Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-01 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 1, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: John Brach, Micky Cook and Reggie Krakowski Approval of minutes: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Goodman, moved approval of the October 4, 2010, minutes. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 2010 -41 Design review of tenant signage for the building at 105 New England Place in the VC, Village Commercial District, DeMars Signs, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge stated he had talked with the applicant, and the applicant and owner are agreeable to all the conditions of approval, including that the master sign be generic in nature. Mr. Johnson asked whether the signage totaled 190' aggregate or 190' on both Manning and New England Place. Mr. Pogge stated they are allowed 190' on both street frontages; Mr. Johnson suggested that the language be clarified to indicate that the signage of 190' is allowed on both frontages. Mr. Tomten noted that the proportion of font to background, especially on the master signage on the trash enclosure, appears very Tight and may not be readable to traffic. Mr. Tomten suggested the applicant may want to consider whether a larger font size might be appropriate for the master sign and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -42 Design review of a 24 x 50' addition to the building at 2100 Tower Drive in the BP -O, Business Park Office District. Gregory Sandager, Abrahamson Nurseries, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge briefly described the plans for the new structure, which will occupy the same footprint as the former wood structure. Mr. Lieberman expressed preference for a wooden structure, rather than aluminum, as proposed. During discussion, Mr. Johnson pointed out the former structure didn't provided the desired protection for plantings during the early spring. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted and conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010 -43 Design review of exterior renovations to the building at 14130 60 St. N. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge stated this is a fairly straightforward project. He reviewed the request to replace the existing greenhouse -style windows on the front elevation and add windows on the north and west elevations of the building; the new windows will match the style and details of the existing windows, he said. He said, at this point, the plans are to touch up the paint on the building, but the applicant may come back in the future with a proposal for a new color palette. Mr. Pogge also stated the applicant will present a sign package proposal at a later date. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Tomten asked about lighting plans, noting that the new use may not require as much lighting as currently exists on site. Mr. Pogge suggested that a condition be added to require submission of a lighting plan if changes are made; Mr. Tomten asked for a friendly amendment to the motion 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 1, 2010 to require submission of a lighting plan when the signage package is presented. Mr. Zahren agreed to that amendment, but questioned whether the applicant would need to submit a lighting plan if no changes are made. Mr. Pogge suggested asking the applicant to consider reducing the lighting and if the lighting is modified as requested, a plan be submitted for review and approval. Mr. Lieberman suggested the amended motion indicate that when the applicant returns with approval for the sign package, the applicant come back with a lighting plan appropriate for the new use of the building. Amended motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson asked whether the grandfathering rights are affected by the new use; Mr. Pogge said that would be affected only if the zoning were to change. Mr. Larson came later in the meeting. It was noted that the Commission has requested that lighting be evaluated /reconsidered in view of the new use of the building. Mr. Larson said he thought the building owner would be amenable to that. Case No. 2010 -44 Design review of signage for Acorn Direct for the building at 232 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Teresa Bignell, applicant. Mr. Pogge stated this request involves the re- facing of an existing sign. It was noted there is existing ground lighting for the sign; Mr. Tomten pointed out that in a previous discussion regarding the lighting, it was suggested that some type of shielding be considered. Mr. Johnson said he recalled there was also a suggestion that consideration be given to lighting the sign with some type of goose -neck lighting from above rather than from the ground. Mr. Tomten asked whether grandfathering rights also apply to lighting; Mr. Pogge responded in The affirmative, unless the applicant is willing to change. Mr. Zahren moved to approve the plan as conditioned with a suggestion that the applicant consider lighting of the sign to reduce glare, perhaps by utilizing a down - lighted, goose -neck fixture. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Pogge referred to the annual report to the State Preservation Office included in the agenda packet. He noted the Commission reviewed more cases than in 2009, with all cases approved. He referred to paragraphs in the report dealing with the St. Croix River crossing and the efforts regarding local designation focusing on the completion of the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Program. There was discussion of the Sierra Club's position regarding the lift bridge, with Mr. Tomten pointing out that the Sierra Club does favor preservation of the lift bridge. Mr. Pogge pointed out there is nothing in the annual report regarding the Sierra Club's position. Mr. Johnson noted that the lift bridge will have to be maintained /preserved while it continues to carry traffic. There was discussion of the National Park Service's position, as well as the impact on downtowns bypassed by new bridge crossings, and discussion on the impact on downtown Stillwater when the lift bridge was closed for maintenance in 2005. There was discussion of the condition of the lift bridge, as well as the possibility of federal legislation that may eliminate all mitigation efforts. Mr. Johnson suggested that from the HPC's perspective, he would favor continuing the continuing current method of operation, maintaining the existing bridge; he said he would rather see the lift bridge operating and maintained for the purpose of carrying traffic. Mr. Lieberman agreed with that position. Mr. Tomten pointed out that in the current Comprehensive Plan, there was a line item or paragraph requesting a traffic management study /plan before the new bridge was built; Mr. Pogge said staff has started to look at that. There was discussion of the three architects' concept of a new crossing, which incorporates the lift bridge. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 1, 2010 The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman, second by Mr. Goodman. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3