Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-21 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING July 21, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. NOTE: THERE WAS NO AUDIO UNTIL 19:05 INTO THE MEETING, THEREFORE THE FIRST PART OF THESE MINUTES, THROUGH THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION ON CASE NO. 2021-25, IS SOLELY FROM ABBI’S NOTES. ADDITIONALLY MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS WERE INAUDIBLE (DUE TO THE DISTANCE TO THE MICS?). Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Councilmember Junker Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of June 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution HPC 2021-03: Adopting written statement of reasons for denial pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2, for a Design Permit Application for the property at 225 2nd Street North, HPC Case No. 2021-20. Case No. 2021-26: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage at 402 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review District. Melissa Pancos, applicant and Monty Brine, property owner. Case No. 2021-29: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage. Property located at 114 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review District. Mark McKee of McKee Sign Service, LLC applicant and Alon Ventura, property owner. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2021-25: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residential apartment complex at 107 3rd St N in the Downtown Design Review District. Nathan Landucci, applicant and Jon Whitcomb, property owner and Mark and Cathy Balay, property owners. Tabled from the June meeting. Ms. Wittman stated that Landucci Homes is proposing to construct a 39-unit apartment building at 107 3rd Street North which will span the property line with 110 Myrtle Street East. The new structure Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 21, 2021 Page 2 of 6 will extend behind the historic house located on that site. The total enclosed gross square footage of the building is 57,258 square feet. A Design Permit is required prior to the City Council’s consideration of the large building project Conditional Use Permit. On June 16, 2021 The HPC tabled the matter, advising the applicant to consider making the following changes: 1) removing the uppermost story; 2) stepping the east side of the building toward the 110 Myrtle Street East property; 3) removing the eastern 3rd and 4th stories behind 110 Myrtle Street East; 4) breaking up the metal with brick; 5) landscaping between the two buildings to create more privacy and separation; and 6) exploring window and balcony placement facing the historic house. The applicant has submitted a redesign of the building: 1) changing the material colors from light brick veneer and a dark gray, vertical metal panel to a reddish-brown brick veneer and light gray, vertical metal panel; 2) removing and relocating eastern-facing balconies adjacent to 110 Myrtle Street East’s living area to the southern façade, above the garage exit door; 3) increasing the brick veneer on the portions of the new building that are in line with the historic resource located at 110 Myrtle Street East and on the north elevation; and 4) increasing tree coverage between the two buildings. Staff recommends denial on the following bases: 1) the proposed alterations do not conform to special design guidelines; and 2) the height, scale, mass and proportion of the proposed alterations, including façade openings and roof style, are not compatible with the site and its surroundings. Councilmember Junker asked what is the height? City Planner Wittman replied the height of the proposed building is 48.5’ from Third St N. Commissioner Holmes asked if the distance between the two buildings has changed and if the applicant has done sight line studies. Nathan Landucci, applicant, answered the distance between the two buildings has not changed, but there is increased landscaping and fewer balconies. From the roads, the fourth floor will not be seen. Ms. Wittman provided the visual of the first design and Mr. Landucci explained. Chairwoman Mino noted that the Commission previously suggested the developer remove the uppermost floor. Mr. Landucci said he considered removing the uppermost floor but it would not work well structurally. The fourth floor is less than 50% of the second and third floor. He feels a fourth floor precedent has been set with other development projects. Chairwoman Mino responded that the HPC did not approve the last fourth floor request before the Commission. This is different because it surrounds an historic building. The building still dominates the house. Councilmember Junker added that the HPC previously suggested stepping back the east side of the building to better scale to the house. Mr. Landucci said he removed the balconies but is not proposing stepping back the building. Commissioner Larson voiced appreciation that the developer listened to previous comments. The new plan is an improvement, however the massing still stands out. The height restrictions are even more important for structures that sit at the top of a hill. The “L” shape at the back of the building would be better stepped down toward the Lowell Inn. Commissioner Finwall agreed the design has improved, but stepping back the building would be better. She feels the historic home would be better used as the party room rather than a rental unit. She questioned how many trees would fit. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 21, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Holmes said the design changes are good but the fourth floor creates a jarring effect to the churches and the Lowell Inn. He remains troubled by the house being so close. He is generally supportive but cannot support the height variance. Commissioner Thueson agreed with the insights expressed. The proposed design has a negative impact on the surrounding structures especially considering the “bowl” of downtown. Commissioner Walls agreed that the proposed height and massing are problematic. Ms. Wittman explained that the Commission may deny the Design Permit, giving the applicant the right to appeal it to the Council, or approve it possibly attaching conditions such as removal of the fourth floor. The Planning Commission is the body that makes recommendation to the City Council on the variance, the height and the Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Junker commented if the HPC approves the Design Permit with a condition removing the fourth floor, that still would not address any of the concerns about the massing of the building. Commissioner Larson remarked the comparison with the Chestnut Street project has limited value. Every site is different. He is not comfortable approving this project, with conditions that significantly change the design, without seeing the design again. Commissioner Thueson agreed that a condition of approval that changes the design would be difficult to approve without seeing it. Chair Mino agreed. It is hard to envision stepping down the back portion of the structure in context of its impact on the historic house. Also, the HPC has not discussed the impact on view from the river. Ms. Wittman explained that City Code is specific that a Design Permit must be requested and acted upon before the Council may consider a large building project. If the Design Permit is denied, Mr. Landucci could come back immediately and request a three-story project that is substantially different than this one. But if it is denied by the Council, he would not be able to resubmit an application for the project for a year. Staff recommend tabling or denial. Mr. Landucci explained the project cannot be chopped up any more and remain financially viable. It has already been reduced to 39 units. He has a different opinion of the massing. The mass and the height are elements that cannot be changed. Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to deny Case No. 2021-25, Design Permit for a new residential apartment complex at 107 3rd St N noting #1 and #2 in the staff report as the basis for denial. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2021-24: Consideration of a Historic Use Variance for the property located at 626 4th St N in the Neighborhood Conservation District. William Griffith, of Larkin Hoffman, applicant and Thomas and Sandra Lynum, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed the application. The company 626 4th, LLC would like to purchase the National Register-listed William Sauntry mansion, located at 626 4th Street North, and convert the single family residence and bed and breakfast into a commercial real estate office. Minnesota Statutes allow municipal Heritage Preservation Commissions to grant use variances to a zoning ordinance. William Griffith of Larkin Hoffman has submitted a request for the City’s consideration to change City Code to allow consideration of Heritage Preservation Use Variances (HPUVs) and, simultaneously, for a HPUV to allow 626 4th Street North to be converted into a commercial real estate office. On June 16, 2021 the HPC reviewed the draft ordinance and expressed support for the zoning text amendment, requesting the Planning Commission and the City Council require properties with approved HPUVs to obtain Design Permits for certain exterior alterations. On June 23, 2021 the Planning Commission Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 21, 2021 Page 4 of 6 held a public hearing on the draft ordinance and the potential issuance of an HPUV for 626 4th Street North. Three members of the public spoke, mostly requesting additional information about the specific reuse plan for the William Sauntry mansion. Concern was raised for the commercialization of residential neighborhoods, especially in light of the City’s consideration of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the modified ordinance with amendments recommended by the HPC, with two specific changes: 1) HPUVs shall only be permitted on those structures independently listed on the state or National Register of Historic Places; and 2) properties with approved HPUVs shall require Heritage Preservation Commission Design Permit review. Design Permits shall be required for any exterior alteration in excess of $10,000 or that would substantially alter the character of the structure. Alterations shall be reviewed for conformance to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and generally guided by the City’s adopted historic residential guidelines. The Planning Commission recommended that the HPC approve the requested HPUV to operate a six-room commercial real estate office at 626 4th Street North and that the HPC consider including future alterations to the garden area as part of future Design Permit review requirements. On July 20 the City Council adopted the ordinance. Tonight’s specific request is for consideration of an Heritage Preservation Use Variance (HPUV) for a six-room, commercial real estate office to be operated at 626 4th Street North. Staff asserts that, with certain conditions of approval, the proposed HPUV for a six-office real estate sales business is in conformance with the general principles and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and those of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Therefore, both the Planning Commission and staff recommend the HPC approve the request with ten conditions. Councilmember Junker asked if National Register designation may be lost due to lack of care. Ms. Wittman said if the designation is removed, the use variance is null. A property may be modified to the point where it loses its integrity but the HPC reviews structural alterations so that is unlikely. Commissioner Finwall asked about the neighbors’ comments at the public hearing. Ms. Wittman said one neighbor was concerned because the City is also considering a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District to legitimize the historically commercial pockets within the residential neighborhoods. The other concerns brought up in the meeting were more of “what’s really happening.” Planning Commissioner Steinwall recommended including the gardens in the alteration permit requirement. Commissioner Finwall asked if an HPUV would be transferrable. Ms. Wittman replied it could transfer to another owner under the same exact use, but the same conditions would apply. Any use change would have to come back before the HPC. Commissioner Holmes voiced support for the ordinance, stating that allowing for other uses helps preserve and maintain historic structures. Motion by Chairwoman Mino, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve Case No. 2021-24, Historic Preservation Use Variance for the property located at 626 4th St N, with the ten staff- recommended conditions, revising Condition #5 to state that solid waste must be kept inside until trash day. All in favor. Case No. 2021-27: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan. Property located at 226 Myrtle St E in the Downtown Design Review district. Dan Forest, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is proposing a multi-tenant master sign plan that includes a 40” wide by 84” tall aluminum sign frame with property address and 11 tenant panels. Staff finds the proposed sign plan conforms to the Downtown Design Manual and City Code and does not negatively Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 21, 2021 Page 5 of 6 alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. Therefore, staff recommends approval with ten conditions. Councilmember Junker noted there are only three multi-tenant signs downtown. He wondered if a sign could be placed in the garden area instead. Heathyre Sayers, applicant, said sign companies told her a freestanding sign would have to be set back from the road and there is not space. She said the proposed sign will be set 3” away from the building face. Councilmember Junker the proposed sign looks very big on the face of the building. Commissioner Larson suggested the sign might fit better if the sign frame and panels are dark to recede and not compete with window trim. It should be scaled down to be smaller than the window. Ms. Sayers explained the intent is to have dark panels. The white shown was just a placeholder. She can scale the sign down. Ms. Wittman stated freestanding signs must be set back 15’ but if the HPC wanted to encourage the applicant to have a freestanding sign, staff would probably support a use variance granted by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Finwall said this case points out the need for design standards for multi-tenant signs downtown. She feels the wall sign detracts from the building though she understands the need for signage. She would rather see a metal freestanding sign on the west side. Councilmember Heimdahl asked if the applicant would consider a freestanding sign instead. Ms. Sayers said she is not sure how to do that. She could not get sign companies to work on a freestanding sign due to the variances needed. Councilmember Junker suggested a mounted sign on the west side of the building. Ms. Sayers said mounting a sign on the side rather than the front takes away from the visibility. Ms. Wittman stated staff could work through the variance process with the Planning Commission if the applicants want to have a freestanding sign. Consensus of the Commission was that a freestanding sign would be preferable. Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to table Case No. 2021-27, Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for property located at 226 Myrtle St E. All in favor. Case No. 2021-28: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage. Property located at 125 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Image360, applicant and Ross Larson, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained that CBD House, 114 Main Street North, would like to install one, 13 square foot. painted plywood sign, with raised, green and black plastic lettering to read “CBD House” on the front of the building, hanging above the entrance; and would also like approval of two gray window decals to read “CBD House” in cut-out lettering. While no permit is required for window signage, it is subject to design review requirements. Staff recommends the HPC discuss the proposed sign plan and if consensus can be made regarding the alteration of the existing window signage, approve the request with ten conditions. Tommy Andreen, owner of CBD House, explained that the frost will be removed from the windows. The proposed signage helps with customer privacy. He is willing to remove the decals on the doors but asked if the one on the front is allowed. He would like to make the signage look nice. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 21, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Ms. Wittman explained it is considered a window sign because the word CBD House is in it. So the applicant could replace the frost without the words and be compliant with code. If the name is included it is limited to one occurrence and cannot be greater than 1/3 of the window area. Commissioner Finwall proposed another condition requiring existing holes from previous signs to be patched. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve Case No. 2021-28, Design Permit for new business signage at 125 Main St S, with the ten conditions recommended by staff, changing Condition #2 to state “only one window decal sign shall be permitted” and adding Condition #11 stating that “Any existing sign holes shall be patched and sealed to match the existing façade.” All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Boards & Commissions Picnic Ms. Wittman reminded the Commissioners of the annual picnic August 11. Guidelines Work Update Ms. Wittman said the contract with HKGi has not been finalized but the grant application will be submitted to the State soon. Conference Update Ms. Wittman shared that an agreement is ready to be signed to host a Commission Assistance Mentoring Program Session as part of the State Historic Preservation Conference. The City also is working with RETHOS to film a how-to series on restoring historic wood windows. Don Empson Volunteering & Tour Ms. Wittman said that local historian Don Empson has offered to do volunteer work. He also offered to host a tour of the South Hill and Chestnut Hill. Stillwater Public Library Wittman thanked Commissioner Thueson for reviewing photos for the metadata cross referencing project. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Amy Mino, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Resolution HPC 2021-03: Adopting written statement of reasons for denial pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2, for a Design Permit Application for the property at 225 2nd Street North, HPC Case No. 2021-20