Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 02/04/1987LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1987 A quorum was called at approximately 5:32 p.m., at 200 W. Mountain Avenue. Those Members present were Wayne Sundberg, Dick Beardmore, Sally Ketcham, Carol Tunner, Holly Richter and Jennifer Carpenter. Staff was represented by Elaine Kleckner and Barbara Hendrickson. Items to be discussed on Other Business include: 1008 Remington, Malaby Store, Annual Report and Mayor's Award. AGENDA REVIEW Von Donner's: Reviewed by Michael Ehler ISSUES: There was question as to ownership of the building; signage has been in the window for some time; the owners had the sign made and then decided to come before the LPC. Comedy Works: Reviewed by Carol Tunner ISSUES: The requested sign is 8" longer with same width and different design. This application has colors which are more in keeping with Old Town. She noted they have changed sign companies. 252 Linden St.: Reviewed by Dick Beardmore ISSUES: This building is split between two separate reviews, possibly using two different styles. The application includes, building painting and replacement windows (mixing styles). The variety of colors on Linden Street was a concern. Conceptual review only was discussed. Ms. Kleckner stated she has tried to interest both parties in the possibil- ity of working together. The Housing Authority would not proceed with the painting unless Black's Glass would be willing to participate. She stated that Black's Glass does not have responsibility for the outside of the building and it is Ms. Kleckner's understanding the owner does not wish to paint the building. She also stated that she had sent information to the State for Section 106 approval with a finding of no adverse impact. She did not anticipate problems with State approval and stated the State knows the LPC will be reviewing the final details such as the color of the building and windows. The Housing Authority would like to move as quickly as possible in order to begin improvements, so people can move in. Ms. Kleckner stated the application was modified to include a brick color (Car- melito). Ms. Tunner asked the building date. Landmark Preservation Commission February 4 1987 Page 2 • • Mr. Sundberg stated an older map shows a building existed there in the late 1870's. Mr. Beardmore stated it can't be designated, as it does not have enough significance according to the Park Service. Skorpio's: Reviewed by Wayne Sundberg ISSUES: Colors of awnings. The submitted site plan is not to scale and there was a question as to encroachment permit for poles. The square can- vas on the back is not dimensioned. The building is a contributing struc- ture. Agnes' Very Very: Reviewed by Sally Ketcham ISSUES: Multiple colors on this small building. Lack of measurements on the drawing and unclear number and placement of awnings. DISCUSSION AGENDA Von Donner's Mr. Beardmore asked the applicant if he was told about signage before he opened his business. Mr. Von Donner, the applicant, stated because the turn of events enabling them to open the business so quickly, he decided to get the sign and then proceed to the Commission. Mr. Beardmore said that new tenants should be told of the signage proce- dures and felt strongly that this procedure is not followed. Mr. Von Donner was not certain that this was told to him prior to signing the lease. He stated the sign can be scraped off. He stated the proposed sign has basic lettering and is about the same size. He said they wanted to get away from the "Rooster Cogburn" image. . Mr. Sundberg asked if he had submitted an earlier application for signage. Mr. Von Donner stated no. Ms. Carpenter said she had no problem with the sign but told the applicant for future reference, that before placing a sign, coming before the LPC is necessary. Mr. Beardmore moved to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Tunner seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Beardmore felt the Commission needed to send a note to Old Town Associ- ates to remind them of the necessary procedures. Landmark Preservatioommission • February 4, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Von Donner told the Commission that he would definitely be back, as he was considering painting the front of the building. Comedy Works Fred Frantz and Steve Vineland, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Frantz stated there was a change in size and that the original colors were incorrect and this sign would represent the logo as it actually appears. He stated the sign is 10'5" long. He said there was a change in the construction: opaque background which doesn't transmit into the street so there is no shining light. He recommended the acrylic lacquers instead of cut aluminum and he showed both routed and acrylic lacquered signs to show, the effects. The gray background is opaque and won't transmit light. Ms. Carpenter asked what the applicant is requesting in the way of materi- als. Mr. Frantz would like to use a single face sheet and apply the gray paint so in the daytime, they have the magenta color on the gray and at night, they have the lighted magenta color with the "light bulb" effect. The light bulb effect begins with a light sheet, apply the magenta and gray. Ms. Carpenter asked if the light bulbs were holes. Mr. Franz stated that they are not actually holes. They are going to rev- eal the white behind but are going to cover it with paint rather than with aluminum. Mr. Beardmore asked the total wattage. Mr. Frantz estimated the wattage at 80 watts. He stated these fluorescent light are low power consumption. He clarified the coloring on the sign using the colored drawings. Ms. Tunner stated the red and white was previously presented to be the logo colors. Mr. Beardmore asked how the attachment was proposed. Mr. Frantz stated it would be mounted right to the face of the building facia and the top of the sign will be below the break of the rough edge. It has to be mounted out in front of the gutter, about 4". The sign is about 6 1/2 " from the wall, which the City dictates to prevent hot spots and dark shadows. Ms. Ketcham moved to approve the application using magenta and gray color- ing. Ms. Carpenter seconded the motion. Ms. Tunner asked why the color is labeled "plum". Landmark Preservatio�ommission • February 4, 1987 Page 4 Mr. Frantz stated that the pigmented color plastic that is a little more purple and .thought, at_.one point to use the Plum plastic but was not.close enough to the logo coloring. He noted the color will actually be an acrylic lacquer paint, Magenta 500. Motion to approve the application passed 6-0. 252 Linden Street (Housing Authority) Tracey Pitt, Assistant Director of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, stated they are seeking approval of window replacement. The existing win- down are in poor condition and need replacement. They are requesting a wood sash, double glazed unit. She had not seen the windows and was not sure what they looked like. Mr. Beardmore stated that from the application, he was able to determine where the single hung or sliding windows were to be placed. He asked the, color. Ms. Pitt stated she believed them to be wood and would be painted to match the building. She stated the larger windows would use the slider type and the smaller would be the single hung. The Commission discussed the existing windows on the three sides of the building. Ms. Carpenter asked if the applicant was requesting casement or single hung windows. Ms. Pitt was not sure. Mr. Beardmore pointed out that the proposed windows are built to replicate a colonial design. He asked if they had looked at exterior storm windows and whether the Housing Authority had checked on City Codes. Ms. Pitt was not sure if they had. Mr. Beardmore stated that because it was an existing building, the sill height is probably higher than what is allowed, as the Code on sleeping quarters is different. Ms. Tunner asked about the windows on the Linden side. Mr. Beardmore said they were glass blocks. Ms. Carpenter asked if the applicant was requesting lowering the height of the windows. Ms. Pitt replied no. Landmark Preservationommis-siaa • February 4, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Beardmore thought the applicant could get a duplicate of the existing windows with thermal glass. He also felt that LPC could not treat the top and bottom differently as it was one building. He thought the occupants could work together, as it was one owner. With other applications, the LPC had to deal with several owners. Ms. Ketcham asked the Commission if they could review Black's Glass appli- cation along with the Housing Authority's application. Ms. Carpenter felt the applications had to be reviewed together. Mr. Beardmore pointed out that this could be treated conceptually, as the Commission worked so hard with the surrounding buildings. He said the drawings weren't to scale and there were no colored renderings, which are the minimum requirements for submittal. Mr. Sundberg asked the Commission if they wished to review both applica- tions at the same time tonight. Ray Dean, representing Black's Glass, said it would be fine. He told the LPC they are requesting a change in the storefront windows on Jefferson and Linden St. He said the existing window material is obsolete for meeting code or wind load and the replacement materials are hard to find. He is proposing a curved metal with a 90' corner (radius system) and upgrading to code with insulated glass. The color is keeping with what they have done so far and will be clear anodized aluminum with shaded gray glass for energy efficiency. He said there would be one more plate of glass added to each bay window. There will be four put in on Jefferson St. and five put in on Linden St. The cross piece is 4". He is proposing a oval shape rather than an elliptical circle. Ms. Tunner asked if he was going to use the existing windows or if he intended to enlarge the openings. She also asked his intentions for the garage door. Mr. Dean stated they were going to use the existing openings and the win- dows would match the garage door except for the gray glass. Ms. Richter felt the color of the window frame should relate to the build- ing color, if the building color is to change. Ms. Ketcham said the windows on the second floor would also be changing and the review should reflect the change. She felt there would be a contrast of wood windows above and aluminum windows below. Ms. Tunner wondered how the silver windows would relate to the brick color- ing the building is to be painted. Mr. Dean felt that he should not be held responsible for something other than the approved clear anodized that is there because the Housing Author- ity wants to paint the building. He doesn't feel that he should have to change what was approved and is existing. He said that he carrying the col- ors that were approved throughout the whole building. Landmark Preservatio�ommission • February 4, 1987 Page 6 Ms. Carpenter thought the aluminum in Black's Glass' previous application, was chosen as it was easy to paint. Mr. Dean said that painting alone would require maintenance every two years and there is no paint that will adhere to aluminum once it is installed. Ms. Carpenter recalled that Mr. Dean had asked for aluminum, as it required little maintenance. Mr. Dean stated that aluminum does need maintenance and cited Steele's Mar- ket, which is already needing repainting. He stated that painting wood is more maintenance -free than painting aluminum. Mr. Beardmore asked if he considered using standard hollow metal, using the existing opening and reglazing. Mr. Dean stated he doesn't sell hollow metal, and the submittal materials are those he does sell and would like to demonstrate their own product. Mr. Beardmore asked if they could take the existing storefront without the kickplate divider and reglaze the opening. Mr. Dean stated that would be expensive as it would require every piece of glass to be tempered because the panes are so close to the floor (anything within 18 inches of the floor requires tempering, with the exception of anything less than 9 square feet). Ms. Ketcham felt the two applicants should come before the LPC with plans and some sense of design. She felt they could not design the building at the meeting and felt the Housing Authority does not have definite idea on what they want to do with the upper level. Ms. Pitt said their problem is budget and can understand Black's Glass wishing to show their product, but they are not in a position to replace with the same materials. Ms. Carpenter told the applicant that because the building is in an his- toric district, they can not put one type of design on one floor and a dif- ferent one on the bottom. Mr. Dean asked why his application should have any bearing on what is pro- posed for the upstairs. Ms. Ketcham said that at his last submittal, Mr. Dean stated if they were to acquire the building, they would paint it another color. She felt the applicants should work with the owner. Ms. Pitt stated the owner was contacted and refuses to paint the whole building. She said due to the limited budget, the Housing Authority cannot paint the entire building. The lease states the owner is responsible for the outside of the building, which was painted a year ago. Landmark Preservatio�Commission February 4, 1987 Page 7 Ms. Richter felt the internal storm windows for the upper floor would be more cost efficient and the LPC would like them better. Ms. Pitt said she wanted to call the weatherization program and see if they can suggest windows but has not been able to contact anyone. Mr. Dean felt that putting storm windows in steel casement is not energy efficient and they leak, as there is not a good seal. Mr. Beardmore said he would like to see the signs from Black's Glass com- pleted and photos submitted. Mr. Dean said the signs. are finished and the application is based on the building remaining white. He said the Housing Authority has not contacted him regarding painting. Mr. Beardmore asked if he was under citation by the Building Inspection to upgrade the windows. Mr. Dean stated no. He said their proposal was made with a white building as was the sign and the door. He feels the current application is merely an upgrading. Ms. Carpenter thought the reasoning behind the aluminum was that if in the future, the building was upgraded, the aluminum would be easier to paint. She pointed out to the applicant that it was due to the painting that the aluminum was approved, not simply for the aluminum material. Mr. Dean maintained that the application was made with a white building and at this point, it is still a white building. Mr. Sundberg asked Mr. Dean if he was working with a time frame. Mr. Dean replied no, but he would prefer to do the work while business is slow. Ms. Ketcham said the LPC needed more definite information regarding the top floor so they can make a decision. Ms. Tunner pointed out the many various windows and garage doors in this one building. Mr. Dean felt that won't be possible since he is proposing one type of sys- tem and the Housing Authority wants another type. Mr. Beardmore pointed out that the application for the upper level had no dimensions or elevations, which is part of the submittal requirements. Ms. Carpenter said they realize they are two different tenants, but they could not approve one thing for one floor and another thing for the other floor. Mr. Dean said they had done that with approving the garage door. Landmark Preservatio ommission • February 4, 1987 Page 8 Ms. Carpenter pointed out the review was done with the whole building in mind. Mr. Dean asked if the Housing Authority and Black's got together, and the owner decides to paint the entire building, can he still use the same col- ors in his storefront and sign. Mr. Sundberg felt what Mr. Dean is proposing is what the LPC has already approved for the streetscape. Ms. Ketcham stated that they approved the garage door and the applicant said he would paint the building if he took ownership. The applicant also said he would paint the aluminum. Mr. Dean stated he did not say he would paint the aluminum. Ms. Tunner asked if the building is painted, how will the aluminum look. Ms. Carpenter said they do not have a set proposal to even vote. Ms. Richter told Ms. Pitt that they need a drawing with each window, how many panes, what type of sash on every window and dimensions before they can determine if it will work. Mr. Dean stated he would go to clear glass if need be. He said the alumi- num is already in the windows and is paintable but could not say how long it will last. Mr. Sundberg thought there was not enough information with the Housing Authority's submittal to vote on conceptually. Ms. Pitt said the contractor could give more information. Mr. Beardmore stated that the applicant did not have scale drawing with the changes, color samples, photos, block face of adjacent structures, colored elevation and there is no information. Mr. Sundberg felt Mr. Dean should be given direction as to color and style. Mr. Beardmore stated that the previous approval was based on the white win- dows above and there was no discussion on changes on the upper level. Ms. Carpenter felt it again depended on the upstairs level. Mr. Beardmore told the Commission that they had two options; work together or have the applicants submit separately and decide separately. Ms. Richter thought that the LPC needed to see the whole project in rela- tion to the block. Mr. Dean stated the products they display are limited to aluminum. Due to the radius on the building, they need the curved style. Landmark Preservatioommission • February 4, 1987 Page 9 Ms. Tunner said that a colored aluminum would attract potential customers. Mr. Dean stated that they rarely get into a colored product. Mr. Beardmore asked if Mr. Dean reglazed the existing openings, would the glass have to be tempered. Mr. Dean stated that tempered glass is twice the cost of non -tempered glass. Mr. Sundberg asked the Commission if there was enough information to do a conceptual review on the upper level. Ms. Carpenter felt they could not do a conceptual on either project. Ms. Tunner asked if there were any proposed changes on the ground floor door leading to the upper level. Ms. Pitt said she wasn't sure. Ms. Tunner felt the occupants need to get with the owner regarding the painting. Both Mr. Dean and Ms. Pitt stated the owner would not paint the building. Ms. Kleckner said Staff could relay the concerns of tonight's meeting to the owner. Mr. Sundberg stated the Housing Authority's application regarding painting is contingent on the lower portion being painted also. He felt that must be a mistake. Mr. Dean stated the lease lists the owner responsible for the exterior of the building, excepting the glass (windows). He said they could paint the building at their own expense. Ms. Tunner asked if in 3-4 years, the building is again painted a brick color, how will the aluminum look. Mr. Dean felt it would be neutral and the alternative would be bronze. The colored frames cost 50% more. Ms. Tunner asked if there was any examples of a brick building with alumi- num windows. She thought that Poudre Tire had brick and aluminum. Ms. Carpenter asked about a bronze color. Mr. Dean said that was the other color they sell. Mr. Beardmore asked if the 7' dimension from the existing brick still or was he taking the brick out and lowering it. He asked if the 2'4" is stan- dard dimension. Landmark Preservatio�ommission • February 4, 1987 Page 10 Mr. Dean replied they are not taking anything out and the 2'4" is standard. Ms. Tunner asked if there was a sample of the anodized bronze. Mr. Dean stated that samples of the bronze are on the old Salvation Army Store, Friends' Saloon, Comedy Works, and the dance studio next to Von Don- ner's. Ms. Carpenter still felt they could not review the differences without knowing what is planned for the whole building. Mr. Beardmore stated the Housing•Authority had approached the DDA to paint and upgrade the building. Mr. Dean asked if the Housing Authority proposed to paint the top half, would the LPC allow that without the bottom half. He also asked if the Housing Authority would pay to have the whole building painted. He thought that because the owner will not paint the building, should not the LPC review the application with a white building. Ms. Carpenter stated that sometime in the future, the building will be re- painted and currently, they are reviewing window changes and these must be taken into consideration. Mr. Sundberg stated that they have no say in the color of the building. Ms. Carpenter felt that they still have a decision to make regarding win- dows, etc. Mr. Beardmore said this is conceptual and don't need to make any decisions and give direction to the Housing Authority due to their lack of informa- tion and other avenues that the Housing Authority hasn't explored. Ms. Richter asked if the applicants could get together and submit one application. Mr. Dean asked what the general consensus is so that the LPC and Black's Glass do not waste time. Ms. Pitt suggested the Housing Authority's contractor and Black's Glass sit down together and meet. Mr. Beardmore thought the storefront system rather than the typical square and in white. Mr. Dean asked if they wanted the white, what does he do with the sign. Mr. Beardmore said the sign is scaled down and would like to see the alumi- num in white. He said if the application were by itself, he would find it acceptable if it was in white, with clear glass. Mr. Dean said the other alternative is to leave it the way it is. Landmark Preservatio�ommission • February 4, 1987 Page 11 Ms. Tunner pointed out the various types and colors of the building and how the LPC needs to help create a harmonious structure. Ms. Richter said Mr. Dean could put in the anodized and paint it. Mr. Dean said he would not put it, knowing he had to paint it. Skorpio's Mr. Sundberg told the applicant, Mike Johnson of Peterson Canvas & Awning, that the drawing is not to scale and could interfere with the review. Mr. Johnson stated the customer came to him on submittal date and changed the design, so it was a quick drawing. Mr. Beardmore stated there were no elevations. Ms. Carpenter stated there was no elevation of the whole building. Mr. Johnson asked them if they had a problem "visualizing" the awnings from the information that was submitted. Ms. Ketcham asked if the awning was attached to a free standing post. Mr. Johnson replied that free standing was not attached to the building and was supported by its own posts. He said the owners would like to put win- dow awnings over the "holidays" signage in the windows. The door canopy would be the same size as Bisetti's - 6' x 12' free standing on post. The end of the awning would be a dome to match the domed windows. The windows and door canopy have a box effect in the back and measure 12" for the win- dows and 24" for the door canopy. Ms. Richter felt it looked contrived and appears it should be a rectangu- lar awning that comes down, relating to the windows. Mr. Johnson said the dome is in conjunction with the arches above. The owners wanted this effect. Ms. Carpenter felt it was too much for that building. Mr. Johnson stated there were awnings at one time as the clips there. Mr. Beardmore gave the applicant some ideas on the door awnings. Mr. Johnson said the door awning from the wall to the furthest end is 12' and the posts are placed at 9' and the width is 6'. Mr. Beardmore asked about the window frames. Mr. Johnson replied that there were no ideas at this time. Mr. Sundberg asked if the sign lettering was in naugahyde. Landmark Preservatio�ommission • February 4, 1987 Page 12 Mr. Johnson replied yes and added that most signs in Fort Collins incorpor- ated the naugahyde. Mr. Beardmore felt the applicant should be reviewed tonight as a conceptual and that Mr. Johnson should resubmit. Ms. Carpenter moved to deny the application as submitted. Mr. Beardmore seconded the motion. Reasons for denial were: inadequate submittal, draw- ing not in scale of the building; the awnings were too much for that build- ing; and the design was not in harmony with the building or the streets - cape. Mr. Johnson asked what would be acceptable. Mr. Beardmore suggested using traditional awnings with a more modest free standing awning over the door. He suggested using a blue green color. Mr. Johnson stated the interior will be pink and burgundy and the owner wanted to carry the burgundy to the exterior. Ms. Tunner pointed out the pediment on the top of the building and the need for smaller awnings. Ms. Carpenter suggested that by taking off the dome at the end of the side- walk awning, and will reduce the length by 3". Ms. Ketcham felt there were too many colors, as there is green and white in the building windows and the burgundy of the awnings. The applicant was given direction and asked to submit total elevations and to make the drawing to scale. Motion to deny the application as passed 6-0. AGNES' VERY VERY Mr. Beardmore asked if the valance was flat with awnings on either side. The applicant answered yes, the awnings are flat when retracted. Ms. Carpenter stated she had a problem with the blue coloring. The applicant told the LPC that they were not interested in green, as it was used by the Silver Grill and the yellow which is in their signage is a small amount. Mr. Beard asked if she had a sample of the canvas. The applicant said no because they are doing their own awning and could not get a sample of the canvas without being charged. She said the canvas was the same as the sample submitted by Skorpio's. Landmark Preservatio ommission February 4, 1987 Page 13 Ms. Carpenter noted the drawing lacked scale and dimensions. Ms. Ketcham asked how the awnings are fastened. The applicant stated they would use the existing brackets, which are cop- per. Ms. Richter said in order to truly see the color scheme, they needed color drawings and a photo. The applicant replied that she had no camera to take pictures. Mr. Beardmore offered the use of his own. Ms. Kleckner stated this could be viewed as a conceptual and the applicant could come back with completed application. Ms. Ketcham noted there was no dimensions for the lettering. Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Richter felt there were too many colors and the applicant might use the green and gray of the building. Mr. Sundberg told the applicant the next submittal date was Feb. 23 and the meeting date was March 4, 1987. Other Business Minutes from the December 3, 1986 and January 7, 1987 were corrected and approved. A worksession was scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 24, at 6 p.m. to discuss design guidelines. Ms. Kleckner discussed with the Commission the following items: The owner of 313 N. Meldrum had passed away and left the building a rela- tive. He contacted Elaine and asked for information and they discussed restoration and possibly designating the entire site. The Akin House at 1008 Remington hard b n issued a demolition permit. The building had been on the list of ° d be reviewed but was had not been locally designated. Karen McWilliams from the �uid ``"""caking pic- tures of the building. Ms. Kleckner thought that portions of the stone could be salvaged and stored. The Annual Report was due and Ms. Kleckner would need to compile informa- tion regarding applications, projects and worksessions. The Mayor's Award for Design needs jurors for judging awards and the LPC needs to select a juror. Ms. Richter was nominated to be a juror. There will be 7-10 categories to be judged independently. Landmark Preservatioommission February 4, 1987 Page 14 Mr. Beardmore told the LPC that he received a packet from the Parks Service (Regional Certified Local Government) to promote state tax credits, includ- ing rental tenants. He also said there was to be a statewide conference on Historic Preservation in Denver in April and a Colorado Preservation, Inc. conference in June at Cripple Creek, CO. Ms. Tunner said that Fletch's Bookstore is painted yellow and asked if it is in the guidelines. Mr. Beardmore and Mr. Sundberg both replied no. The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.