Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-02 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 2, 2012 Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Howard Lieberman, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council liaison Micky Cook Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: John Brach Approval of minutes: Mr. Lieberman noted a correction to the minutes in the discussion regarding Lakeview Hospital. He stated the mention of a problem he encountered in getting landscaping done was not when the hospital did its parking structure but when it expanded its surface parking along Greeley Street back in 1990. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the minutes of March 5, 2012, as corrected. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Mr. Lieberman spoke as a member of the HPC and as a citizen of Stillwater. He stated that over the years a number of Councilmembers have played a role on the HPC. He said from his perspective as a citizen and member of the Commission, each of the Councilmembers has brought a great deal to the Commission and enhanced the work of the Commission. In particular, he cited the contributions of current Council representative, Micky Cook, saying her participation and point of view has been exemplary. He said he hoped her good work would continue going forward. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2012 -11 Design review of signage for Visionworks at 2060 Market Drive in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Sign Maintenance Lighting & Electrical Inc., applicant. Steve Lawrence was present representing the applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request noting that the proposed sign facing Market Drive is larger than allowed under ordinance and a condition of approval is that the sign be reduced to what is allowed by ordinance and reviewed by staff prior to installation. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lawrence said the business owner is aware of the need to reduce the size of the one sign and will meet that condition. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant did provide him with a copy of the revised drawings, which indicate the sign will be about 28.5 square feet and will meet code requirements. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -12 Design review of exterior renovations for Charter Oaks Townhomes at 1198 Curve Crest Blvd. in the RCM, Medium Density Residential District. Charter Oaks LP, applicant. A representative of the applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Tomten asked about the type of siding that will be utilized. The representative said a cement fiber siding, a Hardiboard material, will be used on all of the buildings, including the new community building; City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 2, 2012 he stated a different color /style of the siding will be used as accent on the buildings. Mr. Tomten asked about lighting. The applicant's representative stated the proposed wall pack lighting on the buildings essentially replaces the existing lighting with some additions where the area is a little darker. On a question by Mr. Tomten, the representative said he thought the lighting on the new building was down - lighted with a shielded fixture and said there would be no problem making that a condition of approval; Mr. Johnson suggested the lighting could be placed a bit higher on the building to provide better coverage. The representative said final color selection has not been made, but it will primarily be a beige, more neutral color, with white trim, soffit and fascia. Mr. Johnson asked about signage; the representative stated there will be a new sign for the easterly drive entrance, and he said the applicant is working with a sign company on that. Mr. Johnson noted the applicant will have to come back for approval of the sign. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as conditioned with the additional conditions that the wall pack lighting on the new building or any added to the existing buildings be shielded, down - lighted type fixtures; that color option 3 presented is an acceptable option or using the accent shakes in a vertical position between the patio doors and upper windows would also be acceptable; that the siding be a cement board, lap siding similar to Hardi - plank. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -13 Design review of signage for Cherry Berry Self -Serve Yogurt Bar at 125 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Randy Jordan, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. The applicant and representatives were present. Mr. Tomten asked about the finish of the sign; the applicant said it would be a less reflective finish. Mr. Zahren moved to approve with the recommended conditions, with the additional condition that the sign be a matte finish as opposed to a high gloss finish. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -14 Design review of construction of a rooftop deck and bar (Rafters) at 317 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Larry Cramer, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. The applicant noted they had taken the business over about a year ago and have made numerous changes; however, he said they have been losing money due to the inability to compete with other similar businesses that have decks. Mr. Cramer said some architectural renderings have been prepared, but the structural work has not been done as they want to see if this might be approved before spending money on the next step. He said the goal is to have a viable business plan and a destination place, a unique rooftop view of the St. Croix and the Valley. He noted that, if approved, the work might not all be done in the first year due to the estimated cost of the total project; he described what work might be done in the first year. Mr. Cramer stated that alternative drawings have been prepared due to a potential problem with an easement for the outside stairway between his building and the adjacent building; architect Brian Larson presented the alternative plan. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 2, 2012 On a question by Mr. Zahren, plans for access and egress from the proposed deck were explained. Mr. Johnson asked whether the plans would exceed allowable building height if the plans are for a permanent enclosure, rather than a trellis /open covering. Mr. Cramer noted the height would be almost the same as the adjacent building to the west. Mr. Lieberman noted these are conceptual plans until the final option is known; he said, conceptually, having a rooftop opportunity for the business would be something he would support as consistent with the goal of keeping viable businesses in the downtown. Mr. Zahren said he liked the proposal. Mr. Johnson noted there are other rooftop spaces on several other nearby buildings that are more for residential use; Mr. Krakowski spoke of another business rooftop deck area. There was discussion as to whether the proposed enclosure was a permanent structure. Mr. Pogge noted the purpose of the height ordinance is to protect views of the river and adding the proposed "doghouse" structure and stairwell on top would not have a great impact on views from Main Street. Ms. Cook spoke of the potential issue if there is music; Mr. Cramer said there would be no music /entertainment on the rooftop. Mr. Lieberman noted that issue could be addressed in a condition of approval. Mr. Johnson asked about lighting; Mr. Larson said a lot of planning hasn't been done in that regard except for plans for some soft up- lighting. Mr. Johnson suggested that lighting be minimized, especially toward the perimeter edge. Mr. Cramer talked about various lighting options but noted plans have not been finalized. Mr. Lieberman pointed out there are no detailed plans to approve or not approve, suggesting the only thing that can be approved at this point is the concept of a rooftop deck, as long as it doesn't violate the height ordinance. Mr. Cramer spoke of his desire to get some approval so he can move forward this year. Mr. Pogge said, from his perspective, he thought there was enough detail that the Commission, if it feels comfortable, could take action with a number of conditions related to lighting, materials, etc. Mr. Goodman said he didn't have any objection to the concept of a rooftop deck; he said he thought objections, if there are any, would have to do with the details, such as lighting, color. Mr. Johnson said his primary concern is with the potential issue with the height restrictions. Mr. Tomten said his concern is more of a procedural issue, with the number of unknowns remaining; he noted the applicant still has work to do, such as other City reviews, discussions with the neighbor and Met Council, and suggested tabling this request for a month when the applicant would know a lot more and there would be more details to review would not be an unreasonable delay. There was additional discussion about lighting. Mr. Cramer said he was ready to talk about colors and materials at this time; he said colors would be gray and possibly red -brick for the front to match the adjacent building. Mr. Larson provided some color samples and noted there won't be many people who see the roof. Mr. Cramer said he didn't want to pay additional money for the detailed structural work unless he knows he can do the project; he said he was hoping there could be more oversight by the Planning Department. Several members noted there seemed to be consensus approving the concept, but additional details are needed for final approval. Mr. Tomten said it appears the table is pretty positive behind the concept and what is trying to be accomplished, but said he would be hesitant to grant an approval based on the information provided, because it is so minimal; he suggested the Commission's next meeting would not mean much of a delay for the project. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 2, 2012 After additional discussion, Mr. Tomten moved to continue the request until the next meeting for additional information and to allow the applicant to compile his design details and pricing to pull the project together in a more cohesive package; he noted this is a continuation with no additional fees. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, noting the Commission is supportive of either concept but needs further development of the final option. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -15 Design review of signage for Cosmo Prof at 126 Frontage Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Tim Olson, DeMars Signs, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request, noting the sign is smaller than allowed by ordinance. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -16 Design review of signage for Computer Repair and Services at 1441 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Douglas Shellum, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request, noting the sign is within the size allowed by code. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to approve as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -17 Design review of signage for Japa Salon at 1340 Frontage Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Steph Beedle, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request, noting the size of the signage meets code requirements. On a question by Mr. Johnson, the applicant stated the height of the sign on the building would be consistent with the neighboring signage. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to approve as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -18 Design review of signage for The Shirt Factory at 116 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Lynskey, applicant. The business owner was present and talked about his request to update the existing signage. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. There was discussion as to the plans to incorporate gears around the sign; members suggested it would be helpful if a graphic of the proposed sign had been provided. Mr. Zahren moved to approve the sign on the condition that a graphic /picture of the sign be provided and if the sign, when installed, doesn't match the graphic, it be removed. Mr. Johnson noted there is an existing sign in place that is functioning for the building. Mr. Pogge said it would be relatively easy for staff to take a photo of the sign and do a rendering of what it will look like on the building; the owner agreed to do that. The motion to approve died for lack of a second. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to table until the next meeting; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -19 Design review of construction of a new infill building at 220 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Hoefler, HAF Group, applicant. Continued discussion. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 2, 2012 Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and brief history of the project. He noted that all of the proposed changes are to the Water Street side of the building, and he reviewed the staff's findings, which found that the proposed changes are consistent with other buildings in the downtown area. Mr. Hoefler was present; he talked about the problems encountered with soils which resulted in the need to remove some weight from the building. Mr. Hoefler discussed the proposed use of corrugated metal; he noted the front elevation will stay the same as previously approved. Mr. Tomten said he thought the Water Street elevation was a fine adaptation and noted that the Main Street and Water Street elevations cannot be seen at the same time so the guidelines regarding 360- degree architecture don't necessarily apply. Mr. Lieberman suggested that there ought to be some distinguishing factor to exempt this building from having to meet the 360- degree requirement. Mr. Johnson referred to the staff report which indicates there is a difference in all the downtown buildings from the street face to the alley face. In discussion, it was noted the 360- degree architecture guideline does not apply to the downtown. Mr. Johnson asked if the trash enclosure would be corrugated metal to match the building; Mr. Hoefler responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hoefler reviewed plans for the courtyard area, the location of the mechanical units and lighting plans. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of signage in the PA (Public Administration) Zoning District — Mr. Pogge told the Commission that with the nearing completion of the Post Office project, an issue has arisen regarding the fact that City Code does not address signage in the PA District. He said staff would propose having the PA District mirror what is allowed in the Central Business District and the CA District. Mr. Lieberman questioned whether the City /Commission has the authority to place serious restrictions on governmental bodies that may have national standards they must adhere to. Mr. Pogge noted that while the Post Office does have national standards, it tries to meet local standards, much like other chain businesses, such as a Dairy Queen. Mr. Pogge said the intent is to have size regulations, rather than design guidelines. Mr. Pogge said he would bring a staff report to the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Demolition Ordinance — Mr. Pogge said a few technical changes were made to the ordinance since the March meeting and said he thought, unless the Commission feels differently, this is close to being the final form. Mr. Lieberman noted that Mark Balay had sent an e-mail that he requested be read into the minutes; Mr. Lieberman read the e-mail that stated: the Historic Resource Definition section is not necessary if the HPC succeeds in getting the Neighborhood Conservation Districts in place; the idea of control over partial demolition is overstated and over - defined so it becomes a tool for architectural control over remodeling without setting objective standards. The e -mail included suggested changes to the ordinance dealing with partial demolitions. Mr. Johnson spoke in favor of retaining the Historic Resource section, noting there are many significant properties that would be outside of an Historic District, if one is designated, but agreed that if applied incorrectly, it could be applied to cover almost every building that is over 50 years old if the definition of historic resource become too exhaustive. Mr. Pogge agreed there needs to be a balance and said he thought the proposed ordinance takes that into consideration; he also noted the ordinance provides for review by City Council if a property is 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 2, 2012 designated as an historic resource and subject to the demolition ordinance. Regarding Mr. Balay's second point, Mr. Johnson noted the HPC is primarily concerned with the front facades. Mr. Pogge said the notion that the demolition ordinance is architectural review is the reality; he said that is not a negative thing — the HPC /City needs to acknowledge that the demolition ordinance is an attempt to preserve the architecture of the community. Mr. Tomten said he thought the point is well taken to try to simplify how to calculate percentages for partial demolitions; there was discussion as how to accomplish that. Mr. Johnson suggested doing a flow chart for some sample properties as it would go through the process as defined in the ordinance. In discussion, it was noted this will not go back to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Mr. Pogge noted that changes can be made to the ordinance between the first and second readings by the Council, suggesting that at some point the Commission will have to move forward with the understanding it may revisit the ordinance in a year or two and make more tweaks to the ordinance, especially if the City develops local designation districts. Mr. Johnson moved to have the current version carried forward for Council approval at the next available opportunity; Mr. Goodman seconded the motion. In discussion as to possible scheduling for Council action, it was decided to bring this back to the Commission and hold a public hearing at the May 7 meeting prior to proceeding to the Council. There was additional discussion about possible changes to the section regarding partial demolition and a suggestion to eliminate item 4 in response to Mr. Balay's concerns and possible reworking of item 3. Ms. Cook wondered if it might be helpful to prepare a visual /graphic of a house for the Council meeting; Mr. Tomten provided several possible graphics. Mr. Tomten made a suggestion in the positioning of the language in the section of what is subject to demolition review, moving paragraph 3 to the front. No vote was taken on the original motion. Mr. Pogge stated he had signed members up for History in Our Backyard and would welcome any additional help. There was discussion of the schedule. Mr. Pogge distributed copies of finished product of the Stillwater Cultural Landscape District. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 0