Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-06 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2009 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Micky Cook, Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, and Roger Tomten Staff present: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad; Planner Mike Pogge was present but had to leave due to a family emergency Absent: Jerry Krakowski and Scott Zahren Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Approval of minutes Mr. Tomten pointed out that Mike Hoefler represented the applicant in Case No. DR/09 -19, rather than Mike Monn as indicated in the minutes. Mr. Tomten also noted regarding Case No. DR/09 -19 that the selection of the color of the rain curtain resulted in the choice of a lighter brick color, rather than darker brick color. Also, Mr. Tomten noted there were several misspellings of Marc Putman's name in Case No. DR /09 -04. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the minutes of June 1, 2009, with the above noted corrections. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DR /09 -30 Mr. Lieberman stated this case would be tabled due to an error in the address printed in the notice of the public hearing. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing for the record. Mr. Lieberman moved to table Case No. DR /09 -30 as the notice was in error. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/09 -19 Continuation of design review for the proposed new U.S. Post Office at 107 Third St. N. in the PA, Public Administration, and CBD, Central Business District. HAF Architects, Mike Monn, applicant. Mike Hoefler was present representing HAF Architects. He stated several revisions had been made since the last meeting. He reviewed several changes to the landscaping, along with revisions to the exterior materials and signage. He stated the face brick will be a buff color similar to the original Post Office building; the windows in the brick fagade will be black he said. The rain screen will be a camel color, with a sandstone color Andersen window in the rain screen. The plans include a standing seam metal roof, with standard anodized aluminum storefront. Ms. Cook asked if the tower would be visible from the Library rooftop. Kevin Kiel, also present representing the applicant, stated he did not think the tower would obstruct any views of the river. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2009 Most of the discussion centered on signage. Mr. Johnson asked about signage for the tower entry, noting there is no signage proposed by the main entry; Mr. Johnson asuggested there is an opportunity to identify the building utilizing the projecting awning. Mr. Hoefler said he thought that would take away from the architectural elements of the building, thus the signage was backed away to the southwest corner. Mr. Johnson reviewed the signage as proposed — two, 36 square foot signs on the west elevation (southwest corner of the building), with 80 square feet allowed; 9 square feet of signage on the south elevation, 55 square feet allowed; and signage on the north elevation (parking lot) which will require a variance from the Planning Commission as there is no street frontage on that elevation. In discussion, it was noted that the signage at the southwest corner of the building won't be visible coming up Myrtle Street. Mr. Tomten said the Heritage Preservation Commission often looks at issues of signage that doesn't relate to an entry, and he suggested these plans have shades of that issue. Mr. Tomten suggested that in the future, tenants will be asking for signage in the glass tower area. Mr. Johnson stated the signage as proposed does not provide a clear direction as to which entry to use, and stated he remained a proponent of clearly identifying the building as the Post Office building. Mr. Hoefler said using the Post Office as a building identifier is an issue with the client and pointed out the Post office wants to direct traffic to the parking lot and the north entrance. Mr. Johnson again spoke in favor of providing a strong building identity and utilizing directory signage near the entrance to identify building tenants. After additional discussion, Mr. Hoefler agreed to utilize the address, 107 Third St., as the building identifier, placed on the west elevation. Mr. Tomten asked if there would be an extension of the sidewalks to the street on Third Street; Mr. Hoefler responded in the affirmative. Mr. Johnson asked if a copy of the materials would be provided to staff to retain for City files; Mr. Hoefler responded in the affirmative. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign package, with two directory signs by the door on the south elevation, and no signage on the west elevation other than the address; the materials as submitted and on file with the City; the landscape revisions as submitted; with conditions recommended by staff and the additional condition that the applicant provide the sidewalk extension and ADA ramp by the tower and stairway entry on the northwest corner of the building. Ms. Hudak seconded the motion. Ms. Cook asked Mr. Turnblad whether the tower would obstruct views of the river from the Library terrace; Mr. Turnblad noted that the tower is not as strong a presence as the existing duplex at the site. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR /09 -04 Continuation of design review for an amendment to a planned unit development sign guidelines and sign ordinance for the Village Commercial District, Liberty Village, at the southeast corner of County Roads 12 and 15. Marc Putman, Putman Planning and Design, applicant. Mr. Putman noted there had been a good meeting on site with an HPC member and two Councilmembers subsequent to the last meeting. Mr. Putman gave a brief introductory statement noting that half of the store frontages in the commercial village are turned away from potential customers, giving the perception of a closed community. He noted that when Liberty was developed, the choice could have been made to construct a strip mall, but they opted to design a commercial district in keeping with a traditional neighborhood development, with the storefronts turned into the neighborhood. Michael Oreck, one of the business representatives, noted that the previous issue with banner signs that were objected to by a number of Liberty 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2009 residents has been addressed and is no longer an issue. A new business tenant, Laurel Anderson, spoke of the difficulty she has encountered with people finding her place of business. Mr. Lieberman suggested this is a unique situation involving a PUD, thus the Commission does not need to be overly concerned with setting a precedent. Ms. Cook said she agreed with the need for additional pylon signs, but said she had a problem with the proposed roof signs. Mr. Putman stated they need a greater variety of signs because of the design of the commercial district and the abundance of vegetation which obstructs views; he said the quantity of signage being requested is what they think is necessary for the businesses to survive. Mr. Tomten noted he would abstain from voting on this case. Mr. Lieberman asked Mr. Tomten for his opinion. Mr. Tomten said he would like to respond to staff's comments that it seems appropriate to have signage for this development fall somewhere between the City's standard for business park signage and neighborhood commercial signage. Mr. Tomten suggested that if the City would like to see all strip malls, then it should allow more signage for strip malls than any other type of development. If however, the City believes this type of design is good, then the City should reward good design work with the highest level of signage. Mr. Johnson went through the applicant's request and staff comments listed in the agenda packet. He noted there was no response to the plans to incorporate a branding theme for the development. The request is for up to four 75- square -foot "master signs" up to 20' high, and up to two freestanding monument signs, 25' high and up to 100 square feet. Mr. Johnson said he was confused about the requested monument signs. Mr. Putman said the monument signs are intended to be directional signs. Mr. Johnson questioned having a 25' high directional sign off the traffic round - about. Regarding the request for light pole banner and bracket signs, Mr. Johnson verified that the requested light pole banners on the southeast side of Settler's Way have been eliminated to address homeowners concerns. Regarding building directory signs, Mr. Johnson suggested the requested 12 square foot directory signs seem large; Mr. Putman said that size would provide for branding, too. Mr. Johnson spoke of the requested wall signs and roof signs, stating that signage could be redundant. Mr. Putman and Mr. Tomten stated the intent of the requested roof signs is to focus on upper level building tenants. Regarding the requested portable signs, Mr. Johnson suggested sandwich boards would be more appropriate than portable signs. Mr. Johnson noted that the request for temporary banners amounts to year - round use, which potentially represents another permanent wall sign; he noted the intent of allowing temporary banners is that the use is short - lived, not permanent. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Liberty Village PUD design guidelines with modifications to the sign ordinance to include the following: approving branding; approving up to 4 master signs, 75 square feet and up to 20 feet high; approving up to 2 freestanding monument signs, up to 6' tall on the school road roundabout; approving use of light pole banners and bracket signs north and west of Settler's Way; approving single -faced directory signage mounted adjacent to the door; approving use of wall signage and roof signage as proposed, with the condition that the roof signs be used to identify second -floor tenants; not permitting use of portable signs; approving use of temporary banners as permitted by City code; and allowing use of sandwich boards. Mr. Johnson's motion included the three recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion. Ms. Cook asked if this request would be heard by the City Council; Mr. Turnblad responded that both the Planning Commission and City Council would 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2009 review the request. Mr. Putman asked about the directory signage, pointing out that signage is intended to be pedestrian oriented. Mr. Johnson spoke to the potential for that signage to compete with wall signage if it is on a projecting sign. Motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Tomten abstaining. Case No. DR/08 -55 Design review of final phase (roof top units) of Maple Island development, Mainstream Development, LLC, applicant. Vern Stefan, Mainstream Development, was present. Mr. Johnson noted the plans indicate the HVAC units are enclosed and asked what other roof penetrations would be visible. Mr. Stefan responded that all roof penetrations would be inside the enclosures. Mr. Johnson verified there would be no other visible roof penetrations other than roof drains. Mr. Stefan stated the fencing for the rooftop enclosures would be pre - painted steel of an aged patina color, about 6' in height. Mr. Johnson moved approval of the plans as submitted and conditioned, with the additional condition that all mechanicals and roof penetrations be within the enclosures to be constructed of bronze - colored steel, about 6' in height. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/09 -29 Design review of signage for Nutrition Revolution at 200 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Julie Armitage, applicant. Representatives of the applicant were present. Mr. Lieberman briefly reviewed the request and staff report noting that the number, location and sizes of the requested signs are pre- existing and can continue to be used. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval as submitted and conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/09 -31 Design review for signage for Garnet Real Estate Services at 105 New England Place, Suite 145, in the VC, Village Commercial District. Laurel Anderson, applicant. Ms. Anderson was present and provided members with a revised color rendering of the signage. It was noted the applicant is proposing to replace an existing sign and utilize an existing light. Mr. Johnson moved approval of the proposed signage as shown in the revised drawing (Sales & Management also in red) and with the two conditions of approval. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Johnson provided a graphic of a proposed new sign for Nelson's Ice Cream. It was noted that this site is outside the Commission's design review and no action was required. Members spoke favorably of the proposed new sign and pole. Mr. Johnson asked about a temporary banner at Sherburne's Jewelry which has been in place for a long time. Mr. Turnblad said the owner has applied for a variance, and the banner will be dealt with pending the outcome of the variance request. 0 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2009 • Ms. Cook raised an issue with a temporary sign at the south end of Main Street that looks like it was made from a bed sheet. She said she would like to have staff look into having the sign removed. Mr. Turnblad suggested contacting Mr. Pogge about that issue. • Mr. Tomten asked when it might be possible to work on a lighting ordinance as had been discussed several years ago. Mr. Turnblad said that work likely can begin in the fall after the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. The City will begin reviewing all its ordinances at that time to make sure the ordinances are consistent with the updated Comp Plan, he said. • Mr. Johnson asked if there had been any inquiries regarding the Aiple property /barge formerly occupied by Max To Do. Mr. Turnblad said RFPs have been issued, but most responses have indicated the person is only interested in utilizing the potential for docking. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5