Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900627HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF JUNE 2?, 1990 Meeting was called to order by Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Glenn Rappaport, Don Erdman, Les Holst and Jake Vickery present. Charles Cunniffe arrived late. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve the minutes of May 23, 1990; second by Glenn. Ail in favor, motion carries. 215 W. HALLAM - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - PORCH Bruce Sutherland, architect: We surveyed the porches in the west end and very few follow the pitches of the houses. We have changed the pitch and we would like to retain the existing window which we did not show before but have decided to leave it. Georgeann: I approve of the changes and the window is appropriate. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development amendment for 215 W. Hallam, porch; second by Georgeann. All in favor, motion carries. Bruce: At the last meeting you requested thoughts regarding the shed. We would like to advertise and see if anyone would like the shed. Our second choice would be to get relief on one car space. We will be coming in fore a final and need direction. Roxanne: Variations can only be granted at public hearings. INDEPENDENCE BUILDING - FINAL DEVELOPMENT 501 E. COOPER Roxanne: At conceptual the HPC supported a new storefront. Staff did not. The memo addresses detail only. We are strongly recommending that the store front remain intact. That the new glass should be clear and not tinted. See details in attached memo dated March 14, 1990. The sandstone steps to the basement shall remain. Lance Alle, architect: There has been some damage to the wood on the store fronts and we are not sure it can be salvaged. We are working with people and there are fillers that can be put in the storefronts to keep some of them intact. We will do snow melt. We are also proposing awnings. Don: Even though the State architect says no awnings I tend to disagree. The awning over the stairs is a necessity. Roxanne: The state architect was concerned about the amount of awnings. Possibly only on the storefronts on the west and on the north only on the recessed openings. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 2?, 1990 Glenn: The detailing is appropriate. Joe: I am not opposed to the awning either. Les: I would like the awning just over the opening. Georgeann: I am opposed to the awning over the stairs. vertical element in that part of the building. I want a Bill: As a matter of practicality the awning is appropriate and it is temporary and does not hurt the integrity of the building. Les: It is critical that the cast iron thresholds be retained. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for the project at 501 E. Cooper, Independence building subject to the conditions in Roxanne's memo with the following modifications addressed. a) The "storefront" shall remain in tact, and preserved (maintained) according to preservation standards. Wholesale removal of original windows does not meet the criteria of "preserve first, restore second, reconstruct third". It appears to staff that the existing large storefront panes are not original. The applicant is requesting double pane/insulated windows be installed for energy efficiency, which we understand, however, we are requiring any glass replacement done within the existing exterior framework, retrofitted inside. All new glass used shall be clear, and not tinted. b) The transom windows shall be maintained in place, not removed, set aside, reworked and reinstalled. The risk of failure is high with the procedure of total removal. c) The cast iron columns shall be cleaned with the gentlest method possible - no abrasive or blasting will be allowed. Any missing capitol sections shall be restored in cast iron material. d) Cast iron threshold plates shall be carefully removed and cleaned for reuse at grade and the storefront entrances. *d) If necessary this item be worked out with the project monitor if there is a change in use of the iron threshold plates. e) Ail masonry patching due to removal of non-original light fixtures shall be done to match the existing mortar in texture, color and strike. The percentage of portland shall be no more than 10-15%. Areas within the first floor storefront where previous incompatible repointing has occurred shall be repaired with the Historlo Preservation Committee Minutes of June 2?, 1990 appropriate mortar mixture and application. f) Sidewalk texturing and/or new use of colored concrete shall be approved first by the CCLC. g) The original sandstone steps leading to the basement on the west elevation shall remain in tact, nor removed and replaced with concrete as proposed. Any concrete patching to be done shall occur in an aesthetic and appropriate manner. A snowmelt system is proposed; we are recommending its use under the sandstone steps. Should technical considerations make that highly impractical, such information should be presented to staff for review with the Project Monitor. The wrought iron fencing shall be preserved on site. * g) The sandstone steps be allowed to be removed, cut and replaced with concrete underneath and the snowmelt system installed. h) The awnings as submitted are approved so delete item h). i) Revised final plans with the above details called out shall be submitted for approval to staff and the project monitor when submitted to the Building Department for permitting. j) An exterior light plan and exact awning material shall be submitted at the meeting for HPC review and approval. Lance: Regarding J) None of the lights will be above the level of the mall. There is one light above the door and one light on the wall. Tony Maza: We will install the snowmelt system on the steps as it is a safety matter including the awning. Motion second by Donnelley. Ail in favor except Georgeann. Motion carries. Don will be monitor of 501 E. Cooper 425 E. COOPER - GUIDO~S FINAL DEVELOPMENT Bill stepped down Georgeann chaired Georgeann: We have reviewed the memo and understand that you have changed the landscaping and redesigned the first floor as we requested. 3 Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June 2?, 1990 Mike Baker, architect: Ail planters will be the same and there will be benches without backs. Georgeann: The Board approves of the changes in the landscaping. The changes in the facade correspond with the recommendations from conceptual. There was one concern of wood trim on the windows. Is the wood frame going to be painted or natural wood. Mike: We will paint it to match the other trim on the building. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant final development for 425 E. Cooper Guido's as submitted; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. Les: It is recommended that there be backs on the benches. 420 E. COOPER - RED ONION - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Roxanne: The concern of the applicant is to open the first floor up from the inside out. The transom window opening is original. The two lower panes of glass are not. There are two original panes of glass int he transom window that are original, the furthest east two panes. They were interested in doing a three part piano hinged window so that there would be four transom window above and three below. The proposal is not appropriate and the only other option on this historic building is to have large window. The problem is how they could make the framework on the inside as narrow and thin as possible. It would hinge and still provide a seal in the glass. I am very concerned about the four pane approach to this proposal. Historically there was one very large pane which was very unique to begin'with and how it is presently two and now they are asking for four. This building is on the national register. Unfortunately I do not have a solution. Applicant: We were trying to find out what we could do to make it work. Don: I am of the opinion that it can be done in two panels. There is hardware available. Applicant: You are talking about swinging in two five foot panels toward the inside. Roxanne: Your sketch indicates that they are four feet wide. Les: Structurally it could be done. Applicant: the problem is that our tables are higher than where Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 2?, 1990 the glass is. them in. We would have to move the whole room out to swing Glenn: Is there a system that the window could be half in and half out, swinging so that it never goes in the entire four feet. Applicant: It would then come out onto the patio. Jake: What about a pocket window that would hinge and go up behind the transom window. Roxanne: This need to be kept as original as possible, one pane of glass. Georgeann: The direction we are giving you is to keep it two panes of glass and talk with Dave Gibson and come back to the board. MOTION: Don made the motion that the proposal for minor development for 420 E. Cooper be denied with the recommendation that the application resubmit a revised plan and submit a scaled elevation of the entire facade and exact size of the window with details; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. 706 W. MAIN - PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Joe stepped down Bill seated Georgeann chaired. Public Hearing Opened Roxanne: The removal of the chain link fence is highly applauded and it will be replaced with a picket fence. The picket fence is very compatible. The concern that is raised by the zoning officer and the engineering department were the gates along the back and the diagonal parking. I am not opposed but the other departments are, thus the Planning Department cannot make a recommendation. Welton Anderson, architect: A parking variation can been granted by this Board if it is in the best interest of the structure. The lot is only 50 feet wide. Ideally a parking lot should be 60 feet wide. The turning movements of the cars will make the parking area work. There is no off the street foot traffic. The fence is designed that when the parking area is need to be used for potential customers that it be closed off to protect the merchandise sitting at the back door and keeping dogs etc. out. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 27~ 1990 Don: The plan for the diagonal parking all depends on what size car you are putting in there. The standard size is 18 feet. Glenn: Could you address Bob Gish's comment about the gate swinging out and the snow removal problems. Welton: We will oppose any five foot setback of the fence from the alley because nobody else in town is required to have a setback in the alley. We will design the gate so that it is high enough off the ground that a foot or six inches of snow will be workable and it will be entirely on the property. If this is an encroachment it does not fit the definition of an encroachment because it would be a temporary encroachment when.you open the gate. Georgeann: It could swing inside or slide like a barn door type. Welton: The gate that I designed is in four panels two are in the center at three feet wide each. Joe Krabacher, applicant: The gate will open completely and be flush with the other part of the fence. It will not stick out in the alley. It will be two fences wide then the property line when it is open. The Board is entitled to vary standards if it is more compatible with the historic structures. I am not doing a picket fence just in the front. We have mixed uses on Main Street. Georgeann: Is this for cars or storage. Welton: This will give the residence privacy at night and protection from the activities going on in the alley. But in the daytime you open it up for potential customers. It is the same picket design but a little taller in back. Georgeann: I have a hard time finding that the fence out to the alley is more compatible historically. Les: I think mixed use is historical. Anytime that we can get rid of a chain linked fence it is a benefit to the entire west end. The trade off is well worth in a mixed use zone. Don: The Eng. Dept. says this is an encroachment and if the plow runs over the fence then it is Joe's problem as any encroachment is. Most of the fences in the west end encroach. Glenn: Do we want to encourage mixed use on Main Street and if so I support this. Georgeann: Parking was not used in the back of a building in the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 27, 1990 older days and fences went to the alley. Georgeann: I would make a strong recommendation that this be treated as residential parking and allow the five parking spaces to stack and solve it that way. Joe: I am concerned that the Building Department will say no you can't do what Georgeann recommended because the property is mixed use. Roxanne: The code is not specific. Georgeann: With the ambiguity in the code I would support the variation due to hardship. MOTIONs Les made the motion that HPC grant minor development for the parking variation at 706 W. Main; second by Glenn. All in favor, motion carries. 610 N. 1ST, ~/K/A 329 LAKE AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING FINAL DEVELOPMENT IF POSSIBLE Public hearing opened Roxanne: The applicant is requesting an approval or an addition, partial demolition of a car port and the addition of a two car garage with a master suite above. A 156 sq. ft. FAR variation and a 10 3/4 inch side yard setback variation. The applicant is also asking for a final approval. There is nothing in the code that prohibits this. I have reviewed the development review standards and standard #1 deals with the compatibility and character of the designated structure and also states that the language in the finding of the FAR variation. We do not find that the addition is more compatible as it states in the code. Possibly a smaller scale addition would be more compatible. We are not opposed to the addition since it primarily has received substantial character change alternations in the past. It is not the addition that we are opposed to it is making the finding that it is more compatible and therefore a FAR variation could be granted. Standard #2 deals with the general character of the community and it meets this standard. Standard #3 deals with the cultural value and it does not detract from the cultural value. Standard #4 deals with the architectural integrity of the structure; is more better or less. Does this addition enhance the original architecture. Welton Anderson, architect: Concerning the FAR bonus it was developed ten years ago at Mary Martin's request. Victorians designed historic have a disadvantage over non-historic. You can 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of June 27, 1990 increase you FAR to 500 sq. ft. above the allowable. In order to preserve the views we can be granted a variation of 124 Sq. ft. to above what is already there if that is concentrated on the non- historic end of the structure away from the street front. The other option would be to move the master bedroom over to the south east corner on Lake Avenue. We could put the addition into the historic Lake Avenue portion of the building. Because of the lot size the total of the two side yard setbacks have to be 13.6 and 3/4 inches. We are reducing the current encroachment on the side yard which would make the dimensions different for the new encroachment. We are reducing a non-conformity. It is more compatible to put it on the non-historic rear portion of the site as opposed to the historic front portion of the site. For the master bedroom it is only 13 1/2 feet which is the outside dimension. It is five feet shorter than the roof of the McCoy's house to the south. Don: This is an unique site as it is very long and we should consider the facade. Elizabeth Altimus, 620 N. Third: I live directly behind the proposed. The proposed master bedroom is the total end of my view of the mountain. This is the domino effect and I am the next one. Carol Craig, neighbor: I don't like any development that has gone on around there for the past few years. For you to grant a variation will enhance the domino effect. Mr. & Mrs. Miller, owner of property at 415 W. North Street: I have no specific comments but since we purchased this property in 1962 we have been hemmed in on two sides. Our view of Ajax has been grossly obstructed. Our view to the west is gone. This is not specific but I share in the viewpoint of these two ladies and the situation is far from desirable. We don't like it and we object. Georgeann: Letter entered into record from Ann Stiss Lundy 301 Lake Avenue that regarding to the Sheldon Lubar house I strongly oppose the request for variation or enlargement of any kind of said property. Welton: I have a letter from Perry J. Lewis also: Sorry I can't attend the meeting to discuss the changes but I approve. Les: I would not support a FAR increase and it doesn't comply with code. Joe: I would be in favor of considering the FAR variation and would be in favor of the side yard also. I am sensitive to the Historic Preservation committee Minutes of June '27, 1990 design also. Don: We should take I am not in favor. enhancement? into consideration what this style does and Is the continuation of the style an Glenn: I also would not grant a variance. Jake: Based on the public input I could not support the variation. Georgeann: The public has brought in good opinions. We cannot stop this building from getting larger within its rights of the FAR. I do not think this adds to the compatibility of the historic building in the front or the compatibility of the neighborhood overall. This seems to be the general opinion of the committee. Welton: I came in here with good faith and it has cost my client. Based on the assumption of the previous meetings which were that it was a good solution I feel I have been misled to now have a turn around. I would request that you table this so that I can discuss this with the Lubar's. I will actively pursue changing the code to what it was. 124 square feet is what the provision was put in the code 12 years ago. Georgeann: I am upset by the whole process that reversed this but with tabling you could talk with your neighbor and work something out. If that could happen then possibly we would reconsider. We have a problem of why have public hearings if they are not allowed to respond. Welton: Since we are historically designated I have tried my best to keep this at a small scale and tucked into an already built area. We are held to a different standard than the house in front of us. You have to have a different standard for residential and commercial. MOTION: Joe made the motion that HPC table the public hearing and continue conceptual development of 610 N. 3rd to August 8th; second by Don. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Don made the motion to adjourn; second by Les. favor, motion carries. Ail in Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk