Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-04 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING September 14, 2015 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Goodman, Johnson, Krakowski, Mino, Council Representative Menikheim Absent: Commissioners Branjord and Welty Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of August 3, 2015 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2015 meeting. All in favor, 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2015-39 Design review for a single, wall-mounted sign located at 402 Main Street North. Monty Brine, owner and Thomas Anderson, applicant. Case No. 2015-41 Design review for a single, wall-mounted sign located at 118 Chestnut Street East. Jennifer Cates-Peterson, owner and Brian Schutte, applicant. Commissioner Mino requested that Case No. 2015-41 be moved to New Business. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2015-42 Design review for a future home to be located at 911 Abbott Street, a vacant property located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Dale Tennison and Sandi Millar, owners and Steve West, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the request. The applicants propose to construct a new single family residence at 911 Abbott Street. Because the property is in the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD), an infill Design Permit is required. Sandi Millar and Dale Tennison purchased the property in June just after the HPC approved a Design Permit for new construction proposed by the previous owners, Ray and Carmen Loida. Staff finds that, while the proposed design generally conforms to the guidelines of the Neighborhood Conservation District, the garage-forward design is inconsistent with the Building Site Guidelines #10 and Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 14, 2015 Page 2 of 6 #11. Staff recommends denial of the application on the basis that the proposed home does not conform to the NCD guidelines in regard to the location of the garage and its impact on the streetscape. Mark Erickson, Landsted LLC, said they have been building homes in the St. Croix Valley since 1986. They understand that development should be in harmony with the neighborhood. The Tennisons wish to build a retirement home on one level. The size of the lot, 50’ x 150’, makes achieving an attached garage the biggest challenge. The owners would consider moving the home toward the street which would be more in keeping with the rhythm of the other homes, but this would emphasize the garage more so they feel it would make more sense to keep the home to the back. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are of newer, non-classic architecture and are garage-dominant. He is willing to modify the architectural details to give the home a more classic look. He wants to work with the Commission and clients to come up with a compromise. Dale Tennison, owner, acknowledged the Commission’s frustration with the plan proposed by the previous applicants. They hope that staying within the 30’ setback and the single story design minimizes the impact of the house on the street. The structure is 448 square feet less than what was previously approved. Chairman Larson provided background on the Neighborhood Conservation District. It is the only area that the Commission reviews, and only for infill construction. If it were remodeling, the Commission would have no authority. He opened the public hearing. City Planner Wittman summarized a legal opinion provided by City Attorney Magnuson indicating that neither approval nor denial would conflict with state statute. Additionally for the record, Robert Richert, 905 Abbott Street West, indicated he opposes the application due to the garage -dominant design. David Carroll, 922 West Abbott Street, expressed concern about putting a house on such a narrow lot. Chairman Larson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the lot size of 50’ x 150’ is the minimum buildable lot size in this district. Many older lots are of that dimension. Now, trying to accommodate an auto with a one or two car garage is a real challenge on 50’ lots. Chairman Larsen said he feels 1,350 square feet is a reasonable size for the lot. The style is not a concern; as staff has noted, the garage-forward design conflicts with design guidelines. There may be other nearby houses with garage-forward design, but this one has the garage fully forward. He is not convinced there is no way to accommodate a reasonably sized house with the garage set farther back. Mr. Erickson replied they are making an effort to comply. He asked if every single guideline must be in compliance. Commissioner Johnson noted there is buildable space within the sideyard setbacks that could accommodate a driveway. City Planner Wittman clarified if detached, a garage could be as close to the property line as 3’. Chairman Larson asked if the applicants considered putting the garage to the rear. Steve West, Landsted LLC, responded that if attached, a garage would require a side load which would not provide enough room due to the setback requirements. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 14, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Johnson suggested a breezeway connection between a front loading garage and the house, as another approach. The before-mentioned homes on Greeley with the garage-forward design were the driving force behind the ordinance restricting the garage-forward design, which is a style that conflicts with almost all the other architecture in town. The whole idea is the community being walkable rather than emphasizing the automobile. There are ways to make the connection without having to truly attach a garage to the house. Mr. West stated he doesn’t see any architectural styles that resemble the historic homes anywhere within a couple blocks of this property. He understands the purpose of the ordinance but would like to know what type of architecture the City is trying to preserve here. Chairman Larson replied that the Commission doesn’t have issues with the architectural style, but with the massing of the garage. City Planner Wittman stated the intent of the guidelines is to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson added the intent is to preserve the character of the existing housing, with porches in front and a pedestrian friendly, more approachable feel. When the house is back behind the garage, it doesn’t have that same feel. It becomes a lot less personable. He realizes there’s a variety of styles in this neighborhood but the guideline is intended to prevent new construction from detracting from the houses that are historically significant. The Commission acknowledges it’s a new home, and is not looking for a “new Victorian” but a house that doesn’t take away from the historic homes as far as their appearance on the street. This neighborhood was a suburb of Stillwater in its early development. Houses were infilled on many lots as rural uses disappeared. So it developed a little differently but is still bound by the historic district guidelines. The only design really comes down to using the 10 foot setback as the driveway. The garage could still be connected to the house with a breezeway. Then the 25 foot setback becomes less of an issue and they would have more backyard. Commissioner Goodman asked, is the detached garage critical to the owners? Sandi Millar, owner, expressed concern about meeting the structural coverage restrictions. City Planner Wittman replied that 25% structural coverage and 25% impervious surface coverage are allowed. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to table Case No. 2015-42, Design Permit for a future home to be located at 911 Abbott Street, to the October HPC meeting to request a new design which minimizes the garage size and dominance, directing the applicants to explore alternatives that include options for replacing the garage-forward design with a detached, or attached with a breezeway, rear garage design. All in favor, 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2015-40 Design review for the painting of the exterior façade of the structure located at 108 Main Street North. Dan Smith, owner and Deitrick McKenzie, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated the applicant is seeking to paint a portion of the Osaka Sushi and Bistro tenant space. A series of color options was presented for the Commission’s consideration. No specific color has been chosen by the applicant. Chairman Larson said he would not like to pick the color for the applicant, but the Commission could recommend a range of tones. The four tones recommended by staff are acceptable. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 14, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Johnson agreed the Commission could provide an opinion of which colors would be most fitting. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve the range of four colors suggested by staff (flowerpot, fired brick, bold brick and fireweed), as appropriate for the painting of the northern-most single-story addition, with the recommendation that the paint be applied by roller as opposed to spray, to provide contrast with the grout, with the following conditions: 1) Prior to painting, any holes shall be filled to prevent water intrusion. 2) Painting shall be uniform on all portions of the one-story faux brick. 3) The painting shall be done in a manner to protect the historic brick and stone on either side, minimizing overspray on those surfaces. All in favor, 5-0. Case No. 2015-43 Design review for the construction of a new financial institution to be located at 2020 Washington Avenue. William Hickey, applicant and Jeanine Swanson, owner. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant proposes a new financial institution with drive-through banking services. A Special Use Permit for the drive-through window has been granted. She reviewed the proposed architectural details, landscaping plans, sign plan and lighting plans. Staff recommends approval of the design with conditions. Bill Hickey, Collaborative Design Group, stated they are in full agreement with the recommended conditions. Bess McCollough, Collaborative Design Group, added that they have started the process for a demolition permit and have initiated conversations with Brown’s Creek Watershed District about stormwater. Most of the vegetation on the back of the lot will be left as is. Mr. Hickey added that the wood frame building is worn out, having stood for 30-some years. It suffered from lack of insulation and could not be adapted without a significant cost. Its systems are deteriorated. Equipment will be recycled and salvaged. Chairman Larson and Commissioner Mino stated they like the design. City Planner Wittman mentioned a new trail easement requirement. The applicants said they are OK with this. Commissioner Johnson noted maybe the island could be altered to make it more easily navigable. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Chairman Larson, to approve Case No. 2015-43, Design Permit for the construction of a new financial institution at 2020 Washington Avenue, with the following conditions: 1) Roof or ground mechanical equipment not depicted on the site plan shall be completely enclosed with building material compatible with the proposed architectural metal, stone or brick. 2) The trash storage area shall be completely enclosed within the building or by materials compatible with the structure with the proposed architectural metal, stone or brick. 3) Directional signage for the drive-through shall be limited to lane signage and height clearances. 4) Wall signage shall be limited to the East elevation wall as it is substantially parallel to Washington Avenue. 5) The East elevation wall signage shall be limited to 60 square feet. 6) The East elevation wall signage and existing pylon signage shall obtain a sign permit prior to the installation or modification. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 14, 2015 Page 5 of 6 7) Any additional signage shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC prior to the submittal of a sign permit application. 8) Effort should be made to retain the existing trees located on the western property line. 9) All utilities shall be located underground. 10) All wall pack lighting shall be shielded. 11) All other wall and parking lot lights shall be downwardly directed. 12) A building permit shall be obtained prior to ground disturbance. 13) A grading permit shall be obtained prior to ground disturbance. 14) all minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. All in favor, 5-0. Case No. 2015-41 Design Review for a single, wall-mounted sign to be located at 118 Chestnut Street East. Jennifer Cates-Peterson, owner and Brian Schutte, applicant. Commissioner Mino stated she requested this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda because she is uncomfortable with the staff recommendation to omit the secondary line, “beer wine and spirits.” City Planner Wittman explained that the intent of the secondary information was probably to clarify what is being sold and she doesn’t feel it would be completely inappropriate to include that information on the sign. Commissioner Johnson commented the sign as submitted was a good sign with the beer wine and spirits - it needs to explain the business. His concern is the location. With the larger parapet above, the sign should go on the upper portion and not be tucked underneath. City Planner Wittman said the applicants chose the proposed location for the sign because of the location of the existing sign and the light. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve Case No. 2015-41, design permit for a single wall-mounted sign at 118 Chestnut Street East, with the following conditions: 1) The sign shall be limited to 6 square feet. 2) The sign shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation. 3) The background of the sign shall be black. 4) Disturbance to the exterior wall face shall be done in a fashion to prevent excess damage and future water intrusion. Utilization of existing openings shall be encouraged. Patching of holes shall be done in a fashion to prevent future water intrusion. 5) All major revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed by the HPC. All in favor, 5-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Staff Updates City Planner Wittman stated that the City received a request for records regarding City Council action, specifically for information from private emails that could have been used in conversation regarding an application. In an unrelated situation, she has been working with a property owner considering a demolition and infill permit who would like to come before the Commission for a preliminary discussion. Because of the unrelated situation regarding the records request, she obtained an opinion from City Attorney Magnuson concerning preliminary conversations about applications in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Chairman Larson noted that the memo is clear and it relieves the burden of staff having to respond to inappropriate questions about applications. He read from City Attorney Magnuson’s memo stating that all members of the HPC are obligated not to prejudge an application, not to have a closed mind, to be impartial, Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 14, 2015 Page 6 of 6 and to base their decision only on what is on the official record. For this reason, meeting informally with an applicant to give pre-application direction is evidence of prejudgement, so the Commission can’t do that. For one thing, no notice of such a meeting would be given to the neighborhood. He feels that the prohibition on meeting informally with an applicant is unfortunate because sometimes getting a flavor for what the Commission wants saves the expenditure of a great deal of money on a design that is not going to be well- accepted at the Commission level. Commissioner Johnson suggested maybe a solution would be for applicants to submit a design for conceptual approval. That way, it would be on the agenda. City Planner Wittman summarized three responses that Commissioners can use, if someone approaches them to talk informally about a project: 1) talk to staff, 2) write a letter, 3) come to a public hearing. Commissioner Johnson added that he often directs applicants to the City web site to read design guidelines. Councilmember Menikheim reflected he often hears the Commission interpreting guidelines as being absolute. Guidelines should have room for interpretation. Chairman Larson recognized that some of the guidelines are more impactful than others. Commissioner Johnson noted as long as the topic is noticed as being on the agenda, there should still be opportunity for a project to come before the Commission for conceptual approval. City Planner Wittman stated she will ask City Attorney about non-public hearing applications, however in the demolition ordinance and the conservation district ordinance, pre-applications are handled at the staff level. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary