Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-07 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 7, 2011 Workshop Session A workshop session to discuss the City's demolition process was held at 6 p.m., prior to the regular meeting. Chair Lieberman called the session to order at 6 p.m. In attendance were Commission members, Micky Cook (6:20), Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Howard Lieberman, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren; Planner Mike Pogge; and James Hanneman, law clerk volunteer. Mr. Hanneman reviewed pertinent demolition ordinance case law and spoke of the constitutional issues related to takings of property. There was discussion of the implications of the Penn Central decision as it relates to demolition and historic preservation. Mr. Pogge said the Penn Central case, which found there should not be an expectation of profit over and above what someone purchased into, has a good implication for the heritage preservation setting. Mr. Hanneman said an ordinance can result in some potential loss /cost to a property owner as long as it is not so great as to represent a taking. Mr. Hanneman noted that an historic preservation ordinance will impact a certain number of properties disproportionately to other properties, but in the Penn Central case, the court found that is ultimately justified. The court ruled that disproportionate impact does not represent a taking because there is reciprocity of advantage in that the owner of an historic property benefits from other historic properties being available in a community — everyone's property values go up because of the historic properties that are present, it becomes an identify of a community. On a question by Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Hanneman said generally Minnesota courts apply the Penn Central factors across the board; he said there have been very few takings in Minnesota based on historic preservation ordinances. Mr. Pogge reviewed state statute which defines powers the Commission needs to have. He pointed out that while a city has the authority to enact a demolition ordinance according to state statute, a city is limited, by that statute, to designated properties. Mr. Pogge noted that Stillwater has about 3 designated residential properties and about 73 commercial properties. Mr. Pogge suggested that if the Commission wants some long -term direction, it needs to look at local designation and other tools. He questioned whether the City has the legal right to deny a demolition of a structure that is not locally designated and suggested that the local designation is the piece that is missing in the existing ordinance. Mr. Pogge noted that establishing such a district will require a good amount of time and communication with the public. Mr. Tomten referred to the city of Minneapolis's ordinance, which provides for a 180 -day delay in demolition permits and suggested that is a good tool for a community to come up with alternatives to a demolition of a certain property; Mr. Johnson said he thought the 180 days would help to make people think twice about demolition and perhaps reconsider that decision. Mr. Pogge said he also liked Minneapolis's approach of requiring staff review of all requests to determine whether to refer the property to the Heritage Preservation Commission to determine whether the property ought to go through the designation process. In discussion, it was noted establishing a local designation district has been discussed for many years, and the neighborhood studies were seen as beginning that process. Mr. Johnson suggested that, as with a national historic district, the local district will include both contributing and non- contributing properties and noted that establishing a district will not solve all the issues related to demolition requests. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 7, 2011 There was discussion of what constitutes "partial demolition." In conclusion, Mr. Pogge suggested that the Commission consider asking the Council to establish a task force, including a cross - section of representatives, to consider the various tools available. He said he thought the HPC should have one more workshop session to more clearly establish what it would like any task force to accomplish and set a work plan to take to the Council. Related to the local designation district, he said he thought the Commission ought to pursue that as will be discussed at the 7 p.m. meeting. The workshop session was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Lieberman called the regular meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Howard Lieberman, Reggie Krakowski, Roger Tomten (8 p.m.) and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: John Bracht Approval of minutes — Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of Jan.3, 2011. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; 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. Continued from January 3, 2011 meeting. Mr. Pogge stated Mr. Balay, on behalf of the applicants, had submitted additional application material since the previous meeting /discussion. He referred to the three alternatives to demolition and options for rehabilitating the home provided by the applicant and noted the applicant believes those costs far exceed the value of the residence. He also noted the applicant provided additional information regarding the proposed reuse of the property. Also, the applicant submitted information pointing out that the South Hill survey completed by the HPC listed this property as not being a contributing property to any future South Hill designated historical district. Mr. Pogge noted that staff, based on City Code requirements, has found that, from a Code perspective, this structure does not meet the threshold for being historically significant; he said staff also believes the applicant has completed, and gone above and beyond, the nine steps required by ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that because this property is not marked as being a contributing property in the South Hill survey map does not mean it might not be potentially contributing to a district, and he noted that it was listed as a potential Heirloom Home in the more recent survey done by Mr. Empson. In discussion, it was noted that there is some information missing from that initial South Hill survey. Mr. Balay referred to the additional information provided regarding 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 7, 2011 economic justification and the proposed reuse plan. Mr. Johnson verified that the plan for the reuse would result in an additional saleable parcel as described by the applicant. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson noted for the record, that several letters from neighbors had been received in support of the proposal. Mr. Goodman suggested that Mr. Balay's cost estimates for the alternatives to demolition were very conservative. Mr. Krakowski said he thought the additional information was very helpful; Mr. Zahren agreed that the additional information helped justify the proposal. Mr. Lieberman said he thought this was a more complete packet with the additional information regarding economic justification and plans for reuse. Mr. Lieberman said he did not see a basis for denying this request based on the current ordinances. Mr. Johnson spoke of the importance of preserving the overall homogeneous qualities /integrities of neighborhoods that is not based on monetary value; however, he suggested that until the City establishes a district that defines and sets boundaries for historic neighborhoods, it would be difficult to deny the request. Mr. Goodman moved to grant the demolition permit. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman echoed Mr. Johnson's comments. It was noted conditions recommended by staff were included in the motion. Motion to grant the permit passed unanimously. Case No. 2011 -06. A demolition and infill design review request of a single family home located at 1411 Carnelian Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. James Nelson and Elizabeth Whitbeck, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Nelson provided a bit of the history of the house, noting it has been in Ms. Whitbeck's family for many years. Mr. Nelson stated their desire for a first -floor addition was what ultimately led to this request. Also, he said they wanted to add a foundation for the structure and modernize the plumbing, which requires hooking up to City sewer. He said those plans require raising the elevation of the structure by about 3' to deal with water issues due to the topography of the property. He talked about other improvements they would like to make to the structure to make it livable for them. In developing plans for the improvements with an architect and structural engineer, a number of issues with the structure were discovered and it was found that the existing structure could not support the improvements. He said they were left with three options: building a new structure basically within the old; removing the second floor, strengthening the first floor and building a new second floor and roof as new construction; or demolishing the existing structure and constructing a new house. He reviewed the cost estimates for the options and the money they have already spent on the project and said the most feasible option for them is to demolish the existing structure and build a new house that has the same flavors as the old house. He noted elevations for the proposed new structure are included in the packet. He noted the only things that will be visible from the exterior of the new house are a change in the roof sections so they have a 12' pitch. He said the footprint of the new structure will stay essentially the same as the existing house but will be slightly taller. Mr. Lieberman suggested this request is different from the usual requests for demolition in that the applicants have lived in the house for a number of years and have a personal history with the property. Ms. Whitbeck said the new house will be almost the same as the old structure except larger and said they would be saving a lot of things from the old house to reuse in the 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 7, 2011 new. There was discussion about the requirement to advertise the structure for sale and whether that was applicable in this instance. Ms. Whitbeck spoke of the items they are planning to reuse and would not like to lose if the house was sold; Mr. Johnson pointed out that they would not have to sell the entire house, just the shell of the existing structure, and could make conditions in the advertisement that would still meet the requirement of the ordinance. Ms. Whitbeck asked if there could be an exception in this case since they are living in the house and have not where else to live. Mr. Lieberman questioned whether there could be an exemption from that requirement in that this is a unique situation with a substantial portion of the old house to be used in the new construction. Mr. Johnson suggested the best approach would be to meet the letter of the requirement by advertising the structure for sale with conditions regarding the items that are to be reused. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Goodman suggested that advertising the house for sale excluding the windows, doors and other items to be reused would essentially be advertising for demolition of the house. Mr. Johnson suggested it is unlikely someone will make an offer to purchase the house given the conditions, but he said it would fulfill the requirement of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the demolition permit based on the eight items submitted and that item 9,evidence the structure has been advertised for sale, be submitted to staff before the issuance of the permit. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion. There was additional discussion regarding requirement for advertisement. Motion passed unanimously. Plans for the new structure were included in the agenda packet. Mr. Nelson briefly reviewed the plans, including plans for windows, siding, exterior lighting. Mr. Johnson noted plans pick up a lot of the details of the original house, but suggested that before the original house is removed, some of those elements, such as sash areas and width of corner boards, be measured so those details will be accurately represented. Mr. Lieberman noted that while the HPC doesn't favor replication, this is a unique situation in that the applicants do wish to replicate a home that has been in the family for many years. Mr. Johnson moved to accept the plans for the infill design review as outlined. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 2011 -07. Design review for the construction of a 15,480 square foot, single -story medical office building located at 2900 Curve Crest Blvd in the CRD, Campus Research Development District. Dan Regan, applicant. The applicant was present. He spoke about his company and plans for this development as a two -phase medical office use. He said there likely will be five tenants between the two buildings when fully developed; the anchor for phase 1 is Health East, he said. He said they have worked with Jim Bradshaw regarding some of the private deed restrictions for the property and said they are meeting the criteria set forth in the private covenants. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 7, 2011 Mr. Regan briefly reviewed elevation plans, building materials, roof lines and materials, fascia colors, lighting and other details. He said they had worked with Mr. Bradshaw and his landscape architects in developing plans and had incorporated those review comments in the landscaping and design of the property. Regarding lighting, he noted there was inconsistency between adjacent properties on the height of the light poles and said they plan to use 25' high poles set flush with the ground. On a question by Mr. Tomten, Mr. Regan said they were not applying for a sign permit at this time, just the design review permit; he said when sign designs are completed, those plans will be brought back for HPC review. On a question by Mr. Lieberman, the applicant reviewed plans for the trash enclosure. Mr. Bradshaw was present and said he thought the applicant had respected the intent of the covenants on the property and what he was intending to accomplish with the property he sees as a gateway to the City. He said he was comfortable with the plans he has seen. Mr. Johnson asked about the potential second building and whether it is seen as a companion to this first building or a different architecture. Mr. Regan said the second building will be a mirror image of this first building. He pointed out the size of the second building is limited by drainage calculation, impervious surface coverage and parking requirements but said whatever size building is constructed will look very similar or identical to the phase 1 building. Mr. Johnson moved approval as submitted and conditioned with the clarification that a sign permit application be submitted at a later date and is not part of this approval. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS John Daley of the Freight House was present with a request to have the ice bar again this season. He said the bar would be placed in the same location and would have the same wrap. He said the request is to set the bar up permanently, but operated on a temporary basis. Mr. Lieberman asked what would happen when ice bars are no longer popular; Mr. Daley said in that event, the structure would likely be torn down. He noted the temporary permit with the City is good for 90 days, with a possibility of extending that to 120 days, while Washington County health department's permit is for 180 days. He said setup and tear -down of the structure is the biggest expense. He said they would like to have the bar for several summers and are requesting the permanent permit to minimize those setup /tear -down costs. Mr. Johnson said he saw the ice bar structure as a bit incompatible with the Freight House building, which is a National Register property; he said he thought the structure was OK on a temporary basis, but would be concerned if left up year- round. Mr. Daley pointed out the location of the ice bar on the patio mitigates the visual impact; he wondered if a different wrap might help. Mr. Lieberman said he shared the concern about the permanent location in conjunction with an historic property, and expressed a concern that if the ice bar becomes less popular, the structure could end up being used as storage and could become an eyesore. Mr. Daley said the ice bar takes away seating from the patio, so if it becomes passe, it will be removed because of the importance of the patio seating. Mr. Zahren asked about the possibility of adding a condition that the ice bar be used for its intended purpose or removed. Mr. Johnson pointed out that as a temporary use, the structure doesn't fall within design guidelines; if it is looked at as a permanent structure, the design guidelines for accessory structure come into play. Mr. Lieberman noted there would be a 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 7, 2011 lot more flexibility in presentation if the structure is considered a temporary one versus one that would be restricted by design guidelines. Mr. Daley then inquired about the possibility of changing the timeframe for the temporary use, such as allowing up to 180 days, which would be consistent with the County's timeframe. It was noted the timeframe is not the purview of the HPC. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was noted the request for a temporary structure will come back to the HPC, and Mr. Daley can pursue possible changes to the temporary permit timeframe if he chooses. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Pogge told the Commission that the Council has authorized staff to proceed with development of a facade renovation program. He said the program will be a combination grant/loan program for facade improvements. He reviewed the details of the proposed program. There was discussion of TIF funding. Mr. Pogge stated some of the details of the program have yet to be worked out. He said, as proposed, projects would come before the HPC for review and recommendation as to which projects get funded under the program. Mr. Pogge reviewed his memo regarding the CLG grant to create a local designation district and staff recommendation to pursue a district for the North Hill as that is the smallest area, has a slightly higher percentage of property owners who have elected to participate in the Heirloom Home or Landmark sites program, and the area has previously been surveyed. He suggested this would not be an easy process due to public perception. He said the North Hill may not be the most significant but said he thought it was a good starting point due to the size, previous survey and level of voluntary participation in the Heirloom /Landmark programs. Ms. Cook asked whether all members of the Commission supported moving forward with the designation. Mr. Johnson noted this has been a goal of the Commission for many years, and he spoke of the opportunity of utilizing this grant cycle. Ms. Cook wondered whether sufficient groundwork has been laid for making the request of the Council at this time. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Council has been supportive of the past architectural surveys with the goal of establishing a local designation district, and this is the next step in that process. There was discussion of some of the questions the Council might have. Mr. Tomten moved to support the North Hill designation district. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman, second by Mr. Johnson. 6