Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-03 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, John Bracht, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Approval of minutes: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Bracht, moved to approve the minutes of December 6, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011 -04. A demolition request for a two -story residence located at 607 Fourth Street South in RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Tim and Amy McKee, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff findings and briefly explained the demolition permit process. The applicants were present. Mr. Balay stated the request has been changed slightly to include the demolition of the garage, which is not subject to the demolition permit process. Mr. Johnson said he thought the required nine steps had been sufficiently completed and suggested the question is the justification and appropriateness of the demolition for the intended purpose of a vacant lot. Mr. Tomten asked about alternatives to the demolition, such as moving the house farther to the south on the existing lot. Mr. Balay said the house could be moved to achieve additional yard space, but the costs are so high that it is not economically feasible; he noted it would require moving the house and re- servicing of the house as the current connects would not work. Mr. Balay also stated that even repair at the existing location has an extreme negative feasibility. Mr. Zahren asked the applicants if they were aware a demolition permit would be required when they purchased this property; they responded in the affirmative. Mr. Zahren asked if Don Empson had been contacted for an opinion regarding the historical significance. Ms. McKee stated she had spoken with adjacent neighbors and both have signed letters of support for the demolition; she noted it has been a rental property for many years with a history of police calls to the property. Mr. Johnson noted the house retains much of its historical character, at least from the street elevation — roof lines, window placements, etc. Mr. Johnson said the context and density of historic homes in a neighborhood make a lot of difference in preserving the historic character of a particular neighborhood; he suggested it would be nice to keep the density as there are quite a few voids in the historic fabric that have already been made. Mr. Johnson said he viewed this house as a contributing structure to the fabric of the neighborhood in the historic context. The applicants stated this particular house is not worth saving and was sold for the value of the land alone. Mr. McKee stated they live in Stillwater because of the architecture of the homes and this structure is not representative of those homes; he said there has been so much damage done to it that it is not revivable. There was discussion of the applicants' previous demolition request for a garage, which resulted in another use being found for that structure; Mr. Balay stated the intent was never to tear down that garage, but applying for the demolition permit was a hoop the applicants had to go through in order to do what they wanted. Mr. Tomten, who visited the interior of the house, said overall, this house is not a Victorian gem 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 but is more of a workman's house with not a lot of ornamentation inside or outside; he said the one saving grace on the interior is some of the wood floor work. Mr. Tomten noted the house has been divided into a duplex; he described some of the interior elements, such as 1950s tile, popcorn ceiling. He also described the basement and addition to the rear; he noted there is some pretty bad dry rot on the floor structure. Overall, he said there might be some question about the moveability of the structure based on the deterioration of some of the floor joists, but above the main level, he said the walls seem fine. He said, basically, the salvaging factor of the structure would be its shell and said he could understand where the costs would get high to renovate the structure. Mr. Tomten said what bothers him most is the request for a demolition to be turned to green space, and he noted that renovation will always cost more than new construction. Mr. Lieberman noted that, historically, Stillwater was made up not just of fine homes, but workers' homes and more modest structures and suggested it would be wrong if the City attempted only to save the so- called jewels. Mr. Pogge, who also went through the interior of the homes, agreed with Mr. Tomten that the flooring is the most attractive feature, but even with that, there are some issues, he said. He said the basement on the north side is beginning to cave in and there is a lot of deterioration with the floor joist system. He said, inside, there is no historic integrity; there are several window openings that are not original, but said there is still pretty good form of the home, with a lot of the characteristics of homes one sees in Stillwater. Mr. Pogge noted that no home from the 1800s is unmodified, but agreed that it will take a substantial amount of work to get the structure up to par. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was dosed. Mr. Lieberman said from the exterior, this structure appears to be a good example of a particular style of working persons' housing and he would have difficulty seeing this demolished. Mr. Zahren agreed with Mr. Lieberman's earlier comments about the importance of preserving workers' homes as well as the homes of the wealthy lumber barons. Mr. Goodman said he was not greatly impressed with the house, except for some merit in the street view; he said he wasn't sure the structure adds anything to the historical impact of the neighborhood to leave it there, given that it is next door to a somewhat similar house. Ms. Cook asked Mr. Balay if he had done any historical research regarding the house; Mr. Balay said he found no significant event or ownership associated with the house and found that it was turned into a duplex sometime in the 1930s. In discussion it was noted this home could quality as an Heirloom Home. Ms. Cook spoke of the need to protect as many older homes as possible. Mr. Johnson noted this home is in the Neighborhood Conservation District and suggested that designation speaks strongly, especially in respect to the Demolition Ordinance. He said the intent is to maintain the historic nature of the Neighborhood and each house, grand and less grand, have a presence in that Neighborhood. He said this house has, from the street elevation, straight lines that indicate that the building is sound, at least in its shell. What the HPC looks at, he said, is the exterior of the building; what has been changed or lost on the inside, he said isn't part of the public viewshed and not part of the HPC's charge to preserve. He noted that information had been submitted on all 9 items as required by the Demolition Ordinance, but the Ordinance also gives the HPC the ability to deny based on several rationale, one of which is that the house does contribute to the Conservation District is it part of. Mr. Johnson said good economies and bad economies are the two hardest factors in historic preservation; from an historic standpoint, he said he thought the structure was valuable to the block. In looking at the nine steps, he said he was concerned with the future use, which he said he didn't think was City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 adequately addressed; he said use as green space doesn't seem appropriate in an historic district with a fairly high density of housing. He also suggested that alternatives weren't addressed to any exhaustion. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the demolition permit, based on items 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Bracht said his concern is that this is the tip of the iceberg in this economic climate; he suggested that the City could lose 20 -25% of the 1880s housing stock if economics is the determining factor in such demolitions. Mr. Bracht said the purpose of the ordinance gets back to preserving the cultural heritage of the City, and to lose a large number of these homes because of the economic climate would have an impact on that cultural heritage. Mr. Krakowski asked what would happen if the applicants didn't buy the structure given it is in foreclosure; Mr. Lieberman noted it would revert to the bank. Mr. Krakowski said he was torn, but noted the applicants did know what they were getting into when they bought the property. Mr. McKee said they bought the property knowing the condition of the interior; he said they understood the risk, but said they didn't think for a moment there would be an issue with this house being gone because of its condition. The applicant said the only other people who would have considered purchase is developers who, if they couldn't demolish it, would let the structure sit on the market and get in worse and worse repair. Mr. McKee said that they decided to take it upon themselves to make the neighborhood a better place. Mr. McKee said no one would put in the money required to renovate the house; he said this will become more of a blight on the neighborhood, nothing that is historically significant. Mr. Tomten suggested the possibility of creating another foundation to the south of the existing building and moving all or a portion of the structure to the south and then reconfiguring the lot line so the applicants get a bigger yard. Mr. McKee stated they are not doing this just to get a bigger yard, the house is in terrible shape and falling down, and he said people who have lived there have not been good neighbors. Mr. Tomten said the demolition ordinance isn't in place to keep people from tearing things down — it's more of a delay mechanism to get people to consider alternatives to demolition. Mr. Tomten said, if the motion on the table should fail, he would ask the applicants if they would take another month to explore the option of moving the structure and reconfiguring the lot. At that point if there is no contractor willing to take on the project or willing to move the structure, options would have been exhausted, he said. Mr. Johnson pointed out that moving the house would not require a demolition permit, so if the permit is denied, the applicants could still explore Mr. Tomten's suggestion. Mr. Lieberman said he wouldn't be comfortable with a denial at this point; he said he would support something that would give everybody a month to explore options and said he would consider Mr. Tomten's suggestion a motion, to table for a month to allow the City staff, individuals, Commission members to work with the property owners to see what, if any, other alternatives exist. Mr. Lieberman seconded Mr. Tomten's motion. There was a question of procedure; Mr. Lieberman explained the procedure regarding an antagonistic motion. Mr. Johnson said as long as the applicants are looking at other uses of the property and understand the Commission's hesitance regarding the demolition request, he felt taking another month to consider would be a good approach. Mr. Johnson withdrew his motion in favor of the second motion; Mr. Zahren agreed to withdraw his second. Mr. Tomten said his motion would be to table action for a month to look at options for relocating the house on site and reconfiguring lot lines to the agreement of the applicants or other feasible alternatives. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Belay asked if the onus is on the property owners, saying he has already gone through the design exercise of joining the two houses, moving the structure in question and no options have anything but negative economic dollars associated with those alternatives. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 what the property owners learned is that the Commission likely would have denied the demolition permit so they have a month to work with that new information. Ms. McKee invited Commission members to take a look at the inside of the structure. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 2011 -01. Design review of signage located at 225 Chestnut Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. Mary Beth Johnson, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request for lighting of the existing sign. The applicant said there would be three fixtures. Mr. Johnson asked about the type of bulb that would be used, nothing there would be concern about using a white, fluorescent lighting. Mr. Johnson moved to approve, clarifying that three fixtures will be utilized, that the type of Tight bulb used be more of a warm light rather than fluorescent or hot light, and that the mounting not be on the brick or anywhere that would damage the parapet trim. Mr. Bracht seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011 -02. Design review of a signage located at 1798 Market Drive in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Crosstown Sign, applicant. A representative of the applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. The applicant explained an issue related to replacement of an overhead door. Mr. Johnson said he thought the sign presents itself well through the sign band space. In discussion regarding lighting, the applicant stated the existing lighting will be utilized. There was discussion about the condition regarding the color of the paint of the overhead door; a representative of the applicant suggested matching the tan color of the service door. Mr. Tomten moved to approve as conditioned, clarifying condition No. 3 that the brick will be painted to match the adjacent brick colors and the overhead door painted to match other doors on the building. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011 -03. Design review of signage located at 1815 Greeley Street South in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. Airmed Biologics, Inc., applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. The applicant was present, noting that there are two distinct business areas, with two separate manufacturing areas and many deliveries are made at the other end of the building. He said he tried to make the signage something people could see but was unobtrusive. In discussion, it was noted there were two previous businesses at the location, with a variance granted for two signs. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted and conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011 -05. Design review of signage located at 450 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Marty Larson, applicant. The applicant was present; she briefly explained the nature of her business as requested by Ms. Cook. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Johnson noted a sign plan was previously considered for this building. Mr. Pogge said this sign does follow the other signage in the building. A representative of the applicant noted there is another location for the sign, which they would find preferable for visibility, and asked about the process for getting approval of the alternative location. Mr. Pogge noted that technically that would not be a street location; Mr. Johnson said he recalled the sign plan designated the band above the windows along the street side. Mr. Krakowski moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 NEW BUSINESS Design expansion discussion at Trinity Lutheran Church Mr. Tomten stated when design guidelines were developed a number of years ago, they focused almost entirely on the retail land use and Main Street applications. He said the idea of new buildings off Main Street was secondary to the main focus at the time. He said with this proposal representing the second potentially new building construction, non - retail use off of Main Street, he thought it would be helpful to have an informal discussion of what that means and how it might be different from retail. Mr. Tomten said if there is a missing element in the design guidelines, it might be that the guidelines don't cover land uses other than retail very well. He suggested that with the Post Office building, an opportunity may have been missed to ask, from the City's standpoint, what a Post Office in the 21 century means to the City and downtown. He suggested that this discussion should focus on what a church in the 21 century means to a downtown setting; he also suggested the discussion should include architecture and architectural styles. Ms. Cook thanked Mr. Tomten for facilitating the discussion and said she appreciated the idea of discussions on the front end rather than being in a position of reacting to things. Mr. Lieberman talked about history as a moving /evolving concept as it relates to architecture. Dan Poffenberg, pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, Paul Holmes, chair of the building and design team, and Tom Johnson of HGA Architects were present. Pastor Poffenberg gave a brief history of the church's decision to remain in the downtown area and land purchases subsequent to that decision to allow future expansion at the current site. He stated the discussion at hand centers on the current Post Office and potential changes to the south end of the church building; he said the church has been working with HGA for the past three years to do an internal study of its space needs. Mr. Holmes said the HGA study identified the need for more meeting space, more adult education space and space for alternative worship and performance venue that could seat 150 -200 people, as well as a new entry to the church that solves some of the entry confusion that exists with the 3rd Street and Fourth Street entryways. Mr. Holmes said they moved from programming to some block planning where they looked at what would happen if they were to remove the existing Post Office and get permission to remove the existing garages that are adjacent to the Post Office. He said the block planning that was settled on indicate the church could develop the northwest corner of the parcel that currently houses the Post Office and do an addition to the church there that would house adult education on the lower level and meeting spaces and an alternative worship space on the upper level. He described potential vehicular traffic patterns. He said the goal would be to do something there that would be a landmark building that would relate to Myrtle Street, the downtown, and take advantage of the river views, something that in its architecture would express the kind of welcome and transparency and energy that exists in the church community. He talked about the challenge of the existing architectural language of the church as that might lead the architecture of the new addition in a direction they probably don't want to follow, a very ecclesiastical look. He said they are looking at a building of perhaps 15,000 square feet which makes it difficult to take elements of a much smaller scale and pull them into something that makes sense. He said they would like to know the HPC's feeling about a building that is more forward looking, that doesn't look historic and stands in some contract to the existing building. Mr. Lieberman said he was excited about the concept of forward- looking architecture as without that it becomes a matter of replication or something worse. He suggested looking at history as a solid foundation rather than an anchor. Mr. Johnson spoke of the changes to the church through expansions; he said he understood the intent is to leave the primary church as the foundation of City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 this proposed building expansion and to show in architecture how things have evolved, both with the use as with the architectural style, but leaving the existing church in its form without removing the steeple or altering or burying it in the architecture. A church representative pointed out there is some deferred maintenance that needs to be done to the steeple, but the desire is to preserve that. Pastor Poffenberg suggested that what the HPC might see in plans might be bold, with a conversation with the past but not literal at all with what is there; he said the desire to express transparency and openness may result in something dramatically different than what is currently there. Mr. Johnson said he thought that would be possible as there are three different sides to the building that are visible and different ways of approaching it architecturally; he said he thought the Third Street side, near the Episcopal church and traditional part of the Trinity church has the historic element, but continuing around the other elevations which don't have the historic elements, there is more opportunity to do something dramatically different. Mr. Tomten suggested keeping an eye on the human scale. Mr. Tomen said no matter what style or approach is taken, the common element throughout a walkable, liveable community is the human scale and some feeling of humanism to the building; if that element is lost, he said, the public is lost. Mr. Pogge noted the Comprehensive Plan envisioned buildings close to the sidewalks so pedestrians can interact. Mark Balay said he thought the most dangerous thing for this building would be forcing it to mimic the historic elements; he noted that contemporary is completely acceptable in a National Register historic district because it calls out the differences between yesterday, tomorrow and today. Pastor Poffenberg asked at what point should they come back to the HPC, noting that they will be requesting the removal of the current Post Office building and the adjacent garages; Mr. Pogge noted that a demolition permit will be required for the garages and suggested that anytime the church gets to the point it has a good form to the building might be a good time to come back to the HPC. HPC members encouraged the church to come back as frequently as desired as plans progress. Election of chair for 2011 Mr. Lieberman said he would like the opportunity to serve as chair for another year. Mr. Johnson said he thought it is good to change things up from time to time and give others the opportunity to serve if anyone is interested; he said he thought it healthy to make rotations on occasion. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten both said they would not be interested in the position. Mr. Bracht, seconded by Mr. Goodman, nominated Mr. Lieberman to serve as chair for 2011. Mr. Krakowski and Mr. Zahren both said they would not be interested in the position. Mr. Lieberman said he would accept the position for one more year only, agreeing that the position does need to rotate from time to time. Mr. Johnson said he would be willing to serve as vice chair again. Mr. Lieberman encouraged all members to feel more comfortable in participating in discussions. Mr. Johnson spoke of the need to be mindful of the HPC's charge in enforcing design guidelines and ordinances. Motion passed unanimously. Demolition Ordinance Review Mr. Pogge suggested setting up a subcommittee for this task as it will be a time consuming effort. He asked three members to serve on the committee, noting that the committee will likely meet several times a month in February and March. He said he would like the committee to complete its work by April or May, with a recommendation forwarded to the full Commission and Council. He said the recommendation could be anything from keeping the existing ordinance to making wholesale changes. Mr. Lieberman said he thought it would be important to have input from a long- standing member of the Commission along with someone who is relatively new to City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, January 3, 2011 the Commission as they might bring different perspectives to the committee. Mr. Tomten expressed concern about forming a subcommittee and said he thought there was some direction given at the retreat; he said he would hate to have a whole year transpire without having anything done. Mr. Pogge agreed this is something he would like wrapped up fairly quickly, but said he thought it important to get input from key people, rather than just have staff draft a proposal. Mr. Lieberman said he thought there was some direction given regarding the issue of substantial renovations, clarification of the authority of the Commission to deny a permit if the nine steps are met, and strengthening of some of the definitional portions of the ordinance. Mr. Krakowski agreed that he thought the direction was to have more teeth in the ordinance. Mr. Johnson said he thought what came out of the retreat was that there is an interpretation that leaves out the whole idea of denial. Mr. Pogge stated the original ordinance did not get codified correctly; that has been corrected he said, but said he thought there is still room to clarify the definition of demolition and give more specific reasons for denial. Mr. Johnson agreed that the definition of a demolition needs to be clarified and there needs to be a clearer understanding of the justification for denial. Ms. Cook noted that the volunteer law clerk could be of great assistance in looking at case law and other ordinances. Rather than a subcommittee, Mr. Johnson suggested that for the next meeting staff look at some of the key items from the retreat and review other demolition ordinances to see how those key items have been addressed or could be addressed, and then have the Commission focus of key items it wants to see changed. Mr. Pogge suggested that if the desire is to have this done at the Commission level, two meetings a month be scheduled; it was consensus to spend an extra hour per meeting to complete the task rather than have an additional meeting. There was discussion of the definition of renovation vs. demolition; Mr. Balay pointed out building code does define that, drawing the line at 50% of the value of the structure. Mr. Pogge said there is case law for definition that involves removing a primary wall or removing more than 60% of secondary walls, etc. In was agreed to have the February, March and April meetings begin at 6 p.m., with the demolition review discussions at 6 and the regular meeting beginning at 7 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary