Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19890214HISTORIC PRESERYATION CO~ITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall February 14, 1989 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Joe Krabacher, Chris Darakis, Donnelley Erdman and Charles Cunniffe present. Charlie Knight and Zoe Compton were excused. Community appreciation past year. Service pins were presented to the Board in of the volunteer work they committed to during the ~OTION: Joe made the motion to approve the minutes of Jan. 24, 1989. Charles second. All approved. CONMITTEE ~BER AND STAFF CO~ENTS Roxanne: A draft PR brochure will be distributed at the next meeting. The Heritage Celebration Committee will meet to discuss National Historic Preservation week in May. The primary activities that HPC will be dealing with are the Second Annual Preservation Awards and preservation forum. At the Council meeting Mary Martin requested that Council look at a large district overlay. A work session was scheduled for ~zch 6th and we will discuss the issue at the next HPC meeting. Tuesday, Feb. 21st 2:00 p.m. the field study is scheduled. 435 E. ~AIN KEBTuCKY FRIED CHICKEN Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office made presentation as attached in records (Feb. 14, 1989 memo). The proposal is for the slide store front expansion of the building currently known as the Local's Corner for a Kentucky Fried Chicken. The amendment to the application specifically states that there is going to be a canvas awning. The store front expansion will be approx. 75 ft. with a seating area and interior remodeling. Kentucky Fried Chicken will take up approximately 1480 sq. ft. Three new windows are proposed on the front elevation and three on the alley side with a required egress door. In looking at the whole building it is very flat. An alternative might be to have the architect restudy that whole elevation. Staff recommends that HPC approve the application subject to Staff and the Zoning Officer's review of the signage and that the Planning Office receive letters of approval from all business owners in the building. Robert Ocean, architect made presentation as attached in records (Letter 2-9-89 ) which outlines specifically the proposed changes. The building is a modern building not an historical one and the changes are minimal to the building. Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Clarifications: Georgeann: When the walls are pulled to go around on that space. Robert: The client would like to see aluminum. out what material is going that area glazed/anodized Bill: Is the glass canopy plan to cover the brick arch. Robert: The storefront is merely extended out so that the brick coursing that is there will remain. We are also proposing a canvas canopy that would help protect that walkway. Roxanne: How far does the canopy extend. Robert: Three feet, the whole arch. Roxanne: The door to the vestibule serves as an air lock already. Robert: We would be moving the existing store front out and doing a canopy. We would match all the brick so that it is uniform. Chris: My concern is parking. Roxanne: The parking on site is what is required for that building. Kentucky Fried Chicken only requires three spaces. Commissioner co~ents: Georgeann: This is a contemporary building and quiet building that is not supposed to interfere with historic buildings in that area. I feel this is over elaborate designing in a quiet building. Donnelley: This building does have its own character and is a product of its time. Making this "gesture" disqualifies the building and doesn't add much benefit to a future user. Joe: The design is very busy and I am not sure why all the windows are necessary. (seven new windows) I am concerned about the glass facade being filled with signs. The changes should be more simplistic. Chris: I agree about the windows except with Nick and Willies. 2 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 In order for them to move over there a metal door. they have to have more than Charles: I see the rationale for wanting to do it but I don't see the need. This proposal "fights" the quiet arches that are on the building. Bill: I think we have to be protective of this building even though it is new as it is a product of its time. The arches are the strong architectural feature. Windows will be needed for those shops but maybe they can be more horizontal in nature. I don't have any problems with the alley side. The arch popping out bothers me a little. The sidewalk line will help pattern traffic. Georgeann: When the square windows come in so close to the arch it weakens the structure there. Response: Robert: I tried to re-create the curve and rectangular rhythm on the facade of this building. There is a lot of square footage taken up by the kitchen and this was a way to animate the space. It is just a short extension out from the building. Nick & Willies needs direct exposure to the street. We could reduce the height of the windows. I need some clarification of what you would like changed in order for this to work. In terms of the vestibule popping out, the steel and the brick work go hand in hand to me. Donnelley: The two most prominent bays are the arched bays and they do have a horizontal element within that bay. You might pick an element that doesn't "fight" so much. Charles: Some how you have to respect the as being the predominant element. The two should remain less predominant. height of the arches square window parts Donnelley: The archway on the left has a better relationship to the solid wall. Bill: We agree with the functional aspect that you require transparency to see what is going on. More study needs to be done on the window shapes and how they would compliment the arches. Georgeann: I would like to see more study you are proposing, more of a relationship of popout. on the awning that the awning and the Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Roxanne: We require examples of the awning material. Georgeann: Before you come back you need to present the additional information to Roxanne to review. ~ION: Charles made the motion to table the project at 435 E. Main until the applicant comes back with more information. Joe second. All approved. 432 W. FRANCIS-THE BALLET HOUSE-HERNANDEZ Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Roxanne presented a letter from Ryberg Construction regarding the foundation (attached in records). Roxanne: At the last meeting the Committee was supportive of the overall renovation philosophy. There was concern about the number of changes and the applicant has restudied those changes. The Planning Office recommends that HPC approve the project conceptually subject to the 15 conditions. Richard Klein presented the changes on all elevations. Richard: We will have an excavation under the entire house and will report in detail how that will be accomplished at the next meeting. On the Main Floor, Francis St. we propose to utilize the existing door into the livingroom as the main entry into the house. Where the old door is we would replicate a window. Around the outside of the house there were comments about the window around the bedroom. We will keep that same window that faces Francis St. We propose also to keep the circular stained glass window as is it presently located. We do not have sufficient light in the room by minimum requirements and we would like to change the windows to double hung. Due to the massive trees on the side it doesn't impact the house that much. We pulled the garage back from the alley property line five feet for adequate snow plowing and jogged it into the setback. In the dining room we left the fireplace as it is more historic. We are still proposing that the closet shed addition be removed in order to open up the court yard space between the old carriage house and the new house. There was concern about the original openings on the carriage house which are boarded up. We would like to utilize two of those openings to let light in through the alley. The other two would be left boarded up on the outside and refinish the walls on the inside. On the second floor we would utilize the hay loft doors into some kind of window system. We 4 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 still would like to keep the shed dormer as it is not visible from Francis St. and Fourth St. On the main floor we talked briefly about the need for a light well for a recreational use in the basement. We will have a full excavation under the entire house. In elevation the roof form resembles the old roof form and we have taken off the shutters. Possibly we can look at a more appropriate bracket. The bay fell of in the 70's and is being replaced and back on the house. The old door in the log cabin doesn't work in the plan but we would like to use that opening for a window. We will take the flue through the chimney but it would be slightly bigger in size. When we lift the house we would like to put it back six to eight inches higher then where it presently is so we can get proper drainage around the house. We would regrade the house so you literally could not tell that it is different. The garage doors would have one row of windows and panels on the lower. Roxanne: I still have concern about the shed dormer visible from the corner and I feel it is inappropriate. of the proposals on the carriage house are appropriate. and it is The rest Public Co--,ent: Tony Whaley: I would like to address the Board to approve the plans. The Hernandez are sensitive to the needs of the community. I would like to see more young parents coming into the west end. Dick Durance: I would hate to see this project turned down due to a little detail since they have gone to great lengths already. Leslie Holst: I have the same consideration as Roxanne about the dormer. I don't think you can let something go by because a tree is covering it as trees can die. You have to ignore the trees and deal with the building. I am pleased to see this going in the direction that it is. I also feel all the other issues like siting should be dealt with before a final permit is given. Discussion on the 15 conditions in the reco-.-endation by the Planning Office (memo Feb.14, 1989) Richard: We will need to go to the Board of Adjustments as we are over on FAR. Board and applicant agreed on #1. The Board will recommend side yard setback variation. Board and applicant agreed on #2. 5 Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Board and applicant agreed on #3. It is the applicants intention on Francis and Fourth St. to take old materials (shed boards) and reapply it wherever possible. Bill: Before any siding is removed you should go over it with the monitor of the project and Roxanne to make sure the Board knows what is happening. Board and applicant agreed on #4. Bill: A sequence on how you intend to lift the house. Tim Pleune: Ryberg Const. has something similar to insurance policy that will cover the full value of for the time that the process goes on. a homeowners the building Nick: For clarification the house will be raise up and when it comes back down it will be within 6 or 8 inches of what it was originally. Board and applicant agreed on #5. The class A flue will be installed in the chimney and the chimney will be relayed and come within a few inches of its present size. Will look exactly the same. Board and applicant agreed on #6. Board and applicant agreed on ~7 to obtain approval from Board of Adjustment for exceeded site coverage. On #8 shed dormer on the carriage house. Georgeann commented that if one of the windows was removed on the dormer it would appear less dominant. Applicant stated there was a minimal light and ventilation requirement for habitable space. Roxanne stated that she contacted the Bldg. Dept. and they are flexible in regards to this issue. Joe stated as between having the shed dormer or having the skylights on the alley elevation he would rather have the shed dormer. Donnelley and Nick had no problem with shed dormer as head room is needed. Donnelley also felt that possible the shed dormer could be reduced in width to three bays which would make it more appropriate. Chris had no objection to dormer. Bill stated that there are no other shed dormers on the other house but head room is needed and if it could be made smaller and not as prominent that would be appropriate. The Board recommended that the shed dormer should be restudied taking into consideration the above statements. Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 Board and applicant agreed on #9, #10, #11, 912. Board and applicant agreed on 913. Board agreed that brackets were on upside down and that the existing brackets should be used and if that was not possible to eliminate the brackets. (No replacement brackets). Further discussion to be done at final. Board and applicant agreed on 914 and #15. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the conceptual development approval for 432 W. Francis St. noting that the conditions either have been met or will be met on 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 with the submittal of the architect at this meeting. 95 and 98 are reworded. ~5, to rebuild the existing central chimney retaining the existing materials and general aspects of the design. 98 Said dormer proposed for carriage house shall be restudied. All small divided lights in carriage house have been restudied; revised window plan presented in final and have been restudied and accepted. Nick second. A~ENDED MOTION: Joe made motion to amend 94 to require instead of a bond or letter of credit, insurance and to allow Roxanne to sign off on the foundation basement and structural studies. Georgeann amended her motion and Nick second. Ail approved of conceptual approval as amended. Donnelley was selected as monitor of this project. 204 S. MILL STREET-ASPEN HARDWARE-THE COLLINS BLOCK Roxanne: This project is going to be a very concise storefront renovation and really utilizing the storefronts as they were originally designed to be used. The troublesome part for me is the third floor addition and whether that is appropriate. There are issues regarding open space as to whether the vacant lot beside the building is considered open space and if there is going to impact fees paid which will force a design one way or another. One design is a recessed plaza area that includes retail and a restaurant. Another possibility is to have an actual one story retail building that might contain a hardware store. The third floor addition is setback on all sides to diminish its impact, has a low profile roof and is going to be utilized for two penthouse apartments. Wayne Polson, architect made presentation as attached in records. We will be working within the existing structure. The conceptual review that we are requesting is for the additional areas on the Historic Preservation Minutes February 14, 1989 roof and the redevelopment of the side yard. We would upgrade the roofs, awnings and storefronts to continuity of the existing building. Donnelley: Making a comparison between the section which shows the view line from down the street and the aerial perspective something is not drawn to scale because there isn't in the section a great distance between the parapet and where the proposed roof top structure begins. Secondly it is politically not architecturally expedient to show any planting on the roof, it becomes strange to see a building with numerous plants on top of it if you are trying to be consistent with what existed in the past. The proposed penthouse structure should stand on its own and not be covered by any form of vegetation. The intention of the penthouse is to be a fairly low perspective. A model will be very important at a later stage. Wayne: The addition of the parapet gives an unobtrusive effect. We are proposing to bring it up 42 inches above the roof and it is about 36 inches right now. It would be about an 8 inch addition. Georgeann: I agree also with Donnelley on the planting. A penthouse is acceptable but this should be unobtrusive and not noticeable. Plantings "flag" attention. This is a classical building. I like the proportions and setbacks on the west elevation. I'm concerned about the north elevation because clearly your penthouse extends much closer to the edges of the building and will be seen quite clearly from the street. You might want to pull those back. Wayne: The parapet is so high that you only see a tiny bit. Georgeann: At the stage door of the Wheeler you would see it clearly and that is a prominent angle of view. On the back entrance, east elevation, I feel it is getting a little elaborate in relationships to the other sides of the building. The windows have changed and possibly the metal railings are in conflict with the rest of the building. I am not unhappy with the concept. Nick: What is the plan to get the people out of the penthouses down to street level. Wayne: There are interior stairways on the second level. Bill: I have no problem with the penthouse roof is if it is visible how is it seen from Mill St. Meeting Adjourned 5:30 p.m. Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk and my concern