Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-09 HPC MIN AMENDED HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING - AMENDED November 9, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Thueson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Thueson, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Mino, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Summers Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Robinson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 21, 2022 regular meeting Chairman Thueson noted that the HPC approved the September 21, 2022 minutes last month with a change,. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2022 regular meeting as amended. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Finwall abstaining. Possible approval of minutes of October 19, 2022 regular meeting Commissioner Finwall requested that on page 3, paragraph 6, the word “possible” be changed to the word “the” so that it reads, “Commissioner Finwall remarked that the design of the new home does many things right.” Commissioner Mino requested the following changes. Page 1 - She said she is not sure where this occurred in the meeting, but she believes that Mr. Gladhill reiterated exactly what concept review is, and stated for the minutes that the comments of the Commission are un-binding. She would recommend emphasizing it, and she felt it got lost elsewhere. The sentence “Mr. Gladhill reiterated what the concept review is, and stated that the comments of the Commission are un-binding” will be added at the beginning of Case No. CD 2022-71. Page 1 - In the first sentence under Case No. CD 2022-71, she would like to add “for concept review” at the end of the sentence, so that it reads, “Planning Manager Robinson reviewed the case for concept review.” She said she knows it is in the title but it needs to be made clear that it was a concept review, not in front of the HPC for approval or not approval. Page 3 - At end of discussion of Case No. CD 2022-71, she believes that Mr. Gladhill summarized it as a general consensus against demolition. The phrase “without a good reason” is missing. The sentiment of the HPC was that the Commission is generally against demolition without a good reason for such demolition. The sentence “Mr. Gladhill summarized the discussion as a general consensus against demolition without a good reason” should be added at the end of Case No. CD 2022-71 and before Case No. CD 2022-73. Page 4 - In the second to the last paragraph under Case No. CD 2022-73, the words “with the overall design” should be added into the sentence, “Mr. Gladhill summarized the suggestions: change the design of the turret to blend better” at that point in the sentence, and the rest of the sentence is fine. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 2 of 11 Page 5 - At the end of Case No. CD 2022-74, right before Case No CD 2022-22, where it states, “Mr. Gladhill summarized that staff will work with the applicant to de-emphasize the garage slightly” she would strike the word “slightly” because in her opinion it was significant. Page 7 - She asked if there is a word missing in the sentence, “Staff cannot authorize full demolition of the structure which has foundational issues.” Mr. Gladhill stated from what staff can see from the outside, there are potential foundational issues, at least on additions to the original structure, so staff was flagging that this might be a candidate for at least partial demolition, and that is the sentiment staff was trying to carry forward. Commissioner Mino recommended changing the sentence to “Staff cannot authorize full demolition of the structure but notes that it has foundational issues.” Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve the minutes of the October 19, 2022 regular meeting with the changes noted. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. CD 2022-64: Consider Design of an Accessory Dwelling Unit for 919 5th Ave South; Case of Noel Malloy (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) Case No. CD 2022-70: Design Review of a Proposed Addition for 704 5th St N; Case of David and Kristen M. DeLeon (Staff Reviewer: Yasmine Robinson, 651-430-8822) Case No. CD 2022-77: Consider Design Approval for Fence Replacement at 106 Chestnut St E; Case of M3&G LLC (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) Commissioner Holmes asked to move Case No. CD 2022-64 and Case No. CD 2022-70 off the Consent Agenda for discussion. Chairman Thueson asked to move Case No. CD 2022-77 off the Consent Agenda for discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. CD 2022-76: Consider Design Permit to Approve New Dwelling Design at 303 St. Croix Ave W; Case of Preferred Builders (Staff Reviewer: Yasmine Robinson, 651-430-8822) Planning Manager Robinson stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a Design Permit for a new two-story, single-family, approximately 2,500 total square foot home. The proposed design will conform to the massing, volume, height, facade, spacing and scale of buildings within view of the site, and will also comply with zoning regulations. The proposed structure would be visually compatible with surrounding buildings within the area. Materials proposed include vinyl lap siding with shakes located at the gable. The proposed windows are vertically oriented and double hung. The proportion and number of windows is appropriate in relation to the proposed structure’s surroundings. The front door includes a sidelight and is visually balanced by two windows on the other side of the façade. The proposed gable roof is consistent with the majority of the older homes in the surrounding area. The proposed design features a prominent open front porch and is appropriately sized in relation to the proposed design, size and scale. The rear of the structure would contain a private deck. Parking would be located in an accessory garage set back from the midpoint of the primary structure. The windows and siding of the garage would be identical to that used on the primary structure. The proposed garage would comply with all massing, height and setback requirements. Staff recommends approval with two conditions, with potential modifications based on discussion. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 3 of 11 Commissioner Finwall pointed out there is no mention of significant trees being removed, and Ms. Robinson answered that there are trees on the lot but none of them would be considered significant. Commissioner Finwall said there appears to be a large oak in the center of the lot. She asked if a tree plan is required, and Ms. Robinson said a tree plan is not usually required in the case of a single-family home. Mr. Gladhill confirmed Ms. Robinson’s statement, adding that a tree plan is not required in the sense that staff would do a full inventory, but it is one of those elements that staff walks through as part of the design permit. He will look closer for specific code language. Commissioner Finwall pointed out that the design standards talk about preserving significant trees. She asked how many trees are being removed. Commissioner Mino commented that normally the Commission would see a landscape plan addressing significant tree removal. Cherie Snow and Tim Fistrum of Preferred Builders offered to answer questions. Mr. Fistrum said five trees will be removed: the large oak and the scruffy pine trees in the front. Other trees on the property line will remain. They do not have a landscape plan at this time. Commissioner Holmes asked what the vertical exterior building material is, and Ms. Snow said it is pre-painted LP but they might change that and put lap all the way up. Commissioner Holmes suggested there be some consistency in the way those two materials are applied so that if lap siding is on the front, it should be used on all sides. If there are shakes on the front gable, the applicant should put them on the rear gable also for consistency. Ms. Snow said there would be no problem doing as suggested. Commissioner Larson noted the garage is very long and wide. Because the gable follows the long direction of the garage, it gets quite high. He asked if the space is intended to be inhabitable and if it will have any plumbing, and Ms. Snow answered no. Commissioner Larson remarked that only one elevation is presented. He would like to see the same treatment on all four sides. Ms. Snow answered they can provide the other elevations, and Commissioner Larson said that staff can review that when submitted. Commissioner Finwall asked if the roof pitch will be compatible with other homes, and Ms. Snow replied that the architect measured the height and it complies. Mr. Fistrum added that it’s a 6-12 pitch and there are other 6-12 roofs in the neighborhood. Commissioner Finwall asked if the applicant considered any other architectural design in the porch columns, and Ms. Snow said they are open to changes. Chair Thueson opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Holmes asked staff for clarification on the zoning requirement regarding height of accessory buildings and whether in the RB District it is no more than 20 feet for a single story. Ms. Robinson answered that she believes they are bound by the 20 foot height restriction. In order to get the applicant on the agenda, she allowed the applicant to submit what they had toward the end of the submission deadline. She said she has made it clear that in their building permit the garage will need to comply with zoning in terms of height, massing and bulk. Staff can bring this application back to review a more polished version of the garage. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 4 of 11 Commissioner Holmes said he thinks the height of the garage is 23+ feet and it might work better if the gable were running the opposite way. Ms. Robinson agreed. In her many conversations with the applicant she has learned they do not want to seek a variance or conditional use permit, so they are happy to revise the plans to meet code. Chairman Thueson remarked if the garage height needs to come down to 20 feet from 23 feet, that would be a significant enough change that the Commission would want to see it come back. Ms. Robinson stated when the applicant applies for the building permit, planning staff would review the application to ensure the permit complies with any and all conditions imposed by the Commission and that it also meets all the requirements of the base zoning district. If it does not comply, staff would advise the applicant that any changes made to the application would come back to the Commission. Regarding a tree plan, Mr. Gladhill clarified that typically for new single-family dwellings, two new trees are required. Design guidelines discuss how to avoid tree removal but he thinks it would be adequate and within the HPC’s purview to require mitigation or some sort of replacement. Generally that would be reviewed at the staff level for a single-family home. If the HPC wants to specify as a condition, a tree replacement schedule, that could be done but it would absolutely be a staff level approval on the building permit. Chairman Thueson said he would like to see drawings showing that the project complies with all the zoning requirements regarding height and other requirements. Commissioner Holmes said he would like to see revised elevations that call out materials and apply the materials in a more consistent way around all elevations, and a design that complies with the height and footprint requirements in zoning, that ensures the garage design is compatible with the home in terms of materials and roof pitch, etcetera. Commissioner Finwall agreed that having the materials would be helpful. To determine if the applicant is attempting to preserve trees, she would like to see where the oak is located in relation to the driveway, for verification that the oak tree needs to come down, because it seems like maybe it could be preserved and she would suggest some sort of tree replacement as a condition. Mr. Gladhill said he doesn’t know if he would recommend having a surveyor go back out for a specific location but staff can use materials submitted as a baseline, mark it up and bring it back. The HPC should not expect a new Certificate of Survey. Staff will negotiate a tree replacement schedule. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to table Case No. CD 2022-76 for additional information. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Case No. CD 2022-64: Consider Design of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) for 919 5th Ave South; Case of Noel Malloy (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) (moved from Consent Agenda) Mr. Gladhill explained that the applicant is seeking Design Approval for the reconstruction of a garage as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The lot is 12,303 square feet and contains a two-story, 1,616 square foot single-family house built in 1887 and a 576 square foot single-story garage, proposed to be removed and replaced with the new garage/ADU. On October 26, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for an ADU, and a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 15 feet, which was needed to reconstruct the ADU in the same location as the garage. As part of the ADU Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 5 of 11 standards of approval, design review is required. The proposed garage (ADU) will be 32 feet by 28 feet and a total of 800 square feet at the garage level; the height is 19 feet. The proposal is for a three- stall garage with exterior stairs for access to the second story. The four-sided design includes matching horizontal lap siding and a gabled roof with a dormer adding architectural interest to the front (street facing) side of the accessory dwelling. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Commissioner Larson asked how long ADUs have been allowed in Stillwater, as this is the first one he has reviewed, and how an ADU is any different in review requirements, because it’s still a freestanding new building and it seems the design review is geared toward freestanding buildings. Mr. Gladhill replied that existing staff has to rely on past interpretations. The HPC has not typically reviewed accessory structures in general. Unless it hits certain thresholds, the HPC wouldn’t review a detached garage. Staff uses past practice to guide each review. If this is something the HPC wants to see in the future, staff can discuss amending the code to make it explicit that ADU review is required at least in the two design review districts that are under the purview of the HPC. He understands in the last 5-7 years there has been some understanding of accessory dwelling allowances. Chairman Thueson asked if there is something in the ADU code about the ADU matching the architecture of the primary residence, and Mr. Gladhill answered yes, the ADU is expected to do that. It still needs to comply with the design guidelines. Typically detached accessory buildings of a certain size are able to go through typical staff review. Noel Malloy, applicant, offered to answer questions. Commissioner Holmes complimented the applicant on changes made to the house, and asked about the height restriction. Mr. Malloy answered for the ADU, the height restriction is 20 feet to the midpoint of the roof, and Commissioner Holmes said he thought it could keep the same height as the house. Mr. Gladhill stated the standard definition for building height measurement is the average grade to the midpoint of the peak. Commissioner Holmes reiterated that in the zoning text for ADUs for the RB District it says building height should be no more than the primary dwelling unit. Mr. Gladhill responded that if the structure itself was 20 feet or less, that’s still trying to keep it lower to avoid having a 20 foot primary structure and a 30 foot accessory building unit. The language is unclear and the Planning Commission is working on language currently. When using the more restrictive of the conflicting language, it appears that the restriction is 20 feet measured to the midpoint of the gable. Commissioner Holmes asked why the windows are very high on three elevations, and Mr. Malloy answered it probably was not drawn properly, they should be a little lower. Commissioner Holmes noted that in the front, the window is 1 foot 8 inches off the floor which is a good height. If the applicant pulls the rest of the windows down, the top of the window could be with the door head of the exterior entry which would feel better. He suggested the applicant think about where the frieze band occurs halfway up; if it were moved down to the second floor it would be better balanced. Mr. Malloy replied OK. Commissioner Holmes asked the applicant to resubmit drawings so he can see that. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the applicant is proposing to use the same color as the house and Mr. Malloy said yes. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 6 of 11 Commissioner Larson commented he thinks this sort of accessory building becomes significant enough that it should be reviewed by the HPC. He agreed with Commissioner Holmes about the banding being lowered and windows being more proportional to the house. Chairman Thueson said there seems to be a consensus to table the application for revised drawings. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. CD 2022-64 and ask the applicant for redrawn elevations of all four sides based on revisions suggested during the conversation. All in favor. Case No. CD 2022-70: Design Review of a Proposed Addition for 704 5th St N; Case of David and Kristen M. DeLeon (Staff Reviewer: Yasmine Robinson, 651-430-8822) (moved from Consent Agenda) Ms. Robinson stated that the applicants are seeking approval of a Design Permit for a single-story, approximately 420 square foot addition to their home. The lot area is 10,468 square feet and contains a two-story, approximately 990 square foot single-family dwelling built in 1892 and a single-story, 644 square foot garage. On October 26, 2022 a variance was granted by the Planning Commission to allow an addition that would encroach into the side yard setback 18.2 feet from the exterior (right-of- way) side lot line. Staff finds the proposed addition to be a modest and seamless addition to the existing home, and that the proposed design meets the spirit and intent of the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines related to residential additions. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Holmes remarked it’s a well thought out addition. He suggested changes to window size and geometry. The east elevation has four or five windows that are the same size. It seems the double window in that elevation for the addition has a sill height that is 6” higher and the top is a few inches lower. If there was a way to make it the same size as other windows it would be an enhancement. Kristen DeLeon, applicant, agreed. Commissioner Holmes stated that the windows on the west are going to look very different from the windows on the back. He suggested if there is a way to make the back windows the same size and to push it away from the corner the same distance as the window on the east elevation, that would provide better balance. Ms. DeLeon said the reason the architect wanted to push the window to the corner is that the intended use for that space will be the bedroom with a headboard against the wall, but she will bring it up to the architect again. Commissioner Larson asked what the west elevation looks like. Mr. Gladhill did not see a drawing of the west elevation and Ms. DeLeon said she will get it to the City. Commissioner Mino asked if the house has vinyl siding now and Ms. DeLeon replied yes. Commissioner Larson asked, in the interest of four sided design, if the floor plans show any windows on the west, and Mr. Gladhill said there is a window there. Chairman Thueson said it seems the HPC is recommending some changes based on this conversation and when reviewed again, the HPC should review all four elevations. Ms. DeLeon said they would have liked to start this fall. She asked if there is a way to have it reviewed before a month from now. Mr. Gladhill replied that staff level review is just a recommendation but if the HPC tables it, the case would wait till the next meeting. Chairman Thueson added that the HPC typically wants to have all four elevations in the record. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 7 of 11 Mr. Gladhill clarified that staff just needs the three new sides of the addition, not the side that is not impacted by the addition. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to table Case No. CD 2022-70 for more information. All in favor. Case No. CD 2022-77: Consider Design Approval for Fence Replacement at 106 Chestnut St E; Case of M3&G LLC (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) Mr. Gladhill reviewed the case. The applicant is seeking Design Approval for the replacement of a fence. The site has a lot area of 14,815 square feet and contains a two-story 3,324 square foot residential building, built in 1873. The specific request is to replace the existing four-foot high white picket fence (NOTE: fence height was clarified in discussion following the staff review) and brackets with a four-foot high aluminum “Echelon Plus, Classic 3-rail style” white coated fence. Currently, there are no specific design requirements for fence replacement in City Code, except that fences must comply with underlining design guidelines and that the finished side of the fence is facing out. Due to the underlying review district and the change from wood picket to metal, staff felt that a design review was appropriate to ensure that the direction proposed by staff regarding administration of the guidelines was accurate. He emphasized this would not have come before the HPC had it not been for the existing white picket fence. Councilmember Junker pointed out a discrepancy between the application and the staff report in the fence height. Mr. Gladhill said the Zoning Code talks about a maximum of 48” in the front yard and exterior sideyard areas. Commissioner Holmes suggested it would be nice to have the replacement fence be approximately the same height as the existing fence, and Commissioner Mino agreed. Chairman Thueson pointed out that he can see why white is being proposed as that is what’s there now, but historic photos of Stillwater fences show that the white ones were usually wooden and metal ones were usually a dark color. Commissioner Larson agreed the metal fences were usually dark or black. He agrees that going from wood to metal, the metal should be dark because the white metal would jump out. Chairman Thueson suggested, looking through the catalog for that product, one thing the applicant could consider is caps on the posts that would look more like examples of old fences in Stillwater. Asked by Commissioner Mino if the picket fence is original, building owner Jim Munks answered that it was originally wrought iron, evolved to brick with wrought iron fence on top of the brick, to the current white picket fence. It currently is a 36” fence and the new fence would be 42” for safety and liability reasons given that it is on the sidewalk. Commissioner Mino asked what is the gauge? She pointed out the proposed fence is aluminum and not wrought iron, and asked if the applicant looked at that. Mr. Munks replied that the proposed fence is the commercial grade that the fence company uses on all their commercial properties. Councilmember Junker asked if the applicant would have an issue with a dark color rather than white, and Mr. Munks replied that his wife who is also his business partner thought that white would be in tune with the white accents on the building. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 8 of 11 Councilmember Junker pointed out that on top of the Main Street Stairs there is a very prominent old home that had a white picket fence for years, which was recently replaced with a black iron fence. It looks very nice. Commissioner Holmes said, having officed in that building in the past, he appreciates the owners’ efforts. He agreed that a dark color is better than light because it mimics historic material. Commissioner Finwall asked if the fence needs to be replaced, and Mr. Munks answered that multiple sections have fallen off, creating liability. Based on its placement and proximity to the road, and shoveling to keep sidewalks clear, it is a tough place for wood to handle, thus the switch to a more durable material. The retaining wall in the courtyard area is at least 6 feet tall. Chairman Thueson said, looking at product materials, there are options to install it according to the slope of street or stepped, and it seems that having it angled to follow the slope of the street would work better. Mr. Munks answered yes, it obviously needs to taper down with the elevation of the sidewalk. There will be a post every 8 feet and each section will taper down in the same contour of the sidewalk. Mr. Gladhill added that it will be a straight frame, not a curved frame. Chairman Thueson asked the applicant if he is open to black rather than white, and Mr. Munks replied that in the interest of time and liability, the company does not have black in stock so it would be another 10-12 weeks. He had to remove the old fence to tuckpoint the wall and make it ready for a new fence. In the interest of getting it installed prior to Christmas, he would like to go with the white but will run the black color past his business partner. Chairman Thueson suggested the HPC could approve it with a black color and if the applicants are not OK with that, then the HPC would discuss it again. Commissioner Holmes said he thinks black would be marginally better than white but he does not feel strongly enough about it to make it a condition of approval. Commissioner Heimdahl pointed out that safety concern trump cosmetics from a City point of view. Mr. Gladhill remarked it sounds like there is a specific stock order. Not being able to pivot from black to white, if the applicant went with 36” height, would that be another 10-12 week delay? Mr. Munks said yes. Commissioner Finwall asked what style would be preferred for the top of the pickets. Mr. Munks said they chose the classic style. The property line runs on top of the cap, so to keep the fence off City property he have to have it back about 4” from the edge of the cap. It will be 42” from the top of retaining wall to the cap. Chairman Thueson pointed out that he appreciates the applicant taking good care of the building which is a very significant building downtown. He would like it to match all the other historic fences in downtown. Commissioner Larson asked if a different fence supplier would be able to provide a black fence, and Mr. Munks replied that he contacted three fence installers, two of whom were willing to take on the job. He can check the third to ask about availability. The lead time for installation for the third supplier was four weeks longer than the company chosen. Commissioner Holmes remarked the fence really should be black and yet the applicant is limited by availability and pressed by safety issues with winter coming. One option would be for the HPC to approve it in black, and if black is not available, come back to the HPC. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 9 of 11 Chairman Thueson said that a temporary fence would be an option to make sure it stays safe. A white fence in that style doesn’t fit with the Downtown Design Review goal, in his opinion. Commissioner Holmes added that the white color gives away the fact that it’s aluminum. Commissioner Larson said he has no issue with a 42” height for safety. Commissioner Finwall asked for clarification on height. She asked if the fence will be 42” from the top of the retaining wall to the top of the fence and Commissioner Larson yes the applicant has indicated that. The cap varies from 2-4” above the sidewalk as indicated by the applicant. Mr. Gladhill stated the retaining wall is being repaired. Once this process is completed, there would be a formal fence permit, so staff would ensure that all portions are 48” or less which is the baseline for the Zoning Code. That 2-4” extra lip would be measured as part of the fence. It would still be under the 48” maximum height. Motion by Chairman Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. CD 2022-77, Design Approval for Fence Replacement at 106 Chestnut St E with the staff recommended conditions (NOTE: the staff report did not delineate specific conditions), adding a condition that the fence be in black, and ask staff to work with the building owner to come up with a temporary arrangement if needed due to the season. Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Holmes voting nay. Case No. CD 2022-78: Consider Design Permit for Roof and Rooftop Mechanical Units at 305 Water St S (Freight House); Case of JFS Stillwater LLC (Staff Reviewer: Tim Gladhill, 651-430-8821) Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the Freight House (a site that is on the National Register) is requesting approval to replace the current metal roof, rooftop equipment and fascia due to deterioration. The current roof is not the original roof, but actually the third (at least) roof system on the structure. The owner is proposing to replace the roof with another metal roof with a slate grey color. The slate grey color is similar to multiple municipal buildings in the downtown area. The owner is also proposing to repair the existing fascia, which is failing, with like materials (wood) and like colors (white). The original historic roof material is uncertain; it may have been a slate tile. The project would also include replacing the rooftop mechanical units with new units with a like-for-like replacement (same size and location). Staff recommends approval. Councilmember Junker asked for clarification on the mechanical units proposed. Mr. Gladhill said staff intends that a condition of approval be that it be a like-to-like replacement, not expanding the footprint of the mechanical equipment, and it appears the applicant will comply with that. Councilmember Junker asked if there will be any screening of the mechanical units. Mr. Gladhill answered that would be a reasonable condition if the HPC would like to add it. John Newsome, Market & Johnson, and Keith Reardon from Morrissey Hospitality, representing the Freight House, introduced themselves. Councilmember Junker asked if it is rust that gives it the current color, and Mr. Newsome replied yes, the roof is rusted and there are holes on the west side. The east side is close to rusting through. Commissioner Mino asked if there are plans to replace the mechanical units, and Mr. Newsome replied that all the mechanical equipment on the roof is being replaced, as it is outdated. Currently the units available are like-for-like the same size as what is there now. Councilmember Junker asked if there is a way to screen some of the mechanical particularly on the Water Street side, and Mr. Newsome replied with the existing structure, there would be quite a bit of Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 10 of 11 engineering and architectural design that would be required, which would be very expensive. In the interest of the owner, screening the mechanical would not be feasible. Mr. Reardon added that servicing the mechanical units poses a safety hazard which would be worse if not impossible with a screen, because they are on the edge of the roof. Mr. Newsome added that the best way to currently service any of it is from a bucket truck. Commissioner Mino asked if it is possible to have the equipment factory-finished in a different color, and Mr. Newsome answered that the two large units are already built, he is not sure what color they are, but he could see if they could be painted. Commissioner Mino noted that a darker color would fall away visually, but if painted after the fact, it may end up peeling which would look worse so she doesn’t know if she would recommend that. Commissioner Larson agreed that preferably the units would be factory-finished, if possible to a darker color so they would not stand out. Commissioner Holmes asked about roofing material. Click-Lock material says it’s a 24 gauge material but there are intermediate ribs which concern him. The best outcome would be a historic looking standing seam roof so if it could be a flat pan and a color that looks aged galvanized, that would be a more historic look. He provided other possible companies that have such products and suggested this be included as a condition. Mr. Newsome said he can talk to the roofer about the suggestion. Commissioner Larson agreed with Commissioner Holmes that intermediate ribbing is something not seen until more recently in later gauge metal. He pointed out the application mentioned slate gray and smoke gray, and Mr. Newsome clarified that slate gray is the preferred option and smoke gray is a backup. Commissioner Larson stated that the lighter gray is less of a change. Getting it much darker would be a significant change and not as compatible. He agreed the slate (lighter) gray is a good color. Chairman Thueson commented that screening, materials, and color of mechanical equipment have been discussed. It’s hard to think about what screening needs might be without knowing what the mechanical units will look like. He would like to have detail about what the specific units would look like. Mr. Newsome responded that there will be no change in the number of units, there are five condensing units which will be replaced one for one in tonnage; size is very comparable. The three large exhaust fans appear to be roughly the same size. The bathroom fan is small and inconspicuous and it will be very close. There are two 20-ton units - there will be a slight change based on efficiency requirements but he does not believe it is much different. Commissioner Larson brought up the color of the trim. The fascia is wood trim that belongs to the rest of the building and shouldn’t be a different color. Wood trim on the building should be all the same color. Whatever color the windows and door trim is, fascia should be the same. Mr. Gladhill said the applicant has stated their preference would be the extra white color for trim, and Mr. Newsome added that the trim will remain wood and there will be a like-for-like species to match the existing. The soffit will not be replaced. Commissioner Holmes said, in terms of screening mechanical units, it is all pretty much on the wall edge and for safe access he can’t think of an effective way to screen it without changing the essential character of the building. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022 Page 11 of 11 Commissioner Larson said he understands that a more solid screen would make it more difficult to access and service the units, but there are louvered screens on hinged doors that are made to service mechanical units. He does not know if making a solid screen around those units is an improvement. It’s unsightly and if it were a new building it wouldn’t be allowed, but in some ways making the least of what’s up there may be the best option. Chairman Thueson agreed. The only exception would be if any of the equipment has a big logo or some distracting element. Maybe that can be reviewed. Mr. Gladhill said it sounds like consensus is that to some degree, the applicant should get the mechanical units painted to blend better with slate gray. He sees a lack of consensus on physical screening and leaning toward ways to factory-coat or field-coat those pieces of equipment to blend better with what exists today. Commissioner Heimdahl pointed out that new equipment will probably be shiny stainless steel which would conflict with the dark color of the roof. He agreed if there were a shelter or screening more permanent than what is there, it would detract, so the best compromise is to try to make the equipment match the color of the roof. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve Case No. CD 2022-78, Design Permit for Roof and Rooftop Mechanical Units at 305 Water St S (Freight House) with the conditions discussed: slate gray roof, extra white trim intended to match the existing white trim, flat pan versus ribbed roofing material, and painting the mechanical to be a dark color compatible with or matching the roof, and the guardrails or screens as they exist being repainted in a similar color, and with the staff-recommended conditions (NOTE: the staff report does not include any specific staff- recommended conditions, but instead calls for HPC guidance). All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Discuss Workshop Dates Mr. Gladhill said there may not be a workshop date that will get full participation. Staff recommends having a 5:30 workshop session the same evening as the regular meeting in January and February (January 18 and February 15). Discussion will consist of Design Guidelines in general, process, whether the HPC should look at ADU design, and mobile food trucks. He added that the availability of Zoom Commission meetings, which takes extra IT staff to manage, is being phased out. However if there are special circumstances, a Commissioner or applicant may join a meeting by Zoom if needed as long as there is advance notice. FYI Commissioner Heimdahl suggested ordering food for the longer meetings and Mr. Gladhill said staff will handle this. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Matt Thueson, Chair ATTEST: _______________ Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director