Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 11/29/1994LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Regular Meeting November 29, 1994 Council Liaison: Gina Janett Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC, as a certified Local Government, recommended bringing the state preservation tax credit review up to Fort Collins. The minutes of the October 11, 1994 and October 25, 1994 meetings were approved as read. The Commission ruled that the two postcard signs on the south east wall of Trimble Court Artisans will be reviewed as signs and the other mural is to be removed. The LPC gave pre -conceptual review approval to the proposed addition at 629 West Mountain Avenue. The LPC approved the proposed renovation of the Harmony Mill with conditions. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission Chairman Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm, 281 North College Avenue. Secretary Diane Slater called the roll. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Bud Frick, Per Hogestad, Jean Kullman, Carl McWilliams, James Tanner, and Ruth Weatherford were present. Joe Frank and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Chip Steiner, DDA; Susan Rogers and David Haimson, owners of the Shenk House, 629 West Mountain Avenue; Barry Gutwein, representative for the owner of Harmony Mill and Glenn Konen, architect; Beth -Holly Garretson, Terry Acker, and Diane Findley from Trimble Court Artisans; Brad March, personal representative of Mrs. Trimble's estate which is the owner of the building. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner added the CLG recommendation to the agenda. STAFF REPORT: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the October 11, 1994 minutes as read and Mr. Tanner seconded the motion. Mr. Tanner moved approval of the October 25 minutes as read and Ms. Kulhnan seconded the motion. Both motions passed unanimously, 7-0. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes November 29, 1994 Page 2 CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: 118 TRIMBLE COURT TRIMBLE COURT ARTISANS - REAR WALL MURALAND SIGNS Ms. Tunner summarized the Commission's previous hearing on October 25 regarding this application. She stated that two of the three murals have been classified as signs by Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator --the two postcards because of the script message "Greetings from Trimble Court Artisans". A third postcard here was planned but will not be installed. The painting on the white brick around the corner is not considered a sign because it does not communicate a commercial message or recognizable identity. The applicant needs to apply for a sign permit. Staff recommends that the third painting around the comer be removed because the guidelines state that the texture of brick adds historic character and the painting obscures that. Regarding the two sign murals, staff would recommend that they be repainted on boards and hung on the wall so as not to be permanent. The City has taken a strong position against graffiti and the LPC has made a policy that historic buildings are works of art themselves, and therefore not to be painted upon. ` Ms. Diane Findley, asked that the art remain. She expressed concern that hanging wooden signs might damage the wall structurally. Mr. March said that the wall is stucco and could be destroyed if drilled into for hanging paintings. He noted that the building was originally constructed in the 1880's by Mrs. Trimble's father and uncle and the back part is a more recent stucco addition. A recent evaluation of the structure revealed that the back wall was built of sandstone brick and is cracked and therefore should not have holes put into it. Ms. Terry Acker, artist and citizen, said she had reviewed the correspondence between Ms. Tunner and the other business owner who had painted her building in Old Town. She noted that in this case, the artists perceived they asked for permission and the other owner did not do so. She strongly felt that the paintings should not be ordered destroyed and if they were, that the artist, Beth -:Holly Garretson, should be compensated in some manner. She noted that Trimble Court was a two-lane street downgraded by the City into an alley and felt that the alley has been treated poorly. It has no street lighting, dumpsters are allowed along the sides; no signage is posted to keep out oversize vehicles and therefore signs have been damaged by large trucks. She feels that the LPC should re-establish communication with the renters who inhabit the area rather than the non-resident owners and managers. Ms. Beth -Holly Garretson, the artist who did the paintings, stated that she is primarily interested in the process surrounding this issue. She feels that the paintings are an improvement over graffiti and have acted to deter it and said she has received phone calls thanking filer for the paintings. She feels that the present is making history. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes November 29, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Brad March, owner's representative, said that the addition that is now Trimble Court Artisans originally housed the family's sheep business. Mrs. Martha Trimble leased it to the artisans for a very low fee of about $600 per month with the idea of helping people to make a positive contribution to the community by having a permanent place to display and sell artwork. He feels that the murals are not offensive and urged the LPC to consider what Trimble Court has stood for. He appreciates the difficulties caused by setting a precedent but feels that this is a unique circumstance based in the history of Trimble Court itself. There was no citizen input. Ms. Weatherford stated that she has considered the question and has reversed her earlier position. Previously, she felt that the LPC needed to implement a general policy and not take specifics into account. She also does not agree that a decision on one case will lead to the same expectations for all future cases. She would like to see all the paintings remain with approval as signs. She believes that it is still the responsibility of applicants to ask for permission in future cases. Mr. Tanner stated that he believes that the applicant had good intentions but feels he must uphold his responsibility to the City as a whole. He feels the painting is not valid as a test to discourage graffiti because the evidence is anecdotal. Although staff has done a good job of finding the relevant information in the design guidelines, he feels the guidelines do not apply because this is not a typical situation since facade refers to the front of a building which faces the street and this doesn't. The primary purpose in painting the signs was not as signage but rather to dress up the alley. Therefore, he feels that the City Code would apply here, which states that any changes to policy must be compatible with the nature of the buildings and the surroundings. Criteria cited are the effect on the general character of the landmark district and its effect on uses in that district. Art is not the issue but what is being used for the canvas. The buildings are not blank canvases but must be allowed to reflect how they were in the past. He feels the colors and style are not compatible with the historic nature of the district. Mr. Hogestad said that since the Zoning Dept. has ruled that two of the paintings are signs and signage has been approved to be painted on buildings, he accepts that the postcards are signs. Mr. Frick said the uniqueness of the building does allow for a different treatment. He noted that the LPC is not able to install lights and signage. He pointed out that a letter should be mailed annually to all property owners in Old Town informing them that all sign requests must be approved by the LPC. Ms. Kullman understands the desire to brighten up the alley and noted that the stucco facade is not tied in with the rest of the architecture in Old Town. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes November 29, 1994 Page 4 Mr. McWilliams felt there wouldn't be much difference if the signs were painted on boards or not. He thought they could stay as they are and be allowed to disappear over time. Ms. Carpenter acknowledged the difficulty of the decision and agrees that the signs brighten up the area. However, she feels that policy has been to preserve the buildings in Old Town as art themselves. She feels that the LPC is not qualified to decide whether or not a particular work is art and is concerned that other citizens will decide to paint buildings if they approve this application. She feels that sign bands do have precedence but not art murals. The LPC has a responsibility to the owners of the buildings and has always welcomed suggestions and participation from people in the Old Town district. Mr. Hogestad said that this is not an original wall but is rather what is known as a "mean' wall because it has no scale. Mr. McWilliams said the wall has previously suffered a loss of integrity but Ms. Carpenter said the garage door of the other mural did too. Mr. Frick said graphic signage is allowed but Mr. Tanner said the LPC is responsible for perpetuating and protecting the atmosphere of Old Town and historically, signs were painted with very different forms and colors. Mr. Hogestad feels this type of sign is appropriate for this particular business and Mr. McWilliams said that older faded signs are not so different and feels it is a question of feasibility. Mr. Frank said the Commission must consider the murals a sign since the decision is based on the City Code and therefore must apply the relevant criteria. He noted that signage is typically an administrative decision and that staff is asking for a recommendation from the Commission on how to proceed. The applicant may appeal any decision. These signs are representative of what this business sells. Mr. Tanner moved that both the scenery mural on the one wall and the sign of two painted postcards on the other wall be denied on the basis of these criteria —City Code Sections 14- 48 and 14-49, #1 and #4. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion. The motion was denied 2-5. Ayes: Carpenter and Tanner. Nays: Frick, Hogestad, Kulhnan, McWilliams, and Weatherford. Mr. Frick moved that the two postcards be reviewed as signs; that they must meet code requirements as per City officials, pay the fee, and get the permit but remove the scenery mural due to concerns over concealing the fabric of the brick wall based on Guideline #8. The motion passed 4-3. Ayes: Frick, Hogestad, Kullman, McWilliams. Nays: Carpenter, Tanner, and Weatherford. Weatherford voted no because she wanted to keep the blue mural on the south wall as well. PRE -CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL FOR 629 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE SHENK HOUSE David Haimson and Susan Rogers, owners of 629 West Mountain Avenue, propose to move an abandoned, deteriorated brick building from 211 West Mulberry as an addition to the Mt. Ave. Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes November 29, 1994 Page 5 home. The two houses are almost identical in design, material, and age. The auto dealer adjacent to the home on Mulberry would like to expand onto the property and the current owner of the house is unwilling to sell the property unless the house can be saved. Rogers and Haimson had previously asked to salvage the property but were not granted permission. The house is in very bad condition with missing bricks on the exterior. However, it is double -clad brick construction. Ms. Weatherford, Mr. Tanner, and Ms. Kullman were enthusiastic about the suggestion. Mr. Frick and Mr. Hogestad suggested that the houses be at least 20' apart to make a more useable space between the two houses and use glass to tie the two together like a corridor. Mr. Haimson said they were trying to save a tree which is behind the house. Mr. Steiner asked if they had consulted the neighborhood and Mr. Haimson said there would be a public hearing in the Mulberry neighborhood for the relocation and a public hearing in their neighborhood for the variance request on the decreased setback for the entrance to the addition. Mr. Frank recommended that they talk to the neighbors ahead of time. Mr. Frick asked if they were adding the porch back on and they said they planned to landscape instead. He recommended adding the porch and Ms. Tunner said that the County Assessor's Office may have a picture of the original porch on file in the basement. She also suggested that they talk to Colorado State University's Stabilization Center about the extent of the damage and get an estimate of its condition. The Rehabilitation Grant Program is a competitive program that they could apply for around March and they could also apply for state tax credits. However, these programs cannot be applied to work already done. Ms. Carpenter recommended that the owners stay in touch with the LPC regarding progress. 131 LINCOLN AVENUE HARMONY MILL RENOVATION Barry Gutwein, representative of the owner, and Glenn Konen, Architect's Studio, amended staff report. The deck on the rear will be wood, not concrete and the Pozzi windows are aluminum clad rather than vinyl clad. Mr. Konen said that until two weeks ago, Tom Keohan of the National Park Service had not accepted the outside fire escape but wanted the fire escape inside. This would have -taken up too much interior space. Ms. Tunner said that as of last week, the NPS recommended that the outside fire escape be moved closer to the building to diminish the affect on the building exterior. The applicant would prefer to leave the fire escape further out for a number of reasons: the best views of the mountains are to the southwest and the fire escape close to the building would block the view more as well as allowing less light penetration; they would be unable to utilize the old basement from a building which has already been demolished to form a lower courtyard; and they would like to preserve an old brick well in that basement -courtyard instead of filling the basement. Mr. Frank asked what materials are proposed for the fire escape. Mr. Konen said they plan to use metal channels and wide flange Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes November 29, 1994 Page 6 tubing. The railings will be either steel mesh of an industrial type or half inch vertical bars similar to that used throughout Old Town but without the decoration. Mr. James Stratis of the NPS recommended that the handicap accessible ramp be pulled out from the building to allow visual access to the windows in the foundation. Ms. Tunner said the LPC may want to give final review to some items because the building needs to be protected against weather. The roof blew off shortly after the owner acquired the building and rain has been soaking the interior. They have a permit for stabilization and interior demolition. The roof beams and framing are currently under progress, but the building still needs to be closed up. Ms. Carpenter agreed to give a final review so that the applicant can meet their deadlines. Mr. Frick said that the architectural drawings of the lantern on the roof show the required detail. The lantern is wood frame and glass over the open stairwell and five and a half feet above the roof. The windows are mostly fixed divided lights and sit on four wooden columns. Mr. Hogestad asked about color and Mr. Konen said it will be gray. Staff recommends that the front doors be retrofitted rather than replaced and open together for ADA requirement, which would require an electric operator. They should swing out rather than in. The original window frames are five eighths inch thick. The Pozzi is three quarters inch and uses aluminum brick mold. Only 25 % of the original windows remain. All window frames are to be painted green. Mr. Gutwein said the owner prefers the Pozzi windows over Marvin, because of cost considerations as well as aesthetic considerations. They propose to keep the historic transoms that remain over the doors and will duplicate the one that is missing. Ms. Tunner explained that the National Park Service, in their federal tax credit review, did not approve of the Pozzi windows because the thickness didn't match the original, nor does the brick mold match. Mr. Frick said he feels that keeping the fire escape closer to the building without the decking would fit in better with the building and suggested rotating the entire staircase ninety degrees so that it goes out vertically. It would not cross the windows. He approves of all other suggestions including keeping the ramp close to the building. Mr. Tanner agreed that the Pozzi windows wouldhe_sufficient, recommended keeping the double front door, and thought the fire escape could remain out from the building to increase liveability. He noted that the LPC has allowed metal additions to other historic buildings, such as the old Fire Department building. Mr. Hogestad was concerned about the proportions of the proposed fire escape to the building but feels all other plans are acceptable. Mr., Konen said the fire escape is designed to maximize the view, allow the courtyard, and expedite wheelchair evacuation. 0 • Landmark Preservation Commission Special Regular Meeting Minutes November 29, 1994 Page 7 Ms. Weatherford moved approval of the application as submitted with the provision that they use the original double doors; integrate green windows, use a stone cap on the front wall to match to stone on the building; install the handicap ramp against the building; and use the decks as submitted by the architect. Mr. Tanner seconded the motion. The motion was denied 3-4. Ayes: Carpenter, Tanner, Weatherford. Nays: Frick, Hogestad, Kullman, and McWilliams. All the nays said they were voting against the deck. Mr. Gutwein said that removing the deck will also remove the courtyard and the well. The deck is useable as well as providing access to parking. Ms. Carpenter said they are concerned about compatibility with the building. Mr. Frick moved approval of the application and all provisions above with the exception of the deck. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Frick moved approval of Ms. Weatherford's first motion. Ms. Weatherford seconded this motion. The motion passed 4-3. Ayes: Carpenter, Frick, Tanner, Weatherford. Nays: Hogestad, Kulhnan, McWilliams. The nays all denied due to the decks. DISCUSSION ITEMS: There was none. OTHER BUSINESS: The LPC requested that Mr. Peter Barnes write a letter stating his reasons for reviewing the Trimble Court murals as signs. He will be invited to a future meeting to explain how he interprets signage. Mr. Frick noted that the Trimble Court design was approved as signs, not art work. CLG REVIEW Ms. Tunner said..she feels that the Planning Department will have enough staff in 1995 to handle the review for state tax credit. Mr. Frick moved that the LPC make a recommendation to City Council to pass a Resolution to bring the Preservation State Tax Credit under Fort Collins review. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm. Minutes submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.