Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19860311MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS This design is to have it not look like the it was a part of the orginal building.With this plan Anderson has moved the mass away from the street, and height wise, and breaks it up in to two seperate smaller elements. It works functional from inside because this unit entrance is on the second floor of the Brand building. The question is how visible is this from the street? Anderson showed picture to the board of the view one could see. The pediment of the Greek Temple portion point 10 to 15 feet from the sidewalk. The a darker brown and preceed back. The building will be set back four feet, about the same. will be visible at one temple will be painted and the height will be The architects from the Elks building have signed a letter stating that the new plans look better than what is on the roof of the building now. Letter submitted to Burstein for HPC files. The materials will be a wood siding,and painting. Discussion; Mary Martin said she does not want to see anything on the roofs, and she does not know how it got there, does this exceed the height variance,is it the FAR? There should be a roof FAR along with the ground. Bill Drueding said that the information that he has reviewed, there was a Board of Adjustment 72 -17, after the building was red tag. There was a 93 square foot addition added to the roof,the height of the building in the CC zone is 40 feet, and is still below height, he might have go through a process because of the view planes. Pasqaurella said he found it estic acceptable if the height, space, view plane meet requirements. Pat O' Bryan said that she felt that more information from the MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS building department is needed but is acceptable. Charles Cunniffee,acceptable,other historic building in the county have things that fit on top of buildings. Mary Martin said she would like to see a card board model, to have a better idea of the elevations. Mona Frost, said she does not think it will make that much difference in the view plane, it would be more noticable on a second story, and it is acceptable to her. Bill Poss,agrees that it is an improvment from what is there,it quite interesting from the "folly" as he stated in his memo. Color and outdoor lighting would be his concerns.He has not made a decision on wether or not it is appropriate for the building. There should be a condition placed on the findings of the building department. Georgeann Waggaman is opposed to the plans, HPC is talking about restoring buildings to the orginal state, and to have something on top is distracting, the element is starling, an will attract attention up to it, if it was lower key, but houses the space for the people up there,quiter, the green house is okay but the Greekish pediment up there she is against. There is no plan for outside lighting that the applicant knows of. Pat O'Bryan said she would like to know if the penthouse will be rented long or short term, and garden parties, would they be allowed? Steve Bustein said he talked to the state historical society Lee Keating, she said that the Brand building has almost gone through their process, Steve Bursein said that the state would have to review the new plans intended,if they did not care of the new plans it would become a problem with the tax credits, in her opinion ,if you do an addition as such, it should be low keyed, and compatible in color and material. Anderson said that a part of the guidelines, state that when you MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS add on to a Historic Structure it should not look like part of the orginal structure,it should look like it could easily be moved. Motion Mary Martin moved to table this item for two weeks till the Building Department can inform HPC of 72-17,seconded by Mona Frost, Discussion; Charles Cunniffee said he feels that this is an preliminary hearing, and will have a public hearing next time. Mary Martin said that she does not want to give even preliminary approval till the building department says its okay. Drueding said that the approval given,should be contingent upon everything being legal with the building department,applicable to all building and zoing codes. Martin whats to stop other buildings from building on their roof's. Vote called for,Motion fails. Motion Nick Pasquarella moved to approve the preliminary review for the Brand Building, with the proviso;height,space,view plane,and legal requirements are met and approval from the building department. Charles Cunniffee seconds, Discusion: Mary Martin said she feels that the square footage stated. Vote called for preliminary approval with all the details, 6 for 1 opposed,Georgeann Waggaman. Motion carried. 4 MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Independence Building-follow up -hotel entrance and fire escape 404 S. Galena Stan Mathis HPC concern is, what the applicant has shown the board it not there, and HPC would like an explaination. Mathis said that the entry in front is completed,and in the process how to have hotel signage,so they are more visible from the Copper Street Side and the Durant Street side. Showing the board the drawings of what Mathis intended to do. Mathis said that with in a couple of weeks the applicant plans to come in and show a alternive of that entry,where there might be a conopy,exending out into the mall,the window grill work on the elevation continues on across the face of the buildings between the columns.The plan might be for more signage between the grill work and the columns. If HPC does not feel like amending the approval given,at that presentation then the applicant is willing to follow through with the approved plans. Georgeann Waggaman said at he last presentation, and it did not state in the minutes, but would like the applicant to clarified, on the open grill work...similar to the glass panes over here... she got the impression that there would be glass panes in there... Mathis said with out the glass. Steve Burstein, said the fire escape and the time table need to be addressed. Bill Drueding, said that after HPC approval, there was a existing fire excape, on the east side, they were under construction, when the appliant decided to put hot tubs on the roof, result they went before the Board Of Adjustment,after B o A approval,because more people would be on the roof, it required a larger fire escape for the code,a walk way was built across the roof with a railing, and it had to be exended another floor prior to that, this was done without going before HPC again or having Bill Drueding 5 MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS review the plans, the Building department did sign off on the project. When Mathis did the plans an exit was needed on the second floor,not the third, the code says that an exit must be a certain distance apart, the way the building is laid out, the only way to put an exit is on the exterior of the building,and can not be within ten feet of a window,that leaving no other place, than where the fire escape is now, that was worked out with Jim Wilson. The orginal plan had a deck, and there was no thought of a second exit on the roof. The building department said that with the new building plan, it had become a fourth floor up there, the applicant now needed a second exit from the roof. Making the exterior exit from the roof all the way down to the ground. Wilson said taht because the applicant was changing the building so much that the building had to come up to code, the old fire escape that went up to the third floor orginally, went across a number of windows on the eastern elevation. Drueding said the applicant could go before the Board Of Appeals and have the fire escape considered. HPC could make a recommendation to the Board of Appeals on the fire escape. The fire escape need to be there from the second floor to the grade Mathis said. Georgeannn Waggaman said the fire escape from the second floor to the grade is not that bad, it is the section that looms over the other part of the building,is arcitecturally,historically distracting. Drueding stated that if you use the roof than you exit off the roof than the fire escape needs to go to the roof. Motion Nick Pasquarella moved that HPC to recommend to the owner to review all possiblities to remove and remendy the fire escape requirements on the Independence Building, and for HPC to review said plans, seconded by Bill Poss, 6 MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Discussion; Georgeann Waggaman the Board of Appeals. said that the motion should be directed to Drueding stated that the board should review the new plan first, then suggested to the Board Of Appeals HPC recoE~endations. What HPC fines exceptable, might not be exceptable to Jim Wilson, from the Building Department or in accordence with the code. And recommend to the Board of Appeals even though it does not met the code,that HPC recommendation be a varaince from Jim Wilson decision,be what it may. Amended Motion Nick Pasquarella moved to amend his motion to also state: HPC reviews this item first...motion...seconded by Georgeann Waggaman all in favor, motion carried. Is Memorial day, which Mathis said the building should be completed ,okay with all the HPC members. Memorial Day seemed okay, the members don't want this to go on forever. Pre applications: Bill Mason informed the HPC members, and question some of his choices for the house at 201 E. Hyman, The Herron House. He is the realtor for the Heron house, Herron house is an excellent structure. This house is a very attractive house, office zone, the rest of the block is designated. white on a nice lot in the L-1,This is historically If the house was changed to L-1 it could be a bed and breakfast. Or perhaps the house could be moved. Georgeann Waggaman said is it more important to have this house stay where it is, in location of historic property for the area where it was built or is the house more important and should be moved to save it. The house is on 2 1/2 lots. MINUTES: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Mary Martin said she thinks they should try rezoing. Martin said that HPC is here to preserve the house, more than the land. That perhaps the city should buy the house on the property to preseve it or that the house could be nonaited to the historical society and the land sold. This is just a information item and no motion or action needs to be taken. Ute City Banque Hyman St. canopy 501.E. Hyman Suzanna Reid. Showing the picture of the approved existing canopy, with the brass rails. The applicant would like to coherence to the whole building and to infinicy the entrances, let the awnings go all away around the buildng on the windows, and leave the entrances open with out the awning since they are cut back in, the actual door way is set back from the face of the building. The door will be like it was before,the brass rails will come down, and the glass replaced to its orginal in the upper windows The canopy will be like the other in color and material,same shape, color will be presented later. MOTION Mary Martin moved to approve the awning be accepted. Seconded by Bill Poss, Discussion, Mary Martin restates motion,after with drawing first motion: MOTION Mary Martin approves this proposal of the Ute City Building proposal to remove the present awnings over the doorways,and to replace it,to add awnings on the North side of the windows only, and replace the glass as was there before the awning,be approved for preliminary hearing,with color and materials to be submitted at the Public Hearing. Seconded By Pat 0 'Bryan all in favor, motion carried. Discussion of work session: 8 MINUTES: Adj ou rn. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MARCH 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL:Georgeann Waggaman, Mona Frost, Pat O'Bryan, Nick Pasquarella, .... Bill Poss,Charles Cunniffee, Mary Martin, excused Marge Riley, staff, Steve Burstein, Bill Drueding. OLD BUSINESS: PRELIMINARY REVIEW-BRAND BUILDING ROOFTOP STRUCTURE 203 S. GALENA C. Welton Anderson Anderson said he felt this was an amendment to a prevous meeting. Nick Pasquarella, said the approval given was for the first floor. Anderson said HPC did address the roof, asking that it be try to paint it a color that is consistent with the rest of the building. Georgeann Waggaman, said there are sufficient changes that this will have to go to public hearing. The roof addition was built in 1972,the Brand Building went before Board of ajustment case 72-17 for the structure on the roof.HPC was not in existence. There are three areas that need to be looked at by HPC. The skylights, The fire escape, Demolition and reconstruction of penthouse. Anderson placing five plans up for the board to review. Explaining that the skylights in the existing plans are outline in red, and the new skylights are in yellow. The fire escape,that is going to be put on back on the building,which will be visible from Hopkins. Plan 4:. Demolition of penthouse.Plan 2: Explaining in Plan 1: dotted line, the outline of the existing roof top structure,the heavy lines the proposed structure. It is set back and the green house roof is shown in yellow, and sloped down to about 4 1/2 feet. Plan 3: elevation showns,if you were above the Bullock's roof Plan 5: or the Wheeler Block looking back on the Brand roof. which then you see the lower green house section and the living room section,10 feet by 14 feet. 1