Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19901024HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of October 24, 1990 Meeting was called to order by Senior Vice-chairman Charles Cunniffe with Don Erdman, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Roger Moyer present. Bill Poss, Jake Vickery, Joe Krabacher and Georgeann Waggaman were excused. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to approve the minutes of September 12, 1990. Second by Roger with all in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to add Avenue, Conceptual Development and Second by Glenn with all in favor. to Old Business 210 Lake continued public hearing. 824 E. COOPER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Charles opened the public hearing. Roxanne: At the last meeting conceptual approval was tabled with conditions: A study of massing, look at the link between the old and new to provide greater relief and provide a massing model. Also direction was given to simplify the transoms and to restudy the alley structure with the intent to preserve it. I still have concerns, this lot is very hard to work with and the cottage is tiny in scale and it has a couple of older additions in the rear that are probably expendable but adding on an addition that does not totally overwhelm this cottage is very difficult. I am not convinced that the design solution is quite compatible yet. Barbara Long and Ken Moore, architects presented. Barbara: The model shows the scale problem that we are already facing which is, it is totally overshadowed as it is right now. We took your concerns of trying to preserve the little cottage in its entirety and keep it separate from the building behind it. In doing so we tried to create a shadow line between the new and the old building. We have also decided to add a fence which creates its on little yard which we feel helps hold this cottage away from the other building. Roof changes were done on the dormer and some of the transom windows. We also changed from a one car garage and flipped it to the other side so we could keep the shed if that is allowed in the back. Ken Moore: The cottage is so small and if we could take and bring the cottage up one foot and drop the level of the house down one foot so basically the cottage would look like it was two feet higher giving a little mast to the cottage. We would have to re-foundation anyway as it is on six by twelve's and rotten. Roxanne: The idea is to relocate the cottage up on the site, plus raise it up and lower the additions, so you are doing three different things. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 24, 1990 Ken: We were trying to work with a stepped roof design but it just didn't work. By bringing it up higher it does give emphasis to the cottage. Roger: This proposal shows a distinction between the new and old. Roxanne: My concern is the abrupt change between the very small cottage and a two story addition. I have always favored the addition not integrated into the roof form of the historic cottage. Ken: We have been trying to work with a cascading roof where you don't see that front gable but our lot is too small. Don: The south exposure is to the street and presently you have in a cross gable almost at the south end of the structure and rather busy angle corners to get whatever view you can. That calls a lot of attention to the corners and possibly that needs simplified in moving the cross gable back. Barbara: Our thoughts were by angling, it softened the impact. Don: If I were to do this I would do a major cross gable or at least a dormer on the west side and change the fenestration that is on the stairs because as you walk up the stairs I would not want to look right at a building that is ten feet away, I would rather look at the sky. In the same breath I would tend to put more of a major gable facing east so that you can look over the building. There is only ten feet between the buildings. Barbara: 10 feet between with a five foot setback. Roxanne: Both buildings are non-conforming. Glenn: The feeling that I had was to simplify the front. If it would read as a single gable and moved back it would visually be downplayed. Raising and lowering does help. Don: The cross gable is where it is because it has to do a lot with the plan of the master suite. You could have a dormant gable end. The building on the east is a horrendous presence. I do think there are ways of reducing the business of the southern portion of the addition, the roof. You could have a chimney and a cricket to balance. Roger: I think Donnelley's idea of the fireplace, and bring the 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 24, 1990 roof back on that side might alleviate a lot of people's concerns about the mass. Charles: If you held everything back it would provide enough relief. Barbara: I like Glenn's idea of simplifying and you get the same amount of light. Roger: When you raise the small cottage what are you going to set it on. Ken: We will put in a small foundation wall. Roger: Sandstone was traditionally used in small cottages so that the red stone was a the bottom to conseal the concrete from visually showing. This will come up at final. Charles: You could possibly use something simpler. Ken: River rock would work and show a break around it. MOTION: Don made the motion that the conceptual approval for 824 E. Cooper be tabled until Nov. 14th and that the applicant restudy the south facade of the addition to simplify and also increase the difference between its detailing and the historic building through the addition of more glass perhaps and also consider a symmetrical scheme that would feature the fireplace stack and a cricket on the east side of the south facade. Glenn second with all in favor of motion, motion carries. DISCUSSION Glenn: Do we want to mention the raising up and lowering down version. Charles: That is in their application. Roxanne: Will you include heights also. 210 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: At the last meeting 210 Lake Ave. was tabled with the direction that a massing model be created and that a restudy of the location of the addition as well as the scale of the addition be accomplished and that a field study happen, which did. Bracken Raleigh: Further study of relocation of addition proved pointless. There was concern of privacy at the last meeting. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 24, 1990 The model demonstrates the addition. At the last meeting everyone had problems with the symmetry and in that building the only thing that is symmetrical is the center window due to the fact that the roof lines are strong enough to carry an element. When we get back to this point we need the head room for the stairs coming up. The ceiling right now is less than 6 ft. and in the center of Nancy's bedroom a six foot person can't even stand up. Low head room problem. I tried to continue the existing hip line of the roof up and make the pitch the same on both sides so that we did have a continuation in the sense of flow from one existing building to the new part. We are only adding 537 sq. ft. and most of the square footage is happening on the upper level. Making a 100 sq. ft. bedroom into approximately 400 sq. ft. At the last meeting the green house was discussed as not being CO'd but Nancy has brought the permit and the CO for the greenhouse/hot tub. Glenn: I went on the site visit and to address the issue of the neighbors coming in and saying the area needed cleaned up I didn't find any of that to be true. The area is quite charming and the only lived in looking place. That issue is not an issue to me. Don: The Hallam Lake ESA ordinance will be enacted prior to this being submitted for a building permit so I trust the applicant is aware of the provisions. Roxanne: I don't think the ESA effects this. Don: Looking at the house they are trying to solve the basic circulation problems. The way the master bedroom is right now is like camping in the attic. I don't feel they are asking for too much. Unfortunately the roofs get complicated. Bracken: We increased the dining room space and made it a little larger and made the bathroom larger. We are trying to take out the washer/dryer out of the diningroom. Roxanne: I remain concerned about the expanse of metal roofing. Bracken: The house next door has twice as much roof. Roxanne: And it is twice as bad. Charles: We need to know how the addition gets distinguished from the general house and the effect that it has on the overall balance of the original house as an historic house. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 24, 1990 Roger: What they are doing is well within their right and I have no trouble with the massing. Changes over the years often happen and should happen in a community where not everything is planned. I am not opposed to a metal roof and originally the house had a metal roof. There is also an economic factor in roof choices. Don: From a technical standpoint wood roof requires so much flashing in relation to the amount of wood with all these changes that a metal roof might be quieter in the long run. The more complex the roof gets the more flashing you will need. Roger: It would be nice if the roof could be a darker color. Nancy Oliphant: That is a good idea and I dislike that color. Charles: We always have a problem on how you let an historic property grow. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for 210 Lake Avenue as proposed with the condition that you continue to study the complications in the roof treatment and that they are resolved in the simplest way possible. Second by Roger with all in favor, motion carries. DISCUSSION Bracken: We had talked about taking the green house sloped roof area and flattening it off on the back wall so that we could eliminate the 60 or 70's green house addition. Just square that area which is identified in the model. The drawings should represent what is in the model at final. 208 1/2 E. MAIN STREET - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Les present for 208 1/2 E. Main St. Roxanne: This is a little out building of 273 sq. ft. and is right now used for storage right behind Gracy's. Glenn has always been very interested in adapting these little alley buildings for special uses. Glenn has a lease on the building. The applicant would like to turn this into an office. None of the foot print has changed. Roger: Does this sit on the ground. Glenn Rappaport, applicant: Yes, it is on the ground. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 24, 1990 Roxanne: The applicant wa~ts to change around the entrance and add windows onto the alley. My concern is the corrugated translucent material that Glenn is proposing to use to screen at the alley. It is used, Graeme Means used it at his alley on the back of his wall and it does look like alley material. Roger: What is the purpose of the material in the alley. Roxanne: To let light in but to screen from dust, noise, snow etc. This is a minor development but the reason it is a public hearing is because Glenn needs to have HPC's approval for a variation of one parking space due to net leasable on the parcel. Glenn: The floor plan will clear up what you are asking. I am going to cut off about seven feet of the shed addition so that it is a gable shed addition and cut a section back to make a court yard and an entry to the office there. The fiberglass wall would be that portion of the courtyard that fronts the alley. By cutting the piece of the shed roof back I can get more light from that side. What is bordering this wall is the neighbors yard. Don: You are not increasing leasable. Roxanne: Yes, because right now storage is not considered net leasable, just FAR. He is increasing net leasable on the entire parcel 273 sq. ft. Glenn: The reason for the fiberglass is to get light. It is only 6 1/2 feet deep. It is translucent not transparent. Don: I have no problem. Charles: What we would be doing is allowing the owner of Gracy's to not have an additional parking space by the addition of this as leasable space to their property. Don: How are you going to insulate it. Glenn: It has horizontal 2 by 4's and I will put 4 inches of fiberglass batt and two inches of tongue and groove over everything and exterior plywood and screw through the entire thing. Roger: Check the Blow N' Blanket that you spray in. Roxanne: The motion would be to grant minor development approval and a parking variation for one space. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of October 24, 1990 MOTION: Don made the motion that minor development approval and a parking variation for one parking space be granted for the proposed improvements at 208 1/2 E. Main Street. Roger second with all in favor. Motion carries. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn, second by Don with all in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy city Clerk 7