Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/08/1998• 0 @- aj) LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 8, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason . Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0960) SUMMARY OF MEETING: Masonry repair work for Part 2, State Tax Credit at 1320 W. Oak was approved. The LPC approved new awnings for 132 — 144 North College Avenue and decorative security grillwork for the storefront windows and door on the Trimble Block. The LPC approved roof, and interior repair for the Welscher House, 1304 S. College for Part 2, State Tax Credit. The LPC reviewed two sets of proposed plans for an addition to the Shenk House at 629 West Mountain Avenue. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Ms. Carpenter called the meeting to order 5:40 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Per Hogestad, Bud Frick, Angela Milewski, Stephen Short, James Tanner and Rande Pouppirt were present. Carol Tunner and Karen McWilliams represented Staff. GUESTS: Bruce Biggi, owner, 1320 West Oak; Robert Siblerud, owner, 1304 South College Avenue, the Welscher House; Richard Beardmore, preservation consultant, Mike Thorburn, Restoration Contractor, and Mike McCormick, owner, for 132 — 144 North College Avenue; David Haimson, owner, 629 West Mountain Avenue; Kate Malers, owner, 518 Peterson Street. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner reported a change to the agenda. Added to the agenda, will be a discussion of 1304 S. College, the Welscher House for Part 2, Colorado State Tax Credit. She also added a preliminary conceptual review for an awning proposal for Suite 152, to be reviewed under other business. STAFF REPORTS: Mrs. Tunner handed out a memo from Paul Eckman, City Attorney regarding ethics. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: Mr. Frick reported on the April 2, Downtown Development Authority meeting. An RFP was Out out for the proposed parking garage on the America lot. Nine hundred parking spaces and approximately 15,OOO ft2 for retail will be created. The DDA plans to select a design by mid -May. The DDA also reviewed plans for a proposed building at 185 North College Avenue. It is not located in the Old Town Historic District. The City is currently working on a new streetscape plan for the Laporte, College, and Walnut/ Pine comer. The DDA thought that the design was fine, but the LPC would like to see it and would be available to give comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: In regards to the March 10, 1998 LPC meeting minutes, Mr. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 2 Pouppirt asked whether the proposed demolition of structures on the corner of South Howes and West Myrtle had met the criteria for architectural importance. This discussion was moved to Other Business. CONSENT AGENDA: 1320 West Oak Parker/Stover House: Masonry Repair for Part 2 State Tax Credit Bruce Biggi and Jennifer Kathol) Mr. Tanner reviewed the photographs and asked whether the mortar lines that were struck had been cleaned, after the picture was taken. Mr. Pouppirt moved that the Consent Agenda be approved as submitted. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) Mr. Biggi thanked the Commission and Staff for their efforts and said that both the community and neighborhood benefited from the grant program. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 132 —144 North College Avenue, Trimble/Barkley Blocks: New Storefront Awnings and Window Security Ms. Tunner reviewed what was discussed at the conceptual review of the proposed window security, which had occurred at the last meeting. Mr. Beardmore showed slides of before and after the restoration. He explained that some items still needed to be completed and they were waiting for the right weather conditions. These items included the tile stone thresholds, balcony railing and some exterior painting. Next, Mr. Beardmore presented samples of the proposed canvas awnings for each fagade. He said that they treated them as three separate buildings. The oldest building, "Storefront A" was painted with the most masculine colors. An acrylic fabric, Sunbrella "Signature Series", Bisque Brown, #4773, a darker brown with a terra cotta stripe was proposed. The Trimble Block has more detail on the building and striped awnings are prevalent in historic photo -documentation, but they could not find a striped, yet simple awning for the busier fagade. Mr. Beardmore presented two choices, a more muted, stripped terra cotta awning or solid terra cotta color. He prefers the Terra Cotta but would like permission for either one. He added that all of the awnings would be operable with closed ends. A ten to twelve inch valance would be appliqued with the business names and would have a "Roman Key" lower edge. The Barkley Block was built after the turn of the century and was painted with more neutral colors. They would like to use a more colorful awning. It will have a terra cotta and a teal stripe to match the business signage. The valance would have a slight wave. Mr. Beardmore showed exactly where the awnings would fall on each building and how it would fit under the Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 3 belt cornice. They discussed the solid versus muted striped awnings for "Storefront B". With solid awning, a stripe on either side of the entrance was proposed. Ms. Carpenter asked if the striped pattern would wear longer than the solid awning. Mr. Hogestad said that either was okay. Mr. Pouppirt asked if they had considered installing an awning on the second floor of "Storefront A". Mr. Beardmore said that it would be blocking a business sign in the window, but they had considered it. Mr. Frick moved that the awnings as presented for the four storefronts be approved, with the second building awning as either choice. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) Next, the proposed window security grill was discussed. Mr. Beardmore showed photos of the glass storefront, and the way so much of the streetscape is reflected in the glass. He explained that the recessed entryway is more attractive to break in to. They are concerned because there is a tremendous amount of inventory in glass cases along the long dimension of the interior. Mr. Beardmore discussed their security options. 1) They could install security grills on the exterior, which is against the guidelines. 2) An accordion grill, which would require two units each requiring two forty inch deep cabinets to house the unit. 3) A roll down grill from the ceiling, but this would impact the feel of the reconstructed tin ceiling. 4) A freestanding grill with a fifty to sixty inch base, requiring the displays and merchandise be moved back. Mr. Beardmore said that the key was that whatever was installed, it should not change the perception of the building. It should be simple, but with some decoration. He presented examples of other security grills from Ft. Collins. On Riverside and North College, a welded wire fabric exists on the interior and serves as display space to hang objects. The U.S. Pawn shop on South College, used bars, which are painted light on the door and darker on the windows. Mr. Beardmore pointed out how more noticeable the lighter bars appeared. The Fort Collins Museum also has bars on the first level. The museum houses a unique and valuable collection, which also creates a special case. Ms. Carpenter asked when the bars were installed on the museum. Mr. Beardmore did not know, but asked if the bars changed their perception of the building. Horizontal bars approved by the LPC in December on an alley window of a jewelry store were also shown. If the blinds were darker, you would not be able to see the security bars. Mr. Beardmore concluded that they propose to install the security grill on the interior, with the glass window creating a reflection and they plan to paint it dark charcoal gray or dark black - maroon. A display in The Perennial Gardener storefront window served as an example of how the grillwork may appear. The grillwork was proposed to be constructed of standard pieces, to keep the cost reasonable. They would also like to keep it reversible and be able to rotate it, so they could get behind it to clean. The design was included in the information packet and was based on pickets 6" on center with finials 4-5". The crossbars would be double. Mr. Hogestad asked if the target of the burglars was the door and not the window. The Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 4 applicant said that you never know when you have done enough. Mr. Frick said that it was a sensitive solution and would be dark and behind the glass, so it would not show as seen on some other buildings. Mr. Hogestad was concerned with the height. From the street level it would be seven feet tall. He commented that the fence in The Perennial Gardener window was three feet shorter. He would like to see them compromise with the height, especially because the window may not be the real target. Mr. Frick suggested that they arch the grill to match the sign on the window. Ms. Carpenter discussed the difference between looking through the bars and looking past them. She said that the tall bars are not very friendly, but understands that they are meant to deter someone from breaking in. Mr. Short said that the bars on the first floor of the museum might have been installed to keep people from falling through the glass, not for security reasons, which takes away the precedent. He added that someone could climb over the gate. Mr. Short does not want to compromise the preservation of this landmark, does not see a return from this action, and said there are other alternatives to stopping people from getting handguns. Mr. Tanner said that psychologically, a three-foot high fence is a lot more inviting than a four -foot high fence. He agreed that they should match the arch of the grillwork with the logo and added that there would be no significant impact on the visual appearance of the outside of the building. He stated that it was a reasonable, economical solution, which was meant to slow people down. Ms. Carpenter was concerned with what would happen if all the buildings on College Avenue needed security bars. Mr. Tanner said this was a gun shop that needed greater protection than a garden shop. The LPC discussed the size of a person in relation to the height of the grill. At six feet high the top of the picket would be just over the top of the sign. Ms. Carpenter was still concerned this would be setting a precedent, but understood the problem. Mr. Beardmore said that you don't typically find this type of use in this type of building. So, they have tried to come up with a sensitive solution. The Commission discussed how much the grillwork would be able to slow them down. Mr. Frick said that the decorative grillwork fits in with the period of the building. He added, this is a special case, a gun shop, which has had three break-ins and they must deal with the issue at hand. Mr. Short asked if they could move the bars back inside the store behind the recess. Ms. Carpenter thought that if they moved the grillwork back, you would not be able to see the bars from the street. Ms. Milewski and Mr. Frick said that it was good for a potential thief to be able to see the bars. Mr. Tanner spoke about other items on a building, like awnings, which may obscure the view of the fagade elements. Mr. Hogestad argued that it was not just a visual impact, but how it affects the character and feel of the building. Ms. Carpenter stated that bars around downtown would change the character and feeling of downtown. Mr. Short stated again that other measures should be used to protect guns. Mr. Hogestad further explored the idea of setting the grillwork back. Mr. Beardmore explained that there was active space for retail clear up to the window. Mr. Frick agreed that they should not lose retail space. Mr. Hogestad recommended that they lower the height to the top of the sign and that Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 5 setting it back into the retail space does not make much sense. Kate Malers, citizen commented that it was a beautiful, decorative grill, which would deter people from breaking in. She added that they should not worry so much about precedents for the future, but rather to plan for today. Mr. Thorburn commented that historically banks and post offices have used bars. Mr. Frick moved approval of the window security as proposed with it installed approximately two inches behind the window, to match the arch of the signage and with the top of finials to be at the same height as the top of the sign. Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed (5-2). (Yeas: Hogestad, Frick, Tanner, Milewski, Pouppirt) (Nays: Short, Carpenter) 629 West Mountain Avenue Shenk houseConceptual review of Addition to House (Susan Rogers and David Haimson) Mr. Haimson, home owner, brought in two 3-D models of the proposed addition to his house. Ms. Tunner explained that they would rebuild the rear porch, but to the width of the house and attach an addition to it. Mr. Haimson added that currently the porch only had footings and they will be adding one foot to the dimensions. There is also a special tree adjacent to the porch, which they plan to preserve. The new porch would serve as a heated living space, rather than an unheated utility space. The first model was designed to match and echo the cross gable of the original house. The second model was an exact smaller replica of the house. Mr. Haimson said that the interior space would be easier to work with on the first model. It would provide the space to build a loft inside. Ms. Carpenter commented that for both options, Mr. Haimson had done a very good job in keeping with the East Side/West Side Design Standards and Guidelines. She added that she thinks the second model works better, but if that would lose living space that may be an issue. Mr. Haimson added that the second option would also cost more to build. Mr. Hogestad asked about the proposed materials. Mr. Haimson said that he would use shiplap to match the house and narrow clapboard shingles to match the other gables. He added that the porch would be shiplap too. The LPC discussed another option, which was to put a gable on the back. Ms. Carpenter suggested the Design Assistance Program. Mr. Frick suggested a hipped roof on the front and a gable on the back. Mr. Haimson said if they could put a gable on the back, it would improve the living space. Mr. Frick and Mr. Hogestad agreed either was a good design. They did prefer second model with a gable on the back, but said either way would be fine. Mr. Haimson added that a gable on the back would fit both of their needs. Mr. Hogestad asked about the little window on the side and discussed how quirky details, like little windows on the side or back could add character to the structure. Mr. Frick added that they should not use frosted glass on the front elevation. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 6 1304 South College Avenue -The Welscher House, Roof Repair and Interior Work, State Tax Credit, Part 2 - Bob and Patricia Siblerud Ms. Tunner explained that the applicant had been awarded a Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant to re -roof the structure. Ms. Tunner showed before and after slides. Water had leaked through the roof and caused wall and ceiling damage. Additional work was done to the furnace. The Commission had advised the applicant to repair the roof, rather then replace it. The tile was removed, new underlayment was laid and then the tile was put back. Mr. Siblerud said that they got tile from Denver to replace broken ones. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the Welscher House for Part 2, State Tax Credit. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (7-0) DISCUSSION ITEMS: Suite 152 — Proposed Awning Ms. Tunner reported that Suite 152, # 23 Old Town Square proposed a black awning with their logo. She passed around the design plans. The building is a new, in -fill building on the Old Town plaza. The awning was designed to be a canopy. Mr. Frick asked if it entered the public right-of-way. Ms. Tunner said it would come out between the two patio fences, which had already been approved administratively last fall. She added that there was a precedent with the Northern Hotel awning, Suehiro's Restaurant and the old Post Office. OTHER BUSINESS: 518 Peterson Street, Kate Mailers —Window Repair or Replacement as an Amendment to a Previously approved State Tax Credit Part 1 Mr. Frick declared a conflict of interest and stepped out of the discussion. Ms. Maier said that she would like to replace the large window at the front of the house with a double hung Marvin unit, as opposed to a tilt back, which was originally proposed. She. added that she would like to restore the other windows in the house, but is not sure. Ms. Carpenter said that they need a formal proposal of what she intends to do. Ms. Malers said that the front room is already torn up and it would be easy to change out the windows there now. Ms. Tunner said that the front window could be reviewed administratively, but that Ms. Maier needs to come back with proposal for her design on the other windows. OTHER BUSINESS Cont.: Mr. Short said he was moving to Windsor May 18 and will have to resign from the LPC. Mr. Hogestad said that the sign band on Linden's had support guy wires that were Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes April 8, 1998 Page 7 cutting into the sheet metal cornice. They may need to move the anchor higher or change the angle. They may have to make additional holes in the building, or could leave it as is. He added that the cornice is now buckling and staff should call Tommy Short, owner to discuss it. Ms. McWilliams reported that the owner of the local landmark at 510 South Howes has asked to demolish the undesignated garage in the back to build a duplex. She said that Current Planning has concerns about how it fits into the historic character of the neighborhood. The new land use code does address issues of historic compatibility. The LPC Design Sub -Committee requested the opportunity to look at the plans on an advisory basis. Mr. Hogestad, Ms. Carpenter, Mr. Frick and Mr. Pouppirt will form the committee. Ms. Carpenter left the meeting. Approval of Minutes Cont.: Ms. McWilliams explained that the properties at 600 S. Howes and 219 W. Myrtle do meet the criteria for architectural importance, which is why they were required to come to the LPC for a public hearing. She said that she would clarify that in the minutes. The LPC discussed the demolition delay process. Mr. Pouppirt said that he would like to see the Commission get involved earlier in the process. Ms. McWilliams said that staff is currently reviewing the ordinance, and would make recommendations on change to the LPC. The LPC also addressed the issue of more infill duplexes being built in Old Town. They discussed how the City has planned for an increase in the density of Old Town. The meeting adjourned 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary