Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-05-03 HPC MIN Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 1999 Present: Howard Lieberman, chair Chuck Dougherty, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Robert Kimbrel and Roger Tomten Others: Planner Sue Fitzgerald Absent: Frank Langer Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Kimbrel, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval of the minutes of April 5, 1999. Mr. Dougherty noted Mr. Reidt’s last name was missing in the second paragraph of the discussion of Case No. DEM/99-1. Motion to approve the minutes as corrected passed unanimously. Case No. DEM/99-1 Public hearing for request for demolition of a residence at 7155 Melville Court N. Karen and Rick Reidt, applicants. Karen Reidt was present for the discussion/hearing. Mr. Lieberman began by reading the charge of the HPC regarding demolition requests and the memo regarding the history of the case. Mr. Lieberman complimented the Reidts on the completeness of their application and meeting the requirements of the ordinance. No one was present for the public hearing. Ms. Fitzgerald noted the demolition ordinance was not in place when the Planning Commission first considered the request. According to the Planning Commission’s condition of approval, the house will have to be moved if the request is denied; she pointed out the Reidts did publish the house for sale/to move and no offers were received. Mr. Kimbrel, seconded by Mr. Dougherty, moved to approve the request; Mr. Johnson suggested adding language the approval is based on the finding that the structure is not historically significant. Mr. Lieberman said he could not support such language as by definition in the ordinance, any structure over 50 years old is potentially historically significant. Mr. Lieberman recommended language that recognizes the structure is potentially historically significant under the ordinance; however the Reidts have made a good faith effort to find a buyer for the house and will have to move the structure according to previous Planning Commission action; there is no community opposition to the demolition; and no prior evidence of the structure’s historical significance presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Kimbrel agreed to amend his motion to reflect Mr. Lieberman’s statement. Mr. Johnson added that the structure is potentially historically significant according to definition, but the HPC’s review has not proven the structure is historically significant. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/SUP/99-22 Design review of used car lot business at 1200 Frontage Road. John E. Kopp, applicant. Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 1999 Mr. Kopp was present for the discussion. Ms. Fitzgerald noted that the ordinance does not really address car dealerships in regard to landscaping requirements; however, the West Business Park guidelines call for a 3-foot high berm to screen parked cars. Ms. Fitzgerald said she would like to work with Mr. Kopp regarding landscaping plans before the request goes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson suggested it would be especially important to have large trees/visual blockage of the property from the west elevation. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Kopp about his plans for the area behind the building. Mr. Kopp said he has agreed to help clean the area up; eventually, he said, he would like to use the whole area for sales. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern about cars being parked in transition, waiting for servicing, detailing, etc. Ms. Fitzgerald said if there is parking for cars waiting for service, the area will have to be fenced and screened from view. Mr. Kopp explained his signage plans call for use of the existing pylon sign. The signage will be sterling silver with black lettering. There will be no additional signage on the front of the building. Mr. Lieberman asked about lighting; Mr. Kopp said he had no plans for additional lighting at this time. Mr. Johnson noted a condition of approval is that there be no more than 15 cars for sale in the front of the building and asked Mr. Kopp is he had any number in mind for the rear of the building; Mr. Kopp responded that it would be difficult for him to estimate at this time. Mr. Johnson moved approval of phases 1-3 as conditioned, with the additional conditions that any lot lighting be approved by staff; that a final sign plan utilizing silver background with black lettering be submitted to staff; that a landscaping plan be developed for the front and rear of the property; that any cars not available for retail sales be screened; and that fence height and material be approved by staff. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Other Items: ? HPC awards – Ms. Fitzgerald noted the awards were scheduled to be presented at the May 4 City Council meeting. She also stated that Amoco has indicated a willingness to remove the red/white/blue stripes on the gas pumps; pumps will be painted with a pin stripe black. ? Historic Preservation Conference – Ms. Fitzgerald asked members who will be attending the conference to notify her as soon as possible. ? Victorian Building – Ms. Fitzgerald said the matter has gone before the City Council. The Council did authorize proceeding with legal action. The building owners have 30 days to remove the second sign. ? Vending machines – Ms. Fitzgerald said she had contacted both Coca Cola and Pepsi offices; people she talked with at both offices said they would have to speak with their superiors. Ms. Fitzgerald said she had contacted Galena, Ill.; that city indicated vending machines/signage were not an issue there. Ms. Fitzgerald also said she had contacted Mike Koop at SHPO who indicated he would like to take the matter on as a “mission.” Mr. Johnson asked about the Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 1999 ? possibility of locating vending machines in kiosks, rather than scattered throughout town. The matter will be discussed further at the next meeting. ? Video Update – Mr. Lieberman asked about the status of the Video Update issues; Ms. Fitzgerald responded that things were still “moving slowly.” ? Bridge mitigation proposal – Mr. Lieberman told members he had been asked to provide testimony regarding the bridge mitigation proposal at the public meeting scheduled for May 5 at the Historic Courthouse. He asked members for their input. Members gave their individual thoughts/perspectives regarding the proposal and provided a number of suggestions. After a lengthy discussion, it was the consensus that Mr. Lieberman’s comments should be focused on the role of the HPC and the historic lift bridge. Mr. Johnson noted that from a historical perspective, when the lift bridge is no longer used for its original purpose, as proposed in the mitigation plan, the historical significance of the bridge is diminished significantly. ? Design guidelines update – Mr. Kimbrel asked about the status of the project and said he would volunteer to help Mr. Tomten in order to facilitate completion. Mr. Tomten said he would try to get a draft of the update by the next meeting. Mr. Johnson noted the Mr. Tomten was paid to do the original document and suggested that he be reimbursed for doing the update as well. Ms. Fitzgerald will check into that possibility. Mr. Kimbrel, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.; motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary