Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-16 HPC MININE IINTNIIACE OF MINNEEOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING December 16, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Krakowski, Larson (arrived at 7:05), Thueson (arrived at 7:02), Walls, Councilmember Junker Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of November 18, 2020 Meeting Commissioner Finwall requested the following changes to the minutes: 1) page 3, Case No. 2020-27 motion language regarding chimney should be changed to "the chimney shall be restored to its original height"; and 2) page 4, discussion of Case No. 2020-28, Commissioner Finwall's statement should be changed to "She asked if that was proposed for this application." Councilmember Junker noted the minutes erroneously indicated he was absent. Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2020 meeting as amended. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Krakowski abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 2020-31: Consideration of a new home to be built on the property located at 709 Third Street South, in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Jason Hohn. representing Bald Eagle Builders. Inc., property owners. City Planner Wittman explained the case. The applicant has requested a Design Permit for a new, two- story single family residence with detached garage to be located in the rear of the property. A front porch with four columns will run the width of the front fagade. The home's modest design features and roof pitch are carried through to the detached garage. Comments were received from the Feelys at 715 Third Street South who suggest moving the house back so it is more in line with the houses to the north and south; and from Don Fixmer, a neighbor who also voiced concerns about the proposed setback. There are two mature maple trees that are proposed to be retained but there is concern that the development could jeopardize these trees. Staff recommends that a condition be included to require protection of the trees as much as possible. Staff recommends approval with seven conditions. Jason Hohn, applicant, stated that they had to keep their garage away from the property line so they have placed the house further forward because they need the room to get to the garage. All other nearby garages are on the property corners and other nearby houses are very close to the street, so he feels that the proposed location is appropriate. One of the maple trees may be dying but they plan to save the big maple in front. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 16, 2020 Chairwoman Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. She noted that letters from neighbors were shared with the Commission, and then closed the public hearing. She asked if the proposed setback of the house is likely to damage the one tree that is healthy. Ms. Wittman responded that it's not the placement of the house, but construction vehicles that could damage the tree roots. Staff recommends the placement of temporary fencing and mulching to protect the roots. Mark Feely, 715 South Third Street, asked to have public comment. Chairwoman Mino reopened the public hearing. Mr. Feely referred to his written concerns about the setback, adding that when he built his new front porch in 2016 he had to follow City guidelines. Ms. Wittman responded that she had noted Mr. Feely's request that the house be pushed back to be more in line with his home and the one to the north. Two guidelines pertain to setbacks, "respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape" and "follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties." However there is no prevailing rhythm and no predominant setback. This home will sit slightly in front of Mr. Feely's home to the south. Chairwoman Mino re -closed the public hearing. Commissioner Finwall asked if there was consideration for reducing the 10' rear easement, which might alleviate the neighbors' concerns because it would allow the builder to push the garage and the house back. Ms. Wittman replied that the easement was required at the time of the lot split. It is common to require an easement for drainage concerns that may arise between properties. She is not sure if the City would entertain a vacation of the easement because it was just placed on the property when it was split this year. Commissioner Finwall said in considering future lot splits, a 10' easement in the back may not always be warranted because there may not always be drainage concerns. She also noted that to follow the prevailing patterns along the street, this house should be set back slightly from the house on the lot to the north and slightly forward from the house on the lot to the south, perhaps 3' as a compromise. Commissioner Thueson suggested the Commission could table the application to research another solution. Commissioner Larson agreed a compromise might be reached, perhaps pushing the house back at least 5'. Mr. Hohn said an additional 5' setback may work but backing out of the garage would be tighter. He tried to keep the house as far away from the property line as possible. Commissioner Heimdahl pointed out the lot is small and the applicant has done whatever is possible to respect the easement. He has no issue with the setback. Commissioner Finwall stated there are other houses close to the street. Now that she has reviewed everything she is less concerned about the setback. Landscaping might help with the neighbors' concerns. Commissioner Krakowski said on the builder's behalf, the porch is 20' back and the front of house is 26' back so in reality it's a 26' setback because the neighbors will be able to see through the porch. Mr. Hohn said he would feel more comfortable increasing the setback 3' rather than 5'. He is trying to make house as compact as possible and meet all regulations. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2020-31, a new home to be built on the property located at 709 Third Street South, with the six staff -recommended Page 2 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 16, 2020 conditions contained within the written staff report, adding Condition #7 stating that "the healthy maple tree will have construction fence placed around it to the greatest width possible during construction. Wood chips will be placed around the construction fence to prevent tree root damage"; and adding Condition #8 stating, "the structure will have an additional 3' setback from what was proposed." Commissioner Finwall asked to add Condition #9 stating that "three arborvitaes will be placed near the southern property line." Commissioner Larson agreed to the additional condition. Commissioner Thueson clarified the setbacks: the front wall of the house (not the porch) will be set back 29' which will still be further forward than the front wall of the house at 703. He believes that still is not in keeping with the guideline about houses on either side. He suggested adding another condition to protect the one maple tree that can be saved. Ms. Wittman pointed out that this condition was verbally recommended by staff during the meeting but was not in the written staff report. Chairwoman Mino pointed out again there are many houses much closer to the street than this one is proposed. The compromise fits the existing streetscape rhythm. Motion passed 6-1, with Commissioner Thueson voting nay. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2020-32: Consideration of new building design in the Downtown Design Review District, property located at 200 Chestnut Street. Joel Hauck, applicant and 200 Chestnut partners, LLC, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC would like to demolish the structure at 200 Chestnut Street East and construct a four-story, 73-unit apartment building with underground parking. While the property is not located in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District (SCHD), it is in the Downtown Design Review District and bordered on three sides by the SCHD. The structure, originally constructed in 1965 and added onto in 1986, is not designated as historic nor it is subject to the City's demolition review requirements; staff can administratively approve the demolition of this structure. Kristina Marshall, 118 Chestnut Street East, submitted concerns about the height of the proposed building. Staff finds that, with design alterations and certain conditions, the development might be able to conform to the design standards and guidelines in place. However, in its current form the proposed building does not enhance the adjacent SCHD and dominates over the historic buildings within it. If the Commission and the applicant are favorable to additional conditions to reduce the building's overall mass (i.e. height), improve pedestrian orientation along Union Alley, and a material substitution for the lap siding, then staff could make the finding the design generally conforms to the spirit and intent of the City's Design Permit standards and would recommend approval with seven conditions. Nick Walton, owner and developer, voiced a willingness to collaborate with the HPC on the design. Bob Loken, ESG Architects, said he would like feedback on all aspects of the design. He shared the design strategy of breaking down the scale into discreet volumes which relate in scale and dimension to surrounding buildings. Because most commercial buildings in Stillwater have their short faces facing the river and longer faces perpendicular to the river, they decided to anchor this building with two volumes on Chestnut and Myrtle that hold the street edge and the corners. This building will knit together the surrounding fabric to make a cohesive pedestrian oriented development. Right now it seems like there is a gap in that fabric where the site is. Joel Hauck, ESG Architects, noted the presence of the full team at the meeting. Page 3 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 16, 2020 Commissioner Heimdahl commented that metal panel siding and fiber cement are modern in design. He would prefer some stone or stone veneer to break up the massing. Councilmember Junker recalled the developer's presentation at a Chamber meeting a couple months ago. He applauded the developer for being open minded. He said he has gotten numerous calls and letters concerning the proposed height. He also pointed out that as the City cleans up and opens up the alleys they are really coming to life. In this proposal, almost the entire face of the alley is fiber cement which lacks historic character. He would prefer more stone or brick instead. He feels the fourth story, all fiber cement, takes away from the look. Mr. Walton thanked the Commission for comments and said they are open to different materials and massing changes. Commissioner Larson agreed this block is presently a gap in the downtown fabric. This project will have a big impact. His biggest concern is about the massing. The two bookends with a narrow part in middle is a great start. The three most public facades are Myrtle, Second and Chestnut, while the alley is the least visible. The way the building relates to the public streets is weaker. The courtyard facing Union Alley is great but it is virtually hidden. The building feels the biggest along Second Street. If the public amenity proposed for Union Alley were on the more public Second Street, it would engage the street more. As for materials, brick looks great. He suggested using precast, metal and stone instead of lap siding. Commissioner Thueson agreed that Union Alley presents a real opportunity. It is wider than most alleys having been platted in the 1840s. He agreed lap siding is not the right fit. He also has concerns about height. Chairwoman Mino asked the applicant to discuss the fourth story and its importance to the project. Mr. Loken said it had not occurred to the team to orient the courtyard more to Second Street. They planned the taller mass closer to the upper side of the hill on Second Street, so the building would align more with the stepped bowl shape of the downtown. Mr. Walton added that part of the reason for designing the courtyard on the east side is that the river and Main Street are to the east. They will consider having the courtyard on Second. The extra density of the fourth floor is needed for the project to get a loan. The eight units on the fourth floor make or break the pro forma. They are open to using different materials. They are trying to get by with only eight units on the fourth floor rather than asking for a full fourth floor. They are open to working with the City on what else they might do to allow the fourth floor to stay. Commissioner Walls stated the proposed height is incompatible with the design guidelines and for that reason he is not in support of the proposal. Commissioner Finwall said she likes how it is stepped back, but would not support the height. There are other options such as reducing the size of the units so the top floor would not be needed. She appreciates the green elements i.e. green roof and interested in seeing more sustainability in the building. Commissioner Larson suggested tabling the application. If the fourth floor is a go/no-go for the developer team and if it is clearly not acceptable to the HPC or the Planning Commission, that is another matter. He views the design in terms of its impact on the City versus counting floors. He wondered if it is possible to reduce the volume of the fourth floor and still allow the development to proceed, for instance having the fourth floor be just the amenity room but no units, or decreasing the area of the fourth floor somehow. Page 4 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 16, 2020 Chairwoman Mino said she would have to see plans before she could comment on an alternate design. The height is problematic; the mass as proposed jeopardizes the integrity of the historic buildings in the vicinity. Councilmember Junker commended Mr. Walton for his cooperation when the City was negotiating expanded footprints for restaurants and bars due to COVID. He acknowledged that the height as proposed will create the need for a parking variance. As the Council representative for downtown, he supports keeping downtown height restrictions and would have a hard time approving a fourth floor. Commissioner Walls said he would be agreeable to tabling the application. He pointed out that this building would be 22' higher in elevation than the Water Street Inn, considering the river level. Mr. Walton responded that he would prefer to have the application tabled rather than denied. Ms. Wittman summarized the Commission suggestions that the team look at different materials, possibly reverse the courtyard location, and address the height/massing. Commissioner Finwall pointed out that the largest of the rooftop units is 1800 square feet. While it adds design to bump it in, there may be more opportunity to build out the foundation rather than going up. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to table Case No. 2020-32, new building design in the Downtown Design Review District located at 200 Chestnut Street, and ask the applicant to further explore the Commission comments and recommendations previously listed by staff: consider no top floor or a much smaller top floor; consider how to break up massing of the longest walls; consider enhancing the recess facing Second Street, possibly by flipping the amenity or making it deeper with the goal of breaking up the massing; and consider a different contrasting material such as metal, stone, brick or another material instead of lap siding. All in favor. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Downtown Lighting Study Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the Council hired a lighting specialist to look at the light system downtown. Most of the system has reached its useful life. Some is under contract with Xcel Energy. The study concluded that the entire system needs to be replaced. Recommendations of the study have been reviewed by the Council but the project is not budgeted for 2021. She will keep the HPC informed. Councilmember Junker added that there are roughly 250 light poles downtown to be replaced. A number of poles have been lost already due to rust/corrosion. The entire downtown could be lit with acorn style pedestrian lighting without needing the taller highway lights. It is about a $2.6 million project and will likely be in the 2022 capital improvement plan. The City still has to decide if it wants to own the poles or lease them from Xcel. There seems to be an advantage to owning the lights. Commissioners Heimdahl and Larson said they like the more uniform historic look of all acorn style pedestrian lighting. Commissioner Thueson added that a warmer temperature of light is important also. Commissioner Finwall suggested the City may want to consider an ordinance governing the height of the poles and include a requirement about lighting for new development. She is very supportive of the project. FYI Design Guideline Consolidation Project Request for Proposals Page 5 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 16, 2020 Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the RFP is not ready yet but she hopes to have a consultant on board in January to do the project and she will include a lighting component. HHLC & House History Guide Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that staff is finalizing the redesign of the heirloom and landmark sites website. She also has been developing a "conducting house histories template guide." Deconstruction/Salvage Commissioner Heimdahl alerted the Commission to a pilot County grant program for deconstruction projects. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn.�A11 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Chair Page 6 of 6