Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890726HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall July 26, 1989 - 5:00 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Joe Krabacher, Don Erdman, and Leslie Holst present. Georgeann Waggaman, Charles Cunniffe, Zoe Compton and Chris Darakis were absent. Charlie Knight's letter of resignation was entered into the records. PUBLIC COMMENTS Cecil and Noelle Hernandez requested to be added to the agenda. MOTION: Joe made the motion to add the minor development of 432 W. Francis to the agenda. Les second. All approved. 1004 E. DURANT - UNIT #1 Welton Anderson: I have not been able to locate the material of the masonry block that is cast to look like rough stone. My option would be to treat the porch corner with painted lattice work and reuse the stone that is already on the house. We are requesting approval for the masonry block and if I cannot locate it we would like approval of the option lattice/stone. It was a condition at conceptual that we use the exact same representations. The only new material is the stone base. The exterior requires very little in the way of repair and has been well maintained. The landscaping plan is attached and we have provided the structural information (attached in records). I can work with the City Attorney and provide a performance guarantee letter if the Board requires that. The continuation of the encroachment on both sides is an action that is needed for final approval. We are not increasing the encroachment setback, we are just asking that we be allowed to do the basement in the same footprint that has historically existed on the property. Joe: Technically there is an increase in the non-conformity. Welton: The porch stops six inches shy of the corner and we want to even that up. Roxanne: I have not talked with the attorney regarding the performance letter and we should continue to require it or have wording in the motion that it will be submitted within a week. Joe: The idea is that the performance letter obligates someone to fix the structure if damage occurred. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Welton: The cinder block stops at grade and the cast block would be from grade up and a stud wall behind it. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant final development approval for 1004 E. Durant #1 based on what was presented at the meeting which was matching the existing brick if it can be located. If it cannot be located lattice work and reusing the existing stone as facing is appropriate. Also the condition that the Performance Guarantee letter be worked out between staff, attorney and applicant. Don second. All approved. Motion carries. 211 WEST MAIN - CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: I have received the certificate of mailing. Bill: A letter from the neighbor, owner of Innsbruck Inn was entered into the record opposing the second floor bedroom addition to the alley structure and the expansion labeled "New Storage" on the main structure upper back. Chairman opened the public hearing. Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner presented the over- view of the project as attached in records. The project involves the renovation of the main structure specifically the windows. The windows are not original and will be replaced. An enlargement to the rear will take place and there will be a deck on the second floor to provide for extra bedroom space on the main floor. They are proposing an enlargement of the detached alley structure which does not have historic integrity in Staff's opinion. They are requesting a variation for the side yard setback. We are recommending approval with a restudy of the west elevation fenestration of the main house and a restudy of the carriage house addition, fenestration and skylight. Exact representation of building materials should be brought to final and a more detailed site plan. The alley building encroaches. Ron Robertson, architect presented the changed from the existing elevations to the proposed. The windows would be a six pane over one, a grill, snap in. Division of the glass give more victorian character. Ron: On the east elevation there is a proposal for a new door. Bill: The windows are double hung with snap in muttons. Don: The six over one seems like a sharp contrast. Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Ron: The south elevation has a deck added and new windows. There is about 8 1/2 feet separating the two buildings. The west elevation is the controversial side. There are no windows on the alley side because we are too close to the property line. Bill: On the alley the property line by the City is perceived as the middle of the alley so you could actually get windows. Ron: There will be a privacy fence around the property. On the alley side we would use a 5'6". In the front we will lower the fence to 42 inches and combine that with plantings. The problem with this property on Main Street is that it is noisy. Roxanne: The spacing between the fences is very narrow about 1 1/2 inches. Ron: I am trying to combine the need for sound and protection. Claire Newkam, owner: The noise is worse this year and I don't know what kind of barrier would be appropriate. We need the privacy fence due to people looking down into my yard and house. Les: I have done some studies on fences and the only way to form a barrier for sound would be to go higher on the fence. Ron: We would combine the fence with low shrubs. Don: I have a general problem with snap in muttons and would rather see the windows be single over singles as snap in's do not have historic integrity. Two over one true divided lights would be more appropriate. Ron: I would be glad to look at two over one and it would be appropriate. Joe: I also feel two over one would be more appropriate. Les: I also agree. Roxanne: Two over one, true divided lights would be the recommendation for final development. Bill: On the south elevation I don't feel that the structure and the window on the side are a problem. Ron: For final I will come back with a new drawing that has two over one windows. 3 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Roxanne: I had a problem on the west elevation four windows and possibly they should be brought into consistency as they are different from all the others even though they are not seen. Ron: There are two windows out of the bathroom and two in the shed of the livingroom which will bring in natural light. They would be awning windows. Don: It would be difficult to put double hung in the bathroom. Joe: They are historic openings. Bill: I have no problem with the smaller windows on the west elevation because there have been small windows added over time on other elevations and they are bathroom windows which are usually smaller. Les: Security wise the smaller windows make sense. Ron: The carriage house (alley structure) we are not clear on the history. Right now there is a ladder up to a sleeping loft. We intend to make the bedroom legal and shift the bathroom to the west side. We would maintain the similar format that is there right now. On the first floor livingroom there would be a tall double hung windows and on the second floor double hung with two fixed windows on either side. At the alley we are encroaching a little over a foot. The new two story is inside our property line. Roxanne: It encroaches into the setback because there is a 15 ft. minimum requirement for the rear. They would need a variance for that. Joe: There is a zero lot line. Bill: It appears from the Sanborn map that it is not the same building. The question is what are the character of these building that are appearing on the alleys. There is a committee that exists trying to put more housing on the alley structures. The code currently states that buildings on the back 1/3 of the lot can't be higher than 12 ft. and there are a lot of carriage houses that do exist higher than 12 ft. and we are allowing people to live in those structures. This is in the office zone so they can go to a height of 25 ft. Ron: The height of the peak is 21 ft. from the existing grade. Les: It is a catch 22 because we have to deal with the impact, housing etc. 4 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Roxanne: We have to consider whether this alley building has any integrity at all. There is a sleeping loft right now that is not legal and they intend to make it into a bedroom. Les: They don't have to change it, it can remain illegal forever. Bill: The point that I bring up is what is the integrity of the building and how much cost are you saving that you really need to keep that structure there as opposed to rebuilding it on the property line. Roxanne: We have a non-conformity size lot and non-conforming dwelling units so they need to keep what is there basically. Ron: We wouldn't want to loose one unit. Don: You are adding a lot of glass to an existing situation and a blank south wall. What about energy requirements. Ron: I could add windows on the south. Don: This ends up visually being a new building because you are tying it on material/scale to the main structure. Roxanne: Do we allow the encroachment to continue, do we allow the setback to continue. What are we preserving? Don: Are we using HPC as a means of throwing a second story on that doesn't really have historic integrity in the first place. Les: I don't think it is within my guidelines to allow a second story based on preserving the building. Don: To further the cause of producing a more vital alley way I don't know if it is in our menu. Bill: I think you should pursue the committee that might come to us and make a presentation that may change our code as far as preservation is concerned. Les: They are taking an historic unit and putting another story on it and taking away its historic integrity for convenience. Joe: If they don't add it here they could add it to the main house and to what extent do we want to encourage them to add onto the main house. 5 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Ron: It seemed natural to make a living space legal. Joe: The standard is to be more compatible with historic resource than building in compliance with dimensional requirements. Is this more historic to allow you to do this or not. Ron: You are saying it would be more historic for us to develop the one story building and make it work better rather then trying to go up. Bill: That is your option right now unless our guidelines change. Roxanne: The option right now is to give conceptual for the main structure and a restudy of the carriage house. Claire: My house is the old Judge Shaw's house. Bill: If this building was not historic how would the committee feel about having a two story. Les: I lean to one story. Roxanne: If the building wasn't there I don't know if it would even be allowed because of the non-conformity. Bill: There is a glass out made by Monsanta that has a layer of mylar that gives more sound rating to the insulated glass. Roxanne: The recommendation is to not study the west elevation fenestration. Restudy the carriage house. North elevation illustrating fencing and landscaping in relation to the structure and sidewalk. That could be involved with the landscape/site plan. Allow for the side yard setback. Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION: Joe made the motion to recommend approval for conceptual development for the proposal at 211 W. Main St. subject to the conditions stated below to be met at final development review. We also recommend that we grant a variation for the side yard setback and that the conditions are as follows: That there be a restudy of the carriage house alley structure addition; exact representation of building material with roof shingles to be stained dark or neutral and a more detailed site plan indicating the type of landscape materials to be presented. The north elevation be resubmitted illustrating the fencing and landscaping with relations to the sidewalk. We recommend that 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 you look at two over one, true divided window scheme throughout all elevations. Don second. All approved. Motion carries 514 N. THIRD STREET Roxanne: Final Landmark Designation took place on the 10th of July. They are requesting to remodel the interior which creates two new bedrooms in the attic and to provide for headroom, ventilation and light they are requesting two dormers into the front elevation. They are also requesting changes to other elevations in particular two round windows in the gable peaks. Staff has found that dormers are historic and the over all changes do not effect the character of the structure. It is rated a four and has numerous changes. Staff is recommending that the round window in the gable peak be eliminated. We are recommending approval waiving the parking requirements that are allowed in Ord. 16, 1989. Donald and Karen Ringsby: We did not get a building there is not enough head space in the attic. Could that requirement. permit as HPC waive Roxanne: We cannot waive anything like that. Karen: We were under the impression that if we became an historic landmark then the attic height could be waived. Roxanne: HPC does have some flexibility. Gray Ringsby, son: Section 1207-A requires a minimum ceiling height of 7'6" of living height. We have a seven foot to 7'2" ceiling height. Bill: The uniform Bldg. code is to protect habitable space from creating spaces that people would be forced to live in. Volume should be higher than seven feet, proper lighter and ventilation etc. This code was derived from people being forced to live in 4' of space. Les: There is no access right now and if there was a stairway it would be some kind of existing storage. Bill: You could lower the floor but that is quite costly. Bill: On one of our buildings we didn't allow habitable space and used the area as a kids playroom or storage area. Roxanne: I recommend that we take action and work with the Building Department. 7 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 Les: I spent some time reviewing the building and the dormers work. Roxanne: The dormers are in scale. Gray: What is the problem with the round window under the gable on the west elevation. Joe: It is not historical, most gable ends were shingled. Roxanne: The structure has changed significantly but I find a window in a gable peak inappropriate. The gable peak is a very important element architecturally and windows did not appear in gable peaks. Joe: What about the parking, are they required due to the new bedroom. Roxanne: Yes. Bill: If they were not bedrooms then parking would not be required. Don: The east elevation is not visible but has a proposed skylight. Roxanne: The question: is it reversible and it is. Bill: It has been added on many times. Joe: The oval window is on the north elevation and on a secondary facade. Les: Why do you need that window. Gray: To provide light into the attic and it is the end of the proposed bathroom. Roxanne: Is it appropriate to the exterior of the house. Bill: I think you should stay with the gable ends. Bill: If it is a designated sleeping area then it requires egress. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant minor development approval for 514 N. Third St. recognizing that we haven't ruled on the variation for parking because the applicant is not going to 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of July 26, 1989 create habitable space and if they do create habitable space then they would have to come back to HPC or Board of Adjustment. Elimination of the round window on west elevation and oval window on the north elevation. Les second. All approved. Motion carries. 432 W. FRANCIS - ~ALLF. T HOUSE OWNED BY CECIL AND NOEr.L~. HERNANDEZ Noelle: The change is on the carriage house. The door that was approved was facing the inside courtyard (see east elevation). We would like to take the door out and put a window in. By code on the west elevation we need a door for fire etc. We are proposing to open one side of one of the double garage doors. They do not work presently. We need it for emergencies. MOTION: Don made the motion to approve on the east elevation the change as proposed by the Hernandez. The substitution of a double hung window for the previously approved door. On the west elevation that one bay of the original barn door openings be altered to provide a hinged door opening. Joe second. All approved. Motion carries. RESOLUTION Roxanne: This is a resolution on the re-evaluation of the inventory. The resolution takes seven different categories and takes them down to four. MOTION: Joe made the motion to adopt the resolution proposing the new re-evaluation 89-2. Don second. Vote: Yes: Joe, Don, Bill. No Vote: Les. Meeting adjourned 7:30