Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19920513Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 409 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION 210 S. MILL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - (FOOTLOOSE) ST. MARY'S CHURCH ADDITION - FINAL DEVELOPMENT 624 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION 409 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION MCDONALD'S - MINOR DEVELOPMENT WORKSESSION - 716 W. FRANCIS - ROOF PROBLEM . 134 E. BLEEKER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - PENN RESIDENCE 17 QUEEN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING 1 1 1 2 4 4 5 6 9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 13, 1992 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss wit Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Jake Vickery, Roger Moyer and Karen Day present. Excused Martha Madsen and Linda Smisek. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of April 22, 1992; second by Karen. All in favor, motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Les: The crocket house at 17 Queen Street is coming up tonight. When Glenn moved to Basalt I took over as project monitor. When they brought in front of us the request for a parking space I went up and looked at it and they had it misaligned and there was a very large cottonwood tree that I discovered that they sort of had on their property and it wasn't. We laid out the line and the tree wasn't on their property and I told them to not touch that tree and they took it out. That started the chain of events that is going to happen tonight. There are neighborhood problems and the tree vanished in the night. That is basically what is going on here and I specifically told them not to touch that tree. I turned it into the Parks Department and so did the neighbors and so far there has been no response. I had some window changes on 824 Cooper and that project is going well. 409 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION MOTION: Roger made the motion to move the conceptual development of 409 E. Hopkins to the end of the meeting; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. 210 S. MILL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - (FOOTLOOSE) Roxanne: The members have seen this project before and Staff recommends approval. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minor development of 210 S. Mill, finding that the standards have been met; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Les will be monitor. ST. MARY'S CHURCH ADDITION - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: There have been a number of revisions that they have complied with and Staff recommends approval without conditions. Ted Guy: We met with City Engineering about pushing the curb out into Main St. It is shown as eight feet and they have asked us to pull that back two feet. They will support a six foot extension. We are waiting for a traffic engineer to give us a second opinion. Bob Gish and the City Manager support this. They are concerned Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 because there is not a plan for the entire length of Main Street. All of us were concerned about the louvers and we will accentuate the tower element and remove all openings on Main Street. On the front entry we have identified the detail of the railings. Bill: On the railing on the front porch it is somewhat horizontal, is there a way to incorporate vertical elements? Les: It is too industrial looking. Ted: We can change it. Bill: Regarding the doors that open in from the sanctuary to the elevator lobby are you going to be able to move caskets etc. It looked tight to me unless the doors swung both ways. Ted: I will verify that as they are not exit doors. Les: Were there stairs coming down the front at one time? Ted: Yes, but we decided we did not want to compete with the front entry. There is not enough room to come out in all three directions. The priest would much rather stand in the middle facing all the people that are coming through. The openness of the porch accomplishes what we need without the third set of stairs. Roger: Possibly a bench in front would be a good feature. Ted: I could do a bench easily. Bill: A bench would soften the area and would be inviting. MOTION: Bill entertained a motion to grant Final Development for St. Mary's Church Addition at 533 E. Main with the conditions that the architect restudy the railing and a possible bench at the front entry along Main Street; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC recommend to the City that the City grant an encroachment license to St. Mary's church for the proposed sidewalk extension encroachment of the entry into the City right-of-way including the proposed bench. This meets the goals of the pedestrian bikeway plan of the City; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 624 E. HOPKINS - WORKSESSION Bill stepped down Joe Chaired Kim Weil, architect: This was previously the Ellen Cooper property. Joe: They have an approved final development approval for a structure and they are revising and they have vested their rights. Kim: Mr. Altfeld has a contract to assign the property to Joshua Saslov. We have redesigned the building. The vacant lot is 45 feet wide. This is a zone that allows 40 foot height limits but the FAR area is such that it is rare to have the 40 foot. There are a mixture of buildings tall and short in this zone. The zone does not require any setbacks. The adjacent buildings on either side are on the property lines. We look at this as an infill project. We are stepping the project down. Going two stories instead of three allows us to play with the roof. That gets us to the infill idea and to get to the residential character we added gables and windows. This building will have a full basement, three bedrooms. Roger: What is the footprint of the front? Kim: There is a 25% open space requirement. We are essentially lined up with the balconies of KSNO, then jog in, which is the covered porch, then come back out. We are 24 feet back. This is somewhat a townhouse. Andy Wisnoski, Architect: This is a C1 zone which could be commercial but is being developed as residential which will allow for less floor area. Les: Is this a spec house? Andy: Yes. Les: In the old plan there was a tree and a little side lot left, what didn't you like about that plan? Andy: We felt that it was not an advantage to this lot. Les: We are glad this will be a residential infill. Part of our concern was the transition across the block and down the block. By jamming it in we though we felt that it detracted from the historical perspective of across the street. It is so tight in there. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 Roxanne: I went out onsite and with the owner/applicants and Bill Poss and we really talked about this and it is important that when you get the plans that you go out onsite and walk this area and look at what is going on in this area. Look at the scale and vertical bays they are creating. They are gesturing across the street. This is so different because we do not review townhouses. Kim: It is tight and by the time you do a descent townhouse it just highlights the tightness. There is not enough site left by the time you do a livable width to leave anything. The building to the east will probably be redeveloped and they will take advantage to go to their property line in this zone and they are not subject to any review. They will keep the open space on the corner so we have to assume that this building will always be on the property line. We then decided that this building had to rotate from the previous design angle and fill the lot side to side. Roger: I see where Les is coming from of the idea of seeing through. It seems that this design work. Les: It does work but I have trouble with the entire context of the block. Joe: I like the change in height (lower) from the other plan and the other plan was oriented to the east and this side yard became the front yard. The old plan had the entry to the side and this plan steps which is a better design. Don: This is a much better orientation to the street. Roger: If the building to the east is torn down and redone can it in fact go higher? Roxanne: Yes, because there is a 40 foot height limit. Kim: We have yard but it is focused to the street. Andy: Setting the precedent of zoning which is zero lot line developments it would be an urban response to respond to the street. 409 E. HOPKINS - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION Roger: I feel we should go with the recommendation of Staff. Roxanne: The three year allocation for growth management is not superseded by any kind of review by the HPC. As long as they are Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 aware of that. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant a 12 month extension effective from the date of extension approval for 409 E. Hopkins as per Staff's recommendation; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MCDONALD'8 - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Kim: McDonald's owns three commercial condominiums in the Park Place Building and they own the space that they are in. It needs to be reconfigured. When you walk through the door, under the stairway there is a room to the left with handicapped restrooms. They lease that space from the Fleisher's. The Fleisher's want it back and the McDonald's want to give it back. That leaves McDonald's without a handicapped restroom and that is how this got started. On the southwest corner of the building we are going to add a restroom. All the materials will match to the existing building. It is about a 50 square foot little addition in the extreme southwest corner of the building. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minor development for MCDonald's; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. WORKSESSION - 716 W. FRANCIS - ROOF PROBLEM Jake: This is the Belina residence. They are into the portion of the roof that is to be saved. Ben is requesting that they be able to take off that additional portion of the roof. Because it is a landmark I wanted him to come into the HPC and present it. Contractor Ben: We are in demolition right now. There was a hip that supported the back roof structure and when they put the addition on they added this dormer which supported the roof structure. This structure is terrible and I would like to take down the roof from here back and resupport the roof which will do two things; it will allow me to put a continuous top plate on the deck which it does not have now and it will keep the gable from spreading. It will also allow me to support the hip and put a ridge beam in which it doesn't have at this time. Jake: I'm kind of in the school that these buildings get widdled away and it is not enough to preserve the shape we must preserve the materials. My position is to work with the materials in place. Roger: This house has undergone innumerable changes, hasn't it? Jake: I wouldn't say that as the only addition is on the back. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 We are definitely dealing with original structure here. They have to jack this house up to do the foundation. The front of the house is not effected by this change. The committee needs to figure out what we are taking about, the front facade, the overall shape of the house, just what we need to do. I do not feel strongly about it. I do not know why we allowed the demolition of the dormers. If that did not occur we wouldn't have this issue. All they are doing is putting in new dormers that have gabled roofs. Roger: I don't think it is a major problem particularly because the roof is going to be changed from asphalt to wood. Ben: We want to retain everything original on the front. The siding was removed and they insulated behind it and it is short and chopped up. It has been rebacked but is original. Joe: They can't go more than 50% of demolition unless you pay cash in lieu or provide an accessory dwelling unit. Ordinance #1 then kicks in. Roxanne: The architect new that and the Belina's knew that. Ben: I was curious to see if I could take it off or not. I will work around it. Joe: Cash in lieu is $8.80 a foot now. Jake: In the record it is 42% and I do not know if that is volume or square footage. He isn't destroying square footage, it is just roof. Roxanne: That should be dealt with by the Building Dept. and Zoning officer. Roger: It would seem to me that they should be able to make this safer and stronger. Roxanne: I am then concerned about the financial security of this. Joe: My feeling is that if it will work the way it is possibly it will be easier on the owner due to bond issues and cash in lieu. Bill: Jake, you will have to decide where it has to be cut off. Jake: I am willing to go either way. Ben: On the front of the house there is a mud room that is not original. It has sunk and when we jack it up it will separate from the house when we level it. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 Karen: It really detracts from the front of the house. MOTION: Joe made the motion that we approve the option for the Belina residence at 716 W. Francis to either remove or retain the entry air lock vestibule on the south elevation (front of the structure); second by Karen. Bill: Are you saying that they will remove it or retain it but if they remove it they reinstall it. Joe: I would give them the option to either remove it completely or reinstall it if they want to, in order to restore the front porch. Ail in favor, motion carries. 134 E. BLEEKER CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - PENN RESIDENCE Bill stepped down Joe chaired Roxanne: The applicant has incorporated the comments from the last meeting and has made revisions. The project has been revised a great deal. They are no longer asking for a FAR variation only 137 sq. ft. for a FAR bonus which is allowed for an infill until project and we support it. They are still asking for a parking reduction of one space and a west yard, side yard setback variation for the addition. Staff is generally in favor of the revisions finding that they are more simple and the bay window was removed. Andy Wisnoski, architect: We are primarily elevation. We wanted to reduce the massing. the arched dormer. focusing on the east We are representing Don: I don't quite see how the roof works. Andy: We have established a spring point from the rafters and the head of this is in a flat plane but it is actually arching and when the rafters line up along the arch to create a warping plane for the dormer. It can work and it is not a flat plain. Don: This is a quite statement and yet has a different statement of a different architecture especially when it looks like the siding is going to be clapboard which would be the same material so you get the expressions from different elements. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 Karen: I have concerns with the balcony, is it as deep as functional as the model. Andy: The model is wider and the proposal is quieter. Les: Should we see the other proposals that they have brought? Roger: Is the entire roof wood or part metal? Andy: Ail wood but the dormer on the west is glass but not visible. Les: If the feeling that the bigger balcony would would hate to loose that area and maybe we should plans. be better I review those Roxanne: The first role here is to preserve the historic resource. Get an addition that is not competitive to the historic resource. I cannot comment as we do not have plans on the bigger balcony. Andy: The plans are the same with the exception of the dormer. Joe: We should focus on the plans that we have in front of us rather than speculating what is shown by the model. Don: The original building is essentially being preserved in its detail. The wood roof is appropriate and they are presenting now is a metal roof and I feel the slight bow gives you a clue or indication that this indeed is a different architecture. When you throw in a metal roof on that facade you become more competitive and I feel it highly inappropriate. I am in favor of the proposal as drawn as presented to us. Karen: This project to me is about simplicity and complexity. Original buildings are so incredibly simple and wonderful as they stand that it is my feeling that the only way to do the building and not detract from the simplicity or the original house was to break it up, the surfaces. The lattice and open window and the hyphen an little roof and shed. The surface on the front is totally broken up and is therefore different from the other building but it extends the character of what is there already with the shed roofs and the multi pane windows and the porch. I feel it is mostly the lines of the roof which enhance what is there. The model has the feeling of being outside where the plans proposed seem like it could be an extension on any house in the west end, it is too formal. I feel the model is more appropriate to the neighborhood. Roger: I concur with Donnelley and Staff that this is a much Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 better project. I would not want to see a metal roof on any of the new because it takes away from the original victorian. What is the Board's thoughts on the bay window? Roxanne: If there is going to be an opening at least have it very simple. Joe: I think this proposal is much cleaner because it is not too busy. Karen's choice is too busy with all the lattice work. Don: It says the roofing is to be heavy asphalt shingles. What are the materials? Steve Serna, architect: The existing structure is asphalt and it will remain that and the side flanks will be wood shingle. Roxanne: What color will the roof be? Steve: It is a dark charcoal gray asphalt shingle. Joe: On the cottage in front are you replacing the existing siding with clapboard siding? Steve: I do not think it needs it. Joe: So the existing principle residence and carriage will be retained. Steve: The cottage barn has been stained and is worn away and it needs cleaned up. It will be refurbished. Roxanne: This victorian structure should receive paint, it is appropriate for this neighborhood and the era of this house. Steve: The proposal is that we would stain the existing siding and paint the addition. Roger: I feel that is appropriate. not painted and as paint and money done. Original miners cabins were became available it was then Les: There are all different kind of stains. Don: The existing siding and trim is so weathered that it is an impossible task to put paint on it. The grains are porus. A heavy bodied stain would be more appropriate and the trim could be painted. Roger: It is a nonpaintable surface and a heavy bodied stain would Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 be more appropriate. The trim can be restored but siding left. Karen: The feature of this house is the natural siding. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval for the proposal of 134 E. Bleeker Street finding that the parking and side yard setback variations are more compatible finding that the parking and side yard setback variations are more compatible to the historic landmark than would be in accord with the underlying dimensional requirements and further that the FAR bonus of 134 Square feet for the deed restricted cottage infill unit and height variations for the carriage house be approved conceptually. I might add that this motion is based upon the proposal as presented with the plans this evening; second by Don. Karen: I must oppose this because I feel that it does not enhance the current architecture and detracts. It does not enhance the block. It has nothing to do with the cultural history of this house. An old movie star lived in this house. It is much too formal for the simplicity of this house. I oppose this and would ask the Board's support. Question was called by Chairman; Carried 3-2. Don Joe; Opposed, Karen and Les. In favor, Roger, MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant Final Development approval for the proposal at 134 E. Bleeker as submitted and approved by Staff with the following conditions: 1, With monitor the roof color is clarified dark charcoal gray. 2, clarify in writing the finishes for both the existing and new construction and samples to be approved by monitor and Staff. 3, Full detailed finishing schedule including painting of trim etc. be submitted to Staff and Monitor for review before the issuance of a building permit; second by Don. Motion carries 3-2. In favor, Roger, Don and Joe. Opposed, Karen and Les. 17 QUEEN STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: The reason this is a public hearing is because they are asking for a side yard setback variation. Due to the small size of the outbuilding and because it meets the guidelines it doesn't detract from the historic resource I am recommending approval of the variation but there are real concerns here from the neighbor that the Board needs to weigh very carefully. I am sorry that the original outbuildings had to go and here we have a new one, it is too bad that the original ones could not be saved. We had talked before and had denied an application for a parking space due to the 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 vegetation and other things going on. This is the new information that needs to be considered. Lana Trettin, owner: The outbuilding that we are proposing is the smallest that we need. The reason the other original outbuildings were taken down is because they were in such bad shape. There was no way to restore them or use them. I am pretty sure there is some we are going to try to use. It is unsightly to leave rakes, bikes or whatever all over. It is a very practical request and it is going where there is no foliage. Lana presented the letter verifying all the mailings. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Ernst Kappeli: I am not opposing them having a shed on their property but the location is not appropriate. They have uprooted berry bushes and trees for a parking space. There was a wooden foot bridge approved for across the ditch and that corner should have been left alone. It is a mess due to the destroying of the natural growth. I planted trees and shrubs over the past 20 years. The location is a bad choice since there is parking problems. There is room for a shed to the west. The ditch could be a problem. Roger: Where is the shed in relationship to the existing mail box? Ernst: To the east. Lana Trettin: I want every tree we can possibly have there and the way the shed is designed is to not remove any trees and furthermore I have a huge budget to add plantings all around. In the area next to Ernst driveway we are going to add evergreens to enhance what has already been done. Ernst: Nothing has been done and I was told last year that there would be. I have photographs of trees that are marked and not there anymore. Roger: So the shed is to go across the ditch. Ernst: Yes where they put road base on. I cared about that one tree and it was one foot away from the corner and it was not necessary to take that one out. The shed could have gone nicely in between. Roger: As a neighbor where would you want the shed to be? Ernst: Near where they are parking right now. 11 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 Lana: That area is going to be landscaped and it wouldn't look as well. Your driveway on my survey is on my property and I have never complained. Ernst: That has nothing to do with it and I have an easement for that and it is all taken fare of. The roadbase is already running into the ditch and I take care of it. I feel this will be a spec house and Trettin will not be living in here five years from now. There is parking problems in that area as it is dense. Lana: Anthony has considered all options as to where things would go and be the most pleasing. There has been a lot of thought as to where that shed should go. I do not want to turn this into a personal issue. Ernst does have an easement across my property and it is not allowed for parking. There is three feet which is concreted up on my property and I was not going to say anything. My architect has been extremely sensitive and if that is where the shed should go that is appropriate. My entire parcel is under HPC regulations. There is a shed that Ernst built is one foot from the property line and from my information buildings have to be ten feet from the property line. I'm just amazed and not objecting to any of those things and if you want to come and look at the property you can decide where the shed should go. I have hired someone to come next week and landscape the entire side. Bill: Do we have a site plan in the file and how does this fit in with that. Lana: I didn't know we had to go for approval on what types of trees and landscaping we are going to put in. Bill: I was thinking of it as a site development context. How it fits with parking, walks etc. with the final development. Les: A revised parking plan was brought into the HPC and was never finalized, it was withdrawn. I went up as the monitor to look at it and when I talked to the foreman and walked about the different parking issues and I discovered that the tree we are talking about was on city land and it precluded them from parking up there. That tree disappeared and I specifically told them to not remove this tree and left a note. The tree disappeared and then parking appeared after they withdrew their parking thing. I said do not move this tree and we will try and find some parking someplace else. Lana: You talked with John Watkins and specifically said that? Les: Yes and we laid it out and found the corner pins. 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 13, 1992 Roger: There was adequate room for parking. Les: It was marginal and had to be designed. I never found out what happened and when the tree disappeared I came back around to talk to John then contacted the Parks's department. Lana: I budgeted $17,000 for trees and I am sure the tree will be replaced. These plans were submitted over two months ago for the outshack and I should have been told that the shack on the driveway, that we had to submit a whole deal. Les: I am sure there is a solution based on the landscape plan. Joe: So you are saying there was no approval for the parking. Les: Most of the parking is on city land. Lana: It was inadvertently done and I would have to have Anthony here if someone would have told me the parking was not legal. There is a fire hydrant there and if we can move a foot more over that way. We can just table it if that is what you feel and I feel that is the only place for the driveway to go. Roger: We have a policy to not grant anything that requires a setback if at all possible or a variance. Lana: You are telling me I have to put the shed somewhere else. Roger: As long as it doesn't infringe on the setback. Joe: I do not know what the original landscape plan is or the new landscaping plan and it sounds like the driveway was never approved. I would like to see an application for the driveway. Lana: What is the responsibility of the HPC since it was presented two months ago? Joe: You failed to show up at the last hearing and we continued it for your benefit. Lana: I talked to Roxanne and said I would not be in town. At some point it would have been appropriate if someone would have said that I was asking for a structure on an area that hasn't been approved. Jake: I have a problem with the design. Bill: Roxanne did review this and recommended approval but 13 Historic Preserv&tion Committee Minutes of May 23, 1992 sometimes the Board disagrees and requests more I would like more information to be available plan. information. and see the site Lana: I am fine without putting up the shed and leaving it the way it is. Bill: That is your prerogative. Ernst: Even if the shed isn't there it should be fixed up as it is a mess. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC table action and continue the public hearing until May 27th to allow the applicant further time to restudy. Specific recommendations are 1) a copy of the original landscaping plan and 2) a copy of the new landscaping plan. I also feel as part of the motion that we should find out if there has been approval and a plan submitted for the location of the existing driveway and that this issue be continued and finally be clarified. We have a major problem here, specific direction given by the HPC to the owner's contractor to not remove a tree which in fact has been done. It was done and to me this is incomprehensible that that happened and has not been acted on sooner. We need to followup on that whole situation so that this does not happen again; second by Les. Lana: That means I cannot do any plantings. Joe: If you have an approved landscaping plan you can certainly put plantings in according to that plan. Bill: On Jan. 23, 1992 conceptual memo states that conditions were approved which included a landscaping plan calling out materials. I can't find the landscaping plan in the file. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended the motion that the landscaping plan for the existing house (if it exists) can be approved by the monitor in order for the owner to commence with the landscaping. A completed parking plan also be submitted because there does not seem to be one here for approval; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland Chief Deputy Clerk 14