Loading...
Minutes - 1998 - Design Review - 01/26/1998 - Regular DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES January 26, 1998 ORIGINAL The Design Review Board met in a Special Joint Meeting with the Historical Preservation Commission on January 26, 1998. Chairman Murray presiding. This meeting was held at 190 E. State Street - "Bank Club" site. 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: The following members were present: Design Review Board: Present: MURRAY, PEDERSEN, VANCE, Council liaison MERRILL. Absent: GRECO, WITTE. A quorum is present. Historical Preservation Commission: Present: JETERS, MC CLOSKEY, M. PLOTT, A. PLOTT, TRENT. Absent: MILLER. A quorum is present. 3. REQUEST FOR ACTION: A. Larry Schwartz, with daVinci's Restaurant, is requesting approval to modify some of the exterior finishes previously approved as part of the DR-19-97 (Bank Club restoration) application. The site is located on the northwest comer of East State Street and 151 Street at 190 East State Street. Butler gives a brief explanation on why this meeting has been called. Schwartz reads the letter addressed to Mark Butler dated 1/22/98. See attached copy. Chairman Murray questions ifMr. Schwartz's engineer and contractor would put in writing the claims noted in the letter, explaining the necessity of the changes being discussed tonight. Schwartz notes that his contractor, Jack Andersen is present to answer questions. General discussion between Board and Schwartz. Chairman McCloskey questions the reasoning behind not extending the parapet wall the entire length of the building. Butler comments that this item was addressed at a Planning and Zoning meeting, and the applicant has met all requirements regarding the parapet wall. The Design Review Board and Historical Preservation Commission move the meeting outside to visually inspect the items in question at this meeting. General discussion between Commission, Board, Larry Schwartz, Jennifer Schwartz, and Butler. Arthur Hart, retired Director of the Idaho Historical Society. During his seventeen year tenure he worked with the National Parks Service and their standards for the registration of historic buildings and the restoration and modification of historic buildings in order to preserve them. Hart feels that what Mr. Schwartz has done has far exceeded what the National Parks Service would require. General discussion. Murray moves to accept the paint between the window band and the stucco base, as well as the paint around the arches, with the condition that the masonry joints in the arches and headers be pointed to match the existing brickwork. Seconded by Pedersen. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Trent moves to approve all of the paint as is. Seconded by A. Plott. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIEs. Vance moves to approve the stucco band. Seconded by Pedersen. Discussion for clarification. Specifically the top stucco band, with the metal cap. The area between the metal cap and racking will be stuccoed. ALL AYE. MOTION CARRIES. Trent moves to approve the stucco. Seconded by A. Plott. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIEs. Murray moves to accept it (the recess entry on the east side of the building) as laid out in rough stucco. Seconded by Vance. Discussion. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. McCloskey moves to approve the stucco as proposed. Seconded by Trent. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIEs. 4. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Murray and seconded by Vance to adjourn. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIES. Moved by McCloskey and seconded by Trent to adjourn. ALL AYE...MOTION CARRIEs. I' '.'."SI,. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED: ....-:: 0 F E:,If ~ .J1 ~ '-'" :Gi~ ~ - ~ ..' ...;~::~~~\ SHARÒN K. SMITH ~ *: }* ¡ CITY CLERK/TREASURER to \~,SEAL ~11 .. c;c... ",",.. ,. d\.. .r.Þ....~, ...,:ni- ") .: ~'--.t':: *,.""l~,~,l\i. 0";'" .5' ""'., A'>-.~.""$"Q ~"Ç"'1>"~ ~,'""f:.. O"","""'~Y,,'r' #4', ..... r}.Y ~." '#"~U"....' ~PR,VED: f) I ~(~ JAMES G. MURRAY CHAIRMAN JAN-22-98 04:59 PM D IS 208 .3 0999, p.e1 í)Q I/JIJ/9ð AECEIVED & FILED CITY OF EAGLE ro:~ FROM: LARRy SCHW AR1Z DA TE= 1122198 SUW: letter to be added to the packet for P&Z meeting this Monday 1126198 TOTAL PAGES SENT -L , . ~t *:\ 2 ~f)98 ,'..l... t 1::'1 ¡ ri " I: l"'~~ ,~...~,=~." Dear Mark and members of the Planning &. Zœing o,mmittee and Historic Committee: I have been asked why there were some minor changes from the original approved plans for daVinci's and the actual building. For the entire project there are only three construction items that differ slightly from the original plans. These three deviations weæ: 1) painting a limited area of the old bric~ 2) covering One more row of bricks with stucco than was planned on the top of the building, and 3) using stucco instead of brick to face the alcove by the double doors. All of these deviations were Dot my intention, but were done for a good reason and in most cases were beyond my control. I) The first issue is why we painted the lower part of the building. This was addressed in the previous letter to Mark Butler dated 1120/98, please see that letter for a full explanation, it should be included in your packet. In sh~ paint was used over brick in places that we were unable to scrape down, cJean off, or repair. I did not want to use any paint, but the painted brick looks much better than the alternative, which exposes pieces of cement, plaster and various color paint blotches throughout the buildings brick walls. 2) The original plan cans for 3 rows of brick above the red racking to be covered in stucco that matches the base of the building. By code a meta] cap is required along the top layer of brick. This metal cap covers up one layer of bricks and was not included in our drawings, but is required by code. Please look at the new part of the building and you will see the red brick colored meta] cap already in place. Our plans caned for the top two layers of brick to be red brick. The top row win be covered wi th the red metal cap keeping the lj De of the building. The second row of bricks is to be covered with stucco. This means that the stucco band that was suppose to be 3 brick rows high wiIl be 4 rows high and then the top wiII be capped by the metal. This had to be done according to our engineer and mason. They both recommended that we take down the parapet completely stating that is was a danger to public safety. I told them we had to find a way to keep the parapet. Their solution WI." for UR to build 8Upporta on the fOUr 1U suPport the parapet, Cl!p the top row with metal. and then stucco the remaining brick rows above the racking (the step like red brick outcropping). I asked the mason why he could not just repair the outside bricks since we supported the back of the JAN-22-98 0S:00 PM DAVINCIS 208 939 0999 P.02 parapet. He replied that would not be good enough since the walls are three bricks thick the only way to ensure that no bricks will fallout onto the sidewalk was to cover them with stucco or replace the entire wall. Replacing the entire wall means demolishing the building and this is obviously not an option. Also leaving the top bricks exposed and risking a brick falling onto the sidewalk is not an option either. The result is the visible stucco is increased by one row and the brick red colored metal cap is placed on top of the building. The look when it is done will be extremely similar to the plans and wi]] be safer and structurally sound. 3) The third minor difference from the plans is that the walls perpendicular to the sidewalk of the aJcove where the double doors are located were suppose to have a brick facade. Our engineer and contractor both agreed that for the structural integrity of the wall when we CJLpanded the door from a single to a double door the smaller the eJtpanded opening we needt.>d the better. By using stucco on the waIls perpendicular to the sidewalk of the alcove we saved 4 inches on each side. So an extnJ. 8 inches of original wall was left in place by coating that part of the alcove with stUC(() instead of brick. This stucco ties in nicely with the stucco used on other parts of the building including the lowest part and the band up high. Please note that the new addition to the building is not a mere fake brick facade. We went ahead at an additional expense and used rea] brick. This was done in our effort to keep the style and character of the building alive. We have not cut comers in our restoration and expansion of the bank building, if anything we have exceeded safety and material requirements in order to create a great building in down town Eagle. Take a moment on Monday to look at the photographs of the bank building before we started our projecl The entire comer of First and State Street would stilt be in that decrepit state. There is no doubt that Our improvements to the building, sidewalk and neighborhood are well received by our neighbors and the Eagle community This weekend alone when I was working on the building 1 had over forty people stop in and say how great the building looked and how happy they were to see someone do such a nice job in down town Eagle, our neighbors share that same opinion. I am looking forward to meeting with you all on Monday, January 26th $0 that you all can see the progress and steps that are being made to rejuvenate down tOwn Eagle. Sincerely, ':7-~. Larry Sc h wartz '"