Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-04 HPC MINAFFID•IT OF PUBLICATION Stillwater G azett e le Curve Crest Blvd. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439 -3130 Fax: (651) 439 -4713 6/1/07 • 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 known 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 tl‘e size and kind type used in composition and publication of the of notice. abcdefghijkhnnopgrctrr. Publish oriz Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed to me t- on this / . day of Notary Public • City of Stillwater 216 4th St N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Inches 11 1 Day Maximum rate per column inch under Minnesota Law: $16.90 per 12 -pica column Description Public Notice Heritage Preservation Commission 5/30 2007. MARK EDWARD BERRIMAN NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA n My Commisslon eXplres Jam, 31, 2011 Invoice #: 00006497 Terms: Net 30 Price $7.90 Sub Total Payment Balance Due Total $86.90 $86.90 $86.90 $0.00 $86.90 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 4, 2007 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairperson, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Gayle Hudak, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Liaison Robert Gag Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Prior to the start of the regular meeting, members, with the exception of Mr. Zahren, took a walking tour of the downtown area to observe signage and buildings. Mr. Lieberman called the regular meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval of the minutes of May 7, 2007, as presented. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM /07 -26 Public hearing on a demolition request for a garage at 907 Sixth Ave. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Amy and Sean McDonough, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Lieberman briefly reviewed the nine requirements for the issuance of a demolition permit according to the City's ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated while the application was well put together, the structure had not been advertised for sale as required by ordinance. The applicants' contractor asked whether it is realistic to advertise the structure for sale given the age and condition of the building. Mr. Johnson pointed out advertising the structure is a requirement of the demolition process. Mr. Lieberman responded that whether or not it seems feasible that someone might respond to an advertisement, the same nine requirements must be followed in all demolition permits. Mr. Eastwood asked whether it might not be possible to make a decision on the demolition permit contingent on the applicants advertising the structure for sale; members were in consensus that would be a reasonable approach to take. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman moved to require the applicant to advertise the structure in accordance with the ordinance. If no response to the advertisement is received in three business days, approval is given to grant the demolition permit. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson noted that the applicant should submit a copy of the advertisement to staff for verification the process had been followed. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pogge reminded the applicants there is a 10 -day waiting period before any work can commence. Case No. DEM /07 -27 Public hearing on a demolition request for a garage at 1220 First St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lee Erickson, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman noted that all nine steps required for a demolition permit had been completed. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing; no comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the demolition permit. Mr. Johnson clarified that the applicant does not intend to disturb an old chicken coop on the property and asked that the motion be amended to indicate the chicken coop is not to be demolished. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Zahren accepted Mr. Johnson's request as a friendly amendment. Amended motion passed unanimously. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 4, 2007 DEM /07 -28 Public hearing on a demolition request for a shed at 307 E. Willow St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Adam Gard, applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Gard were present. Mr. Lieberman pointed out the building had not been advertised as required by ordinance. The applicant provided a copy of an ad that appeared in the Courier after the packet was prepared. Mr. Johnson noted the Commission had discussed this building before, but the application was withdrawn. The applicant noted the previous request was withdrawn just prior to his purchasing the property, and he thought a permit had been granted. Mr. Johnson pointed out the structure is in quite a deplorable state. Mrs. Gard noted that historian Don Empson had looked at the building and found that it does not appear to be of any unique significance. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson moved approval of the demolition permit based on Mr. Empson's evaluation, the apparent condition of the structure and the fact that the applicant completed all nine steps required of the ordinance. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DEM /07 -29 Public hearing on a demolition request for a garage, pantry and 3/4 bath at 717 W. Oak St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Bruce Ohland, applicant. The applicant was present. The applicant provided the required cost estimate for repair at the time of the meeting. Mr. Johnson noted the primary structure is of craftsman style architecture and suggested it would be nice if some of the details of the house, such as brackets, siding, and shingle work, are carried through into the new garage. Mr. Ohland said that is his intent. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson noted that with the submission of the cost estimate, all nine steps of the demolition permit had been followed and moved approval. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/07 -24 Design review of a two -story and one -story addition at 1826 Northwestern Ave. in the BP -O, Business Park Office District. Summer Kuehn, River Valley Place, LLC, applicant. The applicant was present. She briefly reviewed the site and plans for the three planned additions. One of the additions will square off the existing building and will provide additional office space and expanded spa. A second addition in the northwest corner of the site will provide for an expanded poolside sitting area, and a third addition will be used to house equipment. Ms. Kuehn stated the exterior of the additions will match the existing building, with the same brick face and green striping. She explained two different materials are being considered, standard block or ICF, provides the ability for more bearing weight on the upper roof. Mr. Johnson verified that an existing tin shed will be removed when the new storage building is constructed; Ms. Kuehn confirmed that the existing shed will be removed. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 4, 2007 Mr. Lieberman asked about exterior lighting. Ms. Kuehn said there would be no changes to the parking lot lighting, but said there might be some lighting to provide security for folks using a shared parking lot with St. Croix Orthopaedics. Mr. Johnson noted that currently there are several wall packs on the building that shine out; the design guidelines call for down lit /shielded fixtures, he told Ms. Kuehn. Mr. Lieberman asked about rooftop units and screening of the units. Ms. Kuehn stated the units are set back from the parapet and aren't visible due to the height of the building. There was discussion about the requirement for enclosing the dumpster area. Ms. Kuehn said requiring the dumpster to be enclosed could create a problem with access to a neighboring building, and she noted the existing dumpster area is screened by trees. She suggested enclosing the area would make it more visible than it currently is. Mr. Johnson agreed that given the remote location of the dumpsters, the requirement for an enclosure could be eliminated from the conditions of approval. Mr. Lieberman suggested changing that condition to indicate that if an enclosure is constructed, it must match the primary structure. Mr. Lieberman brought up the issue of berming and noted it was not addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the proposal does not create any additional parking and the large evergreens on the site provide a better screening than any berming. Mr. Johnson moved approval as conditioned, changing condition No. 5 to indicate that should the applicant choose to enclose the outside trash storage area, the enclosure be constructed of materials consistent with the primary building; indicating in condition No. 7 that the applicant shall submit a catalog clip of the proposed light fixtures to staff for approval; indicating that the requirement for parking lot berming is waived due to the mature trees on the property; approving the use of either masonry block or veneer ICF to match the existing structure; and with the condition that the existing metal building on the west side of the property be removed. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Pogge asked whether the Commission wished to have items No. 5, 6, 7 brought back for final review or reviewed by staff. It was consensus to have those items reviewed /approved by staff. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. DR/07 -25 Design review of proposed signage at 229 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Jeff Swanson, applicant. The applicant was present, and briefly explained his proposal. He noted there are two distinct entrances to his business as the space encompasses two separate buildings. He stated he plans to remove the existing fluorescent lighting that spans both buildings and replace that lighting with three goose -neck style fixtures; a clip of the proposed fixtures was included. The request is for two wall signs, one above each of the entrances and two projecting blade signs, one that would indicate the entrance is for the "Kids" furnishings and the other for the general "Home" furnishings. He noted the blade signs would not include the business logo or any other verbiage. The proposal also includes painting the exterior wood elements of the buildings; color chips were provided. Mr. Johnson expressed his concern with the proposal to paint the sign band on both buildings the same yellow color, rather than two different colors as indicated in the drawings in the City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 4, 2007 agenda packet. Mr. Johnson stated using the same color across both sign bands ties the buildings together, rather than making the buildings separate entities, which supports the logic for allowing two wall signs. Mr. Eastwood pointed out that the request amounts to four signs, which is not allowed. Mr. Eastwood said while the HPC has allowed generic wording on awnings, it has never allowed two signs. Mr. Johnson said he felt allowing the blade signs would be acceptable, as the signs are generic and do not include any logo or business name. Mr. Lieberman said he was comfortable with approving the blade signs as that signage is not dissimilar to generic verbiage on awnings, but agreed with the concern about using the same color on both sign bands. Ms. Hudak said she had no issue with the proposal, other than the suggested use of the same color on the sign bands. Mr. Swanson indicated he would be comfortable complying with the HPC's position regarding using different colors in the sign bands. Mr. Pogge pointed out that even if the HPC approves the blade signs, the applicant will have to obtain a variance from the Planning Commission. Mr. Zahren moved to approve the request for two Autumn Cottage signs, one above each entrance, and two blade signs, "Kids" and "Home," with no logos or company name, with the condition that two separate colors be used in the sign bands, that colors be submitted to staff for final approval and that the existing fluorescent lights be removed and replaced with goose -neck fixtures. After confirming that Mr. Zahren's motion included the three conditions of approval as recommended by staff, Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion passed 6 -1, with Mr. Eastwood voting no, saying the action was inconsistent with what the HPC has done in the past. Case No. DR /07 -30 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 218 Maple St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Matthew Lehmann, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Johnson noted that this structure has already been constructed, and the applicant is merely adding plumbing fixtures. The only real issue, Mr. Johnson pointed out is the need for a setback variance since the garage was not be defined as an accessory structure. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to approve this case from a design perspective. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/07 -31 Design review of signage at 219 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. David Waley, applicant. The applicant was not present. In the staff report and the HPC discussion, it was noted there have been previous signage issues associated with this building. Mr. Pogge pointed out that there are several existing signs on the building that exceed the ordinance height requirements. Mr. Tomten stated the applicant should come back with a sign package for the building. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to table Case No. 07 -31 and inform the applicant of the need for a revised sign plan for the building. Motion passed unanimously. Case No.DR /07 -32 Design review of new construction, St. Croix Preparatory Academy, at 8911 and 8753 Neal Ave. N. Kodet Architecture Group, representing Friends of St. Croix Preparatory Academy, applicant. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 4, 2007 Carol Johnson was present representing Friends of St. Croix Preparatory Academy. She stated a representative of the architectural firm was unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Johnson briefly reviewed the site and plans. She stated the building has been moved to the south of the site to be closer to utilities and the grading plan has been revised. She stated they are attempting to reduce the total size of the building to about 110,000 square feet. She said design elements include a variety of roofs, including a flat roof over the gymnasium portion, to reduce the scale of the building. She stated the intent is to reduce the impact on the site as much as possible. She stated the project would be completed in phases, the first phase being the primary classroom space; the second phase would include a theater /performing arts space and recreational fields. Mr. Tomten asked Ms. Johnson if she had any idea about exterior materials. Mr. Johnson said stone likely will be used at foundation level, with brick on the first level and lap siding on the second level. She stated colors had not been selected, but colors will be earth tones. It was noted there are no design standards for this project; the HPC is being asked to review and comment on the project as a courtesy. Mr. Lieberman said not enough detail had been presented for the HPC to do anything more than approve of the concept. Mr. Johnson stated he was glad to hear the grading plan had been revised, as one of his initial concerns was that the plans didn't accommodate the topography of the site. Mr. Johnson said he would like to see the design make even better use of the terrain, stepping down with the topography and keeping the building profile low. Mr. Johnson also suggested that some consideration be given to the orientation of the second building phase so as to possibly take advantage of shared parking space with the phase one building. Mr. Tomten commented that minimizing the impact on the site and tying the design to the natural environment is a good direction to proceed. No formal action was taken. OTHER BUSINESS • Mr. Pogge reviewed the schedule of neighborhood meetings to take place in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan process. He noted that feedback and participation are important. • Mr. Johnson provided information on an upcoming National Trust meeting. Mr. Johnson noted that the City of Minneapolis' Heritage Preservation Commission's web site has done a good job with that City's Heritage and Landmark home program and suggested some of the information might be useful as Stillwater begins to develop its program. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the grant contract for the program has been signed and also pointed out that the grant commits HPC members to photograph properties. Members suggested that Mr. Pogge assign the properties and provide them with any criteria, such as the size or elevations to be photographed. • Mr. Eastwood asked about the status of the proposed parking ramp structure and whether the HPC would have design review. Mr. Pogge explained that the Council has decided on a process, which includes soliciting RFPs and formation of a committee which will include two representatives of the HPC. Mr. Lieberman asked for volunteers to serve on the committee; Mr. Zahren and Mr. Eastwood said they would be willing and interested in serving on the committee. Mr. Lieberman asked that the HPC representatives be included in the process as the earliest possible juncture. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 4, 2007 • There was discussion of Washington Square park and public participation. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary