07/23/14 - City of Tacoma

Transcription

Members
Duke York, Chair
Katie Chase, Vice-Chair
JD Elquist
Chris Granfield
Jonah Jensen
Daniel Rahe
Lysa Schloesser
James Steel
Jeff Williams
Ross Buffington, Wedge Neighborhood Ex-Officio
Marshall McClintock, North Slope Ex-Officio
Agenda
Landmarks Preservation Commission
Planning and Development Services Department
Staff
Reuben McKnight, Historic Preservation Officer
Lauren Hoogkamer, Historic Preservation Coordinator
Date:
July 23, 2014
Location: 747 Market, Tacoma Municipal Bldg, Conference 248
Time:
5:30 p.m.
Please note assigned times are approximate. The Chair reserves the right to alter the order of the agenda.
1.
ROLL CALL
2.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Excusal of Absences
B. Meeting Minutes (7/9/14)
C. Administrative Review
i. 1415 N 5th Street (chimney)
3.
SPECIAL TAX VALUATION
A. 820 N Ainsworth (North Slope Historic District)
4.
5.
DESIGN REVIEW
A. 1701 Pacific (Union Station Conservation District)
Tacoma Art Museum identity
BRIEFINGS
A. Prairie Line Trail design
B. Historic Preservation Commercial Loan Program
6.
CHAIR COMMENTS
7.
STAFF COMMENTS/UPCOMING MEETINGS/EVENTS
A. Events Updates
Jeff Williams
Kristine Matthews
Chris Storey
Reuben McKnight
Staff
Reuben McKnight
Historic Preservation Officer
Next Regular Meeting: August 13, 2014, 747 Market Street, Tacoma Municipal Bldg., Rm. 248 5:30 p.m.
This agenda is for public notice purposes only. Complete applications are included in the Landmarks Preservation Commission records available to the
public BY APPOINTMENT at 747 Market Street, Floor 3, or online at http://tacomaculture.org/historic/resources.asp. All meetings of the Landmarks
Preservation Commission are open to the public. Oral and/or written comments are welcome.
The City of Tacoma does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in any of its programs or services. To request this
information in an alternative format or to request a reasonable accommodation, please contact the Planning and Development
Services Department at (253) 591-5056 (voice) or (253) 591-5820 (TTY).
747 Market Street, Floor 3· Tacoma, WA ·98402 · Phone (253) 591-5200 · Fax (253) 591-2002
www.tacomaculture.org
Planning & Development Services Department
July 23, 2014
STAFF REPORT
SPECIAL TAX VALUATION
OVERVIEW
WAC 254-20 enables local governments adopt local legislation to provide special valuation of historic properties that
have been rehabilitated. With regard to the application review process, state law authorizes local historic review boards
to determine:
1. Whether the property is included within a class of historic property determined eligible for special valuation by the
local legislative authority under an ordinance or administrative rule (in Tacoma, this means properties defined as
City Landmarks);
2. Whether the property has been rehabilitated at a cost equal to or exceeding 25% of the assessed improvement
value at the beginning of the project within twenty-four months prior to the date of application; and
3. Whether the property has not been altered in any way which adversely affects those elements which qualify it as
historically significant.
If the local review board finds that the property satisfies all three of the above requirements, then it shall, on behalf of the
local jurisdiction, enter into an agreement with the owner which, at a minimum, includes the provisions set forth in WAC
254-20-120. Upon execution of said agreement between the owner and the local review board, the local review board
shall approve the application.
Per TMC 1.42, the Tacoma Landmarks Commission is the local body that approves applications for Special Tax
Valuation.
AGENDA ITEM 3A: 820 N Ainsworth Ave (North Slope Historic District)
Jeff Williams Renovations, LLC, Owner
ANALYSIS
Property Eligibility:
Rehabilitation Cost Claimed:
Assessed Improvement Value Prior to Rehabilitation:
Rehabilitation percentage of assessed value:
Project Period:
Appropriateness of Rehabilitation:
Contributing Property, North Slope Historic District
$166,292
$170,200
98%
March 2014 to June 2014 (4 months)
Whole house renovation including removal of vinyl
siding, new roof, replaced driveway, new systems,
foundation repair, full insulation, partial new windows,
and new finishes, including floors, paint, drywall, and
fixtures. Work was approved by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission on March 12, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has reviewed the itemized expense sheet per the Commission bylaws for STV cost eligibility and recommends
approval of this application in the amount of $166,292.
747 Market Street, Suite 345  Tacoma, Washington 98402  Phone (253) 591-5030  Fax (253) 591-5433
Page 2 of 4
DESIGN REVIEW
AGENDA ITEM 4A: 1701 Pacific Avenue (Union Station Conservation District)
Cameron Fellows for Tacoma Art Museum, Applicant
BACKGROUND
The Tacoma Art Museum (TAM), at 1701 Pacific Avenue, is located in the Union Station Conservation District. The
current proposal is for a new sign system, which will include replacing existing signs and adding new signs. The sign
scheme includes replacing permanent entrance signs on Pacific Avenue; replacing directional signs on Pacific Avenue
and Hood Street; replacing the east-facing sign on the building; as well as a new architectural canopy; three new poster
kiosks on Pacific Avenue; and a new sign on the south face of the new museum wing.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of the above scope of work.
STANDARDS
The Union Depot/Warehouse District Design Guidelines:
Signs. General: (1) All new exterior signs and all changes in the appearance of existing exterior signs require Landmarks
Preservation Commission approval. This includes changes in message or colors on pre-existing signs. (2) If there is a
conflict between these standards and the requirements in the City’s Sign Code, the more strict requirement shall apply.
Location and Size of Signs: (1) Signs shall not dominate the building facades or obscure their architectural features
(arches, transom panels, sills, moldings, cornices, windows, etc.). (2) The size of signs and individual letters shall be of
appropriate scale for pedestrians and slow-moving traffic. Projecting signs shall generally not exceed nine square feet on
first floor level. (3) Signs on adjacent storefronts shall be coordinated in height and proportion. Use of a continuous sign
band extending over adjacent shops within the same building is encouraged as a unifying element. (4) Portable reader
board signs located on sidewalks, driveways, or in parking lots are prohibited. (5) Existing historic wall signs are a
contributing element within the district and should be restored or preserved in place. New wall signs shall generally be
discouraged.
Messages and Lettering Signs: (1) Messages shall be simple and brief. The use of pictorial symbols or logos is
encouraged. (2) Lettering should be of a traditional block or curvilinear style which is easy to read and compatible with
the style of the building. No more than two different styles should be used on the same sign. (3) Letters shall be carefully
formed and properly spaced so as to be neat and uncluttered. Generally, no more than 60 percent of the total sign area
shall be occupied by lettering. (4) Lettering shall be generally flat or raised.
Color: (1) Light-colored letters on a dark-colored background are generally required as being more traditional and visually
less intrusive in the context of the Union Station District’s predominantly red-brick streetscapes. (2) Colors shall be
chosen to complement, not clash with, the facade color of the building. Signs should normally contain not more than
three different colors.
Materials and Illumination: (1) Use of durable and traditional materials (metal and wood) is strongly encouraged. All new
signs shall be prepared in a professional manner. (2) In general, illumination shall be external, non-flashing, and nonglare. (3) Internal illumination is generally discouraged, but may be appropriate in certain circumstances, such as: (i)
Individual back-lit letters silhouetted against a softly illuminated wall. (ii) Individual letters with translucent faces,
containing soft lighting elements inside each letter. Metal-faced box signs with cut-out letters and soft-glow fluorescent
tubes. (iii) However, such signs are generally suitable only on contemporary buildings. (4) Neon signs may be permitted
in exceptional cases where they are custom-designed to be compatible with the building’s historic and architectural
character.
Other Stylistic Points: The shape of a projecting sign shall be compatible with the period of the building to which it is
affixed, and shall harmonize with the lettering and symbols chosen for it. (2) Supporting brackets for projecting signs
should complement the sign design, and not overwhelm or clash with it. They must be adequately engineered to support
Page 3 of 4
the intended load, and generally should conform to a 2:3 vertical-horizontal proportion. (3) Screw holes must be drilled at
points where the fasteners will enter masonry joints to avoid damaging bricks, etc.
ANALYSIS
1. The building is located in the Union Station Conservation District and, as such, is subject to review by the
Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant to TMC 13.05.047 for removal or alteration of any existing sign,
or installation, or placement of any new sign.
2. Signs involving structures that are under 50 years of age and in Conservation Districts can fall under
Administrative Review. However, staff has brought the application to the Commission because of the
significance of the proposed sign project and the fact that it is a comprehensive sign/identity plan for an iconic
building as opposed to a single sign installation.
3. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may, at its discretion, waive mandatory requirements imposed by
Section 13.07.290 of this chapter. In determining whether a waiver is appropriate, the Landmarks Preservation
Commission shall require an applicant to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that, because of special
circumstances not generally applicable to other property or facilities, including size, shape, design, topography,
location, or surroundings, the strict application of those mandatory requirements of Section 13.07.290 would be
unnecessary to further the purposes of this chapter. Such waiver shall not exceed the requirements set forth in
the underlying zoning district, except where specifically provided for in TMC 13.06A.070.B. (Ord. 27748 Ex. A;
passed Oct. 14, 2008: Ord. 27429 § 3; passed Nov. 15, 2005)
4. Signs will match both the new and old museum materials, color, and scale.
5. The shape of the proposed signs is compatible with the period of the building to which it will be affixed. They
harmonize with the lettering and symbols.
6. Proposed kiosks are 8’ tall—City of Tacoma sign code restricts kiosks to 6’. However, existing interpretative
signs on Pacific are 8’ and taller.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the application.
AGENDA ITEM 4B: Prairie Line Trail design briefing
Chris Storey, Project Manager
BACKGROUND
The City of Tacoma is finalizing the design for the Prairie Line Trail segment that will connect Pacific Avenue to the
waterfront. The project, which converts a portion of a former rail corridor into a pedestrian/bicycle trail and linear park
through the heart of downtown, reached conceptual design with extensive public participation in 2013. Now that the
conceptual ideas have been translated into buildable engineering designs for the Pacific Avenue Waterfront segment,
there are a few changes. Most changes are minor, but some, such as an added retaining wall along Hood Street, will
create a different look. Pending finalization of a Burlington Northern Santa Fe land donation, the City will construct this
section of the trail in the summer of 2015. It will connect to the University of Washington Tacoma campus trail segment,
currently under construction, resulting in two-thirds of the planned trail’s completion.
The area is located in the Union Station Conservation District. Formal approval is not required by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission for this segment.
ACTION REQUESTED
This is a feedback briefing.
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM 4B: Historic Preservation Commercial Loan Program
BACKGROUND
The City recently unveiled a new commercial rehabilitation loan program for City Landmarks. Staff will provide a brief
overview of the program (loan information sheet is included in the packet).
ACTION REQUESTED
This is an informational briefing.
Members
Duke York
Katie Chase
JD Elquist
Chris Granfield
Jonah Jensen
Daniel Rahe
Lysa Schloesser
James Steel
Jeff Williams
Ross Buffington, Wedge Neighborhood Ex-Officio
Marshall McClintock, North Slope Ex-Officio
Staff
Lauren Hoogkamer, Historic Preservation Coordinator
Kris Bertucci, Office Assistant
DRAFT
MINUTES
Planning and Development Services Department
Date: July 9, 2014
Location: 747 Market Street, Tacoma Municipal Building, Room 248
Time: 5:30 pm
Commission Members in Attendance:
Katie Chase
JD Elquist
Chris Granfield
Jonah Jensen
Marshall McClintock
Dan Rahe
Lysa Schloesser
James Steel
Jeff Williams
Duke York
Staff Present:
Reuben McKnight
Lauren Hoogkamer
Kris Bertucci
Others Present:
Sharon Winters
Kendall Reid
Sunny Ausink
Gary Knudson
Kevin Connally
Commission Members Excused:
Ross Buffington
Commission Members Absent:
Chair York called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
1. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Buffington indicated that he would not be present. There were no other absences.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Excusal of Absences – Commissioner Buffington was excused.
B. Meeting Minutes – Minutes of December 18, 2013 were approved with a minor correction to the date (wrong year)
on the draft minutes.
C. Administrative approvals – there were no Commissioner comments on the administrative approvals.
i. 822 N M 6/26/14 (porch)
ii. 1111 N 4th Street 6/26/14 (garage)
iii. 1953 S C Street 6/24/14 (awning)
iv. 402 N K Street 6/11/14 (window)
3. NOMINATIONS—PRELIMINARY NOMINATIONS TO THE TACOMA REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES –
PRELIMINARY
Mr. McKnight read the staff report into the record.
General Procedural Notes:
The properties on today’s agenda is nominated to the Tacoma Register of Historic Places.
U:\Landmarks Commission\14 Landmarks\Minutes\DRAFTS\LPC_Minutes_070914.doc
LPC Minutes 7/9/14, Page 2 of 8
Tacoma Register listing follows procedures defined in 13.07.050, and consists of a minimum of two separate
Commission meetings. The initial meeting determines whether a property meets the threshold criteria in the
ordinance for age and integrity. If the Commission finds that the age and integrity standards are met, then the
Commission may move to have the nomination scheduled for a public hearing and comment period, at which the
public may enter comments into the record for consideration. Following the comment period, the Commission may
deliberate on the nomination for up to 45 days before recommending to City Council listing on the register, or denying
the nomination.
The purpose of this review is to determine whether the nominated properties meet the threshold criteria and should
be scheduled for public testimony at a public hearing.
Mr. McKnight provided the staff report for both agenda items 4A and 4B.
A. McKinley, Oakland and Hoyt Schools
BACKGROUND
This is a multiple property nomination for three Tacoma School District properties, as follows:
 McKinley Hill Elementary School (3720 McKinley Avenue)
McKinley Elementary was designed by noted school architect Frederick Heath and constructed in 1908
with additions in 1910 and 1957. The 1957 addition is not included in the nomination.

Oakland Elementary School (3319 South Adams Street)
Oakland Elementary School was designed by the noted architectural firm of Heath and Gove, and was
constructed in 1912 with a 1958 addition. The addition is not included in the nomination.

Hoyt Elementary School (2708 North Union Street)
Hoyt Elementary School was designed by nationally known Tacoma architect Robert Billsbrough Price
and constructed in 1957.
The buildings are nominated under the following criteria:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of
a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction;
F. Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the neighborhood or City; as a visually unique building due to its architectural style and character in
the industrial area.
REQUESTED ACTION
Determination of whether the buildings nominated to the Tacoma Register of Historic Places appears to meet the
threshold criteria for nomination, and if so, scheduling the nominations for public hearing. The commission may
forward all or part of the nomination for future consideration.
EFFECTS OF NOMINATION

Future changes to the exterior will require approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission prior to those
changes being made, to ensure historical and architectural appropriateness.

Unnecessary demolition of properties listed on the Tacoma Register of Historic Places is strongly
discouraged by the municipal code, and requires approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Future renovations of properties listed on the Tacoma Register of Historic Places may qualify for the Special
Tax Valuation property tax incentive.
747 Market Street, Suite 345 · Tacoma, WA · 98402 · Phone (253) 591-5030 · Fax (253) 591-5433
http://www.tacomaculture.org
STANDARDS
The threshold criteria for Tacoma Register listing are listed at 13.07.040B(1), and include:
1. Property is at least 50 years old at the time of nomination; and,
2. The property retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association
such that it is able to convey its historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
ANALYSIS
Each school structure meets the age threshold criteria. McKinley was constructed 106 years ago, Oakland, 102
years ago, and Hoyt is 57 years old. Hoyt Elementary School is an intact example of economical midcentury
design and construction using innovative materials and techniques intended to reduce costs and facilitate speedy
construction. McKinley has been substantially modified; of the three nominated schools, the 1958 addition to
McKinley is the most intrusive to the original structure, obscuring a significant portion of the front lower elevation.
However, it appears that most of the character defining elements on the building are intact despite the addition.
Oakland Elementary likewise has a significant addition on its north elevation, which is a secondary elevation. The
primary massing and front elevation are intact.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommended language for scheduling a public hearing:
I move that the Landmarks Preservation Commission adopt the analysis as findings and schedule the McKinley,
Oakland and Hoyt Schools nomination for a public hearing and future consideration at the meeting of August
27, 2014.
Recommended language for declining to schedule a public hearing for one or more components of the
nomination:
I move that the Landmarks Preservation Commission find that [cite specific elements or properties that should be
excluded] do not meet the threshold criteria (describe) and deny the nomination for said propert(ies).
Recommended language for deferral:
I move that the Landmarks Preservation Commission defer consideration of the nomination for the [cite specific
elements or properties for which additional information is needed] so that additional information (specify) can be
presented for consideration to the Commission.
Mr. McKnight noted that the date for August 27, 2014 included in the staff report for a potential public hearing is
actually a conflict for staff, so he recommended pushing the hearing date out for another meeting such as the
September 10 meeting, if that is suitable for the applicants.
Mr. McClintock gave a presentation. He noted that he would recuse himself from any discussions on the
nomination, other than to present, and that Historic Tacoma was the organization sponsoring the nomination. Mr.
McClintock said he volunteered his time to write the nominations. this nomination is a bit unusual because the
property owner, Tacoma School District, is not party to this nomination and that he would discuss that later. Mr.
McClintock said he wanted to be very, very clear that Historic Tacoma, in regard to the work that TSD has done in
terms of historic preservation, in terms of the renovation on Stadium, Lincoln, Washington, Stewart, and the other
schools that they have nominated, Historic Tacoma supports that fully and this nomination is in no way to suggest
that they have been derelict in their duty. Historic Tacoma is fully supportive of that work and the nominations are
not meant as a criticism of Tacoma School District.
Mr. McClintock said that the nomination was an outcome of a discussion between Historic Tacoma and the
Tacoma School District that began in 2005, when there were only three schools listed on the Tacoma Register of
Historic Places. The district hired an architectural historian to inventory Tacoma schools, which resulted in the
district listing six of its properties on the historic register in 2010. He said that although they were determined
significant, the district did not list Hoyt, Oakland and McKinley. Mr. McClintock said that Historic Tacoma believed
that the three schools are highly significant and should be listed. He said that during discussions with the school
district, the district indicated that it is taking a neutral stance regarding the nominations of these three buildings.
Two schools, McKinley and Oakland, were designed by Frederick Heath, who came to Tacoma in 1893 following
his father and brother. Frederick Heath partnered with Ambrose Russell and later formed Heath and Gove with
George Gove, which became a major regional architectural firm.
The area where McKinley was added to the City and platted in 1901. The trolley was extended to the area in
1904 and in 1906 the neighborhood got its first school, named after William McKinley after the president that was
assassinated in 1901. Construction on McKinley school began in 1908 and finished in 1910, and it was built on
Heath’s Unit School plan. The style is American Renaissance; it’s the only example of American Renaissance
that remaining in Tacoma.
Oakland is a much older community than McKinley. It was a thriving little lumber suburb of Tacoma, and by 1888,
there was a railroad connection from the Oakland community to downtown Tacoma, and in 1891 there was a
framed schoolhouse in this community. In 1912, it was replaced by this brick building by Heath and Gove. This
building does not sit on a main thoroughfare like McKinley does, but rather sits up on a residential street and if
you are walking by the sidewalk next to this building, you can almost reach out and touch those columns on the
entrance. It’s almost like a large house in the neighborhood as opposed to a school that’s sitting sort-of
monumentally like McKinley.
The school today is in excellent condition and is Tacoma’s only remaining example of Jacobean revival, which
refers to the period after Elizabeth I’s death in England when James VI came on to the throne of England as
James I, and it’s the beginning of the baroque period, so we begin to see classical elements and tudor high gothic
elements combined.
So in 1915, 3 years after this building was built, a young man knocked on the doors of Heath and Gove looking
for a job and that young man was. He worked with Heath and Gove for another 5 years before he set up himself
in his own practice. He’s got a number of noted buildings, probably one of the most iconic ones close by here is
the Chevrolet dealership building up here on St. Helen’s at the corner of 6th and St. Helen’s and also the Tacoma
Library addition that we think of today as the Tacoma Library. Silas Nelsen designed the addition to Oakland in
1958. It’s very low compared to the rest of the school.
With Hoyt, we move into the post-WWII period. The person after whom the school is named, Nell Hoyt, was an
educator advocate. She was not only known statewide but also had a national reputation for involvement in the
preschool movement. She was the person who basically came up with the concept of preschool as an
educational concept, so very appropriate that Tacoma would name the school that was designed for the youngest
schoolchildren in the district at the time after her.
The architect is Robert Price, another major Tacoma architect, who graduated from Stadium HS, went on to the
University of Washington, and when he graduated WWII was going on, so he enlisted in the Navy. When he got
out of the Navy, he went to MIT and completed his degree and came back and opened his practice in 1949. He’s
one of the most highly recognized mid-century architects and the first architect in Tacoma to be inducted into the
AIA college of fellows. A lot of his projects were featured in Sunset, House and Garden, Architectural Record,
and so on. Other buildings that he designed here in Tacoma, the Bicentennial Pavilion, the Pierce County Family
YMCA, Temple Bothel, and a number of others.
Price was 1 of 6 national architects that was retained by the American Plywood Association to look at developing
different and new uses for plywood in the building trades. The Plywood Association underwrote the design work
and the research that was needed in order to build Hoyt School. The part that needed the most research were
the roofs. About 8 years before Hoyt, there had been a disastrous earthquake here in the Northwest and a
school child was killed when Lowell School collapsed, so there was a great deal of concern about new
technology, new building materials, particularly roofs, so they had to do a lot of structural testing to failure on the
plywood roofs here.
The design received the Merit Award from the SW WA chapter of the AIA, the nation’s School of the Month award
from the National School Association, and was featured in numerous architectural and school facilities exhibitions
and journals, and numerous architects and school officials visited and toured Tacoma in order to see the school
once the school was built. And, most importantly, the model was part of the American National exhibition in
Moscow in 1959.
There was discussion regarding Hoyt’s siting, previous uses of the site, and the mural designed by Price inside
the building.
Commissioner Steel noted that the design presents some issues for potential reuses, including the uninsulated
roofs, but said that he felt that the significance of the building outweighs these challenges. He asked why the
midcentury additions to the other schools were not included in those nominations. Mr. McClintock said that was
to allow the greatest flexibility to either the district or to whoever might utilize the school.
There was a motion:
I move that the LPC adopt the analysis and findings and schedule the 3 schools for nomination for public hearing
and consideration for the meeting of August 13.
Motion: Williams
Second: Steel
Motion carried (Jensen recused)
B. 2500 N Lawrence
Chair York asked for the staff report. Mr. McKnight read the report into the record:
2500 North Lawrence Street, also known as the Shaw House, is a Queen Anne influenced early 20th century
single-family residence in the North End. It was constructed in 1901 for Reverend William E. Cowden,
Superintendent of Missions for the Northwest for the Church of Christ, and remodeled by occupant and architect
Stanley T. Shaw. Its proposed significance is associated with Shaw and his occupancy from 1931 to 1977, during
which he remodeled the house according to his architectural style. It is nominated under Criterion B Is associated
with the lives of persons significant in our past; for its association with the architect Stanley Shaw as well as other
notable residents.
Mr. McKnight noted that the effects of nomination and standards were the same as noted in the staff report for the
previous nomination. He said that At 113 years, the property meets the age threshold criteria. The character
defining elements added during the remodeling by well-known architect Stanley T. Shaw are intact on the exterior
and interior. Only the north facing kitchen door and the west facing doors and windows on the porte cochere are
not original or the result of Shaw’s work. He said that language to schedule the public hearing, defer or deny the
nomination are included in the staff report.
Chair York invited remarks from Sharon Winters, the owner of the property. Ms. Winters introduced her husband,
Kendall Reid, and said that they worked in collaboration with Susan Johnson of Artifacts Consulting on the
nomination. She said that a number of notable people, including architect Stanley Shaw, resided in the house,
and that it was thus nominated under Criterion B. Ms. Winters said that the focus of the nomination is the period
when Shaw resided in the house, 1931-1976, and remodeled it during that time according to his needs. She
gave an overview of Shaw’s career in the South Sound. She said that Shaw’s personality comes through in the
house.
Mr. Reid showed a picture of the house from 1901 and noted the four columns. He said that Shaw’s changes
both large and small are all over the house, but that in the interest of time they would focus on the more
significant changes that he made. He said that the living room was increased in size by pushing out the front wall
to enclose part of what was originally a wraparound porch, adding five living room windows, and he made
changes to the windows on the second story as well, creating a new unified pattern that is a strong architectural
statement. He noted several other design elements as well, including the proliferation of the letter “s” repeatedly,
for “Shaw.” Mr. Reid said virtually all of Shaw’s changes remain in the house today.
There was discussion.
Commissioner Steel noted that he frequently walks by the house and was very pleased to see the nomination.
He said that he has been trying to figure out the architecture of the house for quite some time, because it has
eclecticism that is not present in modern or traditional architecture. He said that he appreciates the house
because it doesn’t put architecture on a pedestal as something that cannot be modified or improved, and that the
changes to the house make it all the more interesting. He asked if the craftsman home next door is related
somehow to the Shaw House, because it has a window that is not original that faces the Shaw House. Ms.
Winters said she was not aware of an association.
Vice Chair Chase said that she was going to recuse herself from any vote because her firm was involved in the
drafting of the nomination, although she herself was not involved.
Commissioner Williams said he concurred with Commissioner Steel’s remarks, and said that he believed the
history of the changes to the house made it far more interesting than if it was just as originally constructed.
There was a motion:
I move that the LPC adopt the analysis and findings and schedule the Shaw House nomination for public hearing
and consideration for the meeting of August 13.
Motion: Steel
Second: Schloesser
Motion carried.
4. DESIGN REVIEW
A. 1944 Pacific (Union Depot/Warehouse Historic Special Review District) – cellular installation
Chair York called for the staff report.
BACKGROUND
This 1909 building at 1944 Pacific Avenue is a contributing structure in the Union Depot/Warehouse Historic
Special Review District. The current proposal is for an unstaffed wireless telecommunications facility of 12 panel
antennas and equipment, concealed in a FRP enclosure, on the southwest corner of the rooftop. The proposed
enclosure is 15x30 and will not exceed 16’ in height.
Staff has requested that the applicant provide photo simulations depicting the installation without screening as
well, as it increases the building’s mass. Although screening is required by the zoning code, the Landmarks
Commission may request that this provision be waived if it conflicts with the character of the building.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of the above scope of work.
STANDARDS
The Union Depot/Warehouse Design Guidelines:
1. Height. The centerpiece and height benchmark for the districts is the Union Station, with its dome cap height
of approximately 96 feet above Pacific Avenue. Wing parapet walls are 30 feet in height above Pacific
Avenue. No new buildings constructed in the districts shall exceed 85 feet in height.
In the rehabilitation of existing buildings, their existing height should be maintained and the parapets and
cornices should be kept intact. Any rooftop additions, penthouses, building systems equipment, or roof-
mounted structures should be set back from existing parapet walls sufficiently to conceal them from view from
street level.
2. Materials. The predominant building material within the districts is masonry, including brick, granite, and terra
cotta. Rehabilitation of existing buildings and construction of infill buildings shall utilize masonry as the
predominant building material.
ANALYSIS
1. The building is located in the Union Depot/Warehouse Historic Special Review District, and as such, is
subject to review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission pursuant to TMC 13.05.047 for exterior
modifications to the structure.
2. The 16’ enclosure would be located on the rooftop of 1944 Pacific Avenue, which is already 112’-9” and taller
than the 85’ standard for new buildings. The enclosure would also be taller than existing rooftop elements.
However, this height guideline is primarily intended to ensure that the roof form and overall architectural scale
of the building does not overwhelm the street. The proposal does not affect the cornice line or parapet and is
set back from the parapet to reduce visibility. The enclosure would still be visible from across the street and
from the south along Pacific Avenue.
3. The proposed material is FRP painted and texturized to match the existing materials. The standards
recommend that the predominant building material be masonry; the enclosure is not predominant. It is located
far enough from the street that the substitute material would not dramatically contrast with the remainder of
the building.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff defers a recommendation, pending submittal of a non-screened alternative. Mr. McKnight noted that photo
simulations depicting a non-screened alternative, which has typically been the preference of the Commission,
have been distributed around the table.
Chair York called on Sunny Ausink, representing the applicant.
Ms. Ausink said that she works for a company called Glo Tel Inc., which is a contractor for Verizon Wireless that
has been contracted to find a willing landlord to install a replacement antenna site for the array just to the north,
it’s on 1735 Jefferson Avenue. She said that site is being relocated and the lease with the UW is going to end
soon, so Verizon needs a new site to fill in their 4G LTE coverage and capacity. She said this subject proposal
would provide them with the coverage that they need for the Verizon customers. Ms. Ausink said she initially
submitted the proposal for zoning review, and according to City code, the proposed antennas should be screened
and sealed. She said due to the building being a historic building, she wanted to present both options to see what
it would look like, so there is a copy of the proposal with the surround, as well as one showing the antennas
simply exposed and painted to match.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. McKnight if the historic standards would prevail over zoning. Mr. McKnight said in this
case, it would.
Mr. McKnight said that the application that came in and that was included in the Landmarks packet was showing
the screen installation. Staff asked Ms. Ausing to provide a non-screened photosim as well, anticipating that the
massing of the screened enclosure might be of some concern to the Commission and typically it’s been the
Commission’s position that rooftop installations, HVAC, mechanical, and cell be really more what they are and not
be enclosed by massive screening.
There were questions regarding the flexibility of the location on the building. Ms. Ausink said that the location on
the roof was determined by engineers, and that the site was selected based also on having a willing landlord.
She said that there is also an AT&T site on the building that they cannot get too close to.
Mr. McKnight asked whether the site would replace the site at the Old Spaghetti Factory. Ms. Ausink confirmed.
Mr. McKnight said that the array on the Old Spaghetti Factory Building was approved many years ago, in the late
1980s or early 1990s.
Chair York asked if the AT&T facility at 1944 Pacific was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. McKnight said he
would have to check the records.
A commissioner asked about the height of the screen. Ms. Ausink said it was determined by city code, but that it
would increase the height of the building by 21 or 22 feet overall from the ground.
Commissioner Williams said that he would prefer the non-screened version and would also prefer the installation
to be further away from the front of the building, because it is quite visible from the side.
There was discussion about the feasibility of moving the installation. Ms. Ausink noted that obstacles such as
skylights also limited the options.
There was preference for the antennas to be painted an overcast grey to not stand out as much.
There was a motion:
I move that we approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that we prefer the option that does not
show screening of the rooftop elements and that the color is not a color matching the brick, but instead is a dark
gray color.
Motion: Steel
Second: Schloesser
Motion was amended to include a stipulation that the applicant explore moving the array further back, and
delegating the final location approval to staff review.
Motion carried.
5. STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. McKnight asked for feedback regarding an application for a permit for window installation at 725 E 25th Street. He
said that the applicant was proposing to install vinyl windows in existing openings currently covered by corrugated
siding. He said that the building was put on the register anticipating a restoration that did not happen. He said that
he was planning to advise the applicant that windows in a traditional configuration was preferable but wanted to know
if the commission had any reservations about delegating it to administrative review.
Lauren Hoogkamer introduced herself as the new Historic Preservation Coordinator. She said that she is planning a
historic trivia pub night at The Forum on August 8 in coordination with the Tacoma Historical Society, and would
appreciate any volunteers to assist.
Meeting adjourned at 7:01 pm.
Submitted as True and Correct:
____________________________________________
Reuben McKnight
Application for Design Review
Page 2 of 6
PART 2: INSTRUCTIONS
New Fee Schedule for 2013
On December 18, 2012, City Council approved a new general services fee schedule that includes new fees for design review and
demolition review of historic buildings (Res. No. 38588). The new fees are as follows:
Estimated project cost
$0 – 5000
Application Fee
$175
PROJECTS UNDER $1 MILLION
Each additional $1000
Maximum fee per review
Application for Demolition
$30
$2000
$1500
PROJECTS OVER $1 MILLION
Minimum fee
Each additional $10,000
Maximum fee
$3000
$10
$4000
General Tips for Modifications to Historic Buildings
1.
First contact the proper permitting office to ensure your project is code compliant. Presubmittal conferences with
Commercial Plan Review may be required for major projects and should occur prior to Landmarks Commission review of your
project. If variances are required for your project, contact the Historic Preservation Officer before submitting your
application. Variances or conditional use approvals that may affect the exterior design of the project must be resolved prior to
Landmarks Commission review.
2.
For complex projects, several design briefings to the Landmarks Commission may be necessary. Contact the Historic
Preservation Officer to discuss scheduling options. The Landmarks Commission generally meets twice per month. Sign
applications and other simple design reviews generally do not require multiple visits.
3.
Projects are evaluated using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, and any
applicable Historic District Design Guidelines (if the project occurs within a historic district). Design Guidelines cover
areas such as massing, scale, streetscape, signage, awnings and other design elements. Copies of Tacoma’s guidelines are
available at the Historic Preservation Office, or online at www.tacomaculture.org.
General Steps for Submitting Applications
1.
Begin the application consultation process with Buildings and Land Use (BLUS) to identify code-compliance issues
and required permits.
2.
For large projects, contact the Historic Preservation Office to determine an appropriate schedule for review.
3.
Submit completed application and APPLICATION FEE to:
747 Market Street, Room 1036
Tacoma, WA 98402-3793
OR
Email form to:
[email protected]
PLEASE NOTE: The Landmarks Commission meets on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. Applications are
due a MINIMUM of 2 weeks prior to the meeting date you are targeting, so please plan accordingly. Incomplete or missing
information will delay consideration of your application.
Page 3 of 6
PART 3: PROJECT SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION
Please use the space below to describe the project. Attach additional pages if necessary. All proposed changes
must be included in this description. Please see NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION CHECKLIST (next page).
Overview:
This proposed scheme is for new signs and wayfinding for Tacoma Art Museum, which will re-launch to the public with a
significant new wing in November 2014. The new wing includes a new entrance and adds substantial new frontage to the
Museum along Pacific Avenue, meaning that a completely new sign system is needed.
This scheme will help to identify the building, which, despite its significant size, has suffered from low visibility and low
recognition in the past. It helps to bridge the existing and new portions of the building by combining key materials from
each.
Permanent signs removed / replaced:
– Permanent entrance signs on Pacific Ave have already been replaced by temporary signs as part of the new wing
construction. Existing temporary signs will be replaced with a new permanent scheme (below).
– Directional sign on Pacific Ave + Hood St will be replaced with one of same size (8’-0” h x 2’-0” w x 0-2” d)
– Directional sign on Hood St will be replaced with new sign (4’-0” h x 4’-2” w x 0’-6” d)
– Existing east-facing sign on building (“Tacoma Art Museum”, facing I-705) will be painted black
New proposed permanent signs:
– ‘TAM’ letters on both faces (inner and outer) of new architectural canopy, 13’-8” h x 42’-10” w
– 3 poster kiosks on Pacific Ave, each 8’-0” h x 2’-0” w x 0-8” d
– ‘TAM’ sign on south face of new wing, 2’-6” h x 8’-0” x 0’-2” d
Shift in temporary event graphics:
The Museum has an existing program of large-scale exhibit banners on their building. We are proposing a minor shift in
locations for future event graphics on the east and west facades of the existing building, to provide a cleaner appearance
and to help prevent damage to the building.
Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6
PART 4: APPLICATION CHECKLIST (For sign or awning applications, please go to PART 5).
General Requirements
Twenty copies of the application and all supporting documents for distribution
Property owner/manager consent
Check here to certify that you have contacted the Permit Counter to resolve any potential
code or zoning issues with your project.
Check here to certify that there are NO PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE related
to this application. If there are any pending variances related to this application, you MUST
notify the Historic Preservation Office.
Narrative Description Checklist
General overview of project, including quantities and dimensions of elements such as signs (i.e.
“one proposed 24 X 60” sign, with 12” extruded plastic letters, to be located on the south façade
sign band…)
LIST of features to be removed, replaced or added (if application includes removal or replacement
of material)
Specification or product sheets for materials and finishes, if applicable
Program of work for large-scale or complex projects, if applicable (i.e. scope of work for masonry
restoration and cleaning)
Attachments
Plans and graphics submitted for permitting may be used for Landmarks Review if
materials, products and finishes are clearly indicated on the plans.
Site plan/locational map INCLUDING adjacent buildings and streets (for any additions or new
construction). Note that Building and Land Use Services also often requires a site plan for a
Building Permit. See Information Sheet B1 Site Plans (available at the Permit Counter).
MEASURED floor plans, CLEARLY identifying new and existing features (if applicable)
MEASURED elevations, CLEARLY identifying new and existing features
Details of method(s) of attachment for signs, awnings and canopies (if applicable)
COLOR photographs of existing conditions (digital is fine as long as it is clear)
Other Requirements
Material and hardware samples (in some cases specification or cut sheets may suffice)
True color paint and/or finish samples, where required by ordinance
Page 6 of 6
Part 5: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS AND AWNINGS
Instructions for Signs and Awning Applicants
Please include the following with your application:
Twenty copies of the application cover sheet and narrative description (pages 1 and 2 of this form)
Twenty copies of supporting attachments
Graphic rendering of proposed sign (to scale with dimensions indicated, and including any conduits)
Photograph of existing building
Details of attachment
Single set of material samples (if necessary)
Please answer the following questions (if applicable):
1. Are there existing signs on the building?
2. If so, will they be removed or relocated?
Yes
One sign will be repainted. All others replaced.
3. Sign Material
Aluminum, Richlite. See PDF for specifications of each.
4. Sign Dimensions
See PDF provided for dims of each sign.
5. Logo or typeface and letter size
See PDF provided for relevant dims.
6. Lighting Specifications
See PDF provided for lighting information on each sign.
7. Describe the method of attachment
and underlying material
See PDF provided for specifications.
July 10, 2014
Tacoma Art Museum proposed exterior sign scheme
Overview: A significant new wing is under construction
at Tacoma Art Museum, and will launch to the public
in November 2014.
Studio Matthews
This proposed sign and wayfinding scheme will
identify the building, which, despite its significant size,
has suffered from low visibility and low recognition in
the past. The scheme incorporates a new identity/logo
for the Museum, and helps to bridge the existing and
new portions of the building by combining key
materials from each.
Tacoma Art Museum sign scheme
1
View from across Pacific Ave: existing building (left) with canopy and new wing under construction (right)
Existing site, with new wing under construction
View from Hood St: existing building (left) with architectural canopy under construction (right)
July 10, 2014
View towards new south facade, from Pacific Avenue east sidewalk
Studio Matthews
View from across Pacific Avenue: new wing under construction
2
July 10, 2014
Color Palette
Tacoma Art Museum’s brand color remains red,
and will combine with the silver of the steel and
the deep brown of the Richlite.
Architectural Material Palette
The new wing and entrance canopy are designed by Olson Kundig Architects.
The canopy features steel bar grate and the new wing and louvers are Richlite.
Studio Matthews
Olson Kundig visualization of new canopy and new wing:
Canopy material: steel bar grate
Sample section of louvers: Richlite
3
Studio Matthews
Canopy graphic
The new “TAM” logo will appear on the canopy large, but very subtle,
applied as a painted color on the bar grate front edges.
July 10, 2014
4
CW
1
30'-6"
Canopy graphic
Elevation.
5
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
23'-0"
July 10, 2014
H O O D S T R E E T E L E V A T IO N
SC A LE:
Studio Matthews
21'-5"
(E) BUILDING
Final size and artwork may vary slightly.
HAUB WING
39'-4 1/2"
~42'-10"
2'
1
A4.02
0
4'
6'
8'
T.O. (E) PARAPET
103'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
90'-6"
B.O. UPPER CANOPY SOFFIT
86'-8"
ANODIZED
ALUMINUM
13'-8"
GRATING
HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATED
ALUMINUM SUPPORTS
UPPER LEVEL T.O.F.F.
73'-4"
HIGH-PERFORMANCE
COATED STEEL COLUMNS
PER STRUCT
MAIN LEVEL T.O.F.F.
55'-6"
41'-4"
ADMIN LEVEL T.O. (E) STEEL
16'
24'
5
13'-0"
3'-10"
13'-4"
17'-10"
14'-2"
Studio Matthews
Canopy graphic
The same painted effect will be applied to the reverse (inside) of the
architectural canopy, which is visible when approaching from the south.
July 10, 2014
6
Studio Matthews
July 10, 2014
Poster kiosks
The unusual orientation of the building to the street means that large signage
at the entrance would not be very visible.
A series of 3 permanent poster kiosks will serve two purposes:
– clearly identifying the Museum, especially to drivers
– providing changeable Museum programming information for pedestrians
and encouraging more foot traffic
7
Poster kiosks: locations
Studio Matthews
July 10, 2014
8
Poster kiosks: locations
Studio Matthews
July 10, 2014
9
Camille Patha:
A Punch of Color
Feb 2–June 27
Optic Nerve:
The Art of Perception
Feb 2–June 27
Poster kiosks: fronts and backs
The kiosks combine the steel of the existing building and the
dark brown Richlite of the new wing.
The Haub Collection
Launching
Nov 1–feb 27
Optic Nerve:
The Art of Perception
Feb 2–June 27
July 10, 2014
Camille Patha:
A Punch of Color
Feb 2–June 27
Studio Matthews
The Haub Collection
Launching
Nov 1–feb 27
10
Studio Matthews
Sample poster kiosk: all elevations
The kiosks combine the steel of the existing
building and the dark brown Richlite of the new
wing. Large red letters will be back-illuminated.
Light boxes will have changeable graphics,
back-illuminated.
8'-0"
0'-8"
Tacoma Art MuseuM
July 10, 2014
2'-0"
The Haub Collection
Nov 1–feb 27
0'-8"
2'-0"
Camille Patha:
A Punch of Color
Feb 2–June 27
Light boxes on both sides will allow
changeable exhibition graphics.
11
Tacoma Art MuseuM
1
04
8"
TACOMA ART MUSEUM
MUSEUM
ARTART
TACOMA
MUSEUM
TACOMA
1 " = 1 '- 0 "
02
01a
01b
03
01a
01b
2'-0"
2'-0"
July 10, 2014
E L E V A T IO N - P O S T E R K IO S K
SC A LE:
Studio Matthews
1 " = 1 '- 0 "
SC A LE:
1 " = 1 '- 0 "
SC A LE:
2'-0"
2
2
01a 14gauge304satinfinishstainlesssteelcabinet,seamless
andfullywelded,whereoccurs(seerenderings).Allfasteners
tobeplacedinhorizontalreveals.
CNC-Routed(orequiv.)letterformsbackedupwithapplied
vinyltoachievePMSRed#.InternallyilluminatedwithLEDs.
01b Richlitecabinet,whereoccurs(seerenderings).Allfasteners
tobeplacedinhorizontalreveals.Richlitecabinetexposedto
exteriorontwofacesonly.
02
Removablesignagepanel.Directprintonwhiteacrylic.
InternallyilluminatedwithLEDs.
2'-0"
03
3"
1 " = 1 '- 0 "
2'-0"
2'-0"
01a
01a
01b
01a
3"
01b
01b
Internalcabinetpanelshingeopenforserviceaccess.
3"
04
01a
3"
3"
Typeperrenderings.
SC A LE:
P L A N - P O 3S" T E R K IO S K
04
05
2
project:
title:
title:
Tacoma ArtKIOSK
Museum
1701 PACIFIC AVENUE
TACOMA, WA 98402
TAM project: PLAN AND ELEVATION - POSTER
1" = 1'-0"
Tacoma
Art
Museum
1701 PACIFIC AVENUE
KIOSK
TACOMA, WA 98402
06/19/14
document:
1"
= 1'-0"
06/19/14
sheet number:
drawing ref:
sheet number:
SIG
SIGN 2.0
sheet number:
drawing ref:
12
drawing ref:
scale:
project:
- date:
P O S T E R1" =K1'-0"
IO S K Tacoma Art Museum
1701 PACIFIC AVENUE
TACOMA, WA 98402
06/19/14
= 1job
'- 0#."
TAM title: PLAN AND ELEVATION - POSTER
1 " = 1 '- 0 "
P L A N - P O S T E R K IO S K
SC A LE:
1"
PLAN
SC A LE:
scale:
date:
job #.
scale:
document:
date:
job #.
8"
Poster kiosk: fabrication indication
Details of fabrication and construction
are being resolved with sign fabricator
8"
and may vary somewhat from design intent
drawings shown here.
8"
1
1
8"
8"
2'-5 1/2"
1/4"
8'-0" 3'-6"
8'-0"
1/4"
2'-0"
2'-5 1/2"
2'-5 1/2"
1/4"
1/4"
3'-6"
3'-6"
1/4"
1/4"
2'-0"
2'-0"
8'-0"
Studio Matthews
Poster kiosks
Mock-ups to test scale and position. Mock-ups are 7’ tall, the conclusion
was to increase to 8’ tall to be in scale with the height of the new wing.
July 10, 2014
13
Studio Matthews
Poster kiosks
The City of Tacoma sign code restricts kiosks to 6’ in height, but
there appears to be a precedent set on Pacific Street for considerably
taller signage (see right).
July 10, 2014
14
H1
1
A4.018'-0"
16'-6"
2
A4.01
H2
Studio Matthews
30'-0"
July 10, 2014
H4
8
A8.10
21'-7"
H5
TYP
4'
6'
8'
LEG EN D
E X IS T IN G T O R E M A IN
24'
N E W C O N S T R U C T IO N
T.O. FRAMING
75'-8"
65'-6"
LOWER CANOPY T.O. STEEL
4
A8.10
MAIN LEVEL T.O.F.F.
55'-6"
MAIN LEVEL B.O. SOFFIT
50'-0"
RICHLITE PHENOLIC PANELS
CONCRETE PIERS PER STRUCT
PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMER
BOLLARD
27'-0"
LOWER LEVEL T.O.F.F.
16'
TACOMA, WA 98402
5'-0"
2'
1701 PACIFIC AVENUE
2
A3.10
5
A9.01
0
12'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TACOMA ART MUSEUM HAUB WING
South end sign
Aluminum letters, channel cut. Mounted to Richlite cladding.
Halo lighting.
Overall 8’-0” w x 2’-6” h x 2” d
2'-6"
Art Museum sign scheme
U T H E L E V A T IO N
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "Tacoma
project:
10'-2"
10'-0"
5'-6"
23'-0"
2'-4 1/4"
17'-9 3/4"
15
Studio Matthews
Painting of existing east-facing sign
The existing sign facing the I-705 freeway will be painted black, for
greater contrast and visibility. Lighting will be unchanged from existing.
Existing
July 10, 2014
Proposed
Existing sign location
16
Studio Matthews
Wayfinding sign to parking area: Pacific Avenue and Hood Street
Aluminum with printed graphics (red and black; light grey color indicates
aluminum), replacing current graphics. 8’-0” h x 2’-0” w x 0’-2” d
The two existing parking directional signs suffer from very poor visibility.
Existing sign is 8’-0” h x 2’-0” w x 0’-2” d
July 10, 2014
PARKING
0'-2"
SIDE
PARKING
2'-0"
FACE 1
PARKING
2'-0"
FACE 2
8'-0"
17
Studio Matthews
Wayfinding sign to parking area: Hood Street
Aluminum with printed graphics (red and black; light grey color indicates
aluminum), replacing current graphics. 4’-0” h x 4’-2” w x 0’-6” d
Lighting: uplit on both sides.
July 10, 2014
PARKING
FACE 1
6"
SIDE
4'-2"
FACE 2
PARKING
4'-2"
PARKING
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"
4'-0"
18
Temporary banner facing Pacific Avenue
The current oversized banner does not relate to the architecture and
is causing some scratching/damage to the cladding.
Studio Matthews
Existing temporary banner position (to be removed).
Proposed temporary graphics, applied to windows. (Semi-transparent when viewed from inside)
July 10, 2014
19
M
L
11'-5"
AH
K
15'-8"
J
H
3
A4.02
14'-8 1/2"
12'-11 1/2"
9'-2 1/2"
F
Existing banner:
25' x 30'
(750 sq ft.)
STAINLESS STEEL SIDING,
SALVAGED FROM EXISTING
39'-4 1/2"
G
Studio Matthews
AH
8'-2"
Temporary window graphic facing Pacific Avenue
(removable vinyl; semi-transparent when viewed from inside)
Graphics for different exhibitions may change size/position
but will remain on this set of windows/doors.
A range of positions are shown here and on the following two pages.
Position 1: 70’-9” x 16’-0” = 1132 sq ft.
18'-4"
23'-0"
A
E
21'-5"
July 10, 2014
22'-6"
B
D
5'-5"
1
CH
11'-0"
CW
1
1H
30'-6"
(E) GABION-BASKET
RETAINING WALLS
6
5
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
23'-0"
S O U T H E L E V A T IO N
SC A LE:
C
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
SC A LE:
1H
B
42'-3"
21'-5"
CW
2
(E) BUILDING
A
5'-1 1/2"
HAUB WING
2
2'-6"
3H
39'-4 1/2"
12'-4"
4
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3
LINE OF ENTRY VESTIBULE,
SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY
11'-9 1/2"
0
2'
2'
1
A4.02
0
4'
6'
6'
AH
4'
5
8'
8'
BOLLARD
27'-0"
16'
103'-6"
T.O. (E) PARAPET
90'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
86'-8"
ANODIZED ALUMINUM
GRATING
ALUMINUM SUPPORTS
73'-4"
HIGH-PERFORMANCE
PER STRUCT
55'-6"
MAIN LEVEL T.O.F.F.
41'-4"
16'
103'-6"
T.O. (E) PARAPET
90'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
86'-8"
75'-8"
T.O. FRAMING
73'-4"
20
24'
24'
23'-0"
13'-0"
3'-10"
13'-4"
17'-10"
14'-2"
13'-0"
3'-10"
11'-0"
2'-4"
17'-10"
M
L
11'-5"
AH
K
15'-8"
J
H
3
A4.02
14'-8 1/2"
12'-11 1/2"
9'-2 1/2"
F
Existing banner:
25' x 30'
(750 sq ft.)
39'-4 1/2"
G
Studio Matthews
AH
8'-2"
Temporary window graphic facing Pacific Avenue (removable vinyl)
Position 2: 70’-9” x 12’-9” = 906 sq ft.
18'-4"
23'-0"
A
E
21'-5"
July 10, 2014
22'-6"
B
D
5'-5"
1
CH
11'-0"
CW
1
1H
30'-6"
(E) GABION-BASKET
RETAINING WALLS
6
5
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
23'-0"
SC A LE:
C
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
SC A LE:
1H
B
42'-3"
21'-5"
CW
2
(E) BUILDING
A
5'-1 1/2"
HAUB WING
2
2'-6"
3H
39'-4 1/2"
12'-4"
4
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3
11'-9 1/2"
0
2'
2'
1
A4.02
0
4'
6'
6'
AH
4'
5
8'
8'
BOLLARD
27'-0"
16'
103'-6"
T.O. (E) PARAPET
90'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
86'-8"
ANODIZED ALUMINUM
GRATING
ALUMINUM SUPPORTS
73'-4"
HIGH-PERFORMANCE
PER STRUCT
55'-6"
MAIN LEVEL T.O.F.F.
41'-4"
16'
103'-6"
T.O. (E) PARAPET
90'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
86'-8"
75'-8"
T.O. FRAMING
73'-4"
21
24'
24'
23'-0"
13'-0"
3'-10"
13'-4"
17'-10"
14'-2"
13'-0"
3'-10"
11'-0"
2'-4"
17'-10"
M
L
11'-5"
AH
K
15'-8"
J
H
3
A4.02
14'-8 1/2"
12'-11 1/2"
9'-2 1/2"
F
Existing banner:
25' x 30'
(750 sq ft.)
39'-4 1/2"
G
Studio Matthews
AH
8'-2"
Temporary window graphic facing Pacific Avenue (removable vinyl)
Position 3: 26’-0” x 31’-0” = 806 sq ft.
18'-4"
23'-0"
A
E
21'-5"
22'-6"
OPTIC
NERVE
THE ART OF
PERCEPTION
B
novEMBER 2 –
June 20
July 10, 2014
D
5'-5"
1
CH
11'-0"
CW
1
1H
30'-6"
(E) GABION-BASKET
RETAINING WALLS
6
5
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
23'-0"
SC A LE:
C
1 / 8 " = 1 '- 0 "
SC A LE:
1H
B
42'-3"
21'-5"
CW
2
(E) BUILDING
A
5'-1 1/2"
HAUB WING
2
2'-6"
3H
39'-4 1/2"
12'-4"
4
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3
11'-9 1/2"
0
2'
2'
1
A4.02
0
4'
6'
6'
AH
4'
5
8'
8'
BOLLARD
27'-0"
16'
103'-6"
T.O. (E) PARAPET
90'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
86'-8"
ANODIZED ALUMINUM
GRATING
ALUMINUM SUPPORTS
73'-4"
HIGH-PERFORMANCE
PER STRUCT
55'-6"
MAIN LEVEL T.O.F.F.
41'-4"
16'
103'-6"
T.O. (E) PARAPET
90'-6"
B.O. (E) UPPER ROOF
86'-8"
75'-8"
T.O. FRAMING
73'-4"
22
24'
24'
23'-0"
13'-0"
3'-10"
13'-4"
17'-10"
14'-2"
13'-0"
3'-10"
11'-0"
2'-4"
17'-10"
Studio Matthews
Temporary banner facing I-705 freeway
Existing banner size: 54’ w x 14’ h
Existing banner position:
July 10, 2014
Proposed banner position:
Reference image: banners fixed flush to top/bottom
of building face, for a clean appearance:
23
Studio Matthews
Option 1: 26’-6” w x 28’-6” h (at highest point) = ~755 sq ft.
July 10, 2014
Existing banner:
54' x 14'
(756 sq ft.)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
24
Studio Matthews
Option 2: 26’-6” w x 28’-6” h (at highest point) = ~755 sq ft.
July 10, 2014
Existing banner:
54' x 14'
(756 sq ft.)
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
25
Open House July 17, 2014
CITY OF TACOMA
Chris Storey
Elliott Barnett
BCRA
Alan McWain
Daren Crabill
Mary Bisenius
CHRIS
Pacific Ave-to-Waterfront Segment
Timeline
• 30% design now
• 90% design September
• Final plans and specs – October
• Advertise November/December
• Construction first quarter 2015
• Completion Summer 2015*
*pending permitting and final property transfer
Location
ELLIOTT
Project Goals
ELLIOTT
Development
Catalyze economic and neighborhood
development by creating a signature public
space that connects downtown districts,
maintains access for adjacent properties,
attracts private economic development, and
harmoniously integrates with and enhances
its surroundings.
Movement
Connect the Foss Waterway, downtown
destinations and regional bicycle and
pedestrian networks via a safe, comfortable
and accessible multi-use pathway.
Gathering
Develop a series of attractive, safe, and
meaningful open spaces that provide
opportunities for the community in interact,
learn and play.
History
Respect the history of the Prairie Line,
particularly the curve and grade of the tracts,
and the story of its land, people and economy
through preservation and interpretation.
Culture
Integrate public art and design features that
create connections to Tacoma’s place, culture,
environment, and history.
Nature
Integrate natural features and systems, including
innovative stormwater strategies, and inspire
interactions with the natural environment.
Context
ELLIOTT
ELLIOTT
Brewery District Segment - Concept design complete
UWT Campus Segment - Under Construction
Pacific Ave-to-Waterfront Segment - Phase I Construction in 2015
Future Phases
Brewery District construction
Historic interpretation plan
Art Park
Ongoing enhancements and expansions
Phase I Concept Plan
Phase II Concept Plan
ELLIOTT
Current Project Area
Potential Future Corridor
Phase II Perspective Sketch
Phase I Perspective Sketch
ELLIOTT
Existing Conditions
CHRIS
Pacific Avenue-to-Waterfront Segment
Construction Budget
Budget available: $1.75 million
Current estimate: $2.05 million
Additional components (not accounted for in conceptual design)
• Wall along Hood Street
• Contaminated soil
• Bridge improvements
Pacific Avenue-to-Waterfront Segment scope of work
Pacific Ave. & Hood St. Entrance
Current Conditions
Pacific Ave. & Hood St. Entrance
Perspective View Looking North
Primary Gateway Entry
Elevation and Reference Images of Wall
Hood St. & S. 15th St. Entrance
Current Conditions
Primary Pedestrian Directional
Existing Section of S. 15th St. Bridge
S. 15th St. Bridge
Current Conditions
Proposed Section of S. 15th St. Bridge
Secondary Pedestrian Directional
Located at top of stairway landing
Questions?
TACOMA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
HISTORIC REHABILITATION & REPAIR LOAN
PROGRAM GUIDELINES (June 2014)
Loan Fund Purpose
The Historic Rehabilitation and Repair Loan Program (HRRLP) is designed to encourage the
rehabilitation, preservation and adaptive reuse of commercial and retail buildings that are listed
on the Tacoma Register of Historic Places. This program provides gap financing, which is used in
combination with the borrower's other financial resources. In all cases, borrowers must
demonstrate the ability to repay the loan and provide sufficient security.
Administration and Loan Terms
The HRRLP is administered by the Tacoma Community Redevelopment Authority
(TCRA) and staffed by the City Community and Economic Development (CEDD).
Loans are made available on a reimbursement basis up to 50% of the approved
project costs. The minimum loan amount is $20,000 with a maximum loan amount
of $100,000. Loans carry an interest rate equal to the 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note
plus 100 basis points (1%) with principal and interest payments due monthly for a
maximum term of 10 years.
Eligible Applications
• Owner of an existing commercial building that is listed on the Tacoma Register of
Historic Places either individually or as a contributing structure within a locally
designated historic overlay zone.
•
Envelope improvements, including windows, doors, paint, awnings, security alarms,
roofing, light fixtures, signage and other exterior enhancements; building systems
(plumbing, electrical, mechanical}, and restoration or repair of exterior historic elements.
•
Interior and other tenant improvements as approved by the City's historic preservation
officer.
•
Business tenants must have building owner consent and signed lease/intent to lease for
the improved area.
•
Tenant borrowers must have a lease term equal to the proposed loan term.
•
Repairs should meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
must be approved by the Historic Preservation Officer (alterations may also require
approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission per TMC 13.05.046).
Ineligible Applications
• Exclusively residential properties.
•
Common areas of a mixed use project that benefit residential units.
• Additions to existing historic buildings and routine inspection and maintenance costs.
1
AUTHORITY
Loan Collateral
Loans will be secured by a lien on the real property and/or fixtures, furnishings and equipment
(FF & E). The loan to value ratio (LTV) cannot exceed 90%. If the borrower is not the
building owner, TCRA may need to secure additional assets to meet the LTV requirement. All
HRRLP loans shall have the unlimited guarantee of the principal owners of the business entity.
How the Process Works
• Borrower initially meets with CEDD and Historic Preservation staff and submits a detailed
project cost estimate.
•
Upon initial staff screening, borrower submits a loan application along with business
financial statements, tax returns, executed leases, rent rolls and other documents to
determine ability to repay the loan.
•
The loan is underwritten and packaged for consideration to the TCRA Board. Underwriting
review will focus on the credit score of the principal(s) of the business, debt service
capacity through a review of the business financial statements and confirmation that
sufficient equity exists to meet the combined 90% LTV requirement. For loan requests
under $50,000 a credit score of 725 and sufficient collateral would be the primary factors
in the underwriting process. Personal financial statements may be required for loan
amounts above $50,000.
•
The proposed design is reviewed by the Historic Preservation Officer, and if required, the
Landmarks Preservation Commission, for historical appropriateness. Project designs must
meet the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and/or the relevant historic
district design guidelines.
•
Upon approval from the TCRA Board and the City's Building Department, the TCRA lien is
placed on the property securing the proposed loan and any other liens required to perfect
the collateral. The loan is then fully executed and the borrower completes the project.
•
Upon execution of the loan and recording of the lien the borrower then submits the
necessary reimbursement requests which are reviewed by CEDD staff and the Historic
Preservation Officer to confirm all Planning and Development Services Department
approvals are obtained prior to the disbursement of loan proceeds.
•
All loan proceeds are disbursed and asset management of the loan through the end of the
loan term or final payoff, if earlier, commences.
Other Information
• Loan-related work must be performed by bonded and licensed contractors.
•
Soft costs (e.g. drawings, engineering, recording fees, title reports) may be part of
project cost.
2
AUTHORITY
•
Determination of the value of real property can be verified through a recent (within last
6 months) appraisal, broker’s price opinion and/or market analysis, at the discretion of
the TCRA.
•
Loan fee of 1% is due upon loan signing. This fee can be included in the amount
financed.
Contact Jacinda Howard at (253) 591-5221 or [email protected] for more information
or an application.
3

07/23/14 - City of Tacoma

Transcription

Similar documents

SAVE THE DATE

the 65-mi Rider Guide

Enhancing Wright`s Legacy in the Pacific Northwest

City of Collinsville historic Landmarks

PIONEERS AND DRIFTERS, COWBOYS AND INDIANS

December 27, 2015 - St. Joseph Catholic Church Latin Mass Parish

July 2, 2015

2014 - Tacoma Art Museum

July/ August HPX - Connecticut Trust For Historic Preservation