Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-03 HPC MINPresent: Howard Lieberman, Chair, John Brach, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Approval of minutes: Mr. Brach pointed out he was not officially a member as of the April 5 meeting; he was in attendance as a visitor. Mr. Brach also noted a misspelling of his name, Brach, not Bracht. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval of the April 5, 2010, minutes as corrected. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 2010 PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM /DR/2010 -09 Demolition request for a 1 -1/2 story duplex and to consider a request for review of a new residence to be moved onto the property in compliance with the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) requirements at 415 Sherburne St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Stephen Schaffer, applicant. Scott Wille, owner of STW Construction Services, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Lieberman briefly reviewed the request and some information regarding the condition of the existing structure. Mr. Johnson noted for the record that the existing structure is a duplex, not a single - family home, as indicated in one portion of the agenda material. Mr. Wille noted that the existing garage will remain, not be demolished, as indicated in the agenda material. Mr. Johnson said the information submitted in support of the demolition request does cover the nine required points for issuance of a demolition permit. Mr. Johnson said he thought one of the big elements in considering a demolition request is how much a structure contributes to an historic neighborhood, as well as the architecture of the structure. Mr. Johnson pointed out that much of this neighborhood was on the fringe of Stillwater's development at the time it was built with many of the neighboring homes from the 1950s and that vintage. Mr. Johnson said, unfortunately, this home is in poor condition and is a reminder of what poor maintenance over the years and lack of attention to maintenance can do; he said that is demonstrated in the letter from the insurance carrier. Ms. Cook asked how long the current owner has owned the property; Mr. Wille responded that the applicant has lived there for the 20 years he has owned the house. Mr. Zahren wondered whether the applicant would take any better care of the home he proposes to move to the property. Mr. Wille said there are medical conditions involved with the maintenance of the house. Ms. Cook said in her view each of these old homes are stand -alone homes, with historical significance based on age alone; she said she was concerned about the precedent of tearing down a building that looks better than a number of others in the City. Mr. Johnson agreed with the concern regarding demolition by neglect and some people's notion that because it is an old house it doesn't warrant the maintenance and care to preserve it or the effort to rehab it when the house gets to this condition. Mr. Brach said he would not like to see a home of this vintage demolished, but he said he thought the letter from the Semple Building Movers talking about the conditions of the sills and joists is pretty significant problem when it gets into rehabbing a home like this. Mr. Goodman said if the house had kept its original look, without the numerous alterations over the years, it might have been a modest addition to the neighborhood, but after what has been done to it through the years, it appears as an "unfortunate example" of domestic 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 2010 architecture. Mr. Goodman said he didn't see what could be done with the structure to make it look any better or make it any more livable. Mr. Johnson noted the packet addresses all the nine items required for the issuance of a demolition permit and said as the owner wants to stay at this location and there's no reason to think the owner will make an effort to rehab the house, he said he did not see a change in direction in this project by holding out for other opportunities. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the demolition permit as submitted. Mr. Brach seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. The resident of 1125 Pine St. spoke in favor of approval of the request for demolition. He spoke of the many additions to the original structure. He said residents in the neighborhood would appreciate the approval. Mr. Lieberman noted that included in the documentation are a number of letters from nearby residents all in support of the plans, along with several other letters that were received the day of the meeting. Mr. Lieberman said he was troubled by this request and noted that it is not often that a request for demolition of an entire house comes before the Commission. While not a pristine example of 1875 architecture, Mr. Lieberman suggested that history is an evolving concept and as the City begins to lose an historic property here and an historic outbuilding elsewhere, it begins to lose the fabric of Stillwater. He also said he was troubled by demolition by neglect over a period of 20 years, for whatever the reason. He agreed that the cost of rehabbing a house is expensive and economic need is a consideration. However, Mr. Lieberman noted there are a lot of historic house in Stillwater that are simple workers' houses, not homes of B &B quality, and as they are "shrugged off" one at a time, there will be nothing left over a period of years. He said he didn't know if the Commission should automatically approve a demolition because a house needs some work that will cost more than it would cost to demolish and put another structure on the lot. Ms. Cook noted this is the Heritage Preservation Commission and identifying and protecting historic structures is the Commission's overriding responsibility. The resident of 1125 Pine St. said he would like to see something newer or something done to the existing structure because of problems that have occurred there, including a recent drug overdose. Mr. Zahren noted that tearing the house down and replacing with a 1960s home isn't going to solve any drug problem; Mr. Wille clarified the drug problem involved a renter, not the homeowner, and that renter is gone. Mr. Wille said he has been working with the applicant ever since the applicant received the first letter from his insurance company looking at various options from re- roofing to jacking up the basement, and explained how they got to the proposal to move a new house onto the property. Mr. Lieberman suggested that the money proposed to be spent on buying and moving the new structure onto the property would go a long way to improving the existing house. Ms. Cook wondered whether the structural engineer who provided an opinion in this matter has expertise in older structures. Mr. Brach said according to the materials submitted, there is no doubt the existing structure can be renovated and said he thought the numbers provided were very realistic cost estimates. Mr. Wille noted that the costs could go much higher than estimated depending on the conditions of the joists. Mr. Johnson, who noted he is a structural engineer by trade, talked of the problems that can be observed just by looking at the exterior of the structure; he expressed his concern that it is neglect that gets a structure, such as this, to the condition where it is not economical to continue to maintain /rehabilitate the structure — it becomes an economic decision rather than one of historic preservation. Mr. Johnson said he would like to see the existing home stay, but said his motion still stands based on the ordinance, suggesting that perhaps the HPC needs to have some additional discussion regarding the current ordinance. Ms. Cook wondered how much economic considerations have impacted HPC 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 2010 decisions in the past; Mr. Johnson stated economic considerations are included in the ordinance to have the homeowner think about other options, but is not a consideration for the HPC in making its decisions. Mr. Tomten asked how long the owner has had a renter; Mr. Wille said for at least 15 years. Mr. Tomten asked about the estimate for a new structure; Mr. Wille said that was based on square footage. Mr. Krakowski asked if the cost for jacking up the house included the addition; Mr. Wille said the cost was based on removing the addition. Mr. Wille said when he got involved in this process, he did not expect to be at this point, noting that he contacted four firms regarding jacking up the house and only one responded, the others wouldn't touch the house due to its condition. Mr. Wille also stated both an architect and structural engineer believe there have been at least four additions to the original structure. Ms. Cook asked if there are any unique features to the interior of the house; Mr. Pogge said it is primarily modern inside. Mr. Lieberman suggested that any action be based on the fact that the house has gone through such substantial renovation since initially constructed that little of the integrity of the house dating back to 1875 is still intact. Mr. Lieberman also suggested that the action reflect the fact that the house is in such a state of deterioration that if left the way it is, it could become a hazard. Mr. Johnson said while not part of his formal motion, his motion was based not only on the fact that the request meets the requirements of the ordinance but, as stated in his preface to the motion, also on the fact that the house proper has had significant modifications over the years where the original historic integrity has been diminished by those additions, along with the fact that the condition, unfortunately by neglect, has gotten to the point where many of the historic elements of the house are lost or would be difficult to maintain or replace. Mr. Brach seconded the amendment to the motion. Ms. Cook wondered about trees on the lot that might be removed during the process of moving a new structure onto the lot; Mr. Pogge said by ordinance that is limited to 20% of the trees on the lot, removal of any more would require the property owner to submit a replacement plan for trees of similar size. Motion to grant the demolition permit passed 6 -1, with Mr. Lieberman voting no. Regarding the infill design review, Mr. Lieberman noted there are infill design guidelines that must be followed. Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson noted the mass of the proposed replacement structure is very similar to the rest of the neighborhood and of the same vintage as neighboring houses. Mr. Brach said he appreciated the porch addition. Mr. Wille said they want to do something to the front of the house. Mr. Johnson noted there are two views to the house and what appears to be the front may have been a side door, which is why it appears somewhat awkward compared to neighboring houses; Mr. Wille explained how the house would sit on the property. Mr. Johnson suggested that the porch helps make cover up the lack of window symmetry and make it appear more of a front. Mr. Tomten agreed that the porch helps and noted that one of the characteristics of the older architecture of the town is the focus of the living space on the street either using porches or bigger windows facing the street. Mr. Tomten asked about the possibility of adding a window to the kitchen space to enhance the impression of being the front of the house; Mr. Wille explained the interior of the house and placement of the electrical services which would make that difficult. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the infill design review permit, with the added condition that the contractor has expressed an interest in preserving the existing trees at the front of the property. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion. Mr. Zahren asked about the front porch, whether it would or would not be included. Mr. Tomten said his motion includes a front porch as indicated in the submitted plans. Mr. Wille clarified the condition regarding the trees -- that any tree removed outside of 6' from the house must remain. Motion passed 6 -0, with Mr. Lieberman abstaining. Mr. Tomten wondered whether if the City 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 2010 had a low interest loan program available, which, he said, might have made a difference in this case. Mr. Wille responded that the owner likely would have made application to such a program. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2010 -08 Design review of proposed renovation of building exterior at 201 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. Continued from April 5, 2010, meeting. Brian Larson was present, along with a representative from Gartner. Mr. Johnson clarified that the project was proceeding with the plans approved last month, with the existing side windows filled in and the awning treatment as discussed and approved; Mr. Larson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Larson provided color samples, a gray for the painted metal — sunscreens and steel channels above the windows and metal panels that form the cornice. A scale model of the proposed signage, two -sided projecting sign, was also provided. The Gartner representative explained some of the details of the proposed sign, including mounting and edging. Mr. Larson said they would propose the signage to be down lighted with a linear fluorescent fixture or a smaller LED linear version. Mr. Tomten asked about the sheen of the color, noting that if the paint is as reflective as the sample, the lighting of the sign will be very difficult. Mr. Larson said the paint would not be a high gloss. Mr. Johnson noted there are street lights and signal pole nearby and wanted to be sure that the proposed signage and sun shield do not obstruct the view of the signal Tight and that the signal pole /street lights don't result in too much competition for the building signage. Mr. Larson said he has viewed the angles and the signage doesn't come close to the street lights; the signage projects 3'4" from the face of the building so it won't come close to having the impact that the larger overhang previously did. Mr. Johnson suggested perhaps moving the signage to the other side of the canopy; Mr. Larson said the Gartner group liked the proposed location but said he could bring that issue to their attention. Mr. Tomten said he thought a gooseneck fixture, rather than a linear fixture, works better on a wall application at controlling the light; he suggested a linear fixture might result in glare issues that might reduce the effectiveness of the signage. Mr. Tomten suggested using several steel channels to recess the Tight fixture in the channels and hang the sign down between the channels. Mr. Larson said the fixtures they are looking at are adjustable at the one access; Mr. Larson said they would look at that suggestion. Ms. Cook asked about the flags; the Gartner representative stated they are proposed to add a graphic, color element and would not contain any verbiage. Mr. Lieberman said he liked the banners and color addition. Mr. Larson stated there is a possibility the owner would like to add some accent lighting to the exterior of the building; he provided a drawing and possible fixtures of some proposed exterior lighting, which he said is not a definite proposal at this point. The exterior lighting would be behind the sunscreens so they would not be visible, with perhaps one centered by the main window and on the north side under the main panels of brick to provide a pool of light; he said they would have to look at the building at night after it is opened to see if that might make sense. Mr. Johnson clarified that at this point there is nothing proposed for the east elevation other than the continuation of the cornice. Mr. Krakowski spoke in favor of the more modern look of the lineal fixtures as opposed to the gooseneck fixtures. Mr. Johnson said he thought the proposed accent lighting helps fill in the extra space and provides more "windows" to the building at night, but said he was a little concerned with the light that projects off the end and said he agreed with Mr. Tomten's suggestion to bring the sign in to hide the fixture within the framing. Mr. Larson said they could look at that suggestion to see if it works but said a concern might be from the straight on 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 2010 elevation that if the sign is set in, it would sit somewhere in the void instead of the brick. Mr. Tomten said he liked the idea of accent lights but said his concern would be that the fixture not provide a hot spot or bright bulb look at the bottom. Mr. Larson said the accent Tight is quite small and should not be an issue as viewed from across the street. Mr. Johnson noted for the record that the staff report does not indicate whether the signage is lighted. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the signage with the four conditions listed in the staff report, with a fifth condition that a linear light fixture is proposed for the projecting sign or some other recessed or fully concealed lighting method, and a sixth condition approving the accent lights as described in the handout dated May 3, 2010, with the condition that the accent lights be fully shielded. In was noted that it is location of the Tens, not the light source, that is of importance. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Cook asked if there are any restrictions from MnDOT regarding projections from the north side of the building; Mr. Pogge said staff and applicant are having conversations with MnDOT. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2010 -10 Design review of signage for Dollar Tree at 2070 Market Drive in the BP- C, Business Park Commercial District. Anchor Sign, LLC, applicant. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant was unable to be present. Mr. Pogge stated the business is expanding into an adjacent location. Mr. Johnson said while not an issue with this sign, he thought there were sign criteria specific to this location; Mr. Pogge said he would look into that. Mr. Zahren moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Extension request for Design Review Permit No. 2008 -35 at 1221 Broadway St. N., new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the requested extension. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson noted the permit was approved July 7, 2008, not 2007 as indicated in the agenda information and the extension should be to July 7, 2011, not 2010 as indicated. Mr. Lieberman accepted the scrivener corrections as a friendly amendment to the motion. Amended motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pogge stated he had met with Mike Koop at SHPO and would be meeting with him again. The Preservation Awards will be presented at the May 18 Council meeting, he said. It was noted the next retreat session will be at Teddy Bear Park on Wednesday, May 30, at 6 p.m. Mr. Lieberman expressed his concern about the demolition process that occurred during this meeting and suggested that some "tinkering" should be done with the demolition ordinance as it stands. There was discussion about the possibility of a City low- interest loan program or other incentive program to assist with rehabilitation of homes. Mr. Pogge suggested that language needs to be added to the demolition ordinance that makes it more of a delaying ordinance — currently the ordinance is primarily a "make application" ordinance. Mr. Pogge also suggested that the ordinance has to have some rational basis for denial — a local designation district or denial of properties on the National Register or a combination of the two. Mr. Johnson noted that the current ordinance doesn't provide a strong position for denial if an applicant covers all the nine points required by the demolition permit. There was additional discussion about the demolition permit issued previously in the meeting and alternatives to demolition. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 3, 2010 Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary