Video Description:
Historic Preservation – Sept 2022
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
Read along below or follow along here: https://otter.ai/u/3Dtkt-68pD0HksxhTN6IWkasiNk
Unknown Speaker 0:07
Okay, welcome. We’ll go ahead and call the September 1, meeting of Longmont historic preservation commission to order. Can we have the roll please?
Unknown Speaker 0:20
Commissioner Sibley Here. Commissioner hearties. Commissioner lane here. Commissioner Jacoby Here. Councilmember Rodriguez. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 0:36
Thank you. We do have a quorum. We will move to Well, I would move to meet the approval of the August 22 minutes, but I don’t believe we have a quorum of members present for that meeting. We only have three. So I think we’ll, we’ll defer approval of these August 4 minutes until next session. Okay, then report from the chair. I’ll be brief, just make a note that the HBC did have a joint session with City Council on August 16, to review some thoughts and considerations for code changes relative to historic preservation. And that is an ongoing discussion. So that is something that we are working through and we appreciate the staff and, and City Council’s willingness to sit down with us and hear our perspectives. That’s all I have communications from HPC staff liaison.
Unknown Speaker 2:09
All right. Um, so we as let’s see, the Monday following our August meeting, I believe it was we had a we met with the Parks and Recreation advisory board to as part of their tour of their open spaces. So they could take a look at the dickens barn property on the is late and drive episodes late and drive property. They will be discussing that as part of their board meeting on September 12. So and potentially taking action on whether they would like to acquire that property. As that development project moves forward, we are still in the review process for that particular project. So the applicant is working through some of the economics right now, just because costs keep going up. Otherwise, that is my primary report. I will note we do have a number of members of the community here this evening who will be speaking about a project for which we have a neighborhood meeting for a possible development project in the bond farm area. And there is a there’s a historic farmhouse on that property that the neighbors are interested in talking to the Commission about so just wanted to give everyone a heads up as far as why we have some of these folks in the audience with us today. So that said I will turn it over to Glen see if he has any additional comments.
Unknown Speaker 3:38
No, I don’t other than it can’t be a discussion on the project. But certainly, you can hear their comments. Okay, thank you,
Unknown Speaker 3:49
commissioners, any questions for staff at this point? No. Okay. All right. Thanks, staff. We will move ahead to the public invited to be heard. So I will. I’ve got a list here in front of me. I will call on members of the audience that have signed up. When you come up to the podium. Please state your name and your address and will will you’ll have three minutes for your comments. The first speaker is Catherine Hyatt.
Unknown Speaker 4:34
I have a handout may pass that out first. Sure. So I can get started while that is being passed out. My name is Kathlyn Hendricks I live at 133 Grant Street, which is just behind the bond farm property. I Right History Colorado State Historical fund grants for a historical building in North boulder. And as one of the members of the neighborhood of the bond farm, I’m very invested in trying to save this property. So I’m speaking on behalf of a group of our neighbors, we’re very concerned that this historical building is likely going to be torn down. On the last page of that handout, you can see that there’s a proposed plan from the developer, I’ve put stars on the map to show approximately where that house and the the barn are. There’s a lot of information on that fact sheet. I’ve based it loosely on the historical designation application because it seems to be the relevant information. But I’d like to just highlight a couple of things for you. The property was originally the DC Donovan Brickyard, the DC Donovan house on Pratt street has already been designated as a local landmark in the city. The house itself was built it appears in 1900 by the DC Donovan family and then moved to the bond farm property. The so the DC Donovan family has pretty significant two long months history. And on that farm, Bob and Irene Bond spent there pretty much their entire life there, over 65 years of marriage. It was a poultry farm and a dairy farm at various points. And I think history so often overlooks the contributions of women. But Irene Bond was really significant to the community. She went back to get her LPN degree after her children graduated from college and then dedicated her life to serving fellow mastectomy patients. So she would visit them provide the physical care that they weren’t necessarily getting, because there weren’t follow up appointments for physical therapy from the doctors at that time. She was honored for the service by several organizations, including the American Cancer Society. So I think Irene Bond was actually a really significant figure in lung loss history as well. So we’re asking you, if you can review this fact sheet, and hopefully get involved to help us save the save these beautiful historical buildings we have some other members of our group have the more specific requests. In this time, we’re hoping with your involvement, we can at least prevent the demolition from happening soon so that more research can be done. So we can see if this is a building that we can landmark with or without the developer’s consent. Ideally, we would do it with their consent. Ideally, we will save the buildings altogether. And we know our neighborhood is designated as an area of change. So we’re not trying to prevent change or growth. We are well aware that that’s going to happen and we embrace that but we’re hoping that it can happen in a way that is going to respect the history of the neighborhood and preserve the the neighborhoods namesake, the bond farm house environment. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 8:05
Okay, next speaker would be Chris Conklin.
Unknown Speaker 8:27
My name is Chris Conklin. I live at 234 Francis Street, and I’m in the bond Farm Neighborhood. And I would like to direct the committee if he would to take action tonight to inform the city planner to educate the developer of the bond farm about the tax advantages of preserving of a landmark designation for the bond farm. It’s a win win situation for everybody really, I mean, we as a neighborhood would get the historic designation and the developer to get the tax credits. So that would be Yeah, that’s probably it. Thank you very much. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 9:17
Okay, next up in public invited reheard would be Jerry Walther. You don’t have to no worries you don’t have to. Okay, next thing would be Bob McLaughlin.
Unknown Speaker 9:45
I have a handout as well. Jennifer My name is Bob McLaughlin. I live at 620 Emery Street and I’m speaking tonight on behalf of the historic Eastside neighborhood. I watched the tape of the August 16 study session between HPC and council Hennis. Our neighborhood supports the lateral move of HPC code into the land development Code Title 15. We support strengthening the demolition or ordinance, including a section on demolition by neglect. And we support neighbor at us in our neighborhood that are designed to echo the themes of our pre 1940 architecture. Hannah is concerned about several issues that came up in that meeting. One is creating Historic Preservation overlay preservation overlays that are one lot in size. We believe this is completely unworkable, and leads to a hodgepodge in the neighborhood. Design guidelines that apply only to hpbose are unacceptable. And we do not believe that adu should be exempt from design guidelines. They can be accommodated just like every other structure. What do we want in historic Eastside a mechanism that establishes a conservation overlay district that applies to the entire residential neighborhood. All homes would be treated equally. It protects the continuity of the view from the street. Front elevations remain additions in AD use are located in the rear. It provides flexibility to reconfigure housing to meet a family’s changing needs. New construction should echo the architectural patterns from our early development, and it should foster cooperation among neighbors rather than creating animosity due to different rules for different thoughts. HPs the henna proposal that has been handed out to you tonight was submitted to the city a year ago. This proposal was not targeted at historic preservation. Instead it fought Foster’s neighborhood conservation through land use guidelines, it would apply to all property zoned RSF within historic Eastside neighborhood, it does not conflict conflict with long Montse border Historic Preservation code are created additional work for HPC. Except for historically designated properties, reviews will be done by staff. This proposal does not create new or more restrictive measures from the mid 80s until 2018. The RLC zone covered the same land area and required that new development reflect the established patterns in the neighborhood. It has only been since 2018, that our neighborhood has had no architectural guidelines. This proposal builds on the RLA concept by identifying specific criteria that foster a sense of place. It allows great flexibility and accommodates existing patterns. I know of no properties within the existing East Side, built prior to the 1940 where the architecture does not fall within these guidelines. The proposal set expectations I believe that this document has been given to adu applicants during pre application conferences, if I might just finish. As a result, the last two adu projects in the neighborhood have been follow him follow these guidelines and have had strong support from Hannah. These guidelines have proven to be an effective approach. Thank you very much. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 13:27
Okay, next is Miss Sharon O’Leary.
Unknown Speaker 13:40
Good evening HPC Sharon O’Leary 534 Emory street co chair of the historic Eastside neighborhood I’m here tonight to oh gosh, trying to cut me off already. You know, it did I overstay my welcome. One can only hope somebody run a timer behind me I just don’t go okay. Well, at least I got the beginning of the way start. I’m here tonight to address three things. First, the proposed adu that you will review tonight. Although cars and garages were not built when this historically designated home was the homeowners outstanding plan integrates all historical aspects needed to blend the presently awkward garage into a timely sensitive structure, supporting an adu into an a historically designated home. This is exactly what the historic Eastside neighborhood is striving for. We appreciate the thoughtful time consideration and expense that that homeowner put into their plan. We strongly support designs that are sensitive to long months oldest neighborhoods integrity, we hope that you would support a project like this. Next, I am greatly concerned about Hannah still not having a conservation overlay zone. As promised, the reason that historic Eastside neighborhoods is the largest intact neighborhood in the city of Longmont is because of our 30 year prior zoning. During that time, the west side had different zoning, hence, a different look and not an intact neighborhood. If the commission city planners and city council tried to come up with a one size fits all for both neighborhoods, it will not work. It’s like trying to design a glove that fits both the right hand and the left hand, it will not work. So please move forward. With the original overlay plans that were submitted to the city, from the historic Eastside neighborhood as just a starting block, you don’t have to recreate the wheel. Finally, I’m just checking in on the progress regarding demolition code and discussions on demolition by neglect. If needed, I would request that you meet a little longer or maybe have an HPC retreat to create the groundwork for quicker and thoughtful process. I honestly appreciate everything you do. It just seems like maybe there’s not enough time and carving out a retreat might help move some things forward. But I appreciate what you do. And welcome Councilman Rodriguez. Thank you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 16:34
new batteries. That’s all I had on my list is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come up, please just come up and state your name and address.
Unknown Speaker 16:51
Hello, my name is John locker and I live at 220 Sherman Street. And as the commission is working to preserve the historic nature of the buildings and community, I would like to ask that they consider also the temporary vinyl banners and structures at the West Side tavern. So some of those structures which have which are deemed temporary, have been off for a couple of years, and are se contributing to some of the traffic issues. But also that I would say that they detract from the historical nature of the buildings and neighborhoods. So I’d ask you to take them into consideration. Thank you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 17:35
Anyone else? Seeing none, we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. Thank you all for your comments and for for coming down here this evening. Okay, I probably should have done this at the very beginning. But we have two items on our agenda for public hearings. I’d like to propose that we switch the order of the agenda. As I understand it, our second one is going to be a smaller agenda. Thank you. So I would propose by motion that we switch the order and make the Carlson farm our second item. And 320 9/5 Ave our first Okay. All right, moved and seconded. Moved by Commissioner Jacoby seconded by Commissioner Hardy’s All in favor. All right, motion passes unanimously. So we’ll move ahead to 320 9/5 Ave. Certificate of appropriateness from what I now understand to just be limited to porch alterations.
Unknown Speaker 19:02
Yes, so just as an update, originally, this certificate of appropriateness addressed porch alterations, as well as construction of a new accessory dwelling unit and garage, the garage is still in the works. There are some potential design changes that are under consideration as we resolve some possible conflicts between Historic Preservation code as well as the accessory dwelling unit codes. So the zoning and historic preservation staff we’re all kind of we’re gonna have a meeting of the minds next week and figure out how we can move this forward. But we didn’t feel comfortable bringing the garage to the commission with changes that had not been seen yet. So tonight, we’re going to ask that you only addressed the porch alteration at 320 9/5 Avenue. I’m going to go through the go through what they’re looking to do as well as our staff recommendation. I will ask the applicant to come up and speak about what they’re proposing as well. So this property is located at the southeast corner of Emerson Fifth Avenue. It is a single family house. There is currently an existing single car single story garage at the rear of the property. Emory Dessay. Emerson, I’m sorry. It’s been a long week, sorry. So the request is to replace this. So this is the HS web home. It was built in 1907. It was designated a local landmark and 2019. They are requesting to replace non historic deteriorating porch columns and railings that were installed probably sometime in the 50s or 60s. They’re the kind of curlicue cast iron variety. With wood columns in a knee wall consistent with the original original historic style. The original columns were round and slightly tapered, they are proposing square columns that are consistent with the overall vernacular style of the home. Staff does recommend approving the porch alterations as proposed. At this point, I’m going to let the applicant Mr. Stone would you like to speak about your about the railings and the condition in the style that they currently are in. And I have a few of your slides if you want to do their particular to the railing.
Unknown Speaker 21:28
Good evening, my name is Tim stone and I do live at 320 9/5 Avenue. And they’re just shy of four years. And our goal when we bought the home was to honor the heritage of the house and try to preserve it pretty much as it as the original architecture. And one of the things that stood out to us immediately was the wrought iron railing in the front. And in preparation for our application, I did a little bit of work on the front porch. And mostly because we recognize that the the one of the posts was penetrating the support system on the roof as you can see there on the slide on the right. And it’s beginning to fail. And just below that at the base, you can see that the railing is is rusted, deteriorated significantly. And the cause of that is that the previous homeowner had overlaid a new decking over the original decking. And it was these posts are encapsulated now. And so when moisture collects surrounded has no way to dry. And so, rust begins to develop and as best I can tell most of them are starting to rust, this is the worst one right at the very front of the house, the top of the stairs, whatever the decision is here, in terms of meeting the historical appropriateness, this railing system has to be replaced in one fashion or another, the roof is sagging, the front porch does have some sag to it. And so our goal at this point since we know some work has to be done is to try to preserve as much as possible the original architecture of this house, which has been our goal from day one. And in fact that house was recently painted, it’s now white which was its original color as we know it probably seven colors later.
Unknown Speaker 23:43
I am a licensed general contractor with the city of Longmont and I do intend to do the work myself. The integrity of the knee wall and new columns will be significantly greater than the existing one now intend to put in six inch Douglas fir posts and reinforced underneath if needed. We won’t do any demolition until a request has been approved. Happy to answer any questions you have. There’s another slide there. It’s just a kind of a crude rendering of of what this would look like. The knee wall would be 24 inches high and a new handrail would be built as well. The siding would be would match the house at Cedar lap siding that you’re looking at. Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 24:38
Any Commissioner questions for the applicant?
Unknown Speaker 24:49
Go there we go. All right, red. Red means go. So I’m glad you’re you’re preserving the historic integrity of now. Home. And being a contractor you would know better than I was just curious that looks like this photo, the original porch had round columns and you’re thinking and putting in square ones, is there a big cost difference or why why that change?
Unknown Speaker 25:17
There is a cost difference. If we were to do round ones, we’d likely try to source them as as original solid wood, which is expensive and very difficult to find. I would not want to put in replicas and fiberglass or something of that nature. It’s not uncommon to see the square posts. They’re prevalent throughout the East side. So while it doesn’t take it back to its original design, it gets it very close and consistent with what we see in the neighborhood. We may have to show some other homes or not. Okay, that’s fine. There are a couple of homes on color just around the corner from us that I had presented, and taking pictures of that show the type of square posts that we’d like to use.
Unknown Speaker 26:12
Other questions from the Commission? Man, I’m, I’m okay with the square posts. And I my only opinion might be it looks like there’s like you’ve got black and white. And this. Is that? Is that? What’s your thinking on that? Or is that just like the drawing on the side there?
Unknown Speaker 26:39
Well, the House does, since it’s been repainted, the trim on the windows and the ease and so forth. We did excellent in black. And so we just want to continue with that theme. But the predominant color of the new wall is white. And the current railing is black. completely black, the wrought iron.
Unknown Speaker 27:00
All right. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 27:04
So also very difficult to paint.
Unknown Speaker 27:07
Well, I will see in this is really just a like a style opinion. But if it was me, I would probably just do those columns one color, either black or white. Oh, I’m
Unknown Speaker 27:16
sorry. I apologize. Let me let me address that the columns would be white completely. The only race Yeah, you’ll see lines there only because they would blend in with the rest of the house. So yes. To answer your question, the columns will be 100% White. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 27:36
Any other questions? I just have one, you are not you’re only seeking a certificate of appropriateness. You’re not asking for any tax credit dollars or anything like that, as
Unknown Speaker 27:49
far as it’s not necessary for this project. Okay. If you
Unknown Speaker 27:53
were that would probably push you into, you know, more of a more of a push towards the original round columns and more of a restoration. But if you’re not, then there’s a little less restriction. Certainly associated. Okay. Great. If there are no other questions for the applicant would open up the public hearing portion.
Unknown Speaker 28:19
Thank you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 28:21
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this project? Yes, ma’am. Please, again, state your name and address when you begin.
Unknown Speaker 28:32
Sarah Levison, 634. Emery, I’m a neighbor about a block and a half away. And I have four columns for him that around? No, we, we were in a similar situation where the original porch on our house was the front porch was torn off, because it had rotted and they had only left the side porch. So when we did an exterior painting, and we didn’t do a certificate appropriateness or anything, we had new columns fabricated out of Washington State that were the same, or nearly the same as the others, but I have four columns in storage in my garage that I’d be willing to sell you. And even have, you know, actually, you could, after we ordered our new ones that were almost the same shape and size, we found out that the hardwoods store on just off the South Main near the railroad tracks, they would fabricate them for about the same amount of money. So you got probably four and you need what two more right? Three more so yeah, you got more than half but we’ll talk after the meeting. But I would advocate going to the round columns. They’re not hard to source. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 29:51
Sharon O’Leary 534 Emory. I’m right up the street and the house next door to me also 530 Emery we all have round cars columns on Emory Street, any porch has around columns on Emory street. So I would suggest going for the tax credit if money is the problem, but investigate further because it would, it would replicate the authentic home. And that sounds like what the owner is striving for. But even more so it would fit in with the integrity of at least that block, if not the whole neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 30:29
Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this? Agenda Item? No, we’ll go ahead and close the public comment. So I will open it up for discussion among the commissioners.
Unknown Speaker 31:06
After listening and looking at this more carefully, unless there is a staggering difference in cost, I’d have to save the round columns would be the better choice. Can you hear me now? That’s not a red, it is red.
Unknown Speaker 31:32
Try dragging. Now. Request the There we go. All right, Mike should be on. But not read around?
Unknown Speaker 31:45
Yeah. Does that work? Okay. I was I was just saying that after listening to the comments and looking at this more carefully that unless it is a really big difference in cost, you know, it clearly would be a better solution to go with the round columns if they can be obtained. And hopefully it’s not, you know, a huge difference in cost. But for the sake of the home and the neighborhood and your own property value, I’d say that’s a better choice.
Unknown Speaker 32:25
Well any other comments among commissioners? Don’t for myself, given where they’re what they’re asking for, I don’t necessarily think the square is inappropriate, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t. I would wouldn’t deny a certificate of appropriateness for a square column. In this particular case, I can understand the round being a better choice. And so I’m comfortable with an approval with a recommendation to use round if possible. For my sake.
Unknown Speaker 33:28
I’m just looking at the picture of 437 Collier that this cute cottage, it’s up a couple of houses from mine, and it’s got square columns. And it’s a beautiful porch, and I’m questioning whether it was rebuilt. My porch. I’m on Collier as well has round columns, but it was rebuilt. And I believe my original porch had square columns. So I’m with you, Steve. I don’t see it as an overwhelming. It’s not a game changer to put square columns on but I agree with the rest of you in that round columns are original round columns who are predominant on Emory. I would prefer around columns
Unknown Speaker 34:17
Commissioner Sibley any comments or if not, we’ll
Unknown Speaker 34:23
Yeah, I I know I’ve seen both I. I mean, when I look at it, I mean, again, I’d probably prefer the round but I’m not opposed to the smaller square, especially when you look at 437 They’re a little less chunky than some of the more modern things that I’m seeing happening and so I’m thinking if they’re in proportions similar to that, they kind of lend themselves to the to that same look that the round had.
Unknown Speaker 34:53
Okay, can I get a motion?
Unknown Speaker 35:00
I would move that we approve certificate of appropriateness for the design changes for the porch with a recommendation to consider circular columns.
Unknown Speaker 35:12
Thank you. I would second that.
Unknown Speaker 35:16
Okay. So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jacoby and seconded by Commissioner Sibley. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. So motion passes unanimously for the certificate of appropriateness for the porch only. And we’ll look forward to seeing the the other part of this comeback because we have,
Unknown Speaker 35:42
well, what I might suggest is maybe you continue the portion of the garage to the next regular meeting, so that you don’t need so we don’t have to advertise advertising notice and everything.
Unknown Speaker 35:52
Okay. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 35:56
All right. So I’ll just go ahead and move that we that we do table, the second half of this the accessory dwelling unit to the next HPC. I do have a second. Okay, so that’s moved by Commissioner lane, seconded by Commissioner Jacoby. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. All right, motion is unanimous. We will table the second half of that to our October HPC. Thanks.
Unknown Speaker 36:35
So from a process standpoint, if you’re continuing a public hearing, it does not need to be re noticed. It will be an agenda item on this meeting. But we already did notice this public hearing. So from a procedural standpoint, we would not need to read notice it.
Unknown Speaker 36:54
Have the conversation here?
Unknown Speaker 36:56
Yeah. Well, happy, happy to clarify after the hearing, if you have questions. All right. So we’ll move on to our other public hearing item there, Coulson Farm, 90 to one South Main, about a staff report for that. Great.
Unknown Speaker 37:25
This is a this relates to an item that is a certificate of appropriateness that this commission approved back in April of 2021. This is a two part application, this would be a an amendment to the landmark status to basically take the landmark status and apply it specifically to the historic structures rather than the property as a whole. I’m going to we’ll get into the rationale for that momentarily. And then also a certificate of appropriateness for design guidelines for new development on this property, as was the condition of the certificate of appropriateness granted back in April of 2021. So in terms of vicinity map, this property is just south west of the intersection of South Main Street and pike road. It is an approximately one acre site, it’s a little actually a little bit more than one acres. At the time of the historic survey, it consisted of six structures, a farmhouse, a garage, a barn, a shed, chicken coops and storage buildings. The farmhouse, which was built in 1910, was designed to the Classic cottage style, it was designated a historic landmark in 1997. So as I mentioned, in April 2021, there was a certificate of appropriateness taken up by this commission, that it was a certificate of appropriateness to move the historic structures to the eastern portion of the property. To facilitate development of the western portion of the property, a condition of that particular certificate of appropriateness approval was that the applicant submit a subsequent CoA, with more details about the proposed new structures. As part of this application, the applicant has submitted proposed design guidelines for new residences for HPC approval, the applicant will be going through their these guidelines in more detail. So in terms of some procedural items, the applicant is pursuing a separate application for development to replant this property into six parcels. The landmark status applies to the property as a whole as opposed to the individual structures. So in discussions with staff as far as how to keep the Platt as clean as possible, for free George freed your time it’ll search for future title search and clean title options. We felt it was appropriate to modify the landmark status so that it specifically applied to the historic structures, as opposed to the full one plus acre parcel. So, since I know we have some commissioners who were not here in April of 2021, this was the approved location this map is, let me make this a little bigger, I just realized that give me a second. All right.
Unknown Speaker 40:35
So
Unknown Speaker 40:37
you can see on this particular map shows the original locations and where they would be moved. So basically, there would be a fairly large parcel known as lat six adjacent to Main Street, and that is where the historic properties the historic farm properties would be relocated, the farmhouse would stay in its original setting. As far as I can see, yes. And then the applicant would replat. The property here. The proposed this is the proposed plat, we’re still working through some of the details of it, but the so the draft plat, you can see the larger lot six, and that is where the historic structures would be moved, as approved in the certificate of appropriateness from April 2021. And then the parcel of property will be replanted to include five additional lots. So staff is recommending approval of the design guidelines proposed by the applicant consistent with condition number one of the certificate of appropriateness that was approved on April 8 2021. This packet the the COA package from this particular meeting, and 2021 was included with the overall package for your background information. We also recommend approval of the request to amend the landmark designation to clarify that the designation applies to the historic structures that would then be moved to lot six of the proposed plat. Again, this would this is essentially a clarification and a clean up amendment for the for the landmark status. With that let me get to the applicants get Mr. Best all information pulled up here. Uh huh. Am I looking at full screen? There we go. Jack, I’m gonna turn this over to you.
Unknown Speaker 42:47
Thanks. Good evening, good to see some of you again, good to see the new people as well. Jack best, I’ll present the owner of this, and I’m also the planner on the project. I have a little bit of overlap with Jennifer’s presentation. But we I think that some of this is background, that maybe it’s useful just to create some context. This was a slide that we looked at and discussed in 2021. We were looking for a way to preserve and sustain the buildings and to create kind of a base for that with new new development, if you will, and an HOA that would be able to support that. So we talked about intermingling or clustering. And that was accepted with a yes. And you know, just in terms of our informal discussion that evening. Relocation is that an option that was a yes and then is increasing to six from two residential units acceptable that was kind of accept it was also a yes, obviously conditioned on how it was done. And then what about contemporary forms? i Some of you may remember, I was bold enough to bring forward a Robert venturi home that he had designed for his mother. And there was some frowning there was some smiling but there was some frowning as well. But kind of the you know, how far can you go especially when this is kind of the trip to transition parcels between the Carlson farm house and prospect, you know, where I have a lot of respect for the design review committee there and so forth, but it’s a little bit of it, anything goes and there’s bright colors right next to this parcel on the on the west side. So, you know, we’ve been kind of grinding on this and figuring out what to do. And we knew we needed to come back to discuss this and we do request that you approve the two the two issues we have this you’re doing before you. So you know, new buildings should not compete or contrast dramatically and be of compatible scale. So our purpose is to reconfigure the historic area, I think of it as the area of Lot six. But tagging the historic buildings, I think is the key. Because this the, the historic designation shouldn’t apply to the new structures. And there’s a series of things that could occur that would really be difficult, legally, etc. And I, so I appreciate your consideration of that the design guidelines, really create a framework. And we’re trying to establish, we have not yet had a builder step up and take this on, it would be nice to walk in here and show you contemporary farmhouse, or, you know, something that really fits. And there are some really good designs out there, you know, a contemporary so called contemporary farmhouse type structures, for example. But we don’t have that. And what we want to do is establish this with this plat process, we are now going through. So the design guideline approach is what we’re presenting to you this evening. So, you know, they shouldn’t compete or contrast as we, as we discussed, the reconfiguration, of course, was that was to move these buildings over to the Carlson house. The diagram that Jennifer showed, was the one with the arrows that I had originally. And that was, they said no to that. And that’s okay. No, but they said, no, no, these need to be kind of in context to each other when they do slide over. And so this is the historic survey and how, where things are located. And the only. So we are moving these in the plan, they’re moving directly to the east. And there’s there’s a slight, the only one that’s not being moved as the shed, and it would not remain to be, as I say, totally transparent, I can show you why this PD that we added a minute of the final development plan that was it was approved and we worked through so that we do have the ability to have six residential units there, one of those being the Carlson house. And you can see the the the historic buildings here and dashed lines. That’s, that’s actually a part of that graphic. This is a diagram that shows the existing condition that you just saw in the survey. And you know, there’s a driveway, for example, that goes out here now that would not be allowed, because of his distance to Main Street. Here’s the Carlson house. The Shed is right here. And the what we’re proposing in the plat
Unknown Speaker 47:50
is this. So this shows the buildings moved over in this with the same orientation with the exception of that small shed. And it just shows the the five lats that make up the for the six total, these would front towards Pike, just like the Carlson house fronts towards main. And then we’re we’re servicing these with access from the alley. And we’re working with the fourth filing to have access from satisfaction circle. We also there are some things to work out as Jennifer mentioned, but that’s really the the concept for the plan and, and how this fits together. mentioning it earlier, here’s the bar now here’s what’s going on over at Prospect and the bright building is now just behind this over at Prospect. So the transition is important. I really like this speaking around columns. I like this particular black and white photo this taken from the survey before this porch was enclosed. You know, it’s interesting that the survey says that it’s Classic cottage, and then that’s crossed out and there’s a pencil penciled in classic revival. So I prefer to go with revival but I think both are appropriate. This is an example of a probably what I used what we looked at earlier, or in our previous meeting is really an exemplar of classical revival, which, you know, is close. But this certainly is a little more pristine has had a lot of work done on it, I’m sure. So in putting that together, that’s the background for being able to isolate the historic designation to lat six to the historic buildings. And then we put together a set of design guidelines. And you know, you have this we don’t have to read it word for word, but essentially, what we’re trying to do is derive from the buildings that are there predominantly the farmhouse itself and look at a design that provides scale and feed features compatible with historic buildings. And we had a really I thought useful discussion at our last meeting where, you know, we’re not trying to replicate. But we’re also not trying to go so far away that we get out of scale. And these are the buildings that we’re talking about that were in the survey that we’ve discussed earlier. So there’s really two sets of traditional compatible types and derivative types and styles that I drew on to that would be useful as establishing a framework for a future builder or designer of a custom home. In either case, the National Style little less known is, it reminds me of a two storey prairie as a matter of fact, but it has the scale and the features and the massing, I think that would be appropriate. The bungalow I don’t think, you know, that one’s probably at the heart of it. Another traditional style, the Colonial Revival, if done simplistically would have the capability of of matching up well with the cottage, a revival style of the Carlson, craftsman, I think should also be another exemplar and in the design guidelines, and then we looked at derivatives. And the derivatives really are, you know, you’ve seen these before, the modern farmhouse, the one on the on the lower, is very similar. This also is a good example, modern craftsman is taken on different forms. But can can be a useful example. This is the modern salt box, much like the barn, this happens to be a Scandinavian example. But there’s many that are like this. And then the salt box also can take on this where they’ve added the piece to the old barn, there’s more windows in this form, but it would be I think, compatible. So we believe these, these the design guidelines really match up with applicable standards of the commission. And we asked for, for your approval of the of the guidelines, and the historic designation, being isolated to the buildings on lot six, through a certificate of appropriateness, and be glad to answer questions or discuss.
Unknown Speaker 52:29
Thank you. Questions from Commissioner for the applicant? Hearing none.
Unknown Speaker 52:43
Share Sherman, they must feel really positive about that.
Unknown Speaker 52:50
I do have a couple of questions. And while others are ruminating, one of my questions was clarifying exactly where the lot line? Well, I guess I’ll back up for a second. The original proposal showed for lots for new lots, plus the what we’re calling the conservation piece. And this proposal does show five. Now there was discussion at that April 21. Hearing about a possible HD ad use are in at the barn that is now off the table. Yes, or Yes.
Unknown Speaker 53:38
Yes. I think you’re correct. In all those comments. What happened was we had really hoped to hang on to this driveway. And so by the removal of the driveway, there was additional room for a lot and that we feel a supportive and really creates a nice series of purchase towards pike. And the fifth lot, if you will the new homes would be taking the place of any idea of an adu and the barn, which I know the commission was opposed to?
Unknown Speaker 54:15
Well, not I don’t know there was an outright appraisal but just a cautionary tale to as to what, how that could go. So my follow up is since you brought up the driveway, that was another question. It’s not clear because the the plat doesn’t really show it but the in the presentation that we reviewed back in April, that backline of the existing house lot was the eastern edge of the driveway. Is that still where that is? In other words, the I’d like to know that the lat the original lot didn’t get any smaller.
Unknown Speaker 54:55
It did not. It’s very close. You’re speaking of the West property line incorrect. Yeah, is very close to that it was these we held to a fairly narrow standard, you know, 51 feet 52. In order to make this as whole as possible, it does suffer a little bit from the setback, you know, there’s a fairly substantial setback from Main Street. And right now, in order to get water and sewer in here and a few other things, there’s some discussion of brought bringing the alley all the way through. We know buildings can’t be placed in this area. But we’re, we’re pretty much opposed to the idea of an alley being an everyday occurrence on, you know, as a part of that. So we’d like to maintain that as part of the Carlson lot, so But that’s something that’s more a part of the civil engineering aspect of the planet.
Unknown Speaker 55:49
It is, I guess, but but it didn’t want to bring that up. Because that was the other thing that that showed up this this 30 foot easement. And I’m wondering how absolute that is. Because, of course, we can say it’s not our intention or desire to have an alley through there. And then all of a sudden, there’s an alley through there. And that lot, just got about a third, narrower than it was when we said we could push all these buildings on to it, even though we didn’t really love the whole idea. Now we’re losing potentially another third of the lot. So that is a concern that I have.
Unknown Speaker 56:29
Chairman lane, we share that concern. We did not submit it. In that way we what we submitted was an easement along the back of the of the lots for utilities in a driveway. And we submitted, you can see the kind of the gray blue drive there. We ran it right to the edge of that lot. So the lot itself maintained its integrity. I’m, I’ve told Jennifer, I’m going to, we’re going to go back and try to discuss this with public works. And we think it’s the same difference, but it has a whole lot more. If we are able to restrict the daily, it makes a tremendous difference for the integrity of the calls of the Carlson farmhouse lot. And, you know, if you wanted to approve the historic designation, you know, compactness, with a condition like that it would certainly help the applicants case.
Unknown Speaker 57:25
Okay, fair enough. I probably have another question or two, but I won’t hog the mic and other commissioners. Mr. Sibley?
Unknown Speaker 57:36
So just to, can you clarify. So so we’re not wanting the drive or the alley to go all the way through? So if it doesn’t go through, then there’s just that small section that is driveway? Is that what I’m understanding? Or am I missing part of this? I’m sorry?
Unknown Speaker 57:55
Sure, Lane. Commissioner Sibley, when you say that small part, are you speaking of to this area here, or this stub here?
Unknown Speaker 58:07
That goes around? Yes. So that’s what we’re trying to what you’re wanting
Unknown Speaker 58:11
to write, I think there’s a need to have a driveway, you know, a driveway for this lot. And the way that the historic buildings, you know, were preferred to stay in, in relation to each other. This is the I think this, you know, this is the equipment shed, which is like a large, long carport, essentially. So I think that accessing through this area, by the owner of the Carlson farm sloth, six, certainly would happen. But there’s also opportunities here for and water and sewer will come in this way, water is looping down from a utility perspective, it’s looping. So we’ve been able to really do a cooperative effort with the fourth filing and their current efforts. So but my thought is that this doesn’t need to be an alley on to this, it can be a driveway. And this could be stubbed. You know, this could be even an e va emergency vehicle access. And, and this is not this distance is less than what fire coder would require they wouldn’t allow something over 150 feet while we’re you know, we’re 112 feet or something from center here. So that was our goal was to get proper access, but not to try to maintain the integrity of the Carlson a lot as much as possible.
Unknown Speaker 59:36
One way or the other, hopefully to go into that.
Unknown Speaker 59:41
Yeah, sure. I was understanding Yeah, in their their alternate so this actually shows a bigger part of mystery and I wasn’t trying to jump in again. This shows really what we we proposed and what has been suggested as no easement about the same distance but moving the rode down towards this property line. But having a come all the way through. And so that’s that’s a discussion point that we were going to take up with Public Works and planning.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:15
Other Commissioner questions? My other, I’ve got a couple others. Back in April, we had talked about this, this eastern junk as a conservation area. And when we’re now talking about moving the designation, the landmark designation from the property to just the buildings. I guess, my thinking was that we might end up with a conservation easement on lat six, are some way to protect any further. Like, any further, yeah, well, just any further changes, significant changes to that property, right. So we landmark these buildings. And we don’t really address the property. And we’ve art and we’ve allowed this to happen. You know, could somebody come in and say, Well, you know, it’s landmark, but I want we’d like to do XYZ. So I’m wondering if we if the if the applicant would be open to a conservation easement on lot six once these buildings are moved there.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:41
Maybe conservation easements have their own in this commission knows that more. I’m but we are, we were thinking that lots six would be designated as the historic landmark does the local historic landmark designation, we weren’t thinking of individual buildings, staff has presented this as individual buildings. So I saw I was kind of slurring it together. So we definitely think lots six should be the the local designated historic property, if you will, I just hadn’t got as far as a conservation easement and the implications it might have for a future owner. But I mean, it’s not that we will be opposed to that I, I think we would consider it.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:30
Well, I appreciate that. I’d like you to just as a as time moves on, and, you know, it’s sort of one of these death by 1000 cuts sort of scenarios over over time, this is a big move. Anyway, rate. And especially because of that easement. Oh, and so then, would there be any further? So we’ve already issued a preliminary CoA, we this would be another CoA, do we get a COA to do we get a plan a site plan coming back here that shows us the actual final proposed locations of these moves, because that’s not part of this right now.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:20
And that could be assert certainly be a condition of this particular process.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:24
Right. And in the April hearing, we had talked about asking for architectural drawings. So what you’re basically really doing here is proposing the guidelines as a substitution to in other words, as long as if we approved the guidelines here, then when a lot gets developed, and a home gets designed, that review happens strictly with the new HOA and would not come back in front of this commission.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:56
That’s correct. Into the in terms of having, are you suggesting an exhibit like this on the first year? First point?
Unknown Speaker 1:04:06
Yeah, at some point, I mean, there’s going to be a site plan that would be the proposed site plan for this robot six and I think it would be appropriate that that that come to this commission
Unknown Speaker 1:04:19
chairman, we think this is it. I mean, you know, we can there’s some refinements to do in terms of the access and on the south side. But this we believe, is very close to that site plan and we certainly could paper your your, you know, the COA with with an exhibit that indicates this. I mean, that’s what we’d actually did before when Jade was still here. There was a decision made and then and then we we papered it, you know, documented that I think she may have discussed that with you so we could do the same thing here. Yeah, Can this could be the exhibit?
Unknown Speaker 1:05:04
Yeah, I mean, I would like to, I think for myself, I would like to see something formal, right? I mean, the there will be a final document not not a sketch. That’s, that’s right. Even if it’s even if it’s a condition that staff must take a look at this and sign off forever, you know, the historic preservation liaison for staff reviews it and says, okay, there are no substantial differences. Therefore, we’re fine. But there’s some level of check in that process.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:36
This is actually the site plan of the preliminary plat that we’ve, we’ve submitted. I, and I just created the sketch too. So you could read it a little bit better. But that’s actually a CAD drawing that’s going through the process. Okay, great.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:50
Well, it just it wasn’t it that wasn’t in our packet. So that’s one of the reasons why I was under scan. Okay. Okay, if there are no other questions for the applicant, I’ll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Seeing none, I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:24
And open it up for discussion among the commission. I I have a lot to say there. I’m curious what your all your, your thoughts are?
Unknown Speaker 1:06:40
I have a question. Um, I don’t know, you know, since we’re talking about, you know, squishing these historic buildings into one property, and then having the stretch of, of the five home sites, um, and I, I will say, you know, if this moves forward, I like the idea of, you know, the architectures that he had shown, you know, the different examples, I’m and I liked the idea of it linking and blending between the historic property and the neighborhood next to it. Um, if we were to approve this, I guess I’m a little worried about it. Just kind of it feels like it might be jammed up against where that first house would be our last house, the lot five. So I don’t know. I mean, to your question, Steve, when you were talking about, you know, would we have any input or anything about what those setbacks might be to the property lines? Or how big those houses are? Up against that? You know, those barns and things like that? I? I don’t know if that how much that goes to us? Or maybe that’s more for city planning and zoning. But I guess it would be a question,
Unknown Speaker 1:07:58
what would the setbacks be on those new lots,
Unknown Speaker 1:08:03
I would have to go back and do a little bit of research, but they would have to meet the city, our city standards.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:21
We have to look at the Urban regulations. It’s a specific plan development for prospects. So it has some very different requirements. Right now we’d have to look at it. So it would be more like prospector or I’m sorry. I believe it’s tied into the same PDS.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:48
And as a 5000 square foot lot, you’re probably not going to have a particularly beefy setback on the sides, otherwise, you wouldn’t have a building left. So it’s likely that that lot five, I mean, which is really the one that matters, I suppose, is going to have a fairly small setback on that eastern edge. Which is a little different, because we did have originally, you know, in the initial application, it was a an alley, right? So there was space.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:32
So what we’re being asked to act on, if I understand things correctly, is is it is an approval of the design guidelines proposed a, an amendment of the landmark designation from the entire property to something else. I would be more inclined to say lot six as a whole rather than specifically buildings. And then add whatever other thoughts we might deem appropriate. So let’s just take a one at a time. Is there any comments from commissioners on the design guidelines? I mean, are there any issues or concerns in the guidelines?
Unknown Speaker 1:10:34
Here we go. No, I don’t have any specific, specific concerns about the guidelines as presented, I was just going to make a motion to change the landmark designation, from the original full lot to just lat six, rather than two buildings, but two, lots six, with the move buildings on the site.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:01
Okay, if you’re making a formal motion here, okay. So just as a note that that’s one of two things, right? I could handle this as a separate line item, just doing that separate line items. Okay,
Unknown Speaker 1:11:23
that’s, that’s how staff would recommend that we do address these as separate line items. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:32
Okay, so there’s a motion on the table to to amend the landmark designation to lat six
Unknown Speaker 1:11:47
with the buildings moved as planned, as presented,
Unknown Speaker 1:11:52
right, with the buildings moved per the requirement of the of the original COA approval
Unknown Speaker 1:12:06
That’s correct. Okay, so I have a motion from Commissioner Jacoby seconded by Commissioner Sibley. Any further discussion, I would like at some point to get a recommendation for a conservation easement in one of these. And I would also like a, well, if the board is so inclined, I’d like a formal statement that we would not support an alley access running through that proposed easement. And it feels like this is the right portion to address that. So. So I’m not as sharp on the Robert’s Rules of Order. We have a motion and a and a second. So I think we have to act on that formally.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:20
I was just gonna say I think you can ask for a friendly amendment. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:24
All right. Okay, if you can amend the motion.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:27
Okay. I appreciate that. It’s been a while since. Okay. So I would request a friendly amendment of that motion to add both those components A that we recommend the applicant consider strongly consider a conservation easement on lat six, and that we note as a commission, that we do not support the creation of an alley through the access easement as proposed on the south side of Lot six. Are with the Second Amendment are accepted.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:10
I would accept that amendment.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:14
Do you actually need a second for that or
Unknown Speaker 1:14:18
every second? I will read the second. That’s for intended to two seconds.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:30
Thank you for doing that. Okay, so we have an amended motion on the floor. I think we really do have that pretty well. I don’t need to say it all over again. Thank you, because that would take another 10 minutes. Okay, with a motion on the floor. I’ll call for a vote. All those in favor. say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. That motion carries unanimously. So we still need to act on the design guidelines.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:13
Sorry technical difficulties on the lookout you got yours now, yeah yes? So we need a second motion if there are no if there’s no further question or discussion about it
Unknown Speaker 1:16:35
I’ll try to do this without having to amend anything right. So I’m just a little concerned is that when you put five lots on there, they’re smaller and I, I liked the design guidelines. I’m not sure how you’re going to make a house fit on a smaller lot that would fully meet that but that’s the remains of architects and planners. I’m just here to say whether I liked that idea and I so I do like that. And so I would move that we support the guidelines as presented.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:07
Okay, so I have motion to approve the design guidelines by Commissioner Jacoby, and second, seconded by Commissioner Hardy’s. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. That motion also carries unanimously. Thank you for your time and for bringing this application in front of us.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:29
I do appreciate it. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:40
We’ll move on to new business, which we don’t have any of beyond what we’ve already taken care of tonight. prior business, we have three items on that list. The first being the Dickens, Barnes Latin property update.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:55
Yes, I mentioned that briefly in my staff report. And again, we continue to work with the applicant. We are going to be meeting with the Parks Recreation advisory board on the 12th of September. So stay tuned, we are still working on trying to figure out how we can save that barn.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:13
So the the park and rec board has not met since that field trip
Unknown Speaker 1:18:17
they have not know that that field trip was in lieu of their their regular meeting.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:22
Okay. Any commissioners have any questions for staff on that? Topic? No. Okay. An update on the status of a historic preservation plan and survey grants.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:38
At this point, it’s status quo unless Brian has any updates. Okay. We are we are still that is still something that we are seeking to, to work on. We definitely have had some staffing challenges and workload issues. So we’re doing what we can
Unknown Speaker 1:19:00
here that last meeting, we did ask if that if if the non competitive grant application might be filled out by this hearing. So
Unknown Speaker 1:19:12
we have had aspirations of getting that done. But we are working on seeing how we can get that done. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:22
Commissioner questions, comments? Okay. Be great to get some momentum on the surveys. And then HPC code amendments. We may have another joint session.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:42
Yeah. I was just going to add to what Jennifer mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, that was the direction from the mayor that we look at the calendar and try and set that so I believe that’s happening now. But I haven’t heard of a proposed date now. Councils kind of in the middle of our budget through Who this month? Yeah, it’s this month. So I don’t think it’s going to be in September, but we’ll let you know as soon as we arrive at a date.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:13
Okay. Do you feel like that first discussion was back in August was very helpful to get Council and city attorney’s office on more of the same page. At the moment, that leaves us essentially waiting for another proposal from city council from really from city attorney’s office that we can then truly sink our teeth into. Okay, any questions about the code amendments? Process? No. Okay. All right. Then we’ll move to comments from HPC. commissioners do any of the commissioners was to offer comment? Nope. Okay. Comments from City Council rep. Commission. Thank you for your service. Thank you. All right. With that I will motion to or accept the motion to adjourn.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:22
All right. So
Unknown Speaker 1:21:25
all right. A German motion by Commissioner Sibley. Seconded by Commissioner Jacoby. All in favor? Aye. All right. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:34
So Commissioner lane. Earlier, you hadn’t closed? I’m sorry. You hadn’t closed up the public hearing? That’s why I asked that question. And then you said I could bring it up at the end. So I’m at one, I didn’t hear you then. So the owner just came up to me and said that he was looking at putting a breezeway from the house to the accessory dwelling. And so my concern would be that if those plans don’t go out to the public, again, there’s, it’s, it’s not transparent. I mean, something very awkward could go on. I mean, the integrity of the man looks very good. But not everyone’s integrity is going to be good. So there needs to be some notification process, at least to neighborhoods or people who came to the meeting, that now that it’s been extended, here’s the new plan that they’re bringing, because it’s not on the original stuff that we were given. And obviously, he’s going to bring something new that includes the breezeway. It may not, though, well, whatever, whatever, whatever, whatever. That’s all I’m saying is that this meeting was in the packet and the what the public was given.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:54
So the proposed plans, any proposed plans for the garage and adu would be part of the next meetings packet. So would be published exactly like this packet, normally is, staff needs to work, we need to work amongst ourselves as well as with the applicant to resolve some possible conflicts between zoning requirements and historic preservation requirements.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:21
You know, it’s going to be at our next meeting, right? So you’ve, you’ve gotten notice, right, and it will be in the packet and it will be on that agenda, because
Unknown Speaker 1:23:29
regardless bring plans to the Commission without them having an opportunity to advance as well. So
Unknown Speaker 1:23:37
this is about balance.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:40
Table this,
Unknown Speaker 1:23:42
Oh, I get that part of it. I totally get that
Unknown Speaker 1:23:46
for the applicants. So
Unknown Speaker 1:23:49
I’m just saying anybody who was at the meeting tonight, if they could get the same thing in the packet when you get it, I mean,
Unknown Speaker 1:23:55
it will be emailed, it will be posted, posted the same way that this packet the packet is posted.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:06
It’s kind of the way that things always worked previously, and all of a sudden now they’re not working that way anymore. It’s a continuance. And so we didn’t even get a notification about the adu as a neighborhood.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai