Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-06 HPC MINHeritage Preservation Commission Monday, February 6, 2012 Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: John Brach, Robert Goodman, Reggie Krakowski, Howard Lieberman, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council liaison Micky Cook Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Jeff Johnson Approval of minutes: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Brach, moved approval of the minutes of January 4, 2012. Motion passed unanimously. Election of officers: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, nominated Mr. Lieberman to serve as chair for 2012. Motion passed 5 -0. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, nominated Mr. Johnson to serve as vice chair. Motion passed 6 -0. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2012 -02. Design review for the placement of solar panels on a roof located at 1675 Greeley Street South in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Innovative Power Systems, applicant. A representative of the applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Zahren commended the applicants for seeking an alternative energy source. Mr. Zahren asked if the panels come in different colors; the applicant's representative explained the semiconductors in the panels are somewhat variable in color, but said there is not any real aesthetic difference — they are pretty much plain black color. Mr. Zahren asked if neighbors might have an issue with light reflection; the representative responded in the negative, noting the glass is not reflective and the business in question has a 27- degree roof pitch, which makes it very improbable that there would be any reflection that would bother nearby residents or passing cars. The applicant's representative pointed out there are no moving parts to solar panels and they have a modest appearance; he suggested this location is a good location for making renewable energy more visible to the community. Mr. Lieberman noted the Commission has never dealt with solar panels from a design perspective and asked whether the Commission should be giving consideration to future projects in order to be consistent in analyzing those on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Brach noted this project is in a more industrial area and said he thought this was an ideal location; he said in a more residential area, a flush- mounted system, such as the one proposed, would be the more appropriate type of system. Mr. Pogge noted that several years ago, staff was asked by the Council to put together guidelines on solar panel installations; he said an initial set of guidelines was brought to the HPC and Planning Commission for discussion and nothing further was done. He said this application has prompted staff to begin looking at the issue again; he said the initial guidelines were primarily addressing residential installations. Mr. Pogge said he thought consensus was that a commercial setting, such as this, was an appropriate location for the Page 2 of 2 HPC Minutes 2 -06 -2012 systems. He said the concern with this proposal is a glare from solar panels, especially given the proximity to Curve Crest Boulevard and the direction the panels are facing; he said those concerns have been alleviated in discussions with the applicant and City Engineer. Mr. Pogge said he thought this was a good proposal and an ideal location. Ms. Cook asked what other cities are going and whether this is consistent. Mr. Pogge said there are not a lot of cities that are looking to regulate solar systems within a commercial district; he said the primary emphasis has been in residential areas, with the City's initial guidelines prompted by a residential system placed in a front yard. Ms. Cook asked about potential problems and expressed concern about moving forward without some guidelines. Mr. Pogge acknowledged the potential for some problems created by glare, but said with this roof pitch and the location, there should be no such difficulty. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve as submitted and conditioned, with the understanding that this is not intended to set precedent with regard to solar panels, but is based on the fact that this is a unique situation in a commercial district where it will have little or no impact on any residential areas and is flush mounted; the motion also indicated that it is hoped that in the future a set of guidelines will be developed. Mr. Brach seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten asked the applicant is there was any concern about the possible shading effect from nearby trees; the applicant's representative explained the process involved in converting the energy and said the applicant will be looking at doing some tree trimming on the south and east portion of the site. The representative spoke of the aesthetic issues involved in residential areas; he spoke of the permitting process in several communities, including Afton. Motion for approval passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -03. Design review to install glass panels to enclose the covered patio on the east side of the building located at 101 Water Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Chuck Dougherty, applicant. Mr. Dougherty was present, along with a representative of the company that makes the proposed enclosure system. The product representative said the primary feature of the system is that it provides an enclosed space but the system is barely visible -- when it opens it essentially disappears as there is only a small frame at the very top and bottom of the system. On a question by Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Dougherty said the hope is to provide a four - season area with an unobstructed view. On a question by Mr. Tomten, the product representative said there would be four areas where the panels would stack up, two along the east elevation and two stacks against the building. Mr. Tomten asked about the type of glass, suggesting that glare and reflection might be an issue; Mr. Dougherty said they are proposing a clear glass. Ms. Cook said she thought the issue with reflection, not only for boaters but also for motorists coming across the river, should be considered. The product representative said there have never been any previous discussions /concerns about a potential issue with glare; he said he would look into the possibility of some anti -glare treatment and said he was fairly confident that there is a product available that would address that concern. There was discussion as to whether to give concept approval or approval with a condition regarding the anti -glare treatment / /product. Mr. Zahren said it would be nice to see what the framing would look like. Mr. Brach suggested from looking at the product brochure and the layout, it would seem the framing will not be visible as it will be installed behind a beam and in the concrete; he said he did not see that as an issue and said he would be comfortable giving approval with staff to work out the details regarding the anti -glare treatment. Mr. Tomten moved to approve with staff to look at the anti - glare /anti - reflective Page 3 of 3 HPC Minutes 2 -06 -2012 options that are available to the manufacturer. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -04. Design review of signage for Spice & Tea Co. located at 212 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Nancy Figueroa, Spice & Tea, applicant. The applicant was present and provided samples of the final design of the proposed signage. Mr. Tomten asked about lighting. Ms. Figueroa said there will be lamp lighting above the storefront, similar to what is at Stillwater Olive Oil. She said with the size of the storefront, there will be two lights, rather than three. She said she would like to use the colors, terra cotta and gold, inside the store as well as on the signage; she said she had been working with Randy Raduenz on the details. Mr. Brach noted the Commission would want all of the attaching bolts to be in the mortar joints, rather than the brick itself; Mr. Figueroa said that would be done. Mr. Pogge pointed out the hanging sign must be at least 8" above the sidewalk. Ms. Figueroa asked if it would be possible to perhaps increase the size of the sign, but not exceed the maximum allowable, in order to increase the size of the verbiage a bit; members indicated that would be allowable as long as the size stays within the maximum allowable. Mr. Brach moved to approve as conditioned, with the additional condition that all bolts be located in mortar; the hanging sign have no less than an 8' clearance; and any changes in the sign dimensions be reviewed by staff. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Case No. 2011 -24. Discussion of Demolition Ordinance. — Mr. Pogge reviewed the work that has been done on revising the ordinance, noting that the emphasis has been on changing the current 50 -year rule to a set date of Jan. 1, 1946; limiting the review of partial demolitions; and rather than having a purely delay ordinance, such as the current ordinance, adding a mechanism for denial. A group has been meeting since October, he said, to address concerns regarding the proposed draft ordinance. He said there are five major changes proposed to the draft ordinance: further definition and restrictions of partial demolitions; removing the requirement that a structure be advertised for sale, which he said has not been an effective tool; requiring a sign be placed on a property proposed to be demolished a minimum of 12 days prior to a demolition hearing; amending the optional 180 -day delay on a demolition to require Council approval of that option; and removing the option from mitigation plans to require the salvage and preservation of architectural elements for possible reuse. He said the additional revisions have been distributed to all persons involved in the discussions in October. He said several additional changes have been suggested as a result: in the definitions for demolition eliminate the word "removal" and replace it with "partial demolition of 50% or more of a structure "; in some way indicate that the economic justification requirement, a somewhat subjective analysis, in the demolition permit is not an item that would ultimately be used for denial of an application; and a suggestion there be some change regarding submittal of the proposed plans and reuse for the property, a requirement that Mr. Pogge said he believes should be retained. He said he has been working on a guide to building demolitions which will explain the demolition process and convey the City's message regarding demolitions. Mr. Goodman asked if local realtors have been informed of the proposal; Mr. Pogge said he planned to attend a group meeting once the proposal has been formalized. Mr. Lieberman talked about the importance of education — helping people understand that maintaining the quality of the community helps preserve the value of their homes, their most important asset — as well as of being flexible in allowing people to utilize their own property. Mr. Brach said he didn't think there is any perfect demolition ordinance, but said he thought this proposed revision is a significant improvement; he said he Page 4 of 4 HPC Minutes 2 -06 -2012 liked having staff being able to deal with minor items that do not need to come to the HPC. Ms. Cook spoke of several projects that should have come to the HPC and didn't and wondered if this would address those issues as well; Mr. Pogge said this would address that issue with definitions that would trigger review by the HPC. Mr. Tomten asked about the change to the mitigation plan which eliminates the salvage and preservation of specified building materials, fixtures, etc.; he noted that section includes a lot of "mays" and including that last "may" could pique the interest of the applicant in saving some materials. Mr. Pogge said the concern that came forward is that this involves private property and the potential that the Commission could require a property owner to basically give the property or sell the property to a third - party; he said there is also an area of liability such as with lead paint. Mr. Tomten suggested that if that is the concern, perhaps the whole paragraph should be eliminated. Mr. Lieberman said he had a similar question regarding eliminating the verbiage regarding a salvage plan; while the government shouldn't require an individual to sell or save parts of their own property, he said it doesn't feel too heavy- handed to suggest it may be possible to save certain unique aspects of a building. Mr. Pogge said he would try re- writing that section. There was discussion regarding the previous denial of the demolition permit request for a home on Schulenberg Alley. CLG Grant Update — Mr. Pogge distributed a map showing the three different boundaries of potential historic districts as previously recommended by Don Empson. Based on the number of properties participating in or qualifying for the Heirloom /Landmark programs, he said staff would recommend targeting the north half of district 1 of the maps for a possible designation district. He said the intent would be to hire a consultant with the grant funds to look at the district and write up a detailed synopsis of every home, work with property owners to discuss the proposal and present a designation district for possible action by the City Council. He said doing the CLG doesn't commit the City to actually designating a property but allows the City to build the information and documentation. He said the formal grant write -up would be brought to the February HPC meeting. Mr. Tomten suggested narrowing the target area further on the east and west sides, focusing primarily on Third and Second streets. Mr. Pogge stated 100 properties is about the smallest scope that SHPO would recommend; he said north of Hancock includes 106 properties and said he would be leery of making the target area any smaller. Mr. Pogge noted that what may come out of the report may actually be a smaller district. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman, second by Mr. Krakowski. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary.