HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 09/09/1987E
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Meeting and Minutes of
September 9, 1987
The meeting began at approximately
Members in attendance were Wayne
Mutz, and Dick Beardmore. Staff w
Echevarria and Judy Reed. Also pre
ner on the City Planning Staff.
MINUTES
5:30 p.m., at 200 West Mountain Avenue.
Sundberg, Carol Tunner, Bud Frick, Andy
as represented by Kari VanMeter, Edwina
sent was Linda Ripley, urban design plan -
August 5, 1987: Corrections as follows: Page 3, second line from bottom
"Ms. Tunner asked if the band is going all the way to the east end", should
read "west end". Page 9, first line, "Mr. Frick made a mom to amend the
motion'', should read "moved to amend the motion". Page 10, midway, "Ms.
Tunner stated the repor�as no positives, only negatives." Ms. Tunner
would like to amend that statement to; "few positives and many negatives".
Also, a closing line, "Submitted by Judy Reed" should be added in the
future. Minutes were approved as corrected.
AGENDA REVIEW
TRIMBLE COURT ARTISANS: Reviewed by Wayne Sundberg and Carol Tunner.
ISSUES/COMMENTS: Ms. Tunner stated that the applicant has accepted all
items except 8, 9, and 10. Clarification with the applicant regarding size
of color band is needed. Also, clarification regarding the Oriental shop --
color band --is needed with the applicant.
FORT COLLINS MUSEUM - 200 MATHEWS: Reviewed by Dick Beardmore and Sally
Ketcham.
ISSUES/COMMENTS: Mr. Beardmore suggested allowing the applicant to proceed
on one or two windows and then review the work. Ms. Tunner and Mr. Beard-
more would like clarification on the use of "Durham's Rock Hard Putty, or
Aluminum (Sheet Metal)."
TOWN PUMP - 124 N. COLLEGE: Reviewed by Wayne Sundberg and Andy Mutz.
ISSUES/COMMENTS: Mr. Mutz had concerns whether or not the sign is consid-
ered permanent and how that affects the Commission. Ms. VanMeter stated the
application listed the sign as not permanent in order to lessen any penalty
regarding this neon signage. A permit has never been applied for. Ms. Tun-
ner asked what other businesses in Old Town have neon signs? Ms. VanMeter
stated Rumors, Rio Grande, Moritzio's.
BUILDING "E" - 23 OLD TOWN SQUARE: Reviewed by Dick Beardmore and Bud
Frick.
ISSUES/COMMENTS: Mr. Frick expressed concern over the glass and the degree
of tinting since a retail jeweler is planning to occupy the space. The dis-
play cases might not be seen well if the tinting is dark. Ms. VanMeter
pointed out that John Atencio Jewelers is directly across the way and they
have tinted glass. They have illuminated the display cases and they seem to
have no problem. Mr. Sundberg noted that the glass sheds on that building,
with tinted glass, were one of the major compromises in Old Town with that
developer. Mr. Frick asked if the solid panels in the transom area is
inconsistent with other styles. Ms. VanMeter stated there are minor varia-
tions. Ms. Tunner asked if the central entrance will be split to become two
entrances. Mr. Frick stated yes.
TRI14BLE COURT ARTISANS
Ms. Hazel Linters was present. Mr. Sundberg stated that a motion to rescind
the previous motion was necessary before further discussion.
Ms. Tunner made the motion to rescind the previous decision on Trimble
Court Artisans.
Mr. Frick seconded the motion.
Mr. Beardmore asked what the Commission is to consider on this application
and if the previous application decision has now been rescinded?
Mr. Sundberg stated that this is an alternative proposal, not a new appli-
cation.
Motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Beardmore voting no.
Mr. Sundberg opened the floor for discussion of the compromise proposal.
Mr. Beardmore asked for clarification on exactly what the compromise pro-
posal contained.
Ms. Linters stated that the board members of Trimble Court Artisans asked
to appeal the August 5, 1987 decision of the LPC. The Commission voted to
raise the color band to 12" above the windows. The original proposal was
3". The Artisans suggested a compromise of 4". The band was proposed as a
treatment in lieu of the awning which had been removed. The Commission
voted to enlarge the letters from 8" to 16", with Mrs. Linters' compromise
suggestion of 120.
Ms. Tunner asked if there was anything on the transom over the door units.
Ms. Linters stated the woodwork around the door frames would be the same
color as the bank, but nothing would be on the glass of the doors.
Mr. Sundberg asked Ms. Linters if she had talked to George about the sign
band being over his shop.
-2-
•
Ms. Linters stated she did not feel it was her duty to discuss this with
him. She stated that Mr. Rhoades had talked with George, and he stated he
would be willing to do it.
Mr. Beardmore asked how the sign band matches up with the edge of the sign
where the lettering will be.
Mr. Sundberg clarified that the band is 4" less in height than the side
edge of the lettered part of the sign, which is 25".
Ms. VanMeter asked if it was the intention of the compromise proposal to
make the top of the band match the straight side of the arch.
Ms. Linters stated it was.
Ms. VanMeter asked 'if the Artisans would be willing to expand the depth of
the band to make up the difference, so the band would line up with the
straight side of the arch.
Ms. Linters said yes.
Mr. Sundberg ask how this would be accomplished.
Ms. VanMeter stated the Commission needs to address that item.
Mr. Sundberg asked if the Commission members have a problem with the 4"
difference in the band and the lettered area.
Ms. Tunner stated she thought it would look much better if it matched.
Mr. Sundberg suggested allowing the Artisans the flexibility to match the
band to the lettering area edge.
Ms. Tunner asked for clarification on the coloring of the solid area behind
the lettering.
Mr. Beardmore stated that "Trimble" will be the building color (Navajo
White), single cross -hatch is Hunter Green, double cross -hatch is Redwood
color.
Ms. Tunner made a motion to accept the compromise proposal with the stipu-
lation that the applicant be allowed to do whatever is necessary to have
the color band size match the edge of the arched sign.
Mr. Frick seconded the motion.
Motion passed with 3 approving, 1 abstaining (Mr. Frick), and 1 opposing
(Mr. Beardmore).
-3-
There was a brief discussion between the Commission members, Ms. Linters,
and Kari VanMeter regarding whose responsibility it will be to contact
George and who is responsible for the materials and labor for painting the
sign band over his shop. Ms. Linters stated the band over the Oriental
shop should not be the responsibility of the Artisans.
Mr. Beardmore stated it should not have been a part of the application.
Ms. Tunner pointed out that it was not a part of the original application,
but the Commission added it.
Mr. Beardmore stated that in the compromise the Artisans agreed to it.
Ms. VanMeter stated that their submittal showed that.
Mr. Frick and Ms. Tunner both stated that the applicant will have to work
out the details of who will pay for materials and labor.
FORT COLLINS MUSEUM - 200 MATHEWS:
Mr. Bob Ballard, City representative, was present. Proposed work to
include: Replace rotted screens using clear stock, dowelled corners, clov-
erleaf molding, primer paint coat (Sherwin-Williams oil base exterior),
finish color (Sherwin Williams industrial exterior enamel), screening mate-
rial of fiberglass bronze from Black's Glass. On the rest of the building,
they plan to paint the soffits, archways, door jambs, and windows. There
will be some glazing on the windows (Dap glazing compound) and any caulking
that needs to be done (Sherwin-Williams 10-year caulking). Any rotted win-
dow sills will be repaired with Minwax wood filler. Some of the window
sashes will be repaired also. Durham's Rock Hard Putty will not be used.
Mr. Frick asked if the screen was bronze screening or just bronze in color.
Mr. Ballard said it was fiberglass material in a dark bronze color.
Mr. Beardmore asked if all the wood trim on the building would be painted.
Mr. Ballard stated yes.
Mr. Beardmore asked if the security grills would be painted black.
Mr. Ballard stated yes.
Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the application as submitted, with the revi-
sions of: High Performance Ninwax filler instead of Durham's Rock Hard
Putty, deleting 'or an aluminum product'.
Mr. Frick seconded the motion.
Notion passed 5-0.
-4-
•
BUILDING •E• - 23 OLD TOWN SQUARE
Present were Eric Near and Geoffrey Keys, representing the Madsen Company on
the Building E issue. Mr. Near handed the Commission revisions of elevation
corrections and another proposal (in addition to the three submitted). Mr.
Near stated they would like to: (1) Relocate the entry door, atrium area
will be demolished; (2) Entry to Point of View space from outside wall
rather than from the atrium; and (3) Change two center glass panes on both
sides of the door from tinted to clear. They would like to change the
entire first level glass panels to clear tempered (currently tinted), for
the entire first level of Old Town Square, in addition to Building E.
Mr. Sundberg stated when the Commission originally worked with Mitchell &
Company, the use of glass sheds was a concern. The compromise reached at
that time was the use of tinted glass to soften the effect. The glass sheds
were not in keeping with the concept of Old Town.
Mr. Beardmore asked how the work would be handled, since changing the glass
would also encompass the glass sheds by Comedy Works.
Mr. Near stated it would be piece -meal. Spaces that would be new build -outs
would be handled first, as funding was available, the remainder would be
changed.
Mr. Keys stated that the problem with the tinted glass is that it is an
obstacle to leasing the retail space because of poor visibility. The pro-
posed lease they currently have on some of the space is conditional on
changing the tinted glass to clear.
Mr. Beardmore noted that John Atencio Jewelers has no problem with their
tinted windows for display purposes.
Mr. Keys stated he thought that glass was clear.
Mr. Near stated it was a different type of tinting than what was currently
in their building, and Atencio's was acceptable.
Mr. Beardmore asked if they would be changing out the sloped portion of the
glass shed.
Mr. Near stated no.
Mr. Near stated that at the time the original proposal was submitted, they
did not have plans to replace the tinted glass with clear glass on the
entire project.
Ms. Tunner asked if the archway above was clear or tinted.
Mr. Near stated it was all tinted.
Ms. Tunner asked which tenants are requesting clear glass.
-5-
Mr. Near stated the proposed tenant wishes to open a jewelry store.
Ms. Tunner stated the main concern was to retain continuity and avoid a
patch -work quilt look that might result from changing some of the glass
from tinted to clear.
Mr. Keys stated they hoped to have all the glass changed in Building E
within 2-3 months.
Ms. Tunner asked why Building E had priority.
Mr. Keys stated it is the most obvious of the problem areas, and this is
where they plan to start.
Ms. Tunner stated she likes the tinted glass, but notes they can be dark
spaces. She noted that a marketing study advised merchants to free -up their
windows and allow more visibility back into the store.
Mr. Keys stated Madsen plans to change all of the glass but funding will
dictate the pace.
Mr. Beardmore stated that marketing is not a part of the guidelines for
LPC. They are concerned with design review.
Mr. Beardmore moved to approve proposals 1 and 2 as submitted with the
condition that the glass match the existing glass, as per staff recommend-
ation, as submitted under proposal 3.
Ms. Kathy Cooper, the proposed occupant, asked what steps she could take to
appeal the Commission's decision.
Mr. Beardmore stated she could go to City Council.
Mr. Frick seconded the motion.
Mr. Frick added a friendly amendment that the design of the mullions be
similar to the one's existing, the double mullion at the head height, on
either side of the door, and all doors have a semi -circle rather than an
eliptical shaped mullions and glass, over the tops.
Ms. Tunner stated she is unable to support this motion because she views
this as an opportunity to compromise with lighter tinted glass in order to
give consideration to the merchant.
Mr. Sundberg stated he has a problem since Madsen is not the applicant and
no guarantees can be made.
Mr. Keys stated he was in a position of representing Madsen and he could
assure conformity and performance.
-6-
6
Ms. Tunner moved to amend the original motion to include a compromise to
find a less heavily tinted glass, to retain continuity and allow for mer-
chantability.
Ms. VanMeter stated it might work best for the applicant to submit a new
application with samples of tinted glass.
Mr. Sundberg asked to have a vote on the main motion as stated by. Mr.
Beardmore, which would include the use of the existing glass.
Ms. VanMeter asked if the friendly amendment addressed the removal of the
bronze panels adjacent to the doors.
Motion passed 4-1, with Ms. Tunner opposing.
Mr. Keys stated they would like to have the tenant in place well before the
Christmas season.
Mr. Sundberg stated they have approval to start construction but they need
to bring in tinted glass samples for review and approval.
TOWN PUMP
Laura Davis was present before the Commission.
Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Frick seconded the motion.
Mr. Beardmore asked the applicant if they propose to hang the "Silver Bul-
let" neon sign in the window.
Ms. Davis stated they would leave it sitting on the sill and not hang it
unless the Commission objected.
Mr. Sundberg noted that if it is hung, it then becomes a permanent display,
and an application would be necessary.
Mr. Frick clarified that if it is hung on an inside wall, it does not
become a permanent signage display.
Ms. VanMeter stated that it can be left on the sill for up to 60 days,
after that, an application is necessary.
Mr. Sundberg asked about the panels behind the window.
Ms. Davis stated they are wooden panels to keep people from leaning against
the glass.
Motion passed 5-0.
-7-
OLD BUSINESS
Update on enforcement of sign complaints. Ms. VanMeter has distributed to
the °ommission"Complaint Investigation Form" for their perusal. She
stated that suggestions and recommendations are welcome.
Mr. Sundberg asked how to proceed if the complainant does not know the
business or building owner.
Ms. VanMeter asked the complainant to complete as much of the form as pos-
sible, then submit.
Mr. Sundberg informed the Commission that he had signed a letter prepared
by Kari, advising the Colorado Cut and Perm Shop that their painted signs
are a visible change to the exterior'of the building and not in conformance
with Old Town design.
Mr. Sundberg also mentioned that Paul Wagner changed the sign on the awning
for Stuff and Things. All the grommets and snaps that were on the upper
part of the awning are now on the front of the awning on the valance.
The Commission then considered new comments on the draft Strategic Plan.
Ms. Tunner asked if the draft is to be handled piece -meal or is it to be
discussed as a whole.
Ms. VanMeter stated she is asking the Commission members to submit, in
writing, comments addressing items needing changes. Once she has incorpor-
ated those comments at the October hearing, she can have Sherry re -draft
the plan, then the Commission can review the re -draft in November, hoping
to adopt the plan by the end of the year.
Mr. Sundberg suggested initially looking at the first issue and recommend-
ation, which is very different than the one stated. Originally, the Cul-
tural Resources Board retained responsibility for designation, as opposed
to the LPC taking on the duties of designation as well as design review.
Ms. VanMeter clarified that it would be designation by this body, with the
approval of the Cultural Resources Board.
Mr. Sundberg stated that the current suggestion is coming from Mr. Peterson
and the City to change that.
Mr. Beardmore stated that it is unusual that designation and design review
are split between two Commissions.
Mr. Sundberg added that it was not originally split.
Ms. VanMeter stated the only person on the CRB to read the draft has been
Christine Jones, and she did not have adverse feelings about the suggestion
of keeping designation and design review together for two reasons: 1) The
-8-
CRB already feels overworked, and 2) The sphere of the work is very differ-
ent from their normal endeavors.
Ms. Echevarria stated that previous CRB members had been strongly opposed
to relinquishing that function, but those people are no longer on the
Board.
Mr. Beardmore stated one advantage is that the current Board has a lawyer
on staff.
Ms. Echevarria stated his term is completed but one of the new members is a
law student at the University of Wyoming.
Mr. Sundberg summarized that the LPC would be willing to take over the
duties of the CRB if they no longer wanted to continue with designation
responsibilities.
Mr. Beardmore asked if the LPC could take over this much additional work.
Mr. Frick asked what the process is.
Mr. Beardmore stated there are 2 or 3 levels of public hearings, postings,
Council, legal issues, etc.
Ms. VanMeter stated one way to proceed would be to target areas, then pro-
ceed with those properties that have given their consent first.
Mr. Frick asked what is the advantage of designation.
Ms. VanMeter stated there is no advantage other than the philanthropic con-
tribution the applicant makes.
Mr. Sundberg stated to the property owner that there is no financial advan-
tage.
Mr. Sundberg asked for clarification on Item #2, first paragraph, staff
plays a low profile role at Commission meetings...
Mr. Frick asked if that meant the staff would serve as a buffer.
Mr. Sundberg stated it refers specifically to meetings.
Ms. VanMeter stated it is not a design review issue so much as it is con-
ducting of the meeting item, to increase staff involvement during the meet-
ings, to present the issues formally, and introduce the applicants that are
present. The Board needs to decide what kind of image they wish to project;
whether they want to be compromising and flexible or to be protective of
its integrity and the seriousness of its intent. At this point, there is no
agreed upon projection. There are merits to both sides.
Ms. Tunner stated one of the drawbacks to a low-key Board is the element of
misunderstanding by the applicants.
-9-
Mr. Frick encouraged the idea of visual aids, slides, etc.
Mr. Sundberg stated that Ms. Ketcham suggested historic pictures of street-
scapes to use as reference points.
Ms. Tunner stated the suggestion of leadership skills might be better
termed people/communication skills.
Mr. Beardmore stated he sees this as a codified administrative plan rather
than a strategic plan.
Ms. Tunner asked why a member from the P d Z Commission needs to be on LPC
but she thinks someone from the Historic Old Town should be.
Mr. Beardmore stated he believes this could be noteworthy while working on
preservation (in a new development) where better to catch problems than
when the project is proposed --in Planning and Zoning which would be in a
PUD and comprehensive development.
Mr. Sundberg asked Ms. VanMeter how much detail she wants to go into on the
draft at this meeting.
Ms. VanMeter responded she would like a general picture and when the mem-
bers submit their written recommendations, they can go into detail. She
would like these comments before the next meeting, by September 23rd, 5PM.
Ms. VanMeter asked for general comments from the Commission.
Mr. Beardmore stated the draft doesn't really address the question of where
the Commission wants to be. It goes into detail on specifics that are sec-
ondary to the Commission's existence. The primary goal needs to be address-
ing the reason for the Commission's existence.
Ms. VanMeter stated she hopes the plan will evolve into several parts, with
the first being an analysis of the many positive accomplishments of the
Commission to date, and then suggestions building on those accomplishments,
with the final section being specific on format and procedures. This draft
does not clearly define the service this Board provides to the community
which should be addressed in the early parts of the plan.
Mr. Sundberg stated to the Board that he and Mr. Mabry had a meeting and
basically Mr. Mabry stated he enjoys working with the Board. He does not
plan on attending the meetings unless requested. He does not intend to be
an advocate for Historic Preservation, 'but he will be supportive of what
the Board does.
Mr. Beardmore stated that was incongruous.
Mr. Sundberg clarified Mr. Mabry inferred he will not be the person on
Council that will push Historic Preservation --will not be the spokesperson
for LPC to Council.
-10-
Ms. Echevarria then displayed and explained an educational tool she put
together for use by teachers, regarding Historic Preservation and local
history. There are 34 copies, one for each school. It includes 42 hands-on
activities.
The Commission members expressed enthusiasm and praise for the work Ms.
Echevarria had done compiling this book.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 8:55 PM.
Minutes submitted by Judy Reed.
-11-