Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-05 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 5, 2007 Present: Vice Chair Jeff Johnson , Robert Gag, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak and Howard Lieberman Mr. Jo hnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes : Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the minutes of Feb. 5, 2007. Mr. Johnson asked that the second paragraph in the discussion of Case No. 06 - 05 ZAT be clarified to indicat e that the block in question is between North Main and North Second Street between Commercial and Mulberry Streets. Motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Johnson’s correction passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 07 - 11 Public Hearing on Infill Des ign Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District at 1817 N. Second St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Sean and Mollie Kane, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Johnson reviewed the staff report which indicated concerns relating t o Infill Guidelines No. 1 (massing and scale), No. 3 (alignment and setbacks), No. 4 (roof compatibility), No. 5 (building height), No. 9 (preservation of trees) and No. 15 (four - sided architecture). Mr. Zahren commented that he liked the Kanes’ plans, but the proposed new home doesn’t seem to fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson noted that the intent of the Infill Guidelines and City’s study of historic neighborhoods is to preserve the blue collar, working class character of the neighborhood. Mr. Kane st ated that they were unaware of the guidelines and didn’t know of the HPC until a week ago, and he stated they would not have spent the money to purchase the property had they realized there would be a potential problem. Mr. Kane stated they had looked at n ewer homes in the neighborhood and want their home to fit in. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern with the proposed arts and crafts style of home, given the design guidelines which suggest smaller structures in this neighborhood (Dutchtown). Mr. Tomten referr ed to the new infill structure on Fifth Street where the design breaks down the massing of the structure into smaller elements so as to fit into the fabric of the neighborhood. Mr. Tomten pointed out there are ways to achieve a larger footprint and still b e compatible with the adjacent structures. There was discussion as to whether the Kanes owned the property in question before the City adopted the infill design guidelines. It was determined that the guidelines were in place when the Kanes purchased the p roperty (six months ago), but this was a time of staff transition. Mr. Kane again stated they were never aware of the guidelines until they came to apply for a building permit. Mr. Johnson pointed out that realtors knew of the existence of the guidelines a nd suggested that ignorance is no excuse, and he suggested that it is not too late to incorporate design changes to bring the structure more into compliance. Mr. Johnson suggested a design element to visually separate the garage from the house to reduce th e amount of roof surface. Mr. Tomten suggested, and provided some sketches, utilizing smaller gable elements along the south elevation to break up the massing. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the height 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commissio n March 5, 2007 of the structure appears as three stories on the rear elevation and suggested a design element to separate the foundation from the house to reduce the height appearance, There was discussion as to how to proceed – whether to deny or table the application. It was consensus to table the application to allow the applicants to make revisions. Mr. Zahren suggested that the applicants work closely with staff in the interim. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and th e hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Nelson, moved to table this case until the April 2 meeting to allow the applicants an opportunity to bring back additional information/revisions to the house design. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Case No. DR/07 - 09 Design review of proposed exterior and interior remodeling of the Rivertown Inn at 306 W. Olive St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Jay, Jay Bros. Inc., applicant. Mr. Jay was present. He stated the proposed modificatio ns are to the carriage house only, not the main house. Mr. Johnson reviewed the proposed modifications – exterior painting; removal of three old window frames; installation of a new fireplace chimney; replacement of an access door with French windows; and replacement of air conditioning units on the north side of the building. Mr. Jay stated a decision had been made to paint the building (west side only) green to match the front. It was noted the new chimney will result in an additional stack on the flat po rtion of the roof. Mr. Jay stated the intent is to replace an existing access door with French windows; the 5x5 windows will be operational, he said, and will serve as an egress point. It was noted the glass door is not original to the structure and was in stalled for egress. Mr. Jay explained the air conditioning units will be moved to the east side of the building by the grapery and be screened from view. Regarding the removal of the window frames, it was noted the windows have been drywalled over on the inside and are not operational. Mr. Tomten called it a “bit of a stretch” to view the frame as an historic element characteristic of the property when no one can see the frame or knows that it is there; Mr. Tomten said he would have no problem removing the frame. Mr. Jay indicated the openings will be replaced with siding. Mr. Johnson pointed out that one modification not listed in the packet is the change to the skylight; the skylight, as proposed, will be moved slightly to the left and the square footage reduced. Mr. Tomten moved approval of the requested modifications to the carriage house. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, summarizing the motion as approving painting the west side green to match the front; removing the window frames and re - siding the ope ning(s); and approving the new fireplace with additional roof stack, replacement of the access door with French windows, replacement/relocation of the air conditioning units and modification to the skylight. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/07 - 10 De sign review of Millbrook Townhomes. US Homes, applicant. The applicant was not represented at the meeting. Mr. Pogge noted the applicant has revised the townhome portion of the PUD, utilizing a back - to - back townhome design, similar to those in 2 City of St illwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 5, 2007 the Settler’s Glen development, versus the brownstone design originally proposed. Mr. Johnson questioned why the HPC was being asked to review the design and to what guidelines the proposal is being reviewed. Mr. Pogge pointed out that City code requires design review in the TH district, but provides no criteria for that design review. Mr. Tomten suggested there might be something in the annexation area guidelines or Comprehensive Plan that may offer some direction for design guidelines, such as guidelines regarding variety of housing types, pedestrian connections, streetscape, etc. Mr. Tomten said he was disappointed in the proposed change in design, but noted that the back - to - back units are the most efficient from a cost point of view. Mr. Gag expressed his frustration with the developer and pointed out the proposed townhome design does not fit the PUD. Mr. Gag suggested that it is the Commission’s function to help determine what Stillwater will be li ke in 50 years, and he suggested that there will be a glut of attached dwellings if current trends are allowed to continue. Mr. Johnson asked on what basis the Commission could approve or deny the design proposal. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff pull per tinent information together from the annexation guidelines and Comprehensive Plan so there is a basis for action. Mr. Gag moved to table this case. Mr. Johnson pointed out that as Council liaison to the Commission, Mr. Gag cannot vote. Mr. Nelson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to table this matter. Motion to table passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Review of CLG grant application – Mr. Pogge reviewed some changes to the final CLG grant applicant. Changes included information regarding project products, ste ps and responsible party, he said. Also, as additional money is available, the requested grant amount was increased from $8,000 to $10,000, he stated. This was an information item, and no action was taken. Preservation Month – Mr. Pogge reminded members t hat May is Historic Preservation Month. He distributed the list of 2006 HPC cases and asked that members review the list and be prepared to discuss possible award winners at the April meeting. Mr. Pogge also spoke briefly of his attendance at the Minnesota Builders Association annual conference where he received helpful information on tuck - pointing and the proper use of mortars for tuck - pointing preservation projects. State SHPO conference – Mr. Johnson informed members that the annual SHPO preservation co nference will take place June 12, 2007, at the History Center. He suggested that members, especially members who are new to the Commission, may want to consider attending the conference. On a motion by Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Tomten, the meeting was a djourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3