Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920826HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of August 26, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer, Karen Day, Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek present. MOTION= Roger made the motion to approve the minutes July 22nd and August 12, 1992 ; second by Don. All motion carries. of July 8, in favor, MOTION: Jake made the motion to add 204 S. Galena and Grosse to the agenda; second by Karen. Ail in favor, motion carries. Sven Alstrom: Grosse Enoroachment The Eng. Dept. refused the encroachment and we had to go to the Board of Adjustment and try to get a repeal. We got a 3-2 vote which was not enough to carry. So our next step is City Council. The members of the board did not feel they should do a policy decision. We had a 1.6 inch encroachment existing. Roxanne: I have asked that the Eng. Department, Planning and the Board of Adjustment have a worksession regarding cottage infill. We have already started the appeal process. GAP- 204 S. GALENA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Sven Alstrom, architect: We have a minor request for a change in the corner entrance on the first floor. They would like to eliminate the pair of doors and continue the storefront around the corner. The ceil of the glass would be two feet above existing grade. Roxanne: The Board argued this issue as to whether that should be an active entrance or a set of doors. Issues of light etc. brought up and whether that entrance should be diagonal. Don: I am the project monitor and I certainly would keep the door in because the Gap's lease is five years and possibly another tenant will be in there and we would have to redo the doors again. Linda: Where would the doors be located if they were not there? I have a concern with the exposure to the weather. Sven: They have enough exits etc. They wanted it eliminated because the finished floor height is the same two feet higher. They want their retail store floor level all the way to the corner. They just have one entrance. Les: I do not think this is a minor amendment and the doors should remain. Linda: I would hate to see the doors taken out of there. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 26, 1992 Roger: Leave the doors. Joe: My inclination is to leave the doors. Don: Once they are inside the doors they would have to make the two foot change in elevation with steps. They could build a false floor during their tenancy that could be changed back later on. Roxanne: The Board unanimously wants the doors retained. 134 E. BLEEKER - MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND VARIATIONS - PH Bill Poss stepped down Jake Vickery stepped down Karen Day seated to vote Joe Krabacher chaired and opened the public hearing. Roxanne: The applicant wants to install a deck on the second floor west elevation centered on the out building. The first time we had talked about it Staff did not support that type of particular element. The Housing Authority and the Planning & Zoning Commission both really encourage some kind of deck that could be reversible architectural feature and not damage the integrity of the out building. The deck would provide life to the accessory dwelling unit. The proposal is nine by twelve. It encroaches 1 foot 10 inches into the west setback which requires a variation. The other issue is the interior/roof. They desire to retain the historic members of the roof on the interior and over frame to handle the new roof. What that does is increase the non-conformity due to height. The other issues deal with the addition to the main house. The deck is quite large and possibly could be reduced so that it doesn't go into the setback. Other changes deal with the hyphen between the old building and new building. The addition itself changes (east addition) which is closest to the community church and most visible. The west elevation had an attrium tower that provided light and green space to the master bath, that has been changed due to the snow shedding off the roof. That has been simplified and I would recommend approval of those changes. Andy Wisnowski, represented client: In reducing the deck one of the requirements of the client is to try to maintain a parking space underneath it. Les: If it comes out eight feet where is the problem you just don't cover as much of the car. Andy: It could be minimized but it is more comfortable with nine Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of August 26, 1992 feet. Don: What is the configuration of the ADU roof? Andy: I would have to refer that to Jake as I thought it was not an issue to be addressed. Don: When you rotate it around the corner there is no indication as to what it does. Les: What is the purpose of the over framing detail? Andy: To carry the design into the roof system and over roof it. Les: Are you doing this to maintain a visual on the inside or to make it easier? Andy: To get the structural member incorporated into the roof you are basically tearing the roof apart to accomplish that. Les: If you took off the existing roof and scab along the roof would you get the same structural? Andy: That would help us only in the joist and we would still have to do the ridge beams. Roxanne: The applicant want to preserve the interior of the roof and leave the roof open and visual. Les: My main concern is to leave the outbuilding subservient to the main house and to give it another foot it becomes a primary building also. If they are doing it to make it easier then I am opposed to the height increase. Roger: exposed what? When looking inside the cottage you will see the original but what will be the surface between, sheetrock, wood or Andy: I am not sure of the condition of the existing decking or what that roof will be. Roger: You would see the exposed wood and will it be painted? We do not usually get into interiors but these people want to save the skeleton of the building and put something on top. Something cosmetic should not be used inside, it should show the skeleton. Karen: I agree with the increase in height but feel the ceiling or roof should be saved as its original form. Today it could be cleaned up very easily. I would hate sheet rock between the beams. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of ~ugust 26, 1992 Roxanne: If the Board feels strongly about saving the interior they should require it. Andy: The intent is to intergrade into the existing framing. Martha: What is the square footage of the accessory dwelling? Andy: I would have to find that out. Roxanne: It.is a minimum of 300 sq. ft. livable. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dr. Richard Johnson: We own 123 E. Hallam and we are diagonally across the alley from the project. Mr. Crum is directly west at 105 Hallam and I am representing him also. This has been an eye sore and we approve of the addition to the house. Priscilla Saddler, next door owner: I have had the little victorian for 15 years. My concern is the deck and having the project on top of my back yard. I also applaud the new owners. Possibly the deck is coming out too far. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Karen: Is there a dimension of the deck that Mrs. Saddler would feel comfortable with? Mrs. Saddler: Make it smaller and not have the encroachment. Roxanne: It presently comes 3 feet 2 inches from the property line. Don: It appears to be a compromise because they are really not preserving the roof itself they are preserving the character. They are making a big change to the exterior in terms of height in order to accomplish something that is not pure. I do not feel we should approve the detail as presented. Don: Regarding the depth of the deck extension to the north of the barn it would have to be somewhere in the neighborhood of nine feet in order to make the accommodation of a vehicle. Roger: Why couldn't the post come back in as there are ways of bracketing the deck. This is similar to the marolt barn where they came in with different proposals and this is the same thing as there are traditional ways of doing things. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of August 26, 1992 Les: To create a variation I have to have a compelling argument that we are preserving valid historic elements. I do not see those here and a restudy is more appropriate. Giving one foot here and one foot there is damaging the neighborhood. Linda: I am concerned about the access of the parking and how they are going to get in there. Also what is the need for the deck? Joe: The applicant is requesting it and the P&Z and Housing Authority thought it would be more appropriate. Mrs. Saddler: I understand a deck for parking but do not understand a deck for more floor space and disapprove of a nine foot deck. My, My, how wealthy to have two parking spaces. Roxanne: This site is required to have four and they have three. Martha: I am not in favor of encroachments of any kind. around buildings should be preserved. Space Karen: I feel the roof needs more restudy. I also agree with Les that the out building is becoming as dominant as the house. Possibly put up string in order for us to site visit it and see what the difference would be visually. Don: We are doing all this raising for a tenant. Martha: I do not like the out building being as dominant. Joe: The consensus is that the committee is not in favor of raising the height of the out building and not in favor of the deck encroachment into the side yard setback. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC approve everything except the increase of the height of the roof of 134 E. Bleeker; a deck approval of 50 square feet or less, the design of which could be signed off by Staff and monitor and that we table the public hearing until September 9th to give the applicant the opportunity to come back if they choose; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk