Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/06/1985L LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. in the Council Information Center of New City Hall. Members present were Carol Tunner, Wayne Sundberg, Glenda McCall, Michael Ehler and Dick Beardmore. Staff present included Sherry Albertson -Clark and Edwina Echevarria. Holidays - 146 N. College Request - approval for signage Applicant - Gayle Wernsmann Gayle Wernsmann, owner of Holidays, presented this application, showing photographs of the exterior and interior of the structure. Pat Miller, store manager, discussed architectural details of the building facade. Gayle spoke regarding the specifics of the proposed signage. She indicated that the smaller, secondary sign was to be placed by the door. No parti- cular design for this sign is proposed at this time, since the store-s logo is being completed. She also stated that existing holes in the building's facade would be used to anchor the proposed signage and no additional holes would be drilled. Wayne stated that on the previous application for this sign, the applicant told the Commission that the existing holes were not adequate to anchor the proposed sign. Gayle responded that the sign contractor has since said that no additional holes are needed. Pat stated that at the time of the previous application, the drawing submitted did not show any of the building facade detail. She stated that the existing signband is the least of the architectural details of the building. She added that there is confusion regarding the present use of the building, since it was previously used as a bank and as the Triangle Review office. Gayle stated that customers cannot find the store because the paper window signs currently being used do not work. She added that good, permanent signage is needed for advertising purposes. She responded to the alternative signage types proposed by the Commission at the December 5 meeting on this application, indicating that awnings over the windows are not desireable; an awning over the door would be too high and appear out -of -place and that the building owner does not want a projecting wall sign to be used. 0 • Dick asked staff if Downing and Leach had responded to the letter written to them. Sherry replied that there had been no response. Gayle stated that the issue regarding the proposed signage comes back to the definition of "architectural detail". Dick discussed the similarity of this situation to the Kissock Block, where the existing name of the structure no longer relates to the use or users of the building. He added that the building is still referred to in this manner (Kissock Block). Gayle responded that the Commercial Bank and Trust building was the name of the business, not the building name. Carol stated that the building was built to be used as a bank. Gayle stated that there needs to be room for adaptive use of the building. Dick responded that adaptive use of the building was not being questioned by the Commission. He stated that it was never said that a retail use should not use this space. Gayle indicated that the impression she got was that a judgement was passed regarding the retail use of this space. Dick replied that the record should be clarified that no discussion regarding the use of the structure ever took place. Pat added that this store is the type needed in the downtown. Dick reiterated that there was no discussion regarding the retail use of the structure, nor is it within the Commission's purview. He stated that the design guidelines were primarily written for Victorian storefronts and that guidelines 51 and 52 (as indicated in the applicant's letter) would therefore not apply to this structure. He added that°guidelines 53 and 54 are, where he has problems with the proposed signage, as well as the question of whether additional holes will be needed in the building. Gayle responded that she would reject the sign if other holes are needed. Dick stated that if the bank name were on a wooden attached sign or painted on the building and not part of the original construction, the Commission probably would not have concerns about the sign. Pat discussed the architectural detail, stating that wherever the sign is placed, some detail would need to be covered. Dick asked if the intent of the signage is for automobiles or pedestrians. • Gayle indicated that the signage is for both and that it did not appear that the Commission had a problem with the secondary sign. She added that' if another design were required for the primary sign, the design would have to be much more prominent than that being proposed. Dick asked if the proposed sign was completed prior to the application being submitted. Gayle replied that it was, since they didn't anticipate any problems and were unaware that anyone other than the propertyowner could regulate the building facade. Dick explained that the structure is within the Old Town Historic District, which is locally designated and this is why the Commission has review over the proposed signage. Gayle stated that she didn't forsee any problems with the Landmark Preservation Commission approving the sign, so the contractor was sent as her representative. She added that it was her contention that the proposed sign is best for both the building and the business. Dick asked if the applicant is not receptive to other types of signage. Gayle responded that the alternatives suggested were not acceptable and that signage that will do better use for the business is needed. Michael questioned the success of the existing window signage. Pat responded that those signs are not effective since the windows are recessed and are approximately 8 feet off the ground. She added that people do not see the window signs. Michael stated that he has no problem with the proposed secondary sign. Pat responded that the smaller sign would not be visible from autos or the other side of the street and that it would be for pedestrian traffic. Gayle added that she intended to paint the door the green color in the future. She added that the green and mauve colors were picked up from the stained glass windows. Carol stated that the building number needs to be more visible. Wayne discussed the Commercial Bank and Trust sign as an architectural detail of the building, using the Avery Building as an illustration. He added that the word "bank" appears at the top of the building, even though other uses are now in operation and stated that he did not think the Commission would allow a sign to cover it up. Gayle replied that in that instance, the name is so high on the building that it is almost removed from the existing businesses there. . • • Carol stated that this building is a typical style for banks. She added that very few are left and that to her, the most important architectural feature is the use of the bank style. She also discussed the assignment of studying this structure for the Fort Collins Leadership Program and stated that she has no problems with the sign itself but is concerned about the location of the sign and that no other holes be put in the building. Pat stated that customers are told the history of the building as a bank and that on the foyer floor, the word "bank" exists, so that the building's original use as a bank would never be lost. Gayle stated that there is no other place as suited for signage and that other areas would detract more so from the facade. She added that the original signage would always be there, but would be covered. Dick stated that it is difficult to imagine the colors of the sign on the building. Gayle replied that the major color of the sign would be green, rather than mauve. Dick responded that the green was personally more objectionable. Gayle replied that the design guidelines suggested light colored letters on a dark background. Dick stated that each storefront must be considered individually and that this building is a clear departure from the Victorian styles intended to be addressed in the design guidelines. Gayle replied that color changes could be made. Dick stated that he understands the need for color for identity for the store and that he is concerned about the sign looking so drawn out. He suggested the use of alternate colors and perhaps using the word "Holidays" twice on the sign, rather than stretching the word out. Gayle replied that the sign does not appear so imposing and described the spacing and details of the sign. Carol stated that she is glad to see this use in this location. Wayne asked if there is a motion. Michael responded that he is of the opinion that the existing sign is an integral part of the architectural detail of the building and that the Commission is not insensitive to the applicant's position. He also suggested window signage as the appropriate means for signage. Michael moved to deny the application. Wayne asked if the secondary sign is to be considered. Sherry replied that no information was submitted on the smaller sign and that details regarding it were needed. Gayle stated that the smaller sign is not finished and that the store logo would soon be complete. Dick suggested that the design shown for the smaller sign or logo could be used on the windows. Wayne asked that the motion be re -stated. Michael re -stated the motion, which was to deny the application. Dick seconded the motion and offered an amendment that the building number be considered to be placed in a visible location on the facade. Motion carried 4-0, with Glenda McCall abstaining. Applicants indicated they would like alternative signage suggestions. Dick suggested bolder color for window signage and the use of a distinctive logo. Wayne questioned hanging a sign below the windows. Gayle responded that that location was not suitable. Michael asked about the sign allowance. Sherry responded that there is adequate allowance. Wayne asked Dick his position regarding the use of the green paint color. Dick replied that he has no problems with using the green for signage in other locations on the facade. Carol added that the green would make the stained glass windows stand out. Wayne summarized the suggestions to the applicant to look at window signage painted on the glass or hung inside the window, proceed with the logo design for the plaque and consider the number of the building being relocated to where it is more visible. Dick asked if the garland and ribbon qualifies as temporary signage. Sherry replied that it would. Gayle stated for clarification that color does not appear to be a concern of the Commission and that window signage is recommended. Dick added that the logo be incorporated into the signage and that the panel above the door be considered for the logo. Wayne asked the Commission's opinion on using the space below the windows. Glenda replied that signage in that area would not be visible due to parked cars. Gayle asked if a plaque could be attached to the building regarding its history. Dick responded that use of a plaque would be a good idea and that Old Town Associates are placing plaques on the Whitten Block. Wayne stated that Commission approval would be needed for the plaque and that the design approval should be obtained prior to having the plaque made. A Point of View — 423 Old Town Square Michael Witmer of Signs S Designs presented the application, stating that the sign would be painted on the window. He added that the store owner prefers a purple outline and he would recommend a maroon outline for the sign. Wayne asked what would be outlined. Michael Witmer replied that everything on the sign (lettering and illustrations) would be outlined with a 1/8 " outline. Carol questioned the two outline colors. Michael Witmer replied that the purple color would not be too bad, but it may recede against the green. Carol stated that the purple appears very dark. Dick added that the brick of the building reads purple. Wayne questioned the placement of the wording on the window. Michael Witmer replied that "gifts and decorative accessories" would be placed under the illustration in 2" helvetica style lettering. Dick asked where the sign would be placed with respect to the floorline of the building. Michael Witmer replied that the sign would be in the same place as the existing paper sign, which is approximately 6- from the ground. He added that the storeowner would like to add the word "entrance" and a pointing hand to the application, so that the entrance to the store could be clarified. Wayne asked if this could be added to the application. Sherry replied that details of color, size and location would need to be provided on the application. Glenda moved to approve the application with the purple outline, including the word "entrance" and pointing hand. Dick seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Approval of January 23 1985 minutes The minutes were approved with the following corrections: Page four - "Carol stated that the depot was given to the Commission approximately 9 years ago by Dr. Robert Pike... should read "by Vernon Dazey". Other Business Dick stated that he had sent a "thank -you" to City staff regarding the Christmas dinner. Sherry informed the Commission that applications were being taken for the Commission's alternate position and an appointment would be made at the March 19 Council meeting. Sherry briefly discussed letters between SLP and Madsen Construction regarding Old Town and past Commission minutes regarding the CSU railroad depot. Commission members discussed the wall plaque at Chow-s Garden and indicated that the shift in location was not substantial to require re -consideration of the application. Commission members also discussed the new storefront at 115 Linden and a motion was made by Dick to ask for Paul Wagner's cooperation in re -painting the storefront. Carol seconded the motion. Sherry asked for clarification regarding new colors to suggest for the storefront. Dick responded that the Commission would work with Mr. Wagner or his representative but not be put in the position of doing the design work for the storefront and that the color be more compatible with surrounding structures. Motion passed 4-0. Dick presented drafts of letters from Preservation Action to be sent to Federal and local representatives in support of retaining the investment tax credits. The next meeting is scheduled for February 20 and will be held in the Council Office. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.