Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-05 HPC MINAFFIIIVIT OF PUBLICATION • Stillwater Gazette 1931 Curve Crest Blvd. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-3130 Fax: (651) 439-4713 3/30/07 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 being the size and kin notice. used in d type composition and publication of the of Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed to me on this day of •otary Public City of Stillwater 216 4th St N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Inches 4 • 1 Day Description Notice Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Change 3/30 Maximum rate per column inch under Minnesota Law: $16.90 per 12-pica column 41106 MARK EDWARD BERRIMAN NOTARY PUBLIC TA ,;;.MY comm saIN Exp5O Jan. ai, 2011 Invoice #: 00006345 Terms: Net 30 Price Total $7.90 $31.60 Sub Total Payment Balance Due $31.60 $31.60 $0.00 $31.60 • • Neese of MAW PMaarealtaa to07 Thursday, 2007 Change From Monday, AO the Heritage Preservation Com issio haroconduct their regular meeting a HEREBYeting on Thursday, April 5, 2007 at 7 p.m. in the Corather than Monday, Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN5506 , April 2, 2007. any Do not hesitate to contact Mike Po99 e, City Planner, at 651-430-8822, if you have 3/30 questions or need further information. • • • City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the minutes of March 5, 2007. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 07-11 Public Hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential) at 1817 N. Second St. Sean and Mollie Kane, applicants. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff comments related to massing and scale; alignment and setbacks; roof design; building height; and tree preservation. Mr. Johnson agreed with the comments regarding massing and scale and said the proposed house seems to be relatively oversized compared to others in the area; he referred to the grade drop to the east, which amplifies the appearance of height. Mr. Johnson stated he was concerned with the overall size of the house and the height of the home appearing as three stories along the rear/east elevation; he said he thought the applicants did a good job in revising plans to reduce the massing by changing materials. Mr. Johnson suggested that applying the infill design guidelines to the Dutchtown area, where this site is located, is made more difficult due to the variety of housing sizes that currently exist in the neighborhood. Mr. Eastwood asked if excavation would be needed on the east elevation; the applicant said the site is a true walkout lot, with a drop-off that won't require excavation. Mr. Lieberman noted the guidelines are not meant to require that a structure replicate exactly what exists in a neighborhood; the guidelines exist to make people aware of looking at the surrounding neighborhood so something isn't built that is totally out of character — a white elephant. He agreed with Mr. Johnson's comment regarding the variety of housing stock that exists in Dutchtown and the impracticality of requiring someone who pays the price of acquiring a piece of property to build a house of the same size and massing as a home built 150 years ago. His question, he said, is whether the proposed size and massing of this house is so egregious as to throw the entire area out of kilter. Mr. Zahren said he liked the plans but doesn't think it fits with the character of the neighborhood. He said he thought the house was too large and said he thought the HPC would be doing a disservice to the neighborhood to approve the design as proposed. Mr. Nelson referred to the applicants' efforts to revise the plans based on comments at the last meeting. Mr. Tomten said the revisions were a move in the right direction, but said to make a decision based strictly on the footprint of the house, the plans would be difficult to fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Tomten said if this request did get approved, he would like to see a fair amount of landscaping around the structure to screen/minimize the feel of the mass of the structure. Mr. Eastwood also referred to the variety of housing in the area, but said he thought the structure was just a bit too large. Mr. Johnson noted that the size of the garage contributes to the massing and suggested that the house alone, without the attached garage, likely wouldn't stand 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 out as much; he suggested the possibility of a detached garage given the lot, which offers that opportunity. Mr. Johnson said he thought the revisions to the north elevation, including the step- in roof on the second story, help reduce the massing. Ms. Hudak questioned the impact on the houses to the east. There was discussion about the style of the roof; consensus was this guideline was not an issue with the revision to the style and pitch based on comments at the last meeting. Regarding the front yard alignment/setback, Mr. Lieberman said he didn't think that would be an issue as long as there is landscaping, and said the increased setback would help mitigate the massing. Mr. Tomten also stated he thought the increased setback would be good, considering this is a corner lot. Regarding building height, Mr. Johnson said he thought the applicants had done a good job with revisions, citing the lower foundation area being a stone material, then the introduction of siding and then the sloping of the garage roof; the original plans, he noted, showed siding material all the way up to the gable peak from the ground elevation, which accentuated the height. Mr. Johnson also noted that given the natural terrain, a two-story house from the front elevation would appear as three-story from the real elevation, and said he thought the applicant had done a pretty good job with breaking up the appearance with the introduction of different materials. Regarding guideline No. 9 related to preservations of trees, Mr. Lieberman said a critical component for him regarding both this guidelines and guideline No. 1 (massing) would be landscaping. Mr. Johnson spoke of the unfortunate incident of clear -cutting the property. The applicant stated they are aware of the importance of landscaping and also stated the original trees on the property were not high quality. Mr. Tomten asked if the applicants would be willing to submit a landscaping plan for approval based on comments regarding plantings to reduce the sense of massing. Mr. Lieberman invited comments from the public. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman said if the landscaping plan is sufficient to reduce the feel of the massing, he would be in favor of approval. Mr. Zahren said he wasn't sure if landscaping would be enough to reduce the feel of the size of the house, and reiterated his concern that this plan is not the right fit for the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson pointed out that because of the clear -cutting, anything built on the lot will stand out. In addition to submittal of a landscaping plan, Mr. Johnson noted that all roof penetrations would be on the north side, the most visible side, of the structure and suggested adding a condition that a plan be submitted showing location of exterior vents/mechanicals. The applicant described possible locations for mechanicals so the units would be screened. Mr. Tomten also touched on the guideline related to four-sided architecture and noted that on the west elevation, the northern -most garage bay has a stone front, which goes about 2' and then stops. He suggested removing the stone be removed and utilizing shakes as is done on the rest of the garage. Mr. Tomten also noted a fourth element, vertical board and batten, on the front elevation; he suggested four materials was too much and suggested the upper gable be shakes. The suggested change in materials included utilizing horizontal lap siding on the first and second floors of the main house, shakes on the gables; shakes on the entire garage; and stone on the foundation below the first floor line. 7 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 Mr. Tomten moved approval of the infill project subject to the following conditions: • all minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director and all major changes approved in advance by the HPC; • the tall and narrow windows be double -hung sash windows; • the applicant shall submit a revised site plan eliminating the drive along Willow Street East for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit; • the applicant shall submit an exterior vent and mechanical plan showing the location of all exterior mechanical elements for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit; • the applicant shall submit a complete landscaping plan for the site for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit, with the condition that if the landscaping plan is not approved the project fails for not meeting guidelines No. 1 and No. 9 of the Infill Design guidelines; • that the main body of the house be horizontal lap siding, the gable ends on both the east and west elevations and bump -out on the south elevation of the second level be shake material, the massing of the garage and bonus room above be shakes on the west, north and east elevations, and stone material utilized for the lower foundation level on the north and east. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/07-7 Design review of Millbrook Townhomes, US Homes, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the background report. Jay Liberacki was present representing the applicant. Mr. Liberacki noted that the Park Board and Planning Commission had reviewed and approved the plans. He stated the Joint Board also reviewed and approved the plans. He stated the developers had incorporated comments regarding end units into the plans. Emergency services, he stated, preferred this concept to the prior plans. Regarding changes to the end units, he noted that David Johnson, member of the Joint Board and Stillwater Township Board, had made the suggestion to turn the entries around, and the designer changed the plans to have the front door come into the middle of the side rather than the front corner. Mr. Liberacki also noted that it has been suggested that the stone material may not be a good historic material and brick might be more appropriate for the Stillwater area. Mr. Johnson agreed the applied stone material isn't quite fitting to the architecture, and brick may be more appropriate. Mr. Johnson suggested the HPC review role is somewhat limited in this application, limited to site layout, architectural character and landscaping. Mr. Tomten suggested that under architectural character, the past PUD report addresses the intent of establishing streetscape and streetscape spaces, which was the impetus behind the original proposal for brownstones. Mr. Tomten said the challenge is how to massage an auto -dominant product, which is what the proposed back-to-back townhome product is, and still maintain some of the streetscape atmosphere that was intended with the original PUD. Mr. Tomten suggested that process was City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 started with moving the entrances of the end units around to the side, and bringing the walks from those entrances out to the sidewalks. Mr. Tomten also pointed out that in the previous plan, front doors were facing the storm water element in that location, providing a front yard park atmosphere. Mr. Tomten suggested at the very least, the sidewalk elements from the end units be brought out to outlot D (storm water ponding element). Mr. Tomten stated he liked the end unit plan 430 "D", rather than 430 "C," which he described as "awkward" due to the lack of symmetry in the elements. Mr. Tomten spoke in favor of changing color, materials, and design elements from building to building, and even transition materials and colors within the building itself to bring this housing type back to more of a residential scale. Mr. Liberacki stated the developer has a multiple color palette, but will not be changing materials from building to building. Mr. Johnson noted the difference in width of siding does provide some variety in surface texture. Mr. Liberacki showed photos of various products/projects. He also pointed out the back-to-back units have four elevations which are very nicely done, versus the row -type homes with "Hollywood" fronts and not very attractive rear elevations. Mr. Liberacki also noted that the proposed landscaping plan will mitigate the appearance of the parking areas. Mr. Liberacki also expressed his view that the brownstone/row product is not appropriate for this setting. Mr. Lieberman said he was OK with the back-to-back units as long as there is variety of colors, materials and design elements. In addition to adding the sidewalks as discussed earlier, Mr. Tomten proposed the planting of additional evergreens to screen the garage side of the buildings from the public road. He suggested additional evergreen plantings should be done in the southeast corner by the round -about and along White Pine Way, where the garage side is exposed. Mr. Tomten said he would like to see additional drawings indicating variety of design, materials, and colors so the HPC has a clear representation of the whole townhome development, rather than a snapshot of one of the units at a time. Mr. Tomten also noted that the developer had only presented two concepts for the end units, suggesting there should be additional concepts for the end elevations; he suggested that 430 "C" should be redesigned to deal with the asymmetry. Mr. Pogge pointed out that unless the applicant agreed to an extension of the statutory time limit for acting on an application, the Commission needed to make some decision, whether for approval or denial, at this meeting. Mr. Johnson pointed out that what is being sought at this time is preliminary plat approval, so the Commission will be reviewing/approving of final plans. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the back-to-back townhome concept as presented with the conditions that: • Evergreen plantings and a landscape plan be developed for the final approval phase to address screening of driveway areas and among the units themselves; • That there be more variety in the design of end units as plans develop; • That the mass of individual buildings be reduced through more variety of color and materials within each individual unit and also from unit to unit. Mr. Tomten suggested adding a condition regarding the extension of the sidewalks from the end units to the public sidewalk or trail; Mr. Tomten suggested requiring three or four end unit designs so there is sufficient variety. Mr. Johnson accepted Mr. Tomten's suggested condition 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 regarding extension of the sidewalks and the number of end unit designs as amendments to his motion of approval. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman said he would like to be certain that material samples are submitted prior to final design review; Mr. Tomten also called for full building elevations for final design review. Mr. Liberacki asked whether the project would be denied if the requirement for four or five end unit designs isn't met. If so, Mr. Liberacki suggested the Commission could vote for denial at this time. The Commission noted it is up to the applicant to determine how to proceed. Motion for approval of the amended motion, including the condition regarding submittal of materials and final building elevations, passed 6-1, with Mr. Lieberman voting no. Case No. DR/07-12 Design review of signage for Gartner Studios/Pulp Fashion at 102 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Sound Properties, Dan Smith, applicant. The applicants noted that in addition to signage, they are requesting lighting. The applicants provided cuts of the proposed fixtures. Regarding the proposed awning, the applicants stated they would prefer the fixed style rather than the retractable, crank style. Members liked the proposed mural; the applicants noted their logo had been removed from the mural proposal. There was discussion about the mural covering the window openings; the applicants pointed out the mural material will allow some light to pass through. Mr. Lieberman moved approval with the three recommended conditions of approval, approving either style awning, with a 12:12 pitch, and the goose neck fixtures as indicated by the applicants. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the conditions include that there be no logo on the mural; Mr. Tomten asked that the applicants provide staff with information about the mural material and how it is applied to the building. Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Tomten's suggestions were added to the conditions of approval. Ms. Hudak seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/07-13 Design review of storefront renovation at 210 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. John Harvey, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report. Mr. Pogge told the Commission he had talked with the State Architect's Office earlier in the day, and that office indicated no problem with the request. It was noted that the storefront had been changed several times in the past. Mr. Pogge stated that because there is currently no entrance in the proposed location from the sidewalk, there is about a 3" step, which must be made accessible. Also, there are two original limestone pieces in the proposed location and to make the entrance accessible, that element likely would have to be removed. If the door is placed on the far south side, there are no original elements that would have to be removed. Mr. Johnson suggested the south side likely would be an easier location because a door had already been there and framing is set up. Mr. Nelson agreed that it would make sense to place the door where one was previously located. Mr. Tomten said he didn't have as much problem with the location of the entrance as with the details/materials of the door. Mr. Tomten provided photos of nearby storefronts, with wooden doors and wooden detailing. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 It was consensus to recommend placement of the door in the southern location as described by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Nelson while he would prefer a wood door, he was not too concerned with that issue as there is an existing metal door on the building. Mr. Johnson moved approval with the conditions: that the door be placed in the south bay; that existing window glazings remain with the exception of where the door is to be located; that the door be set into the building similar to the Sherburne's entrance, with a glass sidelight and aluminum framed door to match that of Sherburne's. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten suggested specifying that the door detailing — kick plates, window framing and glass glazing — match Sherburne's. Mr. Johnson accepted that as an amendment to his motion. Mr. Tomten seconded the amended motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/07-14 Design review of new construction in the VC, Village Commercial District. Dan O'Brien, Krech O'Brien, Mueller & Associates, applicant. Dan O'Brien and Dr. Ginger Garlie were present. The applicant provided accurate color samples. Mr. Tomten asked the applicant to respond to comments made at the concept discussion of this proposal regarding the New England theme of the Village Commercial District. Mr. O'Brien responded that the proposed design is a contemporary interpretation of the craftsman style used extensively throughout the residential area of the development; he said they adapted the design style slightly by increasing the scale of the building. He stated they attempted to add more color to add interest. Mr. O'Brien stated they wanted and needed the porch feel and needed the two-story height, but he said they wanted to bring the scale of the building down from the automobile scale of the bank building. Mr. Johnson suggested the design definitely has a pedestrian feel to it and almost has a railroad station look with access on all sides and the style of the roof. Mr. Johnson noted the north elevation is quite visible from County Road 12 and as proposed there is a little less detail on that elevation because of the location of the trash enclosure and mechanicals. Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of adding a window frame on that elevation and carrying the red color around that elevation. Dr. Garlie said she would like to bring some of the colors into the signage/logo. Mr. O'Brien said they would like to do some signage on the north elevation if possible, and he said he liked the suggestion regarding the window opening. Mr. O'Brien explained he is looking at possibly bringing vertical elements around to the north elevation. He said landscaping will have a significant impact on the plans. Regarding lighting, he said traditional gooseneck fixtures are proposed for the building and concealed soffit lighting in the porch area. The pole fixtures for the parking lot will be the same as are used elsewhere in the Village Commercial District. It was noted there will be no boarding of animals, and there will be no fenced areas other than one exercise/after care area. Mr. Tomten asked about landscaping plans. Mr. O'Brien explained the concept of planting beds and the opportunity to enhance the pedestrian feel; he also talked about the possibility of some trellises. Mr. Tomten spoke of looking at ways to enhance the pedestrian feel along the sidewalk and the green; a representative of the applicant responded that it was felt the main approach to the building would be from the parking lot, so it was felt in addressing pedestrian needs, the entry directly from the sidewalk was secondary. The applicant spoke of the possibility of a memorial garden to increase interest. 6 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 Mr. Tomten said he thought the proposed building was very attractive but was still a bit concerned about the transition from the New England theme to contemporary arts and crafts style. Mr. Johnson asked about lighting and signage. Signs will be lighted with gooseneck fixtures. Mr. O'Brien stated signage may not be necessary on the east elevation if they are able to developed the north and west elevation. Mr. Johnson asked if signage would be permissible as the signage restrictions are more liberal in the VCD area. Mr. Tomten stated there is no requirement limiting signage to street frontage; Mr. Johnson said he thought signage worked well on the west elevation. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the project as submitted with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. A member of the audience asked to address the Commission. Mr. Lieberman noted this was not a public hearing, but allowed the comments. The speaker referred to park dedication requirements and asked the HPC to look at how Liberty on the Lake and Liberty Village were developed. He noted that Liberty Square Park came out of residential area open space and park dedication. The park, he said, was located between the residential homes and the village commercial district to bring the community together. The covenants of each area were written with this in mind so the use, view and expense would be shared between each area -- residential and commercial. He said the developer stated the village commercial would include businesses focused on everyday needs — bank, gas station, grocery, ice cream store and deli. The developer also stated a hospital on the village green would add to the nostalgic concept; the developer stated a hospital is allowed. He stated, however, that the PUD for the Liberty commercial area, designed to serve the residents of Legends, Liberty and Settler's Glen development, states that only convenience shopping and personal services would be allowed. He also pointed out that the covenants for the Liberty commercial prohibit the boarding, breeding or sale of any animals. Mr. Lieberman pointed out the HPC's job is to decide whether a proposal meets the building design guidelines and signage guidelines for an area; determining land use is not the HPC's function, that's the function of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pogge noted the Planning Commission was to review this case on Monday, April 9. Paula Kroening, 213 Pine Hollow Green, spoke of the history of the development and the New England theme and listed ways that theme is in place in the design of Rutherford Elementary School, the City pump station, the watch tower, the Cafe, bank and gas station. She stated the New England theme was developed after years of work and spoke of the history of the western portion of the City. She also referenced the purchase agreement with CPDC, which stated the architecture of the Village Commercial will reflect the New England theme of the development and neighborhood. No other comments were received and the matter returned to the table. Mr. Tomten suggested the point regarding the original property owner's desire to develop the area with the theme of a New England shop on the green architecture was a valid one. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Tomten, who was a party to developing the architectural guidelines, whether the proposed design fits within the New England period architecture or whether it falls outside of the guidelines. Mr. Tomten said while this is a very attractive building, the contemporary arts and crafts style 7 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 doesn't have much to contribute to the New England theme, which was the focus of the shops on the green. Mr. Tomten agreed there is diversity in the residential area, which was done intentionally, while the village green area was meant to be more true to the New England theme. Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Lieberman both suggested there are elements of this building which can be seen in other existing buildings on the green. Mr. Johnson suggested the matter could be tabled to provide an opportunity to bring more New England flavor to the design. Mr. Lieberman spoke against mixing and matching of designs. Mr. Eastwood said he thought the design complimented the area and would be one of the nicest buildings in the commercial district. Mr. Johnson pointed out this site is unique due to its location across from the townhouses and the residential areas where arts and crafts style predominate so the design doesn't seem out of place. Mr. Lieberman noted that there are elements and colors from other structures in the Liberty commercial area that are carried over in this design and said he didn't think it was wildly inconsistent with others in the district. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the project with the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-1, with Mr. Tomten voting no. Case No. DR/07-15 Design review of signage at 610 N. Main St., Crabtree Lawyers, in the CBD, Central Business District. Todd Crabtree, applicant. Steve Best was present representing the applicant. Mr. Best noted since the request was first heard by the HPC, the plan has been revised and is now more in keeping with other signage in the area. Mr. Best addressed the issue of the lights that had been installed; he apologized and explained that the electrical contractor had gone ahead with the work in error after the Commission tabled their first proposal. Mr. Best said he thought the gooseneck fixtures would be preferable; he noted that the Terra Springs Association has approved the gooseneck style fixtures, and at night, the lights wash down the front of the building. He said he didn't think the lights could be placed any lower on the building as they would obstruct someone else's view on the second floor. Mr. Johnson questioned whether the sign needed to be illuminated, given the nature of the business and existing street lighting in the area. Mr. Best asked if the HPC would allow the use of a hooded style fixture; Mr. Johnson asked how light would be distributed using that style and suggested a tube -type lighting. Mr. Tomten noted that at the last consideration of this request, the applicant was told a sign plan would need to be developed for the whole building. Mr. Lieberman agreed it would be difficult to evaluate this request without knowing sign plans for the whole development. Jack Buxell, one of the Terra Springs designer, was in the audience and pointed out there was a sign program for the building, with recommended locations for signage and signage styles. Mr. Lieberman moved to table this request until the existing sign program can be reviewed by the applicant and staff to enable the applicant to come back with a proposal that is consistent with the previously approved sign package. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS 501 N. Main — Jack Buxell stated he had met with Community Development Director Turnblad and they have identified several elements of the 501 N. Main building that have not been built correctly. Specifically, he said there was a requirement for gaping between the brick windowsills City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2007 and the windows themselves which was not met by the contractor. It has been determined all those windows in the building need to be removed, he said. The brick is not longer available, and the mortar has faded and weathered to varying degrees. He said he is recommending that repairs be done utilizing precast sills; there likely will need to be three different profiles for the precast sills, he said, due to the difference in depth. He provided original drawings of what the contractor was asked to do, and other drawings of the proposed repairs. He said the proposal is to use a fairly dark brick sill and use mortar and caulk that matches the precast. He said speed is of some essence as some windows are no longer operable due to the error. Mr. Lieberman suggested approving the approach as outlined and delegating authority to City staff to work with the building designer as needed. Mr. Johnson moved to acknowledge that the sills need to be addressed on the Lofts and the proposal to utilize cast stone of a dark color and matching mortar is acceptable. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan steering committee — Mr. Lieberman suggested that the newer members of the HPC serve as the committee representatives. Mr. Eastwood expressed an interest in serving on the downtown committee. Mr. Zahren said he would be serving as the Chamber representative. Mr. Nelson agreed to serve on the general steering committee, with Ms. Hudak as alternate. Annual HPC awards — Ms. Hudak and Mr. Eastwood both spoke in favor of an award for the Library project. Mr. Johnson suggested Charlsen Trucking for the Meister's project for the renovation award. Mr. Nelson said he thought Stone's courtyard looked good; it was agreed that project could be recognized with an award for best use of outdoor space. Mr. Zahren suggested Stillwater Art Guild for the signage award. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 9