Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-01 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Council Representative Ken Harycki, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad Absent: Larry Nelson Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval of the minutes of April 3, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings Case No. DEM/06-02 Consideration of a request for demolition of a residence at 7143 Manning Ave N. Croix Capital Group, applicant. Mr. Tomten recused himself from the Commission’s discussion/action and represented Chris Aamodt, Croix Capital Group, Liberty West developers, in this matter. Mr. Tomten stated that in the early design/planning stages of the Liberty West Development; they looked at the reuse of the northerly existing structure. However, reuse would not work well in the replatting of the property. He noted that preservation of trees and working with the topography were priorities in determining the layout of the development and location of interior roads. Mr. Tomten said they also looked at relocating the structure on site. However, the cost of moving the building and the potential loss of trees precluded that option. Mr. Tomten said they do not have an accurate age of the structure. He said the applicant had gone through the required nine steps for a demolition permit. Mr. Aamodt explained that he had not advertised the building for sale as required because he had spoken with agents and movers who were not interested in purchasing the structure because of the difficulty/cost presented by the trees. Mr. Aamodt said he did intend to reuse whatever materials he could, materials such as the beams. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., said this situation reinforces his recommendation that a survey be conducted of the recently annexation areas because of the presence of historic homes in the annexation areas. Although, he said he had not looked at this particular structure. Mr. Peterson agreed that it would be good to do surveys in conjunction with annexations and suggested that is an issue the Council should look at. There was discussion as to what constitutes “heritage trees.” Mr. Harycki noted the trees on this property are 100-150-year-old oaks. Even several residents in the Liberty development offered to give up portions of their yards to preserve these trees, he pointed out. There also was discussion as to whether the changes/modifications to the structure in question affected its historical significance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that from the perspective of the National Park Service criteria for historic listings, the continuity of this farmstead is already gone and its impact lost. He noted the foundation and some framing dates back to the original farmstead, but the rest is gone or modified. Mr. Zahren agreed that with the changes and modifications, little of the home is of historical significance. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 Mr. Lieberman said he was a bit troubled by the adequacy of the response to the demolition requirements No. 5 and 9, saying that “word of mouth” is not adequate. There was discussion as to whether to continue the request pending additional information on items 5 and 9. Mr. Aamodt noted that he was dealing with the City mandate to save the trees. Demolition is an integral part of the initiation of work on the project and is required due to the pressure to preserve the heritage trees, he said. Mr. Lieberman moved to grant conditional approval of the demolition permit contingent on the applicant submitting to City staff additional information regarding items 5 and 9; if staff deems the information sufficient, demolition can proceed, according to the motion. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Peterson asked if would be possible to determine the age of the structure before demolition takes place. Mr. Tomten said that would be possible and information could be incorporated into an historic plaque that will be featured in one of the development’s open space areas. Design Reviews Case No. DR/06-17 Design review of parking lot and 25’x50’ deck at 101 Third St. S. (American Legion Post 48) in the CBD, Central Business District. David Swanson, representing American Legion Post 48. Dave Swanson and Jeff Olsen, contractor, were present. Mr. Olsen explained the plan is to construct a wood frame deck and 36” retaining wall. Lattice work and cedar will cover the exposed area. Mr. Johnson asked about the style of the lighting fixtures. Mr. Swanson stated there would be decorative lanterns on each side of the door; he noted the door is not a public entrance and is 100’ from the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson asked about the style/color of the masonry units. Mr. Olsen said the units will be red and black, variegated color, to match/blend with the rear of the main building. The deck railing will be cedar. Mr. Johnson moved approval with the two conditions recommended by staff and the additional conditions that the applicant submit additional lantern fixture styles and colors/samples of the masonry units be to staff for approval. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson noted the light fixtures should be shielded and more in keeping with the architecture of the main building. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-19 Design review of a planned unit development for a 45,000-square-foot mixed use retail, office and residential use with underground parking in the Central Business District at 227 N. Main St. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Representing Mainstream Development were Vern and Tim Stefan. Tim Stefan provided a model of the building and described proposed materials and provided color samples of brick and copper shingles. The building would house retail use on the first floor, office space on the second level and seven condominium units on the third level and loft area. The main points of discussion centered on the height and potential requirement for a demolition permit. As proposed, the new structure would be 42’ to the roof parapet. Mr. Eastwood asked about the newly-adopted height overlay district and whether the maximum allowable height is 3 stories or 35’. Mr. Turnblad said the intent of the ordinance is a maximum or 3 stories. Mr. Harycki asked about the infill height restriction, limiting a new structure to a maximum of 10 percent higher than adjacent properties. Mr. Harycki said he would like clarification regarding 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 the height restrictions and said he was unwilling to abandon the new ordinance on the first test case. It was noted that the height issue and parking issues require variances and are issues the Planning Commission will have to deal with. Regarding the requirement for a demolition permit, Tim Stefan said he had been unable to determine the age of the structure. Mr. Johnson noted that Maple Island provided diary products during WW II and the structure likely dates back to that time. Mr. Peterson suggested that building permits and property abstracts would be helpful in determining the age of the structure and noted it was the applicant’s charge to determine that. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Johnson suggested it would be premature to consider the application until it is determined whether a demolition permit is required. Mr. Turnblad said it is the City Attorney’s opinion that the demolition issue can be considered separate from the design review process. It was agreed to provide design comments, with the understanding that the HPC does not approve or disapprove of the application until the demolition issue is resolved. Mr. Tomten said he thought the proposed setbacks enhance the streetscape. He noted that is was not uncommon historically for buildings on corners to get precedence, be larger and more prominent and said he thought the applicant had a good job in scaling the building in relation to the adjacent buildings. He also spoke in favor of the use of glazing/fenestrations on the Main Street elevation that differentiate the office use from the residential use. There was a question about roof penetrations. Tim Stefan said the proposal is to have an active rooftop, with pool and deck. Tim Stefan said the only rooftop mechanicals not screened would be two 3x3 air conditioning units, which could be housed inside the building if preferred. Mr. Zahren asked if there would be any greenery on the roof. Mr. Stefan replied that there likely would be some planters. Mr. Johnson asked about the use of the towers on the corners. Tim Stefan said the towers are used to signify entries; Mr. Johnson suggested the towers do not serve that purpose on the Water Street elevation Mr. Stefan asked for input regarding the Water Street elevation and the proposed loading dock and access to the underground parking area. Mr. Johnson said he thought the loading dock works well as it carries through the industrial look of that elevation and picks up the details of the other buildings. Mr. Lieberman said he liked the differentiation in setbacks, the idea of an active rooftop and said he was not uncomfortable with the direction of the design if the other hurdles are met. Mr. Eastwood said he thought the biggest issue was the massing of the building; he also said building setbacks are not part of the downtown design guidelines. Mr. Lieberman moved to invite the applicant back to the June HPC meeting for a closer design review or to hold a public hearing on a demolition permit if that is needed and issued and then move to a more detailed design review. In the interim, Mr. Lieberman said he hoped the Planning Commission and Council would deal with the non-HPC issues. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, clarifying this was conceptual consideration of the design only. The applicant was advised to work with Mr. Turnblad in an effort to determine whether a demolition permit is needed before the next HPC meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 Case No. DR/06-20 Design review of proposed construction of a free-standing grape arbor on second floor deck of Northern Vineyards Winery at 223 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Robin Partch, applicant. The applicant was present. There was a question about the height. Mr. Partch said the arbor will be a bit below the roofline. Mr. Johnson said he was surprised that the applicant would introduce the public to the rear of the buildings due to dumpsters and other items being located outside. Mr. Johnson said he thought the dumpster was supposed to be screened and suggested this was an opportunity to clean up the rear elevation and make it more customer- friendly. Mr. Johnson moved approval, with the condition that the dumpster(s) be stored inside the building or located in a screened enclosure. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-21 Design review of proposed signage for Stillwater Medical Clinic at 1500 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP-I, Business Park Industrial District. Dan Ginkel, applicant. Mr. Ginkel explained the intent is to replace the existing freestanding sign. The new sign will be somewhat larger but of similar construction to the existing signage; the new sign will be constructed using the same materials as the main building. It was noted that the proposed directional signs cannot include the name of the clinic. There was a question about landscaping around the sign. Mr. Ginkel noted that landscaping is not part of the signage package; a landscaping plan was submitted. Mr. Ginkel also noted there is no landscaping around the existing freestanding sign. Mr. Tomten moved approval with the condition that the name of the clinic be removed from the directional signs. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Other items: Mills on Main discussion: Representing the developers were Dave May and Scott England, architect. Mr. Lieberman began the discussion by noting this was not a public hearing and was not noticed as such. Mr. May provided photos of the northwest corner of the site, which showed where pipes had been painted and some had been cut down since the last discussion. Four different colors were used in painting the pipes -- black, two different shades of gray and a brown tone. The heating and air conditioning vents have been lowed, and all bathroom and dryer vents taken done to code 18” above the roof. He said plumbing stacks can be lowered when testing is complete. He said the horizontal pipes could be relocated and the one on the southeast corner may be shortened by about 4’. Mr. Harycki asked if there were any other alternatives. Mr. England said engineers have flatly denied any tent structure. Utilizing screening walls would be just as unappealing, he said, because so much screening would be required. Members questioned whether the developers/architects knew there would be this much “litter” on the roof and suggested that it was the developers/architects responsibility to anticipate that one of the most prominent features of the building would be the rooftop. Mr. England responded that with a flat roof, they knew penetrations would be needed but also knew they were not allowed to have rooftop equipment. Mr. England also noted that fireplace flues could be vented through the side walls, but that was not allowed by the City. Mr. Johnson suggested that if the HPC knew there would 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 be this amount of roof penetrations, there would have been some give and take in the design review process. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that piping can be consolidated – not every plumbing fixture needs to be vented through the roof. Mr. England responded that they did take measures to consolidate the piping where possible and noted that a roof plan, showing “hundreds of dots” indicating pipe locations, was submitted to the City. Mr. Johnson noted that one doesn’t see roof penetrations at the old prison site development. Mr. Harycki said he was not ready to accept looking at pipes for 100 years. Mr. England said the developer had consolidated what venting it can and will cut the pipes to the lowest level allowable by code; beyond that, he said, the only thing that can be done is to camouflage the pipes. Mr. Lieberman opened the discussion to public comments. Del Blocher, 308 N. Second St., referred to the City Attorney’s opinion that any pipes are a violation of the developers’ agreement. He said painting is not the solution, but said a solution still needs to be practical. Deborah Asch, 320 N. Second, said she thought things could be done to landscape the building on Second Street and suggested that a professional landscaper be consulted for ideas. Ms. Asch said she would like to see the landscape plan at the next meeting. Mr. England said they did have a professional landscape architect and trees will be planted on Second and the boulevard in July or August. Mr. England also noted that the roof will be covered in snow half of the year. Barb LeTourine suggested utilizing a sculpture garden, using the rooftop as a canvas. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., suggested allocating $20,000-$30,000 for a design contest to mitigate the appearance and said he suspected a lot of creative solutions might be offered. In the absence of any solution, he suggested denying an occupancy permit. Sonja Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, said she was “sad” about the view. She said no amount of paint can hide the piping; paint will just make it look like a mistake. She called for doing something creative to mitigate the situation. Gayle Roettger, Main Street, called on the developers to accept responsibility for their actions. Mr. Peterson asked if there was an overhead photo available to provide a better idea of what might be done. Mr. Harycki said he liked the idea of a design competition, something more than painting. Mr. Zahren pointed out that the project has actually improved the view from Second Street – before, the view consisted of buildings and scrub trees. Mr. Zahren also noted that when he went to look at the painting and cutting that had been done on a portion of the roof, he only noticed three colors – he didn’t see the browns. Mr. Lieberman suggested tabling any action until the completion of the cutting and painting. Mr. Johnson moved to take no action until all the pipes are cut and painted whatever color the developer feels is best, while at the same time encouraging the developer to look at other creative solutions. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. HPC members will meet at the site prior to the June meeting if the cutting/painting is complete by that time. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 There was discussion of the color of the siding/trim and garage doors. Mr. England provided samples of the preferred colors and how the colors would appear when they abut. Mr. Johnson asked about the suggested use of sage green. Mr. England said there was a concern about the psychological effects of the use of green and said herring gray was the preferred color. Mr. Johnson asked how the colors relate to the masonry and said the colors should represent the architecture of the building, rather than bringing in yellow/bright white, which are more contemporary colors. Mr. Tomten asked if it would be possible to get photo renditions of the different colors. Mr. Tomten also asked if color variations had been considered to break up the back of the building. Mr. England pointed out that photo renditions are not entirely accurate; Mr. Tomten said it was understood that the color elevations would not be totally accurate. Mr. England said approval of the colors is critical at this point. He asked if it would be possible to get approval within the week if he provided color elevations to members. Mr. Johnson moved to have Mr. England circulate PDFs of color elevations to members, with members to respond with their comments to Mr. Turnblad within four days. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6