Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/05/1986Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - The meeting began at 5:32 p.m., at 200 West Mountain Ave. Those members attending were, Wayne Sundberg, Michael Ehler, Dick Beardmore, Sally Ket- cham, Carol Tunner, Holly Richter, and Jennifer Carpenter. Staff was represented by Elaine Kleckner and Barbara Hendrickson. AGENDA REVIEW 113 Linden: Reviewed by Carol Tunner and Elaine Kleckner Issues: Flags which had been approved were in different locations; railing has not been painted as approved in last application. The Glass Diamond: Reviewed by Dick Beardmore and Holly Richter Issues: Line is consistent but height is different. Check with Hermie Lapoint to determine the distance from line to sidewalk. The Doll Cottage: Reviewed by Sally Ketcham and Jennifer Carpenter Issues: Sign placement; colors; number of signs; how sign is attached. Precedent set with using signs to direct businesses located "around the corner". Rumors: Reviewed by Michael Ehler and Wayne Sundberg Issues: Sign coloring; neon tubing/wattage; amount of illumination. 236 Linden Project Ms. Kleckner gave a report on the tax status of this project. She talked with Chris Pfaff, of the State Historical Society, and Ms. Pfaff felt the changes would not jeopardize the tax status or the designation. Ms. Pfaff also stated that staining is not permanent, as it will change in time. Ms. Pfaff would forward the pictures taken by Edwina Echevarria on to the Park Service. 113 LINDEN STREET The applicant was not present at this time. Mr. Ehler asked that the Com- mission go on to the next item. GLASS DIAMOND Hermie Lapoint stated the line would be painted on the exterior and would follow J. Pitner and Haddan Flower Gallery. The single strip is 14" above the mullion and follows around, using the Glass Diamond logo. The logo would be on either side of the door and will be 24" in size. LPC Meeting Minutes vc,) 5 $6 Page 2 i • Mr. Sundberg asked for clarification on the 14". Ms. Lapoint stated the mullion on the frontage is lower than on Pit- ner/Haddan Flower Gallery and this is_ -the reason for raising the line. Mr. Beardmore asked if the front was all glass. Ms. Lapoint stated there are 6 panes of glass separated by the doors. Mr. Sundberg asked if there was anything planned for the doors. Ms. Lapoint stated no, as it is a high impact area and doors may be open often. She also stated the skylight would heat the area, causing the doors to be opened. Ms. Richter felt the stripes should be related and not based on the ulti- mate height of the line. Ms. Lapoint stated the base is less Phan 18", possibly 12" and is below the waist line. Mr. Beardmore motioned to approve the signage for Glass Diamond. Mr. Ehler seconded the notion. Motion passed 7-0. DOLL COTTAGE Hermie Lapoint and Joanne Johannson, the owner, stated the business was located in the storefront area used by EDAW. Hermie noted sign placement was above the large window in two colors of blue, on the door in the using the business logo and between the two win- dows with southwest (Old Town) exposure, using the same blue color scheme. Ms. Tunner asked if the sign coloring is the same as the logo. Ms. Johannson replied yes. Mr. Sundberg asked if the color samples are accurate. Ms. Johannson replied yes. Ms. Lapoint stated the business had been located next to the Greek Connec- tion in the 200 block of South College. Mr. Beardmore asked about the sign construction and whether the awning col- oring is compatible with the coloring in the surrounding area. Ms. Johannson stated the oval sign is flat with raised border and letter- ing and the coloring is compatible. Mr. Beardmore suggested using some of the adjacent business' beige coloring (John's Natural Bread) to prevent the introduction of so many colors. LPC Meeting Minutes i 5 6 . Page 3 Ms. Johannson did not object to using the wheat coloring. Mr. Sundberg noted that guideline-#53 states that "signs should be compa- tible in color with the street as a whole." Mr. Beardmore demonstrated the coloring; background in wheat, matching the color in John's Natural Bread, framed in the chocolate brown and the blue for the logo. Ms. Johannson felt they needed the royal blue to match the awning. Mr. Beardmore suggested the sign on the side could be widen to match the window and lowered to match the transom line. Mr. Ehler asked for the coloring of the oval sign. Ms. Johannson showed the logo and the blue coloring. Mr. Beardmore asked about the signage in the courtyard. Ms. Lapoint stated a sign would be off the EDAW building. Mr. Beardmore asked if a directory was possible, rather than having signs on the buildings. Ms. Tunner felt that by allowing signs directing pedestrians to businesses, the LPC would be setting a precedent, causing signs to be all over Old Town. She wondered if there should be guidelines addressing this need. Ms. Lapoint stated a directory is on the southside of the Plaza and feels it is an asset for the southside tenants. She said the need is there for a northside directory. Ms. Carpenter asked if this was a request for a sign affixed on the build- ing. Ms. Lapoint said yes and added Old Town signs are understated as a rule. Mr. Ehler remarked the sign looked high, but in relation to the building elevation, it isn't. He would like to see it bordered the same as the one on Walnut St. Mr. Beardmore stated the windows are smaller on this building, since it had been office space but 4' is good and the dimensions are fine. He would like to see the trim a bit larger. Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the signage for the Doll Cottage with the following conditions: 1) the sign on Walnut Street be framed and contain proportionate lettering, with the height matching the windows and be aligned with the top of the transom, 2) the coloring (background) be wheat, chocolate brown (trim) and the blue (lettering) used in the adjacent awn- ing, 3) the northwest sign be framed to match the other one (4' x 3'), with LPC Meeting Minutes ri -i S $ b Page 4 0 . those basic colors, 4) the door be one color of blue. Mr. Ehler seconded the motion, with a friendly amendment that the sign be attached to the wall by an anchor joint. Motion passed 7-0. RUMORS Richard White, applicant, stated he had been out of town and was not pleased with the sign that was submitted and presented the new sign to the LPC. Mr. Ehler was concerned about the neon turquoise blue used in the wording "nightclub". Mr. Beardmore asked for construction information. Mr. White stated the sign would be raised away from the building, with translucent face with plum coloring, matching the upper story. He said the neon is behind the sign, creating a halo effect. Ms. Carpenter asked why the Restoration Rose color wasn't used. Mr. Beardmore felt the plum would not be that intense. Mr. Ehler asked the wattage of neon. The applicant did not know. Mr. Beardmore stated 15 mm. neon is not that illuminating and is the same in the signage for Maurizio's and Rio Grande. Mr. Ehler commented that with the height of the sign, it would not be intense. Mr. Beardmore computed that 15' of neon (in the whole sign) x .6 amps is equivalent to about 100 watts. Mr. White stated he did not want "hot" colors in the sign so as not to dis- tract from the business name, Rumors. Mr. Ehler asked that the application be changed and asked that this be the application which is voted on tonight. Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Richter both felt the plum was too intense and would like the Restoration Rose. They suggested a compromise of Wine Berry. Mr. White stated he felt there was no problem with Wine Berry for the "Rumors" sign and June Sky for the "Nightclub" sign. Ms. Ketcham motioned to accept and approve the amended application with the color changes, as submitted tonight. Ms. Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 7-0. LPC Meeting Minutes : uv 8 6 Page 5 • 113 Linden Mark Kiepers representing the applicant, showed the Commission the samples. Mr. Beardmore asked about the -construction of the sign. Mr. Kiepers stated it was engraved brass plating on stained solid pine. He said Craft Trophy and the Rubber Stamp Co. were working on the sign. Mr. Sundberg asked if the brass plate is heavier than the sample, possibly 1/16". Mr. Kiepers said yes, and that it was standard. Mr. Beardmore asked if the sign was to be nailed on the wood. Mr. Kiepers said it would be glued on. Mr. Beardmore asked how high the pilasters were. Mr. Kiepers thought 12" or 13", as the pillar is 1/2" short on each side. Ms. Tunner asked what shops are below this business. Mr. Kiepers replied it was vacant space and Avery Shops (consignment goods). Ms. Richter asked if the oak would be stained to match the existing wood on the building. She also asked if the wood on the sign was pine. Mr. Kiepers thought it might be pine and remarked he was not sure how long the wood on the building would be there. Ms. Ketcham asked whether the other signs in Old Town are this design or if they too are square. Mr. Beardmore thought they were square. Ms. Ketcham asked if the LPC are changing form, as the signs in Old Town are different from the one submitted. Ms. Richter asked why it cannot be the same as the rest of the signs. Mr. Sundberg stated the signage was not part of the whole project in Old Town, but he noted this sign is scalloped and the other signs are square. He said the sign materials are also different in that the others are solid brass and this is brass on wood. Mr. Kiepers asked what was on the other signs. Mr. Beardmore stated some are suite numbers and others denote designation. Mr. Sundberg stated the guidelines provide for variation for different own- LPC Meeting Minutes Page 6 • ki .nl S n. 1J ers. Ms. Tunner felt it should be in keeping with the other signs. Mr. Ehler commented that there are several different designs in this build- ing. Mr. Beardmore asked if the railing painting has been completed. The paint- ing was approved but the work not completed. Mr. Sundberg quoted guideline #53, which states that "sign material should be sympathetic to the building facade material; do any architectural details suggest a location?". Mr. Ehler felt the sign was keeping the same form, except the staining. In viewing the railing, he felt the sign should retain the rectangular shape. Mr. Kiepers stated the white enamel stands out better on the brass. Mr. Ehler asked for the dimensions for placement on the pilasters. Mr. Beardmore scaled the drawings and estimated the sign to be 18" from the railing, approximately 42" high. Mr. Ehler moved to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) Sign design be rectangular (not scalloped) with dimensions as submitted; 2) Wood be green coloring to match approved green of the same property; 3) sign placement be 18" above the railing; and 4) sign be flagged into the mortar joints. Mr. Beardmore seconded the motion with a friendly amendment that the approval be contingent on the railing being painted as approved previously. Approval was passed 7-0. Other Business 236 Linden Project Steve Slezak approached the Commission to receive clear definition on where the project was headed and to get it back in the Commission's favor, in light of the recent transition of Sherry Albertson -Clark. He requested written comments on the actions taken on the October loth special meeting. He also requested a special meeting to discuss recommendations made by the LPC so the work can be completed, otherwise the owner may lose tax rehabil- itation credits for this year. Regarding the parapets, he had potential solutions with respect to the Commission's concerns to gain approve as soon as possible. Ms. Kleckner gave a staff update. She stated at the special meeting the LPC did approve the rebuilding of the dumpster and the reconstruction of the downspout, with conditions; 1) that a brick sample be brought back to the Commission, as staining was mentioned, 2) color chips from the down spout be submitted, 3) staff had talked with Chris Pfaff to check on tax credit information (was discussed earlier in this meeting), 4) and staff LPC Meeting Minutes NN S `fib Page 7 . • notified Jim Reidhead and Mr. Slezak that the LPC could not act without the sample. Mr. Slezak stated it was their intention to stain the brick and have -con- tacted Wolff and Smith in Denver, who is supposed to be experts in this field. He said the technician on the project, is out of town and could not provide a sample of the brick but would give this priority attention. Mr. Slezak said the technician would cbine to Ft. Collins with some of the brick available (same brick used to rebuild the parapet) and attempt to devise a matching brick. When they do achieve a color match, they would like to build a sample wall at the site to enable the LPC to review the brick and see if meets the LPC-s approval, hopefully prior to the 19th. The brick removed from the front parapet, has been used on the front entry and they had tried to utilize the brick from the Reporter -Herald building in Love- land, but it did not match. He feels that they made great strides to use appropriate brick but were not successful. He believes staining is the only alternative and would like to stain what is there rather than tearing it down, replacing it and staining the replacement. Mr. Beardmore asked if Staff could give Mr. Slezak a summary of what Chris Pfaff had said about the tax credits. Ms. Kleckner explained that Ms. Pfaff stated it did not jeopardize the tax credit as there is a definite line between the brick work and what happens down below. The difference in brick (old and new) is evident, but because there is the trim separating them it is not as noticeable. Mr. Beardmore further explained that the difference is in the brick shape as well as the color. Ms. Kleckner thought it would be a glaring inconsistency if not separated by the trim. Mr. Slezak stated the brick is the same width and 1/2" longer. Mr. Beardmore asked about the thickness of the mortar joints. Mr. Slezak stated he could not be sure. Mr. Beardmore asked if it has been re -roofed and flashed. Mr. Slezak stated yes. Ms. Carpenter noted that the comments given by Chris Pfaff included infor- mation regarding the permanence of the staining. She wondered if the LPC could be given a written statement about the permanence. Mr. Slezak felt a statement could be obtained. Mr. Beardmore said his experience with staining brick has shown that the stain will weather. He cited the experience of the company involved with the staining and recommended their work. LPC Meeting Minutes N w i 6 Page 8 • Ms. Carpenter felt that if the LPC could have some indication as to the long term effects of the staining, it would help the Members. Mr. Sundberg asked if a special meeting is warranted. Mr. Beardmore felt a meeting is not needed as they have clarified the tax issue and the LPC could approve a stain sample without a meeting. Ms. Kleckner stated the only way to make approval would be at a public meet- ing and the Sunshine Law requires that all meetings be made public. Mr. Beardmore asked if the LPC had made approval contingent on administra- tive review. Ms. Carpenter stated they had made it contingent on the applicant return- ing with a color sample. Mr. Sundberg read from the minutes .."Ms. Carpenter moved to approve the re -location of the downspout.... with the stipulation that a paint chip be submitted .... brickwork sample be submitted within 60 days of today. He found a problem in the wording in the minutes but did say a sample had to be brought back. Ms. Carpenter asked if the contingency didn't affect the tax credit, would the applicant have a problem with the December 3rd meeting. Mr. Slezak did not feel there was any problem. Ms. Kleckner thought the applicant wanted to go ahead with the work before the meeting. Mr. Slezak wanted to get the work done before the weather prevents it. The owner was concerned about the tax credits, but in light of Ms. Pfaff's com- ments, he sees no problem with the tax deadline. He did want to move on to the remaining work on the restoration. Ms. Kleckner pointed out the work was hinged on whether the staining of the brick was or was not acceptable. Mr. Sundberg stated the work which was approved by the LPC was not done. Mr. Beardmore noted that the applicant was concerned about the tax credit and the remaining work, which are two separate issues, one being resolved by Ms. Pfaff's comments. He should be able to get a certificate of occu- pancy by the end of the year. Ms. Carpenter asked if the LPC did not approve the work by the end of the year what would happen. Mr. Sundberg replied it depends on what the minutes says has to be rebuilt. Ms. Carpenter asked if they would receive final approval from Chris Pfaff. LPC Meeting Minutes tIf" S '$ 6 Page 9 • • Mr. Beardmore thought it did not matter. Ms. Kleckner said there were -two, separate approval processes. Ms. Pfaff may say it was fine with her but the LPC still has to decide whether they want the change to be allowed, as the approved set of plans indicates the brick was to be cleaned and pointed. She stated the LPC needed to make a separate decision on whether the current work is acceptable treatment. Mr. Beardmore stated the applicant could receive a temporary C.O., contin- gent on the LPC's decision. He felt they are not jeopardizing the review by Park Service and review by the Historic Society. Mr. Ehler was not able to attend the last meeting and he asked if the para- pet should be torn down and rebuilt with the brick that will match from the building. He understood from tonight's discussion that it doubtful that matching brick can be located, so the existing brick can be torn down and replaced with stained brick, yet, from the discussion, the existing brick can be stained. He asked if they are not even considering tearing down the brick, unless a suitable matching stain can be approved. Ms. Carpenter asked if they were sure that the brick cannot be found to match and if this was an option. Ms. Kleckner stated that legal staff decided at the October loth meeting that it was an option, because what it done here is different than the approved plan. Mr. Ehler asked if Mr. Beardmore thought that type of brick could be found. Mr. Beardmore stated it is difficult to locate that type of brick. It took them a three of months to locate a couple of pounds of brick used in the Kissock Building and that was found at a yard in Lakewood, which is now out of business. He stated it would take a search to give a definite opinion and in this weather, it is not advisable to tear down the parapet, as it could jeopardize the interior of the building. He felt that even if the stain sample was not approved, the Commission could give the applicant time to search for matching brick without jeopardizing their tax credit. Mr. Slezak asked the consequences if the brick could not be found, as they had done an extensive search. Mr. Sundberg stated the applicant had been given the alternative to find stain for the existing brick. Ms. Carpenter asked if the dimension in brick size was not an issue, could not the applicant locate new brick that matches the existing brick. Mr. Beardmore stated that some brick company will review the existing brick and make a separate set up to construct the brick. He reviewed the exist- ing finish in the existing brick; glazed and wire cut. Mr. Sundberg asked if the LPC had to meet on Dec. 19th to review the pro- LPC Meeting Minutes• (J S g • Page 10 ject, if the tax issue is resolved. Ms. Kleckner told the Commission that a Certificate of Completion issued. The LPC can allow the applicant to occupy portions of the building (tenant), but eventually a letter of completion has to be issued by the Building Department and she questions whether that can be done. The prob- lem the Building Dept. will come across is the plans which show cleaning and repointing of the brick not being in conformity with what was done Mr. Beardmore felt a temporary C.O. can be issued with the condition that work approved by the LPC be completed or they will not sign off, granting a regular C.O. Ms. Carpenter asked if the temporary will take care of the tax credit. Mr. Beardmore stated it had in the past vas used frequently in Old Town. Ms. Kleckner thought it was not a C.O., but an acknowledgment of comple- tion. Mr. Beardmore felt that it must be "substantially complete". Ms. Kleckner stated that there are two separate issuances; C.O.'s for the interior spaces and a letter of completion for the shell. Mr. Beardmore stated that the contract between the applicant and Amshel, expressing fulfillment, is the document used as evidence. Ms. Carpenter asked if the LPC was so adverse to a special meeting so as not to jeopardize the tax credit. She also indicated that the meeting could be limited to this one item. Mr. Ehler asked if it could be limited if it is a public meeting. Ms. Kleckner stated it could be limited to this one item, but do to the nature of this project, all review procedures should be followed. Mr. Sundberg asked if the Commission could come down to the site to review the work. Mr. Slezak thought it would be more informative if the meeting could be held on -site. Ms. Kleckner stated an on -site meeting would be acceptable as long as it is advertised to the public as an on -site meeting and the location given. Ms. Ketcham stated that before they approve the stain that the LPC be given the formula of the brick color, in case the stain fades. Mr. Sundberg called for an on -site meeting for November 19th, at 4 p.m. at 236 Linden Street. LPC Meeting Minutes r N Page 11 • • Mr. Ehler asked when the sample wall could be completed. Mr. Slezak estimated the technician could prepare a sample in 1-2 days prior to the meeting. Ms. Ketcham asked if they can provide a paint chip from the downspout. Mr. Slezak said he was more concerned with the brick but would provide samples. Laurel Street School Ms. Kleckner stated the applicant had come in with plans to re -roof, but have decided to re -caulk some of the roofing. Because it was thought the work to be interior, the applicant did not need to come before the Commis- sion. She stated the guidelines address re -roofing, but this application would be interior. She stated that the re -roofing would come before the Commission. Mr. Beardmore stated that any exterior work and because it is in a dis- trict, it would be under the LPC purview, even if it didn't require a building permit. He also the mentioned the work being done on the Box Elder School cabin at the Museum and asked if the LPC had seen the applica- tion. He also stated there is more work being planned and felt a letter should be sent to the Museum. Mr. Sundberg wondered if the letter should come from some authority, as they did not get a response from their last contact to inform the Museum of the review process. Ms. Kleckner thought they could send a letter to Brian at the Museum and carbon copy letters to those who need to see it, such as the City Manager and Cultural Resources. Ms. Kleckner said she expected to see before the LPC the post office drop box at the EDAW building, signage for the Comedy Works, Rio Grande Restau- rant and the church next door. Ms. Kleckner asked what the Commission expected in terms of Staff presenta- tions and if they would like a Staff recommendation on each item. Mr. Ehler would appreciate the Staff giving a review but not a recommend- ation. Ms. Carpenter felt that if Staff found any glaring problems, that she would appreciate Staff input. Mr. Beardmore felt Staff should screen applications for major/legal prob- lems. Ms. Kleckner asked if it would be helpful if they a Staff report, directed LPC Meeting Minutes k, v S 86 Page 12 • • the Commission to pertinent guidelines. Ms. Ketcham said it would be appreciated. Mr. Sundberg wanted to allow the LPC members the opportunity to recommend motions. Ms. Kleckner asked if the Commission desired her to give a presentation regarding signage, materials, colors and location. Ms. Carpenter stated yes, as Staff has more information than the Commis- sion. Mr. Beardmore asked about the Christmas Dinner. Ms. Kleckner said she would have the information at the 19th meeting. Mr. Sundberg asked that the minutes on page #4 be reviewed and edited. Mr. Beardmore told the LPC that there will be a meeting of the Colorado Preservation, Inc., on Dec. 6th in Longmont (he will give location later) from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. He said the annual meeting will be in June and they are picking location site. He said one of presentations at the 6th meeting will be on Rural Conservation in the Midwest. He suggested that City Hall could be the annual meeting site. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m.