage in the 1.8 feet and we are being asked to take that away. Bicycles etc. may be added to the alley. The 1.8 feet is not doing damage to the alley regarding fire trucks, exits and trash pickup. I feel that it should be kept. I recommend that we make a finding that the encroachment should be left as it is. Kim: I will forward the comments to the Engineering Department. I would make the comment that the garage space should be reserved for the owner of the house. Sven: It is not designated for the ADU. This is a cottage infill ADU. Roger: Those units are very important. We have an existing structure since 1950 and not historical and has been used. It was a ski shop at one time and it would seem to me that we will be 6 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 presented with more of these in the future. Jake: We cannot grant a variation for in between the because it is not a landmark. buildings Roger: Since this is an existing building the HPC could find that in our opinion it is perfectly all right to leave the building as it is and put the addition on and not have to reduce it. Kim: The parcel is landmarked but the building is specifically non-historic. Sven: I thought since the parcel was landmarked you could grant variations. Kim: Yes. Roxanne is saying that she would recommend approval of this but with this new info from the engineering department it has to be moved at least to the property line. You could then make the finding that the extra five feet could be granted and Roxanne is recommending that you do so. Roger: The design, mass and scale is compatible. Don: I will sum up: Ail of the development review standards have been met and in my opinion if the existing level were moved in from the alley to move the 1.8 foot encroachment without redesign of the north elevation to keep the scale would not be historically compatible. I would recommend that we seek a way to keep the encroachments as they are and have the newer setback to the property line. Kim: Ask the engineering to reconsider. Don: The engineering department is not taking the individual case into consideration. This is a corner building and the end of a block which makes a bit difference in terms of ingress and egress and the existing encroachment does not interfere with any of the activities which have to occur. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval finding that the development review standards have been met and finding that the setback and parking (one space) variations are more compatible in character with the designated landmark than would be in accord with dimensional requirements. Our finding to the Engineering Dept. is that we would recommend that the building would remain as situated on the site without any reduction in size because any reduction in size would make this building less compatible historically with the existing landmark; second by Karen. Ail in favor, motion carries. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 8, 1992 Jake: I also'feel this requires a variation in the height of the accessory building which is limited to twelve feet and this will go above that. Kim: The cottage infill ordinance allows for variations or special setbacks to be granted and height limitations. It states that the maximum heights for detached accessory dwelling units in the R-6 zone may be varied on the rear 1/3 of the parcel, maximum height shall not exceed 16 feet. Sven is very aware of that. Roger: This is something to bring up at a worksession. Sven: We need to resolve our application for final approval as to what has to occur. Don: We granted conceptual development as far as we can and the encroachment issue has to be resolved. If you are obliged to move the entire thing over there might be other alternatives to a balcony such as french door or french balcony. Mr. Grosse: The sliders would alter the victorian appearance that we are trying to achieve. MOTION: Don made motion to adjourn; second by Karen. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 8