Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-03 HPC MINHERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 3, 1995 Present: Jeff Johnson, Howard Lieberman, Todd Remington and Roger Tomten Others: Ann Terwedo, planning department; Steve Russell, community development director Absent: Katherine Francis, Robert Kimbrel, Jay Michels, and Brent Peterson Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Remington, moved to approve the minutes of the March 6, 1995, meeting. All in favor. Case No. DR/95-3 Design review for modification to a previously approved facade creation along with signage. The property is located at 226 E. Mulberry St. in the Downtown Plan area. Judd Orff, applicant. Mr. Orff appeared on his own behalf. Mr. Johnson asked if the building is subdivided at a later date, a similar treatment could be done to the new tenant area. Mr. Tomten asked about other lighting/signage. Mr. Orff said an awning treatment has been suggest, perhaps with lighting under the awning; there is no specific plan now, he said. Mr. Johnson noted that Mr. Orff could come back to the commission at a later date if he wants to relocate the awning and signage band. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Lieberman, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Case No. DR/95-6. Design review for a facade alteration to the St. Croix Drug building at 132 S. Main St. in the Downtown Commercial Historic District. Don Roettger, applicant. Mr. Roettger and Lyle Anderson of St. Croix Drug appeared before the commission. Two members of the Heritage Preservation Commission met with Mr. Roettger and Mr. Anderson after the proposal was first presented at the March meeting. Mr. Roettger developed a model from the suggestions/sketches that were discussed at that meeting. Mr. Johnson said ,the model was exactly what he was considering -- it fits better visually and still covers the failing stucco on the building. The color of the metal is brown, which Mr. Anderson said was the original color. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Remington, moved approval as conditioned. All in favor. Case N_Q, DR/95-7. Design review for a facade creation at 324 N. Main St. in the Downtown Plan Area. Carol A. Travis, applicant. Ms. Travis appeared on her own behalf. There was considerable discussion regarding the window treatment on the lower level. Commission members suggested the window space should be increased and should be more rectangular than proposed. As proposed, the window level was at 40 inches; commission members suggested lowering the level to about 24 inches to be more in keeping with the rest of the streetscape of Main Street. The commission also felt the artificial treatment (formica over wood) surrounding the windows was inappropriate. Mr. Tomten put those suggestions in sketch form. Ms. Travis said she felt the suggestions would work. Mr. Tomten also developed sketches of a parapet treatment to deal with the "bump" in the upper level of the building. There also was a discussion regarding the siding of the building. Initially, Ms. Travis proposed to cover the current tin siding with 4x8 sheets of cedar siding, the same type of material as the Thoresons have. Mr. Johnson suggested plywood over a large surface area is "hard to pull off;" he suggested painting the existing tin surface and emphasizing the wood in the door and window treatment. Mr. Remington said he thought the existing metal would be OK above the pedestrian level; members preferred a wood treatment from the transom elevation down. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Travis about her time schedule. She said she would like to be in the building by June. In order not to cause Ms. Travis additional delay in occupancy, it was agreed that she could develop a new plan, incorporating the commission members' suggestions, to be submitted to Ms. Terwedo for review by Mr. Tomten. Colors and signage are to be included in the new plan. Mr. Johnson moved to give concept approval, with new plans to be submitted to Ms. Terwedo for review by Mr. Tomten. Mr. Remington seconded the motion; all in favor. Case No. DR/95-2�. Design review for a manufacturing business in the business park. The property is located on lot 6, block 2, Stillwater Industrial Park, south of Tower Drive, east of Central Bank. Jim Faulkner, applicant. Jim Faulkner, arch itect/contractor, and Kelly Semler, business co-owner, appeared regarding the request. Mr. Faulkner briefly reviewed the building plans/materials. He said a landscaping plan and signage plan would be submitted once the building shell is up. Signage will most likely be the business emblem on the building, rather than a pedestal sign. The building material will be rock faced block with brick veneer, similar in color to the Cub/Target project. The south face of the building, the future expansion area, will be gray stucco. The south face won't be visible except from the employee parking area. Lighting/grading will be addressed in construction documents, Mr. Faulkner said. He said the the loading area/outdoor luncheon patio is still under discussion. Mr. Tomten asked about a trash enclosure and location of the mechanical equipment. All mechanical equipment will be roof top units located at the center of the building and won't be visible from the ground. There was some question as to whether all trash will be stored inside or whether an outdoor trash enclosure will be needed. Mr. Faulkner said if an outdoor area is needed, it will be screened and meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Johnson suggested addressing the trash enclosure with the lunch patio plans. Mr. Johnson moved to approve building materials and layout. Signage, lighting and landscape plans are to be submitted for review at a later date; the trash enclosure, if any, and patio are to be addressed as part of the landscape plan. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; all in favor. Other business Mr. Tomten agreed to attend the Heritage Preservation Commissions workshop on April 29 and to give a short presentation about preservation activities in Stillwater. Mr. Lieberman tentatively agreed to attend. Mr. Kimbrel will be contacted to see if he would also like to attend. There was a brief discussion regarding Mr. Zimmerman's appeal to the City Council regarding the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission's denial of the requested sign variances. Mayor Jay Kimble visited the Commission at about 8:45 p.m. to let the Commission know it was likely the City Council would overturn the decision of the two commissions and grant Mr. Zimmerman his requested variances. Mr. Kimble said the business community has adopted the variances "as a cause" and asked commission members not to consider the Council's action as an affront or "slap in the face." Mr. Johnson suggested that it might be well for the City Council and Heritage Preservation Commission to hold a workshop session sometime in the future to help the Council understand the commission's tasks and members' backgrounds, etc. Forms for Preservation Awards to be presented during Preservation Week were handed out. Members were asked to develop a list of possible awardees for discussion at the May meeting. It was suggested that a residential category might be appropriate for recognition. Ms. Terwedo handed out the goals and policies in the preservation section of the Comprehensive Plan. Members were asked to review the material and call her with any comments. Ms. Terwedo was presented with a plant in appreciation of her work with the Heritage Preservation Commission and given best wishes in her new position with the city of Lake Elmo. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.; all in favor. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary