Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-04 HPC MINDemolition Process Workshop — 6 p.m. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 Present were Howard Lieberman, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Planner Mike Pogge. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed his memo in preparation for the joint City Council /Heritage Preservation meeting scheduled for June. The memo covered the current state of housing and state of historic housing in the City, demolition review and design review processes, preservation districts, rental housing inspection, property maintenance code and time of purchase inspections. Discussion of the state of housing focused on vacancy rates and pricing. Mr. Tomten questioned whether the City has put too much emphasis on the older housing stock as serving as the City's affordable housing; Mr. Pogge talked about several affordable housing efforts /options. Several suggestions were made for changes in the wording of the section regarding the state of historic housing in the context of affordable housing. In discussion, Mr. Pogge said it was his intent to provide this background information to the Council in preparation for the meeting so there can be a more meaningful discussion of the HPC's concerns /goals at the joint meeting. Mr. Johnson suggested that perhaps too much emphasis in the housing section was placed on vacancy rates and market values rather than the importance of historic housing stock to the identity of the City and the concern that housing stock is being placed in jeopardy. Regarding the section on demolition review, Mr. Tomten suggested indicating that the current ordinance has served as a delaying mechanism and there have been some success stories as a result of applicants having to rethink alternatives. Mr. Pogge pointed out that if, for example, there was a request for demolition for the Sauntry Mansion and the nine steps required by the ordinance were completed, the HPC would be hard pressed to deny the request; he said he thought the basic structure of the ordinance is good, but it needs more tools. Mr. Pogge also said he thought serious consideration ought to be given to having some approvals at the staff or sub - committee level. Ms. Cook suggested it would be good to have specific examples for the Council discussion. There was discussion of implementing a locally designated neighborhood conservation district versus individually designated properties. Mr. Lieberman raised the issue of the definition of demolition, speaking of substantial renovations that totally alter the historic character of a property. Mr. Pogge agreed that there should be a better definition in the City code. Mr. Tomten suggested, and other members agreed, that draft language for a revised demolition ordinance should be put together for the joint meeting, rather than asking the Council to authorize a task force to review and recommend possible changes. The discussion regarding design review focused on the lack of design review for residential areas. Mr. Johnson suggested that this outcome, as with the demolition process, should not be another task force but a recommendation to establish historic districts so design guidelines would apply to those districts. Mr. Pogge noted that if an historic district is designated, a very specific set of guidelines would apply to that district. There was discussion as to how specific guidelines should be versus more general guidelines related to massing, setbacks, etc. being consistent with a neighborhood. Mr. Tomten pointed out that the current conservation guidelines 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 were developed with the thought that they could also be applied to renovations and additions. Mr. Lieberman suggested there should be a distinction made between constructive demolition and substantial renovations; Mr. Johnson suggested that there should be a change made to the current language regarding the threshold of when design review is required. There was discussion about the recommendation to appoint a task force versus submitting proposed changes to the existing conservation design guidelines for the Council's consideration so those guidelines would not be limited to infill housing. Mr. Pogge suggested there will be considerable opposition to that change, which is why he recommended that task be given to a task force. It was consensus to draft proposed language for the Council's consideration. It was decided to continue the discussion at the end of the regular meeting. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Chair Lieberman called the regular meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: John Bracht Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/2011 -11. A demolition request for a garage located at 516 Myrtle Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Steve Thron, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Thron stated the structure was a horse stable at one time; he said the structure is in such bad shape, they can't obtain insurance for the building or contents. Mrs. Thron read a letter from a neighbor at 122 N. Harriet St. in support of the requested demolition. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine steps required for issuance of a demolition permit, questioning whether listing the structure for sale on Craig's List meets the requirement for advertisement for sale; Mr. Pogge stated while that has never been defined, staff and the Commission have accepted Craig's List as meeting the requirement in the past. Mrs. Thron noted that they have received several inquiries from the ad. Mr. Lieberman suggested that moving forward, applicants be made aware that there are means, other than local newspapers, that can be used for publicizing a structure for sale /move. Mr. Pogge noted that in the RB District, there is a 1,000 square -foot limit on the size of garages; he said the existing structure is 1,200 square feet, so the applicant is grandfathered up to that size, but would need to request a variance from the Planning Commission for anything exceeding that size limitation. Mr. Johnson noted it appears the applicant is trying to pick up the steeper roof pitch and characteristics of the existing structure in the elevations provided for the new garage. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Steve Wahlquist, 121 N. Martha St., spoke in favor of the request, noting that the existing structure is not historic with aluminum soffit and fascia and is an eyesore as viewed from his property. On a question by Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Wahlquist indicated he would not be opposed should a new garage occupy a bigger footprint than the current structure. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. On a question by Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Thron reviewed proposed materials for a new garage, vinyl siding, steel roof and cement slab. Mr. Lieberman asked about exterior lighting; Mr. Thron said there is an existing light for the walkway to the apartments which will be utilized. Mr. Johnson suggested it would be nice to bring in a bit more of the detailing of the salt -box appearance in corner boards and trim around the openings; he also suggested that any lighting of the individual garage units should be done under the soffits, rather than a wall pack or carriage light on the door. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to approve the demolition request; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the replacement structure based on the submitted drawings, with the recommendation to bring out some of the details of the original building in the new architecture and the condition that any lighting be concealed, down - lighting, noting that approval is based on the square- footage allowed by ordinance and as grandfathered by the size of the existing structure. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -08. Design review for signage on an existing pole located at 14130 60 Street North, Advanced Dermatology Care, in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Northern Sign Solutions, applicant. Continued from the March 7, 2011 meeting. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. A representative of Advanced Dermatology was present. Mr. Johnson asked about the changeable signage, noting that it was his understanding that is limited to gas station prices; Mr. Pogge stated code does not address changeable message signs, noting that the code only prohibits LED, except for gas station and bank uses. The applicant suggested that it would be awkward and dangerous to manually change lettering and questioned why it would not be allowable to have an electronic sign that is static that could be changed on a weekly basis. Mr. Johnson asked about lighting; the applicant stated it will be internally lighted. Mr. Johnson suggested that the proposed white background, especially when internally lighted, becomes overpowering to the text; he suggested several alternatives the applicant might want to consider. The applicant asked for suggestions regarding lighting of the changeable portion of the sign; Mr. Johnson suggested the only way to Tight that is from the face of the sign, rather than from behind. The applicant asked that the issue of some type of electronic signage that could be changed on perhaps a weekly basis be revisited; Mr. Lieberman said he wouldn't be averse to looking at electronic signage options. Mr. Johnson suggested that the applicant also look at changes to the background and perhaps external lighting. Mr. Lieberman moved to table this case, with the applicant to work with staff and return with options regarding changeable signage technology. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -12. Design review of a new store front located at 114 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. HAF Architects, representing Laura Hoefler, applicant. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 Mike Hoefler of HAF Architects reviewed the proposed plans, which he said include removing the existing storefront in its entirety; plans include the use of raised wood paneling and piers at both the north and south ends of the storefront. He said the proposal also includes metal mullions, with a wood -clad window, fabric awnings and shutters between the upper level windows. Mr. Johnson asked about the piers on either side, which he said results in the narrowing of the storefront; the applicant stated that piers were incorporated as the existing beam is missing and terminates into the adjoining building. Mr. Tomten noted the design guidelines call for the retention of as many of the existing materials as possible and asked about the existing brick bulkheads; the applicant stated they are painted and don't match the regular brick on the building. Mr. Tomten questioned the addition of the side piers and changing the material of the bulkhead. Another representative of the applicant spoke to the condition of the existing brick bulkhead; Mr. Tomten clarified it is the applicant's intent to leave the brick bulkheads but cover them up. Mr. Tomten said he would be reluctant to approve the piers on the side and altering the storefront in that regard. Mr. Tomten asked if consideration had been given to doing a brick infill in the upper level masonry openings to match and replace the masonry that had been removed; Mr. Hoefler stated they did do that and could not find a brick that was even close to the former brick and said they did not want the appearance of being patched. Mr. Hoefler stated the piers are intended to soften the appearance and to bookend the storefront so it has a center and two flanking panels; he noted the pier is currently missing from the south end. Mr. Tomten asked if there was evidence there had been a pier at the south; the applicant said there is evidence based on what holds up the beam and said that is consistent with historic architecture. Mr. Johnson confirmed the windows would be framed out in wood; the applicant said they are proposing a two -inch thick oak door. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the angle and the way the fabric awnings are anchored to the upper masonry. The applicant provided samples of the proposed color of the storefront. Mr. Lieberman spoke to the importance of this building to the downtown historic district, but also spoke to the desire to have someone buy and maintain a building rather than having that building sitting empty and deteriorating. Mr. Goodman said he thought from an appearance standpoint, plans are a noticeable improvement over the existing storefront. Mr. Tomten expressed concern about the awnings and the way they are supported on the windows; he spoke in favor of utilizing a more traditional awning configuration. Mr. Tomten also expressed concern about the piers and the detailing of those; Mr. Zahren suggested the owner take a look at the awnings on his building. On a question by Mr. Zahren, Mr. Goodman said the proposed plans are representative of older, historic storefronts. Mr. Hoefler said the sign proposal is basically an extension of the existing blade sign. He said the sign would not be lighted. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hoefler reviewed plans for the transom. There was additional discussion about mullions /windows and glazing system. Mr. Tomten reiterated his concern about the use of non - traditional materials and detailing as it relates to a traditional storefront, including the wood - paneled piers and use of metal in the window glazing system. Mr. Tomten noted it is helpful for the HPC if it receives construction details to assist in decision - making; he said he would be reluctant to vote absent those construction details. Ms. Cook, Mr. Krakowski and Mr. Zahren all stated they like the general appearance of the plans, with Mr. Zahren pointing out that Mr. Goodman had indicated the plans are representative of a storefront that might have found in the late 1800s; all expressed concern about the brick and the proposed awning anchoring. Mr. Hoefler said they could City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 change the awning anchoring and make a frame, rather than having it suspended. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the building front is not original to the structure, including the brick below and glazings; he said the things he is concern about are those that are original and long -term to the building, the masonry in the lintels above the windows, and he said that concern is addressed with the change in the anchoring of the awnings. Mr. Johnson pointed out this is an infill building between the two adjacent buildings and said it is possible the top header does frame into the neighboring building; he suggested the current width is likely the original storefront width, which he would like to see retained. Mr. Johnson suggested making the pier narrower and look more like a covered column, rather than a framed panel. Mr. Krakowski moved to approve the facade plans as submitted and conditioned and with the change to the awning system. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Zahren asked Mr. Tomten whether the absence of detailed constructions plans was still of concern. Mr. Tomten responded in the affirmative and Mr. Zahren suggested adding a condition that before building permits are issued, construction plans be reviewed by City staff. After additional discussion, Mr. Krakowski agreed to that friendly amendment. Motion passed 3 -2, with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten voting no. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign as submitted, with the clarification that the sign will not be lighted. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2009 -19. Design review of drawings for review of the Third Street Office Building located at 107 3rd Street North in the PA, Public Administration and CBD, Central Business District. HAF Architects, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the history of the project, previously approved changes to the plans and the new proposed modifications. Mike Hoefler of HAF Architects was present. He explained the reason for the requested exterior stairway is due to the sale of the lower unit. Also, he said, the Post Office is requiring a change in the orientation of its stairs. Mr. Johnson asked about the material of the stairs and whether the stairs cross in front of several of the lower windows. Mr. Johnson verified that code allows the stairs to be open if properly maintained; Mr. Hoefler noted these plans are very similar to what was done at the library. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hoefler said the stairs would be visible from Myrtle Street at certain points, although partially screened by the adjacent building to the east. Mr. Hoefler briefly described the proposed enlargement of the building on the west elevation, with the facade extended to accommodate the stair to the lower unit. Mr. Tomten asked if thought had been given to re- centering the windows in the mass. Regarding signage, Mr. Hoefler said they would be coming back with a sign package and are not requesting approval at this time. Regarding the proposed change to window style and layout on the east and north elevations, Mr. Hoefler noted they were told they could not have a sign on the north side of the building, the location of a previously proposed Post Office sign, which provided an opportunity to add a window, so the north and south elevations will match. The other major modification requested is changing the exterior of the loft from brick to the rain screen; Mr. Hoefler said they did not think brick looked appropriate on the second floor above the rain screen pieces on the lower level. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 Mr. Tomten asked about the new roofing material on the flat portions; Mr. Hoefler stated that would be concrete. Ms. Cook verified that people could gain access to the building on a flat surface, without having to go up and down stairs. Mr. Tomten noted it appears the retaining wall on the east side has changed; Mr. Hoefler said the wall has been moved so as not to encroach on the neighboring property and that property owner is aware of the change. Mr. Tomten suggested changing the material to be consistent with the wall as it comes from the parking ramp. Mr. Johnson asked if staff had looked at any drainage issues; Mr. Pogge noted submission of a drainage plan is a condition of approval. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the exterior stairway, especially as it goes up to the third floor and will be visible at that higher elevation; Mr. Hoefler said there is no way to accommodate the second egress unless the loft area is eliminated. Mr. Tomten suggested that having to utilize an exterior stairway is understandable with an existing building, but not with a new structure. Mr. Hoefler reiterated this system is the same as is on the library. Mr. Pogge said he had looked at the stairway proposal and said he believes the stairway will have limited visibility. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hoefler described the location of the rooftop units. On a question by Mr. Tomten, Mr. Hoefler stated the landscaping plans have not changed; Mr. Pogge pointed out that installation of landscaping per approved plans remains a condition of approval. Mr. Tomten expressed concern about the exterior stairway, saying he did not want that to become common practice for new construction. Mr. Hoefler spoke of the conditions and uniqueness of the building that contributed to the ultimate need for the exterior stairway, and he spoke of the numerous exterior stairs in the immediate neighborhood; he also stated he did not think the exterior stairs detracts from the overall design of the building. Mr. Johnson verified the stairs would be a dark color similar to the color of the rain screen, and that the stairs would be solid tread with enclosed riser. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the design as presented April 4, 2011, and as conditioned, with any minor modifications (condition 8) to come back before the Commission, and stating that while the Commission does not favor exterior modes of egress, there are certain circumstances where due to design, security or other considerations, external egress becomes a necessity and in this particular instance, the Commission considers the exterior egress an adequate response to the exigencies of the building and tenants. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -1, with Mr. Tomten voting no. Case No. DR/2011 -13. Design review of signage for "Pub Monique" located at 112 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Michael Hammer, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request, noting that this sign has grandfathered status for size. Mr. Johnson asked how the size got that far over the allowable square footage limit, suggesting the previous sign was not approved and therefore this sign does not have grandfathered status. In discussion, it was noted that the ornamentation on the sign likely was not included in determining the size. Mr. Tomten asked if the surface would be glossy or matte; the applicant stated it would be matte finish. Mr. Tomten moved to approve with matte finishes, with a condition that the wording of the sign, Pub Monique, be within the limits of the sign ordinance, 28 square feet. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson clarified for the record that the verbiage will conform to the size limits of the ordinance and there is no grandfathering issue involved. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 NEW BUSINESS North Lowell Park and pedestrian walkway - Mr. Pogge noted the City hosted an open house regarding the plans the previous week. He stated many positive, constructive comments were received. He reviewed the plans and various options with the Commission. On a question by Mr. Zahren, Mr. Pogge stated Commercial Street west of Main will be left pretty much as is, with only minor changes such as lighting and surface treatments. On a question by Mr. Zahren, Mr. Pogge said it is expected work at some level will begin this fall and will be coordinated with the Corps of Engineers project; he said he anticipates this project could be completed by June of 2012. There was discussion of an issue with the Corps project. There was discussion of downtown business reaction to plans; Mr. Zahren said the main concern is with the potential disruption and length of that disruption. Preliminary designs for the bathroom also were distributed. Mr. Johnson said, from an historical and HPC's perspective, the straight, linear walkway system seems more appropriate. Mr. Zahren suggested the City should be thinking about more than just getting people from Main Street to the River. There was discussion about Mulberry Circle and making that part of the park versus parking for PD Pappy's. Mr. Johnson spoke in favor of the linear walkway as being more historically fitting and suggested the restroom facility should be west of Water Street or it becomes the only prominent structure in the viewshed; he also questioned the plantings around the top of the crescent of the amphitheater. Mr. Tomten talked of the opportunity to create an urban plaza, the City's outdoor living room, rather than a suburban park atmosphere, and of the opportunity for this to serve as a "front door" for various activities in the park. Mr. Lieberman agreed with Mr. Tomten's comments and spoke of the lack of vitality in the plans. Mr. Johnson spoke of keeping the footprint of the restroom facility as small as possible, hidden behind other uses, such as utilizing roof overhangs for a bus stop. Mr. Johnson said he thought the formal gardens south of the gazebo was a good location. Mr. Pogge asked members to forward additional comments to him. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Johnson brought up the issue of a non - compliant sign on Greeley Street; Mr. Pogge said staff is aware of that and will take action. Mr. Pogge said prior to the next meeting he would talk with other cities that have standards regarding LED signage in reference to the request by Advanced Dermatology. There was discussion of vacancies on the Commission. Mr. Pogge reviewed his comments regarding preservation districts, rental housing inspections, property maintenance code and time of purchase inspections in his memo for the joint Council /Commission workshop. He noted that his recommendation is that the Council should consider funding $7,000 - $10,000 a year to complete the local designation districts. Mr. Tomten pointed out that there will likely only be three or four districts and it might be good to let the Council know that is a limited funding commitment. Regarding rental housing inspections, Mr. Pogge suggested utilizing the private sector approach; Mr. Johnson suggested raising the fee to cover the cost of the City hiring an inspector. Mr. Pogge spoke of the reluctance of the Council to hire any new staff and suggested utilizing the private sector is a way of getting a program started with no cost to the City. Mr. Tomten suggested that at time of property transfer, design review could be required of older housing stock being converted to rental units. Regarding property maintenance code, Mr. Pogge noted there is really no solution at this time without hiring new staff; Mr. Johnson suggested instituting the rental housing inspection program would City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, April 4, 2011 solve a good portion of problem properties. There was a question as to whether rental housing inspections would be done on an annual basis; Mr. Pogge said inspections would be required every two or three years, but an annual application and fee would be required. It was suggested that be made clear in the memo to the Council. Mr. Johnson noted the City has no business license program, so it is difficult to track the actual building owners and business types; there was discussion of the value of such licensing for economic development. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary