Heritage Preservation Commission Meetings and Work Sessions

City of Excelsior Hennepin County, Minnesota Minutes Heritage Preservation Commission Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Acting Chair Finch called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Bolles, Brabec, Caron, Finch, Salita Commissioners Absent: Macpherson, Reece Also Present: City Planner Becker 2. AGENDA APPROVAL Caron moved, Salita seconded, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5/0. 3. SWEARING IN OF BRUCE NOLL, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Mayor Carlson swore in Planning Commission member Bruce Noll, as Mayor Carlson was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting the following Monday. Mayor Carlson addressed the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and thanked them for their service. He thanked them for their professionalism in handling the landmark designation application for 200 Lake Street. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) October 22, 2019 Commissioner Caron moved, Commissioner Bolles seconded, to approve the minutes for the October 22, 2019 meeting as amended. Motion carried 5/0. b) October 29, 2019 Commissioner Caron moved, Commissioner Bolles seconded, to approve the minutes for the October 29, 2019 meeting as amended. Motion carried 5/0. 5. CITIZEN COMMENTS OR REPORTS Peter Hartwich, 186 George Street, wanted to recall the events that occurred with 200 Lake Street. He believes that the ordinance allowing a non-property owner to nominate a property as a landmark is outlandish but needs to be upheld or changed. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) 289 Water Street SAP – HPC No. 19-33 Brett Loftesnes, Architectural Consortium, explained that most of the items have been addressed except for the walk-up window and that he believes that the walk-up window provides an urban feel to the coffee shop. He recalled concern from the Minutes Heritage Preservation Commission 11/19/2019 Page 2 of 4 Commission that the walk-up window would create congestion. He communicated that the coffee shop is proposed to be a Caribou Coffee, and that the Caribou walk- up window on the University of Minnesota Campus is almost never congested and doesn’t foresee an issue. Paul Guidera, Director of Real Estate of Caribou Coffee, stated that Caribou does not have a lease and signing the lease is contingent on building approval. Caron asked if natural stone rather than cast stone would be an option. Loftesnes said that he likes cast stone, as it is modern and dimensional but would consider natural stone if it were an issue. Caron said that he would prefer a natural stone. Caron asked Loftesnes to clarify the reason for the mullion below the transom windows; he felt that a single pane would be more historic. He liked that the proposed light fixtures were modern but added visual interest to the building. He asked that the applicant clarify the light quality, and the applicant said that he believes that the light would be as warm as possible. Caron feels that it is very important that the light be a yellowish light to match others in the downtown. He also feels that the walk-up window is not appropriate for the historic downtown. Bolles agrees, and feels it is too similar to a drive-up window, which is not allowed within the B-1 district. He has concerns that the parking spaces in front of the walk- up window will be utilized by patrons utilizing the walk-up window, and so it could be treated like a drive-up window. He feels that allowing the walk-up window would set a bad precedent. Bolles also has concerns regarding the streetlight proposed and feels that the streetlight needs to be approved by the City prior to ordering and installation, as he is concerned about uniformity. Brabec asked the applicant if he would be obliged to making the cornice on the top of the tower taller in order to differentiate the building yet make it complementary. Salita agrees and also agrees that the walk-up window will be problematic. Finch would like the applicant to consider that the building will be used for purposes other than a coffee shop in the future. Caron asked if there was any way to put in windows in the rear. Loftesness was concerned that from an energy code perspective that there may not be a way to install more windows. There were also concerns with the structural system and the fact that it is a loading area. Finch suggested adding a projecting brick “window” that gave the appearance of a window but wasn’t actually a window. Caron asked if there was consideration of making the building a two-story. Guidera asked if the HPC would be amenable to placing the walk-up window on the Third Street side towards the back of the building. Salita still has concerns with it being located there due to concerns about trash and traffic. Andrew Goldstein, co-owner, said that the option of a two-story was considered, but it would require a car elevator and would also create snow load concerns to the adjacent building. Minutes Heritage Preservation Commission 11/19/2019 Page 3 of 4 Motion by Salita, seconded by Brabec, to conditionally approve the Site Alteration Permit, with the following conditions and appoint Caron, Brabec, and Salita to a subcommittee who would approve the final design or require that the applicant return to a future meeting for approval. Motion carried 5/0.  Natural stone should be used instead of cast stone.  The light pole fixtures must be according to the City specifications identical to other light fixtures within the downtown area and connected to the City system.  A rendering showing the windows with and without the mullions should be provided.  All lighting should be warm, like high pressure sodium, similar to those within the downtown area.  The cornice should be heightened. b) 436 Second Street Sign SAP – HPC No. 19-21 Becker explained that the applicant had previously submitted a Site Alteration Permit for a sign that was previously erected but not permitted. The applicant has since removed said sign and revised a previously submitted comprehensive sign plan to include all signage on the building and submitted a request for a new sign for Customer First Contractors. Steve Pint, 5140 St. Albans Bay Road, Greenwood, explains that the tenant has occupied the building since March. He indicated that the request is similar to that of Vintage Loft but that a comprehensive sign plan has never been required to be submitted in the past. He is looking for direction from the HPC on what should be revised. Finch suggested that the Commission treat the proposed sign as a Site Alteration Permit application and that a subcommittee be formed to work with the applicant to come up with a comprehensive sign plan. Caron said that the proposed sign is not scaled to the pedestrian, as it should be smaller and lower. The applicant indicated that he was willing to move the location of the sign, and it was concluded that no signage should be on the Second Street side, except for a sign that labeled it as the Livery Building. Motion by Salita, seconded by Brabec, to deny the proposed sign, as it does not meet the design guidelines. There shall be no signage above the mansard roof on the Second Street side. Motion carried 5/0. c) Ice Rinks at the Commons Ballfield Becker informed the Commission that the Council has approved an ice rink to be installed on the baseball fields at The Commons. d) National Register Downtown Eligibility Study Bolles would like to include reference to the picture of the ticket booth on page 5 on page 9. Caron would like to reach out to Hess Roise and provide a few comments. Motion by Caron to approve submission of the eligibility study to SHPO with the condition that the comments provided by Caron and Bolles be communicated to Hess Minutes Heritage Preservation Commission 11/19/2019 Page 4 of 4 Roise and changed. Motion carried 5/0. Caron asked that Hess Roise provide an estimate to complete the nomination application e) SHPO Report Becker presented a report of HPC activities done during the time period of October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. This report is due yearly to SHPO. f) 300 Water Street Caron would like to hear from Chair Macpherson on how quickly the building is likely to deteriorate. Motion by Caron, seconded by Brabec, to continue the item to the next meeting. Motion carried 5/0. Salita informed the Commission that the City may have rights to take back the site, as it considered a brownfield site. g) 464 Second Street Becker provided an update on the application and explained that the applicant has not yet had a window restoration specialist come out to the site to provide a second opinion. Caron wanted to ensure that the applicant would notify the Commission so that representatives could attend and observe the assessment. Motion by Caron, seconded by Bolles, to continue the item to the next meeting. Motion carried 5/0. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Bolles, seconded by Brabec to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried 5/0. Respectfully submitted, Emily Becker City Planner