Historic Preservation Commission

Transcription

1 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes of October 25, 2010 Commission Members Present Scott Chandler, Chairman, Amy Pence-Brown, Barbara Dawson, Liz Edrich, Steve Smith, Beth Lassen and Samuel Jones Staff Members Present Matt Halitsky, Robert Lockward (Legal) and Nicki Heckenlively COMMISSION DISCLOSURES COMMISSIONER LASSEN: I am the designer on DRH Therefore, I will recuse myself from voting on the consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA DRH / Arthur Albanese Location: 203 N. Walnut Street Requests approval to remove a large Blue Spruce tree from the southeast corner of property located in an R-2H (Combined Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Applicant present and in agreement with the terms and conditions contained in the staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY DRH / Mike and Marilou Gibson Location: 1115 N. 22nd Street Request approval to construct a single-story, single-family home on property located in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Applicant present and in agreement with the terms and conditions contained in the staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY

2 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 2 of 13 DRH / Kurt and Elsa Lee Location: 1212 N. 16th Street Request approval to of xeriscape landscape for property located in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Applicant present and in agreement with terms and conditions contained in the staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMMISSIONER SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE DRH , DRH AND DRH ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER EDRICH SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 6:0. LASSEN RECUSED. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER DRH / Christa Stumpf and James Byron Location: 1417 E. Franklin Street Request approval to demolish the south addition and construct additions on the south and east of property located in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. MATT HALITSKY: The remodel proposed by the applicant is largely consistent with respect to the Residential Design Guidelines and you can see that in the elevations. Staff has recommended two conditions of approval. The first being that the west elevation addition be stepped back somewhat to differentiate the old from the new addition. The second condition would be that lot coverage be reduced to no more than 32 percent, which is a little more in keeping with lot coverage found throughout the neighborhood. SITE VISITS Commissioners Edrich, Pence-Brown, Chandler, Dawson, Lassen and Jones visited the site prior to the hearing. Commissioner Smith did not visit the site. APPLICANT TESTIMONY ELIZABETH YOUNG (Applicant s Representative): No objections to site visits. The applicants have owned the property for quite a while. They moved out of town and now they are coming back with their family. They actively pursued getting their home in the district. If you notice in the plan it is the only little finger that is out there because she felt strongly about Historic Preservation Districts. Their family is sized as such that they really wanted the three bedrooms and they really want the neighborhood and they ve

3 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 3 of 13 owned the property for a while so they wanted to do a nice addition to the property. We did discuss the opportunity of going up, which is kind of the problem here. We re taking too much of the site percentage wise. Because the house is so old the only way to do a second floor and keep any of the original house intact is to do the little lumping event that always happens when you put an addition on because the foundations can t handle a second story with the original property. Feeling that the better approach was to keep it one story and keep all the existing height and elevations the same we felt the approach was really mild towards the street elevation. We felt that because of the scale of the house being kind of short that it was appropriate for the neighbors in terms of their backyards and we really weren t impinging upon them. I ve been very impressed with the owners in that they really want to do a quality job with nice materials. The interior will really be upgraded. They want wood windows so they are willing to pay the price for replacing all the windows in the property. We do very much request that the square footage remain as is. The reduction from of the two percent basically would take off the front bedroom and bath. It is basically a 200 square foot reduction that staff has suggested 222 square feet. That is significant to them and we don t really see a way to do it so we are very politely requesting that they be allowed to build to that square footage on that lot. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: One of the conditions of approval is the stepping back of that addition to the south of the property. ELIZABETH YOUNG: We did talk to staff and the owners are willing to step back six inches. Again, because they want to maintain the same elevation of the eave line. If we step back much more then we have to reconfigure the whole roof structure. If we step back just the six inches, which delineates the new from old in terms of the addition then we can extend the eave out and it won t be a very big construction issue so they are agreeing to it. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Will that shift that west master bedroom window six inches over that direction or are you going to cut six inches off? ELIZABETH YOUNG: At this point we re going to take six inches off the whole length of the house. I went back after staff did the percentage of the square footage of the neighborhood and again, the house is pretty small and it is less than 2,000 square feet. The other houses may have less property coverage, but they do have basements and second floors. We re very much in keeping with the square footage of the houses in that neighborhood. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: When you do your calculations on the application once you do the demolition of the part you re going to take off, which is 295 square feet and that would leave the original 873 square foot home plus the additions plus that being the total square footage. ELIZABETH YOUNG: Right. The addition we re taking off is in pretty poor condition and it was an addition.

4 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 4 of 13 PUBLIC TESTIMONY ROSS BLANCHARD: I happen to be the neighbor next door to Christa and James. I wanted to come by and hear more about the proposal as opposed to CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: You re not looking to present any testimony? ROSS BLANCHARD: I live on the east side of Christa and James property. I received the card in the mail, but I have not followed up with any of the details of the project. I can t say I m very familiar with anything, but I would support anything that Christa and her husband do so in that regard I m supportive. Can you describe what would be the process to learn more details? Calling the City staff to learn a little bit more? CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: You can contain staff and they can give you a copy of the application and everything that was presented to the Commission. ROSS BLANCHARD: I suppose I ll do that then. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: Is there a copy of the application out front? MATT HALITSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: There should be one you can pick up out there. ROSS BLANCHARD: Will do. I have a question regarding the timeframe for the proceedings or the proposals to go through the Commission and other elements of Planning and Development Services. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: You ll have to talk to staff on that. Once they clear us we have no control over it. ROSS BLANCHARD: How long does it take to clear the Commission? CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: A decision will be made tonight. ROSS BLANCHARD: Okay. Very good. ELIZABETH YOUNG: I appreciate that he agrees and has no objection to the house. NO APPLICANT REBUTTAL NO STAFF REBUTTAL PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

5 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 5 of 13 CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: Because there is demolition involved in this we will have to approve the demolition before we can move forward to approving any of the remodels. DAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEMOLITION ASSOCIATED WITH DRH THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED NON-CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISTRICT SO THE APPLICANT HAS MET FINDING NUMBER ONE, THE BUILDING, PROJECT, SITE OR STRUCTURE IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS CONTRIBUTORY TO THE DISTRICT. THE BUILDING CANNOT REASONSABLY MEET STATE, NATIONAL OR LOCAL CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A HISTORIC OR ARCHITECTURAL LANDMARK. NEITHER THE SITE AS A WHOLE OR THE STRUCTURES HAS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE SO THE APPLICANT HAS MET THIS FINDING. THE DEMOLITION OF THE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT NOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND SINCE THE PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED NON-CONTRIBUTING THE REMOVAL OF THE ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT HISTORIC PROPERTIES NOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE SO THE APPLICANT HAS MET THIS FINDING. THE OWNER HAS THE ALTERNATIVE OF DEMONSTRATING THAT REHAB OF THE BUILDING, OBJECT, SITE OR STRUCTURE WOULD NOT BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS NOT EXPLORED AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THAT FINDING. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY IF THE DEMOLITION PROCEEDS AND SUCH PLANS WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE DISTRICT AND/OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES. PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO REMODEL THE EXISTING HOME BY ADDING NEW ADDITIONS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE HOME. THE ADDITIONS ARE SINGLE STORY AND FOR THE MOST PART CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS. WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THE APPLICANT HAS MET THIS FINDING SO THE APPLICANT HAS MET FOUR OF THE FIVE REQUIRED FINDINGS. COMMISSIONER SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: Just a clarification on the last item, e. We haven t yet dealt with the conditions, but if we are to pass it, it would be with whatever conditions are approved, which would then be attached to this demolition portion. ROLL CALL 7:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: We ll take up the portion related to the lot coverage. The applicant has already agreed to the one condition recommended by staff as far as stepping back the west wall on the addition so we re down to dealing with the lot coverage.

6 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 6 of 13 COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: I appreciate the thought put into the design by both the applicants and the architect and that the addition is very thoughtful and well done, but I m concerned about that high of a lot coverage. I m concerned with approving that. I agree with the recommendation that it needs to be somehow reduced especially when looking at the neighborhood. The surrounding residences are so much lower. 36 percent is so large compared to the next highest which is between 15 and 32 percent lot coverage. I d be interested to see how my fellow Commissioners feel. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I don t have a great deal of concern about the lot coverage. I live in this neighborhood and I walk this neighborhood often and the house that is directly next to this one that is the 15 percent lot coverage is a candidate for arson. It sits there with broken windows, badly taken care of and the neighborhood is going to be well served with the addition. This house is a very modest home. When you walk by the outside it doesn t even look like it is 900 square feet with the current addition. The tastefulness of the addition, the fact there is a lot of side yard to go into obviates the lot coverage. The one right next door to it on the corner of Coston is a duplex or at least it looks like a duplex. It is a non-contributing more modern structure and it has a much larger lot so it s got a larger footprint because it has a larger lot and the lot coverage is less. I don t have a great deal of concern about the 36 percent lot coverage in this instance. COMMISSIONER SMITH: I agree with Commissioner Dawson. In this particular case and first since everything else is outside the district I m not exactly sure our 32 percent actually applies to what we re talking about here. That s one issue I have. Secondly, this is a nice design. While I didn t go by this house specifically I am familiar with the neighborhood and this would be a good addition to this particular street so I intend to support the 36 percent lot size. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: I really appreciate the design. I m on the fence about this. I m torn because I think it s a great design and it is very tasteful and suits the property really well. It is an improvement for the neighborhood and it is an eclectic (inaudible). I m in support of all that, but I always get nervous about setting precedence of lot coverage and I m weighing how much I need to consider that. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: I would have to concur with Commissioners Dawson and Smith. The lot coverage doesn t seem to be as big of an issue for me. The addition is set so far back from the street and there is open space out front. In walking around the neighborhood there are lower percentages, but again it is very well done and I m okay with it. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: When it comes to lot coverage that is an item that I looked at a lot more subjectively than objectively. There have been several applications come in front of us where I was against something such as an increase over the guidelines such as this simply because of the feel of it. I don t have that feel on this particular application. Having the guidelines that we have are good, but I think we have to keep in mind that they are guidelines and that to strictly prohibit it or on the other hand to encourage

7 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 7 of 13 something up to a certain percentage and not going beyond that is to interpret that strictly takes away some of the subjectivity, which we all need to employ when we look at these projects. I feel this one works and I don t have any problem with it and it doesn t overwhelm the lot from the street and the street is our primary concern. While 36 percent is a bit high for the neighborhood, etc. Commissioner Smith s observation that we have to be a little careful on what we consider exactly in the neighborhood because of the nature of the boundaries of district at this point. I can support the 36 percent lot coverage on this particular application. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: I appreciate all of my fellow Commissioner s insight on this and agree for the most part. I was a little on the fence, but I m feeling more like I m not on the fence and more on the side of agreeing with staff on this. While I understand that our lot coverage guideline is more of a suggested percentage to keep in mind I feel like 36 is really high. I guess I m a little on the fence. I do appreciate that the view from the street is the same. I m concerned that this really overwhelms that property. I m torn because I really appreciate the design and appreciate keeping it one level, but I m concerned like Commissioner Edrich about setting a precedent where we have not been this lenient in the past on other projects. We have these guidelines for a reason so I am making up my mind and I will not support the 36 percent lot coverage as it stands. COMMISSIONER DAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE DRH WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE WEST ELEVATION BE STEPPED BACK SLIGHTLY TO HELP DIFFERENTIATE THE OLD FROM THE NEW. COMMISSIONER SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL 5:0. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONERS PENCE- BROWN AND EDRICH VOTING AGAINST. ROSS BLANCHARD: There was a comment made earlier during your deliberations where someone addressed the street adjacent, Coston Street, as a duplex. Did I hear that correctly? COMMISSIONER DAWSON: It s not a duplex? ROSS BLANCHARD: No. Not if it is my house. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Okay. I thought it was. ROSS BLANCHARD: I realize I already spoke in support of it I just find that perceptions can be (inaudible not at microphone).

8 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 8 of 13 DRH / Anna Daley Location: 1412 N. 20th Street Requests approval to construct an addition on the north and east side of the structure located in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: It is my understanding that the sole item in potential contention on this is having to do with the windows, but if that s not correct staff or the applicant can correct me. With that in mind we ll have an abbreviated staff report addressing that issue. MATT HALITSKY: The addition is well designed and meets the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts. However, staff has recommended a condition of approval that a consistent muntin pattern be used on all of the windows. The applicant is proposing to use the divided light pattern you see here only on the front façade and on the side window on the north elevation and have plain windows throughout the rest of the addition. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: I believe I saw this by driving around the house on all sides, but the house currently as it stands all windows in the home have the muntin pattern. Is that correct? MATT HALITSKY: I believe they do. We may want to verify with the owners, but I believe so. I should also mention that this is a contributing structure that is also eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and that is the reason why we d like to see a consistent muntin pattern. SITE VISITS Commissioners Edrich, Pence-Brown, Chandler, Dawson, Lassen and Jones visited the site prior to the hearing. Commissioner Smith did not visit the site. HERB KAUP (Applicant s Representative): To clarify the existing windows. There are two windows that do not have a grid pattern. The windows on either side of the chimney. They are small two foot by two foot windows. They are probably hard to see in the photos on the south elevation. There you go. They were probably replaced at some time. They are fixed panes of glass. In discussion with Matt a while back we did talk about some of the other openings. I believe he was okay with the door sets on the back elevation not having a grid pattern in the design. I m trying to remember from memory, but we also, I believe, talked about the small windows above on the north elevation of where the master bathroom would be in that they may be too small for a grid pattern as well going off memory in the conversation we had when we had applied. In our position we are looking to do a nice job here with nice wood windows and we re a little concerned with grids on all the windows and openings. It might be a little nicer to have some light and balance if the back doors sets are without grids on the back elevation. We re also interested in conceding to some of the windows having grids. I ve selected some that

9 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 9 of 13 should have some grids that we didn t have on the application originally. Bedroom number two which is north facing similar to bedroom number one that would be nice to have grids on those windows to keep with the feel of the house. We agree that grids would be a good addition there. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: For our clarification could you communicate to Matt which windows you re talking about that are shown without grids that you would suggest. HERB KAUP: Those are the ones he is circling the double hungs on the north elevation would be the ones that we agree would have grids. The small windows next to that, Matt and I had a conversation about not having grids because of the size of those smaller windows. The back elevation or east, we thought that this elevation since it is facing the back and with wanting to let a lot of light into the back bedroom and because of the cost factor and keeping the cost down slightly and balancing the house to not have grids on any of the back elevation windows. One including a small closet window. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: That is what you re referring to as the east elevation on the bottom? HERB KAUP: Correct. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: Then above that we have the south elevation? HERB KAUP: On the south elevation currently the two windows adjacent to the chimney do not have grids. The ones next to that do have grids and those are replacement windows and we re going to leave those windows. Towards the back with the shed roof is part of the addition and it is a small window. We re proposing that we do not put grids on that window. The double set we believe we could put grids in that window since it is a nice back porch patio carrying the theme of grids to the back of the house and using grids on those double hung windows. I had to lay it out on my floor plans so I could keep it straight myself. I apologize for not having COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Can we review that east south elevation? HERB KAUP: I did it on the floor plan too. It might be easier to look at that for a go around in reference. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Not for me. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: If you could walk through each of these and Matt if you could put your pointer up there and that will help us make sure we re talking about the right area. HERB KAUP: South elevation the two existing around the chimney do not have grids and they have been replaced already and we don t plan to replace those at this time. The

10 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 10 of 13 kitchen window does have grids and I ve shown them without grids incorrectly. Those will not be replaced. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: They do have grids at this point. HERB KAUP: They do. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: And you will put grids in? HERB KAUP: Those have already been replaced at one time and they do have grids and we were not planning on replacing those windows. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Okay. Thank you. HERB KAUP: The next small window is on the dining room. We feel it is a small window and it is not visible from the front elevation and we are proposing not to have grids on that window. The double hung set beyond that is on the master bedroom and we believe it would be a nice set to have the grids on being the back porch side yard area. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: So you would put grids on those? HERB KAUP: Yes. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: On the east can you cover those again? HERB KAUP: On the east we are proposing no grids on any of the windows on that elevation. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: Can you clarify is this the same room that on the south elevation looking out onto the patio there are grids? HERB KAUP: That is correct. They will be casement windows on the east elevation and double hungs on the south. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: And the casement would not have grids? HERB KAUP: Correct. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: Can we look at the other two elevations again please. The ones that are shown without grids everything that is shown with a grid would have a grid? HERB KAUP: Correct. The only difference being the double hung set that Matt is pointing to. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: That would have a grid?

11 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 11 of 13 HERB KAUP: Yes. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: The smaller ones would not? HERB KAUP: Correct. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: The small one would not have a grid and those are just fixed windows? HERB KAUP: I believe we are showing those as awning windows. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: I m picking up from your discussion that you have two points as far as ones you do not want to put the grids in and that is cost and the second being light? HERB KAUP: Letting more light in and balancing the house since there are some without grids in them now. I did want to ask a question and would direct it to Matt. Do you remember discussing the backdoor sets and whether they would be it sounded like you didn t think there would be a problem not having grids in those door sets? MATT HALITSKY: When we discussed it at the time of applying I mentioned that staff would recommend for a consistent muntin pattern since the windows are a character defining feature of the home. On this back elevation with the doors I didn t see it being as important on the doors to have the muntin pattern, but I thought that the windows ought to. On the side elevation here the applicant made a good point that with the smaller windows sometimes it is difficult to have a similar divided light pattern as what is seen on larger double hung windows so I thought since they were smaller and similar to those on either side of the fireplace that perhaps those could go without. I would be comfortable with the doors and then those two windows without the divided light pattern. However, all the others ought to. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: Matt could you switch that to the east and south elevations? The two windows you were concerned about and saying that they were too small possibly on the south elevation is the one on the shed and the other one is a closet window on this east elevation? HERB KAUP: Correct. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: Are those two roughly the same size? HERB KAUP: Yes. The one on the rear elevation is slightly larger. I believe it is 24, 38. The one on the south elevation is a ANNA DALEY (Applicant): My husband and I wanted to build a nice, modest addition in keeping with our neighborhood and in keeping with the size of our neighbors so the idea of having those bigger windows without the grid pattern on the back portion of the

12 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 12 of 13 house is intended to make the home feel more spacious. We understand that the character and the features of the North End are the nice, small, modest bungalow style so we felt that this was a reasonable compromise to give the illusion of space and open up the house to the yard and from all public vantage points we re definitely keeping with the character of the traditional patterns of the North End. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY NO STAFF REBUTTAL PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED COMMISSIONER LASSEN: Now that I am getting familiar with what has grids and what doesn t it seems that since the little fixed windows on either side of the fireplace do not have grids and the back French doors do not have grids the fact that those are casements, which are egress windows I m assuming, they are not typical of the original house so that doesn t bother me that those don t have grids. I m thinking all the double hungs should be consistent. The two we just discussed the one on the south and the one on the east and since they are double hungs I kind of want the double hungs to be consistent, but not so much with the awnings and the casement. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I agree with Commissioner Lassen to the extent that we need the double hungs to be grids, but I m also concerned that you ve got one master bedroom and you re going to have grids on one wall and no grids on other wall. When you start living in the house like that it s going to be an issue with you. I would also vote for grids on the casement window to maintain consistency throughout. CHAIRMAN CHANDLER: I would agree with Commissioner Dawson. Excluding the small awning windows on the north and the existing ones next to the fireplace are reasonable excluding the doors as Commissioner Dawson has expressed that it is better to be consistent with the remaining windows and have the same pattern throughout. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: I too agree with your and Commissioner Dawson s comments. Having driven by the house today I do feel strongly that this muntin pattern on this particular home is very significant detail to the façade and agree with staff s, your and Commissioner Dawson s suggestion to continue that throughout all the new windows with the exception of the four smaller windows. Two on the north side and the two existing on either side of the fireplace. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: This is another tough one for me. The muntin patterns are very significant in the house. In driving around the north end you don t see a lot of that. I have a strong sense that I would want to see them on all the windows and have it be consistent and at the same time I admit that I am loathe to tell you what to do on the back of the house related to the windows because I ve voted with leeway on windows when they are not visible from the street. I m a little unsure. I agree with my fellow Commissioners that I d like to see them be consistent.

13 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 13 of 13 COMMISSIONER LASSEN: I m thinking about the grid patterns on the casements because they are going to look very different from a grid pattern on a double hung window because there is not the thickness in the middle so even with grids it is still not going to match. Again, I m sticking to my no grids on the casements. COMMISSIONER DAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE DRH WITH THE CONDITION THAT A CONSISTENT MUNTIN PATTERN BE IN ALL OF THE WINDOWS EXCEPT FOR TWO WINDOWS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FIREPLACE, THE AWNING WINDOW ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME, WHICH SERVICES THE MASTER BATHROOM AND THE DOORS AND FULL LENGTH WINDOWS THAT ARE ON THE EAST ELEVATION LEADING OUT TO THE PATIO/DECK. COMMISSIONER SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 5:2. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONERS EDRICH AND LASSEN VOTING AGAINST. MINUTES September 27, 2010 COMMISSIONER SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, COMMISSIONER DAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. Amy Pence-Brown, Vice Chairman Historic Preservation Commission Date

14 Historic Preservation Commission Worksession Minutes of October 29, 2010 Commission Members Present Chairman, Amy Pence-Brown, Barbara Dawson, Liz Edrich, Beth Lassen and Samuel Jones Staff Members Present Sarah Schafer, Matt Halitsky, Robert Lockward (Legal) and Nicki Heckenlively LANDMARK NOMINATION Christ Chapel / Campus Drive at Broadway Avenue MATT HALITSKY: We ve passed out a copy of the nomination. It is the same one that you received last week if you didn t have it. Sarah and I met with the Board for Christ Chapel yesterday and what we need today from the Commission is a motion to forward the nomination on to City Council with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER EDRICH moved to approve the nomination of Christ Chapel for landmark designation. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN Seconded the motion. SARAH SCHAFER: Does anyone have any concerns with Christ Chapel being a landmark? Commission indicated no. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: Are they the ones that didn t want to and changed their minds and wanted to? MATT HALITSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: What was the problem with it?

15 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes: October 25, 2010 Page 2 of 2 MATT HALITSKY: Boise State University (BSU) had concerns about it, but it turns out that the Chapel isn t owned by BSU. They just lease the land from the University. The actual historical society is the owner and they took a vote yesterday. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: Could they move it if they wanted? MATT HALITSKY: BSU or the owners? COMMISSIONER EDRICH: The owner. MATT HALITSKY: I suppose if BSU revoked the lease or the lease I m not sure about the details whether it is a perpetual lease or what the deal is there. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: It s been in that same spot since MATT HALITSKY: The nomination needs a little bit of editing. Sarah and I noticed that. It does imply that they moved it once from its original location to BSU. It was in the North End for awhile as well. We need to clarify that a little bit. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: There seems to be a gap and I didn t if it was me trying to follow it or what. MATT HALITSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: It is owned by the Christ Chapel Historical Society. MATT HALITSKY: Yes. SARAH SCHAFER: They are their own little entity. COMMISSIONER PENCE-BROWN: I wondered if it had been sitting there since BSU was St. Margaret s or whatever that is then it became the Boise Junior College. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY. Amy Pence-Brown, Vice-Chairman Historic Preservation Commission Date

16 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes of November 22, 2010 Commission Members Present Staff Members Present Vice-Chairman, Amy Pence-Brown, Barbara Dawson, Liz Edrich, Beth Lassen, David Ruby and Samuel Jones Matt Halitsky, Robert Lockward (Legal) and Nicki Heckenlively Consent Agenda DRH / Wes Johnson Location: 1408 N. 14th Street Requests approval to construct a single-story accessory dwelling unit attached to a garage on property located in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Applicant present and in agreement with terms and conditions contained in the staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY COMMISSIONER EDRICH MOVED TO APPROVE DRH ON CONSENT. COMMISSIONER LASSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL 6:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Regular Agenda DRH / Russ Todd Location: 742 E. State Street Requests approval to construct a small addition on the south elevation and construct a covered wrap around porch on the east and south elevations of property located in an R- 2H (Combined Residential with Historic overlay) zone. MATT HALITSKY: Aside from meeting variances for the setback encroachments listed in the staff report the proposal is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines

17 Page 2 of 36 except for the use of the materials. Specifically the corrugated metal roof and the corrugated metal knee wall shown in these models. Staff recommends that a more traditional material that is consistent with the guidelines be used for both the knee wall and the roof. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: The applicant, later in the application, cites a neighboring home as a model, guide or inspiration for this design. Does staff know if that neighboring home is in the historic district? MATT HALITSKY: That subject property is within the East End. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: The East End is the most recent historic district that has been formed in Boise City? MATT HALITSKY: That s correct. I believe it was established around COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Do we know if the house that is the inspiration for this design was built prior to the district being formed? MATT HALITSKY: I believe it does predate the district being formed. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: The house in this application was built the same year the district was formed. This home was built in 2004 so it would have been approved as it currently stands by the Historic Preservation Commission at that time? MATT HALITSKY: It depends on whether the Ordinance was adopted at the time that it was constructed. I know that the building permit for this home was issued in 2003 so it is possible it got in right before the district was created. SITE VISITS Commissioners Jones, Edrich, Pence-Brown, Dawson, Ruby and Lassen visited the site prior to the hearing. APPLICANT TESTIMONY TAD JONES (Applicant s Architect): No objection to site visits. Matt could you go to Page 11 of the staff report and put it on the slide. That shows the home that we re using for inspiration. My client is friends with the owner of this home. Matt said that the building permit was pulled in My applicant believes that this home was built in 2005, but we don t have a way to verify that at this point, but would like to put that on the record. I m very lucky to have Mr. Todd as a client. We share much of the same philosophies such as energy efficiency and using materials with high recycled content. We also share a respect for the diversity of architectural styles in Boise s historic districts and we embrace creative design. Many people move to Boise for its diversity and architectural styles. That is part of the reason that many of us have decided to call the historic districts our home. The guidelines promote this diversity, but the guidelines can

18 Page 3 of 36 be applied by different individuals such as staff and the Commission. I urge you to concentrate on the portions of the guidelines that promote diversity, creativity and a willingness to realize that the architecture of today is as important as the architecture of the past. I want to take a quote from the guidelines, It is preferable to design congruous contemporary structures rather than duplicate or mimic the design of historic buildings in the district. We are proposing to add a 218 square foot addition with a 311 square foot wrap around porch. We all know the idea of a wrap around porch is very much congruous with the nature of the historic district. You see them on many of the homes within the district. This site is on what I would call an island. It is surrounded by East McKinley Street, North Straughn Street and East State Street. Due to its location on this island and the large right-of-ways of the surrounding streets it creates an odd looking site with very large, with what I would call, apparent setbacks. In order to build the wrap around porch we will be requesting a variance after the historic review to reduce the setbacks so that the site more closely resembles the surrounding neighborhood. The existing home is almost void of an architectural style and we have done our best to reshape the home and give it more character. The owner is fond of the house across the street and asked me if I would design an addition to his home similar to this in style. There are photos of this home on Sheets 10 and 11 of the staff report. When you are looking at these photos please note that the home is using a corrugated roof which you can hardly see in those photographs because the roof is such a low pitch and we re also going to explain that the addition that we re planning has the same situation from the street views where you don t hardly even see the corrugated metal if at all. Then there is also the corrugated privacy knee wall, which you can see in those photos. Staff has recommended approval of our project with the exception of the metal roof, the steel columns and the metal on the knee wall. Staff considered this project for approval at staff level if we would consider replacing these materials. After speaking together with my client at quite some length it was determined it was worth the extra time and expense to submit the project to the Commission. We both felt that including the metal roof, the steel columns and the metal on the knee wall is integral to the design of the addition. I d like first to talk about the metal roofing. I ve got a sample of the metal roofing that we d like to use. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: We will mark this as Exhibit A. TAD JONES: That is what we d prefer to use for the roofing and knee wall. This roofing is a LEED Certified material. It contains 30 percent recycled material. The roof also has a reflective coating that reflects solar gain and makes the building more energy efficient. The roof has a long life cycle and it is not only manufactured from recycled material, but it can be recycled again. All this means that less roofing ends up in our landfills. Each year millions of pounds of asphalt shingles are dumped into our landfill which leads to oil and toxins leaching into the ground and then eventually into our ground water. It also makes the district look better longer. It requires less maintenance which means seeing less scaffolding in the neighborhood or ladders for repair and maintenance in the future. It also allows us to utilize rain water collection for plant irrigation. If we were to use asphalt shingles we d be putting oils and toxins in our garden beds. With the metal roof we can collect clean rain water and we can put it to

19 Page 4 of 36 good use. The slope on this roof is low 1.5/12 pitch so the amount of roof actually visible to someone walking by on the street is very minimal and almost nonexistent. I ve taken 3D model shots to show what the view of the home would be from a six foot tall person viewing the home from the street. If I could submit these as exhibit B. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: These will be entered as Exhibit B, 3D shots from eyelevel. TAD JONES: There is one taken from Straughn and State Street and the other one is from Straughn Street. As you are viewing these you can see the metal roof is not even seen at all from the street and would only typically be seen from a two-story window, which there are not many surrounding homes in this area that have two stories looking down on the project. Another good example of how the metal roofing has been used in the historic districts is at 1918 N. 12 th Street. This is the project just across the street from Camel s Back Park. It was approved on April 23, I have an example of that roofing with a photograph on the back of that project. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: Exhibit C is a roof sample from another home. TAD JONES: This is up by Camel s Back Park and right in the middle of the historic district. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: This is a photograph of that home s roof and a sample of the material? TAD JONES: It is. It was approved through DRH on April 23, It is worth noting that the guidelines have changed between 1994 and Page 9 of the 1994 Guidelines list metals roofs as an acceptable material. Section 5.8 of the 2006 guidelines lists tin roof as acceptable. There has been talk of modifying the guidelines to more appropriately reflect today s building environment and today s architectural sensibilities. We all realize that metal roofs and materials are going to become more and more prevalent. The recycled content and lifecycle far out weigh asphalt shingles. When you combine the ability to collect nontoxic rain water and sun reflective coatings it just makes sense. Staff did ask us to look at some other metal roof options besides the corrugated profile and we ve done that. We also had another project on 18 th and Dewey which was approved last year with a metal roof. Some of you may or may not remember that, but I ve got a photo and a sample of that roofing, which was approved last year as well. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: Exhibit D is a roofing sample from another more recent home in the historic district. TAD JONES: We did look at some different options. It seemed like staff was more accepting of the standing seam metal roof profile than they were the corrugated roofing profile so I tracked down, in the same finish as the corrugated metal, a sample using the standing seam profile. I have an example of that too.

20 Page 5 of 36 VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: Exhibit E is a possible roofing sample for this project. TAD JONES: We would consider that as an option to the corrugated if the corrugated isn t approved. We d prefer to use the corrugated because it aligns better with the original intent of the project and the corrugated is a little less expensive so it would help keep us within budget. The standing seam metal roofing is a bit more expensive. Also on the back of that sample is some information regarding how much recycled material is in the metal roofing. I d like to address the use of metal on the knee walls. The profile on the knee walls would be the same as the corrugated sample that you have. That was the first one that we gave to you. This would match the house across the street that we used for inspiration expect that the wall that we are proposing is much shorter than the wall on the house across the street. Staff asked us to look at some options for the knee wall and I suggested the possibility of possibly using cedar siding in a vertical board and bat a really tight board and bat as an alternative, but after discussions with our client he really likes the look of that house across the street and we would like to continue forward using the corrugated metal. We could look at using a painted corrugated metal for the knee wall that may be more of an earth tone, but the original intent of the project is what we d like to stay with after discussing this with my client. I d like to address the steel columns of the porch. I have a photo of another project that we just completed that uses steel columns and I d like to submit that to give you a better idea of what the proposed columns would look like. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: Exhibit F is a photo of the same proposed steel columns. Is that correct? TAD JONES: Those are similar. That photo should give you a better idea of what the steel columns look like that we re proposing. You can see in this photo that the steel is painted in a natural subtle tone and it blends in well with the style of the home. We would also included small hooks between the columns to hang planted flowers as seen on Sheet 15 of the staff report. I d like to quote from the guidelines, Character defining elements of homes in historic districts allow for recognition of being a product of its own time. These columns in my mind help define the character of the addition and they are integral to the overall design. Staff is suggesting approval for the project, but suggesting that we eliminate most of what gives this design its character and makes an existing devoid building contribute more to the character of the neighborhood. Staff states that the subject home constructed in 2004 is considered a non-contributing structure as it was built outside the period of significance for the East End. My opinion is why don t we give this project some significance? Just because it is currently is a plain box that doesn t mean we have to leave it a plain box. We have an owner that is willing to invest in the overall health of our neighborhood. Historic Districts are here to preserve the history of our neighborhoods, but they also have the responsibility to nurture creativity and architectural expression within those districts. I ve used this quote in other presentations to the Historic Commission, but it is worth repeating as I believe it is one of the more important statements in guidelines. Boise residential historic districts are diverse architecturally and have already experienced change. Continued change is therefore

21 Page 6 of 36 expected. Change is the natural outcome of an evolving healthy neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER RUBY: On Page 14 of the application I believe the drawing indicates a slope 12/1. I thought I heard the applicant mention that the slope is 1 ½ / 12. Is that a more detailed slope analysis or did it change slightly? TAD JONES: I d have to check on that to make sure. Looking at the drawing I would probably default to the drawing so probably a 1/12 yes. COMMISSIONER RUBY: Your last exhibit, listed as Exhibit F of the steel columns and the plates. Do you see the connection for those being similar to that where the steel plate was up on top of the face of the beam? I don t see that indicated necessarily, but maybe it wasn t to that level of detail TAD JONES: I believe it would be similar to the detail like that which was more like a saddle. I don t believe it would be nearly as big. That project there has quite a bit of load on it. This one doesn t have quite nearly as much so those saddles or buckets that you might call them are probably about half the size of those there. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Given the design as it sits has a 12/1 pitch on it if this Commission chose not to approve the galvanized metal roof would you change the design or would you change the material or both? TAD JONES: That is a good question because from the standpoint of a warranty standpoint it doesn t leave us many options as far as staff is typically recommending asphalt shingles for our project and the warranty on asphalt shingles is void on anything under a 3/12 pitch. If we were forced to use asphalt shingles on this project we would probably keep the same pitch of the roof, but we d have to come up with an underlayment membrane of some type to increase the durability and waterproofing of the roofing system. It makes a lot more sense to go with a metal roof on this from a functionability standpoint. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: What is the material that is capping the galvanized wall? Is that wood or metal it wasn t indicated the plans? TAD JONES: Matt, can you go to the photos of the house across the street? I don t think we actually thought that far into it. We can see what they ve used there? They may have used some type of galvanized cap or something. The applicant says it would be wood. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: What is the height of the knee wall that you re proposing? TAD JONES: About 18 inches. COMMISSIONER RUBY: It s probably more of a seat tension versus just a screen in the other home?

22 Page 7 of 36 TAD JONES: Yes. You d be able to sit on the wall and converse with people out there. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: I see on one set of the plans that there is window replacement on the façade of the home in addition. Is that correct? TAD JONES: Which page? COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Page 14. TAD JONES: That was at the recommendation of staff. There s an existing window there that has grids in it. If we left that window it would be the only window on the house that had grids in it. We were asked to eliminate the grids on that so that it matched the rest of the windows on the house. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: I asked that because that is not part of this application? It is, but it is not something that is listed as a condition? MATT HALITSKY: Yes. VICE-CHAIR PENCE-BROWN: Okay. That s fine as that stands and you had that agreement or discussion with staff? TAD JONES: Yes. Our time is getting a little short and my client wanted to say a few words. RUSS TODD (Applicant): When I originally bought the place my intention was to live in it and basically turn it into a rental, but living there I love the location. It is close to the foothills and close to downtown so I decided I would make it my own and do an addition so that it is livable. As you can tell it is pretty small right now and I realized when I looked at it Matt, would you put up the existing it is probably the ugliest piece of property in the area. I went to Tad and said we need to do something cool with it. My intention was to increase the value of the property not only for me, but for my neighbors, but yet respect the historic nature of the district. I would hope that you would approve it as it is designed. Everything works together and it will be very nice and very cool and it will increase the value of the neighborhood. I appreciate your time. Thank you. NO STAFF REBUTTAL PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I live in this neighborhood and I m very familiar with this piece of property and as I said I go by it two or three times a day back and forth. It has always been an odd little piece of property sitting there all by itself except for the old fire station. I ve noticed the few changes that have gone on in the last few months with the fence building and the addition of the awnings and things like that on the property. It