Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-07 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Jan uary 7, 2008 Present: Jeff Johnson, V i ce C hair person, Phil Eastwood, Robert Gag, Gayle Hudak, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes : Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of Nov ember 5, 2007. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/08 - 02 Demolition request for a singl e - family residence at 1905 N. Second St. in the RA, Single Family Residence District. Boyd Knudsen, applicant. Mr. Knudse n was present. He said he was aware of the City’s demolition permit requirements before he purchased the property. He stated he would like to reuse as much as possible of the original structure. If he does demolish the house, he said he would like to build a new structure that maintains the historic look. He pointed out that the front portion of the house is what he believes to be the or iginal structure. He said the back portions were done later. He noted there is nothing of structural use in the back portions, and there is no head space upstairs in the front portion of the house , leaving no bedrooms and no bathroom. He pointed out that i f he gutted the house, raised the foundation (to deal with runoff issues), reinforced floor jois ts , and put new siding on the residence, he would essentially be building a new house around the old house. He concluded that it would be easier and more cost - e ffective to tear the structure down and rebuild. During discussion, Mr. Johnson pointed out that it is the front portion of the house that is the original and most historically significant. He suggeste d leaving the front portion, removing the two rear por tions, and building a connecting link between the front and new back portions of the house. Mr. Tomten pointed out the front massing would benefit from being raised, with a new foundation. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastwood pointed out that should Mr. Knudson de molish the structure, he would have to meet current setbacks, while the existing house is grandfathered in regarding setbacks. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Pogge pointed out that this c ase involves four buildings, the main dwelling, bar n and two outhouses. Mr. Pogge stated the barn is a safety hazard and in danger of collapse. He said all four buildings should be considered. Mr. Knutson said he did not include the two outhouses, as he mi ght reuse tho se. Mr. Eastwood pointed out that the HPC holds all demolition permit applicants to the same standards and said he felt this application was lacking in detail regarding cost and alternatives to demolition and showing proof that the structure was advertised for sale. Mr. Knudse n said the 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 7, 2008 property had been advertised for sale on and off for some time, but he had not personally advertised the structure for sale. Mr. Johnson a sked Mr. Knudse n if he had an y alternatives to demolition. Mr. Knudsen stated he would like to use the front portion as a new garage and turn the structure 90 degrees. Mr. Johnson suggested the HPC would be most favorable if he would leave the front portio n in its present location and link the original portion to newer structure in the back. Mr. Zahren asked Mr. Knudson if he would be satisfied with doing that. Mr. Knudsen responded that he personally would not like that arrangement, with a new home looming behind the original front portion, noting that the upstairs in structurally unusable. He said he could do as suggested, but offered his opinion that then it would not be an historic home any more. Mr. Johnson encouraged Mr. Knudsen to look at some ideas f or incorporating the front portion of the existing structure into plans. Ms. Hudak applauded Mr. Knudse n for being open to options, noting that this property is unique to the City of Stillwater. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Nelson moved to continue this case pending more detail regarding permit requirement No. 5, as well as proof of publication for advertisement for sale. It was suggested that if time is of concern to Mr. Knudsen that he come back with detailed plans for the infill design review. Motion t o continue passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 07 - 52 Design review of multi - use commercial development for the final phase of the Maple Island redevelopment. Mainstream Development Partnership LLC, applicant. Vern Stefan, Mainstream Development, was present. He stated that the only thing that has changed from the preliminary plans is that the Corps of Engineers will not allow mechanicals to be placed on the ground, so they are now proposing that the mechanicals be screened and placed on the roofto p. He stated they would work with Community Development Director Turnblad regarding that issue. And, he asked that the HPC defer to Mr. Turnblad on that issue, rather than requiring them to reappear at another meeting. Mr. Johnson noted that the first flo or of the building will be at or above the 100 - year flood level and there is a deck across the back of the building where the mechanicals could be placed. However, he agreed that placement there would be more obtrusive , and placement on the roof is likely a better option. Mr. Johnson suggested that the mechanicals be placed on the east side of the elevator tower. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten both spoke against a screening wall for the vents or mechanicals. It also was noted that as a general statement, vents or mechanicals should be grouped as much as possible and not be visible from adjacent streets. Mr. Pogge pointed out that with the exception of the placement of the mechanicals, the applicant meets all other conditions of approval, including the submissio n of a lighting plan and sign plan. It was noted that the lighting plan provides for recessed, soffit lighting over the entries; there will be canopies over the rear entries. Mr. Tomten moved to approve final plans as conditioned amending condition No. 1 to indicate that the final building permit plans shall show the location of the vents with colors to blend with the roofing material and to be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission J anuary 7, 2008 Director prior to issuance of a building permit; and changing condition No. 2 to indicate that mechanical equipment shall be placed on the roof, with the preferred location to the east side of the elevator tower and painted to match the oth er rooftop colors. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08 - 01 Design review of signage for Tuesday Morning at 1266 Frontage Road in the BP - C, Business Park Commercial District. Spectrum Sign Systems, Mary Ferraro, applican t. Randy Burns, Spectrum Sign Systems, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Johnson noted this was a straightforward request, with the sign to be of similar size and location as adjacent signage. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No . 08 - 03 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 522 W. Oak St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Karl Diekman, applicant. Mr. Diekman and Mr. Balay were present. Mr. Diekman explained that the proposal is to use the house on the property at 518 W. Oak, property that he has purchased, as a greenhouse and guest h ouse. Mr. Balay pointed out the proposal utilizes and maintains an existing historic structure. Mr. Balay said the plan is to remove the aluminum siding on the house and change windows, but not alter the envelope of the structure. He explained that the applicant to going to the Planning Commission requesting a special use permit to utilize the house as an acc essory dwelling unit; if the Planning Commission grants the special use permit, Mr. Balay said they would return to the HPC with more details about siding, windows, etc. Mr. Balay indicated that contrary to what was listed in the agenda packet, they will b e requesting a variance to the maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit so as to utilize an existing three - season porch on the structure; utilizing the three - season porch would result in an accessory unit of 950 square feet, he noted. Mr. Johnson point ed out that the second structure is historic in its own right and it doesn’t appear there will be a lot of visual alteration to the building, n oting that the Commission will s ee final details when the applicant returns. He moved to approve the use of the b uilding as an accessory unit of 950 square feet, including the three - season porch, with the condition that the applicant submit elevations and exterior modifications to the building for final approval by the HPC. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Tomte n suggested prefacing action by indicating that while the HPC realizes this is an unusual request, unique in that it is a request for an accessory dwelling unit in a structure other than a carriage house, the Commission believes the proposal is a good way to preserve an historic structure and therefore supports the request for use as an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Johnson’s motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites website project – Mr. Pogge demonstrated the beta version of the website. He noted that the 106 Group is working with eight initial properties and is under contract to do 70 properties in the first phase of the project. He said an open house will take place in February or March to encourage owners of Heirloom Ho mes to participate in the project. He demonstrated the various ways to search properties, and asked members to contact 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 7, 2008 staff if they want any other ways to search . The site includes nar rative and mapping features. It was noted that infill design guidelines will be part of the regular HPC site. Sandwich board signage – Mr. Zahren brought up the issue of sandwich board signage in the downtown and asked about the status of the issue. Mr. G ag indicate d that the Council is discussing the issue at this time, and appears to be split on the issue. There was a general discussion about the signage. Mr. Pogge indicated that the thought the Council would support the Chamber developing a policy and s elf - regulating the use of the signage. Reappointment – Mr. Pogge told the Commission that the Council has adopted a policy that in future, reappointments will involve an interview process. Comprehensive Plan status – Mr. Tomten asked about the status of the revision to the goals/policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pogge explained that task has been assigned to sub - committees of the two primary committees. The sub - committees have been meeting on a weekly basis, and the process is expected to continue t hrough the end of January, he said. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Ms. Hudak. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4