Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-18 HPC MINtt 11wakr The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 18, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Summers, Thueson, Councilmember Junker Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to elect Commissioner Thueson as Chair and Commissioner Heimdahl as Vice Chair. All in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 20, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2022-25: Consideration of a Variance for a front porch. Property located at 107 Laurel St E in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review district. Eric Hansen of Fresh Start Builders, applicant and Ryan and Mary Collier, property owners. Chair Thueson requested that Case No. 2022-25, Variance for a front porch at 107 Laurel St E, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2022-22: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence on the property located at 1008 5th St S in the Neighborhood Conversation District. Spencer Middleton and Sofie Cohen. property owners. --Tabled from April Mr. Gladhill reminded the Commission that on April 13, 2022, the HPC approved a full demolition due to a variety of structural concerns with the original foundation, therefore a new Design Permit is required per City Code. The new design is for a single -story home with Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 attached, recessed garage. The home contains a north -south directed gable roof with two dormer additions. The design has a "modern craftsman" feel. Overall, the massing of the new design is minimally greater than the existing structure that has been altered. Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with six conditions. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2022-22, Design Permit for a new residence at 1008 5th St S, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2022-25: Consideration of a Variance for a front porch. Property located at 107 Laurel St E in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review district. Eric Hansen of Fresh Start Builders, applicant and Ryan and Mary Collier, property owners. Mr. Gladhill explained the case. The applicants are requesting a Variance to the Front Yard Setback in order to construct a front porch. He stated that historic photos of the Greek Revival style house indicate a front porch was present at one point. Staff recommends that the HPC concur that the requested Variance and associated front porch complies with the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Downtown Design Review District, approve the design permit and recommend the approval of the requested Variance by the Planning Commission. Ryan Collier, property owner, showed historic photos depicting a kitchen bump -out, rear porch and front porch. He explained his continuing, historically accurate renovation of the house. Commissioner Summers asked, regarding the dormer, what is driving the shift from the original style? Eric Hansen, Fresh Start Builders, stated the issue is that the transom over the door allows for only 16" of space between the sill of the second story windows and the trim on the transom. They would like to have a beaded ceiling with lights. The dormer is designed to accommodate a barrel vault on the inside to allow for the transom to stay as is and have an appropriate ceiling. Mr. Collier added that the dormer on the front mimics the small dormer on the side porch. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Case No. 2022-25, Variance for a front porch at 107 Laurel St E, noting it is relative to setbacks of adjacent homes. All in favor. Case No. 2022-31: Consideration of a Design permit for storefront modifications. Property located at 223 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review district and the Historic Central Business Height Overlay district. White Bear Ventures, property owners. Mr. Gladhill explained the application for a Design Permit to repair and reconstruct the storefront at 223 Main St S. Additionally, a later add -on to the request is to complete brick repair and tuck -pointing on various portions of the building. The existing plywood panel is in poor condition and would be removed and replaced with wood paneling, and the existing first floor brick wall (not original to building) and associated metal storefront glazing would be removed and replaced with wood paneling and metal storefront glazing. If transom windows exist behind the wood, staff would prefer the transom windows be maintained. Instead of angled brick wall, the front wall will still be recessed but will be more angled to be almost flush Page 2 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 with the sidewalk. Staff finds with certain conditions the proposed improvements conform to the standards set forth for design review and therefore recommends approval with eight conditions. Brenda Farrell, White Bear Ventures, applicant, stated the previous contractor failed to meet City requirements and cost them a large amount of money. She introduced Steve King, their new contractor. She stated, and Mr. King agreed, there are no transom windows behind the wood panels. Commissioner Holmes asked if transom windows could be added to enhance the design. Ms. Farrell replied they are committed to this building and to Stillwater. The front door needs to be replaced, sidewalk is heaving, they are going to have the fire hydrant removed and attached to the building, and will spend about $100,000 to replace some of the brick so there is probably no problem doing transom windows if that is what the HPC wants. They will keep the entrance ramped for handicapped accessibility. The tenant wants to be in by September 15 so there is not a lot of time to delay. Commissioner Heimdahl commended the work already done and urged the applicant to look at the storefront as the gateway to one of the most historic buildings downtown, basing design off its neighbors rather than what was previously done to this building. He added that being within the historic district opens the possibility of tax incentives for property owners. Commissioner Finwall asked if there is time to table the case for further discussion of transom window design and signage, and still accommodate the new tenant. Mr. Gladhill replied that would require extending the 60 day time limit. Mr. King asked if it would meet approval if they installed a small transom and left room for signage. Ms. Farrell added, for instance, if they committed to 75% transom, 25% signage for that whole band? Commissioner Holmes suggested approving the design permit with a condition that the final design include 75% transom and no more than 25% sign band/wood, and ask staff to work with the applicant on final design. Commissioner Larson suggested the design carry similar horizontal lines as neighboring buildings to get the proportion correct, and that the storefront windows be as large and undivided as possible. Commissioner Finwall asked if the Commission could approve the design permit in part, so the applicant can start removing the existing storefront and the HPC could review final plans next month. Ms. Farrell responded that, due to COVID supply issues, if they can't get the window order placed, there would be plywood there for the whole fall season. Commissioner Heimdahl agreed the HPC could approve the design permit in part, so the applicant can start work, but bring back an updated sign and storefront proposal to the next meeting. Commissioner Summers acknowledged the timeline constraints. He strongly recommended the HPC grant contingent approval, with further review by a few members of the Commission so the applicant may meet their timeframe as best they can. Page 3 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Commissioner Finwall recommended that Conditions #2 and 7 that pertain to signs be removed and a Condition be added stating that a future storefront sign would come back to the HPC for approval. Mr. Gladhill stated a single -tenant storefront sign may be administratively approved. It also can be on the Consent Agenda so the HPC would see it. Commissioner Summers stated he is reluctant to go outside the standard process unless there is a compelling reason. He is not sure he would support requiring the HPC to review a sign if that would not normally be the case. Commissioner Mino stated she hesitates also, but the sign would be reviewed and approved by staff and would be on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting so the HPC would still be looking at it. Commissioner Holmes stated that if staff are entrusted to enforce the sign ordinance, the HPC need not be designing signs by committee for single tenants. Commissioner Finwall noted the signage is part of the overall design and is a Condition of approval which is why she brought it up. She feels a bit pressured to pass this. Normally the HPC would review the entire plan. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2022- 31, Design permit for storefront modifications at 223 Main St S, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, contingent that City will work together with the owner to reach a reasonable outcome, and adding Condition #9 stating that the front facade be modified to incorporate transom windows with a sign band on top that will look substantially similar in scale and materials to the neighboring buildings on the north and south sides. All in favor. Case No. 2020-27: Consideration of an Amendment to previous Design Permit for rooftop improvements. Property located at 223 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Historical Central Business Height Overlay District. White Bear Ventures. property owners. Mr. Gladhill stated that White Bear Ventures, LLC (Richard and Brenda Farrell) has requested a revision to a previously approved Design Permit. In addition to HPC Case #2020-27, the applicants also requested a Variance to Building Height from the Planning Commission in 2021 (CPC Case #2021-34), which was ultimately denied. The Planning Commission found that adding a fourth story as a 'penthouse space' is counter to the Downtown Height Overlay District's intent to limit structures in this area to three stories. Staff recently discovered that several rooftop improvements were being constructed without proper building permits. Additionally, improvements appear to be inconsistent with the design permit approval. The City issued a stop work order. Staff met with the property owner at the end of 2021 as a new contractor was hired to complete the project and outlined the need for proper permits and approvals. Staff is attempting to work with the applicants to find reasonable solutions, but needs direction from the HPC. The applicant is requesting the following changes to the Design Permit: 1) Use fiber -cement panels in lieu of standing seam metal panels on the elevator tower; and 2) Convert the existing storage building into a rooftop bar (for private use), also utilizing the fiber cement panels. Staff is attempting to assist in moving this project forward, but only recently learned of the planned revisions. Staff has not had the ordinary timeframe to fully vet this new/revised request. Page 4 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Councilmember Junker asked what is the maximum height allowed for an elevator tower. Brenda Farrell, White Bear Ventures, applicant, stated the elevator shaft is 14'1" tall, which is the height needed to get the elevator car up that high. Mr. Gladhill added that an elevator shaft like this for certain mechanical equipment is exempted from height restrictions. The HPC previously approved a design permit for the elevator shaft; this review is about the external materials. Ms. Farrell stated she had no idea that the metal was a requirement. The previous contractor helped her measure and ordered the Hardy siding. She accepts responsibility for this error but feels it looks much better. The product has been there for a year. They also added a small dormer on top. The shed is primarily for storage of outdoor furniture, with some storage for glasses and for beverages. There was a third structure which was torn down - it was the original elevator shaft on the river side. Commissioner Larson stated he reviewed the meeting minutes and drawings from 2020. What is now on the roof is completely different than what was approved. As an owner, Ms. Farrell has an obligation to know what's going on. The HPC required that the elevator shaft be reduced to the absolute minimum for exiting the stair and the elevator legally. The HPC clearly stated the City does not allow storage to be on roofs when it exceeds height restrictions. What is allowed is access to the roof. Ms. Farrell responded that the original building permit was for it to be able to go all the way to the back of the stairwell. Commissioner Larson quoted meeting minutes from November 18, 2020 adding a condition of approval that the maximum height and area of the rooftop improvements shall not exceed the compliant minimums for ADA accessibility. It also required dark subdued standing seam metal. Part of the previous City Planner's rationale for recommending approval was that the project would be reducing the number of structures on the roof. Today there are two structures which are not what was agreed to, and he is not comfortable accepting that second structure. Commissioner Finwall asked if it was a condition in 2020 that one of the structures be removed. Commissioner Larson replied it was not a condition, it was how the project was presented by the applicant at the time. Ms. Farrell stated to be very clear, there was no construction done other than that small dormer. The structure has always been there, it is not something they built. Commissioner Larson responded, before it was to be removed and now it isn't. Why? Ms. Farrell replied she can't speak to what the contractor stated. Unfortunately the contractor made all sorts of promises and didn't fulfill them. Commissioner Larson pointed out there is a signed agreement with the City, signed by "Owner's Representative" that outlines all the items agreed on. Councilmember Junker remarked there probably is a video recording of that meeting. Ms. Farrell commented she and her husband have built and remodeled many houses. She had no idea about the contractor errors. The current building permit allows them to build all the Page 5 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 way to the end of the elevator shaft. She is asking that they be able to use the existing storage shed and not tear it down, thus spending more money on the roof. Mr. Gladhill remarked in the future, perhaps design permits should be signed not only by the applicant but also by the property owner. Commissioner Larson continued that he has more issues with the big picture, the multiple structures there, than with the materials. But the materials agreed to are the same materials the HPC has required of many others in the downtown area. He asked what would be the consequence for the owner if the structure with the gable were removed as agreed upon. Ms. Farrell replied it would cost at least $20-25,000. The product is already there and on order. Mr. Gladhill clarified that, in the City's scanned files on record, there is no active permit for any of the rooftop improvements. There is an application, and he has had significant conversations with the building official, but the City has not issued a building permit for any rooftop improvements. Chairman Thueson agreed with Commissioner Larson's desire to stay with the original plans. Commissioner Finwall pointed out the HPC is looking at more than a modification to materials. The case could be tabled and the applicant directed to bring back the full proposal, including everything they wish to do. Ms. Farrell noted the tip of the structure can barely be seen from the street. If they have to remove it, the HPC should understand they will not proceed with any of the additional money proposed to be spent on the facade or brick to make this building look beautiful for the City. It's extremely unfortunate that the HPC expects this 100 square foot building that can't be seen, to be torn down. Commissioner Finwall asked if the applicant could bring back a new application. Mr. Gladhill stated there's not an application per se to move forward on this amendment. He hears Commission consensus that the elevator shaft needs to be standing seam metal. Maybe the issue of what to do with that other small building could be brought back at a later time. That would at least give them direction so they can finish up the elevator shaft. Ms. Farrell reiterated that the two small dormers could be removed and then that structure would be identical to what it has always been. Commissioner Larson stated he thinks the applicant is under the impression it was approved as a larger structure but he understands, based on minutes, that it was to be reduced in size as much as possible. That needs clarification. Chairman Thueson stated due to the confusion, he would feel better if the HPC tables the case and gives staff more time to provide a recommendation. Commissioner Mino stated she is comfortable tabling it but the applicant needs to look back at discussion that took place when this originally came before the HPC. Ms. Farrell replied she is not arguing about what happened two years ago. She is asking consideration of a small building that has been there. Page 6 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Councilmember Junker remarked that the City takes rooftops extremely seriously from the standpoint of height. With the elevator shaft and the stair vestibule, the consolidation of eliminating the third structure was discussed thoroughly as minutes indicate. Mr. Gladhill recommended tabling the case which would still allow the applicant to proceed with the elevator shaft based on previous conditions. Ms. Farrell showed pictures of nearby rooftops with mechanical structures that refute the integrity that the City strives for in rooftops. She is trying to make this building as beautiful as possible. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2020-27, Amendment to previous Design Permit for rooftop improvements at 223 Main St S, with the understanding that the elevator shaft building will follow the original design permit with metal siding, and any modification to the second building, if it is to remain, will come back before the Commission. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Union Art Alley Sara Jespersen, owner of The Lumberjack, shared a proposal to create Union Art Alley, in partnership with Heather Rutledge, director of ArtReach St Croix, and local Union Alley businesses. They would like to create a vibrant ever -changing space for storytelling through the visual arts. They did a quick study on what would be the safest way to affix art to the historic buildings. The art could be printed on banners affixed to some buildings; chalk art could be used for the brick because it would eventually wash away, and they could direct paint on cinder block which would improve the appearance. The art could follow a theme and be approved by a subcommittee. The idea is to feature local artists while preserving the historic nature of downtown. Councilmember Junker suggested the cinder block section could be a permanent mural that depicts the historic nature of Stillwater. He loves the idea. Commissioner Heimdahl noted that a subcommittee of the HPC is drafting guidelines and best practices for public art. Commissioner Finwall added that the subcommittee has been researching current mural requirements and the sign code. Currently the code requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mural which seems extensive. There are 18 murals right now throughout the City. What is proposed might not meet current guidelines but it is a great idea. Commissioner Holmes wondered if a CUP could be placed over the entire alley that would allow looser guidelines for creativity to attract artists. He also would like to see many different mediums included, such as sculptures and overhead art. Commissioner Larson voiced support, although the permanence of painting brick is a concern. Ms. Jespersen replied there would be a different application on every building because each building is a different surface. The historic brick would not be touched unless chalk is OK. Commissioner Larson commented there is a shrink wrap product that can be applied to brick but can also be removed. Page 7 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Mr. Gladhill stated staff will work with Ms. Jespersen for further refinement of the proposal building by building, possibly as a CUP. Policy for Packet Add -On Materials Mr. Gladhill noted that day -of submittal creates confusion. The agenda is published on Friday. Staff would like to make the end of business day on Monday the cut-off for adding new materials for cases that are already on the agenda. Public comments could be accepted until Wednesday. Commission consensus was in agreement. Mr. Gladhill will discuss it further with other staff. Annual Training Flyer Mr. Gladhill reminded the Commission of the annual Boards and Commissions training on June 14. City Parking Ramp Vandalism Mitigation Mr. Gladhill reported that the City Council has been discussing an issue in the parking ramp adjacent to the Lowell Inn. There is a brick pillar that individuals jump on and then up onto the Lowell Inn roof and cause damage by throwing rocks down the roof drain causing costly repairs. The City Facilities Manager is asking for approval to extend a block wall up to the roof line and further out to prevent trespassing on top of the roof. Staff would like direction on whether a block/CMU wall painted to match would be acceptable. Councilmember Junker added that this issue came to the City's attention last June. The Lowell Inn has spent over $41,000 cleaning up the damage. It would be a cinder block straight wall to match the wall next to it and the brick bump -out would be removed. The Lowell Inn supports the concept. Commissioner Larson stated he believes the bump -out is structural, with a concrete reinforced pilaster inside of it that goes all the way down. He agreed something taller needs to be there. Ideally it would be lightweight, black, non -climbable vertical black steel as opposed to a big concrete wall. FYI Stillwater Historic Homes Tour Materials Mr. Gladhill shared information on the Stillwater Historic House Tour scheduled for May 22, 2022. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. ATT C .rr� Matt Thueson, Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 8 of 8