HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1986HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Dec. 8, 1986, St. Phillips
Chairman Simacek called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Present: Goderstad, Olson, Jacobsen, Petersen, Malm, Simacek
Absent: Hoeschen
Ms. Marlea Gilbert represented Birkeland Architects, Inc., the firm making
the redevelopment proposal for Lot 1, Block 14 to the HRA. The purpose of
the meeting was to review preliminary design sketches for a new building to
be built on the vacant lot which lies within the Historic District. The
review was informational and informal. Approval of the design will be taken
up prior to applying for a building permit.
See attached memo and drawings referred to in the following comments.
The criteria and design features in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 were discussed.
Neither the Commissioners nor Ms. Gilbert had objections to the memo contents.
Goderstad suggested that the brick referred to in para. 2 be in the red range
of brick colors.
The following comments were made in reference to window treatments, para. 3:
Staff explained the principle that window openings be porportional to
those found on the existing buildings on the street in the sense that they
should be distinctly vertical rather than horizontal and that the ground
floor facade be primarily transparent and also emphasize the vertical.
Mr. Olson suggested that the sill height on the Co-op building be used
to establish the sill height on the new building. Ms. Gilbert noted that if
the second floor is residential or office, some space below windows is necessary
to allow for furniture. Mr. Malm felt that the floor and ceiling heights of
the second story would determine window placement. Staff suggested that the
appearance of four-pane windows could be achieved with two adjacent two-pane
windows if the sill was lowered below that shown in the drawing. Ms. Gilbert
thought the firm could accomodate these suggestions.
Mr. Olson praised the design of the ground floor design on the north
elevation and suggested that the pilaster effect be continued down the east
side. Whether windows were included on the east side would depend on the tenant,
if they were placed between the pilasters in the same rhythm as the north,
Ms. Gilbert thought that was a good comment and could be considered.
Staff observed that the large number of small panes in the end windows
of the second floor, north side, was not compatible with the large panes found
on other windows in the district and suggested that they also be four-pane.
Cormnissioner Hoeschen, who could not be presented, provided the following
comm~ents to staff prior to the meeting and were read at the meeting. The
Second floor windows should be about twice as tall as shown. A simple curve
in the brick work above the windows would be acceptible to him instead of the
more elaborate window hoods indicated on the drawing. He thought that the
decorative cornices on the top edge of the building were fine, but not
required. He would be satisfied with a decorative pattern in the brick work
at the cornice.
There were no objections to the memo contents for paragraphs 6 and 7.
The Com~nissioners and Ms. Gilbert felt they understood the preferences
expressed and agreed that the size and shape of second floor windows and
panes, and the continuation of the ground floor design on the north side
around the corner on the east side were the Commissions' major concerns.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.