HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-06 HPC MIN
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
February 6, 2006
Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Brent
Peterson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki
Others: Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear
Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval of the minutes of
Jan. 4, 2006, as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
Case No. DEM/06-01 Consideration of a request from Ascension Episcopal Church for
demolition of a residence at 209 N. Third St. in the PA, Public Administration District. Vicki
Cross, representing Ascension Episcopal Church.
Mr. Lieberman briefly reviewed the City ordinance’s nine requirements for a demolition to be
approved. Ms. Cross said several of the nine steps have not been completed because the
church does not own the building, and it has been difficult to get people into the structure, which
is filled with debris. She said the church’s intent is to purchase the house, tear down the
structure and leave the property vacant until a future use is determined. She said the church
has not closed on the purchase because it does not want to repair/restore the structure.
Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., said no old house is beyond redemption. He noted that
Ascension Church has done a great job at preservation in the past and noted the house in
question looks fairly square and sound. He urged the Commission to table the request until the
house has been carefully inspected inside and out and the church looks at other ways of dealing
with the house. Mr. Empson said he would be happy to work with the church to explore options
for saving the structure.
Mr. Lieberman noted the ordinance is clear in the conditions that need to be met, and several of
those conditions – evaluating the cost of remodeling the structure, advertising the structure for s
ale, and plan for reuse – have not been met in this application. Ms. Cross again pointed out the
church has not been able to meet the conditions because it does not own the property and has
been unable to gain full access to the house.
Mr. Johnson suggested that if the church purchased the house/property and removed the
debris, it would be better able to determine potential uses/alternatives. Mr. Peterson noted it
would be difficult to approve a variance to demolish someone else’s house.
Mr. Lieberman moved to deny the request without prejudice on the grounds that three of the
nine ordinance conditions have not been met and that procedurally the church does not own the
property. He pointed out that denying the request without prejudice allows the church to reapply
for the demolition permit at some point in the future if the church owns the property and meets
all of the requirements. Mr. Tomten noted the HPC’s duty is to encourage preservation and
asked the church to take a second look at its mission as an urban church. Mr. Peterson
seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
1
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
February 6, 2006
Case No. DR/06-04 Design review of a proposed 32-unit condominium project with hotel lobby
relocation and underground parking at 101 Water St. in the CBD, Central Business District.
Michael Diem, Archnet, representing Chuck Dougherty.
Present were Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Diem. Mr. Lieberman opened the discussion by reading
the staff recommendation, which expressed a concern that it is premature to review the site
plan, as there are too many unknowns that may affect any design direction. Mr. Dougerty noted
there have been past problems related to the open staircase, the provision of a brick dumpster
and other issues. He said ownership has changed – he is now the sole owner – and said he
hoped it would be possible to work through past difficulties. Mr. Diem assured the Commission
that they would not show something in design drawings and then strip down the final project. He
briefly reviewed drawings which he said give a “hint” at possible colors and materials – green
slate roof with reddish\brown exterior. Plans also include a tower which replicates the former
depot tower. Mr. Diem said the plan is to recreate a landmark and incorporate it in the project as
a kiosk/public open space; the new tower would be built using the same foundation as the old
depot tower, he said. Mr. Diem said the proposal calls for brick exterior, with stone at the base
that will match the existing stone.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the HPC views the downtown historic district as a whole. Part of
the uniqueness of the downtown district are the vistas of the river, gazebo, lift bridge, which are
bigger than just a building itself. He said one of his initial concerns is the height and location of
the proposed project which blocks a lot of the viewshed. He also said he is unsure if the
proposed tower has any relationship to the project. Further, he noted there are issues related to
property ownership and utility locations. He suggested it premature to consider the project until
those issues have been resolved.
Mr. Lieberman agreed that it would be premature to consider the project at this time noting
recent staff leavings, the Corps of Engineers’ floodwall plans, proposed infill design guidelines
and pending height regulations for the downtown district. He questioned how the Commission
could allow the project to move forward with so many issues that are still open and subject to
change. Mr. Dougherty responded that they have been in discussion with staff since September,
have had meetings with the DNR and Corps of Engineers and had a workshop scheduled with
the City Council later in the week of the HPC meeting. He also pointed out that the City’s plan
for the property called for a two-story parking lot, which also would have impacted the viewshed.
Councilmember Harycki pointed out the City’s agenda includes revising/updating the Downtown
Plan, in addition to all the other changes/unknowns that are pending.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Lockyear what actions were available to the HPC. Mr. Lockyear
cautioned against holding action in abeyance for too long as the 60-day rule might come into
play. Mr. Tomten pointed out that all large projects go through a concept phase and said he
would hate to have the 60-day rule come into play for this project. He suggested that it was up
to the HPC to give comments/direction and up to the staff to determine any possible property
exchange agreements. Mr. Tomten also pointed out that there are downtown design guidelines
in place at this time and the applicant has a right to use his property according to those
guidelines. Mr. Tomten noted that one of the guidelines is the encouragement of pedestrian-
oriented design and offered some suggestions for improving that aspect of the project.
2
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
February 6, 2006
Mr. Lieberman moved to deny the application without prejudice, noting that the design as
presented is outside the allowable height restrictions and the Commission is not allowed to
grant variances. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten said he would not like to deny
the proposal, noting that the height limitation is a Planning Commission issue and also noting
that for many projects, towers are exempt from height limitations. Mr. Peterson suggested that
the Commission should review the design plans. Members then took a “field trip” and viewed a
model of the proposed project.
When members returned to the table, Mr. Johnson pointed out that the project's location in the
flood plain makes it difficult to comply with the height restrictions for the occupiable space. Mr.
Johnson noted that when the Corps’ floodwall project is completed, the project would be out of
the flood plain and there would be more usable space. Mr. Lieberman again pointed out that
there are still unresolved ownership issues and it is unclear whether the applicant has a right to
build the project as proposed. The motion to deny without prejudice passed 5-2, with Mr.
Tomten and Mr. Peterson voting against denial. Mr. Lieberman told the applicant the
Commission would be open to scheduling a workshop to further discuss the project.
Case No. DR/06-05 Design review of a proposed sign, Wisteria Gifts and More, at 223 S. Main
St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Kim Vangsgard, applicant.
The applicant was present. She said the request is for a replacement sign, of the same size and
location as the previous signage. The sign will not be lighted. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr.
Peterson, moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Tomten asked about color. The motion was
amended to include the condition that paint chips be submitted to staff for approval. Amended
motion passed unanimously.
Case No. DR/06-06 Design review of extension of awning, replacement of existing store front
and placement of sign at 241 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Kevin Grube,
representing Mark Hanson, Marx, applicant.
The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten noted the existing awning is extremely shallow. He
suggested moving the sign to allow the awning to be moved up to the second-story windows
which will provide more of the 1:1 pitch and project more over the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson added
a suggestion regarding sign placement. Michael Stone, in the audience for another case, asked
that Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson’s comments be viewed as suggestions rather than conditions
of approval.
Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as submitted with the suggestion
that the plans be modified as suggested and sketched by Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson. Motion
passed unanimously.
Case No. DR/06-07 Design review of a proposed new residence at 217 W. St. Croix Ave. E.
(formerly 203 St. Croix Ave. E.) in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jeff Swanson,
applicant.
Present were property owners, Jeff and Heather Swanson, and architect, Dale Mulfinger. Mr.
Johnson asked about siding and windows. Mr. Mulfinger said the majority of the windows would
3
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
February 6, 2006
be double-hung windows; the siding will be varied, he said, a combination of vertical and
horizontal lap siding. Mr. Johnson also asked about the roof; Mr. Swanson said they would like
to utilize standing metal seam roofing, but that will depend on the cost. Mr. Peterson asked
about the height of the new house. Mr. Mulfinger said the new structure will be two stories but
pointed out that the front gable of the new house has been stepped in order to match the scale
of the adjacent 1 and one-half story house.
Mr. Swanson said that in previous conversations with former Community Development Director
Steve Russell, Mr. Russell had recommended the use of a permeable surface driveway in order
to meet the 30-percent lot coverage requirement; if the new infill guidelines are adopted, an
impervious driveway surface could be used.
Mr. Peterson asked about an existing garage on the site. The applicant responded that the
garage will be removed. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that if the existing garage is 50 years old or
more, a demolition permit is required.
Members complimented the applicants and architect for looking at the adjacent sites and
attempting to meet the proposed new infill design guidelines. Mr. Johnson moved approval with
the condition that the 30 percent lot coverage guideline be met through the use of a pervious
surface driveway, with the understanding the applicant may request the use of impervious
surface if the infill design guidelines are approved before building permits are obtained. Mr.
Eastwood seconded the motion, but asked whether the motion should include a condition about
the existing garage. Mr. Johnson amended the motion to approve the proposed materials and
design, with the condition that the 30 percent lot coverage requirement be met and that a
demolition permit be obtained for the existing garage should the age of the structure require that
permit. Amended motion passed unanimously.
Case No. DR/06-08 Design review of exterior patio and parking for an expansion of a
restaurant, Stone’s Restaurant, at 324 S. Main St., Grand Garage, in the CBD, Central Business
District. Michael Stone, applicant.
Michael Stone was present. He explained plans for an upscale restaurant offering a traditional
American menu. He said looking at the surrounding area, including the Teddy Bear Park, he felt
the best use for the existing parking area in the rear of the restaurant (6 parking spaces) is to
provide for an expanded outdoor dining space. The proposal is to utilize the outdoor dining
space May through September, with drive-up and valet parking offered during the winter
months. The area would be done in concrete pavers, he said. Mr. Tomten asked about plans for
the existing poured concrete wall. Mr. Stone said plans are to paint the concrete and cap the
wall with iron railing. Mr. Johnson asked about the proposal to place uplights in the trees along
the hill, saying he was concerned about the possible intensity of the lighting. Mr. Stone said he
was not sure about the lighting, but said his vision is to have dim lighting to provide for a more
upscale atmosphere.
Mr. Lieberman moved approval as originally conditioned, when previous plans were submitted
and approved in 2003. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
4
City of Stillwater
Heritage Preservation Commission
February 6, 2006
Case No. DR/06-09 This case was withdrawn.
Case No. DR/06-10 Design review of proposed construction of two residences south of 303 W.
Olive St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jeff Hayes, applicant.
Present were Mark Willis, Greg Stokes and Jeff Hayes. The applicants provided photos of
several surrounding properties and explained site plans, including setbacks for the two
proposed structures. In order to control the amount of impervious surface coverage, a single
driveway is proposed for access. The architect said the two buildings will complement each
other. The design of the proposed new houses utilizes urban/residential forms, the architect
explained. Mr. Harycki asked whether the applicants had looked at the City’s proposed infill
design guidelines; the response was “yes.” Mr. Johnson asked whether the applicants were
working with a potential buyer or were building the houses as spec homes, suggesting that
buyers looking to purchase homes in a traditional neighborhood such as this are looking for
traditional design, rather than the modern design as proposed. Mr. Harycki pointed out that the
design guidelines call for new infill construction to fit the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said he thought the proposed design was an “insult” to the
traditional architecture in the neighborhood it is so out of character. Mr. Lieberman and Mr.
Tomten argued that the guidelines are not meant to legislate a certain design style, that is why
they are guidelines. A philosophical discussion ensued with the applicants and Commission
members exchanging points of view about the proposed design and the infill design guidelines.
The architect said the applicants had been hoping for some input as they did not want to design
houses that will be rejected by the Commission. Mr. Lieberman concluded the discussion by
suggesting there are clearly disparate points of view among Commission members and noted
that the infill design guidelines are a new concept. It was suggested that when the applicants
return with working drawings they include colors and materials, as well as incorporate other
houses in the neighborhood in a site plan.
Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to adjourn at 10 p.m. Motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
5