Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-07 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 7, 2012 Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: John Brach, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Howard Lieberman, Scott Zahren and Council liaison Micky Cook Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Lieberman, moved approval of the minutes of April 2, 2012. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Roger Tomten, 718 S. Fifth St., informed the Commission of the meeting of the National Heritage Initiative scheduled for May 15. He briefly reviewed the mission of the Initiative; he noted that previously he was the contact person for the Commission and suggested it would be good for someone else on the Commission to volunteer to serve in that capacity. Mr. Zahren volunteered to be the contact person. Mr. Lieberman thanked Mr. Tomten for his many years of service on the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -24. A city code text amendment to consider amending the Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34 of the Stillwater City Code. City of Stillwater, applicant. Mr. Pogge highlighted some of the key elements of the proposed amendment, the process involved in developing the proposal, and the impetus for amending the current ordinance. He provided some hypothetical case studies to illustrate the changes from the current and draft ordinance. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Members of the audience were asked if they were aware the City has a demolition ordinance; if aware of the existence of the ordinance, if they understood how it operated; and whether they felt it was good for the City to have such an ordinance. Mr. Lieberman suggested the response from the audience indicates that whatever is done with the ordinance, an ordinance that affects private property rights of individuals, the City /Commission needs to do a better job of communicating with the community. Mr. Johnson pointed out an inconsistency in 34 -4(3), suggesting that that the first line of that section should state: "not historically significant or not an historic resource." A member of the audience asked whether an outbuilding would be subject to the ordinance. Mr. Pogge stated if the building is over 50 years of age it would come before the Commission under the current ordinance. Under the draft ordinance, if the building meets the age restriction, staff could approve the request if it was determined the structure is not an historic resource or historically significant. The same person asked if a remodeling project might come under the ordinance; Mr. Pogge said it would depend on how much of the facade of the home was taken down. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the draft ordinance as submitted with the revision to 34 -4(3) first sentence "not historically significant or not an historic resource." Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pogge noted the Council would hold a public hearing at its May 14 meeting. 1 DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2012 -14. Design review of the construction of a rooftop deck and bar (Rafters) located at 317 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Larry Cramer, applicant. Continued from the April 2, 2012 meeting. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. He noted when the Commission first heard this request at its last meeting, there was no definitive design plan; he pointed out that the proposed external staircase has been removed from the plan. He also noted that this building is in the Commercial Historic District but is a non - contributing building. Mr. Pogge noted that last month, there was a question about the height; he said staff reviewed that issue and determined that a "dog house" or any other addition on top of the roof would have to meet the height standard, which in this instance would be 41'7" maximum. He said the proposed plans now meet that height requirement and no variance is needed. He noted a number of written comments had been received and were included in the agenda packet, including one on behalf of Marine Leasing, property owner to the south of the building in question, requesting that the City certify the safety of the building and not proceed with an approvals until those certifications are received. Mr. Pogge pointed out that before any building permit is issued, plans are reviewed by the building official and fire marshal, who must approve the plans; he stated this is done after the public reviews, in part because of the costs involved when there is no guarantee that plans will be approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission or Planning Commission when special permit /variances are required. He said staff, including the building official, police and fire chiefs, fire marshal, community development director, have reviewed plans and believe with certain conditions, the use can be done safely; he noted there are 12 conditions of approval recommended for HPC consideration listed in the staff report, some of which are design oriented and some operational oriented. He reviewed proposed operational conditions, No. 9 -11, which he said staff is now recommending be removed and addressed as part of the special use permit. On a question by Ms. Cook, Mr. Pogge said a condition regarding amplification /noise will be addressed as part of the special use permit process. Mr. Zahren noted the City has a noise ordinance and asked why that would not come into play in this instance; he also questioned the hours of operation as listed in condition No. 11 and the prohibition of a physical bar /service station on the roof (No. 9). Mr. Pogge said the hours of operation are a public safety consideration, but noted discussions are still taking place regarding that issue; he said the condition regarding a rooftop bar /service station comes from Minneapolis, which has found there are more incidents when there is a bar on the roof versus having to go and get drinks from another location. Mr. Zahren expressed hope that the City would work with the applicant to allow this use to happen, but agreed it is important to see that it is done right. Mr. Johnson asked about the 42" pedestrian rail, whether there was any detail of what is intended. Brian Larson, architect for the applicant, explained the proposal is for vertical pickets with a horizontal cap; he said the rail would be kept to minimum dimensions and painted black. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Larson said the height of the deck is essentially a function of getting some structure underneath it; he said it would be no higher than necessary, but likely would be slightly above the parapet. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about removing condition 10 regarding a 5' setback from the building edge, saying he thought that was a visible element of the proposed patio and therefore a design element. 2 Mr. Johnson noted this proposal includes changes to the Main Street side of the building; Mr. Larson said that is a result of working with the building official regarding egress issues. Mr. Larson said because the applicant has been unable to reach an agreement with the property owner to the south to provide an exterior egress, they need a fully enclosed, fire -rated stair enclosure as a second exit somewhere in the building. Mr. Larson explained that locating that stair to the west was most feasible, but requires adding a retail entrance at one of the other openings on Main Street. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about making changes to the front elevation to accommodate a solid door for an emergency exit only from the roof; he suggested the proposed changes to the existing storefront breaks the rhythm of the building. There was discussion of the difficulty of getting the exit to the Water Street side of the building and the inability to provide any type of exterior stair due to the neighboring property owner's position. On a question by Mr. Zahren, Mr. Pogge noted that this is a non - contributing building to the National Register so the proposed door at the Main Street elevation would not affect that status but said the City wouldn't want to do anything on Main Street that would impact adjacent buildings. There was discussion of various options for locating the new fire door. The retail tenants expressed concern about the impact of the plan on the interior wall. There was discussion with Patrick Anderson, representing Marine Leasing, about the possibility of reaching some type of agreement that would allow for an exterior exit so as to not require the alteration to the Main Street fapade. Mr. Anderson expressed concern about introducing new hazards to adjoining properties, such as risk of fire. Mr. Johnson asked if some type of fence or wall along the south parapet would be considered acceptable; Mr. Anderson said any fence /wall should be impenetrable, mentioning a height of 10'. Mr. Lieberman said he had received a letter from another adjoining property owner who stated a security fence should be 10', rather than 6' tall; he also spoke of other concerns raised to him about issues with the building, such as water leakage during storms. Mr. Lieberman said the height of the security fence and the additional opening on Main Street were issues of concern to him. Mr. Johnson suggested the possibility of providing a solid, opaque 10' wall above the deck elevation along the south side up to the radius point or perhaps 10' beyond the radius point to provide a full separation from the deck area which might open the possibility of additional discussions with Mr. Anderson about having an exterior fire exit. Mr. Johnson suggested that the 10' wall could be part of the feature of the patio space and would provide a real separation from the adjacent building. Mr. Larson pointed out they would want the wall to be fabric so it can be taken down in the winter due to snow loading and drifting concerns. Mr. Cramer said he would be happy to provide the higher wall to have the exit as originally proposed, but questioned the ability of provide an "impenetrable" wall. There was discussion of a possible service area. Mr. Larson said the idea is to provide a portable place for coolers, not a full bar setup; he said there would be no plumbing. Mr. Cramer said it is basically a place for the servers and said they had agreed to having no glass bottles on the deck. Mr. Anderson was invited to the table; he said property owners on both sides are afraid of fire and trash clogging drains; he said if a way can be found to be reasonably sure that doesn't happen, that would resolve one area of concern. Mr. Anderson said another issue is the issue of an easement; he said they would be inclined to do a rental agreement, rather than an easement, which would provide them with some control if things get out of hand. Mr. Johnson reiterated his concern about the changes to the Main Street fapade, which also doesn't leave Mr. Anderson in a good position if he doesn't have some security from the deck space. Mr. Johnson moved to: approve the deck as laid out and configured; approve the metal railing as proposed on the Water Street side with the condition it be set back 5' from the parapet; approve the penthouse /access space for the stairwell with metal siding in colors as proposed; approve a 3 railing height along the south side that would be a solid, opaque surface 10' high above the deck elevation, extending 10' to the west or north of the southwest corner of the deck and extending 10' east of the radius point of that corner of the building; eliminate the fire egress proposed out the west elevation /front of the building; and eliminate conditions 9 and 11 from the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Cramer questioned the 5' setback for the railing, noting that the decking would extend out to where the support structure is and suggesting the setback would invite people to step over the railing. Mr. Cramer said he would like a chance to work through that issue with the fire marshal, noting that other decks, including the Stillwater Library's, are not setback 5'. Mr. Johnson removed condition 10, the 5' setback, from his motion, with the condition that the railing be behind the parapet. Mr. Zahren accepted that revision to the motion. Mr. Pogge pointed out that a lease agreement might not work from a building code perspective as an egress point must be under the total ownership of the property owner. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -19. Design review of signage for Dunn Bros Coffee located at 1798 Market Drive in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Steve Spry, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted without the drive -thru sign on the north side of the building. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -20. Design review of signage for Cooks of Crocus Hill located at 324 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Julie Puckett, Archetype, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Karl Benson, co -owner of the business, said the intent is to replace the sign over the storefront, utilizing the same lighting. He said they are trying to stay within the same footprint of the existing sign, noting that the sign frame is rotted out and will have to be replaced. He said the frame will be painted, brushed aluminum with copper background. He provided several photos of the proposal. He said some chipping green paint will be replaced with a charcoal color that more aligns with the brushed aluminum, red and copper colors they will be utilizing in the signage. Mr. Lieberman noted the proposed sign is smaller than what is allowed by ordinance. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign as submitted, with reuse of the existing light fixtures, and to approve the painting of the window and doorframes a charcoal gray, with a sample submitted to Mr. Pogge for approval and entry into the record. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -21. Design review of signage and awnings for CandyLand located at 212 Main St N in the CBD, Central Business District. Brenda Lamb, applicant. Brandon Lamb was present. Mr. Johnson noted the proposal is for an awning and projecting sign and verified that the awning will not include the name of the business. Also verified were the pitch of the awning and height of the projecting sign, as more than 8' above the sidewalk. There was discussion of the proposed style of the sign. Mr. Pogge noted historically there has been a box, cabinet sign; he explained the proposal includes clear letters than are punched out the face of the sign with opaque vinyl letters applied over, which results in a halo effect around it. Mr. Pogge said he thought if this one is approved, there will be requests for other similar signs. Mr. Johnson 4 pointed out this proposal has a light box inside; he said the perimeter of the letters stand out providing a 1950s, deco look, which he thought would be appropriate. Mr. Krakowski moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No DR/2012 -22. Design review of signage and store front upgrade located at 209 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Balay Architects, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mark Balay was present and explained that the intent is to add a vestibule to the front that is the same as the vestibule to the south and returns the symmetry to the building. He stated originally the door that leads into the store was a stairway to the upstairs as the two sides were divided in half. Essentially, he said this proposal returns the building to the way it was in the past. He said the door is being set up so the whole opening can be opened if desired, but when closed will look like a normal door with a side light. He noted the glass on the transom is blocked out because the ceiling on the inside is lower; he said the proposal is for a sign on a solid panel in the transom area set in front of the glass so it is basically an attachment, not anything permanent to the building. Mr. Johnson asked about the existing door; Mr. Balay said the existing door will remain so there will be two doors into the retail space. Mr. Johnson verified the new entry door would pick up the details of the adjacent building door, with the toe kick and wider frame. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted, both the sign and door, with the clarification that the door is to visually be of the same type as the neighboring twin building, other than to have the side light. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -23. Design review of a rooftop bar and outside patio, The Green Room, located at 215 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Christopher Durant, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. The applicant was present. Mr. Johnson noted this request is for a one -story space that is between adjacent building walls for the most part, which provides some confinement both for noise and activity. Mr. Johnson asked if the use would be similar to the previously discussed rooftop patio with similar conditions regarding that use. Mr. Durant responded that their establishment is a fine dining restaurant and there aren't too many people who go out for a fine dining meal after 10 p.m. Mr. Johnson verified the applicant owns the space behind the building where the egress will be located. Mr. Durant said the style of the rail will be similar to fire escapes on adjacent buildings. Ms. Cook asked if it would be the recommendation to eliminate condition No. 9 and make it part of the special use permit process, as was done with the previous rooftop patio request. Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative, but noted special use permits vary depending on circumstances such as location, proximity to sidewalks, etc. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Durant said he is no longer proposing glass panels for the rooftop railing. Mr. Johnson asked about lighting; Mr. Durant said he is looking at LEDs, spaced about 6' apart and mounted about 5' above the dining area; he said the lights would be on a dimmer. Mr. Durant said the main source of light will be umbrella lights that fit on the umbrella in the center of the table and allow guests the opportunity to control lighting level. On a question by Ms. Cook, Mr. Pogge said as part of the building permit, the applicant will be required to have a structural engineer review the roof. Mr. Johnson moved to approve with conditions: that condition No.9 be removed, that condition No. 4 be replaced with approving a simple, metal picket fence with vertical pickets and top and bottom black steel bar for both the egress stairs and roof perimeter and that the egress stairs make the full 180- degree turn at the bottom; and eliminating the condition regarding submission of the lighting plan, accepting table lights and LED lights placed around the perimeter and mounted 4 -5' above the deck elevation. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Pogge stated the State Historic Preservation Office has awarded the City a grant for both the podcast project and the local designation district project. He said he believes the City also will be receiving a CLG grant. Mr. Lieberman noted that Brian Larson had been interviewed to fill Mr. Tomten's position on the Commission and said he thought it fair to say the Commission would recommend his appointment. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved to recommend that the Council appoint Brian Larson; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson noted there is a new infill house being constructed on Wilkins Street west of Everett near Staples Field. Several members said they thought that is a remodeling project, not new construction. Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Zahren. 6