Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/11/2000LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 11, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303) 292-1875 SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Dodd House at 636 Peterson completed the Demolition/Alteration Review process and received approval to build a second story. The Transfort Kiosk for Old Town will be revisited with final plans. An owner of the Mountain Empire Hotel at 258 S. College withdrew the request for rehabilitation design review, and the LPC will revisit the property when a new project is decided upon. Moving the garage and the repainting of the farmhouse at 5529 Timberline was approved. The fagade rehabilitation of the Northern Hotel received final approval. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Per Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Bud Frick and Rande Pouppirt were present. Janet Ore was excused. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented staff. GUESTS: Robert Ballantyne, kiosk manufacturer, Linda Dowlen, City Smart Trips Director, and Steve Seefeld, City Facilities Project Manager, for the Transfort Kiosk; Tom Livingston, owner, for the Mountain Empire Hotel; Jeff Nowak, owner, for 5529 Timberline Road; Karen Gerard, Funding Partners, Gary Dennison and Bob Mechels from Vaught -Frye Architects, and Bo Brown, Alliance Construction Solutions Project Manager for the Northern Hotel; John Peek for 636 Peterson; and Myrne Watrous, citizen. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes were made to the agenda. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner handed out a sheet explaining tax incentives for historic buildings, and an attendance policy handout. She said that e-mailing an absence excuse is sufficient. COMMISSION MEMBERS REPORTS: Ms. Milewski said that the DDA gave funding to the building J. Pitner occupies at 125 S. College to replace windows. Ms. Milewski reported that Michael Torgeson, architect, stated at a recent P&Z meeting that the LPC wasn't being consistent on its requirements for wooden storefronts and cited his UP Depot building versus the C&S Depot. Ms. Milewski asked about the use of aluminum storefronts. Ms. Milewski said that the LPC's reputation should reflect consistency. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 13 were corrected on page 7, paragraph three, where it should read that Mr. Frick asked for public input on Young's Pasture, not Mr. Hogestad, who had excused himself from discussion. Ms. Dix made Landmark Preservation Commission October 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page2 the motion to accept September 13, 2000 minutes as corrected, Ms. Aguilera seconded; motion passed 6-0. DEMOLITION ALTERATION REVIEW, 636 Peterson Street (John Peek, Owner) Ms. McWilliams introduced Mr. John Peek, owner of the Dodd House, 636 Peterson, built in 1921. She said it was a nice Craftsman house. Mr. Peek would like to add a 2nd floor. This property is part of the Laurel School National Register District. Mr. Peek has complied with the Demolition/Alteration provisions. There is no public concern about what is going to be done. Staff recommends approval without conditions. Ms. Milewski asked if there was a request for photos and Ms. McWilliams said no because the owners had already provided photographs with their historical documentation. Mr. Peek said the new story would be in the Craftsman bungalow style. Ms. McWilliams said the plans would impact the integrity of the home but not the integrity of the district. Mr. Frick said it seems like the height of the rafters in front will be higher up. Mr. Peek agreed that they would be moved up. Mr. Hogestad asked for public input. There was none. Mr. Peek said the reason for a second story is that he needs bedrooms for his growing family. Mr. Frick said that he was concerned about the height of the eaves. Ms. Milewski moved to approve the request for renovation to the Dodd House with out conditions. Ms. Dix seconded. The motion was approved, 6-0. Ms. McWilliams left the meeting at this point. TRANSPORT KIOSK (Robert Ballantyne, kiosk manufacturer, Linda Dowlen, City Smart Trips Director, and Steve Seefeld, City Facilities Project Manager) Ms. Tunner introduced Linda Dowlen, Smart Trips Director with Transfort. They have a grant to put in an information kiosk and they brought a full-sized cardboard model. They would like to place it by removing a couple of benches in front of the Miller Block, building #11 on the Old Town Plaza. The kiosk would have transportation information and maps. The color of the kiosk would be bronze or rust with a hammered texture finish. The awning would be green canvas in Old Town green. A meeting with the DDA brought forth the following comments about the currently submitted design: 1.) Make the kiosk with rounded comers; 2.) Only use awning over the kiosk, not over benches; 3.) The awning must look like that of other old town buildings, and 4.) No printouts of trash material; only vend transfort brochure maps. Ms. Dix asked how high the canopy was because of her concern that someone might walk into it. Mr. Ballantyne, representing the manufacturer, said nine foot, to shade the touch screen. Ms. Milewski agreed with the DDA's comments on the need for a smaller sized awning. Mr. Hogestad agreed that a smaller canopy would be better in order not to cover the view of the historic buildings, but he said more information and drawings are needed. Ms. Milewski asked if there was something else that could be used to remove glare, or if the kiosk could have a different orientation. Mr. Ballantyne said there was reflected light all around, and the orientation was to keep the sunlight off the screen. Mr. Pouppirt asked if the kiosk would be attached to the light pole or benches and Ms. Dowlen replied no, that it would only be attached to the power box. Mr. Ballantyne said the kiosk would have 5 ground anchors underneath. Mr. Pouppirt Landmark Preservation Commission October 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page3 asked if there would be a cover on the keys. Mr. Ballantyne said the awning would cover the touch screen, and there would be no keys. Mr. Ballantyne said they talked with the police department about safety and it shouldn't be a problem in that area. He added that the kiosk has to meet ADA height requirements. Mr. Hogestad asked for public comment and there was none. Ms. Tunner asked if the LPC would like the applicant to come back with further plans. Mr. Hogestad said yes. Mr. Ballantyne asked if there was a concern with the awning and Mr. Frick said there were several concerns. Mr. Ballantyne asked for an idea of what needed to be done. Mr. Hogestad said the LPC would like to see a complete picture of what is being proposed. Mr. Frick added that the height, shape, and where the canopy is relative to that is needed. Ms. Tunner asked if the LPC was okay with the green acrylic canvas fabric; the LPC concurred. Mr. Hogestad and Mr. Frick said they needed to see the kiosk and canopy as a whole. Mr. Hogestad asked if they were clear on what needed to be done and Ms. Dowlen said yes. ARMSTRONG HOTEL (Tom Livingston for Old Town Hotels Inc.) Mr. Livingston announced that the proposed project is being withdrawn, and the building will not be renovated as a hotel. It was too expensive based on only 54 rooms. They want to wait and see if it is financially feasible to do "loft condos" with first floor retail. The building has Local Landmark and National Register designation. 5529 TIMBERLINE, GILL/NELSON HOUSE (Jeff Nowak, an owner) Ms. Milewski excused herself for conflict of interest because she is working for BHA Design on the project site plan. Jeff Nowak spoke on behalf of himself and partners Rayno and Patty Seaser. They would like to repaint trim of the farmhouse, and move the garage back to the west on the property. They also need to repoint the masonry farmhouse. He cited specifications of troweling the struck joints as per the original with matching mortar, following preservation guidelines. Gene Maycroft, who has done much historic masonry in town, will do the work. They are not sealing the masonry at this time. Mr. Nowak said the garage needs to be moved to allow accessibility of fire trucks.to the back of the building. Patty Seaser has found evidence that originally it was back further, but it had been moved forward. Ms. Tunner said that staff recommends the garage be moved back because of the fire safety issue. Mr. Nowak said that they would like to replace the dirt driveway to the south with grass and only have one driveway on the north. Mr. Hogestad asked for questions and comments. Mr. Hogestad asked for public input and there was none. Ms. Aguilera moved to approve repointing and repainting the farmhouse, and moving the garage. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion. It was approved 5-0. Ms. Milewski rejoined the LPC. NORTHERN HOTEL, 172 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE (Karen Gerard, Funding Landmark Preservation Commission October 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page4 Partners, Gary Dennison and Bob Mechels, architects with Vaught -Frye Architects, and Bo Brown, Alliance Construction Solutions Project Manager) Ms. Tunner said that staff believed the plans for the new storefronts, historic sign treatment and colors proposed were excellent. The applicants had come up with some very creative and economical solutions for fagade reconstruction. Mr. Mechels said the storefronts would be Kawneer 451 aluminum systems with glass windows. There were a few pieces of black spandral structural glass from the original storefronts that were saved in the basement that didn't break. Mr. Mechels said that spandral structural glass wasn't produced any more so they proposed to use aluminum panels with an automotive finish. It will closely approximate the original spandral material. Mr. Hogestad asked if the glass windows would be directly adhered to the aluminum, and Mr. Mechels said they would do it how it had been done in the past. Mr. Hogestad asked if the new proposed material would be dimensionally stable and Mr. Dennison said that yes, it would expand but be in small pieces. Opaque glass is called for in the College Avenue transoms on the 1936 plans. Mr. Mechels said research was done on opaque glass for that time period and there was no evidence of what it was back then. It was not the same as the structural glass. Grey glass transoms will be used with the wood storefront systems on Walnut Street, and modem opaque glass transoms with the College Avenue aluminum storefront systems. Mr. Mechels said this would allow the tenants to drop the ceiling inside the store if they desired. Paint analysis shows the Walnut Street brick walls were painted white with black pilasters. The Walnut Street storefronts in the basement were painted black and the street level was black, as well as the belt cornice on the building and base of the pilasters. There was some brown paint discovered on the handrails on the sidewalk and on the fire escapes. The College side terra cotta was natural (light buff) color and glazed. The medallions were silver with black accents. The stucco was painted white. Mr. Mechels said they would prefer the pilasters, railings, fire escapes and belt cornice be black, with dark brown used for the wood storefronts. Ms. Tunner noted that this is a change from the 1936 paint scheme. Mr. Mechels said the paint analysis on the sign showed a black sign box with black edged white letters, and a single neon stripe around each letter. There is also neon under the archway around the existing glass block as well, and all the neon will be restored. The glass block is in good shape. Ms. Tunner asked how much of the original metal sign did they intend to replace. Mr. Dennison said that there is a good chance there will be fairly significant repairs required. Mr. Mechels said that the sign is in three pieces with a lot of holes. The inside structural supports need to be replaced; ninety eight percent of the sign would have to be repaired. Mr. Mechels said they could use similar material to repair the holes. Mr. Hogestad asked if they would cut and patch or replace an entire panel. Mr. Mechels said he didn't know that it would be a massive repair, and they wanted to replace as little as possible. Mr. Hogestad said that he would prefer cutting and patching rather than replacing whole panels. Mr. Mechels said they did not want to use a high gloss finish on the sign. Landmark Preservation Commission October 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page5 Mr. Pouppirt asked to revisit his previous concerns about the sign issue at conceptual review, when the LPC declared the current sign to be an historic feature. Ms. Tunner recalled that the LPC determined the existing sign was a significant part of the building and was historic even though it wasn't the 1930s sign. The LPC had left it that if the current sign was found to contain the 1930s sign, then the applicants could come back to ask to rebuild that earlier sign. Mr. Mechels said the sign looks to be part of the original 1930's sign but he can't prove it. Mr. Pouppirt said they are going to great lengths to take the building back to its 1936 appearance, and the old sign looks like 1936 to him. He thinks it tells a better story. He felt that they didn't know if what is there now isn't part of the original sign. Ms. Tunner cited Secretary of the Interior's Standard for Rehabilitation #4 wherein changes (the existing historic sign) to a building are part of the development of the building and achieve a significance in their own right that must be respected and preserved. Mr. Pouppirt said that every rule is meant to be broken if there is a good reason to break it. Mr. Mechels said he can't prove the date of the current sign, but he would like to keep it now and not go back to the 1936 sign. Ms. Milewski said she wouldn't argue the 1936 sign is more appealing, but that they need to preserve what is there today. Mr. Hogestad said that the LPC has determined that the current sign is an historic part of the building. He does not feel that the LPC was comfortable going back to the 1936 sign unless it could be proven part of it was still up there. It isn't, so he is not comfortable with reworking historic fabric. Mr. Pouppirt said that no one could prove the bottom part of the current sign is not the original. Ms. Gerard said the LPC voted the current sign as historic fabric so it can't be taken down. Mr. Mechels reiterated that he couldn't find evidence that the original sign was still there. Mr. Hogestad asked if there was evidence the sign has been modified and Mr. Mechels said he couldn't find a seam of change. The bullnose of the original sign isn't there, and of course, the top radius is missing. Mr. Hogestad said he couldn't see destroying something historic because the old sign looked better. He summed up that the LPC would like to save the existing historic material, and doesn't agree with changing it. Ms. Milewski asked if the LPC picked a "restoration date" on every project. Ms. Tunner said this was not a restoration, but a rehabilitation. Ms. Aguilera asked what if they found any evidence after the sign was taken down. Mr. Hogestad said the LPC could revisit this issue. Mr. Mechels said they would come back if definitive proof could be found. Mr. Pouppirt commended the research done. Then Mr. Hogestad said he thought the decision on aluminum was good, as were the color combinations. It would give a very elegant design touch. Mr. Pouppirt asked Ms. Gerard if she was satisfied with the sign issue. Ms. Gerard said she liked the 1936 sign, however, there are cost constraints to change versus rehabilitate. She recognized the historic value of the 1950's sign and she said it is one of a kind. Mr. Frick said that the decision at LPC conceptual review was made to keep the sign because it's been there a long time and it is historic, but if there was obvious evidence that the original sign was incorporated in the existing sign, then the issue could come back to the LPC. Ms. Gerard asked if the sign could be removed to repair it. Ms. Tunner said that the answer was yes, Peter Barnes, Building Inspection's sign coordinator had stated he would allow that. Because the LPC has said that the sign is historic, it can be taken down, fixed and put back up. No new reconstructed sign of that size could be installed though. Mr. Landmark Preservation Commission October 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page6 Hogestad asked for public input. Ms. Watrous suggested that someone consult Marianne Martell about the sign. Her father was Ace Gillette who owned the restaurant on the first floor. Ms. Tunner called the LPC's attention to the grey transom windows on the Walnut St. side, proposed to obscure potential interior dropped ceiling soffits. She said that these transoms were clear glass in the 1936 plans, and it is accepted good preservation practice to recess dropped soffits some distance behind transoms. Mr. Mechels said that they have no control whether tenants drop their ceilings, and he asked if the LPC had review over the interior. The LPC said no, but Ms. Tunner said they do have review over what can be seen from the public right-of-way. Ms. Gerard said the National Park Service (NPS) has the right to review the tenant finish. Mr. Dennison said that if there is an interior element that effects the outside of the building, then the LPC has purview over it. Ms. Tunner said that as a local government, the city would have to agree with the NPS. Ms. Gerard said the project is financially sensitive, and interested tenants have to submit designs to the NPS, whose approval must be turned around before the lease. If the NPS and LPC don't agree and more time is needed to get together the lease might be killed. Ms. Milewski asked if something could be put in the lease about not dropping the ceilings. Mr. Mechels said it is an open floor plan. The College street side has a fully dropped ceiling to the transom level, and beyond that point, on the Walnut side, the soffit is planned back to the 15t beam line. Anything that directly affects exterior soffit behind glass can be seen. Mr. Hogestad asked for a motion that the soffit comes out no farther than the 1 st structural column and can be revisited per tenant. Ms. Aguilera asked if an LPC sub -committee would do this. Ms. Milewski asked if it could be administrative. Mr. Hogestad said no, it was a job for the LPC and there would only be a maximum turnaround time of 2 weeks between LPC meetings. Mr. Frick moved to approve the final review of the facade rehab as noted in the submitted plans with provision that the interior bulkhead behind the facade on the Walnut Street side be at the first column line behind the facade, that the Walnut St. wood storefronts be dark brown, and the fire escapes/handrails be black. Ms. Dix seconded the motion. Ms. Milewski added a friendly amendment that any bulkhead used is at a minimum distance of the first column line. Frick/Dix accepted this amendment. Motion passed 6-0. There was no other business. Minutes prepared by Heather Parrott, secretary. Meeting was adjourned at 7:54