Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 03/25/1998LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting March 25, 1998 Council Liaison: Scott Mason Staff Liaison: Joe Frank Commission Chairperson: Jennifer Carpenter (225-0960) SUMMARY OF MEETING: The LPC discussed updating their bylaws. Extensions were granted for the following projects awarded the Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant: 251 Linden Street, 1611 Mathews, 924 West Magnolia, 321 Garfield and 808 West Mountain. The LPC reviewed proposed decorative window grillwork for 134 North College Avenue, under conceptual review. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Ms. Carpenter called the meeting to order 5:37 p.m., at 281 North College Avenue. Commission members Angela Milewski, Rande Pouppirt, Stephen Short and James Tanner were present. Bud Frick arrived late. Joe Frank, Carol Tunner and Timothy Wilder represented Staff. GUESTS: Jeff Benjamin, owner, 824 Remington; Mike McCormick, owner, Cache La Poudre Rifleworks, 132- 140 North College Avenue. AGENDA REVIEW: Ms. Tunner added the discussion of a proposed decorative window grill for the front fagade windows at 140 North College Avenue. Mr. Wilder added one more request for a Local Landmark Rehabilitation Grant Program extension to the Consent Agenda, for 808 West Mountain Avenue. He handed out information on the proposal. Ms. Tunner also wanted to discuss the LPC bylaws. STAFF REPORTS: Ms. Tunner reviewed the projects that had been through administrative review up to this point. A memo explained that types of projects that were reviewed and listed them. Mr. Frank explained that Staff wanted to inform the Commission of what types of projects had gone through administrative review. Ms. Tunner reported that may 10 —16 will be Preservation Week and the theme is "Preservation Begins at Home". Ms. Tunner also reported that some changes needed to be made to the bylaws of the LPC in order to make them more accurate and up to date. Items like now holding meetings on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. and that there are seven members on the Commission, not five needed to be corrected. They also need to remove Cultural Resources Board out of item #1 of their Purpose and Objectives. It should also read historic landmarks and not structures. She provided a copy to the Commission to take home and review. She added that the City Clerk had no record of their bylaws on record, so at this time they should be corrected. Mr. Frank said that they should recommend for the minor changes to be made tonight. Mr. Short moved for the LPC to accept the amended bylaws. Mr. Tanner seconded Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 1998 Page 2 the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Ms. Carpenter added that the Preservation Week Mixer would be May 8,,,1998 at 251 Linden Street, the Robertson -Haynes Block. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The accepted as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA: 251 Linden, Doug Gennetten 1611 Mathews, David Sheill February 24, 1998 LF 924 West Magnolia, Ellie Pearson 321 Garfield, Roger and Nancy Grippon 808 West Mountain Avenue, Neva Lawton Ms. Milewski ,moved to approve the items on the consent agenda. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW: Ms. Tunner passed out the original and historic photographs of the house to compare. Everything was completed as expected. However, Mr. Benjamin explained that the cost was different. He said that the plumbing was galvanized pipes, which were coming apart at the touch. They needed to be completely repaired. Ms. Tunner said that Mr. Benjamin had called aboufdhe plumbing. It was originally not approved to do the whole house. So, she called Mr. Bell at the State Historical Society, who said that the plumbing work would be considered a systems upgrade. He recognized that while working on older systems, you never know what may be getting into. Mr. Tanner moved to approve the application for Part 2, State Tax Credit, for 824 Remington. Mr. Short seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. (5-0) Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Tanner asked whether the hardware the applicant was trying to find were the ones in the kitchen. Mr. Tanner said that he has some to give him. Mr. Benjamin said that those were not original ones, and the original hardware is no longer made, so he is trying to salvage more pieces. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Cache La Poudre Rifleworks — Decorative Window Grill — CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, Mike McCormick Ms. Tunner explained that said that they have already completed some restoration work on the building and plans to install a tin ceiling on the inside. He recently ran into a problem, and has been broken into three times in the last three months. The first time $25,000 worth of guns was stolen, the second time his insurance was cancelled, and the third time another insurance company is threatening to cancel. She said that she does not believe that the owner wants to do this, but he needs to do something because there is a recess. The historic storefront, which has been restored gives people to do things at the entrance, without being seen. In sixty-second the burglars could be gone with the goods and the recessed entry has enhanced`a criminal entry. The owner has tried other security measures; a security system, loading guns out at night. It is not good that illegal guns have made it to the street. He has a design for the grillwork. The guidelines that apply are #47 and #48. The guideline for security devices, #47, said to use devices that will enhance the area. Guideline #48 says to avoid using permanently fixed bars on structures. Mr. McCormick would like to do a decorative grillwork. Ms. Tunner showed pictures of the Cache La Poudre Rifleworks, without the awning. She also went down to Perennial Gardener down the street, which has grillwork sitting in their window, which is not attached. These pictures were meant to show how unobtrusive it is. The proposed grillwork is to slow someone town. It is also proposed for the door and the design will work off the iron balcony, which the LPC approved. Ms Tunner does not see how it violating guidelines #47 and #48, because it is not iron bars, and it will enhance the area, because it is meant to be decorative, with leaves and scrolls. Staff would recommend that something like this be done, because something needs to be done. It is a special case and would not set a precedent. Ms. Carpenter asked why it would not set • precedent. Ms. Tunner said that the owner has a special case here, and you would decide on something like this on a case by case basis. Mr. McCormick stressed that he is losing handguns to the street. He explained that in case they came through the front door. He has installed one -quarter inch thick Lexan glass, which is extremely strong. Ms. Tunner said that they would not know it was Lexan, until they tried to smash it. Now, he just wants to slow them down with an iron grill 36 — 38 inches tall and keep this from happening again. He currently removes the handguns at Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 1998 Page 4 night. He added that the burglars could smash and grab the goods in sixty seconds, and it took sixty seconds for the police to respond, the crooks were already gone. Mr. Tanner asked if the grillwork would be on the inside or the outside. Ms. Tunner said that it would be recessed four to five inches inside and would bel'removable, but permanently attached. Ms. Tunner said that he does not want to block the displays in the windows or ruin the look of his place, after he invested money into the recent restoration. Ms. Carpenter asked if they had a design. Mr. McCormick said that the;same contractor working on the balcony, will complete the grillwork'and will use the same.type of design. He said that he hates to do it at all, but needs to do everything he can to deter them. Ms. Carpenter asked how strong the Lexan is. Mr. Tanner asked if the door was the only place it was installed. Mr. McCormick said that the windows are Thermapane, when it breaks it comes down in dangerous shards. The grill can slow them down, and still look decorative. Ms. Tunner compared it to the grill in the Perennial Gardener window. Ms. Carpenter said,that it was just a baker's rake, and not really grillwork. Ms. Tunner said that they added things,recently and there is an historic iron fence in the window. Mr. Short was concemed that the installation of the grillwork would start an escalation process. So, that if this were the weak point now, then they are going to the side glass or the front windows. If they want to get in they will, and where will it end. Ms Tunner said that the grillwork was supposed to deter them across the entire front. Ms. Carpenter said that they need to go by the guidelines and was concerned that three feet high was not going to deter anybody. Mr. McCormick said that he does not think that anyone would really break the front windows because it is plate glass. When in breaks it could cut someone in half. Mr. Tanner said that he believes that the guidelines are supposed to refer to iron bars that are on the outside of windows. He does not think that bars 4 — 5 inches inside the window are going to affect the facade that much. It is a special case and since a gun shop needs security it is needs much more of a barrier than most places do. The consequences of theft from a gun shop are severe enough to take special security measures: He said that they would have a perfectly legitimate grounds to say to another shop owner bars would not be approved. Mr. Tanner concluded that the guidelines refer to external bars and this is a special situation. Ms. Milewski asked if the ironwork could be put on the door and not on the windows, because the door really seems to be the target. Mr.' McCormick said they would probably them go for the windows. Mr. Short said that he has a problem with the sixty-second response scenario as well, because they do not really know how much of a delay there was between the alarm sounding and the police getting to the scene. He objectives to using that information, because they do not know if it is valid. Ms. Milewski tends to agree with Mr. Tanner. Because they are not talking about bars on the outside of the window, there is a real decorative character to it, and there is a real need for it. It is a case by case basis, especially with this type of shop and there may be a sensitive way of doing it. Ms. Carpenter asked if it doesn't deter people, then what is the next step. Mr. McCormick said Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 1998 Page 5 that he had investigated steel shutters or collapsible gates, which costs $5,000. They would require two forty -inch thick boxes on either side of the fagade and would have more of a visual impact. Mr. Frank said that they would only enhance the feeling;. of insecurity downtown and the Commission agreed. Mr. Short asked if there are other reasonable measures that are not architectural in nature. Mr. Short suggested locking all the guns up at night. Mr. Tanner asked if after installing the grillwork, would still remove the guns. He said that they would continue to remove them from the showcases. The rifles are not locked up, but the handguns seem to be the easy target. Mr. Tanner said that people are not likely to know, until they get in, whether the guns are there or not. Mr. McCormick as that the chances are very good that they checked out the place first and they can see the gun case from the front door. Mr. Tanner said that if you, intend on keep locking up the hand guns every night and the door is changed, then is the grill overkill for now. Mr. McCormick said he would hate to see them get in and take some assault rifles. Mr. Short suggested installing chains through the finger guards on the rifles, like he has seen in other gun shops. Mr. Frick arrived 6:15 p.m Ms. Carpenter asked if there are other ways to secure the other rifles. She said that it concerns her as citizen that there are assault rifles out in a shop with glass windows. She said that they should not be left overnight without being guarded. She added that she does not know what would stop someone that was looking for an assault rifle. Mr. Short asked if the grill really addressed the problem, or is itjust another just another step along the way. Mr. McCormick said that he just wants to do anything that he can to keep this from happening again. Ms. Carpenter said that the guns should be in a place where they could not be stolen. Ms. Tunner described the; layout of the shop and how the rifles can only be stored behind the counter. Mr. Pouppirt said that this was turning into a social issue and Ms. Carpenter agreed. Mr. Tanner explained that the grill does not create a significant problem with the appearance of the fagade.Ms. Carpenter said that they could probably work it out so that it does not go against the guidelines. Mr. Short said that he has lived in places where it has been a prosecutable offense for someone to leave a gun in place where it can be stolen and used in a crime. Mr. Pouppirt asked if they could install a metal accordion door on the interior. Mr. McCormick said that they would have to make it as tall as the entire shop, fourteen -feet. Mr. Pouppirt said that maybe they could construct it to ten -foot high. Mr. McCormick said that they would have to take out two big bookcases and gun racks to make it fit. Ms. Tunner agreed that there is not much room. Ms. Carpenter said that it may take some remodeling, but if they are going to carry automatic rifles in the downtown area, that's what they must do. Ms. Milewski addressed the aesthetics of the fagade and even if a metal accordion door exists three feet back at night, when it is closed up would be more intrusive. She would rather see something that is keeping with the historic character of the building. Mr. Short said that he still has a problem with a solution, which really is not a Landmark Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes March 25, 1998 Page 6 solution, but a just a partial measure. He does not want sacrifice any part of the fa;;ade for a partial solution. Ms. Tunner suggested that the Commission as to whether the owner would be able to do this, before he spends the money to get plans drawn up. Mr. Tariner discussed whether the LPC would refuse this request and on what grounds; and said that he would not refuse. He felt that with the social and other issues put aside, that specific request for the facade of the building would not be refused. Mr. Frank recommended that the owner speak with the Police Department regarding security measures and how much more security would they get from installing the grill work or are the changes most recently made good:enough. Ms. Carpenter said that she would like to hear from;the Police Department and their opinion regarding this issue. Mr. Frank said that the proposed measures might be affecting the facade of the building. Mr. Short urged the owner to look for other alternatives or ways to make less of an impact. Mr. McCormick said that he would rather do too much, than not enough. Ms. Tunner reported on the cost involved with being burglarized three times in three months. Ms. Carpenter said that they can not look at the cost, but only if the proposal meets their guidelines. Mr. Tanner assumed that the Police would say, the more you can slow them down the better. Mr. Short said that that might not be the best solution. Mr. McCormick already spoke to the detective on the case, who recommended the security camera and lexan door. Ms. Carpenter discussed other alternatives, like a guard dog. Mr. Tanner did not like the idea of having a dangerous guard dog. Mr. Pouppirt asked how far back into the building do they go with their jurisdiction. Mr. Frick said that they review things that are visible from the street and they are attached. Mr. McCormick addressed some other alternatives, which were mentioned; he stated that chains around the rifles, would malt the guns and there was no additional room to look everything up. He described a system, which Longs Drugs using in securing their handgun case. He will consult with the Fort Collins Police Department and return to the LPC with his plans. OTHER BUSINESS: None. The meeting adjourned at 630 p.m. Submitted by Nicole Sneider, Secretary