Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19911211HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of December 11, 1991 Meeting was called to order by Donnelley Erdman with Roger Moyer, Les Holst, Karen Day, Joe Krabacher, Jake Vickery and Martha Madsen present. Bill Poss was excused. MOTION: Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of October 9, 1991; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Presentation by Ed Irwin - Elk's 100th Anniversary CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ST. MARY'S CHURCH, ELEVATOR 533 E. MAIN ST. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: The main issues from the last meeting were height, massing, scale, fenestration, roof forms and materials. There have been changes to the main porch on the front entrance and the Planning Office is still recommending tabling one more time. Ted Guy is the architect for the project. Ted: There were concerns for the scale and size of the addition. Too much detail and too complex. Lack of uniformity between the entry and the tower and also some discussion as to whether we could push the curb out to create more public space. We submitted two sketches showing either a hip roof or a gable roof. One of the suggestions was to decrease the size of elevator tower and in looking at that we were able to reduce the size and mass three feet along the street and pull it in 1.6ft. Roger: Will a casket still fit? Ted: Yes. We like the hip roof the best and it is more in keeping with the existing church. We have revised the entry to bring the stairs out and have extended it to go along with the curb extension. It too has a hip roof and there are stairs on all three sides. The roof is metal and every time it snows the snow comes down and with the hip roof concept it goes down in a bad place. We have two choices, one to change the roof material or add a series of little dormers. Ted: My concern and Staff concurred is that the gable roof does not fit well with this building. It doesn't blend in well with the existing structure and really begins to detract from the existing structure. Roxanne: The idea of the hip roof was a simple form of it and when you are adding all these gables it becomes complicated. Don: Those are basically snow deflectors. Ted: I like the hip roof with the little dormers. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 11, 1991 Jake: The architecture should celebrate what is going on and part of what is going on is the birth. Ted: The architecture is already established by the existing form of the church. This is a response to the functional requirements of that celebration to give the physical means to get up there and to share the celebration and to do it in a safe manner. We are not starting from scratch. Roger: Have you approached the city regarding the curb? Ted: Yes and it is possible to do. It has already been done in front of the court house. Ted: Regarding materials our feeling was that the base needs to remain brick. Karen: Will there be a walkway to the elevator? Ted: Yes, from the alley and also from the front. Roger: The entrance to the rear allows for the summer activities. Ted: We have not yet had the opportunity to get input from the parish. We would like some kind of conditional conceptual approval so that we can put this model in the parish over the holidays so that we can get the parish to give us input. Karen: Have you determined what the materials will be used on the porch? Ted: No, but at the present the plan is to have them brick. I would assume that there will be some sandstone in the steps. Roger: Does the existing front entry line up with the bell tower or go beyond? Ted: It goes just barely beyond. Don: You could articulate the entry a little more by having it the width of the projected small bay of the bell tower. I like the direction but there needs to be a restudy. The entry is unresolved as to whether the pedestrian should skirt the front entry or what. The new entry is more welcoming to the church but how fare it should project out is a concern. Roxanne: The Engineering Dept. is never in favor of increasing a non-conformity. 2 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of December 11, 1991 Roger: You have the general consensus that we like what is happening but it needs fine tuned. Ted: There are numerous issues to be resolved and the parish needs to see the model. Roger: In relationship to mass and scale concerning the tower I feel it is good. The historical and social compatibility is also good and I commend the applicant on doing a good presentation. My feeling is that the front entry needs re-working. I would encourage you to do a model without the curb extension because that is a political issue and may not be resolved. Concerning the blind windows it seems to work but I am not positive. Les: Historically the hip roof works and I like the way the project is going. I have the same concerns with the front entry as Roger has and I would like you to defend what you have done. You have created a place for the priest to stand and for the people to come by and it works. Ted: My personal view is that we should develop areas on the corner like this idea throughout town. Les: On the tower if you need to get a little more massing I can live with that and this is all a compromise to make this work. Martha: I have a problem with the little dormers. It looks to me that the snow is dumping just further onto the sidewalk. Jake: I find that the entrance area is very receptive. Karen: The entry lacks the magic that the rest of the building has but I can't put my finger on it. Don: The committee generally prefers the echoing of the hip roofs in both the elements. The development of the entry requires more study and perhaps has other forces acting upon it which may preclude its projecting out as far as it does in the present configuration. Also the development of these roofs as pertains to their intersection with the main structure will require a lot more clarification. That development will radically change the generalized forms which evolved here. I feel we should table this. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC table and public hearing until January 22nd; second by Martha. motion carries. continue the Ail in favor, Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 11, 1991 302 E. HOPKINS LIGHT WELL - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Chairmanship turned over to Joe Krabacher. Roxanne: This is a minor development review and there are no changes to the building. A couple of months ago the Planning office approved a change of use in this building. It was residential and is now converted to commercial above. The owner will occupy the basement as a dwelling unit and there will be remodeling. Along with that remodel is required egress and the only way that this can be accomplished due to the closeness to the property line, as it is only a 3000 sq. ft. lot, is to provide for a light well. I have studied it and they will screen it with shrubbery and a wrought iron fence. In my opinion it meets all the development review standards and I would recommend that you approve it as proposed. Don: This looks straight forward. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant approval for the minor development of a light well at 302 E. Hopkins as proposed; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. RESOLUTION CLG REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR STATE REHAB TAX CREDIT 92 MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant approval of resolution 12, 1992 as written; Les second. All in favor, motion carries. COMMUNICATIONS Les: The Blue Ribbon committee was selected to look at all the properties that the city owns. We discovered that there has never been allocation for maintenance. Everything comes out of capital improvements. Our basic suggestion was to keep it simple. We discovered that nothing was being maintained. Our first recommendation was that on the site by the river they build storage and consolidate all the storage for Parks, golf course etc. and that they buy the red brick school. City Hall came in third. We suggested that they bond and do whatever has to be done to the mill levy to make it work. In the past our taxes have been low because nothing has been done in the way of maintenance. Roxanne: city Hall has $640,000 already reserved for repair. And every year for five years $100,000 will be spent on this building. We will start with the windows. The total to rebuild would be three million. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of December 11, 1991 Roger: Piece meal will cost way more in the end. Roxanne: The Red Brick School. If the HPC wants to sponsor the landmark designation and it meets your standards then you need proceed. Martha: Is the landmark designation for the entire parcel? Roxanne: Generally it is the whole parcel. Roger: I thought we voted to go for it. Roxanne: The Board did not vote, you analyzed whether or not it would be eligible and you determined that it would. We have not started the public hearing process. Les: I feel we should go for designation of the entire parcel. Joe: If that is the case someone will have to spearhead the committee. Roxanne: I feel we need some private sector to lobby with the committee. Jake: I feel you have a lot of support in the town. The city is working with a tax deficit. Roger: If we made a motion that HPC start the public process it doesn't mean that it is going to happen. At least we are iniciating a movement. Joe: We have to have a plan behind it. Roger: There are two points: One is the site and two is the building. On the site you have a stronger chance of putting it on the register due to social and cultural value to the community. The building is not particularly historic, however it is because part of the building came from two previous historic sites. One came from the smelter and the other came from the existing house on the corner. The Washington School. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC initiate the public process to landmark designate the Red Brick School site; second by Don. Motion carries 4-3. In favor: Les, Jake, Martha Roger. Opposed Joe and Karen. Roxanne: The site would be covered under standard F, character. That it contributes to the overall character of the community. If 5 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of Deoember 11, 1991 the school is to be a community use it would have to be rezoned. Don: We have two possibilities among the Board here, one just the parcel designated and the other is the parcel and the building. Roxanne: I would like to see someone private sponsoring the landmark designation. Roger: The motion states that the City will initiate. Jake: There is asbestos in the school and to remove it would cost around $125,000. Karen: I voted no because I wanted the building to be included. Joe: I voted against it because I am not sure that it is really the HPC's role to initiate the process. I feel it would be better if we went out to the community to get the Arts and Non-profits involved. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6