JULY 19, 2011
LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
The Landmark and Historic District Commission (LHDC) of the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall on Monday July 19, 2011 in the second floor cafeteria room at 6:30 p.m., with Howard Nimmons presiding.
INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME
ROLL CALL
On roll call the following members were present: Howard Nimmons, Terri O’Neal, Edward Keil, Gary Meyer, Also in attendance were Dianne Lehmann, Recording Clerk, Bill White, Deputy Building Commissioner, and Phil Lum, Building Commissioner of Florissant. A quorum being present, the Chair declared the Landmark and Historic District Commission (LHDC) was in session for the transaction of business. Gretchen Crank arrived at 6:40 and was present for the meeting.
APPROVAL OF 6/27//2011 MINUTES
Terri O’Neal had corrections to the address at 1002 Boone, entered incorrectly as 1005 Boone. An additional correction typo error referring to Mr. Lum as My Lum; and on page 5 a correction on the name receiving a summons from The City of Florissant. The summons was issued to Bill Bray not Joe Schulte.
Mr. Nimmons asked if there were any additions, or other changes or corrections to the minutes. Being none, Terri O’Neal made a motion to accept the minutes as adjusted. Seconded by Edward Kiel, all members concurred. Minutes approved as adjusted
Mr. Nimmons has asked that we move to new business to accommodate those residents that have requests before the commission. He has also asked that we move to Item 2 waiting for Gretchen Crank to arrive so she can be a part of the discussion on Item 1.
NEW BUSINESS
Item 2 A request of approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a chain link fence located at 320, 326, & 328 St. Francois. Mr. Dennis submitted an application for a 5 foot chain link fence to be consistent with the other fencing next door. Mr. Dennis did say that he was informed by Mr. Lum that a chain link fence was not permissible in the historic district if it bordered a residential property. Mr. Dennis had a few alternate suggestions such as he be able to place privacy slats in a 6’ chain link fence or a second suggestion would be to construct a wood fence. This would be a 6’ wood fence with steel posts, explaining that the steel posts are not visible. Mr. Dennis showed examples of a shadow box wooden fence with steel posts. Mr. Dennis also explained that the reason the owner requested a fence is that neighboring property owners are planting bushes and other greenery on this property. Mr. Miller asked if neighboring fences were all chain link and Mr. Dennis responded yes. Mr. Miller asked why we would not approve the fencing similar to those of neighboring properties. Mr. White informed the members of the commission that a chain link fence is not permissible in the historic district. It was explained that the existing fences were older and had probably been there prior to any fencing regulations. Ms. Crank mentioned that Combs school had installed those privacy slats in that fence without approval from the city and had to remove them. Bill White explained that the city had never allowed a chain link in the historic district. Mr. Dennis explained that he only came to the commission with the chain link fence because it was the least expensive for his customer. He has explained to his customer that a wooden fence would probably be required. Mr. Dennis also explained in depth, the steel fence posts, stating that they didn’t show. He explained that wood fence post rot with the amount of water problems we have in the area. Mr. Dennis explained that it would be a 6’ foot wood fence all the way around. Gary Meyer made a motion that we approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for a 6’ shadow box fence to be installed at the property located at 320, 326, & 328 St. Francois. It was seconded by Gretchen Crank. Motion passed with no objections.
Item 1 A request of approval for a Certificate Of Appropriateness to replace the front door on the property located at 100 St. Catherine, “The Train Depot”. Mr. Mullersman has already replaced the main entrance door with a 9 light door. This was done prior to getting approval from LHDC, as the current tenant was not aware that approval had to be obtained. The reason he replaced the door rather than repairing the existing door was the original door on the building was unable to be repaired. The glass was held on with box tape, the bottom of door was completely rotted and the locks were not secured in the door. Mr. Mullersman asked the commission to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace and paint the front door, and to discuss the door at the rear entrance of the building, as it is in much disrepair as well. Mr. Mullersman said they had a door color in mind that after examining the old door he felt the door had been painted this color at one time. He brought an example of the color, bringing in an old piece of the door. He explained that this color was similar to that of his logo. He gave details of the current door stating that it is a 9 light door. He showed pictures of the Train Depot with a 9 light door and stated that he did not feel the door he removed was original to the building. Ms Crank asked him where the door that he removed was now and he stated that the door is in the building. He also stated that he restored the original lock and will be using it on the new door. A discussion was had as to when the building could have been the light blue Mr. Mullersman is requesting to use. Terri O’Neal stated it could have been when the property was a confectionary. Mr. Mullersman said the storage room was the light blue as well.
Gretchen Crank stated that she thinks the original door should be returned to the city and be restored by the city as the building belongs to the city. Mr. Mullersman stated the door would not be able to be restored. Ms. Crank stated that the building was in far worse condition when it was moved several years ago and she disagreed with Mr. Mullersman saying that anything can be restored. Ms. Crank said that the city should restore the door as the building is owned by the city. Bill White stated that the commission would have to make a formal request to council to appropriate funds to restore the door as no funds are currently allocated for such a restoration. Mr. Meyer asked Gretchen if she wanted the city to restore the old door and put it back on the building. Mr. Meyer then questioned if the door was original to the building or was it a replacement door. Mr. Lum stated that he did not believe the door to be the original door. Mr. Lum showed pictures of the building and also quoted a city ordinance providing evidence that the door is not original to the building. Gretchen asked Mr. White if he was saying the city would not take responsibility of restoring this building. Bill White said he did not say that and what he did say was a formal request would need to be made to council for the funds. Gary Meyer questioned why we would make such a request if the door is not original to the building. Discussion was had if the picture showed a storm door when the building was the Chamber of Commerce. After reviewing the picture it looked as if the picture was taken when the building served as the Chamber of Commerce. Phil Lum stated that according to the re-designating ordinance (6647) none of the doors are original to the building. 3 doors are not original. Gretchen asked what the original doors looked like. Mr. Miller stated that we have 2 different issues at hand, first issue is to allow the replacement of the door, the second being the restoration of the door that was removed from the building. Our priority should be to help Mr. Mullersman get his business up and running. Gretchen stated that if the door that was removed was not original to the building she saw no need in restoring it. Mr. Mullersman said he did try to find a door similar to the door he removed but was unable to find one. Mr. Mullersman stated that the door he installed matched the windows on the building. Mr. Keil asked about the rear door asking if it was not a solid door. Mr. Mullersman said it was solid but it was an interior door and was not weather resistant or secure. No picture was located of the back door. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the replacement of the door with the door Mr. Mullersman has installed.
Discussion was had about the paint on the door and it should be selected from our Victorian color chart. Mr. Lum stated that the building is registered as a National Historic Building and according to his research on similar buildings they were green with gold trim. Terri O’Neal said she thought it was originally Ocher according to Rosemary Davidson. The only choices were Ocher or Florissant Red when the building was moved. Rosemary Davidson decided to go with the Florissant red and brown trim as the Ocher was ugly. Phil asked what color was Ocher and Gretchen said it was kind of a gold color. It was a current color on the historic color choices as an accent color. Mr. Miller asked if the building remained Florissant Red, was it a problem to paint the door a different color to match the logo of the business. Gretchen said it would not match the rest of the trim on the windows. Phil Lum said according to the color chart there was a color similar to what Mr. Mullersman was requesting. All properties are expected to comply with the color chart, both residential and commercial. Gretchen explained the reason blue was not one of the color choices was because it was not available during the period. Phil Lum stated that the trim could have been bright gold with a green building at one time. Mr. Lum also stated that using the current color chart you must use the accent colors that go with the Florissant Red which he believes is a cream. Mr. M said he doesn’t want to waste the time of the commission about the color of a door. He has $70,000 worth of equipment in his garage and needs to get his business open.
Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the replacement of the door with the door Mr. Mullersman has installed painting it with suitable Florissant colors. Mr. Nimmons asked how Mr. Mullersman wanted to handle the back door and Mr. Mullersman said he didn’t care. He would replace that door with a 9 light door or a solid door. Gretchen asked if we could not approve the second door tonight as well. Mr. Nimmons suggested that we approved a 9 light door similar to that of the front door painting both doors Florissant Red so Mr. Mullersman can get on with opening his business.
Mr. Lum asked if the commission would not like to do research on the original door color even though they are approving the replacement door. Gretchen stated that he could certainly choose any color offered from the color chart without coming back to the commission. Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the replacement of both of the doors with the style Mr. Mullersman has submitted, the 9 light door, painting it with suitable Florissant colors. Mr. Keil seconded the motion. It was voted on and approved.
Mr. Mullersman asked if the commission had any additional questions. Mr. Keil asked if they would be installing a sign. Mr. Mullersman said they would be installing 2 signs. Mr Mullersman said he thought the building was the only concern of the commission not the grounds. Mr. Nimmons stated that he would have to submit any request for signs to the commission. Mr. Mullersman said he had spoken to Mr. Russell about improvements to the grounds installing a Pergola outside with a garden. He was told by Mr. Russell that shouldn’t be a problem, but he is not concerned with exterior items at this time. Gretchen informed him that any exterior items must come before the commission. Bill White stated that he is entitled to a sandwich sign because he is in old town.
Gretchen offered Mr. Mullersman copies of the pictures that Historic Florissant has of the building. Mr. Mullersman said they were able to get a historic piece of equipment out without any damage to the building or equipment. Gretchen asked about a scale that was left from Historic Florissant. Terri O’Neal asked about a scale as well. Mr. Mullersman said he thought one scale was not working but he would like to restore it to working order. Mr. Lum is to get back to Mr. Mullersman regarding the color of the door and the disposal of the old door.
OLD BUSINESS
Item 1 Review report on Grant for Archaeology from DNR.
Phil Lum stated that he has contacted Joe Harl and he has completed the contract with the city. He will be organizing the archeological presentation at the Eagan Center. As long as we have this item on the agenda we can count hours spent towards our portion of the grant. It was determined by Ms Radetick that all volunteers will be assessed at $20.00 per hour and staff to be assessed at their current salary. The City of Florissant must contribute $4.800.00 towards the project. This $4,800.00 will be in the form of labor and materials being supplied by The City of Florissant. It was discussed that we are still looking at a September date and our next meeting will not be until August 29, 2011. Mr. Lum confirmed that Mr. Harl will be handling the event and artifact displays. Gretchen asked it we would be selling tickets for this event, and Mr. Lum responded that this would not be a fund raising event. A lecture will be held at the Eagan Center Auditorium on the artifacts. Grechen Crank asked who would be responsible for the advertising. Mr. Lum responded that there were miscellaneous funds of approximately $1,000.00 for supplies & advertising. Mr. Lum said that he would be contacting Mr. Harl about advertising in the Florissant Focus and cable channel. $1000.00 of the grant money can be used for this purpose. Mr. Kiel asked about the series of lectures at the schools that was discussed. Mr. Lum’s plan is to only film the one lecture at the Eagan Civic Center. Grechen Crank asked about the date the display would be set up, but Mr. Lum did not have specific dates yet from Mr. Harl. Gretchen Crank reminded the commission that she had volunteers that will help set up the displays and asked if those hours should be logged and counted towards our grant hours needed. Mr. Lum responded yes. Mr. Nimmons asked that we continue this item until the August 29th meeting.
Item 2 Review & discuss options to encourage re-designation of Landmark Properties.
A total of 3 properties have expressed interest in re-designating. Mr. Nimmons has drafted a letter to mail to these residents asking them to complete the application, with staff completing as much of the application as we can, just asking the resident to fill in the blanks. Dianne made a correction that at the last meeting she stated that the Florissant Senior dining center had not been re-designated but in fact it had been. She stated that some letters may have been mailed in error to property owners that have re-designated and that she was in the process of double checking all lists before any additional mailing are made. A list will be provided to the commission of all properties that have not been re-designated. We will compare this list with the list that we submitted to the state historic preservation office. Mr. Nimmons suggested that we send a letter to all current and past landmark property owners inviting them to the Archeological presentation. Dianne Lehmann will be providing a letter as soon as a date has been decided.
Item 3 Sign Certificate of Appropriateness for Bockrath-Wiese House
The Certificate of Appropriateness for Bockrath-Wiese House was signed by Mr. Nimmons.
Item 4 Sign Certificate of Appropriateness for 1002 Boone St.
The Certificate of Appropriateness for 1005 Boone St. was signed by Mr. Nimmons.
ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENTS
A motion to adjourn the meeting by Gary Meyer was seconded by Terri O’Neal, voted on and approved. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45
Respectfully submitted:
Dianne Lehmann, Recording Clerk
