Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 08/09/2000r LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 9, 2000 Minutes Council Liaison: Scott Mason (226-4824) Staff Liaison: Joe Frank (221-6376) Commission Chairperson: Per Hogestad (303-292-1875) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The Commission approved landmark designation for the Gill/Nelson Farm, 5529 Timberline Road, for its architecture as an example of Italianate architecture; for its agricultural significance and for its historical value. The three buildings date from c. 1890 (house), c. 1880 (milk house), and c. 1930 (garage). The Commission approved changes in designation for the C&S Depot, 136 Laporte, with the previously undesignated portion of the dock now being designated, and the vacant land to the west of the Depot removed from designation as described. The Commission gave final approval for the C&S Depot, 136 Laporte, for the planned rehabilitation as a Downtown Transit Center, with conditions. The Commission discussed the rehabilitation of the Northern Hotel at 172 N. College, and approved an exterior demolition permit of non -historic fabric, with the provision that where possible they document what is there, and salvage what they might find as example of original materials. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Angela Milewski called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angie Aguilera, Agnes Dix, Angela Milewski, and Janet Ore were present. Bud Frick and Rande Pouppirt arrived at 5:44. Per Hogestad arrived at 6:20. Carol Tunner, Karen McWilliams, and Joe Frank represented staff. GUESTS: Ray and Patty Seaser, and Jeff Nowak, owners of 5529 S. Timberline Road. Jack Gianola, City Facility Services Project Manager, Marlys J. Sittner, Transfort/DAR, Dave Lingle/Mike Rush, Aller-Lingle Architects, for the C&S Depot Transit Center. Karen Gerard/Bill Simpson of Funding Partners for Affordable Solutions, Ron Sladek of Tatanka Research, Bob Mechels/Gary Dennison of Vaught/Frye Architects, for the Northern Hotel. AGENDA REVIEW: None. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner: 1) distributed Mr. Wilder's memorandum regarding the revised "Draft Ordinance Repealing the Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program and Establishing the Landmark Rehabilitation Assistance Program"; 2) circulated several brochures for preservation conferences; 3) announced that Ms. Lange had resigned as secretary; 4) distributed copies of the recent Colorado Preservationist; 5) announced that the new intern had completed a sample book for historic roofing. Landmark Preservation Commission August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: In the minutes of July 12, 2000, pg. 2, Designations, Ms. Frick should have appeared as Mr. Frick. Ms. Aguilera moved the minutes be approved as amended. Mr. Frick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (6-0). DESIGNATIONS: 1.) 5529 S. Timberline Road (Ray and Patty Sesser & Jeff Nowak) Mr. Frank presented background information on the Gill/Nelson Farm, with information also provided in Ms. McWilliams' staff report on the Farm. Owners are seeking landmark designation for the Gill/Nelson Farm, 5529 Timberline Road, as an example of Italianate architecture; for its agricultural significance, and for its historical value. The three buildings date from c. 1890 (house), c. 1880 (stone milk house or bunkhouse), and c. 1930 (garage). Mr. Seaser then entertained questions. Mr. Frick asked about potential use for the property; Mr. Seaser said the planned use was as office space. Mr. Nowak said they would like to research removing brick paint coating. Ms. Tunner noted that the building was likely originally unpainted. They would like to presence the interior. Ms. Dix asked how recently the house had been occupied. The response was in 1993. Mr. Frick asked about access. Mr. Seaser said they would have access off Timberline. The owners discussed moving the garage back 20 ft. so fire trucks could have front access. They propose replacing the current fence with a wrought iron one. Ms. McWilliams focused attention on point 3.e: "This agreement is expressly conditional upon continuing the unrestricted access to the property from Timberline Road via the existing Timberline Road driveway." She said the Commission could not assure this, and suggested this point be deleted when voting on the proposal. The owners all agreed to deleting this point. Ms. Ore moved to approve landmark designation, removing the contingency 3.e related to property access. Ms. Dix seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (6-0). 2.) 136 Laporte, C&S Depot. Amended Designation. Ms. McWilliams introduced two requests related to the Freight Depot at 136 Laporte. 1) Designate the remainder of the north dock of the C&S Freight Depot, for its architectural and historical significance. When the Depot was designated (1995) the City planned to eliminate the north portion of the dock for a new building, so it was not designated; plans later changed and the City would now like to complete the designation. 2) Amend Ordinance No. 93, 1995 that designated the C&S Freight Depot, to remove the vacant land to the west of the Depot from designation, as described in Ms. McWilliams report. The designation of Annie's Gravesite, approved in another ordinance, would not be impacted. Mr. Frick asked why they did not repeal the original ordinance designating the depot and just approve a new, corrected ordinance. Ms. McWilliams said this was the preferred way to go. Mr. Frick moved to designate the portion of the dock that wasn't designated before; that if the original Ordinance can be repealed with a new, correct one to 0 Landmark Preservation Commission August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 replace Ordinance 93, it should be done; that the land to the west of the Depot designated by Ordinance No. 93, should be removed from designation as described. Ms. Aguilera seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (6-0). CURRENT REVIEW: 1.) 136 Laporte, C&S Depot, final review of rehabilitation for Downtown Transit Center (Jack Gianola, Marlys J. Sittner, Dave Lingle, Mike Rush) Because of a conflict of interest, Ms. Milewski turned the meeting over to Mr. Frick and left the room prior to the discussion on the property at 136 Laporte. Ms. Tunner presented the staff report for the final review of rehabilitation of the C&S Depot that will become the Intermodal Downtown Transit Center. Staff recommends the proposed work, but questions removing all the historic doors on the west and north elevations; staff recommends that one door could be retained on the north and two on the west, and that at least one of the historic doors be fixed in the up position for public interpretation as the pulley system is important historically. Staff believes the proposed green tinted glass is not appropriate on a.landmarked building because it is not historic type material. Ms. Tunner shared submitted samples of: frame color, shingles, paint colors, and green glass. Mr. Lingle presented the proposal. The earlier proposed addition has been eliminated; the entire dock will be preserved. He described parking and lawn arrangements. The interior will remain as previously proposed; the two fire doors and freight master's office will be retained. One fire door will be sealed open and one fixed closed. He described the differences in the basic items presented for bid in the contract and the custom items such as custom shelters, brick colonnade, clock towers, etc. that will be done if funds allow. He also described the proposed signage. The brick in the sides of the front steps will be stained to match the building. The new handicapped ramp on the west side of the building will be a solid color brick as close as they can match to the main building. Freight doors: They would like to re -use glass as possible, moving it from unused doors to the five that will remain down in place on the west side. With a consulting artist they discussed painting figures on the blank wall to be constructed behind the preserved windows. He stressed that the public area and the bus area must be visible, so the openings on the west cannot remain as they are; they propose replacement of the west freight doors with glass storefront systems, retaining the current outline. Since the windows must meet energy guidelines, they have proposed use of 60% reflective green glass. In some places, like the conference room, the freight doors could be lifted up inside and remain in the open position. Mr. Pouppirt asked if the doors would be nested above. The answer was yes. Mr. Hogestad asked about the track; the answer was it would be saved. Mr. Frick asked about the conference room, would they need to see the buses from there? And that it would be good to have reference to the original fabric in one space on the west. He Landmark Preservation Commission August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 asked if insulating glass could be put on the inside behind the original freight door windows; Mr. Rush said that then the interior would not be seen; Mr. Lingle added that the windows would trap heat. Mr. Hogestad asked if a lighter green glass could be used; Mr. Lingle said he could not comment without other samples. Ms. Ore asked if the box bay window was necessary and if it couldn't go in a window bay instead, saving the brick wall; Mr. Lingle noted that staff had to be able to see the buses, and that the windows must be placed as proposed for internal control. Ms. Sittner stated that the building must be functional, with staff located in a central area. There was considerable discussion during the formulation of the motion, particularly on: placement of interior storms on the main building, as they might be less intrusive and would preserve the exterior look of the building. They discussed retaining a freight door on the west side in the conference room and using the window for borrowed light if the applicant desired. Mr. Gianola said the big storefront window as proposed in that room is important to the client. Mr. Hogestad preferred the concept of at least one original freight door represented in each side of the building. However, the building needs to function, so he was satisfied with retaining the west door in the conference room up in the ceiling. Mr. Frick summarized: clear storms could be placed on existing windows, and the new storefronts could be green reflective glass. The discussion returned to retention of one door on the north in the conference room, and one on the west; this evolved into a suggested retention of both freight doors (conference room and staff room) on the north, leaving all the west windows as storefront replacement windows. Ms. Sittner objected to this plan to eliminate the north storefront window from the staff room, describing how the narrow room would be unappealing without the proposed window. Mr. Pouppirt said that the two original north freight doors should match and recommended they both stay down. The motion appeared in final form as follows: Mr. Pouppirt moved that the Commission give final approval to the planned rehabilitation for the Downtown Transit Center, with the following conditions: 1) that a 30% reflective glass be used, based on administrative approval of an appropriate sample; 2) that the color of the anodized metal be changed from the proposed black color to a medium bronze; 3) that clear interior storms be placed on the existing front building windows, and the freight doors left down in place to have glass repaired to match the historic glass; 4) that the freight doors be retained overhead in the up position with the track and hardware preserved where practical; 5) that the freight doors be retained down in place on the north side of the building (conference room and staff room); 6) where original freight doors are filled with storefront, the original doors will be fixed up in place. Mr. Hogestad seconded the motion which passed 5-1 (Yes: Aguilera, Hogestad, Dix, Frick, Ore. No: Pouppirt). Mr. Pouppirt explained his nay vote as wanting to please the client. Ms. Milewski returned to the meeting. 2.) 172 N. College Ave., the Northern Hotel, conceptual review of fagade rehabilitation (Bill Simpson, Ron Sladek, Bob Mechels, Gary Dennison). • Landmark Preservation Commission August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 Ms. Tunner presented the staff report on the proposed rehabilitation of the Northern Hotel, which is to serve a new use as senior affordable housing with first floor commercial. The applicants have an interior demolition permit and are seeking approval for the exterior demolition permit. Ms. Tunner had slides to illustrate certain points of discussion. She noted the plans for windows, basement entrance, railings, fire escapes, skylights, and elevator shaft. She said that staff recommends that the Walnut storefronts have clear transom glass instead of grey opaque as proposed. She said other transoms in Old Town are clear glass, opaque is not historic. Mr. Mechels said they planned to take the building back to 1936, a date well documented with plans and photographs; they will remove work done in the 1970s. They plan to use black spandrel glass; Mr. Hogestad pointed out the difference between spandrel and opaque glass, and suggested they research what other buildings during that period used. Mr. Hogestad suggested they look at historic detailing techniques whereby the glass is flush in the new metal storefronts on College Avenue. Mr. Pouppirt agreed that a flush glazing window system is a big issue, and the proposed storefronts should more closely replicate the historic storefront. Mr. Dennison stated that they were trying to get as close as possible to the original using modern components. Mr. Mechels stressed the economic constraints on the restoration, and said they could only do what was financially feasible. Mr. Pouppirt said he thought there would be little difference in costs. He also suggested the use of a narrower frame, a standard frame for the storefronts. Ms. Milewski noted materials need to appear like the old and that a flat profile would do this. Mr. Hogestad pointed out this was a rehabilitation and they should look at details. Mr. Mechels said they would return the entrance lights to the original position, and remove the front entry awning They plan to re -paint the Walnut St. side. Ms. Tunner asked the Commissions thought on this. Ms. Ore and Ms Milewski agreed the side of the building should be painted and Ms. Milewski said the building was never two colors. Mr. Hogestad said that opaque glass should not be used in the Walnut St. new storefront transoms; it was okay in the College Avenue 1936 Art Deco transoms and showed in those original plans. Mr. Mechels described the proposed treatment of the Walnut street storefronts, and proposed removing the two railings around the basement entrances. Mr. Hogestad said they should try to preserve the historic railings. Ms. Tunner added that the one on the alley had been cut off already because the contractor didn't think they were important. Mr. Mechels asked if they should be repaired and the answer was yes. Mr. Mechels said they will retain as much of the original as possible. Mr. Hogestad suggested they could add a sleeve or extender to the railings if the storefront doors behind them ended up operable with the final tenants, and needed handicapped accessibility. Regarding the basement, Mr. Dennison said they now plan to infill in front of the basement storefronts rather than remove them; Ms. Ore suggested they should be stabilized prior to this work; Ms. Dix said they should take photos before they were covered. Mr. Mechels said they would put on a waterproof membrane prior to infilling. Landmark Preservation Commission August 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Mr. Mechels described the existing windows and how they would be preserved/repaired. Those on Walnut and College would be restored, using components from other windows as needed. Kolbe and Kolbe windows will be used on the rear and they will save the frames. There will be no vinyl on the exterior but vinyl tracks inside. Mr. Frick asked how the storms would be installed; Mr. Mechels said plans were not final, but back windows would be new and so would not need storms. Mr. Dennison said they may make one or both sash of the front windows operable. The sills are in poor condition and they will cover the existing sills with prefinished aluminum after prime/prepping the sills. The three fire escapes will now remain; where there is a hollow metal door at the College/Walnut corner, they will replace it with an original window from the back side; they will infill windows with brick and recess them on the two south elevations of the building as a fire safety issue. Mr. Mechels said there is no indication the big Northern Hotel sign is part of a previous sign. They will test the sign paint to determine original color. Ms. Tunner said that the city's sign coordinator agreed that the sign could be removed for restoration if necessary and replaced, because it had been determined historic by the Commission. They will also investigate the paint on the terra cotta and return with that information. Ms. Tunner noted that they want a demolition permit for removal of the 1970s construction; Ms. Aguilera said there was no controversy on this. Mr. Dennison said there was probably little earlier material behind this, but he agreed to photograph what is found. Mr. Hogestad moved to approve the exterior demolition permit for the 1970 decorations, documenting what is there, and salvaging what they might find as possible, as examples of the original material. Ms. Ore seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (7-0). The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Holley Lange, Secretary.