Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19891129Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 620 W. BLEEKER STREET MINOR DEVELOPMENT - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN SPORTSTALKER - 204 $. GALENA - FINAL DEVELOPMENT SECOND FLOOR . 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING . 17 QUEEN STREET - RELOCATION & CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT LANDMARK DESIGNATION 17 QUEEN STREET. WEBER BLOCK-NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION - PUBLIC HEARING ELKS BUILDING 2 4 7 9 9 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES Second Floor city Hall November 29, 1989 Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman, Leslie Holst and Glenn Rappaport present. Charles Cunniffe was excused. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of Nov. 1, 1989. Second by Joe Krabacher. Motion carries. 620 W. BLEEKER STREET MOTION: Don made the motion to continue the public hearing and significant development of 620 W. Bleeker until the Dec. 13th meeting. Georgeann second. All approved. MINOR DEVELOPMENT - KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN Roxanne: The applicant has submitted a good plan that meets the criteria the HPC had requested: Reduction by 40% and sampling of the lettering. Scott Crow, representative for Kentucky Fried Chicken: The actual shape of the lettering is a trade mark. As per the HPC request we have formulated a 36% to 39% reduction. The face of the letter will be three inches out. There is already a three foot parapet there to hide the mechanical. Regarding the lighting we are going to look at two fixtures that will come off the parapet. It will provide for continuous illumination. Don: There is a lot of concerns: Is it incandescent etc. There is a lot of extended lighting throughout town such as the Hotel Jerome that we are concerned with. Bill: You might look at the Pitkin Center which has a 2 3/4 inche of a continuous bar with an incandescent light and it lights the bronze letters. Don: We were assuming that the letters had built in illumination that would shine backward into the wall. Scott: We had intended to do that originally. Don: out. We wouldn't want to see lighting on the building shining Scott: Mounted from the roof or parapet and drill sideways in the parapet. MOTION: Don made the motion that the signage proposal for Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise be approved as presented. The Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 signage lighting be consistent with the lighting on the Pitkin Center Building and be supported with a three wall feed rather than over the wall. Chris second. Ail approved. SPORTSTALKER - 204 S. GBTmNA - FINAL DEVELOPMENT SECOND FLOOR Roxanne: At the pre-application meeting it was determined that a second floor that related directly to the footprint of the existing building was appropriate. I understand now that the existing building does encroach on the City right-a-way approximately a foot. The rooftop skylight has been studied and the applicant claims they are hidden but I would recommend that you consider the visual impact from Galena Street. It is designed to be a transparent space for southern light and views for the free market dwelling unit on the second floor. There is also a roof deck 4'10" below the top of the parapet. The east elevation has been restudied. We still have concerns about the gable parapets in relation to the adjacent landmarks and the visibility of the skylight and roof top access. We are recommending Final Development approval subject to conditions as recommended in memo dated Nov. 29, 1989 (see records). Welton Anderson, architect: The conditions generally I have no problem with. This is an infill building and we are providing four employee housing units with one free market unit. With new construction we should be given a little more latitude to be more creative with roof structures then you would with an historic building. The skylight element is tucked behind the parapet of the west elevation. There will not be a lot of activity visible from the street. With regard to the walking deck we can make sure it is not larger then what is shown on the plan. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Don: The commercial core area is going in the direction of the masonry realm/stucco. I question whether the wood sided structure is appropriate for the addition. This is a second story addition to an existing structure that was built in the 40's and that structure did not have a lot of architectural character. Chris: The building looks top heavy to me. We should not allow this building to have a roof deck. Georgeann: I was in favor of a roof deck for the Collins Block and I am in favor of people utilizing the roof deck on this building. Only the free market unit is utilizing that deck. I have concern about the glare from the mountain top on skylights but in this particular case the mountain view is obscured by the Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 Elks Building. Height wise Chris had a good point, possibly the windows on the second floor are taller than the first floor and perhaps the windows on the second floor could be scaled down and the proportions kept the same narrowness and the windows on the second floor were no higher than those on the first floor then the parapet could slip down in a subtle variation which would keep the top heaviness from happening. I'm not unhappy with the wooden building and I like a few buildings that aren't built to last the ages, the change of materials and feeling as you walk by. I don't mind the glass canopy/storage unit but keep the colors subtle. The skylight behind the gable should be set back so that the gable reads like the others and it becomes a separate feature behind it. Glenn: I would like the glass canopy blending into the building mass. I like the abstract western style and the fact that it incorporates housing. Roof decks add a human element to downtown. Joe: No problem with roof deck. Possibly simplifying the windows somewhat. Agree on encroachment permit. Les: My only concern is the massing over the door. elements over the upper level windows bother me. The two Bill: Agree to strengthen the cornice. No problem to access the roof deck. In the future we need to discuss how we deal with the perception of roof decks. Color of glass canopy should blend. In support of encroachment. One concern is whether we want to continue the pediment on the top which would then lower the roof down a little. Also whether the glass should be carried over the top like an atrium as opposed to a shape that was more linear and then have the pella window system built into it. Georgeann: Somehow I want the pediment end to read and the back a secondary issue. Bill: Welton wants further comment on the projection of the pediment type structure over the main entry on Galena Street. Don: I would prefer it flush as opposed to an 8 inch projection. We need to see this in three dimensions. Georgeann: The canopies and awnings that are on the first floor don't read in the elevations which make it look top heavy. I like the 8 inches. Joe: I would rather not have my eye drawn to the second floor and by making it flush it would be less noticeable. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 Glenn: I would like to see a massing model. Georgeann: After hearing Joe's comments I also feel you would not be drawn to the projection if it was flush. Bill: I would also like to see it flat and more subdued. Georgeann: What about having the parapet read up into the gable end and the atrium be back and separate form it. MOTION: Bill made the motion to approve the final development proposal for 204 S. Galena subject to the following conditions to be approved by Staff and Project Monitor: 1) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) That the applicant architecturally strengthen the cornice or cap at the top of the parapet. Provide more landscaping at the northeast corner bottom stair landing to screen the parking lot. All exterior wood materials shall be painted or finished to be similar with the existing materials That the gable ends on Galena Street and Hopkins Street be resolved between the applicant and the monitor to be reported back to the committee. Restudy of the glass structure that will run along the roof from Galena Street to the alley. Have more subdued colors on the metal for the stair railings and the glass canopy on the rear of the building. The Board is in support of a one foot encroachment into the City property for the upper story. Study of rooftop with monitor and staff. Georgeann second. VOTE: Yes, Bill, Joe, Don, Les, Glenn. VOTE: No, Chris, Georgeann. Motion carries. Don: I would like to see a railing put on the roof deck. Bill Poss will be the monitor on the project. 940 MATCHLESS DRIVE - CONCEPTUAL REDEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing opened. Roxanne: The applicant has mailed out the public hearing notices. The sub-committee met and alternatives were discussed (see attached memo dated Nov. 29, 1989). The alternatives should be discussed as to whether they mitigate the impacts. Staff is 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 recommending approval with conditions and direction should be given to the applicant as to what they want for final review. Joe Dunn, owner: In general be done. The only problem I the dormer. the sub-committee alternative can had was the double hung window in John Kelly: I feel in general the proposal are acceptable. Whatever we need to do to get them in an architectural form I don't think is a problem. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Bill: The sub-committee viewed the site and we worked on the issues that could be viewed from the street. The applicant and the committee worked these issues out. There was a hour glass on the bay window and we thought by making it one vertical element it would be more compatible with the structures next to it which had bay windows and Eastlake windows. Roxanne: Letter from Mr. and Mrs. William Peterson entered into the record as objecting to size and scale (adjacent property owners). Joe: I had talked to the Petersons at one point and they had no objection. Les: I would like to talk to them also before making a decision. Georgeann: I am curious as to why the porch was taken off. It looks like a huge space and the windows are so small. Don: Joe had framed in the roof for the porch and it carried around one whole side and there was a strong horizontal element and it was determined that it would be best stated as a series of vertical accents rather than one strong horizontal so we suggested having the porch but reduce the size and make a gable ended element over the entry itself. Lennie Oates: Everybody knew by contract what could occur on those lots, the absolute footprint. Joe: It was 3800 ft. but when we split the lot we agreed to keep it at 2500. John Kelly: Every person in the subdivision including Peterson and Haas agreed that the property would be in effect down zoned 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 from 15 to R-6. They also agreed that there would be 2500 sq. ft. maximum voluntary FAR. Everyone approved that. Glenn: I need good drawing etc. to react and photographs. Joe Kelly: If the parameters in the report from Staff are what you want we need to know that and then we will discuss it with an architect. Don: We are asking for one elevation, detailed photographs, tracing over the photograph to show precisely what you are going to do. This gives us no more idea then what we had the last time we had a meeting on this. We are no where. The problem is inadequate materials. John Kelly: We have a valid building permit to build the thing and we are here voluntarily trying to work this out. Bill: Does the Board agree or disagree with the sub-committee report. Joe: As far as the bay windows go and the removal of the porch with an gable over the door you need to see a detailed drawing of it. Bill: How you are going to build that out. materials, sizes of windows etc. Representation of Les: Ultimately I will go along with what the sub-committee recommended. Bill: (6) To obtain a two story victorian element with a gambrel addition on the back. Georgeann: I would like to add (7) recommendation that some sort of element be added on the outside to give a more vertical element to the three windows (first floor) adjacent to the east, preferably windows with flower boxes or something. MOTION: Don made the motion that conceptual redevelopment plan for 940 Matchless drive be approved with the following conditions to be met at final development: 1) Plans be professionally drawn to scale of not less of not less than a 1/4 inch to the foot with all details and materials called out. 2) Shall submit detailed drawing of the front porch including columns, stoop, door and materials. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of November 29, 1989 Les: On important buildings you need more than one monitor. Les: We need a list of who is monitoring what projects. Roxanne: That will be handed out at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned 8:15 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 10