Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-06 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Dec. 6, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, chair John Bracht, Micky Cook, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Absent: Robert Goodman Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Krakowski, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the minutes of Nov. 1, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 2010 -45 Design review of renovation of front facade and signage at 215 Main St. S. (The Green Room) in the CBD, Central Business District. Christopher Durant, applicant. The applicants were present, noting this is a work in progress, even the name, which may have to be changed to just "Green Room." It was stated the basic look of the sign won't change much and will be reduced in size to meet the ordinance requirements. It was noted that the storefront is being designed to fit well with the businesses on either side, so the combination of colors is being selected to be complimentary to the existing businesses. Mr. Johnson asked about plans to move the door. The applicants stated they believe it necessary in this climate to have a double door and said plans are to do that as un- invasively as possible; it was noted there is nothing structural that will be changed in order to accomplish the double door. Mr. Johnson asked if they plan to reuse the existing door; the applicants responded that the existing door will probably be used on the inside, with a new door, replicating the appearance of the existing door, on the outside. Mr. Johnson asked about the transoms; the applicants stated they would remain glass. Regarding signage, Mr. Johnson noted that it is allowable to paint up to one -third of the area of the glass on the inside. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be a projecting sign in the back as well as the one on the front elevation; the applicants stated there are no plans for a projecting sign on the rear elevation. The applicants described plans for changes to the interior of the building. Mr. Zahren asked if there had been any talk of leveling off the sidewalk in the back of the building; the applicants stated there had been no talk of that but said they would like to do something with that in the future. Mr. Johnson asked about lighting; the applicants said they weren't decided on those plans at this time. Regarding the projecting sign, Mr. Johnson suggested the applicants consider a thin border to make it stand out a bit more; the applicants stated the sign would be on a metal frame, which should help define the border. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the projecting sign, limited to 6 square feet as required by the ordinance; to approve plans for moving the entry 1'7" as requested, reusing the same door or a door that has a wider frame and taller lower portion if the door is to be replaced; and that the lighting be approved as it currently exists on the building; and with the condition that final color chips and samples and final color rendering be presented to staff for approval. Mr. Lieberman noted that if the applicants decide to change the lighting, those plans will need to be submitted to the Heritage Preservation Commission for approval. Mr. Bracht seconded the motion. Mr. Zahren asked about plans for Dumpsters; the applicant said they might cooperate with Brine's. Mr. Pogge noted there are three businesses using the Dumpster in question, but said the applicants should be able to utilize the container; Mr. Pogge suggested the applicants discuss that situation with him. Mr. Johnson noted there is a condition of approval regarding trash Dumpsters. Mr. Zahren asked Mr. Pogge about the ownership of the sidewalk; Mr. Pogge stated that is partially located on City property and partially outside of the City property, noting that the portion of the walk that is in really poor condition is not located on City property. Mr. Zahren asked whether repair of the sidewalk could be made a condition of approval; Mr. Pogge noted the sidewalk repair would have to be a coordinated project of the building owners to address drainage and other issues. It was clarified that Mr. Johnson's motion includes the other conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -46 Design review of signage at 2200 Frontage Road (Crossings Inn and Suites) in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Scenic Sign Corp., applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Johnson noted that everything is in conformance with the regulations /ordinance and moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Bracht seconded the motion, clarifying it included the conditions seconded by staff; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -47 Design review of signage for Avante Salon at 222 Third St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Theresa Dziuk, applicant. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant could not be present due to a conflict. Mr. Lieberman noted this is a grandfathered situation. Mr. Johnson asked whether in a grandfathered situation, the sign in question can continue for perpetuity or if the grandfathering right expires after the original tenant who obtained approval leaves the location. Mr. Pogge said if the sign was approved by the City, has been in continuous use and no changes are made to the size, it is grandfathered; he said if the business remains vacant and the sign not used for a period of one year, the grandfathering right expires. Mr. Johnson suggested that this situation drives home the importance of not making exceptions to the ordinance, as an exception can potentially be in existence forever, even if granted specifically with one applicant in mind. Mr. Krakowski moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of solar panels — Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the proposed guidelines, which would apply specifically to the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD). There was discussion as to the guidelines impact on the effectiveness of the solar panels; it was noted that the impacts could be dramatic, depending on the specifics of a property and orientation of structures on that property. Mr. Lieberman asked about regulations of TV antenna dishes; Mr. Pogge said in theory those would have to be painted as no advertising is allowed facing the street, but that has not really been enforced. It was noted that technology has greatly reduced the size of the dishes and FCC regulations would supersede any regulations the City passed. Mr. Bracht noted there is solar technology now that basically makes shingles the energy collectors and asked whether those would be allowed under this proposal. Mr. Pogge noted that is addressed in this proposal and would be allowed unless it would require removal of a significant element of a home, such as a time or slate roof. Regarding residential properties outside of the Neighborhood Conservation District, Mr. Pogge said the proposal would require that solar collectors be placed in a side or rear yard and not on a front elevation, with no other restrictions. There was a question as to whether the proposal for the NCD would allow collectors in an exterior side yard; Mr. Pogge stated the intent is not to allow that. Mr. Lieberman asked about the requirement that solar panels be flush mounted on a roof "to the extent feasible;" Mr. Pogge said any disagreement regarding the feasibility of flush mounting in the NCD would come before the HPC. Mr. Tomten asked whether the proposal was an ordinance or guideline; Mr. Pogge noted these are similar to the design guidelines for the downtown historic district and the Neighborhood Conservation District. Mr. Tomten asked what would happen if someone can't meet the guidelines, whether the property owner could appeal to the HPC and Council; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. Ms. Cook asked about a requirement to screen collectors placed in a back yard; Mr. Pogge said there is a requirement to screen panels not attached to a building with landscaping elements. Ms. Cook expressed concern about the visibility of systems placed in a backyard, suggesting in some instances it might be preferable to have a collector system installed on the primary structure; Mr. Lieberman suggested broader wording to state that there be an attempt, wherever feasible, to install the panels in a way to be the least visible from the street. Mr. Pogge noted that the concern, from a preservation standpoint, is that whenever penetrations are made to a structure there is a potential for water damage, thus the proposal to regulate against placing the systems on the primary structures or accessory structures in the NCD. Mr. Lieberman spoke of the conflict of weighing energy efficiency against historical preservation. Mr. Tomten spoke of the likelihood of technology changing so rapidly that the regulations will have to be modified frequently. Mr. Bracht asked about plans for getting public input. Mr. Pogge said the regular ordinance public hearing process would be followed, with public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Bracht said he thought it was important for the City to have guidelines such as proposed so problems, such as the one that prompted the Council to ask staff to look at regulating solar collectors, don't start showing up in historic neighborhoods. Mr. Tomten said he would have less a problem with the proposal for guidelines in the historic district, than creating an ordinance for regulating those outside of the NCD. Mr. Pogge said staff's recommendation for outside of the NCD is not to regulate collectors on the principal structure and require any freestanding units to meet required setbacks and not be located in a front yard or street - facing side yard. Ms. Cook asked about size restrictions; Mr. Pogge said there are no size restrictions other than the requirement that it cannot be taller than what is allowed for an accessory structure in a particular zoning district. Mr. Tomten noted that cities can no longer grant variances so it is important that what is enacted as an ordinance won't have unforeseen consequences, such as banning solar collectors in some circumstances. Ms. Cook said she support energy conservation, but expressed concern about visual impacts; she agreed this is likely more important for the NCD. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the proposal as it relates to the Neighborhood Conservation District. Mr. Bracht seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten said he would support the motion, but still would have some trepidation about moving outside of the NCD as an ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Zahren asked for input regarding a graffiti art project. He said he had talked to people from the Franconia Sculpture Garden about a graffiti art project being done there. He said one possibility is to place 4x8 removable panels along the eastern side of his building, utilizing the panels for 90 days as allowed for temporary signs; he said graffiti artists from Minneapolis would put together a mural, utilizing historical content, but done in graffiti style. Mr. Zahren said graffiti art is a culture that is becoming more popular for serious artists and becoming a legitimate art form. He said the art department at the high school and the Perpich Center for the Arts High School are very interested in the project. He noted that a similar project was done at Fargo and folks in the community are supportive. He spoke of the importance of an educational component to the project, letting kids know it is not OK to tag a building, but that graffiti is a legitimate art form. Mr. Johnson said he thought it would work as an event in conjunction with the Art Festival, but expressed concern about using the building in question as it is a prominent feature of the viewshed and the panels will appear to be actually painted on the building, even though it is a removable board; he also spoke of the possible negative view of the community in light of the vandalism tagging that has been going on. Mr. Zahren spoke of being more creative and more diverse and the opportunity to add the educational piece for students. Mr. Johnson again suggested that, at least for the first year, have this an event in the park and see what the response is before making it a semi - permanent project. Ms. Cook said she was open to new ideas, but spoke of her frustration in dealing with the non -legal aspect of graffiti and said she agreed with Mr. Johnson that it would make sense to do this as part of the Art Festival. Mr. Lieberman said he would not be afraid to try this and said he thought it might be a way of channeling young people's artistic talent. Mr. Lieberman invited several students in the audience to take part in the discussion. One of the students said she liked the idea of providing a different view of art and displaying that where everyone can see it. Another student stated he wouldn't see anything wrong if an historical context is used in the project; another student said he thought it would be interesting and said he would go to see what it was all about. Mr. Johnson reiterated his position. Mr. Tomten said he thought the space might be conducive to a project, emphasizing the educational aspect and promoting a moving art in- progress event. Mr. Lieberman spoke in favor of taking art out of stuffy little rooms and opening it up to other perspectives. Mr. Zahren said he wasn't looking to do something permanent on the building. He said the artists would come and give a presentation, with a visual of what the project will look like. Mr. Bracht also spoke of emphasizing the educational component of how damaging tagging can be to the masonry of historic buildings. No action was taken. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary