Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-22-19Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 22, 2019 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Franceschelli, Lehto, Tesky, Windschitl Members Absent: None Also Present: Adam Kienberger, Community Development Director; Tony Wippler, Planning Manager 2. Discussion a. Certificate of Appropriateness Request for Exterior Work – 345 3rd Street (Fletcher Building) – continued from October 8, 2019 At the October 8, 2019, meeting, Pam Heikkila, owner of 345 3rd Street requested a Certificate of Appropriateness to perform exterior work on the building. As directed at the last meeting, staff has requested outside technical assistance. Staff contacted Mr. Robert Vogel with Pathfinder CRM, regarding the proposed work. His response was provided to the Planning Commission and the applicant. He is familiar with the building, as he was the previous historic preservation consultant for the city. He acknowledged the Secretary of the Interior Standards as the guide for preservation work on historic buildings. Staff’s recommendations aligned with those standards. It is not advised to remove any notable features that make the building worth preserving, to repair rather than replace materials where possible. If replacement is necessary, the new material should match the old. To repair the exterior walls with stucco would compromise the Fletcher building’s historic integrity by significantly altering one of its critical architectural characteristics and defining features. His memo talked about recommended treatment strategies and action that could provide further analysis based on the commission’s decision. Staff recommended denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant does have a right to appeal the decision to the City Council. If directed by the Planning Commission and requested by the applicant, staff supports engaging Mr. Vogel to conduct further analysis of the building and recommend appropriate preservation treatment options. Ms. Pam Heikkila stated she has talked with the stucco contractor. The area is 90% non- visible to the public along with the area in the back that faces a parking lot. The contractor has told her he has worked on several historic buildings and sees no problem with stucco and that it would be a great option for structural integrity. Her concern is when you say historical integrity is more important than structural integrity, she questions the wisdom in that. There are full size bricks falling. It is the city’s job to protect it and be proactive and not reactive. The stucco company has said they would not risk their reputation on something that would not be a viable option 20 – 30 years from now. If we are so concerned about history, where does that leave our future? Right now, the present is a lot of vacant Farmington buildings. A lot of it is due to the issue that it is very difficult to work through some common sense issues. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2019 Page 2 Mr. Isaac Heikkila, Farmington resident for 21 years, is a finance major and a marketing major and has done masonry work over the summer. There are only a few options available with this. If you prioritize as some have, the historical approach, Mr. Vogel has stated doing stucco would compromise some of the defining features of the building and its historical significance. Doing it perhaps in a more historically accurate approach would be significantly costly to the point of being unreasonable. That with the other option being stucco, which is less historically significant, it is much more affordable and attainable and would provide the needed structural fix before the winter and is a much more common sense solution. He urged commission members to consider this as a more common sense issue. He understood you want to have a beautiful building in the front to look its best. But as stated earlier, the only work is to the back and alley side walls. Much is completely unnoticed. If business owners are forced to do everything 100% historically accurate and correct, that might end up forcing business owners to move out of historical buildings. You will end up with a historically accurate building, but an empty one because of the unreasonable cost of trying to do it with brick replacement or repair. It is something we have to weigh the cost and the benefits. He is looking to go into business himself one day and is looking at cities to one day start an entrepreneurial venture. If he sees Farmington has a city putting excessive controls on owners as to what they can do with their buildings, it makes me hesitate starting a business here. Commission members have the ability to write a lot of wrongs here and if you generously use some leniency it would be very appreciative to the owner and other businesses as a whole. Member Franceschelli asked Ms. Heikkila how does the stucco contractor plan to mitigate the existing water seepage that is in the system? Stucco has a tendency to trap water. Ms. Heikkila stated there is a particular sealant on it and they have also worked with a roofing company that is developing a flashing system where no water will get down behind the bricks. If they are allowed to do it this year, which would start mid- November, not only did she not get grant money, but the heating costs to do a six-week project that starts mid-November – it has already been excessively delayed. The contractor has spoken with the city explaining the details. This is the only company willing to do it. They are part of the BBB and would not risk that. Member Franceschelli stated the application of stucco destroys the façade we are looking at now. Ms. Heikkila stated you are not looking at it because it is in the alleyway, except for the backside of the building. By next spring, the back side will be 20% gone. There are huge holes in the backside. A bank will not give a loan to someone for more than what the building is appraised at. It is not a viable option. If you look at the petition of the downtown business owners, all of them are hesitant that they could be next. We want to protect the structural integrity of the buildings. If you don’t protect the structure, you have no historical future. The structural integrity is in a dire avalanche state right now. To be proactive rather than reactive is of utmost importance in this situation. Chair Rotty asked if Member Franceschelli was eluding there is moisture in the existing brick that will be trapped by stucco, not from future moisture. Member Franceschelli stated that is what is causing the popping and the spawling. Member Tesky stated the existing paint on the building is causing the trapping of the moisture. Member Franceschelli agreed and to add another layer on top of it without at least alleviating that barrier may further compromise the work they plan on doing. He is not a structural engineer and suggested getting professional help. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2019 Page 3 Member Tesky stated knowing this is an issue on the back and alley side, if you are to stucco that, what is your proposal for the other sides because this will happen on the other sides as well. Ms. Heikkiela stated even stucco is a huge investment of money and she just put in massive amounts of money and had to take out a loan for the roof. The upkeep on older buildings is huge. She has bids for the painting of the front and sides along with some masonry work on the side. If stucco was allowed and grant money was given, the painters are ready to go next spring. If there is no painting done on the front and side, within three years it will look like the back of the building. There are holes in the back of the building. She has bids for the painting on the front and side. If the city is going to dictate I have to do a certain thing in order to make it look historical, then the city needs to pay for that. She has owned the building since 2004. Member Tesky stated knowing this is an older building and that it will require maintenance and upkeep over the years, did you ever intend to keep the historical aspect as you make those repairs? Ms. Heikkila stated they bought the building when it looked very similar to the front and side. The inside wall and back is all of a sudden crumbling. Upkeep goes with any building. She didn’t expect it to be a money pit and for the costs to be what they are. Member Tesky stated if and when the front and street side need repair, are you interested in doing the tuckpointing that has been recommended or will you continue with the stucco recommendation that you are proposing? Ms. Heikkila stated if at all possible, she would like to keep it brick. It needs to be painted in order to protect that. It has been painted as long as she can remember. Member Tesky felt the wrong type of paint has been used on the building and that is why it is starting to deteriorate. Ms. Heikkila stated the only areas she has seen it deteriorate is when the paint peels away and then water gets into those areas. Any place where there is paint, there is zero deterioration. Once the paint peels, within one year you lose a third of the brick. A permit is not required for painting. Ms. Heikkila has bids for painting. Member Tesky stated if we continue with the stucco we will have the same issue. Ms. Heikkila asked the commissioners to take five minutes to call the stucco company and work it out, because the y work on the U of M buildings all the time. This company is extremely qualified. Member Tesky stated it is not just that, it is the historical integrity of the building that we are trying to maintain. Ms. Heikkila asked what is their plan? Brick is 100% off the table. She cannot afford it. No bank will allow her to take out a loan to fix bricks that cost more than the value of the building. She asked again, what is the commission’s plan? Member Franceschelli asked if when the building was reviewed for historical significance was it 100% of the building or just the front facades. The original designation was for the entire building. Member Franceschelli stated we have an emergency situation and an incremental approach might be warranted, but not for the whole thing. Member Windschitl stated Mr. Vogel’s memo is one point with what we have been saying. We can all agree, water is the issue; water behind the bricks, water in the mortar. That is the part that needs to be fixed first and that is one of Mr. Vogel’s recommendations. You are using this company and asked if a representative has offered to come to the meeting to explain to us who they are and what they do. Ms. Heikkila stated they have spoken with the building official and they would be happ y to answer your questions if you call them. They have been extremely responsive. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2019 Page 4 Member Lehto asked if she has bids to tuckpoint the entire building or tuckpointing bids for just the immediate need. Ms. Heikkila stated she has one for that particular area. No one would do it this year and the building is falling down so that is why she moved on to stucco as tuckpointing is cost prohibitive. Even to fix just the areas that really need it, it is cost prohibitive. Member Lehto asked for a copy of those bids to clarify the total amount. She appreciated Ms. Heikkila being a business owner. Member Lehto has a real estate background and has a lot of colleagues who are commercial real estate agents. Ms. Heikkila has expressed concern about selling the building and wanted her to know, Ms. Lehto’s employer had the Exchange Bank building for sale in 2013 and sometimes those things do take awhile. If she should decide to sell the building, there are plenty of people who would help her with that. Ms. Heikkila stated she had it appraised just to know the value, she loves Farmington and believes in its economic possibilities. She would like to work in that building until she retires and would like to hand the building down to her children. She loves the historic character of the building and that is why she made the investment in the first place. Member Lehto stated an appraisal only lasts for a certain length of time and if you were to make changes that helped the historical integrity, she assumed her appraisal would also change. Ms. Lehto felt the tuckpointing would be a really good option because it will help the historical and structural integrity because you are continuing with the original use of the building and especially since those are the original bricks and you are not changing the structure. You are not stabbing metal into brick which would pull the building down and not keep the water out. Mr. Isaac Heikkila, begged to differ. He understood the commission wants to use tuckpointing because it is the best solution in an ideal world. We agree, except it is astronomically expensive and because of that absurd cost it will not happen. When you look at the more attainable solutions, what is most immediate? Perhaps the stucco on the two walls that are hidden would be the best solution for cost and moving forward in the future on the other walls, doing more preventative work with painting once the major crisis is solved, more painting and minor tuckpointing might be the thing to do moving forward, but beyond that, we have an immediate crisis that needs to be addressed. He agreed tuckpointing would be the solution, but it is just not feasible because of cost. Member Lehto stated that is why she requested to see the bids so she can make a determination and she would also recommend contacting Mr. Vogel as he is very open to helping. Getting his opinion would be very beneficial. Member Franceschelli asked Mr. Heikkila if he is proposing breaking the proposal into three workable parts? The original proposal was for the whole building or just the two walls? Ms. Heikkila stated the original proposal was for stucco on the inside wall where 90% of the wall is not visible and the back wall. Once those areas are done, she will regroup and try to find the money to paint the side and the front. Estimates are $20,000 for the painting and some tuckpointing on the street side would be $8,000. The flashing system would go over the areas to be stucco so zero water would get in. Yesterday she asked the contractor if the area is stucco could they come out in the spring to make sure there is nothing behind the walls. They would bring in heaters and drying everything out before they start. There is a lot that needs to be done to the building, including the windows. Mr. Scott Johnson, 20969 Clayton Avenue, has 40 years of construction experience, asked Ms. Heikkila if they are talking about putting the stucco over the existing bricks? Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2019 Page 5 Ms. Heikkila stated they would work on the bricks that have gaps and fill in those areas, and put lathe up. Mr. Johnson stated if they are falling apart that bad, he would doubt they would want to do that. Structurally that would be a bad idea to fasten something else on top of bricks that are already crumbling and falling apart. He believed the contractor has a good reputation, but he felt they are going to do something different to make that stable. If you put stucco over crumbling bricks and some of the bricks fall off, the whole thing will come down. Ms. Heikkila felt it would be best if the commission talked with the stucco company. The city has and they go in with deep fasteners to fasten it. Mr. Johnson understood that, but to leave falling apart brick, if there is a hole 10 feet up and there is more brick above that – Ms. Heikkila felt they would patch the brick thoroughly with the mortar being the same consistency. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Mike Kraft does historical brickwork. Mr. Johnson stated regarding the grant, right now material and labor is the highest it has been in history. There are not enough workers to do the work. If she says she needs it done right now, it will cost more. From our conversations she would love to have the bricks, but it is crazy amounts of money. If it costs $300,000, a $15,000 or $20,000 grant doesn’t do much to help. Right now to get something done, especially in the winter, it would be $20,000 - $50,000 just for winter charges. He felt the commission should get together with the stucco people and discuss this if you are going to consider that option. Personally, he has a hard time understanding how she is forced to do the brick work, even if she wants to, how does that work out economically. Say a bank would give her $300,000 and then she wanted to sell the building, it should increase the value, but that is a very specific market to buy that building. She doesn’t want to sell, the bank won’t give her the money, maybe talk to the stucco contractor and that would alleviate some concerns. Mr. Johnson could contact Mr. Kraft to tell you what would work. Chair Rotty stated we still have a lot of questions and unknowns. The commission didn’t set this timeframe. We got this 1.5 weeks ago. We listened and said we don’t know enough about this. Tonight we know more, but still not enough to make the best decision. Ms. Heikkila wants to maintain her building and that is great. It is a tough situation because you were designated a Heritage Landmark and now you have a different set of rules. We have to follow those rules. We contacted an expert to make sure these rules are accurate along with the Secretary of Interior Standards. They both agree that this is not the best solution. We cannot disagree with these experts. He would hate to say go ahead and you stick a lot of money into it and five years later we are in a worse situation. Chair Rotty suggested we may have some deterioration between now and next spring, but we didn’t create this timeline. Next spring he encouraged Ms. Heikkila and the city to work with experts, but right now he cannot say that is the right way to go. Ms. Heikkila stated you realize my costs are going to go up substantially every year and not only is the building falling down, the costs are going up. Chair Rotty stated this may not be the best solution for your building structurally. You said you want to resolve both structurally and historically. Ms. Heikkila stated if you don’t have the structural you won’t have the historical. It is falling by the buckets. Chair Rotty stated the best solution is if we can accommodate the structural so you have it for years and years to come. We are trying to follow the rules. Ms. Heikkila recently met with the EDA regarding a grant. Next spring there could be a different outcome. Ms. Heikkila stated if not, where am I? I have a building with huge holes in it. Chair Rotty stated we are in an awkward position. We want to see you maintain your building, but this may not be the best way to do it. There are people a lot smarter than us that can keep the Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2019 Page 6 historical integrity and address the structural integrity. Ms. Heikkila asked what about the financial integrity? Chair Rotty stated we may be so focused on one solution because of the timing and the cost that we may not have the best solution. He understood there could be some deterioration, but for the betterment of the whole building, let’s take some time, regroup and get some experts to advise the group, including Ms. Heikkila, city staff and the commission, on what is best. Both experts are recommending the same thing and it is totally different than what the contractor is recommending. He cannot go against the experts. Mr. Heikkila asked if the contractor could speak with Mr. Vogel about the viability of stucco and if he consented to that, would that change the decision? Chair Rotty stated there are future communications and steps, but for right now we all say we don’t know enough about stucco. It could be at the cost of losing more bricks, hopefully not significant. Ms. Heikkila stated it comes down to cost; it’s not doable. Chair Rotty stated there could be something else that the experts can agree on to maintain both structural and historical stability. From what he has read, if you trap the moisture in and the bricks are soft, it could harm the building in the long run. Ms. Heikkila asked the commission to call the contractor and talk to him. Member Franceschelli suggested staff reach out to the stucco contractor and put him in touch with Mr. Vogel and the building official and maybe we table it until next month. Maybe we will have some viable option that will not break the bank and still meet the needs. Chair Rotty stated the next meeting is the second week in November. If it is too late in mid-October, it won’t be better in November. He is not comfortable tonight on approval. Member Lehto asked staff if there is grant money available at the state level. Staff noted historically, there have not been a lot of grants. There is some tax credits, but those are for large projects. Ms. Heikkila stated there are tax credits available if you sign up for a national registry which she will not do. As far as grant money, she has talked to the state legislature and they are working on it. She also spoke with the State Historical Society. The grant money is going to non-profits. She won’t go on the national registry because the local designation is already causing a great amount of stress. Chair Rotty stated they want to help, but they are bound and cannot help tonight. An option is to extend this and work on it diligently and we can engage Mr. Vogel and others and have them work with staff. But that will take some time. The window is closing quickly on time to do this work. Getting the right people together and going into spring, the timing might be better. Chair Rotty asked if Ms. Heikkila would agree to getting the contractor, experts and staff and herself together to work out a solution. Ms. Heikkila agreed. Staff agreed. Staff stated one option is to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Another option is to continue it to a specific date and to work with Mr. Vogel’s engineers and architects with the stucco contractor on a solution. Ms. Heikkila stated when she was looking for a contractor, it was in the winter and everyone said no until March. You have to be on their schedule early. Chair Rotty wants to go into the next meeting knowing what is best for the building and everyone is 100% behind it. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2019 Page 7 MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to continue this request until the regular meeting in January 2020 to give all parties a better product to work with. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Adjourn MOTION by Windschitl, second by Tesky to adjourn at 7:02 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant