Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19880322HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~O~ITTEE MINUTES City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall March 22, 1988 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Bill Poss with Georgeann Waggaman, Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Charlie Knight, Augie Reno and Joe Krabacher present. Excused were Patricia O'Bryan and Zoe Compton. ~OTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the minutes of March 8, 1988. Charles Cunniffe second. Motion carries. COMMITTEE MEMBER AND STAFF COMMENTS Roxanne: I'm waiting for responses to my memo and also comments on National Historic Preservation Week. Georgeann: Possibly we could implement a school program so children are aware of preservation. Bill: We should start with the Mayor's proclamation. Possibly a walking tour of some of the houses that have been restored. We could coordinate events with the Historical Society and have a press article on some of the older victorians and a banner on Main St. Charles: We could do an announcement of the Guidelines. Georgeann: We could do annual award plaques. 222 E. HALLA~--DEMOLITION Bill Poss: This is a public hearing for the demolition of an existing historically evaluated structure. Charles Cunniffe stepped down. Gideon Kaufman: We are here to look at the structural deficiencies and economic hardships that were not addressed at the last meeting. When my client purchased this property he thought it was structurally sound. Two structural engineers were hired to evaluate the property and they agreed with the architect as to the unsoundness of the structure. We were originally going to rehabilitate the structure but after two reports our philosophy changed to demolition. Rehabilitation was our first priority but it didn't make structural sense or economic sense. Section 24-9 specifically says it's not the intention of a designated score to place economic hardship on an owner of a property that has been rated. All during that process the public was told that the HPC did not wish to harm owners economically, that was not the intent of this ordinance. We were also told that the City Council would pass incentive programs to HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 economically help people whose properties had to go through historic review. Even if the rating did hurt them a little economically they were told they would be given good incentives to off-set that. I think HPC and the owners were both short changed because the City Council chose to abide by its strict landuse concern, budgetary concerns and it did not come up with any meaningful incentive programs for people with historically rated but run down properties. The difference between rehabilitation and construction of a new house exceeds $300,000 yet all the City offers is a $2,000 incentive program. There are six standards in 24-9.5: The first criteria is that the building is not structurally sound. Unfortunately the Eng. and Planning Dept. came up with a new criteria, criteria that is not in the code. They talk about serious structural failure and imminent threat of failure. None of that language is in the code. Both of our structural engineers have come to the conclusion that the building is not structurally sound and it cannot economically be rehabilitated or reused which is the second criteria for demolition. We have supplied letters verifying that we cannot remodel the existing structure without causing its virtual collapse or engage in extensive rework. The third criteria is that the building cannot be practically moved. We have supplied a letter from a house mover saying it can't be moved and the finding is confirmed by the structural engineer and by the staff. The fourth criteria is the demolition and redevelopment plan that is submitted when required which mitigates to the greatest extend practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood. A letter from our historic expert Lisa Purdy that states when taken with the structural problems that rehabilitation and removal problems justifies a new structure on the site and a newly designed victorian which she feels would mitigate the impacts on the neighborhood. The Planning Office contends that the review criteria of ~4 can only be satisfied in a partial demolition but that is not what the code says; the code says demolition, redevelopment or partial demolition in addition if you accept that position then no demolition can ever be possible since a total demolition according to Steve is contrary to the standard. You can't have standards that you cannot meet. The fifth criteria talks about historic importance and we agree with the Planning Office that no historic association has been identified to the existing structure. The last criteria is that the demolition mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact on the architectural integrity of the historic structure. We feel that the architectural significance of this house is not significant. This ordinance says we don't want to economically burden the owner. The last review is the economic feasibility. The ordinance only asks for one expert and we have supplied five experts to make our position clear. We have come up with proof that we are entitled to a demolition permit. 2 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Larry Doble, President of Integrated Engineering Consultants: In my report dated Feb. 22, 1988 I stated that 63% of the foundation, 51% of the floor framing system, 35% of the roof framing system is not structurally sound. 24% of the serviceable roof framing system needs a new foundation added to prevent potential damage. I have concluded the structure is not structurally sound. The structure cannot practically be rehabilitated or reused. The structure cannot practically be moved to another site. The following is new information not presented in my report: Section 24-9.5.B.1 does not address structural failure. My report did not address structural failure because structural failure is the result of a structural inadequacy not an indication of. The work from previous owners has contributed that the structure is not structurally sound. The high probability of damage to the structurally sound area that can occur during rehabilitation is the result of the existing structurally unsound areas created by previous owners in their attempts to maintain the structure. A second report by Mr. Pattillo concurs that the structure is not structurally sound, cannot be practically rehabilitated without extreme expense and cannot be practically moved. Bill: It appears in Bob's letter and in yours basically that it is not only an upgrade of the joists to come up to code loaded, it is just a lot of carrying down of loads unsupported. Larry: Unsupported loads; the resulting configuration of the roof because of the many additions to it. Interior walls that were not intended to be bearing walls have become such. The foundations walls are deteriorating so fast that even areas of the roof that are sound aren't going to stay up much longer because the foundation is going to deteriorate. Bill: That occurs in a lot of these houses. Can that be corrected with a reasonable cost. Larry: Anything can be corrected with the right money. It is my professional opinion that it can't be with a reasonable cost. amount of corrected Bill: Bob's letter states basically that the foundations are non-existing and that a whole new foundation system would have to be done. Larry: We differ slightly on that as there is a small area of the north east corner of the foundation that was reconstructed. There are two portions of the house that new foundations were put in when the additions were made and they appear to be serviceable at this point. There is no way of telling without digging holes HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 to see how far down they go for frost protection but at least they haven't cracked due to movement. Lisa Purdy, President of Preservation Consulting firm: I am here to discuss the impact and appropriateness of the design of the new house on both the adjacent parcels and the historic neighborhood around it. I interpret the last three standards of demolition to say if demolition is found to be a feasible alternative the new structure needs to mitigate as much as possible in its design impacts to the neighborhood and the adjacent structures. I have reviewed the new design and it is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures in terms scale, fenestration, roof lines, setbacks and style. Also the massing is not out of scale with the neighborhood. The replication style is appropriate because it is the same era as the Glidden house next door. Standard 95 we agree that there is no historic importance to the historic structure being proposed for demolition. Standard #6 talks about mitigating the impact to the architectural integrity of the historic structure. Since we are proposing demolition of the historic structure we are not going to mitigate that much. I interpreted that as saying lets mitigate the impact to the adjacent historic structure. If you are designing a new house in a historic neighborhood do you make it look victorian in this case or do you design something that is totally contemporary that will not be confused with what is authentically historic in the neighborhood. I would suggest today for you to make your decision as to the validity of the structural and economic issues and ~2 if demolition is warranted then work with us to refine the design within the house. Bill: We need you to comment on the structural integrity as to whether it really can be saved from an historic preservation standpoint. Lisa: Anything can be saved but what is the cost involved to save it. In this case there is about a $300,000 difference in cost in which I concluded that it is an economic hardship. Charlie: What is your analysis of the two buildings the Glidden house as opposed to the Amato house. Do you feel that the Glidden house was significant and worth replicating and do you think that the Amato house is worth replicating if that is the ultimate. Lisa: Louise Vigoda wanted a house that looked old. Generally it is not deemed acceptable to have a complete replication of an historic building and confuse the public as to what is authentically historic with what is a replication. Aspen is free to set up their own standards for what they deem locally to be important. HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Gideon: What Charlie is saying if you look at the two houses in terms of the era is the Glidden house or the Amato house more representative of that era. You didn't feel that the Amato house was deserving of a 4 rating but would you have felt that the Glidden house was deserving of a 4 rating. Lisa: Yes, before it was rebuilt. I assume the Glidden house looked like the current house. Bill: The committee might have made a mistake then allowing that to be replicated as opposed to being restored. Lisa: Yes before it was replicated I would assess it as an historic house. Bill: Do you think that the two styles are equal. Lisa: No, not for the miners cottage. Bill: For the record there is no historic significance of the house. The rating was given because it contributed to the neighborhood. Steve: There was no historic importance with persons or events. Don Westerlind, President of Alpine Construction: I have been requested by Mr. Amato to make a cost analysis on remodeling or renovating this house. To renovate the house from an historical aspect in other words to save every drop of wall paper and anything that is damaged be replaced with an original type of construction I came up with a cost of $850,000 which calculated out at $343. a square foot. The second item was to renovate the house by saving all the exterior walls and building a new structure within it and reapplying the existing walls would cost approximately $420,000 which is $169. a square foot. That is like what they did with Elli's downtown. Those two examples would give a 2000 sq. ft. house and a 472 sq. ft. workshop. To demolish the existing house and build it to the plans that Cunniffe & Assoc. drew up it would cost $408,000 or $113 a sq. ft. That would be completely demolishing the house. In my estimating the house is not worth anything as it sits there. Bill: Don, how did you establish these costs of $343 a sq. ft. Don: You have to go through and replace all the glass and plaster as this is a complete renovation not a replication. This is using old building style methods and it is extremely labor intensive. Bill: So most of the costs are based on your file data. 5 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Don: Based on 30 years of experience. Georgeann: Isn't there some middle ground between only saving the exterior walls and doing a renovation that is so complete and it even uses lath and plaster. Don: You can save that structure and the $850,000. It is a matter spend. somewhere between the $420,000 of how much money you want to Bill: Do you concur that a lot of the structural loads are unsupported and the foundation system would need to be replaced. Don: Yes. Bill: Does the total foundation need to be replaced or from your experience as a contractor could it be shored up in certain ways that don't require full replacement. Don: have time I feel you would have to replace everything. You would to pull the house up and replace the foundation a piece at a so that you didn't loose part of it. Bill: In my experience I feel the one amount is low. We did some restoration work and it came to around $150 a sq. ft. Dan Levinson, owner of Red Mtn. Construction presented pictures to the Committee depicting roof and seal leaks; celloutex, water that is coming down from the roof and underneath the siding which was only done a few years ago. The wood also has dryrot. This building cannot be brought back. Richard Klein, Project Architect for Charles Cunniffe & Associates: Joe Amato originally hired Cunniffe & Associates to explore ways to remodel and renovate his newly acquired residence on Hallam St. We explored numerous solutions including two story schemes. Because of the hap hazard existing room layouts all plans included extensive interior demolition. This included relocating numerous bearing walls. Integrated Engineering Consultants was then retained to analyze the structural implications of our various schemes. We learned that any attempt to remodel or renovate the existing residence was not structurally or economically feasible. For this reason it was decided to seek permission to demolish the existing structure and build a new two story residence. As you are aware this was first attempted with the repeal of the score and now we are here with you with an application of demolition. 6 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Gideon: We have talked to the structural engineers and given the rot and the fact that the structure is gone you can't just jack this house up and put a foundation on it as the whole house would crumble. Steve: Ord %11 of 1987 did indeed create strict standards for review of demolitions. It was very much with the intention of discouraging demolition of structures that were identified on the inventory as significant historic structures. The first standard is the structural soundness and obviously the applicant has presented some new evidence that was not available for myself or for the Eng. or Bldg. Dept. to review including Mr. Pattillo's letter and Dan Levinson testimony today. Perhaps they have demonstrated that the structure is unsound which is criteria %1. Then criteria %2 is that potential for rehabilitation and reuse; perhaps there is no potential for rehabilitation and reuse in a practical manner. The Bldg. and Eng. Dept. raised some doubt about the severity of the structural problems. Typically there are remedial actions that are not outside the realm of feasibility in terms of cost and both the Bldg. and Eng. Dept. raised questions as to whether there may be methods that are remedial and that are basically the minimal costs of preserving the structure, not the maximal of converting it perhaps entirely to a new structure or something that would be well in excess of what people typically do when they rehabilitate old wooden structures. If the Committee is satisfied that they have demonstrated that these are not feasible then I would think the applicant has met the criteria. We have touched on the cost of rehabilitation and question whether $800,000 is the minimal cost of preserving the structure; what is the minimal cost. If there is a minimal cost for restoring the structure making certain internal rearrangements of the space since that appears to be inadequate for Mr. Amato. What else can be done; can they expand it to the rear; can they take advantage of the incentive which allows for a second structure on the property, there is enough land in the R-6 zone districts that they are eligible for that. Gideon: We have 6,000 sq. ft. Steve: With the R-6 zone Ord.%42 a conditional use allows for two separate dwelling units on 6,000 sq.ft, or a duplex use. There is also a $2,000 grant. It may not be totally infeasible to undertake a rehabilitation of the structure adding on to it; perhaps removing some of the older additions and making a larger space. The third criteria is can the house be moved. The Bldg. Dept. evaluated that it would not be a good thing to try and move that structure. The fourth and fifth criteria are demolition redevelopment plan to mitigate to the greatest extent practical impact on the neighborhood and on the historic significance of this structure. We believe that the total HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 demolition of the structure does significantly and negatively impact the character of the neighborhood and the historic significance of the house. In a partial demolition you can save certain facades and you might be able to remove additions and do a certain project of partial demolition that would be mitigating what they can for removing of the historic structure. The Committee has to consider the factor of loss; what is the extent of loss to the community of this structure. In the memo from the Planning Office we listed three alternative actions: ~1 To approve the demolition finding that there are no practical alternatives to demolition that the redevelopment plan does mitigate to the greatest extent practical impacts on the neighborhood. ~2 Deny the demolition and redevelopment and finding that they haven't demonstrated that the house cannot be retained and used for beneficial use. #3 Table the action on the application and ask them to provide further alternative feasible options and approaches to demolition. #4 The suspension of action which is a special provision put into the demolition review that allows for basically the HPC to request more information from the applicant and possibly at that point to request City Council to help fund further studies of feasible options. We have recommended the third option because of all of the information that has been given it may be very appropriate. Maybe there is no need for them to go the next step of asking other experts to study this property but we felt that there are enough questions about whether they have demonstrated that they meet the criteria for demolition and that in general the indication should be that HPC is unwilling to allow the demolition and that they should study other options. Bill: We will take public comment and then go through each standard and get the Board's opinion. Kermit Sutton: I live at 131 E. Hallam and we recently finished restoring the victorian on the corner of Hallam and Aspen Streets. My interest and concern is in the character of the neighborhood. Assuming the house in its present state is a disaster my concern is that if enough of a disencentive is made to renovate it, that is it would take it totally to spend the amount of money it would need to make the restoration, would not the essential character of the neighborhood be better served by a replication that could be controlled and improved by this Committee as opposed to the continuation of an existing miners cabin that is in a total state of disrepair. Debbie Seguin: I live 203 E. Hallam and I have a question as to how many square including the garage. I am across the street. feet are in that house 8 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Richard Klein: About 3,000 sq. ft. and including the garage around 3,200 sq. ft. Gideon: 6,000 is R-6 and the rest is SCI probably 9 to 10 thousand is flat and 6,000 or so that isn't. Joe Amato: The total square footage of the lot is about 16,000 sq. ft. of which 6,000 is in the R-6 zone and 9,000 is in the SCI zone. The new home fall in the guidelines and the percentage of the coverage on the lot is about 14% and there is 86% open space. It meets the height requirements etc. Bill: So it is a proposed single family residence in the area of 3,000 sq. ft. Debbie Seguin: The neighborhood used to be small mining cottages as evidence of 101, 105 and 123 E. Hallam. 222 looks a lot like 123 to me and if it could be saved and do whatever you want behind it. Get rid of all the additions. Bill: Joan Light owner at 219 N. Monarch sent a letter to HPC stating she has no objection to the demolition of 222 E. Hallam. MR. Light and I hope strict adherence to the off-street parking regulations are met as well as property boundary lines drawn to assure the privacy of their most immediate neighbors to the east and west. Traffic control around that very busy corner is a concern to the residence. The most important element of that is the safety of the school children. Letter dated March 14, 1988. Fred: My comment relates to the standards and a prelude of what your deliberation should entail. You must show whether the structure is sound and if it isn't sound whether it can be rehabilitated. My primary comment on that is that I feel Steve is right in his assessment that these were written as strict guidelines and the intent is to preserve the structures identified as opposed to allow them to be demolished. The key word: the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide any beneficial use. I would interpret the work beneficial to be a fairly broad word. It would require the Board to make a determination if no beneficial use was to be made that the house was simply unusable as is, that you could not put any money into that house and make a beneficial use out of it. It seems to me that the applicant is not proposing necessarily a renovation of the existing structure but an expansion of it. It will be up to the Board to decide whether or not they have proposed to you a plan, whether a plan could be proposed that makes some beneficial use of the structure. The next category would be whether you can move the house. The next three standards would be a secondary level of review. If you determine the house cannot be moved then you have to consider whether or not you want to get into a total HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 or partial demolition. If so you must have a detailed plan submitted if you request it as to what the subsequent use of the property is going to be. Gideon: It can't just be a beneficial use. Fred: There has to be a balancing of that beneficial use with economic hardship. When was the house purchased. Gideon: It was purchased after evaluation. Fred: The an historic be made. owner bought the house knowing it was rated a ~4, was structure and there was limitations on what use could Joe Amato: The owner bought the house with every opportunity in the world to get a demolition permit. The owner went to his architect and said lets try and save this home. I tried to do everything I could to save the house when it came down to it I hired two structural engineers and both said forget it as it is too expensive. I would like you and the Board to know that the spirit of this ordinance was followed to the letter. Bill: ~1 The structure proposed structurally sound despite evidences of properly maintain the structure. for demolition is not the owner's efforts to Bill: We have the evidence presented by two structural engineers and supported by two contractors and the architect concurs with the findings. Does the Board concur that the building is structurally unsound based on the evidence presented. Nick: I agree. Steve: After the Bldg., Eng., and Planning Office looked at the structure they weren't convinced that there weren't some rather ordinary remedial actions that might be taken to save this structure. New evidence has been presented and should be evaluated. Augie: I feel comfortable with the evidence and Steve is probably saying how do you solve the problem of structural. I read it to say that the Bldg. Dept. agrees that it is structurally unsound and to whether it can be brought upgraded that hasn't come up yet. That is the second standard. Bill: For the record we can say the first standard has been met. 10 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Bill: 92 The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused to provide for any beneficial use of the property. Gideon: The Glidden house had important features on it and so there was a desire and need to replicate that house. This structure was given 94 because of the impact on the neighborhood. I don't think that the impact on the neighborhood given the mitigation that can take place with working with you is justified making someone restore or replicate a house that does not have a significance especially when you're looking at replicating it with a layout that doesn't work, something that is an economic hardship. To me beneficial use has to be done in terms of economics. Steve: I think Gideon is confusing the standards by saying now is the time to consider whether the structure is worth historically and architecturally saving. The standard reads very clearly can it be rehabilitated or reused and I would think that your focus would be on that. There are three aspects of that question, one being the practicality of structural repair, the second economic feasibility and the third in terms of livability that limitations in the size layout on the site of the house. Gideon: be met. We have addressed those and have proven that they can't Bill: Don Westerlind will report on how he achieved the costs. Don Westerlind: This is a 2,000 sq. ft. house and I came up with a base price of $135. per sq.ft, to renovate it. That was determined by going through my books on electrical etc. Then I had to add to that the partial demolition of the existing house and the rebuilding including the workshop. That total was $419,000. To renovate the house completely was the $850,000 figure. There are different degrees of renovation and how much do you save. That price could come down a little. Joe Amato: of money. We tried very hard to work it out and it costs a lot Charlie: I took the time to go through the building and I came to the conclusion that it is very difficult to figure out where you would go back and find the original house in this structure. It is extremely chopped up inside and there is no significant architectural features to it. This house is a piece of junk and it will be extremely difficult to restore. When it is restored it will perhaps have some significant architectural feature outside but inside the building will be very hard to live in. 11 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Dan Levinson: This building has no redeeming value what so ever. It has no architectural line, no continuity and no flow. Larry Doble: The City Staff experts did not go inside the house and look under it or up in the attic or anything else. It is really easy to cast doubts. What is the other way. If they did a careful analysis they would discover that almost any wall you move in that house is in some bearing function to that hodge podge roof. That house is held together by 1,000 little strings. As soon as you start to do any kind of remodeling in that house to renovate you are going to discover more and more problems. The majority of the foundation must be underpinned and at which point any section of the upper portion of the house might collapse. Right now we have found that the foundation is bad, the seals are bad and I'll bet when the siding is pulled off there will be condensation in those walls. Where do you stop before you can establish that the house is of no beneficial use. Joe Amato: I was told if I turned the heat off in the house that a good portion of the house would collapse. Bill: So it is your professional opinion that the house cannot be rehabilitated. Larry: Not in an economically practical solution. Augie: Did the Bldg. Dept. declare this building unsafe. Steve: Not that I am aware of. Augie: Do you think Larry that this building is unsafe. Larry: Portions of the building are definitely unsafe. Georgeann: I am completely convinced that there is nothing about this building that justifies keeping it. I would vote for demolition. This building got a 4 because of the significance of the neighborhood. With a 3 the applicant could demolish the building and not have gone through this. The applicant has offered to work with us on the new building. I would like to set a precedence that when a building is demolished that the applicant would work with us on the new building. We can solve our responsibilities as HPC to the neighborhood and adjacent structures by working with this applicant on a new building that in massing and detailing etc. this could be an addition to the neighborhood rather than patching up this building. Fred: You just have to make a decision that there is no beneficial use. 12 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Charlie: I'm not sure that this building will adapt itself to what staff has recommended but that is important to bring up in terms of the direction we would normally look at for the future. Demolishing these buildings will be hard to swallow particularly when they are on Main St. etc. Bill: We want each one judged on its own merits. Does the Board feel that the structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused based on the evidence presented. Yes, Georgeann, Charlie, Augie, Nick. Bill: ~3 States that the structure cannot be practically moved to another site in Aspen. Based on the evidence that has been presented does everybody concur with that. Nick: We don't have any place to move it. Bill: The evidence was that the house was made up of almost 10 parts and the house movers felt that because of the ten parts the house could not be moved. The Bldg. Dept. and staff concurred that also. Bill: ~4 A demolition and redevelopment plan is submitted when required by HPC which mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact that occurs to the character of the neighborhood of the parcel where demolition is proposed. Bill: Basically we didn't see the redevelopment plan. We concur with the demolition plan and we would like to table that and go into it with more detail. I think the plan can be worked out. Gideon: You are saying we are going to establish the standard and say that demolition is appropriate but further work needs to be done on the redevelopment proposed plan. Bill: Is everybody in agreement. Augie: The architects need to show us what that streetscape looks like. Bill: We don't think you can go ahead with demolition until we give approval of the redevelopment plan. Gideon: That is fine but if we could put in here that we dealt with the standards and demolition is approved then Joe doesn't have to bring people in all the time. 13 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Fred: You should move that the demolition permit be granted subject to a review and approval of the redevelopment plan. Georgeann: I think we should review the demolition plan. MO~ION: Charlie made the motion that we approve the demolition on the Amato house at 222 E. Hallam conditional on the approval of a redevelopment plan by the HPC which action will table the actual demolition until which time the plan is approved. Georgeann second the motion. Ail favored, motion carries. Augie: You can't demolish until they bring in and we approve the redevelopment plan. Charlie: In comment we should realize that we are dealing with a residential neighborhood and dealing with a resident out of the historic district and for the record had this house been on Main St. with a ~4 we may have said we wanted it in place. Gideon: I need clarification for the next step now, what do you want us to do. We submitted that and we then bring that back and we have a meeting which we discuss that. I guess it is too late to give comment on that. Bill: If you don't mind. Joe Amato: Can we have a beginning with the plan that we have submitted to you because that is the plan that we worked out based on input and Lisa commented on that plan to mitigate the impacts of the community. Charlie: Could it be on the next agenda. Steve: Sure we can and a streetscape type of comparison would be very helpful for the Committee to make the judgment as to whether you think it is compatible or not. Bill: Would anybody like to comment on the redevelopment plan. Augie: The scale (height) looks much larger than what I perceive in the neighborhood. Bill: I concur with Augie and I feel it is much higher. The Glidden second story is hidden and this house has two stories with a roof or gable on top of it. The scale of the cross gable is a lot smaller than the other gable end houses that are in the immediate neighborhood and further study should be given to that scale. 14 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Augie: Now that the miners cottage is gone I would discourage a pseudo-victorian from being put back in its place. A building that relates to the surrounding shapes and forms is more in keeping. Joe Amato: I gave the architect photos and books on victorian architecture of what I was interested in. Bill: That was a miners cabin and a smaller structure and I would be looking for a building that is much smaller and more compatible in scale. Georgeann: I concur with everyone else about the size and a street elevation which showed yours and the two houses next to it would be helpful. I am not unhappy with a victorian but in this case the Glidden house is an exact replication and is a fine looking building. Your building right now is too elaborate and will overwhelm and it should be a quieter and more simple building. Instead of maybe having the second floor come out all the way to the front let that step back. Charlie: I like the building and it is your choice to do a victorian. There is an awful lot going on on the street and it will be more elaborate than anything else in the neighborhood and perhaps if you want all that detailing maybe there is places to put it from different angles so from the streetscape it doesn't overwhelm the Glidden house. Nick: I concur but it is an awful lot compared to the houses on both sides. If you could give us some other way to get the same square footage, maybe different elevations. Roxanne: I also concur that it does need to be simplified and possibly a model of the streetscape for the Committee. 113 E. HOPKINS, PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND CONCEPTUAL DEvzLOPMENT REVIEW Gary Bucher, owner: We are proposing partial demolition of the structure and redevelopment to that structure. The original part of the house was built in 1888 and was added on to in 1970 and a metal roof was added in 1976. There are no photos available as evidence of what the building looked like in 1888. In the 60's there was renovation of total removal of the skin, redoing that and adding a two story addition on the back which went from 660 sq. ft. to 1348 sq. ft. In 1976 the owner then applied a metal roof. The front portion is original I presume and exterior materials are not original. The inside is not original as they are sheet rock rather than plaster. In 1980 during historic surveys the house was classified as notable and designated after 15 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 that. The house was sited as historic because it represents a type, period or method of construction. The historic significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it, or lived in it nor of its architecture. The structure is important by illustrating a family home, environment and life styles. We are proposing to remove the 1972 addition and add on a more fitting and more appropriate addition to function as a house. Steve and Roxanne had concern for the tree that we propose to move about 15 feet forward. I contacted the Parks Department and a tree mover and the tree mover will take a back hoe and dig a trench and basically pull the tree forward into its new location rather than picking it up. We didn't want to take the tree down and it will also be used as a screening mass of the addition. The site is unusual as it stair steps up about 5 or 6 ft., flattens out and stair steps back again. You are looking at a site that goes more across the lot than back the lot. There is also another tree 15 ft. behind the building, blue spruce. So if we were to move back at all we would impinge upon the root structure of the tree. If we were to realign the east wall the problem there is the roof line of the house as it is more of a shed roof coming down. If we were to add an addition and block that six foot of area would create a roof drainage problem and also an ice and snow problem. I have photographs of that. The original facade of the house has scalloped shingles on presently. The other problem stated was massing: the current structure vs. the proposed. I'm going from 1348 sq. ft. to 2388 sq. ft. The prominence of the addition is 20 feet back from the current facade of the house and 50 feet back from the street so I don't think we are putting forth the addition of that house as current with what is existing. Due to the tree being moved and other blue spruces shielding I don't believe you are being impacted by that addition. I looked at houses that were historically designated notable that had additions that were added on to during this period of time and my house is relatively small. Mr. Bucher presented the Committee with several photos of houses with additions that were historically designated. Gary Bucher: What I am trying to do is in compliance with Ord. #11 and in keeping with the house. If you say I can't build on lot C and D then I have a park next to me that I can't build on. Bill: We haven't said anything yet. Roxanne: The applicant is requesting significant development review with partial demolition. Basically we are reviewing this as a significant development as opposed to more of the demolition because the demolition is of the 1972 addition to the home. He also wishes to demolish the rear shed and add a one car garage with storage. 16 , HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 This is a public hearing and a two step process. Since this is a major demolition request we stress that special care be given to not undermine the structural stability of the historic structure. We are concerned about moving the large tree but after the information presented today I am feeling a little better about it. The development plan is appropriate in many areas however we feel that the siding mass in detailing, if they were designed to me more compatible with the original home that distinct architectural qualities of the house will be preserved. The Committee may find that by taking advantage of the historic preservation incentive for encroachment of the side yard setback for siting may improve the situation. Architecturally details could be simplified which would focus more attention on the true historic elements of the home instead of creating a more of a high style queenann out of a more simpler miners cottage the addition may be more sympathetic. The Planning Office recommends tabling the action on the basis that there are more than minor changes that need to be made to a development plan to obtain historic compatibility with the original structure. Steve: Gary's point about the landscape was addressed in Roxanne's memo and states that the guidelines do indeed consider how development relates to the landscaping on the site and when the HPC is reviewing the application they should take a look at whether the development occurs at the cost of a significant piece of land. Gary: I am willing to spend $4,000 to save one single tree and since I don't have to have a permit to do it then my question is I could move that tree wherever I want basically. Fred: You are saying you are going to spend the money anyway so give me consideration for spending it. Roxanne: Prior to recommendations in my memo I have given the Committee alternative actions. Gary: As stated in the 1980 inventory there were no architectural qualities of the house. Gary: There is a 95% probability that the tree will survive. Bill: I'll open the public hearing. hearing. I'll close the public Nick: I'm in favor of tearing down proposed. I'm not concerned about the proposing is probably the safest. the 1970 addition that is tree as the method he is 17 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Georgeann: I am happy where the building goes and approve of the tree. I am not unhappy with the level of detailing that the applicant is putting on the addition. I am concerned about the window that seems to sit over the old part of the building. I think it will conflict with the old building. I am also concerned about the porch that is going to be on the new addition which conflicts with the old porch. Again it is back behind the tree but if it is on the north side and you have a huge tree in front of it I think it will be a dreary porch. Augie: I don't have any problems with the project proposed but I am not a fond believer in recreating an era with a new building. In this particular case you have done it in a manner that you can still tell which is the original building and what is new. Bill: I concur with what everybody else has said and I am in agreement with the plan. I would support the demolition of the new structure as staff has recommended. I have no problem with you moving your tree. I'm not fond of mirror imaging and planting of a tree in front of it to hide it whether it is good or bad. I support staffs recommendation that we keep it more simple and would like to see the redevelopment plan stay with that simple motif on the miners cabin and keeping the identity of the miners cabin when the new structure is added onto the back. Bill: There was a comment on the eaves in regard to the overhang. Roxanne: In looking at these drawings I find that the eaves aren't hanging over as much on this plan. Gary: In the plans we tried to maintain the same slope that is on the existing roof and eave structure. Bill: Does anybody have any problem with the stainless steel roof. Gary: To lessen maintenance the roof is a stainless steel sheet coated with a alloy to get the older effect and we would not have to paint it. Roofs at that time were grayish zinc or tin. It will be an oxidized alloy. Roxanne: The Sanborn map shows that this home had two different roofs, shake on front and the back was metal. Representation of materials should be added into the motion. Bill: In the motion I would add to study the dormers as to whether they are too much like the rest of the house. Possibly two dormers. 18 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 MO~ION: Georgeann: I move to approve the demolition of 113 E. Hopkins and to give preliminary approval of a new addition and asking the applicant to provide alternate design studies in respect to the dormers, porch and windows on the front elevation and that he come back with detailed samples of materials and to present information on your demolition plan i.e. protecting the structural integrity of the existing building for final review. Augie second the motion. All favored, motion caries. 411 E. Hopkins Ave, Sculpture Garden Entry Gate and Wall Bill: We have an amendment to the approved plan. Bill Lipsey: We revised the entry element and made it off to the side and made it less formal. We changed the water element to a more linear type that you walk under to make it subtle. We added a trellis. Georgeann: Where does the water go. Bill Lipsey: Comes out of the elevated horizontal element on the top and projects across. You can walk under the projecting water. Georgeann: Are these modernistic in character or turn of the century. Bill Lipsey: Somewhere in between. We reduced the height from 5 ft. to 4 ft. Bill: I like it and moving it over would make your garden look better. MOTION: Georgeann: I move that we approve the alternation to the design of the garden presented by Bill Lipsey. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. CLARIFICATION OF NOTION-334 W. BALI. AN Bill Poss stepped down: Trish Harris: I need clarification of the motion on the carriage house. What is the feeling on the connection of the main house to the carriage house which is through the car port. Charles: While some of the Commission didn't want the connection I was making the motion conclusive so that the connection could be allowed and studied further. Georgeann: What is the Committee's intention. 19 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Augie: I agree with Charles that the intention was to allow for a connection. Nick: That is my concept also. Georgeann: It was asking that maybe we could look at a simplified connection so that it wasn't quite so dominant so strong. Charles: Make it look less like one continuous building but still allow for a physical connection. Trish: The way it sits there right now I don't think it is obvious. If you look at the site plan it is less dominant. Georgeann: The Planning office wants you to clarify the 2 ft. addition to the carriage house. Trish: It shows on the plan and we are adding 3 ft. to the back, east. We want it larger because we need the carriage house to work space wise inside and in order to function and we are still following the lines of the existing house. Roxanne: How are you renovating the carriage house with completely changing the roof and the foundation and siding. Trish: We are keeping the exact same lines of the roof and adding on to not changing it. Georgeann: Is there going to be something left of the original carriage house when you are through. Trish: We are very hopeful. Once we get into the construction phase we are going to save as much of it as we can. When we dig down under and find out the foundation is not a foundation that is well enough to support that structure we might have to demolish portions of it more than we are saying right now and the Committee must be aware of that. Steve: The Commission did not grant demolition and if your proposal turns out to be demolition then you need to get that approval. Trish: The plan will be detailed at final. Georgeann: If it gets to that point you have to let us know. What is it 30% renovation 70% demolition, etc. -- 20 HPC.MINUTES - March 22, 1988 Roxanne: The motion that was passed was to further study the detached approach, was that not correct. Charles: That was the motion that started to be made and I suggested the motion be amended to include their ability to study the connection. We didn't necessarily want it detached but so much as to look more detached than it was. Steve: It should be further studied for final development review and the inclination of the Committee is to allow for it to be attached. Charles: Except that the design was to make it look less attached than it looks in the presently proposed plan. Augie: What about the 3 ft. addition. We talked about retaining the carriage house and if we add 3 ft. to it we are doing something other than what I was concerned with. I would rather see it the existing building. Trish: By adding the 3 ft. to the rear which is really the east side which is the back yard side of it we didn't feel it would be detrimental to the historic shape of the existing structure. Adjourn: 6:00 pm.