Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-07 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, July 7, 2008 Present: Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval of the minutes of June 2, 2008. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DR/08-35.Design review for new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District located at 1221 N Broadway Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Sala Architects, representing Steven and Jessica Meletiou, applicant. Tim Old of SALA Architects was present; he noted that a three-dimensional model of the site was available, as well as color studies that were not in the original application packet. It was noted the site is currently a vacant lot. Mr. Johnson pointed out the intent of the Conservation District was established primarily to provide uniformity to infills in historic neighborhoods so the infill structure continues to support the historic community in respect to massing, scaling and design. Mr. Johnson noted that this site is somewhat unique in that it is located on the east side of Broadway where there are no historic homes; the homes that are there have been built in the last 40 years or so, as opposed to the west side of the street where there are several older homes. Mr. Johnson asked the architect about plans to address the slope of the site. Mr. Old stated there is quite a bit of change in the slope of the site due to the condition of the quarry. The house itself, he said, sits pretty much up on the street level, with the walkout located on an existing shelf that lies below that, so the house nestles into the existing topography. Mr. Old noted there is a 30-foot setback from the bluffline as required; he said retaining walls will be minimal. Mr. Johnson pointed out that due to the topography there will be minimal impact on the view from the street. Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant was aware of the suggested conditions of approval, specifically the submission of a tree removal plan. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. A realtor with Caldwell, Banker, Burnet, who has the house next door listed, asked about the setback from the bluff. Mr. Pogge noted in the discussion at the table that the required setback from the bluff in this area is 30 feet, not 40 feet as this is not in the St. Croix River overlay district, and reaffirmed the 30 foot setback. There was a question about an existing house and driveway. It was noted the current owner is building a driveway to serve the new lot. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Eastwood moved to approve as conditioned, with the additional condition that final colors and materials be submitted to staff for approval and that a tree removal plan for the entire site be submitted to staff for approval as well. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten said he thought the applicants had done a good job of following the guidelines and that the design fits well with the natural grades of the site. Motion passed unanimously. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, July 7, 2008 DESIGN REVIEWS . Case No. DR/08-31Design review for the installation of a new sign for Paws and Claws Daycare located at 1900 Tower Drive in the BP-O, Business Park Office District. Daniel Lodge, applicant. The applicant was not present. In the staff report, it was noted the proposed sign meets the code/ordinance requirements. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as submitted and conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. . Case No. DR/08-32Design review of a store façade located at 108 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Dan Roettger, representing Mike Lynskey, applicant. Dan Roettger was present. Mr. Johnson reviewed the proposed changes, which include removal of the brick veneer and aluminum-framed windows and bringing the front elevation out flush with the front of the building. There was discussion about the proposal for a take-out opening in the south window. Mr. Johnson said he thought it looked somewhat awkward to have the window cut up on a storefront where there would normally be a rhythm of windows; he also referred to staff’s concern about traffic with the relatively narrow sidewalk. Mr. Tomten suggested the possibility of doing gliding windows that open right to the sidewalk and said he was somewhat bothered by trying to put in a small operating window with a wooden frame breaking up the larger window opening. Mr. Roettger suggested running horizontal boards all away across and centering the opening. Mr. Tomten asked if the window could be full width; Mr. Roettger stated they could special order the window. Mr. Johnson pointed out in the historical photo, there were two large windows and a larger entryway, so the front elevation was almost broken into thirds. Using that perspective, Mr. Johnson suggested there could be a wider entryway, which would provide some opportunity to have the service window open into the entry rather than out on the sidewalk front, or perhaps have a double-door entry with one of the doors serving as the service window. Mr. Roettger agreed that Mr. Johnson’s concept could be workable. Several members pointed out that concept might affect the interior functions. Mr. Zahren questioned having the entrance and service window/door functions in that close a proximity. Mr. Johnson suggested another possibility would be to have the service window as proposed in the application look more like a door, narrower and all the way to the ground, rather than a display window. Mr. Tomten noted that the door concept could change the symmetry of the kick plate, as well as the window openings. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the entryway could be shifted slightly to restore the symmetry. Shifting the entryway could also impact the interior functions, it was noted. Mr. Zahren asked if there was any way to make the service window less obtrusive; Mr. Johnson suggested using a bronze aluminum glazing around the window opening rather than wood columns/framing as proposed. Mr. Tomten said he liked the wood panels below and wood framing between the four major panes to accentuate the wood verticals and minimize the steel framing, the operational part of the service window bay. Mr. Johnson asked about the main entry door; Mr. Roettger said it would be the same as the Main Street Square, bronze colored; Mr. Johnson said the use of the wider frame is preferred to provide a more traditional look. Mr. Johnson asked about colors; Mr. Roettger said staff preferred colors to match the adjacent building to the south. The awning will remain unchanged, it was noted. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the application as conditioned with the additional conditions: any of the divided lights in the service window bay be held to as minimal a width as possible; that 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, July 7, 2008 the vertical elements dividing the five storefront bays continue to be the dominant vertical element on the storefront; that the applicant submit production drawings to staff for review before going ahead with the manufacturing of storefront windows; that the door frames should pick up on the historical proportion of a full light door and the heads and styles be of at least a 6” dimension and the bottom rail 10-12”; and that color samples be provided to staff for review. Mr. Johnson clarified that the kick panels and other elements of the building to the south will be carried through on this storefront. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. th . Case No. DR/08-33 Design review of a store façade located at 14480 60 Street North in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Tim Keenan, applicant. Luke Riley, Riley Construction, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Riley briefly explained proposed changes to the mansard/roof; he said two new windows may be added, but no other changes to the windows are planned at this time. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Riley stated he was not sure of the building owner’s signage plans. Mr. Johnson asked about the columns; Mr. Riley stated those are actually roof drains that will be copper color to match the mansard, spaced to appear as an architectural element. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted and conditioned. Ms. Hudak seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten asked about lighting. Mr. Riley stated when the parking lot was resurfaced, proper lighting was installed; he said they plan to install recessed can lights underneath the mansard, canopy entrance and school gable. Mr. Johnson stated his motion stood with the clarification that there will be recessed lighting under the mansard. Motion passed unanimously. rd Case No. DR/08-34. Design review of a sign located at 901 3 St S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Weyer, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Eastwood asked about colors. Mr. Weyer stated the windows are basically white, with red brick on the building, along with green and an off-white trim around the green part of the roof. He said the original plans for the signage called for a white background with green lettering; he said another option would be an off-white/antique white. Mr. Johnson pointed out there is space along side of the door that might allow the signage to be stacked, more like a professional building would have, rather than up on the parapet. Mr. Johnson said he thought the proposed placement was a bit awkward; he suggested the signage should be closer to the door, more of identification at the door, noting the building does carry an address which is the primary locator. Mr. Weyer said he would be OK with a corner location. Mr. Eastwood suggested sliding the signage over on the parapet so it is above the entrance. Mr. Weyer said he chose the proposed location because that is where the previous sign was located, and the color is different. Mr. Zahren agreed it seems to make more sense to move the signage over as suggested by Mr. Eastwood. Mr. Johnson said if the signage is placed above the entry, it should be no wider than an existing masonry line on the building or it would appear clumsy at that location, too. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign color of antique white background with green lettering and a green band to separate the individual signs from each other, with the signage to be placed on the masonry directly above the door on the Churchill elevation, confined within the vertical line of the masonry of the door opening below, or placed between the door opening and 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, July 7, 2008 the first window on the Churchill Street side. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson clarified there will be no lighting. Motion passed unanimously. . Case No. DR/08-36Design review of signage for the building located at 232 N. Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Dana Daniels and Jan Dornself, applicant. The applicants were present. Mr. Eastwood pointed out the address is 232 North Main Street, not South Main Street, as indicated in the agenda packet. Mr. Johnson noted the proposal involves using existing post and rebuilding the sign frame. Mr. Johnson clarified there would be no lighting, other than the existing ground lights. Mr. Tomten pointed out that the existing light fixture throws a wide beam and suggested adding a side shield to narrow the beam and hide the light source. Mr. Johnson suggested another possibility for lighting would be to have a projecting arm above the sign frame. It was noted the building will not house retail space; it will serve as a design studio/office. Mr. Johnson stated if the applicant has some different lighting ideas, plans could be brought back to the HPC or reviewed by staff. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign as submitted with repair to the box frame and lighting utilizing the existing ground lighting, provided shields are added to the fixtures, or replacing the ground lighting with projecting arms from the top of the sign box, with details presented to staff for review and approval. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten suggested that perhaps small LED lights could be installed and concealed within the top cap of the sign itself. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pogge stated that historically there was a plaque on the flag pole in Lowell Park. He said the the intent was to replicate plaque. Using a sculpted Lions Club head, the cost of a new plaque would be about $3,000, without a sculpted head, the cost would be about $800, he said. He said the City and Lions Club would split the cost, based on the $800 cost. Mr. Pogge said the question to the HPC is whether to contribute $1,500 of HPC funds to replicate the plaque. He said verbiage would be added to indicate this is not the original plaque, otherwise the original will be replicated as much as possible. It was noted the $1,500, part of a lawsuit settlement, can be used basically for preservation purposes. It was agreed to have Mr. Pogge obtain more information, and also contact the Lions Club regarding additional cost participation. Mr. Tomten raised the issue of the lights at the Shirt Factory and asked that the wattage be confirmed or the owners be contacted about utilizing different bulbs. Ms. Hudak, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4