Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910227HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of February 27, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Don Erdman, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Joe Krabacher and Charles Cunniffe were excused. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of January 23, 1991; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 620 W. HALLAM Roxanne: The applicant is requesting a variation of three parking spaces. Regarding partial demolition standards the HPC is required to find that all of the standards have been met. Staff finds that three of the relocation standards have not been met. I still question whether the new location on the parcel is appropriate or not and recommending tabling. Jan Darrington, architect: We have added a porch which is a replication of the porch on the cabin now and feel it is compatible with the streetscape and other houses on the street. We have made a three foot wide separation between the cabin and the stair tower and that stair tower would be clad in shingles. We believe we have addressed the concerns of the committee. The transition of the elements can be see in the floor plan. Ann Ware owner of the house next door at 624 W. Hallam: I feel the project height could be reduced. Our house is at 19 feet and this is at 24ft. and that amount is significant. How much of the original cabin will be left after that addition is added. Moving it forward seven feet places the cabin on the property line and it will be the only house forward on the street. I question whether that is compatible. I have concern about the garage etc. Jan Darrington: Ann has not seen the revisions. Bill: The first issue is whether the standards for a partial demolition have been met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the structure located on the parcel. Jan: The floors are very un-level and the layout is very inefficient. It is only given a #2 rating and we are willing to Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 work and make it compatible and enhance the neighborhood. The additions were not added until the 60's so there is no historical significance what-so-ever. We made some efforts and decided that it was not worth saving. Jake: If in fact the additions are obsolescent and you are making an attempt to restore the cabin using the old wood etc. I think that would conform to the first standard. Don: I have a question about the impacts on the architectural integrity. Presently the cabin portion which is being retained, what architectural features are being augmented or changed in the proposal. Jan: We would be reusing the existing windows as much as possible and some are not historically significant. The entry door is stained glass and the windows on the south and west are compatible and we will be reusing them. Glenn: With regard to (a) I think that we have supported projects in the past which have sought to remove a number of additions and have returned the house to what was originally there. The scheme that you have does enable you to provide a good gesture toward the street in regards to the front courtyard. Bill: The Board feels (after straw pole) that partial demolition standards have been met. Bill: Next we need to address the standards for relocation: #2, the relocation activity demonstrates to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to this relocation. Don: This model is slightly forward but not that is the only area of concern that I have, the streetscape. significantly so and the relationship to Jan: We feel that this isn't like track housing and there are variations in setbacks along the street. Jake: Since this is a eclectic street I don't see a problem with the relocation. Bill: The Board feels standards have been met. with standard #2. (after straw Standard #5 pole) that the relocation has been met in conjunction Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 Bill: We need to determine whether this proposal meets our guidelines with the compatibility to the historic structure and the designated structure that we are reviewing. Les: My basic feeling is that the separation between the new massing and the original house is critical. The chimney's are a little too heavy and I have trouble with the fenestration across the front. Granting a side yard variation is not necessary. Glenn: The thinness of the tower will further differenciate the mass. You are within your height limits and are stepping the building that works with the site. Don: I agree with Les that in making the east wall of the tower line up with the ridge line of the roof maybe detrimental to the project. I would like to see that revised and not have the encroachment created by the movement. The other issue is that the entire east property line except with the exception of some subtle manipulation in and out is being hugged by a very long building and if everybody on this block starts playing that same game we are going to have an awful lot of narrow slots. I would like to see more manipulation of space that has been exhibited on the east side. The slot on the west needs restudy. Jake: The tower is an interesting element and could or could not work. If it competes with the cabin then it doesn't work. I would support the basic approach with a restudy of the tower and the materials of the tower. The chimneys also need restudied as they are over scaled. Georgeann: My concerns are reflected in other Board members comments. Roger: I concur that the chimneys, the fenestration on the front, also the fenestration on the east elevation and the upper large window on the deck need looked at. The tower is appropriate but I am not in favor of the variance in order to have it moved out. Bill: I concur and agree with the Board that a restudy of the tower is necessary. Possibly restudy the curved arched top windows that are represented. I find that they are a little incompatible. It is the only curved element. The chimneys need restudied and the west elevation as it is too flat and should be done in the confines of the setbacks. COM]~ENTS: Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 Jan: As far as the setbacks go this is a substandard site. I would like to suggest that we shift the structure over two feet to the east so that we have the required 5 ft. setback on the west and that would leave us five feet on the east which would be in compliance with the required setbacks. By shifting the whole structure and combination of the existing cabin to the east two feet so that it will be in compliance with the required setback we feel we have alleviated the committees concerns. We thought different materials and a steeper pitch to the tower would make it a fun element. If another material would be acceptable we could go back to a shingled roof. We could change the chimneys so that they are not quite exaggerated. Jake: I can support the rear yard setback because it frees up the space by the cabin rather than forcing the mass forward. Roxanne: I find it distressing that significant revisions are brought to the meeting without staff review. There are revisions that are highly competitive with the historic resource. Jan: We are not asking for a side yard setback. Roxanne: They are asking for three parking spaces to be reduced and at the last meeting the Board said two spaces would be the maximum that they would consider because 5 are required onsite and they can get three onsite. I feel a conceptual development is not in order. There are numerous elements that need revisions and I would recommend a tabling. MOTION: Jake made the motion to table conceptual development for 620 W. Hallam until March 13th to allow the applicant time to study the issues mentioned such as the transition between the tower and its materials. The fenestration issues and submit revised drawings and massing model; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. DIRECTION: Don: The agreement to involve no encroachment on the side yard setbacks would be confirmed on a new site plan. A restudy of the tower given that the tower is the right direction to go as a dividing element to go between the old and new. In conjunction of the restudy of the tower there be a restudy of the chimney. These are the highest elements and the most pronounced elements against the skyline. In your elevation you put the peak of the tower roof at the same point as the peak of the new structure's roof. That is not at all necessary. The tower peak even high as the proposed roof would emphasize the tower as a dividing element. There is nothing that says these two peaks have to be Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 at the same point. The applicant put them at the same height and it might be advisable to study them both ways. I concur with Bill that the fenestration of the south elevation needs to be restudied to provide less of a huge break and become less of an attractive element. Glenn: I give my support of the tower as a design solution. I would also be in favor of a restudy of the arched shaped windows. Les: Don't give up on the tower as there possibly could be some other kind of material that would give it some ability to stand alone and still be compatible. Ann Ware, neighbor: I am in favor they not go to the maximum height because it will severely impact the light going into our house. I like breaking up the massing on the side. Jim Inglehart, neighbor: of the #2 rating. Perhaps it would be easier to get rid REVISED CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - SPORTSTAI=KER Roxanne: If the HPC is comfortable with all the conditions noted in the memo then I would recommend a revised conceptual. Glenn: I find that some things were changed but I wasn't at the sub-committee so will go along with the recommendation. MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant revised conceptual development approval for the project at 204 S. Galena subject to all the conditions stated on pages 1 thru 3 of Roxanne's memo dated Feb. 27, 1991; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. Jake is project monitor for the Sportstalker 303 1/2 E. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: This is a project changing a storage space to an office space. There are three issues to consider: The roof skylights, location and exact design of the lights. They are flat but project and are proposed on the north. Because of the impacts and this is a national registered parcel the skylights may encroach visually to the character of the cottage. You might want those relocated to the south elevation. Also the applicant has proposed snap on mullions that serve no purpose and I am recommending that the window replacement become a double hung or leave them as is. The idea of a fake applique doesn't meet the standards of historic preservation. The boxed in flu pipe might Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 need to be just a vernacular metal pipe. It might be more compatible in use and character of the little outbuilding. We are recommending approval subject to the conditions stated. We would also like to recommend that the owner-applicant apply for landmark designation at some time. Scott Lindenau, architect: I would like the skylights on the north as the alley adjacent to the project is heavily impacted with trucks delivering to restaurants and noisy. I want the skylights low and to be operable. Also due to direct light, we do not want glare. Being on the north side the lot is visible from Monarch Street and the alley facing the existing house you wouldn't see them. I put a round galvanized aluminum vent pipe on the mound instead of the wood. All the windows right now are single glazed and I would have to take all of those out and put thermopane in there and mullions on both sides since this project is coming out of my pocket and I can't afford to do all double hung windows. They will match the existing windows in the current house. Les: Have you looked at putting a window in a gable end. Roger: The original house has mullions on the inside. Scott: Instead of asphalt shingles I would like to go with corrugated tin as it is cheaper. Les: The skylight will not work with corrugated tin. Glenn: The skylights are so small and the structure is so light there isn't really a substantial alteration done to put one of these in. It is easily removed if need be. I do not see it doing anything to the character of the building. Scott: The existing front door is 6'3" and the over time so I will have to bring it up to code. would stay there but we would have to bring it up floor is warped The same door six inches. Glenn: That is a code issue. With the mutton proposal it may be cheaper to get a double hung window. MOTION: Jake made the motion to grant minor development approval for 303 1/2 E. Main with the following conditions to be approved by the Project Monitor and staff prior to the issuance of a building permit as follows: a) Provide a detail of the two skylights to appear more flush with the roof surface and the current location on the north side is fine. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 b) Eliminate wood siding box around vent pipe. pipe proposed at this meeting is appropriate. Round vent c) Encourage exploration of replacing the fixed panes with true double hung window replacements (window alternatives); second by Roger. Les & Georgeann: The imitation mullions should be eliminated. AMENDED MOTION: Jake amended his motion to eliminate (c) and add elimination of mullions and consider the replacement of fixed with true double hung window replacements; second by Roger. All favor motion and amended motion. Glenn: Are you saying you would rather see no mullions and a fixed pane or double hung. 422 E. COOPER MINOR DEVELOPMENT - SPECIAL OCCASIONS Roxanne: This is a minor development for the entry door relocation from recessed to flush with a facade and addition of sidelights. MOTION: Les made the motion to approve the minor development of 422 E. Cooper - Special Occasions; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. Chairman Bill Poss stated that the packets were complete and thorough thus a discussion was not necessary on this application. LANDMARK DESIGNATION, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 214 W. BLEEKER Roxanne presented the over-view of the project as attached in records ( see memo dated February 27, 1991). Standards E and F are met for the landmark designation and we are recommending approval. There is an onsite relocation of the out building in the back. Partial demolition and a setback variation are requested. Our concern is the preservation of the historic cottage and the massing and transition impacts of the proposed addition. We are concerned about the competition between the old and the new. There needs to be a distinct and compatible break between the original house and the addition and we believe that a restudy is in order to accomplish that. The house is already a two story, so the height and scale of the proposed addition we find to be appropriate and compatible but there are some fenestration issues that need to be restudied. The applicant is requesting a parking reduction of one space. The rear yard Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 setback variation is seven feet and the Board needs to determine if that is compatible or not. We are recommending that all original doors and windows remain. One concern that I have is the addition of a new double hung window in the projected bay of the facade. We find that inappropriate. The Board needs to determine if the massing is compatible with the neighborhood. The demolition standards have to be met and the relocation is appropriate. We are recommending tabling action until a date certain to allow restudy of fenestration and the massing transition areas. Kevin Macleod, architect for Cunniffe & Associates: The intent was to create most of the mass off to the west side and maintain as much of the yard space as possible. Due to the area being the most visible by setting it back the impact of the addition would be less from the street. There are several large trees behind the fences that will minimumize the impact of the wall. The dormers were added due to the steepness of the roof. The roof drops so quickly that the rooms are unusable and the front room is being revised into the master bedroom and is not large enough to meet the owners needs without the dormer. Additional headroom is needed. We have also dropped the ridge of the caretakers unit. We want to change the window in the front of the livingroom. We would like to add an increase in the width of the window space but still keep the vertical proportions that are in character with the rest of the house. CLARIFICATIONS: Bill: Is the large window on the front an older window. Kevin: Yes but most of the windows do not close so there is a need to replacing them. Roger: Could the single bay window on the south side be made operable? Kevin: It is operable but we want it replaced to increase the width and the glass area and let more light into the livingroom. The bay will not change. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Letter entered into the records from Ray Neighbors to the immediate west 222 W. Bleeker no objection to the application if the parking from the front of her home. & Betty Larson, stating they had space is removed Roxanne: I think the neighbors concern was in the HPC granting a Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 parking reduction. To address the concern of the neighbors you could recommend that parking occur in the rear of the parcel. Bill: The issues to be addressed are landmark designation, partial demolition standards for the removal of the additions as they be necessary and also has the applicant proven that the impacts have been mitigated. Kevin: The front portion of the residence is clearly the most historic section of the house. This is on a stone foundation. Roxanne: What is the age of the addition? Kevin: I don't know but I could do some research. I think around 25 years old. Bill: Another issue is the relocation of the shed. No one in the committee had concerns. The last issue is the development review standards. Les: My problem is I cannot differentiate between the old and new, where they separate. Kevin: Possibly if the connecting area was treated with a different material would that help you in your decision. Les: I don't think it should be the material it should be the massing in some form, use of different dormers. Don: One of the ways the dormers are not differentiated is the long continuous roof ridge line. If there was someone to deal with that ridge line. You are erasing distinctions between historic and the new through the continuous roof line and the repeating elements. We do have the problem of maintaining the integrity of the building. Roxanne was concerned about the change of one very large double hung in the projecting bay of the south facade, the street facade to a pair of double hung. I am not convinced that you are increasing the amount of light that much. Glenn: The major perception of the house is from the south east. You mitigated and we will not be able to differentiate very much. Possibly working a little more to pull the pieces apart would be my major concern. Roger: The basic design is terrific and the massing and scale are OK but the massing does not separate the traditional victorian from the new element and that definitely has to be looked at. I am very much opposed to changing anything that has 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 to do with the original house. It wouldn't require allot of work to separate the two and could be done with the extended roof line not different materials. Glenn: We had other proposals that have broken the roof and turned it into an outdoor space even between the two elements and that seemed to work well. Georgeann: I agree and have one comment on the dormers on each side of the bedroom. While I see your point~ they are a discordant element on that original miners cottage, maybe the master bedroom should be somewhere else. The dormers are too far forward. Bill: I agree with the committee that there needs to be a breakup of the massing along the ridge line to keep the identity of the historic structure. It is a good project. I would be in favor of keeping the single opening of the east lake window on the south facade. If it is the original window it should remain. I would like to make a point that the smaller scale transoms are more acceptable in this situation than the large curved top windows of the other one. It is not compatible but the size of the window openings are more compatible with the vertical nature of the windows on the historic structure. I would like to see a restudy of the dormers as to why they are necessary. Kevin Macleod: Having the master bedroom where Linda would like to have it and having the view, sun space it was too tight especially on the east west gable where the pitch is close to 16 and 12. The room only has 5 feet of headroom across. The reason why we chose the shed dormers was partially an economic thing and they are easier to put into an existing roof rather than a gabled dormers. We also felt that they were less conspicuous. Lynda MacCarthy, Applicant: further. Maybe we can move the dormers back Georgeann: If we have a shed dormer on the front original building to put the one in the bathroom is ill-logical because the two should look different. Roger: Our role is to preserve as much as possible of the integrity of the historical building and the dormers are not part of that. I would oppose any dormers on the front of the house. It is a good model and good project. Kevin: We also want to make the house more usable and if you go into the rooms and see the shapes and how unusable the space is maybe there is some justification for expanding the space because 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 the house would become more usable throughout the years. Georgeann: That is a very major change. Kevin: The two dormers on the master bedroom were size and pulled back and the one in the bathroom area street is eliminated, would that be more acceptable? reduced in facing the Glenn: It is a very small area and there has to be a solution somehow. I see the solution: The roof goes up or the floor goes down. My vote is that the roof go up as it is not presently usable space. Les: There should be several solutions. Bill: The consensus is that the dormers are less obtrusive than gabled dormers. The Board is in favor of dormers in this particular case because they have done a good job in keeping the massing small in the back. Don: If by a necessity a shed dormer will occur in the historic portion of the structure then we should do everything we can in terms of the detailing to differentiate it. The massing in general is good and the model is exceptionally well executed in helping us understand all of the particular aspects. Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Tim Falafus: Just a comment on the parking situation as it has a large impact on the design of the house. If you do allow them to decrease the number of parking spots on the lot to three and don't allow them to have one in front you need to look at where the other one would be. Obviously it would have to be in the back and would create significant changes. Having the existing driveway in front of the house does impact both the view of the property from the road as well as the landscaping. Kevin: We are required four parking spaces and are asking for a variance of one parking space. The one in front plus the two car garage makes three. We are already asking for a variance and if they feel a one car parking space is enough and don't allow the additional variance of two cars there is room on the rear of the lot that we could have on site parking. We would rather keep the yard space. Lynda MacCarthy, owner: my house is to have the that space. One of the important things to me about garden and I would not want to give up 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 Bill: This is a three bedroom house with a caretaker. committee would accept three spaces as minimum. The Georgeann: They could park parallel with the alley. Roxanne: They are only asking for a variation of one space and the parking should be directed to the rear of the parcel. They are also asking for a seven foot variation to push the garage over. Bill: Lets discuss the setback. Les: I can't see any reason that we would give that variance. Kevin: A large portion of the FAR is below grade. Roxanne: This is not a FAR issue it is a massing issue and the Board has to make a finding that the rear yard setback variation is more appropriate and more compatible to the resource. Georgeann: We have a building with the massing of the addition in scale with the existing building and this is achieved by not pushing things out on both sides, not making it any higher or bulkier. Kevin: The code does allow garages to come within five feet of the rear setback. It is the garage space but we have living space above and the code then requires you to have it 10 feet. Glenn: You are 370 ft. below the maximum allowable site coverage. MOTION: Don made the motion that the HPC recommend Landmark Designation for the property at 214 W. Bleeker as well as conceptual approval as presented plus a seven foot rear yard setback variation with the following conditions: 1. Ail dormers, the gabled type, with the exception of the shed dormers on the historic element. 2. The shed dormers on the historic element be moved as far from the south facade as possible. 3. A roof ridge break be incorporated between the historic element and the addition. 4. The eastlake window, if original be retained in a scheme. 5. That one parking be ~elegated to the rear of the parcel. 12 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 6. That a parking variation of one vehicle be allowed giving a total of three cars on site; second by Glenn. DISCUSSION Jake: Did you mention the dormers on the cross gable? Georgeann: They were bothering me as being too dominant with two of them there. Roger: I though we said restudy the dormers and you are saying that it is very specific that they will stay on the front. Don: We could amend the motion that dormers having to do with the historic portion of the structure be shed type and restudy for reduction of the number of dormers. AMENDED MOTION: Don amended #2 of his motion. In the historic element, the restudy and reduction in number of dormers if possible. Also conditions a thru h of item #2 page 6 of Roxanne Eflin's memo dated Feb. 27, 1991. second by Glenn. All approved of motion and amended motion, motion carries. ITEM #2 OF ROXANNE'S MEMO STATING A THROUGH H A) a) Approve the Conceptual Development application with conditions to be met in Final Development application: Compliance with Partial Demolition Standards found in Sec. 7-602 (C). b) Restudy of massing and transition between the historic and new portions and fenestration, including the dormer windows. c) Detailed preservation plan for cottage materials and architectural features, including all porch details. d) Detailed site and landscape plan. Fencing shall be detailed and shall be open in nature. e) Massing model. f) Material representation. g) Simple streetscape elevation to determine massing/bulk compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. h) Details of outbuilding relocation and preservation methods to be used. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 27, 1991 F~t~D ROCK CAFE LIGHTS Roxanne: The Elks Bldg. - Hard ~ock Cafe is requesting two small lights exactly the same as Esprit and will be located underneath the awnings and point to the hard rock logo. There application was complete but came in late and could not be put onto this agenda. I don't have a problem with it. Don: It is minimal and non-obtrusive. MOTION: Don made the motion that the minor development application relative to the Hard Rock Cafe Window be approved as presented; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. PROJECT MONITORING Glenn: On 17 Queen St. when we got their revised elevations and plans the stairwell was projected and was another element that we didn't see. Roxanne and I talked about it and I talked with Jeffrey Harris, architect. Possibly taking that element into a shed roof addition that would be using some of the materials that were on one of the sheds on the site. It would be at a funny angle but a very simple shed roof box. Roxanne and I did not have a problem with it but since it was a change we wanted to bring it up at a regular meeting. Roxanne: I would feel more comfortable if they would present a revised plan. Deputy City Clerk Jan Carney was dismissed by Board due to worksessions Worksession on Meadows - no minutes Worksession on 243 W. Francis - no minutes MOTION: Les made the motion to adjourn, second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 14