Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-17 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING June 17, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Krakowski Staff: City Planner Wittman, Public Works Director Sanders APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of May 20, 2020 Meeting Commissioner Thueson clarified that his intent in referring to the former Reeds drugstore was that in addition to considering how the building looks, he hopes that the opportunities for designing the plaza will allow for some sort of public face on that building in the future. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2020 meeting with the clarification. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2020-16: Consideration of a Design Permit for exterior building modifications on the property located at 401 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Dennis Kilbane of DCK Enterprises WI, property owner and Todd Konigson, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for exterior remodeling and a semi-permanent seasonal outdoor food vending stand. Details include: 1. Main Street/front (western) façade and entryway: a. Install stained cedar, nickel gap wood ship lap siding on the front (western) and a portion of the northern façade; and b. Install an aluminum clad take-out food window. 2. Front entrance: a. Replace the front entrance with wood clad and glass sidelights. 3. Nelson Street/side (northern) façade: a. Remove the western loading dock, stairs, and “Stillwater Farm Store” mural replacing it with four aluminum clad windows of the same dimensions as the front façade. An overhang is proposed over these new windows; b. Remove the eastern loading dock and stairs, enlarging the loading area to a glass paneled garage door. An overhang is proposed to be installed over the loading bay; and c. Installation of a recessed doorway and stairs; and d. Replace the existing glass block with tempered/laminated glass. 4. Rear (east) façade: a. Replace the existing overhead door with one identical to the new loading bay. 5. Installation of a 15’ wide by 6’ deep wood and metal seasonal food vendor. a. This would be located onsite until the to-go food window is Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Page 2 of 5 installed. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the project substantially conforms to the Downtown Design Review District guidelines and recommends approval with four conditions. Jennifer Noden, 7 Edges Design, added that due to structural members inside the building that they need to avoid, they are jutting in the exit on the north side for access to the warehouse and splitting up the windows on the north side. This is a minor change from what was submitted. Councilmember Junker questioned covering up the brick with the lap cedar siding proposed for the Main Street side. Ms. Noden replied that they considered keeping the brick as a base but the brick is not in good condition. Mr. Konigson’s other business is restoring brick in historic buildings. The application of the cladding would be on fir strips that are applied to the mortar of the brick, so at some time in the future it could be pulled off if desired without damaging the brick. Mr. Konigson added that their initial intent was to paint the brick but they realized that is not desirable by the HPC. They are willing to use any material that staff and the HPC prefer. Chairwoman Mino said she struggles with the large amount of horizontal wood siding proposed. She asked about the possibility of keeping the brick on either side of the door. Ms. Noden said they can look at keeping the brick below the windows down to the curb. She shared a graphic showing the brick columns on either side of the existing door. Commissioner Heimdahl agreed he would like to see less siding used. Even if the siding is along the top and bottom, it would not stick out as much. Commissioner Walls said he likes the idea of having the brick break up the wood. Mr. Konigson acknowledged it is challenging to harmonize with the green and orange brick which is not historic. They could paint it similar to other painted brick buildings downtown. Councilmember Junker said he likes the brick and feels it looks better unpainted. Commissioner Thueson asked how the new materials (primarily the wood) will last and be maintained. Mr. Konigson replied that they chose cedar because it is less susceptible to decay. Window framing has been neglected so they will paint, caulk and putty the front storefront. Commissioner Larson pointed out that the downtown design manual talks about fitting into the context of downtown and there are not many façades that use horizontal siding. He agreed that covering up the brick seems unfortunate. Applying a veneer of wood on what is clearly a masonry building makes the wood seem like a foreign material with an almost distracting inauthenticity to it. Even high quality cedar weathers, especially in contact with salt and snow. He would like to see as much brick as possible retained. The new image of the double door on the Main Street side looks like interruption of a storefront. It would be better if it were metal and glass the way the rest of the storefront is. Mr. Konigson said the intent was to make this building harmonize better with the historical buildings. It stands out now as a 60s era building with the type of brick not found anywhere else on Main Street. Commissioner Larson commented that the siding as proposed would not accomplish that and would be more visually distracting than the brick, in his opinion. It is not a historic building but it has its own integrity. Mr. Konigson said his preference would be to paint the brick to a more suitable look. Siding is being proposed because they didn’t think staff would approving painting of brick. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Councilmember Junker said the brick, unpainted as it is currently, fits in nicely. It would stick out more with the cedar siding. Mr. Konigson reiterated if the HPC would allow them to paint that 20” of brick, they would love to do so. If the HPC wants it left natural they are fine with that. Commissioner Larson suggested keeping the brick and introducing a smooth material for the upper band that fades away above the windows. Ms. Noden said maybe they can apply batten to what is up there now and paint it. Commissioner Finwall asked if it is possible to put brick above the window. Commissioner Larson said the applicant said it would be a difficult brick to match. Putting brick above a long horizontal piece of glass is tough to do technically. Mr. Konigson stated that thin brick can be applied to the substrate. It would have to be painted as the current brick is no longer available. Commissioner Larson summarized his recommendations: keeping the brick at the base, not painted, doing the planned improvements in terms of flashing, sills, window improvements, painting the header above the windows and adding some battens that align with the mullions, adding a panel if it needs to be replaced, and at the entrance, placing storefront glass working between the columns that would now be brick. Mr. Konigson and Ms. Noden said they are willing to comply with the recommendations. Motion by Commissioner Larson to approve the application with the existing brick remaining on the base and the corner of the building, and the panels above the windows to be painted and possibly battens, and the northwest corner entrance to be storefront and glass. Ms. Wittman pointed out that the motion is essentially denying the application. She suggested a simple denial of the lap siding. Motion by Commissioner Larson to deny the horizontal lap siding, approve the existing brick to remain, unpainted, and approve the other improvements including painted panels above the existing windows with battens. Ms. Noden asked what about painting the brick? Mr. Konigson asked if the Commission would allow them to do mockup to see if that is acceptable. Ms. Wittman replied that would have to come back before the Commission, causing a month delay. Motion seconded by Commissioner Finwall. All in favor. OLD BUSINESS 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 stated that in February the HPC denied a City of Stillwater Design Permit application for the new Main Street retaining wall design and staining. The Commission cited the wall is uncharacteristic of any wall along Main Street and is not compatible with the historic district. The Public Works Department has explored costs of staining the new wall or applying a 4-6” veneer to the front face of the structure. Applying the stone veneer would be twice the cost, at $56,000, compared with staining the wall. Staff finds that the application of stone veneer on the wall would help reduce the visual impact, and recommends approval of the application of a limestone veneer to the wall face. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if there is a way to see how close the color would match the limestone. Ms. Wittman replied that could be arranged. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Public Works Director Sanders said per the contractor, there are resources to make the wall any color desired. Commissioner Thueson asked about the overall cost of the project. Mr. Sanders said $80,000-85,000 has been spent to date. The existing wall was starting to fail. Loose pieces of limestone were breaking off and falling to the ground. The contractor had to remove all the loose rock to make it more stable and then build a wall in front of it. Commissioner Walls asked Councilmember Junker if an $80,000 project would need Council approval. Commissioner Junker replied the wall had washed away. He asked Mr. Sanders to explain the situation. Mr. Sanders explained that the turret at the north side of the new wall is actually a storm sewer manhole. To the west between the turret and stairs is a sanitary sewer line. The sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines run along the slope from the top of the hill at Broadway St. Those two pipes were in danger of failing and the City wanted to get it repaired as soon as possible. Councilmember Junker added that the Council’s main concern was not losing more of the wall and the jeopardy of the storm sewer and regular sewer lines. Commissioner Larson commented that the option of real stone seems to be the right thing to do. Staining it would still leave the appearance of a non-authentic stone wall. Commissioner Thueson agreed with Commissioner Larson. This will be a very prominent feature of Main Street for 60-70 years into the future and it seems worth making it look like it fits in the historic downtown. Chairwoman Mino agreed. She does not think there is a way to stain what is there and make it stand out less than it does. Commissioner Finwall thanked Public Works Director Sanders for attending the meeting and explaining the reason for the rush to build the wall without appropriate approval. She agreed that limestone covering would be best. Commissioner Larson said he would like City Planner Wittman to review the samples before proceeding. Motion by Chairwoman Mino seconded by Commissioner Larson to approve Case No. 2020-03, Design Permit for a new retaining wall near the Main Street stairs, authorizing the application of a 4-6” limestone veneer to the new wall face. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS HPC Ordinance Policy Direction and Review Process Ms. Wittman led a high level discussion of a draft set of ordinances designed to update and improve the City’s heritage preservation programs. The draft has not been publicly released as it has not yet been reviewed by City Attorney Kori Land. Ms. Wittman summarized the changes. Commissioner Finwall asked if there is a dollar threshold between major and minor projects. Ms. Wittman replied there is a dollar threshold. It can be included in the ordinance, however sometimes there are projects that are below a dollar threshold that the HPC should be reviewing. She will keep this in mind to make sure there are no gaps between what is reviewed by staff and what is reviewed by the Commission. When the draft comes out this week, she will ask the Commission for comments. Staff will start working through the demolition ordinance before finalizing this ordinance. It will all be reviewed in subsequent public hearings before the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Chairwoman Mino asked about the intent of removing the West Stillwater Business Park from HPC purview. She feels the decisions of the HPC over time have made a positive difference in that corridor. Ms. Wittman explained that when the West Stillwater Business Park was created, before the HPC, there was a design review committee. The City then questioned having two design review committees. A couple of the Councilmembers indicated they would like to have the HPC continue to review the West Stillwater Business Park but the consultant is recommending not having the HPC review it. She will convey to the Council that the HPC would like to ensure that commercial/industrial construction standards are applied and ensure that area is reviewed by itself or some other body. FYI 2020 Preserve MN Conference Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that it is not official yet, but the 2020 Preserve MN Conference will be postponed to 2021. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Amy Mino, Chairwoman ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner