Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19910123HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of January 23, 1991 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Don Erdman, Charles Cunniffe, Glenn Rappaport, Jake Vickery and Roger Moyer present. Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher and Les Holst were excused. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to approve the minutes of Dec. 19, 1990; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the minutes of Jan. 9, 1991; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. 801 E. HYMAN - VESTED RIGHTS RESOLUTION 1, 1991 Chairman Bill Poss opgned the public hearing. Roxanne: The resolution is approval of vested rights for three years for the site specific development plan and the demolition with the three conditions that were put on for the final development (memo dated January 23, 1991). MOTION: Glenn made the motion that HPC approve the vested rights resolution for the Final Development proposal with conditions for the demolition and new construction at 801 E. Hyman Ave.; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. 204 S. MILL ST. LANE PARCEL MINOR DEVELOPMENT/INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN Roxanne: When the applicant submitted plans to the Building Dept. they discovered that the design was not acceptable by UBC and they are recommending a change in the fenestration pattern on the south elevation in which we find appropriate. It is simple and straight forward; wood double hung windows with a brick soldier course lintel. Don: The proportions are different on the plans but as long as the exterior dimensions are the same then we aren't dealing with that as an issue. Tim: They are the same. Bill: For the record my office represents the client that is building adjacent to this and I do not feel that there is a conflict of interest between the two. Bill: As part of the final approval we were to see the deoorative block. Roxanne: There was an exposed steel lintel that had to be fire protected. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC grant minor development approval for the insubstantial modification to the previously approved plan at 204 S. Mill St., the Lane Parcel as proposed; second by Glenn. Glenn: Should we see a sample of the window and block? AMENDED MOTION: Don amended motion that the approval of the Insubstantial modification still requires the approval of the presentation of the final finish material on the block as part of the approval and any previous conditions must be met. Project monitor and staff shall review and approve window profiles and exterior material finish prior to the issuance of a building permit; second by Glenn. Ail in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. 612 w. MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT SECOND EXTENSION Roxanne: This would be a retroactive extension from Dec. 13th. The City Attorney is comfortable with having this as retroactive from the Dec. 13th date for six months. There have been no changes made since we approved it. If you do not approve the extension they would have to go back through conceptual development approval with a public hearing. I am recommending approval of the extension which should run until June 12th, 1991. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant conceptual development extension for 612 W. Main; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. 17 QUEEN ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT, LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF PARCEL Roxanne Eflin presented he overview of the project as attached in records (memo dated Jan. 23, 1991). We are dealing with the parcel that the historic cottage is going to be relocated to. This is due to the fact that the applicant is not ready to go through her working drawings etc. on the new residential structure. The applicant is asking for your approval of the onsite relocation, partial demolition, a rear addition, repair to the historic cottage as well as variations for FAR of 500 sq. ft., side yard setback and parking spaces. A covenant is going to be placed on the non-designated portion of the parcel to assure that HPC review will be required. It will run with the land so that the final review will be made by the HPC. The City Attorney has a copy of the covenant draft that Lennie Oats, (attorney) prepared and also the mortgage that is going to be placed in lieu of the bond that is required for relocation. City Council would approve the covenant and mortgage for Final. We granted an extension on the conceptual development which is good 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 through May. One of the main problems that I have with the cottage is the addition. The location of it which is angled to the cottage; the roof form which has a pointed skylight and the fenestration patterns. Under the preservation standards it states that you should be able to read additions very clearly and that is why this design was done. Read what is old and new. The foundation is proposed to have a stone facing and the HPC needs to consider whether that is appropriate or not on this cottage. I am not comfortable with granting all three parking spaces that are required for the cottage because it is not a deed restricted unit. I feel at least one space should be dedicated to this cottage. Those issues are under standard #1. I also recommend that the original windows of the cottage remain and be repaired and that interior storm windows should be used. That was a vague issue in the application and we need to be very clear. On the original cottage it is very critical that as many original materials remain, be repaired and preserved in place. I am recommending tabling. Stan Mathis, architect: The trees at the top end of the historic site are cottonwoods and the majority will remain in place. We are surrounded on three sides by public streets and we have a disagreement with Bill Drueding (Zoning Officer) as to what is the front. If we take access of off Queen street then that is the front yard. If we take access off of Neal St. then that is the front. This is still an issue. Lennie Oates, attorney: I have tried to devise a procedure whereby we would give the City a mortgage to ensure that we completed the relocation. We may want to go back to a straight bond situation but I am not sure. Stan: The form we see is a master bedroom 12x12 with a floor below. The materials for the siding are pine lapsiding to be painted. The roofing material over the pitched sections of the original house are going to be new machine cut cedar shingles. The flat porch areas are corrugated sheet metal and the addition. Everything on the new structure will be new. It appears on some of the sheds that we can utilize some of the wood for the historic structure. The stone base is exposed 2 1/2 feet and it is the exact same style that is under the house now. We are proposing that the stone no come up any higher except where the grade changes. Regarding the move of the historic structure we intend to move it all in one piece but if it is determined that that cannot happen we would like from inside the structure to put 3/4 inch plywood, screw it all the way through and provide a diaphram on three interior walls and disassemble those walls. We can use a crane to move the house. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 Charles: Will the crane lift up the new beams inserted under the house? Stan: We are proposing if we cannot get the whole house up at one time that the part of the T be lifted separately. We will create a platform in which to lift the house. Regarding the windows we can have them built to the exact size and dimension and leave the jams and trim in place of the worst windows and take the sash out and put a new jam within so we can keep the dimension of the sash the same. On the addition there is a new porch and a stair going down to the lower floor. Regarding the parking space it is difficult to get one due to the topography. We are proposing guest parking at the end of Queen St. we could provide one there in exchange. Lennie: We will clean up the remaining site where the conceptual approval remains and where the primary residence is proposed to go in the future. We have asked for an extension of the conceptual approval on the basis that we are not sure when the primary structure will be put in. I would like to have the longest extension that the HPC feels comfortable with. The Trenton's have sold their snowmass house and the time table for redevelopment may be accelerated. At the last meeting we stated that the sheds were not included in the relocated package. Ted Guy and Associates was brought in due to the move of the historic cottage and Pellecchia will remain as primary. Don: I understand that the master bedroom and other bedroom wing is rotated at an angle for two purposes: One is to have part of it parallel to the setback so they can maximize the use of the property and second is to differentiate from the existing structure; however, there has been a retreat then to burying a stair element in the existing structure to appear to be part of the existing structure. Stan: Right now we can see what was the existing roof all the way around except for the point where they touch. When we changed the roof to be above the fascia then Mr. Pellecchia felt as though we are going a step further than we should because then it needs to be something else. Don: The north elevation does not show the revised or proposed situation as it is. Stan: The model is correct and the elevation is not. Doug Harr, Guy & Associates: I talked to Mr. Pellecchia and he said to go ahead and duplicate the windows on the south elevation, use the double hung. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 Stan: The height of the windows would be identical as you go around the house except for the front. We will have the drawings correct. Bill: The issues that I see are the setback variations; parking variation; as condition of your approval we will need a resubmit of the north elevation of the stair element; materials to be shown on the plans as represented, stone to match existing and the siding to match the existing. The new windows be redrawn. Stan: back. We will take the chimney down brick by brick and put it Roxanne: Also the FAR variation of 500 sq. ft. Bill: Although how you move the building is outlined in the letter for the record we would like to have that submitted from a structural engineer. Bill: Lets talk about the parking variation and get some resolution on the issue. It has been presented by the applicant to not have parking on the historic site and do a trade off at the other end of the site. Roxanne: It is basically parking for the parcel and they are asking for variations of three. HPC is required to not allow for variations that can fit on the parcel. I am saying at the absolute minimum there should be one space that is dedicated permanently to that cottage and that the variations could be two at the most. This is onsite parking requirements. Bill: On other historic buildings we require onsite parking. Roxanne: The point that Stan brought up about the new structure having to have an accessory dwelling unit and if it is less than two bedrooms a parking space is not required for that ADU. They need to have three parking spaces for this unit. Stan: A parking space could be accomplished but it is a steep grade. Charles: It would be a retaining wall. Bill: With regards to the parking where is the front entrance of the proposed new house...off of Queen Street? Stan: The idea was to not have any parking in front of the structures along Neal Street. 5 Historic Reservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 Bill: What about the use of the right-of-way for parking. In the west end people drive over the right-a-way and park. Like an encroachment. Stan: We need one parking space per bedroom and and an additional for guest. There is room down the parcel. there are four at the end of Roxanne: I am recommending a maximum of two. I also would prefer that it not be right in front of the structure. Bill: The consensus is that one space would be dedicated on site to that unit. Charles: It would be eight cars if you didn't give them a variance for two. Lennie: The space would be earmarked for use of the cottage but the other spaces may or may not be available for by the cottage. Roxanne: They would be required to have eight parking spaces on site. The HPC has the ability to grant a variation for parking for historic landmarks. Jake: Why would we do that? Roxanne: So that the historic site would not be impacted by parking. Bill: Lets discuss the setback variation requested. Charles: You might want to make it a condition that they find a way to get this parking because this is a hazard and if we don't get parking that is adequate which is one space per bedroom then I think we have to require that parking be required elsewhere on the parcel to keep people from parking in front of the house. Lennie: What you are saying there will be a minimum of one parking space designated for use by the historic cottage. Stan: Regarding the setback we are R-15 A, which means a 25 ft. front yard and 10 ft. side yard and 10 ft. rear yard. That puts us at 16 ft. $ in. from the property line to the face. The porch sticks out 5 feet beyond that. Stan: We would need a 13 ft. 4in. front yard variance. Bill: We are allowing a front yard setback which could be 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 interpreted that we are agreeing that that is the front yard. Stan: Only on the historic portion. Bill: If it is considered the side yard then it meets and you don't need a variance. Bill: Can we historically say historic structure and for the yard, that sounds odd to me. this is the front yard for the new structure say it is the side Roxanne: We can do setbacks for compatibility to the historic structure. Charles: That would be for the Neal Street side. Stan: It would be a six foot variance if we consider this the side yard variance and 13 ft. if we consider it the front. Bill: We need to clarify why you are requesting a 500 sq. ft. increase and why it would be more compatible that we give you that square footage. Roxanne: We had originally encouraged them for landmark designation as opposed to demolition. They amended the application and stated that they would relocate the structure on the parcel and wanted as many benefits as possible that they could get from the HPC. with landmark designation they would be able to ask for variations including FAR to preserve this cottage and still allow them use of the parcel in developing it. If additional square footage was not able to be granted that there argument was that the cottage was too small. Lennie: The FAR bonus was approved in the conceptual. Roxanne: The cottage is larger than 500 sq.ft. The extra square footage is coming out of their free market FAR. Don: On the original drawing the windows in the bedroom wing are really pushed into the corner which makes a considerable break with the existing which I think is strong. Personally I like the narrowing of the windows and staying with the corner glazing. Glenn: I find that the shifted portion of the house is acceptable. It is compatible in character primarily due to its scale and location on the parcel. I think the house does need some sort of grounding and the heaviness of the stone I don't find to be uncomfortable. The frontal relationship to Neal St. is appropriate. We should look at movement of the house by Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 truck (impacting the vegetation on the site) v.s. craning part of it. If possible not disturbing the trees would be worth exploring. Roger: Personally I don't like historic structures. The scale consistent with historic house. modern buildings added onto of the windows should be Charles: I am torn with the windows. Possibly link the two buildings together as opposed to slamming them together. We made a big issue about the house on Cooper that the addition should be separate from the house in front. I am looking for a level of consistency as to how to handle these projects. Roger: The new porch has very modern square posts whereas the original porch has the turned post. To encourage the flow the turn posts would be more appropriate. The fenestration should be similar to the victorian. Stan: We will do the turned post. Jake: I like the fact that the siding is the same. Bill: Marivn windows makes an insulated double hung window that does not have any trim. MOTION: Charles made the motion to grant final approval as presented for 17 Queen Street with the following conditions: 1) The applicant provide new elevation drawings for the fenestration of the addition. 2) The bond be substituted for a covenant and that the covenant and mortgage documents be approved by the City Attorney and City Council should the City Attorney require Council approval. 3) An extension be granted until May 27, 1992. 4) A parking variation of two spaces be granted provided a license to park in the city right-of-way on King Street could be received from the city to allow for the other spaces which would be a total of three or accommodate the parking on the rest of the parcel. 5) A FAR variation of 500 sq. ft. be granted as replacement square footage of areas being removed. 6) Structural Engineers stamp on the letter explaining the relocation and the structure plan. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 7) The setback requirements be varied to allow for two possible variances: One if the Zoning Dept. finds that the Neal Street side to be the front yard setback that a variation of 14.4 ft. be granted and if the Zoning Dept. finds that the Neal Street is the side yard setback a variance of six feet would be granted. 8) Salvage as much of the existing materials as possible. 9) To provide samples of the final materials to be used and presented to Staff and project monitor for approval. 10) Acceptable findings to be made in writing for all the variations granted so that we have on record that these findings are valid. Findings submitted to monitor and Staff to make sure they are acceptable. 11) The existing windows and exterior chimney that are to be restored be acceptable to monitor and staff. 12) Preservation techniques be done in accordance to Sec. of Interior Standards. Motion second by Glenn. Ail in favor, motion carries. Clarification on Parking Roxanne: According to the motion the HPC would not be granting any parking variations. Charles: Yes that is correct. That is what the motion states as it is an unsafe street. Lennie: That is not what I understood. Glenn: I understood it as being a variation of two spaces and they need to provide one onsite. Don: I believe the Board would rather see a reduced number of parking spaces. A~IENDED MOTION: Charles amended motion that a variation of two parking spaces be granted and we encourage the applicant to seek parking within the public right-of-way on King Street. We encourage the City Entities to work with the applicant, second by Glenn. All in favor of motion and amended motion, motion carries. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 SPORTST~ REVISIONS - WORKSESSION Bill Poss: Letter entered into the records from Harley Baldwin dated January 23, 1991 stating his views on the Sportstalker Bldg. Roxanne: Letter from Jay Liebervitch stating he has seen many changes from the community and is objected to a three story building on the present site of the Sportstalker. Also letter from Mark Justin opposing the three story building. Letter from Richard Gould opposing the three story building. Georgeann Waggaman couldn't be here but stated she was opposed to stucco of the building as it is not historical in the downtown and especially in that area. Approves of siding and colors should be muted. Welton Anderson, architect: The east elevation or parking lot I always thought belonged in an elevation of stucco. The consensus was to do a simpler building with one of the schemes. With scheme two outer windows and a simpler treatment on the recess surfaces rather than repeating the plating window. That is the direction that we would like to go. The majority seemed to like a simplified version of scheme two. We have conceptual approval and these could be changes to the conceptual. Changes from the approved wood sided conceptual are materials: the dryvit stucco which would incorporate stucco lintels, window sills and banding would be a monolithic material. The other changes are that the store front is greatly opened up and the importance of the street level is emphasized by the widened windows. At this time awnings are not applied for in this application. When they are applied for they will be open specific. The store front window height has been increased by the transoms which has been a goal of HPC to raise the entire retail level up to a more appropriate vertical scale. The roof lines are simpler. The massing is unchanged. All along we have considered whether a three story is appropriate and we had determined that it is appropriate. The two story which was approved with vested rights has a height of 34 feet. Glenn: We granted conceptual approval for a footprint and a three story building. We need to decide of three story wood buildings are acceptable in downtown. I am in favor of the clapboard building. Roger: Harley's letter is important especially the parking situation. I don't have a problem with a wooden building as long as it is simple. The basic mass and scale is OK but I have a problem with stucco. I am opposed to the brick veneer also. The 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 23, 1991 recesses are acceptable. Don: I am also opposed to the fake brick and stucco could be a possibility as long as the color is complementary to the other buildings around. Jake: This building should not compete with the other buildings that we have on the street and want a straight forward bldg. Bill: I feel stucco can work as long as the detailing is carried out. Whether parking occurs in the open space or whether it is landscaping it can be discussed. I am in favor of a strong store front along the street and am in favor of steel or metal columns as opposed to stucco. The detailing is important on this building to enrich it to work with the historic buildings along side of it. Clarification: Some form of arch over the third floor window, maybe! Paired columns, metal. Some form of detailing is needed over the windows. Cornice should be in similar material. Bill: As a two story building it was very good and when it went to a three story the massing became very intense and should be masonry. Welton: We could add this to the agenda as revision to conceptual. Bill: This is an important building and the other members comments are needed. Welton: Do you want me to continue on a conceptual level. Jake: I like scheme #2, stucco. MOTION: Jake made the motion to adjourn; second by Glenn. in favor, motion carries. Ail Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk