Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-04 HPC MIN• • Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 4, 2000 Present: Chair: Howard Lieberman. Members: Beth Diem, Jeff Johnson (late arrival), Dean Miller, Roger Tomten, and Phil Eastwood. Absent: None Others: City Planner Sue Fitzgerald. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Howard Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was mentioned that Howard Lieberman is the Chairperson, not the acting Chairperson. Phil Eastwood's last name, page four, was misspelled (Eastman). With hearing no other corrections, Mr. Lieberman asked for a motion to accept the minutes of Monday, November 6, 2000. Mr. Tomten motioned the minutes be approved with the above changes. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman asked if there was any further discussion. Hearing no added discussion, the vote was taken and the minutes were approved with the following corrections unanimously. Case No. DR/00 -33. Design review of the sign package for Maple Island Building at 219 North Main Street, applicant, Vern Stefan, representing Mainstream Development. The applicant had been asked to submit a sign package for the Maple Island Building. The package delineates both the existing signs and future signs. One change to the existing package shown is the Merrill Lynch sign on the east side of the building that will be moved up one floor and a sign for Morningstar Coffee to be placed above the first floor window. All new signs would require design review by the HPC. DISCUSSION: Mr. Stefan was present at the meeting representing Mainstream Development. In regard to the Merrill Lynch sign itself, it was noted that the sign is intended to be placed above the Mezzanine window. The colors used by Merrill Lynch, black against red, were questioned because of it being difficult to see. Mr. Stefan stated that he was respecting the wishes of his tenants. Mr. Stefan also acknowledged that the HPC would be able to address all signage. Mr. Tomten requested information about how an individual would access the Brokers on the second floor. Mr. Stefan explained that access to the brokers, on the second floor, could be entered by 219 North Main Street or use Water Street. Mr. Tomten questioned where the Morningstar Coffee Shop sign would be on the West Elevation. In regard to the mechanical drawings presented by Stefan & Associates, Mr. Stefan explained that one patio door will remain and that one door does exist to a mechanical room. Mr. Stefan explained that stairs to the mechanical room do not exist. 1 • • Mr. Stefan mentioned a monument sign as possible as a free standing unit because of available space between sidewalk and the building. City Planner Ms. Fitzgerald related a monument sign might not be possible. Mr. Tomten requested to address a couple of procedural difficulties: 1. Will Dumpsters be enclosed? It was said ,Dumpsters would be enclosed as agreed. 2. The existing lights used for security as extremely bright and are not acceptable for River traffic areas. The location of the lights was in a dock area and above the Brokers office. Mr. Stefan said he does not know who put the lights on the building. Mr. Stefan said that he would correct the use of bright lights. Ms. Fitzgerald requested that the lights be corrected within a two -week time frame. Mr. Stefan said that would be corrected, certainly, by the next month's meeting. 3. Mr. Tomten thought perhaps a directory should be addressed at the lobby entrance as there is window space to accommodate that. Mr. Stefan thought that the use of windows was an acceptable idea as there are two good locations where windows could be used. Mr. Stefan said also that he could not speak for his tenants but will address this issue with them. Mr. Stefan was informed by Ms. Fitzgerald that he was running out of signage space. MOTION: A motion was offer by Mr. Tomten that would be conditioned to allowing five signs on the East Elevation on street level and two upstairs so that a total of only seven signs covers the whole building with additional tenants using window or directional signs in or near the main entrance. The South Elevation, currently has one sign, and the West Elevation could have five signs that include four signs for street level and one sign for second floor. Discussion: Mr. Eastwood Considered the total to be eight signs on the West Elevation and a total of eleven signs, if all are counted, on the East Elevation. Mr. Miller questioned the number of signs, as the applicants must address the HPC for each sign. Mr. Lieberman requested that a philosophy of the sense of signage be considered rather than a micro - specific approach. Mr. Lieberman suggested that a new motion be made to allow a whole package overview, as each sign would be introduced that would produced by City Planner Sue Fitzgerald. Therefore, before any new signs could be approved, Mr. Stefan would have a total package of signs available with each new sign application and any directory sign that would be presented for approval of the HPC. Mr. Tomten moved to withdraw original motion and Mr. Miller withdrew his seconded approval of motion. NEW MOTION: Mr. Tomten offered a new motion to accept the sign application as conditioned with additional items: 1. That there be attach a dated exhibit 00 -33, with East and West Elevations which show sign areas as featured to be presented with each new sign application. 2. That on West Elevation the lease space is accessed from Main Street on the Main Street level. 3. That any second floor tenants use a directory sign near the entries. 2 • • 4. That exterior - viewed directory-type signage is exhibited on the East and West Elevations of the project. The Conditions of Approval mentioned before the additional items: 1. All signs must meet the requirements of the sign ordinance for the Central Business District. 2. All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Dept. 3. Any changes to the approved sign package shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC. 4. All new signage shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Diem. Mr. Lieberman asked for any additional comments. It was noted that application 00 -39 does not meet requirement. A vote was taken to approve the motion to accept DR/00 -33 as conditioned above. The vote was approved unanimously. Case No. DR/00 -34. Design review of exterior signage for Camrose Hill located at 233 South Second Street. The applicant is Cindie Sinclair. The request is for a design approval for signage and the number of signs. It is noted that some of the proposed signs would require a Variance to the sign ordinance before the signs could be installed as requested. DISCUSSION: A discussion followed that recognized the hardship of tenant Cindie Sinclair's situation for signage that could be in violation if placed, as it could come under the designation of "billboard" rather than business. At question is an ordinance setback of fifteen feet from property lines. The business Camrose Hill is located behind trellis fencing. The possibility of a directional or welcome sign, that could be floral, as long as the business name is not on it, was discussed. Mr. Lieberman noted that two business signs and a third sign that is a directional sign could be allowed. Mr. Lieberman questioned any lighting on the signs, as there should be no shining from the light to the street. Mr. Johnson said that any lighting should shine on the sign only from over the top and is softer than a 150 -watt reflexive light and is of low voltage. The problem as stated by Ms. Sinclair was that the number 233 was not on the building for locating by patrons to her business. The question of "unique space ", from the building to the fencing, as being an extension of her business was questioned. MOTION: Mr. Lieberman made A motion that there are two motions in addition to the conditions: 1. First motion is that the HPC approves two signs. One on the corner of Olive and Second Street and one on Olive. And that one sign may have a light that shines from the top of the sign down onto the sign and be of low wattage. 2. Second motion is given because of the unique and difficult location and difficult entrance that a recommendation goes to the planning commission to grant a variance. 3 • • Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman asked if there was any added discussion. It was noted that Ms. Fitzgerald would work with Ms. Sinclair regarding any necessary variance. A vote was called to the floor. Ayes: Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Diem, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tomten, and Mr. Eastwood Nays: Mr. Miller The vote so passed Case No. DR/00 -35. Design review of exterior signage for Stillwater Car Wash located at 1732 Market Drive. The applicant is Jeff Hause. The applicant is proposing to install 24" red channel neon letters above the car wash doors on the rear side of the building abutting County Road 5. The letters on the front of the building are red also. Mr. Hause was not present at the meeting. The conditions of approval are: 1. No additional signage. 2. All changes to the approved sign plan be reviewed and approved by the HPC. 3. All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Tomten to accept the proposal as conditioned and seconded by Mr. Eastwood. Mr. Lieberman asked if there was any further comment, hearing none a vote was taken. All were in favor of accepting the motion. Case No. DR/00 -36. Design review of exterior signage for Hause construction located at 1937 Greeley Street South. Jeff Hause is the applicant. The applicant is requesting a design review of a 24" by 78" internally lit sign at the above address. It will have black letters and a black logo on a white background. The sign meets the requirements of the sign ordinance for the Business Park District. Conditions of Approval: 1. No additional signage. 2. All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Eastwood to accept the signage as conditioned and seconded by Mr. Miller. Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Lieberman called the vote to the floor. The vote to approve was unanimous. Case No. DR/00 -37. Design review of exterior signage for Balay Architecture at 110 Myrtle St. The applicant is Mark Balay. The request is for a design approval of a freestanding multi -tenant sign. The wooden columns that the sign is attached to will be %'6 3/4" high, the sign will be 19.25 square feet. The allowable square footage for the CBD zoning district is 30 square feet. Colors of the posts and sign will be matching the building, light tan with burgundy and green trim. At this point the sign will not be lit. The conditions of approval: 4 • • 1. No additional signage. 2. The sign shall not be lit. 3. A sign Permit shall be obtained from the community Development Department. DISCUSSION: Mr. Balay related to the Commission that because there are two tenants and a possibility of a third it is important to have a sign. The bushes go to the property line and make it difficult to see so the request is for a sign that can be seen. The sign would be behind the retaining wall and would be free standing. Mr. Balay explained that the East Side porch would be enclosed and used as a vestibule and office space. The exterior lap siding and colors will match the existing building. Mr. Lieberman thought that the sign was clean and of acceptable height. MOTION: Mr. Lieberman made a motion to approve the request as conditioned and Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson asked if the colors would match the building. It was agreed that it would match in color. With no further comment, the vote was recommended. All were in favor of approving the request. Case No. DR/00 -38. Design review of exterior signage, awnings and window modification at 201 South Main Street. Mark Balay was representing Loome Antiquarian Booksellers, applicant. The request is for design approval of three wall signs, modification of three existing windows into one large window, and for two awnings. The signs are subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. The applicant is considering the use of words "Books ", "used" and "rare" printed on the valance of the awnings. The building is considered non - contributing in the historic district. Conditions of Approval: 1. No additional signs. 2. All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department. 3. Signs shall not be lit. 4. The awning shall not be lit. 5. Structural elements of the awning shall be at least eight feet above the sidewalk. DISCUSSION: The design engineers are adding, "display windows" and to make the building more interesting, awnings will be added. It was mentioned that upstairs they will be renting four rooms to temporarily house the new City Chamber Offices. Signage for the Chamber was discussed. Mr. Johnson asked if they would be given permission for a small "sandwich" board. Ms. Fitzgerald said that perhaps a banner sign might be possible. It was noted that they are no public restroom. Allowing words on the awning was addressed as the name of the business should not be on awning. Mr. Loome, property owner, said that he was not aware of the difference between stretched and unstretched canvas for the awning, but that he would consider a stretched fixed aluminum frame. It was noted that there was no need to have lit signs or awnings. 5 • • MOTION: A motion was make by Mr. Lieberman to accept the proposal as conditioned And that there will be no business name on the awnings. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman asked for any additional comments, hearing none he called the vote to the floor. All were in favor of granting the request. Case No. DR/00 -39. Design review of exterior signage for Morningstar Coffee at 219 North Main Street. Applicant is Jennifer Eggers. The request is for design approval for two signs at the above business. A six square foot projecting sign, illuminated by angled "gooseneck" fixtures would be on Main Street. The East side of the building would have a 3x10 stem mounted flexiglass clear panel with dark green/black lettering. This sign would be illuminated with the same angled "goose" fixtures as used on the front of the building. Conditions of Approval 1. No additional signage. 2. All signs shall meet the requirements of sign ordinance before installation. 3. All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department. DISCUSSION: Mr. Lieberman questioned why the sign was not further down then it was placed and thought the location of the sign to be somewhat confusing. The question of actually having no frontage on Main St. because of no access from Main St. that is uniquely theirs was questioned. The question of the Main Street sign being a directory sign in relationship to this request was reviewed. The question of this request being an internally accessed store was questioned. The total sign package for the whole building was discussed. The request for Ms. Fitzgerald to produce a sign package was requested. MOTION: Mr. Lieberman requested that the request be "tabled" until a total sign package, produced by Ms. Fitzgerald is available for review to see how this request for signage fits into the total package. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Hearing no additional comments, a vote was taken. It was agreed unanimously that the request be tabled at this time to allow Ms. Fitzgerald to produce a total view of the building and signs. Case No. DR/00 -40. Design review of Warden's Carriage House Addition at 602 North Main Street. Jill Greenhalgh is the applicant. The applicant is requesting a design approval of an addition for the Carriage House behind the Warden's House. The addition will include a bathroom, utility room and a vestibule. The siding and roof will match the existing house. The conditional of approval: 1. Any changes to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC. 2. Siding and roof to match existing building. DISCUSSION: Ms. Greenhalgh was present for the meeting. Mr. Johnson asked how it fit in with the historic nature of the building. Ms. Greenhalgh said that there was some kind of an addition at some time. However, Brent Peterson would have to be contacted to request that 6 • • information as she did not know. The question of security lighting was brought up because Ms. Greenhalgh would like to have a light on the sidewalk to deter kids from approaching the building at night. Any lighting should be "down lit" it was suggested. The addition would be a shed, of no historic value, that can be viewed from the prison. Mr. Johnson asked with the pitch of the roof was the same as the building. MOTION: Mr. Johnson made a motion that the request be approved with conditions and the additional conditions that the pitch of the roof be the same as the Carriage House and that any lighting be downlit to be reviewed by Ms. Fitzgerald. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion. All were in favor of granting the request with the above mentioned conditions. Case No. DR/00 -41. Design review of exterior signage for Dairy Queen located at 1840 Market Drive. The applicant is Paul Williquett. The applicant is requesting design review of two exterior signs for the relocated Dairy Queen. The east side facing Market Drive will have the same logo and lettering, only smaller. Conditions of approval: 1. No additional signage. 2. All signs shall meet the requirements of the sign ordinance before they are installed. 3. All signs need a Sign Permit issued by the Community Development Department. DISCUSSION: The explanation that a Drive - through Window needs exposure was brought up. An ice cream cone sign was suggested that would not be in violation of the number of signs that may be used was mentioned. The menu board that is for the side of the building with daily specials on it was mentioned. That there be no flashing and blinking lights was mentioned. The menu board was said to be flush with the building. The sign is an informational sign. However, there may be a cola sign on it but Mr. Williquett was not sure. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Tomten to approve with conditions the request with the understanding that Ms. Fitzgerald will review the menu board, drive through and signage with graphics. Ms. Fitzgerald will also review the braizer board on the East elevation making sure that it conforms to the square footage. Mr. Lieberman suggested the motion be granted an addition that that the drive - through be a directional sign. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor of granting the request with all the conditions mentioned. Discussion of the Annual HPC awards for 2000 was discussed. Ms. Fitzgerald requested that the Commission think about this as April comes and this issue will be addressed. The categories could possibly be: Reuse of an Existing Building or Renovation of a Building. A reference point of previous recipients was mentioned. Mr. Tomten questioned if six years ago Arlington by the armory did not get an award and is not on the list. Ms. Fitzgerald requests nominations at the March 1st meeting. A partial list of 2000 HPC cases was presented 7 • An Update on Carli & Schulenburg's architectural survey was discussed over apple pie brought by Ms. Diem for the holidays. Respectfully submitted Diane Martinek Recorder 8