No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 04/01/1987MEETING 1 1 >. April The meeting began at approximately 5:32 p.m., at 200 West Mountain. Those members attending were Michael Ehler, Jennifer Carpenter, Holly Richter, Carol Tunner, Sally Ketcham, and Dick Beardmore. Staff was represented by Edwina Echevarria and Barbara Hendrickson. Mr. Ehler stated that at the last meeting, the LPC had discussed changing the format for the meetings, which he reviewed: 1. Staff Review 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Public Input/Comments 4. Board Discussion and Vote Agenda Review Old Town Craft Shop, #5 Old Town Square, Suite 110 - reviewed by Michael Ehler and Sally Ketcham. ISSUES/COMMENTS: Vinyl lettering to be used on exterior of window; Shop spelling changed; dimensions not addressed. Skorpio's, 146 N. College - reviewed by Holly Richter and Jennifer Carpen- ter. ISSUES/CCMMIENTS: What is to be painted; number of colors on the building; more specifications on mortar mix and color sample submittal. Explicitory Image, 223 Linden Street - reviewed by Wayne Sundberg and Carol Tunner. ISSUES/COMMENTS: Existing sign had not ever received approval by LPC; new sign needs dimension clarification; window displays that are publicly visi- ble should be included in design guidelines discussion. r****er*r********:x**t►** End of Agenda Review Margaret Baker, the applicant, stated they wanted to use gold vinyl let- tering for both windows on either side of door (window size is 5'6"). She wants to get sign high enough as to not interfere with window display and low enough as to not be covered by awning. Mr. Ehler said LPC needed clarification as to the height above sill and width and depth of the sign itself. Ms. Baker said the sign is approximately 14" down from the top. She said the drawing may be to scale but wasn't sure. Mr. Beardmore asked if she knew the size of the sign and width of the let- tering. LPC Meeting Minutes April 1, 1987 . Page 2 or Ms. Richter felt that if the drawing was to scale, then they could measure and decide the dimensions. Ms. Carpenter asked who is putting up the sign. Ms. Baker stated a retired teacher who helps around the shop. Ms. Ketcham stated it looked to be 16" on either side. Ms. Richter asked if the sign was to be centered, as it was 1" on one side and 1 1/4" on the other. Ms. Baker replied yes. Mr. Beardmore stated the dimensions appeared to be 14" deep, 3'4" across (wide) and 12" from top of sign to bottom, with the centering. Mr. Ehler asked if these additions to the application were acceptable. Ms. Baker replied yes, and that she would like a copy of them to give to the person putting up the sign. Ms. Richter felt they could give her a copy of that information this eve- ning. Ms. Carpenter asked if the vinyl lettering were to be specifically used on the exterior of the window. Ms. Baker answered yes and added they were the same type used on Chocolate Wishes' window. She said the directions on the package stated they were to be used on the exterior. Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the application as presented, with Ms. Richter's dimensional additions. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. SKORPZO'S Dave Phillips, representing the applicant, stated they would be painting the trim around the windows and (canopy) doors Ps seen in the drawing. He would like to rejuvenate the outside grout lines, etc. He stated there was damage done where old signs had been placed and would like to fill the holes. Mr. Ehler asked if he intended to repair the whole facade. Mr. Phillips stated no, not the entire facade but just on the top where the flagstone is eroded. Mr. Beardmore stated a problem LPC has had with tuckpointing is that depending on the date of the building, the mortar is much different. The LPC needs more specifications on mortar mix and color, so it matches with LPC Meeting Minutes �pril 1, 1987 • Page 3 existing material. LPC would need a sample of the mortar mix and color and would like to review a test sample as they have done with other buildings. The older mortar has more lime in it and is soft and introducing hard mor- tar could do damage to the softer brick and stone. He said the building does need tuckpointing especially the parapet, as you can see daylight between the tuckpointing. Mr. Phillips was confused as to what he was to do. Mr. Beardmore said that if he knew the mason who'll be doing the job, have him submit the mortar mix and the color sample to Edwina and in the mean- time, do a test patch on the building. Mr. Phillips asked if the LPC wanted him to do a test patch and take a pic- ture of it for submittal. Mr. Beardmore stated the LPC could review the test patch on the site. Mr. Phillips asked what was meant by "mortar mix". Mr. Beardmore replied they need the actual mix ratio. Mr. Ehler stated the LPC needed a sample to be documented. Mr. Beardmore stated that 2 or 3 masons did masonry in Old Town wham he could contact to get mixture ratio. Mr. Ehler asked the Commission if this application should be two -fold, one for painting and another for repairs. Mr. Beardmore felt conditions could made on the motion regarding tuckpoint- ing, painting and repair work. Ms. Carpenter asked Mr. Phillips if he intended to fill in the holes. Mr. Phillips answered yes, especially around the front door on the columns. He stated the front had been sandblasted sometime in the past and where the holes are located, they found lead anchors. He would like to get mortar to match and fill it over. Mr. Beardmore stated the building had mortar mesh at one time, which was pulled off and sandblasted. Ms. Tunner asked if he was going to try and remove the paint splatters from the stone. Mr. Phillips said there were a few spots and they'd like to get it cleaned up. Ms. Tunner asked about the method of cleaning. Mr. Phillips stated these small areas of paint could be removed by a putty LPC Meeting Minutes �pril 1, 1987 • Page 4 knife. Ms. Richter felt the white should be left white and the green areas painted burgundy. She felt the white in the trim plays off the white in the canopy lettering. Ms. Carpenter asked if the applicant was proposing to paint the jam. Mr. Phillips stated he would be painting all woodwork. Ms. Carpenter asked if the only green area is the. sash of the window. Mr. Phillips replied yes. Mr. Ehler asked if the wood covered by the canopy will be painted. Mr. Phillips answered yes, but that they weren't really concerned about it. He stated they put up plywood to cover the old air conditioner area. Ms. Tuner asked if they intended to paint the plywood burgundy. Mr. Phillips stated it was behind the canopy and had no definite plans, since it was not seen. Ms. Tuner asked if there was no green painting around the stained glass. Mr. Phillips replied no. Ms. Richter stated that all that needed to be painted burgundy is the green areas. She felt the white to be complimentary and the burgundy too dark of a color to paint all the trim. Mr. Ehler asked if all the sashes on the two windows are green now, as the drawing shows white. Mr. Phillips said the window itself is green and the trim on outside is white. Ms. Tuner asked if it is actually white or is it off-white. Mr. Phillips stated yes, probably an almond color. Ms. Carpenter stated she would like the white to remain but feels that is subjective. Mr. Phillips said one of the owners had said that it looks green right now but that was because of the amount of burgundy in the stained glass. Ms. Tunner said the more burgundy that they can get in the front, the more eye-catching it will be, as the building color is fairly neutral in color. Mr. Beardmore felt the darker color might pick up on the shape of the arch LPC Meeting Minutes �ril 1, 1987 • Page 5 of the door better. Ms. Turner stated the building owner is concerned with the paint on the stone and it will be worked carefully to insure it will be done properly. She spoke with the owner and he felt strongly about this. Mr. Ehler asked if LPC could consider this application with conditions. Ms. Carpenter asked if a separate or joint vote, will the applicant cane back next month with specifications before they can continue with tuck - pointing. Mr. Beardmore answered yes, as it gives them time to do sample testing on their own. Ms. Tanner asked if they could still do the painting. Mr. Beardmore replied yes. Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the application as presented with the condi- tion that tuckpointing and repair of the masonry be subject to submittal of mortar mix and test patch on the building and that the work be approved for final at the next board meeting. Mr. Phillips stated that he had a problem if he puts the test patch on the building and the LPC doesn't like it. Mr. Beardmore told the applicant that all he needed to do is a very small sample (1' by l') and not the whole building, and it would be subject to LPC approval next month. Ms. Tanner pointed out that the applicant would not want to do the whole building without knowing how it will look. Mr. Phillips asked if he does a test patch and the LPC doesn't like it, does he just cover it with another. He also asked if they want the actual color to review. Mr. Beardmore stated they need the actual color, as well as, the actual mortar mix, so they can judge the strength and prevent any damage a strong mixture might do to the stone. Ms. Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Matt Charbonneau, Charbonneau Signs, showed a photo of an interior sign that he did for the owner of the shop. He said it was not approved and no sign permits were ever taken, as the owner was not aware that he needed approval and a sign permit. He said the sign will be the black and gold on glass without the blue. LPC Meeting Minutes �pril 1, 1987 • Page 6 Mr. Ehler asked if that was the same lettering he would use in the new sign. Mr. Charbonneau stated the lettering is the same but wants to cut the size of the sign in half and put it all on one line rather than keeping it as large as it currently is. The owner is flexible to size change but would like to keep it as large as possible and with his sign allowance, he could do that. The letters that are below CUSTOM JEWELRY REPAIRS AND GEMSTONES are not shadowed in black and are in the helvetica style print. He said that when the old sign was done, 3 of the letters were done in silver and the rest were in gold and they would like to replace them, so they would all match. Ms. Tunner asked if it was exterior lettering. Mr. Charbonneau answered yes, they are vinyl letters made by 3-M and are the same as Mary Kerbel's. Mr. Beardmore asked what the dimensions of EXPLICITORY IMAGE were. Mr. Charbonneau stated the owner wanted it as large as possible but is very flexible. Mr. Beardmore was confused as to the application and which sign is going to be used. Mr. Charbonneau stated he was asking for approval for the sign submitted. Ms. Tunner asked if the sign was within sign limits. Mr. Beardmore stated yes, the requirement being 2 s.f. per running foot. Ms. Carpenter stated the sign looked high. Mr. Charbonneau stated he did not put a dimension on the top since he did not know where the LPC wanted him to put the sign. Ms. Carpenter asked if this was where he wante0 the sign. Mr. Charbonneau answered yes. Mr. Ehler asked if he could give an approximation of how far from the top it is. Mr. Charbonneau stated 14" to 16" from top of glass. Mr. Ehler reminded the applicant that the LPC requires dimensions on appli- cations. Ms. Tunner felt the owner must have display space underneath the sign and she likes the space between the title and the lettering. LPC Meeting Minutes �pril 1, 1987 • Page 7 Mr. Charbonneau thought the smaller lettering looked better and feels the whole block should be gold lettering (Shelby Art is wood sign). The words CUSTOM JEWELRY would has no shadowing and the remaining sign would be sha- dowed. Ms. Tunner moved to approve the sign for Explicitory Image as submitted with 14" to 16" estimate dimensions from top and changing 3 silver letter to gold in lower CUSTOM JEWELRY AND GEMSTONES. Mr. Beardmore seconded the motion. Ms. Carpenter asked for clarification of the 3 silver letters. Ms. Tunner stated the 3 letters were in silver and would be done in gold to match and shadowing would be on EXPLICITORY IMBi'E lettering only top with 8 1/2" letters. Motion passed 6-0. Other Business Ms. Echevarria said that she had received no suggested changes from the Commission members of the "Design Guidelines" and if any of the members would like to discuss their ideas, it could be done tonight. Mr. Ehler felt that it would be nice to have the suggestions prior to the meeting for review. Mr. Beardmore had some ideas: 1. Demolition by neglect - might have to work into an ordinance. He cited the Linden and Northern Hotels. He would try and get some information and ordinances to discuss this with. Mr. Ehler asked about situations when LPC gives approval for exploratory demolition and time passes and nothing is done i.e., Linden Hotel. Mr. Beardmore also cited the pawn shop, which had minor exploratory and is still not finished. Mr. Ehler asked if the LPC has the power to set time limits on exploration work. Mr. Beardmore thought the demo permit may have a limit. Ms. Tunner thought that if they exceed the time limit, they might be made to board up the building properly to protect the building. Mr. Beardmore talked to the National Alliance Commission about an ordinance which allow them to review that which is seen from the public ROW, such as curtains, walls, signs, etc. Ms. Richter asked if this was brought up before and asked how far the LPC LPC Meeting Minutes �ril 1, 1987 • Page 8 could go in this type of review. Ms. Turner thought the LPC had no jurisdiction over the interiors. Mr. Beardmore said the Comedy Works has a hallway which is visible through the window and there is an office near Cafe Francais which allows a view of the desk. Ms. Tanner asked how long paper signs are allowed. Mr. Beardmore said 30 days, but the owner can take it down and then put it back up for another 30 days. He thought these might be legal issues. Ms. Echevarria said the sign code people don't have enforcement over issues the LPC would like to enforce like the window on Widdow's store which is painted and the "temporary" displays on Walnut Street. Ms. Carpenter asked if Widdows has been there 30 days. Ms. Echevarria said she believes the painted sign has been there for years but may change. She said Joe Coca's sign is not enforceable as it is smaller than 2 square feet. She wondered who enforces LPC codes. Ms. Carpenter asked if there were no mechanisms for violations. Ms. Echevarria thought violations would be enforced only if someone were assigned that responsibility. Mr. Beardmore pointed out the applicant can't get building permit unless approved by LPC first. Mr. Ehler said the only enforcement is sign violation and that any type of sign could be put up if under 2 square feet. Mr. Beardmore stated that the LPC ordinances would supersede this but whether they could enforce decisions is a legal issue. Mr. Ehler asked if there was no one in the City who would enforce what LPC does. Ms. Echevarria stated no. She said that Sherry Clark did try to persuade someone to check on this. Ms. Carpenter stated they are required by law to comply with LPC decisions and that maybe the LPC could contact their Council liaison, as well as a representative from Building Inspection to check on enforcement. Ms. Echevarria stated that this came up during an LPC meeting with legal staff, Steve Roy, and the representative from Bldg. Inspection said they would not enforce LPC decisions, other than violations that fall under the City sign code. LPC Meeting Minutes �pril 1, 1987 . Page 9 Mr. Beardmore stated the violations in Old Town refer to Section 123 of the City Charter, which says the ordinances must be enforced. Ms. Carpenter said a violations board should be set up to enforce deci- sions. Mr. Beardmore pointed out that P & Z doesn't have any jurisdiction over projects after approval and that Building Inspection takes over. He said the LPC is a lay Board and enforcement must be done by a public authority. Mr. Ehler thought the place to start is in the Legal Dept. of the City. Ms. Echevarria noted the items she could give to legal staff for response: 1) Enforcement, 2) Demolition, and 3) Jurisdiction over interior areas vis- ible to the public ROW. Ms. Echevarria went through the list of violations and noted the ones resolved, in the process of zoning inspection and unresolved. Added to the list is Chow's Garden and the paper signage around Old Town. The Commis- sion thought a letter to Mr. Chow or the Chairman of the LPC speaking to Mr. Chow would help. Ms. Carpenter asked if the LPC could assign an approved application to each member to check on, citing any violations, etc. Mr. Beardmore felt the approval and enforcement should be kept separate. He said that they would be doing what they are doing tonight - checking viola- tions and that when a full-time Staff member comes on, that person can be the liaison between the LPC and the applicant. Mr. Ehler thought the format for tonight's meeting a better procedure and asked if a podium had been found, as he feels separation of LPC and the applicant would add more formality to the meeting. Ms. Carpenter stated she liked the format also, as they don't re -design the application as much. She noted the P & Z agenda states, "the P & Z is the final authority on the following items", and she feels it might help appli- cants to realize the LPC's authority. Mr. Ehler thought a placque on the easel, as is on the wall by the CIC Roan in City Hall, might benefit them. Ms. Carpenter thought the agenda with the format listing the participants at that time and the action. Ms. Echevarria suggested writing the night's agenda on the easel for the audience's convenience. Ms. Hendrickson suggested using the easel to keep the basic format visible to the audience, including the procedure for participation. Ms. Ketcham thought the easel idea would keep the audience comfortable, as they would know the procedure. • LPC Meeting Minutes Op 1, 1987 Page 10 Ms. Carpenter suggested that the LPC members speak louder when making a final decisions, so the applicant is aware of the action. Ms. Echevarria would like to give the applicant their approved application, with any conditions, etc., to the applicant that night. This would keep clear the LPL's actions and what.the applicant understands. Ms. Richter told the Commission that she will be leaving to take a job in Vickinsburg, Arizona as a Preserve Manager for the Nature Conservancy. She said she would be at the May meeting. Ms. Echevarria told the Commission that just prior to tonight's meeting, the Cultural Resources Board net with the City offices of Light and Power, Planning, and representatives from the Power Plant Center for the Visual Arts, to discuss possible local historic designation of the old Power Plant. Mr. Beardmore was there as representative from LPC. After discussing the designation of the Power Plant, it was decided to let the individual groups discuss the matter and meet again in May to discuss further. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:35.