Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmark Preservation Commission - Minutes - 01/08/19860 EA LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 1986 The meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. Commission members present were, Dick Beardmore, Wayne Sundberg, Michael Ehler, Carol Tunner, Sally Johnson Ketcham, Holly Evans Richter. City staff included Sherry Albertson -Clark and Barbara Hendrickson. Mr. Beardmore stated the first agenda item was Alman's Deli Works. He asked if the applicant was present. Mery Eckman, representing the applicant, stated he brought samples from the gold colored diecut lettering which are applied directly to the inside window. He described the acrylic and neon signs. The border is soft white acrylic and the letters are in rose colored neon. An example of the rose being used can be found on World of Sleep store sign on South College. The inside line is the single tube neon and is a remote wired hanging sign. The switch is on the back and is a simple off -on switch. The acrylic is clear and won't block off the light source. There are bumper guards on the sign to prevent it from hitting the window. It is a similar sign as is found in Old Town area and will be on in the day, as well as night. Mr. Beardmore asked if the sign is matted on duraply. Mr. Eckman replied it was supposed to be clear plex. Michael Ehler asked if the die cut letters are mounted behind the neon. Mr. Eckman replied they are applied first to the plex and then the neon has "risers" which will hold the neon away from the window about an inch to one inch and one half. It is the minimum single stroke neon and the other window is not illuminated at all. Sherry Clark noted to the members that the applicant is using 10mm and the size they have reviewed before has been 15mm. Mr. Beardmore asked the applicant to correct the record copy as to the clear plex. Carol Tunner asked if the applicant could bring in a sample of the color rose which is to be used. Mr. Eckman replied that in order to truly show the color, he would need the whole electric sign. He ascertained that the color was very similar to the color found in the signs of Old Town Flowers, World of Sleep and Dining Furniture. Mr. Beardmore asked if the color of the building will remain the same. Mr. Eckman replied that the owner had not discussed any color change at present but he would have to talk to him to be correct. Landmark Preservation Commission January 8, 1986 • • page 2 Ms. Clark stated that she talked to the owners and they did say they would be applying for an application for painting. Wayne Sundbery motioned to approve. Ms. Tunner seconded the motion. Mr. Beardmore stated commented it would be desirable for the manufacturer to supply the sign company with some type of color demonstration. Mr. Eckman replied that a picture could not show the true color and without electrification, a sample of the neon tubing would not be useful. Ms. Tunner remarked that she usually goes out to the application site to see the area and would be willing to review a similar color, etc., such as the color rose at the World of Sleep store. Mr. Ehler felt this was something that could be done prior to the application review, so the Boardmembers would be more familiar with the application. The application was approved unanimously. The next applicant was Chocolate Wishes and was represented by the owner, Pat Morton and signage was described by a representative of Gardener Sign. Signage would be gold matte vinyl dlecut and would encompass all the windows. It was noted that the signage follows current modes of Old Town and Chocolate Wishes is placed at point of view. Sandy Cordova who did the John Pitner signage will also do the signage for Chocolate Wishes. Ms. Tunner questioned the door signage. Ms. Morton replied that an application will be forth coming to include Old Town Wines and Points of View on the door. Ms. Tunner motioned to approve the signage and Mr. Ehler seconded the motion. The application was unanimously approved. The next item on the Agenda was Recommendation to City Council on Proposed Landmark Preservation Ordinanace Revisions. Ms. Clark stated that a formal recommendation via a motion is needed to take the item before City Council. Tentatively scheduled to be heard at the February 4th Council meeting, it will be brought before the Cultural Resources Board on January 22nd for their motion and recommendation. Since it is an adoption of an ordinance, it requires two readings before Council and a period of ten days prior to the effective date.. Mr. Sundberg asked about the Certificate of Appropriateness. Landmark Preservation Com ion . January 8, 1986 page 3 Ms. Clark responded that it is something that is issued in response to a formal action, i.e., if an application is approved, the applicant is issued a Certificate of Appropriateness and will go hand and hand with a building permit. It would indicate that the type of work is deemed appropriate but not intended to verify at a later date that the work was done properly. If that is the intent, then more research and usage is needed. Currently, the only way LPC has to verify that the work approved is being done, is through Building Permit. Mr. Beardmore stated that it needs more work before presenting to Council. Ms. Clark said that Cultural Resources are pursuing creation of a category entitled Designated Landmarks and means property not interested in being designated now , but want control in terms of demolition. Mr. Sundberg motioned to recommend the proposed changes to Council and Carol seconded. The item was unanimously approved. The minutes from the December 4th meeting were reviewed and unanimously approved. Ms. Clark stated at the last meeting, she had handed out packets with the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation of designated landmarks such as the Post Office, and any other landmarks that have no design guidelines. If the Commission decides to adopt these guidelines, it would need to be scheduled as an agenda item and would require formal adoption at a public meeting and a second to review and make changes. It would not need to go to Council -Chapter 69 provides that in-house adoption is fine as long as guidelines are necessary to carry out duties. The current criteria is not specific and does have advantages as well as disadvantages. The Secretary of Interior guidelines could be used effectively but have no signage criteria. Since 70% of applications in 1985 were for signs, 18% for renovations and 11% for misc.(painting, etc.), criteria for signage is needed. The Commission could use the guidelines that are currently being used for Old Town and attach to it, the Secretary's standards as an appendix. Holly Richter felt that two different sets of criteria are needed; one for Old Town and one for the rest of downtown. Sally Ketcham felt that having a set of guidelines would make approving applicants much easier and more consistent. Ms. Clark stated that there is no criteria in the way of awnings or demolition in the Standards. She said instead of looking at the whole project and picking out bits and pieces, specific sections of Standards guidelines could be used for different applications. Mr. Beardmore stated the guidelines would not include interior design. There was a brief discussion on the Avery House and the carriage house behind it and possibly looking into the property. Landmark Preservation Comne ion January 8, 1986 page 4 Mr. Ehler asked if the guidelines were to be adopted, could the Commission arbitrarily choose not to follow as they seem to be fairly complex and could, in turn, make the reviewing lengthy. Ms. Clark stated the guidelines give direction and that it could make the reviews lengthy, if not used rationally,but does have advantages. The Commission reviewed areas in the guidelines which could be used. Those included: materials and maintenance, exterior, building site, district/neighborhood, health and safety, and energy retrofitting. Ms. Richter asked if the interior section would include areas which could be seen from the outside. Ms. Clark replied that the Commission might need Steve Roy's opinion as to areas specified as "interior". Mr. Sundberg suggested that the Commission take an application and use as a "case study" and suggested plans were made by members. Mr. Beardmore stated if guidelines were adopted, it would need to be put on an Agenda and made as public hearing. Ms. Clark then moved on to the next Business Item, Poudre River Trust. She stated City Council has asked that any groups with an interest, give the plan formal review and recommendations. This item has been also given to Cultural Resources to be reviewed. This plan goes before Council on February 18, 1986. She suggested that the February 5th meeting conduct application reviews first and review the Trust. Eldon Ward, from Cityscape, Jim Reidhead, Trust staff and Elaine Kleckner, City Planner, will attend the meeting and a 45 minute presentation on the Trust. The Commission chose to schedule a go over the Secretary of Interiors include Post Office, Fuller House agreed that the Commission members February 4 . Meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m. special meeting after February 5th, to guidelines. Hypothetical reviews might and the cabin at the Museum. It was should attend the Council meeting on