Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19871110 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Minutes Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall November 10, 1987 2:30 p.m. Meeting was called to order by chairman Georgeann Waggaman with Nick Pasquarella, Zoe Compton, Charles Cunniffe, Bill Poss, Charlie Knight and Augie Reno present. Patricia O'Bryan was excused. MOTION: Augie made the motion to approve the Oct. 13, 1987 minutes. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve the Oct. 27, 1987 minutes. Nick second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. STAFF COM~ENTS Steve: The guidelines are scheduled to be discussed at City Council on Nov. 19, 1987. Ord. %42 Historic Incentives will be in the next packet. As of today Elli's work has been stopped on the original portion of the structure until they either bring it into compliance and that the walls do fit back together correctly or they come back with an amendment for HPC to consider. The building is bigger than the walls. Charlie: What is going to happen with the short section of wall that faces west that joins the new building. Steve: They did not keep that section. Nick: They never made a commitment to replace that. Charlie: It needs to be old but there is nothing left. Steve: They have been red tagged. Bill: What other remedies do they have, can they go to City Council an appeal anything we do? Steve: If HPC denies it they can appeal it to Council. Nick: Would it be possible for us to think that we could say to them to duplicate what was there completely; to fit end to end exactly the way it looked before with new boards and everything. Charlie: It is replication now not a restoration. Steve: They got the GMP exemption. HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 Georgeann: I think we ought to take away the historic restora- tion designation and say forget about the old boards and put the new boards up and forget about historic designation and pay the GMP bills. Steve: Let's not discuss it too much until before us because you should be responding to are making and they haven't made on yet. an application is the proposal they Georgeann: It says in our bylaws that chairman and vice- chairman should be elected once a year in August. I have been chairman for fives years. Maybe if a number of us had the opportunity to be chairman it would make us better prepared and better able to run the meeting. Start rotating the positions. Zoe: I would like to nominate Bill Poss for chairman and Georgeann Waggaman for vice-chairman. I think that would be an excellent combination. When one is absent from the meeting the other one is here. Charles: I would second that. Georgeann: I would be pleased to have Bill as chairman. would give me a little break and a change of pace. That Nick: Lets have a chairman and a vice-chairman and then make a step up: the vice-chairman becomes chairman and the new vice- chairman becomes a vice-chairman and that gives them an opportun- ity for a year to back up the chairman and know what he is going to be doing and then the next year bring up the next person. That way the new chairman will have been vice-chairman and hold some continuity to the practice. We would have the same person here for two years either as chairman or vice-chairman. Steve: That conflicts with the code. vote every year. The code says you should Georgeann: I would like the chairman and vice-chairman to work a little more closely and more coordinated. MOTION: Zoe made the motion to elect Bill Poss as chairman of HPC. Nick second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to vice-chairman of HPC. Nick second Motion carries. elect Georgeann Waggaman as the motion. Ail favored. Charles: I would like to ask if I could have some people present information on the Berko building. We would like to get 2 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 some feedback from HPC on what to do in adding to that building since it is designated as a #4. MOTION: Charlie made the motion to add the Berko Building to the agenda under new business. Steve: I'm concerned about the Staffs ability and the Committ- ees ability to respond without a chance to review something ahead of time. Charlie: It is not an official application, it is an informal discussion and we have the time. Charles: We need the feedback to help us get a direction. Zoe second the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. Charles: On the Hamilton House, 513 W. Bleeker, that was approved by HPC for the changes they made, I believe they have carried the intention of that approval further than either the Building Dept. has permitted or the HPC has reviewed and I am in the wrong position to follow-up on that so I wanted to bring it to the Boards attention. Bill: Who would like to work with Steve and report back. House. as a monitor on the Hamilton House Augie will monitor the Hamilton Charles: I'm concerned mostly that they follow-up with details, siding and trim choices and brackets. There may be a chance that they will do short cuts that would not be in keeping with what was the intention of that approval. Charlie: We're into or more we're our approval and can't stop them or finding that 20% of the things we're getting getting railroaded on and are changing without they are getting too far ahead of us that we change them. Bill: We will add monitoring projects after Committee member and Staff comments to the agenda. ISIS BUILDING AWNING David Warner: The cantilevered awning is difficult to do coming off of a store front and I would like to avoid the problem of having to use a steel frame. One of your objections was the amount of objects coming off of the building which was the signage in addition to the awning. I would like to propose eliminating the signage and go back to a standard awning which would have a side to it and we could incorporate the signage we 3 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 needed on it but still be able to extend it over the sidewalk. It would be unobtrusive if we painted it flat black. The example of the awning at the Cantina works quite successfully. We are trying to create something like that. The building itself is quite blank and it is a detriment not to have something active that is going on there. Georgeann: When you say a standard awning what do you mean. David: This awning if you look at the elevation has very sharp edges. It is a pure triangle. A more standard awning has a flat side to it before it pitches up. We would go back to that flat side so that we could have a place for signage. We need signage looking up and down Mill Street instead of having two additional things coming off the building. I'm thinking of a six to eight inch side to the awning. It will be a taunt awning in keeping with the awning at the Cantina. It is not retractable. Georgeann: I still feel that the size of this shop, the smaller awning is more appropriate. I'm curious about the structure for the smaller awning. David: It has to cantilever off of the store front and the storefront is not structural. I would have to build a steel frame behind it that ties back into the concrete block. Charlie: I would have the same comment that Georgeann has. There is a need for some covering but I don't think it is the appropriate place to have an awning that goes out to the street. I think it would over scale the building. Nick: If we didn't do the canopy that goes out toward the street (the uprights) how far from the curb are they roughly. David: Two feet. Nick: Right now there is parallel parking there, not angled so you are reasonably safe. If that situation would ever change you would have a bad situation. David: I talked to engineering and they have no objection to how close it is to the curb. I would think parallel parking would be a worse situation with doors opening. Georgeann: What would the posts be made of. David: 1 1/4 inch outside diameter pipe painted flat black. Georgeann: Could the awning just come up higher in the window. 4 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 David: The windows slope back. Charlie: This shape awning is inappropriate to the shape of the building. David: It is not inappropriate, it is like adding a gable. Steve: I would note that an encroachment license is required if they are to do a non-retractable awning or a canopy which is supported. From the encroachment point of view I am concerned about the post that stick up in the sidewalk as a hindrance for pedestrians walking there. A far as the function of the awning the smaller one would be more in keeping with the character of the building. If there is a change of design that should be drawn out so that the Committee can review that and I would suggest that something new be submitted to demonstrates that. David: I'm afraid ~1 awning is too small for the building and won't do any good. There won't be enough room on the awning for signage. Nick: You want to use a canopy that historically was used to conduct people into the building out of the weather and now you want to use that same facade to hang signs on and I have trouble with something like that. Charles: Every shop on the Brand Building has a sign on it and most awnings in town have signs on them. Nick: But they don't cover the sidewalk. Charles: They go out over the sidewalk. Nick: They don't cover the whole sidewalk and they don't go clear out to the street. Georgeann: What about making it taller and set back. Charlie: That is up to them. If they raise it and bring the awning all the way back over the slant to the shed roof that's their sky light then they wouldn't have any natural light. Georgeann: We're not unhappy with you having an awning and I agree that particular building entrance really does need an awning to stand out a little. David: I would like to consider as much extension The smaller awning doesn't do the building justice doesn't like it either. as I can get. and the owner 5 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 Georgeann: go out. How far did we allow the Sport Stalker's awnings to Steve: This is a 6' 8" awning and possibly the Sport Stalker is somewhat the same but that was an existing canopy. Augie: How big is the store that this is serving. David: 500 square feet. Augie: Traditionally when you have an entrance porthole like that you are usually dealing with a large entity whether it is a restaurant or a store or whatever. Because of the size of the shop it is I think it might be too over powering. David: We have two awnings one that has an extension of 3 feet and the other an extension of 6'8" and requires posts that come to the ground. How far is too far for you; I need more than three feet. Can we have a cantilever that is four feet. Bill: Conditionally the average is about three to four feet. Georgeann: No one wants the awning to go all the way across the sidewalk or have that appearance. Nick: As long as it is self supporting from the building I would have no problem what-so-ever. zoe: The space percentage wise in the building is not large enough to really merit a huge walk up awning. That would not even been in proportion. The awning should be free standing and hanging and it should have a maximum of 3 1/2 feet. Charlie: The awning is 6'8" across and covering the window and door. Is the width on either awning going to change. David: No. would go with on each side. It sounds like three to four feet is acceptable. I #1 awning and extend it four feet and have a sign Steve: I thought the deletion of the sign was an improvement because I think that is not a traditional way of having the sign display. Traditionally signage is on the material. Zoe: I agree with Steve, I don't like those added "wings" as it is in the historic district and we have to conform somehow. Charles: This building is so stark and so ultra modern that this signage approach is a change and I would like to move to approve it. HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 Charlie: We don't deal with signage. He's telling us where the signs go but there is a sign code and they have to comply with that. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the proposed awning for the storefront located at 214 S. Mill Street with the outward dimension from the building to be limited to four feet. The shape of the sign I find acceptable. We would need to see materials and colors for final approval because we always require that. Steve: He has made some presentation toward materials. David: It would be fireproof canvas. Charlie: The canopy is on the Isis Theatre building but it is actually the entrance to Fox Photo and it is burgundy canvas. Georgeann: We have always required that all the awnings match. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the proposed new awning at 214 S. Mill Street with a dimension 4 feet out from the building and the material to match the other existing awning on that building. Material would be presented to Steve Burstein, planner. Nick second the motion. Ail approved except Georgeann. Motion carries. Nick: Talk to the building dept. about signage. MINOR REVIEW: BRAND BLDG. STUCCO FINISH TO REAR ANNEX & HOT TUBS Charlie stepped down as a tenant of the building. Welton Anderson, architect: The first request deals only with the annex which is the one story area on the back of the building that faces the lot next to the jewelry store in the alley. The annex was built in the mid 1930's and it was the body and paint shop for the automobile dealership that was in the Brand Bldg. It was built of cinder block and cheap brick. Laura O'Donally owner of the property next door to the annex plans to building a building which will block out any view of that annex from a public right-a-way. That is several years down the road. In the meantime she is doing some landscaping, performance arts space and/or sculpture garden. The Smuggler will continue to use a portion of that property for their outside dining. Bill Lipsey, Laura O'Donally architect suggested that we take the same finish that is on the west wall of the Smuggler which is a sand finish 7 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 stucco and painted the same color as sandstone and continue that over onto the annex. We thought we would ask you if we could do this. The annex is a mixture of cinder block and brick and the brick is deteriorated and this would be a good solution. The other annex oriented changes are the skylight that is on top of the corner apartment which was approved by HPC four or six weeks ago to move to build one that would suite the egress requirements better, we would like to move that onto the roof of the gym since there is no egress requirement from the gym. We want to take physically that skylight off the upper roof and put it on the one story annex roof in the back. Georgeann: Will you see it. Welton: It would be slightly visible. In addition we would like to put a roof terrace off of the apartment that faces the west. Put approximately a ten foot deep by 20 foot wide roof deck off of there with a hot tub screened by lattice work. That was the first application that I made before I went out of town. The second one was for three more roof decks, two on the southern roof the one closer to the alley which is about six feet lower than the portion of the building that you can see through the second floor window of City Hall and one roof deck on that. Those also happen to have a jacuzzi on them now. Plans were presented. The one tub is located to the west wall of the Brand bldg. We would like to screen that one with lattice work. It would be an extension of the current roof line but there would not be any wood work only lattice work so you won't see what is happening on the roof. The question of impact from public right- of-way is going to be mitigated in the near future when the new building is built next door to it. Steve: I have no problem with the stucco finish given that building was built in the 1930's and it is not an important facade to the structure. It is not very visible and the protect- ive coating will help it. I don't think the skylight will have any impact either and I would recommend approval. The other changes I am not so sure of. We should not rely on future development blocking views. I am concerned about the structural ability of the building to be able to accommodate the hot tubs, lattice work and the decks. I am also interested in the visual impacts. At first I thought if the hot tubs were not visible it would seem OK. The one on the annex roof is visible and requires lattice work to hide it and when you put up that lattice work it hides the back side of the original structure, some of the vertical windows that are in there now. The lattice work starts to cover HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 all of that and you don't get to view any of the rear side of the structure. That is part of the charm of an historic structure that you can look at it in its entirety. There are concerns about the weight of the hot tubs on the roof and what happens with all the people walking around; might they be leaning on the cornices etc. It is not an appropriate thing to put a lot of hot tubs on an old building and a lot of lattice work. It is traditional to be underneath stairways and maybe some back porches but not this type of application. My recommendation to the Committee is to approve the stucco and the skylight and not approve the other improvements. Augie: There seems to be the need of a stronger concept as they intend just to put the lattice work in one or two spaces rather than doing something with the whole roof scape. The roof scape is probably visible from the second floor of the Elks Building. Georgeann: I have no problem with the color of the stucco, that is a fine solution. I feel the height of the trellis is too dominant and the height should be just high enough to cover these peoples heads so it isn't so massive. Welton: The Secretary of Interior guidelines for doing addit- ions and changes to historic buildings is to concentrate changes to the facade of the building that are not the important facades of the building and give them a sense of not being permanent so what is old reads permanent and additions read as not permanent. I agree with you and I could take the height of the trellis down half way and it will serve only as a hand rail. Nick: The only comment I can readily accept is the stucco in the form that it is being used. Zoe: I have no objection to the stucco, that is a proper application and I also think that the trellis should be lower. Bill: I concur with Zoe. Welton do you want to change your application? Welton made changes on the blue print. Welton: I would suggest that we have the trellis at least 18 inches above the tub. MOTION: Georgeann made the motion to approve Welton's submis- sion for the Brand bldg. as presented and corrected in the meeting. The stucco is approved as is, the decks and hot tubs are approved as long as they pass their structural tests, the trellis's are approved except that they are shortened in some areas shown on the drawings on the west elevation. Charles second the motion. Ail approved. Motion carries. HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 MINOR DEVELOPMENT-WACH'S BUILDING (FORMERLY CHEA~SHOTS) Less Boyd, leases the space: Zoe: How old is the building? Less: 50 to 60 yrs Less: The one window on the right side of the building has been approved and we would like to add two windows on the left side. Georgeann: Are you changing the window upstairs into a door. Less: It is already a door with a window. Georgeann: So you want to side over the door? Less: Can or cannot, it depends on what you decide. Steve: This is a matter of putting in additional windows and adding horizontal wood siding similar to the Sport Stalker. Less: The roof will be repaired and it is tin. Steve: I would recommend approval. Zoe: I think the siding should be vertical as that building represents the old barn look. Charles: If it were vertical it would be more in keeping with the building. That building has always been a vertical looking building in terms of siding. Zoe: Would you keep the wood floor inside? Less: No it would be carpeted. Less: I don't have a problem with the vertical but I would like to have the option. I may leave it like it is with metal siding as I have an associate involved with this. The partner wants horizontal. Georgeann: You want the windows; you want to clean up the metal along the front; paint the window etc.; the other possibi- lity is leaving the metal cleaned up the way it is or put horizontal siding up. 10 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the proposed changes to the Wach's building i.e., new windows, vertical tongue/groove siding. Zoe: Second the motion. All approved. Motion carries. Approval was for tongue/groove siding, two windows and removal of door with window, dormer and keep only the window. BERKO BUILDING-PRE-APPLICATION Charles stepped down. Richard Klein: We would like some direction for a project at 309 E. Hopkins. This building was rated #4. Our client would like to transform this building into a commercial building of about 6,000 sq. feet. We have several options: 1. Relocate the existing building to a neighborhood more in keeping with its scale and design and build a new structure. 2. Renovate the existing and create a contemporary addition or an addition more in keeping with victorian architecture. 3. If we keep the existing building we're wondering if we might be exempt from the GMP submittal and also how current open space requirements would affect this project. Steve: With regard to GMP exemption for historic expansions I believe quite soon the City Council and P&Z are going to be considering a change to those regulations. I would advise the Committee not to start into a process of a major kind of add-on to a structure assuming that that would be considered as a historic designation of the structure and conceptual approval for it under that exemption. If it is a minor addition I think it is appropriate to consider designation of the structure and the granting of the GMP exemption for it. Richard: What would you consider minor and major. Steve: Minor would be an addition of about 200 sq. feet and is not visible from the front of the structure. Because designation requires an ordinance approved by City Council and recommendation from P&Z I don't think that I would advise you to go in that direction at this time. I certainly want you to save the building but the procedures are not in place to allow that to happen right now. Richard: If we modify the building to attain our 6,000 sq. ft. requirement from the client we would have to go then through the GMP process. 11 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 Steve: I think that is the direction. Richard: What if we renovated the building and used it as an entrance to a structure in the back. Steve: As far as an GMP exemption I wouldn't know unless I saw drawings of what you are talking about. The City is interested in having growth impacts reviewed of new commercial development, anything more than just a very minor expansion should go through some process. Richard: Assuming we go through the GMP process and the City is able to review the project, leaving the building in the present location it might be extremely difficult to meet open space requirements i.e. alleyway etc. Steve: It might be impossible. existing nonconformity. In any case you will have an Bill: Richard's concept of saying building a building behind a designated historic structure: suppose you had more than one lot, a 9,000 sq. ft. lot, three lots which had one small desig- nated structure on it could they in effect circumvent the GMP by building a new building because they had designation. Steve: There is no provision for that. Yes, if it is not an addition to an existing structure it would not qualify as an GMP exemption. Georgeann: If we recommend that they don't designate now, we of course still get to review this because it is in the historic district. As a #4 if he decided to level this building he would have to get our permission to do it. On the other hand it is possible that that could happen and a contemporary building could be built in this whole space, a plaza, etc. The only way we can control that the Berko bldg. stays there would be to recommend designation. Steve: Because it is a #4 it is subject to the demolition reviews so therefore even without designation there is a protect- ion mechanism in place. Georgeann: If the applicant decides he wants to demolish it and can't then he might as well get it designated at that point because that is a better help since he is stuck with the building anyway. Richard: What about the first option of moving that structure to a different location. 12 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 Nick: Would the client be willing to take care of that whole project, buy the lot, move the house etc. Richard: If that were a requirement for him to build his new project he wouldn't have a choice. Georgeann: Has anything been worked out that way Steve. Steve: No the City has rejected at this time the idea of either the Marolt property or Koch being the receiving area for moved historic structures. Charlie: What are the various alternatives. Steve: Given that there are some incentives for them to keep the house where it is if it was designated to do a minor expan- sion or possibly to do a major one once new regulations are in place to accommodate that. That might be a direction for this project to go. Charlie: What would be the direction. Steve: The direction of going for designation and finding out to what extent the incentives allow for a GMP exemption. Bill: I don't believe in the incentive program that it addre- sses any GMP exemptions at all because it already exists in the code. The incentive program that has been passed by Council doesn't address GMP exemption at all because it is already in the code. Steve: I'm saying that that section in the code is likely to be changed at some point. It is unlikely that the exemption will be done away with entirely. Designation may still allow them to have some addition that is exempt from GMP. Richard: What your thinking of is a minor expansion. Steve: Given that we are in between I would not recommend today that you should designate it. Richard: What suggestion should we take, we have a client that would like to have a product that is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. when he gets done with it and we need direction on how to proceed. Bill: Two applications have come before us on a preliminary basis for small miners cabins which are in the proximity of 1,000 sq. feet to 1,200 sq. ft. and it has been my experience with this Commission that the enlargement of these structures don't even 13 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 come close to 6,000 sq. feet. You would be increasing this by six times. I don't know how you would retain this victorian character in the massing of this type of structure. I don't know how you will achieve that on a small lot. Georgeann: If a person wants to take advantage of the designa- tion and the few breaks that he can get, he has to realize that he can't have everything and he can't build his lot out to the total amount. Richard: It might be possible to relocate the building. Steve: The Berko building is an example of a small brick miners cottage and it is the only one in the CC zone that is surviving. I think its significance in this location is great. Nick: When they did the Mill Street Station we asked for certain requirements east facing in keeping with this building. The setbacks and height of the building. Richard: If we're able to keep this building intact and still provide an addition for the client in the back toward the alley, in terms of the architecture what direction do you feel we should proceed. Something that would compliment the building or a contrast. Georgeann: If I were doing it I would want to keep this as it is and put something neutral behind it. Bill: How would the Committee feel if the house could be moved to another site and be preserved. That would open up an option that you are going to get a new piece of architecture that is going to be more compatible with the two surrounding buildings. How important is this building to this site in restoration and preservation. Augie: Because of the two contemporary buildings that are there I would be in favor of having it moved. Georgeann: I wouldn't mind seeing it near to downtown; I wouldn't want to see it way out at the West End. Bill: If there was no building on that site I doubt you would come in with a design like you proposed. We would draw the line where we have in this historic district smaller victorians across the street and hold that line. This battle was lost when Mill Street Station was allowed to develop so big and there is only one victorian on that side of the street. 14 HPC Minutes November 10, 1987 Nick: I feel strong and it would be a first if we could successfully move it as it is. We should lean in that direction. Zoe: I seem to feel that the fact that it is in its original location it adds a lot of character. After looking at these drawings what I thought with the contemporary structure in the back is not as compatible as maybe something that is slightly more victorian to go with it. If you did something that was very definitive and not quite so contemporary and retain the building in its original location would be more of an asset than moving it. It is charming when you come into a town and know that a house has been there for 100 years vs the fact that a new building is there. Steve: We were talking about the redevelopment of the A1 Phillips building and if someone were to redevelop that in a way that gave Berko's an out so they didn't seem so sandwiched in that could be an improvement for the whole situation of that structures problem. Richard: Right now if we go to a new building then we're going to be required to have the 25% open space. We could do a modest addition in the back to bring up some square footage or attempt to move the building. Steve: The third is to do something more massive but to wait to see what the regulations will be. Richard: Before we could go that direction we really have to find out what the new zoning etc. is going to be. Adjourned 5:00 Kathleen J. Strickland Deputy City Clerk 15