Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-01 HPC MINTHE IINTNPLACE Of MINN EIOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011 7:00 PM Present: Commissioners Lieberman, Johnson, Krakowski, Goodman, Zahren, and Councilmember Cook Staff Present: Planner Pogge Absent: Commissioners Tomten and Brach Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Zahren, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, moved to approve the minutes of July 6, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No one was present who wished to speak. Open forum was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM /2011 -40. A demolition request for a residence located at 823 Anderson Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Brad and Gwendolyn Glynn, Applicant. Mr. Pogge introduced the case in which Brad & Gwendolyn Glynn, property owners of 823 Anderson St W, are requesting a demolition permit for the existing single family home and all other structures on the property. The applicants intend to sell their land to the hospital for a yet to be determined use after the house is removed, and have reached a preliminary agreement with the hospital which includes removal of the house from the property. Mr. Pogge explained that a "non- historic structure or building" is defined by Chapter 34, Section 34 -2 as a structure or building less than 50 years old. This structure was built in 1900 according to the Washington County Assessor's office making it more than 50 years old, which makes it potentially historically significant and requires review by the Heritage Preservation Commission before it can be demolished. Section 34 -5 of the City Code lists nine items that must be considered prior to approval of a demolition permit by the Commission. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 1. A map showing the location of the building or structure to be demolished on its property and with reference to neighborhood properties; this information is included in the attached application. 2. A legal description of property and owner of record; the application simply notes the legal description as Lot 6, Block 14 of Holcombe's Addition to Stillwater. This is not the complete legal description for the property. 3. Photographs of all building elevations; this information is included in the attached application. 4. A description of the building or structure or portion of building or structure to be demolished; the entire home and all of the other structures on the site are proposed to be demolished. 5. The reason for the proposed demolition and data supporting the reason, including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for demolition. The applicants stated in their letter that "it is not economically feasible to relocate or renovate the structure in the current market." They included three proposed budgets to renovate and relocate the current home. 6. Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure to be demolished is located; the applicant stated in their application that, "The future re- use plan Will be under the control of the hospital." No other information or plans for the property's reuse were submitted with the application. 7. Relation of demolition and future site use to the comprehensive plan and zoning requirements; the current comprehensive plan land use designation for the property is Low /Medium Density Residential and is zoned RB, two - family residential. A single - family home conforms with the comprehensive plan and zoning requirements. A hospital use is a specially permitted use in the RB zoning district. This site is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District. Any new structure in the future would be subject to the infill design criteria. 8. A description of alternatives to the demolition; the applicant notes alternatives that include relocating the structure to a different property. 9. Evidence that the building or structure has been advertised for sale for restoration or reuse and that sale for restoration or reuse is not economically feasible. The applicant noted in their letter that the property has been advertised on Craig's List, local Ebay, and in the Stillwater Gazette for removal over a period of three years. The applicant has failed to submit evidence of these attempts. Additionally, staff feels that it may be appropriate to list the home and property for sale by a local realtor as opposed to simply selling it directly to the hospital without any attempt to find a potential purchaser who would preserve the home as is. In the end the most prudent option for the current owner may be to sell it to the hospital; however, an attempt to find an alternative 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 buyer seems reasonable. The applicant has included some history on the house in their application prepared by Mark S. Balay. No historical or architectural significance was noted. Mr. Pogge noted that Section 34 -5 Subdivision 1 outlines what is required to be submitted with a demolition application. In reviewing the application material, staff finds that the applicant lacks a complete legal description for the property, a reuse plan for the property, and proof of a reasonable effort to sell or preserve the structure. HPC has several alternatives related to this request: A. Reject the application as incomplete. If the HPC finds that the application is not complete they could reject the application. With a rejection, the Commission must list the specific items that are deficient in the application. B. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the demolition rules then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. C. Approve. If the proposed demolition request is found acceptable to the HPC, they should be approved. Staff would recommend the following minimum condition for approval. The demolition permit shall be effective only after a reuse plan on the property has been reviewed and approved by the HPC. D. Table. If the HPC wished to give more time to consider alternatives to demolition or if the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until your September 5th meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is September 11, 2011. City Staff met with representatives from Lakeview Hospital on July 28 to discuss this request, at which time staff explored various reuse options with the hospital. The hospital is considering an option that would permit the home to remain on the site long term. Staff recommends that the application be tabled to September 5, 2011 to allow additional time to consider alternatives to demolition. Commissioner Liebermann asked if anyone was present who wished to speak on this matter. Stuart Glaser, 1103 Everett St S (2 houses down), posed the question as to how much more is the hospital is going to be allowed to buy. He went on to say that this house has been here since 1900. Recently, three houses where the parking ramp is now were destroyed or moved. He wondered if there was a plan for replacement, and if there was buffer, "because the hospital keeps eating up the houses around them." Mr. Glaser has not decided if he opposes or approves the demolition, but is concerned about the loss of homes in the area and about decreasing property values. Don Johnson, 1015 Everett St S (adjacent to the south), expressed his frustration that the letter just received is the first they heard about this. His feeling is that the project is moving too quickly. When the hospital put in the ramp, he went to half a dozen meetings with the Planning Commission, at which time the Planning Commission said no, the hospital should not get a ramp, but the council went ahead and approved it anyway. He stated that he does not like the hospital's encroachment on the neighborhood and the increase of commercial development in a residential 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 area. He said that he is concerned but is not totally against this sale, as he understands that real estate sales are difficult at this time. Steve Finnegan, 5526 Oakgreen Place N, Oak Park Heights, speaking on behalf of his mother, said that he is part owner of the house as well. Going back 50 years he can see what the hospital has done in this neighborhood, vacating Anderson Street and taking residential homes to add land to the hospital. Mr. Finnegan said he feels that this should stay a residential area and he would like to see the house put up for sale first before any demolition consideration. He is also looking for a guarantee that demolition would not damage houses around this one. Motion by Commissioner Liebermann, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, that since the application is incomplete, there is no plan for reuse, and not all of the nine steps have been met, to table this case until such time as HPC is presented with a complete application and plan for reuse for that property. The motion was approved unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -42. Design review of two exterior signs for "This Love of Mine" located at 201 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Serigraphics Sign Systems, applicant. Commissioner Lieberman explained that the applicant is requesting design review and approval for three sets of signs at 102 Main St N for This Love of Mine. Along Main St and Myrtle St identical wall signs are proposed to replace the existing Pulp Fashion wall signs and awnings. The new signs are proposed to contain the words "This Love of Mine' in black letters on a white background, with accent pieces that are green, yellow, and orange with black boarders. The signs are both 8 feet wide by 4 feet 6- inches tall for a total of 36.2 square feet in area, and will be illuminated with the existing goose neck style lights on the building. Along the rear of the building facing Union Alley the applicant is proposing to install 5 individual panels measuring 3 feet wide by 1 foot tall, totaling 15 square feet, using black lettering on a white background with a small flower accent, with the words: 1. "one -of -a -kind items" 2. "handmade jewelry" 3. "re- fashioned jewelry" 4. "hand- selected clothing" 5. "photography" When asked about mounting for the sign, Steve Reeser, owner of the store, said that there are no brackets to be reused as the existing sign was glued to the building. Temporary signs are up at present. Gartner Studios, the building's owner, tried to remove the previous sign and it came off in pieces. The plan is to have the glue removed without damaging the building. The new design should cover up any previous residue as the new sign is slightly bigger than the previous one. The applicant further stated that he does not feel that the expense of removing the old sign should be his responsibility. Commissioner Liebermann stated that HPC takes no position on 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 that, but they would not like to see the granite on the building damaged in any way. Mr. Liebermann suggested trying to find a product that will safely remove the glue, and also suggested that city staff contact Mr. Gartner about removing the glue, rather than making it the new owner's responsibility. Mr. Pogge stated that there is precedence for advertising in an alley. By policy, the Commission has allowed generic identification signs on awnings and such signs are not counted against the allowable sign area. In cases of buildings with a single wall sign they have allowed the addition of a single projecting sign that contains generic verbiage. Staff is concerned that the proposal with multiple sign panels could result in similar future requests and that adding multiple sign panels would necessitate the need for additional building penetrations. Staff recommends against the proposal and recommends that if generic identification signage is used that it be limited to a single sign face. Mr. Reeser responded that he is open to using one panel rather than five if that is preferable to HPC. This would require fewer holes and result in less damage to the side of the building. His design team can submit an updated sign to match what is on the front. Staff recommends approval as conditioned. 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. No additional signage without HPC approval. 3. No exterior lighting on the sign without HPC approval. 4. That a single sign face for the generic identification sign be used facing Union Alley. Final sign design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to installation of the sign. As conditioned, the proposed signs meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and meet the intent of the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic District Design Manual. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Zahren, to approve Case No. 2011 -42 with the four conditions listed, with additional clarification on item #3 to use existing wall -mount lights on the south and east, no exterior lighting on the west, adding condition #5 that the sign on the west side be one sign frame with the color to match that of the Main Street sign, and that the tenant signs be embodied within the larger sign frame. Motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Liebermann added that although Union Alley is technically an alley, there is significant traffic enough to warrant signage and this request is not a departure from normal procedure or ordinances. Councilmember Cook asked for clarification that the one panel will now incorporate the five individual signs but will still be the same dimensions. The applicant responded that yes, that is correct, and that the size would be the same or possibly a little smaller than what was previously planned. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 Case No. DR/2011 -39. Design review of the Downtown Stillwater Pedestrian Walkway located in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Commissioner Lieberman read a brief description of the project. Starting with Main Street, the project will include bump -out curbs on both sides of Main trimmed with the typical hexagonal paver band to match the existing sidewalks along Main Street. New colored and stamped concrete crosswalks will be installed across Main Street and Commercial Street. The walkway will begin with an entrance area which includes brick and stone columns, ornamental fencing, natural stone seating, and a kiosk/information signage panel. The walkway between Main Street and Water Street will include a pergola structure, restrooms, benches, litter receptacles, and bicycle racks. One existing drive apron along Main Street will be removed and the existing parking areas to the north and south of the walkway will be framed with concrete curb. A planting island on the south edge will screen the existing gas station. The concrete walks along Main Street will be edged with the hexagonal paver band, brick columns, ornamental fencing, and tree and shrub plantings. Mr. Pogge introduced Bill Sanders, Landscape Architect with Sanders Wacker Bergly, and Bill Hickey to present the plan. Mr. Sanders displayed the drawing and pointed out various features beginning at Main Street and Commercial Street. The plans are to improve the intersection, extending corners out, and adding a pedestrian crosswalk. The entry space allows for a street - scape edge, with parking on the north side by the book store. Landscaping, fencing and columns will be added, along with street parking spaces. He explained that as you enter the half circle area with the Kiosk, the space opens up with the pergola and sitting area. The plaza itself is mostly paved with stamped or scored concrete (but will not be slippery), and will pick up the brick color and texture. The wood pergola will have a landscaped background. The center area arches provide a traditional look. Columns will have some brick and stone and some smooth surface. Lighting in the walkway will be the same acorn lighting design that is used throughout the park. The pedestrian walkway will continue across Water Street. The lower area will become a sitting and eating area, with permanent tables, umbrellas and benches made of a material and finish that can be left out year round. Low stone walls and plants provide a background for this area. The larger plaza area that overlooks Lowell Park and the amphitheatre will become a walking zone. There are bike racks on both sides. Mr. Pogge indicated that the projected need is for as many as 200 spaces for bikes in the downtown area. Levee elevation will take into account potential flooding levels. At the trail it will ramp up to 691 feet. Councilmember Cook expressed concern that behind restroom is a service station, and that when she walks down Commercial Street the restroom will block the view of the bridge. Mr. Sanders responded that with the panoramic view and the relatively small size of the buildings, portions of the bridge will be visible. The view won't be blocked except right behind the buildings. Mr. Hickey said that under Council's direction, a "park" style building was designed, using primarily brick with cast stone accent matching those used throughout the walkway, and board and batten freeze board. The brick is a red iron spot color that fits the traditional Stillwater brick colors. The building will have a gable roof with transom windows. The main roof surface will be 6 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 a gray tile made of cement with metal over the transom windows. The front of the restroom will have a large overhang that will serve as a shelter for bus riders. The vent stacks will be disguised as a chimney. Trim colors are two greens used in combination along with white. The interior will be a clean, classic look, using a glazed block product in white with visual texture (speckles) with some black accents, going up to the 8 foot level, above which it will be painted. Floors will be polished concrete, but will not be slippery. Lighting will be discreet. The buildings will be insulated for all season use. Concern was expressed about allowing enough space for a bus stop. Mr. Hickey said that the footage needed has been taken into consideration. Staff recommends approval as conditioned. 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Pogge has been in contact with DNR and FEMA regarding flood plain zoning, and they will be applying for a variance. The buildings are designed to take into account flood issues, with fixtures coming down from above, for instance, and footings designed to "hold down" the building as well as to hold it up. Commissioner Liebermann asked about safety concerns and sufficient lighting in the area. The applicant responded that building lighting will function independently of the walkway and street lighting and that there will also be lighting in the pergola and bus stop area. The acorn lights along the river front have a shield in them, but these will be used without the shield. The designer will ask if Xcel will consider a modification. HPC prefers down -lit lights rather than those pointing towards the sky. Building lighting is recessed fixtures at each doorway and on the walls. Mr. Pogge stated that maximum height restrictions have been met by the building's design, but a variance will be requested for minimum height restrictions. Motion by Johnson to approve and recommend to the Planning Commission and to City Council to approve plan for the pedestrian walkway as submitted. Seconded by Zahren. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -41. Design review of SIGNAGE FOR "Indigo Creek" located at 317 South Main Street in the SBD, Central Business District. Cindy Mickelson, applicant. Ms. Mickelson wasn't present, but Mr. Pogge explained that she was present at the last meeting for a sign for the front of the building, but is now requesting a sign for the back of the building. The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install a projecting sign for Indigo Creek at 317 Main St S. The proposed sign face is 24- inches by 36- inches for a total of 6 square feet. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Indigo Creek" and "Gallery and Custom Framing." The lettering is proposed to be white, on a rock picture background with a tan boarder. The sign is proposed to be installed on existing bracket facing Water Street. For retail storefront City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 signs the Commercial Historic District Design Manual provides the size of signs shall be consistent with the Sign Ordinance. The zoning ordinance allows projecting signs of up to six square feet in size. The sign frame is not counted towards the total area. The total area of the sign face is 6 square feet, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval as conditioned. 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. The bottom of the projecting sign must be a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk. 3. No additional signage without HPC approval. 4. No exterior lighting on the sign without HPC approval. The proposed sign meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal meets the intent of the Commercial Historic District Design Manual. Motion by Commissioner Zahren, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -41 as submitted. Motion approved unanimously. NEW BUSINESS The Star Tribune printed an article in which Roger Tomten was discussed prominently about the new bridge design. Mr. Tomten was also on KARE 11 during senate testimony. Commissioner Johnson mentioned that Todd Anderson had previously put up a garage behind a house on 6th St just south of Churchill Mr. Anderson came before HPC for demolition years ago and was denied, but now the house is gone. Mr. Pogge stated that an emergency demolition permit was given as internally the house had collapsed. The house is now "gone by neglect." Commissioner Johnson also mentioned that there is still a "HAF" sign on the corner by the old post office. Mr. Pogge stated that he has written a letter about the sign and will go directly to the church (property owner) about it, and that the sign should have been removed weeks ago. He explained that there are steps that need to be taken per council policy, and that the first step is to educate the person as to our sign code before citing them for code violation. Commissioner Johnson said that there is another sign at Maple Island. Mr. Pogge was not aware of that one, but he will investigate. There are issues with free speech, being placed in the right of way, litter, etc., with signs that must be reviewed. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification about the home demolition (Case No. DEM /2011 -40) and Lakeview Hospital discussed earlier this evening He wondered that since action was tabled, not actually rejected, does the applicant need to wait a year to come back. Mr. Pogge responded that he will send out a rejected application to let the applicant know what was missing. This resets the 60- day clock, and they can resubmit at the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS 8 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 1, 2011 There being no further discussion, Commissioner Zahren, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, moved to adjourn at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol Danielson Interim Recording Secretary 9