Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-19 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING February 19, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Krakowski, Larson, Steinwall, Thueson, Walls Absent: Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of January 15, 2020 Meeting Commissioner Finwall requested that on page 3, the second paragraph, the second sentence read “so when they were before the City Council for the appeal, the applicants ended up throwing the HPC under the bus.” She also asked that on page 4, the third paragraph state “Commissioner Finwall asked if the sign still needs a sign permit.” Chairwoman Mino said on page 2, Charlene’s last name should be Roise. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2020 meeting as amended. Motion passed, 6-0 with Commissioner Steinwall abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA 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. City Planner Wittman noted that staff usually does not put design permit projects on the Consent Agenda but because this is a second phase, staff felt it was routine enough to be on the Consent Agenda. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adopt the Consent Agenda, noting that Case No. 2020-02 is approved with the staff-recommended conditions. Motion passed, 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING 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. Ms. Wittman explained the case. Shortly after Tim Somerville purchased 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 1,092 square foot, one-story single family residence with a walkout design; a two- Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 2 of 6 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 Planning Commission will consider a variance to the front yard setback at their meeting next week. The plans show the 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 materials submitted show that 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. Staff recommends approval with 13 conditions. Commissioner Finwall asked what the variance is specifically for. City Planner Wittman replied that the variances are to the front yard setback: an approximately 6 foot variance for the house, and a 16 foot variance for the garage. Commissioner Larson clarified that this property is at the edge of the Conservation District. Ms. Wittman confirmed this is the last house in the Conservation District on the western boundary. Chair Mino asked, are there standards on setbacks for garages? Ms. Wittman replied that the zoning code says it has to be 30 feet back and 10 feet behind the front line of the house. This is a tight site with the existing grade change. Commissioner Larson asked, what material will be used for the siding, trim, soffit and fascia? Mr. Somerville, applicant, replied the house will be constructed of wood, with aluminum trim, soffit and fascia. Svetlana Somerville joined the discussion. Mr. Somerville said they will use the modern composite material that looks like cedar shakes for the exterior walls. Vinyl will not be used. He asked if he is considered to be agreeing with the conditions if he doesn’t say anything. Ms. Wittman explained that the HPC reviews the design of the home. After the design is approved, then Mr. Somerville may apply for the building permit. Mr. Somerville stated he would like to have a wider gap between the shingles of the siding due to cost. Ms. Wittman explained proposed Condition #6 about the lap siding. Staff reviewed the design based on the drawing which showed lap siding. Staff prefers a 4-6” reveal as this is most common. Mr. Somerville stated he is planning to use LP Smartsiding. Commissioner Larson said he is familiar with LP Products and he feels it is fine for the applicant to use that product. It will have a different look than shown on the plans. Chair Mino noted, if it were approved, Condition #4 would need to be changed. Commissioner Finwall asked, will the siding have a jagged edge? Mr. Somerville replied yes. Chair Mino asked, are the window lights different in different places? The staff recommendation is that if window lights are installed, they should be installed on all or none of the windows. Ms. Wittman added that the idea is to have it consistent on all four sides. Mr. Somerville answered that the architect was trying to match the previous house. He is not sure if he will use shutters or not. Chairwoman Mino opened the public hearing. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Chris Magee, who grew up across the street from this house, said he has no objections to the proposed house. It is not a high visibility house. Brian Hirsch, 304 North Sherburne, neighbor to the east, said he is ok with the variance for the garage and happy that there will be a new driveway. Chairwoman Mino closed the public hearing. Chair Mino asked the applicants if they had any questions regarding the recommended conditions. Mrs. Somerville asked about the landscaping requirement. Chair Mino said a condition requires a landscaping plan to include tree replacement. Ms. Wittman stated that condition can be omitted as there will be no significant tree loss. The Engineering Department will just require turf re-establishment. Mr. Somerville asked about the grading escrow. Ms. Wittman replied that the Engineering Department will require a grading escrow at the time of building permitting and it will not be returned until after the lawn is re-established. Commissioner Steinwall suggested deleting the first sentence of Condition #12. Ms. Wittman answered that deleting Condition #12 won’t make it go away. The applicant will still be obligated at the time of building permitting, it just won’t be a condition of the design permit. Mr. Somerville asked about the building code for exposed concrete. Ms. Wittman replied the exposed concrete foundation shall not be in excess of what is customary for building code. Designs show almost a whole story of concrete. The City would usually want to see the siding material carried down to the ground level. Mr. Somerville replied that they wish to stay within the original footprint to avoid having to add fill. Commissioner Steinwall asked, with respect to the foundation and the garage wall, would the applicant build up the ground so they have more slope, or would they carry the cedar shakes down to the ground? Mr. Somerville replied it all depends. Maybe they would just paint the concrete. He thinks that whole wall will be shingled. It will be alright to bring the shingles all the way down to the ground. Commissioner Finwall asked if the applicants considered a more substantial porch. Mrs. Somerville replied it will be similar to the original porch, only a little wider. Ms. Wittman pointed out the original home did not have a porch, it was a covered entryway/stoop. Commissioner Finwall noted the design standards state that applicants should consider porches in the design as an easy way to add character to the house. Mr. Somerville responded they are planning on building a deck in the back. Commissioner Larson acknowledged that the context of the neighborhood is very mixed with post war ramblers and other styles. Although rigorous standards are applied in some places in the Conservation District, he feels the Commission can have less rigor in applying every aspect of it because of the mixed context and the fact it is almost invisible to everyone except the immediate neighbors. Ms. Wittman stated if the Commission is favorable, she would recommend changing Condition #4 to, “The project shall utilize LP Smartside in a cedar shake style, as shown in the meeting” and changing Condition #9 to read: “Exposed concrete foundation shall not be in excess of what is customary for Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 4 of 6 building code. Shake shingles shall be extended to ground grade on the garage foundation” and eliminating Condition #12. Mrs. Somerville said, in regard to Condition #9, it’s hard to visualize how high the concrete will go. Commissioner Larson said the rear elevation would be virtually all shakes coming right down to the bottom line. If done correctly, they could frame the back wall so the siding can go right over the concrete. Mr. Somerville informed the Commission that the plan has changed in the rear. The jog to move the garage back four feet is going to cause so many problems with fill that the surveyor asked if they can live with a smaller garage and he said yes if he will save that much money on the size of the wall and all that fill. It will still be jogged but they’ve cut off four feet so it will now be 22’ deep. Ms. Wittman responded that still won’t change the fact that they will still have a foundation wall on the garage and the question is carrying the design to the ground for consistency. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve Case No. 2020-01, Design Permit for an infill home to be located at 1109 Mulberry Street West, with 11 of the 12 conditions recommended by staff, changing Condition #4 to read: “The project shall utilize LP Smartside in a cedar shake style, as shown in the meeting” and changing Condition #9 to read: “Exposed concrete foundation shall not be in excess of what is customary for building code. Shake shingles shall be extended to ground grade on the garage foundation” and eliminating Condition #12. Motion passed, 7-0. NEW BUSINESS 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. Ms. Wittman explained the case. Dariush Moslemi, applicant, intends to open a restaurant called The Rusty Mile at 218 Main Street North. In November, 2019 the HPC approved exterior improvements to the structure. Since that time the applicant has decided to create an outdoor dining area between the building and the public sidewalk. Additionally, given constraints inside the building, the applicant wishes to construct a trash enclosure on the southwest side of the building. He is requesting 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; and 2) a 6’ wide by 10’ long cedar ship-lap sided external trash enclosure. Staff finds the proposed alteration is consistent with the guidelines and recommends approval with four conditions. Dariush Moslemi, applicant, said he intends to keep the wood natural and seal it annually. It will not be painted unless requested. The corrugated steel skirt will hold up to weather and snow plowing better than wood would. Commissioner Finwall asked, historically don’t balconies traditionally have metal or wood rails? Commissioner Larson said he understands the applicant’s intent because there are places around town that use similar materials for decks. The HPC has been a little looser on Water Street, but on Main Street the HPC tends to look at surrounding seating areas. There is a consistent metal railing treatment downtown, so metal railing for an elevated seating area on Main Street is appropriate. He understands and appreciates what is being proposed but thinks of wood as more of a residential treatment. The fact that there is some galvanized steel down the street is noteworthy but he questions whether it is the right material to use here. The two issues he has are the galvanized metal below and the proposed wood and welded wire mesh above. The only issue with the galvanized is that it jumps Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 5 of 11 out. He suggested a material in a painted finish, which, if it is painted a dark color, would recede and not be as noticeable as shiny galvanized metal. Mr. Moslemi said his intention is to be as green as possible. He would still like to use pressure treated wood for the deck but he is open to using a different kind of material underneath, as long as it is metal so it will stand up to plowing and snow. He would like to use rehabilitated corrugated steel so it would not be as shiny. Chairwoman Mino commented she likes the idea of it receding a bit as far as color. Mr. Moslemi said he prefers vertical lines as opposed to horizontal lines. Regarding the railing, he doesn’t know if the type of mesh he is proposing works with metal. He knows that according to City Code, a rail is not required but he would like to install one for safety. Commissioner Larson acknowledged the railing in front of Stillwater Lofts is an example. Spacing could be a lot different but a simple thin post and rail fades away and you see the building behind it. Any kind of simple railing will follow the spirit of the block like the Lora Hotel. Mr. Moslemi said he would be comfortable with that. Commissioner Finwall commented the mesh look is fairly modern. Ms. Wittman said the Commission’s preference seems to be a minimal black steel railing on the deck and a darker metal skirt in vertical or horizontal lines. Mr. Moslemi said he is open to matching how the Crosby did their decks. Commissioner Larson said he appreciates the applicant’s desire to be environmentally conscious. There is a wood decking that is not pressure treated called thermally modified wood. It doesn’t have the green cast of treated wood and it weathers wonderfully. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2020-04, Design Permit to add a deck to an existing outdoor patio on the property located at 218 Main Street North, with the four conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #5, stating: “Minimal black steel railing shall be installed on the deck” and adding Condition #6, stating: “Darker metal skirt in vertical or horizontal line shall be installed.” Motion passed, 7-0. Case No. 2020-03: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new retaining wall near the Main Street stairs. City of Stillwater applicant. Ms. Wittman explained the case. In the summer of 2019 the City’s Public Works Department determined that sluffing was occurring near the Main Street stairs in the Broadway Street right-of-way, 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 to help prevent future erosion of the bluff. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit for the unpermitted concrete redi-rock wall system and requesting the HPC determine the appropriate stain color. 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 and the project is approved by the City Council. Chairwoman Mino asked if any comments have been received from surrounding businesses. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Ms. Wittman replied she has gotten comments from Hotel Lora whose management is very disappointed with the wall especially since their hotel had to go through several approvals. Commissioner Larson said he wants to go on record saying he agrees with Ms. Wittman and her recommendation. He was very disappointed also. The wall is an eye catching eyesore. If the HPC were to pick ground zero of the most sensitive, historically important place in Stillwater, it would have to be in a block around this area coming in from the south, containing some of the oldest buildings downtown and this is in the middle of it. If this had been proposed, it probably would not have been accepted almost any place in downtown Stillwater. This is in such a prominent place it’s a no brainer that this is not acceptable. What would be acceptable would be a stone wall that is in character with the stone on either side. Worth pointing out is those are small stones, very small on the right and a little larger on the left. What belongs there is something that is similar in character to what is on either side. Chairwoman Mino said she agreed. She has not seen anything downtown that looks as bad as this does. It really does not reflect the character of historic Stillwater. Commissioner Thueson agreed this is an important location on the way into town. Commissioner Walls reiterated that coming in on the highway, this is a focal point. It stands out. Commissioner Steinwall agreed it’s a prominent location and a prominent site. She hopes the Council takes into account the opinions of the neighboring property owner, Hotel Lora, who went out of their way to do a historically sensitive reconstruction. This addition is not in keeping with the spirit of what the HPC has been trying to achieve downtown. Commissioner Thueson added it’s important that the City follow the same expectations of any other applicant. Commissioner Steinwall agreed when the City is the applicant, the City should follow the same rules as any other applicant. Commissioner Larson stated there is no excuse for the City to do something like this when they have a City Planner they can ask. The HPC has had discussions about applicants seemingly asking for forgiveness rather than permission. City should have to follow the same rules. If the HPC denial gets appealed to the City Council, he would like to be notified and would suggest as many Commissioners as possible attend the meeting. Commissioner Steinwall said the Commissioners don’t always know what the schedule is. She would specifically request that the HPC be notified if it’s appealed and when the appeal would be heard. Ms. Wittman said she assumes it will be appealed. The hearing would have to be held within 45 days of the date the appeal is accepted. March 17 would be the next available City Council meeting for an appeal. She will notify the HPC via email. Commissioner Larson asked, who will decide whether to appeal it? Ms. Wittman said she is not sure who makes that decision. She will go to the Public Works Department tomorrow and say the HPC denied this, if it were any other applicant it would be brought to Council if the applicant wanted to appeal. She thinks the staff who were involved in the project are very favorable to their wall. Commissioner Finwall said she also supports denial. She doesn’t see any way to change the wall to make it blend in unless there were vines planted to cover it up completely. She does not know any way it could be made to look historically significant. She asked if it could be covered with a different material. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Ms. Wittman said she doesn’t know. The wall was very expensive due to the gravity design and the stacked block system. She does not think the applicant wants to do anything with their wall but they are very curious, if they were going to paint it, what color would the HPC want it painted? Commissioner Walls remarked it would be a great opportunity for another design permit. Commissioners Steinwall and Finwall asked, why isn’t the applicant here at this meeting to explain themselves? Chairwoman Mino remarked that City staff should know something like this would have to come to the HPC instead of just putting it up. Ms. Wittman answered that she knows these things and she believes the parties responsible for this know these things as well. She thinks the City Council probably knows these things. She encouraged all of the Commissioners to write a letter to the Mayor/Council and express their concerns to the Public Works Department. She can only represent the HPC. The Commissioners need to say these things and they will definitely be in the record. Commissioner Larson said he thinks writing a letter to the Council is the right thing to do. If the wall remained, it would be a monument to what he would call arrogance on behalf of the City. This might have been an error and not arrogance but he can’t understand how it could be otherwise. It’s the idea that the City can do something that other people can’t that bothers him. If it was an honest mistake, he would like to hear that and the folks involved should explain that. The two historic stone walls are now in the background because this thing is thrust forward. In theory, real stone could be put over this but it would narrow the sidewalk even more and there would still be a big box sticking out. He knows of a thin stone veneer that is 1.5-2” that could be applied over this. He would expect the HPC would need to see proposals if that option is considered. Commissioner Finwall remarked, a retaining wall of this height would require a building permit - then wouldn’t the Planning Department review it? Ms. Wittman responded they didn’t submit their building permit until after construction occurred. Commissioner Walls commented that’s a lot of expensive stone to just throw up with no regard for the rules. It’s disappointing. Commissioner Steinwall asked, why does it stick out so far? Ms. Wittman replied partly to get the retention in place but there are utilities back there. Below grade there is a 6’ wide footer to accommodate the stacked system. Commissioner Walls pointed out it’s a flat square wall in between two rounded pieces of stone. It almost looks like it should be a water feature with water dripping down over it. Commissioner Thueson asked if the buildings to the south are owned by the City. Ms. Wittman replied the physical infrastructure is part of the Hotel Lora complex. They just access off MnDOT and public right of way. The Hotel Lora owns the structure immediately to the south of the new wall. She stated the staff recommendation is denial and a letter to the Council. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Chairwoman Mino, to deny Case No. 2020-03, Design Permit Design Permit for a new retaining wall near the Main Street stairs. Commissioner Finwall suggested that the Commission could table it and make the applicant come talk about what they did and come up with some solutions to fix it. This might be one way of handling it rather than knowing they are just going to appeal the denial to the Council. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 8 of 6 Commissioner Larson responded if the case is tabled, it should be tabled for a specific reason such as needing additional information. The HPC is looking for a solution. Is tabling it the best way to do that, or denying it? Commissioner Steinwall argued against tabling it because it’s just another 60 days of a nonconforming structure. Commissioner Larson agreed, the Commission should deny it but convey an openness to possible solutions. Commissioner Finwall said it is her fear that it will just go directly to the Council and the budgetary consideration will be primary. It would be good to hear the people who designed it answer questions and help come up with a solution. Commissioner Larson said he is in favor of working together for a solution but he does not know how to get to that point. Ms. Wittman said there are probably two options - deny the application and follow up with a letter to the Department Head and/or Council. Or table it and ask for specific staff to come to an HPC meeting to discuss it. She thinks the applicant will say the wall is there, this is what is being proposed. She is not sure what the best strategy is. Commissioner Larson said in the letter, the HPC should express they would like to work with the City toward finding a solution. Commissioner Finwall pointed out if the HPC denies it, that precludes coming up with a solution. Commissioner Steinwall commented she can only assume that the applicant or proposer of this wall, had they been interested, would have been here tonight. Commissioner Finwall agreed that the Department Head responsible for installation should have been here tonight. If the application is tabled, then they could come before the HPC at a later time. Commissioner Steinwall said she thinks that person is well aware of the issue and chose not to be here tonight. Ms. Wittman acknowledged she can see where Commissioner Finwall is going with this. She wrote a staff report that denies an after-the-fact application from the organization she works for, knowing it would likely get appealed in front of the City Council who would more than likely say, because they have a lot of other things they have to weigh out, yes the wall is in, what color would you like it to be? So she thinks that the potential for tabling it and requesting the Department Head to be here is definitely an approach, it just may prolong the situation. She has discussed this with her colleagues in other departments. Chairwoman Mino expressed concern that if the HPC tables it, it is not a strong enough message that this is completely unacceptable. Commissioner Finwall said she will support whatever the Commission decides. It seems to her that if the HPC denies it, it’s going to go to the Council and the wall is going to be there forever, but if the HPC tables it, there might be some changes, based on her experience as a planner. Commissioner Larson what Commissioner Finwall is saying is possible but there’s no guarantee it wouldn’t go before the Council. Another possibility is it could be tabled and the HPC could be in this same position a month from now. He wants to work towards a solution but wants to make it clear that the HPC doesn’t find the wall acceptable. Ms. Wittman said she certainly can convey that. She can ask the department staff to watch this meeting video and convey that the HPC is requesting that they be here. If that doesn’t occur, she can Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 9 of 11 request a conversation with the City Administrator, or write a letter to the Council. She can see Commissioner Finwall’s point clearly. Commissioner Steinwall remarked if the HPC says, “we want to work with you, we don’t like your wall,” when the person comes they’re under no compulsion to say “we would love to work with you, what design elements would you like to consider?” She doesn’t see the spirit of cooperation here to make improvements or take the wall down. It seems to her the process has played out. This is not a new development and she feels there have been discussions about this among staff members for quite some time. Commissioner Finwall pointed out it’s unfortunate and makes the Commissioners feel their service to the City is not valued that the City doesn’t have a representative here to discuss the case. Chairwoman Mino added that a citizen committee should not have to take City staff members to task for something like this. Motion passed, 7-0. The Commission directed staff to draft a letter to the Mayor and Council, Public Works/Engineering Departments, and City Administrator for review and signature by the Chair. Commissioner Finwall said she will send information to the local paper. She wants to make sure it gets in the minutes that staff is directed to draft the letter noted above. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS HPC Ordinance Update Listening Session Ms. Wittman stated that as part of the HPC Ordinance update process, staff held a listening session with ordinance update committee members. The intent of the meeting was to gauge feedback regarding their experience with HPC/design review ordinances and activities. She provided notes from the listening session and asked the Commissioners to review the materials and discuss whether or not the HPC would like to add a comment. HKGi knows that demolition is the missing component and knows that the City Attorney will be working on the demolition ordinance. Chairwoman Mino asked Ms. Wittman what was her feeling on how the session went? Ms. Wittman answered it was really positive. The participants understand the need for the HPC and value the HPC for what it does in the community. There were questions about consistency in application of guidelines, why some projects require review and others don’t. Commissioner Larson pointed out the participants were people who have gone through the review process with the HPC. The homeowner brought up the fact that often people who are buying houses in the Conservation District are not aware that their home is in that district and will require review for projects. One of the questions that came up was, are our Conservation District Guidelines that only apply to infill and new construction really conserving our district? Commissioner Thueson questioned what is the right time and venue for HPC members to share input? Ms. Wittman encouraged the Commissioners to look at all the materials from the listening session and email or call her with ideas. From that will come the next level of public engagement. Staff are learning that people are no longer actively engaged in the traditional open house format. There may be a need for a more specific user survey, or some type of roundtable with the public. Until staff processes the rest of the information that came from the first listening session, staff are still formulating the next step. The target date for adoption of the updated ordinance is July. The HPC will see the draft before it goes to the City Council. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 10 of 6 The demolition moratorium may be in effect until October. She pointed out a lot of this is due to the fact that there are so many sections of Code that need to be cleaned up and clarified. Chairwoman Mino asked, are the consultants inclined to do more outreach to hear from more stakeholders, for instance downtown businesses? She hopes that prominent business owners will help gather input. Commissioner Larson said he too would like to hear more from downtown businesses. Chairwoman Mino acknowledged that user surveys only go so far. There might be more gained by talking one on one with people. She was thinking of maybe planning another listening session and making concerted efforts to get some of the prominent business owners there. Commissioner Steinwall said another idea would be to direct the consultant to interview a handful of prominent downtown business owners or other people who have had a fair amount of experience with applying the downtown design standards. Ms. Wittman said she sent the notice to everybody who made application to the HPC in 2019 to be part of the committee and there were nine people who were willing to participate, but if the Commission has specific ideas it’s helpful to know that. She would be happy to host another listening session. The Commissioners should let her know if there are specific people she should reach out to. Commissioner Larson said the Independent Business Association (IBA) could be asked to gather the people rather than a random sample of business people. If they have a meeting, the HPC could provide a questionnaire or have the consultant there asking for feedback on downtown design guidelines. Ms. Wittman pointed out this is not about guidelines, this is really about cleaning up the laws and processes. Commissioner Finwall noted the best way is to go where they are, maybe get on a Chamber agenda or business luncheon. Chairwoman Mino said she didn’t mean to specifically target downtown but it would be nice to get input from more than two people. Ms. Wittman said the City could do targeted surveys if the Commission would like. Commissioner Steinwall said there might be more interest in the design standard component of the review rather than the mechanics of how the ordinances are knitted together. Ms. Wittman said the ordinances will refer to guidelines. Guidelines are not law, they are “shoulds” not “shalls.” Commission Request - Five Year, After-the-Fact Applications Ms. Wittman provided a list of four after-the-fact applications in the past five years. There really haven’t been that many, it is just that 2019 saw a spike with the Crosby Hotel, Norman Quacks, and now the City of Stillwater. With one of them being the City’s application, it is concerning what precedent is being set within the community. Commissioner Larson acknowledged that sometimes the HPC has been boxed into a corner to make a decision quickly, for instance regarding the Pioneer Park toilets and the Riverwalk. Ms. Wittman said she has asked the Engineering/Public Works Department to meet with the Community Development Department at least quarterly to talk about public improvement projects. The City does not have planning staff in the Engineering/Public Works department. Commissioner Finwall said in the ordinance or standards, there could be a design review procedures section. Ms. Wittman added that a pre-consultation meeting should almost be required for some projects. Commissioner Finwall said something could be standardized so if one staff member leaves the process will still occur. There seem to be some issues with the City’s process. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 19, 2020 Page 11 of 11 Commissioner Walls expressed frustration that the Department wouldn’t send something to the Council without some representation. It’s the same thing with the HPC, that same standard needs to be applied here. How can the City get to that point? FYI Norman Quacks Commissioner Walls asked if the appeal for the Norman Quacks sign went through. Ms. Wittman reported that the appeal of the Planning Commission and the HPC denials was made and the duck sign was permitted by the City Council. Trail in front of Dock Cafe Commissioner Finwall asked if the trail has been modified. Ms. Wittman replied staff is still in discussions with the Dock Cafe. The City has a trail easement but there is concern whether the City would be able to get the trail, including construction, in the easement area. The City Public Works/Engineering Department is discussing with the Dock Cafe about what kind of design may be favorable to them. The trail easement might be expanded to allow for a construction limit. Otherwise what may end up happening is that the trail where it meets the south side of the Dock Cafe would just meet back up with the lower loop trail and follow along the historic road and not tie into the Army Corps of Engineers wall. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn. Motion passed, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Amy Mino, Chairwoman ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner