COURTHOUSE SQUARE PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Transcription

1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Be it remembered that the Courthouse Square Preservation Commission did meet in regular session on Monday, August 4, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the second floor courtroom of City Hall with the following members present: Mike Overstreet, Chairman Lee Benoit Andy Phillips Judy Riddell Call to Order Andrea Correll, City Planner Katrina Hourin, Assistant City Planner Virginia Pence, Architectural Consultant Virginia Boyd Tyson, Meeting Secretary The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mike Overstreet. Approval of Minutes from the July Regular Meeting on Monday, July 7, 2014 Commissioner Phillips made a motion to adopt the minutes from the July 7, 2014 regular meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Benoit. All present voting aye, the motion passed. Approval of Agenda Chairman Overstreet asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner Phillips made a motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Riddell. All present voting aye, the motion passed. Commissioner Phillips commented that the next regular meeting fell on the Labor Day Holiday. All attendees agreed to reschedule the regular September meeting for Thursday, September 4, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Public hearing for Case # 156 COA Pure Ryde, Blake Tartt 319 North Lamar Boulevard Blake Tartt, owner of Pure Ryde, and Bill Peel were present before the Commission requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the existing business sign located at 319 North Lamar Boulevard, Suite #102. Mr. Tartt and Mr. Peel began with a presentation with four key points related to the Pure Ryde sign: commitment, concept, context, and compliance. Mr. Peel explained that Mr. Tartt has demonstrated commitment to the investments in the community of

2 Oxford personally and through business. The concept is that this franchise in new and growing in the nation and the branding is a key aspect of the concept and of their brand s values and propositions. Mr. Peel believes the acceptance of the concept of Pure Ryde is a positive one in the community. The context is that there are other existing signs that are broad and diverse around the Square. There is a wide range of colors and size orientations of the existing signs on the Square. Lastly, they are compliant with Section 15 of design guidelines. Mr. Peel explained that there are six points under these guidelines that a sign must adhere to: should relate to the building s architectural structure, should have a flat panel/surface, should have simple, straightforward lettering, should reflect the image of the business, should incorporate appropriate lighting, and lastly, should not create visual pollution. Mr. Peel explained that the sign is compliant with the building because it is a steel building therefore the steel sign is built to be a part of the building as an extension of the building. Mr. Peel stated the existing sign is a flat panel, surface and adheres with the size dimensions in the guidelines. It also has simple lettering and complies with the Pure Ryde franchising. The sign adheres to the official colors of the branding and has appropriate lighting that enhances the building. The sign is not lit and there are no lights directly on the sign. Lastly, Mr. Peel explained that it does not create visual pollution and the sign looks like it was there from the beginning, and it looks better than the existing sign at Pita Pit. Commissioner Benoit asked if the other franchise signs weigh the same and Mr. Peel answered that they do not because this specific sign was built to reflect the building. Mr. Tartt explained that most of the Pure Ryde franchise signs in the country are made of steel though, and nationally they are backlit. Commissioner Benoit further questioned why they wanted it to weigh so much and why they chose steel and Mr. Tartt explained that it coincided with the super structure of the building. Commissioner Benoit also stated that when they chose steel they knew it would not be able to go under the balcony, placed in the middle and Mr. Tartt stated that that was never the situation. Commissioner Phillips then brought up the points from prior meetings dealing with placement, color. Commissioner Phillips explained that most of the signs that were displayed in the presentation were grandfathered in as the best that corporate would allow for those given businesses. Commissioner Phillips stated that at the November 26, Commission meeting the same COA came to the board and the business sign was approved with guidelines that it must be pushed back to the middle, under the balcony and that the bright yellow R be removed from the horizontal hang-sign. The Commission suggested taking the R and having it etched into the glass or adhering a black decal R. The conditions from the minutes are written, That (a) it must be placed in the middle under the balcony and (b) they will ask the Corporation of Pure Ryde about disengaging the R in the sign. Commissioner Phillips explained that the COA that was approved under those guidelines is the opposite of what the sign is today. Mr. Peel addressed the notion of disengaging the R from the structure explaining that the R is a part of the brand and you cannot disengage one from the other. Commissioner Phillips asked if they have asked corporate about it and Mr. Peel explained that they had not asked corporate about disengaging the brand. Mr. Tartt then brought up another point about being notified about the sign. Mr. Tartt explained that they were not notified in writing. Commissioner Riddell stated that she was not at the meeting when the COA was approved and that she is confused about their meaning of not being notified. Mr. Tartt explained that the local architect, not the Pure Ryde architect, was at the

3 meeting and that they were never notified in writing, from the City of Oxford. Commissioner Riddell questioned why they did not think to see what the Commission voted before they installed the sign. Ms. Pence brought up the issue of miscommunication between Mr. Cory Alger, the representative for Pure Ryde, whom was present before the Commission at the meeting on November 26, Ms. Pence explained that the representative never indicated that any of the items discussed at the meeting were going to be problematic, including moving the sign backward from the steel structure. Therefore, the Commission was not aware that they were asking for anything unusual and expected that the suggestions would be followed. She explained that it was not their responsibility to make sure that the representative that was present at the meeting made sure Pure Ryde got the information back from the case. Mr. Peel explained that he found it hard to believe that a representative with no ownership was allowed to commit to modifications on the Owner's behalf and no notice was sent to the Owner directly about the required modifications. Ms. Pence explained that when you send a representative to represent a case then that person is acting on your behalf and unless you send a letter of clarification otherwise. That is the only thing this Commission can understand. Mr. Tartt asked how there is no responsibility on the part of the City to notify the owners that a sign is out of compliance and Ms. Pence responded that there is no obligation on the part of this Commission to make sure that a representative relayed the proper information. Commissioner Phillips questioned the relationship with Mr. Alger. Mr. Tartt explained that he did some work on the interior space but that he is not the Pure Ryde architect. Commissioner Phillips asked why he was sent to the Commission and Mr. Tartt explained that Mr. Alger came on his own. Commissioner Phillips asked about direct communication between Mr. Alger and Mr. Tartt or Mr. Peel. Mr. Tartt stated that the only direct conversation that he had about the sign was that there was an issue about the color. Commissioner Phillips stated that after that conversation they went ahead and put the sign up. Chairman Overstreet explained that the minutes from the meeting stated that the guidelines with modifications and placement of the sign were approved and would be presented to the owner. Commissioner Phillips stated that it appears to be an issue of communication between Mr. Tartt and Mr. Peel and Mr. Alger. Mr. Peel questioned how Mr. Tartt was able to obtain a building permit and other qualifications and not be notified stating that the sign does not comply. Ms. Hourin explained that the address on the application was Mr. Alger s and there was a letter that was sent to his address in March Ms. Hourin explained that they did not have any information for Mr. Tartt therefore, he was not contacted. However, a letter of non-compliance was also hand-delivered to the manager of Pure Ryde on April 1, Commissioner Phillips asked when they installed the sign and Mr. Tartt responded that it was put up in January/February, before February 14, Ms. Correll stated that the agent of representation was given the directive for the guidelines for the sign. Mr. Tartt explained that when he got the notice of non-compliance he called Ms. Hourin. Commissioner Phillips questioned that Mr. Alger came to the Commission to present the sign and then Mr. Tartt did not speak with him afterwards to discuss that the sign was not acceptable? Mr. Tartt explained that he had not had a detailed conversation with Mr. Alger about this situation. Commissioner Phillips asked if they have had any conversation and Mr. Tartt responded that he has not spoken with Mr. Alger in a very long time. Mr. Peel stated that he believes there was miscommunication with all parties involved and that Mr. Alger acting on behalf of Mr. Tartt is a

4 presumption and not a fact so he stated that there is culpability on all parties. Mr. Peel also explained that this is solid steel sign so there was no way it could be placed under the balcony like it was suggested, therefore there was error on the part of the architect. Mr. Peel explained that it is an attractive sign and stands out as one of the better-made signs on the Square. Commissioner Riddell explained that she has received numerous complaints about the sign since its installation and has been questioned why that sign with bright colors was approved to be placed there. Commissioner Riddell also stated that it was not the fault of the Commission that Mr. Alger did not communicate the way he should have. She explained that if the Commission votes on something then the applicants go ahead and do what they want anyway, then it is a waste of time for the Commission. Chairman Overstreet explained that the conflict is that Pure Ryde has disregarded the Commission s instructions and decided to get the sign fabricated and installed the way they wanted to, not as approved, and that is a problem. Commissioner Benoit asked what happened to the original, artificial ivy that was in the same application but that they did not end up using and Mr. Tartt explained that that was pulled from the project in the beginning and should not have been brought up at the past meeting. Commissioner Phillips asked Mr. Tartt what duty he thought the City has to notify the property owner when the applicant of the COA was Mr. Alger. Mr. Tartt stated that he believes the City has every obligation. Ms. Correll explained that the City does not because Mr. Tartt had the representative fill out the application and present the COA so she disagrees with Mr. Tartt s claim. Ms. Correll explained that the City followed the application and Mr. Tartt had a representative. Commissioner Phillips stated that the City had no responsibility to notify Mr. Tartt. Mr. Peel stated that it was not an intentional breakdown of communication with the Commission and explained that the existing sign is not a bad sign. Commissioner Phillips followed that this sign is unacceptable, does not follow the guidelines and is considered to be visual pollution to the community. Due to the lack of a motion the COA request was denied. Complimentary Review for Case #157 COA Cliff Kinney 1403 Van Buren Avenue, Suite #105 Cliff Kinney of Kinney and Associates was present before the Commission requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the approval of a 2-foot by 2-foot brushed aluminum sign with dark navy blue background and brushed aluminum lettering on the building located at 1403 Van Buren Avenue. Chairman Overstreet asked to recuse himself but there was a lack of a quorum so Ms. Hourin suggested hanging a temporary banner or Ms. Pence suggested a plastic version of the proposed sign until his case is heard. There were no concerns with the proposed sign. The request was tabled for lack of a quorum. Commissioner Riddell made a motion to table the Certificate of Appropriateness for the approval of a 2-foot by 2-foot brushed aluminum sign with dark navy blue background and brushed aluminum lettering on the building located at 1403 Van Buren Avenue until the next regular session meeting on September 4, Commissioner Benoit seconded the motion. All members of the Commission voting aye, the request was tabled.

5 Public hearing for Case # 158 COA Betsy Luke 1111 Jackson Avenue East Betsy Luke was present before the Commission on behalf of Mitchell Signs requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of the existing sign and installation of a new, modified sign for the property Renasant Bank located at 1111 Jackson Avenue East. Ms. Luke requested to remove the existing bronze, plastic letters to replace with a new logo and white, LED, halo-lit letters. Commissioner Phillips questioned the approval of a previous sign for the bank and Ms. Luke responded that it was for an existing sign on the back of the building. Ms. Luke explained that everything got replaced with the takeover so this is just routine maintenance. The face of the letters will be white, which will match all other Renasant Bank locations and will be LED halo-lit onto the building that will not be lit during the day. Ms. Pence explained that light will not be coming through the letters because the letters are metal and just back lit. The letters will be white and the returns of the sides of the letters will be blue, same letters as the Trustmark Bank down the street. Commissioner Riddell questioned the size of the scale of the letters because she stated that it would look better if the letters came inside of the window frame instead of matching with the scale of the window frame. Ms. Luke suggested going to measure the window frame width and distance between wall and sconces. Commissioner Riddell made a motion to table the Certificate of Appropriateness until the end of the agenda. Commissioner Benoit seconded the motion. The existing sign is placed above windows. The existing window frame measures 8-feet wide and the width between sconces on either side of the window frame measures 9-feet, 8-inches. The proposed letters are 11-feet wide, so they would extend over the sconces. The existing letters on the bank are 9-feet, 8 5/8-inches wide, almost 2-feet shorter than the proposed letters. Commissioner Riddell stated that the letters should stay in between the lights. The existing letters are 10 3/8-inches tall. Commissioner Riddell made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the existing sign and addition of a new sign with the modification that the overall layout is shrunk down to the same length as the existing sign for the property located at 1111 Jackson Avenue. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. All members of the Commission voting aye, the COA was granted. Public hearing for Case # 159 COA Michael Terry 400 North Lamar Boulevard Michael Terry was present before the Commission requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for amendment to the previously approved COA and approval of final details for the building located at 400 North Lamar Boulevard. Mr. Terry presented five items in the request: 1) corner building façade, 2) awning support brackets, 3) guest room terraces, 4) gas lanterns, and 5) site lighting. Item #1- Corner Building Façade: Mr. Terry explained that they did not want to introduce a new architectural element to the front of the building. The materials will be the same as the ones used

6 in adjacent bays of the building. Mr. Terry explained that the brick detailing on the corner does project out about an inch which is lost on the digital model. Ms. Pence asked if the window above the doors is the same size as the window in the two-bay rhythm and Mr. Terry responded that they took the same window element and added it to the corner. Ms. Pence stated that it looks like these windows are larger than a standard window and Mr. Terry responded that it is the angle of the building but that they are the same size. Commissioner Phillips asked if there was any way to bring the brick out more than one inch to make it more defined. Mr. Terry responded that the foundation has already been modified and the masonry veneer projections are limited by the code required seismic masonry ties. Ms. Pence explained that there could be veneer added on which could come out about 2-inches from the structure. Commissioner Phillips reiterated that the façade should have at least the 2-inch protrusion that is allowed structurally because without it the structure looks institutional. Mr. Terry explained that there is a banding effect on the brick so total that they could project is 2-inches. Chairman Overstreet asked what the depth perception would be and Mr. Terry explained that traditional quoins historically stuck out roughly 1-inch from a wall it becomes very visual because it breaks up the brick so the 2-inches on this façade will be significant and enough to make a shadow line. Ms. Pence also explained that they are detailing the ledges in cast stone at the base level and the upper level cornices are detailed in EFIS, which will look like cast stone. There is a recess of about 8-feet from the arched opening to the front door. Commissioner Riddell asked about the pattern of brick color on the renderings and Mr. Terry explained that they were the same color but there is off-set banding which reads better on the hand drawing. Mr. Terry explained that they do not want to introduce a different element of design on this street corner. Commissioner Phillips suggested approving the façade as drawn with the right to come back and review if awning is to be added. Ms. Pence suggested getting a little more projection on the bottom level by including a backup of plain 4-inch block so that the brick could come out four inches from the face of the existing foundation. This would allow the cast stone ledge to have a little more of an edge so that at the pedestrian level it would be more prominent. Commissioner Riddell suggested overall masonry projection of 2-inches (more if allowed by structure) for upper level offset banding, and 4-inch masonry projection on the bottom level with block backup, which would allow the first cast stone ledge piece to be deeper and would make a natural shadow line. Item #2 Awning Support Brackets: Mr. Terry explained that the bracket is a 1-inch square tubing and the only difference is the valence piece of the awning has a piece that goes back and aligns with the bracket. Mr. Terry modified the submittal drawing to reflect the clarification. It is an open bracket and the awnings are stationary. Ms. Pence explained that the historic model would be propped canvas and it would be open on the edges, closed side edges are more modern. Mr. Terry explained that it will be a simple, black tube that is there to support and not make a statement. Item #3 Guest Room Terraces: Mr. Terry explained that the terraces are a way to better connect the occupants with the community. Mr. Terry also stated that you have to be back 120 feet from the building to see the roof structure but it is the same roof material (slate) that was previously approved. The roof came down to the edge of the building in the last proposal. Ms. Pence highlighted what elements will change with the addition of the terrace. The railings that will be added will be a more detailed element that it makes the edges of those specific bays a little busier and you lose the more direct connection to the residential roof that went all the way to the edge. Ms. Pence explained that when this roof was previously discussed it related more to the

7 residential aspect of the neighborhood but with the addition of the terraces, it relates more to the commercial aspect of the Square and is changing the rhythm of the building. Commissioner Riddell stated that she liked the terraces but it made the corners on that side of the building much harsher. Commissioner Riddell also pointed out that the recent plan called for 2-bay windows then arches, 2-bay windows then arches, 2 bay-windows then arches but this one has changed. Ms. Pence responded that the image they were viewing was actually the original plan and has been changed. Mr. Terry explained that he thinks the terraces will soften the look of the building. Mr. Terry also pointed out that the façade in discussion actually faces a commercial area of the Square and not a residential area. Mr. Terry explained that there is also one terrace on the other side of the structure that will be the same design as the other terraces. Ms. Pence questioned if the Commission were to approve the terraces then would they want to keep the slate because it was made to be more of an accent in the half-covered awning configuration over the terraces and may not be noticeable. Commissioner Riddell asked if it would be possible to slope the towers or put in dormers but Mr. Terry explained that it would mean a total redesign of the structure of the roof. Commissioner Riddell asked if the roofs could still come down some more to be flattened. Mr. Terry stated that this would not be a good design but Ms. Pence suggested moving the roof awning edge closer to the building edge. Mr. Terry said that the material they were planning to use for the awning would be able to do this. Chairman Overstreet also stated that the terraces should have a full awning covering to be usable in the sun. Commissioner Riddell stated that it might help to include posts to make it more balcony-like, like balconies on the south side of the Square. Mr. Terry pointed out that the ridge line of the awning was limited by the limestone detail along the top of the building. However, the limestone detail would not be seen with the addition of a full-covered awning, so it could be omitted along the long wall of the terraces to allow more roof slope. Commissioner Riddell stated that the deeper the roof, the more it helps to diffuse the sharper edges. Item #4 Gas Lanterns: Mr. Terry is proposing 35-inch gas lanterns on the entrance corner. Ms. Pence stated that that is considered small for the face of a building so large. However, Mr. Terry explained that is as large as they make this style of gas lantern. Ms. Pence explained that now that the bottom bay is going to be more independent, then it will help to scale down the area where the lanterns will be placed. Mr. Terry stated there will also be lighting under the covered area. Ms. Pence asked if there will be lights on the steps and Mr. Terry responded that they have not decided that yet but that there will be street lighting in front. Ms. Pence explained that they have brick walls on either side of the stairs that they can put in recessed lighting and then lights on the stairs outside of the alcove. Commissioner Riddell asked if there would be additional lighting on the structure and Ms. Pence explained that they have proposed simple, cylinder lights (bronze or black) that will project light down the side of the structure. Mr. Terry explained that the owners want to concentrate the gas lighting solely on the front entry and will not want to repeat the gas lighting down the building. Mr. Terry explained that the cylinder lights will be located at the arched windows, with the 3-brick progression, so it will accent the banded pilasters on each side of the arched windows. Mr. Terry stated that they just want to create a rhythm of light going down the side of the structure. Mr. Terry explained that the gas lanterns are to create a soft-lighting. Ms. Pence explained that the cylinder lighting will look nice at night to create a rhythm of light lighting up the masonry. Ms. Pence asked if there will be posts lights along the side and Mr. Terry stated that there will not but that the standard city posts lights will be used only in the parking area. Commissioner Riddell questioned the size of the gas lanterns again and what could be done to obtain a larger, less dainty lantern for the façade. Commissioner Phillips

8 suggested approving a gas line to so that it can be put in to place and a fixture can be determined at a later date. Item #5 Site Lighting: Mr. Terry presented post lamps for the parking area and wall sconces for the street facades. The post lights are black, 20-feet tall and are an LED light that is downward projecting so that it will not encroach on the residential area nearby. The lamp is in the top of the fixture and projects down. The wall sconces are also LED projecting light up and down. Mr. Terry confirmed the remaining submittals pending for the hotel: signage, fence modifications, and terrace railing modifications. Commissioner Phillips made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as amended for Item #1: Front façade with the condition that the ground level brick project an additional +/- 4-inches up to first cast stone band and remaining by maximum allowable brick projection, Item #2: Awning support approved as proposed, Item #3: Terraces approved on the condition that applicant return with design including full projection of roof and revised railing/post system (four bays total one west, three south), Item #4: Gas lantern type fixture approved for corner façade on condition that applicant return for final approval of fixture design/size, and Item #5: Site lighting approved as proposed of the building located at 400 North Lamar Boulevard. Commissioner Riddell seconded the motion. All members of the Commission voting aye, the amended COA was granted. Commissioner Phillips made a motion to adorn which was seconded by Commissioner Riddell. All member of the Commission voting aye, the meeting was adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 pm.