Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-05 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 Present: Jeff Johnson, Vice-Chairperson, Phil Eastwood, Ken Harycki, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman and Brent Peterson Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval of the minutes of June 5, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/06-04 Consideration of a request for demolition permit for the Maple Island Hardware building located at 225 N. Main St. Vern Stefan was present representing the applicant, Mainstream Development, LLC. Mr. Stefan noted they had responded with additional information regarding the three items in the demolition permit application the HPC felt were not adequately covered in the last discussion of the request. Mr. Eastwood asked if the expenses listed in the data supporting economic justification for the demolition were expenses that would be incurred in removing the building. Mr. Stefan said those expenses are over and above the cost of demolition. Mr. Eastwood noted that variances will still be required for a new structure and questioned whether a demolition permit should be granted based on a design plan that has not yet been approved. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the HPC has granted other demolition permits contingent on the applicant obtaining a building permit. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten said he thought the applicant had done a good job providing the requested information regarding economic justification and options of alternatives to demolition and moved to approve the demolition permit contingent on final approval of plans for the replacement building. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously (6-0). NEW BUSINESS Don Empson’s report on the final phase of the architectural study – Mr. Empson reviewed the main points of his report to the Commission and his recommendation to create an Heirloom House and Landmark House program. As proposed, Heirloom Houses, those representative of th 19 century Stillwater that have a fair amount of their original design elements in tact, would be listed on the City’s web page along with a photo, address and history of the house; homeowners would have to grant permission to participate in the program. The web page also would include various educational pamphlets and other resource links to home preservation sites/materials. Mr. Empson provided a list of 370 homes that he considers to be Heirloom Houses. Mr. Empson also made recommendations regarding a program recognizing Landmark Houses and Sites, the “finest” old house and most “remarkable sites” in Stillwater, as well as designating three historic districts. In addition to his proposals for implementing the three programs – Heirloom Houses, Landmark Sites and Historic Districts – Mr. Empson made 13 recommendations ranging from changing the name of Olive Street to St. Paul Road to requiring that a “real” historian research 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 demolitions. Mr. Empson briefly addressed what is termed “demolition by neglect” and urged stricter enforcement of building codes on old houses that are being neglected and advertised as “tear downs.” He also suggested that the HPC think about instituting remodeling guidelines in the infill district. He concluded by urging the HPC to take the initiative and implement two or three new programs a year, rather than responding to situations. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/06-26 Design review of a proposed 9,1200 square foot expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center located at 1250 Frontage Road W. Present were Jesse Hamer of Tushie Montgomery Architects and Kriss Novak, Valley Ridge management. Mr. Johnson asked about plans for an outside dumpster, whether it would be shared or separate. Mr. Tomten asked about plans for a public walkway or corridor connecting the addition and existing center and whether a restroom would be included. The applicant said that has yet to be determined. Mr. Tomten referred to staff comments about the requirement for four- sided architecture. Mr. Hamer said EFIS would wrap around the back and piers would be added to the rear elevation. However, Mr. Hamer said they don’t particularly like the design of the existing towers and believe they can accommodate the requirement four four-sided architecture without that design element. Mr. Johnson said he didn’t see the bell tower as a significant design element that had to be incorporated. Regarding the setback requirement, Mr. Hamer said that issue was something of a surprise and it is still being discussed as to whether to request a variance or eliminate one bay of the addition. Mr. Tomten noted there are a number of unknowns and moved to table action until the August meeting so the applicant can incorporate staff comments. It was suggested for the August meeting, the applicant show more design details for the north elevation and include the west elevation of the existing building. Mr. Johnson also suggested the applicant submit a lighting plan, information regarding the dumpster location and materials, landscaping plan and locations/screening of mechanicals. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion to table; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-27 Design review of proposed replacement sign for the Church of St. Michael at 611 S. Third St. Present were Kris Rumpsa, Kriss Design Company LLC, and Chris Makowske, St. Michael’s director of administration. Ms. Rumpsa and Mr. Makowske reviewed plans and location of the requested signage. The sign would have steel framing and be lighted from the top or bottom; the framing would be painted to match the church building. Mr. Johnson asked if the existing monument sign would remain. Mr. Makowske said both the monument sign and the existing school sign would remain. Mr. Eastwood asked if the applicant was aware of the staff recommendation that the electrical conduit be hidden from direct view. Mr. Makowske explained several possibilities for meeting that condition. Mr. Harycki asked if the signage might impact pedestrian traffic. Mr. Makowske said pedestrians would not be affected as the wall overhang and stairway at the location extend out an additional 2’ beyond where the sign will be mounted. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval as conditioned, with lighting for the sign to be from the top or bottom and staff to approve the location of the conduit. Mr. Tomten suggested the possibility of eliminating the graphic and perhaps even the church name to enable larger/more readable text denoting service times. Mr. Johnson also made a suggestion to improve readability. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-28 Design review of proposed signage for Stella’s at 216 S. Main St. Cheri Benson, owner, was present. Mr. Johnson pointed out that only one sign per business is allowed, either the wall sign as being requested or the existing projecting sign. Mr. Johnson pointed out that generic verbiage or symbols would be allowed, but not the business name. It was confirmed the proposed signage will not be lighted. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that the business name Stella be permitted in the top sign band contingent on the removal of the business name from the projecting sign. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-29. This case was withdrawn. Case No. DR/06-30 Design review of proposed signage for Stone’s Restaurant at 324 S. Main St. Present were owner Michael Stone and Dan Kaufman, Kaufman Signs. Mr. Kaufman reviewed the proposed signage which features 3” aluminum channel lettering with exposed neon. The signage cabinet would be about 18” deep. The proposed signage is basically the same square footage as the existing Grand Garage sign, which would be removed if the new signage is allowed, he said. Members were sympathetic tp the difficulty presented by the location of the restaurant off Main Street. However, Mr. Johnson suggested if this proposed signage was on the Second Street elevation, the situation might be different and said if it difficult to allow the proposed signage in view of the design guidelines in place for Main Street. Mr. Zahren suggested the key to the restaurant’s success is Main Street signage and said he liked the proposed design. Mr. Nelson also said he thought the proposed signage was within reasonable taste and spoke of the importance of calling people to a place of business. Mr. Tomten noted that internally illuminated signage is not recommended in the Historic Downtown District and said his first impression of the sign was that of an early ‘60s Holiday Inn sign; Mr. Tomten also suggested that the applicant provide a more accurate representation of the scale of the sign. Mr. Kaufman stated he thought the use of neon was vital to the Stone’s location. Mr. Zahren asked what would happen to the signage without the neon. Mr. Kaufman asked if it would be possible to internally illuminate the sign; Mr. Johnson stated that is not allowed, but halo reverse channel lettering would be allowed. Mr. Johnson noted that while projecting signage is limited to 6 square feet according to ordinance, the existing Grand Garage sign is 40 square feet and he pointed out that the Coupe de Grille had signage in that space. He suggested that the applicant work within the square footage of the existing sign and consider the use of channel lit lettering. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the proposed starburst on top of the sign, as proposed, is three-dimensional and therefore not allowed. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 Mr. Eastwood pointed out the signage will require a variance and that the HPC can’t grant variances, that is a function of the Planning Commission/Council. Mr. Stone asked about the length of time involved in the variance process. Mr. Stone was advised that it might be mid- August before a variance could be granted; it was noted that in the interim, temporary signage is permitted for a period of at least 30 days. Mr. Johnson asked about signage on the other elevations. It was noted that the signage over the main entrance has already been approved. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to table the request, with the applicant advised to work within the existing 40 square feet and return to the HPC with more complete drawings, more accurate representation of colors and scale. Motion to table passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-19 Design review of revised proposal for 227 N. Main St. Vern Stefan was present representing Mainstream Development. It was noted the revised proposal reduces the height so the building is within the height regulations and no variance is required. Mr. Johnson said he felt the project was headed in the right direction and spoke to the architectural elements that have been carried through. Mr. Tomten asked if the HVAC units would be placed on the Water Street elevation and asked if it might be possible to place the units behind the stairs. Mr. Stefan said that would be considered as long as the units can be serviced adequately. Mr. Turnblad noted the applicant had been asked to provide a view of the project from Pioneer Park and Mulberry Street. Mr. Stefan noted that is costly and said those will be provided if concept approval is granted. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to grant concept approval of the design as conditioned, eliminating condition No. 7 (demolition permit as that was granted earlier in the meeting) and changing the wording of condition No. 5 to state no mechanical equipment shall be allowed on the rooftop unless screened. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Demolition applicant form – Mr. Turnblad referred to the proposed demolition permit application included in the packet. The packet, he said, is an attempt to make the process more transparent and understandable. There was a brief discussion about the proposed sample letter with Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson expressing a concern that future applicants may just parrot the sample verbiage, including the language regarding the economic justification for a demolition. Mr. Turnblad suggested the requirement for economic justification could be expanded to include the requirement that a quote be obtained from someone in the restoration business. Members said they liked the inclusion of the list of historians that might be used in researching a demolition application. Status report on Northern Vineyards – Mr. Turnblad reviewed the report and recommendations relating to the Northern Vineyards Winery. He noted that the only way Northern Vineyards can address the dumpster issue is through a building-wide effort and asked that staff be directed to work with River Market and Northern Vineyards to resolve the matter. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to amend the condition of approval with Northern Vineyards to allow the two pieces of stainless steel equipment to remain outside and to require enclosure of the 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 dumpster when the River Market dumpsters are addressed or within one year, whichever is sooner. Motion passed unanimously. Water Street Inn – Mr. Johnson asked about the status of issues with the Water Street Inn – advertising on umbrellas and the portable bar facility. Mr. Pogge said he had not yet talked with Mr. Dougherty. Mr. Zahren questioned getting into the issue of umbrella logos/verbiage noting that most businesses in town utilize the vendor-provided umbrellas. Mr. Empson’s recommendations – Mr. Johnson asked about the possibility of the City designating an historic preservation officer. Mr. Harycki said he would like the Council to take up the issue of “demolition by neglect.” Mr. Eastwood said he thought walls should be included in the historic site program and asked about the possibility of pursuing grants to accomplish some of the recommendations. Mr. Johnson moved to direct staff to pursue implementing the Heirloom and Landmark House designations and getting the information on the City’s web page. Mr. Turnblad suggested that staff develop a proposal for implementing the programs and bring that proposal back to the HPC prior to making an official presentation/request for approval to proceed to the City Council. Members agreed with that plan of action. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5