Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/08/1994LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 8, 1994 Council Liaison: Gerry Horak Staff Liaison: Joe Frank SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC denied the request to leave the existing graffiti mural painted on the back alley garage door at 213 Jefferson Street and approved the request to hang art panels in the front facade transom windows with two conditions: that the panels be subject to review and that the panels not be for sale. The LPC also approved the Art Company's two signs on the front of the building. The LPC reviewed the input from the public hearing regarding the proposed Minimum Maintenance and Demolition Delay Ordinance, and recommended City Council adoption. The LPC viewed the proposed Downtown Streetscapes presentation by Bruce Hendee. The LPC approved a motion to support the Facilities Department in its application for ISTEA funds to stabilize the Trolley Barn. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission Chair Jennifer Carpenter called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m., 281 North College Avenue. Secretary Diane Slater called the roll. Commission members Jennifer Carpenter, Per Hogestad, Jean Kullman, James Tanner, and Ruth Weatherford were present. Members Bud Frick and Dick Hill were absent. Joe Frank and Carol Tunner represented staff. GUESTS: Bruce Hendee, Landscape Architect for the Downtown Streetscape; Janet Meisel, City Planner; Tom McClellan, police officer; Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney; Blair Leist, City Planner; Wayne Sundberg, citizen; Ron Wendt, citizen; Wes Pouliet, citizen; Cris Scott, citizen; Diego Greco, citizen; Sam Palermo, citizen; Joanne Woodward, citizen; Vanessa Faatz, owner of the Art Gallery. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes. STAFF REPORT: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ruth Weatherford moved approval of the February 2, 1994 minutes as read and Per Hogestad seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: P41921 • _44 M1:3 • J:: _. Ms. Carpenter welcomed the public to the hearing and explained the process. Ms. Tunner explained the design review guidelines that apply to the application and showed slides for Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 2 Commission members' review. Vanessa Faatz, the applicant, presented information regarding her request to hang art panels in the front facade transom windows and keep the existing graffiti mural on the rear of the building. She explained that she is a strong supporter of the value of public art and the way it can empower the artist. She said that the mural was painted at her request by graffiti artists who had previously been defacing the alley. She views the mural as an expression of art in a public space and thinks that the alley is an appropriate place for this type of work. Ms. Weatherford asked if her landlord had informed her of the historic Old Town Design Guidelines and Ms. Faatz said she had not been informed. Ms. Weatherford commented that although she is generally in favor of public art, the historic district may not be the right place for it. Ms. Carpenter then opened the meeting to the public for comment. The first citizen to speak was Ron Wendt, vice president of New Bridges at 221 Jefferson Street. He stated that he had registered a complaint with the city about the mural. They are currently leasing and thinking of buying 221-223 Jefferson Street. He feels that the area should conform to City codes and feels the mural is a form of graffiti. The next speaker was Wayne Sundberg, a former Chair of the LPC. He recalled working on the Old Town Guidelines and said that the mural is incompatible with the historic district. He was also concerned that if this instance were granted, then other exceptions would have to be granted in the future. Therefore, he felt that the guidelines must be adhered to as written. Diego Greco, the painter of the mural, identified himself as a "tagger" (graffiti artist). He said that he never intended any disrespect. He said that Ms. Faatz had given him a chance to express his art positively and that he was no longer vandalizing. He feels that graffiti is a problem in the Old Town area because it appears everywhere and that more art would mean less vandalism. Wes Pouliet, resident at 235 Jefferson Street, said he has been on the same block for 4 years and has seen many signs come and go; he thinks many of the signs have never been approved. He said that the Linden Hotel is covered with graffiti. He added that although the front of the buildings look historic, the back alleys do not. He felt that the frame around the mural defined a boundary and that the tenant should be allowed to exhibit art there. He felt frustrated that this mural was being reviewed, while much unauthorized signage is allowed to continue. He would like to see the greater issues of signage and graffiti in Old Town addressed. Sam Palermo, Ft. Collins High School student, said that Ms. Faatz had given Diego and others permission and an opportunity to use their talent in a positive way. He feels that the incidence of graffiti in the area is down and suggested that a place indoors be provided for artists to paint to express their feelings. Since so many people are doing graffiti, he felt that a legal place indoors -- where people could paint without causing complaints -- would cut down on vandalism. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 3 Joanne Woodward, artist, said that graffiti should be given the same respect as other art forms. Ms. Faatz spoke again and said she feels that the historic district is more threatened by the traffic and pollution on Jefferson Street than the graffiti mural. She feels that although preserving the buildings is important, it is also important that people use the area. She feels that allowing graffiti in specific areas would keep it from areas where it is unwanted and save the expense and damage of sandblasting graffiti off other old buildings. If she is not allowed to use her building, she would like to find another place where it would be allowed. Ms. Carpenter asked the police representative, Mr. Tom McClellan, to speak next. He said that although he applauds Ms. Faatz's efforts, his experience suggests that this approach does not work because graffiti attracts more graffiti. He said that since he started in the graffiti abatement division last June 11, the amount of graffiti has increased significantly. The category with the biggest increase is tagging, which is balloon art lettering done by teams trying to outdo each other. This is different from gang graffiti, which designates turf and is most often found around the edge of town. Areas of graffiti attract other tagger crews and the amount of graffiti has doubled in Old Town. He said that if graffiti were allowed in an outdoor location, it would act as a magnet for the area. However, he agreed that finding an indoor location would also empower the artists and encourage more respect. He feels that graffiti does not belong in alleys. Cris Scott identified himself as an artist, president of a multi -media software company, and re - builder of the mezzanine floor of the Northern Hotel. He said he is in favor of preservation and the historic district. However. he feels that the facades on Jefferson Street are historic but the alleys are not. He that much has been added in the back and is quite ugly. He noted that the entrance door under the sign which reads "ARTISTS ENTER HERE' is not a public entrance and is therefore not identifying the door, but rather making a statement about art. He felt that: the historic guidelines do not apply all around the building, but only to the front; alleys should be treated differently; that the door is a large empty canvas; and that there has been less tagging. After asking if any of the public had further comments and finding none, Ms. Carpenter closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the discussion to the Commission. Mr. Tanner said he would like to respond to several points. He felt that the issue of public art is central to the discussion and that preservation is based on a commitment to public art. The whole idea of preserving a piece of architecture is that the historic building is a piece of living public art and an aesthetic for the period represented. The Old Town Historic District represents the historic vernacular architecture of Ft. Collins citizens, and expresses their feelings and sense of beauty. The architecture is a part of the community. It is public art in the form of a building. This is in direct conflict with the idea of an historic building as a blank canvas on which to put anything desired. The citizens of Ft. Collins have determined that they consider Old Town to be a work of art as it is. He feels that graffiti is a fascinating form of public art and that concrete slabs for artists would be appropriate. Ms. Faatz is not free to offer her building as a blank canvas because it already is art. Therefore, he asked for respect for the artists who Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March g, 1994 Page 4 created these architectural works of art. The LPC, is here as stewards, and if the artists want to express their feelings, they must show respect for other artists and do so without defacing someone else's art. Old Town buildings are the wrong medium for displaying public art, and it is not appropriate to substitute this vision for the vision established by the community. Mr. Hogestad said that he admires the spirit of the artists, but disagrees that the alley is an appropriate place for graffiti. The alleys have their own historic sense and presence. The mural is too large in scale and detracts from the historic character of the alley. Ms. Weatherford said that development of back areas should be in keeping with the main front, and that she does not see the alley as separate from the front facade. Although she can sympathize with the artists' feelings, the Commission's responsibility is to follow the guidelines. Ms. Carpenter thanked the public for appearing and reiterated that the discussion was not about what is and is not art. Members of the LPC are stewards of Old Town and the guidelines are given by the City of Fort Collins. The LPC responsibility is to follow the guidelines and the mural does not meet guidelines #24 and #52. Mr. Tanner moved to disapprove the request of The Art Company mural due to conflicts of size and character with the standards described in guidelines #12, #24 and #52. Ms. Weatherford seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Regarding the proposed transom art panels, Mr. Hogestad said he would prefer to see changing panels installed on the interior. He asked if a provision for review exists for exterior display of merchandise for sale. Mr. Tanner noted that the guidelines specify that objects not permanently attached to the building should not overpower the facade of the building. Ms. Weatherford asked if there was a particular reason for wanting to hang the decorations outside. Ms. Faatz said that the transom windows are blocked by a dropped ceiling, so they could not be hung inside. Ms. Carpenter said she would be more comfortable approving decorations not for sale because of the guidelines. Ms. Faatz said that the display would not be merchandise for sale. Ms. Weatherford moved approval of changing decorative art panels temporarily attached to the site of the former transom windows. Mr. Hogestad made a friendly amendment providing for regular review of the changing panels and Ms. Carpenter added an amendment that the items not be for sale. Both amendments were accepted. The motion was seconded and passed 5-0. Mr. Tanner noted that the LPC is not picking on The Art Company, but responding to citizen complaints. He wishes that they could have better notification of the necessity of design review, but would like the public to understand that the LPC did not single this business out. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Hogestad moved approval of The Art Company and Gallery signage and Ms. Kullman seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: The LPC listed and discussed several issues mentioned by the public at the February 17 hearing. The first issue was a question concerning Section A of the proposed Minimum Maintenance Ordinance. One person had asked about the specification that buildings be "maintained in an appropriate condition", which was written on the flip chart displayed at the meeting. The LPC recalled that the person asking the question was not familiar with the specifics of the ordinance and that this was a general question and not necessarily an issue. The LPC recalled that at the hearing Mr. Frank described the specifics and that afterwards the person seemed to be satisfied with his answer. The LPC discussed the provisions of the draft ordinance that the buildings be maintained to the requirements of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation and that the owner will be prevented from letting the structural elements of the building decay from lack of maintenance to the point that the building facade loses its historic importance. The LPC and staff believed that these requirements were adequate. The second question about the minimum maintenance provisions had to do with Jefferson Street truck traffic. Ms. Weatherford sympathized with the owners who were concerned about being held responsible for damage to their building resulting from truck traffic. Ms. Carpenter pointed out that excluding that category of damage would leave a large loophole that would lead to controversy over the likely cause of various types of damage. She believed it would be very difficult for the Commission and staff to distinguish when deterioration is due to outside forces or when it is due lack of maintenance. She said that she would prefer to work on forms of mitigation such as helping owners apply for ISTEA grants. Mr. Hogestad mentioned that although truck traffic is a definite contributing factor to damage to buildings on Jefferson Street, some of the damage to the buildings may be due to the fact that they are built on expansive soil and are slowly sinking into the ground. Mr. Eckman said that almost all damage to any building is due to outside forces and excluding responsibility on such grounds would cause tremendous legal difficulties. After further discussion, the LPC decided to continue to actively work to move the truck traffic off -- Jefferson Street not only because of the physical damage, but also because of the detrimental effect on the local businesses. There were other issues raised by the public regarding the proposed Demolition Delay Ordinance. Some of the public felt that the proposed fee of $200 for the demolition permit was too high. Ms. Weatherford pointed out that demolition itself is very expensive and that the proposed fee should be only a small consideration. The LPC discussed the City Council's action on other development review fees. The City Council has stated that they would like to see the Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 6 City recover up to 80% of the cost of development review through fees. Currently, the City is collecting 2-4 % of the cost. The LPC discussed the additional staff time that would be required to complete the review of demolition requests and believed that the fees were adequate. The LPC was concerned, however, that the ordinance provisions would place additional burdens on an already overworked staff and that the fees should be used to help fund additional staff time. The next issue was the requiring of three reports. It was believed that the Planning Department has much of the material applicants would need to fill out the Historic Resources of Merit form and the Effect of Removal by Demolition report requires only a letter, and therefore should not be a burden. The LPC agreed to delete the requirement of an Engineering Report for the relocation of buildings, recognizing that it could be expensive and time-consuming for the applicant. The LPC directed staff to delete this requirement from the draft ordinance. The LPC also discussed the requirement for a HABS report which would document the building before it is torn down. The LPC agreed that this might be an onerous requirement and believed that all that was reasonably necessary was to have the ability to photograph the building before it was torn down, either by City staff or the owner. In discussing citizen concerns about the requirement of a plan for redevelopment, the LPC pointed out that the idea was to avoid creating more vacant lots in the downtown or in the core neighborhoods. The intent was to require an owner to have a plan approved and in place before a historic building is torn down. Some examples were cited where a historic building was prematurely torn down and nothing occurred on the property for several years. The LPC believed that requiring a plan to be in place might provide some additional time to find alternatives to demolition. A plan would have to be developed at some point in the redevelopment process and therefore putting this requirement in the demolition ordinance was not extraordinary. Mr. Tanner believed this was an unnecessary requirement and moved that the Commission strike this requirement, but it died for lack of a second. The LPC believed this was a critical component of the ordinance and decided to leave it in the ordinance as proposed. The Commission discussed the issue of liability for retrieving artifacts. Mr. Eckman said that the draft ordinance as written requires that the owner agree to allow entrance onto the property to retrieve artifacts. He said if the owner felt there was a liability problem, then the owner could say "no" to this requirement. The City could agree to take the responsibility and by contract, it would be the City's liability. It would be a barter type of agreement in which the owner agrees to allow retrieval of artifacts if the City agrees to be fiscally responsible. Any agreement must be up to the owner. The LPC discussed the issue regarding private property rights and government over -regulation. Ms. Weatherford said that the responsibility exists to protect property for the greater good, and that adjacent property owners also had rights that are affected by a neighbor's decision to demolish a structure. Mr. Tanner said that the HRPP recommended building public support for preservation before mandating requirements and he was concerned about negative public r. • Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 7 reaction. Ms. Weatherford said that other cities with stronger ordinances had not experienced adverse reaction. Mr. Frank said he had received no calls about the proposed ordinance since the hearing and newspaper articles. Ms. Carpenter said she was gratified by the high level of public support at the meeting. Ms. Weatherford moved recommending approval of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to City Council with two changes --in Sec. 14-61 (b) 2, deleting the report regarding suitability for relocation and Sec. 14-62 (b), changing the wording to read: "provide the city with photos or right of access for the taking of such photos". Ms. Kullman seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1. Ayes: Carpenter, Hogestad, Kullman, and Weatherford. Nay: Tanner. Although not opposed to the Ordinance, he feels the administrative details are onerous and that more thought and input is required. Kil'.N111il`.I E ll�!- 3:3:4 :l x. 7xY .Il lttlLi�l Ms. Janet Meisel, GID Project Manager, reviewed background information. The Downtown area has been a self -taxing district since the early 1970s and now generates about $100,000 annually. The funds are used in the district for improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis. City Council will be approving a new five-year plan for upcoming improvements. The Linden Hotel and paving problems will most likely be the two top priorities. The Linden Hotel improvements and renovation may require between $200,000 and $500,000. The pavement will be replaced in the areas most critical for health and safety. Any remaining funds could be used for new construction, repairs, and small maintenance. Therefore, the project is developing a "kit of parts". The project is asking the LPC for input on historical relevance. They would like to save the historic flagstone sections of sidewalk and may ask for some funding from LPC. Bruce Hendee, Landscape Architect, said he began the project by taking an extensive physical inventory of Old Town and the street furnishings as they exist. He showed a notebook of slides and mentioned that it will also be a good historic document, showing where items exist and their condition. He then researched historic Fort Collins streetscapes to help in moving from the past and present into the future. He was particularly looking for clues to design and context for the project. He mentioned some of the technical difficulties. For example, the areas where the canopies were have inadequate drainage. The freeze and thaw cycles were heightened by the canopy structures, which also dripped water onto pedestrians. The thin set file was laid on a mortar bed, which does not hold well in this climate. Any replacement would need to be of a reasonable cost with good maintenance. The paving is the most permanent -- and although lighting is important for image, it is more easily changed. Some of the elements of design considered include: street art; bringing back the historic clocks such as existed at the corners of College and at Linden; bringing back columns such as existed Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 8 at the comer of College and Mountain; art pedestals on Jefferson and Linden; contemporary elements such as bronze art work; bronze City Art Maps with detailed sculptural elements; returning the old water troughs that appeared at comers -- possibly as water fountains; and bronze manhole covers featuring the City logo. The consultant looked at lighting and lampposts, and considered several designs. One is a close replication of historic lighting; another is a more contemporary arched neck incorporating the City logo. He showed examples of coordinated seating and trash receptacles. The City is considering four different types of paving: interlock paver, which can look like granite or brick; dry laid brick on sand; exposed aggregate; or flagstone, which may be inlaid in concrete due to cost considerations. Samples will be available for examination at Lee Martinez Park. Also under consideration for the Mountain and College intersection is a "Denver Barn Dance", which features a X pattern for pedestrian crossing as well as the traditional square crossing. Three different styles of treatment for the intersection were explored, at decreasing cost and all keep the existing planters: sandstone with brick interlock, sandstone intersection; and exposed aggregate. Several different treatments of the streetscape around the Linden Hotel are under consideration. The situation is complicated by: some existing flagstone sidewalk, which the consultant would like to retain somewhere in the streetscape; requirements for handicap access; requirements to widen the sidewall. Ms. Carpenter commented that she appreciates the attention paid to pulling from the past for the decorative details. Mr. Tanner is concerned with the use of reproductions as opposed to catching the spirit of the past. The guidelines specify avoiding fake history when renovating historic areas. He feels that the hooped lighting contemporary look would be preferable to trying to match the historical look. Mr. Hendee said that it is possible to get historic style lighting that looks contemporary, but the clocks are available in the historic style. Ms. Tunner mentioned that the guidelines specifically mention not using elaborate reproductions unless the original actually existed. She said that public opinion is strongly in favor of the 5-ball lighting which existed at College and Mountain, but not Linden Street. However, Linden Street building owners like the lighting design and some have been approved for Linden's Bar. Ms. Carpenter would prefer not to take out the flagstone paving around the Linden Hotel. She suggests salvaging the sandstone and replacing it when the hotel renovation has been completed. She would like more information on the maintenance issues. Mr. Hendee will meet again with the LPC for further input and review as he has more information available. OTHER BUSINESS: The Commission decided to table the "Friend of Preservation Awards" discussion due to the late hour. Landmark Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes March 8, 1994 Page 9 Currently, the proposal is to band the Frank Miller painting in the Linden Hotel, move it to a new interior wall and interpret it with a plaque. The Walnut Street interior stairway will be moved slightly, but retained. The LPC agreed that moving the painting inside was acceptable. March 18 is the deadline for applications for ISTEA funds for Northern Colorado. Mr. Frank evaluated projects mentioned by the HRPP for possible requests for funding. The Trolley barn still needs about $300,000 worth of work to stabilize the building. The City would need to match 20% of funding. The funds could become available in 1995, 1996, or 1997. Ms. Weatherford made a motion to support the Facilities Department application for ISTEA funds to stabilize the Trolley Barn. Ms. Kullman seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0. Ms. Carpenter will represent the LPC to the Hwy 287/CO Hwy 14 Transportation Corridor Improvement Plan Steering Committee, which is working on a traffic impact analysis and mitigation report on the historic buildings on Riverside and Jefferson Streets. Ms. Carpenter will write a letter to the new owner of the Toliver House on Shields and LaPorte, informing him that it is an historic building and therefore eligible for tax credits. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Diane Slater, Secretary.