Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19900124HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor Meeting Room City Hall January 24, 1990 Meeting was called to order by Charles Cunniffe with Don Erdman, Joe Krabacher, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport present. Bill Poss, Georgeann Waggaman and Chris Darakas were excused. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: Worksession with CCLC regarding Streetscape Guidelines Feb. 28th 4:30 p.m. Roxanne: Site visit 200 E. Main February 14th at 4:00 p.m. 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE-FINAL DEVELOPMENT Charles Cunniffe chaired the meeting. Roxanne: Staff is recommending final development with conditions as stated in the records (memo dated January 24, 1990). There was also discussion about changing the windows and the front porch. The changes that the sub-committee proposed improve the design. Joe Dunn: Regarding the bay windows, that was connected and it was an improvement. The dormer window was shortened and lengthened. The only issue remaining is the porch and cover for the porch. Photograph was presented to the Board of the porch. Joe Dunn: I shortened the porch so that it stops at the windows. We are leaving the landscaping as is because the EPA may come in within the next two summers so I don't intend to do anything. There are a few spruce trees and a couple of aspens. Charles: We need information that is accurate. Joe Dunn: I will put the info on a plot plan. Don: I feel it appropriate to wrap the porch around the corner to give it a more three dimensional quality. The other dormer is close to the corner so it would be appropriate to run it to that. I also feel the front porch on the front facade is run too far and has a strange relationship with the other vertical elements. I would recommend the front porch be run around on the side but the front porch be shortened by approximately two feet or more so that it comes to the end of the window. Joe Dunn: The porch post will be simple. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 24, 1990 Don: The recommendation on the turn post was not to produce a turn post that is totally a victorian reproduction but something simple. Charles: Open conditions can be approved by Staff and Monitor. Charles: What would the front door look like. Joe Dunn: Raised panel/hardwood door with the top glass. Roxanne: We will need a detail of the door and a detail of a less simplified porch. Charles: in order to one. Possible a divide is needed on the second floor window for it to appear like two victorian windows as opposed Roxanne: I have concern of the fascia/trim detail. Joe Dunn: There is a fascia board with a molding piece. Don: It is so close to the edge of roofing that the edge of the roofing is going to form a shadow line and this piece of material is not and we might want something that projects further down such as an additional piece 1 by 4 then molding. The scale needs broken down with a element that creates a shadow. Charles: layering. To basically add another piece of wood and produce a MOTION: Don made the motion that final development approval be granted for the redevelopment proposal of 940 Matchless Drive with the following conditions to be approved by Staff and Project Monitor prior to issuance of CO. 1) Reduction in length of the front porch by plus or minus 3 feet. The front porch wrap around the west elevation to meet the west bay. 2) The facade dormer window to receive a vertical mullion. 3) That a 1 by 4 trim be added to the fascia detail to make a composite similar to the one presented by the Applicant. The cove mold be applied outside of the 1 by 4 trim. It would be a three piece fascia- lxS, lx4, and molding. 4) Porch rail baluster and porch columns be simplified and built up from square rather than turned. Defined detail or photo of entrance door to be presented. 5) A site plan be supplied showing boundaries and existing vegetation. Glenn second. All approved. 2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 24, 1990 127 E. ~z~I~_T3.A_.%~ STREET Roxanne: Conceptual development approval was granted the 25th of Oct. subject to the conditions and that the entire scale be reduced. The project includes the on-site relocation of the historic cottage, partial demolition of two non-historic features a back porch covering and a side porch covering. Restoration of the cottage and complete excavation underneath and new foundation. They are requesting variations of side yard, rear yard and a parking variation. They are requesting a large light well in the front and one in back. Staff is recommending approval with the exception of the below grade light well of the northwest corner of the main house. We are recommending a re- study of that light well. A performance guarantee needs to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Andy Wisnosky, architect: We are trying not to have rails around the lightwells. We are also submitting at this meeting our landscaping plan. Design workshop did the landscaping plan which would include an low iron fence in the front yard. The front yard is simple with ground cover on one side and a flowering ground cover up the front walk. The back yard is lawn with a garden space. The landscaping will be the buffer between the street. Roxanne: Restoration of the cottage should be monitored closely. Charles: The only item they are requesting is the lightwell. The Board is comfortable with moving the house. Andy: We will try to lift up the house and work the excavation underneath the house. Roxanne: That should be a condition of approval. Les: The Hallet house has a full photographic study of the process which you could review. We also need to measure and photograph the house as it sits now in case something happens to the house. Roxanne: Two photographs of each elevation would be appropriate. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval and variations for the rear and side yard setbacks and one parking space on the finding that it is more compatible with the historic character for 127 E. Hallam. Also subject to the conditions that Staff approves a performance guarantee letter Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 24, 1990 that will be executed and submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant will document the current house by measuring and photographing as appropriate. The applicant will provide a detailed plan for the support of the house during excavation of the basement and foundation. Don second. All approved. Motion carries. Discussion: Charles: Any comments from the Board on the elevations. Don: On the north and east elevation there seems to be a radical jump in scale between the first and second floors. Charles: We are concerned that the cottage does not outdo the main house. Andy: We had discussed the trim work and decided that there should be some due to the "garden building theme of the building". I do not feel that we over did it. The trim detail works with the lattice work and reinforced the garden image we are creating. Joe will be project monitor. 624 E. HOPKINS DEMOLITIONAND REDEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR APPROV/~LOF~-ESTED RIGHTS Charles stepped down. Joe chaired meeting. Roxanne: Regarding vested rights the applicant is always the property owner. The property owner has authorized the Altfelds (prospective buyers) to act as representative. The Altfelds have requested that we prepare a resolution to vest rights. Vested rights run with the land. The HPC has the ability to vest rights on a Final Development approval only at a public hearing. In this approval I am recommending that HPC authorize a resolution be drafted and completed and be brought back to you on February 14th at a public hearing. The reason for vested rights is to protect the project from code amendments for 3 years. Roxanne: The Planning Office is recommending approval for demolition and redevelopment with conditions as stated in records (memo dated Jan. 24, 1990). Mr. Altfeld: We really impose the five month delay and want to get into the ground in April. Our contractors tell us prices are 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 24, 1990 rising and materials on a monthly basis and that is a consideration for us. We want to proceed as soon as the better weather comes and there is an interest carry financially and Mrs. Kuper (owner) has found a place. We will happily give you until April not July. Richard Kline, architect: We can get a excavation/foundation permit within two or three weeks after we submit plans so we are looking at three months. Les: The reality is nothing will occur until April 15th. Mrs. Kuper: I found a condo but if we have to wait five months I'll loose it. Glenn: I'm in favor of moving the process as quickly as possible. Les: Ail we are saying if we find a place for it and it feet April 1st and we can't move it we would like you to will wait a few days until the snow melts. snows 4 say you Mr. Altfeld: Why should we pay to have the house moved. Roxanne: The Historic Trust has developed a program in which you would donate the value of the cottage and the historic trust could grant a tax deduction for the value of that so basically there is no money out and we would help you relocate the cottage. For the paying of the relocation you are giving the charitable trust a donation in turn for a tax reduction. Don: In terms of relocation I am in and extensive engineering reports have put any undo pressure on the applicant. favor but also realistic been made. I would not Mrs. Altfeld: Presented material samples. The exterior would be mission gray with a sandstone trim and windows in puddy. The roof would be the same color as the trim in the windows and would have a standing rib seam. I chose this material instead of stucco as stucco looks more european. We have no specific fence design but it would be similar to the Amato house. There would be garden low lighting. Don: The monitor should review the materials on site in comparison with the actual colors in daylight of the materials of the two adjoining buildings. The brick that the applicant has recommended has a range and I would like to see the extremes of that range. The mortar represented is q~ite appropriate to the type of brick and type of metal clad windows. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of January 24, 1990 Roxanne: What about the fencing. Mrs. Altfeld: The fencing will be metal and painted to match the balcony railing. Glenn: The direction the design is going is positive to me. Mrs. Altfeld: The comment Glenn made at the last meeting about the house looking like it was in a high crime district haunted me and it occurred to me that you were saying the entrance was not inviting and we did a few things to make the entrance inviting. Les: Compromise is important and I feel this will be a good design. MOTION: Les made the motion that HPC grant final development approval for demolition and redevelopment of the proposal at 624 E. Hopkins Street with the following conditions: 1) The applicant and the Planning Office work as closely as possible for a possible relocation before demolition proceeds. 2) That the HPC direct Staff to prepare a resolution vesting rights which shall be executed at a noticed public hearing on Feb. 14th. Don second. AMENDED MOTION: Don made the amended motion that materials representing brick siding, clad windows, sandstone trim, metal roofing, mortar, rail as presented to committee are approved however final decisions regarding "fine tuning" of these materials and colors will be made on site with the Project Monitor present. Such decision shall also include the review of proposed paint for metal railing and or other trim. Les second. All approved. Motion carries. Richard: We can arrange a palate of colors for on site. Mr. Altfeld: We will have the palate colors arranged before we order any materials. Don: A suggestion of a 12 square feet wall would be appropriate for the site visit. Glenn project monitor. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 6