Title
Memorializing City Council action taken on October 20, 2010, granting the appeal of Wayne Lundeen to install replacement windows at the property commonly known as 732 Margarett Street located in the City's Dayton's Bluff Historic District.
Body
WHEREAS, on or about August 11, 2010, Liberty Construction, Inc., on behalf of the owners [Wayne and Gail Lundeen] of that real property commonly known as 732 Margaret Street which is located in and therefore subject to the Citys Daytons Bluff Historic District ordinance, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the HPC) under HPC File No. 10-043 for a building permit to undertake work on the said premises including replacing windows on the third floor level, replacing windows in a stairway, altering a window opening and adding two windows to the west elevation gable; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2010, the HPC, having provided notice to the owners, duly conducted a public hearing on the said application where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the hearing, the HPC, based upon the testimony, records, and the HPC Staff Report dated September 15, 2010, moved to both approve certain aspects of the application as well as deny other aspects of the application, and, particularly with respect to the denied aspects of the application, did so based upon the following findings of fact as set forth in the Staff Report which is incorporated herein by reference as follows:
"1. The property is considered pivotal to the character of the Daytons Bluff Historic District.
Windows
2. Windows are considered a character defining architectural feature of a property. The removal of the original/early, wood, windows does not comply with the principle that states, the removal or alteration of distinctive architectural features should be avoided. Photographic evidence was not submitted that shows the level of deterioration requires replacement; however, the proposed sash for the one-over-one double hung windows would duplicate the existing windows. The proposed sash for the multi-lite, Queen Anne windows would not duplicate the existing and this detailed architectural feature should be repaired rather than replaced in order to comply with the guideline.
3. The alteration of the round-top double-hung window becoming a larger, fixed round-top and the introduction of two new window double-hung windows in the west gable end does not comply with the guideline that states, window openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit new units. The alteration of the window and addition of new windows would also alter the window style, historic detailed trim and decorative shingle siding. This does not comply with the guidelines that state, size and number of panes of glass in each sash should not be altered and historic window casings or surrounds should be retained wherever possible; if replacement is necessary, the original profile should be replicated.
4. The proposal is to replace the one-over-one, wood, double-hung windows in the attic level with aluminum-clad windows in the same size and configuration, except for window #11 which is proposed to become a cottage style window configuration complies with the guideline that states, new sash should duplicate the existing and that the size and number of panes of glass in each sash should not be altered but, the proposal to alter the configuration of window #11 doesnt comply with the guideline.
5. The proposal to alter and introduce new openings at the west gable would remove the historic window casings and the new trim would not replicate the historic profile and detail. The guideline states that the casings or surrounds should be retained wherever possible and if replacement is necessary the original profile should be replicated. This proposal does not comply with the guideline.
6. The proposed screen has a dark green finish which complies with the guideline for storm windows. The information submitted by the applicant does not detail the size or configuration of the proposed screens which should be flush-mount in the whole frame with an exterior horizontal bar that lines up with the meeting rail.
WHEREAS, as noted above, based upon the said findings, the HPC, in its partial approval of the building permit application, imposed the following conditions:
1. The windows shown on the plan as numbers 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall be replaced with the Marvin, dark-green, aluminum-clad, double-hung windows to match the existing window size, profile, configuration and style. These windows shall have a flush, full-frame screen with a horizontal bar that lines up with the meeting rail installed on the exterior.
2. The Queen Anne style windows in the turret shall be repaired and reinstalled in their original plane and have a flush-mount, single-pane, clear-glass storm window installed on the exterior.
3. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the HPC and/or staff for review.
4. The HPC stamped approval plans must be kept on site during the construction project.
WHEREAS, on or about Friday, September 24, 2010, the property owner, Wayne Lundeen, pursuant to Leg. Code § 73.06(h), duly filed an appeal from the HPCs decision and requested a public hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 20, 2010, duly conducted a public hearing where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the hearing, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the application, the report of staff and the record, minutes and decision of the HPC does;
HEREBY RESOLVE, that the Council finds that the appellant has demonstrated that the HPCs findings nos 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are in error with respect to appellants proposal regarding windows nos 1, 2 and 3 [the West Gable windows] as well as appellants proposal regarding windows nos 7 and 8 [the Turret windows] for the following reasons:
West Gable Windows. With respect to the West Gable windows proposed by appellant, the Council notes that Leg. Code § 74.86(b) provides that the Daytons Bluff District guidelines are intended to be flexible and the permit review process will be conducted on a case by case basis. Because the West Gable is a non-principle façade, the proposal to add two windows to this façade is not prohibited under the guidelines [Leg. Code § 74.89(d)(1)(a)]. Although appellant proposes to alter the existing window opening in the West Gable by enlarging it, a practice discouraged under the guidelines [See, Id.], the Council finds that alteration for the purpose of installing a replacement window, because it will take place on a non-primary façade, the proposal, on balance, should not have a significant effect upon the overall appearance of the structure, provided; that the trim details of the replacement windows replicate the original trim details.
Turret Windows. With respect to appellants proposal to replace existing windows in the attic portion of the Turret - a key architectural feature located on the principal façade of the structure - the Council again notes that the Districts guidelines are intended to consider the impact of exterior elevations on the individual building as well as on the surrounding district. [Id.] In this instance, the Council notes that the proposed replacement windows will not require altering the size of the exiting Turret window openings and that the proposed windows are essentially in-kind. On balance, the Council finds that replacing the Turret windows should not have a significant or detrimental effect upon the appearance of the principal facade of this the structure, provided; that the replacement windows when viewed from the public realm, present the same appearance as the original windows.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based upon the findings of the Council as set forth above, that the appeal of Wayne Lundeen to install replacement windows nos 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 as proposed in HPC application No. 10-043 is hereby granted; and
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, notwithstanding the Council's decision to grant the appeal and in addition to the conditions set forth in the findings noted above, the appellant shall continue to abide by conditions nos 1, 3 and 4 as set forth in the HPCs Notice of Decision letter dated September 24, 2010, which, to that extent, remain in full force and effect; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council secretary shall immediately mail a copy of this resolution to the appellant, Wayne Lundeen, the Heritage Preservation Commission and Staff, the Zoning Administrator and the Building Official.