Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890628HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall June 28, 1989 - 5:00 p.m. Meeting was called to order by vice-chairman Nick Pasquarella with Charlie Knight, Charles Cunniffe and Joe Krabacher present. Georgeann Waggaman, Zoe Compton, Chris Darakis, Don Erdman and Bill Poss were excused. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to approve the minutes of June 14, 1989. Joe second. All approved. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to table 432 W. Francis to a point in the meeting where we have a quorum as Charles must step down. Joe second. All approved. COMMI'i'i'EE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: Main Street study comments will be in a memo form for the next packet. The meeting of July 12th will start at 3:00 p.m. instead at 5:00. I will be gone from the 13th through the 23rd. 315 E. MAIN STREET - FENCE AND SIGN Roxanne: This building will be Jill's Carpets and Alpine Construction Company. They have to go through landmark designation to become legal since they are changing the use of the structure. The application is for an historic wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the structure and along the front sidewalk. A gate is also proposed. The gate is about 5 ft. high. Also, they are requesting approval for a sign. I find that the fence is appropriate but the gate is not. We have found that along the pedestrian corridor in the Main St. District that it would be more appropriate to have a gate the height of the fence. It is a very residential gate. Don Westerlind: We want to install the fence so people don't walk all over the lawn on their way to the Miners Bldg. parking which is in the rear. Between our building and the Miners bldg. we are leaving a 4 to 6 ft. opening and wrapping the fence back so people will walk on the brick. Charlie: There is a corridor of gravel with railroad ties that was never presented to us between the two victorians. Your proposal is just for fencing the one house. Roxanne: It would be more appropriate if the application could be consistent between the both properties. Nick: I feel the fence should carry on over to the second victorian to provide continuity. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Don Westerlind: It used to have a picket fence. The sign is 10 sq. feet on the building. Our fence is a little different than the ARA fence which has alternating spears. If there is any fence left over it will be used on the building next door. Charlie: The Miner's bldg. is on the property line. Don Westerline: The sign is according to code but Bill Drueding, Zoning official has not approved it. It is 2 1/2 by 4 feet which fits along side of the bay window. Charlie: building. I don't feel it is appropriate having the sign on the Nick: It desecrates the building. Charlie: There is no landscape plan, no maintenance schedule and the building is dilapidated. The landlord should provide some type of plan before anything is done. The gravel walkway is inappropriate. You have two gravel walkways coming between this building totally eliminating any kind of integrity or elements about the building. Roxanne: Possibly a flagstone walkway would be appropriate. Charlie: My inclination, the walkway that goes between the Miners building and the small building, if it were fenced off and just a corridor to the Miners Bldg. from that parking area it would be more appropriate. Don: The corridor between our bldg. and the miners building is two feet. Roxanne: The need to have the gravel walkway between the two victorians is to provide for access to Main Street from the parking lot. Charlie: The Miners building considers it their parking lot. Roxanne: The concern i~ the gravel walkway that extends through the houses and the front yards. Charlie: We have three great little houses and they should be treated individually and addressed from Main Street. I don't think the walkway between them is appropriate. Nick: He tore down the barn and then came in and apologized and 2 HISTORIC PI~ESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 then all of a sudden a parking lot appeared. make passageways between the cabins. Now he wants to Charlie: I think Don's°fencing ideas are fine but they need to be incorporated with a landscaping plan. Don: We are renting the building and painting it. We are putting a fence in and plantings. Roxanne: We have the minimum maintenance provisions in Ord #7 that require the structural stabilization of any properties. These two buildings are subject to those provisions. Joe: The direction would be a plan for both buildings and how the access to the alley will work. Also how they correlate with the Main Street and ARA building. Roxanne: Carl Bergman is on the agenda for the 12th of July for designation. We could deal with both buildings at that time. Charlie: I feel the placement of the sign The landlord, applicant and this board should discuss the problems that are on this property. is inappropriate. get together and Charles: Those buildings are owned by Carl Bergman, president of the Historical Society and maintenance on the buildings should have occurred before this. Joe: I would like to see an integrated plan. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to deny the application for 315 E. Main Street. Joe second. All approved. The applicant should reapply and bring back the following: 1. Site plan where fencing is located. 2. Drawing of fencing or photographs. 3. Drawing of Gate posts and drawing of gate. 4. Maintenance schedule. 5. A joint application of both buildings. 5. History of the gravel walkway and whether property that Don is renting. it is on the Nick: Carl Bergman is a responsible person in the community and he is very strong on historical preservation and I am sure he will be aware of our concern as to what is going to happen to those buildings. 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Charlie: It would be appropriate to have the fence on the old property line. 413 E. HYMAN, REIDE'S CITY BAKERY Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records (memo dated June 28, 1989). Roxanne: Conceptual Development was approved subject to conditions. Upon our review we have found that a number of the conditions have not been met and we are recommending denial. The motion was made that if the roof top addition could not be seen from directly across the street at a view point of 5'6" high that it would be appropriate. I stated at that time that it was not appropriate as it was still seen at an angle from the mall. The state architect agrees that it is visible and it does need to be reduced in height and pulled back considerably in order to be approved for a tax project. Condition #2 The demolition plan only leaves a facade to preserve and that is not historic preservation. Condition #3 was the rear glass, that it not be slanted and the final application does not address that. Condition #4 was on materials and we are recommending stucco which was the applicants first selection. Condition #5 was the performance guarantee which needs to be submitted. I had talked to Georgeann Waggaman and her concern was that any addition put on any part of the original historic building she would not approve. The state architect has concerns with an addition to a one story commercial building and the visual perceptions of that. Bill Poss stated that he is not opposed to a second floor addition but he feels it needs to be stepped back and reduced in height. APPLICANT RESPONSE Mrs. Angie Griffith, owner of property on 411 E. Hyman. When the roof was originally put on it was a gabled roof and then later on a roof was put on to catch water etc. and it leaked over onto our roof and we kept replacing roofs due to leaks and drainage. I don't want any other roof problems and that building is attached to my building. They called it a temporary roof. Charlie: Where does your roof drain. Angie: To the back of the building. Welton Anderson, architect: We intend to have the drainage to the center into a dry well. 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Welton: Condition #1 was that the addition not be visible from directly across the mall and it was reduced a foot and is not visible. It may be visible from the Wheeler or Popcorn wagon but the westerly portion of the mall was not considered by the Committee at that time to be important for two reasons: When you get to the west you begin to disassociate the story poles from what is happening down below. It becomes difficult to tell which penthouse is on what building. The second is the possibility of development to the west, adjacent structure. I feel this condition has been met. Discussion of view planes. Charlie: The first 50 feet are original on the structure. If the addition is going to be behind the old building and still stair step up it probably will remain visible from down the street. Welton: We have reduced the second step up by two feet to lessen the impact from the west. Welton: Condition #2 The west and east walls are exposed to air and moisture and are 3 inches from the adjacent property. We could dismantle the walls and dig new foundations and reassemble the walls and treat them with a finish. That will allow us to get at the 3 inch space between the buildings and repair the siding. Roxanne: My concern is if it is disassembled will it ever go back up. Charlie: It's a tough call. You are going to tear off a roof and probably will not go back to a gabled roof due to drainage and you will probably find no studs under the walls and will have to replace half the clapboard. Then you have to bear the expense of putting the walls back together and cladding them, put a gabled roof on and a flat roof over top of it. W~lton: Possibly leave the facade and replace everything from there back. Charles: It was built as a facade with an enclosure behind it. Welton: Our first proposal was to leave the first 21 feet as it is and with new construction address the problem. Charlie: The applicant wants to have the second addition forward. We have to decide where the addition should go. 5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Charles: From a construction point of view it makes sense to replace everything behind the facade. The building code will require that there be a 1 hr. party wall at the property line so you will not see anything. Joe: What does the Dept. of Interior Standards address. Welton: They talk about significant historical, architectural or cultural materials. These walls have not been significant since 1949. Roxanne: You also have to consider that facades are not listed on the national register. We need to try and save the original materials. Nick: We should be concerned about preserving the facade in the front. The addition should not be visible from anywhere. Joe: I would like to see as much of the original structure preserved. Charles: A good compromise would be to keep as much as possible of the original front and change everything behind it. Do a site review when it is opened up and then do a final determination. Charlie: My feeling is we have 50 feet of an old building that we should try to save and the addition should go on behind it and if the hardship becomes too critical after an inspection then we should consider whether or not it should be demolished. Welton: Condition #3 was glare on the window and that it be reduced. Applicant presented the Board with the sun's angles during the year and it was determined that there would be no glare during the skiing season. Welton: Condition the City met. On condition #4 we will be glad to use stucco. #5 We will provide a letter that meets the approval of Attorney in form and content. Condition #6 has been Nick: The consensus is that we just don't want to have a facade and preserve as much as the building as we can. MOTION: Charles made the motion to table 413 E. second. Ail approved. Conditions and direction for applicant: 1. Save the original buflding, first 50 feet. Hyman. Charlie 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 2. Save as much of the original materials as possible and bring any discoveries to staff. 3. No problem with the addition as it is as long as it isn't any higher than presently shown. 4. Review final solution of the roof and foundation. 5. All roof drainage to be dealt internally. 6. Proper shoring for both adjacent buildings. 7. Stucco for material. Nick: I don't have a p~oblem with the height or the addition. Roxanne: Redesigning of the addition is appropriate. MOTION: designation for 100 E. Bleeker. Charles second. 706 E. MAIN STREET Roxanne: This building is rated #1 and it will become the 100th designated structure. Joe stepped down. MOTION: Nick made the motion to recommend landmark designation for 706 E. Main Street. Charlie second. All approved. 432 W. FRANCIS STREET Charles stepped down. Roxanne: After recalculation the applicant needs a 4 inch variation on the rear yard setback. Donnelley Erdman has already reviewed it. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant the 4 inch variation on the rear yard setback of 432 W. Francis Street. Charlie second. All approved. LANDMARK DESIGNATION 100 E. BLEEKER STREET Joe made the motion that we recommend landmark All approved. Charles was reseated. RFTA BENCHES Roxanne: What RFTA is presenting is not appropriate and we need to have a joint meeting with CCLC, HPC and RFTA. The benches will be placed in the Main Street Historic District. 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 Kathy: Roxanne: Charlie: The Parks Department is concerned about maintenance. A kiosk (sign) is incorporated with the benches. The kiosk should be compatible with the iron of benches etc. the MOTION: Joe made the motion to table consideration of the RFTA benches and ask the applicant to restudy the types of benches and the kiosk concept of the sign in accordance to the recommendation of Staff and have a worksession with CCLC and RFTA. Charles second. All approved. Meeting adjourned 7:45 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes of June 28, 1989 315 E. MAfN STREET - FENCE AND SIGN . 413 E. HYMAN, REIDE'S CITY BAKERY LANDMARK DESIGNATION 100 E. BLEEKER STREET 706 E. MAIN STREET 432 W. FRANCIS STREET RFTA BENCHES . 1 4 7 7 7 7