Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-03 HPC MIN• Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2000 Present: Howard Lieberman, chairperson Beth Diem, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Robert Kimbrel, Dean Miller and Roger Tomten Others: Planner Sue Fitzgerald; Mayor Jay Kimble Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and thanked Mayor Kimble for his attendance to update the Commission on the historic lift bridge issues. Mayor Kimble discussed the process and status of negotiations regarding both the historic lift bridge and the proposed new river crossing. He noted that the City has tried to keep the new bridge and the lift bridge as separate issues and is on record supporting the mitigation plan, and that if mitigation fails, it will be 20 -30 years before a new bridge is constructed. He also noted that the City Council, by resolution, has directed that he be the City's negotiator. Mr. Kimble reminded members that the Heritage Preservation Commission is advisory to the City Council. If the HPC believes a letter should be sent to Secretary of Interior Babbitt, for example, the Commission should send a memo indicating its position to the City Council, and if the press calls for a statement, members are welcome to give quotes as private citizens, but not as representative of a position by the Heritage Preservation Commission, he said. It was suggested that it would be helpful if the HPC was kept apprised of the status of negotiations. Mr. Kimble responded that is not always possible in a public forum, but members are welcome to call him at any time, with questions or comments. Mr. Johnson noted that there is supposed to be a Council liaison to the HPC and encouraged participation by the liaison in the future. Mr. Lieberman brought the discussion to a close by saying he respected the work of the Mayor and Council and by noting that this Mayor and Council have been more supportive of HPC efforts than have others in the past. Approval of minutes: Mr. Kimbrel, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of March 6, 2000; all in favor. Case No. DR/00 -06 Design review of building renovation at 220 E. Mulberry St. Tony Lodge, applicant. Mr. Lodge briefly reviewed his plans. He stated he is still working with the City engineers regarding a second curb cut to provide for off - street parking at the rear of the building. There are some unknowns at this time, he said. Mr. Johnson noted there is a structural defect in the building which is accentuated by the proposed full mansard roof. He suggested the possibility of awnings over the doorways /windows to accent the building, rather than the strong horizontal look of the mansard roof. 1 Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2000 Mr. Tomten referenced several desirable architectural elements for commercial buildings in the historic downtown district — recessed entries; cloth awnings; storefront glass or store windows; continuous lintel; defining pilasters. Mr. Johnson noted including those design elements might even be less expensive than the proposed design. Mr. Lodge was not enthusiastic about the use of awnings, and expressed a concern about cost, noting that he had hoped to do much of the construction work himself. Mr. Tomten pointed out that if the doorways are recessed, awnings may not be needed. Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson reiterated the concern about the proposed asphalt roof mansard as not being appropriate within the downtown design guidelines, and Mr. Johnson again pointed out incorporating some of Mr. Tomten's suggestions might not be that much more costly than Mr. Lodge's initial design proposal. Mr. Tomten volunteered to work with Mr. Lodge in developing a building appearance more contributing to the historic district. Mr. Kimbrel moved approval as conditioned by staff, with the additional condition that the applicant work with Mr. Tomten to develop a more appropriate design. Mr. Johnson suggested that the motion be amended to indicate Mr. Tomten had volunteered his assistance, and that Mr. Tomten's assistance be limited to getting the applicant working in the right direction rather than doing the entire building design. Mr. Kimbrel agreed to incorporate that language into the motion. Mr. Lodge questioned whether he would be limited in color to dark brown or dark red as indicated in the staff conditions (he had proposed a tan color); members indicated dark brown or dark red were not the only options and that Mr. Tomten could assist in color options. Mr. Johnson seconded the amended motion; amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/00 -07 Design review of exterior signage at 221 N. Main St. Kerry Larson, representing Valley Co -op. Upon questioning by Mr. Kimbrel, it was noted the two proposed signs are part of an overall sign package for the Maple Island Building. Mr. Kimbrel then moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Johnson asked whether there would be any border to define the limits of the sign. Mr. Johnson suggested the proposed lettering fits the height but not the width of the signage, and he asked whether there would be other graphics on the ends of the sign or whether the wave design would be elongated. Mr. Larson responded that there will be a natural wood border, much like the Northern Vineyards signage, that will frame the lettering. Mr. Larson said the intent was for the signage to be consistent with others on the building and in the area, and from an advertising standpoint, he said, the proposed signage works best. Mr. Larson also stated the waves would be more elongated that it appeared in the graphic provided in the agenda packet. Mr. Miller seconded the motion of approval as conditioned; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/00 -08 Design review of Territorial Prison walkway. Amy Stefan, representing the City of Stillwater. 2 Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2000 Ms. Stefan briefly reviewed the concept plans for a trail/walkway at the Territorial Prison site. She said her function is not to design interpretative displays but to suggest possible themes for development when funding becomes available. She said the concept design is being developed to the extent possible with the developers' information; the developer will be responsible for maintaining the trail, she noted. Mr. Kimbrel asked about the trail material, whether it would be a more natural material or bituminous; Mr. Tomten suggested that the trail materials be "genuine" material. Mr. Johnson said he was more concerned about the method of repairing the walls on site. Ms. Fitzgerald suggested it might be possible to have a representative from Barr Engineering, the firm that will be doing the wall project, attend an upcoming HPC meeting to discuss that issue. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Lieberman, moved approval of the direction of the concept plan, with the understanding that the issues of trail material, wall restoration and lighting will be addressed further. Motion passed unanimously. Other business Ms. Fitzgerald said Mr. Empson should have some material regarding the Hersey Staples & Co. architectural survey available by the next meeting. Mr. Tomten asked about funding for the next architectural survey. Ms. Fitzgerald said she has received approval to apply for a grant; if the grant is approved, the next survey will be of the Carli - Schulenberg Addition. Mr. Eastwood asked abut a banner on the rear of Maple Island Hardware building. It was noted that three signs were allowed at that location, with the owner to decide where to place the signs. Mr. Johnson suggested looking at that case file to determine the HPC's previous action in the matter. There was a brief discussion of members' reaction to Mr. Kimble's comments regarding the lift bridge. Mr. Kimbrel, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.; all in favor. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3