Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-06 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others: Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear Absent: Jeff Johnson Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to adopt the minutes of Feb. 6, 2006, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Design Review Case No. DR/06-11 Design review of new signage at 317 S. Main St., St. Croix Merchant’s Building, in the CBD, Central Business District. Randall Raduenz, representing Larry Cramer, applicant. Randall Raduenz explained the request for signage and reviewed the proposed layout. He provided a swatch book of colors; colors would be a medium green, deep burgundy and dark brown with gold lettering. He said currently it is difficult for people to know what tenants are inside the building. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as submitted. Mr. Tomten suggested adding a condition that the existing sign be removed; if the applicant wishes to move the existing sign to the back, that would be a separate application. Mr. Eastwood agreed to amend his motion to include that condition. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-14 Design review of signage at 14012 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Mark Winey, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-15 Design review of signage change at 106 E. Chestnut St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Patricia Page, applicant. The applicant was not present. It was noted the drawing of the proposed sign in the packet had an incorrect spelling of the building name – should be Bourdaghs, not Burdash. Mr. Lockyear said the applicant had indicated the new sign would be the same size as the existing sign. Mr. Tomten suggesting asking the applicant to consider white lettering, with the background in burgundy, thus reducing the appearance of being internally lit, which is not allowed. There was discussion as to whether the new sign would still be grandfathered in. Mr. Lockyear said under his interpretation, the change in signage would mean the sign would not longer be grandfathered and could no longer be internally lighted. Due to the unanswered questions, Mr. Lieberman moved to table this case and invite the applicant to appear at next month’s meeting. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 Case No. DR/06-16 Design review of exterior modifications of a building at 324 S. Main St. (Stone’s Restaurant) in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Stone, applicant. Mr. Stone was present. He provided full-scale drawings of the proposed design and photos of the existing structure. The intent, he said, was to have a design that is not overbearing and fits with the building. The proposal is to utilize stucco, river stone and limestone veneer. Initially, the plan is to utilize the existing aluminum-clad windows; there is a possibility the windows might be changed to a wood-clad trim. There was a question about the proposal to illuminate the river stone façade and how much of the lighting would go over the building. Mr. Stone responded that none of the lighting would go over the building; the lighting is low wattage, recessed lighting that will illuminate about 3-6 feet up on the stone. There was a question about the sign over the door. Mr. Stone said the sign would be a mesh screen with the name Stone’s in raised metal lettering; there will be no river stone behind the mesh and no direct lighting behind the sign. Mr. Tomten moved approval as condition, with the clarification that the low-voltage up-lighting at the screens be projecting on the walls only and that there be no direct lighting on the sign. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Eastwood suggested amending the motion to include the condition that the final sign graphics be submitted to and approved by staff before installation. Amended motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings Case No. DR/06-12 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District, RB, Two Family Residential District, at 1208 N. William St. Tom Mulcahy, applicant. Mr. Mulcahy was present. He said he would like to build a home with an historical look and said he thought it would fit into the area very nicely. He said the plans are preliminary drawings and said the amount of impervious surface could be scaled back. Mr. Lieberman said he thought the plans worked well with the new infill design guidelines and fit well in the neighborhood. Jeff Benson, 1120 N. William, expressed concerns about water runoff. He said it appears the majority of the runoff from the twin home would run across his property. Mr. Eastwood asked if the proposal had been before the Planning Commission, noting that drainage is addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mulcahy responded that he believes the present fill behind the house is too low and suggested this would be an opportunity to correct problems. Mr. Benson also said he had a question about the driveway. Mr. Mulcahy said he had no intention of infringing on Mr. Benson’s driveway. The plans show the driveway in question six and one-half feet from the property line, it was noted. Margaret Schneider, 1212 William St., questioned whether 50 x 150 is considered a buildable lot and also questioned the minimum square footage of the home that could be put on that lot. She stated that Mr. Mulcahy had said he is neither a licensed building contractor nor licensed by the City, both of which are required in order to construct a home according to City Code. She also questioned whether the new home would be built according to City standards relating to square footage and setbacks. Mr. Lieberman asked Mr. Mulcahy whether he would be hiring a licensed builder. Mr. Mulcahy responded that he could hire a contractor, or he could get licensed himself, noting that he has been in the construction business all his life. Mr. Lockyear pointed out that Mr. Mulcahy would have to obtain a building permit and provide complete 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 working drawings that would be reviewed by the City building official. When the building official approves a plan, the official inspects the project at various stages and the project will have to meet code. Regarding the question about the size of a buildable lot, Mr. Lockyear said minimum square footage for a buildable lot is 7,500 square feet. Ms. Schneider also expressed a concern about drainage. Mr. Harycki asked whether submission of a drainage plan is required as part of the permit process. Mr. Lockyear pointed out this proposal will require a resubdivision and suggested that drainage issues will addressed in that process. Ms. Schneider said her biggest issue was with the privacy of current residents. Joanne Loer, 1114 N. William, also expressed a concern about drainage and said there was a big problem when Good Samaritan was constructed. She said consideration should be given to the existing drainage problems. Mr. Lieberman responded that the HPC could request that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the drainage issues when it passes the Case along. Mr. Lieberman read Mr. Johnson’s comments into the record. Mr. Johnson commented that the single unit looked good, although the belt line trim appears high from the information submitted. He stated that the twin unit appears wide for the scale of the house; he suggested ways to add vertical elements to the structure to narrow the appearance. Mr. Johnson also commented on the light fixtures, suggesting the fixtures be downlit. Mr. Tomten noted that one of the requirements is review of all four sides of a structure and asked whether all four elevations were complete at this time. Mr. Tomten wondered if the applicant would be open to returning to the HPC next month with finished plans for all elevations of the proposed structures. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the application at concept level, with the applicant to return with final plans for all four elevations, color schemes, lighting plans. Mr. Tomten noted in the interim, the applicant would have time to address preliminary grading issues raised by neighbors and also rework impervious surface coverage to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-13 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District, RB, Two Family Residential District, at 303 W. Olive St. Mark Willis and Greg Stokes, applicants. The applicants explained that following comments received at the February meeting, they had gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan. While more conservative in direction, the architect said he felt the design was still strong in terms of the abstract beauty they are trying to achieve. The changes are very substantial to the street-side and south elevation, he said. The architect said the applicant will be coming back with actual design of the south house, but would like to proceed on the premise that the HPC has reviewed the site plan and approves in concept an attached-garage structure repressed to the rear of the lot for the second house. There was a question about soils. The applicants responded that most of the soils issues pertain to the north house, which is why they will be starting with that structure first. Mark Balay, 416 S. Fifth St., said he thought the applicants had done a good job in responding to some changes in proportion, such as the eave overhang, and had done a lot to start complying with the infill guidelines. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 Leo Lohmer, 303 W. Olive, spoke of the history of the property and the ravine. He said he would like to see something nice on the property, and said he liked the proposed plans. Mr. Lieberman said a question had been raised about the design guideline related to four-sided architecture. He said it could be argued that as proposed, the north and south faces are different from each other. The applicants explained that the elements that separate the massing of the two components are recessed, so the two major masses will read throughout in terms of the overall massing of the building. The architect explained the details of the window massing and said looking at the whole configuration, eliminating the three in the middle vertical strip, the end result is a six component symmetrical layout. Mr. Lieberman questioned the meaning of “consistent” in the four-sided architecture guideline, noting that this is the Commission’s first experience with the guidelines. Mr. Tomten said he thought the applicants had approached all four sides of the house the same and said the vocabulary is consistent with the style of the house, a contemporary style. Mr. Tomten said how the applicant had addressed the stairwell in the strip windows is not unlike Victorians, a unique piece to the house. Mr. Tomten asked about the eave condition on the gable end; the applicant explained that detailing. Mr. Harycki suggested the corner board detailing evident in other houses in the neighborhood is missing in this design. The applicants argued the lack of the corner boards will make the quality of the building very clear because it will show wood. Mr. Harycki pointed out that the guidelines refer to compatibility with adjacent structures in design detailing such as columns, frieze board, fascia boards etc. with adjacent structures; pictures of the adjacent houses provided by the applicants show such details, and those details are absent in the proposed plans. Mr. Eastwood agreed that the north elevation is lacking details and does not fit in with the other elevations. Mr. Tomten argued it is the style of the house that determines detailing, and in this case, all four sides are compatible with the style, which is contemporary. The applicants noted that the revised plans make serious gestures toward the traditional while still in keeping with the contemporary style. Mr. Lieberman agreed with Mr. Tomten that the architectural details of the proposed house are consistent with a contemporary house. Mr. Lieberman suggested the issues comes down to “compatible” with adjacent structures and said “compatible,” in his view, does not mean to replicate or be identical to the adjacent structure but to include elements on some level that pay homage to the adjacent houses. Mr. Lieberman said some of the details in the massing and small sizes are compatible. The applicants noted that it would be much easier to present plans that replicate an old house, but suggested that would not be good for the future of Stillwater to keep building structures that try to look old. Mr. Eastwood said his only issue is that the north side does not have the elements that the other elevations do and does not conform with the guideline related to four-sided architecture. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the design as submitted. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. The applicant asked if it would be appropriate to include approval of the concept of an attached garage for the second house, as that is a requirement for building the first house. Mr. Lieberman noted that if approved, the action would not mean that there will not be strict scrutiny of everything that comes before the Commission under the infill guidelines – each proposal will be judged on its merits. Mr. Eastwood asked that it be clarified the motion is for approval as conditioned. Mr. Tomten pointed out the applicants have met the vast majority of the guidelines to the fullest extent, the discussion centered on those two guidelines the most subject to interpretation. Mr. Tomten thanked the applicants for bringing together a high quality project. Mr. Lieberman also noted that the applicants had substantially met the infill guidelines; 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 the more broadly worded guidelines brought the Commission to discussion. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Other items: ? Dave May, Stillwater Mills, appeared regarding the use of skylights. Mr. Mills said he thought the Commission had previously approved the use. Mr. Lockyear said originally the skylights was supposed to have a four-inch reveal on the roof; now the proposal is to use 16-inch domed skylight, which is a considerable change from what was originally proposed. Also the skylights will now be slanted, rather than flat due to problems with roof pitch. Mr. May explained that water retention will be on the roof to manage water coming off the site, necessitating the skylight changes. There was a question about visibility from the street. It was noted the skylights will be visible from Second Street. The discussion turned to the visibility of pipes on the roof; several members said they had received calls regarding the pipes. Mr. Lieberman said he thought these were significant design issues that need to be addressed. Mr. May said the developers had originally proposed screening roof elements but were told the only roof penetrations allowed are those that are absolutely necessary – vent stacks, bathroom venting, fireplace/furnace vents. Mr. May said the problem is now the roof is in place, so it is no longer possible to screen the rooftop mechanicals. Mr. Eastwood said the vents were not shown in the plans the HPC reviewed. Mr. Lieberman said the HPC needs to see some design element to compensate for what has become a community eyesore. Mr. Harycki suggested this is what is driving the move to height restrictions. Mr. Lieberman encouraged Mr. May to look at some creative way to screen the vents and return to the HPC. Mr. Lockyear suggested there might be ways to utilize rooftop screening such as latticework. Mr. Lieberman said the skylights were not included in the plans approved by the HPC and those design plans should come back for review as well as the screening issue. Mr. May said he didn’t understand why skylights would be controversial or of concern. Mr. Lieberman noted there is a lot of sensitivity to height and visibility at this point. Mr. May was invited to come back to the HPC at its April meeting with plans to address the concerns. ? There was discussion as to whether there should be an official HPC position regarding the proposed height restrictions in the historic downtown district. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the proposed guidelines are higher than existing buildings in every zone, which he said is defeating the purpose of maintaining the viewshed. Mr. Eastwood suggested keeping heights consistent with the current buildings. Mr. Tomten questioned how property owners would be reimbursed for the loss of value in going from 50 feet allowable height to 30 feet as proposed. Mr. Harycki said Mr. Magnuson has reviewed the legal issues and said the City has a right to restrict heights as buildings get closer to the river. Mr. Lockyear said if the City is going to impose height restrictions, it will have to implement three different district, since property owners in a district must be treated equally. Mr. Lockyear also noted that the proposal does not change allowable heights anywhere in the downtown district except east of Water Street. The only impacted parcels, he said, are the Dock Café, Water Street Inn and the marinas. Mr. Lockyear said the proposal includes the caveat that an infill structure cannot exceed the adjacent structures by 10 percent, which in essence maintains the 35- foot height in the historic district. There was discussion as to the definition of “adjacent.” Mr. Lockyear said eliminating the “adjacent” language and setting a specific height limitation would solve that issue. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6