HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-08 HPC MINCity of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Present: John Bracht, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Howard Lieberman,
and Roger Tomten and Councilmember Menikheim
Absent: Scott Zahren
Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge
Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the minutes of Aug. 1, 2011. Mr.
Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
No comments were received.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. DEM/2011 -43 A demolition request for a single - family residence at 820 Sycamore St.
W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. David Majeski, applicant.
Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received. Mr. Lieberman noted
that staff had visited the site on Aug. 31, 2011, determined the building represented a public
hazard and issued an emergency demolition order. No further action was required, he noted.
The hearing was closed.
Case No. 2011 -24 A zoning text amendment to the Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34
of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater, applicant.
Mr. Lieberman reviewed the reasons for the City Council's decision to consider an amendment
to the demolition ordinance, noting that the HPC has been working on this task for over a year.
He said he thought the proposed amendment resolves a number of issues of concern to him.
Mr. Johnson said he thought there were several remaining issues, including the rolling date, 50
years, versus a firm date which triggers a demolition review. Mr. Johnson listed a number of
suggested changes: capitalization of Heritage Preservation Commission; adding "or locally
designated historic conservation district" to the definition of historically significant building or
structure to be consistent with other verbiage in the proposed amendment. In discussion
regarding the definition of historically significant building or structure, Mr. Pogge suggested that
could be clarified by referencing the language defining historic preservation site in the Code. Mr.
Lieberman suggested that a preamble to the amendment be included indicating that definitions
are understood to be the same throughout the document to resolve any potential issues with
language consistency. Mr. Lieberman noted a typo in Sub. 1, (2), "is" should be "its ".
Mr. Johnson suggested that Subd. 2, (1) (e) and (i) should be reworked, moving the wording
regarding evidence that restoration or reuse is not economically feasible from (i) to (e). There
was discussion as to vehicles for advertisement; Mr. Pogge suggested that should be left open
to provide the Commission with more flexibility. Mr. Johnson suggested that (iii) under Public
hearings include the title of Section 22 -7, subdivision 4, to be more user - friendly. Under
emergency demolition, Mr. Johnson pointed out that there is no definition for "other significant
building or structure "; in discussion, it was agreed to change that wording to "or historic
resource." Mr. Johnson also suggested adding "together the community development director
and building official" may issue an emergency demolition permit to clearly indicate that decision
is to be made jointly and that both officials must sign off on such a permit.
1
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
Mr. Tomten said he thought the amendment resolves a lot of ambiguity. There was a general
discussion of the changes, the process and mechanisms. Mr. Goodman suggested the
amendment provides more clarity /predictability to the process.
Mr. Pogge brought up the issue of the rolling versus fixed date. He said staff believes the rolling
date of 50 years is a disservice to the Commission at this point, without having done any
architectural studies for neighborhoods such as Croixwood, which would soon come under the
ordinance, and without having clear neighborhood buy -in. He suggested that a fixed date of
1945, post World War II, would serve the ordinance much better. In discussion in was noted that
1945 was the date used by Noreen Roberts in her context study for the City. Mr. Lieberman
pointed out that a newer home, perhaps done by an important architect, could still be
determined an historic resource under the ordinance; Mr. Pogge said that would not be the case
as the date would be the primary determining consideration as to whether the ordinance
applies. Mr. Bracht spoke in favor of the 1945 date as representing a shift from craftsmanship
building to the mass production building of post World War II. Mr. Johnson noted there is some
preservation interest in the "Sears catalog" neighborhoods. Mr. Pogge suggested that the
ordinance be written with today's assets in mind and in future update /amend the ordinance if a
neighborhood is identified that is important to the City's character. Mr. Johnson said he wanted
to be certain the ordinance could be an evolving one and amended in the future, rather than
being locked into a specific date. Mr. Tomten spoke of a growing preservation interest in
modern architecture; Mr. Lieberman suggested the importance is that such architecture reflects
cultural heritage. Mr. Bracht suggested perhaps leaving the 1945 date but giving staff more
leeway in determining whether a post -1945 structure should be subject to the ordinance; Mr.
Pogge pointed out that no context studies have been done for these neighborhoods, so it would
be difficult to establish the significance of a particular structure. In discussion, it was pointed out
that structures newer than the fixed date could be subject to the ordinance if, for example, the
Commission locally designates the Croixwood neighborhood at some point in the future.
Mr. Bracht moved to recommend Council approval of option B with the fixed date of 1945 and
the changes made during the above discussion. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion
passed unanimously.
DESIGN REVIEWS
Case No. DR/2011 -45 Design review of signage for "No Neck Tony's" at 231 Myrtle St. E. in the
CBD, Central Business District. Anthony Misenor, applicant.
Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. It was noted no details have been provided regarding the
proposed gooseneck lighting; a condition of approval is that the applicant submit proposed
lighting plans to staff before installation. Mr. Krakowski moved approved as conditioned. Mr.
Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. DR/2011 -46 Design review of a portion of the exterior facade at Valley Ridge at 1570
Frontage Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Tanek Inc., Jessica Meidinger,
applicant.
A representative of the applicant was present. The representative reviewed the proposed
changes, noting that the space in question is a difficult rental space due to visibility problems.
He said the changes are intended to provide more frontage for the corner space and improve
visibility for the storefronts. Members were in agreement that the proposed changes would be
an improvement and help lighten up the area in question. In discussion, it was noted the request
for signage approval would be submitted at a later date for review by staff. Mr. Johnson moved
2
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
approval for the requested fagade changes, with staff to review the signage when submitted. Mr.
Bracht seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. DR/2011 -47 Design review for temporary signage at the "Fun Shop" at 1500 Frontage
Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Mike Hammer, applicant.
The applicant was present. He noted the requested signage is for a temporary, seasonal
business; he said the signage would be removed immediately after Halloween. Mr. Johnson
moved approval based on the condition of the time limits, Sept. 1 -Nov. 1., for the temporary sign
at this location. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Case No. DR/2011 -44 Design review of signage for "Dave's Sport Shop" at 1650 Washington
Ave. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. TopLine Advertising Inc., applicant.
Case No. DR/2011 -48 Design review of signage at The Edge Hockey Centers at 1650
Washington Ave. in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. Robert Kaufmann, applicant.
Cases DR/2011 -44 and DR/2011 -48 were considered together. The business manager of the
Lumber Yard Hockey and Sports Center and a representative of TopLine Advertising were
present. In discussion it was noted that The Edge Hockey Centers will be moving to this
location, and the training and ice rink will be known as Lumber Yard Hockey and Sports Center;
signage for that portion of the business will utilize the existing 9x9' Pro -Build free - standing sign.
Signage for the retail portion of the building, Dave's Sport Shop, as proposed, will be a wall sign
placed above the entrance to the building. It was noted the building has been repainted. Mr.
Johnson suggested that the white background of the Lumber Yard Hockey signage may reduce
the effectiveness of the signage; there was discussion of ways to soften the white background
through the use of different lamps. It was noted the Dave's Sport Shop signage will be LED,
channel -lit lettering.
Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Dave's Sports Shop signage, DR/2011 -44, as submitted. Mr.
Bracht seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the
Lumber Yard Hockey Center signage, DR/2011 -48, as conditioned, with the additional condition
that the illumination of the light be held down somewhat through the use of cool white or other
light source to prenent the over -wash of white light. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion
passed unanimously. There was discussion of the planned operation of the ice center. It was
noted the Sport's Shop is in operation at the present time.
Case No. DR/2011 -49 Design review for modifications to a parapet wall at 132 Main St. S. in
the CBD, Central Business District. Greg Gartner, applicant.
Larry Koral was present representing Mr. Gartner. Mr. Lieberman read the staff report outlining
the requested changes and intent of the changes to correct a current problem of
melting /freezing on the sidewalk beneath the parapet. Mr. Koral spoke of the number of
pedestrians who had reported falls due to the current situation; he said a number of contractors
had been contacted and all came up with the same solution. Mr. Johnson noted the proposal
provides more accent to the parapet /cornice element of the building. Mr. Bracht agreed that the
proposed modifications would improve the appearance and moved to approve as submitted. Mr.
Johnson seconded the motion, clarifying that the motion includes the condition that the color be
brown, prefinished metal to match the existing material; motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Pogge told the Commission that the Water Street Inn is ready to do their canopies. He
provided a sample of the proposed material and rendering of what the canopies will look like.
Mr. Johnson suggested the stripes in the material introduce a different look and wondered if that
3
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
September 8, 2011
was appropriate to the building. After discussion, it was decided Mr. Pogge would contact the
owner to determine if there is any flexibility on his part regarding a different material, and if not,
give staff approval of the submitted material.
Mr. Pogge relayed a request from a previous applicant to use hardi -board on the front of the
building only, with vinyl siding on the remaining elevations. Members noted that would be in
violation of design guidelines and denied that request.
Mr. Johnson relayed information regarding two homeowners who would like to be listed on the
Landmark Homes web site.
Mr. Tomten asked whether his e -mail with comments regarding the walkway had been received;
Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative. Mr. Tomten spoke of community symposia being
sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and suggested this is an opportunity to get the historic
preservation mindset into the business community. Mr. Johnson mentioned plans to attend the
upcoming state historic preservation conference.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
4