Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-19 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North February 19th, 2020 CONFERENCE PLANNING WORKSHOP 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of January 15th, 2020 regular meeting IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Case No. 2020-02: Consideration of a Design Permit for alterations to retaining walls adjacent to the Veterans memorial, located near the corner of 3rd Street South and Pine Street West. City of Stillwater, applicant. VI. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Case No. 2020-01: Consideration of a Design Permit for an infill home to be located at 1109 Mulberry Street West in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Tim Somerville, property owner. VII. NEW BUSINESS 4. Case No. 2020-04: Consideration of a Design Permit to add a deck to an existing outdoor patio on the property located at 218 Main St N. Michael Lynskey Sr, and Lee Bjerk, property owner, and Dariush Moslemi, applicant. 5. Case No. 2020-03: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new retaining wall near the Main Street stairs. City of Stillwater applicant. VIII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 6. HPC Ordinance Update Listening Session 7. Commission Request – Five Year, After-the-Fact Applications IX. FYI – VERBAL UPDATE ONLY (NO PACKET MATERIALS) X. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING January 15, 2020 6:00 P.M. The Commission met to discuss 2020 Preserve MN conference planning details. 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Krakowski, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Steinwall Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of December 18, 2019 Meeting Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the minutes of the December 18, 2019 special meeting. Motion passed, 6-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-31: Consideration of new business signage for the property located at 126 2nd St S in the Downtown Design Review district. Setac Properties, property owner and, Jennifer Noden of 7 Edges Design, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion passed, 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 2020 Preserve MN Conference Session Proposals Ms. Wittman stated that the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is accepting proposals for speaker sessions for Preserve Minnesota, the 2020 Annual Statewide Historic Preservation Conference to take place in Stillwater from September 16-18, 2020. Proposals are due January 17, 2020. On January 6, 2020 a portion of the HPC met to discuss desired session proposals. Stillwater’s Preservation History was identified as a possible session. Staff has drafted the session proposal and sent it to Commissioner Thueson Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 15, 2020 Page 2 of 6 for review. Staff has additionally inquired with Brent Peterson about his potential involvement in the development of the session and/or the possibility of his participation in the session presentation. She asked Commissioners to review the proposal and provide input. The other one is Stillwater’s Preservation Tools - focusing on non traditional preservation tools. She asked the Commissioners to take a look, read them and see if they sound catchy. The HPC has another month to finalize these proposals. She is also working on owners to try to get sessions on adaptive reuse of the JX Event Center Building and the Hotel Lora. Chairwoman Mino said she talked to Charlene Rice who is connected with the MnDOT people regarding the possibility of her helping with a session on the historic bridge. City Planner Wittman said she is not sure what that session proposal is, she reached out to MnDOT stating there is a desire to have the story of the bridge told. HPC Ordinance Amendment Update and Projected Schedule Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the City has entered into contract with HKGi for the update to the City’s HPC enabling ordinance. City staff has met with the project leader, Jeff Miller, to discuss existing challenges and opportunities of the existing ordinances. The project scope calls for the creation of an advisory committee to help the HPC, staff and the consulting firm review and update the ordinances. At their last regularly-scheduled meeting, the City Council appointed nine individuals to the committee. They will help review draft proposals and provide feedback. She reviewed the project schedule. She said HPC members are not required at any of the sessions but are most welcome to attend. The entire community will be invited to provide input. 2020 Workplan Update Ms. Wittman alerted there is a lot going on right now. At the regularly-scheduled November 2019 meeting the HPC discussed the 2020 workplan and focused on identification of HPC-desired projects to occur in 2020. Several items have been put on the 2020-2022 workplan for Community Development Department staff. An RFP is about to go out regarding the Chestnut Street Plaza including the Main Street intersection. As part of the RFP, a work session with the HPC will take place. The Council made a bonding bill request for the remodeling/rehab of the Bergstein Buildings. If it is successful, in 2020-2021 the rehab will start for those buildings. Regarding the Lowell Park Pavilion, the City entered a contract with Collaborative Design Group and they are scoping the structure now. The Council included $15,000 in the 2020 budget to assess the Sunken Garden (behind historic post office across from Lowell Inn). The assessment will take place in 2020 with possible reconstruction in 2021. Ms. Wittman will apply for a grant for the 2021 Design Guidelines update. FYI Minutes Update Ms. Wittman provided clarification on how the City produces its minutes. City policy states that written minutes are the official record for the boards and commissions. They are done in summary, not verbatim. The City also retains all video and audio recordings. She talked with City Clerk who has said that when she has had circumstances where there is something that should be part of the record, she makes a note and asks the recording secretary to be sure to include it. So when the HPC looks through the minutes as they appear in the packet and feels strongly there is a perception, opinion, finding that is missing from the draft minutes, give her a call and it can be noted on the record in the meeting. Commissioner Finwall commented that she brought this up because she noticed that some things she said were in the minutes and other things were not. She thought that a summary is just bullet points without identifying who is saying what. She questioned who decides what she says or what another commissioner says is important to put in the minutes. It doesn’t always reflect what the person said accurately. She used to be a planning secretary and typed minutes. She pointed out that sometimes she reviews the minutes and realizes that she said a lot more than that. She wants to make sure the minutes are an accurate portrayal of Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 15, 2020 Page 3 of 6 the Commission. Where she works, summary minutes are just bullet points of what was discussed as a whole, not really one person said one thing and another person said something else. Ms. Wittman said she can again convey that to the City Clerk as an option. Commissioner Larson commented that in the end it’s on the Commission to review the minutes to make sure they are accurate. Everyone could do a better job of that. Short of including every comment verbatim, or summarizing and not being clear, he wondered if the whole direction of a particular decision would be clear if it were just a list of bullet points. He agreed it is very subjective. The person doing minutes is choosing what is included. Councilmember Junker said he is disappointed in Council minutes lately, because sometimes he is not even quoted and he said 10 minutes worth of remarks. He feels it is crucial that the person who made the comment is included. The tough part is how to summarize what was said from the standpoint of what is viewed as important. Ms. Wittman said she takes notes and provides the recording secretary with those notes. She can make sure what Commissioners feel strongly about is captured in the minutes. She asked the Commissioners to please convey that to her. Lowell Park Pavilion HSR Update Ms. Wittman said this was mentioned above. Valley Ridge Mall Sign Plan Appeal Ms. Wittman reported that the Council voted 3-2 to approve the Valley Ridge Mall amendment and variances to allow for Norman Quack’s duck to be on the building. Councilmembers Junker and Collins voted to deny. A resolution is being drafted that will be up for Council’s formal consideration at the upcoming Tuesday meeting. Councilmember Junker spoke about the Council meeting hearing. Frances Skamser Lewis was there and the sign man was there and said he was directed to create a very large, very attractive, noticeable sign with no dimensions in mind. The qualifications of the strip center were not even a consideration. After they presented, Commissioner Junker gave about a 6 minute dissertation on why he felt the City created the ordinance to be consistent within a multi tenant building and that it was crucial to maintain the standards for this multi tenant building. Then Councilmember Weidner moved to approve, the Council went to a vote and that was it. None of the Councilmembers who voted for it said why. He felt that was unusual. They created their own hardship. Staff will do findings of fact. He is not sure what will be there to justify how the Council voted in favor of it. He asked, is neon allowable there? Ms. Wittman replied neon is allowable. Exposed neon is not. There is plexiglass over the neon. The applicant made the argument that the neon was not truly exposed. Councilmember Junker said the applicant’s argument was, we love the sign, the sign is beautiful. Findings of fact will come back to the Council probably next week. Ms. Wittman said she is working with the City Attorney to draft those. Commissioner Larson said, so there is no variance, what was adopted is a new set of guidelines for that site? Councilmember Junker clarified only for that one site. Ms. Wittman said the Planning Commission denied it, the HPC denied it, and the Council conceptually approved it. Commissioner Finwall remarked when they came before the HPC they were basically throwing the sign company under the bus. So they were before the Council throwing them under the bus? Councilmember Junker said the sign company’s business is to create a fabulous sign to attract businesses to that site, but they have to meet the standards. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 15, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Walls pointed out that it’s still the burden of the applicant and sign designer to meet qualifications the City has set and obtain approval before putting it up. Now the City is back in the position of saying just leave it. To him this is upsetting. Councilmember Junker noted that everyone else in the building is within the sign band. Commissioner Finwall asked, it still needs a design permit, right? Ms. Wittman replied she will have to consult the City attorney but if the Council approves the resolution that approves the variance and alteration to the design permit, then de facto the City will have to issue the sign permit. Commissioner Finwall said she would think at a minimum the City could double fine the applicant for installing the sign without a permit. Chairwoman Mino asked, is this unique to this situation or will it change the sign plan? Ms. Wittman replied this will change the sign plan so any future tenant will be able to put 90 square feet of signage up on that corner and cover the architectural feature at that corner space. Councilmember Junker said, but every other tenant is obligated to comply with the current sign ordinance for that building unless they do the same thing. Commissioner Walls said, but that sets a precedent that if there is a sign plan in place for a building like that it’s null and void and people will say it’s there but it’s not. Commissioner Thueson asked, so after the Council vote, is it something tailored to that sign or is a full revamp of the sign plan? Ms. Wittman replied the appeal was for the duck in that location. They didn’t necessarily want to change the banner program. Their big argument was they want the duck in that location. Commissioner Thueson asked, do all multi tenant plans come before the HPC? Ms. Wittman replied it’s just the downtown district now that comes before the HPC. West Stillwater used to come before the HPC. If a new building in the West Stillwater is being constructed then they need to have a sign plan for that building. Staff ends up reviewing the newer ones if it’s an existing building. Commissioner Larson asked about a couple additional items. In the last meeting the Commission talked about the stone precast wall on Main Street. He asked if this will come before the Commission. Ms. Wittman replied it will come before the HPC in February. Commissioner Larson brought up the bent pipe issue in the center building, has anything moved on that? Ms. Wittman replied that the building official met with them and their contractors. The hearth with precast iron stove put in it was built in front of two plywood covered doors. It has a recess of about 20”. The building official found it acceptable to be in that recess. It won’t be flush mounted, it will come out about 8” but they are going to install a cap. She gave the OK since it was substantially compliant with HPC approval. The stovepipe will go away. Commissioner Larson asked about the deck project with the lift behind the Crosby. Will they do a final version? Ms. Wittman replied they are working on final design which will come back before the Commission. Councilmember Junker asked, is it still yellow tagged? Ms. Wittman replied the City gave them temporary occupancy for a set number of events they already had scheduled. City staff are working with them toward final building plans showing compliance. Commissioner Larson noted it would be interesting to go through 2019 and see how many projects came before the HPC that asked for forgiveness. It seems to be more and more of a trend. The HPC has even seen Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 15, 2020 Page 5 of 6 the City do this on more than one occasion where the work was done and they asked for forgiveness. The concerning thing is that it’s more and more of a pattern and sometimes it’s being done by people who obviously are taking advantage of the system. Ms. Wittman said she can provide that information. Commissioner Larson commented when developers, sign manufacturers or the City clearly should know and it still goes that way, then it’s getting out of hand. Commissioner Finwall asked, doesn’t the City catch a lot of this during the building permit process? Ms. Wittman replied sometimes it does not involve a building permit. When Commissioners see something that appears to be amiss they should give her a call. Planning and Zoning staff are not able to proactively police it. Councilmember Junker said the one project that stands out is the Mon Petit situation with a massive HV on the roof. There is no screening. It sticks out like a rocketship. Ms. Wittman said it did not come before the Commission. All the HVAC systems are getting massive. Commissioner Finwall said, so an internal process would be to route those permits to planners, engineers, and the building department. Commissioner Larson said at least everything that goes in for a permit should get reviewed by a City staff member that has the knowledge to decide if it should come before the HPC. That might mean every permit. Chairwoman Mino remarked in St. Paul, the HPC staff member has to sign off on any building permits that are related to historic buildings. Ms. Wittman replied she does too. The only time the Zoning Administrator will do a permit that the HPC has looked at is in the conservation district and he has that visual reference, this is what the HPC approved, this is what’s in front of him right now. He comes to her if there are questions. Beyond that, she does all downtown projects and most all commercial projects. If she remembers correctly, the Mon Petit Cheri was approved without any Planning/Zoning approval at all. It was just issued by the Building Department without any Planning/Zoning review. So she doesn’t really know what to do with something like that because technically the City issued it. Commissioner Larson asked, are there policies in place that say anything downtown that gets a permit should come by the City Planner? Ms. Wittman answered it’s just a case where the building inspector issued a permit without consulting with planning staff. Commissioner Larson said, the building inspector does know it’s not just building permits, it’s also mechanical, correct? Ms. Wittman replied as much as she has tried to educate them, sometimes they don’t. The Building Department is great. This is an off case. It was issued in January 2019. She has not had a chance to sit down with the Building Department staff and talk about it. The City has a pretty comprehensive process for all eyes on deck on all permits. Commissioner Larson said he stopped and looked at the pavilion and the rocking music and flashing lights and he was dismayed. He realizes it is part of the light show but the pavilion has flashing stars and music coming out of it. Councilmember Junker confirmed that was part of the Christmas light plan. Commissioner Larson said it seemed if anything would require review and consideration, it should be the pavilion. Ms. Wittman said she is trying to work with public works and senior staff. She wasn’t aware of it. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 15, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Larson explained the whole pavilion is covered with a moving light show. He is not against the light show, but he is against where it is on a historic structure. Commissioner Finwall remarked at the Washington County Historic Courthouse they had the new LED cool lights mixed with the warm lights. This is a pet peeve of hers. Ms. Wittman provided a verbal update that a letter came in regarding a planning case where there is resubdivision of property near the historic courthouse neighborhood and the owner next door is objecting. They included the HPC on the correspondence. This is a straightforward resubdivision. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adjourn. Motion passed, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Amy Mino, Chairwoman ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-02 REPORT DATE: February 10, 2020 MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for retaining wall replacement and wall staining LOCATION: Adjacent to Public Parking Lot 16 & 17 DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In 2018 the HPC approved the construction of a new retaining wall system in the lower parking lot of the Veteran’s Memorial site. The new walls replaces a concrete wall, faced with stone, and a geo-grid system that was failing. A 2018 condition of approval was that the new wall would match the same color and style as the existing parking lot walls. While the City’s contracting firm was able to closely match the older walls, the coloring is not consistent; the contracting firm did, however, keep record of the color and application of the two-part/color stain treatment. A (approximately) 16’ segment of the upper Veteran’s Memorial wall, adjacent to public parking lots 16 & 17 is in need of replacement. The City is proposing to replace this wall with a new, poured in place wall to match the lower wall replaced in 2018. Given the color variation of the older, upper wall and the new, lower walls, the City is proposing to stain the entire wall system facing public parking lot 16 and continue with the new wall color on the wall facing South Third Street. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to replace a 16’ long retaining wall with a poured in place wall with the color and design to match all walls on the Veteran’s Memorial site. ANALYSIS HPC 2020-02 HPC: February 19, 2020 Page 2 of 3 The site is located in the Downtown Design Review District. The District is silent on retaining walls. However, some guidelines the Commission should consider as part of their review: • Landscape Guideline: Parking lots should be screened from the street and the sidewalk either by walls or plantings or both. If walls are used, their material should be compatible with the walls of existing adjacent buildings. • Building Materials: Compatibility with similar exterior construction materials in the immediate area is recommended in order to maintain the distinct character and harmony of the area. The existing infrastructure is not historic. Though there are some historic walls in the vicinity, these walls are not located on property. Staff cannot determine if these walls, as shown above, were taken into consideration when approvals were granted for the Historic Courthouse wall (circa 2001) or for the Veterans Memorial walls (circa early 1990s). As a result, there is no prevailing material, wall patterns, nor color for the wall design. RECOMMENDATION A. Approve, whole or in part. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards, and the standards set forth for Design Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-02. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and on file with HPC Case No. 2018-17 and 2020-02. 2. The wall design shall have a similar block size and style as the existing Veteran’s Memorial wall. 3. The color of the walls shall be of the same color and design of the walls approved and constructed as part of HPC Case No. 2018-17. 4. 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. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. HPC 2020-02 HPC: February 19, 2020 Page 3 of 3 C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As there is no prevailing wall type in the vicinity, matching the existing parking lot/Veteran’s Memorial walls is appropriate. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of HPC Case No. 2020-02 with those conditions outlined in A, above. ATTACHMENTS Public Parking Lots map, 2019 Replacement wall photo Aerial of walls proposed to be stained ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ àÞ àÞ àÞ àÞ àÞ àÞ àÞ ^ àÞ M u l b e r r y S t C o m m e r c i a l A v e M y r t l e S t C h e s t n u t S t O l i v e S t N e l s o n S tMain StWater StSecond StThird StN e l s o n A l l e yUnion AlleyP i n e S t 24 24 24 4 4 I* I* I* I* I* 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 24 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 5Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 3 ILowel l ParkLowel l ParkL iftB r id g e T e d d y B e a r P a r k P i o n e e r P a r k Public Parking Lots Downtown Stillwater 2019 Downtown Parking Commission January 2019 Legend City Parking Lot City Parking Ramp Permit parking ONLY Trailhead Parking Crosby Ramp - 2nd St level public Private parking until 6 PM Bus, RV, Trailers Bus loading/unloading Bus parking ^Business Permit Valid àÞ DT Resident Permit Valid On-street parking is free, but limited to three hours unless posted for less 4 Numbers in circles = hour limits for free parking lots I*Public restroom Free parking lot Pay parking lot Lot availble to public after office hours Lots where Monthly Permits are Valid * ** * Allows vehicle in lot longer than the posted limit (but not overnight) ** Allows Downtown Resident to park overnight PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-01 REPORT DATE: February 10, 2020 MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 APPLICANT: Tim Somerville LANDOWNER: Tim Somerville REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new single family residence LOCATION: 1109 Mulberry Street West DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Tim Somerville owns the property at 1109 Mulberry Street West which contains a single family residence. Shortly after purchasing the home, a fire occurred in the pre-1946 residence. The property owner submitted to City staff a structural analysis which determined that, in addition to previous foundation failures and possible soil issues, almost every structural member of the house was undersized, deteriorated or failing. A combination of these factors, and the fact staff could not determine the residence to be a historic resource, was grounds for granting administrative demolition approval. This approval was granted prior to the City Council’s adoption of the demolition moratorium. The applicant has requested Design Permit approval for the construction of a single family residence to be located at the subject property in the (Stillwater) Case no. 2020-01 Page 2 Neighborhood Conservation District. The new house is proposed to replace the existing residence. SPECIFIC REQUEST The specific request is for the construction of a 1,092 square foot, one-story single family residence with a walkout design; a two-car, front-facing garage is proposed to be attached to the residence. The house is a rambler design, with asphalt-shingled gabled roof running in an east- west direction parallel to the front (south) property line. The garage, too, will have a gable design but offset from the residence as the garage is recessed. The plans show these two gables being connected with a flat roof. The front entry steps will be covered with a gable-peaked porch; the south-facing gable end will be clad with shake singles. The entire house will be constructed of wood and finished with a vertical lap wood siding; exposed concrete foundation is proposed. The applicant has not included the window type or trim details. ANALYSIS All infill homes in the NCD, including those residences located in the Downtown Design Review District, are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines recommend the following: Neighborhood and Streets Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. This structure is one of two homes facing Mulberry Street West on this dead-end street. The other, located directly across the street from the existing residence, is a 1.5-story home built circa 1875. Mulberry Street West also serves as an exterior side yard for two other properties, addresses off of Sherburne Street North. The closest property, directly to the east, is a single story home with a two-car, side-loaded garage directly adjacent to the applicant’s property. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. The existing home has a non-conforming front yard setback of 10’. The home to the east sits (approximately) 20’ from the Mulberry Street right-of-way; the garage is situated approximately 30’ from the same property line. Residences across the street are set back nearly 40’. The applicant has requested a variance from the Planning Commission to place the home and its garage in the 20’ (house) and 30’ (garage) front yard setback area; the Planning Commission will consider this matter in a public hearing scheduled for February 26, 2020. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. Gabled and hipped roofs are dominate in the area. The applicant’s gables are appropriate. However, the flat portion of the roof, connecting the two gables, is not a design element that is consistent of traditional design. While the residence, Case no. 2020-01 Page 3 directly across the street, has a flattened gable, this is not a traditional design. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. The building height is respectful of the mass of lower-scaled structures on this street front. Building and site design should respond to natural features. Preserve significant trees. The site has topographical challenges. The existing home sits approximately 5’ below the right-of-way grade and the back of the structure is lower than 10’ from the roadway. The northernmost portion of the property is nearly 15’ lower than the front of the property. Additionally, the home is situated at the top of a steep slope, which slopes to the west. Respect the site’s natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. The applicant is proposing to place the residence in a location nearly identical to the existing home as to respect the natural slope of the land. This will also minimize the amount of cut and fill that is needed to accommodate a new home on this site. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The front-facing garage is proposed to be located 18’ from the front property line; the adjacent, side-loaded garage located at 304 Sherburne Street North, is located 30’ from the southern property line. The location of the garage and home is not consistent with the other homes on this street frontage. However, the topography of the land is such that pushing the home and garage further north would require significant fill to avoid drainage issues. Minimize garage impact on new structure massing and street front. While the garage is closer to the street than its neighbor, the property owner is proposing to recess the garage by 4’ in order to reduce the 24’ wide garage’s impact to the street and to reduce the garage’s visibility from traffic from the east. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The property is nearly 15,000 square feet; the footprint of the residence and attached garage is (approximately) 1,700 square feet. This is compatible with the property and surrounding residences. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. While the applicant is proposing a covered entryway, no front porch is proposed for the home. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. No new accessory buildings are proposed. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. The proposed design conforms to this standard with the exception of window treatments (as some windows are Case no. 2020-01 Page 4 proposed to have window grids but the sides and rear windows do not). Architectural Detail The façade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The scale of the home and the lap siding is compatible with the scale and character of houses on the streetscape. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The elements of the building are in proportion to the residence, and are not in conflict with adjacent structures. Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. The simple home’s design supports the simple architectural detail. Use masonry and stone authentically. Masonry and stone are not proposed. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approval If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposed application meets standards set forth in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-01 with or without the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and found on file with HPC Case No. 2020-01, except as modified by conditions herein or other City of Stillwater Planning Commission and/or City Council approval. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 3. The gables of the house and garage shall not be filled. 4. The project shall utilize lap siding with a 4-6” maximum reveal; dutch lap is not permitted. 5. Window trim and detail, with the same level of detail and with the same materials, will be installed on all window and door openings on all four sides of the structure. 6. Siding and corner, soffit, fascia, frieze boards shall utilize the same material on all four sides. Case no. 2020-01 Page 5 7. Divided window lites shall be either be installed or removed on all windows. 8. The use of wood or composite siding and trim on all four sides is permitted; vinyl is not permitted. 9. Exposed concrete foundation shall not be in excess of what is customary for building code. 10. Exterior lighting shall be shielded from neighboring properties. 11. The driveway shall be improved with concrete or asphalt, in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 12. A landscaping plan, to include tree replacement for three significant trees, shall be submitted at the time of the building permit. The grading escrow shall not be returned until the landscaping and trees have been installed. 13. 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. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Table If the Heritage Preservation finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Heritage Preservation finds the proposal is not consistent with the, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose for the Neighborhood Conservation District and the review of the design of new residential structures is to help ensure the traditional neighborhood fabric is preserved. The review is intended to ensure new development does not contrast with the existing, historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to fit with Stillwater’s traditional neighborhood design, particularly on this dead-end street. With certain modifications, the design can conform to the standards set forth by City Code and associated Stillwater Conversation District guidelines and, therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative NCD Application Form (2 pages) Certificate of Survey Site and Grading Plan Elevations Floor Plans (2 pages) Adjacent Home Photos (3 pages) cc: Tim Somerville STREETNORTH CENTER STSHERBURNE STREETS T E R L I N G WAY 1211 212 1207 12121209 12101205 12061208 415 232 226 304 1127 219 1109 403 313 307 317 1119 225 11121118 319 233 1124 1307 237 412 325 318 308 1123 1220 1212 313 227 219 1204 1115 303 307 231 1301 1016 213 503 µ 0 140 28070Feet General Site Location Site Location 1109 Mulberry St W ^ PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-04 REPORT DATE: February 13, 2020 MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 APPLICANT: Dariush Moslemi, representing the Rusty Mile LANDOWNER: Michael J. Lynskey Jr. & Lee T. Bjerk REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for the installation of an outdoor dining area and trash enclsoure LOCATION: 218 Main Street North DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Dar Moslemi intends to open a restaurant called The Rusty Mile at 218 Main Street North. In November, 2019 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved exterior improvements to the structure. Since that time the applicant has decided to move forward with plans to create and outdoor dining area to be placed between the building and the public sidewalk. Additionally, given constraints inside the building, the applicant desires constructing a trash enclosure on the southwest side of the building. 218 Main Street North (Google Images – May, 2019) HPC 2020-04 Page 2 of 3 SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Design Permit for: 1. A 2’ tall, above-grade dining area constructed of pressure treated, painted wood with a skirt constructed of galvanized, corrugated metal roofing. The dining area will be enclosed with a 36” wood and vinyl coated mesh railing. 2. An 6’ wide by 10’ long cedar ship-lap sided external trash enclosure. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES City Code Section 31-209(f) indicates the following applicable standards for review are:  Architectural character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development.  Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. ANALYSIS MATERIALS  An infill building and façade should be composed of materials similar to original adjacent facades (example: local brick or stone). Though not an infill building, the construction of this above-grade dining area will fill in the area between the building and the sidewalk where pavers are currently located. Painted or stained wood is an appropriate material in the downtown area despite the lack of the use of wood on this block. A wood patio exists within ½ block at the Valley Bookseller, facing Water Street North. The use of corrugated metal has been limited on Main Street. However, the Issac Staples mill is (approximately) two blocks to the north and visible from this site. That said, the applicant has indicate he is favorable to discussing alternative materials with the commission. REAR ENTRANCES  The rear façade entrance should be clean and well maintained and present a welcome The placement of a trash enclosure near the rear entrance will help keep this area HPC 2020-04 Page 3 of 3 appearance. maintained and free of unsightly debris. The use of stained and painted cedar for trash enclosures is common in the downtown core, especially in areas of limited pedestrian activity. ALTERNATIVES HPC has alternatives related to this request. A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2019-29. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department on file with HPC Case 2020-04. 2. All wood on the deck and enclosure shall be treated and sealed. Maintenance of the wood shall be required in perpetuity. 3. HPC Design Permit approval does not constitute building permit approval. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. 4. 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. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed alteration is consistent with the guidelines and recommends conditional approval of HPC Case. No. 2020-04 with the conditions outlined in Alternative A. ATTACHMENTS Dining Area Plan Mesh Railing Example Trash Enclosure Design PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-03 REPORT DATE: February 14, 2020 MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a retaining wall LOCATION: Adjacent to the South Main Street Public Stairway DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2019 the City’s Public Works Department determined sluffing was occurring near the [South] Main Street stairs in the Broadway Street right- of-way and in a location where the City has water and storm sewer mains. It was determined the storm sewer main had been damaged and was in need of replacement. Upon completion of the utility repairs, the City installed an (approximately) 12’ tall, concrete redi rock gravity wall in this location to help prevent future erosion on this bluffside. SPECIFIC REQUEST Preconstruction Photograph (May, 2019) – Google Images HPC 2020-03 Page 2 of 3 The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to for the unpermitted concrete redi- rock wall system and requesting the HPC determine the appropriate stain color. ANALYSIS The site is located in the Downtown Design Review District. The District is silent on retaining walls. However, some guidelines the Commission should consider as part of their review: • Landscape Guideline: If walls are used, their material should be compatible with the walls of existing adjacent buildings. • Building Materials: Compatibility with similar exterior construction materials in the immediate area is recommended in order to maintain the distinct character and harmony of the area. Historic walls existing within the direction vicinity of the newly installed wall. Flanking the wall system are stacked limestone walls, both in a circular pattern. Altered and unaltered sandstone and limestone bluff walls exist within 50’ to the south of this new wall. Additionally, the base of the Main Street stairs is located within 50’ to the north of this wall. HPC 2020-03 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION A. Approve, whole or in part. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards, and the standards set forth for Design Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-03, with or without conditions. B. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. C. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The wall is uncharacteristic of any wall along Main Street. While concrete has been used for other public improvements in the area, the combination of the material with the size of the block sticks out in this area. The wall’s design is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Downtown Design Review District guidelines and detracts from the historic character of the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Therefore staff recommends denial of the request. However, staff recommends the Commission indicate if they have a color preference for the wall, in the event the decision is appealed to and approved by the City Council. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 REGARDING: HPC Ordinance Update Committee Listening Session PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner As part of the HPC Ordinance update process, staff held a listening session with ordinance update committee members. The intent of this meeting was to gauge feedback regarding: • What has been their experience with HPC/design review ordinances and activities? • What is working vs. not working today? • What HPC/design review activities may not be needed? • What HPC/design review activities may need more attention? Attached are notes from that listening session. As the Commission can see, attendance was limited. However, staff has sent these notes and listening session distributed materials to all committee members to gain greater feedback. Staff is requesting the HPC take a look at the enclosed materials and discuss whether or not the HPC would like to add to comment, particularly in relationship to the last three bullet items. Depending on feedback from the Commission and additional committee members will determine the next steps in the public engagement process. As of right now, a public listening session is slated for the end of the month/early March. However, the overall trend with these types of public meetings has resulted in low attendance rates. So staff is in discussion with our consulting firm about a more-targeted user group questionnaires/surveys. One thought would be to target all applicants within the last five years with some specific questions about experience, desirability, preferences, etc. Another thought included a community-wide survey. Based on this public input, staff would feel confident moving forward with significant ordinance edits, asking the public to comment on draft changes. Staff will update the Commission on the progress of public outreach and if specific public outreach plans change between now and the next regularly-scheduled HPC meeting. City of Stillwater HPC/Design Review Ordinances Listening Session January 30, 2020 (8:30am) 1 MEETING NOTES Meeting Participants Anne Loff (Hotel Crosby), Patrick Schmeichel (owner of historic property), Brian Larson (HPC member and local architect), Abbi Wittman (City Planner), Bill Turnblad (Community Development Director), Jeff Miller (HKGi planning consultant) Participants’ HPC Experiences • Conversion of a 3-unit residential rental use to a single-family home. Design Permit required as located in the Downtown Design Review District. Extensive reconstruction required presented heritage preservation challenges. Removal of the rear portion of the house to reconstruct it, which was necessary, revealed that the house foundation had failed. Over time, many additions had occurred that were not sufficiently tied into the original structure. The City’s ordinances did not support demolition of the house, recommending reuse instead. Due to the extensive reconstruction needed to meet building codes and historic building criteria, significant unanticipated costs ($55,000) occurred. Building setback requirements necessitated a variance, requiring additional review. The result is essentially “new construction” that retains the historic look of the house. The new construction has resulted in an improved and safer product. • Need for making HPC information easily available and understandable to owners and buyers of older/historic homes, as well as realtors, e.g. historic structure surveys, County property data, City property data. Awareness of regulations is important for those wanting to own a historic home. Important to clarify and communicate exactly what the community wants to preserve. Some options for communicating this information could be the city utility bill or city newsletter. • Balconies on the Hotel Crosby building were a challenge for the HPC because balconies, extending beyond the front façade line, are not a feature of buildings in the historic commercial district. The HPC has set a precedent for not approving balconies. Participants’ Input to Existing HPC Ordinances Jeff presented an overview of all of the existing HPC related ordinances. 1. Choose one name for the HPC/design review committee. 2. Clean up permit names as well, e.g. design permit, design review, design review permit, site alteration permit. 3. HPC should serve as more of a policy body than a review body. 4. Signs – Work with the HPC to develop standards that will enable sign permits to be administratively approved. With improved sign standards, only variances to these standards would need to be reviewed by the HPC. Gets rid of time delay for sign permits. Current sign standards should be evaluated to identify inadequacies and gaps. 5. Food trucks – Similar to signs, it would be better for the HPC to establish better standards that can be administratively approved. 6. Exterior painting – Currently, a property owner of a listed historic structure (contributing property in the commercial historic district and/or individual NRHP designation) is required to City of Stillwater HPC/Design Review Ordinances Listening Session January 30, 2020 (8:30am) 2 have HPC review of paint colors. This requirement should be evaluated for its potential to be administrative as well. 7. Historic property/district designation – Are the criteria clear enough? The benefits of historic designation need to be understood and communicated. 8. Current HPC related standards - They are general rather than specific, including Dept. of the Interior standards, sign standards, and the various design permit standards. Goal should be to get clearest guidelines possible. Standards that are clearly, simply codified should enable administrative approval. 9. Design guidelines – Discussion of the preserving the “character and nature” of district. HPC may not think a proposed alteration fits but, through appeal to the City Council, it may get approved. Should the Council’s “big picture” view include more consideration of precedents? 10. Design guidelines – What is the potential for them to be updated when appropriate? Is this an HPC responsibility? 11. Building setbacks – Could there be more focus on the general form of the building and design/build considerations and more flexibility with the setback requirements? For example, support front porch consistency along a street frontage and take the prevailing setback of existing buildings into account, rather than requiring variances. Allow porches to encroach into setback if consistent with adjacent existing porches. Use average setback of adjacent existing houses to determine setback requirement. 12. Exceptions to standards/design guidelines – Too many exceptions that are approved get held against the HPC at a later date and time. 13. Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) – This district requires HPC review of new residence construction only, but no review of changes to existing homes. Is this sufficient for preserving the character of the district? 14. In general, should HPC standards be applied more equally; they are currently applied to some existing homeowners (remodel/not new construction) but only to new construction in other areas of the city (e.g. NCD). 15. Neighborhood historic district vs. NCD – City drafted a residential historic district (approx. 8 years ago) which was not considered for designation. Property owners objected to historic designation so one has never been created. Potential for exploring an overlay zoning districts vs. residential historic districts today? Is there opportunity for more district standards to be codified in an overlay district, as opposed to design guidelines, which would require less HPC review? On the other hand, guidelines can be less restrictive and provide more flexibility. 16. When considering new heritage preservation districts, think individual smaller scale neighborhood districts rather than larger city scale districts. 17. Demolition ordinance - The city’s demolition ordinance triggers some review of existing homes in the NCD. Demolition ordinance comes into play as there is more interest in the removal of small homes to create larger homes that don’t fit with the neighborhood’s character. 18. NCD has actually been successful in preventing McMansions. 19. Potential for incorporating “like, kind and quality” approach from safety & code compliance construction codes and insurance criteria into HPC guidelines/standards. Currently there can be City of Stillwater HPC/Design Review Ordinances Listening Session January 30, 2020 (8:30am) 3 conflicting standards between what’s operable, code standards, and design guidelines, e.g. window replacements. Be aware of standards/guidelines that may be overreaching. 20. Potential study area for HPC is use of design guidelines vs. ordinance standards/requirements. 21. Consider the potential need for any building remodel to provide an engineering report, which has some cost implications. Just relying an inspection does not adequately nor proactively identify more the significant structural deficiencies of older homes. City of Stillwater HPC/Design Review Ordinances Listening Session January 30, 2020 (8:30am) 1 Agenda for Listening Session 1. Introductions 2. Brief overview of the project and HPC/design review ordinances and activities 3. Group discussion a. What has been your experience with HPC/design review ordinances and activities? b. What is working vs. not working today? c. What HPC/design review activities may not be needed? d. What HPC/design review activities may need more attention? Types of HPC/Design Review Activities The City of Stillwater’s current ordinances related to the HPC/design review are spread across four chapters of the Code of Ordinances, including: • City Administration (Chapter 22), Heritage Preservation Commission (Sec. 22-7) • Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 31) • Building Demolition (Chapter 34) • Licenses, Permits and Prohibitions (Chapter 41), Seasonal Outdoor Sales (Sec. 41-7) Based on an analysis of these ordinances and discussions with City staff, the following types of HPC/design review activities have been identified. 1. Designation of Heritage Preservation Sites (HPC Ordinance Sec. 22-7) 2. Additional (7) powers and duties of the HPC (HPC Ordinance Sec. 22-7): a. Conduct a continuing survey of all areas, places, buildings, structures or objects in the city which the commission, on the basis of information available or presented to it, has reason to believe are significant to the city's culture, social, economic, political or architectural history. b. Continually survey all areas to determine needed and desirable improvements of older buildings throughout the city, acting in a resource and advisory capacity to owners of historically significant sites regarding their preservation, restoration and rehabilitation. c. Continuing education of the city's citizens with respect to the city's civic and architectural heritage. It shall keep current a public register of designated and proposed heritage preservation sites along with the plans and programs that pertain to them. d. Recommend that the city accepts gifts and contributions made to the city and to assist the city staff in preparing applications for grant funds for heritage preservation. e. On a continuing basis collect and review certain city planning and development records, documents, studies, models, maps, plans and drawings to be entered into the public library historical archives as a permanent record of city history and development. f. Make applications to the national register or to the state for the designation of a historic site or district, with the city council's consent. g. Conduct design review for construction of any dwelling house in the Neighborhood Conservation District using the Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines. 3. Site Alteration Permits (HPC Ordinance Sec. 22-7) for designated heritage preservation sites. City of Stillwater HPC/Design Review Ordinances Listening Session January 30, 2020 (8:30am) 2 4. Design Review / Design Permits in the Neighborhood Conservation District (HPC Ordinance Sec. 22- 7) using the Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines for new construction of any dwelling house. 5. Design Permits required in the Design Permits Ordinance Sec. 31-209, review by the design review committee, for three types of properties (Zoning Ordinance): a. Site Alteration Permits for historic preservation site properties b. Commercial Historic District/Downtown Design Review District properties using the Commercial Historic District Design Manual’s design guidelines c. West Stillwater Business Park properties using design guidelines 6. Design Review in Other Zoning Ordinance Sections a. Administrative design review (Zoning Ordinance): i. LR Lakeshore Residential District ii. CTHR Cove Townhouse Residential District b. HPC/design review committee review (Zoning Ordinance): iii. Large Building Projects in CBD Zoning District - a Design Permit and/or Site Alteration Permit, if required, must be approved by the HPC prior to a site plan review Conditional Use Permit for a large building project in the CBD zoning district being reviewed and acted upon by the City Council. iv. Bed and breakfast use – determination of a historic house’s “original bedrooms” v. RB Two-Family District – simply includes a reference to Neighborhood Conservation District design review requirements c. Other district/use design reviews, where ordinance is unclear re: review by the HPC/design review committee vs. administrative (Zoning Ordinance): vi. TH Townhouse Residential District vii. VC Village Commercial District viii. CRD Campus Research and Development District ix. Accessory Dwellings (in RB District) x. Accessory Structures (in TR District) xi. Regulation of Radio and Television Towers (in CBD and PA Districts) 7. Signs a. All signs in Commercial Historic District/Downtown Design Review District and West Stillwater Business Park, per Design Permits Ordinance (Sec. 31-209) b. All signs require a design review and may also require a design permit, per Sign Regulations Ordinance (Sec. 31-509) 8. Seasonal outdoor sales annual permit for seasonal food vending (Licenses & Permits Ordinance, Chapter 41) - The annual permit for a seasonal food vending cart or vehicle may be approved by the city subject to a number of requirements. If the food vending cart or vehicle is proposed to remain in place for a period of 20 hours or greater, the exterior façade design shall require a design permit as reviewed and approved by the HPC. 9. Building Demolition Permits for buildings or structures that are historically significant or a historic resource. (Building Demolition Ordinance, Chapter 34) HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 REGARDING: After-the-Fact Application Request PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner At the Commission’s last regularly-scheduled meeting Commissioner Larson requested staff look into the number of after-the-fact applications made to the HPC in the last five years. To the best of my knowledge the following were made. Year Case No. Address Activity 2016 2016-22 209 Wilkins Street East Demolition 2019 2019-13 232 Main Street South LED Lighting 2019 2019-21 1400 (1570) Frontage Road West Signage 2020 2020-03 Main Street South Retaining Wall