Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900613H~storic Preservation Committee M~nu~es of ~une L3, 1990 INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO 200 E. MAIN . CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION - 612 W. MAIN FINAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDO'S 425 E. COOPER 715 W. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT 610 N. FIRST STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 215 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 1 3 3 6 8 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COI,~TTEE H~nutes of ~une L3~ ~990 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Poss with Glenn Rappaport, Les Holst, Don Erdman, Jake Vickery, Joe Krabacher and Georgeann Waggaman present. Charles Cunniff was excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of May 9, 1990; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO 200 E. I,~IN Roxanne: Don Fleisher has submitted an application for the modification of the side sidewalk. What was approved was a planting strip and trees and he is asking to have the sidewalk put directing on the curb and the other area become lawn area. I had taken this to a few members of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee and the Main Street Study Committee looked at it also. The direction that I have been told is that a sidewalk directly next to the curb would not be appropriate. The applicant is very interested in having the sidewalk along the street. The applicant is concerned because the lot is very narrow and a sidewalk cutting down the planting strip is awkward. I am recommending denial and that the sidewalk remain as originally proposed. Donald Feisher, applicant: When I reviewed the blue prints I saw the tiny grass strip and thought to myself that it would not look appropriate for the building. I contacted Bruce Sutherland and we came up with the idea of putting all the landscape in one area in order to make a stronger statement. I also looked at the problem of cars parked along Aspen Street during periods when the lawn is wet or recently watered and when the snow is melting, people getting out of their car onto the grassy area and it would be very difficult to maintain under those conditions. Another concern was the closeness of the trees to the cars themselves. In most cases your guideline is probably appropriate. Bruce Sutherland, architect: The diagram shows the two green strips broken up by the sidewalk and it shows the larger green strip against the building. We felt that this minor strip was difficult. As the streets are plowed and you get out of the car door and it doesn't open you have to climb over the hump of snow. 70% of the town does not have sidewalks and 16 % is like we propose and 12% have the green strip. We also intend to put in a planter. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: I am familiar with the site and it is a 0 lot line and is not the usual situation and the lot is very narrow. I feel we should support the proposal. Georgeann: Don has good ideas about walking down the street and at the end there is nothing; however, I am concerned about keeping this in residential character which was part of the plan. We also Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June X3, X990 have hardly any sidewalks in the west end. I don't like the idea of the sidewalk next to the curb because it does have an urban downtown commercial feeling. Perhaps more of a meandering type would be acceptable or instead of a sidewalk, pavers and let the grass grow up between them. It would keep it residential in feeling. My reaction of this planter a foot high looks residentail because you don't normally have them in front of a residential home. I might consider a six inch planter or a garden at grade which would be more residentail then you wouldn't have the problem of encroachments. Glenn: The original plan was done with the best intention and as an architect you want to separate the cars from the pedestrians. This is difficult because of the space problem and what I see is one solution which offers the tenants a nicer solution with the trees etc. which would break the harsh western light having the trees closer to the building. If I had to suggest something I would suggest having a ten foot wide planting strip and then a sidewalk of five foot and planting area against the building. I am disappointed that you are loosing the wood walkway as it was residential. Joe: I agree with Donnelley that it is not a great solution having the sidewalk in the middle but I also see the problem of having it against the street because it makes the street seem a lot wider than what it is. I would be in favor of moving the sidewalk over as it would add to the way the building reads. I would prefer what has been presented by the applicant. Les: The wooden boardwalk was unique and possibly the solution is in the materials. Someway breaking up that outside sidewalk. Jake: I also like the wooden boardwalk as it is historical. I am not in favor of the raised planter. The sidewalk area is public property and I would like to see the planting strip where the trees are enlarged becuse it is public property. It would give a wider whip between the curb and sidewalk and separate the pedestrian from the cars. Bill: I feel the committee agrees with the applicant that it is a tight space and there should be some intent to retain the planting strip along the curb and if it means meandering the walk a little bit to either accommodate some of the cotton wood trees to get more planting next to the building I would be open to looking at that new design. You might want to look at walkons, strips that go to the walk to the curb and allow people to walk between cars to get to the sidewalk and not have to walk over the snow. Around town that seems to work. We need to look at a solution that retains trees along the street. Some trees can be Histo~ic Preservation Committee ~inutes of ~une X3, X990 located near the building which would enhance that space. People will walk from Main Street to go down to the residential districts. Some sidewalks will not be utilized in residential districts. We are looking for more of a creative solution. Don Fleisher: I would like to go out of here tonight with a plan and we will start building tomorrow. Our first plan is a sidewalk on the curb and all the landscaping next to the building. 2) What if we didn't have any sidewalk at all on Aspen Street. 3) Would be the original proposal. Georgeann: I would be in favor of a variant of no sidewalk at all which would include a softer treatment. Roxanne: There is a sidewalk ordinance in place right now but it is not being incorporated with this plan due to the Pedestrian/Bikeway plan that is currently underway. Bill: I would suggest that the monitor meet with the owner and architect this week and work out the design. The concensus is to have a sidewalk and a planting strip. MOTION: Bill made the motion that the subcommittee of Georgeann, Glenn and Donnelley including Staff meet with the applicant and work out the final solution for the sidewalk at 200 E. Main empowering the sub-committee to take action; second by Joe. All in favor, motion carries. NOTIOM: Georgeann made the motion to deny the proposal submitted for 200 E. Main; second by Les. Ail in favor, motion carries. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION - 612 W. MAIN Roxanne: Rod Dyer, architect for the project is presently making revision on the project. Rod Dyer, architect: The applicant did not want the building raised and they did not want the existing chimneys replaced. After looking at them they will need to be replaced. They have asked me to come back and reach a compromise and apply for extension. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant conceptual extension of 612 W. Main; second by Georgeann. Ail in favor, motion carries. Bill: The extension would be for six months. Historic Prese~v&tion Committee Ninutes of June 13, 1990 FINAL DEVELOPHENT GUIDO eS 425 E. COOPER Bill stepped down. Georgeann chaired. Charles Cunniffe seated Roxanne: Final was granted for the commercial building but there were conditions on the chalet building which are included. The sandstone base was reduced in height and the fenestration was discussed but no changes were made. Staff still feels this is incompatible. The square windows at the entrance door with side lights seems to be out of character. No board trim is suggested to carry out the style. There was a lot of discussion of traffic flow throughout the open space next to the mall. Staff is recommending final approval including demolition and reconstruction of the second floor. Michael Baker with Bill Poss & Associates: We have added wood doors to the entry and have made it a strong statement. We have lowered the perimeter sandstone band. Regarding the family crest we need support from the HPC as it is a non-conforming sign. MOTION: Charles made the motion that HPC support Staff's preparation of a referral letter to the Zoning Dept. regarding Guido's family crest sign and the painted murals; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Charles: I am not sure how the landscape plan works with the building plan. Michael: We were trying to match the mall with the clipped corners. There would be four benches. Glenn: The open space correlates with the entrance to the building. Don: I have trouble with the clipped corners. Joe: I'm not opposed to this proposal but I am not sure of what it adds to the mall and what it is designed to do. The other island between the two buildings I feel does not benefit the entire project. Jake: I would like to see how this relates to the mall, possibly a larger plan of what is going on. Glenn: I also feel the open area should be more in the direction of seating rather than landscaping/planting gestures. Historic Preservation Committee Hinutes of June 13, ~990 Mike: The little planter by the elevator softens the materials up. We could work with the monitor in integrating this area with the mall. Georgeann: We need to move onto comments on the fenestration. Charles: I feel the first floor is divorced from the second and is foreign in style. Wood is an element that is missing on the ground level. The Aspen Square building has wood windows that work well. Jake: The lower floor windows should be lined up centered on the upper floor. Roxanne: The existing windows are aluminum and you are proposing wood. Joe: I also agree that the use of wood windows is more appropriate. It is also difficult to concieve how the six inch offset on the bays is going to read. Don: The facade is very hard to read. Glenn: The pilasters being recessed bothers me. The building has always been viewed from a corner perspective and you look at it three dimensionally. Georgeann: We have gotten a few comments about using a wood frame around the lower floor as opposed to a metal frame. We have no comments on a metal frame. My feeling since we have wood upstairs and that is more traditional with this particular building, and to put wooden frames down toward the pedestrain is a softer more comfortable material and in keeping with the stucco. I would definately recommend wood frames. We want the building to seem sturdy and the corners to hold the building up and when the corners recess from the popouts it weakens the thrust we have been looking for. Everyone is in favor of reversing that feeling. I am not concerned about the lining up of the windows because there is a strong horizontal balcony that it will never be realized in walking down the street. The lower stone is appropriate and everyone is comfortable with the horizontal window. The points coming up are wood trim and reversing the feel on the pilaster vs popout sections. Charles: The two versions I am hearing, one that the face be made solid with pilaster representations of where the struccture would like to appear to be with the windows recessed in the bays. The other is to have it similar but a wood bay popout instead of 5 H~stor~c Preserv&t~on Committee M~nutes of ~une ~3~ ~990 stucco. Gerogeann: I was visualizing a wood trim. Straw Poll for wooden popouts. The board is in favor of recessing the popped out area. Georgeann: The wood should match the color of the upstairs. Mike Baker: Reversing the feel we are comfortable with and also changing the metal to wood frame windows and we are comfortable with that. Don: We could grant final with door and window placements approved but the treatment is subject to one more review.' MOTION: Jake made the motion to approve final development for 424 E. Cooper (Guido's) includuing the demolition and reconstruction of the second floor and restudy of the first floor fenestration and corner entrance and landscaping. The specific direction to the applicant that he reverse the feel and do wood windows and wood trim. Present detailed sections (wall plans) and present sample materials at the next meeting. Also a context drawing for the landscaping to be presented at the next meeting; second by Charles. All in favor, motion carries. SECOND FLOOR MOTIONs Charles made the motion to approve the demolition of the entire second floor and a complete and accurate reconstruction. Final details to be signed off by Staff; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. MAIN - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Joe stepped down. Charles left. Bill seated. Roxanne: This is an approval for an enclosure of two open porch areas on this non-historic commercial building. They total 241 sq. ft. and flank each side of the facade. One is more of a stairway porch. Compatibility issues and deciding whether or not enclosure of this portion is compatible. Porches are very important facade elements. The Planning office has recommended tabling'. Randy Weedum, architect: I designed and built this building 10 years ago. At the time there was a small building there and we went through HPC approval to incorporate the design element of that Historio Preservation Committee Hinutes of June 13, 1990 building into this building in which it has been made a part of this structure. The whole building is totally new and I put the balcony's on, thinking that we might use them. If it was a residential building they would be used but since it is commercial and office they have never been used. They are roofed over and part of the FAR. Visually I tried to make them look exactly the same as if they are balconies and took the glass into the post. Without seeing the refleciton on the glass you wouldn't know if it was in or out. There are two other porches on the other side that we are not enclosing. The porches are deteriorating and causing damage to the side of the building. Georgeann: I cannot understand the porch on the east side where the glass stops and starts. Randy: It is a lower railing and I will make it a real wall and close it off. Georgeann: It would become a solid wall visually. Glenn: The enclosure of the bottom porch is that because of water damage problems or because of functional problems of the building? Randy: That is a complicated area because you come out of the door on the second floor and you have roofs coming down. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Glenn: If this was a residence people would probably enjoy sitting outside. I am in favor of the proposal. Georgeann: In historic buildings we are trying to get the porches opened up again. As a compromise we allow minimal changes by using large panels of glass. I feel that is the direction you are going in but it is not minimal enough. I might be interested in seeing this if the railings were retained and the glass were to float completely behind those areas (disappearing). Donnelley: I was going to suggest a variant of that and agree that the porches are not as functional in a commercial building as opposed to residential. I find it awkward to see claboard infill where the railing has existed and it is also awkward to take glass fully down to the floor. My suggesting would be to leave the railings and pull back an adequate distance to produce a solid wall and bring the glass down to the wall. Bill: I am in agreement that we are trying to retain a residential character on Main Street. The compromise of retaining the character of a porch but closed in is appropriate. Having the Historio Preservation Committee Minutes of ~une 13, 1990 balcony rail retained gives you the feeling of a balcony even if it is closed in. Randy: I have no problem with that and it is reversible. Georgeann: We ahve made progress as to how to enclose porches as time goes on and that is the only reason I would consider enclosing the porches. I feel it is important to have the glass come down behind the railing and have the transparency because if you don't it creates a different feeling that is strongly not acceptible. MOTION: Don made the motion that HPC approve the Minor Development for 715 W. Main to enclose the two porches with the following conditions: 1) The balisters and railings remain. 2) All work be carried on behind the planes and that glazing of the most minimal nature come down to at least the level of the railings below which the wall can be solid and the color complementary to the building recessive which would allow the balisters to be seen easily; second by Glenn. Georgeann: Do you want to address the solid wall that is behind the stairwell? Glenn: The outcome is to keep it transparent. ~DED MOTION: Don amended the motion to keep the North East corner transparent and the outside corridor is maintained as open and the next plane in the easterly wall will carry around the low wall and shall be transparent above. Revised elevations will need to be presented to the Planning Office and signed off by Glenn or Donnelley; second by Glenn. Question called by the chairman; carried 3-2. Opposed Jake and Georogeann. 6~0 N. FIRST STREET - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. HOTION: Donnelley made the motion to continue the public hearing and conceptual development of 610 N. First Street until June 27 th; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. Zl$ W. H~LL~I{ - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPI~ENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Bill Poss opened the public hearing. Roxanne: This proposal involves an extensive renovation and a new addition of this two story Queen Ann venicular which is almost a twin of its neighbor next door. During the 60's incompatible additions were added to this addition along with aluminum siding. Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June 13, 1990 This proposal attempts to be sensitive to the original form and the details of the facade while incorporating a new contemporary addition to the rear. The existing car port will be removed along with the drive and curb cut off Hallam. Access will be relocated to the alley with a new two car attached garage. The applicant will also be offering a 153 sq. ft. detached shed in the back up for relocation. Part of the application is for demolition. A side yard setback is also being requested for the basement light well. An encroachment license will be required by the city for the front fence. This was designated in 1986 with the condition that the aluminum siding be removed which never happened. This condition will be met with this proposal. You can follow the memo regarding the guidelines. The guidelines for setback and landscaping meet the guidelines. The doors meet the guidelines but we need detailing at final. We are recommending that all the original windows be preserved. It appears that there are only six or seven. The facade elements need restored and the restoration process needs looked at. Materials be submitted at final and we are recommending that the materials underneath be looked at to find out what is there. The two story proposal meets the character of the neighborhood. The elimination of aluminum siding has cultural value. The front porch needs restudied also. There is a gable dormer on the second floor facade and that allows light into the room but how much does that alter a very simple vernacular of the Queen Ann style. We are recommending conceptual development approval and side yard set back variation with the conditions listed. Dick Fallin, architect: The key part of the house is the gabled end with the two shingles and we are assuming that there is clapboard siding underneath this siding. There is a porch and it does not look original as it is sticking out past the property line. There is a little front porch which we feel is original. We went to the Historical Society and there are not any records. Bill Dunaway remembers a little porch on the front. The windows are in poor condition and do not work and we would like to make the windows the same size and use insulated glass. Bascomb: The downstairs front window glass might be old. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Glenn: From the street elevation, I like the stepping back as it is planer and reinforces what was existing. I also do not see a problem with replacing the windows if the profiles are kept simple. Don: The rebuilding of the sash is always an issue and there is information in the Planning Office regarding this. There are a number of companies that offer a sash. 9 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 23, ~990 Jake: I would like to see the shed retained and utilized. As a landmark we can waive parking. My only concern is the dormer with the chopped off top. Dick Fallin: We will be using the attic space for room volume and that is how that occurred. Jake: You could put the point back on. Dick Fallin: We looked at it both ways and it looked severe with the point and we like the shape chosen. Jake: In one way it differenciates the old from new. Georgeann: This particular shape is not architecturally in keeping with this building. I do like the simplicity of the front. I am concerned about the massing at the rear. Joe: I like the way the front reads and the gables that differenciate the house. I agree with Roxanne's comments. Bill: When you rebuild the porch that it be reconstructed in the most historic manner. Dick Fallin: We can remove what is there and when we build the new L-shaped porch we should pay attention to the detailing. The existing porch is almost non-existing. Bill: I am in favor of the project but the original building that will remain should be reconstructed and restored as close as possible. The porch being proposed should have a shallower pitch and also the columns should be compatible. If you lower the pitch you might be able to remove the dormer. I am not sure if it is historically correct to have the gable over the window on the gable end. Jake: ,I like the idea of using material between the old and new. or textural color change Bill: I also do feel this meets the standards. Historic Preservation Committee ~inutes of ~une 13, ~990 MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval including the side yard setback variation finding that the variation is more compatible with the historic structure than in accordinance with dimensional requirements for 215 W. Hallam subject to the conditions set fort in the memo dated June 13, 1990 (attached in records) with the following changes: 1) The porch be reconstructed in an historic fashion if documentation can be found and if not reconstructed in a fashion that would be more of a simple treatment. 2) Condition E that we accept the alternative presented today which would eliminate the second floor facade dormer and 3) Condition F that the historic windows be retained and preserved with the elimination of the gabled peak over the second story window on the primiary facade. On condition H drop that as no one had concerns about the garage; second by Donnelley. All in favor except Jake. Motion carries. Dick Fallin: We will run adds for two weeks advertising the shed. MOTION: Joe made the motion that the applicant study the possible use of the shed onsite; second by Georgeann. Ail in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adjourn; second by Donnelley. Ail in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Assistant City Clerk AGENDA HISTORIC pI~ESERVATION COMl~I'~"r~ 0//NE 13, 1990 REGULAR MEETING SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM city Hall MEETING STARTING AT 4:00 P.M. 4:00 4:30 5:00 I. II. III. IV. 5:10 5:20 5:30 Pre-application for 824 E. Cooper Followup discussion of CLG Workshop General Discussion Items . Streetscape Guidelines Comments .. Regular Meeting Roll call and approval of May 9, Committee Member & Staff Comments Public Comment OLD BUSINESS 1990 minutes. Insubstantial Modification to 200 E. Main Conceptual Development extension - 612 W. Main Final Development - Guido's - 425 E. Cooper 6:00 6:30 6:30 7:30 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Development - 715 W. Main B. Conceptual Development-Public 1st. (TO BE TABLED TO JUNE 27) C. Conceptual Development - Public Hallam ADJOURN Hearing .- 610 N. Hearing - 215 W.