Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-02 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 DEMOLITION PROCESS WORKSHOP The Commission met at 6 p.m. for a workshop to review material for the June 7 workshop meeting with the City Council and discuss the demolition process. Present were Commissioners John Brach, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren and Planner Mike Pogge. Mr. Pogge highlighted changes to the Council workshop material made subsequent to the Commission's discussion at the April workshop session. Ms. Cook suggested emphasizing immediate actions that can be taken, specifically the designation of the historic districts. Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cook pointed out there is a lot of text and suggested that the Commission's three primary issues — demolition of properties, establishing of historic district(s) to allow more oversight of degrading properties, and design review for improvements to those properties — be moved forward in the text and made the focus of the presentation. There was discussion of the section related to the state of historic housing and housing in general; it was pointed out the numbers related to short sales and foreclosures were not mentioned. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten suggested the language in the section related to the state of historic housing doesn't seem to present a real positive motivation for historic preservation. Mr. Johnson suggested emphasizing the diversity of the historic housing stock as meeting both affordable housing needs as well as the more upscale housing. In discussion of the format of the presentation, it was suggested that individual Commissioners be assigned topic areas. Mr. Pogge said he thought there should be four main areas: demolition, design review, other topics, and state of housing; he noted that the state of housing was something the Council specifically mentioned it would like to discuss with the HPC. Mr. Johnson suggested that perhaps the state of housing could be mentioned with a brief synopsis at the beginning as part of what's prompting the greater concern with the demolition, designation district and design review. Mr. Pogge briefly went through the various sections of the text, including a new section on the functions of the HPC, demolition review, design review, preservation districts, and other areas — property maintenance code, rental housing inspections, and time of purchase inspections. Mr. Johnson suggested mentioning some of the positive things the Council has done, including having the foresight to establish and HPC and approving grants for the previous neighborhood studies. There was discussion of what a property maintenance code entails; it was suggested to move the property maintenance code section to the end, as it's a program that likely won't be instituted in the very near future. Mr. Brach volunteered to discuss the housing stock issues, Mr. Johnson suggested that he or Mr. Lieberman discuss either demolition review or the reason for the HPC, with Mr. Tomten taking the design review issue and Mr. Goodman the preservation districts. It was decided to have a dress rehearsal of sorts at the June HPC meeting. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the proposed demolition permit process. Mr. Johnson suggested that the terms "historic resource" and "historically significant" need to be clearly defined; Mr. Pogge stated there are seven different qualifications listed in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Pogge reviewed the process for adopting an ordinance change. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brach, Cook, Goodman, Johnson, Krakowski, Tomten and Zahren Absent: Howard Lieberman Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/2011 -16 A demolition request for a residence at 502 Fifth St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jennifer Cates, Cates Fine Homes, representing KC Kidder, applicant. Ms. Cates was present. She explained that the applicant contacted Cates Fine Homes regarding the possibility of either remodeling or demolishing the existing structure. She said the condition of the structure and the number of additions that have been made, make it difficult to work with. She said they believe they can build something with historical character that would be of benefit to the neighborhood if allowed to start from scratch. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. There was a question from the audience as to whether demolition has been started. Mr. Pogge said the owner began gutting the interior of the home in 2008 or 2009 and also removed some of the outer siding, but the project was stopped due to financing situations; he said it was not the intent at that time to demolish the structure. A member of the audience stated the structure has been left in terrible condition, with doors left open so someone could fall into the basement; he said the safety issue of the house should have been addressed a long time ago. Kathy Gragert, 510 N. Fifth St., spoke in favor of demolition, but said she would like to see the plans for the new construction. Leo Gragert, 510 N. Fifth St., noted a stop -work order had been issued for the previous project. He said the reason was not just financial, but because it was in violation of HPC standards. Chad Sandstrom, 212 W. Cherry St., asked if this is the same owner making application for the demolition permit. Given the previous financial difficulties, he questioned whether there was some assurance there would be sufficient funding in order to make the necessary investment to do a quality project. Ms. Cates said their firm was brought into the project about 2 months ago and initially intended to fix up the exterior first and then move to the interior, but she said the more they looked into the condition of the structure, they came to the conclusion that demolition was the most feasible, as anything done to the existing structure would be a "Band Aid." Regarding plans, Ms. Cates stated they had not submitted those pending input from the HPC, noting that the HPC would have to approve the proposed plans. On a question by Mr. Sandstrom, Ms. Cates said they plan to keep the structure "tight," a two -story structure of about 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 2,000 square -feet. Mr. Zahren asked about the intentions of the property owner. Ms. Cates said she believes the owner had good intentions when the project was initially started. Michelle Deng, 512 N. Fifth St., spoke of the problems that were brought to the property, including appliances that were left open. Mr. Johnson spoke of the process, noting that one step is the granting of a demolition permit. The second step in the process, if the demolition permit is granted, is a detailed design review by the Heritage Preservation Commission; he noted there is a lot more control over the property as it goes through the demolition and infill design review process than if the demolition permit were to be denied, with a "Band Aid" remodeling done, a process that hasn't worked before. Ms. Deng asked if neighbors would be contacted regarding the demolition and possible hazardous materials, etc. Mr. Johnson said the building official would look at the property prior to any demolition work; he also noted that the structure has to be moved in an appropriate manner, with the excavation backfilled. Mr. Johnson also noted there would be another opportunity for public input when plans are submitted. Ms. Cates apologized for any safety issues, noting they were just brought on board, and said they would board the house up immediately. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten noted that the original footprint of the structure looks quite small and asked Ms. Cates if they were aware of the possible restrictions on a new structure because of the original footprint. Ms. Cates said they know it will be a small home but feel confident that they can do some creative things small square footage. Mr. Pogge spoke to the potential footprint of a new structure; he noted that the footprint involves grandfathering rights, which expire after one year. There were questions regarding setbacks in the RB District. Mr. Tomten verified that should the demolition permit be granted, there will be another public hearing regarding the infill design review. Mr. Pogge assured neighbors that the City will be making sure that the project moves along. Mr. Brach said normally he would like to see plans before issuing the demolition permit but said he understands the extenuating circumstances involved. Mr. Johnson also noted the Commission knows the intent is to construct another single - family residence and there is a requirement for design review that is more restrictive than what would normally be required of a demolition permit. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the demolition with the condition that the permit only be issued after the design review permit is issued by the HPC. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; Motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -08 Design review for signage on an existing pole at 14130 60 St. N., Advanced Dermatology Care, in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Northern Sign Solutions, applicant. Continued from the March 7 and April 4, 2011, meetings. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant is working on a new design for the sign and has asked that this be tabled for an additional month. Mr. Goodman, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to table this case. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -14 Design review for exterior painting and signage at 226 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Steve Chinander, applicant. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 Dan Carlson was present representing Mr. Chinander. He provided color samples, noting that the colors included in the packet did not produce well on the laser printer; Mr. Johnson asked that the samples be left with staff. There was discussion of the placement of the sign. Mr. Tomten asked if consideration had been given to moving the sign up; Mr. Carlson said that creates a problem for sight lines. Mr. Johnson suggested another possibility is over one of the two side windows where the transoms are out flush with the storefront. Mr. Tomten noted the band above the columns on the brick is the normal signage band area for commercial storefronts. Mr. Johnson pointed out there is also opportunity to utilize a portion of the glass area for signage for walk -by traffic. Mr. Carlson said they would be amenable to the suggested location. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign as submitted with the conditions that it be placed in the location above the header on the brick above the door, that there be no lighting and that the blade sign be removed, and also approving the colors and location of the exterior painting as requested. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion. Mr. Zahren verified that the sign would be placed so as not to interfere with the lintel brick. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -15 Design review of signage at 124 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Joan Sleem, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Johnson verified that the blade sign would not include the name of the business, just the generic "boutique," and that the signage will not be lighted. Mr. Brach, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to approve with the four conditions as recommended by staff. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -17 Design review of exterior modifications and signage at 1150 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Brian Larson, representing St. Croix Sensory, applicant. Brian Larson provided an overview of the exterior changes and proposed signage. He stated there will be very few exterior changes with the exception of the existing back drive -thru, which will be enclosed with materials and windows similar to the rest of the building. Mr. Larson stated the signage would be smaller than the existing sign, noting the top of the existing sign and the electronic message board will be removed to the top of the brick pylon cap. The signage will be placed on the brick pylon. A representative of the owners explained the nature of the business. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the design review permit as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson noted the approval included the signage as well. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR- 2011 -18 Design review of storefront renovation at 229 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District, Mike Hoefler, HAF Group, applicant. Mike Hoefler was present. He provided photos of the building when it was the Majestic Theater and as it appears today. He provided a packet showing the proposed storefront along Main Street; he said the plans also includes repair to the parapets, as well as the removal of existing openings, with new windows created to reflect into the space that is being internally built out — a new mezzanine within the existing building. Mr. Hoefler said a new storefront is proposed for the south elevation, with two openings into the existing concrete block wall, which will match in concept the storefront on Main Street. The same storefront will be repeated on the east 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 elevation, with a signage panel above the door, he said. He said the proposal also includes three new awnings along the 229 South building over the adjacent tenant. He also said they are proposing to paint the block wall on the east and south elevations. Mr. Hoefler reviewed the proposed signage to be hung off the front and rear elevations. On a question by Mr. Johnson, it was noted the signage will slightly cover the center transom. Mr. Tomten asked about lighting; Mr. Hoefler said the lighting will be in the recessed entry, with a gooseneck fixture as well. Mr. Tomten said his only question related to the sign over the door, asking if they had looked at any alternatives that would incorporate the sign above the lintel. Mr. Johnson agreed with the suggestion to move the sign up above the header. Mr. Johnson suggested the new windows look like they are too high on the forehead of the building; Mr. Hoefler explained there is brick beneath the fascia; he said the masonry opening would not be changed. There was discussion about the concept of adding a projecting sign, recreating the signage of the Majestic Theater, with the verbiage "Majestic." Mr. Johnson noted that would be allowable according to ordinance, since it does not include the business name. Mr. Johnson summed up the discussion regarding the storefront as being favorable, with the exception of the recommendation to move the sign up above the header area to occupy what is shown as the 1910 space. Mr. Johnson asked about the awnings. Mr. Hoefler said they would be closed end, fixed awnings; he provided color samples. Mr. Johnson expressed preference for the darker color palette, considering the colors of the neighboring buildings. Mr. Hoefler said the colors would carry through on the different elevations. Regarding the Majestic sign, Mr. Zahren asked about lighting; Mr. Hoefler said they would prefer that it be lighted. Mr. Zahren moved to approve the plans as submitted and as conditioned, with the additional condition that the west elevation building sign be moved up to the 1910 space; approving the Majestic sign to be lighted similar to the historic sign — not flashing or moving; and approving the darker palette colors for the awning and storefront. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR- 2011 -19 Design review of construction of a new infill building at 229 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Hoefler, HAF Group, applicant. Mr. Hoefler provided photos of what is believed to be the original building at the space in question. He reviewed the concept proposal, noting the height does not exceed 10% of the average of the two adjacent buildings, based on the gable of the 229 building and the parapet of what exists today. He said the structure would be flush with the adjacent buildings. He reviewed two color concepts and proposed materials, including wood framing, steel beam, metal or wood crown. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Hoefler said the brick will return back to the east storefront; he said the east elevation will be basically a repeat of the Main Street elevation. He said the furnaces will be interior, with rooftop units screened. At this point, he said, lighting will be recessed cans in the recessed entrances; he said an enclosure for a dumpster would be constructed. Mr. Hoefler said they would like approval for a deck and stairs coming off the east elevation; it was noted that the Planning Commission will have to consider special use permits and parking variance issues. Mr. Brach moved to approve as conditioned, with the additional condition that specific plans for the trash enclosure be submitted to the HPC at a later date, with City of Stillwater 5 Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 a preference for the lighter color palette. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR- 2011 -20 Design review of signage for a projecting sign at 208 Main St. S., Stillwater Olive OH Co., in the CBD, Central Business District. Holly Arps, applicant. The applicant was present. It was noted the wall sign will remain the same, and that the requested projecting sign will not include the name of the business and will not be lighted. Mr. Goodman approval. Mr. Tomten seconded with the suggested condition that the mounting of the bracket be in the joints of the brick as opposed to in the brick itself. Mr. Goodman accepted that as a condition. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR- 2011 -21 Design review of signage for Stillwater Liquor at 1950 Market Drive in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Chad Wichmann, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge noted the sign on the rear elevation will utilize the "Liquor" from the existing signage. The signage on the front elevation will be new, he said. He said the sign features red, internally - lighted channel letters, and he said the new signage fits the size and height requirements. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to approve as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR- 2011 -22 Design Review of signage for Stillwater Brewing Company at 402 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Justin Stanley, applicant. The applicant was not present. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pogge stated he did not think there was a sign at this space before. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern about how the sign would fit in the proposed space. Mr. Tomten moved to approve, with a condition that the sign not hang below the head of the entry. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Request for extension to demolition Case No. 2009 -30. Richard Van Horne, 223 Pine St. W. — Richard Kilty, 118 W. Oak St., asked why an extension is necessary since the Council had already denied a variance request. Mr. Pogge noted that the Council had previously denied a variance request to expand the garage; he explained that state law related to the issuance of variances will change under a new law awaiting the Governor's signature, which will likely make it easier for this applicant to successfully obtain a variance. Mr. Pogge said it is likely that if the applicant doesn't receive a variance this year, he will tear the garage down and rebuild in the same footprint. Mr. Kilty asked if the HPC had approved the demolition of a 90- year -old house in the 600 -block of South Fourth Street, which was done last week. It was noted the Commission had approved the demolition permit, with much reservation and not by unanimous vote. Mr. Brach pointed out that the City's ordinance as currently written didn't allow denial of the permit, noting that issue is a source of discussion. Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, moved approval of the extension. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion on pedestrian walkway and bathroom design — There was discussion about how the Corps levee project may or may not affect this project. He noted that based on comments at the open house and direction from the Council, the design team is moving forward with the straight 6 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 2, 2011 alignment and formal walkway design, with the restroom west of Water Street. He said the Council also has expressed preference for the Victorian design for the restroom building. Ms. Cook said she was open to a more commercial design. Mr. Johnson expressed preference for a more industrial appearance, rather than a real high Victorian look, saying he didn't think that fit the commercial district. Mr. Pogge noted that the Council would be looking at various designs at its meeting the following day and had invited input from the HPC and Parks commissions; Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson said they would try to attend. Mr. Brach suggested it might be appropriate to pass a motion indicating the Commission's preference for the industrial /commercial design. Mr. Johnson moved to give those Commissioners in attendance at the Council meeting the liberty to speak on behalf of the HPC as favoring more of an angular, industrial design over a Victorian. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Selection of 18 annual Heritage Preservation Awards — Mr. Goodman suggested the renovation of the former Reed's Drug Store building as a possible winner. Ms. Cook suggested the former Hallmark card shop space. The former Casanova residence on Pine Street was suggested for the residential award. It was consensus to recognize Gartner's building, the former Reed Drug Store, for transition of a building; Van Horne for residential; and the Hallmark space for facade restoration. It was consensus to recognize Olive Oil Co. for signage. Mr. Tomten suggested a new category, Historic District Livability, recognizing the Coop for continuing the serve the downtown community despite a number of obstacles. Mr. Johnson spoke of the revitalization of the neighborhood by Meister's on the South Hill. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Zahren. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7