Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2021 04 19

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 19 April 2021 Page 2 of 11 Zuccaro described development proposal and requested that the Commission review the application from a historical context perspective, specifically regarding the third -story element, building materials, and the Design Guidelines. The building itself was not eligible for landmarking and had been converted and remodeled multiple times since it was built in 1984. Dunlap asked about the language in C3.3, asking for clarification that C3.3 specified two stories and the request was for three stories. Zuccaro confirmed and added that it was nuanced because staff was asking whether the building presented as a two- or a three-story facade. He stated that the overall building height was 36 feet, which was shorter than most three-story buildings, and that there were composite panel elements that mimicked a lower building height, while at the same time from the northeast the view was clearly of three stories. There were elements that were trying to meet the intent of the language. He added a correction from the staff report that the library was actually 34-36 feet tall, not 32 feet as was stated. Dunlap asked for background on the building that was proposed behind the Huckleberry but had never been built. Zuccaro replied that the original plan for that structure was for it to be a commercial building with a third story and a taller height. He noted that it had been designed by the same architect. The revised plan for the building had effectively removed the third story. Klemme asked about the height of the office building across the street. Zuccaro replied that it was about 34 feet high. Erik Hartronft of Hartronft Associates, architect for the plan, stated that few people had attempted to put residential in the downtown area. He noted that there was a lot of empty office space downtown and that residential buildings were important to support local businesses. He explained that the current zoning prohibited residential use without an SRU, but he noted that residential was a historic use and it would be important to maintain it for sustainability and nightlife. He described the design and intent of the proposed building. Klemme asked about the white color on the building materials. Hartronft replied that the white was to give some relief to the streetscape and to demarcate that it was a different type of use. Klemme asked how far back the deck was. Hartronft replied that it was seven -feet back from the property line. Klemme asked about the commercial space and the codes that were involved and asked about the mixed -use request. Hartronft replied that they were adding residential and the only way to do that was through the SRU, which made the development mixed -use because they were keeping commercial use on the first floor. 2