Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-20 HPC MINHERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING December 20, 2017 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Goodman (left at 8:00 p.m.), Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Chairman Larson, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioners Hadrits and Welty Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of November 15, 2017 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2017 meeting. All in favor, 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2017-38: Amended Design Review Permit, amending the designs proposed in HPC/2017-28 for the property located at 232 Main Street North and 251 Second Street North in the CBD district. Midnight Real Estate, property owners. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. In late 2016, the HPC conditionally approved a design permit for the Crosby hotel to be located on North Main Street. Since that time, the applicant has made design changes. Staff has determined the changes to be substantial, not in conformance with the originally- approved design permit, and requested the applicant file for an amendment. The applicant is requesting approval of the following modifications. 1) A portion of the third story façade is proposed to be broken up to accommodate a rooftop water feature; and 2) balconies are proposed on the east elevation’s second and third stories; and 3) awnings are removed from first, second and third story windows on the north and east elevations; and 4) the north elevation has changed, as a result of rearranging the interior rooms. No changes are proposed in color, signs, lighting, or landscaping. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Mr. Hoefler explained that the balconies on the Main Street side are a result of those rooms now being used as guest rooms. Previously, those front rooms were used for meeting space and conference rooms and therefore had awnings. Architects feel the balconies create a more human scale on the front elevation rather Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 20, 2017 Page 2 of 4 than a really large three story building. The other big design difference is a water feature on the third floor rooftop deck area, resulting in a slightly different front design that still mimics what was originally submitted. He went on to state that the north elevation staircase is bumped out slightly, as required by building code. The stair tower is wrapped in the same metal paneling that was originally approved. Part of the reason why the stair bumpout is metal is because brick veneer would add another 6 inches encroaching into the property setback. Commissioner Goodman asked about the room on the top floor labeled as storage. Mr. Hoefler said that room is meant to be storage for the summertime pieces. It may or may not be for assembly use. Chairman Larson asked about the rooftop water element and whether there will be five feet clear all the way around as required for pools. Mr. Hoefler stated it will be only 3.5 feet deep and therefore as long as there is access on two sides, there’s an exception. It will require changing rooms and the two restrooms that are there but no shower will be required. Commissioner Krakowski remarked that the building doesn’t resemble other buildings in downtown Stillwater because of the use of metal. He would prefer all brick. Mr. Hoefler replied the intent is to use brick on any part of the building that protrudes out, and use metal for the rest of the body of the building with the exception of the staircase due to the issue of the property line. Chairman Larson said the originally approved building was clearly contemporary, but had a lot of brick. He feels that the metal has grown in proportion and instead of being brick-dominant, it almost seems metal- dominant. He would like to see brick in some of the other areas including the stair tower, and feels that the additional few inches of space required for brick can be found somewhere within the building plans. Mr. Hoefler replied he thinks it’s 10” away from the property line at the worst case, which is so close already that architects didn’t want to add another 6”. It could be done in a thin brick veneer. It would be difficult to do a full brick veneer since the foundation for the stair tower is in. City Planner Wittman noted a setback variance has already been granted. When staff recommended wrapping the tower, she was thinking of the thin brick veneer that is on the parking garage. Mr. Hoefler said he would be amenable to using the thin brick veneer on the north stairwell. Chairman Larson said another option, if using brick on the stairwell is too troublesome, would be to consider making some of the other areas on that façade brick instead of metal, which would help the building look more like it fits into downtown Stillwater. Commissioner Goodman stated that street balconies are not typical of any buildings in the area. It works well for New Orleans but seems quite unusual for Stillwater. Chairman Larson noted there are balconies on downtown condos but they are recessed. He agrees with staff that the projecting balconies don’t fit, especially on Main Street. Ms. Wittman stated that nearby Mills on Main has true balconies (not Juliet balconies) but they don’t protrude out. Other condos, like the Lofts, also have balconies but they are integrated into the architecture. Chairman Larson explained that Juliet balconies open up the doors and there is a guardrail flush with the building. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Hoefler pointed out that the balconies would protrude the same amount as the first floor awning. Decks were needed to help with the overall unit mix. A room without a deck/balcony would be much cheaper than a room with a deck. When they talk about putting $16 million into a project, every dollar for that room rental rate is very important. The balconies are a very important element to the ownership group. Chairman Larson explained the issue is about how the massing fits the street. If there were a way of providing fully recessed balconies or Juliet balconies, that would be acceptable. Council Representative Junker remarked that the revised design looks like a different building than originally approved. Mr. Hoefler wholeheartedly disagreed. The balconies are not meant to offend or discredit surroundings, or to go against the design standards, they are simple balconies added because those are now guest rooms. The third floor has always been stepped back so it’s not a huge difference. To the trained eye, the new design is not different. The building still has the same shape, number of rooms, rooftop deck features, and investment of $16 million into Stillwater. Overall the project will be a huge benefit to the community so in his opinion to knit-pick things like balconies is off-putting. Chairman Larson pointed out that staff made the judgement call that the revised design was different enough to require another review. The balconies have a significant effect on the outside of the building and set a precedent for Main Street. There are no issues with balconies elsewhere in the building, but just in the front. Commissioner Steinwall questioned if the Commission would need to review what the Juliet balcony would look like and how the railings would look. Chairman Larson suggested if Juliet balconies are used, the railings should be similar to others on the building. City Planner Wittman suggest the Commission could amend recommended Condition #3 that the Main Street balconies be designed as Juliet balconies not to exceed so many inches, with railings designed similarly to other railings on the building. Chairman Larson suggested stating the Condition by including that there should be no projecting walking surface, just the railing system. He feels the amount of metal used on the exterior is still a concern and that a brick covered stairwell would break up the metal surface. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2017-38, Amended Design Review Permit, amending the designs proposed in HPC/2017-28 for the property located at 232 Main Street North and 251 Second Street North in the CBD district, with the five staff-recommended conditions, amending Condition #3 to read “Main Street balconies shall not have a projecting walking surface and shall be designed with a balcony railing to match proposed railings elsewhere on the structure.” All in favor, 5-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION City-initiated Small Wireless Facilities Zoning Text Amendment City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that in May 2017, the state’s Telecommunications Right- of-Way User Law was amended to streamline permitting systems for small cell infrastructure, which can be bulky and obtrusive. Use permits are not required. Ms. Wittman led discussion of the need to address a possible future Zoning Text Amendment, whose purpose would be twofold: 1) to provide for fair, Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 20, 2017 Page 4 of 4 reasonable, and non-discriminatory access to City-owned infrastructure in the public right-of-way while designating a streamlined permitting process; and 2) to establish design requirements for the installation of new wireless support structures to ensure visual compatibility with their surroundings. She noted the City will have the right to require them to be on certain poles or facilities, and also the right to require decorative items or to require that they be concealed. Staff assumes the Commission would want them concealed or underground if possible in residential and historic districts. The law will only apply to publicly owned buildings in the right-of-way. The structures may go on a private building but would need a design permit. Staff was provided with direction to look at how design standards and guidelines in other communities address concealment in historic districts and residential districts. City Planner Wittman will bring a draft ordinance back for review. STAFF UPDATES Discussion: Ordinances, Standards and Guidelines City Planner Wittman summarized the City’s preservation-related ordinances, standards and guidelines for greater clarification of what ordinances apply to which applications, how guidelines and standards differ, and how guidelines and standards relate to the adopted ordinances. There are four separate City Code Sections (i.e. Ordinances, laws, regulations, etc.) that apply to the functions of the HPC. She added that, as it is apparent there are some conflicts between Ordinances, preservation standards, and the application of adopted guidelines, the Comprehensive Planning process is a great time to outline the issues and address how the HPC and the preservation community may work to reduce and eliminate preservation related challenges in the future. Consensus was that the Commission needs to build a more defensible record by making findings that are supported in law (City Code). ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Chairman Larson, to adjourn. All in favor, 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary