Heritage Preservation Commission Meetings and Work Sessions

City ofExcelsior Hennepin County,M innesota M inutes Heritage Preservation Com m ission Tuesday,January 26,2021 1. CALL TO O RDER/RO LL CALL ChairM acpherson called the m eeting to orderat6:30 p.m . Com m issioners Present: M acpherson,Bolles,Brabec,Caron,Finch,Salita,Tyler Com m issioners Absent: None Also Present: City PlannerBecker,City Attorney Staunton 2. AGENDA APPROVAL M otion by Salita,seconded by Brabec to approve the agenda as am ended.M otion carried 6/0 (Finch notyetpresent). 3. APPRO VAL O F M INUTES a) Decem ber22,2020 Com m issionerCaron m oved,Com m issionerBolles seconded,to approve the m inutes forthe Decem ber22,2020 m eeting.M otion carried 7/0. 4. CITIZEN COM M ENTS O R REPO RTS Bolles com m ented that6 Third Streetand 7 George Streetare both sitting on their perm anentfoundations as oftonight. PeterHartw ich,186 George Street,believed thatthe Heritage Preservation Com m ission (HPC)and com m ercialprojects need to form a partnership and thatthere can be som e M inutes Heritage Preservation Com m ission 1/26/2021 Page 2 of 4 consternation w ith these projects butthatitis Excelsiorthatdeterm ines how som ething can be builtand com m ended the HPC fordoing that. 5. DISCUSSIO N ITEM S a) 366 W aterStreetSAP Am endm ent(HPC No.20-28) Beckerpresented the report.Bolles agreed w ith the subcom m ittee report.Brabec feltthatit w as difficultto determ ine w hatw as consistentw ith the approved plans and w hatchanges w ere being proposed.Tylerasked ifthe applicanthas explained w hy he w as proposing the changes,and Beckerstated thatthe applicanthas not,and thatthe subcom m ittee has requested thatthe applicantprovide an explanation as to the reasons forthese changes. Tylerasked ifthere w as an originalphoto ofthe hom e,and Caron stated thatthere w ere photos ofthe hom e in the pastin pastpackets,and there have been som e insensitive changes thathave been m ade in the pastpriorto currentstandards and regulations.Tyler asked aboutthe use ofthe firstlevel,and Beckerstated thatthey show a bedroom on the firstlevelw ithin plans.Caron had explained thatthe applicanthad said during a subcom m ittee m eeting thatthe applicanthad indicated thatthe bedroom w ould be a display bedroom to show case m erchandise.Finch pointed outthatthe property is located in the B-2 zoning district,and during one ofthe m eetings,a rendering ofa proposed residence w as subm itted,and residences are notallow ed on the streetlevelw ithin this zoning district. Additionally,one ofthe requirem ents ofthe zoning districtis thatthere be an easy access to pedestrians from the street.Bolles asked thatM innesota Departm entofLaborbe notified thatthe contractoris notfollow ing the plans and see ifthere are ram ifications fortheir license.Salita w as concerned w ith w hatm ighthappen to the property.Bolles asked ifthe previous property ow nerhad passed on the inform ation to the new ow nerthatthe property w as w ithin the historic district.M otion by Salita to approve 2021-01denying the Site Alteration Perm itAm endm entfor366 W aterStreet,seconded by Finch.Caron w anted to add thatthe Resolution should say Site Alteration Perm itAm endm entinstead ofSite Alteration Perm itand w anted to include the entire subcom m ittee report.Tylerw anted to add thatm ultiple opportunities have been provided to the applicantto m eet.Caron w anted the findings and conclusions to reference the subcom m ittee reportand notes appended to M inutes Heritage Preservation Com m ission 1/26/2021 Page 3 of 4 it.There w as discussion regarding the approved Site Alteration Perm itand ifthatstillstands. Caron questioned w hatw ould happen ifthe Site Alteration Perm itw ould be revoked and w hateffectthatw ould have on the building perm it.Finch suggested thatthe Site Alteration Perm itAm endm entbe denied,and thatthe revocation ofthe originalSite Alteration Perm it be placed on a future agenda.M otion Carried 7-0 w ith a rollcallvote. b) M uralDiscussion Com m issionerSalita said thatthere needs to be reference to signs w ithin m urals.The crossed-outdefinition ofobscenity w as discussed,and Com m issionerCaron suggested w riting as a guideline thatm urals should notbe obscene.M acpherson suggested thatCaron and Salita w ork on the language.Tylerasked ifpainting ghostsigns on bare brick w ould be an issue,and M acpherson said thatsuch a painting w ould notbe considered a ghostsign. Tylerasked iftouching up the m uralexisting in the dow ntow n area w ould necessitate a Site Alteration Perm it,and itw as stated thatnorm alm aintenance w ould notnecessitate a Site Alteration Perm it.Tylersaid thatthere should be language prohibiting hate crim es. c) CLG GrantDiscussion M acpherson feltthatitw ould be ofparticularinterestto designate various city ow ned properties and objects and to use grantfunds to prepare nom inations. d) Com pleteness Review Discussion Caron feltthatperhaps the tim eline forsubm ittalcould be pushed back so thatthe review er orreview ers ofcom pleteness could be done in a tim eline.Bolles feltthatthere should be three m em bers ofthe review com m ittee,one ofw hich w ould drop offeach m eeting so that there w ould be constantrotation. 6. ADJOURNM ENT M otion by Salita,seconded by Bolles,to adjourn at9:05 p.m .M otion carried 7-0. M inutes Heritage Preservation Com m ission 1/26/2021 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully subm itted, Em ily Becker City Planner