Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900509Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 132 W. MAIN - ASIA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION 1 409 E. HOPKINS - ALPINE BANK - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT-PH 3 610 N. THIRD STREET - PRE-APPLICATION 9 GUIDO'S 11 13 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of May 9, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Charles Cunniffe, Les Holst, Glenn Rappaport and Jake Vickery present. Don Erdman was excused. COMMITTEE AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: The City Attorney Dave Mylar has negotiated with Phil Altfeld, owner of 624 E. Hopkins cottage, to pay a portion of the relocation. Bill Bailey house movers estimated $12,000 to move it and Phil has offered to pay $4,000 of that. There is some fund money in the affordable housing production fund that is available but we are not sure it can be used for this purpose. Colorado First Construction who is working at the Marolt Housing project has offered to take the cottage as a temporary construction office. Mike Baker, architect: I represent Guido's and we have some site problems, second floor wall assembly and request to be added to the agenda. We would like to amend our final submittal. MOTION: Joe made the motion to add Guido's to the agenda. Second by Georgeann with all in favor. Roxanne: The Molly Gibson lodge would like to put a grill and salad bar out by the pool area opened to the public. I would consider it a minor development application because they are improving their parcel within the district. They are serving food also. Would the HPC like to review this project? They are documenting a conditional use application with the P&Z and I have already looked at it. Bill: The HPC does not need to review this. 132 W. MAIN - ASIA - MINOR DEVELOPMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION Charles stepped down. Roxanne: The applicants are withdrawing their request for landmark designation from the parcel. We will only be dealing with minor development of the existing. Dennis Green, attorney: We will pursue the GMQS exemption and withdraw the designation application. Roxanne: The minor development on the parcel includes a rear entrance off the alley into the employee units. It also includes an expansion of a dormer on the east elevation and a change in windows. It also includes an installation of a handicapped ramp off the sidewalk off of Main Street into the new east entry. In the past we have reviewed handicapped ramps and stated that they are to access the alley and structure from the rear. We feel Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 handicapped ramps from the main entrance are incompatible. Planning office is recommending approval.. The Dennis Green: ramp. We have no objection to changing the handicapped Jan Darrington, architect: The north side of the east elevation we are adding windows into an dormer on the roof and a stairwell. The handicapped ramp would be relocated to the alley. Les: Is there a way for the handicapped to get from the parking area into the building. Jan: They would come around the light well and come into the building. Georgeann: The major change is the dormer that is going to go in front of the existing dormer. Jan: It laps over slightly. There will be landscaping between the buildings and some open space. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve 132 W. Main minor development approval for the changes as indicated on the main building with the exception of the handicapped ramp that will be in back of the building. Les second. No vote, motion dies. Discussion: Roxanne: We will have to have an amended site plan with the correct roof plan. Bill: You might state in the motion that you are approving the dormer addition, extension of the existing stairwell and the removing of the handicapped ramp and relocating it to the alley. Georgeann: New dormer, new stairwell, and relocation of handicapped ramp and redesigned to the rear. Bill: You could say approval of the plans submitted March 16th with the relocation of the ramp to the rear and the dormer indicated correctly. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minor development of 132 W. Main with the conditions that the new dormer that is added on the east side of the building be shown in the site plans as indicated in the elevations. The new stairwell to be as shown on the March 16th drawings that were submitted with the application. Relocation of the handicapped ramp to the 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 rear of the building with a redesign to be approved by monitor and staff. Les second. Glenn: There are a number of discrepancies as to how the exterior stair on the east elevation works. Roxanne: With the number of discrepancies this needs to be tabled. We need corrected elevation, site plan and roof plans. Dennis: We are going to have to redraw the east elevation anyway to take out the handicapped ramp, could we make it subject to a redrawing of the east elevation otherwise the same motion. Georgeann: The problem is whether you go through the project monitor or come back. Bill: The plans indicate that it is not there. AMENDED MOTION: Georgeann made an amended motion that approval is contingent on approval of the correction in the drafting error changes on the east elevation to indicate the elimination of the roof and stairs so that the facade under the main dormer of the east elevation will only have windows in it and this needs to be approved by monitor and staff. Les second with all in favor of motion and amended motion. Georgeann is monitor of 132 W. Main. 409 E. HOPKINS - ALPINE BANK - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPNENT-PH Charles reseated. Bill stepped down. Public Hearing opened. Roxanne Eflin, Preservation Planner presented the over-view of the project as stated in records (memo date May 9, 1990). This is conceptual development for an infill structure. A single use commercial on the main floor with free market and deed restricted affordable housing on the second floor and free market housing on the third floor. An auto lift is proposed off the alley accessing below grade parking. Six affordable units are proposed for the second floor and those would be incorporating the previously approved Lane Parcel units. The existing conditions are slated for removal: One story Alpine Bank building, sculpture garden, garden seating for Smuggler Land Office. I have used the guidelines very closely in dealing with this large infill project. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 We need to look at setback. The guidelines state that plazas or courts that break the continuity of the facade alignment should be avoided, design should maintain the general alignment. A court yard maybe considered if it has an active function or gives desired relief for the purpose of allowing historic landmark to stand out more prominently. The Brand Building and the Collins Block are on either side. The HPC should consider the 15 foot setback carefully and see how they function. In the commercial core there is a 25% open space requirement and this would require a cash in lieu mitigation of 10% of that which is a City Council decision not an HPC decision because this is not a landmark parcel. The alignment and rhythm of the face blend well except for the following: The bulkhead panel (kickplate) which appears to thin. The main floor doors appear too "residential". The second floor seems too narrow and thin and out of balance with the adjacent structures. The banding between the second and third floor appears heavy and out of scale. That the second floor windows servicing the stair tower on each end are extremely narrow and appear incompatible. The parapet is too heavily articulated. The proposed building and awning materials do appear compatible. The Planning Office feels restudy of the massing is appropriate with the third floor, whether it should step back or remain as is. The storefront appears to meet the guidelines but we are recommending a submittal of more detailed storefront plans. The second floor windows appear too short in relation to the two historic buildings on either end of the block and need restudied. The alley elevation windows have no relation to the facade. They appear deeply recessed. The materials chosen are appropriate but we need to be careful of the texture of those materials. The Hotel Jerome viewplane appears to be unaffected. From a cultural value we find that there is argument as to the impact of a structure this size and its effect on the two adjacent national registered buildings. The Planning Office is recommending that conceptual development be tabled to a date certain to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal and revise the setback, massing, height, parapet and the second floor fenestration and submit a complete 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 application requesting demolition of the existing improvements on the parcel. No conceptual approval may be granted for the redevelopment of the parcel without the HPC's review and approval of a demolition or relocation application. Kim Weil, architect: The third floor needs to be of a certain size that makes it virtually impossible to hide because of its openness. There are options to moving the building back and creating a space in front which tends to set off the corners. We can also slide the building up to the property line and keep the third floor essentially in the same position which would give it a 15 foot setback to the upper floor. The windows will evolve and are not as critical as the massing. We can work with the fenestration. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We have an uniqueness with the bank as a tenant. We are open to discussion, the moving forward of the building and the possibility of adjusting the upper level. If the HPC does feel we should eliminate the plaza then we would like to work with you on sponsoring a code amendment that talks about when the HPC makes you move and doesn't want the open space then the fee should be waived. Kim: On the decks we are limited to 500 sq. ft. for each deck and the rest wood be roof. The mechanical will be hidden by the parapets on either side which are required by code, fire walls which have to go 2 1/2 feet above the roof. Gideon: Our intentions is to put the majority of the employee housing for this building and the Lane parcel in here. Gideon: We have presented the building with the plaza but if HPC would rather see the building move forward then the options become twofold or if you would want it moved back how far back. Kim: If we move the building forward and some arrangement is made for the $250,000 that it would cost us to do that, do we keep the third floor as is, a portion of the third floor or create pockets at the corner? MASSING Charles: I would like to see the second floor go to its parapet height, get higher and move the massing of the third floor back so the horizontal capping line of the building would more align with the Collins Block and the Brand building and would seem more like a two story building predominantly. The third level would be set back from the street. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Glenn: There is a lot to he said for having buildings on the street. What towns are about is having buildings on the lot line. I would like to see it pulled to the property line and find someway to fund the $250,000. In general the density of this area can go one way or another and I am in favor of moving the third floor to the property line. Joe: I prefer to see it read as a two story building. If there is no way to accommodate that I would be in favor of setting it back the way it has been presented. I am not in favor of bringing the building up to the property line and leaving the facade unbroken up to three stories. I would prefer a two story that would be on the property line, have a strong second story line so that we have some consistency to the block and step back the third floor to the south of the parcel so that it would read to a pedestrian as a two story building. Les: I like pockets and feel it is not necessary to have the building come to the property line. I do have a problem with 40 and 42 feet. I would like it to read lower. Site lines from across the street are still critical. Maybe we can drop the front down, set it back so that the mountain can still be read from across the street. I have a problem with the transition into the Collins Block, it is a little strong and needs set back, or a step down a little. No problem with materials but massing too heavy. Jake: I am prone to supporting the forward position and would be in support of getting an exemption on their open space requirement since it is helping an historical cause. I do feel it would have a lot of impact with that kind of height and would favor some treatment of the upper floor so that it doesn't read with such an impact. It might not necessarily take recessing the entire floor. I like the changing of levels and the up and down. I am not strong on lining everything up on a straight line. I support the idea of articulating the verticality that we see in the Brand Building, separation of vertical elements. I like the indentation on the lower floor by they displays. Charles: If the second floor line stayed where it is on the street and it popped down a little bit from the Brand Building that would be an acceptable band. Possibly the upper floor reduced and set back so that it becomes a two story building. We would try and work to reduce the open space impacts. Georgeann: This building dominates the two buildings on the sides because its mass is so great. I also think it is Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 tremendously horizontal. I would like to see the third floor pushed back or possibly the two sides of the third floor pushed back and the central section held tall so we get more variety on that street. The floors need lowered down a little. Do three stories have to go 42 feet high? I am strongly in favor of having the building pushed 10 to 15 feet back because the further back it sets, it allows the other two buildings to come forward and be dominant. Glenn: What is important to me is preserving a "sense of street" and hopefully preserving a sense that people live on the street. When you push the third floor back you deny those people a chance to live on the street. Trying to make the building read a little more broken up vertically might make it more honest about its use. Georgeann: Every building doesn't have to be a monument and I feel this one is turning into that. Joe Wells: The ground floor will be a bank. Charles: Another issue is having building set back in this town so that you can see the mountain from the other side of the street. Georgeann: In a plaza area people will stop and sit when going up and down the street. Charles: If the building did two things: Two stories on the front edge of it, three stories on the back edge and was pulled back somewhat from the street it might create a park-like quality and would make the other two buildings predominant on the street. Harley Baldwin: Keeping the building along the street is historically compatible. Use and architecture get tumbled together although that is not in your purview. My concern is what's going on from the historic building "out", then I am with anything else, its creating a big wall of masonry when you are inside the historic building. When you are looking out the window of the Collins Block you are looking straight into a concrete wall. It is partially helped by shifting the entire building toward the street. At that point the views are at least marginal toward the mountain. Georgeann: Pushing it back might give more sunlight and space on the street but it also severely effects the people in the historic buildings which is something to consider. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Roxanne: We want to see the alley cleaned up and they are of a great concern to the HPC. Harley: The fenestration and materials are terrific and a great start and I look forward to working with them. Georgeann: The client needs direction and we are split as to whether the building should be back from the street or forward. We are split whether the third floor should be back from the second floor or not. There are no unfavorable comments about the articulation going in and out of the front within the building plane of the building. Steve Briggs, representative for Alpine Bank: A retail store on the first floor would not be possible as we need all that space. Roxanne: I am in favor of the building being moved forward somewhat but feel we are not ready to make a decision. Glenn: We need to recognize that people do want to be on the street and we need to acknowledge that. Kim Weil, architect: In height we did not use our limit and the two parapets are a code requirement. We would like to take the advantage of both views. Georgeann: In general the mass needs reduced somewhat. Possibly the end units need dropped down in order to lower the parapets. The rising up of the parapet looks false. Gideon Kaufman, attorney: We need direction as to whether the building needs moved forward or not before we deal with the third floor. MOVING OF THE BUILDING - STRAW POLL VOTE Jake: I would like to see the building pulled toward the property line but it could be several feet recessed. If that occurs then the third floor needs pushed back. Charles: They can have between zero setback and 5 or 10 feet in the front depending how the facade solution occurs. The top floor definitely needs setback. Also reduced from the sides so that the Collins Block has a view. Glenn: I want the building on the street and the third floor pulled forward to accommodate Harley's concerns. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Joe: I would from zero to amount. like to see the building set back from the lot line 5 feet. The third floor set back a substantial Les: I could live with zero to five feet from the lot line. I would like to see five feet off the height of the building and the third floor pushed back as far as possible. The right side of the building dropped so that the Collins Block becomes more visible. Joe: Relieve on the right and left sides of the parapets. Georgeann: I would like to see the building ten feet back from the curb line. The third floor pushed back and the third floor sides diminished to soften the flow into the other two buildings. MOTION: Les made the motion to table 409 E. Hopkins until the May 23rd meeting to allow the applicant further time to study the proposal and revise the setback, massing, height, parapet, fenestration. Submit a completed application requesting demolition of the existing improvements on the parcel. No conceptual approval may be granted for the redevelopment of the parcel without the HPC's review and approval of a demolition or relocation application. Charles second with all in favor. 610 N. THIRD STREET - PRE-APPLICATION Bill reseated. Roxanne: Welton Anderson, architect is proposing the addition of a garage and an angled tower element. Les: Most of the tower is not visible and doing the 45% angle makes it interesting. Georgeann: This building has had so many changes would it matter if one more thing happens to it. Roxanne: Is adding the tower making the building worse and should the tower be angled? Welton: The house faces Lake Avenue on one side and Third St. on the other. The house was brought over from Cooper Street in the late 60's. The queen ann roof was taken off and a mansard roof was put on in 1968. In 1985 the master bath, bedroom etc. was added. To obtain the views etc. we propose to turn the car port into a garage and take a sleeping portion of the master bedroom and orient it such that the views are toward the mountain. There 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 is a variance of 70 feet being asked for in FAR that would allow this to happen. Clarifications Charles: There is nothing inappropriate about the addition and I approve of it. Georgeann: The addition is not being added onto the original portion of the building and I feel it is acceptable. Les: This is a clever approach to something that is a problem. Joe: Because of the change in definition of demolition in ordinance #1, 50% of this principle structure could be demolished and they could put on any kind of addition they wanted to without HPC approval. Roxanne: The definition of demolition has been changed in that if 50% or more of a structure is demolished that it is called demolition. HPC reviews demolitions to historic buildings. Joe: So if this was not a landmark they could demolish up to 49% of it. Roxanne: Demolition review comes under all structures that are on the inventory and it is on the inventory. Joe: If this wasn't a landmark we wouldn't be reviewing it at all. Georgeann: I like it also and that is the Board's general view. It seems to overpower the lower floor and possibly it could be pulled back on the side. Charles: If you chop the corners it will be more noticeable. Roxanne: Welton is requesting a FAR variation and the code language says a finding has to be made and he is also asking for a side yard setback so those are two variations that have to be tied to a finding that it is more compatible. Welton: With doors treated in a carriage house fashion with B- board that would enhance compatibility. Historical perspective of FAR Welton: When FAR's were being put on the west end in the first place in 1978 we were getting closer with numbers and Mary Martin 10 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 came in and asked about someone wanting a master bathroom when they were already to their maximum of FAR. So in the non- conforming section of the code was place the Mary Martin variation which across the board was addition of 500 sq. ft. to any victorian house so that we are providing an incentive for historic preservation. In the process of re-writing the code it was shifted and was determined that it doesn't fit in with the section of the code where it talks about non-conforming it fits in to variations, so it got shifted with no discussion by anybody. The purpose was to give a benefit and designate your house historic. This house was designated a long time ago. Welton: At my final presentation I'll list as many reasons why I think it makes it more compatible. Joe: It is more compatible then building it on the historic part of the structure. Bill: I remember the Mary Martin incentive. Georgeann: We approve of the 45% angle tower and we will try and help as we can on the setback and FAR variations. GUIDO ' S Bill stepped down. Roxanne: The east and west walls are pulling away from the structure when the gable roof was put on originally. The applicant is recommending that the entire second floor be removed and they start over. Dale, engineer: We are asking for the roof also. Roxanne: This is not an historic building but it is an important building and what is important is the detailing of the exterior. The interior is not important in my opinion. Charles: The applicant should record what is there now and then allow them to demolish with the understanding that it be put back the way it was. Dale: That is our intent. Les: Possibly restoration etc.) restoration. do a story board with photographs (total in order for people to know that it is a 11 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of May 9, 1990 Charles is monitor of project. Georgeann: Possibly the demolition could be taken in phases. Roxanne: A complete detail with photographs needs to be submitted to the Planning office including construction sequencing. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the demolition and reconstruction of the second floor shall be done in phases. The entire structure in and out will be photographed and measured and information submitted to the Planning office. Adequate records made. A de-construction sequencing plan be submitted. Charles second with all in favor. Georgeann: The demolition and restoration in phases is appropriate. Charles is monitor. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to adjourn. with all in favor. Second by Glenn Meeting adjourned 7:15 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy city Clerk 12