Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-07 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 7, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair,John Brach, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski and Roger Tomten Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Scott Zahren Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval of the minutes of May 3, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM /DR/2010 -11 Demotion request for the southern portion of a residence at 1117 Broadway St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. George Middleton, applicant. Mr. Middleton was present and explained the request. He said the request is due to a desire to remodel the house and orient it in a more east -west direction to take advantage of some passive and active solar systems, as well as gain a bit more yard and have the potential, in the future, to sell one of the several Tots the house is situated on. Mr. Lieberman said, for him, the biggest issue is one of justification given, what he sees as, an incomplete application. Mr. Middleton explained that he did not include an ad to sell the property as he does not want to dispose of the property; he wants to dismantle a portion of the house and reuse the salvageable material in the renovation of the remaining house. Mr. Lieberman spoke of the issue of precedence. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson noted three of the nine steps required by the ordinance seem to be lacking — information on the costs of renovating the home, more information on the proposed use /reuse, and the advertisement. Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of continuing the request to the next meeting with a focus on completing the nine steps. Mr. Johnson moved to continue Case No. DEM /DR/2010 -11 to the July 7 meeting. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lieberman said he would be most interested in the plans for remodeling and whether the remodeling will alter the original integrity of the house. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2010 -12. Design review of signage for Ultima Bellezza Salon at 105 Third St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mary Coleman, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge said he had spent a lot of time with the applicant regarding sign options. He said visibility is an issue with this location. He said due to that issue, the applicant is proposing utilizing window signage along with window decals; he noted that according to ordinance, signage is allowed to cover up to one -third of the window area, anything above that amount requires a permit. Mr. Johnson noted the graphics don't include the business name but are a good way to identify the business type. Ms. Cook said she didn't like the proposed graphics and said she would hate to see this as a precedent. Mr. Tomten pointed out that the proposed business sign would have the same problem with visibility. There was 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 7, 2010 discussion as to options for roof signage or a sign above the door. Mr. Tomten drew a possible sign alternative. Mr. Johnson noted the applicant could cover up to one -third of the window space without a permit. Ms. Cook suggested inviting the applicant back to discuss possible alternatives, such as Mr. Tomten's suggestion. Mr. Tomten moved to table this request; Mr. Brach seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -13 Design review to reface an existing monument sign at 1700 Tower Drive in the BPO, Business Park Office District. Spectrum Signs, applicant. A representative of Spectrum Signs was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Tomen moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010- 14Design review of exterior modifications and signage at 101 Water St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Chuck Dougherty, applicant. Mr. Dougherty was present. He reviewed the request for signage, four signs — two signs for the Water Street Inn, one on Myrtle and another on Chestnut, a projecting sign for the pub, and another at the north entrance to the conference center. He provided color samples. Mr. Johnson questioned allowing two signs on the same elevation; Mr. Pogge noted the signage is for two separate uses, although the same owner. Mr. Tomten suggested lowering the height on the Chestnut/Water streets sign for the Inn as that might improve the visibility of the sign; Mr. Johnson agreed that lowering the sign between the sill bands would improve both the appearance and visibility. Mr. Lieberman agreed that the pub sign should be allowed as it does represent a separate entity. Mr. Johnson suggested that the conference center sign would fit better with the space if it is a bit lower in height and longer so it spans the width of the opening to the conference center. Ms. Cook suggested adding rounded end detail to the signs to be of a more historical appearance. Mr. Johnson moved approval of the signs are requested with the following modifications: the vertical oriented signs on the southwest corner of the building (Water and Chestnut) be lowered to fit within the second story elevation between the stone sill courses; that the signage at the Myrtle Street entrance to the conference center be lowered and lengthened so it matches the width of the doorway opening; that the ends of the signs be a rounded end detail; and that at the Myrtle Street entrance, three light fixtures be utilized rather than two. Mr. Johnson clarified that the background color of the sign be more of a darker green to match the trim on the building and that the Charlie's Pub projecting sign be reduced to 6 square feet. Mr. Brach questioned requiring three fixtures for the conference center sign if two might be sufficient; Mr. Johnson agreed to amend the motion to give the option of two or three Tight fixtures at that location, clarifying that the other signage not be lighted. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Dougherty described the proposed lighting improvements for the outdoor patio. He said they would utilize the same lights going around the outside of the patio; he said it may be necessary to add a couple of the lights to the middle of the patio. He said they are also proposing adding a pergola at the northwest corner of the patio area, as well as adding a door to an existing lattice storage area to get all the table storage out of sight. Mr. Johnson wondered whether there would be any issues related to a storage area under the fire escape; Mr. Pogge said that has not been an issue in previous fire inspections. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the pergola and privacy wall's impact on the overall viewshed. Mt. Tomten suggested using the lattice rather than solid privacy wall; Mr. Johnson suggested utilizing seasonal screening, such as plantings. Mr. Johnson asked about the wattage of the lights; Mr. Dougherty said currently 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 7, 2010 they utilize 60 watt, fluorescent bulbs. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern about adding as many as the nine additional fixtures proposed and wondered whether there might be a smaller down - lit fixture that might provide the desired wash light for both the perimeter and interior of the patio; Mr. Dougherty said he could look at a different style fixture. Mr. Johnson moved to approve four additional fixtures within the interior space, rather than nine, and suggesting that the applicant look at a different type of fixture. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson clarified that the string lights will come down in exchange for the additional patio lighting and asked that be a condition of approval; Mr. Dougherty said he will likely be coming back to the Commission with a request for additional lighting as he does not believe four will be adequate. Mr. Tomten accepted the amendment to the motion; amendment passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson assumed the chairmanship as Mr. Lieberman was not feeling well. Mr. Tomten moved to eliminate the lattice (privacy fence) using planter material with the existing fence line; approval to enclose the storage area under the stair with a lattice material similar to the existing construction; and approval of the proposed pergola. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -15 Design review of signage at 14328 60 St. N. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Don Hoff, applicant. It was noted the applicant is Sign Art, rather than Signminds as listed in the agenda packet; the agenda packet material also included an address error, should be 14328 60 St. N. Mr. Johnson noted this request is similar to what has been previously approved for the River Heights Auto Mall. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, moved approval as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -16 Design review of exterior modifications and signage at 102 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Tonya Fricke, applicant. The applicant was present; she noted the new signage would be placed over the existing signs. Mr. Johnson suggested introducing a border of some kind to delineate the sign a bit more. Mr. Tomten suggested the signage lettering is a bit too fine and will be a hard to read; he suggested using a bolder lettering. It was noted the landlord had already painted the exterior of the building the antique white color listed in the application. Mr. Brach moved to approve the request with the suggestions noted. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -17 Design review of signage at 402 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Thomas Ward, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Johnson noted there is one door, with two business tenants; he also noted the dimensions provided are correct and within the requirements of the zoning code. Mr. Tomten noted there is no lighting indicated at this time. Mr. Tomten moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -18 Design review of exterior modifications at 226 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, representing Greg Gartner, applicant. The applicant was present, along with a project manager from Gartner Properties. Mr. Larson provided historic photos showing the building. Mr. Larson described the project — new storefront with 90- degree corner; widening the entrance so it will be accessible; aluminum window system 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 7,2010 clad with wood or a wood -like product; a panel system at the location of the former sign covering deteriorated brick; a black awning with valence covering the panel system. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Larson said there are no plans to do anything to the second floor windows at this time other than some minor repairs during painting. Mr. Tomten moved to approve as submitted, with the conditions listed in the staff report and with the suggestion to lower the valence of the awning to achieve a 1:1 pitch. Mr. Pogge noted that one of the conditions in the staff report (condition 3) is the requirement for a wood door; Mr. Larson said that would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Tomten expanded his motion to include condition 3, utilizing a wood door and encasing any aluminum frame of the storefront windows with a wood finish on the exterior; and approving a signage plan of white letters on the valence of the black awning. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -19 Design review of exterior modifications for a restaurant at 229 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Rick Schmidt, applicant. The applicant and Mike Hoefler, architect, were present. Mr. Hoefler reviewed the proposal to put a 3,300- square -foot restaurant in the former Seasons Tique building, which is about 2,100 - square feet. He said an addition of about 1,300 square feet will be utilized for kitchen and restroom uses. Also, he said plans call for an outdoor patio with wood - burning fireplace and pizza oven; plans also include an enclosed trash building that encases the required second egress from the rooftop deck. He said the storefronts would be identical to those on Mr. Zahren's building; he said nothing would be done with the existing brick other than tuck pointing and cleaning. He explained that three large openings with operable storefronts are proposed along the south elevation currently a concrete facade. He said wrought iron railings, matching the Water Street boardwalk railings, would be installed along the edge of the patio; the fireplace and enclosing piers along the boardwalk will be brick to match the storefront. Mr. Hoefler also described the proposed penthouse /deck area, which he said will be an indoor /outdoor space with some additional seating on the rooftop. On a question by Ms. Cook, Mr. Hoefler said they are planning to maintain a 6' public path through the existing walkway /open space to encourage traffic through the area. In discussion, Mr. Brach said he thought the two brick piers have a modern appearance in contrast with the rest of the building. Mr. Pogge provided some old photos and said it would be nice if the applicants were able to expose and restore the feature of the original columns. Mr. Hoefler said it might be possible to encase the existing pier with a raised panel or wood facade. Mr. Hoefler reviewed elements of the front elevation. Mr. Tomten inquired about the reason for the use of the brick piers; Mr. Hoefler said he did that to bring the brick element back down to the base to match the face brick; he said they would be OK with simply returning the steel wrought iron fence along that edge. Ms. Cook said she had difficulty envisioning the amount of activity /build -out proposed for this particular space; she said she would also feel badly about losing the existing open space /walkway. Ms. Cook also questioned the amount of use the patio space would be utilized given Minnesota's winters. Mr. Johnson said he thought this was a good use of the space, noting that public access will still be available and a two -story infill building could have been constructed on this site. Mr. Johnson said he would encourage than an effort be made to incorporate the original features of the columns integrated into the storefront, rather than utilize the piers with a brick that is inappropriate to the building. Mr. Lieberman inquired about rooftop mechanicals; Mr. Hoefler said mechanicals would be hidden by the roof parapet. Mr. Tomten agreed that this would be a good use of the space; he suggested perhaps picking up some of the original detailing on the windows at the rear elevation. Ms. Cook asked if it 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 7, 2010 would be possible to save the existing tree(s); it was suggested that the applicant could utilize some potted plants. Mr. Tomten moved approval with the 15 conditions listed in the staff report, with the additional condition to incorporate sills and headers on the rear entry fenestrations and to clarify that stone caps on the masonry piers in the exterior patio area are to be utilized, and to ask the applicant to look into the two columns in question and determine whether the existing structure can be maintained /renovated and incorporated into the historic storefront or at a minimum peel off any newer masonry. Mr. Tomten asked about colors for the storefront; Mr. Hoefler said everything will be black with the exception of the door, which will be stained and varnished oak. Mr. Brach seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -20 Design review of signage at 103 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Hornug, Rose City Canopy and Sign, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposal and staff recommendations. Mr. Johnson said when signage for this business was reviewed previously, the Commission allowed either signing on the canopy or signing on the building; this request is for signage on the canopy as well as the store itself. Mr. Pogge said when business park signage was amended about a year and a half ago to allow two signs, a section was added regarding gas stations, at any location in the City; he also noted that the previous business had signage both on the building and canopy so this request would have a grandfathered right. Mr. Tomten asked whether the applicant would consider using the existing black canopy and adding the company accent colors /logo. The applicant said the corporate entity is very sensitive to trying to cooperate to get something done, but a black canopy has never been utilized before, which is why he went with the white. Mr. Johnson noted this site has a very limited viewshed and said he thought the canopy and monument sign give a lot of exposure; he said he thought the use of the black canopy downplays a bit of the massing of the canopy, while white would make it more obvious. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the proposed blue is a very foreign color to the historic district. Mr. Tomten pointed out there is no competitor located nearby so brand recognition is not as important as it might be in another location. The applicant responded that brand recognition does have a connection with credit card use, etc. that helps drive the business; he spoke of attempting to bring this location up to a new look that has some polish to it without compromising the looks the City is trying to preserve. Ms. Cook asked about the intention for the use of the existing pylon; it was explained the pylon will have the metal Lucky sign, black and orange. Mr. Lieberman said he would not be offended by the introduction of a new color at this site. Regarding the building signage, Mr. Johnson noted the proposal is to stay with the black signage band and staff's recommendation is to have one Lucky station and logo on the east side and another on the west side; the applicant said that would be acceptable. Regarding lighting under the canopy and the perimeter of the building, the applicant said he would be willing to change the soffit lighting around the perimeter of the building to soften the look. Mr. Johnson spoke of the conditions regarding no storage outside storage or sale of products. Mr. Tomten moved to approve as conditioned in the staff report, with the canopy signage as indicated on option 2A with the vintage logo and blue fascia color, and to incorporate either incandescent or florescent down lighting in lieu of the strip fluorescent lighting under the soffit of the building Mr. Tomten clarified that the signage for the pylon sign is to be approved at a later date. The applicant asked if there would be any opposition to LED down lighting on the outside 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 7, 2010 of the building; Mr. Tomten changed his motion to substitute LED down lighting for the building soffit. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -21 Design review of signage at 1750 Greeley St. S. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Mike Hornug, Rose City Canopy and Sign, applicant. Mr. Johnson reviewed the proposal; he noted there is no proposed change to the sign area of the pylon or height, with just one sign on the building. The applicant noted they would be going to more energy- efficient lighting under the canopies and on the building using the same fixtures. Mr. Tomten asked if there is any possibility of shielding the canopy fixtures; Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of changing the lenses to a flush lens rather than the existing drop boxes. The applicant explained that there are 2x2 boxes so there are already holes and a flush mounted lens is smaller than the existing openings. The applicant stated currently 320 watt bulbs are utilized; they will be going to a 150 watt induction light, so the lighting does not spread as far — it is much more directional. The applicant explained the plans for the existing car wash building. On a question by Mr. Tomten, the applicant said they would like to utilize the light bar encircling the canopy, which is part of the corporate new image. Mr. Krakowski moved to approve as conditioned; Mr. Brach seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pogge noted he provided an assignment sheet for work to be done prior to the June 30 retreat. He asked that the materials be returned to him on the Wednesday before the retreat. Mr. Brach, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, moved to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6