HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 10/27/1999LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
October 27, 1999 Minutes
Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226 — 4824)
Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376)
Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875)
SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC reviewed conceptual plans for the
Downtown Streetscape Repaving Project. The LPC determined that the
existing sign at the Northern Hotel is a contributing historic feature of a
designated building in the Historic Old Town Local Landmark District. The
LPC supported the request for a wood shingle roof at 903 Stover, the Charles
Lory House.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Hogestad called the meeting to order at
5:40 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Bud Frick, Rande
Pouppirt, Angie Aguilera, Janet Ore, and Agnes Dix were present. Angela
Milewski was absent. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, and Joe Frank
represented staff.
GUESTS: Wendy Tinsley, CSU Student and volunteer in the Historic Preservation
Office; Virgil Taylor, Parks Department Manager, and Bruce Hendee, Principal and
owner of BHA Design; Karen Gerard, Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, and Bob
Michelle, Vaught Frye Architects.
AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner added the request for a wood re -roof at 903
Stover, the Charles Lory House.
STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner reported that Colorado State University, Department of
Facilities, was tearing down a five bay garage behind 218 West Laurel. Good, old, barn
wood and skip sheathing could be salvaged from the old garage. She said she would
tell Kevin Murray, Empire Carpentry, about the material, which might be re -used at the
chicken coop at the Old Waterworks. Ms. McWilliams reported that the Sheely Drive
neighborhood was pursuing a Local Landmark District designation.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Ms. Tunner introduced Mr. Taylor, Parks Department Manager, and Bruce Hendee,
Principal and owner of BHA Design. Ten downtown street corners, from Olive to
LaPorte, will be re -designed with brick pavers. The tile and concrete at these comers
are hazardous and not aesthetically pleasing. They would like to re -design the paving
system, making them safe and functional. They have already started at the east comer
of Oak Street and will start construction in others areas next spring. They also will re-
create a new transit station at Oak Street and they are still working on the design. They
Landmark Preservation Commission
October 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 2
are exploring the use of art in that space. They would like to continue the theme from
East Oak Street, which used interlocking pavers that are durable and look like brick.
This material has an historic feel and is easy to repair. The street names also will be
sandblasted into the curbs. This is good for multi -modal movement, including bikers
and pedestrians and highlights the corners by creating a feature element. They plan to
replace the tree grates to meet ADA requirements. The half -walls will be retained. The
wood benches will be replaced with metal benches, which look like the ones currently at
Oak Street. One trash enclosure will be installed per corner. They are interested in
augmenting the Mountain Avenue and College Avenue intersection too.
Mr. Frick asked is these improvements would affect the patio dining spaces around Old
Town. Mr. Hogestad asked if any improvements would be made for drainage. Mr.
Hendee added that they also considered installing bollards for safety. Ms. Tunner
expressed concerns including the historic marker sign in front of the Northern Hotel and
it being relocated to the corner and any impact to the railings down to the lower levels of
the Northern Hotel and Mountain Empire Hotel. Ms. Ore asked if there were any
basement stairwells of buildings that were being affected and Mr. Hendee said that
there were not any.
Clarification of the Contributing Status of the Northern Hotel Sian 166-180 N.
Karen Gerard, Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, questioned whether the sign on
the Northern Hotel was historically or architecturally significant. Staff thought that it was
built between 1945 and 1955. The current sign replaced an earlier sign, with similar
vertical orientation and projection. Staff discussed whether the sign should be
considered a contributing feature of the building and referred to Secretary of the
Interior's Standard #4. Mr. Pouppirt asked if the sign had ever been internally lit, which
was unknown. Ms. McWilliams explained that it was a dominant feature downtown, and
the previous sign would have only had longevity of about fifteen years. The current sign
is more recognizable by local citizens and still considered historic. Ms. Gerard
explained that they have funds to refurbish the sign, but they have not decided whether
they want the current sign or the design from the 1930s. Bob Michelle, Vaught Frye
Architects, said that they have nice photo -documentation of the 1936 sign. They are
interested in removing the sign and re -doing the entry. He added that some people like
the current sign and it makes the building more recognizable. They will keep it and they
want to restore it. He said that not much research has been conducted on the sign.
The current sign has been associated with the current facade for fifty years. If they kept
the current sign, it would be rehabilitation rather than a reconstruction. Mr. Pouppirt
agreed that the current sign is historic, but the previous sign may look better and relate
to the building better. Ms. Ore explained that the 1936 sign would be a recreation of a
sign and not truly historic restoration. She added that a reconstruction from photo -
documentation is done only when nothing is left. Mr. Frick explained that you have a
choice as to what time you want to take something back to. Mr. Hogestad asked if
there was any public input and there was none.
Ms. Gerard explained that they were concerned about the look of the building. Mr.
Hogestad explained that such issues would be discussed under design review. At that
time. the applicant's plans for restoring the sign would be reviewed, including repainting.
Landmark Preservation Commis •
October 27, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 3
He commented that it appeared that they might have re -used the original sign braces
from 1936. He added that most of the original sign material might still be there. Ms.
McWilliams encouraged the applicants to do more research.
The Commission discussed the Secretary of the Interior's Standards #2 and #4. These
standards discouraged the destruction of any existing original elements and explained
that changes made to a building over time should be respected and are evidence of the
development of a building. Ms. Tunner added that the sign was one of a kind and that
the owner fought to keep that sign in the 1970s after the City had passed a new sign
ordinance. Further, the current sign had made history in its own right, was the sign on
the building when local and national designation occurred and all the sign that people
remember today. Ms. Ore warned how subjective it was to bring buildings back to only
certain time periods.
Ms. Ore moved that the LPC recommend the continuing status of the Northern
Hotel sign as a contributing historic feature based on criteria #2 and #4 of the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Mr. Frick seconded the motion. Mr.
Pouppirt made a friendly amendment that this motion should not preclude or
prevent going back to the vintage 1936 sign, if it is determined that the 1936 sign
is incorporated into the current sign. Mr. Frick accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion passed unanimously. (Yeas: Hogestad, Aguilera, Dix, Frick, Ore, and
Pouppirt) (Nays: None) (6-0)
Ms. Aguilera moved to allow limited exploration of the sign of the Northern Hotel.
Mr. Pouppirt seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (6-0)
9u3 Stover. 1 ne t,I......
Ms. Tunner reported that the Charles Lory House was designated as a Local Landmark
in 1996. The applicants would like to add a wood roof to the house. She explained that
they needed a special letter from the LPC requesting a Class C wood roof for the
Department of Building Inspection. She added that a wood roof was important to the
historic character of the home.
Mr. Frick moved to approve a letter of support for wood shingles at 903 Stover,
the Charles Lory House. Ms. Dix seconded the motion, which passed
unanimously. (6-0)
OTHER BUSINESS:
The LPC discussed the schedule for the November and December LPC meetings.
They decided to hold a special meeting on November 22, 1999. They planned to
discuss the district designation of the Sheely Neighborhood and some other issues
around non-consensual designation.
The meeting adjourned 7:20 p.m.
Submitted by Nicole Kaplan, Secretary