Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-17 HPC MINi I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING August 17, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Mino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Commissioners Finwall, Holmes, Larson, Mino, Summers, Councilmember Junker Absent: Chairman Thueson, Commissioner Heimdahl Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Robinson ACTING CHAIR Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to appoint Commissioner Mino as Acting Chair. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2022-59: Design Permit for Window Replacement at 231 Myrtle St, No Neck Tony's Acting Chair Mino asked that Case No. 2022-59 be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2022-59: Design Permit for Window Replacement at 231 Myrtle St (underlying/parent address = 106 Main St S). No Neck Tony's Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to replace two existing windows with sliding windows with screens to improve airflow within the restaurant. The new windows will have the same layout, trim and color. Staff recommends approval with three findings and four conditions. Councilmember Junker noted that the business has live music inside which may be a consideration. Mr. Gladhill answered that noise is more of a Planning Commission and code enforcement issue and there are tools to resolve noise if it becomes an issue. Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Gladhill to describe which windows are to be open/screened and which ones are not, and Mr. Gladhill replied the middle two windows would be screened. Acting Chair Mino read a comment from Chair Thueson. He noted the absence of drawings in the packet and thought the design materials should become part of the record. Mr. Gladhill it is a vinyl slider and all the specs are on the invoice which is part of the record. The windows being replaced will look exactly as they do now except they will slide open. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2022-59, Design Permit for window replacement at 231 Myrtle St, with the conditions and findings recommended by staff. All in favor. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 20, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2022 meeting. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS continued Case No. 2020-27: Update on Design Permit Amendment for rooftop improvements at 223 Main St S, White Bear Ventures - Tabled in part from the May Meeting. Postponed at request of Owner at June Meeting. Postponed at request of the owner at July Meeting. Community Development Director Gladhill explained the case. Over the past several meetings, the HPC has reviewed recent improvements to this property outside the scope of HPC Design Approval. Throughout 2020 and 2021, the City through the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council denied a request to install a 4th story onto this building. Staff has issued a Compliance Letter/Notice of Violation regarding unapproved improvements and the applicant has been notified that future violations of the approved Design Permit will result in Administrative Citations. The City previously approved the elevator tower and its exterior materials (dark, muted standing seam metal). The Notice of Violation clarifies that any work on the rooftop moving forward is not authorized until the HPC considers the request for revision to the Design Permit. If the HPC does not approve the requested revisions, these improvements will need to be removed. Staff recommends that the HPC require that the glass fencing be relocated to the deck structure approximately one foot set back from the parapet wall. Per past practice and design guidelines, staff would not recommend allowing the glass wall to be affixed to the top of the parapet wall. Alternatively, if affixing to the deck structure is a structural concern, staff would recommend that the applicant affix the glass wall to the back of the parapet wall, not the top. This is consistent with a recent design approval for 227 Main St S, located adjacent to this property. Staff needs additional policy direction on the rooftop shed/private bar structure before formulating further recommendations. Councilmember Junker asked if there was any permit approved for the three -step-up raised deck, and Mr. Gladhill said it does not appear that City staff had the opportunity to review the raised deck. There was not a permit for the deck in this condition. A building permit would be required. Commissioner Holmes asked if there was a building permit for the enhancements to the existing shed or to the glass wall and Mr. Gladhill replied no. Commissioner Summers asked what building permits are in place. Mr. Gladhill replied that there was a permit for the elevator tower and City staff knew the deck would be coming but the timing and how it was constructed was a surprise. Permits were issued for the roof repair, the elevator tower, the third story renovation (for the owner -occupied unit), for 1st and 2nd floor remodel, and brick repair on back side of building. The two elements on top of the roof have deviated from plans. Rich Farrell, applicant, remarked this has been a three-year process involving more time spent in permitting than in construction and there is no intention of shortcutting. Right now the front face of the building is being done at more of a cost to satisfy the HPC. They would prefer the deck be lower but the way the construction is sloped, a step up is required per the City Building Inspector. With regard to the buildings on top, there were originally three: the old elevator structure, a new structure for the newer "old" elevator from the 40s or 50s which cannot be repurposed, and the storage building which is the accessory building. The elevator building that they believed could remain has all the plumbing and electrical so it would have been a major cost to repurpose. The intention was to put the elevator in a place that seemed more fitting for the building and not have to move the storage. Page 2 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 They did not understand that another permit would be required for the glass rail. They chose glass to make it more transparent. They would much prefer it to be lower and to be further back and are open to suggestions for doing so if the cost is reasonable. The deck was all done and they had to rip it all up because the contractor had not reinforced the roof while the whole third floor was gutted, so it probably cost $1 million to rip up the roof and get it right. Mr. Gladhill showed what was originally proposed and ultimately rejected by the City and the Commissions, compared to what is there today. Acting Chair Mino read comments from Chair Thueson voicing concern about whether the balcony railing will be reflective and detract from the building. He also would prefer the railing be moved back off the parapet wall. Councilmember Junker commended the applicants on their work to improve the building, but acknowledged the HPC's predicament: in November 2020 during COVID, when their contractor appeared by Zoom, the HPC clearly stated that the smaller building must be eliminated. He also was shocked to see the jumped-up deck and the building with windows and the garage door. Brenda Farrell, applicant, explained that the roof slopes significantly. The stepped -up design is needed in order to level off the roof and adhere to what City requires for 2 x 12 decking underneath. All they did with the roof was add two gables. They are willing to take a flat roof approach to match the current elevator and stairwell if required. Commissioner Finwall asked if elevation drawings of the utility shed were provided, and Mr. Gladhill replied there are no drawings, only photos. The accessory building has been converted into a private bar with wet bar, sink and beverage storage. Commissioner Larson said he appreciates all the work done on the building. In 2020 the HPC asked the applicants to minimize the impact of the rooftop improvements by removing additional structures, based on interpretation of the guidelines, not a personal opinion. Mr. Farrell pointed out the building was not added, so it was not an addition. Commissioner Larson responded that the agreement was that it would go away and not be there. With that agreement, the HPC agreed to the other work and extending of the stairwell. Mr. Farrell said if he had known someone would agree to that, he would have said to bring the existing elevator to code which would have resulted in a taller building in the front. They did subtract a building and not add a building. Commissioner Larson went on to state that the deck doesn't impact the view at all but the guardrail does. Had it come before the HPC, based on previous actions the HPC would have asked for it to be set back. If it started at the surface of the deck rather than several feet above it, that would be a more appropriate height to minimize impact on the historic appearance of the building. Mr. Farrell said he thinks the guardrail was on top of the parapet because someone was replacing the old one that was probably decrepit and putting this one in place of it. The code says 42" so they bought 42" glass. Mr. Gladhill said, looking at aerial photos of the original guardrail, it looks like the posts were on the back side of the parapet wall, not on top of the parapet wall. He added that City staff were prepared for a deck as part of the plan, but that is very different than securing a permit for the deck. Commissioner Summers voiced huge respect for the improvements the owners have made to the building, but some of the work violates the guidelines and that would have come to light had the permitting process been followed. Page 3 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Commissioner Holmes agreed with other comments about the terrific investment that has been made but work must be done in accordance with guidelines. Commissioner Finwall suggested adding a condition of approval that the railing must be pulled back a couple feet. Acting Chair Mino asked for staff comment about the reflectivity of the glass railing, and Mr. Gladhill replied there are other glass railings downtown. He understands from the Building Official that tempered glass was not chosen so code requires some improvements and another layer of some sort of film to take the place of tempered glass. Staff can require that be anti -reflective at the building permit level. Commissioner Holmes said it is also important to require that the rail be removed from the top of the parapet to reduce visual impact from the river side. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the glass railing but direct the applicant to remove the glass railing from the top of the parapet wall and install it onto the deck structure or back of the parapet wall for structural integrity and limited visibility, with a condition about using non reflective material (Case No. 2020-27). All in favor. Commissioner Finwall commented that the one structure that was closest to the river has been removed and also the elevator shaft, which was going to be expanded, was reduced in size. She is not opposed to retaining the shed structure but would like to see the design. Mrs. Farrell responded it will be identical metal to match the elevator shaft, and Mr. Gladhill said that standing seam metal to match the elevator shaft could be a condition of approval. Commissioner Holmes agreed there has been a "win" with one of the buildings removed. Rather than asking the applicant to remove the other building when it is nearly ready to be used, he is inclined to support leaving it in place. Commissioner Summers recognized that sticking with the agreement may not be in the best interests of the building overall. He would support keeping the structure with the caveat that any construction that requires a permit shall pass Planning Commission approval and get all applicable permits. Commissioner Finwall asked to discuss dormers and lighting, and noted the staff report which says the City Attorney recommends not approving something conditionally without having the elevations. Mr. Gladhill stated the City Attorney's comment was that if there is going to be a major change to a proposal, she doesn't want the HPC redesigning plans on the fly. In this case, the Building Official will check the structural components. He is not sure plans are needed at this point. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the existing structure remaining on the rooftop at 223 Main St S, based on findings of staff and conditions that exist at this time, with the stipulation that any further development of the design or the aesthetic are in keeping with what staff would approve (Case No. 2020-27). Commissioner Finwall again asked to talk about dormers and lighting, and Mr. Gladhill provided a picture showing light fixtures and the roof gables. Mrs. Farrell said there are three light fixtures, all the same style. Commissioner Holmes asked if the gables increased the height of building, and Mrs. Farrell said no. Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Larson voting nay. Case No. 2022-40: Consider Request for Design Permit for 120 Main St S, Scandinavian North Page 4 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Mr. Gladhill reviewed the staff report. This application was reviewed at the June 15, 2022 HPC Meeting, and tabled to further refine the proposal. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to change existing paint color on the wood accents to a combination of black/slate grey and historically appropriate white. Based on HPC recommendations, the applicant has revised the proposal to a muted white, and provided multiple options for the HPC to consider. The applicant prefers Alternative #1. Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with either Alternative #3 or #4 for the best balance of dark, muted colors and historically appropriate white, and that the primary white used be SW 7008 (Alabaster) with SW 7042 (Shoji White) as an accent on the internal panel. Councilmember Junker asked about signage, and Mr. Gladhill replied there will be a projecting hanging sign as seen at the last meeting. Commissioner Finwall recalled a recommendation from staff to use two slightly different white colors, and Mr. Gladhill said the applicant has done that and and would be OK with either of the white shades provided. Acting Chair Mino said she too understood that there would be some definition of the large white piece on the top so she would be in favor of two shades of white being used for the large piece on top. Mr. Gladhill summarized that the preference seems to be for lighter white outside the inset, and the texture/frame painted slightly darker white as proposed by the applicant. Martin Hallkvist. LDL Company, applicant, said changing daylight should make the white look like two different shades, but he is willing to use a combination of the two different whites, and the darker color to match the entrance to fill in the existing squares. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Summers, to approve Case No. 2022-40, Design Permit for 120 Main St S, Alternative #3 with the white field painted Alabaster, the frames painted Shoji White, and the black trim painted Black of Night. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2022-19: Consider Request for Design Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S, Landucci Homes Mr. Gladhill explained the application for this third major revision. The apartment building is now 21 units and three stories from the Third Street facade. The current proposal no longer includes the adjacent lot at 110 Myrtle St E; that parcel has been sold to another party. The lower level comes out at grade, exposing its facade to 100 Myrtle St. (the underground parking structure). The building has a brick veneer facade with darker standing seam metal. The original design permit was denied for massing, size and other issues. There are also parking issues which are not the purview of the HPC, and building height which the Planning Commission reviewed. The stepped -back penthouse units previously proposed have been removed; a rooftop deck is proposed. Most units have little decks which are architectural elements that encroach into setback areas. He showed the three proposed materials. A public hearing at the Planning Commission will be held next week. There have been no public comments to this point. Staff feels the HPC was close in providing design direction; five of the six conditions previously discussed by the HPC have been addressed. Councilmember Junker remarked it is a very basic, square brick building with metal trim, square or rectangular windows, and no other design elements, very non -historic for a downtown building. Nathan Landucci, applicant, said the biggest change is that they scaled it back. He is surprised it doesn't look historic because 95% of the facade is brick, which is what the HPC asked previously. The facade is easy to change. Balconies are proposed to create some interest, with very large windows and a mix of metal. This design is born out of previous HPC concerns. Page 5 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Commissioner Larson remarked that the reduction in massing is what the HPC asked. The plan shows the minimum improvement required by code to service a roof deck which follows the intent of the guidelines. He agreed that it's a very straightforward, minimalist building. The downtown design guidelines mention windows being compatible with features of surrounding historic buildings. This building has no divided lights in the larger windows and that is something not seen downtown. Mr. Landucci replied a bar could be added to the bottoms of the larger windows to match the other windows that have a mullion at the bottom. Commissioner Summers stated that although the building is predominantly brick, historic brick is different than this design. Historically, even box -shaped factory buildings had added elements of interest. Small design elements could be added to give a nod to historic buildings. Mr. Landucci replied that he chose brick that was similar to the Crosby Hotel but the HPC suggested a more brownish brick and he made that change. He thought more brick would look more historic. Mr. Gladhill acknowledged if the HPC wishes to see divided windows, arched lintels, bottom windowsills, and maybe limestone accents, action can be postponed so the applicant can bring drawings showing those elements. Commissioner Finwall remarked the design guidelines mention recessed entries are appropriate for new construction, and Mr. Landucci replied the main entrance has a canopy over it with the logo on it. Commissioner Finwall stated there is zero green space, and Mr. Gladhill replied that is something the Planning Commission will wrestle with; there is a request for a variance to setbacks. Commissioner Holmes acknowledged this design does many things well, like the entries to some units activate to the street, and using all brick throughout. He would support breaking up the windows if possible, but the guidelines do not require that the applicant make the building look old. He suggested including some soldier coursing if possible along the parapets, and Mr. Landucci replied that architecturally it wouldn't add a lot of cost, but with the metal bridging between upper windows it doesn't make a cohesive design. Motion by Acting Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to table Case No. 2022-19, Design Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S indicating support for the project and looking for additional design as discussed. Mr. Landucci asked for a summary of proposed design changes being requested, and Mr. Gladhill said: divided windows, limestone windowsill, and coursing as discussed for the parapet wall. Commissioner Larson said he didn't hear limestone sills; this building has metal panels underneath all the windows so putting in limestone sills would be a big difference. Some kind of limestone accent somewhere would be good as would the idea of further articulating the brick. He would like to see a rendering of the brick material to be used. All in favor. Case No. 2022-55: Consider Request for Design Permit for Facade Painting at 231 Main St S, Smith + Trade Mr. Gladhill explained that this is an after the fact application. The painting (storefront woodwork and brick window sill and painting on rear facade brick) has already been completed. Smith + Trade is expanding into the adjacent space (actually, their original space) with a home decor line to be known as Collaborations and has a Grand Opening August 20. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to change existing paint color on the wood accents to white. Based on HPC recommendations, staff has encouraged the applicant to consider a muted, more historically appropriate hue of white per the Page 6 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Design Guidelines. Staff recommends approval of painting of the woodwork, contingent upon HPC's final determination on appropriate shades/hues. Kelli Kaufer, applicant, explained the white they used is an historic white that is similar to the Alabaster White approved in the previous case. They feel it complements the two side buildings well. She noted the brick is not historic brick. When they acquired the building, the brick was caked with gum and they power washed and sanded but that did not remove the gum. Mina Carlson, applicant, added the color is called Dove White. She said they caulked the edges of the wood trim to prevent water issues and painted the wood trim to complement the natural brick. Commissioner Finwall asked about the possibility of the existence of transom windows as mentioned in the staff report. Mark Miller, property owner, said transom windows might be considered in the future but the business is now ready to have their grand opening. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve Case No. 2022-55, Design Permit for Facade Painting at 231 Main St S. All in favor. Case No 2022-60: Consider Request for Design Permit for 536 Myrtle St W: Case of Thron home Mr. Gladhill stated that staff received a Building Permit application the week of August 8 and additional information was received this week. Staff has not had time needed to do a full review. This same applicant went through a series of applications with the Planning Commission and City Council in order to split the larger lot into two to create this new buildable lot. He showed elevation sketches, noting that there is a large retaining wall along Myrtle St. Architectural interest is added with deck and windows on upper and lower levels. Mike Koch, PMI Homes, said they are considering natural colors to coordinate with the existing retaining wall. The roof will be ash gray. Marvin Windows with black cladding will be used. Siding colors are not determined yet. The stone on the house will coordinate with the existing retaining wall. They are eager to proceed before winter. Acting Chair Mino remarked the double garage is the closest thing to the street. In the Neighborhood Conservation District, the preference is for the garage to be back from the front of the home. Also, an application for new construction usually includes photos of surrounding structures for context. Mr. Koch replied the garage will not be seen from Myrtle St but it will be seen from Martha St which will be the front of the home. Mr. Gladhill summarized that the HPC appears to need more time to analyze the surrounding environment, with color renderings, and clarification on the front yard setback. The Planning Commission may need to look at a potential variance for the garage location. Acting Chair Mino added that four sided design is also important - the renderings appear to have done a fairly good job but the north elevation may lack design elements. Commissioner Larson said the house would fit well in many locations but the Neighborhood Conservation District Guidelines require the massing of the house to be compatible with surrounding structures. Houses in this neighborhood are mostly 1.5 story with steep gables; this is a 1-story walkout hip which doesn't follow the predominant pattern of the neighborhood. It can be a modern house, it just needs to not stand out in its massing. He also noted the importance of four sided design. Mr. Koch said he worked through all the requirements with the previous City Planner whose direction was to avoid making it a plain, simple home, whether hip, gable, or shed roof were used, to bring Page 7 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 character to the home. He feels that was accomplished. Working through the setbacks with the garage was part of the discussion. Acting Chair Mino suggested the applicant review the Design Guidelines with staff and make modifications based on staff and HPC discussion. Commissioner Finwall commented it's a lovely home, but next to the old schoolhouse, a single story home seems out of place and the garage is the first thing you see. Steve Thron, property owner, responded that the garage is behind the six-plex that he owns - it is not as visible as it may look. It can't be seen from the north and its location is the only place possible for a driveway. Motion by Acting Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to table Case No 2022-60, Design Permit for 536 Myrtle St W. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Discuss 2022 HPC Awards Mr. Gladhill invited suggestions for the HPC Awards which will be presented at one of the October City Council meetings. FYI Review Zoning, Parking and Design Review District Boundaries in the Downtown District and Discuss Options for Consolidation and Common Boundaries Mr. Gladhill noted that many different groups define downtown in many ways. Staff suggests having a future conversation about consolidating boundaries and making it easier to navigate City code. Case No. 2022-08: Review Compliance with HPC Design Approval at 126 Main St S and Discuss Enforcement Options; Case of Blue Sun Soda Shop According to the staff report, staff is awaiting a revised submittal and the item will be forwarded to the September Meeting. (There was no Commission discussion on this item.) Approve moving Regular Meetings to Second Wednesday of the month Per the staff report, due to tonight's lengthy agenda, this item will be postponed until September to gather feedback. (There was no Commission discussion on this item.) State Historic Preservation Conference Mr. Gladhill noted the 2022 Conference will be in Duluth September 14-16. He will re -forward information on the Conference to Commissioners and help facilitate attendance for those interested. Commissioner Requests Commissioner Finwall suggested it would be beneficial if the applicants were required to submit building materials or paint samples. Acting Chair Mino asked if there is a way to avoid last minute/incomplete packets making discussion of applications challenging. Commissioner Finwall suggested establishing a deadline when applicants must have all materials submitted in order to make a certain meeting date. Acting Chair Mino brought up expectations of last minute applicants. Clear direction is needed, in advance, as to what they might expect when they attend a meeting. Page 8 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Commissioner Holmes added it is vital for staff to continue to be very clear as to what the process is so as to not discourage an applicant who thinks they have everything ready to go. Commissioner Larson said there used to be a checklist that was part of the application asking the applicant to describe exactly how their proposal meets each of the guidelines. Mr. Gladhill said that checklist is still used and staff will use it more formally. It is a source of confusion for many applicants. This applicant was aware they were way past deadline and the case might get tabled. He also noted these situations always seem to follow when the Planning Commission has a lot split. Staff reminds the property owners to get a design permit. Maybe for lots splits in the Neighborhood Conservation District, applicants should be required to submit at least one model that would meet guidelines in order to do the lot split. It may not be what they end up building but it would serve as a reminder of the process. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Summers, tgadjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. cting Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 9 of 9