Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 06/04/1986LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 4, 1986 Meeting - Minutes The meeting began at 5:37 p.m. at 200 West Mountain Avenue. Those members present were Dick Beardmore, Carol Tunner, Michael Ehler, Wayne Sundberg and Holly Richter. Staff present were Sherry Albertson -Clark and Kayla Ballard. Agenda Review of Current Applications Ms. Albertson -Clark gave the agenda review which consisted of the Dance Unlimited application, illustrating the signage that presently exists in the area. Mr. Beardmore questioned the use of color in existing area signage. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that Chow's Garden signage consists of bright colors and A Point of View and Old Town Wines' signage is in muted tones. Ms. Albertson -Clark reviewed the revised plans submitted for 234-238 Linden for the Commission. Windows along the south elevation will receive spandrel glass. The three large windows on the south elevation will be replaced with new windows. Stucco wall covering in this area has been removed and the brick in this area will be repaired. All second story windows on the west elevation will be replaced with windows that match the proportions and elements of the existing ones. The existing storefront proportions are being retained and existing materials above the sill will be retained. The "block" detail above the awning has been deleted. Some repair or replacement will occur at the belt cornice at the southwest corner of the building and below the brackets. The upper cornice is proposed to be added to protect the brick parapet. Spandrel glazing will be placed in all windows on the east elevation and brick in this area will be repaired. The lintel above the new metal door will be retained. Detailed sections provide additional information regarding the proposed work. Dance Unlimited -#23 Old Town Square, Suite 154 Applicant - Richard Booth Request - Approval of window signage Hermie LaPoint of Mitchell and Company presented this application, pointing out the location of the proposed signage and proposed colors. Mr. Sundberg asked if there would be a later request for signage on the door. Ms. LaPoint replied that there would not be another request. Ms. Tuner asked if there would be a conflict of the proposed colors with neighboring colors. LPC 6/4/86 Page 2 Ms. LaPoint replied that the nearest colors are on the "A Point of View" signage, which are maroon and gold. Ms. Tunner moved to approve the application as presented. Mr. Ehler seconded the motion, which passed 5-6. 234-238 Linden Applicant - Dick Anderson of Amshel Corp. Request - Approval of facade renovation, painting, awnings Dick Anderson of Amshel Corporation presented this application, explaining the changes made since the last review of this application. Exploration at the pilaster showed that it is a facing 4" deep and the brick behind it is not glazed. Brick that is very close in color will be used. Since there is a slight color difference, wood will be used to separate the old and new brick behind the pilaster. The wood would be painted to match the door. Mr. Ehler asked for clarification of the proposed inlaid lettering. Mr. Anderson replied that the lettering "236 Linden" would be etched onto the glass and would be backlit with a soffet light. Mr. Anderson indicated that the investigation of existing kickplates has led to the decision to retain most of the storefront. The glass stop will be re -worked with new material. All other existing material will be retained. Existing copper trim will be cleaned and retained. Existing kickplate has a 2-1/2" reveal of a barnsiding material. Fir blanks will be used with same dimensions and recessed areas as existing material. Mr. Beardmore asked if beadboard would be used for the kickplate to match the existing. Mr. Anderson replied that the material would be a rough -sawn material. Ms. Richter questioned the condition of existing wood kickplates. Mr. Anderson replied that the existing wood is rotten and some is missing. Mr. Beardmore stated that the use of bead board on the building is unique, as is the ventilator in the kickplate. Mr. Anderson added that headboard could be used to replicate the original. He continued, stating that windows on the east elevation will be spandrel glass and the four -pane configuration would be retained. Windows along the south elevation will also be spandrel glass. The new windows will be Marvin brand double -hung windows. Mr. Ehler asked if the windows on the east elevation will have one pane of spandrel -glass or four panes. LPC 6/4/86 page 3 Mr. Anderson replied that there will be four panes used. He continued, stating that the Marvin window would fit the existing window dimensions. Mr. Beardmore questioned the sash style and width of the Marvin window. Mr. Anderson replied that they are very similar to the existing windows and that existing detail is being replicated. The top three brick courses near the roof of the building would be removed, cleaned and put back into place. The crown molding on the cornice would be constructed of redwood, to withstand rotting. The capping would be a metal flashing. Awnings are attached to the building in the existing location. Mr. Beardmore asked if the vertical mullions on the storefront would be retained. Mr. Anderson replied that they would remain. Mr. Beardmore asked if the block details on the upper west elevation are part of the plan. Mr. Anderson replied that they are not. Ms. Albertson -Clark asked for clarification of the proposed color scheme. Mr. Anderson replied that the colored elevation submitted previously (although not consistent with the final plans) represents the proposed color scheme. Mr. Beardmore asked for clarification on the kickplate and what would be retained. Mr. Anderson replied that from the sill up, all existing material would be repaired and retained, as illustrated on Section 3 on page A-8 of the plans. Mr. Beardmore asked if beadboard could be used on the kickplates. Mr. Anderson replied that headboard could be used in the center kickplate panel and that backing could be provided for headboard. Mr. Ehler questioned whether the use of headboard on this building could have occurred with an earlier remodel of the building. Mr. Beardmore stated that headboard was used at the time of the construction of this building and even if this was remodeled before, the existance of headboard on the building suggests it should be used again. Mr. Ehler added that the headboard should be used again. Mr. Beardmore asked for clarification of brick repair. LPC 6/4/86 page 4 Mr. Anderson replied that brick in the vicinity of the downspout would be replaced from brick from the addition that was demolished or it would be repointed. He added that the brick along the south elevation can be cleaned. Mr. Ehler moved to approve the application subject to the colors and paint scheme as on the colored elevation, with signage as indicated above the second floor entry door and that beadboarding be used on the inner piece of the kickplate. Mr. Sundberg seconded the motion. Ms. Richter asked if signage on the awning is part of the approval. Mr. Beardmore replied no. Ms. Albertson -Clark asked if both the trees and street lighting have been deleted. Mr. Anderson replied that the street trees are still part of the project. Motion passed 5-0. Minutes of May 7 and May 21 Meetings Minutes of May 7 were approved with the change on page 7 "Wayne moved.." rather than "motioned". Minutes of May 21 were approved as presented. Discussion and Adoption of Proposed Sign Guidelines for Use with Local Landmarks Ms. Albertson -Clark reviewed the proposed draft sign guidelines for the Commission, indicating that the guidelines have been written to address both commercial and residential uses in buildings that were often built for residential purposes. Mr. Sundberg questioned guideline 2 of the Residential Buildings in Commercial Use, regarding the use of window signage on a residence used for commercial uses. Mr. Beardmore replied that this guideline does allow for window signage. Ms. Richter suggested a guideline to address the method of attachment of signs on a structure and to make signs easily removeable and that any damage be repaired. Mr. Sundberg suggested specific wording to reference Ms. Richter's recommendation and that this guideline be added to both sections. E LPC 6/4/86 page 5 Mr. Sundberg asked whether the Commission wants to encourage or discourage window signage on buildings constructed for residential use now in commercial use. Mr. Beardmore replied that the option could be kept open. Ms. Richter suggested that by changing the wording of guideline 4 to "Select a sign that is compatible in design, color..." might be a way to address this issue. Ms. Albertson -Clark added that the guideline was written to keep the option of window signage open. Ms. Richter added that it is important to emphasize that not only sign color and material, but also design must be compatible. Mr. Sundberg stated that in the case of the McHugh House, window signage would not detract from the area or the structure. Ms. Richter suggested that the guideline regarding internal illumination be changed to "when only the .. " This would indicate, more specifically, that only letters should be illuminated. Mr. Ehler noted that there is a typo on page 3, guideline 5. Mr. Beardmore suggested that the use of a durable material be incorporated into the guideline regarding maintenance of signs. Mr. Sundberg gave specific wording regarding this guideline, as "Select a durable sign material and maintain all signs in good repair". He added that the detail regarding not obscuring architectural elements with signage is good to have in the guidelines, based on past experience. Ms. Albertson -Clark reviewed the Commission's recommendations for changing the sign guidelines. Mr. Beardmore questioned the guideline wording with respect to the use of plastic signs with letters being illuminated and concluded that this type of signage is not excluded. Mr. Sundberg moved to adopt the proposed sign guidelines subject to the noted changes. Mr. Ehler seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Other Business Ms. Albertson -Clark reviewed the new flow charts of the [.PC review process and new submittal requirements. Applicants are now required to provide eight copies of materials to staff. LPC 6/4/86 page 6 Mr. Sundberg asked if Commission members would receive actual photographs of each item. Ms. Albertson -Clark replied that photocopies of photographs would still be made by staff. She added a suggestion that the Commission hold field inspections on all items prior to the meeting. It was decided by the Comnission that teams of two members would be assigned by Sherry (noted on each member's agenda) to visit each item for an on -site inspection. Each team would report during the agenda review on their item. Mr. Beardmore suggested that all Commission members try to do field checks, particularly in the case of projects such as 234-238 Linden. Ms. Richter suggested a revision to the flow chart for applications that require a building permit. Ms. Albertson -Clark stated that all changes are leading to encouraging a more cooperative effort with applicants and formalizing the LPC review process. An annual report or newsletter will be published soon, to provide information to Old Town propertyowners and tenants. Mr. Beardmore suggested that the Commission adjourn to Old Town after the July 2 meeting to inspect the 234-238 Linden project. The meeting adjourned at-7:35 P.M.