Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04091991 .;:;1--_ a / . . . e e MINUTES Historic Preservation Commission April 9, 1991 The regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order by Pete Raab, chairman, at 7:35 p.m. Present: Christopher Carson, Tom Johnson, Ann Landis, Pete Raab, Liz Smith, Mike:Yawman. Teresa Goldsmith absent. Rick Sepler, Planning Department, present. Guests: Bernie Arthur, John Pilling, Nadine and Gary Jonient. Patricia Warren present the last 30 minutes of the meeting. Minutes were read. The reading prompted questions: What exactly is meant by "conditional recommendation"? Sepler: Better to word a motion: "Approved with conditions." Was application 9101-01 - James Swan Phase II approved by the Planning Commis- sion and did they follow through on the HPC recommendations concerning the cabins? Sepler: Yes, it was approved and all the suggestions concerning the cabins were enacted. The City Council accepted the conditiQns. How are HPC committee assignments made and what is the standard amount of time allotted for the review committee to draw conclusions and develop a report?': Sepler: Minimum is 6 days - maximum is 2 weeks. The problem is trying to expedite review requests. Yawman suggested a 2-week period, minimum, for design review of a major project. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Yawman that the minutes be approved as written. Unanimous with one absent. Communications: A letter was sent to Ambleside Construction reviewing the last preapplication design review. A letter (attached) was sent to HPC from Rick Sepler concerning an alter- ation on the Bartlett Building design: a ramp instead of a step in the entry vestibule. This prompted a discussion of what procedure HPC should adopt for working with such situations, since this undoubtedly will not be the last. It was suggested that the original review committee should review the variation and work with staff and that they be empowered by the Commission to rule on approval. A resolution stating this recommended procedure will be presented at next Tuesday evening's special meeting for consideration. A membership card for Historic Preservation "Forum" membership prompted placement of membership consideration on next Tuesday's agenda. Old Business Ambleside Construction, Moorings Motel/Commercial pre-application con- ference (proceedings taped). New rendering and changed design was presented by John Pilling. Not C't . . . e e HPC Minutes - 4/9/91 - page 2 resolved: color scheme, site plan, including location of the dumpster, land- scape plan, signage, parking design with grades, a schematic circulation design. It was recommended that the Yacht Club Building~s design be modified to include a wrap-around porch, continuing the linear feeling on the Jefferson Street side around to the water side. It was noted that the placement (j)f the "drop-off" is part of the parking design and is an HPC responsibility. It was suggested that the architect provide "flimsies" for the next pre...app rather than finishêd renderings. Bartlett Building Facade Renovation, Application #9103-02, variation. (proceedings taped). Two of the three entry doors are to be ramped. Instead of wood paneling on the return walls, there will be glass windows because the return walls are now deeper. the vestibule is now 5!' deep, 5'8" wide. Ramp goes up 7". The doorway to the stairs still has a step - design as before. Landis moved that the changes are consistent with the Certificate of Review issued by theHHeC March 26. Smith seconded. Vote was unanimous with 2 absent. (Carson left the room for the vote.) Sepler presented the revised sign code for discussion. City Council would like input from HPC when they consider it at their meeting next', week. After presentation and discussion, HPC requested that Sepler prepare a memo with the following recommendations which will be circulated to the commissioners. Raab is to sign the memo. Commissioners are to phone Seplerif they object to anything in the memo. Recommendations: 1) Page 40, beginning with line 24 concerning incentive for early compliance: suggestion that such incentive be phased out. 2) Sandwich boards to be permitted only in front of tfle shops they pertain to. Standards for size etc. be established. 3) Re murals and painted advertisements on buildings in the District - that they be preserved and that photo-grammetry be used to document them before any restoration work is done. Announcements Special meeting has ~ postponed to next Tuesday. Sepler will prepare a special agenda. Meeting begins at 6 p.m. Carson moved the meeting be adjourned. Yawman seconded. Unanimous with one absent. Adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~-~~ Barbara S. Marseille, Secretary J ,. . . . . -_ City of Port Townsend e- Planning and Building Department 540 Water Street. Pon Townsend. WA 98368 206/385-3000 To: Historic Preservation Commissioners From: Rick Sepler, Planner Date: 8 April 1991 Bartlett Building Restoration, Design Review Application 9103-02 The plans as submitted by the applicant for a building permit includes a minor alteration: the entry vestibules have been changed to include a ramp instead of a step. The applicant brought these changes to my attention prior to the submission of the building permit application, and inquired if the HPC would need to approve the change. Re: The issue of changes to an approved permit (such as a conditional use) has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Harper has concluded that a new permit is required if "substantial" changes are proposed. The criteria used to determine if a proposed change would be considered substantial is based on a case-by-case examination of the permit as issued. within the context of design review, any revision that alters the architectural integrity of the project would be considered significant. The proposed change from stairs to a ramp in the entry vestibules of the Bartlett Building facade will not change the proportion, massing or scale of the facade. In addition, the inclusion of a ramped entry will enhance handicap access to the stores. After review of the approved permit, Planning and Building Department staff have determined that the proposed revision will not significantly alter the project, and that additional review will not be required. Sincerely, <1- ) '/1 -:>~ç -I t< . - \ Richard Planner i¡ ;// . M. Sepler cc: Rod Johnson