Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-06 HPC MIN• • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Stillwater Gazette 1931 Curve Crest Blvd. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439 -3130 Fax: (651) 439 -4713 9/1/06 State of Minnesota} ss. County of Washington} The undersigned, being duly sworn, on oath, says that s/he is the Publisher or authorized agent and employee of the Publisher lmown as the Stillwater Gazette, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated. (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota State Statute 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable laws as amended. Printed below is a copy of the lowercase Alphabet, from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind type used in composition and publication of the of notice. Publisher /Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed to me .44.0.4, MOLLY M. KRESS on this 5 day of se r j'yj k j' 2006. NOTARY PUBLIC r ° ;,,1 �' MINNESOTA ° t a „," My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2008 ,� City of Stillwater 216 4th St N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Invoice #: 00005759 Terms: Net 30 Inches Description Price Total 3 1 Day Notice of Heritage $7.90 $23.70 Preservation Commission Meeting Change Maximum rate per column inch under Minnesota Law: $16.90 per 12 -pica column Sub Total Payment Balance Due $23.70 $23.70 $0.00 $23.70 • • A1pYN +tU *SS Mole* et illittage PreserVaUon Commission Meeting Change From Monday, September 4, 2006 to Wednesday, September 6, 2006' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the Heritage Preservation Commission, due to a holiday, will conduct their regular meeting on Wednesday, September 6, 2006 at p.m. in the Council Chambers, Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082, rather than Monday, September 4, 2006, at 7 p.m. Do not hesitate to contact pike Pogge, City Planner, at 651-430-8822, if you have any questions or need further information, Publish: hops' 30, 2006 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Brent Peterson Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of Aug. 7, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Greeder Demolition (Case No. DEM /06 -06) Demolition request for a garage at 521 S. Fifth St. Barbara Greeder, applicant. The applicant was present. There was a brief review of the request. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Ed Simonet, co -owner of the property to the east of Ms. Greeder's garage, spoke in favor of the demolition request. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., told the Commission he had a statement from a mason that the garage can't be repaired. Mr. Empson also provided a written report, included as part of Ms. Greeder's supporting documentation, on the history and significance of the garage. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine steps required by City Ordinance. Mr. Lieberman noted the one step not addressed in Ms. Greeder's application was evidence that the structure had been offered for sale for possible reuse elsewhere. However, he suggested that considering the condition of the structure, the Commission should be guided by common sense. Mr. Johnson pointed out that while some of the masonry of the garage is original and unique, the roof and doors are not original. The only part that is original is the masonry portion of the structure and that is in poor condition. Mr. Johnson noted that good documentation had been provided and the condition of the structure is such that it cannot be restored. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the demolition permit, DEM /06 -06. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Grumpy Steve's Sign Review (Case No. DR/06 -34) Design review of signage for Grumpy Steve's at 410 S. Main St. 402 Main Street, LLC, applicant. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten noted the applicant had done as requested by the Commission at the last meeting and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Weyer Sign Review (Case No. DR/06 -37) Design review of signage at 901 S. Third St. Mark Weyer, applicant. Mr. Weyer was present. He explained that since the original variance was granted by the Planning Commission in 2004, the building plans have changed somewhat so three office suites now have no access to windows or signage. The proposal, he said, is to place signage, of the same size, where signs were previously located on the building. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the building use is primarily professional office use where recognition is based on the address of the building. He noted that the windows by the entrance doors could be used to list tenants. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the proposed plaque -type signage proposed would not be highly visible. Mr. Eastwood noted there has always been signage on this building and said he would be inclined to approve the request. Mr. Nelson agreed with the need for signage, especially for those businesses off Main Street. Mr. Eastwood noted that the requested signage meets the allowable square footage of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the requested signage is not consistent with the RB District, in which it is located. Mr. Johnson suggested that a projecting sign at the corner of the building could be used to identify the building by name or address, with tenants listed in the side windows. It was noted the Planning Commission would have to approve a variance for a projecting sign. Mr. Lieberman summarized discussion by suggesting that if the Planning Commission approves a variance, the HPC would allow one sign, basically identifying the building by name or address, with tenants listed elsewhere. Mr. Johnson moved to deny, without prejudice, Case No. DR/06 -37 as not meeting the design requirements of the RB District. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Kuehn Sign Review (Case No. DR/06 -38) Design review of a monument sign at 2850 Curve Crest Blvd. Mike Kuehn, Welsh Construction Inc., applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten asked if information had been provided regarding lettering, style and color. Mr. Lieberman moved to table this case given the substantive questions about the request. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Ballantyne Sign Review (Case No. DR/06 -39) Design review of a pylon sign at 14430 N. 60th St. Schad Tracy Signs, Rick Ballantyne, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Eastwood pointed out that the Commission had approved the requested sign previously, but the applicant had never followed through on the issue. Mr. Eastwood also pointed out that every business in the area, from Osgood to Greeley, has two 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 signs. There was discussion of the HPC's previous action. Mr. Johnson said he recalled that the HPC approved either the monument or wall signage, not both. Mr. Eastwood moved to approve Case No. DR/06 -39. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that the HPC would be approving something that is in violation of the City's ordinance. Mr. Eastwood's motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the design of the pylon sign as conditioned with the additional condition that the existing wall sign be removed, allowing one sign and as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 -1, with Mr. Eastwood voting no. Hunninghake Design Review (Case No. DR /06 -40) Design review to replace the rear porch on an existing foundation and add an 8 -foot deck at 209 N. Third St. Tom Hunninghake, applicant. The applicant was present. Noting that this proposal would be an expansion of a non- conforming use and require a variance from the Planning Commission, Mr. Lieberman questioned whether this was a chicken -or- the -egg situation. Mr. Turnblad responded that he believes the variance will be granted as this is an existing non - conforming house and the expansion placed over an existing foundation. Mr. Johnson stated this house demonstrates the success of the City's demolition ordinance and is a fine example of what the ordinance is intended to accomplish. He stated the request is not an exorbitant expansion, but he noted, the HPC can't grant a variance. Mr. Johnson asked the applicant whether it would be acceptable to shorten the addition by two feet in order to be within the footprint of the existing structure. Mr. Hunninghake said he would like design approval of the larger and smaller addition should he decide to pursue obtaining a variance. During the design review, Mr. Tomten asked if the siding on the south elevation would be kept, noting that the transition from the existing structure to the addition is important. Mr. Hunninghake said the siding would be kept; he also stated the roof pitch of the addition would be the same. Mr. Johnson asked if corner boards, frieze board and window trim would be carried through. Mr. Johnson also spoke of utilizing the corner boards to separate the addition. The applicant explained his plans in more details. Windows will be double -hung, sash windows, Mr. Johnson moved approval as submitted, which will require a variance, and approval if shortened by two feet, as conditioned, with the additional condition that window trim, corner board and frieze board be carried through to the addition and that the addition be separated by the corner board. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman noted the motion represents HPC approval of design for the extended or shortened version of the plans and offers no opinion regarding the variance. Mr. Lieberman also stated this is an excellent project and example of why the demolition ordinance is in place. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Cesare Design Review (Case No. DR/06 -41) Design review of exterior siding at 102 S. Second St. Richard Lay, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lay explained the existing siding is in need of replacement and the request is to utilize a metal siding to provide a different look for the business, a look that is not overly industrial. Mr. Lay also noted that at 350 square feet, the impact of the new siding will 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 be minimal. Mr. Nelson said he liked the proposed metal siding, saying it was more fashionable and appropriate to the use as a wine bar. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern that metal is more reminiscent of a shed versus a building of permanence. Mr. Eastwood said he does not like steel siding in the Downtown District. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Zahren both spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Tomten suggested the new material will clean up that elevation of the building. Mr. Tomten noted this structure was always an add -on, not a Victorian building and never part of the Gazette building. Mr. Johnson asked about the color of the siding. Mr. Lay said the proposal is to use galvanized metal. Mr. Johnson asked about light fixtures; Mr. Lay said the fixtures will remain the same. Mr. Tomten moved approval as submitted and conditioned, with the additional conditions that the trellis be unpainted cedar and that the metal be unpainted galvanized metal. Mr. Lay stated he was hoping it might be possible to use a clear Plexiglas over the trellis to provide some weather protection, as the umbrellas will be removed from the deck. Mr. Eastwood questioned whether Plexiglas would be acceptable. Mr. Pogge stated that if the HPC finds the use of Plexiglas to be acceptable, it will have to meet building codes. Mr. Lay wondered if a retractable canopy might be acceptable if the Plexiglass won't work. Mr. Johnson pointed out that louvered boards offer some weather protection and there is no problem with snow load. Mr. Johnson verified that there will be no change in signage. Mr. Zahren seconded Mr. Tomten's motion. Motion passed 4 -2, with Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Johnson voting no. OTHER BUSINESS Water Street Inn patio: There was a brief review of previous actions on the matter. Mr. Johnson asked about the 60 -day rule when action is tabled. Mr. Turnblad stated that the 60 -day rule does not apply to design review. Mr. Lieberman noted that none of the conditions of approval have ever been completed or complied with and moved to deny the request that was originally tabled. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Heirloom Housing Program funding: Mr. Turnblad said he has not yet heard from SHPO regarding grant money for an intern to begin implementation of the program and the item will be brought back to the HPC next month. Mr. Eastwood suggested soliciting volunteers. Mr. Turnblad said he would pursue that avenue should grant money not be available. Heritage Preservation Awards: Members submitted a number of suggestions for consideration. After discussion, it was agreed this year's awards should be presented for the renovation /restoration of the carriage house at the Teddy Bear Park and the garage on the Bremer property on Nelson Alley; a "rescue- rehabilitation" award for the Hunninghake project, 209 N. Third Street; a Neighborhood Conservation District award for the project at 515 N. Everett; and an award for signage to Aprille Shower's Tea Room. St. Michael's Church Sign: Mr. Pogge told the Commission that St. Michael's Church has requested that lighting on all four sides of their new sign be allowed as lighting the top and bottom only, as approved by the HPC, has resulted in the creation of shadows. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to approve the use of four -sided halo lighting on the new 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 sign with the condition that the fixtures /light source cannot be seen from the sidewalks or street. Motion passed unanimously. Lay Request: Richard Lay told the Commission the Terra Springs Homeowners' Association has asked that the air conditioning units for the wine shop located in Terra Springs building 1 be relocated to the roof top. Mr. Lay said such a move likely would require larger units, and there might not be enough space on the roof. Mr. Lieberman said he would not be in favor of moving any mechanicals to the rooftop. Mr. Johnson noted rooftop units would create more noise and also stated the units were placed in their existing location by design so as not to be visible from the street or any common spaces. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to not allow the wine shop's mechanical units to be moved to the roof. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5