Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-14 CPC MIN Special MeetingCity of Stillwater • Neighborhood Conservation Program Public Meeting December 14, 2005 Community Development Director Steve Russell explained the purpose of the meeting was to discuss infill design guidelines for the downtown, the initial charge given to the Heritage Preservation and Planning Commissions. That charge was expanded to include ways to recognize historic structures and the historic significance of residential areas. The Heritage Preservation Commission, he explained, has developed an Heirloom Housing Program, one part of a Neighborhood Conservation Program. The second part is the infill design guidelines, and the third part modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to help guide development to be more consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods. An infill subcommittee has been meeting since August. Paul Teske, chair of the subcommittee, gave some introductory comments. He noted that every time a proposal comes forth that might alter the face of neighborhoods or the community; people come forward en masse to express concerns. People, he said, come forward because of the fear of the unknown - they want to know how a proposal is going to impact their property or neighborhood. Many concerns can be addressed by referencing the City's Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. However, he said, there are some unknowns that those documents fail to address and most of those are related to infill development. Those concerns led Council to direct members of the Planning and Heritage Preservation Commissions to develop guidelines to address some of the concerns. The subcommittee, he said, has strived to ensure that the proposed guidelines serve as a tool and not a hindrance to preserve that which we value in the community. Councilmembers in attendance, Dave Junker, Ken Harycki, Mike Polehna, were introduced. Subcommittee members in attendance were Roger Tomten and Jeff Johnson, of the HPC, and David Peroceschi and Robert Gag, Planning Commission, along with consultants Brian Larson and Don Empson. Other Commission members in attendance were Gregg Carlsen and Suzanne Block, Planning Commission, and Howard Lieberman, Phil Eastwood, and Larry Nelson, Heritage Preservation Commission. Don Empson explained that he served as a consultant to the Heritage Preservation Commission. The HPC's mandate this contract year, he said, was to find some way of identifying historic houses in Stillwater that merit recognition. The, purpose of the Heirloom Housing Program is to acknowledge/reward those owners who have preserved or restored the integrity of their old homes; to serve as an educational tool that will inspire and encourage others to preserve/restore the integrity of their old homes; and overall preserve the historic neighborhoods, the defining characteristic of Stillwater. He explained that due to staff time and other considerations, as proposed, he would survey and identify the homes in the older part of the City that still retain the look and the feel of the 19th century. The list of addresses will be submitted to the Heritage Preservation Commission to gain the Commission's input to see if members agree with his judgment. At that point, Mr. Empson will contact owners to obtain permission to use a photograph of their house and address on the Heritage Preservation Commission web page. The web page also could include lists of educational resources on preserving/restoring old homes, he said. He noted that Council approval will be required in order to proceed with contacting property owners for permission to post the photos/addresses on the web 0 page. City of Stillwater Neighborhood Conservation Program Public Meeting December 14, 2005 Mr. Junker asked how the Heirloom Housing Program would relate to the infill design guidelines. Mr. Empson said the Heirloom Housing Program was primarily in response the Heritage Preservations Commission's desire to come up with a way to designate the historic houses in Stillwater. Mr. Russell said the Heirloom Housing Program relates to the infill design guidelines by recognizing the historic resources of a neighborhood and what is special about a neighborhood. There was a question as to whether this would be an ongoing program. Mr. Russell responded in the affirmative and suggested that perhaps, depending on response to the initial contacts, neighborhoods could be resurveyed every five years or so. Jeff Johnson noted the HPC presents awards to recognize restoration efforts in the downtown area on an annual basis and suggested that perhaps that might be expanded to include residential properties. Brian Larson reviewed the infill design guidelines and proposed Conservation District. The guidelines, he said, give some general ideas as to how a building might fit on an infill lot. The guidelines are arranged according to scale and, he noted, that the larger scale guidelines, those related to massing, for example, affect residents the most. The purpose of a Conservation District, he explained, is to preserve the character of a neighborhood, as well as property values. A map of the proposed district was included in the packet and displayed at the meeting; the district boundaries are basically based on homes constructed during the lumbering days of the City's history. The guidelines, he said, provide a common framework to develop plans. The guidelines are just that, he said, rather than hard and fast rules. He explained that, as proposed, infill new is construction in the Conservation District will require design review. Key elements of design review include: massing, scale and roof forms; character in relationship to the neighborhood, street and adjacent houses; siting and natural features; details, color, materials and landscaping. Guidelines 1-3 deal with the larger scale of a new building; guidelines 4-5 also deal with larger scale details; guidelines 6-9 deal with preservation of the natural features of a site; guidelines 10-11 are related to garage placement/scale; guideline 12 also deals with size and mass; guidelines 13 and 14 relate to porches/accessory buildings; guideline 15 relates to four-sided architecture, carrying design details around a house on all four sides; guidelines 16-20 all deal with design details and how to use those details authentically; guidelines 21-26 are "good neighbor" considerations such as minimizing run-off, minimizing the impact of exterior lighting and respecting the privacy of neighboring properties. Mr. Larson also briefly addressed the design review application and checklist. Mr. Junker asked how restrictive the design review process would be. Mr. Larson said he didn't think the intent was to be restrictive; he said the guidelines provide enough flexibility to accommodate almost any style of building. Mr. Empson said there are certain areas/neighborhoods in town that are predominately of certain architectural styles. Howard Lieberman, chair of the HPC, said the intent was to provide basic guidelines that look at fundamental issues, using common sense to try and be a good neighbor. The guidelines are not meant to micromanage what style of house can be constructed on an infill property, he said. Mr. Johnson also noted that the guidelines are meant to serve as an educational tool, to bring awareness to people as to the . characteristics that make a neighborhood special. A member of the audience suggested that "remodeling" also should be addressed in the guidelines. Mr. Russell said the City of Stillwater . Neighborhood Conservation Program Public Meeting December 14, 2005 charge to the subcommittee was to deal with development on vacant lots, and at this point the guidelines do not apply to remodeling. However, he said there are processes in place for any demolition and variance applications. Suzanne Block also questioned why additions/remodeling were not included. Mr. Russell reiterated that was beyond the scope of the charge from the City Council and gets into issues of privacy; he also noted review of such projects would require substantially more staff time. Mr. Lieberman also suggested that when change is made, it is sometimes wiser to proceed in small steps. Mr. Russell and Mr. Lieberman also noted that the City Council may choose to regulate remodeling/rehab in the future should problems become severe. Another member of the audience talked of potential issues related to extensive remodeling in Dutchtown and suggested that the next step needs to be considered. Mr. Johnson pointed out that most of the basic guidelines could apply to remodeling projects. Mr. Johnson said, hopefully, if this new process works well, it can be expanded in the future. Mr. Junker suggested the proposed guidelines would work very well for major remodeling projects; he said the question is where to draw the line - dollar amount, design, square footage. Mr. Empson noted that the majority of Stillwater's "affordable" housing is located in the older portions of the city where the smaller houses are located, and he noted that in the future there likely will be more and more pressure to expand the size of the houses. Mr. Russell addressed the design review process. He said basically the design review is a public hearing process. The applicant would have to fill out the application and checklist, submit plans including building and site plans; staff reviews those plans; and then a public hearing held by the Heritage Preservation Commission. If the plans are denied, the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Russell noted the infill design process is not unlike that currently in place for the downtown area, and he noted the Heritage Preservation Commission has a very good track record in working with applicants. Also, he pointed out that every house in the Liberty/'Legends developments went through a design review process, so this is not new to the City. Mr. Russell also reviewed possible changes to the Zoning Ordinance to deal with new development on the small lots in the RB District. The major proposed changes include requiring a minimum lot width of 70' for corner lots; requiring that garages be placed 10' behind the front of the house; and restricting the maximum building coverage to 25 percent of a lot. Another change relates to building height depending on lot size. The proposal would also eliminate multi-family use in the RB District. There was a question about the starting point for determining building height; Mr. Russell said currently that is determined at finished grade, but there is talk of changing that to street- front grade. Mr. Polehna questioned the requirement for a public hearing. Mr. Johnson explained the intent is to accommodate the "good neighbor' part of the process and provide a forum for the community to express concerns. Mr. Polehna suggested the public hearing could become a "not-in-my-backyard" forum and said he would be more comfortable with HPC review, rather than subjecting applicants to such a hearing. Mr. Gag suggested that having plans presented lets neighbors know what to expect. Mr. Lieberman agreed that once people see plans they feel more comfortable. Mr. Harycki said he thought the guidelines were great and the Council should discuss whether to expand the process to include major remodels/tear downs; he spoke in favor of adopting 0 the guidelines now, rather than later. City of Stillwater 18 Neighborhood Conservation Program Public Meeting December 14, 2005 There was a question as to whether there is a follow-up process to determine whether submitted plans are actually implemented. Mr. Russell noted that there is a certificate of completion process but suggested that Commission members are often the best "watchdogs" for that mechanism. Mr. Polehna asked whether any consideration had been given to developing criteria for "major' remodels. Mr. Russell noted that would require a decision of the full City Council but suggested he was certain the subcommittee would be happy to do that if given the charge. Dick Kilty asked about the proposed change related to duplexes and also raised questions about several projects that have been done and whether they would have been allowed under the proposed guidelines. There was a question about the Conservation District boundaries; Mr. Empson responded that the map represents the time of the lumbering period, which ended in 1914, and noted there was very little construction in the City from 1914 until after World War II. There was a suggestion that the checklist be expanded to include attached versus detached garages and consideration of existing easements on adjacent properties. Mr. Teske thanked those in attendance for their participation and comments. It was noted that there will be public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council levels before final adoption of the guidelines. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary • 4