Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910213Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 100 PARK AVENUE ASPEN MEADOWS, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ONLY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 620 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING WORKSESSION - 601 W. HALLAM APPROVED DEMOLITION 204 S. GALENA - SPORTSTALKER - WORKSESSION 2 7 10 11 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of February 13, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Pose with Roger Moyer, Jake Vickery, Glenn Rappaport, Les Holst, Charles Cunniffe and Joe Krabacher present. Georgeann Waggaman and Don Erdman were excused. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to table the minutes of January 23, 1991 until the following meeting; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Carol O'Dowd, City Manager stated that she was presenting a plan to Council on the renovation of City Hall at a worksession. Jake Vickery: Monitor on City Hall. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 100 PARK AVENUE chairman Bill Pose opened the continued public hearing. Roxanne: A number of revisions have been submitted and meet the concerns of HPC and we recommend that HPC grant conceptual approval with the conditions stated in the memo Jan. 9, 1991. I am still concerned about the bulk and mass of the units in relationship to the historic cottage. I am also recommending restudy on the west elevation. David Gibson, architect: 100 Park Avenue is in the east end and we are proposing to remove 4 existing units and construct 2 deed restricted employee units that will be housed in the victorian miners cottage and to construct 5 two bedroom free market units on site. It is a PUD project but we will meet all the requirements. We have made changes that have attempted to address the concerns of the Board and to improve the project. We had prominent chimney structures and have done gas fireplaces so we don't need those. We eliminated the mid-level balconies. We have gone to a horizontal siding for the entire building above grade. The historic cottage will be wood shingle. The west elevation had a feeling of flatness and the Board wanted that addressed. We have a prominent dormer in the center. Park Avenue is the front of the project and has the most traffic. We pushed the building back 5 feet. The fenestration on the west is all vertical. There will be a sidewalk in the open space and a 42" fence and then go to a transparent fence at the open space so you have a feeling of openness. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Jake: I have seen numerous improvements and favor the project. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 Charles: I echo Jake. Bill: You have done a nice job of compatible massing in relationship to the cottage. The siding and texture are appropriate also. Glenn: Taking elements and making a background for the cottage is appropriate and I have no problem with the west elevation. The southwestern orientation is very appropriate. Les: You are getting the maximum use out of the property and it is working for everybody. Roger: It is a good project and has great compatibility with the neighborhood. The softening of the corners is an excellent concept. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for this project at 100 Park Avenue with the following conditions to be met at final: a) Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602 (C). b) Compliance with Relocation Standards found in Sec. 7-602 (D), (3) and (4). c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details. d) Detailed site and landscape plan, indicating existing vegetation and including a study of enhanced vegetation buffer between historic cottage and new construction. Fencing shall be detailed and shall be open in nature. e) Full elevations of new construction shall be submitted. f) Existing elevations of historic cottage. g) Major materials representation. Motion second by Roger. Ail in favor, motion carries. Glenn: As a suggestion I would favor this project taking on simplicity. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 ASPENMEADOWS, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ONLY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Perry Harvey: I would ask the HPC to make a finding that we can make our final SPA submission prior to receiving final HPC approval on the Meadows Projects because we are on a time line. I know you haven't seen the rehearsal or academic portion. It is stated on the Master Plan that HPC has the right to work with us. It is not stated in the code. Joe Wells: The application for the conceptual on the academic, MAA is complete and I will try to get it to you before the end of the week. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: This is a risk with us as you will be reviewing and this enables us to move forward. Roxanne: We feel it is very important to have HPC input prior to submitting their final SPA. We had said that we didn't have to have final review if the Board felt comfortable enough at conceptual. Remember you are only seeing 1/3 of the application today. Bill: Is there a way to review the academic, MAA for conceptual in order ford them not to have a delay. Perry: You will review the residential tonight. You will have the conceptual on the academic etc. prior to going to P&Z so the input will be available. Roxanne: Allow them to submit for SPA final with the that our review for conceptual and comment get to the office in ample time to be attached to the P & Z memo. condition planning Gideon: Can we meet with the sub-committee next week. Roxanne: The earliest that the HPC could see the academic would be March 13th. Perry: We are in this bind because the Master Plan stated that we had to have HPC conceptual and final approval before we submitted. This Council wanted to finalize the approval before the elections. Bill: We have a meeting on the 27th. and could not the sub- committee report back to us at that time and then we will have at least reviewed it. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 Roxanne: The Board is saying go ahead and let them submit and then the sub-committee can report back. Bill Poss did a straw pole as to how many committee members are in support of allowing our sub-committee on the Meadows to work in conjunction with the applicant concerning their SPA approval specifically towards the rehearsal facility and academic buildings; chalet/lodge portion. Allowing them to work with us and report back to the Board on the 27th of Feb. Perry: This is authorization to go ahead and submit the SPA without conceptual and final. Bill: Yes. Ail favored except Les. REVIEW PROCESS Less stepped down. Trustee Townhomes Roxanne: You are looking at conceptual development approval for the trustee townhomes, tennis townhomes and an advisory review for the four single family home sites. Concerns focused on specific materials, details and landscaping. The earth covered parking spaces were found to be appropriate. The tennis townhomes were received positively in the way of massing, scale and general design. There was concern of the stepping of the units. We are recommending approval of conceptual with conditions as stated in the memo dated Feb. 13, 1991 to be met at final. Perry: There are currently 8 trustee units 1700 sq. ft. and with the remodeled they will be 2500 sq. ft., three bedroom units. The units step down and we will maintain that step down in the new units to create the same visual integrity. The bedroom additions are on the west looking into the hill. We have attempted to take the parking and push it over into the hillside so that when you look down at the units you will see a landscape courtyard which will soften all of the units and create a nicer entryway. The materials are the same. We will maintain the horizontal beams that connect the units. We intend to use wood shingles in a straight cut pattern so the materials echo on the new and the renovated. Renovations are primarily to the interiors and the only major change is opening up the car port to create a landscaped area. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Tennis Townhomes Perry: There are 7 tennis townhomes and they are stepped. It is about 150 to 155 ft. setback to the road. There is covered parking and we have perceived the 1 1/2 stories. The project will extend to where the swimming pool is currently at the Meadows. The vegetation will act as a buffer. We want to reflect what is going on in the trustee houses but not duplicate it. Our original plan was to have the cars parked in front of the units but in the spirit of getting rid of the automobile impact on the site we tucked them in to reduce visual impact. Charles: One condition would be that the model be updated to reflect the parking scheme so we can see that physically. Perry: We had talked about the roofing as to whether it should be the same but we are open for discussion. Jake: My only concern is that the roof will be visible if it is not set up, a big surface of something. Bill Poss opened the public hearing on the tennis townhomes. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Glenn: I was in support of the asphalt shingles for the roofs vs the wood. On the trustee townhomes at the sub-committee worksession with the architect we discussed an idea of wrapping the shingles around the base to add another line to break up the large end walls. I was in favor of the solid walls on the end as opposed to opening them. Roger: The worksession went well and we also discussed the thickness of the roof and stepping it back because that was a major element to the entire roof scheme. One of the major issues for final is to present an updated model to reflect the parking scheme. Perry: Regarding (i) the single family homes we don't intend to design those homes. They will be sold as single family home sites. The consensus was that these home should not be part of the campus but that they should be part of the west end. They don't relate to anything existing. Bill: The Committee agrees with you that it should not relate to the international style but should relate to the west end. I thought that you were going to provide a narrative that we would 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 review. Perry: I have no problem with that but this talks about a palette of materials and compatible massing. When I read that I interpreted it to be compatible with the campus so I need a clarification. Charles: At the worksession we talked about somehow stepping those houses down, so it gradually goes up instead of an end wall. It is compatibility to the west end. Chairman Bill Poss closed the public hearing. Les reseated. MOTION: Charles made the motion that development approval for the Residential property with the following conditions: HPC grant conceptual portion of the Meadows a) Further study be given to the Tennis Townhomes to reduce their visual impact and provide a massing model to show the parking and landscaping proposed. b) Detailed preservation plan for the Trustee townhomes materials and architectural features with the idea of a subtle compatible design difference be created to the new Trustee Townhomes to discern between the original and new. c) Trustee Townhome carport remodeling, detailed drawing showing that. How you plan to extend the roofs of the townhomes. d) Further study of the design articulation, materials and texture of all end walls; Tennis Townhomes. e) Massing model revised to show the covered parking. f) Material representation: Exact materials representation shall be made at Final, including major materials, windows, balcony, railings, decorative features etc. g) A palette of materials, textures and colors shall be prepared by the participating architects and submitted for HPC approval at Final. h) Recommendation from applicant for compatible massing, scale, height, setbacks, materials for the four single family home sites and design covenants for HPC consideration. This could be in the form of a narrative or an outline as to how the lots would be controlled to compatibility to the west end. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 i) Detailed site and landscape plan indicating new existing vegetation and tree location and removal. Roger second the motion; Ail in favor, motion carries. and 620 W. HA?wm.4 - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Charles stepped down. Roxanne: They are asking for landmark designation, conceptual development and on-site relocation, partial demolition and a parking variations. They are including a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit within the structure which we applaud. The subject cottage is a one story building around 1890 that has a number of additions to it that in my opinion contain no historic integrity. The integrity of the additions to the cottage is their small scale and they do not overwhelm the cottage. We are recommending landmark designation finding that it meets standards E & F. Regarding Standard #1 our concerns are that the addition is overwhelming to the small scale cottage and also the preservation of the cottage. We find that there is no transition between the cottage and the addition. We are recommending a transition or massing study. They are asking for a reduction of three parking spaces and five are required on the site. We are recommending a variation of no more than two spaces so that one space would be provided in the rear portion of the site. The fenestration pattern is a concern. Under Standard #2, is it consistent with the character of the neighborhood: The HPC needs to look at whether the relocation of the cottage upsets the pattern and rhythm of the setbacks of the facade and streetscape. Standard #3 deals with the cultural value and I feel the cultural value is the small scale and perhaps it is compromises somewhat. I am concerned about the massing and it needs restudied. Regarding the demolition standards: Are the removal of the additions required for the renovation of the historic resource and does it impact the architectural integrity. There are a few Relocation Standards that have not been met and the HPC needs to determine that the new front yard setback of the relocated cottage meets standard #2. I am recommending a two part action: landmark designation and the second one would be tabling action to a date certain so that they do not have to re-notice to allow the applicant more time to study massing, scale, height, fenestration and the transition area of the new construction in relationship to the cottage. Revised drawings need to be submitted to the Planning office two weeks prior to the continued date of the public hearing. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 Jan Darrington, architect: This is not a strong historic neighborhood, it is rather eclectic and not related in style. A massing model has been built to show you the flavor of the streetscape and we believe by moving the cabin to the west on the site and placing the new structure behind it it improves the streetscape and makes the cottage more (showcase like). Materials from the parts of the houses that are being demolished will be used to retain some of the historic flavor in that aspect. We are recreating the side porch which now contains a vestibule area. By relocation of the cottage we are enhancing the historic character of the neighborhood and the streetscape. As far as the separation between the old and new I don't see now there could be anything more effective than what we have done. The overhangs are not huge, they are 16 to 18 inches. By having similar roof pitches and roof forms that echo the victorian style set it apart from the existing cabin. As far as the fence goes we will be happy to do whatever is desirable and compatible to the HPC. As far as parking there is not the demand on that street and the house is located within a block and 1/2 from a bus route. On the fenestration if there is concern we would be willing to study that. David Zimman, owner of property: I know I would never park in the alley as there is plenty of parking on the street. The original plan called for three spots in the back which means from the street you could look through to the alley in the back and that would be a negative aesthetically. I suggested that we ask for the elimination of those three spaces mostly from an aesthetically reason. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Jim Iglehart, neighbor to the east at 610 W. Hallam. I am on the property line on the east side and if ever added on would go west. First of all the fence maybe on my property and might be my fence. I am in support of the project. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Joe: I find the massing compatible with the relocated house. As to the separation between the old and new maybe you could look at something else to give you the separation. I'm not opposed to the way it is now. I am not opposed to the relocation. I don't have a major problem with the fenestration but it is a little complicated. There is allot of glass. Jan: The additions to the original cabin wrap all the way around the east, north and west sides of the house. We are taking the existing cabin and setting it with its north end against the new 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 facade. Les: I feel the massing behind the original house detracts from the little cottage instead of setting it off. I think there should be a restudy of the massing. Glenn: Possibly there is a way to make a smoother transition from what is old to what is new. Roger: The compatibility with the neighborhood is good and I have a little problem with the massing/fenestration between the older structure. Bill: I would recommend landmark designation and possibly work with the parking variation. The preservation of the cottage with a compatible addition is important to reinforce the historic character of this part of the west end. I don't have a problem with the massing or the addition but I think the transition of the addition needs more study. It is to brutal and needs softened. I do not object to the relocation. A restudy of the fenestration and the panelization of the addition is necessary. The fence should be more open and similar to fences in the west end. Because of the design of the bedroom inside I would be agreeable to give a variation to the parking for the two spaces. I would find it hard to support conceptual approval due to the amount of restudy. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC recommend landmark designation for the property at 620 W. Hallam, finding that Designation Standards E & F have been met. In conjunction with that we recommend the variation of two parking spaces and that we table until the February 27th to allow the applicant time to restudy the fenestration and the transition area of the new construction in its relationship to the historic cottage (to change the transitions you will have to soften the massing). Also to be included in the restudy is the fence and massing. Revised drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Office no less than two full weeks prior to the tabled public hearing date; second by Jake. All in favor, motion carries. David zimman, owner: This is rated a #2 and we are making every effort to enhance the historic value of this building. Jan: The scale and massing are very compatible with the victorian houses on the west end. Jake: We support the fact that you are working with the small cottage. My concern in terms of the transition is that you are presenting a big flat surface across the front of the addition 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 and plugging the cottage onto it, it seems tacked on to me. There are ways of making that transition. Bill: It is the transition between the lower structure and the higher structure. Glenn: It is the articulation of the fenestration that is overpowering the historic structure. It isn't necessarily the amount of glass but in the articulation of what you are doing. WORKSESSION - 601 W. HATJ~APPROVED DEMOLITION Roxanne: The applicant received a demolition permit before ord. #17 came into effect. Ord. #17 required that HPC shall review and grant approval for demolition and relocation of all historic structures on the inventory. 601 W. Hallam was not a landmark or in the district but just on historic resource on the inventory. We asked George to work with us in order to relocate the cottage. We did not find any place to relocate it. With Staff's support George received two extensions. George is seeking the HPC's assistance in examining some alternatives. He does not want to have to come through the HPC to get a demo approval. There are two ideas: Possibly have the historic resource removed off the inventory. The other alternative would be that the City take over the structure as an affordable housing unit and George would retain the ownership of the land and when George is ready to develop the parcel then he would give reasonable notice to the City to do whatever they wanted with the structure. This structure dates pre 1910. George Vicenzi, owner: Keep in mind creditability, integrity and fairness in this discussion. I bought this house in 1969 and remodeled it. I moved out of the house in 1979 to the Rollan house and the intent was to move our of there when my daughter was grown and then build on this site and demolish the little cabin. Due to tax situations I remodeled the carriage house on the Red Rollan site in the interim. Roxanne asked me to work in the relocation of the house and I agreed as long as I wouldn't give up my demo rights. Due to the escalation of land it was difficult to relocate it. In the interim the new attorney decided all the extensions were not valid. The two solutions are to deed to the city and to remove it from the inventory. To remove it from the inventory has some latitude because all the additions were done after 1910. The other factor was this house was moved to the site in 1960. Les: Removing it from the inventory at this time we loose all rights of review. 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 13, 1991 Bill: I am willing to work together and we need to work within the code. Maybe we should have a worksession with all the parties involved and discuss this. Jake: You would have to apply for removal of the inventory and support that. Charles: George voluntarily decided to work with us and he could have decided to demolish the house before Ord. #17 came into effect. We owe him and we decided to do the extensions. We do not want to set a negative precedent. Les: My idea is that we maintain the design review over the property to make sure it is compatible to the neighborhood and you would get to demolish. This is one way to look at it. Roxanne: He is not prepared to do a full development of the parcel. Bill: There maybe more alternatives and we need to continue to work. Jake: We need a worksession with the City Attorney. Les: How do we get rid of the house for George and save something for the Community. Joe: I am very sympathetic to George and it is unfortunate that the City Attorney found a provision in the code that said you can get an extension but then you are under review of all the ordinances that were in effect. 204 S. GAT~NA - SPORTSTALKER - WORKSESSION Sven Alstrom, architect: We are trying to get clarification. Jake: The issue is materials and I am getting very close to approval. Worksession scheduled. MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn; second by Bill. favored, motion carries. Ail Meeting adjourned t 9:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 11