Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-05 HPC MINHeritage Preservation Commission Monday, March 5, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: John Brach, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge APPROVAL OF February 6, 2012 MINUTES Mr. Zahren moved to approve the minutes of Feb. 6, 2012. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM N o comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/2012 -05. A demolition request for a single family residence at 905 Churchill Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Curt Geissler, Lakeview Hospital. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He stated the home in question was constructed in 1931, and is subject to review by the HPC due its age. He stated all nine items required in the demolition ordinance have been submitted by the applicant. He noted Lakeview Hospital's long -term plans provide for a parking facility in the location of this home; he stated this is part of the hospital's master plan that has been reviewed by the City. He stated the applicant noted in the application that the purpose of this request is for the hospital's long -term expansion plans and integrating the property into the hospital campus. He noted the property is zoned RB, and hospitals are allowed in that district by special use permit. He said staff did find that the application is complete, with the exception of the advertisement for sale; he said approval is recommended subject to the applicant actually completing advertising the house (for 2 consecutive weeks) for re -use in the community and that at least 30 days transpire between the last ad publication and the demolition permit becoming active. Mr. Johnson asked the applicant if the intent of acquiring the home and demolishing or relocating it is for the expansion of the hospital, either the building itself or for parking at that location. Mr. Geissler responded in the affirmative, saying there are no definitive plans at this point; he stated the master plan might be fulfilled in two years or 10 years from now. Mr. Johnson expressed his concern about the property sitting vacant if the house is relocated or demolished and the hospital's plans change in the future. He suggested that what would be preferable, should the demolition permit be granted, is that the house not be removed until the plans for expansion are submitted for a building permit, when there is really a need for this property. Mr. Geissler said the request is being made at this time at the request of the home occupants; he said he thought there was a better opportunity for relocation of two homes, rather than one. Mr. Geissler said the hospital does not want to be landlords; he also stated that if the demolition permit cannot be granted so the house can be either moved or demolished, the hospital is not interested in pursuing the purchase. Mr. Johnson reiterated his concern about the lot sitting vacant for a period of time and perhaps never utilized. Mr. Geissler suggested that with the proximity to the clinic, the owners of the home in question might have a difficult time finding another buyer at what the homeowner might consider fair market value. Page 2 HPC Minutes March 5, 2012 Mr. Lieberman noted he lives across the street from the hospital and spoke of the difficulty encountered in getting the hospital to do some landscaping when it was doing its previous parking structure; he expressed concern about not knowing what is going to be done at the location in question when the hospital eventually does do something. Mr. Lieberman asked if the demolition permit is granted, whether the applicant would be willing to go on record stating that the public portion (Churchill Street) of whatever goes at this location as part of the hospital will include berming, landscaping, and appropriate level of lighting so it will be a positive addition to the Stillwater community. Mr. Geissler said he could not personally do so but could ask the Board of Directors to do a resolution; he said he thought that was the function of the Planning Commission during the permit and public hearing process. Mr. Geissler said in the last five years, the hospital has had a very different process, with many neighborhood meetings to try to mitigate the impact of building; he referred to the landscaping put in after the latest project along Everett Street. Mr. Geissler noted this is a concept plan, a look at what the campus might look like if totally built out. Mr. Johnson talked about the possibility of moving the house in question just across the street to a paved parking area the hospital owns outside of the planned campus area. Mr. Geissler said he thought that parking space was necessary to meet parking requirements; he said he thought there were other more suitable sites for relocation of the home(s) in question. Mr. Geissler said the immediate plan for use of the property would be for open /green space; he said looking at language regarding that use might be a reasonable request. Mr. Zahren asked Mr. Geissler if he thought the hospital Board would agree to a stipulation that a formal plan for use of the property, until needed for the hospital's long -term expansion program, be submitted before the demolition permit is granted. Mr. Geissler said he was not sure Board action would be required for that type of commitment; he said what he did not want to do is make a commitment as to what will go there in 5 or 10 years and what that might look like. Short-term, Mr. Geissler said he thought the type of commitment suggested by Mr. Zahren could be done; however, he noted the Board has final authority as to whether the property is purchased. Mr. Lieberman said he would be most comfortable if any interim plan, as well as any final plan for the property, is reviewed and approved not only by the Planning Commission and City Council, but the HPC as well. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Tony Beyer, 904 Churchill, directly across the street from the subject property, expressed concern about having a parking facility there. He said he thought the neighborhood would be benefitted if the Commission could look at the aggregate change that a large landholder, such as Lakeview Hospital, can have on a community. He provided visuals of the hospital site from 1991 and 2010 and identified the number of houses, 7 in all, that have been lost to parking in that time; he noted Lakeview was awarded a demolition permit for 911 Churchill St. in October and now is proposing this additional property. He said he has concerns about the interim use of the property as well as the long -term re -use of the land. He said he would very much like to see the language discussed earlier by the Commission on the interim use. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Goodman said the house has essentially been devoured by the property that already belongs to the hospital; he said he could well understand why the owners of the house would like to get out of there and suggested that has to happen. The question, Mr. Goodman said, is what is going to happen in the future if things would out with the expansion plans; he said he thought it would be good to see that something attractive and reasonable is done to the property in the interim. Mr. Brach said he liked the approach of having the hospital come back with ultimate plans to the HPC; he said his Page 3 HPC Minutes March 5, 2012 sense is that the hospital would be OK doing that. Mr. Brach noted part of the HPC's charge is trying to preserve the nature of neighborhoods. Mr. Tomten said he thought the hospital had heard some of the concerns of the neighbors and the HPC and said there is quite a concern about losing the fabric of that neighborhood; he said he thought Mr. Johnson's points were well taken and asked that the hospital seriously consider moving the homes across the street where it has surface parking now as that may be a better use for the tax base of the neighborhood, may be a better way to retain the character of the neighborhood, and rids the hospital of a surface parking lot that is across the street and will become a more distant element. Mr. Tomten also expressed hope that the hospital would work with the City and any others who might be interested in relocating the homes and be flexible with any timeframes so as to hold onto the existing structures as long as possible before giving up on a possible relocation. Mr. Zahren suggested the possibility of requiring the hospital to keep the homes and rent the properties until the houses can be relocated or the property is needed for expansion. Mr. Lieberman suggested that would be an undue burden on the hospital and would likely end up harming the currently homeowners; he also stated once the house is sold to the hospital, he would rather see either the house moved fairly immediately or see it come down as he would not want to see the house fall into disrepair and become blighted. Mr. Tomten suggested that a reasonable amount of time to allow for relocation might be 1 or 2 years in this current housing market. Mr. Lieberman again spoke of the likelihood of the home falling into disrepair in that amount of time. Mr. Lieberman suggested a better approach would be to condition a demolition permit, if granted, on submittal of a designed plan for how that land will be utilized in the interim between relocation or demolition and the eventual reuse by the hospital and that the HPC has a say in the ultimate design of what is done with that land. Mr. Pogge talked about the location of the property in the RB zone. He stated he thought that with a demolition permit, the HPC does have the authority to look at how the property is going to be used in the short-term; however, he said long -term he did not believe the Commission has the authority to review those plans and said he thought that would take action by the Council to give the Commission that authority and jurisdiction. Mr. Brach suggested that the hospital be asked to voluntarily submit the long -range plans to the HPC for review. Mr. Lieberman said there is ample historical precedent for the HPC to be brought in for design review outside of its immediate jurisdiction. Mr. Lieberman moved to grant the demolition permit subject to two additional conditions: that the hospital agree to come back with a designed plan for the interim use of the property from the time of either relocation or demolition and that when a final decision is made in the future on the ultimate infill use of the property the hospital come back to the Commission for design review of those plans, assuming that the City Council is amenable to that review. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; he asked what would happen if the Council did not agree to the second condition. Mr. Lieberman said the Council has been willing to come before the Commission for design guidance on other occasions, and he noted that the hospital's parking structure came before the HPC for design review. Mr. Beyer pointed out that property in the Neighborhood Conservation District is subject to infill design review. Motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2012 -06. Design review of signage for Tobacco located at 1300 Frontage Road West in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Yassin Waz Waz, applicant. Page 4 HPC Minutes March 5, 2012 Gary Poza was present representing the applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and noted the requested sign is larger than allowable by ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out a revised submittal was presented which reduces the size to 22.7 square feet and moved to approve as submitted and conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -07. Design review of signage for Osaka Express located at 108 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Wu Li, applicant. A representative of the applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request, noting that the requested signage is smaller than allowed by ordinance. It was noted that a new awning and other improvement are planned in the future, which will review design review at a future date. Mr. Zahren moved approval with the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. There was a question about a former door opening and windows, whether it could be covered up with material similar to the adjacent material. Mr. Tomten said he would rather see a traditional storefront approach where the glass is used as much as possible; he said he would have a problem filling what was a storefront window with wood. Mr. Tomten suggested leaving the glass and trim around it as needed. The representative of the applicant pointed out there have been many things done over the years to both of the entryways. Mr. Tomten said the HPC's job is to try to retain the historic character of the downtown and encourage owners to do remodeling in a way that is in keeping with a traditional commercial storefront; he said the HPC would not want to see an area where there were storefront windows all blocked in with wood. Mr. Zahren pointed out the applicant would not be touching the major windows. Mr. Johnson noted the windows in question are part of a traditional configuration of a storefront. Mr. Zahren suggested this is a horrible opening to have for a restaurant — it makes it appear as though there are two buildings there; he said he didn't think there would be any harm in removing the windows as long as they are replaced with material similar to the adjacent material. Mr. Johnson suggested the area in question makes for a much more inviting entryway into the space than the existing one; Mr. Zahren suggested that is a moot point as the applicant is beyond the point where that could be done. Mr. Johnson said part of the design process for exterior modification is to look at opportunities to bring the storefront back to its original configuration. Mr. Johnson assumed the chair for a short time. Mr. Pogge stated staff had approved the door change, but plans indicated there would still be glass in the space. Mr. Tomten said he didn't know enough about the location; he said he would have trouble telling someone what they should do when he hasn't had a chance to look at and review it. Mr. Tomten said he would be fine approving the sign and administratively approving flipping the door and window, but said he couldn't give approval for b -board when he doesn't know what it is or where it goes. Mr. Tomten asked for clarification on the changes approved by staff. Mr. Pogge said staff approved putting glass where the door was and moving the door to where the glass was. Mr. Johnson moved to let the administrative decision stand, with glass replacing the left side and the door moved to the center. Mr. Tomten suggested that if the applicant feels strongly about other changes, the applicant should submit plans for review. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion confirming the staff recommendations. On a question by the applicant's representative, Mr. Johnson said putting up temporary wood until the glass can be installed would be acceptable; Mr. Johnson amended his motion to include allowing up to 60 days for the glass to be installed matching the opposite side; Mr. Goodman agreed to the amendment. Amended motion passed unanimously. Page 5 HPC Minutes March 5, 2012 Case No. DR/2012 -08. Design review of updates to the exterior patio and modifications for the east exterior wall located at 305 Water Street South (Freight House) in the CBD, Central Business District. David Shea, Shea, Inc., applicant. Mr. Lieberman resumed chairmanship. The architect for Shea Inc. reviewed plans and revisions made in response to staff comments. Mr. Johnson noted this is a historically designated property and wondered if there was anything that would require further review /approval by SHPO; Mr. Pogge stated he was not aware of anything. On a question by Mr. Johnson, the architect noted there are both doors and windows on the building of different styles. He said the proposed new openings are the same width as the existing openings, with the same arching details; he said the major difference is that it does not go down to the ground. The architect referred to Department of Interior guidelines which state that new openings should complement, not mimic, the historic openings; he said that was the intent — to make it look complementary, but not copied. Mr. Johnson asked if there were other options to accomplish the desired pass - thru service by using one of the adjacent doors. The architect responded that the two openings on either side of this bar are for customer flow- through and taking out one of those openings out for service would diminish that flow; he noted the whole intent of the project, at least on the north half, is to make the nightclub space more active in the day. John Daley, Freight House manager, said the intent is to make more efficiency of the available space. Mr. Tomten asked if the supports for the sail shades are existing; the architect said new footings would be poured. Mr. Tomten asked about colors; the architect said warm gray or soy brown color for the verticals, with the sail shades picking up the lighter gray color in the roof or a green that would match the existing awning that covers the patio area of the dining room. The architect said from conversations with staff, the idea of natural, muted tones is preferable. Regarding the new pass -thru opening, Mr. Johnson said the original, historic designation of the building was because openings were all original to that building or changes made very early in its existence. He said there is a rhythm in the size of the openings, which he said is not only the historic element but the beauty of the building. Mr. Johnson said the north end is the one that has most of that rhythm going on, and he said any new opening detracts from the freight house elements that resulted in its National Register place. He said he thought that getting away from the original purpose of the building by putting in new openings makes it less significant and detracts from its original nomination. Mr. Johnson said he would much rather see the openings re -used or repartitioned for multiple uses to serve the desired purpose. Mr. Goodman asked about extending the frame of the additional window down to the deck, whether that might improve the appearance. Mr. Zahren suggested making a full opening door, identical to the two other doors. Mr. Johnson said the building is on the National Register because it is intact from the exterior perspective, something that will potentially be changed with this proposal. Mr. Johnson stated he did not think putting in an additional opening is appropriate; he said he thought other things could be done with the circulation by doubling using the openings that exist. Mr. Tomten said he could he thought this was a difficult decision given the historic stature of the building, but he noted there are no tracks and no trains. Mr. Tomten said he understands the desire to make the building and space function better and maximize the efficiency of the space. Mr. Lieberman said he, too, was torn regarding this proposal. Mr. Lieberman suggested that one of the ways to preserve historic buildings is to make sure they are as economically feasible; he said, for him, this is a matter of cost benefit — does the cost of changing the exterior of the building outweigh the benefit of enabling the owner to continue to make enough profit to make it Page 6 HPC Minutes March 5, 2012 a viable enterprise. Mr. Brach asked whether the opening has to be as wide as proposed. Another representative of the Freight House talked about why a narrower opening as suggested by Mr. Brach wouldn't work for them. Mr. Johnson asked if it would be possible to use half of the door space of either of the two existing doors for the desired connection and develop more of an outside bar abutting to the building that would provide more seating space on the outside. The Freight House representatives stated that would not achieve the desired circulation either. Mr. Zahren renewed his suggestion that the new pass -thru opening replicate the two existing doors; he said the three together make sense at the end of the building, as it appears to be a separate structure. Mr. Johnson agreed that treating the opening as another door, done to the same size and scale, transom windows as the adjacent ones, is probably more fitting to the building than introducing another element at that end of the building. The Freight House people said that would be acceptable to them. Mr. Zahren moved to approve, with the proposed pass -thru identical, same height/width /style, to the doors to the north and south, with brick removed during construction re -used. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Regarding the proposed shades, Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sail shades and posts as well as the free - standing canopy in front of the caboose as submitted, with the posts to be a muted gray and sails to be either a muted gray or dark green. Mr. Lieberman noted final colors should be submitted to staff for final approval. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. The architect described proposed changes to stairways. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the stairway changes at the two locations as submitted. Mr. Brach seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -09. Design review of signage for the post office located at 216 Myrtle Street West in the PA, Public Administration District. HAF Architects, applicant. Ken Johnson, HAF Architects, was present, along with a representative of Trinity Lutheran Church. Mr. Tomten asked if the request was for an overall building plan or just the post office signage. Mr. Johnson said the request is for the post office only, at this time; he said they would come back as other tenants come into the building. Mr. Johnson provided a rendering of the proposed plaque signage. Mr. Tomten asked about lighting shown in the drawing of possible tenant signage; Mr. Johnson said that is conceptual only. Mr. Brach moved approval with the three recommended conditions. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2012 -10. Design review of construction of a new infill building, Peaslee Building, located at 229 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. HAF Architects, applicant. Mr. Lieberman stated this case had been withdrawn. Mr. Pogge indicated the applicant had proposed a change from a two- to one -story building; he said staff believes a two -story infill building is more appropriate at this location. Mr. Pogge said staff contacted the applicant to determine the reason for the change, and the applicant indicated some soil issues were discovered which have driven the cost of the project up substantially. He said staff is looking into the possibility of some TIF assistance to do the soil remediation work with the applicant. NEW BUSINESS Approval of CLG Grant Applications and Minnesota Historical and Cultural Grant Applications. — Mr. Pogge said the proposal is to do two projects this year utilizing CLG and state Page 7 HPC Minutes March 5, 2012 Historical/Cultural grants. The priority project is to do a local designation district,: he said, targeting the northeast section of the Churchill /Nelson /Slaughter addition. He said a second project is an educational project developing podcasts including a walking guide; on a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Pogge said this would be a video format and utilize multiple channels for access. Mr. Lieberman suggested having a presence on the Stillwater Patch. Mr. Johnson suggested that would be a good venue to provide link to HPC information; Mr. Pogge suggested members might want to put together some articles. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the application for the grants as presented. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. There was discussion of an upcoming vacancy on the Commission due to Mr. Tomten's retirement and the desire to have someone with an architectural background. OTHER BUSINESS Demolition Ordinance discussion — Mr. Pogge said he had not had time to get the guide finished; he said that would be his priority to complete. Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary