Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-03 HPC MIN9 0 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Nov. 3, 1997 Present: Roger Tomten, chairman Katherine Francis (7:30), Jeff Johnson, Howard Lieberman, and Brent Peterson Absent: Robert Kimbrel and Jay Michels Others: Sue Fitzgerald, planning Chairman Tomten called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval of the Minutes of Oct. 6, 1997, as presented; all in favor. Review of house demolition at 1010 Third Owin L. Carter, applicant. Mr. Carter was present for the discussion. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Carter if he was aware of the nine items required under the city's ordinance regulating demotion requests. Mr. Carter said it would be too costly to fix up the house even for rental purposes, and he said that based on his experience in St. Paul, no one would be interested in taking the structure and moving it elsewhere. Mr. Johnson said in looking at Vern Rylander's inspection report of the structure, work definitely needs to be done, but the report did not note any deficiencies beyond economic repair. Mr. Carter responded that Mr. Rylander had told him that no one would be able to bring the structure up to code electrically or for heating. Mr. Lieberman suggested this is not an emergency situation, but more of an economic issue. He also said he felt the HPC should take a serious look at the request, especially since this is the first request to be covered by the new ordinance. Mr. Johnson noted that the farmhouse on that plateau is of some historical significance. Mr. Tomten asked if Mr. Carter had considered renovation. Mr. Carter responded that after receiving Mr. Rylander's inspection report, the only reasonable course of action is to demolish the structure. He said he plans 0 0 to build on the site at some time, but has no definitive plans or blueprints at this point. Mr. Tomten agreed with other members that considering Mr. Carter's is the first application under the new ordinance, it is important that all options be explored. Ms. Fitzgerald suggested tabling the request until the next meeting so she could work with Mr. Carter. Mr. Johnson said he didn't think there was enough information to consider tabling the request, and he also suggested that Mr. Carter should get an architect involved in looking at alternatives to demolition. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the request. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion stating that Mr. Carter should fulfill all the requirements of Subdivision 5 (demolition ordinance), and noting that denial doesn't mean the request can't be reconsidered. Mr. Lieberman later suggested amending the motion to invite resubmission of the request based on Subdivision 5; that amendment was acceptable to Mr. Johnson. The amended motion passed unanimously. Additional signage at Stillwater Market Place Present for the discussion were Robert Briggs, attorney representing several businesses in Stillwater Market Place; Dave Reimer of Urban Associates, developer /owner of Stillwater Market Place Center; Chad Junker and Josh Junker of Royal Glass and Shower and Royal Lube Pennzoil. Mr. Tomten began the discussion by reviewing the project and the concerns that led to the signage restrictions along County Road 5. The intent, he said, was to have County 5 a residential entry into the city, rather than another Highway 36 commercial strip. He also noted that in keeping with the desire to have County 5 serve as a residential entry, the City spent $70,000 in landscaping and $130,000 to develop a trailway along County 5. Mr. Reimer noted that Target and Cub are clearly visible from Highway 5, while Market Place Center mall is a long way from 5. And he "admitted a mistake" on the developers part in not recognizing the importance of 5. He further stated that traffic generated from the interior of the Market Place development is not sufficient to support the businesses on the perimeter. There was some discussion of alternatives such as an additional monument sign with a directory of businesses in the perimeter or some type of informational signage. Mr. Reimer said he felt the proposal submitted for consideration by the HPC and Planning Commission is the best approach and provides for a consistency in signage that would not be 0 0 offensive. Mr. Johnson asked about the placement of the proposed signage. Mr. Reimer said, as proposed, the signage would be placed directly below the parapet and centered horizontally on the tenants' building space. Mr. Lieberman asked if the applicants would be willing to consider some time limitation as to when the signs would be lit; Mr. Reimer and Chad Junker both said that would be agreeable. Mr. Lieberman reminded members that the charge from the City Council is to develop some policy for additional signage along Market Drive. He suggested going through the proposed comprehensive sign plan item by item; members agreed to take that approach. No. 1 -- Language was added to indicate the additional signage is allowed only for those properties west of Market Drive. No. 2 -- The language "attached to a raceway" was removed. Mr. Tomten suggested not allowing internally lit signage. Members were in consensus that internally lit channel letters would be preferable to the effect of externally lit signage. It was noted the language regarding placement of the signage would affect only those tenants in the Market Place Center. No. 3 -- Language was changed to indicate that tenants west of Market Drive would be allowed signs on sides of their buildings with street frontage, as well as the rear of the building. No. 4 -- The percentage of the allowable signage was changed to 60 percent of the rear store width. No. 5 -- Language "within the space defined by items No. 4 and 7" was added. No. 6 -- Language was added indicating tenants must be consistent in the lettering style used in their building signage. No. 7 a) The allowable height of the lettering was reduced to 24 inches for rear and side signage. No. 7 b) c) and d) Language was added indicating the tenants must be consistent in their building signage. Mr. Lieberman moved to present the proposed comprehensive sign plan, as revised on Nov. 3, to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that a public hearing be scheduled before any action is taken. Ms. Francis seconded the motion. 0 At Mr. Johnson's suggestion Item No. 8 was added requiring tenants west of Market Drive and north of Curve Crest Boulevard to meet the conditions of the sign plan as outlined in Items 1 -7, with the HPC to review the proposed signage on an individual, building by building, basis. The amended motion passed 4 -1, with Mr. Tomten opposed. The recording secretary left at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary