Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/01/1986Landmark Preservation Commission October 1, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Those Members present were; Jennifer Carpenter, Michaeal Ehler, Sally Ketcham, Wayne Sundberg, Holly Richter, Dick Beardmore and Carol Tunner. Staff was represented by Edwina Echevarria and Barbara Hendrickson. Legal Staff was represented by Kathy Allin. Mr. Sundberg opened the Agenda Review items to discussion. Black's Glass was reviewed by Mr. Ehler and Ms. Tunner. Mr. Ehler felt the sign size and placement was fine but that the color was not consistent with the neighborhood. He understood the need to draw attention and gain visi— bility but felt the color would be a distraction. Ms. Tunner also felt the color unattractive and distracting. She noted the color chip submitted was not similar to coloring in the sign Mr. Dean had brought. Mr. Beardmore voiced concern with the color and the placement. He felt the elevations might allow the sign to be on a single line and centered over the window. Ms. Carpenter concurred. Mr. Dean showed his sign and stated that due to the nature of the building and the placement of the trees, a single sign would not be appropriate. He passed photos showing the trees and proposed sign area. Old Town Square was reviewed by Ms. Richter and Mr. Sundberg. Ms. Richter stated old application was 3" lettering and was not sure about the current lettering size. She also was concerned that the letter stated Suites 1 and 5 would be on the transom but on the site plan that was not indicated. Old Town Craft Shoppe was reviewed by Ms. Ketcham and Mr. Sundberg. They stated the sign was not up and Ms. Echevarria said she thought the sign itself would be a good example. Sally stated that she talked with the own— ers and said the sign was only temporary and asked what time length a tem— porary sign had. The Commission thought that 6 months was temporary. Ms. Tunner asked if the LPC had any purview over what the shop is called. Mr. Beardmore stated they only had purview over the signage. Ms. Ketcham stated she wouldn't approve the current signage if it was a permanent sign. Mr. Beardmore felt they should check sign code for temporary and permanent signs. Ms. Eschevarria stated that the maximum time for a temporary sign was 30 days. Mr. Sundberg asked if there were any guidelines for the colonial word "shoppe" on a Victorian building. Mr. Ehler summarized the feeling that the spelling of "shoppe" was not acceptable. Linden Street Exchange, Inc. (Cozmos) was reviewed by Mr. Beardmore and Ms. Carpenter. Ms. Eschevarria told the LPC she had informed the applicant tonight's meet- ing was conceptual only and when he brought the drawings in, he felt approval would take one meeting. Mr. Beardmore said the applicant would need a building permit and an encroachment premit. He wanted to make it clear to the applicant that tonight was conceptual review. Ms. Eschevarria stated the applicant had a building permit for the inte- rior. Mr. Beardmore said the Commission had many concerns when Electric Stampede _ came before them for sign and renovation approval. He stated the guidelines must be adhered to in respect to the surrounding renovations. He felt the block had charged considerably since the Electric Stampede was granted approval and, from the new drawings, he couldn't tell what was there and what was proposed. Ms. Eschevarria showed the Commission the front elevations and clarified the sign location. Review Agenda was closed. Mr. Dick Anderson, representing the applicant for 236 Linden Street pro- ject, thought he was scheduled to appear before the LPC. Ms. Eschevarria said she had sent him a letter at his address concerning his letter and suggested he appear at the November 5 meeting. Mr. Sundberg noted the addition to the agenda of Victoria Hilton's request for speakers and clamps. The first agenda item was, Black's Glass, represented by Richard Dean. Mr. Dean said the sign would be 54" high and 99" long. Their intent is to draw attention to the sign. He said on the Jefferson side they are allowed 220 square feet and on the Linden side 165 square feet. The sign will line up with the jam on one side and the second mullion on the other side. He stated the yellow and black have been the company colors for 75 years and would not like to change colors. -2- Mr. Sundberg stated the color chip is sunshine yellow and does not match the sign. Mr. Dean agreed the color chips were not similar, but it was the closest matching example he could find without custom matching it. He stated the aluminum frame would match the signage below. The location was chosen as visibility was blocked by the trees and the company wants to get the atten- tion of busy Jefferson Street. Ms. Richter asked if they could reverse the coloring (yellow lettering on black background), lessening the amount of yellow color showing. Ms. Carpenter felt any type of signage would stand out on that large white building. Mr. Beardmore noted that there is simple lettering on the building across the street and pointed out that a photo from an oblique view shows the trees not blocking the second story. He said the LPC has had problems with trees blocking signage, especially on Mountain which has even larger trees. He asked the applicant if there was a problem with the sign being on one line and centered between the windows so it's balanced a little more. Mr. Dean felt the trees would block the view, especially coming down Linden from Old Town Square. Mr. Sundberg told the applicant that there is a motion to deny and the sign would need changes and he stated a compromise would be a linear sign. Ms. Richter stated she felt that if the colors were reversed and the sign was horizontal, it would be more suitable. Mr. Beardmore thought that much black might create a mirror effect. He asked if they could go with the same white anodized that was approved last month. Mr. Sundberg asked if there was a reason the sign he had brought could not be used. Mr. Dean stated it was too small for that area. Mr. Ehler thought if the sign band was placed at the corners of the exist- ing windows, not centered but above each window (as shown on the appli- cant's photo), it would be fine. Mr. Beardmore moved for denial of the application as presented. Ms. Car- penter seconded the motion. The motion to deny was passed 6-1, with Mr. Sundberg voting no. Ms. Tunner pointed out Section 3, in the Design Guidelines, #51, states signs should be similar to others on the block where feasible. Guideline #54 makes the suggestion that the location of the sign should follow the long lines of the building. She felt the sign band more in keeping with the shape and configuration and would make the sign more visible. She noted -3- the chip was not the sign color but was more comfortable with the sign col- oring and lettering. She felt the applicant could work with the sign, plac- ing it more towards the corners for more visibility. Mr. Sundberg asked the applicant if there was a problem with a sign band. Mr. Dean thought there would still be a problem with the trees blocking the sign. Mr. Beardmore stated that trees along the front of buildings was not unique this building. Ms. Richter asked if they would be allowed to approve with conditions, instead of making him wait and return a month later. Mr. Sundberg answered yes, they could attach provisions on the motion. The applicant was shown the sketch done by Mr. Beardmore to illustrate the possible location of a sign band. Ms. Richter and Ms. Carpenter felt the colors of the sign weren't compa- tible with the rest of the area. Mr. Ehler pointed out that additional signage could be done in the sind Mr. Dean asked if he were to return with the same type of signage, would it be turned down and if so, he would submit with the band sign. Ms. Richter felt he could work with the windows. Mr. Dean felt the trees would be blocking the window area. Mr. Beardmore pointed out on the photos, that the windows would not be blocked and felt the applicant was more oriented towards cars than people. Mr. Dean stated that a large majority of his business was auto glass. Ms. Ketcham asked if his customers were drop -ins or people who look him up in the phone book for the location. Mr. Dean thought the majority were customers that they have had for years yet do get a large number of first time customers. Ms. Tunner thought that most people will recognize the location, as it is only across the street. Mr. Sundberg explained to the applicant that there was a motion and second to deny the application and he.needs to work more on linear signage. Mr. Dean felt the trees to be the main issue for limiting the type of sign. Mr. Sundberg asked what type of trees are in front of the business. -4 - Mr. Dean replied lindens. Ms. Richter pointed out that this tree won't get tall or canopy. Mr. Sundberg brought the motion for denial to a vote. Motion to deny passed 6-1, with Mr. Sundberg voting no. Mr. Dean asked if anything other than a band sign will be acceptable. The Company prefers a band sign. Ms. Richter felt the procedure, if the application was denied, wasn't made clear to the applicant. Mr. Dean stated he wished he knew the procedure, as he has a business to run and needs to put the sign up now. Ms. Ketcham asked if they could make another motion to reconsider. Mr. Sundberg moved to reconsider the application. There was no second. Mr. Beardmore felt the LPC needed more information and specific dimensions or, the redesigned sign. He suggested the Commission go on to the next item, letting the applicant rework the application and have a response from him and make a motion from it. The Commission felt this was acceptable. The next item, Old Town Square, was represented by Hermie La Point. Mr. Beardmore refrained from voting. Ms. Richter stated that in the letter from Ms. La Point, it stated they were going from the glass in buildings 1 and 5, to the transom for the letter- ing. Under the location areas on the next page, it shows only building #1 on the transom. Ms. La Point stated she didn't change many and noted that suite 108 is also changed. Ms. Carpenter asked if building #1 lettering is on the transom. Ms. La Point said that it's actually buildings #3 and #5 instead of #1. Mr. Sundberg asked Ms. LaPoint to explain placement. Ms. La Point stated that in couple of locations, since the word "suite" was reduced in size from 3" to 1" lettering, that it would be better configura- tion to put them on top of each other rather than have a linear configura- tion. Approval last time was for linear and not stacked and that's where primary placement change takes place. A couple of places with existing sig- nage dictates a linear fashion and those are scarce. One multiple stacking is on building #23, suites 151, 152, and 153 (Old Town Wines, Chocolate Wishes and Point of View). final placement was on the transom in two cases. Mr. Sundberg asked if the entrance to the Executive Suites (on the Whitten Block), had been approved by the LPC. Ms. La Point stated she was not on that job, so she wasn't sure. Mr. Ehler moved to approve the application. Ms. Richter seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 6-0, with Mr. Beardmore abstaining. The next item, Old Town Craft Shoppe, was represented by Hermie La Point. Ms. Lapoint said that rather than bringing in samples of paint, they brought in the actual sign. Mr. Beardmore asked if there was chance "Shoppe" could be changed. Ms. Lapoint stated that if it were a permanent tenant, she would have more concern but the tenants are on a month to month basis, contingent on find- ing another space. Mr. Beardmore asked how long the sign has been up. Ms. Lapoint stated there was a different sign called, "Senior Hobby Shop", and the current one is 1 112 to 2 months old. Mr. Beardmore asked if there was a chance if the tenants left this space they'd move to another Old Town space. Ms. Lapoint was not sure. She stated the tenants have done alot of paint- ing and electrical work. Ms. Ketcham felt the LPC could not determine the name a tenant gives their place of business, as it's beyond the LPC's purview. Kathy Allin said that looking at the Commission's guidelines, she felt the LPC could not vote on a name, as it may be incorporated, a franchise and the business may have incurred expenses such as letterhead paper, etc. Mr. Beardmore asked Ms. Lapoint if the group did have letter head paper. Ms. Lapoint said the group are just some senior citizens, similar to the Trimble Court artisans. She thought no one was really in charge at this time. Mr. Ehler stated the sign was made and painted by one of the group. Ms. Ketcham asked if the sign was being represented as a temporary sign. Mr. Beardmore felt that over 30 days was considered permanent. Mr. Sundberg stated the applicant is seeking approval as a permanent sign, as the LPC can't vote on temporary signs. -6- Ms. Allin stated the LPC can place a time limit on the sign and ask for review if displayed longer than that time. Ms. Ketcham moved to approve the application with the condition that if the sign is still displayed in the same space longer than 6 months, it must be reviewed again. There was no second. Mr. Beardmore moved to deny. Mr. Ehler seconded the motion, adding that the problem is the word "Shoppe" and that is not grounds to deny. The LPC can deny size, etc. and there is no choice but to approve the sign. Ms. Ketcham asked if the sign is temporary, do they have to review the sign each time it is moved. Ms. Tunner stated she was voting no to the motion to deny, as they approved the "Old Corner Shoppe". Ms. Richter asked for clarification of Mr. Ehler's vote. Mr. Beardmore withdrew his motion to deny. Mr. Ehler withdrew his second. Mr. Beardmore motion to approve the application with the condition that it be reviewed if displayed longer than 2 months. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Mr. Ehler asked why they motioned for only 60 days. Mr. Beardmore stated that if the sign is up less than 30 days, the LPC have no right to review it, as it is temporary. Mr. Sundberg stated there was a motion to approve the existing sign with a 60 days time limit. Motion to approve passed 6-1, with Mr. Ehler voting no. The Commission then allowed Mr. Dean to re -approach them with his revi- sions. Mr. Dean stated the re -submittal was similar to Mr. Beardmore's drawing. One sign would go one the Linden St. side and the other would be on the Jefferson side. The signs would be 30" high and approximately 15 to 16 feet long. Ms. Carpenter asked if the yellow on the sign is color to be used. Mr. Dean answered yes. Mr. Beardmore wished for clarification of the vertical location of the size of lettering. Mr. Dean said the sign would be located between the upper story and the windows. -7- Mr. Ehler asked if there was a band on the building already. Mr. Beardmore said the header which is cobbled is like the one removed to put in the door. Mr. Dean asked about the header. Mr. Beardmore described the areas on the building and noted the Committee would need to review a final plan. Mr. Sundberg requested this be included in the motion and asked the size of lettering. Mr. Dean replied there would be a 30 inch sign with a two-inch frame, leav- ing 26 inches for the actual sign. The letter size would be 16 inches regardless of the frame size. Ms. Carpenter questioned the color and Mr. Sundberg asked if it would be as shown on the original sign application. Mr. Dean stated he could get a custom paint sample. Mr. Sundberg said he noted it's approval based on the color per sample sign. Ms. Richter asked if there were any concerns with the frame. Mr. Sundberg moved to reconsider Blacks' Glass application. Ms. Tunner seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 7-0. The next item, Cozmo, 242 Linden St., was represented by Richard White. Mr. White stated he was an owner/stockholder in the Electric Stampede and the building. He gave a brief background of the previous nightclubs at this address. Mr. Sundberg told the applicant that this meeting tonight was for concep- tual review only. He explained the procedure and necessary information. He stated that Building Permits Dept. said the work would require a building permit, both interior and exterior. Mr. White asked LPC if there was any other way to process the application to give approval for some portions of the applications, pending details for the other items. He asked because he needs to get the glass ordered and he would like to have the opportunity. Mr. Beardmore asked Ms. Eschevarria how much information was given to Mr. White prior to this meeting. Ms. Eschevarria said she gave him the written material and explained the two step procedure. Mr. White did not know this until he brought the prints into the office. am He wished to show what is current and what is proposed. He stated that a time element is critical. He showed the front elevation of the Electric Stampede. There is an existing copper mansor and they are not restructur- ing the building. There is an existing arch in the center of the building which has been duplicated over two windows. The canopy is to mimic the arches. The business is one which will open at 11 a.m., so they require as much glass as possible in the face of the building, utilizing the areas blocked in for doors. They intend to leave the structure and arch as it is and put the doors in the existing space between the two columns but remains looking similar to the way it looks now. He said the columns that were put in last time around are in real rough shape so they went with a smooth sur- face column with glass bands and simpler in upkeep. The existing back pan- els remain and the plan is basically utilizing what is there but achieving a whole new look. Using the plans, he demonstrated the difference in what is there now and the proposed changes. There is no structural change and put in the glass and duplicated the edge of the arch to create the look that they now are proposing. The copper mansor is to remain the same. Ms. Carpenter asked if the copper was plated. Mr. White stated it is copper but does not look good. They felt that if they use an acid treatment, it would become too shiny and it has been sug- gested that they try a light sandblasting to obtain a burnished color and then the copper could be sealed. They have reused the carsiding and use the existing column lines and use the line to place the doorway. They have used an aqua color for the background, which is a masonite material. The trim which is now wood stained will be painted an ivory color, which is the color on the building across the street and on the canopy just put up by the building next door. The carsiding will be repainted a plum color which is also the color on the building next door and on the older buildings across the street. The top has an existing stucco and is in a state of ill repair and they would like to smooth out the background and then paint a light coppertone color. He stated that there is a change in the location in the door and he will work with the existing window spaces. He hopes to go further than a conceptual review at this meeting. Ms. Ketcham asked if it is to be real glass. Mr. White replied yes. Ms. Carpenter asked if the columns are glass. Mr. White stated it is the square design used in the 1950's and they would like to backlight the square glass to create a new feeling about the build- ing. The design is somewhat deco and that atmosphere is carried through the whole building. Ms. Tunner stated the LPC cannot approve items which the applicant thinks he will do, rather than what he definitely plans to do. Mr. White stated the centerpiece is 32" at the widest part of the arches and inset from the existing facia. The doors are recessed about 3'. -9- Ms. Tunner asked the door material and if there was a kickplate. Mr. White stated the doors are doors with glass fronts. The wood bases would be painted to tie in with the ivory. All the trim would be the ivory and glass would be etched. Ms. Carpenter asked what the lines are on the second story. Mr. White stated it is a stow material to set back the front 2" and then again 2", to show dimension. The pineboard will be replaced with stow material. Mr. Sundberg asked about the vents on the upper level. Mr. White stated he would like to re -do the whole upper story but can't afford it right now. If it is possible to camouflage, he will. Ms. Tunner asked if the sign over the door sits flush. Mr. White stated it will sit above the stow. He was not concerned about the sign but would like to get some direction on the glass and paint as he wants to order the materials. He stated the paint is not going to change and if other colors need to be used, that is no problem. The photo did not show the new canopy put up by the Amshel building. Ms. Tunner thought the color was more white than ivory. Mr. White stated the color chip was not the correct color they intend to use. He then located the colors on the elevation. He wants to have a hue on the upper half which would cause the second story to be less noticeable. Mr. Beardmore thought a dark color would cause the upper story to be less noticeable. He also said that the guidelines suggest using the major ele- ment, which is brick. He said another guideline is to allude to the upper and to use the stow across the top and allude to windows would and read as a whole building. Mr. White thought that by framing the upper story in, would call attention and would like to work within the guidelines. Mr. Beardmore asked if the stucco could just pop off and the brick under- neath could be repaired. Mr. White stated the brick is in a terrible state of disrepair and if it were consistent, he would work with the brick. When the tinsiding was removed years ago, they found several damaged courses of brick and they have the same square windows. They felt to be more consistent, they felt just giving a smooth look. When there was exploratory work done, it found to be chipped and pitted. He was open to any suggestions to color. Ms. Tunner asked about the second floor. Mr. White said it was storage and his office. Because of the access down- -10- stairs, it would probably not be a rented area. He asked if there was any information which they could agree upon tonight so he could be at a point opening the nightclub. He would like to get a cash flow to do some explo- ratory. Mr. Beardmore felt uncomfortable with the lack of detail. He stated the LPC desires more exploratory work. Mr. White explained that financially they can't wait for another 30 days. If there was anyway for the Commission to approve any items such as the wood trim. He stated everything has been checked for a Building Permit on the interior. Ms. Carpenter felt uncomfortable approving the bottom section without the specifications on the upper story. Mr. White asked if the approval could be put into two stages. He is pro- posing the smooth out the upper level with a more smooth continuous sur- face. He may just need to apply a coat or he may have to put up a more expensive process, which he can not do at the present. Mr. Beardmore felt the applicant and the LPC are at odds because they are reviewing the whole facade and he sees it from the financial viewpoint. The LPC cannot decide on the economics of the applicant and the project. Ms. Ketcham stated what the LPC needs is a definite plan. Mr. Beardmore stated there were three items he felt needed more details; the cornice (based on the stow work), the sign which could be incorporated into the stow. He suggested the darker color on the top and suggested the plum color which ties into the two other colors. He asked about the sign color and brick exploration; and he felt that the stow might allude to win- dows to the break the smooth front. Mr. Ehler stated the LPC needed a higher level of detail on the plans. Mr. Beardmore noted that sandblasting the copper may damage it and a mild acid treatment might be better. Mr. Ehler stated the guidelines suggest 3 colors, so the applicant should adhere to that. He asked the Commission for a meeting date so the appli- cant would not have to wait another 30 days. Ms. Eschevarria felt that a special meeting could be arranged for Friday, October 10th at 4:30. The applicant needed to submit by Wednesday prior to that meeting. Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the conceptual review. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. Motion to approve the conceptual review application passed 7-0. Victoria Hilton came before the LPC and showed the speakers and the clamps to be installed on the second story level of Old Town Square above Points -11- in Particular. The clamps would be permanent and the speakers would be used only on special events. Ms. Tunner moved to approve the application. Mr. Ehler seconded the motion. All approved the motion. The Commission discussed the minutes and were approved unanimously. Other Business There were three sign violations noted by the Commission: the Church next to the old Triangle Review space and the neon lighting at the Rio Grande restaurant. The meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. -12-