Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-15 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2017 7:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Krakowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Goodman, Hadrits, Krakowski, Steinwall, Welty, Chairman Larson (arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Mino, Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of October 18, 2017 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Goodman, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2017 meeting. All in favor, 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 2017-37: Design Review Permit to build a new home in the Neighborhood Conservation District on the property located at 1006 Third Avenue South in the RB-Two Family District. Sharkey Design Build, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. The applicant would like to build a single family residence. This vacant lot was created in 2016 when the owner re-subdivided a previously platted 26,000 square foot lot. The property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District, necessitating an infill design review permit for the new home. Ms. Wittman reviewed the proposed design of the home. Brick is proposed for the foundation but the brick does not carry around to all sides of the home. If the brick is extended to all four sides, the proposed home meets the guidelines for architectural detail despite having a similar appearance, colors and materials as the home directly next door. Additionally, the application meets the guidelines for building site, neighborhood and streets. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. John Sharkey, 1105 Pioneer Trail, Bayport, applicant, stated he will revise the plan to include brick on all four sides. He pointed out the differences between the proposed house and the one recently built. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Vice Chairman Krakowski opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Vice Chairman Krakowski closed the public hearing. Commissioner Steinwall asked about the railing design. Mr. Sharkey explained the railing will be made on site. The architect has not drafted the railing design yet. Motion by Commissioner Goodman, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2017-37, Design Permit for a new home to be located at 1006 Third Avenue South, with the four conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 5-0. OLD 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. City Planner Wittman provided background on the application, which was tabled at the October 18 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting to request alternative stylistic, scale and optional designs for the tower mast, as well as details on lighting, landscaping, and signage. 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. In the staff report, Ms. Wittman pointed out that while the setback, proportion, and height may not be consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines, the Downtown Height Overlay District or the setback provisions found in the Zoning Code, variances were obtained for these improvements after the HPC’s primary review. The halo-lit sign proposed for the newly developed hotel entrance may not meet the design guidelines, which discourage back-lit signs. She stated that, with certain conditions, the application meets the standards for design review, the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. The new addition will not materially impair the architectural or historic value of the Lumberman’s Exchange building. Therefore, staff recommends approval with four conditions. Roger Tomten, applicant, explained the revisions done since the October 18 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. The team looked at previous designs for the cupola portion of the tower element. The design team and the property owners considered the tower to be a strong component of the plans from the very beginning, so they wish to move forward with it. They did not develop a design without the tower. The structural engineer suggested using a beefier column to provide a stauncher structure. They didn’t propose filling in the top of the tower because it was thought that it would be problematic, considering the core concept of the tower, the height variance and visibility. Mr. Tomten added that the rooftop equipment will be shielded on two sides, so mechanical equipment will not be visible from the ground. In the areas of the stair tower and elevator shaft, any exposed surfaces will be EFIS material with a corrugated metal base in a light gray color. For the main sign at the front entry, they are proposing a halo-lit sign with a base metal color of dark hunter green and die-cast metal letters on pins sticking out from the surface. The light source would not be seen but would light up the letters creating a halo effect. City Planner Wittman recommended one more condition of approval: that updated sample boards be provided to staff for all materials discussed in the meeting. Commissioner Welty noted that the tower as revised appears wider at the base. Commissioner Hadrits stated that despite the Commission’s concerns with scale expressed at the last meeting, it seems that the tower has become bigger. Mr. Tomten responded that the size of the members got larger but the footprint of the tower did not change. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Welty stated that she struggles with the concept of the tower highlighting a corner of the building that is not an entry. She feels the tower is an element that would be better suited to a civic or community building rather than a hotel. Mr. Tomten replied that the tower is not just an architectural component of the building, it’s an urban design component of the downtown. Mr. Dougherty reminded the Commission that the tower has been part of the proposal since the project began in 2013. City Planner Wittman acknowledged there was a concept for the project that came to the Commission in past years and that many of the Commission’s members are different now, so they may give a different recommendation than was given in the past. She has heard from many Commissioners that they have a hard time determining how the mass of the tower fits the design guidelines. Mr. Tomten stated that the tower is in its proposed location because it is the terminus of Myrtle Street, and it is the site of the original tower, which defined the historic depot as a community hub. Commissioner Welty argued that the gazebo is the terminus of Myrtle Street and that the tower would be more appropriate for a public building such as a library, post office, or transit center. Vice Chairman Krakowski turned the gavel over to Chairman Larson who entered the meeting. Commissioner Steinwall asked about landscaping. Mr. Tomten explained that the street trees have been eliminated from the plan. There is minimal space for landscaping except for possibly some planters around the entry. Commissioner Steinwall suggested that the parking lot should be included as the Commission looks at the development in terms of landscaping needs. She also stated that the design guidelines clearly discourage back-lit signs. Commissioner Welty commented she is not against the back lighting on the sign but would want the light to be a warm color. Chairman Larson noted that a condition of approval could be added requiring a landscaping plan for the parking lot. Mr. Tomten questioned whether the Commission wants to start adding three foot high landscaping around all the other surface lots in the downtown. Chairman Larson countered that there are many ways to plant for urban landscaping. Mr. Tomten responded that on the Water Street side, the strip of land between the road and the parking lot is very narrow. Mr. Dougherty added that passengers exiting vehicles would step on landscaping in that location. Chairman Larson acknowledged he would like to see that strip be something other than weeds, perhaps decorative rock or a paved surface of some type. Mr. Dougherty said he is uncertain whether that strip is hotel or City property. Ms. Wittman agreed to check. Commissioner Hadrits suggested having planters in front of the hotel. Mr. Tomten stated there are no plans for planters at the moment because the entrance is on the north side of the building where there is little sun. Mr. Dougherty added that there are planters on the south side. Chairman Larson asked about the style of the proposed sign. Mr. Tomten explained that the letters would be die-cast and lit from behind. If backlighting is a problem, as an alternative they could extend the canopy a bit beyond where the sign would be mounted and incorporate the lighting into the overhang. Commissioner Welty reiterated that the July 17 version of the tower design feels a little lighter. The newest design seems bigger. Mr. Tomten replied they were able to minimize the cross basing at the base, and make beefier main ribs on the cupola itself. This revision was intended to minimize the internal structure, beef up the columns and enclose the base of it a little more, which is what he heard at the last meeting. Commissioner Welty she would like the tower to be gone. She said she understands the reason for making it beefier but why was it made wider? Mr. Tomten replied the designers flared it out a little bit at the base to give more of a cap to the tower element itself. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Hadrits said she appreciates the revisions provided since the last meeting but she still has a hard time seeing the tower as a congruous design element. At last month’s meeting, she thought the direction was to come back with some additional design concepts for the clock tower that would be significantly different rather than just cross bars. Commissioner Steinwall said the Doughertys should be congratulated for coming forward with significant plans to improve their property. She acknowledged the difficulty of improving an historic property. She feels the Commission should approve the addition with the tower. If the Commission decides to deny the tower design element, there must be reasons that are in the ordinance. She cannot identify anything in the ordinance that would support denial. She does not feel that the addition as proposed materially impairs the architecture of the historic resource which is the Lumberman’s Exchange Building on the other end. Chairman Larson agreed that the Commission must consider the ordinance and not personal taste or favor in making a decision. A design element’s proportion should be sympathetic to neighbors and the building should not stand out, but be compatible with the adjacent area. City Planner Wittman suggested that Commissioner Steinwall was referencing the ordinance while Chairman Larson was referencing the guidelines. The ordinance is the letter of the law, while the guidelines are characteristics the Commission would like to see. Commissioner Welty said she feels the size and scale of the tower does not fit. She is disappointed that the Commission asked for alternative designs but got only a spec change. Commissioner Krakowski pointed out the applicant is trying to bring history back by putting the tower where the clock tower originally was. Chairman Larson said the tower would be seen everywhere because of its height. It would likely have more impact than anything else the Commission has reviewed. Mr. Tomten reiterated that the architects felt very strongly that the tower would be a strong component of the design. Mr. Dougherty added that the design including the tower is what was presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He does not want to build something drastically different than what was shown to the Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Goodman said he feels it is quite a thoughtful design as revised. Motion by Commissioner Goodman, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2017-32, Design Permit for an addition to the Water Street Inn Hotel, 101 Water Street, with the four staff-recommended conditions and adding the following condition: the back lighting of the sign shall be eliminated. Motion failed 3-3, with Commissioners Hadrits, Welty and Chairman Larson voting nay. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to approve Case No. 2017-32, Design Permit for an addition to the Water Street Inn Hotel, 101 Water Street, with the four staff-recommended conditions and adding the following conditions: the cupola above the clock line shall be eliminated; and the back lighting of the sign shall be eliminated and the sign shall be lit from above rather than behind. Motion failed 3-3, with Commissioners Steinwall, Goodman and Krakowski voting nay. Mr. Dougherty noted he would be OK with the second motion passing because at least it would allow them to continue forward and appeal the decision if necessary. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to approve Case No. 2017-32, Design Permit for an addition to the Water Street Inn Hotel, 101 Water Street, with the four staff-recommended conditions and adding the following conditions: the back lighting of the sign shall be eliminated and the sign shall be lit from Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 5 of 6 above rather than behind; and the framework above the clock tower shall not be considered to be approved as designed. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 2019 Statewide Conference Discussion City Planner Wittman stated that she spoke with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about the possibility of Stillwater hosting the 2019 Conference. Commissioners would be expected to help facilitate tours and other activities. She will try to get SHPO staff to attend the next HPC meeting to explain further. STAFF UPDATES 2040 Comprehensive Plan City Planner Wittman provided handouts on the Comprehensive Plan Update kickoff meeting. Projects City Planner Wittman updated the Commission on the status of the following: 419 Second Street South was issued an emergency demolition permit because upon starting renovations, it was discovered that a portion of the structure was failing. The applicants plan to reconstruct it as proposed except for eliminating the single story bump-out on the addition, which is too close to the property line for the suggested size of window. 404 Owens Street was issued an emergency forced order of removal because it was a hoarder’s house that was condemned. The property was sold, gutted and renovated. Guidelines and Ordinances Chairman Larson led discussion of the difference between guidelines and ordinances. Ms. Wittman said it is her understanding that standards have a little more weight than guidelines, however the Commission functions with guidelines rather than standards. For instance, the Secretary of the Interior has standards for rehabilitation which have more teeth to them. She doesn’t know if it’s because they’re codified in ordinance or adopted in some way. She will check on this. For the next meeting, Ms. Wittman will prepare more information on ordinances, guidelines and standards. Ms. Wittman added that she would like to explore the possibility of having some sort of joint Planning and Heritage Preservation Commission to review variance applications in the downtown district. This issue will be addressed over the next year as the planning process is fleshed out and the roles of the Commissions and their relationship with the Council are discussed. Chairman Larson said the guidelines are almost never specific enough; they almost always leave room for interpretation. Commissioner Steinwall agreed there are no guidelines to address a particular element or piece of art, for instance, that could reshape the entire streetscape. She feels the Commission should think more globally about streetscape issues. Chairman Larson agreed. ADJOURNMENT Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 15, 2017 Page 6 of 6 Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adjourn. All in favor, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary