No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/23/1987J • ! LANLMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 23, 1987 This meeting was held in the Engineering Conference Roan, at New City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave. Those members attending were Michael Ehler, Jennifer Car- penter, Sally Ketcham, Carol Tunner, and Holly Richter. Staff was repre- sented by Edwina Echevarria, Barbara Hendrickson, and Mike Davis, Director of Development Services. Mr. Ehler called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m., and asked why a special meeting had been called. Mr. Davis replied that the applicant had been advised, in February, that the original application was not complete and to bring it back. He felt there had been a communication breakdown between staff and the applicant. The applicant had appeared before Council on Tuesday, April 22, 1987, to indicate that they were faced with extreme hardship and asked Council for help. He stated he advised Council that the appeals process does not begin until the LPC has made a decision, which it had not. The Mayor asked if this problem could be worked out, resulting in the LPC visiting the site and meeting to render a decision. Mr. Ehler asked if the application was now ccuplete. Ms. Echevarria felt it was complete at this time. Mr. Ehler asked if the applicant had any comments or if she would _like to do a presentation. Janet Dob, the applicant, stated she had already done a presentation at the February meeting and that the request was to erect an awning. Ms. Tunner cited Guideline #13 which states, "a maximum of three colors is best for most facades, except where more colors are used in small amounts for trim" and this application is in compliance. She noted the red color which was not part of the original application in February. She understood that the yellow on the building. did not quite match the other yellow and the awning would be mounted right up against the yellow strip. She thought the awning would be attractive as it is, if the yellow strip was painted out to green so it wouldn't be up against the other yellow stripe. Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Sundberg and himself noted the awning two doors down and if the awning were below the yellow strip, it would not be equal. If the awning were above the yellow strip, it would put them at the same height, therefore there wouldn't be a need to change the yellow. Ms. Carpenter asked about the existing hardware for mounting the sign. Ms. Dobb stated that Chuck Peterson has to put new hardware on the build- ing. LPC Special Meeting - Agnes' Very Very . April 23, 1987 Page 2 Ms. Richter stated the only other guideline that pertains to this would be Guideline #14, which states, "background and accent colors should be con- sistent within separate building or where a number of buildings are attached or where unity is being desired. This may set the tone for the attached buildings, as they have not be renovated. Ms. Carpenter stated this guideline speaks to the building as a whole as well as the site. She feels they are adding another major color (blue) and thought deleting of the red in the awning had been discussed. Mr. Davis stated yes. Ms. Dob stated that they added the red for accent. After reading the guidelines, she noted it was a primary color, it is used for trim and there are other colors of red on the block. This is why they introduced a 6" strip of red. Ms. Echevarria stated the requested dimensions are 6" strip and 6" in between each strip. Ms. Carpenter assumed the strips to be smaller in width when they were out in the field. Mr. Davis stated the stripe around the sign is about 3" and he thought the Commission found it too narrow. The applicants wanted a more bold line. Ms. Thinner stated Antiques Affinity, down the street, has a 4" and the 3" might be too small and the 6" proposed strip might be too wide. Ms. Ketcham asked if the blinds and the cow would be taken down, now that awnings will be erected. Ms. Dob stated she was not sure about the cow, as it was a portable and could be unhooked. Mr. Ehler stated the matter of concern was the introduction of the third color (red). He understood that there would be no repainting and the only item is the awning, which will obscure the yellow. The trim color and the width of the bands are of concern. Ms. Richter said the applicant is actually introducing two new colors, red and the blue. Ms. Carpenter stated the coloring is green, then yellow with a green stripe on top. Mr. Ehler thought this would be covered by the awning. Ms. Ketcham asked if the coloring was 6" yellow, 6" blue, 6" red, 6" blue, and 6" green. Ms. Dob answered yes. She said the stripes are centered over the two win- dows. LPC Special Meeting nes' Very Very • April 23, 1987 Page 3 Ms. Tunner moved to approve the awnings with the stipulation that they be mounted above the yellow stripe. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Ms. Tunner had concern about the 6" stripe but feels there is not much dif- ference between the 4" and 6" stripe. Ms. Ketcham noted that the awning would read differently if the size of the bands varied (6", 4", 6", 4"). Ms. Dob stated that Mr. Peterson thought it would read better than with a varied distance between the bands. Mr. Ehler asked the applicant about the side of the awning. Ms. Dob stated there was a 9" valance. Mr. Ehler asked the dimension of the awning projection. Ms. Dob stated it was 4' . The stripes continue down the valance with a traditional scallop. Ms. Carpenter objects to the introduction of the bright blue and red, espe- cially now that they are 6" stripes. She felt there are too many colors. Ms. Richter pointed out Guideline #14, and the fact that this sets the theme for the attached buildings and the entire block. Ms. Carpenter stated that because the other buildings are not renovated, it may not seem important now, but when the Linden Hotel is renovated, she believes the whole block will change and then LPC will be forced to make decisions dependent on today's decision. Ms. Dob felt that when the Linden Hotel is renovated, the awning will be worn out and have to be replaced. She noted that they are 3/4 block away from the Linden Hotel. She asked about the Northern Hotel and it's effect and on the other side of their building, they have run down bars. She feels any renovation they attempt is making an improvement on the block. Ms. Tunner noted the building is a neutral grey color and needs the color- ing to attract attention. She stated does not feel it has that great of an effect. Ms. Ketcham added that the interior needs protection from the sun. She said that they can't do anything about who has money to do anything to the .,Northern Hotel. She understood that the material has been ordered already. Ms. Dob answered yes. Ms. Tunner pointed out these are primary colors. Ms. Carpenter said she had a problem with the red and wished there was a way to go with green, yellow, green, as it is a different look with all LPC Special Meeting Agnes' Very Very ' April 23, 1987 - Page 4 • these almost "carnival" colors. She thought the green and yellow pulls it into the rest of the building. Ms. Ketcham said the business needed the attraction. Ms. Dob hopes that the red will blend with the brick and catch the eye of potential custaners on College Ave. Ms. Richter appreciated the applicant's concern, but pointed out that if the LPC extends this color theme to all of the attached buildings, how it would look. Mr. Ehler thought the Commission was re -designing the application. Ms. Ketcham pointed out that the adjacent building owners might pick up the color theme. Ms. Carpenter asked if that was possible. Ms. Dob thought that if the business persons were smart, they would not want that to happen. She thought they would want customers to treat each building as a separate entity. Ms. Richter said that then they get into the lack of theme, which the LPC is promoting. Mr. Ehler sees both sides of the argument. In his opinion, he thinks LPC has a real concern for Guideline #14. He did not see where this was con- sistent within the separate buildings or that LPC is trying to make any type of unity. He thought the LPC had raised sane valid arguments, such as an attractive design and economics. He concluded by stating that he sup- ports the application. The vote was passed 3-2, with Ms. Richter and Ms. Carpenter voting no. A vote, by proxy, from Mr. Sundberg was for approval.