Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-07 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission December 7, 2009 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Micky Cook, Bob Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Absent: Gayle Hudak Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Approval of minutes Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the Nov. 2, 2009 minutes. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/09 -43 Design review of signage for "Family Cuts" at 1421 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Bob Sherlock, Signart, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report, which noted that the requested sign is larger than permitted by ordinance. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant has agreed to reduce the size to meet the ordinance. Mr. Johnson moved to approve with the condition that the sign be no larger than 20 square feet and the other three conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/09 -44 Design review of signage for "324 Reve' Inc." at 324 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Jeff Redman, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. There was discussion of the intent to utilize the existing archway sign formally used by Starbucks. The archway sign is nonconforming, as noted in the staff report, but continued use would be allowed as it has grandfathering rights and is considered a legal nonconforming sign. Mr. Pogge noted that by state statute, the grandfathering status would be lost if the use of the structure is discontinued for more than a calendar year. Mr. Tomten said he thought this was a good sign for downtown and asked for a discussion of its nonconforming status at the end of the regular agenda; he moved for approval as conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson clarified that the request is for one sign only; Mr. Lieberman suggested clarifying in the motion that any requests for additional signage must come before the HPC. Mr. Tomten accepted that as a friendly amendment to this motion; amended motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of CASE No. DEM /07 -50 A demolition request for a single - family residence at 1509 Pine St. W., Robert Stanislaw, applicant. Mr. Stanislaw was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the history of the request, noting that the applicant has met all nine steps for the demolition permit and this discussion is due to the change in house plans. Mr. Stanislaw provided a new drawing of the plans for a one -story rambler with porch, rather than the initially planned two -story home. He said the change in plans were due to monetary and market reasons. Mr. Johnson noted that while this property is not subject to the infill guidelines, one of the concerns is how a design will fit in with the scale and style of neighboring houses; he said while there is a mix of styles in the neighborhood, the majority are 1950s ramblers. Mr. Johnson said he thought the revised plan is probably more City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission December 7, 2009 fitting to the neighborhood than the two -story design. Mr. Johnson moved to accept the alternate plan and make it part of the original demolition approval made in November 2007. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Discussion of the nonconforming sign — Mr. Tomten said he thought the archway style sign is a good formulation of space around a public plaza and does a good job of defining the business. He said it appears the only reason the sign was approved is because it is an existing sign, and in the future that kind of signage would not be promoted because it is not defined in the City's zoning code. Mr. Pogge pointed out the City will have to do a complete zoning code rewrite after the Metropolitan Council approves the updated comprehensive plan; he suggested that perhaps language can be put in the revised zoning code that would serve as a catchall for designs that meet the intent of the downtown design guidelines. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern that such language might put sandwich boards or high pylon signs in the permissive area. Mr. Lieberman spoke of the difficult economic times and the need to create a viable business environment; Mr. Johnson pointed out that economic times change, and a design that might otherwise not be approved could become grandfathered. Mr. Zahren agreed with the need to keep the downtown area economically viable and pointed out that historically sandwich boards and other such items were highly visible downtown. Ms. Cook suggested this gets to the previous discussions regarding the overall appearance of downtown and enforcement issues related to temporary signs, etc. Mr. Zahren raised the issue of dumpsters and said Water Street should be treated as a commercial street, not an alley. Ms. Cook said she thought Council would continue looking at the whole enforcement issue. Ms. Cook expressed a concern about setting precedent in permissive language; Mr. Johnson noted that by definition the arch signage in question is a pylon sign — mounted separate from the wall, more than 6' in height — and trying to define such a sign might translate into a full -blown pylon sign. Mr. Tomten spoke of the difficulty of applying a 1950s zoning code to an historic downtown. Mr. Pogge noted the move is away from such prescriptive codes. Parking ramp sign — Mr. Pogge said staff is preparing to send out RFPs for the parking ramp signage. He said staff believes a larger than allowed sign is needed to be visible from Myrtle Street. He spoke to the general design envisioned. Mr. Johnson suggested that signage is needed on Main Street directing people up Myrtle Street but suggested that a large sign isn't needed on the structure itself as it will be very obvious; he also noted directional signage will be needed for folks coming down Myrtle Street, but once that is accomplished, again the structure will be very obvious. Mr. Tomten also questioned the need for the City logo on the building signage; Mr. Pogge responded that all City lots have the logo displayed on signage. Mr. Tomten asked whether the lights over the pedestrian entrances were the fixtures selected during the HPC's design review; he said the lens projects below the bottom of the fixture and spews extra light. Mr. Johnson said he noticed that the blue emergency call lights appear very bright on the third and second levels even when viewed from Main Street; he suggested perhaps the lights could be shielded in some way so the light goes into the parking garage, rather than 360 degrees. Post Office Update — Mr. Tomten asked for an update on the Post Office project and asked about "sun harvesting." Mr. Pogge stated the rain wall is for sun harvesting. Mr. Johnson asked about reports of a green roof for the full third floor. Mr. Pogge said there would not be a full third 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission December 7, 2009 story unless the applicant comes back before the HPC, and he said he believes the applicant is intending to come back to the HPC, possibly in January. There was discussion about the changes to the roof that would occur with the full third story. There was discussion of a sign on the property, which Mr. Johnson suggested amounted to a billboard sign since the applicant does not own the property that is being advertised. Mr. Pogge said since there is an active application, the sign is not considered a billboard and is allowable. Ms. Cook asked about the empty sign space at the gas station on Main Street. Other items — Mr. Tomten asked about opportunities to publish articles about the HPC, whether on the City web site or newsletter. Mr. Johnson asked about the enforcement issues, whether the Council might take action. Mr. Pogge said staff did a survey of what other cities are doing. Ms. Cook said she had suggested utilizing an intern to do an inventory of violations throughout the City and then rank those violations for taking action. Mr. Pogge explained the City's current enforcement by complaint. There was discussion of various issues related to enforcement and the role of the HPC. Ms. Cook said she would like to see a preservation plan for the whole City and would like the HPC to take a more active role. There was discussion of past difficulties with enforcement. Mr. Lieberman suggested having a retreat session to discuss priorities and the role of the HPC. Mr. Pogge suggested that members think about possible topics and discuss plans for a retreat session further at the January meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Lieberman. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3