Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-07 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Monday, November 7, 2011 Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Reggie Krakowski, Howard Lieberman, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren Absent: Council liaison Micky Cook and John Brach Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Krakowski, moved approval of the minutes of Oct. 3, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/2011 -55. A demolition request for a single family residence located at 1207 Schulenberg Alley in the RB, Two Family Residential District, and review for the construction of a new residence in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Nathan and Sara Jespersen, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine items required for the issuance of a demolition permit. Mr. Pogge said staff believes the applicant has met the minimum requirements of the nine steps. Mr. Pogge talked about the two criteria the Commission must consider in approving or denying a demolition permit: whether the building is historically significant and whether the applicant has made a reasonable effort to sell or preserve the existing structure and there is no alternative to demolition. He noted the residence is question has been determined to be potentially eligible for listing in the National Register, but it has not been listed, and, therefore according to the City's code requirements, is not historically significant. Regarding alternatives to demolition, Mr. Pogge noted the property has been on the market for a number of years and the applicant has placed advertisements and attempted to sell the structure for sale or relocation. He stated staff believes the applicant has met the requirements for the issuance of the demolition permit. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Nathan Jespersen was present, along with contractor Josh Clendenen. Mr. Johnson asked about ownership of the property, whether the applicant was, in fact, the current owner. Mr. Pogge stated one of the current owners was in attendance and had signed the application for demolition. Mr. Lieberman suggested it would be premature for someone who does not own the property to seek a demolition permit. Mr. Pogge pointed out it is not uncommon for the potential purchaser of a property to have an agreement making a sale contingent upon getting zoning approvals. Mr. Lieberman wondered whether the current owner of record shouldn't be at the table and a party to the discussion; he expressed concern about consistency and whether previous applications were treated in the same manner. Mr. Johnson said he thought it seemed speculative to first apply for a demolition permit for a property that is not owned and suggested that having the demolition permit in hand may provide an advantage in acquiring the property for 1 Page 2 of 4 HPC Minutes 11 -7 -2011 that use. Mr. Zahren suggested making the issuance of the demolition permit, should one be granted, contingent on the sale of the property taking place. Mr. Pogge noted that a very similar situation occurred last month regarding a property that Lakeview Hospital will be purchasing, with Lakeview representing both the hospital and the potential seller in a demolition permit; Mr. Pogge said staff always checks to be sure the current property has signed the application for permits, which has occurred in this case. Mr. Tomten noted the Commission has had this type of situation before, with the only difference, perhaps, that the owner might have been at the table; he pointed out the owner has signed the application and is aware of the plans. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pogge stated that a permit when issued goes with the land, not the person, and he noted that one of the conditions of approval is that an infill design permit be obtained before demolition occurs. Mr. Pogge reviewed the infill design guidelines, noting there are 27 guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District which cover three general areas — neighborhood and streets, building and site, and architectural detail. He reviewed the property in question and noted that the property is located in a transition area. He pointed out that the proposed new structure is larger and of greater massing that homes in the immediate area, which is an area of concern; another concerns, he said, are the placement of the garage, the style of the roof, and architectural style. He said, while the site is located in a transitional neighborhood, staff believes the style and mass of the proposed home is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends against the plans as submitted. He said staff recommends approval of the demolition permit subject to approval of a future infill deign permit and denial of the infill design review permit as presented. Mr. Tomten asked the applicant to explain any changes made to plans since the informal discussion at the October meeting. Mr. Clendenen explained changes to the front elevation to achieve something of a one -story appearance as suggested during the previous discussion. The applicant and representative also talked about the orientation of the home and the new placement of the garage to the right side of the home. They explained that the buildable portion of the site is not as large as previously thought due to DNR bluff setback requirements and said one of the options to be explored is building within the same footprint as the existing structure. Mr. Pogge stated whatever design is selected, building outside of the current footprint will require going through the City and DNR's variance process. Mr. Lieberman talked about the history and character of the Dutchtown neighborhood as working folks' homes. However, he said, once a demolition permit is issued, the intent isn't to require replication of what was torn down; guidelines are intended to somehow acknowledge what still exists and what has existed in that community for many years, but not so much recognition that it becomes completely impossible to build something new. Mr. Lieberman said the two issues of concern to him are the placement of the garage and the roofline, but regarding the roofline said he thought there was creative room to play with. Mr. Tomten talked about the changes that have occurred in the immediate area and said he thought it was difficult to identify any specific streetscape to play off of; he noted this is a corner lot that transitions to a newer development of much different looking homes. Mr. Tomten asked the applicant if any thought had been given to incorporating the existing mass into either the garage or the area adjacent to the garage in such a way as to keep that building massing but let the new structure almost feel like a second structure and second home; he suggested using the existing small home as a small storage element, putting the garage behind the existing structure and massing. Mr. Clendenen stated there are two people interested in purchasing and moving the existing home off site. Mr. Tomten said if the existing home is moved off site, he would entertain more of the proposed plan, moving the garage back and rotating the house so the narrow facade faces Schulenberg Alley. Mr. Clendenen spoke of Hazel Street as a transition point and indentified Page 3 of 4 HPC Minutes 11 -7 -2011 rooflines similar to their proposal in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Johnson said even though the houses up the Alley have been changed, they are all smaller scale houses, which is what he is struggling with; he said this proposal is so far from the guidelines related to massing and shape of the house that it doesn't play well with the neighborhood. There was discussion about Hazel Street as a dividing line between neighborhoods. Mr. Jespersen spoke of the orientation of the house, noting that it looks at the new neighborhood. Mr. Tomten suggested several ways to reduce the appearance of the massing from Schulenberg Alley. Mr. Pogge suggested having several HPC members meet with the applicant to perhaps come up with a better plan for consideration at the next meeting. The applicant asked for clarification on what architectural design might be acceptable, again pointing out there are other low -lying roofs in the immediate area. Mr. Tomten said he didn't have as much problem with a flat roof as with breaking the massing up in some way. Mr. Johnson moved to table both the demolition and infill review until the December meeting. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. There was discussion as to whether to approve the demolition permit contingent upon resolving the infill design review. Motion to table passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten agreed to meet with the applicants; Mr. Zahren agreed to participate as well. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -56 Design review for construction of a restaurant and signage at 2604 Orleans St. W. in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Dale Shimek, McDonald's USA LLC, applicant. Mr. Shimek was present, along with another representative of McDonald's. Mr. Shimek reviewed the site plan and layout; he said the layout provides good circulation through the site and keeps the drive -thru traffic away from the dine -in traffic. He said they are requesting a variance for signage on the non - street frontage elevation. He also provided building elevations, noting that the majority of the building is brick. He described a metal accent which is part of the parapet to screen the rooftop units. He stated there will be a detached trash corral, with attached garage for trash and recycling storage before pickup. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the elevation as seen from Stillwater Boulevard; he suggested that the band of light - colored material at the awning lines be carried around across the north elevation. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shimek said exterior building lighting will be soffit - style, down lighting and all exterior building lights will be LEDs, as well as the interior dining space. Also reviewed were the landscaping plans and lighting plans for the parking lot. Mr. Johnson moved to approved with the conditions recommended by staff (a -k), with the additional condition that the white trellis band be carried around the north elevation. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -57. Design review of signage for the Holiday Station located at 1801 Market Drive in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. L & D Signs, Duane Downey, applicant. The applicant was present. It was noted the request basically is to change the existing signage from Cub Fuel Express to Holiday; nothing will be done to the existing lighting under the canopy. Mr. Krakowski moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of Demolition Ordinance — Mr. Pogge said several HPC members had met with a group of people to discuss the demolition ordinance. He said he thought there was a good exchange of thoughts and ideas at the meeting. He said he plans to summarize the meeting and bring that to the December meeting for discussion. Mr. Tomten said what he kept hearing was the need to do a better job of educating the public about why the ordinances are in place and Page 4 of 4 HPC Minutes 11 -7 -2011 that the ordinances are meant to protect their property values. Mr. Johnson spoke of the value of the design guidelines as a good tool for anyone wanting to do a remodel or addition and suggested there is a need to promote the infill design manual more generically. Mr. Pogge suggested more ought to be done to do more to promote the HPC and City's important role in protecting property values. Mr. Lieberman asked about the action at the October meeting granting Lakeview Hospital a demolition permit when no reuse plan was submitted. Mr. Pogge stated there was a reuse plan, an approved master plan indicating the future use of the property as a parking ramp. Mr. Tomten spoke of the inaction on the part of the City in seeking alternatives to demolition, such as finding appropriate sites for relocation of houses. Ms. Cook spoke of the possibility of utilizing a non - profit group, such as RiverTown Restoration, to assist in such issues. Mr. Johnson asked about the status of the demolition ordinance with the Planning Commission. Mr. Pogge said HPC would be taking the lead, making some tweaks before sending it back to the City Council. He said the Planning Commission held a public hearing and tabled action; he said he did not think the ordinance would be going back to the Planning Commission. There was a general discussion about the infill design guidelines and the demolition /infill design review earlier in the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary