Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-06 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 6, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Ken Harycki, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson and Roger Tomten Others: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Scott Zahren Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Nelson, moved approval of the minutes of October 2, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-13 Infill design review of revised plans for a new home south of 303 W. Olive St. in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Mark Willis and Greg Stokes, applicant. Mr. Willis, Mr. Stokes and their architect, Jeff Hayes, were present. Mr. Lieberman opened the discussion by briefly reviewing the infill design guidelines, noting that plans had previously been reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission; changes to those plans brought that matter back before the HPC. Mr. Lieberman also reviewed staff comments related to the design changes. Changes included the proposed use of limestone on the front of the home; changes to the style, size and location of some of the windows; and the addition of a privacy wall on the rear of the home. Mr. Pogge told the Commission that staff had discussed the privacy wall issue with the applicant and have decided to classify the structure as a wall extension rather than a fence, so that proposed addition could be approved, he said. Mr. Eastwood noted that infill design review requires a public hearing; he suggested that the proposed changes are significant enough that another public hearing should be held. Mr. Harycki noted the Commission was split on the proposed design during the first review and public hearing and agreed that the changes should go back to the public for another hearing. Mr. Johnson spoke of the infill design guidelines noting that of paramount importance is looking at the immediate neighborhood for the use of similar materials, proportions, massing, and setbacks. Mr. Johnson noted that the approved design did include some more contemporary elements but worked because it utilized traditional siding, as well as the style and location of windows, scale and roof pitch. The proposed changes, specifically the applied stone exterior and the revised windows do not work with the immediate neighborhood, he said, and moved to deny the proposed design. Mr. Johnson’s motion to deny died for lack of a second. Jeff Hayes stated that since reviewing staff comments, the applicants had made the decision to return to the original window layout and style, leaving the only remaining issue as the use of stone. Mr. Hayes said he thought the proposed stone, St. Croix limestone, provided a richness to the texture and was more traditional, reminiscent of the Federal style, than the siding originally proposed. Mr. Hayes also noted that stone is not an alien material to historic neighborhoods; he stated that the use of stone was an attempt to emphasize tradition. Mr. Willis suggested the use of stone provides a better delineation of the two masses of the home. It also was noted that stone is planned to be used on the new home, the companion home, to be constructed on the adjacent lot. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 6, 2006 Mr. Johnson suggested that the stone appears to be rising out of the ground, and he noted that other design elements, such as heavier headers and lintels that would support the use of stone, were missing. Mr. Tomten said he thought the proposed changes were fairly minor and noted that the applicants were not trying to replicate a Victorian design but were taking into account the details of the surrounding neighborhood in elements such as massing and roof pitch. Mr. Johnson asked the applicants if the plans dated Nov. 6, 2006, superceded the plans in the agenda packet. Mr. Hayes reiterated that after reading staff comments, the decision had been made to utilize double-hung windows and go back to the original layout. Mr. Johnson asked about siding on other elevations of the home; Mr. Hayes said the siding would be board and batten. Mr. Lieberman invited Mark Balay, architect and neighboring resident, to comment on the revised plans. Mr. Balay said he had no problem with the materials, except details such as lintels and sills to make it appear like true masonry. However, Mr. Balay suggested that it would be important that the public be aware of the proposed changes so the community would not lose faith in the HPC. Mr. Eastwood noted there are other design changes, such as in the roof line between the two massings, that would seem to be significant. Mr. Johnson agreed that the revisions result in a significant appearance change that the public should be provided a chance to comment on. Mr. Lieberman brought the discussion to a close by suggesting that the applicants be invited back to explain the revised design elements. It was noted that there was sufficient time to schedule a public hearing for the Dec. 4 HPC meeting. The applicants asked for direction on what additional information they should provide. Mr. Johnson suggested that in addition to revised design elements, the applicants should provide a floor plan and view of the extension of the wall, plans for the neighboring structure, garage, and proposed trim colors. Mr. Lieberman moved to continue action on this case to the December 4 meeting as the HPC finds that the proposed design changes are substantial enough to warrant another public hearing, with the applicant to provide updated design drawings for the Dec. public hearing. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Other items: Discussion of plans for properties in the Greeley Neighborhood, 125 S. Owens St., 121 S. Owens St. and 109 S. Owens St. – A letter from John and Susanna Patterson, 1018 W. Olive St., was included in the agenda packet. The Patterson’s and two other neighboring residents were present. The neighbors voiced their fears that Heidi Rosebud, owner of the properties and owner/operator of the Just for Me Spa and Stillwater Fitness Club, ultimately intends to raze the entire block. Suzanna Patterson noted that Ms. Rosebud had received a permit to operate the house at 125 S. Owens St. as a Bed and Breakfast, but has never utilized that permit. Now, she said, Ms. Rosebud has indicated she wants to remove the house and turn the space into a parking lot. Ms. Patterson noted the garage would have to be demolished to move the house to the location Ms. Rosebud is proposing. Ms. Patterson further stated that Ms. Rosebud is using the homes as “party houses,” which has already changed the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Harycki noted there is a larger issue involved in this matter, the issue of legitimizing existing businesses in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Rosebud has applied to rezone all of the properties listed above to commercial, it was noted. Mr. Pogge noted that staff is not supportive 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission November 6, 2006 of the rezoning of these residential parcels, but noted that the rezoning request is a process that has to be followed. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Johnson pointed out that the City’s demolition ordinance prohibits the demolition of any structure over 50 years old. Mr. Johnson also noted the City has a B&B ordinance and suggested this matter seems to be a compliance issue for staff and City Council. Mr. Peterson noted that according to the ordinance, there cannot be two B&Bs within 900 feet of each other. Mr. Pogge said Ms. Rosebud is aware that she is not permitted to use the properties as short-term rentals and has now made application for the commercial rezoning. Mr. Lieberman noted that the B&B ordinance was intended to recognize the potential for the loss of the City’s historic homes and provide owners of those homes a financial incentive for maintaining the homes. The ordinance was not intended to benefit a commercial enterprise, he said, as he spoke of his “disgust” at this instance of the B&B ordinance being circumvented. Later, there was a discussion of the HPC’s role regarding B&Bs, and Mr. Lieberman emphasized that the HPC’s role was not secondary to the Planning Commission. Mr. Eastwood suggested this is a matter for the Council and advised neighbors to attend all the public hearings related to the properties. ? The annual report to SHPO was included in the agenda packet. Members commented that the report was well done. ? Mr. Johnson noted that the City Council had just granted Municipal Consent to the design for the new river crossing, a milestone in the process, he said. ? There was a brief discussion regarding what constitutes design changes “substantial enough” to bring those changes back before the HPC. Mr. Lieberman suggested that any changes, no matter how substantial, should return to the HPC. ? Mr. Tomten told members that a committee is working on proposals to conduct tours to Stillwater in conjunction with the National Trust Conference to take place in St. Paul in 2007. He said Carolyn Phelps of the Historic Courthouse is spearheading an effort for a tour focusing on the lift bridge. Mr. Tomten said he is working on other possible tour ideas, such as adding residential housing to historic commercial districts, neighborhood infill design guidelines. He asked members with other ideas or who are interested in being part of a tour or panel discussion to get in contact with him. ? Mr. Eastwood raised the issue of the potential site for a new parking structure and questioned the location under consideration. Mr. Pogge noted that RFPs for the updated Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Plan are being issued in the near future. Mr. Lieberman asked why the HPC isn’t involved in that process. Mr. Pogge said the HPC will be involved and represented on the committee that reviews/selects the RFPs. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3