Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-04 HPC MINCity of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 4, 2012 Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: John Brach, Jeff Johnson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Absent: Robert Goodman, Reggie Krakowski and Howard Lieberman Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Approval of minutes: Mr. Brach, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to approve the minutes of Dec. 5, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/2011 -55. A demolition request fora single family residence located at 1207 Schulenberg AIIey in the RB, Two Family Residential District and review for the construction of a new residence in Neighborhood Conservation District. Nathan and Sara Jespersen, applicant. Continued from the December 5, 2011 HPC Meeting. The applicant was not present. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. Judy Foster, 2011 Schulenberg Alley, said she was speaking on behalf of two other neighbors, Todd and Alicia Engstrom, and Hazel Winterlin. Ms. Foster referred to the historic nature of the neighborhood and said her main concern is that this decision would set a precedent. She said her house, which is 800 square feet, is on the City's Heritage Homes site; she said most of the homes on the AIIey have been kept close to their original character. She expressed concern about the size of the home being proposed to replace the house in question; she said that would really impact the way her home looks and said it doesn't fit in with the homes to north. She said pointed out that it is possible to refurbish and renovate the original structures to meet the needs of a modern family. She noted several of the homes on the AIIey are owned by the same person and expressed concern there would be a request for demolition of those homes at some point in the future, pointing out these are the last remaining examples of loggers' homes in the nation. She said she hoped that the proposed new structure would look like the homes to the north rather than the homes to the south and would respect the character of the neighborhood. She suggested that an historic community, such as Stillwater, should also focus on the more vulnerable homes such as those on Schulenberg AIIey where lower income people can only do so much. She said for the new structure to look like and have the size of the homes to the south would be setting a dangerous precedent for the remaining homes on the AIIey and would impact their property values. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Ms. Foster said there is a lot that can be done within the existing footprint of the home and said she would like the new structure to be a little bit more like the homes to the north. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Pogge stated a subcommittee of the Commission had met with the applicant to discuss plans and said he had thought a possible solution had been reached as a result of that meeting. However, Mr. Pogge Page 2 of 4 1 -2 -2012 HPC Minutes stated the applicant has gone back and studied the cost implication of making the changes and decided it was not really feasible to continue with the discussed plan. He said at this point, the applicant is asking the City /Commission to be allowed to either split the property and allow a home to be built on each lot; allow the new home to orient and fully take advantage of the size of the property, similar to the other lots to the south; or to allow the existing home to remain as a mother -in -law apartment and build another structure. Mr. Pogge said staff had explored the possibility of doing a lot split, but said there is a provision in City Code which prohibits granting a variance for increasing density, which this proposal would be; he said that leaves one option — orientation of the home in size and character to the lots to the south, which he said he thought impacts the Neighborhood Conservation District. He said staff does not agree with the proposed house plan and believes there are other options that would still respect the neighborhood. Mr. Pogge said in conversations with the applicant, it appears the intent is to not proceed with plans. However, given there has been no formal withdrawal of the application, he said the Commission needs to take action due to the 60 -day review deadline. He said staff is recommending approval of the request in part: approval of the demolition permit, as staff believes the demolition request does meet all criteria, and denial of the Infill design review. He said approval of the demolition permit should be made contingent on receiving an Infill design review approval prior to demolition taking place. Mr. Johnson asked about a timeframe for the demolition permit; Mr. Pogge stated all permits expire after two years. Mr. Zahren questioned approving the demolition permit as none of the discussed plans were acceptable. Mr. Pogge said he believes there is a house plan that could be presented that would meet the Commission's approval; he said the current buyer may not desire to build that type of home, but there is a plan that would meet approval. Mr. Zahren asked about the timelines should the demolition permit be denied. Mr. Pogge said the denial could be appealed to the Council, the request could be denied without prejudice, in which case there is no waiting period for resubmission of a request, otherwise it would be one year before another demolition permit could be requested for the property. There was discussion about approval /denial of the demolition permit. Mr. Johnson noted the demolition permit application was complete with the exception of what the applicant was proposing to do with the site and questioned whether that would be grounds for denial of the demolition; Mr. Pogge said he thought that would be possible. Mr. Johnson moved to deny based on condition 7 — relation of demolition to future use, to the Comprehensive Plan zoning requirements and that the planned reuse is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines for the Design Infill. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten clarified that motion would mean an applicant would have to wait a year to resubmit a demolition permit request; Mr. Pogge said that would be the case unless the request is denied without prejudice. Mr. Tomten asked Ms. Foster about her feelings, whether neighbors would support a rezoning effort in order to do a lot split to enable two smaller homes that would better fit the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Foster said historically there were two homes on the site in question and said having two homes there would fit the character of the historic neighborhood; she noted this site is the kingpin for the neighborhood as it faces Lakeside Drive, which is all newer and larger homes. Mr. Pogge said it would be important to note that a possible rezoning is not the reason for denial; he pointed out any rezoning would be a complicated process, involving the DNR. Mr. Johnson pointed out the motion for denial is based on condition 7 in the guidelines, not for any other reason. Ms. Foster said she thought neighbors would be fine with the one lot if the home was in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Brach said his only concern with the motion on the table is the possibility of a buyer coming along who wants to build a house that is totally appropriate to that neighborhood and they would have to wait a year before a demolition could Page3of4 1 -2 -2012 HPC Minutes be requested. It was noted that issue could be appealed to the Council at a later time. Mr. Zahren called the question. Motion for denial passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2012 -01. Design review for signage for Sand Creek Group and A Good Counselor for the building located at 610 Main Street North in the CDB, Central Business District. Sand Creek Group LLC, applicant. A representative of the applicant was present. Mr. Johnson spoke to the difficulty of utilizing signage in the sign band for second -floor tenants when it is somewhat misleading as to where the entry way is actually located. He said the precedent that has been set for the second -floor tenants at this location is somewhat clumsy. Mr. Pogge stated the applicant had initially shown some additional signage on the north side of the building; however, because there is no public right -of -way on that elevation, signage is not allowed. Mr. Pogge said if acceptable to the Commission, he would work with the applicant to expand the signage in the sign band, making it longer, not wider, to fit in the sign band area. The representative of the applicant described the sign, noting that it is designed to appear that the lettering is sandblasted into the rock rather than a sign affixed to the rock; he said it would be digitally printed, with matte finish, so the lettering stands out, not the physical sign itself. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about future tenants, noting there is already a rather large sign in the middle of the face of the building, with these additional signs on the two corners. Mr. Johnson asked about a sign plan for the building. Mr. Pogge said there is a sign plan which indicates signage in two locations; he said it was always anticipated that the second floor above the retail space would be an office area, with a residential penthouse on the top level. Mr. Pogge noted that the existing sign for the second - floor tenant was approved for a slightly different location in the sign band; however, it was installed in the middle, which is now creating a problem for the other tenants. Mr. Pogge said the applicant has indicated she wants to be a good neighbor and not require the existing signage to be moved. Mr. Zahren asked how much space is left for additional signage if this proposal is approved; Mr. Pogge said there will likely be additional signage for the lower tenant, which likely will be window signage. Mr. Johnson asked how much square footage the applicant would be permitted if left to staff to work with the size; Mr. Pogge said 78 square feet would be permitted. Mr. Johnson noted the proposed signs are only 9 square feet and expressed concern about the big jump in size; he said he could see the proposed signage going longer by about 25 -30 %, but said he thought that would take up about all of the available space if the signage doesn't exceed the width of the sign band. In discussion, the representative of the applicant stated the intent is give this signage a distinctive look so as to define it from the existing sign and said he thought extending the signage by 120" would be the maximum increase; he stated the signage would remain within the sign band. Mr. Brach moved to approve with the three conditions recommended by staff, with the additional condition that when final plans for the signage are prepared they be reviewed and approved by staff. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson reiterated points made during the discussion: that the signage be no larger than 16" in height to fit within the sign band and in the range of 120" in length. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Pogge said he had talked with Curt Geisler from Lakeview Hospital who indicated the Hospital has had discussions about purchasing the last remaining parcel on the campus. He Page 4 of 4 1 -2 -2012 HPC Minutes said the Hospital is looking at pursuing a demolition permit for that property, noting it is a 1931 house. Mr. Pogge said staff would be meeting with SHPO staff in the near future to discuss a Certified Local Government grant. He said Council did provide funding in the 2012 budget for the grant match. He said the City will be proposing the same grant as it was looking to do in 2011 for a local designation district. He said he would be doing a workshop session with the Council so Council is aware of the proposal. Mr. Pogge said the revised Demolition Ordinance will likely be on the February agenda for consideration. He also noted the St. Croix Valley Foundation is planning listening sessions for the proposal to create a National Heritage Area for the St. Croix Valley; he said he would forward information to members. Mr. Tomten said he had attended the initial meeting regarding the National Heritage Area and said he would be attending one of the sessions. Mr. Tomten referred to the Hospital's plans and said he thought it would be helpful to provide some upfront comment and indicate that the Commission has a concern about buying up properties for expansion without having any specific plans about restoration /renovation or moving the properties. He noted that the Hospital did indicate some willingness to pursue options to demolition, such as finding other sites for the homes. He suggested now is the time to get some conversation going with the Hospital. Mr. Pogge said the Hospital has indicated it is willing to consider options. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Johnson asked for an update on the new restroom building and the Water Street Inn trash enclosure. Mr. Pogge stated the foundation is in, a project that was complicated by contaminated soils and resulted in additional cost. He stated there is an agreement with the Water Street Inn for the land exchange and the easement for construction. He said preconstruction meetings will likely be held in mid - February. Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Tomten, second by Mr. Brach. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary