From the HPC Agend for
Public Hearing Agenda
Thursday, January 28, 2010
5:00 p.m.
683 Summit Avenue, Hill Historic District, by owner representative George LeTendre, for a subdivision (lot split) in order to sell the new parcel for single family construction.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
University of St Thomas (UST) ST 2115 Summit Ave
Also from the SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION (November 5, 2009)
B. University of St. Thomas Student Center, 2115 Summit Avenue, Summit Avenue West Historic District – by OPUS, pre-application review for the construction of a 225,000 square feet Student Center at the northeast corner of Summit and Cretin (Spong, 266-6714).
Chair Manning recused himself from the discussion and Commissioner Igo took over position of chair. Commissioner Trimble left the meeting at this point, as well. Staff read a description of the property, the proposed changes, and preliminary findings. Staff began discussions by adding the setback information that had not been provided in time for the staff report. Aquinas Hall’s setbacks are 143 feet, and 108 feet to the bays. The proposed Anderson Student Center setbacks are 120 feet, and 109 feet to the bays. Aquinas Hall is 64 feet, 6 inches high, and the height of Anderson as proposed is 69 feet, 5 inches. Commissioner Trimble asked what was historically on the site before the existing parking lot. Staff was unsure, but they would research Sanborn maps to find out. Doug Hennes, with University of St. Thomas, spoke about the scope of the project, saying it is, at 210,000 square feet, the biggest project they have undertaken, and will rival the next-biggest building in size. It is important for the University and neighborhood because of its location, specifically in a historic district, and purpose. They have taken design issues relating to the historic fabric of the district into account when designing the building. Because of this, they feel that their plans are appropriate for the Summit Avenue West Historic District. Dan Dixon, of OPUS, then spoke. The building is very important for the campus as it will be the signature building that links the south and west campuses together; it is an iconic location. The design is compatible with Aquinas Hall and other historic buildings, but differentiated by use and function. The style is Neo-collegiate Gothic, add would add continuity along Summit Avenue. There are breathing spaces added into the design for rhythm, vocabulary, and to blend with existing buildings. Mr. Dixon addressed the height of the building; from the street it would not seem higher due to changes in elevation and slope. The diagonal sidewalks are to aid in traffic flow from the Summit & Cretin intersection to the main entrance. Materials, including Kasota stone, cast stone watertable and trim, pilasters, and clay tile roof, are coherent with existing buildings. There is less glass, fewer openings, than Aquinas Hall because of energy conservation (LEED), as well as because the difference in uses. Mr. Dixon stated that the building is in agreement with the guidelines, and it was clarified that the building is new construction and must comply with those guidelines.
The 106 Group reported that the design was compatible and complies with the principles of massing and scale. He also added that although the foot print is very large, it is not as obvious from street level. Although the height is higher than Aquinas, it is lower than Roach, and the changes will be not be “interruptible” from Summit Avenue. The zoning setback requirements are 100 feet, and Anderson Student Center will be 120 feet. The three projecting bays and main entry break up the massing of the building and the bays are consistent with those on Aquinas Hall. Mr. Dixon also addressed the landscape. WSNAC and other community neighborhood groups’ voices have impacted landscape plans. In order to encourage students to actually utilize the cross walks, the paving in between the boulevard and mid-block cross walks will be removed. The diagonal walk is in keeping with Finn & Summit walks that lead to Roach and McNeely. The court at the front entry has a plaza wall that is three feet at its tallest height, which will also aid in directing the flow of traffic to and from the crosswalks. There is a similar wall at McNeely. At this point, Mr. Dixon was interested in hearing feedback from the commissioners, so they opened discussion.
Commissioner Trout-Oertel was concerned that the uses along Cretin Avenue don’t lend themselves to the façade along Summit; she would like to see more fenestration and articulation on the Cretin façade. Mr. Dixon replied that the Cretin Avenue side is where most service doors, parking, recycling, cafeteria and kitchens are located, and windows aren’t necessary due to freezers and refrigerators on that wall. The four bays along Cretin project ten feet or more, which is hard to see in the pictures. There will be landscaping along Cretin and closer to the building to help break up the relatively-blank walls. Mr. Dixon added that the neighborhood committees shared Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s concerns in preliminary phases, and the landscaping has improved their opinions. He also added that the texture of the building is “beautiful on its own” and they didn’t want additional adornments to distract from that. Commissioner Carey asked if arched windows on the East main floor, on the recessed walls, could match closer to the main façade. Mr. Dixon reasserted that freezers are to be located along some of those walls, so windows are not necessary from a function standpoint. Commissioner Thomas said that because of scale, the roof line reads like a giant wall. Mr. Dixon replied that perspective helps, and that the bays, which are consistent with those on Aquinas, help break up the massing. Staff pointed out that the roofs on Aquinas and Roach both step down at the ends of the buildings, and that Anderson Student Center’s design is not consistent in that sense.
The applicant asked the HPC what direction they should take on the next steps. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to be completed in February of 2010; if an EIS is not required, then the applicants hope for a March 2010 formal HPC review and site plan review. O’Shaughnessy is slated for demolition in March 2010, as well; construction would start in April or May 2010, and be complete in June 2012. They are planning for an 18-20 month process. Greg Mathis with the 106 Group spoke about the cultural resource report portion of the EAW. They researched O’Shaughnessy Hall as part of phase I, as well as a survey of the area to determine the audio, visual, physical effects of the proposed project. Of 65 nearby properties, 22 are in the Summit Avenue West Historic District, seven are considered potentially eligible, and there are 36 new properties. O’Shaughnessy is not eligible under significant design or architect. The whole campus is also not eligible for National Register designation because the original campus plans were never completed as significantly as designed. The final EAW will be published on December 14, 2009, followed by a 30-day public review period. Mr. Mathis emphasized that the Anderson Student Center will have very little impact on the historic district since it is right on the edge of it, and that there is very limited visual impact. The bays that read with Aquinas mitigate changes of main masses with the building. He added that if the building were to be the exact same height as Aquinas, it would be read as monotonous. From the street-view, the scale would not be read as massive. Mr. Dixon added that the building has single-loaded functions. Commissioner Trout-Oertel said that she would be more comfortable lending direction if more commissioners were present to discuss the proposal. She added that this building is at the terminus of the Summit Avenue West District and not in the middle of, so it has less of an impact on the district as a whole. She added that the building is not insignificantly large, but has been handled well. Commissioner Igo countered Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s comment and said that he views the building to be the beginning of the district, the first glimpse of what to expect as you travel through it, and acts as an anchor point. Other commissioners echoed Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s feelings about being uneasy proceeding without more commissioners involved in the discussion. Commissioner Thomas said that the interior spaces become less accessible with the proposed design, because there are more edges to read along and not through. A parking lot is not an ideal use for the space, but the sense of being able to read through the campus is lost. Commissioner Carey replied that she hadn’t thought about it in that sense, but thought it was nice that an interior campus was created by the proposed building. She would also like to see more pictures of O’Shaughnessy Hall, especially if it is to be lost, as well as modifications to the design to create balance regarding the setback issues. Commissioner Igo also asked about O’Shaughnessy Hall. Staff replied that they have the opportunity to comment on it for the EAW; although it is not eligible for the National Register, it wasn’t surveyed for potential for local designation. Commissioner Carey asked why the historic district’s lines did not include the entire campus, rather than just a portion of it. Staff replied that at the time of the district’s creation, there was pressure not designate the whole campus.
Commissioner Igo asked for any more staff input. He asked if the west elevation needs more fenestration. Commissioner Trout-Oertel liked Commissioner Carey’s idea of a more articulated first level of the west elevation, to mimic that of the Summit Avenue elevation. Staff asked the commissioners to comment on any major issues to focus on, including massing, volume, and setbacks, adding that the guidelines state that setbacks are not to be more than 5% of surrounding contributing buildings. Staff also stated that, per the guidelines, college buildings, if taller, should have greater setbacks in comparison to contributing buildings. They are not to dwarf, minimize, or overshadow historic buildings. Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the commissioners’ main concerns do relate to the 5% rule, setbacks, massing, and projections. Staff also brought up the massing of the Ashland Hotel on Ashland and Mackubin; they broke up the façade more to make up for the larger foot print. Commissioner Igo confirmed that the massing, site, and setback were their concerns and asked staff how to proceed, given the applicant’s tight timeline. It was proposed that a second pre-application review, primarily to discuss these concerns be set. Commissioner Carey asked if a committee could be formed to create opportunities for dialog, outside of a formal meeting, then asked how committees were formed. Staff replied that ad-hoc sub-committees can be appointed by the chair, but that public notice also needs to be taken into consideration when moving forward. It was decided that a continuation of the current pre-application review be added on the next HPC meeting agenda, November 19, to focus on the main concerns. Mr. Hennes asked if former HPC members could speak on the project’s behalf, as a former commissioner was influential in the McNeely Hall. Staff told him that he could testify, either in written form or speak on their behalf. Commissioner Trout-Oertel pointed out that she would like more commissioners to speak on it, not just specifically architects that sit on the Commission. Mr. Dixon asked if it would be beneficial for the commissioners to know what the interior uses will be, but Commissioners Trout-Oertel and Igo said that no, it was clear from the submitted drawings. Before the discussion was closed, the applicant submitted an old rendering of the original plans for the St. Thomas campus. The discussion was continued at the November 19 Public Hearing.
B. University of St. Thomas Student Center, 2115 Summit Avenue, Summit Avenue West Historic District – by OPUS, pre-application review for the construction of a 225,000 square feet Student Center at the northeast corner of Summit and Cretin (Spong, 266-6714).
Chair Manning recused himself from the discussion and Commissioner Igo took over position of chair. Commissioner Trimble left the meeting at this point, as well. Staff read a description of the property, the proposed changes, and preliminary findings. Staff began discussions by adding the setback information that had not been provided in time for the staff report. Aquinas Hall’s setbacks are 143 feet, and 108 feet to the bays. The proposed Anderson Student Center setbacks are 120 feet, and 109 feet to the bays. Aquinas Hall is 64 feet, 6 inches high, and the height of Anderson as proposed is 69 feet, 5 inches. Commissioner Trimble asked what was historically on the site before the existing parking lot. Staff was unsure, but they would research Sanborn maps to find out. Doug Hennes, with University of St. Thomas, spoke about the scope of the project, saying it is, at 210,000 square feet, the biggest project they have undertaken, and will rival the next-biggest building in size. It is important for the University and neighborhood because of its location, specifically in a historic district, and purpose. They have taken design issues relating to the historic fabric of the district into account when designing the building. Because of this, they feel that their plans are appropriate for the Summit Avenue West Historic District. Dan Dixon, of OPUS, then spoke. The building is very important for the campus as it will be the signature building that links the south and west campuses together; it is an iconic location. The design is compatible with Aquinas Hall and other historic buildings, but differentiated by use and function. The style is Neo-collegiate Gothic, add would add continuity along Summit Avenue. There are breathing spaces added into the design for rhythm, vocabulary, and to blend with existing buildings. Mr. Dixon addressed the height of the building; from the street it would not seem higher due to changes in elevation and slope. The diagonal sidewalks are to aid in traffic flow from the Summit & Cretin intersection to the main entrance. Materials, including Kasota stone, cast stone watertable and trim, pilasters, and clay tile roof, are coherent with existing buildings. There is less glass, fewer openings, than Aquinas Hall because of energy conservation (LEED), as well as because the difference in uses. Mr. Dixon stated that the building is in agreement with the guidelines, and it was clarified that the building is new construction and must comply with those guidelines.
The 106 Group reported that the design was compatible and complies with the principles of massing and scale. He also added that although the foot print is very large, it is not as obvious from street level. Although the height is higher than Aquinas, it is lower than Roach, and the changes will be not be “interruptible” from Summit Avenue. The zoning setback requirements are 100 feet, and Anderson Student Center will be 120 feet. The three projecting bays and main entry break up the massing of the building and the bays are consistent with those on Aquinas Hall. Mr. Dixon also addressed the landscape. WSNAC and other community neighborhood groups’ voices have impacted landscape plans. In order to encourage students to actually utilize the cross walks, the paving in between the boulevard and mid-block cross walks will be removed. The diagonal walk is in keeping with Finn & Summit walks that lead to Roach and McNeely. The court at the front entry has a plaza wall that is three feet at its tallest height, which will also aid in directing the flow of traffic to and from the crosswalks. There is a similar wall at McNeely. At this point, Mr. Dixon was interested in hearing feedback from the commissioners, so they opened discussion.
Commissioner Trout-Oertel was concerned that the uses along Cretin Avenue don’t lend themselves to the façade along Summit; she would like to see more fenestration and articulation on the Cretin façade. Mr. Dixon replied that the Cretin Avenue side is where most service doors, parking, recycling, cafeteria and kitchens are located, and windows aren’t necessary due to freezers and refrigerators on that wall. The four bays along Cretin project ten feet or more, which is hard to see in the pictures. There will be landscaping along Cretin and closer to the building to help break up the relatively-blank walls. Mr. Dixon added that the neighborhood committees shared Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s concerns in preliminary phases, and the landscaping has improved their opinions. He also added that the texture of the building is “beautiful on its own” and they didn’t want additional adornments to distract from that. Commissioner Carey asked if arched windows on the East main floor, on the recessed walls, could match closer to the main façade. Mr. Dixon reasserted that freezers are to be located along some of those walls, so windows are not necessary from a function standpoint. Commissioner Thomas said that because of scale, the roof line reads like a giant wall. Mr. Dixon replied that perspective helps, and that the bays, which are consistent with those on Aquinas, help break up the massing. Staff pointed out that the roofs on Aquinas and Roach both step down at the ends of the buildings, and that Anderson Student Center’s design is not consistent in that sense.
The applicant asked the HPC what direction they should take on the next steps. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is to be completed in February of 2010; if an EIS is not required, then the applicants hope for a March 2010 formal HPC review and site plan review. O’Shaughnessy is slated for demolition in March 2010, as well; construction would start in April or May 2010, and be complete in June 2012. They are planning for an 18-20 month process. Greg Mathis with the 106 Group spoke about the cultural resource report portion of the EAW. They researched O’Shaughnessy Hall as part of phase I, as well as a survey of the area to determine the audio, visual, physical effects of the proposed project. Of 65 nearby properties, 22 are in the Summit Avenue West Historic District, seven are considered potentially eligible, and there are 36 new properties. O’Shaughnessy is not eligible under significant design or architect. The whole campus is also not eligible for National Register designation because the original campus plans were never completed as significantly as designed. The final EAW will be published on December 14, 2009, followed by a 30-day public review period. Mr. Mathis emphasized that the Anderson Student Center will have very little impact on the historic district since it is right on the edge of it, and that there is very limited visual impact. The bays that read with Aquinas mitigate changes of main masses with the building. He added that if the building were to be the exact same height as Aquinas, it would be read as monotonous. From the street-view, the scale would not be read as massive. Mr. Dixon added that the building has single-loaded functions. Commissioner Trout-Oertel said that she would be more comfortable lending direction if more commissioners were present to discuss the proposal. She added that this building is at the terminus of the Summit Avenue West District and not in the middle of, so it has less of an impact on the district as a whole. She added that the building is not insignificantly large, but has been handled well. Commissioner Igo countered Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s comment and said that he views the building to be the beginning of the district, the first glimpse of what to expect as you travel through it, and acts as an anchor point. Other commissioners echoed Commissioner Trout-Oertel’s feelings about being uneasy proceeding without more commissioners involved in the discussion. Commissioner Thomas said that the interior spaces become less accessible with the proposed design, because there are more edges to read along and not through. A parking lot is not an ideal use for the space, but the sense of being able to read through the campus is lost. Commissioner Carey replied that she hadn’t thought about it in that sense, but thought it was nice that an interior campus was created by the proposed building. She would also like to see more pictures of O’Shaughnessy Hall, especially if it is to be lost, as well as modifications to the design to create balance regarding the setback issues. Commissioner Igo also asked about O’Shaughnessy Hall. Staff replied that they have the opportunity to comment on it for the EAW; although it is not eligible for the National Register, it wasn’t surveyed for potential for local designation. Commissioner Carey asked why the historic district’s lines did not include the entire campus, rather than just a portion of it. Staff replied that at the time of the district’s creation, there was pressure not designate the whole campus.
Commissioner Igo asked for any more staff input. He asked if the west elevation needs more fenestration. Commissioner Trout-Oertel liked Commissioner Carey’s idea of a more articulated first level of the west elevation, to mimic that of the Summit Avenue elevation. Staff asked the commissioners to comment on any major issues to focus on, including massing, volume, and setbacks, adding that the guidelines state that setbacks are not to be more than 5% of surrounding contributing buildings. Staff also stated that, per the guidelines, college buildings, if taller, should have greater setbacks in comparison to contributing buildings. They are not to dwarf, minimize, or overshadow historic buildings. Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the commissioners’ main concerns do relate to the 5% rule, setbacks, massing, and projections. Staff also brought up the massing of the Ashland Hotel on Ashland and Mackubin; they broke up the façade more to make up for the larger foot print. Commissioner Igo confirmed that the massing, site, and setback were their concerns and asked staff how to proceed, given the applicant’s tight timeline. It was proposed that a second pre-application review, primarily to discuss these concerns be set. Commissioner Carey asked if a committee could be formed to create opportunities for dialog, outside of a formal meeting, then asked how committees were formed. Staff replied that ad-hoc sub-committees can be appointed by the chair, but that public notice also needs to be taken into consideration when moving forward. It was decided that a continuation of the current pre-application review be added on the next HPC meeting agenda, November 19, to focus on the main concerns. Mr. Hennes asked if former HPC members could speak on the project’s behalf, as a former commissioner was influential in the McNeely Hall. Staff told him that he could testify, either in written form or speak on their behalf. Commissioner Trout-Oertel pointed out that she would like more commissioners to speak on it, not just specifically architects that sit on the Commission. Mr. Dixon asked if it would be beneficial for the commissioners to know what the interior uses will be, but Commissioners Trout-Oertel and Igo said that no, it was clear from the submitted drawings. Before the discussion was closed, the applicant submitted an old rendering of the original plans for the St. Thomas campus. The discussion was continued at the November 19 Public Hearing.
977 Summit
Also from the SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION (November 5, 2009)
A. 977 Summit Avenue, Hill Historic District – by David Heide Design Studio, pre-application review for a complete interior and exterior renovation including, alteration of the front entrance and terrace, construction of two rear and side elevation additions, conversion of the tuck-under garages into living space and alteration of the driveway. Also proposed is removing the two-stall garage at the alley, and constructing a four-stall garage and other site improvements (Spong, 266-6714).
Chair Manning clarified the pre-application review process, which has the ultimate goal of summarizing the main themes and concerns of the HPC. Staff read a description of the property, the proposed changes, and preliminary findings. The applicant’s representative, David Heide, focused on the driveway area as a main concern highlighted in the staff report. He gave some background on the property. It was originally a duplex, with the basement a part of the main floor’s unit. It will be condominiums, two units for members of one family. The tuck-under garage is going to be converted into bedrooms, so privacy issues became the main concern for the driveway. They wanted to incorporate the driveway away from the street and into the backyard to create a private area. Mr. Heide presented new drawings to show the walls on either side of the driveway extending out to a terrace wall, the top of which would be level with the lawn. There will be stairs out of the basement level up to the lawn. Commissioner Chair Manning asked the Mr. Heide to describe what was between the wall facing the house and fence along the sidewalk, which he replied will be a sod or garden area, filled with earth. Mr. Heide said that there have been a few other changes since the original application was submitted, since they are still in the schematic phases. On the proposed stoop at the rear, there is now a roof that has the same pitch as the house, as well as a thick stucco wall to support it. Iron hoods are proposed over the windows above the garage doors, to complement a similar feature elsewhere on the house. Chair Manning asked the applicant if he had any other concerns; Mr. Heide wanted to hear more input from commissioners. He also asked about windows on the east elevation that are original to the house, and are proposed to be removed and replaced with windows that don’t go as low, in order to serve internally as a kitchen. Commissioner Trout-Oertel asked if any other original windows are to be removed; Mr. Heide replied that yes, one other original window, which is located above the proposed one-story addition will be replaced with a door. An interior staircase is being moved, causing original features to be disrupted. Commissioner Carey asked if the kitchens are being moved into the original dining rooms, what is going into the kitchens. There will be a family room on both floors, a breakfast nook on the main floor, and a larger “more suitable Minnesota” main entrance for the second floor unit (on the main floor). The applicant added that the front terrace is crumbling. Investigative work has uncovered original tiles, which they would like to replace in-kind. There is evidence of masonry above the plane along the edges of the terrace, leading them to believe there was a more substantial masonry wall in place originally. More investigation is necessary. The owner desires the terrace be extended to the west on the main elevation, in order to have a wider area just in front of the main door, totaling 18” – 24”. Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the green tile was on the front terrace. Commissioner Trimble verified that the extension of the terrace would not disrupt any windows, and Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the height of the new terrace would be the same as existing. The applicant added that the balconies above the front terrace always had windows in them; there was no evidence of doors ever opening onto them. Mr. Heide said that their new proposal of the terrace includes masonry walls that are crenellated with iron work that hearkens to the above balconies. Chair Manning told Mr. Heide that approval on the new terrace would have to wait and be held for reaction because the new information was just presented.
The commissioners steered the discussion back to the terrace in the existing driveway. Chair Manning asked to see the newly introduced drawings because the cut-through view was confusing, then asked how high the terrace wall will be. Mr. Heide said it will be five feet high. Commissioner Trimble asked if any historic pictures had been found. Neither the applicants nor staff had found any, but staff offered to look at files of nearby houses for any clues. Mr. Heide asked what tonight’s HPC comments mean, and how they should proceed now that the HPC has seen the plans. Commissioner Igo is OK with most of the plans, but still concerned with the driveway. Commissioner Trout-Oertel agreed, adding that the house is big enough to handle the mass of the new additions. She added that she “was not sure” how she felt about the driveway. Commissioner Igo asked if there was any past precedent that could impact their decision. HPC staff alerted the commissioners to a proposal on the University of St. Thomas campus where they denied a retaining wall across an existing tuck-under driveway that had been converted. A concept with plantings and an open fence was approved. Carriage house doors have been infilled before. Commissioner Igo remembered that most of the UST discussion was related to the materials of the wall and cap of the retaining wall, which prompted him to ask about the stucco pillars. He could see that the garage doors themselves would still be read, and had it clarified that the fence material will be painted steel. He likes the design better than a tuck-under garage. Commissioner Trout-Oertel agreed with that sentiment, saying that the design is very attractive. Mr. Heide told the commissioners that the existing retaining walls’ highest point is five feet. They didn’t want the space to feel like a box, and they were trying to keep the space lower than surrounding yards. Mr. Heide stressed that you can “still see the story, follow the history. Chair Manning asked the applicant how high the stucco base/ top fence would be. The base would be about two feet tall and the fence would be one foot tall. Chair Manning shares the staff’s concern that the space won’t read as a driveway and garage from the street; he desires a more permeable feature to be able to read past the wall, to be reminiscent of the driveway. Commissioner Carey said that there is a difference between this proposal and University of St. Thomas, because these are bedrooms and require privacy. The staff suggested putting aside the idea of infilling the space and questioned how commissioners felt about introducing formal landscaping elements because the original element is an informal and utilitarian one. The sloping, gentle hillside of the existing yard is proposed to be replaced by hard, solid, stucco walls. It makes it feel very heavy, weighty and formal. Staff suggested that, if the commission is OK with infilling, maybe there could be a compromise on the fence.
Commissioner Trout-Oertel echoed Commissioner Carey that there is a need for privacy, but agreed with staff that it was very structured. She would like the slope of the driveway to remain, and terrace it beyond the edge of the sidewalk. Commissioner Carey added that it is not an issue for her to bring a barrier up to the level of the lawn, but she is interpreting from other commissioners that the concern is that it “obliterates” original, unique features. Maybe if the planting bed between the fence and sidewalk “went away” at the driveway, it would be enough differentiation, adding that hardscape is difficult to deal with. Chair Manning agreed that no planter at the driveway, in order to visually signal the change between the lawn and driveway would be a good thing. Mr. Heide added that their concern includes the view from inside the bedrooms, but they will revisit the issue. He requested that the driveway and front terrace have another pre-application review once they have taken the commissioners’ comments into account. Chair Manning summarized the review by stating that the HPC expresses comfort with the additions, the space needs to reflect visually physical changes and how it’s read from the street needs to be taken into account. He added that staff could probably handle a meeting in lieu of a second pre-application review. The staff will need construction-level plans before the design review application can be approved. Staff added that the project will need to come in front of the HPC for public hearing with the final plans, which is when public input and testimony would be included.
A. 977 Summit Avenue, Hill Historic District – by David Heide Design Studio, pre-application review for a complete interior and exterior renovation including, alteration of the front entrance and terrace, construction of two rear and side elevation additions, conversion of the tuck-under garages into living space and alteration of the driveway. Also proposed is removing the two-stall garage at the alley, and constructing a four-stall garage and other site improvements (Spong, 266-6714).
Chair Manning clarified the pre-application review process, which has the ultimate goal of summarizing the main themes and concerns of the HPC. Staff read a description of the property, the proposed changes, and preliminary findings. The applicant’s representative, David Heide, focused on the driveway area as a main concern highlighted in the staff report. He gave some background on the property. It was originally a duplex, with the basement a part of the main floor’s unit. It will be condominiums, two units for members of one family. The tuck-under garage is going to be converted into bedrooms, so privacy issues became the main concern for the driveway. They wanted to incorporate the driveway away from the street and into the backyard to create a private area. Mr. Heide presented new drawings to show the walls on either side of the driveway extending out to a terrace wall, the top of which would be level with the lawn. There will be stairs out of the basement level up to the lawn. Commissioner Chair Manning asked the Mr. Heide to describe what was between the wall facing the house and fence along the sidewalk, which he replied will be a sod or garden area, filled with earth. Mr. Heide said that there have been a few other changes since the original application was submitted, since they are still in the schematic phases. On the proposed stoop at the rear, there is now a roof that has the same pitch as the house, as well as a thick stucco wall to support it. Iron hoods are proposed over the windows above the garage doors, to complement a similar feature elsewhere on the house. Chair Manning asked the applicant if he had any other concerns; Mr. Heide wanted to hear more input from commissioners. He also asked about windows on the east elevation that are original to the house, and are proposed to be removed and replaced with windows that don’t go as low, in order to serve internally as a kitchen. Commissioner Trout-Oertel asked if any other original windows are to be removed; Mr. Heide replied that yes, one other original window, which is located above the proposed one-story addition will be replaced with a door. An interior staircase is being moved, causing original features to be disrupted. Commissioner Carey asked if the kitchens are being moved into the original dining rooms, what is going into the kitchens. There will be a family room on both floors, a breakfast nook on the main floor, and a larger “more suitable Minnesota” main entrance for the second floor unit (on the main floor). The applicant added that the front terrace is crumbling. Investigative work has uncovered original tiles, which they would like to replace in-kind. There is evidence of masonry above the plane along the edges of the terrace, leading them to believe there was a more substantial masonry wall in place originally. More investigation is necessary. The owner desires the terrace be extended to the west on the main elevation, in order to have a wider area just in front of the main door, totaling 18” – 24”. Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the green tile was on the front terrace. Commissioner Trimble verified that the extension of the terrace would not disrupt any windows, and Commissioner Trout-Oertel clarified that the height of the new terrace would be the same as existing. The applicant added that the balconies above the front terrace always had windows in them; there was no evidence of doors ever opening onto them. Mr. Heide said that their new proposal of the terrace includes masonry walls that are crenellated with iron work that hearkens to the above balconies. Chair Manning told Mr. Heide that approval on the new terrace would have to wait and be held for reaction because the new information was just presented.
The commissioners steered the discussion back to the terrace in the existing driveway. Chair Manning asked to see the newly introduced drawings because the cut-through view was confusing, then asked how high the terrace wall will be. Mr. Heide said it will be five feet high. Commissioner Trimble asked if any historic pictures had been found. Neither the applicants nor staff had found any, but staff offered to look at files of nearby houses for any clues. Mr. Heide asked what tonight’s HPC comments mean, and how they should proceed now that the HPC has seen the plans. Commissioner Igo is OK with most of the plans, but still concerned with the driveway. Commissioner Trout-Oertel agreed, adding that the house is big enough to handle the mass of the new additions. She added that she “was not sure” how she felt about the driveway. Commissioner Igo asked if there was any past precedent that could impact their decision. HPC staff alerted the commissioners to a proposal on the University of St. Thomas campus where they denied a retaining wall across an existing tuck-under driveway that had been converted. A concept with plantings and an open fence was approved. Carriage house doors have been infilled before. Commissioner Igo remembered that most of the UST discussion was related to the materials of the wall and cap of the retaining wall, which prompted him to ask about the stucco pillars. He could see that the garage doors themselves would still be read, and had it clarified that the fence material will be painted steel. He likes the design better than a tuck-under garage. Commissioner Trout-Oertel agreed with that sentiment, saying that the design is very attractive. Mr. Heide told the commissioners that the existing retaining walls’ highest point is five feet. They didn’t want the space to feel like a box, and they were trying to keep the space lower than surrounding yards. Mr. Heide stressed that you can “still see the story, follow the history. Chair Manning asked the applicant how high the stucco base/ top fence would be. The base would be about two feet tall and the fence would be one foot tall. Chair Manning shares the staff’s concern that the space won’t read as a driveway and garage from the street; he desires a more permeable feature to be able to read past the wall, to be reminiscent of the driveway. Commissioner Carey said that there is a difference between this proposal and University of St. Thomas, because these are bedrooms and require privacy. The staff suggested putting aside the idea of infilling the space and questioned how commissioners felt about introducing formal landscaping elements because the original element is an informal and utilitarian one. The sloping, gentle hillside of the existing yard is proposed to be replaced by hard, solid, stucco walls. It makes it feel very heavy, weighty and formal. Staff suggested that, if the commission is OK with infilling, maybe there could be a compromise on the fence.
Commissioner Trout-Oertel echoed Commissioner Carey that there is a need for privacy, but agreed with staff that it was very structured. She would like the slope of the driveway to remain, and terrace it beyond the edge of the sidewalk. Commissioner Carey added that it is not an issue for her to bring a barrier up to the level of the lawn, but she is interpreting from other commissioners that the concern is that it “obliterates” original, unique features. Maybe if the planting bed between the fence and sidewalk “went away” at the driveway, it would be enough differentiation, adding that hardscape is difficult to deal with. Chair Manning agreed that no planter at the driveway, in order to visually signal the change between the lawn and driveway would be a good thing. Mr. Heide added that their concern includes the view from inside the bedrooms, but they will revisit the issue. He requested that the driveway and front terrace have another pre-application review once they have taken the commissioners’ comments into account. Chair Manning summarized the review by stating that the HPC expresses comfort with the additions, the space needs to reflect visually physical changes and how it’s read from the street needs to be taken into account. He added that staff could probably handle a meeting in lieu of a second pre-application review. The staff will need construction-level plans before the design review application can be approved. Staff added that the project will need to come in front of the HPC for public hearing with the final plans, which is when public input and testimony would be included.
Update on 701 Summit
The following is from the SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION, November 5, 2009
701 Summit Avenue, Hill Historic District, by Tom Johnson, for a building permit to alter the design of the terra cotta tiles on the east and west elevation bay and bump-out. File #10-002 design of the terra cotta tiles on the east and west elevation bay and bump-out. File #10-002 (Nelson, 266-6715) Laid over from the October 22 Meeting.
Staff read the report last meeting for the public record, but re-read the staff recommendation. Since the original staff report, staff has been in touch with a custom clay tile company in Colorado who could reproduce the tiles. There was another bid for 80 tiles that would cost $2750. Commissioner Thomas asked if any other sources for tiles had been found. There was written testimony from a neighbor that listed seven sources they found online of custom tile makers. Commissioner Thomas mentioned Mercer Tileworks in Doylestown, PA, that may be a possible resource. The applicant, Thomas Johnson, searched for tiles locally, asked two architects, North Prairie Tile Works in Minneapolis and a Milwaukee brick maker, for information on finding tiles or custom making them. No one he spoke with could guarantee an exact match, due to the ridges on both sides of the tiles. Since the original submittal, the owner stated he would like to modify his application. The estate owners found several tiles in the basement of the house, and they have been able to fill a large portion of the biggest gap with them. The applicant proposes to remove one row of the shaped tiles from the west elevation, instead of the two rows originally proposed. Commissioner Trout-Oertel stated that she had been at the site today and the shaped tiles were also on a shed roof area toward the rear, and it could be possible to replace the tiles on the shed with flat tiles that have already been purchased. Commissioner Igo asked if the newly found tiles, the shed tiles and with just one row from the opposite bay fill in the remaining spaces. The applicant stated that the largest gap should be able to be filled with the current tiles, but he is not sure about how far under the windows can be filled in. Commissioner Trout-Oertel mentioned that not all of the tiles on the shed were in good enough shape to be used on the bay. Commissioner Igo asked Mr. Johnson if he was OK with moving tiles from the shed, which he was, “definitely.” Chair Manning asked if there was anyone else to speak on this item; there was not. Staff read the written testimony, three neighbors whose general consensus was that replica replacement tiles should be found. Staff then mentioned that there are code enforcement orders on this property, so there is a limited time frame to get the work done. Commissioner Igo asked if the $2750 estimate was for the mold or tiles; staff believes it was for making the tiles. He then asked other commissioners to comment on their thoughts for removing tiles from the shed. Commissioner Igo made a motion to prioritize the options, letting staff oversee and approve the final work. He wanted all efforts to find a tile company to be pursued, although Mr. Johnson spoke up to say that the estate does not have the financial means for that option. Commissioner Trimble believes that it would be OK to take tiles from a feature that isn’t a character defining one. He amended the motion to say that the first option should be to reuse tiles found in the basement and from the shed roof area. Then reproduction should be the next step, and finally removing one row from the west elevation’s bay to fill in on the east elevation. Discussion on the motion was opened, and Commissioner Trout-Oertel said they were close to having enough tiles, and it would be a shame to remove anything from the bay that is intact. It may be a better idea to leave that bay as designed, and find reproduction tiles. She also brought up that in coming years, more tiles will need replacement and it would be a good idea to find them as soon as possible. Commissioners Igo and Trimble clarified that Commissioner Trout-Oertel would like to remove the third option of their motion, which she did. Commissioner Carey wants to remove the option of disrupting the intact bay. Commissioners Igo and Trimble were in agreement that the motion should be amended. The first option should be to reuse tile found in the building and from the shed roof area. The applicant should work with HPC staff to find reproduction tiles to fill in remaining gaps. Commissioner Thomas brought up the shed and asked how it was characterized, and added that there should be documentation of its original character. Commissioner Trout-Oertel agreed, but added that it is a relatively small section of shaped tiles on the shed, so little character will be lost, especially when the flat tiles will be continued. Chair Manning asked that staff get documentation of the shed as it looks today, before tiles start to be removed. The motion carried, 5-0.
701 Summit Avenue, Hill Historic District, by Tom Johnson, for a building permit to alter the design of the terra cotta tiles on the east and west elevation bay and bump-out. File #10-002 design of the terra cotta tiles on the east and west elevation bay and bump-out. File #10-002 (Nelson, 266-6715) Laid over from the October 22 Meeting.
Staff read the report last meeting for the public record, but re-read the staff recommendation. Since the original staff report, staff has been in touch with a custom clay tile company in Colorado who could reproduce the tiles. There was another bid for 80 tiles that would cost $2750. Commissioner Thomas asked if any other sources for tiles had been found. There was written testimony from a neighbor that listed seven sources they found online of custom tile makers. Commissioner Thomas mentioned Mercer Tileworks in Doylestown, PA, that may be a possible resource. The applicant, Thomas Johnson, searched for tiles locally, asked two architects, North Prairie Tile Works in Minneapolis and a Milwaukee brick maker, for information on finding tiles or custom making them. No one he spoke with could guarantee an exact match, due to the ridges on both sides of the tiles. Since the original submittal, the owner stated he would like to modify his application. The estate owners found several tiles in the basement of the house, and they have been able to fill a large portion of the biggest gap with them. The applicant proposes to remove one row of the shaped tiles from the west elevation, instead of the two rows originally proposed. Commissioner Trout-Oertel stated that she had been at the site today and the shaped tiles were also on a shed roof area toward the rear, and it could be possible to replace the tiles on the shed with flat tiles that have already been purchased. Commissioner Igo asked if the newly found tiles, the shed tiles and with just one row from the opposite bay fill in the remaining spaces. The applicant stated that the largest gap should be able to be filled with the current tiles, but he is not sure about how far under the windows can be filled in. Commissioner Trout-Oertel mentioned that not all of the tiles on the shed were in good enough shape to be used on the bay. Commissioner Igo asked Mr. Johnson if he was OK with moving tiles from the shed, which he was, “definitely.” Chair Manning asked if there was anyone else to speak on this item; there was not. Staff read the written testimony, three neighbors whose general consensus was that replica replacement tiles should be found. Staff then mentioned that there are code enforcement orders on this property, so there is a limited time frame to get the work done. Commissioner Igo asked if the $2750 estimate was for the mold or tiles; staff believes it was for making the tiles. He then asked other commissioners to comment on their thoughts for removing tiles from the shed. Commissioner Igo made a motion to prioritize the options, letting staff oversee and approve the final work. He wanted all efforts to find a tile company to be pursued, although Mr. Johnson spoke up to say that the estate does not have the financial means for that option. Commissioner Trimble believes that it would be OK to take tiles from a feature that isn’t a character defining one. He amended the motion to say that the first option should be to reuse tiles found in the basement and from the shed roof area. Then reproduction should be the next step, and finally removing one row from the west elevation’s bay to fill in on the east elevation. Discussion on the motion was opened, and Commissioner Trout-Oertel said they were close to having enough tiles, and it would be a shame to remove anything from the bay that is intact. It may be a better idea to leave that bay as designed, and find reproduction tiles. She also brought up that in coming years, more tiles will need replacement and it would be a good idea to find them as soon as possible. Commissioners Igo and Trimble clarified that Commissioner Trout-Oertel would like to remove the third option of their motion, which she did. Commissioner Carey wants to remove the option of disrupting the intact bay. Commissioners Igo and Trimble were in agreement that the motion should be amended. The first option should be to reuse tile found in the building and from the shed roof area. The applicant should work with HPC staff to find reproduction tiles to fill in remaining gaps. Commissioner Thomas brought up the shed and asked how it was characterized, and added that there should be documentation of its original character. Commissioner Trout-Oertel agreed, but added that it is a relatively small section of shaped tiles on the shed, so little character will be lost, especially when the flat tiles will be continued. Chair Manning asked that staff get documentation of the shed as it looks today, before tiles start to be removed. The motion carried, 5-0.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)