Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/06/1987�r LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING - MINUTES May 6, 1987 The meeting began at approximately 5:30 p.m., at 200 West Mountain. Those members attending were Wayne Sundberg, Carol Tunner, Sally Ketcham, Dick Beardmore and Michael Ehler. Staff was represented by Edwina Echevarria and Barbara Hendrickson. Agenda Review 3v, 61,r9 Avery Aeu": Reviewed by Dick Beardmore and Holly Richter. ISSUES COMMENTS: Awning goes past the traditional velcorts. Awning will be placed over 2 storefronts only. Valance used for signage. Reducing the size of awning would show the metal detail but more maintainable. One large awning would allow for more wind damage (ripping). Vertical metal siding is underneath with vertical b-board (framed out) on the bottom, none of which are historic materials. Conpranise would be to replace what is there. Awning on Boutique Bravo would be removed and the frame would be modified. Unity necessary, as each storefront could have a different awning. Two options suggested were: have the awning go above all the stores, keep it just the way it is and work with the other storefronts. Comprehensive view should include Stone Lion, as is the case across the street. Mr. Pawn: Reviewed by Carol Tunner and Michael Ehler. ISSUES/OOMMENTS: Color the same as Mr. Pawn Shop. Clearstory windows are different on the two buildings. Colors on the buildings are brown and adjacent buildings are brick, brown and beige. Different awning than is on the pawn shop, but same color scheme (existing awning is dental and pro- posed is scalloped). Courtyard work hasn't been canpleted. Back of build- ing to be stuccoed and shingled. All work approved in 1984 was to be con- ceptual only. Applicant believes the work has been approved, not conceptual and needs clarification. Rifleworks: Reviewed by Jennifer Carpenter and Sally Ketcham. ISSUES/COMENTS: Size of sign; dominates the building. Sign is within code allowance. CACHE LA.POUDRE ARMS AND AMMUNITION Mr. Sundberg told the applicant the Commission's Guidelines suggests that signage be under the sign allowance. Philip Frank, the owner, stated the sign was within the sign allowance. Mr. Sundberg stated that although the sign is within the sign allowance, the guidelines suggest that the signage be smaller and in keeping with the adjacent signage. LPC Meeting - May 6,�7 Page 2 Mr. Frank said the sign was the same size as H & R Block's sign. Mr. Sundberg replied that their application had cane in before LPC did reviews. Mr. Frank stated that the problem was that there are 2 business at one address and that they were not partners. He said they have the letters down to 6", except for "Gunshop", which is 4" and they feel that a smaller sign would not be readily seen. Mr. Beardmore asked if they had considered window sianage in combination with the sign. Mr. Frank stated no, as they did not know how to do window signage. Mike's original sign at the other shop was 12' long and 32" high. They have cut both business signs to enable than to meet the sign code. Mr. Beardmore asked if they could put "Cache la Poudre Rifleworks" on one line and use the proportions on their business card. Ms. Ketcham asked if they could use 6" on "Cache La Poudre" and 12" on "Rifleworks". Mr. Frank said that Mike owned 2/3 of the floor space and should have more signage. He said that he could cut 1" on each of the 4 lines. There would be 5" and 11" letters on the sign and the sample lettering of 6 1/4" hap- pened when he laid out the lettering on a enlarging copier and then trans- ferred the size on the wood. Ms. Ketcham asked if the sign was routed out to 4" and if he could make the "and" smaller. Mr. Frank stated he was not sure of the size of the sample sign but the routing is proportional to the business card. Mr. Beardmore felt if. Mr. Frank could tighten up the spaces, he could put the sign on one line. Ms. Ketcham felt that the "and" could be made smaller. Mr. Beardmore did not like the size and feels it is not in scale with the other signs and it overpowers. Ms. 'runner cited Guideline #57 which states signage should be "subordinate - to the facade elements". She stated that the applicant could use a smaller sign than the code allows, as the proposed sign overpowers the facade. She feels it is canpatible in color and material with the facade as a whole and feels it blends with the Mountain Trader sign. Mr. Beardmore asked if this was a one piece sign or pieces nailed together. Mr. Frank said it was four vertical pieces screwed together and mounted flat against the facade. LPC Meeting - May 6,.87 • Page 3 Ms. Tunner asked the applicant if he could use brown, which would lessen the glare of the yellow. Mr. Frank stated that brown would not show. He said they had experimented with different colors and are flexible with the yellow. Existing signs were in red (Mountain Trader's sign) and found it not easily read. Ms. Tunner noted that the yellow is highly visible from the street. Ms. Ketcham thought the only other sign in that area as large as the pro- posed sign was Woolworth's, which is a standard company logo. She thought this was the largest sign seen by LPC. Mr. Frank asked how many businesses are under the purview of LPC. Mr. Beardmore noted that the H & R Block and Northern Hotel were submitted prior to the formation of LPC and LPC has no purview of buildings on the westside of College Ave. Mr. Frank remarked that if he was on the other side of the street, he would have no problems. Ms. Tunner showed Mr. Frank a map of the historic district. Ms. Ketcham asked if the lettering could be reduced from 12" to 8 1/2" or 9", which would take off 3 ". Mr. Ehler said the consensus of the LPC was that the sign was too large and there were two options: 1) Cut the size by eliminating words; 2) Combine window signage with a smaller version of the sign. He felt the LPC was try- ing to redesign the sign at this meeting and felt the Commission should deny the application and ask that it be re -submitted. Ms. Ketcham thought Mr. Frank should talk it over with his partner. Mr. Frank asked what the LPC wanted for size of the sign. Mr. Beardmore stated the sign needed to be in scale with the other signs in the area. He felt that a wider sign would be fine and realizes it is a sign for 2 separate businesses but a 3'x 10' or a 3' x 8' would work fine. Mr. Frank felt the 3'x 10' would be alright, but a 3'x 8' sign is ridicu- lously small for two businesses. He stated he could not afford to hire a sign designer and wanted the LPC to give him dimensions to work with and re -apply. Mr. Sundberg felt a narrower sign is needed. Mr. Beardmore did not think taking off 3' will be acceptable. LPC Meeting - May 6,�7 Page 4 \� Mr. Frank said he could possibly do 36". He and Mike talked and thought about taking Cache la Poudre off altogether and that would put the sign to 3". Mr. Beardmore thought they could get the length to 91. Ms. Ketcham asked if the sign could be longer. Mr. Beardmore stated that if it was a sign banner maybe it could be longer. Mr. Sundberg asked if the Commission was comfortable with the length. Mr. Beardmore stated he could not give an answer until he saw the scale drawing. Mr. Ehler moved to deny the application as submitted. Mr. Beardmore sec- onded the motion. Motion to deny passed 5-0. Mr. Beardmore asked the applicant to work with Ms. Echevarria and resubmit. AVERY -H6H6E g a 1 L u (IJ (j The applicant was not present. Mr. Beardmore moved to table the application. Ms. Ketcham seconded the nation. Motion to table passed 5-0. MISTER PAWN SHOP / CHRIS' Mr. Beardmore asked the applicant to review the application since they were dealing with information submitted in 1984. Karene Will, the applicant, thought the application was approved four years ago for color scheme and awning on front and rear. Mr. Beardmore stated the approval was for Conceptual only and talk was done regarding exploratory work with the clearstory. He asked if the permastone was being replaced by wood in the kickplate. Ms. Will answered yes. She also said they were leaving the glass the way it is but replacing the miami stone. She said the walls would be stuccoed and the paint scheme would be similar. Mr. Beardmore asked if they would be changing the door. Ms. Will stated the ymood door would not be replaced and the aluminum would be renovated and painted a brown tone like the other door. She said there would be the dark color on the bottom kickrail and the bottom piece. She said the color "Manor Brown" would be used on the top. Mr. Ehler asked if they could have the color listings for their files. LPC Meeting - May 6,�7 Page 5 9 Ms. Will stated she needed it so she had a record of where the paint was to go. Mr. Sundberg told Ms. Will they would get her a copy. Mr. Beardmore asked about the wood. Ms. Will stated there was no dental trim and LPC had approved the stucco. Mr. Beardmore asked if it was simulated stucco such as Drive It, and if it was to be built out with wood. Ms. Will stated no and that they could put the color in the stucco so it would be more permanent. She stated they may put one piece of styrofoam on to keep the depth and make a column. Mr. Beardmore said it must be an acrylic type of stucco. He asked if the applicant intended to leave the storefront as it is, or will it follow the older plan. Ms. Will replied that they will not put in the new windows, otherwise the plan is the same. Ms. Tuner asked if they could paint over the stucco, if they wished to change colors. Mr. Beardmore and Ms. Will replied yes. Ms. Will asked if the LPC could approve the color scheme on the applica- tion. Mr. Beardmore wished to continue with the whole application. He asked if the applicant intended to stucco over the brick and concrete block. Ms. Will answered yes, they would stucco the whole area, except the iron grills on the plan. Ms. TLnner thought the plan looked nice and asked about the shingle loca- tion and the if they are wood color. Ms. Will stated they are in the courtyard and are a natural wood. Ms. Tunner asked how much of the interior is covered by shingles. Ms. Will replied very little. She stated the doors are brown around the windows and there is no grill work around the windows which was orginially proposed for security reasons. She stated the blue awnings are the same color blue, but the existing canvas is faded. She said the color scheme is just a little different, as it's a different building but very similar. Ms. Tuner asked the width of the striping. LPC Meeting - May 6,�87 Page 6 • Ms. Will stated the measurement is the same as the other awning, approxi- mately 3" on each side and the middle one about 12" wide in the terra cotta coloring. Ms. Ketcham asked what was to be approved. Mr. Beardmore felt the approval was for the final design and colors in the signage and awnings, because the front is different than the conceptual drawings that LPC had, due to the exploratory work which was given. The back was pretty much the same. Mr. Ehler asked about the door and color. Ms. Will stated that for the time being, they are going to do the metal doors that are there and later, if possible, then they would go to a wood store door. Mr. Beardmore asked if they are painting the existing door. Mr. Ehler asked if they are going to paint the door the same color as the lower portion of the kickplate. Ms. Will replied yes. She stated the door is now glass and the metal will be a bronze tone. Mr. Sundberg asked Ms. Echevarria if the LPC could also receive a copy of all materials copied for the final record, possibly attached to the min- utes. Mr. Ehler asked about the coloring of the awning in the back. Ms. Will stated the awning would be blue with white lettering. Ms. Ketcham asked about the piping along the scallop. Ms. Will stated they were hurried and just an oversight on the application. She said it is the just a binding and not an applique. Mr. Sundberg stated that the minutes of 9/84, the conceptual plan was approved. In the October minutes, the plan was approved. The present application is revised. Ms. Tunner stated that the plan was only conceptual in October. Mr. Ehler felt that they were both plans were approved. Mr. Sundberg said the LPC had split the application into two separate pro- posals. He thought since the plan had changed, it did not matter. Ms. Will stated the plans have only changed in the front. LPC Meeting - May 6,�7 Page 7 Mr. Beardmore motioned to approve the application, as submitted, with the following clarifications: ,q.Tig 1. Existing storefront will not be replaced but the kickplates, will be revised to match the application. 2. Contingent on color coded elevations submitted at the meeting. 3. Door will not be replaced. 4. Existing mill finished aluminum will be painted as shown on the eleva- tion. Back 1. LPC receives the color coded elevations. 2. Awning includes the graphics and piping. 3. Courtyard - is already finished (for the record). 4. The whole back will be stuccoed as submitted. 5. Iron grills will not be placed on the windows. Mr. Ehler seconded the motion. Motion to approve with the above clarifica- tions passed 5-0. Ms. Tunner asked if the trash bin in the alley was part of the Northern Hotel. Ms. Will stated no, and it is really bad. She asked that she receive the original color coding and copies of any other materials. A member of the audience requested a pamphlet on the LPC 'and what they do. Roz Spencer, Director of the Power Plant, gave the LPC a presentation of the plans for the Power Plant. Christine Jones, Chairperson of. the Cul- tural Resources Board, was also present. Ms. Jones told the LPC that the purpose of this presentation was to explain the proposed _plans and the local designation of the Power Plant. Ms. Jones stated that there had been a number of meetings prior to this one, with other Boards and persons. Mr. Sundberg asked about the status of the designation. Ms. Jones stated the papers have been drawn up but has not been to Council. She stated that over two years ago, they had applied for designation. She said the process was stalled somewhere at the City Manager's level. She stated the CRB is pushing for designation. Mr. Beardmore stated that those attending the last meeting included, Light and Power representatives, Carr Bieker, Roz Spencer and Alec Cringan. He felt there was a misunderstanding as to the review process and he felt the easiest way to see what is being done is to have Roz give a presentation. He also hoped the LPC could give Roz some input as to what would be accept- able. LPC Meeting - May 6,�67 Page 8 rI LJ Ms. Spencer used colored elevations and a list of proposed changes in the Power Plant. She stated the Power Plant Board is very happy to designate the exterior, including the,,,fountain e art decoNareE n the building. _ . _ ,-, K-4e Sou:f{ _ st«F C. Ms. Jones clarified the area to be designated, which includes the building, the fountain and the immediate property. Ms. Spencer told the LPC that a foundation had visited the Power Plant and this past Friday, the Power Plant was asked to submit a large grant pro- posal. After checking this foundation, they found them to be a great sup- porter for the Plant in the future. She stated the grant has to be sub- mitted within two weeks and they have been scrambling to give all the information which they require and if there is some snag, she would like to be aware of it now and how to accomplish their goals and LPC can do their job. She proceeded to show the proposed changes. nLA.ber LPC had a concern regarding the large ameaat of windows, as they are not functional and may need to be replaced. Ms. Spencer stated they are researching the feasibility of replacing exactly the windows or replacing with different windows, which will main- tain the integrity of the architecture. Other Business Ms. Echevarria asked if the Commission would like to include the sample from Skorpio's Restaurant. She stated the condition on the application was to submit a mortar mix and a patch and wants to know if the LPC needs a new application. She said it was 3 parts sand to one part masonry cement with no color. Mr. Ehler felt there was not enough information. Mr. Beardmore stated the LPC needs to know the type of masonry he is using and there needs to be coloring for the tuckpointing the stone and another color for tuckpointing the brick. He stated that it is difficult work and they need to work closely and the applicants need to be working with some- one who knows what they are doing. Ms. Echevarria asked if there were masonry people they could suggest. Mr. Beardmore suggested contacting the State Restoration Office to get the names of reliable mason workers. Ms. Echevarria said she would contact the applicant and impress upon him the necessity to have the work done correctly. Agnes' Very Very Mr. Ehler stated that procedures, such as a new application, were followed and the LPC were asked to make a decision. He felt sane communication must be made that procedure was not followed. LPC Meeting - May 6,407 • Page 9 Mr. Beardmore stated he spoke at the Council meeting and it is on the record. Mr. Sundberg said he spoke to Mike Davis and Larry Estrada. Ms. Tunner said she spoke to Ed Stoner and Chuck Mabry and told them that several members of the Commission felt as though they had their hands slapped. She explained to Mr. Stoner how the applicant spoke before Coun- cil and the LPC was immediately pushed into action and a decision made when the applicant had several chances to cane before the LPC. She also noted the awning had been made prior to the decision by LPC and the Council mem- bers were surprised. Ms. Ketcham felt the canvas company should be alerted to the fact that an awning cannot be put up until LPC gives it's approval. She felt that it made a difference that the awning was already constructed. Mr. Sundberg stated Mike Davis and Larry Estrada were concerned with the applicant's means of approach to her problem and what other public means the she would resort to. Ms. Tunner stated the awning is up and the applicants have received many canpliments about it. Mr. Sundberg felt they did make a point to Council, and although they made concessions this time, will not have to in the future. Ms. Tunner asked if the Pied Piper Deli had submitted for their signage. Mr. Sundberg said Mike Johnson, Peterson Awning, called and said the appli- cant wants him to do the awning and they wanted to know if they could be put on the next agenda, even though the deadline had past. Mr. Sundberg told him no. Mr. Beardmore expressed concern over the proliferation of "used car lot" type banners. Mr. Sundberg said the LPC had been working with Ms. Kleckner regarding deadline for submittals and items necessary to have a canplete submittal. He noted the submittals that have brought in a color photo and no scale drawing. He felt that the LPC needed to review this criteria and may need a worksession to complete. Ms. Echevarria stated a difficult project, Rio Grande, is caning up and would like to have some help from either members of LPC or Staff. Mr. Sundberg stated the applicant wanted to be included in the worksession and feels that a worksession should be mainly a worksession. Ms. Pchevarria asked if applicants had been seen before at a worksession. Mr. Sundberg said it happened once and was an item that had been seen at that month's meeting and LPC had a good idea of the direction of the appli- LPC Meeting - May 6,4W7 • Page 10 cation. Ms. Echevarria said the LPC had other concerns besides the submittal requirements including, interior and enforcement. She stated she is extremely busy and the new staff member would not be available for a couple of months. She stated that Sherry Albertson Clark would be working on a contract basis making strategy reccmnendations for LPC and Staff and not to work for the LPC. Mr. Sundberg stated that he would like to have a tape recorder that would not fail, as has happened. Mr. Beardmore felt that Tan Peterson and Mike Davis should be included in the next meeting to enable them to talk over the LPC concerns. He asked that the Council liaison be included also. Mr. Sundberg stated he will contact and invite them. Ms. Echevarria told the LPC that the structure at 255 North College was being looking at to be torn down for a parking lot for the Everitt build- ing. She wondered if the structure could be moved. She said that the owner of the Maleby store may be seeking designation. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:40 p.m. PowerPlant Visual Arts Center Presentation to Landmark Preservation Commission May 6, 1987 Proposed Exterior Changes to the Building: 1- New Entrance located southeast building el 2- Fountain Terrace south exterior wall 3- Greenhouse Roofgarden-children's museum northeast roof 4- Removal and realignment of sidewalk approaches to building 5- All window glazing 6- Railings and fittings to roofgarden west face roof 7- Exterior air exchange roof units on west roof Changes to the grounds and surrounding site: 1- Redefining steel superstructure on the River Plaza 2- Constructing a Performance Pavillion east end of River Plaza 3- Berm the west perimeter of the front lawn to screen traffic noises 4- Install children's sculpture playground east end of south fountain area 5- Removal of stone pylon northeast corner front lawn 6- Cantilevered deck on River Plaza