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.