Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/09/1997i LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 9, 1997 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC discussed Public Service Company's mandate to move all shut-off meters outside the buildings in the Historic Old Town District. The rehabilitation of front porch steps was approved for State Tax Credit, Part 1 for the Slockett House, 805 Remington. Interior and exterior rehabilitation after flood damage at 909 Whedbee, the W. N. Culbertson House, was approved with conditions for State Tax Credit, Part 1. The LPC discussed neon signage in Old Town and requested Staff bring such applications to the full LPC. The One West Contemporary Art Center will be replacing the rear fence as it had existed before being recently vandalized. The LPC reviewed plans for an adaptive re -use of a barn into office space, at 311 Whedbee. The barn is being considered for designation as a local landmark. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Per Hogestad, James Tanner, Angela Milewski, Diana Ross and Stephen Short were present. Bud Frick was absent. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented Staff. Tim Wilder, City Planner was present. GUESTS: Martha Pederson, student, University of Colorado, Denver; Chip Steiner, DDA Consultant; Bob Kopitzke, owner, 909 Whedbee; Angela Brayham, Director, One West Contemporary Art Center; Jon Gless and Tamela Wahl, owners, 311 Whedbee. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner reported that Item #1 under current design review was removed from the agenda because the applicant withdrew. Ms. McWilliams added a complimentary review of a barn at 311 Whedbee Street. Item #3 was also moved up to the first issue for discussion. STAFF REPORTS: City Board and Commission manuals were provided to Commission members by Staff. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Ms. Carpenter reported that she was informed by Mr. Steiner that the DDA plans to establish a standing LPC agenda item on its monthly meeting agenda, as suggested by Mr. Frick, LPC/DDA liaison. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The August 12, 1997 LPC meeting minutes were accepted as submitted. (Short, Tanner) (5-0) Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 2 Region, Public Service Company Mr. Huett discussed a proposal to move the cut-off valve from the basement to the sidewalk in front of Saigon 17,146 N. College Avenue. He explained that it is now a DOT law that shut-off valves be installed outside buildings, according to the Pipeline Safety Act. This law is administered and enforced by the Federal DOT and State Commission of Utilities. Older installations do not have to conform to the mandate, but when updating or repairing equipment, they need to be brought up to regulation. He added that it does not have to be outside, but it does have to be accessible and installed in a ventilated place. Ms. Carpenter questioned whether the equipment would necessarily have to be installed outside. Mr. Huett responded that it is the Public Service Company's goal to comply or exceed the Pipeline Safety Act. He reviewed the company policy, which stated 'Meters and service regulators are to be set outside the serviced structure where they will always be reasonably accessible, and will service the customer safely and dependably.' Two options were presented for the 225 American Meter used on 146 N. College Ave. They could relocate the entire meter and regulations assembly outside, orjust move the shut-off valve. Mr. Hulett preferred option #1, he explained that the recess in the building would allow the assembly to not hinder the pedestrian. Mr. Short questioned whether they would install a gas meter at the front of a house and whether they had an option to install the equipment at the rear of the building. Mr. Huett explained that the basement of 146 N. College Ave. did not extend to the rear of the building. Mr. Tanner pointed out that the inlet/outlet for the system would be installed through the sidewalk, not the building. Mr. Hogestad said that might not always be the case. Ms. Carpenter discussed why they might be exceeding the Federal guidelines. She preferred that they would first attempt to place equipment inside or at the rear of the structure for historic buildings. They discussed the interpretation of the Federal guidelines and defined minimum compliance. Mr. Huett explained that their main intent was safety to the public. Mr. Short commented that you never see gas meters along a main street. Ms. Milewski agreed with his observation and said when designing a streetscape they always look for other options. Most of the time facilities are located in the rear of the building. Ms. Milewski thought it was important to give Staff some guidance on this issue. If they can't install the assembly in the back, option #2 should be used for the shut-off valve only in the front. Ms. Tunner suggested that the meter could be disguised, hidden behind some facade element. Mr. Huett said that they would need to be able to identity these objects and reach them in an emergency. He said that service facilities do vary from the front, to the side, and to the rear of the building. Walnut and Linden Street have service in the front. The owner can paint the equipment any color. Ms. Carpenter suggested this issue be handled case by case. Mr. Short moved to approve option #2 for 146 North College Avenue. Ms. Ross seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) Ms. Carpenter stated that Staff could administratively approve an application if it is only for Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 3 a shut-off valve. But, if a meter assemblage is going to be installed, it needs to go to the LPC for review. Ms. Tunner added that it should go to the LPC if pipes are running through the building and not just the sidewalk. Ms. Milewski suggested that Staff make it a priority to keep it off the front elevation of the structure and make it as least intrusive as possible. Ms. Tunner recommended that they match the final patch of sidewalk concrete at 146 N. College as close as possible. Ms. Milewski moved that all gas meter relocations that are shut-off valves only or are located on the rear or the side of a building be approved administratively, all others need to go to the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 909 Whedbee W. N Culbertson House — Interior/Exterior Rehabilitation for State Tax Credit, Part 1 The property is in the Laurel School National Historic Register District. The structure was flooded severely during the July 28, 1997 flood. Mr. Kopitzke has gutted the basement apartment. The only exterior work proposed is to add half -round gutters like existing gutters. The basement concrete floor of the house has heaved up. Mr. Kopitzke said that the house was contaminated when the sewer system backed up, so the studs needed to be removed. The north side of the basement raised and the south wall buckled. A copy of the engineer's report was provided. The concrete from the floor will have to be taken out and then they will be able to find out why it buckled. A steel 2 by 6 brace supports the wall and 2 by 4 studs are proposed to secure the wall. The electric will also be brought up to code and one egress window added. There is a separate heating system in the basement and it will be replaced. The kitchen in the basement will also be finished. Mr. Hogestad asked if an egress window already exists. Mr. Kopitzke explained that they would dig down to add height to the existing window. The LPC requested cut sheets for the cabinetry and literature describing the proposed window. Specifications for the steel studs, which were proposed by the engineer and information on the proposed floor materials, were also requested. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the request for State Tax Credit Part 1, Interior and Exterior Rehabilitation for 909 Whedbee Street, the W. N. Culbertson House, with the proviso that specifications be provided for the cabinetry, window, and floor covering. Ms. Ross seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) 805 Remington, Slockett House — Submission of Porch Steps Specifications (Removal of condition for preliminary approval) for State Tax Credit Part 1 Ms. Tunner explained that the applicant has already been approved for Part 1 with the condition the specifications for the porch steps and railing are submitted. The railing will be completed at a later date. The railing is not for the porch steps, but the balustrade Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 4 around the porch. The LPC has suggested T-111 siding along the steps. Mr. Frick had also suggested saw kerfing the steps, to relieve pressure and preventing warping. Mr. Hogestad moved to accept the drawings as submitted with the following changes: enclosure panels match the skirt panels around the porch, steps be saw kerfed and if steps require a hand railing to meet code, the applicant must return to the LPC for approval. Ms. Ross seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Neon Signs in the Old Town Historic District The LPC discussed how they felt about neon signage in Old Town. Most historic districts do not allow neon. In the past, small signs have existed, but at night neon can overwhelm a building. Mr. Tanner stated that the current guidelines, which address the issue, are vague. Ms. Carpenter commented that it has become a bigger issue in the last year and the LPC has been uncomfortable with some proposals. An application for neon signage needs to come to the full LPC for review or Staff needs more explicit criteria for administrative review. Ms. McWilliams suggested that they also discuss the issue of neon border around architectural features. Ms. Milewski said that the frequency of neon does effect the streetscape. Mr. Hogestad commented that you should think about the use of the building. Many are restaurants and bars, which are used at night. Ms. Milewski agreed that it may be appropriate in a bar, which may be a form of adaptive re -use and neon may add life to the street at might. Mr. Tanner stated that without writing new guidelines, the Commission must rely on #52 and #53 and review each proposal on a case by case basis. Ms. Carpenter stated that neon signs should no longer be approved administratively. Mr. Tanner agreed, especially because they have recently become more popular. Mr. Short said that it is important to have some criteria to make a decision in order to be consistent. Mr. Tanner suggested that the Commission cite past decisions as a set precedent. For example, outlining architectural features with neon is not approved. Guidelines #56 and #57 address illumination and accepts neon lettering, but only as exposed neon tubes. Mr. Tanner added that the signage should not be overpowering in composition or intensity. Ms. Ross asked why neon is reviewed administratively. Staff explained that in the past, the LPC only met every four weeks, which created a hardship for businesses in Old Town. Chip Steiner, Consultant, Downtown Development Authority, asked if every hanging beer sign would need to be reviewed. Ms. Tunner explained that the sign code coordinator does not monitor those kinds of signs, unless they become too overwhelming or obtrusive on a building. Ms. Carpenter made a distinction between business signs and product signs. Mr. Hogestad added that he considers product signs as temporary signage. Ms. McWilliams explained that something would have to trigger the review of signage, for example when a permit is obtained or a complaint is made. Mr. Steiner asked how can they change the process for the applicant, from administrative to LPC review? The LPC has final legislative review of design issues and it is always up to Staff's discretion to bring an issue E Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 5 to the full LPC. Ms. Tunner was directed to check if the LPC could take over review of neon signs. OTHER BUSINESS: Update on rear fence proposed for One West Contemporary Art Center, 201 South College Avenue Ms. Brayham explained that the insurance company would not pay for an upgrade of the rear fence. The fence needs to be replaced because of damage incurred by vandalism. They will replace the fence according to how it existed. Complimentary review of proposed alteration to barn at 311 Whedbee Ms. McWilliams explained that this is a complimentary review prior to possible local landmark designation. The property owners are interested in knowing if the Commission would be comfortable with designation of the structure with the alterations the owners are proposing for the structure. Ms. Wahl explained that they propose an adaptive re -use for the barn. The upstairs would be used for office/study space and windows would be added. Changes in the roof would be made to build up and create room for insulation. The current roof has holes and is in poor shape. Ms. Milewski asked if changes are only proposed for the east and south sides. Ms. Wahl explained that the east side faces the backyard and the west side faces the alley. The siding is in sad repair but may be salvageable. The siding will be removed from where the windows are proposed and would then be used to replace damaged siding. A stabilization of the structure was done ten years ago. The barn is ninety-two years old. Mr. Hogestad liked the proportions of the windows and thought that it would be a good adaptive re -use. He suggested that the three larger windows on the east side be divided because they lack detail. Ms. Wahl said that the design of the windows on the south and east side are meant to tie together. Mr. Tanner suggested that the larger windows go on the south side to allow more sunlight. Because the structure is a 1 1/2 story, only the east side can support windows. A solar tube is also proposed on the north side. The east side faces the backyard and is not visible by the public. Ms. Carpenter agreed that the design of the windows on the east should be broken up to add more detail. The south side windows have the character of barn windows. The LPC liked the proposed green standing seam steel roof. The existing rafters are not sufficient. The applicants plan to keep the space open underneath so you can see the old wood and add space for insulation. Mr. Tanner commented that raising the roof would not alter the proportions of the structure noticeably. Only the barn is being considered for designation, not the house. The house is no longer eligible, but is located in the Laurel School District and was considered a contributing structure. Mr. Hogestad stated that so few outbuildings in the area still exist. The commission felt designation would still be in order even with the proposed changes. Ms. Carpenter discussed the Crepe truck on the Old Town Plaza. Mr. Wilder spoke with Paul Eckman, City Attorney, who explained that the LPC has no purview over the plaza at 0 • Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 1997 Page 6 this time. Once designation of the Old Town Historic District is completed to include public right-of-ways, they will have purview over permanently attached fixtures in the plaza area. The meeting adjourned 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary