| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. |
|
|
|
Call to Order
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Heritage Preservation Commission and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the Heritage Preservation Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
Roll Call
| NOTE: One or more Commission Members may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. |
Present:
EMILY DALE, CHAIR
ABBEY BUCKHAM
AMY HORN
BERNADETTE BURCHAM
DUFFIE WESTHEIMER
Excused:
SHELLI DEA, VICE CHAIR
ALYCIA HAYES |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Heritage Preservation Commission humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area’s Indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands, still inhabited by Native descendants, border mountains sacred to Indigenous peoples. We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. |
| |
Abbey Buckham read the land acknowledgment. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
Public Comment
At this time, any member of the public may address the Commission on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Commission on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Commission on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the Chair to call for Public Comment at the time the item is heard. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve the minutes of the May 15, 2024 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. |
| |
Abbey Buckham: Miscellaneous items that were stated by Abbey Buckham were attributed to Alicia Hayes in the meeting minutes.
Duffie Westheimer: There is an erroneous no in section 6a. The wrong form of there is used. A member of the public is referenced in the minutes. In item 7 it states that Duffie Westheimer asked, but it was a statement. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A. |
|
|
15 N Park St Triplex
Address: 15 N Park St.
Assessor's Parcel Number: PZ-23-00207-02
Property Owner: W. Odem
Applicant: UpDesign Studio
City Staff: Sara Dechter, AICP
To approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for combining the existing ground-floor units and constructing an addition to the Northwest of the existing structure at 15 N Park St. (APN 100-23-005) in a similar aesthetic with a shared covered porch with privacy screen facing the alley. The existing building is a contributing property in the Townsite Overlay.
Staff recommends that the Heritage Preservation Commission approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the remodel and addition at 15 N. Park St. with the conditions that:
- the addition must receive its Certificate of Occupancy at the same time as the remodel and must be covered under the same building permit, and
- any changes because of site plan review must be found in substantial conformance with this application by the HPO be sent to the Commission for additional review.
- The Commission can approve with additional conditions related to the standards and guidelines applicable to the case;
- The Commission can request additional information and continue to a date certain; or
- The Commission can deny the application and ask for a resubmittal after site plan review comments are delivered to the applicant.
15 N Park St. Received a Certificate of Appropriateness for facade rehabilitation in 2020.
|
| |
Michelle McNulty: Explained that this is a request for 15 N Park St to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for combining the existing ground floor units and the construction of an addition to the northwest of the existing structure. The existing building is a contributing property in the Townsite Overlay. Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approves the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions that the addition must receive its Certificate of Occupancy at the time of the remodel and must be covered under the same building permit. If it has two separate building permits it will not be considered one structure. Any changes resulting from the project's site plan review must be found in substantial conformance with this application or it will be sent back to the HPC for additional review.
Anne Mead: Explained that she will be presenting on behalf of the homeowner because they were unable to make it to the commission meeting. Noted that he is excited to be building his retirement home in a neighborhood that he has been a part of for a long time. This property has been in front of the commission before and was awarded a grant several years ago for routine maintenance on the structure.
The goal of the project is to develop the vacant property in the back. The existing structure on the site is historic and was a single family dwelling originally. It has been subdivided into apartments.The new unit will be added to the back of the existing structure. It has been designed as an addition instead of a detached unit to adopt design standards that are compatible proportionately with the existing structure and provide enough space for the property owner. The addition will have access to the alley. There will be a covered patio between the units to create a unified structure. The covered patio will be shared space for all of the tenants on site.
Continued to explain details regarding parking and yard plans.
Duffie Westheimer: Stated that the proposed project does not follow the overlay on many points. She does not see why the permitting process is defining the project as an addition. It is a second structure.
Michelle McNulty: Clarified that it is not the permitting process. It is the building code and the building official's determination. However, these sometimes get permitted separately, and in order to be considered one structure it must have one permit.
Emily Dale: Asked why it is being classified as an addition instead of a second structure. Is it because there is one connecting roof?
Michelle McNulty: Stated that that is her understanding. Asked Wesley Welch to provide additional clarification.
Wesley Welch: Stated that they reached out to the building official when this was coming through. The conversation began with the applicant and Mark Reavis and that determination was made by the building official while Sara Dechter was writing the staff report for the application.
Emily Dale: Asked what is stated in the building code that makes this an addition.
Wesley Welch: Does not know.
Emily Dale: Asked what the square footage is because it looks to be about the same size, if not larger, than the original structure.
Duffie Westheimer: Stated that the addition is larger.
Anne Mead: Believes that based on the building code that anything attached to the existing building with a structural element becomes an addition to that structure. Separate structures are defined by an air gap that is five feet or greater.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked if there is a door from the historic house directly into the proposed project.
Anne Mead: Stated that the back door comes off of a deck and shares a courtyard with the original structure.
Duffie Westheimer: Explained that there are no elevation drawings, but from the renderings the addition is taller than the original historic house which is not allowed by the overlay.
Anne Mead: Stated that the only time that a structure cannot be taller than the original structure is if it is a secondary structure. This is being proposed as an addition.
Duffie Westheimer: In the illustration for parking, one of the spaces is under the stairs to the upstairs unit in the historic building.
Anne Mead: Stated that discussions with staff were had and that will be reconfigured as required.
Duffie Westheimer: In the staff report, Mark Reavis referenced the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Rehabilitation. It mentions the wall plane. Even an addition should not come forward of a wall plane on a historic building. Along the alley the front door of the new structure comes forward, closer to the alley than the historic building reaches.
Anne Mead: Stated that the roof of the existing building is in line with the proposed building.
Duffie Westheimer: Explained that in section 5, design criteria of the standards of the overlay says "New construction, additions, or alterations shall follow the design of the district's certain recognizable qualities that are detailed below, in addition to main structures." Also said that the standards state secondary dwellings and secondary structures will not dominate the main structure, and this project really is a secondary building despite having one permit and connecting roof.
Also, the intent is for any building to be compatible with the site and neighborhood in size, mass, bulk, and scale, according to section 5b under "site". Section 5b 1.a, "site," says "homes reflect early life in Flagstaff through small size, yards, and relationship to the street, lending more to community interaction. The following shall occur: Front doors shall have a relationship close to the street, dwellings relate to the street frontage and are not pushed back to the alleys, all dwellings shall have main access from the street."
From the HPC application, it states in the explanation of how the projects meet the applicable overlay and relevant sections of the zoning code that "the addition is located to the rear of the existing structure and is accessed from the alley." The way she reads the overlay, access to the addition should be through the front door of the historic house if it is an addition.This is more evidence to her that this project is a secondary building with a door facing the alley.
Anne Mead: Thinks that that is all subject to interpretation. They will note these comments and consider options regarding entry sequences.
Bernadette Burcham: Asked to see the rendering that shows how the addition is attached again. Also asked about why the historic building is primarily brick but the proposed addition is primarily wood siding.
Anne Mead: Stated that she looked around town to see how much brick they could get. They also considered using a face brick in a similar color. She thinks that it is going to be difficult to find that much material that is an exact match. That is why they are proposing a lap siding that is compatible with other lap siding seen in Townsite.
Abbey Buckham: Asked if the stairs are on the front or the back of the house.
Anne Mead: Stated that the stairs for the addition are in the alley.
Abbey Buckham: Said that she is also having trouble seeing the proposed project as an addition and not a completely secondary structure that's combined by a little porch roof because the roof wouldn't be there without the second structure, if that makes sense.
Amy Horn: Asked City staff if this were proposed as a secondary structure would it not be approved on this lot. Is that why its being done as an addition?
Wesley Welch: Explained that it has more to do with the accessory structure height limit in the Townsite Overlay. In the zoning code itself an accessory structure can be up to 24 feet, but in the Townsite Overlay it is 16 feet.
Emily Dale: Stated that she also sees this project as two separate buildings. Is curious what the line is for connecting something with a structural element and calling it an addition. It has two separate front doors and its going to be the primary residence of one person. It feels like a loophole way of building a second house on the lot. Explained that based on the approval language, it feels like this project is being brought to the HPC prematurely.
Bernadette Burcham: Agrees with Emily Dale.
Anne Mead: Stated that she felt Sara Dechter and Mark Reavis found this project to be appropriate. Explained that she is from Flagstaff and has good intentions to beautify and improve the neighborhood. She wanted to get this conversation started. Requested that the commission puts their comments down in writing so that they can make a formal re-submittal and try to find a compromise.
Emily Dale: Commented that the committee has had several conversations about balancing the need for housing while preserving the integrity of historic districts. They have approved several secondary structures in the past for housing, but this seems bigger than the current existing housing.
Duffie Westheimer: Suggested that coming back with elevations for the proposal would be informative. Also stated that calculations for the required yard are not supposed to include setbacks. The yard is not a build-able area and if the build-able area cannot include setbacks the yard cannot include setbacks. Based on the overlay yard requirement of 1000 square feet, this project needs to be scaled back significantly. The neighborhood allows infill but it needs to be appropriate.
Amy Horn: Agreed with other comments that the scale is out of proportion and that portions of the overlay are not being followed.
Emily Dale: Asked Michelle McNulty to provide additional clarification on the alternative actions for the application.
Michelle McNulty: Clarified that these are the typical alternative actions that the commission has. Also stated that if there were any significant changes that result from Inter-Division Staff Review of the site plan, it would have to come back to the HPC. Also noted that the HPC could postpone a decision on the application until a date certain and wait for one round of IDS feedback before deciding. Providing as much feedback as possible to the applicant will be beneficial for them to make changes the HPC will see as appropriate.
Emily Dale: Summarized the commission's comments by saying the project should be scaled down to not overwhelm the existing structure, preserve the 1000 square foot yard required by the overlay standards,and re-think building materials so that it is more similar to the historic house.
Duffie Westheimer: Asked Michelle McNulty if the Overlay standards are looked at by staff when reviewing concept and site plans.
Michelle McNulty: Mark Reavis is on that review and provides comments on the Overlay standards. Also noted that review of the concept plan has requirements that are much different than review of the site plan.
Amy Horn: Continued to summarize feedback by reiterating comments about the presence of one main door, roof pitch, and yard requirements.
Anne Mead: Clarified that the proposed roof pitch matches the roof pitch of the existing historic house. |
