Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19870526 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CO~ITTEE Minutes Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall May 26, 1987 2:30 p.m. Meeting was brought to order by Bill Poss with Nick Pasquarella, Charles Cunniffe, Mary Martin and Charlie Knight present. Excused were Patricia O'Bryan, Zoe Compton, Marge Riley and Georgeann Waggaman. Approval of April 28th minutes with changes. Mary: I joined the Colo. State Preservation Organization and I feel the City should pay for a representative from the Board to go. MOTION: Mary: I would like to make a motion that we request funding from the City for a member of HPC to attend the state meeting on June 11. Nick second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. Steve: On May 11 Ord. #11 was passed and that is the new historic designation regulations; within that is demolition review of the 4's and 5's. SPECIAL BUSINESS Bill: I'll open the Public Hearing: Steve: March 31 HPC held their last discussion of the guide- lines. The bulk of that discussion was to what extent we should discourage recreation of 19 century design solutions. George~nn gave me her comments. With ord %11 the guidelines now have to be passed by Council. We hope to have them ready for June. Wayne Stryker: I don't think the public has had much chance to respond to the document. I've been trying to get the document and it wasn't ready. Bill: I don't think we will finish this in one meeting. I want to remind the public that copies are available for review. Steve: I will go over Georgeann's comments. suggests more pictures. On page one she Mary: If I want to remodel a victorian etc. does the applicant get the whole guidelines or could it be condensed. Steve: The chapters have been broken down and copies of specific chapters can be obtained. HPC MINUTES MAY 26, 1987 Charles: When they get the book they can read the chapters of interest but it is also good for applicants to have the entire package in order for them to understand the community entirely. Mary: It seems to me the basic book on style, design of windows etc. should be part of the Historical Society pamphlet. We should not get that involved. Why should the Planning Office add more pictures etc. Steve: One of the prime problems that guidelines is that HPC felt they needed problems. lead to us working on the a better way to focus on Bill: There should be certain powers that this There is no document like this that exists. This to the applicant on how we will review things. Committee has. gives education Steve: Georgeann states that there is reference to anodized metal frames. Are anodized metal frames in landmark structures appropriate. Preference would be wooden frames. Steve: Do you think anodized windows and frames are inapprop- riate in an historical building. Bill: Anodized metal is a process of finishing aluminum or metal with colors. Kathryn Lee: Anodized metal last longer than wooden windows. Steve: In general a true restoration would use wood. Charles: Maybe we should leave it open by saying painted wood frames or other appropriately treated metal frames are accept- able. Mary: We should avoid language that imitates historic styles found in the district. It is up to the individual as to the style he wants. We are not here to tell the architect what to design. Wayne Stryker: I think something should be placed in the beginning stating that you encourage new designs and esthetics freedom. Bill: This document tells you how the HPC works but it is also a basic reader that lets people know about the history of the town and how we would like to see new construction developed and how we would like to see the old. HPC MINUTES MAY 26, 1987 Kathryn Lee: I agree with Mary that it says you are telling me not to build something that looks old. Charlie: Don't state anything, let the designers and architects have a free hand particularly if it is not a restoration. John Cottle: I feel this could be a useful tool tion is this is nothing more than a guideline for members and the applicants. and my assump- the Committee Kathryn Lee: Possibly the newspaper could publish this. Bill: Please review the guidelines and we will continue the public meeting at our next meeting. Charles: The guidelines are excellently set up for each subject area including a description. Bill: I'd like to continue this public hearing and the review of the historic district and landmark guidelines to our next meeting. 400 W. SMUGGLER-FENCE AND DORMER Steve: At our last meeting we went through a proposal which was to put a 5'6" fence the length of Smuggler street side. There was discussion that it was not appropriate for the fence to go the entire length of the streetscape. The applicant wants to achieve privacy. Bill: This being a corner house the 5'6" fence would be a barrier which is against the guidelines. Regina: The house is set back and to the side of the property lines and I have no yard (privacy place for myself). The entrance is along 3rd Street and Smuggler St. is the side. Steve had stated that he would be happy if the fence came behind as a dormer on the Smuggler Street side. Charles commented as you walk along the street it should be open so you can see across the corner of the property. The victorians along the street have different heights of fences one is 3'6", one 5'8". In keeping with the streetscape I made the fence the height the same height as the person next to me. The front of the house is a 3'6" open picket fence. Charles: She has opened the areas that we wanted and set back the high portion of the fence significantly from the corner so there is a reasonable amount of yard left. She has given up a 3 HPC MINUTES MAY 26, 1987 lot of front yard that is not private in order to do that. There has been a good compromise here. Steve: She has changed the plan to comply with HPC but the entrance way would still be covered by the fence. I still think it is too massive and I would recommend that it be cut back further. It is still obstructing the view from the street. Nick: Is there a solid fence anywhere. Regina: Yes, behind the dormer. wouldn't be asking for a high fence. If I had a back yard I Mary: I don't think we should be that involved with fences. I would prefer to see the fence done with bushes. Charlie: One of my concerns is your neighbor. They are already fenced in on the other side. You are boxing them in. Bill: I agree with the guidelines that fences along the front should be low, and I agree with Mary that landscaping (bushes) would be preferable rather than a high fence. The guidelines are quite clear that we shouldn't take houses and close them off from the street, that they should be open to the street. MOTION: Charles made the motion to approve the fence as submitted. Mary second the motion. Charles, Mary and Nick favored the motion. Bill and Charlie voted against. Motion carries. Steve: The other issue is Regina would like to make an extens- ion of the existing shed roof dormer. It is not visible from Smuggler but visible to the neighbor. I would recommend approval of the dormer. MO~ION: Charles made the motion to approve the shed dormer addition to the back of the house as submitted. Charlie second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. HPC MINUTES MAY 26, 1987 ELLI ~S STORE WINDOW C~ANGES AND KICKPLATE John Cottle: We would like to change one window on the new addition and we would like to put a kickplate on over the plywood. A brick panel was added in the 50's and we would like to remove that and replace it with a window more compatible with the original design. Steve: My only concern is to whether there is some historic significance to the wall. MOTION: Nick made the motion to approve the three changes as presented. Charles second the motion. All favored. Motion carries. Kathy Strickland