Heritage Preservation Commission Meetings and Work Sessions

City of Excelsior Hennepin County, Minnesota Minutes Planning Commission Monday, December 28, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Wallace called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. OATH OF OFFICE LANCE BLACK Lance Black took his oath of office, given by Mayor Todd R. Carlson. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Wallace, Holste, Harrison, Noll, Black Commissioners Absent: Craig, DiLorenzo Also Present: City Planner Becker and City Attorney Staunton 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Planning Commission Meeting of November 22, 2020 Motion by /Noll, seconded by Macaluso approve the November 22, 2020 Planning Commission meeting as amended. Motion carried 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Continuation of Public Hearing for PUD Amendment for 494 Water Street/CUP for Monument Sign (PC No. 20-14) Becker presented the report. Tracey Diehl, applicant, clarified that the proposal was to include potted plants in addition to the monument sign in front of the ATM. Wallace asked if the applicant had considered making the sign uniform to the other signs within the City in terms of its curve at the top. Wallace opened the public hearing at 6:11pm. No one from the public spoke, and the public hearing closed at 6:12pm. Harrison felt that the suggested monument sign felt like it was after the fact and didn’t feel that it was large enough to be considered a gateway sign. Additionally, it still Minutes Planning Commission December 28, 2020 Page 2 of 4 inhibits public view and blocks other tenants’ signage. She also noted that the plants would not hold up in the winter. Noll also noted that there wasn’t a lot that could be done to screen the ATM from a 360-degree view and that it contributes to clutter at this corner. Holste felt that there would not be a way to prevent the ATM from being a drive-up ATM. Harrison moved to deny the request for the ATM based on the findings outlined in the memo. Motion seconded by Holste, with the added comment that the ATM could be moved adjacent to the building in order to be utilized as a walkup ATM. Motion carried 5-0. (b) 634 Third Avenue Garage Height Variance (PC No. 20-18) Becker presented the report. Harrison asked about the existing size of the garage, and Becker said that the report from 2012 when a variance from the maximum square footage of an accessory structure was granted did not specify the square footage being allowed. Todd Carlson, applicant, spoke regarding the proposal and explained that his neighbors did not see a major issue with the proposal. Harrison asked about the proposed ceiling height, and Carlson said that the proposed height would be approximately eight feet. Noll asked if the applicant had considered dormers to increase the square footage without increasing the height. Wallace asked if the applicant had considered the insulation requirements. Peter Hartwich, 186 George Street, felt that there was somewhat of a “power play” in considering that the existing home could be torn down and rebuilt if it were undesignated as a landmark property. Noll wanted to know if the Heritage Preservation Commission should be using the Good Neighbor Guidelines to review expansions to landmark properties. Becker said that that was not spelled out in the ordinance, but that this is something that the Planning Commission could further review if they wanted to make an ordinance amendment in the future to the residential review process. Harrison felt that the ordinance allowing existing accessory structures on landmark properties to be used as dwelling units should not have been passed but felt that that this was a separate concern from this application. Motion by Harrison, seconded by Black, to approve the variance request. Noll was concerned with what the actual height of the garage would end up being with the insulation. He wanted to see what usable square footage could be gained with the same height and adding dormers. Motion carried 3-2 with Noll and Holste dissenting. Wallace wanted to add that the proposal matches the variance criteria albeit he does not agree with the ordinance amendment that allows for accessory structures to be used as dwelling units. He believes that the property is heavily wooded, and the proposed variance would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. (c) 332 Second Street Retaining Wall Setback Variance (PC No. 20-19) Minutes Planning Commission December 28, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Becker presented the report. Noll asked when the retaining wall was built, and Becker explained that because no permit was submitted, she did not know and deferred the question to the applicant. Harrison asked what sort of responsibility the property owner that created drainage issues would have, and Staunton said that this was a civil manner and would need to be figured out between the two properties. Wallace opened the public hearing at 7:13pm. No one from the public spoke, and the public hearing was closed at 7:14pm. Harrison said that she was disappointed that the church didn’t help out with the cost of the retaining wall, as it helps mitigate stormwater runoff from their property. Harrison moved, seconded by Holste, to approve the variance from the retaining wall setback. Motion carried 5-0. (d) 173 Second Street Lot Size Variance (PC No. 20-20) Becker presented the report. Wallace asked if the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the property as a potential landmark property. Becker explained that the applicant did not have a desire for the property to be dedicated as a landmark property and so did not want the Heritage Preservation Commission to give a preliminary determination of the property to be designated as a landmark property. Harrison wondered if requiring the applicant to designate the property as a landmark property went against the recent ordinance changes that made it more difficult for someone other than the property owner to apply for designation of a property as a landmark property. Black wanted to add that he agreed with Noll’s comments in that a larger house could go on a larger lot, and so the Planning Commission should consider if they want to see an additional home or a larger home on the existing lot. Bill Stoddard, applicant, spoke regarding the application. John Gilles, 166 Linwood Avenue, explained that the back corner of his property meets the back corner of the applicant’s property. He is concerned that increased hardcover will negatively impact his property. Laura Buck and Ned Shugrue, residents of 151 Second Street, spoke regarding daylight, stormwater runoff and drainage. Peter Hartwich, 186 George Street, spoke regarding the application and questioned if the property did in fact need to be subdivided. Michael Rude, 176 Linwood Avenue, has similar concerns to the previous speakers. He is also concerned with the amount of light that will be lost due to the construction of a new home. Greg and Kris Olson, 174 Second Street, do not feel that the applicant should be able to remove the existing retaining wall. Minutes Planning Commission December 28, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Black left the meeting at 8:00pm. Harrison was concerned with the precedent that may be set with approval of the variance. Wallace thought that perhaps there could be further discussion on if there should be separate zoning for the Village. Noll motioned to approve with lack of a second. Holste moved to deny the variance request based on the findings outlined in the staff report, seconded by Harrison. Motion carried 3-1. Harrison wanted to add the finding that the there was not desire to set a precedent for this type of variance and that she doesn’t believe that it maintains the green space as proposed nor appropriate density and increases nonconformity. Noll wanted to add that his dissenting vote was a question of preference on whether or not the City would prefer a single large house as opposed to two smaller houses. (e) Commercial Districts Ordinance Becker presented the report. Wallace opened the public hearing at 8:32pm. No one from the public spoke. Wallace closed the public hearing at 8:32pm. The Planning Commission didn’t see any amendments that needed to be made. Motion by Noll, seconded by Holste, to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance. Motion carried 4-0. 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Noll, seconded by Holste, to adjourn at 8:48 pm. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Emily Becker Planning Director