Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/27/1999• • Uzi --- RECEIVED LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAR 0 1 1999 Regular Meeting January 27,1999 CITY MANAGER Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC approved the removal of the stucco covering the brick at 160 — 164 North College. Awning recoverings were approved for #11 Old Town Square, Suite 120. The Commission discussed prospective recipients of the 1999 Outstanding Historic Renovation Awards and Friend of Preservation Award. Timothy Wilder, City Planner, presented the preliminary ranking scores for the 1999 Landmark Rehabilitation Grant applications. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Rande Pouppirt, James Tanner and Janet Ore were present. Bud Frick and Angie Aguilera were absent. Carol Tunner, Timothy Wilder and Joe Frank represented Staff. GUESTS: Jay Gonzalez, business owner, San Felipes Cantina and Ed Stoner, building owner, Old Town Square Properties LLC, #11 Old Town Square; Ted and Ellen Zibell, owners, 160 — 164 North College Avenue, the Beals and Reed Block and Star Grocery Block; Timothy Wilder, City Planner; Steve Slezak, owner, 231 South Howes; Carolyn Goodwin, owner, 314 East Mulberry; Thomas R. Burkot, owner, 1400 West Oak Street. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner reported that staff received phone calls regarding the exposed Scrivner's Grocery and Market sign at 152 W. Mountain Ave. Myrne Watrous, the President of the Historical Society, asked the owners if the sign would stay. The owners said that their new signage and the original signage would be too large to meet the sign code. Ms. Tunner provided information on the Colorado Preservation Inc. conference in Denver this weekend. She said that Friday they would be announcing the Endangered Places list and there would be other activities and classes over the weekend. Mayor Azari will speak and they would celebrate the sensitive development of the Preston Farm site at the Friday lunch. Ms. Tunner also said that the City would renew any Commission member's subscription to the National Trust if they turn in the renewal form to her. Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Mr. Frank gave an update on the truck bypass. There was a study session and one option selected will be brought to Council in March. The selected route is a phased approach including a route from Mulberry to Timberline to Vine, which would go up and around the B A V A subdivisions. The second phase would be to start the truck route directly off Vine when the interchange is built, which is dependent on available funding. Ms. Ore asked if the LPC would be involved when Vine is widened. Mr. Frank said that they might not be widening Vine. Mr. Hogestad asked what would happen to the Plummer School. Mr. Frank said that it would need to be moved. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Tanner corrected the last page, second paragraph of the January 13, 1999 LPC meeting minutes to read "clerestory" windows. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the January 13, 1999 LPC meeting minutes as amended. Ms. Milewski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 160 — 164 North College Avenue, Beals and Reed Block and Star Grocery Block — The LPC made a field visit to examine the brick and a test patch of removed stucco. Mr. Zibell explained that the stucco came off easier than they had anticipated because there was a very light binding agent. They will continue with the removal and want to see just how much of the brick detail is left. They were also able to see the height of the clerestory windows. Mr. Hogestad thought that they were making good progress. Ms. Milewski moved to allow the continued removal of the stucco at 160 — 164 North College Avenue. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Some time in April the Zibells will be moving into the building. Mr. Zibell said that the tin ceilings in both buildings were exposed to the front of the storefront. He added that there were also hardwood floors and the existing old safe would remain. #11 Old Town Square, Suite 120, San Felipes Cantina — Recover Five Awnings (Jay Gonzalez, business owner) Mr. Pouppirt left the room, because of a conflict -of -interest. Ms. Tunner explained that this was a very important project and prominent building on the plaza. She decided to bring it to the LPC, instead of approving the awning administratively. She explained that the applicant's plans have changed since their last meeting. The southwest patio awning will be recovered in stripes with solid green ends and a loose flowing, solid green, wavy valance. The stripes do not work on rounded ends. On the front of the building, they would like to replace the four awnings over their storefront, also with a green solid. Staff recommends approval of this design. Mr. Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Gonzalez, business owner, said that their name would be centered over the doorway and presented their shark logo. Ms. Tunner added that there would be no sides to the awning. Mr. Hogestad asked if the shark logo would be done in the same material as the awning. Mr. Gonzalez said that it would be off white vinyl. Ms. Tunner stated that the awning material was Sunbrella acrylic. Ms. Ore moved to approve the awnings at #11 Old Town Square. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (4-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1998 Outstandinq Historic Renovation Awards (Carol Tunner) Ms. Tunner provided an annual report for 1998 that included a list of all the projects that the LPC worked on. She brought these projects to the LPC's attention for annual awards. She explained that the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award traditionally went to smaller projects that have gone through design review with good submittal materials and have showed good follow-through and project completion. The Friend of Preservation Award is for larger projects that may or may not have gone through design review because the award may go to a person, project or organization. Both the Friend of Preservation Award and the Outstanding Historic Renovation Award have gone to two to six recipients in the past. She brought some projects to the LPC's attention for consideration. The Forrester Block at 200 Walnut, which was finished in 1998 and involved Veldman Morgan, Dohn Construction and Vaught- Frye Architects. Bruce Biggi for work on the Parker/Stover House at 1320 West Oak. She added that long ago the brick was painted and then sandblasted to remove the paint. The applicant repointed the entire house and did a very good job. Another project was the addition on 629 Mountain Avenue. The Commission agreed that this project was well done and that the applicants' submittal materials were also very good. Ms. Tunner recommended that Don Woeber might also receive an award for single-handedly saving the cannon in City Park that has been there since the 1930s. He might have been over looked last year for the award. Ms. Ore also added that the Preston Farm has been the biggest victory since she has been on the Commission. The LPC discussed who involved with the project would receive an award. Mr. Frank suggested that an award be given to Ann Azari, because a lot of successful projects have gone through under her leadership. Mr. Tanner commented that the addition on 629 West Mountain was the best example of adding on to an historic home and you hardly would notice that the addition was there. Ms. Milewski agreed that the applicants had really good submittal material. Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program Review (Timothy Wilder City Planner Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mr. Hogestad left the meeting, because he had a conflict -of -interest and there were no more discussion items. Mr. Wilder provided the application on 200 East Plum to add to the binders and summary sheets of each of the grant applications. He then explained the preliminary ranking process to the Commission. He explained that the grant review was not as extensive as design review, but Staff did examine project eligibility. He said that criteria are addressed and standards for historic preservation. Staff scored criteria three and four. Criteria three addressed ranking projects for their historical or architectural significance. Criteria four was based on the amount of leveraged or matching funds, and was an objective ranking. Mr. Wilder explained that the applicants would have an opportunity to address the Commission for a couple of minutes and for the LPC to discuss the applications. Next meeting members would decide what projects get funding and the exact amount of funds that are available. Ms. Milewski said that it looked like twenty-eight thousand was the total request. Mr. Frank stated that their goal should not be to spend all of the money, but rather to fund worthy projects. Mr. Wilder presented the following applications and addressed the project cost, matching funds and proposed work. Citizen input came from some applicants as well. 160 — 164 North College Avenue: Mr. Wilder said that the LPC was already familiar with the work. Mr. Zibell explained that they had given a tour and the Commission had seen the property. He added that the buildings were in the Old Town Historic district and were considered significant. He appreciated the chance for the application and the help provided for small business owners to do the job right. Ms. Zibell said that it was good to be in the historic district. Mr. Frank asked if they were receiving any other funds. Mr. Zibell said that they had received a mini -grant from the State Historical Society and the DDA. Ms. Milewski said that it might help to know if the applicants were getting any other funding. Mr. Tanner explained that they had decided that discussing the applicants' financial situations would only complicate matters. Mr. Frank said that he asked only to find out if other authorities had recognized the proposal. 231 South Howes: Mr. Wilder explained that the applicant would not be able to complete the roof work if only awarded partial funding. Mr. Slezak, owner said that he was aware that the maximum grant was for five thousand dollars and was planning on spending a total of one hundred thousand inside and out. The roof does not have to been done right now. He wanted to install a taper shingle roof and said he could not install a new one over the three existing layers. He wanted to remove the three layers and would prefer to do all the proposed work at once. He added that the fascia and gutters are really deteriorated, which was the primary portion of the grant. He has also received funding from the DDA, and once it goes through the easement process he could use some of that money for the fagade work. He explained that it would be a big mess and major expense to get the existing layers of roof off and rebuild. He agreed that the grant also helps the small business owner. Ms. Ore asked if he would replicate Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 5 the soffit, fascia and crown mould and repair what pieces he could. Mr. Slezak said yes and that the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines would be used. 924 West Magnolia: Mr. Wilder said that the applicant had received funding in the past for roof work and that the LPC could consider this the second half of the project. The LPC has already approved the proposed materials for the gutter installation. Mr. Wilder said that this was the application, which came in late and that the LPC decided to accept it. The applicant completed the roof work from last year. 816 West Mountain Avenue: Mr. Wilder said that the applicant plans to replace like material to repair the porch to its historic condition. 1501 West Mountain Avenue: Mr. Wilder explained that the property has had a number of owners over the last three years that have applied for grants. The grants typically go along with the property and the latest owner rescinded the money. The new owner did not like the old proposal and applied for a new grant for siding and trim work. Ms. Tunner said that this application seems critical. The major feature was to paint, but first the repair work needs to be done. Mr. Tanner asked if sanding the paint was a less intrusive method to remove it. Ms. Ore said power washing should not be used because water could get into the wood. Ms. Tunner said that 60 psi was the limit. Ms. Ore asked if the appropriateness of their methods would affect their ranking. 314 East Mulberry: Mr. Wilder explained that they had funded this house a number of times and that the applicant had applied last year, but did not receive funding. Ms. Goodwin, owner, said that she did not know that the interior window frame would be included, so she is now applying for that. She also experienced flood damage to the foundation and FIRMA would not cover it. She explained that there were loose stones on the inside. Mr. Wilder added that the interior plasterwork had been determined to be ineligible. Mr. Pouppirt commented that the house had a great paint scheme. Ms. Goodwin said that the house had been in the family since 1915 and discussed other colors she thought that the house might have been painted. 1400 West Oak: Mr. Burkot said that the major project and cost was replacing the roof. He said in the past there was extensive seepage into the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom. The roof is deteriorating on the outer layer of shingles, particularly on the garage. Ms. Milewski asked if there were originally cedar shingles and Mr. Burkot said yes. 200 East Plum: Mr. Wilder explained that according to the County Assessor tax on this property was considered residential. He asked why the green shake roof might have been painted green. Ms. Tunner said that sometime in the 1940s people had painted their roofs green and she does not know why. Mr. Frank thought it may have been done to look moss covered, like in England. Mr. Wilder explained that on the original application they wanted a composite roof, but he told the applicant that the LPC would probably not approve composite. The applicant said that if they were required to they would install a wood roof. That would also raise the applicant's matching funds. Ms. Landmark Preservation Commission January 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Tunner added that this was the only fraternity house that was designated in town. The application states that there are leaks through the existing roof. 1601 Sheely Drive: Mr. Wilder said that the applicants, Per and Veda Hogestad, were proposing extensive deck work. Mr. Tanner asked if the decking was original when the house was built, which it was. 903 Stover Street: Mr. Wilder said that this was a straightforward roof replacement. 311 Whedbee Street: Mr. Wilder explained that the applicant has been doing renovations to the barn and proposed work included the foundation, siding, removing the shed floor and rebuilding the shed roof, foundation and doors. Mr. Pouppirt asked if they were still doing the north side windows. Mr. Wilder said that they would use a twenty -inch square core wood window to match the other new windows on the barn. Ms. Milewski understood that they no longer wanted to use the glass block, which has been previously proposed. The new windows were used as matching funds only. Mr. Frank said to look at the overall rehabilitation and to consider criteria one. The LPC held a discussion about the applications. They were generally concerned with all of the roof applications. Mr. Pouppirt said that fascia and mould seem to be good rehabilitation projects, but a roof may be more of an up keep item. Ms. Ore agreed. A wood versus a composite roof represented a difference in cost. That cost difference is really more of the Commission's concern. Ms. Milewski thought that the grant was good for residences when an original wood roof was past its lifetime, the grants allows the owner to keep an historic roof on the building. She suggested that they just fund the difference in the roof cost. Mr. Frank said that in some situations, maintenance could be part of an overall rehabilitation project. Mr. Wilder discussed painting and how some projects have a lot of painting, with just a couple of other items. Mr. Wilder explained that roofs as stand alone projects have been funded in the past. The additional cost of the wood was the important deciding element. Mr. Frank said that they need to look at preservation priority and that this would be easier to discuss after they had finished ranking all the projects. Mr. Tanner asked about the reroofing for 231 South Howes. He commented that the application said that the roof would be restored, but does not state what condition it will be restored to. Mr. Pouppirt was not clear if it was originally a cedar shingle roof. Mr. Pouppirt left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. A summary was presented by Mr. Wilder and he displayed the preliminary criteria score and project rankings. OTHER BUSINESS: None The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary