Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-18 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Holmes, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Heimdahl Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 21, 2021 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Resolution HPC 2021-04, Resolution Approving a Heritage Preservation Use Variance for a Six- Office Real Estate Sales Business to be Located at 626 4th Street North, HPC Case No. 2021-24 Resolution HPC 2021-05, Resolution Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 15.99, Subd. 2, for a Design Permit Application for the Property at 107 3rd Street North and 110 Myrtle Street East, HPC Case No. 2021-25 Case No. 2021-31: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage. Property located at 401 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review district. Spencer Johnson, applicant and DCK Enterprises WI LLC, property owner. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2021-30: Consideration of a Building Demolition Permit for after-the-fact building modifications. Property located at 304 Hazel St E in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Jason Ous, property owner. City Planner Wittman provided background. In April 2021, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) held a public hearing and reviewed a Building Demolition Permit request from the property owner, triggered by the removal of the greenhouse and front wraparound porch. The HPC recommended that the City Council deny the permit on the basis the project did not conform to the adopted standards and guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. On May 18, 2021 the Council upheld the denial and remanded the application back to the HPC and Planning Commission (PC). The Council directed the property owner to make alterations that sufficiently conform to City standards and guidelines, including adding a front porch, changing the roof shape, and altering the façade materials more consistently. On July 19, 2021 the City received revised applications and plans. According to a survey, the house is two feet from the property line and the Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 18, 2021 Page 2 of 6 greenhouse and porch that were removed had been over the property line. The applicant is seeking approval of a Building Demolition Permit for after-the-fact removal of the front porch and portions of the front-facing roof, renovation and second story addition. He proposes a new front porch roofed with steel, and aluminum railing; altering the flat roof with a what is described as a hip design with a clipped gable; replacing the front vertical siding with horizontal material; carrying the horizontal siding all the way down on the east side. Ms. Wittman acknowledged that if the new design came before staff today, approval probably would not be recommended. Overall, with certain conditions, the proposed design generally conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a Building Demolition Permit. Staff recommends approval with six conditions. She noted the applicant was not present for the meeting. Councilmember Junker said in the April HPC meeting, the HPC thought there may be some inspection violations. He asked if there have been any inspections yet. Ms. Wittman replied that Building Official Schilts and the residential inspector have reviewed the building with a tentative punch list, but a building permit has not yet been applied for. Per standard practice, a permit application will not be accepted until the project has gone through the zoning reviews. There may be more considerations when a permit application is received. At this time there are no items that imply potential life/health safety issues. Commissioner Thueson asked for clarification on issue of the hip versus more of a traditional roof. Ms. Wittman replied that the owner is concerned about the weight that would be on the east wall, and whether the original house’s balloon framing would be able to support the roof structure that is needed for a gable, versus the proposed design. Commissioner Larson asked if the interior is finished. Ms. Wittman answered it is assumed that the interior of the original house is finished. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Mino closed the public hearing. Commissioner Larson said he has questions for the applicant. Addressing the owner’s concern about the weight of additional roof material on the east wall, the proposed roof style has a similar amount of roof sitting on the existing house as a true hip style would have, which would be preferred by the HPC. He also has issues with applicants who come in after the fact. He asked why would more latitude be given to someone who doesn’t follow the submission requirements, than to those who do. Commissioner Finwall asked if the owner did most of the work. Ms. Wittman confirmed the owner did most of the work but he is a licensed contractor and a salvager. She said the interior of the home appears to be well constructed. Commissioner Finwall asked if the second story addition is structurally stable. Ms. Wittman answered there is a structural engineering report for the second story. It has not been vetted through the Building Inspections Division yet. Commissioner Finwall asked if an encroachment license carries a fee. Ms. Wittman answered no, however the City Attorney would like a condition added that the applicant be required to pay all legal fees incurred by the City. Commissioner Finwall commented that removal of the greenhouse and front porch is definitely an improvement. The addition of a porch, if an encroachment license is approved, would be beneficial. The HPC could add some conditions to help guide the owner and Council to make the project happen. If the applicant is sent away without any approvals, it will just drag on. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 18, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Holmes said he would prefer a gable roof because the weight carried to the east wall is relatively the same in all three roof scenarios. He suggested a condition requiring a cross gable, and that it be as steep as possible, 6/12 if possible. Chair Mino suggested changing Condition #3 to state the roof shall be gabled with pitch and level of eave detail matching the existing roof to the extent possible, adjusting at the corner as needed. Commissioner Walls remarked these issues should have been handled ahead of time by the applicant. The design permit review should have come first, before demolition. Ms. Wittman noted that the City has updated its administrative citation regulations. It now has a new process including $100/day citation for building violations in the future. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2021-30, Building Demolition Permit for after-the-fact building modifications at 304 Hazel St E, with the six staff- recommended conditions, modifying Condition #3 to read: The roof shall be gable pitched and either clad in metal to match the existing roof, or the entire roof including the original two-story addition and new porch shall be shingled in asphalt. The roof pitch, soffit, facia and detail shall match the existing. Adjustments may be made at the northwest corner as needed; and adding Condition #7 to read: The applicant shall pay applicable attorney’s fees before the issuance of a building permit. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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. – Tabled from the July meeting. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan and multi-tenant sign. This request was tabled from the July 2021 HPC meeting, when the HPC asked the applicant to consider applying for a Planning Commission variance to erect a free- standing sign in the garden area in front of the building. The applicant is now proposing a free- standing, multi-tenant master sign that includes a 40” wide by 84” tall, black aluminum sign frame with black painted wood posts. The sign will contain the property address and 11 tenant panels. If the Commission finds the plan conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a Design Permit, staff recommends approval with 11 conditions. Commissioner Finwall voiced concern that the proposed sign is very close to the building (1 foot), almost implying a wall sign. Councilmember Junker remarked there is limited visibility coming out of the driveway which may account for the proposed location. Chair Mino said she is comfortable with the staff recommendation. Ms. Wittman noted the panel will be black and the coloring of the business names will be up to the tenants. She asked if the Commission would like to impose a uniform color scheme. Commissioner Finwall suggested adding a condition requiring it to come back for HPC design review before final install, as the placement and full design are not indicated in the submitted packet. Councilmember Junker noted there are not many multi-tenant signs downtown. For instance, the Grand Garage sign tenants are all listed in the same color for uniformity. Commissioner Larson said he would prefer a dark background to white. Chair Mino said a consistent typeface would make it easier to read. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 18, 2021 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Holmes said he would not like to hold up the process for another design review by the HPC. Commissioner Finwall said shifting the sign to the west so it is not in front of the building would make more sense. Ms. Wittman noted if the Planning Commission doesn’t approve the height variance, the height will have to be reduced to 6’ and there would be sufficient land area to the west to accommodate the sign. Commissioner Thueson said the height of the sign relative to the window should be considered. The shorter, two column option is more in harmony with the standards and guidelines and the historic building. Commissioner Finwall clarified that she wasn’t supporting tabling, she was supporting voting now but adding the condition it come back for design review and adding a condition regarding placement, possibly shifting it to the west. Chair Mino said she is comfortable with staff reviewing and determining final placement after the Planning Commission vote. Commissioner Holmes said he is not as concerned that it is in front of the building, but that it is so close to building. He would like to see the sign pulled to the center as much as possible without blocking traffic so it doesn’t conflict with the architecture. Ms. Wittman pointed out because Myrtle Street is a major road, snow plows may damage the sign. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve Case No. 2021-27, Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan at 226 Myrtle St E, with the 11 staff-recommended conditions, adding Condition #12, the sign shall be shifted further away from the building or toward the west; Condition #13 stating the height of the sign shall be limited to 6’; Condition #14 that a uniform background color with consistent font and coloring shall be required; and Condition #15 that the applicant may install ground or sign mounted lighting as long as it is directed toward the sign. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Case No. 2021-23: Consideration of the consolidated Heritage Preservation Design Guidelines updates. City of Stillwater, applicant. – Tabled from the July meeting. Ms. Wittman provided the Final Design Guidelines Manual from HKGi and Landscape Research. The next steps are: 1) Finalize the State Historic Preservation Office’s Certified Local Government Grant by submitting the Manual; 2) Finalize ancillary sign code amendments; 3) Initiate a Zoning Text Amendment for applicable sign code amendments; and 4) Seek Council approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for applicable sign code amendments and adoption of the Guidelines Manual. Chair Mino encouraged the Commission to consider enacting some protections for post-1946 structures in the future. Convention & Visitor Bureau Lowell Park Statue Request Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that last night the CVB addressed the City Council about installing an eight-foot statue in Lowell Park. It would be a silhouette of the State of Minnesota in front of the lift bridge so visitors could take selfies in front of the bridge and promote Stillwater on social Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 18, 2021 Page 5 of 6 media. The City Council was very favorable. It doesn’t require a design permit as there are no guidelines for statues. She asked for Commissioners’ thoughts. Consensus of the Commission was: black is the best color, keep it away from the bridge and not in the middle of Lowell Park so it does not detract from any visible vista of the bridge, keep it in a slightly less formal area of the park as proposed, consider historic fonts, no illumination (none is proposed at this time); add a star for the location of Stillwater. Ms. Wittman will continue working with engineering, public works and the CVB to ensure it is not a distraction nor get in the way of any future restoration or construction. Commissioner Finwall suggested doing a comprehensive review of directional signage downtown. Ms. Wittman answered directional signage is the purview of the Downtown Parking Commission, but the HPC may partner on a directional sign plan for downtown which may be eligible for CLG funding from the National Park Service. Commission Meetings Ms. Wittman shared that the Commission meetings will need to be at the dais due to audio/IT issues at the back table. She has heard in the past for the record that the dais is imposing and the HPC feels that the table provides a more collaborative feel with applicants. Dias seating may be different in the future. No Commissioner comments were offered. FYI Landucci Homes Design Permit Appeal Ms. Wittman shared that last night the City Council denied the appeal. 2019-2020 Preservation Awards Ms. Wittman reviewed possible projects. Awards will be made October 19 at the City Council meeting. She asked Commissioners to email her suggestions/recommendations for discussion next month. Main Street North Boulder Stabilization Ms. Wittman shared that the boulder wall which had been starting to slide has been stabilized. SHPO PreserveMN Conference September 14-17 Ms. Wittman shared that Commissioners should have received a sign-up notice. Chestnut Street barriers Commissioner Larson asked if there is a long term plan for the concrete barriers on Chestnut Street. Ms. Wittman answered the Chestnut Plaza plan is being finalized, with anticipated construction in the fall of 2022. The Community Development Department will be having a discussion about outdoor dining in Stillwater and what it will look like post-COVID. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Amy Mino, Chair ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 18, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Resolution HPC 2021-04, Resolution Approving a Heritage Preservation Use Variance for a Six- Office Real Estate Sales Business to be Located at 626 4th Street North, HPC Case No. 2021-24 Resolution HPC 2021-05, Resolution Adopting Written Statement of Reasons for Denial Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 15.99, Subd. 2, for a Design Permit Application for the Property at 107 3rd Street North and 110 Myrtle Street East, HPC Case No. 2021-25