Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-18 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING October 18, 2017 7:00 P.M. Note: Audio recording of this meeting was inaudible until approximately 7:12 p.m. partway through Case No. 2017-32. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Goodman, Hadrits, Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Welty Absent: Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of September 20, 2017 meeting minutes Commissioner Steinwall questioned the word “Possible” in the subheading on this section of the minutes. City Planner Wittman explained that the subheading in the minutes reflects the subheading on the agenda. Motion by Commissioner Welty, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2017 meeting. All in favor, 7-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2017-36: Design Review Permit for the site alteration of the structure located at 227 Main Street South. Neon, LLC, property owner and Brad Smith, representative of Traditional Construction Services, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Hadrits, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor, 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2017-32: Design Review Permit for an addition to the Water Street Inn Hotel located at 101 Water Street in the Central Business District. Chuck Dougherty, property owner and Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, applicant. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 2 of 8 City Planner Wittman explained that in December 2013, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed a concept design for an addition to the north end of the Water Street Inn. At that time the Commission commented on the ornamental tower, the setback from Myrtle Street, the overall architecture and signage, and discussed requirements of the previous addition that were not consistent with HPC approval. Since the HPC’s review in 2013, the applicant has obtained the following approvals from the Planning Commission, or by City Council-approved appeals: • A special Use Permit for the construction of a 20-room hotel addition with seasonal rooftop dining; and • A 15’ variance to the 15’ Front Yard Setback from the northern property line along Myrtle Street; and • Variances for the tower height: a) a 6’4” variance to the maximum Central Business District (Parkside) Height Overlay District regulation for a clock tower (50’8” above main floor); and b) a 25’10” variance to the maximum CBD (Parkside) Height Overlay District regulation for the installation of a steel tower frame (70’ 2” above main floor); and c) a 37’10” variance to the maximum CBD (Parkside) Height Overlay regulation for the installation of a tower mast (81’10” above main floor); and d) a 10% variance to the CBD Height Overlay District to allow certain rooftop improvements on the addition to be 48’, 20% taller than that portion of the existing structure that is currently 40’ in height. Ms. Wittman stated that additionally, the City Council has approved a Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Agreement and a Development Agreement for the addition. Conditions of approval require the addition to be completed by July 1, 2019. The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for Site Alteration in the form of rooftop improvements, to include an enclosed bar and kitchen, service station and storage area, two restrooms, an elevator bulkhead and enclosed/covered lobby, and two sets of stairs. The three-story addition to the north end of the site is proposed as follows: the first story will be constructed of St. Croix Valley buff (Rivard) stone split face random coursing (6-12” in height). The second and third stories will be brick to match the original, historic structure. The applicant has indicated pre-finished metal panels, pre- finished cap flashing, integral color concrete masonry units (CMUs), and 6” lap cement board siding will be utilized, but no material samples have been included in the application submission nor are the locations of those materials located on the plans. Furthermore, the applicant has not indicated materials to be used for the windows, enclosed rooftop improvements, clock tower and mast. On the basis the applicant has not submitted details of the materials and their location, coordinated lighting, sign and landscape plans, staff recommends that the HPC table consideration of the application and request the applicant to submit additional materials for determination of Downtown Design Review district and Site Alteration Permit compliance. Chairman Larson asked the applicants to explain what has changed since 2014. Roger Tomten, ARCHNET, stated that the biggest change is the rooftop patio. They have reduced the seating area on the roof and added enclosed kitchen space and two restrooms. The handicap ramp on the Myrtle Street side has been tucked under the building. On the east side, to meet code for handicapped egress, a ramp has been incorporated into the existing patio. They are talking about covering that ramp section with metal standing seam material, and incorporating a skylight and garage door elements between the columns so the patio space could be seasonally enclosed through the cooler months. Details will be submitted later. Window placement and the main entrance are unchanged. Mr. Tomten presented the updated plans and offered to explain the colors and materials proposed for the exterior. He stated they are getting too crunched to start construction this fall so they will start construction in the fall of next year. Chairman Larson remarked that, especially if the garage door comes down, it will be a considerable change from what the building looks like now. Mr. Tomten responded that the door would have a very simple industrial look. There will be a few minor window tweaks but for the most part the design is same as the one reviewed previously. He showed brick Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 3 of 8 samples. They plan to use precast concrete for window sills and headers in a color to match the buff color of St. Croix stone. Chairman Larson asked if the CMU and metal panels will be visible. Mr. Tomten replied there will not be any exposed CMU. The only other material will be a gray-toned EIFS material with a pebble finish on the roof elements of the stairwell and elevator shaft. The tower frame will be steel. The lower portions will match the green of the hotel. The storefront at street level will be a basic black storefront. The steel tower frame and the mast above will be black. The idea of the tower is to replicate the original clock tower. The form and mass are very similar to the original clock tower but the detailing is different. Chairman Larson commented that this building has more visual impact than most. Because the applicants received permission to push the building to the north property line where it historically was, the view of the river looking down Myrtle Street toward the gazebo will be half blocked by the tower and the building. Historically it was a significant building with a big public function. Now it is a private hotel. Mr. Tomten responded the tower is meant to be seen just as the historic clock tower was meant to be seen. He stated that Myrtle Street from Water Street to the River was never platted as a street. Owner Chuck Dougherty added that he gave 2.5 feet back to the City on the north side to make this design work. Mr. Tomten stated that the inspiration for the open frame was a similar historic project involving Benjamin Franklin’s home in Philadelphia. Mr. Dougherty added that they have located the weathervane that was originally on top of the clock tower and hope to get it back. Commissioner Hadrits commented that the tower has an unfinished appearance due to the openness. She suggested if it is meant to mirror what was historically there, the applicant should look at enclosing it like the original clock tower. Chairman Larson agreed that the tower looks like part of a structure that is unfinished or was burned away. He recognized that most people who see it won’t know the historic reference to the original clock tower. Commissioner Welty said she would prefer the tower had some weight rather than being transparent. Beth Diem, ARCHNET, told the Commission that per building code, it can only be an open structure - there is no option to enclose it. Commissioner Mino stated that from a design perspective, it’s mashing styles together. She has a hard time with it. The building that it was originally on was completely different. She feels the tower is being added to a building whose architectural style wouldn’t have called for it originally. Chairman Larson stated if the Commission decides to table this case, they should give the architect and owner enough direction so they can return with an alternative design that responds to the comments. He has few immediate issues with the rest of the building. Commissioner Welty asked about the trees on Water Street, referring to resident Cameron Murray’s concern about pedestrian space. City Planner Wittman replied that staff does not have those details yet. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Diem stated that the tower design was introduced by her husband Mike Diem, who passed away last December. He intended to create a modern look with a nod to what was there historically, not to replicate exactly what was there. The architects are all trying to see his vision for the open framework. Mr. Tomten added that the design team tried to focus on what is “vernacular Stillwater” hence the stone base, arches, and brick detailing which they feel are modern but integral to what Stillwater is all about. Chairman Larson reiterated that he doesn’t have issues with the bulk of the building, but with how the cupola is treated. He would like to see some alternatives for that corner, either more completely finishing the framework or eliminating it in favor of something completely different. Mr. Tomten asked for more clarification regarding what the Commission would like to see changed - design, massing, materials, or all of the above. Commissioner Hadrits said the fact that the tower dominates the skyline of all three buildings, including the historic building, bothers her. She feels it should be more in keeping with the buildings and not stand out as much. The scale feels wrong. Mr. Dougherty emphasized that the clock tower is an important element. He said that anybody who has seen the drawings has commented that the clock tower is really unique and makes the project. He urged the Commission to remember when the lumberman’s exchange building was built, the clock tower was sitting on that same spot. Commissioner Goodman remarked that it was a separate building, at the time. Commissioner Welty stated that the vertical alignment is a good accent to the corner, but the armature on top doesn’t appear to relate to the structure below. She would get rid of it or give it more weight. Mr. Tomten suggested it may be possible that the two dimensional drawings are not showing the three dimensional reality of the tower. Chairman Larson summarized he is hearing concerns about the style and also the unfinished look of the tower - two different concerns. To address the latter concern, he suggested the architects consider something like an open mesh, still open to elements but with more substance. He also suggested the architects design a version without the tower. Commissioner Hadrits asked if the the tower could be enclosed if it were not as high. Ms. Diem replied that the building code allows what’s defined as a tower to be a certain height. They are allowed to have 4 stories on the building with the exception for the tower, but it has to be non-combustible. To remove it probably isn’t an option because the City Council already approved the idea. She can understand Chairman Larson’s suggestion of trying to enclose it more. Motion by Commissioner Hadrits, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2017-32, Design Permit for an addition to the Water Street Inn Hotel, 101 Water Street, to request alternative stylistic, scale and optional designs for the tower mast, details on lighting, landscaping, signage, and changes that were presented in the meeting. All in favor, 7-0. Case No. 2017-33: Design Review Permit for storefront remodel for the property located at 232 Main Street South in the Central Business District. Yanni Abotbul, property owner. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting approval of storefront construction and other façade alterations to the structure located at 232 Main Street South, a noncontributing building in the Commercial Historic District. The applicant submitted two designs previously, and today has submitted a third, new design involving bronze aluminum framed windows taller than the existing windows, 84” tall and 100” wide. There will be two separate windows in each side of a double door. The existing canopy frame has been removed and retained. They propose to reinstall the canopy frame at the same level as in the antique store next door and carry it across. No signage is proposed as part of this application. Staff has not had time to analyze the new design in relationship to the other two previously submitted designs. Clearer detail and a scale drawing of the building and the windows is needed. Mr. Abotbul stated his intent is to make the windows higher and position the canopy higher to make it line up with the neighboring green canopy. Chairman Larson asked Mr. Abotbul if a transom with three sheets of glass could be added, as proposed in the first design. Mr. Abotbul replied he could comply with that. Motion by Commissioner Welty, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to approve Case No. 2017-33, Design Permit for storefront remodel for 232 Main Street South with the three conditions recommended by staff, using the design submitted the day of the meeting, with the additional conditions: 4) the design shall consist of three window bays on each side of the doorway with transoms above; 5) reinstallation of a black canopy on the existing frame is possible; and 6) signage will need to come back for review and approval. All in favor, 7-0. Case No. 2017-34: Design Review Permit for façade painting and new business signage for the property located at 215 Main Street South. Timothy Pellizy, representing South Upton Properties, property owner and Gary Siryor, applicant. City Planner Wittman stated that Brick and Bourbon is planning to move into the structure located at 215 Main Street South, a contributing building to the National Register listed Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The applicant is proposing to make changes to the structure which include: 1. Painting to include: “Otter Brown” on all main portions of the building containing wood, including rear façade lap siding; and “Dark Gray/Black” on all existing wooden trim (including all second story window trim areas that are currently green); and “Plum” on all accent areas, including kickplate, above the doorway and arched, metal awning on second story. Exposed brick and stone will not be painted. The applicant interjected that they will do their best to maintain and paint the detailed wood above the windows, but the wood is rotting and may need to be replaced. City Planner Wittman responded that if it is just replacement, that would be considered maintenance and would not come before the Commission. Ms. Wittman went on to explain the rest of the request. The following signage is proposed: A three- dimensional, projecting sign on the front façade that would consist of a wooden whiskey barrel lid 26” in diameter with the applicant’s logo burnt into the wood. While the applicant has submitted several concept designs, the logo had not been determined to the date of memo development. The sign is proposed to hang from the existing black metal arm. A rear entrance wall sign is proposed to be hung on the rear stairway. The applicant has shown two different design renderings but neither of these are scaled, include the applicant’s logo or are in a finished format. On the basis the building painting and projecting sign are in conformance with the Zoning Code and Downtown Design Review District guidelines, staff recommends approval with seven conditions. On the basis there is not enough information to determine if the rear entrance sign is in conformance, staff recommends tabling the approval of this sign until the design is complete. The Commission should direct the applicant to submit scaled plans, to include the size and dimensions, the materials and colors, as well as the location of the sign. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 6 of 8 The applicant informed the Commission that they have decided to duplicate the front sign for the back. The business will be a craft eatery with craft cocktails. They want to light the stairs with concealed LED strip lighting that would be tucked into the railing and the inside casing of the staircase to provide lighting for safety. City Planner Wittman reminded him of the standard of 3,500 Kelvin or warmer for LED lighting. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to approve Case No. 2017-34, Design Permit for façade painting and new business signage for 215 Main Street South, with the seven conditions recommended by staff and the additional conditions: 8) the rear wall-mounted sign shall be similar to the front projecting sign; and 9) the rear stairwell LED lights shall be mounted on the inside of the stringer, concealed from public view, and shall not be greater than 3,500 K. All in favor, 7-0. Case No. 2017-35: Design Review Permit to replace second story windows on the north side of the building located at 236 Main Street South. Randall Propp, property owner. Ms. Wittman reviewed the application. The property owners are requesting approval of the replacement of nine second story windows on the south façade of the structure located at 236 Main Street South. The proposal is to replace the wood frame, three over one sash windows with a one over one vinyl window, with a 15” pane above the 32” sashes, which the property owner has already purchased. Ms. Wittman provided the following background. In the fall of 2016 the City issued a Notice of Emergency Abatement requiring the immediate boarding of the windows. The second story window frames had not been maintained, the wooden window frame had rotted and the window panes fell. At that time, the property owner boarded the windows and began working with EDI Glass from Minneapolis to replace all nine windows. In October 2017 the Building Department was advised the replacement would occur within two weeks; it was verbally indicated that as long as the windows are the same as the existing, then a building permit could be approved through the standard building permit process and would not require HPC review and approval, as the work would be determined to be maintenance. However, to the date of memo development, no building permit has been issued for the replacement of windows. Planning and zoning staff were recently advised that new windows had been ordered and the property owner was having difficulty having them installed. The design of the window panes is not consistent with what was historically onsite nor is it consistent with the windows proposed to be retained. Furthermore, the installation of vinyl windows is not recommended in the Downtown Design Review District. Therefore, staff recommends denial. Property owners Randy Nelson and Randall Propp stated they started this process in the summer of 2016 when they saw their windows were deteriorating. They contacted EDI Glass which had done other work in Stillwater. The property owners understood the glass company had talked to the City but they had not. So the property owners ordered the windows and paid for them. Then there was a series of delays caused by the contracting company. During that time the windows started to fall so they were boarded up last fall. This past spring, the contractor indicated he could not complete the job so they contacted another company. The windows have been paid for and have been sitting in their building since last fall when they expected them to be installed. Chairman Larson pointed out that the design guidelines prohibit vinyl windows. The guidelines don’t allow the Commission to take into consideration that the windows have already been purchased although he realizes it is a hardship for the property owners. If the Commission approves something that is not allowable, it puts the Commission in a difficult position. He pointed out there are options other than wood, for instance, aluminum clad or composite. The applicant pointed out there are similar windows in many buildings downtown. They feel it will not change the historical value of the building because there have been so many changes to the building in its history. Their second contractor suggested they could add mullions to the windows. Commissioner Welty Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 7 of 8 asked if they would consider doing the new style windows in the front as well. The applicant replied they would consider that. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the prohibition on vinyl windows is a guideline or a strict requirement. City Planner Wittman said the design standards are “guidelines.” Commissioner Steinwall remarked that perhaps the Commission is not compelled to deny the application based on the fact that the proposed windows are vinyl. However, there has not been an effort to duplicate the existing architectural features. She finds it disturbing to lose the architectural detail to a more modern look on a significant building in the historic district. The applicant stated that most windows on other buildings downtown are similar to the ones they purchased. He doubted that anyone driving down the street would notice that the windows are not historically accurate. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to deny Case No. 2017-35, Design Permit to replace second story windows on the north side of the building at 236 Main Street South, on the basis that the material is not consistent with the guidelines, that the historic material is not proposed to be repaired, and that the replacement is not consistent with what is existing on the structure. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Steinwall voting nay. STAFF UPDATES Downtown Updates City Planner Wittman updated the Commission on downtown projects that are underway. She said that a handrail design for the Main Street Stairs is still being worked out. Building code prohibits the original style of open handrail. Request for Qualifications for Historian Services Ms. Wittman stated that requests for qualifications went out today for historians the City can put on its pre- approved list of consultants who may be used for designation studies for demolition permits. Postcard Ms. Wittman passed along thanks from a homeowner expressing appreciation for the HPC acknowledgement of his preservation work via the postcard program. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Review Process City Planner Wittman reminded the Commission of the October 19 Comprehensive Planning meeting. Commissioner Steinwall asked what is the typical sequence in the process when proposals require review by various bodies. Ms. Wittman stated there is no set order in terms of the review and approval process. Prior to this year, the monthly HPC meetings took place before the Planning Commission meetings, but that posed a challenge when an applicant would get their heart set on a particular design but then their variance would be denied, so they would be back the next month with a new design. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Chairman Larson acknowledged that the Commission can get stuck in a position of “well, everyone else approved it.” As the composition of the Commission changes, there may be changes of opinion. Whatever comments were made on an application in 2013 may not match the comments of the HPC in 2017. Regarding the Water Street Inn, the 2013 request was informal and conceptual. Now the applicant is coming before the HPC for actual approval. City Planner Wittman added that in 2013, the applicant came before the HPC, and the HPC was generally favorable to something being in the location of the clock tower. The applicant subsequently received the variances for the proposal as heard tonight. She stated that there are certain times when the sequence of an application going through the approval process puts either the HPC or the Planning Commission in a corner. It also can be confusing that City policy is that minutes are to be just a summary, not verbatim. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Welty, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to adjourn. All in favor, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary