Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-06 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2005 Present: Howard Lieberman, chairman, Diane Hark, Jeff Johnson (7:40 p.m.) and Roger Tomten Others: Planner Sue Fitzgerald Absent: Phil Eastwood, Patte Kraske and Brent Peterson Mr. Lieberman apologized for the lack of a quorum. While waiting for Mr. Johnson’s arrival, there was an informal discussion with members of the audience regarding the status of the new bridge, the function of the HPC, the status of the new residential develo pments in the downtown area, and possible activities in the downtown during the upcoming closure of the lift bridge. Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hark, moved approval of the min utes of June 6, 2005; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/05 - 28 Design review of an awning for The Spectacle Shoppe at 111 S. Main St. David Ulrich, applicant. Mr. Ulrich was present. He said his business logo will be on the front of the requested awn ing only; there will be other verbiage, such as “eyes examined,” on the sides. The proposed awning is 14 square feet, he said. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Ms. Hark, moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Lieberman clarified that the business name is permitted on the front of the awning only. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/05 - 29 Design review of signage for Marathon/Oasis Market at 2289 Croixwood Blvd. Kathy Ristow – Identi - Graphics representing the applicant. Case No. DR/05 - 30 Design review of signage for Marathon/Oasis Market at 1750 Greeley St. S. Kathy Ristow – Identi - Graphics representing the applicant. It was agreed to consider both of these cases at the same time. Jim Nelson was present representing the applicant. Mr. Nelson pointed out that the app licant is requesting nothing more than what is currently in place. Mr. Johnson noted that one of the pylon signs is slightly over the allowable square footage, but that is grandfathered - in. There will be no signage on the canopy. Mr. Johnson also informed the applicant that should there ever be changes made to the existing lighting under the canopy, the City/HPC would like flush mounted lighting. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2005 Mr. Johnson moved approval of Case No. DR/0 5 - 29 as conditioned. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson moved approval of Case No. DR/05 - 30 as conditioned. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Nelson presented a depiction of what is being re quested for the Oasis store at Main Street. Mr. Nelson said he had just received the request the day of the July meeting and did not object to a suggestion that this request be looked at more closely at the HPC August meeting. Members suggested that the ap plicant look at lighting options for the pylon sign. Case No. DR/05 - 31 Design review of signage for Mai Thai Café at 1501 Stillwater Blvd. Robert Mendez, representing the applicant. Present were Juha Thao and Nao P. Yang. Mr. Yang explained that due to t he existence of a mature tree which blocks the view from Stillwater Boulevard, they would like to place the signage on the south portion of the sign band in order to improve visibility. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval as conditioned, a llowing the applicant the option of placing the signage either on the southwest or southeast portion of the sign band, but only at one location. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/05 - 32 Design review of an accessory unit at 621 W. Churchill St. Harold and Heidi Sommers, applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Sommers were present. The proposal includes the removal of an existing garage. Mr. Lieberman noted the existing structure is over 50 years old and subject to the City’s demolition permitting process. Ms. Fitzger ald said the building official had inspected the structure. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that any HPC discussion at this meeting should be subject to receipt of confirmation as to why the demolition should be allowed and why the demolition permit shouldn’t be required. Mr. Lieberman said he would not like to set a precedent in this case. Mr. Tomten asked if the applicants planned to keep the existing structure until the new one is built. Mr. Sommers responded in the affirmative. Mr. Sommers noted the existing garage is 8 feet on to his neighbor’s property and 10 - 12 feet on City property. The new garage, with attached art studio, will meet setbacks. The request for an accessory structure, he said, is so a bathroom and shower can be installed in the art studio. Mr. Sommers provided a revised sketch of the garage/studio. The primary revision is a gable above the garage to break up the Harriet Street elevation. The Sommers noted the house itself was constructed in 1872 and has been added to five times; the existing house has both cedar shingles and 6” lap siding on the exterior. They showed photos of other 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2005 houses on Harriet Street indicating there are many different styles of architecture in the ne ighborhood. Mr. Johnson reviewed the various requirements for an accessory unit – lot size, setbacks, off - street parking, maximum size of 800 square feet, and height relative to the primary structure – all of which the Sommers are in compliance with. Mr. Johnson suggested the primary issues are the appropriateness of the exterior materials for the accessory structure and the demolition of the existing garage. Mr. Sommers said they would like to use lap style wood or wood - grained vinyl of a white/cream or n eutral color; the house will be painted the same color in the near future, he said. The window/door trim would be 4 - 6” in width. During the discussion, Mr. Johnson suggested extending the height of the gable to the ridgeline in order to make a stronger sta tement, as well as carry water away from the doors. Mr. Lieberman moved approval as conditioned, with the addition of the gable, and contingent on receipt of information from the building official/city staff regarding the appropriateness of the demolition . Ms. Hark seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/05 - 33 Design review of a bed and breakfast at 125 S. Owen St. Heidi Rosebud, applicant. Ms. Rosebud was present. Ms. Fitzgerald pointed out that it had been determined that the lot in question is large enough for just one guestroom and Ms. Rosebud is aware of that. Ms. Rosebud also pointed out that the proposed signage is 4 square feet, 2x2, rather than 4x4 as indicated in the agenda packet. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the condit ions for the special use permit for special events should make the statement “this use is not transferable” as a separate condition of approval No. 10. Much of the discussion centered on the requirements that a B&B be owner - occupied. Ms. Hark said she had been contacted by several B&B owners, who didn’t object to Ms. Rosebud’s proposal to open another inn, but rather questioned the owner - occupied requirement. Ms. Fitzgerald said there are several existing B&Bs that are not owner - occupied; Ms. Hark pointed out that the Rivertown Inn is grandfathered - in and therefore exempt from that requirement. Ms. Rosebud said she had a number of conversations with city staff and the opinion of staff is that the requirement is that a B&B be owner/manager - occupied. Mr. Joh nson reviewed the ordinance, which indicated by definition that a B&B is an owner - occupied historic residence. He noted the intent of the B&B ordinance is to allow for the appropriate adaptive reuse as a means of preserving the City’s larger historic homes . The ordinance also indicates renovations of B&Bs be consistent with Department of Interior guidelines. Mr. Lieberman said the intent of the ordinance is to enable people to live in and preserve older historic homes, not as a means of converting a residen ce to a commercial use. Mr. Lieberman suggested this request seems to be outside the intent of the City’s ordinance. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2005 Mr. Tomten questioned the proposed use of log siding. Ms. Rosebud said th e intent was to match several nearby houses and her adjacent business; she also said that type of siding recognizes the importance of the logging industry in the City’s history. Ms. Rosebud said she was open to suggestions regarding exterior materials; she just does not want to retain the existing vinyl siding. Mr. Johnson noted that often times the original materials can be found beneath the current siding. Mr. Lieberman concluded the discussion by saying the HPC needs to follow the City’s ordinance as wr itten and needs an opinion from the City attorney regarding the definition of owner - occupied. Mr. Lieberman moved approval as conditioned contingent upon receipt of the City Attorney’s opinion regarding the interpretation of owner - occupied vs. owner/manage r - occupied and with the additional condition that the restoration be consistent with Department of Interior guidelines. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there is a National Park Service/Department of Interior web site that should be of help regarding renovation materials. Members indicated they were comfortable with the conditions regarding the special use permit for special events, with the addition of No. 10, that the use is not transferable. Other items: 1) Review of Architectural Survey applicants: Four proposals were received – The 106 Group, Thomas Zahn & Associates, Don Empson, and Hesse, Roise and Company. Ms. Hark cast her vote for Don Empson prior to leaving at 8:50 p.m. It was noted that with t he exception of Hesse, Roise and Company, the other three were within a few dollars of each other in the bid, and were within the budget of $11,000. Ms. Fitzgerald suggested that several of the respondents were likely to be very good. Mr. Johnson noted tha t this project also involves advising the Commission on the issue of establishing a conservancy district for the City. Mr. Johnson moved to approve accepting the proposal from Don Empson and to invite Mr. Empson to the next HPC meeting to discuss the scop e of the project. Mr. Lieberman questioned whether the other responders should be given the same opportunity to talk with the HPC. Ms. Fitzgerald provided a copy of the RFP. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten suggested the RFP was clear enough on the scope of the project that a decision could be made without additional input from the responders. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the proposal from Don Empson to conduct the Final Phase of the Architectural Study and to invite him to attend the next HPC meeting to kick - of f the project. Motion passed unanimously; Mr. Eastwood had also indicted his vote in favor of Mr. Empson during a phone conversation with Ms. Fitzgerald. 2) Review of first draft of Staples and Mays Addition. It was pointed out that the copies provided HPC m embers only included half of the pages. Mr. Johnson did point out an inconsistency in the bibliography. Ms. Fitzgerald will send copies of the complete draft to Commission members. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2005 3) Mr. John son brought up the issue of attendance. After discussion, it was agreed that Ms. Fitzgerald should contact Ms. Kraske and thank her for her past service, acknowledge her inability to attend on a regular basis as required by ordinance, and begin the process of seeking a new Commission member. 4) Ms. Fitzgerald inquired as to the Commission’s interest in asking the City Council to place a moratorium on lot subdivisions until design guidelines are established for in - fill housing. She said the Planning Commission is interested in doing so. Mr. Johnson pointed out Mr. Empson’s upcoming project should be of use in developing such guidelines. Mr. Lieberman indicated to Ms. Fitzgerald it was the Commission’s consensus to request that the City Council impose a morator ium on lot subdivisions until such time as design guidelines are promulgated for in - fill housing and the HPC and Planning Commission can make a presentation to the Council recommending adoption of such guidelines. Due to the absence of a quorum, Mr. Liebe rman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5