HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910508HISTORIC PRESERVATION COl4MI'l'l'w.g
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Les Holst,
Glenn Rappaport and Roger Moyer present. Georgeann Waggaman, Joe
Krabacher, Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe and Jake Vickery were
excused.
MOTION: Glenn made the motion to table the minutes of March, 13,
March 21, and April 8 until the next meeting; second by Roger.
All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Glenn made the motion to add 824 E. Cooper to the
agenda; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
610 N. 3RD - FINAL DEVELOPMENT
Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached
in records (memo dated May 8, 1991).
Sven Alstrom, architect: The conceptual was granted last fall.
It is substantially smaller and the new garage and former car
port is where the non-conformities are reduced. It is
significantly smaller and below the height limits. This
accomplishes what the client wanted and is 1/4 the size.
MOTION: Glenn made the motion to grant final development for 610
N. 3RD. St. including a side yard setback variation of 10 3/4"
and a combined sideyard setback variation, finding that the
setback non-conformities are being decreased and that the
variations are more compatible in character with the historic
landmark; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries.
214 W. BLEEKER - FINAL DEVELOPMENT
Roxanne Eflin presented the over-view of the project as attached
in records (memo dated May 8, 1991).
Roxanne: We are recommending final development approval finding
that the proposal does meet the development review and partial
demolition standards with the following conditions to be met and
approved by Staff and the project monitor prior to the issuance
of a building permit. Final landmark designation occurs by
ordinance. The partial demolition of the outbuilding be
restudied. Gable roof pitch of the dormers be redesigned and be
restudied to be no more than a 12x12 instead of a 17x12 which
appears gothic. Original facade bay window shall be preserved in
place including original glass. A window replacement survey
should be done with the project monitor. Porch roof material
shall be low rib standing seam metal. We are also recommending
the parking variation and the seven foot rear yard setback
variation.
Kevin MacLeod, architect: I will address the conditions as
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
outlined in Roxanne's memo. Several of the conditions were
overlapping. The first condition was dealing with the dormers:
It was suggested that all the dormers on the addition be a gable
and the ones on the existing stay a shed. I chose 17 x12 because
it matches the existing cross gable. I do not feel they would
appear gothic. We have planned simple detailing for the
addition. The new cross gable is 12x12 except for dormers. The
shed dormers were requested to be moved further south and we
moved them approximately 4 1/2 feet. The location was determined
by the existing chimney on the west side. We lowered the
connector so that it does match the elevation of the existing
cross gable. We increased the width of the connector also from 3
feet to 4 feet. Many of the windows are in bad shape, leaking
and thermal inefficient. We would like to bring the windows up
into modern standards. Most of the windows do not operate. We
could attempt to use the glass as an insulated panel. We would
like all new windows in the house. We have allowed for three
parking spaces two in the garage and one in the rear of the site.
The fence also provides protection for the light well. We did a
detailed preservation plan and the materials on the existing
building are all in good shape. Only minor repair is required
and we intend to put a new cedar shingle roof on. We also
submitted a detailed landscaping plan. Roxanne stated that the
fence along the west side should be lowered and further back.
This is an isolated lawn and the area where the hot tub would go.
There is also a lot of foot traffic on the street from people
going to the music tent and she would like a little privacy. She
doesn't want the yard left wide open to everyone who walks by. I
see no great problem having the fence as it is shown. The
materials on the addition will match the existing and the roof
cedar shingles and the low sloping roof is metal. Due to loss of
the yard the applicant decided she would rather loose the
outbuilding and we thought we could use three of the walls for
part of the fencing and provide a little roofing. I would like
to state again that the windows are in bad condition and we would
like to replace them. The livable square footage of the house
has not increased.
Les: Have you looked to see if the window could be rebuilt?
Most windows can be redone.
Bill: As Les has said the frames can all be rebuilt and if you
get a good company you can restore windows to look almost exactly
like the old windows and you can even use the older glass which
would be beneficial to us as far as restoration is concerned. If
you look at the amount of windows that you have there you will
find that insulated glass takes your R value of your glass from
1.5 to 2.4. If you look at the amount and did an energy account
you will find that the money you put into insulated glass
2
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
wouldn't outweigh the heat loss that you get out of it. By
rebuilding the frames you correct the infiltration which is more
of a problem to your heat loss.
Kevin MacLeod: My concern then would be
them that they be of a modern operation.
old glass as part of the insulated glass.
that whoever restores
Then we could use the
Bill: Using two pieces of glass doesn't work as when you put the
two together ones breaks.
Roxanne: Preservation is the reuse of the glass and reworking
it.
Roger: If the sash is rotten you can rebuild it and it would
become stronger. You can also rebuilt the jams.
Bill: There are articles in preservation news and house journal
regarding restoration.
Applicant Linda MacCarthy: The upstairs windows frost up 1/2
inch. Some of the windows have a 3 inch space. I have lived
there for four years and never opened the front window but I an
not against it.
Les: This absolutely works and is done all the time and it is
not expensive.
Glenn:
less?
With the 17 x 12 dormers, what is the problem if you go
Kevin: There isn't any. The gable running east west was 17 x 12
and these previously were the only gabled forms running
east/west; therefore, I determined lets make those 17 x 12. At
the last meeting HPC suggested that one shed dormer be revised to
a gable form and that all the gables be on the addition and it
changed to 17 x 12 at that point. I think the 17 x 12 added an
extra dimension above the windows and the dormers are rather
narrow.
Roxanne: I don't think the pitch is compatible and the majority
of the dormers are 12 x 12.
Glenn: You only see one from the street.
Bill: It is on the new addition and I have no problem with the
17 pitch.
Les: I lean toward the 12 x 12 but have no problem with the 17.
3
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Roger: I have no problem either with the 17 pitch.
Kevin: The out building is a shed and was used for coal storage
and is only 7 feet wide.
Glenn: On the out building, in this case, I would encourage the
use of it.
Bill: Possibly take it apart and do a gazebo type structure and
then you would be retaining something on the alley.
Les: I think it should be saved in some form also and possibly
something fun could come out of it.
Kevin: It is on the property line and that is why we went with
the wall.
Glenn: Do the wall and do some kind of roof forming/ trellis.
Bill: On the front fence if you could set it back 6 inches or a
foot from the front face it would remove it from that front plane
of the house. Possibly utilize vegetation because historically
fences were not attached straight on.
MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant Final Development
approval for the property at 214 W. Bleeker Street finding that
the development review and partial demolition standards have been
met with the following conditions to be met and approved by Staff
and the Project Monitor prior to the issuance of a building
permit:
1)
The final adoption of the Landmark Designation ordinance
shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. NO
building permit may be issued for construction requiring an
HPC variation without the property receiving official
Landmark Designation by City Council.
2)
Partial demolition of the outbuilding be restudied with
preserving as much of the structure as possible ( a fun
design).
3)
Ail original windows shall remain and be repaired
(preserved), unless determined that their condition is
deteriorated past the point of repair. Window replacement
survey shall be conducted on site with applicant and project
monitor.
4) Porch roof material shall be low rib standing seam metal.
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
5)
Fencing visible from the street shall be restudied and
perhaps moved one or two feet back and look at an alternate
solution of vegetation. The fence can be whatever on the
west side.
6)
7' rear yard setback variation, finding that such variation
is more compatible in character with the historic landmark,
than would be development in accord with dimensional
requirements.
7)
Parking reduction of one space, finding that the maximum
number of parking spaces have been planned on site. The
parking space in the front yard shall be eliminated and re-
vegetated as proposed.
Motion second by Glenn. Ail in favor, motion carries.
Les Holst will be the project monitor on 214 W. Bleeker.
THE MEADOWS - RESIDENTIAL ONLY
Roxanne: I have reiterated the conditions of conceptual approval
in the memo and have responded to them. The Planning Office is
recommending approval of the meadows with conditions to be
approved by Staff and the Meadows sub-committee of the issues
that were not yet met for their final approval.
1)
2)
3)
4)
$)
6)
Detailed preservation plan needs clarified for the Trustee
townhomes.
Palate of materials.
Amendments to the design.
Covenants to more clearly define the massing, scale and
articulation issues.
Clarification of the material treatment of the end walls and
party walls and clarification of the tennis townhomes west
elevation regarding correct scale of door and windows.
Clarification of tennis tow~homes regarding balcony snow
removal.
Perry Harvey: Lets discuss the Tennis townhomes, Trustee and
then the single family homes.
Nickie and David Finholm presented materials and responded to all
concerns of Staff as presented in the memo May 8, 1991 (attached
in records).
Nickie: The snow removal of the Tennis townhomes will consist of
5
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
all internal drainage. The north/south wall is designed to be a
rubble wall. The partition walls are done in the rubble also.
The tennis townhome parking is the same design as the Trustee
houses with the earth berm and use of natural soil. The curb of
the berm is similar to Anderson Park. Natural vegetation will be
incorporated.
Bill: The Board is in approval of the Tennis townhomes.
David: On the townhouses, three units were added. We have also
created earth landscaping. We will remove all the stairs and
keep the window detailing exactly like it is. The fascia is
shingle. We would like to change the color of the roof asphalt
singles which are silver color now to a darker color (cedar mix).
Bill: Changing the color doesn't effect the historic nature of
the structure. I would think the color selection is up to the
applicant.
David: There is room for two cars in the covered parking and one
on the side. All the architecture is glass with sun control.
Bill: The Board unaminously approved the Trustee homes.
Perry Harvey: I will discuss the single family homes. Regarding
the covenants we will have a design review committee. This is an
R15 zone. Council had requested that we lower the lots to 12,
000 sq. ft. We have created building envelopes that range from
61 to 64 hundred feet which is down to an R6 lot. After
reduction of rear yard setbacks etc. we have created 30 foot
combined side yard setbacks. This creates view planes of the
Meadows as you come in. The homes are a little over 4000 sq. ft.
and the accessory dwelling units are 500 sq. ft. We are going to
market the lots.
Roger: Do the covenants state that you can't build a linear box.
Perry: It talks about creating movement.
Bill: The City in their attempt to protect sage meadow is
forcing them into a box which is going to create a design which
is a box. In your architectural review committee you might force
the buildings to be more irregular. The buildings along that
area in the west end are less rigid and in your guidelines if you
require that you get a little more interest and vitality and
avoid the "wall".
Les: Who is the design review board for this project?
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Perry: Us as the developers with input from the Institute and
the property owners and David and Nickie Finholm.
Les: I would suggest that there be one member of the HPC on the
Board.
Bill: Board unaminously approved the single family homes and
recommendations to Staff and to the applicant.
Bill: Trees along the rear property line would be a help in
reducing the massing and soften the area.
Bill: Ail the conditions for final have been met.
Bill: We have reviewed the palate of materials and color for the
residential portion and a condition of this approval would be
that the palate of materials and colors still need to be
submitted for the meadows.
MOTION: Glenn made the motion that we grant final development
approval for the residential portion of the meadows as submitted;
second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Les made the motion that the outline for the single
family parcels is appropriate with the recommendations that were
made to Staff during the meeting; second by Glenn. All in favor,
motion carries.
601 W. HATw~M - DELETION FROM INVENTORY
George Vicenzi: I received notice from Jed Caswall that the
building permit is illegal and I feel it is alive and well.
Staff was concerned about setting a precedent and I don't feel
that is a problem because no one can ever equal the same
situation that I have due to Ord. #17 is now in effect and would
preclude anyone from getting a demo permit to any structure that
you are interested in. Most of the house was built after 1910
and has no historic interest. It was moved to this site and was
vacant up until 1960.
George: I will not go into facts as to why this house has no
historic value. The main factor is that the old house which is
the gabled end, south side of the house is pre 1910 and does have
minimal historic value (the bay window on the east side). The
victorian porch was added by myself and I did the dining room in
1970. 70% of the building wasn't even constructed prior to 1910.
The part that was constructed before does not have historical
value. It also has no historical value to the neighborhood
because it was moved there in the 60's and on a vacant lot. This
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
house was rated a #2. I submit that if the addition I did
weren't there and looked like it did in 1960 it would have been
rated 0 to 1. I feel it became a #2 due to the additions that I
did. Theoretically this house would have been demolished but I
decided to work with Staff and if we do not come to a solution I
will demolish. The mitigating factors are important in this
situation, you came to me to cooperate to try to relocate and
save this building. I being historically minded had no problem
cooperating however I did not want to give up any of my demotion
rights or have any historical review of whatever I would build
there in the future. This land is where I want to build my dream
house and do not want to bring the entire committee into my
dreams. I have owned this property for 20 years and I haven't
sold it because I want to build my dream house. With this
solution of removing it from the historical inventory we all win,
you have a chance to save a structure and I will continue to work
with you and give plenty of notice if I intend to demolish it and
if it is off the. inventory and if there is no place to move and
store it they have the option to demolish it if they can't find a
place for it. Employees will not be displaced. I have 4 or 5
people living there. This would enkindle trust with the citizens
who cooperate with you in an effort to preserve various
buildings. The primary goal is protection of the inventory.
Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing.
Roger: Has the Historical Society made any decision in
considering this project.
Jane Kelly: I am representing the Historical Society and am here
to be aware of what is happening. I did not get any direction
from the Board for this meeting.
George Vicenzi: If I had an alley I could move it. Because I
don't have an alley my whole house would be facing south. If I
demolish it I am thinking of putting in a cottage infill garage
and it would have to be on the north side of the lot.
George: The Historical Society has half of the alley.
Roger: Historically, how did that lot come to exist.
George: It belonged to the Second Aspen Co. which was an off-
shoot of Paepcke and someone made a deal and they sold off two
lots. I have always lived in a remodeled victorian.
Committee Member Comments
Les: I know where you are coming from. My concern is that you
8
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
will turn it into a spec house. Relocations don't work. If the
City Attorney is right that you don't have a valid demolition
permit and you demo then you are sterilized for five years. I
don't want to see that happen. The scale and dimension in town
is being lost. I feel you meet the criteria for partial
demolition but not total demolition. I also don't feel you meet
the criteria to take it off the inventory either.
Glenn: No one in the City will want this house and the only
place it could be relocated to is the county and they have
restrictions and as a result we will loose this building. It
does have historic value in preserving the scale and character of
the community. This building is of a scale that is banishing and
is an important parcel next to the museum and for that reason I
do feel it is necessary for the HPC to have full review over what
is developed there. I don't intend to be "in your dreams" as I
wouldn't want that happening to me if I was building. Every time
we are in an advisory role we end up in a spec development.
Roger: citizen trust is important and you have done your best
and have worked with Staff and when new Staff comes in and says
the agreements aren't any good, I don't agree with that. In lieu
of that I feel you should be able to do just about anything you
want to; however my recommendation would be that we allow you to
do everything you want to do but we would have HPC review. I
would encourage you to do everything you could do to save the
existing structure as you intended to do and if that doesn't work
and that structure has to go then I would concur with Glenn that
HPC have review. We realize you will do a great project.
Bill: The Committee is concerned about what gets built next to
the Stallard house and Pioneer Park. I don't have a solution
yet.
George: If I was going to sell I would have done it before. I
have no intention of building a spec house. As far as my options
are concerned, if I loose, I don't mind the 5 years. If that
happens everyone looses. I feel very strongly about my property
rights. I gambled my property rights by working with the City.
As far as scale and dimension I share everybody's concern about
that. I would be willing to advisory review while I own the
property with an agreement that if I sell it that it would go to
a full HPC review. That is as far as I am willing to go.
Whatever is going to be there will not be of this scale. For the
benefit of everybody removing it from the inventory would work.
I am willing to give up my rights and have the review.
Glenn: Is there a way we could have the review of mass and scale
only or something so that George will feel more comfortable with.
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Roxanne:
or not.
The issue is whether the structure has historic value
Bill: We are trying to hash out a compromise here. The option
is open since he is willing to work with us in the future on an
advisory capacity. We work out what the advisory review is to
run with the land and George wouldn't have to demolish but he
would have to come back to us at the time he is ready.
Roxanne: Relocation requires a plan for the new location.
Bill: We could rule that we would allow you to relocate but you
couldn't relocate until the plan was submitted. And he could
vest his rights.
George: The problem with that is I would be responsible for
relocating it then I would have to come in for a demo review.
Bill: Possibly a partial demolition to give George time to think
about incorporating the structure into his new plans. If he had
an alley it would be easier to work. Possibly that could work as
a little guest house.
George: It doesn't seem to work but I will still look at it.
Right now I have a demo permit which would allow me not to have
to deal with it. I don't want to have to deal with this house, I
would like to deal with it if I want to but I do not want that
stipulation. Since the Board is somewhat in consensus to
allowing me to tear down the newer part, it hard for me to see
70% gone and 30% remaining.
Bill: The small historic structure has historic significance and
you could demolish the rest and still enhance the significance of
the structure.
George: It seems to me that you are breaking up peoples houses.
Bill: That is the historic part of the structure.
George: I don't think there is enough historic significance. I
will keep the bay window in my new house. I feel there is
latitude to take it off the inventory.
Les: Our experience is that it does work. You are entitled to
3000 sq. ft. of FAR and we broke our HPC review down to only
scale and massing and advisory over the rest of it. We would
have to come to an agreement as to how the house would sit on the
lot.
10
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
Bill: I am trying to do this within the confines of the code.
Bill: George doesn't have his plans ready. If George made the
relocation application we could rule that we would allow it to be
relocated subject him to submitted prior to relocation a
redevelopment plan.
Roxanne: We need to find out if that action can be taken by HPC.
George: What if I can't relocate the building.
Bill: I think there is leeway in our relocation plan to accept
something that is agreeable.
Roxanne: George doesn't want to that because it would be his
responsibility to relocate the structure.
Les: What about a code amendment?
Roxanne: We don't do code amendments for one case.
Glenn: How do we get to where we want to get?
Roger: This is a site specific problem. Is there any other
parcel that would have this same problem, because that is
important in this situation.
Roxanne: No.
Bill: Maybe we should table to keep the options open to a date
certain and then pursue the relocation and at that time we may
choose to remove this application and put in a relocation.
George: I am willing to relocate it but I do not want to take on
the responsibility if I can't relocate it and all bets are off.
Bill: Possibly we can work something out that if within a
certain period of time if relocation is not possible then demo.
George: My permit has expired Feb. 5th.
MOTION: Roger made the motion
continue the public hearing until
All in favor, motion carries.
to table 601 W. Hallam and
May 15, 1991; second by Les.
824 E. COOPER
Roxanne: Final was granted by the bonding or a letter to insure
11
Historic Preservation Committee
Minutes of May 8, 1991
the City that if something happens that we are in fact going to
have the historic portion redone. We site visited and there is
more partial demolition going on then we had determined before.
The applicant is recommending taking the walls down and storing
them onsite and then putting them back. I am still concerned
about that.
Ken: Jake stated at the site visit that separating the walls at
the corner was the most logical sequence.
Roxanne: I do not recall that Jake said that.
Ken: We have found that there is no bottom plate. The rim joyce
is rotten. There is more extensive damage then we had originally
determined.
Roxanne: Basically HPC approved the preservation of three walls.
I would feel more comfortable if they were stored onsite.
Ken: Certain things work in certain situations, they all aren't
the same. The siding is bad.
MOTION: Roger made the motion that upon the receipt of a
financial security that we allow the applicant to proceed with
the preservation of the existing structure as he has proposed
which is in this case sectioned and storage onsite and that we
also request that the applicant place a sign on the property
stating what in fact is going on with the original structure and
why. The financial security has to be approved by the City
Attorney. Motion second by Glenn. All in favor except Les,
motion carries.
MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; second by Glenn.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk
12