Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-05 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, John Bracht, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Minutes of March 1, 2010, were approved as submitted. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR /10 -03 Design review of signage for the City parking ramp at 200 Second St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the March 1, 2010 meeting. Mr. Pogge reviewed the latest proposal, which eliminates the projecting sign at this time. The proposal is for wall signage, with the verbiage Public Parking in white letters along with the circular P logo. The letters, 1.5' tall, would be aluminum, with the logo a high density foam material raised off the surface of the sign itself to provide some relief. He noted this follows the zoning requirements. Mr. Johnson confirmed that there would be no channel letters or lighting. Mr. Pogge said the existing sign brackets will remain in place, for some future use. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR /10 -06 Design review of signage for Lost Treasures at 221 E. Chestnut St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Shannon Conners - Shaleen, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report which found that the requested sign meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be lighted; Ms. Conners - Shaleen said the sign would not be lighted. Mr. Johnson noted the Commission wants to make sure signage is as effective as possible and suggested that consideration be given to a larger sign; the applicant stated her husband made the sign and the sign is finished. She said the sign would be hanging on chains so it won't be so high on the building that it won't be visible; she said the sign will be visible from Main Street. The applicant briefly explained the nature of her business. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign as submitted, with the additional condition that there be no exterior lighting of the sign. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR /10 -07 Design review of new tenant logo in existing sign at 200 E. Chestnut in the CBD, Central Business District. Stacie Berg, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff findings, which noted the number, locations and sizes of the requested signs are preexisting and can continue to be used. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve as presented and conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 Case No. DR /10 -08 Design review of proposed renovation of building exterior at 201 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report, which noted that while the building is in the Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Districts, it is a non- contributing building to the District. Brian Larson was present, Greg Gartner, building owner, and the contractor were also present. Mr. Larson explained there are three main components to the project from a design standpoint: window openings; a cornice element; and awnings. He stated a decision has not been made regarding signage at this time. He said due to time constraints and the desire to move the project along, they would like to focus on the proposal as it relates to the window openings, with the understanding they may have to come back to the Commission to further discuss the details related to awnings, cornice, and how the awnings relate to signage. Mr. Larson said they looked at several options for the windows, noting that the building currently doesn't do a good job of relating to Main Street and creating a pedestrian - friendly streetscape, with several blank walls and with the windows primarily on the second floor of the west elevation. The proposal includes office and studio space on the second level, with retail and small cafe area on the main level. He said the plan is to open up the building and bring a lot of daylight to the second level. He stated the existing brick is very monolithic with not a lot of color variation and the current windows are formed by a pattern of brick detailing. The proposal calls for two bays to be combined into a single window; the existing two - story, triple window would be left as is, he said. He also described the proposal for new storefront windows on Main Street. He said he thought the proposed windows openings are reasonable, and he noted the two bay windows would be divided with mullions as shown in the design submittal. He suggested that adding a steel lintel at the top of the windows openings, as proposed, adds an element of color and accent that the monolithic brick is missing. He referred to one change in the original submittal for windows — the original plan showed openings next to the triple windows blanked off with brick backing, now the request is to keep those openings as is. There was a question about materials. Mr. Larson said the storefront window proposed would be a 1 %" dark anodized aluminum window with clear glass; Mr. Tomten asked is the existing windows are clear glass; Mr. Larson said he believed there is a dark tint to the windows, and said the intent is to replace all of the existing windows with the same glazing. Mr. Johnson said he felt that the additional windows on either side of the columns in the new submittal are somewhat distracting to the over -under pattern of the primary windows. Mr. Gartner noted the windows are existing and if they are covered as initially submitted, it would appear as a patched -in window. Mr. Johnson suggested those windows are on a different plane and would fill in fairly well, using salvaged brick. Mr. Johnson asked if the intent is to set back these windows into the face of the building, as the existing windows are, or to bring the windows out. Mr. Larson noted there are a variety of conditions, with the north elevation a 12" deep block wall, with the west side not as deep. Mr. Larson said they looked at trying to come up with the best balance of where to put the new window frames; he said, as proposed, the new windows sit 8" back from the front, basically one brick return, while the existing windows that will be re- glazed will sit back where they are now. Mr. Goodman said he thought the plans were an amazing improvement to one of the most important locations in the downtown. Mr. Larson said currently, the east elevation would be left as is, but there may be plans for that elevation in the future. Mr. Lieberman said he could live with either the original submission or the revised submission presented at the meeting. Mr. Johnson said he felt that filling in the two windows in 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 question (on the side of the columns) gives a stronger accent to the building and strength to the corners of the building. Mr. Zahren said he liked the second version, as did Mr. Tomten. Mr. Tomten spoke in favor of adding vibrancy to the accent color. Mr. Johnson noted this is a non - conforming building, that doesn't have a precedence for a certain style or appearance; he noted, as Mr. Larson brought out, that the building doesn't lend itself to the pedestrian streetscape and suggested the first floor elevation will be the most noticeable of all the elements of the building. Mr. Tomten asked if there was a possibility of adding a storefront element to the Chestnut Street elevation; Mr. Larson said structurally, that would be much more difficult. Ms. Cook said she liked the first submission better and said she thought that plan complements the historic character better and, as Mr. Johnson suggested, makes the building appear taller. Mr. Johnson suggested that plans /colors for the cornice may make the building appear taller and might change the opinion regarding the new submission. Mr. Larson said plans continue the gray, subdued color and keep the cornices the same, with the awning changed to a different type of awning — a lightweight steel, sunscreen. He said the awning will tie into whatever they decide to do with signage. The cornice, he said, is the same proportions and same design, but a bit more subdued in color. He said the cornice is intended to create a visual termination at the top of the building and add an accent of color. He said the cornice does not project a great deal outward; it would be a smooth, metal panel with tight seams. He said it would be a contemporary cornice and in no way a reproduction of an historic cornice. Regarding the awning, Mr. Larson said the red version is a simple, lightweight metal frame that instead of having fabric stretched over it has a metal canopy, either tight grid or tight standing seam. Mr. Larson briefly addressed possible signage, saying they have thought of a projecting sign on the corners; he said the design group would like to see a potential for some type of banner, not signage, but to add some color on the facade, and could perhaps even change with the seasons. He stated the "red awning" plans are somewhat limiting for signage area. Mr. Johnson said the metal awning in red reflects what is being done in the corner, with the bevel and parapet; he said it provides an opportunity to break up the brick surface. In discussion, it was noted that Reed's Drug had a projecting canopy that was frequently damaged by trucks; Mr. Larson said they may have to get some type of approval from MnDOT as well. Mr. Johnson said with either awning, he favored the infill of the existing windows in question. Mr. Johnson asked whether the cornice would go all the way around the building, even though there are no plans for the east elevation at this time; Mr. Larson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Larson said he thought the awning was tied to signage and said he would like to present those plans together. Regarding the plans for windows, Mr. Johnson restated his preference to have the existing window openings in question bricked in, saying he thought that would work with either awning configuration. Mr. Tomten and Mr. Goodman said they would be comfortable with either options for the windows. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the window layout as submitted in the original packet, with the windows in question bricked up; Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Larson asked whether there was any latitude regarding the windows, whether this motion represented a direction from the Commission with some latitude. Mr. Lieberman said he thought the motion should stand as what the Commission is directing, and if the applicant wants to change it, that 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 request could be made to the Commission in the future. After additional discussion, motion passed unanimously. Regarding the awnings, Mr. Zahren moved to approve the metal sunscreen, along with the banner idea, as shown in the plans dated April 5, 2010. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the cornice for the metal sunscreen plans dated April 5, 2010. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; Mr. Johnson clarified that the cornice is for all three elevations. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pogge noted there are six additional conditions recommended by staff. Those conditions were adopted unanimously on a motion by Mr. Lieberman. Mr. Zahren stated he would like a requirement for enclosing the dumpster as a condition; Mr. Larson referred to the condition that trash dumpsters be kept inside the building or if outside an enclosure built according to design guidelines, along with the requirement to obtain a parking space lease if the enclosure is located on City property. DR/09 -19 Design review of new construction of U.S. Post Office at 107 Third St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District, and PA, Public Administration District. Mike Monn, HAF Architects. Mike Hoefler of HAF Architects was present representing the applicant. Mr. Lieberman noted plans have been changed since the original submission due to the Post Office's desire for more space, nearly double what was originally proposed. To accommodate the Post Office's space requirement, Mr. Lieberman noted the applicant is requesting to increase the third -floor space from 1,000 square feet in the original plans to 2,405 square feet, along with an elevator and additional set of stairs. Mr. Lieberman referred to other modifications in the plan as outlined in the staff report /agenda packet. Mr. Hoefler said some of the impact for the changes occurred with the Post Office's internal layout and access to the PO boxes and desire to eliminate any hidden corners in the box area; he said a good portion of the boxes occur straight east of the entrance tower. In doing the modification to reflect more of an open area from the tower, the glass size in the tower was increased by incorporating a glass elevator and creating a two -story open stairwell. Mr. Hoefler said that impacted both the interior and exterior, with the tower increased by several feet, 14 to 17.4, to allow for the elevator and additional glazing to provide openness /visibility into the box space. He noted the Post Office also indicated it did not want windows for security reasons, so plans were changed on the west elevation going from 5 windows to 4 windows, as well as the same change on the east elevation. Mr. Hoefler said providing the additional space in the loft exceeded the square foot allotment for two exits so the previously proposed steel exit stair from the rooftop deck has been relocated to an interior stair in the southwest corner. Mr. Johnson suggested that one of the bigger changes is the size and width of the tower and the dormers across the east side. Mr. Hoefler provide a video depiction of the impact of the dormers and tower, which is much more visible from a vehicle standpoint. Mr. Tomten expressed a concern about the height of the wall by the patio space. On a question by Mr. Zahren, Mr. Hoefler said the building footprint stayed the same, they took the roof trusses and added a bonus room and on the east side incorporated dormers to get more head space. Mr. Johnson pointed out that mechanical units are shown on the roof in the southeast corner; Mr. Hoefler said those are air conditioning units for the loft area and would be located below the parapet. Mr. Johnson asked if there was a walkway to Third Street through the site to provide a more direct route to the parking facility; Mr. Hoefler said they would be willing to do that and had 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 discussed that with the City's building official. There was a question about the wall that connects to the parking facility; Mr. Hoefler said that is now all poured concrete and continuation of the parking facility wall. Mr. Lieberman invited comments from Mark Balay, the closest neighbor; Mr. Balay said he was confident any issues can be worked out. Mr. Lieberman said his biggest concern has always been with the size of the building, a prominent building, and said he wants it to represent the fabric of the community. Mr. Krakowski said he thought the architecture was a bit reminiscent of the an old train station structure, so that ties in the architecture a bit. Mr. Hoefler said their inspiration for the building was to take the hints of the old water department building, Steeple Town and the tower at City Hall and engage those features together using an antique brick and old windows; Mr. Lieberman agreed those influences are apparent. Mr. Tomten wondered with the expansion of the Post Office area whether the Post Office had given an indication of an inclination for additional signage for itself on the Third Street elevation. Mr. Hoefler said the Post Office does not want to encourage traffic from the Third Street side; the Post Office is OK with the 24 -hour lobby concept, he said, but wants to be able to bring people in from the north, from the parking lot, and into the main lobby, which is on the north side. Mr. Tomten pointed out that Myrtle Street is the second busiest street in the City and someone could drive by and never know the Post Office was located nearby. Mr. Johnson noted the wall at Myrtle and Third with the 107 Third address provides a prominent locator for the building, and suggested some type of Post Office identification on that wall might help identify the building more. Ms. Cook asked Mr. Pogge whether, given the prominence of this building, there is any opportunity for public input; Mr. Pogge responded that typically approval is through the design review process. Mr. Hoefler reviewed the building materials and colors. Mr. Tomten asked about the rain screen material and the treatment of the edges; Mr. Hoefler said they want a crisp outside corner so the edges will be mitered. Mr. Johnson asked about the sign package submittal, saying he thought the two sign panel areas at the corner of the west elevation had been eliminated; he said he thought that was an awkward location, up high on the building and not by any door entrance. Mr. Johnson said he thought the south side location on either side of the door would be more appropriate for that signage. Mr. Hoefler said he didn't think that issue had been resolved earlier and said the indication of the signage panel is just to indicate sign space for future tenants. Mr. Tomten suggested delaying approval of the sign package until there are tenants. It was consensus to require some Post Office identification incorporated with the 107 Third Street address. Ms. Cook expressed a concern about the overall size of the building, noting that design guidelines state that new infill buildings should fit into the "fabric of existing buildings and overall streetscape and not present a jarring contrast." Mr. Hoefler noted this is not an overly large building. Mr. Goodman moved to accept the changes as proposed, with the final sign package to be presented when there are tenants. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion if Mr. Goodman would agree to include the conditions that the U.S. Postal Service identification be added below the 107 Third Street at the right hand side of the main stairs and that the two places identified for sign area (identified in the sign package as No. 38) be removed from the west elevation. Mr. Pogge asked whether the motion included the 14 conditions as recommended by staff and included in the agenda packet. Mr. Lieberman noted that condition No. 12 addresses signage. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 Mr. Lieberman summarized the motion as approval of the designs as presented and conditioned, except for changing condition No. 12 to include the addition of the U.S. Postal Service identification with the 107 signage. Mr. Hoefler asked why signage couldn't be placed at the location in question on the west elevation (No. 38) if that meets the requirement of the code. Mr. Johnson pointed out the sign guidelines look at placing signage near the point of entry. Mr. Lieberman said he didn't feel comfortable imposing a condition regarding the Postal Service signage without knowing whether there are certain government regulations regarding signage; Mr. Johnson noted this has been an issue in several previous discussions. After discussion, it was decided to eliminate the sign package from the approval. Mr. Lieberman restated the motion to accept the revised plan as conditioned, with the sign package to be submitted and considered by the Commission at a later date. Mr. Lieberman advised the applicant to contact the Postal Service regarding any regulations that may impact the signage and to keep Mr. Pogge informed of any communication with the Postal Service. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson suggested identifying the plans as those submitted 3/19/2010, specifically excluding the sign package (package 8) from the approval. Mr. Johnson's suggestion was incorporated into the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Stillwater Veterans site — Mr. Pogge reviewed the request from the Veterans Memorial group to place a plaque near the memorial spire. He said the request is for a separate, free - standing plaque that addresses the historical significance of the site itself. He said the proposal is to place the plaque along Third Street. Mr. Tomten suggested asking the group to submit a proposal with additional details, location, size, etc. Mr. Pogge said the group would also like to put a storage shed for rakes, etc at the site. He said staff would work with the group and place the shed in the lower level Cub parking area where it will not be visible. Mr. Tomten said he was a bit troubled by the proposed verbiage in the site plaque suggesting it may further complicate relations between the Veterans Memorial people and the farmers' market use. Mr. Pogge said the original intent, as he understood it from discussions, was to recognize the site as the former Stillwater High School site. No action was taken regarding the plaque pending more information about the details. Heritage Preservation Awards — Mr. Pogge spoke in favor of the Dairy Queen building. Mr. Tomten suggested the Dairy Queen building for building restoration and what is now the Olive Oil Company for new facade. Mr. Bracht suggested restoration of the private home at 519 Laurel St. W.; Mr. Johnson agreed that would be a good recipient as this was a foreclosure property likely headed for demolition. Other items Mr. Pogge noted while the South Main Street Archaeological District has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, objection from a private property owner has prevented such inclusion at this time. However, Mr. Pogge said that may occur sometime in the future. Mr. Pogge also told the Commission the City has received $8,000 in a CLG grant. He also noted that the Commission's annual report to the Historical Society was included in the packet. Mr. Pogge reminded members their retreat session has been scheduled for June 30. 6 Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary