Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900926HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of September 26, 1990 Meeting was called to order by senior vice-chairman Charles Cunniffe with Joe Krabacher, Leslie Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Roger Moyer present. Georgeann Waggaman, Don Erdman, Jake Vickery and Bill Poss were absent. MOTION: 8, 1990, Roger made the motion to approve the minutes of August second by Glenn with all in favor. Motion carries. PUBLIC COMMENT Lana Trenton: I have a procedure pending the HPC on land on Queen Street. It is going to be a year in Nov. when that project got approval. I need to go into a phasing situation because of the size of the project. I would like input from the Board to see if I could get some sort of approval to move the historically designated cottage to the site that is in the preliminary proposal before I go through with all of my final drawings. If there were any way to move it the second week in October as I didn't realize the house mover was so booked. If we absolutely can't move it then, then I would still like to go through phasing of the project so that I could stabilize the cottage, go to the bank and try to get a loan and have a permit to move it as soon as he is able. I need to know what I am supposed to do. Roxanne: I might recommend that we add this to the agenda. Right now she has conceptual development only and to relocate the cottage to do the new building. There is no final development to do anything at all right now and that requires an application scheduling etc. She has a time concern right now. The code requires that no decision ~an be made until final development application is submitted and the Board takes action. Les: Do you want to move the cottage to a slab or just move it and stabilize it. Lana: I want to move it onto the foundation that it would be on but I don't know if I could do that because I would have to go to the bank and get a loan. If I can't get the permit I can't move it. If I get the permit then I can try to get the money to move it. Glenn: Can we legally do that. Roxanne: The application involves the entire application. need to discuss what is required of the code. Charles: We can add it to the agenda and then Roxanne can discuss it with Lana. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 MOTION: Glenn made the motion to add 17 Queen Street to the end of the agenda. Les second with all in favor. Motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED PUBLIC HF2%RING 824 E. COOPER Charles opened the public hearing. Roxanne: A pre-application was held in June with the owner but the architect was not able to be present. Conceptual Development was held the 8th of August at which time HPC tabled action giving direction to primarily the following: Provide relief and differenciation between the old and new; massing and scale appeared incompatible; proposed fenestration appeared incompatible with the historic character and the alley context was not preserved. General direction was given to restudy retaining the small outbuildings. We are recommending that HPC discuss some compatible design alternatives and give them clear direction. Under partial demolition the requirements have been met. Partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or the rehabilitation of the structure and that the applicant has mitigated to the greatest extent the impacts on the historic importance of the structure and the impacts on the architectural integrity. There are four development review standards that need discussed. Due to its permanent location on HWY 82, preservation of thfs small cottage is critical in terms of neighborhood character. The proposal indicates a new two story victorian design addition. It will be built to the rear of the parcel; however, we feel it does eradicate the one story nature of the historic resource and restudy is appropriate. We are dealing with the historic integrity of the small scale cottage, its cultural value to the community which is in its small scale and the architectural integrity. We find that the proposal does detract from the integrity of the resource due to the proposed size of the addition and the location on the structure itself, very close to the front and not a lot of stepping back. I am recommending that you deny conceptual development finding that it has not met standards A, C & D. Barbara Long, architect: We are preserving the existing cottage and adding on a two story addition. We need to discuss how the character of this building relates to other cottages throughout the state. Ken Moore, architect: I have done research on what has taken places throughout the state on miners cottages. 80 or 90% were a two stories backed onto the miners cottages. According to Idaho Springs most of the additions were put in 1936-38. The reason being that two men used the cottages and then families started moving in. We are trying to keep simplicity to the addition. I 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 researched on windows and found one 45 degree window or two or a little turret. We tried ko show you the height of the lower cottage and the height of the newer which are practically the same. It is set back considerably and if you set it back further it will not look any different from the street in the depth of the building going further back. The front elevation stays the same. We propose to put a porch in the rear and eliminate one of the garages and have more green area. We want to add a little quaintness to the alley entrance. We have added a higher fence. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Glenn: The upper form is still very strong and needs simplified. The central area of the front facade needs simplified. You read the house as one house stacked up on the other. Joe: The setback at the front is at the porch. Draw back the addition from the main house. I have no objection to the 45 degree doors as it gives it a modern look. Barbara: On the front we wanted to bring the transom window out with two columns to repeat what was going on down below. Les: If you copy the cottage too much it will get "cute". has to stand on its own. The massing is too heavy. It Charles: We are not looking at the fundamental problem which is the link between the old house and the addition. Right now the old house has grown into a big addition and the addition is too attached to the original house. It needs something more distinctive to separate what the new original house was and what the addition is. Someone walking down the street should be able visually, to tell where the addition starts and the old house stops, a clear delineation. Barbara: Do you want us to incorporate the older siding. Charles: It is more than siding it is also the massing. You need to read the form of the original house. Too much of the addition is over the original house. There could be a recess when the original house stops and the addition starts. Barbara: We tried that. Ken Moore: separated. I thought you didn't want to see the original house Roger: I am trying to relate directly to the standards. Standard A states that the proposed development is compatible in Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 character with the direct resource located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels. The latter is easy. The first part, you have changed the original. I would remove the lines on the lower peak to maintain the original historic character of the cottage. Roxanne: The direction that you are getting is to simplify the front, not compete with the historic resource both in fenestration in scale and a~chitectural detail. Charles: Keep in mind that the massing is a problem also. You need to restudy massing to make the building seem more reduced. Roger: A massing model would be helpful. Les: Generically the massing is too much. Glenn: I have concern with fenestration, part of the roof pitch. I am recommending that the fenestration in the front be simplified. Charles: Does anyone have problems with the form or style of the windows. Charles: Does anyone have any problems with alley context. Ken: There is a shed that overhangs on the lot line of the townhouses. Roxanne: It is an existing non-conformity and you wouldn't have to do anything with it. Barbara: With it on the line we loose a certain amount of open space. We would offer the outbuilding for relocation. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table the public hearing and conceptual development approval of 824 E. Cooper to Oct. 24, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant simplify the fenestration and transoms on the south elevation. 2. The applicant restudy the connection between the historic house and the proposed addition. A massing model is requested also and restudy of the alley structure with the intent to save it onsite. The applicant will get together with Staff and members of HPC for an on site visit. Roger second with all in favor. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 210 LAKE AVENUE Roxanne: This is a continued public hearing. I have received the certificate of mailing. It was properly noticed. The applicant is requesting the enlargement of a room to the rear of the parcel. No variations are being sought. There is no additional bedroom and therefore no additional parking spaces are being required. The total amount of the addition is 530 sq.ft. I have reviewed the application according to the development standards and the guidelines as follows: The rear yard setback is not being changed as the footprint of the proposed addition aligns with the existing rear portion of the cottage. Mostly the addition is going up. The,spacing issue, we find that that is fine in the way of the guidelines. Streetscape and landscaping material; a large deciduous tree is very close to the northwest corner of the structure and the plans don't indicate anything going on with that tree. We are recommending that a conservation plan or landscape plan of course be submitted at final. No changes are proposed for the fence; however, we are recommending that when new fencing is considered that the guidelines be reviewed for that. Alley and parking proposal does not create any change with that. The roof lines are the primary concern that I would like for you to all deal with at this conceptual meeting. That is primarily the issue that has been brought forward in this letter from the public. We are not finding anything inconsistent necessarily with the guidelines with this because this is a cottage that has been altered in the past. This is another alteration. It is not a cottage that has never received an addition before. We find it a little bit asymmetrical from looking at facade elevations on how the rooflines work to the rear. And so I think that we need to have some discussion about that. I have recommended that if they have to re-roof the structure, the whole thing, since there is a lot of roof changes going on here, that they consider a new roofing material of wood shingle ,roofing material. Windows in the existing house are relatively vertical and the proposal indicates a number of less compatible window forms particularly in the east and the north elevations. So we are recommending that the windows be vertical in nature and appropriately scaled for compatibility and that we are recommending some revisions to that for final review. No changes are proposed to the porches. The materials are indicated to match. Horizontal flat board siding and again standing seam metal roof. Partial demolition has not been addressed with this. We are requiring that to meet the standards of the code that partial demolition be reviewed. We are finding that generally with standard #3 with cultural value that the cultural value is in the cottage scale to the Lake Avenue neighborhood. We are finding that generally the cultural value 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 19~0 has not been altered with this addition. Architectural integrity, we have basically dealt with that in our review in the memo under the first 2 standards but I do recommend that you look very closely at the roof lines and how that all kind of functions and works in. I have given you a number of alternatives. Staff is recommending that you grant conceptual development approval with the conditions that I have stated in the memo. Realigning the existing windows to become more vertical. Provide detailed information regarding the landscaping conservation of the tree, re-study the use of metal roofing perhaps go with wood shingle, that partial demolition be submitted, exact major material representation has to be made at the final and that a simple preservation plan for the remaining of the cottage and all of those original elements be included. I do want to read into the record the letter from GILT Management Corp. from Robert Colbert, CPA, President stating their objection to this application. LETTER: "On behalf of Mr. John J. Nicholson and Mr. Lou Adler the owners of the property at 206 Lake,Avenue, we wish to take exception to the proposed addition of 530 sq.ft, to the property referenced above. Nancy Oliphant has furnished us an artist's conception of which we vehemently disapprove for the following reasons: A. The height and placement of this addition will seriously impinge upon our privacy. B. This addition will obstruct our view of the surrounding area. C. We believe that the historical preservation society has a policy of not allowing the alteration of the outside structure of residences. We were so informed of that fact when we remodeled. D. The employee structure in the back yard should be eliminated as well as a thorough clean up of the area. E. No indication of the landscaping was made on the diagram we received. For these reasons we respectfully request that you deny the application of Ms. Oliphant." Bracken Raleigh, architect: This is a 2~bedroom cottage. One bedroom on the main floor and one very small bedroom on the upper floor at 96 sq.ft. We are proposing a 7 ft.4" by 18 ft. addition to the rear of the house Co be used as an enlargement for the dining room and an enlargement of the existing bathroom. The upper floor addition is 393 sq. ft. to be 260 sq.ft, of which would be above the existing building and 137 ft. would be over the new addition to the downstairs. This is the existing house as the footprint stand. The existing bedroom is here. The small 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 dormer shape bedroom upstairs can be seen in the existing elevations. The house has been added to 4 times in the last 30 years. A porch was enclose~ along the front of the house quite a long time ago. The porch was enclosed before Nancy bought the house. There was a small dormer addition to the back of the house that is fairly inconsistent with the rest of the house and in 1965 a sloped roof sunroom was added in this area. Tony Barren: This, by the way, was done illegally and it was red flagged and they never did tear it down and so I don't know what happened with that. In other words when they built this they did not go through the normal procedures. Charles: What we need to do is keep order. Let him make his presentation and we will have public comments after that. Bracken: What we would like to be able to do is on the shaded area is the extent of the new addition being proposed for the lower floor and the shaded area here is the upper area being proposed with this outline being the dormer/bedroom as it exists and this being the enlargement of the bedroom that is approximately 260 extra square feet. We would like to put a deck onto the east with doors out to it. We are asking for 3 windows and 1 door to be added to the house. On the elevations this is what it would look like from the front with a dormer here and a dormer to the rear. They are both very much to the rear of the house. The dormer on one side is intended to mimic somewhat the dormer on the other side of the house. This is an existing window on the east side of the house and I was looking to more or less emulate that in this section here. From here back to here is the new roof. Over this part of the house with the 2 dormers coming out the side. One dormer being a new doorway onto a deck and the other dormer being for a sitting room upstairs. Roxanne: What is the maximum height? Bracken: As it exists I believe it is 21 ft.9". Roxanne: Your proposed maximum height? Bracken: 25 ft. to the ridge line. So we are proposing to add 3 ft. 3 in. to the height of the house onto the back of the house. We have kept all of the proposed addition to the rear of the house. There are a couple of very large Spruce trees at the back of the house,18 in. in diameter that shield the house from any view from Hallam Lake. I walked down there to make sure of this. The house can barely be seen from Hallam Lake. From the Nicholson side of the hous% there is a large row of deciduous trees at the fence line all down through this area. The Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Nicholson house I believe is as far forward--the back of the Nicholson house is up in this area here. There is deciduous trees here, 2 very large Fir trees in this area and the tree that Roxanne was mentioning is o~er here. There are 2 more trees up in the front of the house that more or less shield the whole house from Lake Avenue. It is a very small house and we are asking for a fairly small addition to the house. Joe: Is this a landmark? Bracken: Yes. Joe: Is there any idea what the original structure is and what the additions have been. Bracken: The original structure--(using floor plans) is a square approximately 28 ft. by 28 ft. Roxanne: It is pretty easy to see when you are looking at the house what is old and what has been added on. Bracken: The main house was a hip roof house. The first addition was enclosing the porch and the second addition was a bathroom/diningroom in back with is 10 feet by 18 feet. And the fourth was the sunroom. Mrs. Paepcke: I was in that house many times. The Barakoes lived in there. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Joe Krabacher: When you talk about the amount of square feet that's being added it doesn't seem like a major proposal but then when you look at the elevations I can see--this I guess is the principal facade that I would be concerned with, from the HPC's perspective it is the south elevation. Bracken: This is the existing dormer, right here. Joe: I guess my initial reaction is--I don't like it. It is like something that was added on the back and the roof lines are very complicated. I guess my feeling is maybe there is some other way to explore getting an addition on without doing it in this fashion. Maybe it is the cross gable of this addition that creates that look from the south elevation. We are certainly not opposed to putting an addition on and it is as I understand well under the floor area that is allowed on the lot. But I am not satisfied that this is the best way to do that. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Les: I agree. Conceptually I am trying to find some other way to do this and I can't. I personally would have to either see a small model of this or some story pole so I can see how this relates to the neighborhood as to what exactly is going on here. It just looks like an abrupt solution to this problem. Basically what I am saying at this point I don't have enough information. I would need a little more information to see if there are other solutions or why this is the only solution you could come up with. I don't have any problem giving you some more square footage. Roger: I pretty much concur with staff at the moment. I would like to listen to public input and then I will ask a couple more questions in relationship to the letter from the one neighbor. Glenn: I agree with Roger who concurs with staff--except for C. For some reason I think it is a little difficult to get a handle on exactly what the bulk of the addition is, maybe because of the roof angles. I think a little study model would really help. Just a massing model. I am not saying I am opposed to it. I just am not getting a clear reading somehow. It is a little complicated in its angles and that kind of thing. You are well within your rights as far as FAR is concerned. Charles: What is this employee housing problem? Charles: I think I agree with Joe and Les somewhat in terms of the addition. I am not sure that that is the appropriate place to put the addition. It seems like there is more lot area and maybe the addition could be handled in a different form. I don't know. I think I would need to see a model of the way the house is now and how the addition relates to the house to be able to judge. Roxanne: We need a site visit--all of us out there to take a look at it. I had trouble with this, too. I would recommend that getting public comment and hearing all about it and it looks to me like we might need to table and go out on the site and look at it and invite the neighbors to come over too if they would like and just talk about it on site. Charles: I open the hearing to public comment at this time. Tony Barren: I take care of the Green house next door. Nancy sent me a letter that she is actually expanding 627 sq.ft. That is what it says here in the letter. Roxanne: The application before us that has been submitted is for 530 sq. ft. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Tony: She has told me 627--it says right here 127 on one floor and 500 on another. That gives you 627 sq. ft. She put that back addition on that where their spa room was or whatever. That was done to my understanding without a proper building permit or whatever. She put it in and then it was flagged and eventually it just sat there. I don't know what happened after that. It was not my problem. Anyway that's where suddenly that back addition came in. Two, the front porch isn't totally enclosed. It is partially enclosed. I don't know if there was a change there what he is explaining. But she does have a front porch. Bracken: She has a major front porch. side--a little section right here about wide was enclosed before she moved in. Part of it on the one 12 ft. long and 4 ft. Tony: OK. I just want to clarify what you were saying. Secondly she does not have a string of trees going along between Jack's house and her house. Jack has a string of trees going along that house, years ago when Jack had remodeled way back as referenced in this letter, ,Nancy came to Jack and said "Please put in a bunch of trees along here or more trees than what you are planning to put in because I really don't want to look into your yard. I am willing to pay for part of this". Jack said "OK, fine". He put the trees in but Nancy never paid. No way. Never came up with a dime although she had agreed to. So this is the history of Nancy. Friendly, but never follows through on her promises. These things I have to bring up. Another thing--this addition and this little deck that she has now up on her second floor which apparently is not part of the square footage, that directly effects Jack's privacy. Roxanne: Decks are not part of the square footage in this particular case. Tony: That directly affects Jack's privacy and Jack does not want it, period. He bought the house not to have somebody build up and then sit there and pier out into his yard and into his house. Because after all Nancy wanted trees so you can't do that and now she is trying to do that and the trees that he is talking about don't extend all the way down but they extend most of the way down. Jack's complaint is obviously in the letter that I have talked to him about is her carelessness for her yard. She is probably the sloppiest 'person in the neighborhood when it comes to yard care. They want to know if there is going to be something done about that if she does get an approval to build this. They are concerned about this shed that has historically had people living back there without the use of a toilet. Jack 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 19~0 is definitely against this unless there is a much better plan and a little bit more co-operation with the neighbors. Elizabeth Paepcke: I would like to make a suggestion. I would like to have, in the future, a plan made by Nancy of the whole Plot that she is living on. I think that would be very educational for all of you. My memory extends a lot longer than anyone's memory here and it's still pretty good. In that corner there was an old barn that never had anything in it but a horse. There is no foundation to it that I know of. There is a second story to it that Nancy did something with and that barn extends over on Hallam Lake property. Surveyed, that corner is right over my property. The fence line goes to it on both sides. Nancy knows this full well. Suddenly I noticed that she had a man living up there above that barn on the second floor that she made out of the hayloft. There is no plumbing in that barn. There is no sewage. There is nothing. The man had to defecate, which I caught him doing and in piles right between Jack and myself and Nancy, in the bushes there because there was no place for him to go. So I went to Nancy about it and then finally I went to the man and I said "This could not go on". I understand now that a window has bee~ put in there and there is somebody living in it and it has become what Nancy calls employee housing. Now there is no plumbing in that place so whoever is living there has to go and use the plumbing in her house. I hope he is not doing what the previous person did who was there. Charlie Barren can second that. Every word that I have said. The Fir trees that are there are I think going to die pretty soon unless sometime somebody gives them some water. Nancy never has given a single plant in her yard, around her house, any flower, water. I have gone over there with a whole basket of tools. I have showed her how to weed her yard, how to improve the flowers and the bushes because I am very fond of Nancy's parents. Nancy is delightful. But she is--I don't know--a flower child. Roxanne: Or, not, as the case may be. Elizabeth: There you have it. Whatever plans have been made you have to be very careful about her. Because the house is, I think, a disaster inside as well as out. Not from the street. But if you go into the house and if you see it from Tony's point of view and the fact that the tree is there supposedly you can't see from Hallam Lake. I can see it every time I walk that fence line. Why did I put bushes,there? Why have I tried to cover the whole thing up with vines? Why would I do that unless the place is so messy, so terrible, that I can't bear it! Now my granddaughter is here. She has seen it because she has worked up there on a trail that I had walking along that fence right under that house where that man was living without any reason Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 whatsoever. She is a very generous person. She takes in anybody that she feels might be homeless or needs help and puts them up-- "Oh, yes, go and live in my barn". And there we have it. Now I refuse to have that as employee housing. And I want you all to know it. And besides I would like the corner, that barn, taken down. Now the architect has nothing to do with that. That is why I say there should be a plot plan so that you know exactly what you are dealing with. Charles: They have a site plan right here that shows the barn. It doesn't show it completed. Roxanne: It shows an existing shed and barn right here. Elizabeth: Well, that is the barn and it goes right down and over my property and there is somebody living in it. Roxanne: We appreciate your comments on that. Elizabeth: I mean Nancy is a darling in many ways. Charles: We do have a duty to address the whole property historically. Roxanne: That's right and we are going to. And tomorrow I will talk with the Zoning Officer. Elizabeth: The tree, the bushes--nothing is watered and Jack Nicholson put those trees iM. They do the watering. That is the only reason you have something green along there. Roxanne: The HPC can't necessarily police landscaping. Charles: Do we require landscape plans? Roxanne: Sure. Does Jack understand that the parcel is well under the height and the FAR limits? Tony: I don't think so, no. Roxanne: I know why you are here. Your comments are great and HPC has heard them but the HPC is dealing with architectural integrity to the cottage. And if, in fact, an addition that might possibly increase the deck out there that somebody might sit on, if it meets zoning code and if it meets the standards for review with the HPC, they have every right to grant approval for that. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Tony: Even though it impinges on the neighbor's privacy? whatever it might be? Or Charles: We can only look out for the historical property's interest; the actual physical structure that we are reviewing. But we can take everything else in mind and be advised about it. We really can't rule on that like a homeowner's association would. Tony: I will be seeing Jack and Lou in the next couple of days. Their question is "What can we do then? Who do we have to go to?" Roxanne: The property owner. Tony: In other words who do we go to to say "She is building a deck up there that is impinging on our privacy." Let's say that it does pass and it flies. It probably will. Where can we go elsewhere to stop this or to correct this so when they do something it is not just the homeowner. Charles: Does Hallam Lake have that review ordinance in place yet? Tony: I have to give them an answer. Joe: What I was going to say was part of our review standards are compatibility of this a~dition with not only this parcel but adjacent properties. Roxanne: Adjacent landmarks which includes this. Joe: So to the extent that the HPC doesn't feel that it is compatible then you would have a forum in which to address that. Tony: Because another thing I guess and I don't know that much about what happened in their remodel back then but I do know that Ramona Markalunas was involved and they made sure that that house stayed green and it stayed exactly the same. In other words they couldn't go flipping on a nice little deck and an addition on the back so they can overlook the lake and see what Jack is doing in his yard and what have you. No way. Because they did have a different design originally in mind. I do know that much. Roxanne: These people you mean? Tony: Jack. In 1980 or 1979. Well, they made sure--no way-- other than the fact that they made them or said it is OK to go ahead instead of having that enclosed porch to open the porch Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 back up because that is what they wanted. They said "We want you to open the porch like it used to be". Then all of these little additions I guess which was mentioned in one of the points was that "Well, we couldn't do it, why can they?". Roxanne: Additions are possible on properties provided all the standards have been met. Joe: You may not have any floor area left on that. Tony: That very well could be. Elizabeth: To whom do I ,address myself about that barn and people living in it? Roxanne: To the Zoning Officer, Bill Drueding. Roger: That was interesting. The addition, #1. The housing in the back, #2. Interesting, all of those things. Tony: Are we going to clarify the square footage thing that is in the letter? Because they are going to ask that. In the letter it is stated 630 vs. 530. And this is a letter that she signed and sent to us. Charles: I am not sure that we are going to pass anything at this time so there will be time to address that too. Joe: If their plans are proposed at 530 ft.--regardless of what that letter says, that is what the proposal is. Charles: I don't personally find the addition compatible to the original house. I just don't see that it is being added on in an historical fashion and it doesn't seem like it offers any clarity to what the original hous~ was again vs. a new addition, a continuation of roof materials and things like that. I don't know if it is in the best interest of the historical character of the property. So I would probably recommend that you re-study the addition to look for another way to add onto the house. There is adequate site area and there is also adequate area probably away from Jack's house. There is other adequate area on the property. So I would probably lean towards denying this application and suggesting a re-application with another addition. Bracken: Would that mean that we would have to send everybody a letter? ...... Roxanne: A denial would be. '~" 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Bracken: Could I at least ask for a tabling for a month from now? Charles: Sure. Absolutely. Roxanne: The reason for denial would be based upon it not meeting the standards. Tony: Because it doesn't meet the standards of historical? Ro×anne: There are 4 standards. And every single one of them have to be met. And if you find that one is not met that is grounds for denial. Generally in the spirit of co-operation we generally table and work out situations that are just incompatible with the neighbors, etc. Tony: There is 2 people who want denial for that reason. Joe: Let me say something,on the design. It occurs to me at least from this facade it is sort of lopsided and creates kind of an uneasy feeling. The dormer that goes across here even the eave of the dormer comes out further than the eaves on here which even accentuates that. Bracken: They are in a direct line. Joe: It looks to me like this eave here is probably a foot out there and I don't really--well even if these are technically exactly the same distance, the feel that I get from this because of the mass of this roof form is that it is top heavy and is sort of leaning over here to the side. Glenn: It seems as though we can solve most of the problems with a model and a site visit. The lot is such that there are probably many solutions that as far as the diagram is concerned you have a certain program that you need to fulfill for the client and given the size of the lot it seems as though there are probably many alternatives that in the light of what we have learned from this session we have a lot of background material now and maybe we can work together towards a workable solution. I am in favor of giving you,what you want square footage-wise. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to get that personally. But maybe there is just a way that the rest of the members would feel more comfortable with what we came up with as far as a solution. Roger: I think a model would be very helpful in this case. The roof seems to be very confusing for everyone. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Glenn: For me it is not an architectural issue. It is more where the elements need to be in relation to the parcel and that kind of thing. So I guess I would still support tabling it for those reasons. Bracken: What you want is a model and a site visit. Roxanne: A massing model. Roger: To make it more compatible with everybody. Co-operation with the neighbors. Roxanne: Absolutely. A re-study would give direction. Charles: Whatever scale you want to do it at. Speaking for myself I think that the location of the addition is inappropriate--it being added on top of the house. Roxanne: So you are thinking expanding the footprint so it is more of a 1 story. Charles: Yes. I think back or to the side is much more appropriate. Bracken: The bedroom is already upstairs. Ail we are going to do is make the bedroom 200 ft. larger. Glenn: I think that if you feel that what you have presented is still the best solution then that is the model I would show. And then that is what we will review when we go out there. I am not suggesting--I think that you should go with what you feel is the strongest design solution. Roger: Could you put the bedroom downstairs? You know where that newer addition is, Could you stretch out a little bit more where that trampoline is? Bracken: One of the problems we have is the privacy problem. Charles: The privacy problem seems to be the most acute. Tony: The privacy problem to my understanding is that deck upstairs that is overlooking. Charles: It is more acute because you are up there and not protected by landscape or anything else. Tony: When those 2 talked years ago, that they wanted to make sure that they had privacy ~oth ways but where that deck is going Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of Septe~ber 26, 1990 and that is the only gap where you can look down on them basically. It is co-operation with the neighbors. Bracken: Is a problem that has to do with a guy who is here maybe a week or 2 months a year. Charles: It doesn't matter. Tony: It doesn't matter. He is here more than you think he is and he has a lot of friends that are here. Charles: I would think also the owner could benefit from more access to the lake view by building it in back instead of on top. But that is up to you. Roxanne: You need to be careful with what is going on with that new proposed ESA. It is not in yet. Bracken: Does she own Hallam Lake still? What property does she own? Roger: She owns Hallam Lake. Hallam Lake will be deeded as a trust of Hallam Lake when she dies. So at the moment she still owns it. Bracken: I have walked the trail to Hallam Lake and due to those 2 large Fir trees in this area right here, the house is indistinguishable. Roxanne: The suggestion that I might offer, we just reviewed a hot tub/deck thing out at the back of another lake property just a little while ago. And one of the requirements was substantial landscaping. Possibly what you want to do with your landscape plan is talk about more specimen trees. I am not going to give you a number as I am not a landscaper. In specific locations that might help ease some of the pain that is going on with the neighbors. That is just a suggestion. The next meeting is the 9th of October. That is not possible. The next meeting after that is the 24th of October. That is possible but I am gone for that entire week before. So if we are going to do a site visit we are going to need to do it the week of the 9th. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to table this hearing and proposal to a date certain of 24th of October at which time we will see a massing model preferably with the addition able to come off. Along with the massing model could the massing model be on a piece of material that represents the size of the site. It should show the barn and does not have to show fenestration or Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 anything like that and also locating with sticks the trees since we don't know the tree situation. Roger seconded the motion. DISCUSSION Roxanne: Do you want to add a re-study? Joe: And I would say a re-study not only of the addition but the location of the addition. Whether it is really appropriate to have it where it is or whether it is more appropriate to have it somewhere else. AMENDED MOTION: Glenn amended the motion to include a re-study of the location of the addition on the parcel as well as the re- study of the scale of the proposed addition with regard to roof lines and fenestration per Roxanne's memo excluding C. Roger second with all in favor of motion with one opposed (Joe), motion carries. Roger: The house actually used to be wood Cedar shakes. Charles: If we have the site visit earlier Joe can voice concerns at that time. Joe: The only other thing I would suggest is that the applicant talk with her neighbors. Roxanne: I would like to have all of this worked out before the next meeting. Tony: I think that would be nice. Jack is an agreeable guy. He likes to talk. And he agrees on things all the time. Les: They have the right to build something. I think you need to talk to them and say "Look, what will satisfy you and out of that will come some meaningful discussion before we have the on- site visit. If getting rid of the deck will make you happy then you can come because if you do a massing model of this and it has got the deck and we look at it and we listen to the neighbors then you are doing yourself a disservice. So if you can satisfy some of these things first,and then you can come to us and say "There is no way else I can build. If I do this I will kill these trees. Glenn: I think we have to make clear the point that historically, compatible with his neighbors has nothing to do with, in my opinion, the privacy of the neighbors in a situation like this. You can build a deck lurching into their bathroom if it is historically compatible with what is going on the parcel. 18 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 So those 2 things are separate. And I think that what we have to do is try to work looking at the big picture and trying to get the best solution for both people. Roger: My advice would be to for you to ask maybe these questions to the architect. Does the deck have to be on the east side? Is there a view of the deck from the Hallam Lake from where it is on the east side? Is there any view from the deck from the east side? Does the morning sun shine on the deck on the east side? All of those kinds of things and then work with the architect to see if it couldn't be put somewhere else. It is really not our responsibility. Roxanne: Maybe it would also be helpful if you had a copy of the development review standards that they are responsible to deal with that you could share with your owners. Tony: I could speak more intelligently then. Charles: The issues of deferred maintenance of how the property is kept up and how the property is being used'. Bracken: Correct me if I am wrong. You are probably upset about what is happening, the front yard is fairly well groomed. Tony: That is not where I a~ coming from. Bracken: She has a garden plot along here. Charles: I think we have given some good advice and some direction. I think that you two individuals need to talk about how you can work together. Roger: You two need to also talk to Bill Drueding about the barn and usage and find out what happened to the addition that was red flagged and why. Charles: I think we do have the right to review the barn as to whether it is abused such as deferred maintenance. 118 N. 1ST. STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Jim Atchison, from TGN Builders, Inc. representing Kitty Weese. Roxanne: Originally the applicant came in and requested to convert the carport into habitable space. Then it developed into a bedroom and a bath, therefore parking was required which was approved. Then the plans oame into the Building Dept. and Bill Drueding realized that a couple of things had not been varied by 19 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 this committee. Since that time there was an extension of the square footage, the foot print. We granted a FAR variation of 115 feet, but we did not grant the side and rear yard setback variation because it was an existing non-conformity and I didn't think we had to and now that there is an extension we have to approve the rear and side yard setback. Now, however, they are coming out an extra two feet and also since this is a bedroom they are required to have another parking space on site. Jim: We are eliminating a bedroom so we will not need the parking variation. Roxanne: Explain the parking. Jim: When the original proposal went in, Kitty wasn't aware that her property line is only five feet away from the house so she has to park in the public right-of-way. She has provided two parking spaces but they are in the public right-of-way and have been there since she owned the house. Roxanne: They are eliminating one parking space so we need to do a parking variation. Jim: By extending the two feet out it gave the house a better look. Roger: The two feet coming out would define that it is an addition and not the original. Charles: To be clear they are asking for two setback variations and a parking variation. Roger: I had lived in this,house and people park in front of the driveway all day long. Charles: When Asia was being reviewed by the P&Z the biggest issues were the neighbors who complained about parking. Roger: Half their lawn is on the public right-of-way. MOTION: Roger made the motion to grant minor development approval for the setback and parking variations as proposed to 118 N. lST. finding that such variations are more compatible in character with the historic landmark, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. Joe second. DISCUSSION Roxanne: The FAR was not on the public notice. 20 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Ail favored of motion, motion carries. Jim: The roof is down to plywood and in need of repair. She needs something on it before winter or we will have damage. She would like a metal roof on the existing house. Roxanne: I find that metal roofing, corrugated or a low rib standing seam is appropriate on flatter pitched shed additions and it is not compatible on one story cottages and they have found it to fail. Wood shingles were the predominant material. Joe: My feeling is there are allot of places where wood shingles are prohibited by fire code. Roger: What about metal shakes. Jim: Kitty's first choice is a metal roof in dark brown or dark green, a standing seam and second would be a shingle. Joe: I would be in favor of the shingle. Les: Standing seam is not appropriate. Roger: I would be in favor of corrugated metal roof. Jim: I never presented the corrugated roof as an option. Charles: We can approve what is presented and Roxanne can sign off after Jim discusses the corrugated roof with the applicant. COMMUNICATIONS Les: 215 W. Hallam lost all their funds and it is just sitting there. Roxanne: I will contact the City Attorney tomorrow. Joe: They have approval to do a renovation and let it just sit there. Possibly the sterilized for five years. not to tear it down property should be Roger: I thought the program was to do a speck house. Glenn: The gazebo needs totally redone in my opinion; there is nothing left and I feel it needs totally rebuilt. In Japan they have monuments that they rebuild every 20 years exactly like they were, that might be an approach. What that does is preserve the original idea. 21 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Les: Is there enough to maintain the dimension. Glenn: There isn't one board worth saving. We had also talked about moving it a little further away from the trees. Roxanne: I would recommend no demo of the gazebo and let someone have it. It is our only 30's landmark that we have. Les: What about using the basic structures templates. Roxanne: We want an exact reconstruction. Glenn: What they probably will do is build a concrete foundation for it. Charles: The change in the gazebo will have to come back to us. Glenn: The Parks Dept. just wants direction. 17 QUEEN STREET Joe: That house is not going to remain standing load this winter, it needs shoring. Les: I think we support her moving it to a slab. with the snow Roger: Why does Lana Trenton want the house moved? Roxanne: Because she has a large 5300 sq. ft. new house proposal with conceptual approval. We can extend her conceptual for another six months. Glenn: If it is moved they can get a better idea of what their house is going to develop out to and the other reason is they want to sell the parcel. If the house is moved and saved it is a good solution even if it is sold. Les: We will still have jurisdiction over the entire parcel. Roxanne: related. We are not going to see final plans which is directly Roxanne: We have minimum maintenance provisions in the code. Les: I am in favor of leaving it where it is with interior supports or moving it onto ~ slab. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 26, 1990 Joe: Our objective is to preserve the house. I am not inclined to give a permit approval without having final development approval, but if she needs to do a temporary relocation on site I believe the code allows her to do that on the condition that it be temporary relocation or shored up and making it structurally sound until someone can do the project. Roger: It might be to our advantage to have the building secured. Les: She only has to save two sections. Charles: Can she work with Staff to determine how it can be saved on site. Roxanne: Only HPC can grant approval for the move at final. Final development is not a public hearing and if we need to maybe we can pull together for an emergency HPC meeting to deal with a final application. MOTION: Charles made the motion to direct Staff to meet with Jed Caswall tomorrow to determine what options are available to the HPC and at a minimum make sure the preservation of the house occurs throughout the winter. Joe second with all in favor. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn, second by Less with all in favor. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 23