AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION/DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Date and Time: April 05, :00 PM 1. Roll call. AGENDA HISTORIC PRESERVATION/DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION Location: Members: o Lee Beveridge o Tim Siebert o Thomas Baldischwiler o Garrett Ryan o Sarah Scripps o Joseph Debauche (Alt. 1) o Robert Woehr (Alt. 2) Conference Room D (1st Floor), City/County Building 1516 Church Street Stevens Point, WI Discussion and possible action on the following: 2. Report for the March 01, 2017 meeting 3. Action on request, from Kevin Koziczkowski for a Historic Preservation Design Review request to install new exterior doors on the building at 1200 Third St Stevens Point WI (Parcel ID: ). 4. Staff Update 5. Adjourn. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any person who has special needs while attending these meetings or needs agenda materials for these meetings should contact the City Clerk as soon as possible to ensure that a reasonable accommodation can be made. The City Clerk can be reached by telephone at (715) or by mail at 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI Maps further defining the above area(s) may be obtained from the City of Stevens Point Department of Community Development, 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481, or by calling (715) , during normal business hours. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a quorum of the Common Council may be in attendance at this meeting. Page 1 of 1

2 REPORT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION / DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION Wednesday, March 1, :00 PM City Conference Room 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI PRESENT: Chairperson Beveridge, Commissioner Scripps, and Commissioner Baldischwiler. ALSO PRESENT: Associate Planner Kearns, Mindy McCord, Kevin Koziczkowski, Gregg Gokey, and Tyler Feirtag. INDEX: 1. Approval of the report of February 1, 2017 HP/DRC meeting. 2. Request from Kevin Koziczkowski, representing the property owner, for design review to install new exterior doors on the building located at 1200 Third Street (Parcel ID ). 3. Request from Penguin Properties for design review for the installation of an attached overhang to the building at 1324 Centerpoint Drive (Parcel ID ). 4. Adjourn 1. Approval of the report of the February 1, 2017 HP/DRC meeting. Motion by Commissioner Scripps to approve the report of the February 1, 2017 HP/DRC meeting; seconded by Commissioner Baldischwiler. Motion carried Request from Kevin Koziczkowski, representing the property owner, for design review to install new exterior doors on the building located at 1200 Third Street (Parcel ID ). Associate Planner Kearns summarized the applicant s request to install new doors at 1200 Third Street where there existed three single steel doors and wooden main entrance doors. The three doors were proposed to be replaced with aluminum clad doors with glass windows, whereas the wooden main entrance doors were proposed to be replaced with a single aluminum clad or glass door. Since the proposed design somewhat matched the existing doors he recommended approval of the request to replace the three single steel doors as they showed signs of being beyond repair. However, since the proposed design and material for the main entrance doors did not fully meet the design guidelines, he recommended denying the request to replace the main entrance doors and instead recommended that the wooden doors be refurbished if possible. Commissioner Scripps asked if the existing transoms were original, to which it was confirmed that they were, but that they would be replaced with aluminum ones matching in design and color. Kevin Koziczkowski, contractor representing the owner, stated that the front doors could not be refurbished as they had shrunk too much over time. He described the deteriorated condition of the doors, notably adding that there was a half inch gap between the doors, and that snow blew through them in the winter. Page 1 of 4

3 Chairperson Beveridge asked if the gap was more wide or narrow in certain areas, to which Mr. Koziczkowski stated the gap was steady, but that the doors had shrunk overall. Kevin Koziczkowski explained that he had proposed a single door because it was no longer used as a double door due to its decrease in use. Chairperson Beveridge noted the importance of preserving the doors as it was original to the structure. Kevin Koziczkowski expressed concern in having weatherproofed doors, to which Chairperson Beveridge noted. Mindy McCord, employee of the business operating on the property, also expressed her concern over the entrance doors, stating that they were not secure enough for their purpose and for what they were storing. Chairperson Beveridge suggested ways in which the doors could be repaired, adding that they could not just let them disappear as they had been original to the building. Commissioner Scripps asked whether changing the hardware could help resolve some of the security issues, to which Mindy McCord stated that she was not sure. Miss McCord further explained that they had spoken with H&S Protection Systems, Inc. about placing new security on the doors, but they would not be able to do so with the existing wooden doors, adding that they would have to reimagine their entire security system for that area of the building. Chairperson Beveridge added that they were willing to work with them on allowing modifications to the hardware to secure the doors. He asked if they knew woodworker Greg Krutza, adding that he had a large scale sander that could assist in refinishing the doors. Kevin Koziczkowski confirmed that he knew of Mr. Krutza, but that refinishing the doors was not the issue, it was getting them to be more efficient. Chairperson Beveridge asked whether it was possible to have one of the doors fixed to allow for weather stripping so the other door could close against it. Kevin Koziczkowski stated that there was no way to get the doors to seal in the center, stating that trying to modify it would not look good. He explained that there should be an astragal in the middle of the doors, but an astragal still wouldn t work because it would stick out past the doors and the jam. That s the only way you re going to get weather stripping between the two doors. He asked when the structure was built, to which Miss McCord stated it was built in Kevin Koziczkowski didn t understand how a 1962 building was considered historic. Chairperson Beveridge stated that it was in a Historic District. In addition, the type, size, and style of the building was an example of 1960s architecture, and those items contributed to the character of the structure. Kevin Koziczkowski commented that it was typical of double doors to have an astragal on them, and he wasn t sure why the existing wooden ones did not. He added that when the doors were closed, there was a half inch gap on the inside, and a quarter inch gap on the outside. Page 2 of 4

4 Chairperson Beveridge suggested they approve the metal doors and allow for additional research on the main entrance wooden doors. Kevin Koziczkowski stated that while he could get metal double doors, they would not be utilized as such, to which Chairperson Beveridge added that the issue was not in them being double doors, but with having the existing doors remain. Kevin Koziczkowski stated that he would have to research wooden doors, adding that custom wooden doors would be an astronomical in price and didn t seal well, adding that they shrunk and contracted across the seasons. Commissioner Scripps also suggested a motion that would incorporate additional research for alternatives while they approved the single doors only. She asked if the double doors would come back to the committee. Associate Planner Kearns explained that if they were to refurbish the doors, it could be approved internally by staff. Were the materials and design to change, it would trigger the committee review. He also added that they could choose for the item to be brought back to the committee whether it was for a refurbish or change. Lastly, they could specify which designs and materials to allow. Mindy McCord asked for clarification if they could proceed with the single steel doors and come back for the main entrance doors, to which it was confirmed that the motion would allow for it. Kevin Koziczkowski asked if they could use a single wooden door for the main entrance, to which Chairperson Beveridge confirmed that they could not, noting again that the existing doors had to remain unless they otherwise could not be refurbished. Kevin Koziczkowski commented that anything could be refurbished, but that there would be no point in doing so if it looked bad. Chairperson Beveridge explained that under the design guidelines, they had to have the doors from 1962 stay there if at all possible. He also suggested several contacts that might be useful for refurbishing the doors, to which Miss McCord also stated that she would inquire about potential options. Kevin Koziczkowski shared his concern of having a secure and weatherproof entrance. Associate Planner Kearns explained the next steps in getting the main entrance doors approved, adding the possibility of having a special meeting if time became an issue. Chairperson Beveridge explained that modifications could be acceptable in the situation, as it was better to have the doors modified than not have the doors at all. In that way, he explained, they could also meet the guidelines while meeting their requirements. Kevin Koziczkowski stated that the space was bigger than the doors, and that was their biggest issue. Motion by Chairperson Beveridge to approve the request from Kevin Koziczkowski, representing the property owner, for design review to install new exterior doors on the building located at 1200 Third Street (Parcel ID ) subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 4

5 1. The approval shall only include three existing single steel doors and/or transom to be replaced as proposed, with aluminum clad doors with glass window. 2. Staff shall have the ability to approve the refurbished wooden double doors. seconded by Commissioner Baldischwiler. Motion Carried Request from Penguin Properties for design review for the installation of an attached overhang to the building at 1324 Centerpoint Drive (Parcel ID ). Associate Planner Kearns explained that the applicants were present and had also come before the committee in July During their last review they had received approval to perform work at 1324 Centerpoint Drive that encompassed several items such as window replacement, wrapping of window boxes, and door replacements. Keeping with the fact that they had constructed the overhang without approval, it had been put up to prevent water and snow collecting in the recessed area near the door, as the drain could become plugged during different seasons which could then result in water damage to the door and foundation. He further explained that historic characteristics should be retained, preserved, and remain unobscured, and changing any of those characteristics were not recommended. Given the structure of the roof and location of the overhang, he noted that while not ideal, it was on a less prominent southwest facing façade and was surrounded by landscaping which made it not as noticeable as if it would have been if constructed on the south facing façade. In addition, they had matched the existing materials that had been approved for installation on the building. He recommended approval of the request, citing that it would prevent further damage to the foundation and doors. Chairperson Beveridge saw no issues in moving forward. Commissioner Baldischwiler commented that had he not been told, he would not have known it had been put up because it blended into the building. Even though it had been constructed without approval, it had been done in order to save the lower level from deteriorating. Motion by Commissioner Scripps to approve the request from Penguin Properties for design review for the installation of an attached overhang to the building at 1324 Centerpoint Drive (Parcel ID ); seconded by Commissioner Baldischwiler. Motion Carried Adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 4:27 PM. Page 4 of 4

6 Administrative Staff Report Replace Doors Design Review Request 1200 Third Street March 30, 2017 Department of Community Development 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI Ph: (715) Fax: (715) Applicant(s): Kevin Kozickowski Staff: Michael Ostrowski, Director mostrowski@stevenspoint.com Kyle Kearns, Associate Planner kkearns@stevenspoint.com Parcel Number(s): Zone(s): "B-3" Central Business District Council District: District 4 Oberstadt Lot Information: Actual Frontage: 132 feet Effective Depth: 113 feet Square Footage: 14,850 Acreage: Structure Information: Year Built: addition 1968 (49 years) Number of Stories: 2 Current Use: Commercial Applicable Regulations: Chapter 22 Downtown Design Guidelines Request Action on request, from Kevin Koziczkowski for a Historic Preservation Design Review request to install new exterior doors on the building at 1200 Third St Stevens Point WI (Parcel ID: ). Attachment(s) Narrative City Official Design Review / Historic District Downtown Design Review District Staff Recommendation Upon review, as the design and material to the main entrance doors does not fully meet the design guidelines, staff would again recommend denying the request for a new aluminum front entrance door. However, staff would remind the committee that cost, efficiency, and difficulty have been taken into consideration in other requests. Page 1 of 5

7 Vicinity Map Scope of Work This item was reviewed at last month s meeting in which the Commission denied the request to replace main entrance wooden doors, however approved the restoration of the wooden doors. The applicant has since researched the applicability to restore and refurbish the doors and has requested further review, citing difficulty in doing so. In summary, the applicant cites difficulty in finding proper hardware, loss of aesthetic appeal, and reoccurring maintenance. Please see the full narrative submitted by the applicant which is attached. For more information regarding the original review, please see the attached meeting minutes. The remaining portion of this staff report is from the staff report provided at the last Historic Preservation meeting, March 1, 2017, regarding the request. Existing Main Entrance Door Page 2 of 5

8 CHAPTER 22: HISTORIC PRESERVATION Division 5.02 Regulation of Construction, Reconstruction, Alteration, and Demolition No owner or person in charge of a historic structure or historic site, or property located within a historic district shall reconstruct, alter, or demolish all or any part of the exterior of such property or construct any improvement upon such designated property or properties or cause or permit any such work to be performed upon such property or demolish such property unless approval has been granted by the commission. Upon the filing of any request for a design review certificate with the commission, the commission shall review the request in accordance with the design guidelines. If the commission determines that the application for a design review certificate and the proposed changes are consistent with the design guidelines, it shall issue the design review certificate. Upon the issuance of such certificate, any other required permits shall be obtained. Guidelines of Review ***Other standards within the design guidelines not specifically mentioned below have been reviewed and are met or not applicable pertaining to the proposed building improvement activities. DOOR GUIDELINES (Stevens Point Design Guidelines Sec. 3.4) 1. Retain and preserve historic windows and doors. All elements associated with historic windows and doors should be retained and preserved including frames, trim, sashes, muntins, glass, lintels, shutters, and hardware. Analysis: The applicant has indicated that new doors are proposed to increase efficiency. Furthermore, they have noted that the existing doors are deteriorated and do not adequately secure the building. Findings: The main doors to the building appear to be original, but have had hardware added. The photos show normal wear on the doors around the window inserts and near the edges. It is unknown if the wooden doors are beyond repair. On the other hand, the single steel doors are showing signs of significant deterioration, such as rust. 3. If replacement of a window or door unit is necessary, the new unit should be replaced to match the original in size, scale, material, detail, pane and/or panel configurations. Exterior aluminum clad is permitted to be installed on new wooden windows. Analysis: The wooden main entrance doors are proposed to be replaced with a single glass and aluminum door with sidelites. Three single steel doors are proposed to be replaced on other building facades with glass/aluminum commercial style doors. Note that two of the three doors have large transom windows that are also proposed for replacement. Dark bronze aluminum clad will surround all doors. Findings: The proposed style for the main door does not match the original two-door design or original wooden material. The three single doors are commercial in nature with two glass panels separated by aluminum trim. For two doors, the design carries in the transom windows. The style of single doors and transoms more so matches the existing door design. Furthermore, aluminum doors may be more aesthetically pleasing and efficient than steel doors. While the proposed design somewhat matches the single doors, it does not match wooden double-door main entrance. Page 3 of 5

9 Single Door Single Door with Sidelites Single Door with Transom After review, staff would recommend the approval of the request to replace the three single doors as proposed. As the proposed change in design and material to the main entrance doors does not fully meet the design guidelines, staff would recommend denying the request for a new main entrance door. Rather, staff would recommend approving restorative work to the wooden doors which would meet the guidelines, and which can be approved by staff. Page 4 of 5

10 Photos Page 5 of 5

11 Historic Preservation This is for the 2 existing wood entrance doors at rd St. I have tried every way possible to keep the original wood doors at the front entrance of the building to no avail. The new hardware to update the doors is all different sizes then the original hardware and the new hardware will not cover the existing patterns and will be exposed looking terrible. We tried to find anything that would be close and nothing is available so with the new hardware installed all of the old hardware holes will be showing and even when refinished will be very noticeable. Simply put after all of the work and expense to refinish and keep the original doors they will look terrible. We tried ordering new wood doors to keep the original look but no one will make them for this area because of our climate, the wood doors expand and contract too much in this region which wears out the weather seals and the doors would have to be fixed every one to two years to keep them somewhat efficient. Obviously the best solution for this situation would be installing the new aluminum doors which would match the other exterior doors on the property making it the most efficient and secure. I have been looking into all of our options with Frank from Essers Glass which installs and distributes commercial doors for most of the buildings in the area and we could not find any resolution for using the original doors or even getting new wood doors to keep that same look. Wood exterior doors are not an option in Wisconsin. Thank you for your time and consideration.