Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910327Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of N arch 27, 1991 716 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMHIT~E MIN~TZS OF MARCH 27, 1991 17 QUEEN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT . CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF 409 E. HOPKINS FINAL DEVELOPMENT 309 E. HOPKINS AND 200 S. MONARCH - LILY REID COTTAGE W. FRANCIS ST. LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 501 E. COOPER - INDEPENDENCE BUILDING EXTERIOR LIGHTING 1 2 2 8 10 12 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of March 27, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Roger Moyer, Glenn Rappaport, Don Erdman, Joe Krabacher and Georgeann Waggaman present. Excused were Charles Cunniffe, Les Holst and Jake Vickery. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of Feb. 27, 1991 as amended; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 17 QUW-EN STREET - FINAL DEVELOPMENT Jeffery Harris, architect: We would like to get approval of an alternate roof as well as a shallow gable. Don: Are we talking about the bowed metal roof? Jeffery: Yes and the roof would'be metal, flat seam. If it is gabled we will stay with the corrugated roof and try to make it similar to the existing shed. Roger: Can you use the metal from the existing sheds onsite? Jeffery: We are already planning to use structure of the existing house and also goes over the balcony. it on the front porch on the new roof that Don: The metal roof with a bow is much more appropriate. MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC grant approval for the minor development revision to the previously approved plans for 17 Queen Street and that we recognize the applicants having presented a slight variation for the metal roof on the north east stair element; second by Georgeann. Jeffery: Can we use either roof, the shallow gable or this based on a cost factor? Don withdrew his motion. MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC grant Minor Development revision to the previously approved plans for 17 Queen Street as follows: There are two alternatives: One that was presented in the memo and one that was presented at this meeting which involves a bowed metal roof. The bowed metal roof is preferable to the shallow gable ended metal roof. Both have been approved and this is to be worked out with monitor and staff and Jeffery Harris; second by Georgeann. All favored, motion carries. The Board felt that the alternative that was presented at 3-27 91 meeting was more appropriate. The bowed metal roof on N. E. stair tower is preferred. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF 409 E. HOPKINS Bill POSS stepped down. Leslie Lamont, planner: The applicant desires clarification of the demolition issue that was granted. Does this building qualify under the proposed code amendment finding for demolition. Roxanne recommended in her memo demolition pending the adoption of the code amendment. Joe is asking that you actually go through the findings of the code amendment itself pending the adoption by council. Joe: The only distinction between the two is that Roxanne didn't specifically spell out the findings and for the purpose of keeping the contract in place we would like to ask that you make those findings so that if city council adopts the code amendment then we do not have to come back to the Board. Georgeann: This seems like a paper procedure. MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC take action regarding the clarification of conceptual development approval at 409 E. Hopkins as per the recommendation in the Planning Dept. memo as drafted by Roxanne Eflin dated March 27, 1991. To include the criteria 1 through 5 of Roxanne's memo dated March 19, 1991; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. FINAL DEVELOPMENT 309 E. HOPKINS AND 200 S. MONARCH - LILY REID COTTAGE Larry Yaw, architect: We have created a viable pedestrian zone through and around the building. We have also created transitions from the downtown zones. There will be retail on the lower level. The building has been stepped back to create more lift on lower level. The building itself has an allowable FAR of 13,500 sq. ft. and we are proposing 13,200. The building is essentially brick and the upper levels will have flower planters and green awnings. We have two choices on the Lily Reid cottage, one is to paint it a cream color and the other is to use the brick as it exists on the building and clean it off. The Board should consider which option they would approve. We are going to apply the sidewalk all the way around. Bill: The Board finds that the proposal meets the proposed code amendment allowing for an exemption process from the standards. The second issue is the partial demolition. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: There are two additions, a wood one and a brick addition. The wood addition is being demolished and Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 the brick addition is being preserved. Don: I believe the standards have been met for partial demolition. The materials are not the same. Bill: We should discuss relocation next. Larry Doble will address how the move will occur. Larry Doble, structural engineer: We have been working with Ryberg Co. who is a professional house mover. We propose to move the building to 7th and Main and store it on a temporary foundation that is approved by the building dept. protected from weather with a temporary shoring and covered with plastic. To protect it from vandalism there will be a security fence. Once the new site is ready we would reverse the process, pick it up and place it on its new foundation and make the modifications that are approved by this Board. I am confident in my professional opinion that we can move this building back to its site and maintain its structural integrity. Bill: There are several issues: Do we feel comfortable that it can be relocated. Do we feel comfortable with the relocation off site or whether we want to subject the building to the risk of the construction around it. Does the Board feel comfortable with the temporary relocation to 7th and Main. Don: I think it is a necessity that it be relocated; however, my concern is the site relocation in such a prominent place. Georgeann: I have that problem also. Larry Doble: We are only dealing with a period of six months and it would have a foundation that could last indefinitely. Don: We fear that it could be much longer. Bill: Where on that site will it be relocated? Larry Doble: As far back on the parcel as possible. Gideon Kaufman: We can put it wherever the Board approves. Roger: The Board feels it can be relocated off site but we have a concern of the location. What happens if the project dies, is that the place where you would want it to sit for an extended period of time? Don: Are there other site alternatives? Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 Gideon: We spent an awful lot of time looking for sites and it was very difficult to find a site and we were able to convince the property owner to allow us to utilize that site. Roger: What about the lots near the Parlor Car? Gideon: If we can move it we will but if that is not successful we would hope that you would approve the site that is available. Georgeann: I would be willing to look at the site more closely before saying no. Glenn: There is a lot of use of that site for xmas tree sales, used cars etc. If the house were placed on a spot with a smaller fence so that it didn't look like it was a temporary space it might enhance the lot. Gideon: Just a point of clarification, this is a 9000 sq. ft. lot and the house is only 600 sq. ft. Don: Make it look like it has a potential use. Bill: Glenn's point of hiding the foundation with a smaller fence is good. Roger: Also place it on the rear portion of the lot. Joe: I would like to see it on another site but if that isn't possible we could go with this site with a lower fence and the house placed closely to the rear portion of the lot. Bill: Next issue is the performance bond. Gideon: In addition to the insurance that Ryberg Co. has we will do a letter of credit for $100,000. that would ensure the ability to relocate it back if there was a problem and to ensure that any damage was done could be fixed. Bill: Suppose you got through foundations and didn't get to put the deck back on would that be enough to finish the building or at least the deck to relocate the building? Gideon: The intention with the $100,000. would cover very serious damage. Bill: I only bring that up because it has occurred before and some of the projects aren't completed yet. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 Larry Brooks, owner: You are tying the house to the project and if the project is a failure here certainly I am going to use every means to make it not a failure. The money that we are setting aside is money to protect the house. To tie it to the project in its entirety I can't answer that. Ryberg has his own insurance and capability to move it from one place to another. Joe: I see several parts, one if it is damaged in the move and the relocation back. Also deferred maintenance when it is off site. Gideon: The $100,000 would be for everything. The insurance is that this building will be put back in place. Larry Yaw: They can't start this building unless they have permanent and construction financing in place. Joe: My concern if it gets relocated off site we have no assurance that it will ever get back on site. Bill: This could be worked out with Jed, City Attorney and Staff. Georgeann: Joe can talk with Roxanne. Gideon: What if we did a two step process and post the $100,000 and that construction would not begin until a permanent loan has been secured. If you have a permanent loan you have financing in place for the project. Larry Brooks: I own the property and have no problem with the personal guarantee but have a problem with the construction loan. Bill: The next issue is the plaza surface treatment. Glenn: I am concerned about the space should be made flexible to court yard with benches. size of the open space and the allow for things to go on, a Georgeann: I feel the opposite, it should be pushed back and allow for more front yard such as grass and a fence. When you start getting into planters and raised beds you get into artificiality that is not in keeping with this type of house in its time and place. Larry Yaw: We have recommended to Larry Brooks that lighting be kept on until 11:00 p.m. at night to enhance vitality and use of the open space. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 Bill: Green space gives relief and vitality. Don: The whole house is sitting in a bed of green and that is not necessary. You perceive the area differently within the court yard. There are two distinct views. Bill: Lets discuss the windows on the cottage. Georgeann: On the east elevation eliminate the double hung window under the gable and go back to the original window. On the south elevation the addition of the double double hung be split in half with brick as they are too contemporary. Larry Yaw: Those are good suggestions. Roger: The fact that they are taking the window on the back to its original state is terrific and filling in a door which was once a window is fine also but the fact that they are adding on is not. Where do we want to be at on this? Larry Yaw: The Board needs to act on individual problems. Joe: I am not opposed to adding the two windows on the south elevation given the fact that we had an addition on the back side of that. I also don't have a problem putting a window under the dormer on the west elevation. On the others we should try and keep it original. Glenn: There are urban design problems that need to be considered, the cottage is being moved. If the response is arbitrated that new things are allowed to happen and not go overboard those things need to be looked at. Bill: On commercial buildings we allow people to change an historic building but we ask the applicant not to replicate something. Being that this is going to be a public building we do want to provide interest to the corners. The new windows would have the soldier course above them to distinguish between the new and old. Larry Yaw: We would like direction to the color of the cottage from the Board. Roger: The Federal Guidelines state that sandblasting is not allowed. So if you are removing the paint it would have to be removed chemically. The brick is probably the same as the Jerome and it deteriorates rapidly. I would recommend retaining the paint. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 Georgeann: I am in favor of leaving it the paint color as it softens the area. Roger: Since half of it is painted and half is not I would suggest leaving the cottage the way it is. Larry Yaw: This is such a small building that I feel it should hold together simply and directly, one or the other. Bill: Lets discuss the new building regarding materials. Georgeann: The wood siding as opposed to the tile softens and complements the other materials. Glenn: I have an additional comment on the plaza treatment. If the grass came across and ended and a single bench went along the whole building it would be appropriate. Don: I am for having two totally different experiences from the building one from within and one from without. Joe: Possibly study or explore Glenn's idea. I agree with the continuous wrap around bench. I making it an hospitable court yard for the public. am not sure I am in favor of Larry Yaw: The concept is good but how it clarifies itself in form we will have to look at. Joe: I would like to hear why we should waive the fees for parking. We did grant landmark designation to the entire site and 19 spaces are a substantial amount of parking. Joe Wells: We were trying to preserve the open space of the cottage. The parking issue was debated with P&Z, HPC and council right up to designation. The only way that we could afford to do this project was to be relieved of the payment in lieu of the parking. Council clearly stated that this project was doing what they wanted it to do in the commercial core. Glenn: We were excited about the project and we were rewarding this proposal with the waiver of the parking spaces. Bill: The committee feels that we can make that finding of the parking space waiver. Bill: We find that the open space is adequate and we direct staff to prepare a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment supporting the open space dimensions as proposed. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for the Lily Reid project as proposed subject to approvals of materials etc. finding that the development review, partial demolition and relocation standards have been met. A waiver of payment in lieu from the parking reduction of 19 spaces is approved finding that the three spaces proposed on site are the maximum number allowed by design. Staff is directed to prepare a memo to the Board of Adjustment supporting the open space dimensions as proposed. This final development approval is conditional on the adoption of the code amendment ordinance (in process) creating an exemption clause to the demolition standards in sec. 7-702b. The HPC finds that the non-historic non contributing structure proposed for demolition meets the proposed exemption criteria. A permit for demolition shall not be granted until such code amendment is adopted. HPC also grants final development with the following specific conditions. These conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit and approved by Staff and project monitor: e Motion second by Don. Restudy courtyard planting and seating. Work with the legal project monitor which is Joe Krabacher and the City Attorney regarding bonding and relocation guarantees. Present final drawings and fenestration details for original Lily Reid building. Do not remove any paint from the parts of the building that are painted. HPC strongly recommends another site be found for the building to be placed during its temporary relocation that is a less obvious space. If that is impossible then the applicant should work with the project monitor and relocate the building in a Seventh Street orientation where the building will appear to be as a normally occupied building and not stored. Should have lowered fence close to building all around structure. Use siding on the new construction to where its been indicated. Written proposals on the following to be presented to Staff: a. Partial demolition b. Relocation and re-siting c. Bonding performance guarantee d. Restoration of cottage e. Plaza surface treatment and landscaping. Ail in favor, motion carries. Monitors are Joe Krabacher and Glenn Rappaport. 716 W. FRANCIS ST. LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Cinderella Norris from Cunniffe & Assoc. presented: This is an existing story and 1/2 victorian on W. Francis. The existing structure has a shed on the back and we are proposing to demolish that, remove the existing porch and keep it intact as much as possible and lift the building up and put a full foundation underneath. There is a garage added also. The finished building is at the same point on the alley as the existing building is now. We have added two dormers on the east facade to provide headroom for the master suite. Off the master bath above the garage is a small porch. We are adding an accessory dwelling unit which will be used as a studio. There is a connecting sunroom. We are well under the FAR requirement and will retain as many existing windows as possible. Don: Are you replacing the chimneys? Cinderella: We are going to replace two of them. Ann Miller, 715 W. Smuggler: I live in the house directly in back of the applicant. The entrance to the garage is right on the alleyway and I do not know how they will get into the garage as it is very difficult. I have a car port and have great difficulty getting into it. Is the accessory building right on the alley also? If so, when I built my house I was under the assumption there was a setback. That is critical because there will be a building built on the other side of me. Cinderella: The fence is owned by the church and it encroaches five feet on the property line of this property. Victoria Satterfield: I looked at this house to buy and would like to know how much can be built on this lot? Cinderella: The allowable FAR The accessory dwelling unit has the property. 3,450 sq. ft. to be located and we have 3,007. in the back 1/3 of Ann Miller: Since the ADU has a bed does that require an extra parking space? Leslie Lamont, planner: Accessory dwelling units do not require a parking space. Roger: We need a model showing the adjoining buildings on either side. Glenn: Breezeways are not allowed. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 Richard Kline: If we moved the breezeway and it was physically connected to the house would that be allowed space. We would also move it back 10 feet. Glenn: You would have a site coverage problem. the issues of a separate unit with the connecting breezeway. Possibly discuss client without a Don: Do west is the church and to the east is a small house and some day that house will be enlarged. The existing condition shows a very long wall on the east property line and possibly that needs less imposing upon the future of that neighborhood. Georgeann: I agree with Don that the east wall needs broken up. My main problem is granting the variances. I can see no reason to grant the variance on the studio as it could be moved forward. I am concerned about the tight alley also and it is on the north side and will not get snow melt. I would like the garage pulled back 3 or 4 feet and grant a smaller variance. But more so I would like the second floor pulled back 10 feet so that you break up the unrelieved eastern side. Bill: The maximum size for an ADU is 700 ft. The Board is in favor of landmark designation. Lets discuss the breezeway. Cinderella: We either move it because it is have to go to the Board of Adjustment. If the to delete it, I will do that. not allowed or I client is willing Bill: The Board feels that there should be some rear and that the setback needs restudied. They Standard E & F have been met for designation. relief on the also feel that Richard: The garage is backed up by the original building and if we cut back the length we will not have a legal garage anymore. Don: There is allot going on here with regard to restudy. Bill: We are in favor of this project but we have a problem with the roof line and the setback. We could table until a date certain. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion that HPC recommends landmark designation of 716 W. Francis finding that the applicant meets Standards E & F; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to table action of 716 W. Francis until April 24th to allow the applicant time to restudy 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of March 27, 1991 the following: ae Ridge Line to be broken and offset. Restudy the rear and side yard setbacks to eliminate or reduce them significantly. Consider moving the first floor of the main building five feet from the setback and the second floor 10 feet from the first floor. Consider breaking up the spacing of the windows on the east side of the building. Include site plan showing side buildings and across the alley. Include documentation of the age of the additions. Don second the motion; Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Bill made the motion to continue the public hearing on 716 W. Francis until the April 24th meeting; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. 501 E. COOPER - INDEPENDENCE BUILDING EXTERIOR LIGHTING Don: We have been presented with a lamp and the applicant wants to add 5 of these exterior lamps to the building. Roger: Research has to be done to find out if there were any originals lamps on the building, if not I would recommend denial. Bill: This could be worked out with Staff and project monitor. Don: With the number and placement of these it becomes a major element on the front of the building. MOTION: Don made the motion to direct Staff to work with the applicant on this; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Glenn. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 11