Monroe Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Summary: September 9, 2026
Monroe Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Summary: September 9, 2026
The Monroe Historic Preservation Commission met on September 9, 2026, in Council Chambers at 1110 18th Avenue. The agenda listed a 1:00 PM start and a recorded timestamp of 2026-09-09 19:15:00+00:00; expected discussion lengths ranged from 5 to 10 minutes per business item. The Commission handled a withdrawn COA, discussed holiday-lighting policy, reviewed canopy-versus-awning definitions, and approved three Certificates of Appropriateness.
Call to Order and Minutes
- The meeting was called to order and roll call was completed.
- No corrections or concerns were raised about the previous meeting minutes.
Discussion Items
- C.1 – Scott Thompson, 1002 17th Ave: Thompson withdrew his application for permanent holiday lighting before the meeting. A commissioner reported that the contractor indicated the applicant did not want to continue after receiving a memo from Administrator Rundy. The Commission discussed whether multi-colored or permanent lighting should be allowed in the historic district; members noted that many historic districts permit only white or warm-toned light, with temporary holiday lighting as a possible exception. One member cautioned about enforcement of dimmable, programmable LED lights. Existing code limits extra lighting to half a foot candle measured at the property edge. Staff agreed to work over the winter on clearer lighting guidelines.
- C.2 – Jason Rufer, 608 The Factory, 1607 10th Street: Rufer’s earlier proposal had been denied because it used rusted corrugated steel. The revised application proposed composite cedar shakes, which the Commission noted do not fade or stain and can last 30 to 50 years. A motion to approve was seconded and passed by voice vote with no stated opposition.
- C.3 – Canopy vs. Awning discussion: Staff explained that the zoning code defines an awning as a shielding or decorative fixture that is fixed or retractable, while a canopy is a permanent rigid structure attached to the building. Lettering rules differ: awnings are limited to 12-inch-high letters under the zoning code, while the historic guidelines reference 20-inch letters; canopies allow more sign area as long as copy is centered on the canopy face. Members said the two definitions were confusing, created a loophole, and should be combined or made consistent for downtown. Staff was asked to compare the historic guidelines with the zoning code and bring options to the Plan Commission.
- C.4 – Amy Campbeli/Evolve Collective, 1602 11th Street: The applicant returned with a canopy rather than an awning, which allowed the proposed signage to comply with the canopy standard. The Commission found the design tasteful and not oversized. A motion to approve under the canopy standard was seconded and passed by voice vote with no stated opposition.
- C.5 – Urban Spa & Boutique, 1609 10th Street: A previously approved wall sign had not gone through the sign-permit process, was manufactured, and the owner was billed $1,200. Staff explained that the building could not have both a wall sign and an existing canopy sign. To resolve it, the sign would be mounted on top of the existing canopy using the same aluminum frame, with two inches trimmed from the top and bottom. A motion to approve was seconded and passed by voice vote with no stated opposition.
- Business by Members: A member suggested an informal field trip to survey signs around the square. The Commission also agreed to move the COA submission deadline to at least 14 days before HPC meetings to allow sign-permit review to be completed first.
Key Outcomes
- Scott Thompson’s COA application was withdrawn; no vote was taken.
- Approved COA for 608 The Factory with composite cedar shakes.
- Approved COA for Evolve Collective using the canopy standard.
- Approved COA for Urban Spa & Boutique with the sign relocated to the canopy.
- Staff will prepare permanent-lighting guidance and return with recommendations.
- Staff will review and propose updates to sign definitions and letter-height rules, with any formal changes to go through the Plan Commission.
- Staff will coordinate sign-permit review with COA review and move the COA submission deadline to at least 14 days before the HPC meeting.
Meeting Transcript
I'll call the meeting order. Typically our meetings are shorter than three minutes, so maybe we can beat him before he gets here. Do you have a roll call? Yeah, my guy covered. Okay, perfect. Uh, did everybody get a chance to look at the meeting minutes from last meeting? Are there any corrections or concerns? Hearing none, we'll move on to our items of business. Our first item was uh Scott Thompson's uh light application. He actually withdrew his thing, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. Uh did he say why, or is he gonna bring it back up? Well, um, I only spoke with uh the contractor he was working with, Nick with six-point services, and he said that from my gathering they just thought it would be very difficult, and they didn't didn't want to spend the time and energy trying to work through anything essentially. So he didn't give me a whole lot of details, he just made it seem like when he received the memo that administrator Rundy sent emailed him earlier last week towards the end of the week. Kind of read through, and I guess he didn't want to continue on after reading that. So it does kind of bring up a uh discussion topic, and unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the last meeting, but I did read through the notes from last meeting that there was some discussion, and we kind of tabled it to come up with a better idea or plan of how we want to address multicolored lights. Um, if I read the notes correctly. Um I don't know if you guys want to take the time now to talk about that, or if you guys had ideas between you know, last time we met to now, what your thoughts are on that. I I think we were also hoping to get more of a game plan from them, um, because kind of how it was presented was just like carte blanche and so um better defined from the applicant, but it did seem like uh potentially a can of worms. Um I did read it somewhere, um maybe it was in the recommendations from last meeting. Um that a lot of historic districts don't allow colored lights at all, they just allow tones of white lights. Um to me that makes sense. Uh there is like the caveat of around holiday times, people want to put up multicolored Christmas lights, things like that, which I think in the historic district probably could be permitted as long as it's a temporary type thing. I don't know if you put a two-month rule on that, or maybe it follows the same rules that our temporary signage does. I don't I forget what the date for that is or the timeline for that is. Okay, yeah. Um, and that makes sense. If somebody wants to put up colored Christmas lights around their audience, whatever, great. Um, but as long as it's not permanent. Um I I guess the argument could be too where let's just pick on Scott's application. If he said, well, those lights are up, but I'm only gonna turn them on for 90 days. Is it you know, how does that fall in in the realm of things, and then also how bright are they? You know, uh a string of Christmas lights are not as bright as permanently installed, you know, puck LED style type lights. Um I don't know. I don't know if we'll come up with an answer today. Uh, but it's it's probably something we should get cleared up at some point because I have a feeling there's gonna be more applications. Highly customizable. You can dim, you can change colors, you can you know, obviously make them flash, do whatever you want. They're totally programmable. So just as a consideration, if somebody did want to do the white lights, it isn't that they need to be that intense, you know, 5,000 KW look or whatever, they they can be dimmed down. So I think the only thing with that is it becomes a policing issue, sure, not by the police, probably you uh more than likely. And so that'd be my only hesitation. I agree. I will say in a lot of communities we are seeing a lot of permanent lights go in in certain areas, but often it's like the outline of the square you know, like we've talked about above the square. Right. And if there are any building highlight lighting components, they're either white or they are on the courthouse or a prominent government building. Um that is an icon rather than um what I would refer to as fabric buildings around the the square that are all kind of supposed to be not one, but they're not supposed to stand out in the same way. So I don't know how to put all of that into regulation, but yeah, and I guess that was one of my questions too, is like how much light is allowable. Like um, it looked on Scott's application like every uh I don't know, every six feet he had lights on the buildings like at some point it just becomes obnoxious. Like at some point it just becomes obnoxious. Yeah, this isn't like the Vegas strip, it's a historic downtown district.
openpublica.com