Historic Preservation Commission

Transcription

1 Historic Preservation Commission Hearing Minutes of February 25, 2013 Commission Members Present Team Members Present Amy Pence-Brown, Chair, Barbara Dawson, Liz Edrich, Beth Lassen, Stephanie Clarkson, Danielle Weaver and Carl Harmon-Vellotti Matthew Halitsky, Rob Lockward (Legal) and Nicki Heckenlively CONSENT AGENDA DRH / Margaret Laurence Family Trust Location: 1311 N. 8th Street Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with glass flush with exterior finish in an R- 2HD (Combined Residential with Historic Design Review) zone. (This item was deferred at the January 28, 2013 hearing.) Second request for deferral - March 25, 2013 hearing. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. DRH / Sarah Jimenez Location: 1208 E. Washington Certificate of Appropriateness to raise the roof of the former garage and construct a rear addition in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Applicant present and in agreement with terms and conditions contained in staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON MOVED TO APPROVE DRH AND DRH ON CONSENT. COMMISSIONER LASSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 7:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

2 Page 2 of 10 REGULAR AGENDA DRH / Blake Olson Location: 1021 E. Washington Street Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a front deck with wrought iron railing in an R-2H (Combined Residential with Historic overlay) zone. (This item was deferred at the December 17, 2012 and January 28, 2013 hearings.) MATT HALITSKY: Presented staff report with recommendation of denial. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: Asked if the patio alters the front elevation per the guidelines. MATT HALITSKY: Responded yes and noted in the analysis the extension of the front stoop is an alteration to the front façade/elevation. Site Visits Commissioners Harmon-Vellotti, Weaver, Edrich, Pence-Brown, Dawson, Lassen and Clarkson visited the site prior to the hearing, but had no contact with the applicant. Applicant Testimony BLAKE OLSON (Applicant): Stated he moved to the East End because of the architecture, pedestrian orientation, could bicycle to work and loves the neighborhood and front porches. Noted his house is under construction with the foundation being replaced. Presented slide presentation showing various sizes, locations and styles of porches on other properties in the East End. Discussed massing comparisons, concept of proportions and prior approval of a porch on property located at 1119 E. State Street, approved October 19, 2007 by Sarah Schafer. Submitted a real-size template of his proposed porch as Exhibit 1. References: Page 478 / Field Guide to American Houses definition of Minimal Traditional Doctor Jackie Craven (author/researcher on architecture/home design); her definition and ten various styles of Minimal Traditional published house plans. Excerpt from National Public Radio broadcast / August 1, 2006 / Michelle Morris. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: Asked if the finish material for the porch is concrete or wood. MIKE DUVALL (D&H Builders): Answered Trex. BLAKE OLSON: Stated it is only on the top and is not viewable from the street with plenty of vegetation. MIKE DUVALL: Noted it is flush with the existing porch and the Trex will be inlaid.

3 Page 3 of 10 BLAKE OLSON: Stated the house immediately behind his has Trex deck. COMMISSIONER WEAVER: presentation. Thanked applicant for researching and giving a thorough Public Testimony DEREK HURD (North End Neighborhood Association): Expressed concern if the porch is approved it would set a bad precedent which could possibly carry over to the North End Historic District. Also stated he felt it would change the character of the street side elevation and suggested the applicant consider an on-grade patio. Agrees with staff s recommendation of denial. Staff Rebuttal MATT HALITSKY: Agreed with the applicant regarding front porches in the East End, but noted the goal is to preserve the character of this particular home. The reason for denial is the home currently has a simple front stoop. Applicant Rebuttal BLAKE OLSON: Stated precedent was established by the approval of 1119 E. State Street and that its character was changed from Minimal Traditionalism to a Craftsman Bungalow as evidenced and feels the change has made it a more desirable home and asserted it would not be incongruous for him to make his proposed change. Public Portion Closed COMMISSIONER WEAVER: I did appreciate a thorough presentation and it helped the Commission see what was in the neighborhood, but I do agree with staff that we want to preserve the historic character of the house and I feel this porch is changing the style and although I don t know the circumstances of this house in particular that is what we re trying to avoid changing the style of the house. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: One of the advantages of having been on the Commission as long as I have been is a long memory E. State Street was not born a Minimal Traditional house. It was born a Craftsman. It had its front porch enclosed sometime later in life and part of the approval process on the remodel and reintroduction of the front porch was to open the space up again. You ll notice the homes on either side have front porches and have very similar elevations to 1119 and it was an attempt to get 1119 back to its once historic look. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Thank you for sharing that information. I was not on the Commission at that time, but I did want to say along those same lines that we do see and think of each house individually as far as whether or not they are contributing or non-contributing, how original their façade is or was or how much it has been altered. It has been found the applicant s house is a contributing structure in excellent original condition much due to the current owner. We appreciate this and it does in fact only have a stoop. It is important and part of our guidelines and the national guidelines is to keep the façade as original as possible. I do

4 Page 4 of 10 appreciate the thought (Mr. Hurd) about having an on-grade seating area in the front and hope that could accommodate something the applicant is looking for as far as having a front seating area access to the public side of the house. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: The reasons I asked the question was I was trying to get a sense of the railing and the height of the proposed porch. This is what detracts from the original front elevation. I had the similar thoughts (Mr. Hurd) that the applicant is trying to create the porch and there is a way you can do it by not tying it into the stoop, not having a railing and by getting it down to grade. Again, the applicant could achieve this without altering the front elevation of a contributing structure. COMMISSIONER DAWSON MOVED TO DENY DRH BASED ON STAFF S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. COMMISSIONER EDRICH SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 7:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DRH / Ronald Miller and Amy Yost Location: 235 N. Flume Street Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the noncontributing single family dwelling and construct a one and one half story, single-family dwelling in an R-2H (Combined Residential with Historic overlay) zone. MATT HALITSKY: Presented staff report noting lot coverage percentages in surrounding area with a recommendation of approval with conditions. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Asked staff if the lack of concern for lot coverage was due to the even higher coverages within this block. MATT HALITSKY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Asked staff if the home is non-contributing and had been significantly altered including the wood siding. MATT HALITSKY: Replied this is correct. Site Visits Commissioners Harmon-Vellotti, Edrich, Pence-Brown, Dawson, Lassen and Clarkson visited the site prior to the hearing, but had no contact with the applicant. Commissioner Weaver did not visit the site. Applicant Testimony KEN REED (Applicant s Representative): No objections to site visits. Noted there have been numerous submittals in the past for this property one of which was a change of status to noncontributing. Stated the property has high lot coverage consistent with adjacent and surrounding properties on dead end street; property zoned R-2 with dense multi-family projects adjacent to and close by. Mentioned a garage in substandard construction and as a cost saving device

5 Page 5 of 10 instead of tearing it down they will add a small one-car garage off to the side which would get them to the lot coverage that meets adjacent properties with the proposed house much the same footprint as far as width and positioning of existing home. AMY YOST (Applicant): Added they want to work with staff regarding design and windows if there are any problems. The applicant and applicant s representative have discussed changing the windows a bit to get more passive solar on southern windows and exposure. Their goal is for approval of the demolition with work on the design. RON MILLER (Applicant): Noted they want to remain in the East End. AMY YOST: Stated they have a growing family and need a home that reflects their lifestyle. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: two sides of the home. Asked the applicant s representative to label front, back and KEN REED: Responded the front elevation has an arched window above the front door, the south elevation has the grouping of windows and is the side which faces the south, the rear has a similar elevation to the front and the other side is difficult to see and faces north. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: Expressed concern about the size of the lot coverage and noted the guidelines state 30 percent recommended lot coverage which is what she d like to see. KEN REED: Stated they have considered lot coverage in a number of factors, but noted they want a nice home and the street is one of Boise s more hidden streets in an area in transition with apartments, multi-family and nice large homes. Applicant s representative sensitive to concerns, but also embraces the diversity and unique sized lots of the district. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Noted the owners did receive approval for a 758 square foot addition to the home, but their plans have changed and with the current numbers presented she doesn t see the lot coverage as being unreasonable. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: contained in staff report. Asked if the applicant was amendable to the conditions KEN REED: Agreed. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY NO STAFF REBUTTAL PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED COMMISSIONER CLARKSON MOVED TO APPROVE DRH WITH STAFF S RECOMMENDED SITE SPECIFIC AND STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER WEAVER SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL 6:1. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER EDRICH OPPOSED.

6 Page 6 of 10 DRH / Gryphon Homes LLC Rod Skyles Location: 1401 W. Fort Street Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the rear portion of the structure and construct a twostory addition on property in an R-3HD/CD (Combined Residential with Historic Design Review and Conservation District overlay) zone. MATT HALITSKY: Presented staff report with recommendation of approval with conditions. Site Visits Commissioners Weaver, Edrich, Pence-Brown, Lassen and Clarkson visited the site prior to the hearing, but had no contact with the applicant. Commissioners Harmon-Vellotti and Dawson did not visit the site. PAUL HOFFMAN (Owner s Representative): Discussed concerns regarding the condition of front door relocation. Stated they need to have a code compliant stair which is driving the relocation of the door and that they have struggled to find a way for the stair to work. Noted investor s expectations of a master bedroom & bath. Stated they plan to maintain original parlor area with a viable solution to the originally proposed foundation piers. Have secured a supplier to match lap siding and agree with window requirements. Prefer not to seek arborist report, but will do so if required. Noted tree removal is about location only and not health of the trees. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Entered elevation showing extended addition as Exhibit 1. COMMISSIONER WEAVER: Asked if door on the house is in original location. PAUL HOFFMAN: Replied he did not know. (1997 Historic Survey Photo was shown) COMMISSIONER WEAVER: Asked if trees are causing damage to the house. PAUL HOFFMAN: Stated yes, one growing into house they would like to trim, one along fence and two sandwiched between the house. Noted a number of other trees on site will remain. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Asked if it is possible instead of using the door as the lowest point starting in between the living room/dining room as the lowest point and go the other direction. PAUL HOFFMAN: Replied that reversing the direction of the stair would take them into the closest in the front bedroom so they would have to create a hall to get to other spaces upstairs. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Asked if they considered a loft area of some sort because she could not distinguish how large the bedroom is. PAUL HOFFMAN: Stated it is fairly narrow and long and by doing the other arrangement they would cut off a lot of that room making the bedroom very small and the window facing Fort Street would be halfway in the hall and halfway in the bedroom. He asked the Commission to keep in mind they can t put a vanity, sink and a full-height six foot tub/shower all the way out because of the five foot sidewalls. Noted they are carrying the same rooflines all the way across the addition to keep the massing down.

7 Page 7 of 10 Public Testimony DEREK HURD: Discussed elevation comparison and asked that a condition be added to require breaking up right elevation with a dormer or window treatment on the long flat wall with the possibility of moving the picture window an equal distance (same as door) to allow more balance to the front façade. Staff Rebuttal MATT HALITSKY: Cautioned the Commission about rearranging the door and windows on the front elevation in order to keep the property as historically accurate as possible. Applicant Rebuttal PAUL HOFFMAN: Stated in talking with the builder they may be able to get the door 6-12 inches back to the left and are amendable to this. Suggested they add a dormer matching the dormer on the opposite elevation over the high window on the upper right to help with the long flat wall. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Noted the right elevation appeared to have a break and asked how much of a jog there is. PAUL HOFFMAN: Answered 12 inches. NO STAFF REBUTTAL PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED COMMISSIONER EDRICH: I appreciate the applicant taking the time on his presentation and understand it is a complicated problem dealing with the staircase. However, like one of our earlier applicants, this is a contributing home and moving the front door alters the façade in a way that does not comply with our guidelines and not something I can support. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: I agree on the issue of moving the door. However, I m having a little bit of a struggle because I feel we re cherry picking a little bit because we are removing a window and a door from the same side of the house. I m struggling with nitpicking about leaving one element but we re okay with taking two away. I agree with the sentiment of wanting to balance things up and even them out and having this distance between the picture window and the door, but it is just moving another element and further eroding away at the façade. I tend to feel if the applicant is willing to try to keep the door in as close a position as possible and not going as far as it is shown on the elevation I tend to agree with them. COMMISSIONER LASSEN: I appreciate the fact the stair is staying in the same place because we obviously need to bring it up to code and a stair that meets code will take up more space. If you try to move the stair then you re going to need to add windows because you re going to create a room in the front that needs more than an entry window. Moving the door over inches by doing this we re doing less damage to the façade as far as adding or moving windows. I m fine with moving the door over. It doesn t change the front elevation enough to warrant moving windows.

8 Page 8 of 10 COMMISSIONER WEAVER: I have no problem with moving the door. I agree with Mr. Hurd that it is squished on one side and it doesn t even appear this could possibly be where it was originally, but potentially it is. It doesn t change the look of the façade or the character of the house. Although long facades with not much break up in them aren t always pleasing to the eye just looking at this historic house and how it wasn t broken up already on that side and I m fine with not putting a dormer in as suggested on the west elevation. While it would look nice it wasn t historically there. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I m fine with the elevation with the long plane primarily because you have 12 inch break between the two planes which sets up some differentiation. The little shed thing they re taking out did more damage to the integrity of the home than what is proposed. I m fine with the side just having the break because it serves two purposes. It serves differentiation from the old to the new which is one of the standards in our guidelines and it gives that break there. I need more convincing on the front door. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: I do too. I m very concerned this is a contributing structure and we re changing the façade. However, I m already concerned we re changing the façade with that window and the second door being removed. Can staff clarify how they feel about this? It looks as though an original window on the façade and that door are being removed. Is this correct? MATT HALITSKY: That is correct, but they are located here on the L of the floor plan so even though they face the same direction I would argue that is not the primary façade and that this is. I would be more concerned with this secondary door facing the same direction going away as well as this window. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Staff s reading of this is that this portion is not part of the primary façade. MATT HALITSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: My stance has not changed and I m very concerned about moving the front door and any windows on that primary façade. I m fine with the other window and door that are to be removed being not considered as part of the primary façade especially with a contributing structure. Regardless of whether it is six inches or 18 inches we re opening a huge can of worms allowing the front door and a window of a contributing structure to be removed. However, I understand the complication existing inside of the house regarding the stairwell and a new drawing/proposal will likely have to be made and presented to the Commission resulting in a much larger footprint of an addition as the applicant s representative has stated. I urge the Commissioners, including myself to think about the lesser of two evils altering a façade on a contributing historic structure or increasing the footprint as greatly as the applicant suggested might be the case. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: My recollection is this is a substandard lot? CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: The applicant is limited on how much square footage can be incorporated into the building itself. This is a consideration on saying, Oh, we can just add onto the back to accommodate the stairwell. The substandard lot does present its own issues.

9 Page 9 of 10 CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: The design and the layout have done an amazing job of making use of this space without exceeding on the lot. One of the troublesome we do come across is applications like this where in this instance we re choosing between rethinking heavily on a whole application versus moving a door and I maintain my position that it doesn t change the character of the house. It does change some of the original pieces, but there is still a front door that faces the street that is being used as the primary entrance. This is one of those applications where I find I have to give a little to let someone have more years out of the home instead of tearing it down. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: I want to agree with what you said, but I just get the integrity of where the door is and for me since we don t know we have to assume this is the original door and for me it is misplacement and makes the design somewhat flawed in the historic character. I struggle with this greatly. I absolutely understand the dilemma facing the applicant trying to get the home they want in this footprint. I don t know what the alternative is without seeing it and how they would redesign it. I don t want to say it is the lesser of two evils without even seeing that opportunity in front of me. I ll stay with the opinion I had. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: The applicant s representative addressed Condition of Approval 1.c., the arborist report. We do think about the landscape and the historic landscape particularly in all of our historic districts which includes the tree canopy and the tree covering and how important this is to the historic neighborhood and is why we require the arborist report unless the tree is sick and/or causing a significant problem. We don t recommend willy-nilly destruction of trees so this is where this comes in. Whoever makes a motion may or may not include Condition of Approval 1.a., but don t forget to include the other conditions. COMMISSIONER LASSEN MOVED TO APPROVE DRH WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: b. WOOD DUTCH LAP SIDING SHALL BE MILLED TO MATCH THE ORIGINAL FOR THE ADDITION. c. AN ARBORIST REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR ALL TREES REMOVED NOT IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED ADDITION. d. ALL NEW WINDOWS SHALL BE RECESSED FROM THE EXTERIOR WALL PLANE AND PROVIDE A MINIMUM 2 ½ INCH SILL DEPTH. e. THE FOUNDATION SHALL BE REPAIRED IN A MANNER PRESERVING THE ORIGINAL SANDSTONE AND WITHOUT THE USE OF EXTERNAL PIERS. THIS METHOD SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 5:2. MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONERS PENCE- BROWN AND EDRICH OPPOSED.

10 Page 10 of 10 MINUTES January 28, 2013 ALL IN FAVOR. ABSTAINED. MOTION CARRIED WITH LASSEN AND CLARKSON Amy Pence-Brown, Chairman Boise City Historic Preservation Commission Date