Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-18 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 Present: Howard Lieberman, chairperson, Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren, and Council liaison Robert Gag Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Chair Lieberman apologized for the lack of quorum at the regularly scheduled August meeting, and called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the July 7, 2008, minutes. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/08-37 A demolition request for a single, detached garage at 921 N. Fifth St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark and Kristine Olson, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine steps required in the demolition ordinance. Mr. Olson stated the existing garage is falling down, and they are unwilling to store their vehicles in the garage. Mr. Olson also stated the foundation is cracked. He said they are hoping to replace the existing structure with a new garage of approximately the same size on the existing site, a little bit farther to the right and a bit higher than the existing structure. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. On a question by Mr. Johnson, the applicant briefly reviewed some of the design details of the proposed new structure. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any setback issues; Mr. Olson stated they are hoping they would be grandfathered in for a variance. Mr. Pogge stated they would have grandfathering rights as long as the structure is 20’ from the back curb. Mr. Eastwood asked about materials for the new structure. Mr. Olson stated the foundation would be of more modern design, with vinyl siding. Mr. Lieberman stated in the past when looking at demolition requests, item No. 5, reason and supporting data for the demolition, the Commission has usually looked at a written letter or some other analysis from a contractor exhibiting how prohibitive the cost of rehabilitation would be. Mr. Lieberman expressed his concern about setting a precedent, despite the condition of the existing structure, in not requiring information pertinent to item No. 5. Mr. Zahren agreed, saying that if he were an applicant, he would make certain that he had satisfied all of the conditions. Mr. Olson said he had talked with the contractor, who stated rehab would be twice the cost of constructing a new structure, and apologized for not providing a written opinion. Mr. Johnson pointed out that when reading the demolition ordinance, No. 5 includes the verbiage “when applicable” and the ordinance doesn’t specify how much supporting data is sufficient, whether it’s sufficient that a contractor says it would cost twice as much to rehab as construct new. Mr. Johnson stated if the existing structure was brick and matched the primary residence, he would have more concern but noted the existing structure does not include any architectural features of the main structure. Mr. Lieberman suggested approving the demolition permit contingent upon the contractor at least calling City staff and articulating the cost factors, to be consistent with the process that has been followed in the past. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the demolition permit, with the condition the applicant’s contractor call City staff and follow the call up with a written letter documenting the contractor’s assessment. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 Case No. DEM/08-38 A demolition request for a garage at 502 W. Laurel St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Robert and Nora Hahn, applicants. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report. The applicants were present. Mr. Hahn explained they would like to invest in a functional garage; the existing garage is very dilapidated, he said, with heaving and breaking of the concrete, aging and caving roofline. Mr. Hahn stated they did check into the cost of having the garage repaired and feel the investment dollars would be better spent on a new garage than keeps with the style and look of the old garage. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Tim Schmolke, 506 W. Laurel, spoke in favor of the request, stating the existing garage is ready to come down and recommending Commission approval. No other comments were heard, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson pointed out the original shed/garage building has different pitch slopes and overhang in the front, with an addition added later; he noted the new proposed structure carries over some of the features of the original structure. Mr. Tomten asked if the proposal was to use cedar siding; Mr. Hahn said they are looking at a matching hardi-board instead of the cedar but would only do that if they feel it looks as good as the cedar siding that is on the house. Mr. Lieberman noted the applicants did a good job in putting together an application packet that addresses the nine required steps. Mr. Eastwood said it appears that the original structure could almost be taken off and moved; Mr. Hahn said a neighbor has looked at doing that, taking just that one section, but has chosen not to do so. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the demolition permit in light of the fact that the permit was completed in its entirety and no one in the community was heard to speak against granting the permit. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DEM/08-39 A demolition request for a garage at 1104 Fifth St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kevin Riley, representing Stephen and Beverly Diemler, applicants. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report. Kevin Riley, contractor, was present representing the applicants. Mr. Riley referred to a letter from historian Don Empson which states the existing garage has no unique historical significance to Stillwater. He stated the owners want to construct a breezeway connecting the new garage to the house which would significantly add to the cost of rehabbing the existing garage. He said the new garage will be the same size as the existing structure, placed 3’ farther back to meet building code, and he noted the building variance has already been approved. He briefly addressed building materials that will be consistent with the house. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten asked if elevations had been drawn for the new structure and whether the pitch of the roof would match the house. Mr. Riley said the pitch would match the existing structure as the house pitch is about a 12:12, while the existing garage is 6:12. Mr. Riley said the new structure would be basically the same size and no taller than the existing garage. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Riley said they plan about a 1’ overhang on the new garage, with two single doors. Mr. Johnson said it would be nice to get the roof pitch to 9 or 12:12 to match the house. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the demolition permit with the suggestion that the 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 garage gable face the same direction as the main gable of the house and that the roof pitch, eaves and overhangs also match the house. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/08-40 Design review for façade renovation, window replacement, new entry and walkup window at 132 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark S. Balay Architects, applicant. Mr. Balay stated since his initial presentation, the Planning Commission has approved the Special Use Permit and walkup window. He said he was asking for a continuance, saying he would likely return with a request for window replacement. He said there is a lot to take out from the inside first. He said during the Planning Commission consideration of the walkup window there was a lot of discussion about safety and making sure there is some separation between the window and sidewalk to allow for queuing. In response to that, he said they are looking are creating side panels. Mr. Balay reviewed plans for the entry and walkup window. He stated they will be applying for two projecting signs, one on each street. He asked whether an exposed neon tube would be prohibited; Mr. Pogge responded that the design guidelines prohibit such signage. Mr. Balay said they would be starting from the inside out on the exterior façade, going to the second floor looking for the original size window and looking at the attic to see what the current parapet is on. He said the investigative demolition would begin first and said the exterior façade renovation will likely be halted by winter and not be completed until next year. He said he would be returning with proposals for the storefront and signage at the HPC’s October meeting. Mr. Lieberman said his concern is not with a franchise, but that the façade is treated with respect. OTHER BUSINESS Heirloom Home program update and review – Mr. Pogge asked Commission members to review the final drafts of the property write-ups for the first year of the Heirloom Home project and forward any comments to him as soon as possible. He also reminded members that their assigned photos are due by the end of the month. CLG grant consultant – Mr. Pogge stated RFPs were sent out in July, with two proposals received, one from The 106 Group and the other from Donald Empson. Mr. Pogge stated the primary difference in the proposals was that The 106 Group proposal was to do 220 property inventories, while Mr. Empson’s proposal was for 300 inventories. The RFP was for 300 inventories, and on that basis staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to Don Empson for the CLG grant to complete the second phase of the Heirloom Home project. Mr. Eastwood moved to recommend that the Council award the CLG grant and hire Mr. Empson to do the second phase of the Heirloom Home project. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Demolition Ordinance review – Mr. Pogge reviewed possible revisions to the Demolition Ordinance. The most recent suggested revisions, he said, retain the 50-year review 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 requirements, as the Commission indicated it wished to retain during the first discussion. Regarding outbuildings, this revision includes guidelines for staff to use in determining whether to administratively grant a demolition or refer the application to the HPC. If there is any question at the staff level, he said the application would be referred to the Commission. Mr. Pogge spoke of the amount of staff time being spent on demolition requests for outbuildings and suggested the time might be better spent on other preservation activities. Mr. Johnson suggested that the outbuildings the Commission/City would want to preserve and have closer review of are those that have the characteristics of the “Stillwater shed” and the carriage houses. Mr. Eastwood said he was uncomfortable with the proposed change and would like the applications to come before the HPC, noting that staff changes could alter the situation and that making such decisions administratively could put staff in difficult situations at times. Don Empson suggested it might be helpful to have some type of preamble to the ordinance explaining to applicants why the City is doing this to make the process a bit more palatable. Mr. Empson also noted that there is a recommendation in the ordinance that an applicant get some kind of history of the building and few applicants follow through on that recommendation; he suggested that that “recommendation” ought to be made a requirement or eliminated. Mr. Empson said he thought requiring a description/history of the structure was a good idea. Mr. Tomten asked if the requirement to obtain a short description/history of a structure could be used in tandem with the proposal for administrative review of certain outbuildings. Mr. Gag said he would be comfortable with giving staff more latitude in decisions related to outbuildings and with Mr. Empson’s suggestions, but spoke of the possibility of a future change in the ordinance to provide the City with authority to deny a demolition permit, which would be difficult under the current ordinance; he suggested that any changes to the ordinance ought to be done at the same time. Mr. Lieberman summarized the three main issues: administration review of outbuildings; requiring a history/photos for an historical record of “what was”; and providing the Commission/City with the authority to deny a demolition permit. Mr. Nelson said he didn’t think it was worth the Commission’s time to review those requests for outbuildings that are clearly of no historical significance. Mr. Johnson said the only advantage would be that it gives the Commission an opportunity to provide direction on the replacement structure. There was discussion regarding the Neighborhood Conservation District and requiring architectural review of all new structures, not just on infill lots as is the current requirement. Ms. Hudak said she would like the Commission to be a bit more proactive in trying to stop the outbuildings from deteriorating. There was discussion of providing financial incentives for rehabilitation/restoration through block grants or low-interest loans. Mr. Johnson said he thought having staff make the first review was a good start; if the Commission finds that some get by that should have been looked it, it can always revisit the ordinance or discuss with staff the ones the Commission would like to review. Mr. Pogge said he would be wiling to provide reports on applications that staff would approve. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the Commission hasn’t been overwhelmed with such requests and said he would prefer to take a more conservative approach and look at all of them unless it becomes excessively burdensome. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned and sensitive to the property owners' plight in instances where the garage is obviously not something worthy of saving, yet they have to go through the application fee, pay for the newspapers ad, perhaps an appraisal, 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 etc. Mr. Tomten said he would be in favor of administrative review and noted that the requirement for advertising the structure for sale is a “baggage” requirement that hasn’t worked as there are no sites for the structures to be moved to. Mr. Lieberman said he would be OK with allowing for administrative review of outbuildings because at the end of the day, there is nothing the Commission can do about it – reject a demolition request. Mr. Lieberman suggested at the very least, the Commission ought to have the right to deny a demolition permit as the applicant has the right to appeal that decision to the City Council; he moved to recommend the ordinance be so amended. Mr. Johnson suggested adding a subdivision three to the ordinance that includes possible language that if the Commission upon review of an application finds the structure to be historically significant, the Commission can either approve the demolition permit or deny the permit, leaving it up to the Commission to determine the structure’s historical significance and its importance in the community. Mr. Pogge noted that would require changing the definition of “historically significant,” as currently, the ordinance has a very specific definition of “historically significant.” Mr. Pogge said he would talk with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, SHPO and City Attorney Magnuson and attempt to craft new language. Regarding the suggestion to require a description/history of a structure, Mr. Tomten said he would be in favor of that. Mr. Tomten noted that the City has a contract for service with a forester and suggested it ought to have the same for the services of an historian. It was consensus to recommend that photographic and written history of a building be required of any structure coming before the Commission for demolition and one way to do is for the City to have an historian on retainer. There was discussion of possible fees. Update on municipal parking ramp – Mr. Pogge provided an update on the parking ramp project. He provided samples of the brick to be used on the front elevation and side and rear elevations and samples of stone elements. There was discussion of the proportions of the brick. On a question by Mr. Eastwood, Mr. Pogge said the final drawings are remarkably similar to what was approved. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern about the type of brick units on the front elevation, saying they don’t look correct proportionally. Mr. Johnson noted there are other brick types available with a shallower type brick or those that are poured inside of a snap-lock concrete form that have a brick face. Mr. Tomten said he did not understand the rationale for putting the shorter brick on the front elevation and questioned why long brick isn’t used all the way around. Mr. Pogge said there was an issue with structural integrity. Mr. Balay pointed out that the short brick emphasizes the vertical rather than the horizontal. Mr. Pogge noted that the Lowell Inn’s addition ultimately will be abutting the ramp, so there will be a change in brick styles. Mr. Johnson spoke in favor of the use of the longer brick units, rather than the short units, as the height to width ratio is very much the same as the common brick. The scale of the building is large, so it can support the use of the larger brick, Mr. Johnson pointed out. Stillwater lift bridge color options – Mr. Lieberman moved to indicate the Commission’s support for the green color. Mr. Johnson noted it wasn’t indicated whether the railing will be painted and suggested the railing could be painted gray if the bridge is painted green. Several members spoke in favor of gray, noting the bridge hasn’t been green since 1942. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 OTHER ITEMS Mr. Pogge stated due to the Labor Day holiday, the September meeting has been scheduled for Sept. 2. Mr. Lieberman stated his would not be able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting and announced he will be resigning from the Commission at the end of the year. Mr. Lieberman spoke of the upcoming Lakeview Hospital project and the concerns of the neighborhood and asked if the Commission had any position on the project. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the hospital’s plans for a four-phase expansion. Mr. Pogge noted that the hospital does not want to commit to phase one without having some comfort level that it will be allowed to proceed with phase two when that time comes. Mr. Lieberman wondered why the project couldn’t come before the HPC for design review; Mr. Pogge responded that the site isn’t within the HPC design review district. Members noted that in the past, the HPC has reviewed project outside of the district. Mr. Pogge suggested the hospital could voluntarily appear before the HPC or design review could be a condition of approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lieberman said he would strongly encourage the City to encourage/require the hospital to bring plans before the HPC. Mr. Eastwood suggested the ordinance should be changed to give the HPC review of all commercial projects. Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6