Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 05/07/1986LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes - May 7, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m, in the DDA Conference Room. Commission members present included: Dick Beardmore, Holly Richter, Carol Tunner, Wayne Sundberg and Sally Ketcham. Staff members present included Sherry Albertson -Clark and Barbara Hendrickson. OLD TOWN WINES - #23 Old Town Square, Suite 152 Applicant - Michael Wittmer of Signs and Designs for Ted Smith Request - Approval of window signage Mr. Wittmer described the current and proposed signage for Old Town Wines. Mr. Beardmore asked what were the colors on the door. Mr. Wittmer answered gold. With no other questions, Mr. Sundberg moved to approve the application. Ms. Ketcham seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-0. HOUSE OF SHIPS - 236 Walnut Applicant - John Hancock, House of Paper Ships Request - Approval of existing window signage Ms. Hancock told the Commission the proposed sign hangs inside. Ms. Richter asked if the sign was lit. Ms. Hancock replied no. Ms. Ketcham asked if the sign is permanent. Ms. Hancock replied no. With no other questions, Ms. Tunner moved to approve the signage as it now exists. Mr. Sundberg seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 5-0. 234-238 LINDEN STREET Applicant - Dick Anderson of Amshel Corp., for Linden Partners Request - Conceptual Review of facade renovation, painting and awnings Mr. Anderson gave a presentation, using photographs which showed the struc- tural history of the building. The dimensions of the building in 1903 were 70' C 50' and when the building changed occupants, the structure was increased by 26' with an addition on the back in 1909. He is requesting the demolition of the addition due to a different floor elevation and condition of the masonry. He stated when the addition is removed, there will be two existing windows at the rear location. Using the original brick, they are proposing to brick up the windows on the side wall and maintain the two LPC Meeting May 7,4P6 Page 2 doors at the rear of the building. The applicant wishes to suspend a 10' ceiling and the windows interfere with that construction. Ms. Tunner asked if he wished to brick up all the windows. Mr. Anderson replied only the lower level windows would be bricked. He showed early photographs of a building front from a nearby building which he felt is similar to the original of this structure. He is proposing to remove the brick and existing storefront, bringing back the detail with wood trim on the base and along the windows. The wood doors would receive oval glass windows with 234, 236 and 238 Linden etched in, and plywood inserts over the door. The glass and doors to the second floor would be set back 3 1/2 feet from the existing front pilasters. Mr. Beardmore asked if he intends to maintain the existing pilasters and then widen the entry. Mr. Anderson replied yes and for accessibility, a pair of 2' X 6' doors, and then come back to the pilasters to provide enough space for the doors and frame. What is presently there will remain, with the doors and windows being recessed 4 1/2 feet. For lighting in that recessed area, they are proposing 2 globe -type fixtures and these would be placed in front at curb - line and are similar to those already in Old Town, the applicant is propos- ing awnings in a blue color. The dentil and wood work appear to be original and will remain. The dentil work would be painted brown, with the fascia board painted Georgian Brick (red). He stated they would introduce brown relief blocks to the existing fascia. Ms. Ketcham asked if they had done any exploration to see if there are any original relief blocks. Mr. Anderson replied no and added that the whole front was recently painted. The very top fascia panels and cornice work is quite bad or is falling off and they wish tore store it to a clean condition. The existing windows would remain horizontal and painted a dark brown. He pointed out the brick damage done to the alley side of the building due to a scupper where the water has drained off the front of the roof and the wall which was plastered with some preservative material. Other locations on the building have problems with the masonry and the applicant is proposing to paint the complete structure Document Gray. The top would be capped with brown wood. They wish to have the side look good and by painting would pre- serve the brick and create continuity of the whole structure. Ms. Tunner asked the applicant to show where the wooden box cornices are added above the existing cornices. Mr. Anderson showed the area at the top. Ms. Tunner asked if the brick is to be removed. Mr. Anderson answered no, the brick was already there but is falling and will be repainted and capped so the moisture does no further damage. LPC Meeting May 7,086 • Page 3 Another option would be to flash over it. Mr. Sundberg stated that it is basically exposed with no covering. Mr. Beardmore said that he had been by the building and it seemed to him to be the original storefront, as the building across the street has the same detail. Ms. Clark asked if the storefront will be painted. Mr. Anderson stated the new wood which goes up to the stops will be painted white. Mr. Beardmore asked the reason for removing the storefront. Mr. Anderson replied that they have 6" diameter pipe columns behind that are unsightly and the 8" wood detail on each side of those windows. Ms. Ketcham felt the painting of the whole structure not to be in tune with the rest of Old Town and cited the building on the corner of Jefferson and Linden. She also noted the difficulty in removing paint if it is desired in the future and the damage it can cause. Ms. Tunner pointed out that the owner of the building across the street is spending quite a bit of money to remove the paint. She feels that if the applicant is lucky enough to be working with an older structure that is in this good of shape, it should not be painted. The Commission wondered if there was any specific criteria for painting. Ms. Clark stated number 9 on page 13 in the Guidelines refers to this. Ms. Tunner read that no building "shall be painted unless it has become so weathered it becomes necessary". Mr. Beardmore stated that the hardest part of restoration is locating matching brick and the brick from the demolition of the addition should be adequate for any repairs, as they appear to be in good condition. Ms. Tunner noted that a feature of the building might have been to recess 2 doors and bring one forward. Mr. Anderson stated the width between the two pilasters is 4' X 6' and they would like a double door. To have less than a 2' door presents code prob- lems for that opening. He pointed out that a wheelchair could not pass through and the original reason for bringing forward the door was probably to create more space upstairs. He stated that in the original plans, the tenant space was secondary to the primary space occupied by the ground floor business. He felt there would be a problem, in both identifying the owner's own business and preserving the building. Ms. Tunner asked if the stone sills and window proportions will remain. LPC Meeting May 7, 1986• • Page 4 Mr. Anderson answered the difference coming around the corner is presently 21/2" to 3" and they would change to 8" and the sills would remain. Mr. Sundberg asked about the oval doors and pointed out the difference between the oval doors and the center (owner's business) door which is remaining square. Mr. Anderson replied the applicant would like to have some interest -bearing element in the front and felt the oval shape would attract interest but is not an unchangeable design. Ms. Tunner stated she felt the oval doors are not compatible with this building and she would like to see the applicant get old doors that are "natural" rather than new doors. Mr. Beardmore stated that this structure is the only contributing structure on that side of the entire block and is the reason the Commission needs to look closely at these proposals. Ms. Richter voiced concern over bricking the southern windows, especially if the alley becomes a busy pedestrian area in the future. Mr. Beardmore stated that in the past, the Commission has asked that the window stay open and be glazed back in with spandrel glass. The Commission has also approved a proposal to put a small coffer around the windows. He asked if security was a factor in bricking up the windows. Mr. Anderson answered security was not a problem on the back windows. Mr. Beardmore asked what was behind the brick addition. Mr. Anderson answered there is a door at the back which was built in 1903 with a different type of brick than was used on the front. This is the reason for introducing the paint, as there are 3 different types of brick on the structure. Ms. Richter asked if the different types are throughout the building. Mr. Anderson stated the front has all fired brick and the back and sides have a combination of different brick/plaster/paint types. Ms. Tunner asked the Commission if there were any guidelines dealing with bricking up windows. Ms. Clark answered there are no specific guidelines but on page 15, guide- line #16 states that criteria should ., maintain size and shape of upper story." But there are no guidelines for bricking windows. Mr. Anderson stated that the trim around the spandrel glass requires white paint and would be hard to clean up. He stated the building across the street (Suehiro) is a light painted building and feels it displays continu- ity. He voiced concern over what maintenance would be required for the brick that currently exists. LPC Meeting May 7, 19�6 Page 5 6 • Mr. Beardmore explained that while reviewing applications for Old Town, the Commission feels confident about retaining the original brick and offered methods used to clean up the brick. He stated that the applicant was for- tunate in working with a building in such good condition with a resource of bricks from the addition demolition. Ms. Clark made a list of concerns by the Commission and those were; 1. Demolition of Addition - Supports demolition. 2. Storefront - Supports recessing 2nd story and retention of transom. Suggest re-creating kickplates and retaining existing doors. 3. Southern Windows - Recommends not closing the windows. 4. Painting - Recommends against white for storefront and painting of the brick. Recommends area along south elevation be painted to match brick or brick be repaired. 5. Cornice and Detail - Recommends the top box cornice and detail mid - facade not be added, unless proof they existed can be found. 6. Lighting - Recommends using tow -globe light fixtures, centered between trees. Alignment of fixtures and trees also recommended. The applicant requested a special hearing so they would not have to wait an additional 30 days. Due to the items discussed above, the Commission decided to hold a special meeting on May 19, 1986, to further discuss the above item. Mr. Anderson asked if the contractor could go to the building department with permission to remove the back building with the consensus of tonight's meeting. Mr. Beardmore replied the contractor could not obtain a demolition permit until the Commission recommends final approval. Agnes' Very Very - 214 Walnut Street Applicant - Janet Deb and Robin Angel Request - Approval of facade painting, window signage The applicant was represented by Hermie Lapoint, Mitchell and Co. Ms. Lapoint stated the proposal was for painting the front as well as for sig- nage. She said the bulk of the facade would be painted a gray color with yellow and green trim. She stated the signage was composed of a half circle which will have its base in the sign band where Walnut Hand Tools had placed their sign and will extend up towards the top of the building. She pointed out that on the application the sign is described as white plus colors A, B, and C, at the artists' discretion. She apologized for the vagueness of the application. Ms. Clark stated the applicant indicated the coloring would be green. LPC Meeting May 7,�86 Page 6 Ms. Tunner asked if the applicant intended to put glass in the door. Ms. Lapoint wasn't sure. Ms. Clark stated she did not receive any more information as to the size of the lettering. Ms. Lapoint stated that the brick on the front is currently painted a light blue with dark blue trim and the applicants are proposing to paint it gray with the trim (molding) a yellow/green. They are hoping to salvage the door and on the application, the door is described as a natural wood with a metal kickplate, as the use of the original door maybe impossible. The signage on the front will also be green. Ms. Sundberg asked about the kickplates in the front of the building and entry way. Ms. Lapoint believed they would be gray as well. Mr. Sundberg asked about the trim. Ms. Lapoint replied the trim goes all around the window and the green will follow around just at the base of the window. Mr. Beardmore asked if the building was part of the adjacent buildings. Ms. Lapoint answered she thought it might be part of one of the buildings, as it is almost identical. Mr. Beardmore stated he was still concerned with the half circle signage. He asked why the applicant desired this shape. Ms. Lapoint did not know, as their logo was not geometric. Mr. Sundberg thought the Commission would be unable to approve the signage as they had no lettering specifics. The only items they would be able to decide on would be the colors. Ms. Clark stated she talked to the applicants and had not received any additional information on the detailing and sizing of the letters other then what was routed. Ms. Richter thought it would be helpful for the facade to be drawn to scale with the different trim and detail so the Commission could tell how the sign interacts with the other buildings. Mr . Beardmore asked if the applicant could work with the sign, and sug- gested possibly using their business card design. Mr. Sundberg felt the building did not have the size to handle the proposed sign. He asked if the kickplate was to be metal or painted metal. LPC Meeting May 7, 1986 • Page 7 • Ms. Lapoint stated she was not sure. Ms. Richter asked the applicant if the Commission could also receive a col- ored rendering to better view the coloration. The Commission agreed to table this item until the special hearing on May 19, 1986. (Which was later changed to May 21). The minutes of last month's meeting were approved. Mr. Beardmore asked the Commission about the adoption of the Secretary of Interior's Standards, as he feels that if they are not adopted soon, they may receive applications which may need the guidelines included in the Standards. Mr. Sundberg remarked that Steve Roy, City Attorney, stated if the Stan- dards were adopted, they could not be used in Old Town but only to individ- ual local landmarks such as Laurel Street School and the Post Office. Ms. Richter felt comfortable with the Standards, as it is straight forward and has a clear cut approach. Ms. Clark stated she needed to add some items about signage and make sure those were acceptable to the Commission. She also stated the section about the interior should be deleted. The Members agreed to delete the sections on building interior and interior space and adopt the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating of Historical Buildings. Wayne Sundberg motioned to approve the Standards excluding interior guide- lines. Structural and mechanical systems guidelines would be used as they relate to the exterior of a structure. Sally Ketcham seconded the motion. Motion to approve passed 5-0. The Members agreed to table the adoption of signage guidelines until the next meeting. With no other business, the meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.