Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900711HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of July 11, 1990 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Leslie Holst, Glenn Rappaport, Joe Krabacher, Jake Vickery and Don Erdman present. Georgeann Waggaman and Charles Cunniffee were excused. PUBLIC COMMENT Joe Wells: We ran into a problem with the code, anyone proposing to demolish a sound structure in a district at this moment, the section in the code is worded that it is impossible to demolish any structure historic or non-historic unless HPC can make a finding that the building is structurally unsound. I feel that is an impossible standard. I was coming to you tonight in hopes that you would sponsor a code amendment to get the process started to amend it. We would like to strike the language that effects the non-historic structure within the district so that those could be demolished without meeting the review standards. That may not be the way you want to amend the section but it seems clear to me that some kind of amendment has to occur because you have been stretching it to the limits to make a finding about the structural soundness of structures that you don't have a problem seeing demolished so that that standard can be met. Stan Mathis, architect: I am here on behalf of John Elmore, 801 E. Hyman. We met with P&Z and they recommended historic designation landmark for the shack. I applied to the Board of Adjustment to get our setback requirements which included the front and side yard setback and some open space in the areas where the little housing unit will block open space defined by the code, however they did not give us the 200 sq. ft. for the porches on the new proposed main house even though it didn't make any sense. They have a vendetta about HPC designating things then asking for hardship claiming historic designation. We don't know what we are going to do now. John does not want to redesign his house. The Board of Adjustment said it was not their intent for the covered porches section of the code be included as FAR. But the Building Dept. disagrees. Roxanne: One of the reasons for designation was so that they could get their full FAR variation of 500 square feet which only applies to the historic building. They are around 480 sq. ft. We would be granting a FAR variation for 485 sq. ft. We are not going to grant any variation for the new structure. Stan: However, for the design work on the east side of the house that requires an additional 200 sq. ft. That has always been part of our proposal. This is just information for you as John has not decided what to do. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Bill: If a packet is submitted please include the minutes from conceptual. MOTION: Don made the motion to move 1004 E. Durant to follow item C, 204 S. Galena. Les second with all in favor. FINAL DEVELOPMENT: 215 W. HAr~.AM Roxanne: On June 13th HPC granted conceptual approval with a number of conditions that I have listed and we find that the applicant has generally met those condition. On the 27th of June we approved the amended conceptual which included a redesign of the front porch and the removal of the facade second floor story dormer. With the exception of C,H,L,N we find that all the other conditions have been met. Our primary concerns do focus on the excavation and foundation repair plus the restoration of the original front door. It appears to be original. Some minor additions have been made to the plans since you reviewed them last at conceptual: skylights. We recommend final development approval and the side yard setback variation. Dick Fallin, represents applicant: I will review Staff's concerns on C,H,L,N of memo dated July 11, 1990 (see records). I removed a section of the aluminum siding and we are going to have that double siding like we thought and will preserve it. The west face of the building encroaches into the setback allowing only about a one foot setback off that west property line; the Bldg. code regulations require that we have no windows at all unprotected five feet or less nothing three feet or less. Existing windows will have to be removed, remove the siding in order to get the 1/2 inch sheathing for the fire protection that is required. What does that do to the existing siding. I would suspect that there will be areas even on the front of the house that will have to be repaired, replaced and possibly we could use the west face for that repair. Don: Generally you would take anything from a less visible area and repair the front. Dick: Regarding H, we removed that gable peak. Regarding item L we wanted to offer the bldg. to the community and would prefer not to have it. The owner is willing to advertise. If we get approval our intent is to apply for our demolition/excavation permits. If we do not get approval we would like the Board to consider deleting one parking space and us recycling the material that is on the existing shed and building a new small shed in that same location. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Don: The proposal is to build a shed approximately half the size of the existing. Dick: We are required four parking spaces but with the shed will only be able to do three. Roxanne: You only have to provide parking for new bedrooms, existing bedrooms are OK. Dick: It is an existing four bedroom house. Bill: The consensus of the board is to drop one parking space and do a smaller shed. Don: The shed is built on the property line and if the shed roof slopes toward the property line it would be dumping into the neighbors yard. Dick: I could gutter it and snow break it and keep it on our side. We could also pull it off six inches or so from the property line. The zoning regulations on the setbacks, does that require a variance from the HPC. EXCAVATION: Dick: The engineers have looked at the foundation and feel we will not have to do anything to it. He thought it was three feet below finished grade. I don't know how the Bldg. Dept. will react to that. The only other thing relative to the structure is that the first floor joist have probably failed. The 2x6 are just built to the ground. We aren't going to know for sure but we want the project monitor to be aware of that condition. RESTORATION OF ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR Dick: The front door has glass in it and is nailed shut. It looks like it would be easier to build a new door to match but we can restore it. We want a door that will be secure with a weather strip and lock. Bill: The object is to make that building a restored building and our job is to preserve the old buildings to retain the character. The committee will want the door restored. Dick: On the second floor, bedroom #2 there is a roof terrace that opens off the master bedroom and that was one of the modifications as we added a pair of french doors and a dormer above the french doors on the south elevation off the little deck. On the second floor at the alley end of the building there 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 is a little roof terrace that we had opened to the master bedroom off onto two terraces. The owner decided he wanted to be able to come out on the terrace from the bedroom so we added a pair of french doors and did our typical little new dormer with a window in it. He would like to keep the dormer and window and take the doors out. That is what is indicated on the final plan, a pair of french doors with a window above it. Bill: I have no problem as it is on a part of the new structure. MONITOR-LES HOLST Bill: Does anyone have problems with the skylights on the west facing of the original structure. No objection. MOTION: Bill entertained the motion that we grant final development approval and side and rear yard setbacks finding that such variations to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark that would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. A parking variation of one space is also granted to allow for the preservation of a portion of the historic out building. Ail original clapboard shall be retained and cleaned according to approved preservation techniques. West elevation siding shall be carefully removed and stored for reuse on the west elevation where possible and to patch in other sections of the historic building. Front door shall be restored. Applicant submit samples of new materials that are going to be used to the monitor to review. Don made the above motion, second by Glenn with all in favor. WHEELER OPERA HOUSE KIOSK Roxanne: The announcement board is bronze aluminum and is a manufactured product. It is a three panel. Staff is recommending approval with two conditions: All the newspaper racks must be relocated and the announcement board must be a compatible size and fit the wall area on which it is to be mounted. This particular board is two inches over. The manufacturer has been contacted. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Don Swales, representative of the Wheeler Film Society: The society is purchasing the new announcement board. We are still looking for a board with the correct dimensions. We also do not want it hanging out one inch on each side. We could go to two bays but three works out better for everybody since not only the film society but the Wheeler Opera House will use the board indicating what is showing nightly. The center bay would be what is playing daily and on either side would be the upcoming events. Bill: They do have a door that is 72 inches. enough. Is that not wide Don: No. CLARIFICATIONS: Jake: What is the finish? Don: Bronze anodized aluminum. Roxanne: It is a dark finish, wood they felt would be a problem. This company doesn't make an exterior board in wood. It is real simple and plain. Don: The cost for a custom made was doubled. Jake: Does the board relate to any other metal etc. on the building. Roxanne: There is no other bronze aluminum and this does set back. Don: At this point there is nothing like it on the building. It should at least fit in a field. Don: If we have to change the design we would come back to you. MOTION: Don made the motion that the minor development for an exterior announcement board at 328 E. Hyman (wheeler Opera House) be approved with the following conditions: (1) Newsracks be relocated away from the building prior to any installation of the announcement board. (2) Any new announcement board be of a width no greater than 94 inches or less so that it fits within the field or wall area which has been proposed in the development application. When the proper announcement board is located final approval can be granted by Staff. Les second with all in favor. Ramona Markalunas: Is it lighted. ~istoric Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Don: Hidden lighting, which shines through the display. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 232 E. Z~L~TJ~,M - P.H. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting an addition to the new portion of the structure which is also referred to as the Glidden house. In 1986 or so there was a major reconstruction with a new addition to the structure. The applicant is also requesting a FAR variation. We find that the proposed development is compatible in nature and meets standard one. We are not in support of granting the additional floor area because we cannot make the finding that it is more compatible in character. We find that the other standards have generally been met in the application. We are recommending because of the restudy and scale of the addition to almost half, tabling to a date certain in order for the applicant to revise the plan and submit an addition that would not exceed the allowable FAR. I have had considerable contact by the community. This addition is necessary to make a duplex. The concern deals with FAR variation and parking and general impacts. CLARIFICATIONS Glenn: Do you feel the duplex could be accomplished if it was approved within the existing FAR. Roxanne: We don't review duplexes of any kind for use of a structure. I am saying to make a finding that it is more compatible in character to have an addition of the size that they are requiring is not more compatible with the historic structure. Bill: Does this have to go to P&Z. Roxanne: Ord. #1 dealt with duplexing and they do have to mitigate and deal with the Building Dept. The four options are they can either deed restrict both sides of the duplex to resident occupied; deed restrict one side provided that it is a minimum of 1,500 sq. ft.; they can build an accessory dwelling unit within the parcel so that in other words there would be three dwelling units on site; or mitigate the amount of the duplex that is being creating, the square footage of that is calculated at $6.67 per sq. ft. and that is the mitigation payment that is required. Bill: Is a duplex allowed in that zone other than through ordinance. Roxanne: Yes, it is R6. They have the correct square footage and the site to allow for a duplex. They have the ability to Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 build out to their maximum FAR anyway if the HPC finds that area, bulk and massing are compatible with the historic resource. I am recommending that HPC not allow over the maximum allowable because as Staff I cannot make the finding that it is more compatible for the historic resource. Wayne Stryker, architect: The owner does not need as much space as she is asked for. I would like to hear the committees comments on the esthetic nature of the addition. I would like not to see it tabled and deal with the issue at hand. We will come back with virtually identically the same thing but smaller so that it will not be necessary to ask for the extra FAR. It would be useful for the members of the neighborhood to comment on it. Roxanne: Are you OK on parking. Don: You have a long slot that will handle four cars theoretically but you really can only handle one or two cars because the proposed concrete driveway surface is intended to also service automobiles that are required for on-site parking. Roxanne: You can stack park on residential lots. Don: You are allowed to but in reality it doesn't work. Wayne: We could expand but the owner has requested that I keep the paving narrow because she doesn't intend to use it. There is enough site space to accommodate more automobiles. There is more on-site parking in back. Roxanne: That should be included site plan indicating parking be concern of the neighborhood. in the motion that a revised presented. That is a real PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Pat Hodgson, representing neighbors: Janet Elder, Sue and Bill Parzybok, Joan and Bill Light, Pat and Philip Hodgson, Jim Ables, Ferenc and Mirte Berko, Joseph Amato. The consensus of the neighborhood that the conversion to a duplex is not compatible with the historic nature or the history of that building. From around 1948 to 1984 232 E. Hallam was a single family home and the new owner in 1984 proposed and completed restoration and an addition to the building estensibly to preserve the historic nature of the single family residence. The neighbors are opposed to the concept of the duplex as it is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. We are striving to curtail commercial encroachment. If you know the neighborhood we have Historic Preservation Comm%ttee Minutes of July 11, 1990 the Jerome on one side and the Trueman commercial core beneath us and parking is next to impossible and I would be very curious to see where the off street parking spaces would be in the design. In the past the building went beyond what we were told would happen six years ago but the structure off the kitchen was already completed so it could not be red tagged. If the building is rated a 5 what is the opinion of the committee as to either the enhancement or diminishment of the historical quality in nature of the building if the structure is approved. How does that effect the historic rating. Bill: An addition to an historic residence would be judged whether it is compatible or not and therefore would not effect its rating. It will be compatible and we would allow it or it won't be compatible and we wouldn't allow it. Pat Hodgson: We are also concerned about the additional square footage. The building would exceed the FAR. It does set a precedent for larger building in the neighborhood. When the Jerome was built certain promises were made: No commercial unloading on the street during normal hours and that promise has never been kept. Employee parking would be taken care of and that promise has never been kept. Ramona Markalunas: We are encroaching on many of our residential historic buildings with the additions that we place on them. The FAR should be checked. Bill: That would be done through the Bldg. Dept. Mr. Amato, neighbor: My notice stated that they are requesting an FAR variation and has that been taken into consideration. Bill: If we find that the addition and the overage of the FAR to be more compatible in character with the historic landmark. That has yet to be discussed. Mr. Berko: The main concern if the additional footage is allowed, it will make a large duplex and short term rentals and we are trying to see that this area does not have short term rentals. The three buildings will never be occupied by the owmers. Wayne Stryker: It is not the owners intent to gain space to rent. Her desire is to have a larger space for her family. Mr. Berko: Don't you think this present building is big enough for a large family. We are opposite and do not see any family. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Saying that they would not want to rent it doesn't really me that much. Glenn: Provided that we didn't grant a variance how big would the unit be. Wayne: Somewhere between 220 and 271 Sq. ft. Bill: Are you asking for a free market duplex or an affordable housing unit. If it is affordable housing what are the rental restrictions on that. Wayne: I don't know. She would like to be free market. I would think she would pick the cash in lieu. What this owner would like is another bedroom. Bill: But you are asking for a duplex. Wayne: We can't have it because it is not within the FAR. We need the duplex designation to add a bedroom. Roxanne: If it is the concern of the neighborhood that duplexes are not allowed they should go to the Planning office. Glenn: Once a duplex was approved then we would look at it for compatibility. Roxanne: Duplex is allowed because they have enough square footage/land. Their site area is large enough to accommodate a duplex. Rich Head, representative of Board of Adjustment: I have not heard anything here today that would demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty in granting this variation. Bill: Wayne, you could possibly work out with the Building Department extra bedrooms. Les: There area three things going on here, neighborhood, architecture and FAR. I could not grant the FAR. You have an unique opportunity to work with the neighborhood. The damage has already been done on this building. Don: The proposed addition in excess of the FAR does not enhance the historic nature of the building; therefore, I would not allow the variation. Jake: There is not a convincing argument that supports the additional FAR. ~istoric Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Glenn: I agree with the FAR but also would like to add even though I have a problem with the architectural style of all the addition work to the structure it is an example of a kind of an attitude toward an historic building that we do not see allot, that to me is very valid. Bill: I do not find the additional floor area compatible. Because of the neighborhood and the parking situation when you come back with a revised conceptual I would like to see some solutions on helping to mitigate the problems of parking in that area. Any additional bedrooms should be accommodating in parking on site. It is a difficult area. Roxanne: In the revised conceptual I will need the FAR of the new dwelling unit that is being created if in fact that is what is going on and the FAR of the main dwelling unit. MOTION: Don made the motion to grant conceptual development approval for the addition to 232 E. Hallam with the following conditions: (1) The addition not exceed the allowable FAR allowed under the R-6 zone. (2) The height of the addition not exceed in the height of this proposal. (3) Materials, colors and general architectural treatment be consistent with the existing addition. (4) The proposed addition remain within the proposed footprint and not be visible by the street or public ways other than the commercial area to the north east. (5) The onsite parking requirements be met in a manner in which cars not be stacked more than two deep in any place in order to qualify. Glenn second. Pat Hodgson: We urge the Board not to approve but to table in order that a study can be made of mitigation of parking etc. I would invite the committee to come over and study the area and see what the current impacts are. Bill: The applicant has by right the ability to have a duplex without coming before us. You would have to go to City Council to oppose that. We are requiring that they meet the parking. VOTE: Yes, Bill, Glenn, Don, Jake No, Les. Motion carries. Public Hearing Closed. ~istoric Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 204 S. GALENA, THE SPORTS STALKER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Bill stepped down. Don seated as chairman. Public hearing opened. Roxanne: The primary concern of this pre-application which occurred in May focused on massing, materials, storefront and the entire facade. We are recommending a re-study with the goal of breaking up the horizontal elements and appropriating vertical bays into the facade. Brick should be considered as an alternate to clapboard. The east elevation is a significant improvement. We are recommending tabling to allow the applicant time to restudy all the issues that were addressed before. Welton Anderson, architect: My notes indicated a positive reaction from the HPC to this particularly in comparison to what was approved two years ago. The major comment of Roxanne's about breaking it up into vertical bays applies to masonry buildings. If you look at three examples of wood framed buildings that are still left in Aspen, Elli's, Mother Lode or Reid City Bakery; they all have a fairly glassy open bottom floor, horizontal clapboard siding, windows puncturing a plane. That is appropriate for a wood frame structure. Breaking it into bays would be appropriate for a masonry structure, we are not proposing a masonry structure. After the model was built per your request it became obvious that taking the corners off breaks it into smaller vertical masses very effectively. The committees comments and views in general were very positive and very encouraging to continue on in developing this design. There has been a change and an entire floor will be employee housing. There will be no changes on the exterior of the building. I hope that my notes were accurate that in general the pre-application response was good. Roxanne: The three wood buildings in town are not three stories high and half a block long. Welton: Two lots wide. Roxanne: I feel the committee was extremely clear in your pre- application about asking for some articulation to vertical elements to break up the horizontal features of this structure. Don: The model is very helpful. Can we discuss the dark blue area and the articulation between the front plane and the recess. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Welton: I am suggesting that the return at the corners be a black glass or dark blue glass something that would read as a reflective surface rather than a window. The planes that are setback are a different color, different material. In separating the more traditional western facade with the elements that are pushed back that are more contemporary more modern, the connector between the two planes would be something that I would want to be "invisible" or not be a tangible surface. If the committee chooses to let me proceed that way I will have material samples and large prospective scale sketches showing how that fits together. Don: I still find it hard to be a successful solution. The drawings are of a small scale and it is not convincing enough. The whole building is about that recessed element. Glenn: The scale seems appropriate and once things happen in the trim work and the window casements it will be enough relief from the plane of the facade that it won't look like a horizontal building. I share Don's concern about the choice of materials and how the stepbacks are handled. It is a touchy area as in one way we are infringing on your design. There are many buildings around town that change materials as the planes change. This is a very different material then what we have seen around town. When you walk down the street you are going to read that material more than the frontalness of the building. Welton: Over the past three years working on this building I tried curves, stair stepping, going up straight a whole glossary of shape and height to give it a visual break in the long horizontal facade. Personally the gabled peak shape pediment is the most pleasing to me after studying options. Glenn: Part of the problem is that you are not defining clearly what is going on here in a way that leads you to make these decisions that have some power behind them. You are surrounded by massive solid structures. To take the leap of a wooden building which I think is great but then to diminish the power of the wooden building by constructing it in a way that it even looks more too dimensional than it is is defeating the purpose. It has to compete on some level with those other buildings. Don: It looks thin and doesn't have substance. Maybe you don't want that but it is a question as to whether it is appropriate. Welton: The vocabulary of new buildings has become a reiteration and the town needs relief of the brick. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Joe: I do like the entryway and how that breaks up the massing. Whether the see-thru glass is appropriate is hard to conceptualize. I don't like the cutouts in the corner. Being that you already broke the massing up I'm not sure it has to be done in the corners. With the center entryway it breaks it up into two buildings and without the cutout corners it would read more vertical but I know you have been going around on that through the various meetings on the project. Les: I like the wood and the breaking of it up in the center and I'm having trouble with the corners being tucked in. I don't like the round balconies on the back. The basic architecture should stand on its own and you don't need something cute. Harley Baldwin: I'm upset that you would even consider this three story building without considering what that is going to do to views out the windows of other historic buildings nearby, the Brand Bldg., city hall. I was asked to put up story poles to indicate the height. I think they should do the same thing. This will have horrendous effect on the downtown, as it is a solid wall in an area where it is totally unnecessary. They have a big lot in the back where they can put allot of massing on. It is creating a cavern downtown in the street. If there was a way to put the massing in the back, as you don't need parking and if you do put it underground. It is appropriate that this be a two story building. Parking is not something that I think is appropriate on the property. You should not walk along and see cars you should see store front windows. The more we can have contiguous shopping on the street the more interesting the downtown is going to be. I would personally prefer brick on this building. Don: Competition with historic buildings is a concern that I have. When you start using mirrored glass and elements that are stage set elements that definitely are of a foreign architecture lets say, you are competing whether it is two stories or three. We need to think about what kind of competition this building offers to the Elks, Brand etc. Competition can be in terms of architecture and materials also. Sven Alstrom: I believe you are focusing on very narrow issues and to reorganize the commentary of this meeting I would like to go back to the pre-application. I think the recesses could be accomplished with wood frame etc. This property is in the entrance to the higher density commercial core and we have an opportunity here to straighten up what has happened on Hopkins and sign the site in urban context sense as you are admittedly entering a higher density point at this location. The client is putting a lot into this in responding to the community with 13 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 affordable housing and higher density in the commercial core. The mass is inherent in responding to that program. You need to look at the urban design context. We tried not to compete with the historic building through use of similar materials but present a modernist vernacular solution. Roxanne: I am not in favor of parking downtown and feel the two spaces per 1000 feet that is required can be mitigated with cash in lieu, parking underground is an option and this is a particularly sensitive site as it is surrounded by three national registered buildings. Massing, material and fenestration need discussed. Glenn: We have created a situation where we are setting ourselves up for this to happen time and time again where we have a height limit in the downtown area that is becoming arbitrary in a sense that the height limit permits three stories but we turned that down for Guido's and we have issues here whether we should go three stories or not. I would like to work toward an understanding whether we have three stories or not and that would make our job easier. That is fair and you should know what you are dealing with as far as zoning is concerned. Roxanne: The historic overlay district states first and foremost is it compatible in character with the adjacent buildings and within the district. Glenn: When it gets down to the height limit we are in a quagmire. If it is coming down to the question of compatibility I would like to know definitively whether a taller building diminishes the historic value of a smaller historic structure next door. I'm not of that feeling as it happens all over in larger cities. It is different but I'm not sure it makes the character any less. We have created a marking structure and why don't we support it in some way. Jake: In terms of massing I almost think it is pre-mature to discuss architectural treatment as I do feel the massing and the continuation of putting the parking (inner-block) between buildings and turning your back on the existing alley and creating another alley kind of, I can't support that. The alley should be developed as the alley and the streetscape and the building line along the sidewalk should be developed. I do see this building an infill building that can be relatively quiet and supportive of the existing historical landmarks. Some of the concepts that we have in our guidelines, if you take those and work with them in the design there is allot of creative latitude that is still unexplored that could be developed in the new building. 14 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Welton: Do you consider the corner treatments super dramatic as you stated. Jake: Yes. Joe: I would suggest story poles and see the effect it will have on the street. I'm not opposed to clapboard siding. I cannot say if two or three story is appropriate. In some cases three stories can work. I would have to look at it in the context of the neighborhood. I need to get to a comfortable level on the massing before I can get an idea of the windows etc. Les: I don't mind the wood but am looking for (simple), the corners don't work and if I was an architect I would probably sit down with five different renderings and ask for a worksession. What we are doing now is working with something that didn't work to start with. The back doesn't totally work but that can be worked out. Roxanne: There was also discussion of tieing in the storefronts. Don: There has been a consistency in comments to the competition this building may offer to the other built environment whether it is a two story or a three story. At the previous meeting everyone thought the corners cut back would be appropriate. No one has found it a successful resolution. Is the idea to leave the storefront as is. Welton: This is the only one story building downtown. It is inevitable that undeveloped parcels are going to change your traditional views from your windows as time goes buy. Don: There has not been criticism about adding height to your building. The decoration around the windows, is it a residential statement or a commercial statement? Welton: I would suggest that the Board allow me the opportunity to table this until a date certain so that I can come back to the Board with three dimensional perspective drawings of the window treatments and do drawings of the building with the corners cut out and without the corners cut out. I don't feel a full height facade should go up right in the corner. Don: You are recommending tabling for only detail studying. Is everyone happy with the massing and general fenestration placement and the general scheme of the building or are there reservations about that. Welton: I need direction. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Don: Massing, storefront and facade design, materials is basically a complete restudy. Glenn: I don't even know what "family" this building is in right now and how to make decisions about it. We can live with this building in a number of different ways, we just need to pick one that will help everyone. In that way we won't contradict ourselves when he comes back. Sven: The model was just for massing. MOTION: Joe made the motion to table conceptual development approval until August 8th and continue the public hearing until that date and that the applicant put up story poles, restudy the corner cutouts. With the story poles and corner cutout restudy that would constitute restudy of the massing. Les second. DISCUSSION: AMENDED MO~ION: Don made the amended motion to include restudy of the general fabric of the building which means materials, articulation between breaks and plane and the window fenestration detail and the "thinness" of the building. A thin building is curiosity, it doesn't last. Joe second. Glenn: It is my understanding that this motion is approving a three story building or giving you that direction. Les: The amendment really doesn't say that, because we are requesting story poles. Welton: There is a tremendous degree of frustration in this community right now, a feeling of helplessness. I am concerned that you should be able to visualize through drawings, model, height of this here, without going up and constructing poles that are going to go up the same height of the Brand Bldg. and I'm afraid prejudice, people walking by saying what is this up here and forcing you into the position where you can't really say well the code allows them to go up that high. It will create a furor in the community right or wrong, comment will be made it is going to be another big building, lets kill this thing right now and in fact what will be killed will be 8 affordable housing units, 5 of which will be two bedrooms, three which will be one bedroom. Harley: If we have to do story poles for historic buildings why not do it for new buildings. Maybe this is not the appropriate place to maximize density on this site. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Don: We asked for a massing model and I don't think this model qualifies. If I were producing it I would make a model perhaps half or a third that size, show it in context and not try to show windows and other elements. Do a white model that really shows massing in relationship to the other buildings around it. This is asking for more work but we have an expensive site and an expensive building. This is a critical corner. I find that the materials presented are inadequate to make reason judgement with sketchy drawings and a model. I wish it were all white and the Brand and Elks bldg. were presented in mass form. You could catch your site lines. I don't think the story poles are what we are talking about we are talking about massing of this building and the only way to determine what the massing is, is to place it in context as you would in any kind of urban design situation. Jake: I would like to see a motion to reflect that and get that kind of model. Glenn: As a community I would like to see a model made of the entire area and as clients come in they can place their model into their particular site. A model of the core. Sven: The client is trying to contribute to the community and further develop his property. We are trying to do that and meet all the HPC guidelines and present a successful solution. Welton: Can they be relatively flat square bldgs, without the dormers. Don: Pediments perhaps. As long as you can get your detail across. Les: On Guido's story poles played a important part. Welton: That was on a legislative view plane, this is not in any view plan at all. Don: The view plane will be very visible with the Elks Building and City Hall next to it. Jake: Why don't we try a massing model first and if that doesn't work go to story poles. Joe: I agree. AMENDED MOTION: poles and do a second. Don made the amended motion to eliminate story monochromatic contextual massing model. Les Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Jake: I would like to see something done with the parking. Welton: It is valuable space to the owner as parking. Harley: This is a great way to fill up the city parking garage. Roxanne: If the committee feels that a restudy of the parking space should be included that is appropriate. AMENDED MOTION: Jake made the amended motion that the applicant consider study options in terms of getting rid of the parking to provide open space or something like that. Joe second. All approved of motion and amended motions. Glenn: The intent is not to kill the project. 1004 E. DURANT - INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION Roxanne: The contractor has determined due to its proximity to adjacent buildings that it is extremely difficult to get in and stabilize the structure right. They have found that it will be much easier to relocate it. I have talked to the owner of the 0'block parcel two blocks down the street who is allowing the structure to sit there temporary for storage. I have talked to the City Attorney to find out what we needed to do in the way of bond or whatever. He finds that our provisions in the Landuse Code that deal with general maintenance requirements cover everything. The applicant has stated to me today that he would like five weeks. If the applicant needs an extension we are recommending that he make application to the Planning Office stating good reason for the extension and that the historic structure be protected against damage while located on the O'block parcel. Roxanne: is OK. We need a letter from Howard Bass that states that it Welton: Lets call it six weeks maximum. I can supply you the agreement between Howard Bass and the client for the City's files. Roxanne: That would be appropriate. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant insubstantial modification for 1004 E. Durant, a temporary relocation for the cottage to the O'block property for a period of six weeks and at the end of six weeks if the cottage is not relocated to the original location the applicant shall request an extension if he desires through the Planning Office and show good cause for extension for up to 18 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 one week. Also provide the legal agreement between the applicant and Mr. Bass. Les second with all in favor. Glenn: During that period will be have review over the foundation as to how the building sits on the foundation relative to the natural grade. Roxanne: That has been approved through final and they have vested their rights. Jake is monitor of project. PRE-APPLICATION 1006 E. COOPER Roxanne: The applicant has stated that she feels the value of the land as cleared land is higher without the historic resources on it. I explained that a number of alternative exist for her to explore with you. She has not submitted a demolition application. The miners cottages are historic and on the inventory and represent the character of the working class. The parcel is non-conforming in size and there are encroachments. I am recommending that we discuss some alternatives to demolition. Roxanne: HPC does not have the ability to grant a demolition just for clearing land, there has to be a reason why this structure has to be demolished. The re-development has to be reviewed at the same time that standards are reviewed for a demolition of historic structures. J.C. Rigsby: The original was get rid of it and was rated the very lowest. Roxanne: I believe a three rating but I can check that. J.C. Rigsby: It has aluminum siding. The out building encroaches on the alley and the house encroaches on the lot next to it. The lot is 40 feet, 4,000 sq. ft. parcel. The Bldg. Dept. said where it sits you can't do it. I drew up six different sets of plans to get through the Bldg. Dept. and they kept saying no. My house sits at an angle. Now I need a new roof and the roofer says I am stupid to put any money in the roof because of the numerous additions the new roof will have the same problems as the house has now. There are allot of drainage problems. I can't keep it rented because there are too many maintenance problems on it. Joe: Possibly remove the additions and then you have something to work with and possible we could do a finding on moving the house on the lot and eliminate the sideyard problem etc. I would 19 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 like to see that explored, is there someway to expose only the valuable and incorporate it in a re-development on the property. J.C. Rigsby: You are saying get a structural engineer but I don't have that kind of money. Joe: I am sympathetic can't make a decision. or partial demolition. but without seeing that kind of stuff we It may be appropriate to do a demolition Jake: There is no reason it should cost more than $200. for the evaluation. Don: The options may be to use whatever grant money is available to retain on site that portion of the building complex that is the starting point for somebody else to add onto. Then someone else can get the other benefits that we can offer which are FAR, setbacks, parking variations etc. Les: I have been in the house and we cannot let money be a criteria. I evaluate it as structurally sound, can be rehabilitated and can be moved. J.C. Rigsby: If this is moved you will loose every single tree. Les: The value in this property is basically scale and texture. Your need is to sell this house for as much money as you can and our need is to retain the scale and texture of this house on site. The only solution I see, is you get from us a direction that we would let that house take aside from demolition. What we have here is a house that is designated, victorian scale and texture. Buying this house you are going to get all sorts of FAR. Streetscape on the highway is what we are worried about. By doing this we have a compromise. Build a structure on the back. Glenn: Is there a way that we could review what happens on the lot if it is demolished. Roxanne: Ord. 17. Les: But it has to be simultaneous. They can't get a demolition permit unit we review the project. Broker: Could we deed restrict it to victorian. Roxanne: Part of the standards for demolition it includes the redevelopment. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Glenn: There is a certain amount of hardship. Roxanne: If that is in fact what is going on the applicant would have to go to City Council and ask direction. Glenn: What we want there is something that has a small scale on the street and is allowed to go up to a larger scale in the back. How do we get that. Historic preservation doesn't mean that everything single thing stays. Roxanne: That is why we allow partial demolitions and re- development. I disagree. Joe: The only way that I have ever seen that it is going to work is you offer the person who is your buyer an adequate period of time to come in and go through the HPC process before they close on the house. Then they can get their comfort level on what they can get approved on the property and then you can justify your cost of $150. per square foot. J.C. Rigsby: Am I to take the house off the market and let it sit there and then have them come along and say that they aren't going to deal with that and walk away. Broker: I deal with buyers like that also but the problem is they usually see something that has charm and character. This house is bad. J.C. Rigsby: It was my understanding that you would have seen this house by now. Glenn: It doesn't matter if we have seen it or not as it can't be any worse than Ellen Kuper's house. Your needs would best be served if we got together and talked about your problem and get clear about where our options are. J.C. Rigsby: I feel like I am penalized, I lived in this house and it is clean and neat but the sliding glass doors are collapsing, the windows won't open and there is no foundation. Less walks around and says this is a wonderful place. Yes cosmetically but that is all. Everything is falling down. Les: We need to get you everything that is available. Broker: That is fine but what is there is unhabitable and structurally unsound, there is nothing there. Joe: Show us that it is not structurally sound and then we might consider demolition. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 Jake: We can't give a demo permit without a re-development plan. J.C. Rigsby: What you are saying is that I have to do a re- development plan. You are saying that I have to decide what that buyer wants to build. Roxanne: Joe's suggestion should be followed. Broker: There are two things wrong with that; the only way someone would buy something like that is to get a deal, it is going to cost somebody 20 to 30 grand to sit around and draw plans etc. Roxanne: We have a landuse code that we have to go by. You have every option to go to City Council and discuss this with them. I recommend you do that. Glenn: You go to an architect with the problem and possibly he will say I will draw up the plans for a percentage of the profit when it sells. You do the re-development plan and you make the 25, or 350 thousand dollars. J.C. Rigsby: What do you do with these redevelopment plans I draw up. You know when you build a house for someone by the time it is built you have changed half the house. Jake: That is OK because you have secured your vested rights. Glenn: You do the re-development and then sell the entire package to someone. MOTION: Glenn made the motion to adjourn, second by Les with all in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Deputy City Clerk Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 11, 1990 FINAL DEVELOPMENT: 215 W. HALLAM. WHEELER OPERA HOUSE KIOSK CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - 232 E. HALLAM - P.H. 204 S. GALENA, THE SPORTS STALKER - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT . 1004 E. DURANT - INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION PRE-APPLICATION 1006 E. COOPER 2 4 6 11 18 19