Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-21 HPC MINi \ Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING September 21, 2022 Due to technical difficulties, much of the meeting was inaudible for the record. REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Thueson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Thueson, Commissioners Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Mino, Summers, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Finwall Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of August 17, 2022 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2022 meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Chairman Thueson abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no cases on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2022-19: Consider Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S; Case of Landucci Homes. Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the case. Landucci Homes is proposing a 21-unit, 3-story (with rooftop deck) apartment building at the intersection of Myrtle and 3rd Streets. On August 17, 2022, the HPC tabled action and directed additional design revisions of the proposed window sashes, windows, and parapet wall. The Planning Commission denied all requested variances (Front and Rear Yard Setbacks) on August 24. The applicant has again revised the proposed plans. It appears at this time that there are no variances requested with the latest proposal (subject to final review by the City). This is the fourth major version of this proposed multifamily housing development by the same developer since 2021. Generally, staff feels that the current proposal is much closer to compliance with the Design Guidelines than previous iterations, and therefore staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with two conditions, with minor modifications as discussed/directed. Nathan Landucci, applicant, explained the revisions (inaudible). Commissioner Holmes said the revisions do a good job referencing the historic context without making it a historic -looking building. He asked if the black metal panel will have a core to avoid a canning effect, and Mr. Landucci replied it is smooth and will have a core that keeps it flat. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Larson thanked the applicant for his earnest effort to fit the guidelines better. He asked the color of the window frames, and Mr. Landucci replied the window frames will be matt black to match the black metal panel of the parapet. Commissioner Larson asked how much of the roof deck guardrail will be visible, and Mr. Landucci replied the guardrail will sit back from the parapet and will be black. The goal is to have the parapet "take care" of the railing. He does not plan to raise the height of the rooftop patio. Commissioner Holmes suggested adding a condition of approval that the rail not be on top of the parapet, but be set back from the parapet. Commissioners further discussed the railing design with Mr. Landucci (inaudible). Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2022-19, Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S, with the two conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #3 that the rooftop guardrail shall be set back from the parapet coping/top of parapet, Condition #4 that staff shall review and approve the final and established height which is expected to be one foot or less above the top of the coping, and Condition #5 that the rail be similar in character to the balcony railings. All in favor. Case No. 2022-60: Consider Design Approval for New Single -Family Dwelling at 109 Martha St N (formerly 516 Myrtle St W): Case of Lynn and Steve Thron. Mr. Gladhill explained that the HPC tabled action on this request on August 17, 2022. A key component of the initial review was the orientation and location of the attached garage. The applicants propose to define the Myrtle Street facade as the Front Yard and the Martha Street facade as the Side Yard; the garage, driveway and sidewalk are still to be oriented/accessed from Martha Street. The applicant also added architectural finishes to achieve four-sided architecture. There are a number of high -quality elements included in the home design, however, the design will be unique to the neighborhood, which has many 1.5 story homes with the garage either flush with the front of the home or behind the home. The orientation of this home is unique being on a highly visible corner lot. A redesigned site plan was received today, too late to include in agenda packets. Mr. Gladhill explained the process of lot splits in conjunction with design review applications, and suggested process improvements are needed. He stated that current City Code does not require a public hearing for design permits, however there have been multiple opportunities for public input with this project including the lot split. Staff does not object to the overall layout in concept. The HPC should provide direction on the front facade design (Myrtle Street) and orientation/location on the garage on the side facade (Martha Street). Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the stone wall along Myrtle Street is on private or public property. Mr. Gladhill replied that the wall is on private property. The City Attorney and Public Works staff have discussed whether the City can force a private property owner to repair a wall such as this. The subject needs additional legal review. Mike Koch, PMI Homes representing the applicant, stated the wall is an engineered wall and the lowest floor elevation has been designed in coordination with drainage and cross depth so there will not be any change in the retaining wall elevations other than what must be added to enhance the property. The retaining wall on Martha is an engineered wall. Councilmember Junker asked, what is the elevation of the door to the current lot, and Mr. Koch replied the elevation of the door is the elevation of the main level. There is one step up from the sidewalk coming into the front door. The elevation of the door is maintained at the garage door elevation, largely dictated by the driveway slope coming off Martha Street. Page 2 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Mino asked what materials will be used on the home, and Mr. Koch responded a natural stone product, an LP textured siding product, ribbed metal roofing, metal soffit and facia, Marvin windows with black trim, black metal handrail on the deck, and natural stone pavers for the driveway to coordinate with the stone. Commissioner Holmes asked (inaudible). Mr. Koch stated that initially, not knowing how this process went, he met with previous City Planner Wittman with renderings of what the owners originally wanted. He showed Ms. Wittman a one story home with lower level and she did not have any concerns with that. He was following Ms. Wittman's lead on what he could or could not do. Because she left City employ, he never got to show her the final design. He was at a point of being under great pressure with economics in trying to get this started. Knowing what has gone on here, he would have done things in a different order to help prevent undue expense to owners which is pretty substantial. Lynn Thron, owner, gave examples of (inaudible). They are not changing the wall on Myrtle. Regarding height of surrounding buildings, this house will be the same height as the house to the east. She pointed out that 115 Harriet and 426 Rice Street both enter from one street but their house fronts on another street. Commissioner Mino asked (inaudible). Mr. Koch remarked the massing of the house coordinates well with the landscaping. The survey must be updated to reflect changes made in the front entrance in order to resubmit for the building permit. Commissioner Summers referred to design guidelines for examples of foundation material and windows. He voiced concerns that the rear elevation of the proposed garage is very different than other views of the home. In keeping with surrounding homes one would expect to see windows on all sides instead of just one window. Mr. Koch said one window is planned for security, but more windows can easily be added. Mrs. Thron added that eventually they would erect fencing along the rear elevation to shield views from neighbors. Steve Thron, applicant, stated he put in the wall on Martha Street and has been taking care of the wall on Myrtle for the last 28 years and it's in great shape. They will protect it and place landscaping behind it. The only ones who can see that side are the apartment building residents. Commissioner Summers referred to the challenge of designing with the understanding that the surrounding area might look very different in 20 years; the intent is to "future -proof" the site as well as making it useable now. Commissioner Holmes commented it is a very well designed home that would do very well in many settings other than this setting, taking into account the historic character of the neighborhood, roof pitches and window shapes of older buildings. He acknowledged the applicants have invested a lot of money. He pointed out the HPC is asked to make recommendations and enforce guidelines. This process should have happened in schematics, not with CDs done and a building permit in process. He cannot support the design as proposed on this site. Mr. Koch (inaudible). He said that he met with City Planner Wittman twice in her office and went through the process as she directed; there was no ignorance of the City process. Mr. Thron commented that all the permits were approved and now he is hearing this - this committee is not supposed to burden residents - it's a burden because it was all approved. They have already bought the appliances and have over a quarter of a million dollars in material purchased. Page 3 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Larson asked who did the approval of this design. Mr. Koch responded the process that was given to him is where it stands right now. He went through a number of steps with Ms. Wittman and everything up to that point was approved. (inaudible) When the lot split was done, the survey was submitted, the elevations were done with the engineer, and he was told "you're good to go for the permit." There was never a step where he had to do this process following the lot split. He knew there were guidelines but he didn't even know about the HPC. Knowing what he knows now, he should have done the house design then and submitted the elevations but was not directed to do that. Mr. Thron said he is into this for $300,000 and wonders if he needs to hire an attorney. He doesn't want to get into a lawsuit with the City over this but he doesn't know what else to do. Mr. Gladhill said he would find it hard to believe that previous staff would not have conveyed that HPC approval of a design permit would be needed. Things get lost in translation but he doesn't think there would have been any guidance that would have said "go ahead and apply for a building permit." He thinks it would have been, "once you get done with the plat, you then go through the design permit process with the HPC" as staff always tells applicants. The survey that was presented with the lot split is somewhat different than what is now shown. He feels there is some latitude to work through this now. New infill developments are not intended to replicate 1880s style but they must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Councilmember Junker (inaudible). He pointed out the HPC is a very integral part of the whole process of infill development, every bit as important as planning and getting the building permits. Mrs. Thron noted they put on the extra stone finish and she doesn't think the detail on the windows was pointed out. Mr. Gladhill stated the conversation with the HPC has been about materials being wrapped around all four sides - four sided architecture. Chairman Thueson agreed that the Commission must apply the requirements of the Neighborhood Conservation District to this project. Unfortunately this comes late after the initial lot split discussion. This is a very prominent site in a very historic part of town. One of the findings that the Commission is required by City Code to adopt is that the building does not materially impair the character of the neighborhood as a whole - how the neighborhood buildings relate to each other, with the historic school house behind it - how the setting works with the design. There are very specific guidelines to consider per City Code. Commissioner Larson stated he appreciates the applicant's situation but agrees that the Commission must follow design guidelines. The way the application process has worked with the previous City Planner on other infill housing projects has been fairly consistent: preliminary meeting, guidelines, preliminary design, HPC. Typically, staff would not suggest that it has been approved, it would be that they can't read the minds of the Commission and would give general direction to aid the application but indicate that the Commission will make the decision. Houses in this neighborhood establish a pattern and this house does not appear to fit the massing or the design guidelines. Commissioner Holmes noted the roof pitch and shape affect the massing of the building. He asked if trusses are already purchased or on order. Mr. Koch said trusses are not ordered yet (inaudible). He stated he has no intentions of throwing Ms. Wittman under the bus, she was a great help, but he did not have anyone to go to after she left. Up to the point where he had preliminary design, he felt he was on the right track. He still feels lost on the direction the Commission wants. Page 4 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Mino said she feels the applicant took suggestions given at the last meeting into consideration. She likes that they changed the direction of the front of the house and tucked the garage behind, which is a big part of the NCD guidelines. The stone addition is nice on front, and she would prefer to see it all the way around for four-sided design. She would like other Commissioners to discuss what might help with massing for the benefit of the applicant. She does not feel that this house would detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Heimdahl agreed. He said his main concern is how it will impact the existing historic fabric of the City. He wasn't at the previous meeting, but feels the proposed design would work within the general framework of neighboring properties. Mr. Gladhill said the applicant has 10 days to appeal the decision which would be a new process with the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to deny Case No. 2022-60, Design Approval for New Single -Family Dwelling at 109 Martha St N. Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioners Heimdahl and Mino voting nay. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2022-63: Consider Design Approval for 603 Broadway St S Garage Replacement in the Neighborhood Conservation District: Case of Todd and Anne Anderson. Mr. Gladhill explained the application. The applicant is requesting a Demolition Permit and Design Approval to remove an existing attached garage and replace with a new attached garage that is slightly wider and deeper. The existing garage is not original to this home, which was built in 1870 and is considered lawful, nonconforming (front yard setback). The applicant is proposing to replace the existing garage with a new garage with finishes that are more compatible with the primary structure. Staff believes that the size and massing of the proposed garage are approaching being oversized (the size is increasing from existing garage) but the finer design elements and finishes are an improvement over the existing garage. Additionally, the existing garage is only slightly set back from the primary dwelling, essentially flush with the front of the home. The proposed garage maintains the same front yard setback. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Jeremy Imhoff, Imprint Architecture and Design, via Zoom, representing the applicants, stated the current garage is built into the 30 foot setback and they are trying to maintain the existing wall line. If it were set back to meet the current code requirements, the first stall would become very difficult to use so he is applying for a separate variance. The plan is to get approval of the variance, expand the footprint to the north, maintain the garage depth for the first stall and create a larger second stall. He is trying to match all the materials on the outside. Garage doors will have lights at the top and there will be windows on the side facing the neighbor. Commissioner Mino asked why the width of the garage is being extended by 3 feet, and Mr. Imhoff replied because the garage is a bit small for storing vehicles and extra items. Commissioners Summers and Holmes applauded the design. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve Case No. 2022-63, Design Approval for 603 S Broadway St garage replacement as proposed, with the three conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2022-66: Consider Design Approval for Food Truck at 204 Main St S, Case of The Good Egg Food Truck. Mr. Gladhill stated that Ryan Kilkelly, applicant, representing "The Good Egg" food truck, would like to have a food truck on a portion of the parking lot of 204 Main St N, on the corner of Main St and Page 5 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commercial St (Joseph Wolf Mercantile retail business). He is requesting a Design Permit to allow for a seasonal food vending truck to operate on -site for a period greater than 20 hours. Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit, should the Heritage Preservation Commission find that the proposal meets the standards set forth in the City Code, with 14 conditions. Ryan Kilkelly, applicant, said he will start with a short term lease of 3-6 months. He would like to avoid pulling the cart offsite every day which is a waste of energy. Hours would be 8 am-3 pm every day and special events. His cart is unique in that it is fully insulated for 3 1/2 seasons. He will skirt the bottom to insulate the water tanks. Everything is very neat and brand new construction. Mr. Gladhill pointed out that in July 2019, the Planning Commission approved a CUP for outdoor dining including a food truck for this location. A condition of the existing CUP is that all queuing must be on private property. Chairman Thueson asked if approval today would be indefinite or limited, and Mr. Gladhill replied the Commission could make approval contingent, for instance 6 months, or one time design approval and staff could then approve a seasonal permit. Councilmember Junker (inaudible). He pointed out that seasonal food trucks need a lot more discussion. The City has many restaurants that are paying taxes. Other food trucks have been given seasonal permits; the concept of a long term 6 mo, 8 mo, or 1 year lease is a whole different thing. Commissioner Larson remarked the HPC has been approving food trucks with a certain latitude because it's a vehicle, not a building and won't be there forever. This application seems to be moving into a gray area - RVs that have skirts around them and don't move. The proposal sounds reasonable, but he does not think the HPC would approve a solid bright blue building on the corner in downtown Stillwater. If it will be different than other food trucks, it should be treated more like a building. Chairman Thueson asked if it will be powered by generator, and Mr. Kilkelly replied yes. Noting that noise and fumes could have a negative impact on the historic character of downtown, Chairman Thueson said if approved, he would suggest a condition requiring power from the building. Mr. Kilkelly replied he has taken noise into account and will be paying about 6 times more for a generator that is state of the art. Mobile food units allow operators a chance to break into a community without the expense of a permanent establishment. He respects the fact that there are restrictions on food carts to avoid a state fair environment. Food trucks cater to locals and workers, providing high quality but inexpensive food. Sensing lack of consensus on design, Mr. Gladhill suggested postponing action and directing the applicant to look at a dark, muted color scheme and possibly having it be seasonal May -October. Mr. Kilkelly asked if he could operate up to 20 hours under the existing CUP, and Mr. Gladhill replied the existing CUP allows him to operate for less than 20 hours without coming in for a design permit. He will confirm with Mr. Kilkelly what the existing CUP allows. Councilmember Junker commented it's a big topic needing discussion and should not be piecemealed. Commissioner Summers noted the purpose here tonight is design. If it's more of a permanent structure, there would be other considerations (inaudible). Commissioner Heimdahl noted that discussions on the use would be before the Planning Commission, not HPC. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2022-66, Design Approval for Food Truck at 204 Main St S, directing the applicant to work with staff to come up with a more compatible design and noting that since installation would be permanent, the case must meet Page 6 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 design guidelines for Downtown Review District, of key note, the color shall be dark and muted. All in favor. Case No. 2022-68: Pre -Application Review: Consider Concept Plan for 1001 Holcombe St W Demolition Permit and Infill Redevelopment: Case of Julie Bartkey. Mr. Gladhill stated that staff has been approached by the owner of 1001 Holcombe St S requesting approval to demolish the dwelling on the site to facilitate the construction of two new single family homes. The existing home was constructed in 1872 and has had several modifications including foundation repair, siding and addition of rear porch. The applicant seeks high-level, non -binding feedback from the HPC before investing in the costs of building plans. Staff seeks broad policy feedback from the HPC on two topics to ensure that staff and applicant are headed in the right direction: 1) appropriateness to demolish existing structure; and 2) feedback on design of proposed replacement dwellings. Per the required demolition process for structures built pre-1946, the Building Official and Community Development Director inspected the building. There are signs of structural issues, but the dwelling is not hazardous and presents no concern to public safety or public health. The foundation, which is not original, appears to be in generally good condition, but shows minor signs of deferred maintenance and need of repair. There are areas of the home that show sag in the floor, but the main structural components of the floor are in acceptable condition and could be repaired. The northwest corner of the exterior wall shows signs of bowing. The structure shows signs of shifting, but is not in danger of collapse. Staffs analysis of the condition of the structure shows that the structure is likely right at the threshold to approve a demolition per current policies and past practices, but could potentially be repaired. Staff is seeking high-level, non -binding policy feedback on the request for demolition and redevelopment to ensure that staff and applicant are proceeding in the correct general direction before additional effort and cost is expended. Julie Bartkey, applicant, noted that since City staff inspected the home it has shifted considerably to the point where some of the siding is popping off one of the dormers. Commissioner Mino said the HPC doesn't approve demolition without a basis. Not having seen it, it would be hard for her to approve demolition. Chairman Thueson agreed the City has a very high threshold to demolish old houses. There would be a public hearing and all the info would go into that decision. The HPC prefers renovation if possible. Ms. Bartkey stated most parts of the home that would provide historic integrity were removed by previous owners other than main beams and there is water seepage into a second floor bedroom. Mr. Gladhill reiterated that the building official did not see an imminent threat of collapse. Unless a structural report to the contrary is submitted, staff would lean toward preservation. Commissioner Holmes (inaudible). He asked if it is possible to repair the house, build another house on the vacant lot and share a garage, and Ms. Bartkey said that is worth considering. Commissioner Larson acknowledged that typically demolition is a single house on a single lot; this is an oversized lot. Two smaller houses would likely fit the rhythm of the street. Commissioner Summers said perhaps the house could be shifted to a new foundation to allow for construction of another house. Ms. Bartkey asked if she would need to go through the HPC to demolish the garage, and Mr. Gladhill replied if the garage was built after 1946, its demolition may be able to be staff -approved. Regarding design of the three models provided, staff would feel comfortable bringing any of those forward. Commissioner Heimdahl remarked the HPC is supportive of rehabbing and assisting homeowners - there are agencies that offer low interest homeowner loans and organizations that provide classes. Page 7 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Larson commented that the design of the first new home model is far superior than the other two because it reflects the vernacular. (inaudible) Consensus of the Commission was to give the general direction not to support demolition, and that all three new design models would be acceptable with a preference for modern farm home design. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Discuss 2022 HPC Awards Mr. Gladhill and the Commission discussed the nominees. The Commission decided to award River Siren Brewing - Facade Restoration/Patio; Isaac Staples Mill - Master Sign Plan; Brick and Linen - Individual Sign; William Sauntry Mansion - Adaptive Reuse; Vick Residence 516 Second St N - Residential Restoration; 107 Laurel St E - Residential Facade Restoration/Front Porch; Washington County Historical Society Heritage Center; and Ron Brenner Architects. The awards will be presented at the October 18, 2022 City Council meeting. FYI Mr. Gladhill informed the Commission of a forthcoming application. In late August, Planning staff became aware of work underway at 109 Pine St E without City permits or approvals. Staff conducted an inspection and found the demolition of a garage, covered porch and retaining wall located in City right-of-way. A Notice of City Code Violation Letter (Case No. E/2022-46) was sent to the property owner and contractor that all work on the property should stop, and that permits are required. Staff met with the contractor and reiterated the information described in the letter. Another site inspection identified that work was still underway to replace a retaining wall located at the side yard, as well as interior work. Planning and Building staff have continued to communicate to the contractor and property owner that work must cease, and complete permits with plans must be submitted. A Stop Work Order was issued on September 15, 2022. Commissioner Larson said there used to be a checklist for applicants going through the process of City approvals, and Mr. Gladhill said that Planning staff are working on improving and clarifying the application review process. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Heimdahl, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. /� A ATTE Tim Matt Thueson, Chair ladhill, Community Development Director Page 8 of 8