Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-05 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2009 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Robert Gag Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Phil Eastwood Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval of the minutes of Dec. 1, 2008. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lieberman introduced new member Jerry “Reggie” Krakowski. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/09-01 A demolition request for a detached garage at 1004 Sixth St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ryan and Vanessa Mitchell, applicant. The applicants were present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine requirements of the demolition ordinance. The applicants spoke of the poor condition of the existing structure; they stated the building has been advertised as a give-away, with no calls received. Mr. Lieberman said it appeared the nine required steps had been followed. Mr. Johnson said he had looked at the structure from the street and it appears the garage is not one original construction, and he said he did not believe there is anything architecturally significant about the structure. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing; no comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval of the requested demolition permit. Motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 09-02 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 1004 Sixth St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Ryan and Vanessa Mitchell, applicant. The applicants were present. Mr. Lieberman read into the record a letter from Cynthia Kneisl, 1010 S. Sixth St., expressing her concern with plans for the new structure. Ms. Mitchell stated they would like to build a new 2 and one-half car garage with an apartment above. She said they have no plans to rent out the accessory unit – her mother will live there and they will use the unit when they jack up their house sometime in the future. Mr. Johnson asked about materials/design of the new structure compared to the existing house. Mr. Mitchell said the roof lines, siding and details will be the same as the original house. Mr. Johnson pointed out the house has a 12-12 roof pitch, while the new garage has a pitch of about 7-12. Mr. Mitchell said changing the roof pitch will take away more of the standing room in the accessory unit; he also noted there are three different roof pitches on the primary structure. Mr. Johnson suggested the roof pitch is a significant design element when viewed from the street and suggested lowering the side walls will provide the same usable space/height in the accessory unit. Mr. Tomten suggested the pitch of the new structure should match the pitch of the main gable of the primary structure. Mr. Tomten also said it would be important for the trim boards, fascia and soffits of the 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2009 new structure to match the main house; Mr. Mitchell said all details would be the same as the original house. Mr. Johnson asked if consideration had been given to having double-hung windows in the front of the new structure; Mr. Mitchell said that would be difficult due to the location of the bathroom in the accessory unit. There was discussion regarding Ms. Kneisl’s concern regarding the possibility of windows on the south side of the new building. Mr. Mitchell pointed out that it is Ms. Kneisl’s dwelling that is extremely close to the property line. Mr. Mitchell said he has no plans for windows on the south side at this time, but would prefer that not be a condition of approval. Mr. Johnson suggested offsetting the location of any windows on the south side to alleviate the neighbor’s concerns to the extent possible. During discussion, Mr. Mitchell also stated they would prefer to have two single doors for the garage, but thought that was not the HPC’s preference. Mr. Lieberman invited comments from the public. No comments were received. Mr. Johnson moved approval as conditioned with the additional conditions that the roof pitch match the pitch of the primary gable of the existing structure or be at least a 9:12 pitch; that the siding, corner and frieze boards and other details match the primary structure; that the garage door be two single, separated doors; and that there be no windows on the east half of the south side of the new structure. Mr. Lieberman asked that a condition be added that final plans be submitted to City staff for review; Mr. Johnson agreed to add that condition. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 09-03 Design review of signage at 2510 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Twin Cities Sign Images, Inc., applicant. The applicant was not present. It was noted in the agenda packet that the proposed sign meets the intent of the sign ordinance. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Lieberman, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS  Mr. Pogge noted the annual report to SHPO was included in the agenda packet and briefly reviewed some of the highlights of the report.  Mr. Johnson asked whether the new sign regulations for the West Business Park had been adopted and whether the HPC would receive a copy; Mr. Pogge responded in the affirmative to both questions.  Mr. Zahren asked about requirements for snow removal from sidewalks in the downtown area. Mr. Pogge stated ultimately that is the property owner’s responsibility.  Mr. Tomten asked about the status of a house on Churchill Street that is in the process of being demolished/reconstructed. Mr. Pogge stated the City granted an emergency demolition permit for the rear of the house and stated the new construction was supposed to be similar to the original. Mr. Tomten pointed out the west wall of the new construction changes the appearance dramatically. Members questioned why the project had not been red-tagged considering the project had not been through design review and the building doesn’t meet its permit specifications. After discussion, Mr. Pogge stated staff would red-tag the project. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2009  Mr. Pogge asked for input on Mr. Empson’s proposal to do several entries on houses that have been demolished as part of the Heirloom Home web site. Mr. Pogge noted that homeowner permission has been sought in the past before a home is included on the site. It was agreed that precedent should be followed. Mr. Tomten suggested that perhaps Mr. Empson could develop an article explaining how the City’s demolition ordinance came about; Mr. Johnson suggested including several alternative to demolition success stories.  Ms. Hudak asked if a demolition permit had been granted for a house on Laurel Street. Mr. Pogge responded that the house in question had been built over a cistern and was in danger of collapse.  Mr. Johnson asked if Mainstream Development had submitted the required mechanical and roof plans. Mr. Pogge stated the developers have not yet applied for a building permit. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3