Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-16 HPC MIN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING January 16, 2019 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Hadrits, Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Welty Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of December 19, 2018 meeting minutes Commissioner Steinwall requested that on page 3, paragraph 7, “Mr. Diebold led discussion about the balconies” be changed to “The applicant spoke about the balconies.” Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2018 meeting as amended. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM Matthew Wolf, one of the owners of the historic armory property, informed the Commission that substantial rehabilitation projects are being considered, including HVAC changes, brick repair and possibly redoing historic windows and entrances. Building uses will be office, residential units, and/or a brewery/distillery. He will submit application materials next month. CONSENT AGENDA There was no business on the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2018-32: Consideration of a Design Permit to allow a small wireless facility on the property located at 227 Main Street South in the CBD district. Neon, LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting approval of the installation of a small wireless facility on the rooftop of the structure located at 227 Main Street South, a contributing building in the Commercial Historic District. The facility will be comprised of: 1) a new, non-penetrating sled mount; 2) two mounting pipes; 3) a KMW antenna located on the southerly antennae mounting pipe; and 4) necessary mechanical equipment. The footprint of the facility will be approximately 9’ by 9’. It will be situated 5’ off the front property line and 3’ off the south property line. The mounting pipes are proposed to extend 5’ above the parapet line and the antenna will be located approximately 3’ above the parapet line. Staff finds that the design is not in conformance with the Downtown Design Review District guideline that Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 6 “all rooftop equipment shall be screened from public view” or with the Zoning Code and therefore recommends denial. Joe Goldshlack, SAC Wireless (Site Acquisition contractor for AT&T), explained how small cells are designed to fill coverage gaps. The intent is to make them as small and unobtrusive as possible. The company understands the need for preservation of the City’s historic character and is willing to modify the plans to create a design that works for Stillwater. AT&T would have preferred a pole in the right-of-way but there were no available poles. He addressed the newly passed ordinance prohibiting small cell facilities on private property and referred to Section 35-512 Subd. 5b stating antennae are allowed if they pass through design review. His company feels it is splitting hairs whether it is a small cell or an antenna; the function is the same. He pointed out the City’s ordinance was adopted on January 8, 2019 and the application was filed on December 13, 2018. On September 26, 2018 the FCC issued a declaratory order and guidelines stating that cities should avoid regulations that effectively prohibit cellular installations and upgrades. City Planner Wittman pointed out that the City ordinance addresses use. The HPC doesn’t look at use, it looks at design. She added that City Attorney Land believes because the application was submitted prior to adoption of the ordinance, the HPC needs to act on it and determine whether the design is appropriate. Councilmember Junker asked Mr. Goldshlack to further explain why this location was chosen. Mr. Goldshlack replied that engineers develop radio frequency maps to identify coverage gaps, and the facilities are then located to fill those gaps. Moving it 10’ one way or another would make a difference. The first choice was an Xcel Energy pole but Xcel denied it. Councilmember Junker remarked that with such a small radius of coverage, the City could see lots of applications for these antennae to be installed downtown in the future. Mr. Goldshlack remarked that the macro antennas that already sit on towers and buildings cover a large area. It’s where there’s a building or hill blocking it that creates these small pockets of coverage gaps. Chairman Larson asked if Mr. Goldshlack worked with City staff on this location. Mr. Goldshlack replied yes, but staff didn’t want to jump into helping figure out a design because they felt the use wasn’t going to work, so he filed an application as a way to open that door. Ms. Wittman stated that she worked with Andrew from SAC about a year ago. Since then the City had a change of legal counsel and a significant ordinance change. Chairman Larson asked if this would be the only antenna that SAC would have to put in the historic district. Mr. Goldshlack said he believes so as of today, but there’s always a chance the need will increase. However by then the antennas will be so small they won’t even be seen. In next 5-10 years he doesn’t foresee a need for a number of additional antennas. Commissioner Steinwall asked if tabling the application to give the company a chance to reconsider the design would be acceptable. Mr. Goldshlack replied yes, however they want to avoid going through the design process over and over. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Wittman noted the 60 day deadline is February 24. The next HPC meeting is February 20, within that 60 days. Staff would want materials no later than February 1. The Commission could deny the application without prejudice meaning the applicant would have a year to resubmit. Chairman Larson encouraged Mr. Goldshlack to work with staff to find a solution. He noted that the HPC prefers that mechanical equipment be screened and is especially sensitive to how buildings appear on historic Main Street. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to deny without prejudice Case No. 2018-32, Design Permit to allow a small wireless facility on the property located at 227 Main Street South due to its inconsistency with Downtown Design Review standards, and to recommend the applicant work with staff to devise an acceptable solution. Motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners Steinwall and Krakowski voting nay. Commissioner Krakowski stated he would rather table the application. Consideration of approval of a Demolition Designation Study for 709 2nd Street South. Scott and Rebecca Johnson, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed a Demolition Designation Study that was completed for 709 2nd Street South. The study finds the structure is not a historic resource and not eligible for local listing as a Historically Significant Structure. However, the structure is eligible to be considered a contributing structure in the City’s eligible East Half, Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter’s Addition Local Historic District. Ms. Wittman explained the Commission’s options to accept and approve the study, reject and deny the study, table the case, or move to designate the district as historic, although that probably is not possible within the 180 day window for this request. She added that someone has reached out to her regarding a possibility of purchasing the property and rehabilitating the house. Rebecca Johnson, applicant, stated the intention is to either sell the property or build a new home on it. A potential buyer is interested in buying the property if the house is demolished. Although there are several people interested in buying the house for rehab, they are not open to selling it for this purpose, because they do not want it used as rental property. They have lived next door for 22 years and seen the rental properties around them keep declining. They don’t want to live next to it if it becomes a rental. Neighbors are all in favor of tearing it down. The house is free if anyone wants to move it. Chairman Larson noted there have been instances where people have successfully renovated really worn down houses. Also in the past, people have torn down houses to have a larger yard leaving a gap where there had been a historic pattern of houses. If a demolition permit goes forward there is no assurance there will be a house built there. Ms. Wittman stated that if the HPC votes to approve and accept the Designation Study, then it really does authorize the demolition. The district is eligible for historic designation already but the ordinance does not prohibit a contributing building in a local historic district from being demolished. She doesn’t think there has been enough legwork done that the district would be able to be designated prior to April 15 - that process would take at least 6 months to a year. She reminded the Commission that this is the first time the ordinance adopted in 2012 has gone this far and it may need to be tweaked. Councilmember Junker noted if the house is moved off the property leaving an empty lot, there is no guarantee that a new house will have the same character. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Commission Mino referred to language in the staff report stating if the Commission accepts/approves the study, it acknowledges that the structure is not an historic resource. She disagrees with staff wording on this point. Ms. Wittman said that the HPC believes it is a historic resource and the consultant does not. Staff and the Commission believed it was a historic resource based on its association with events or periods of history. The consultant’s report provides the opinion that it is not eligible to be listed as a historically significant site. If the study is rejected, the Commission could direct staff to start the process for designation of this house which would involve consulting with the State Historical Society and scheduling public hearings before the HPC, the Planning Commission and the City Council. All this would have to be done no later than April 15, or demolition would be automatically approved. Chairman Larson referred to the statement in the study that the house is not recommended for individual designation. Though not individually outstanding, the house contributes as a part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Mino agreed with Chairman Larson that the house probably is not eligible for individual designation but it is part of a framework of old Stillwater. City Planner Wittman stated the ordinance reads that if the Council does not approve the preparation of a study within 30 days or the completed study is not approved within 180 days of the Commission determination, or if the Council denies implementation after the study has been done, the building official can issue the demolition permit. Commissioner Steinwall asked if it would make sense to reject the study and kick off the process of designating the district as historic, so the Planning Commission and Council can weigh in on the issues and hear from State Historic Preservation Office. Commissioner Hadrits expressed the concern that allowing the house to be demolished may set a precedent. Ms. Wittman reiterated that the Commission could deny/reject the study and send the case directly to the Council, or move to start proceedings for hearings knowing the demolition may still be allowed by the Council on the basis of the consultant’s recommendation. The existing demolition ordinance and designation ordinance are very tied to the aspect of historic architecture, the quality of craftsmanship and the history of people who lived here. It doesn’t have a lot of flexibility. Ms. Johnson pointed out that there are six rentals in the neighborhood already that are rapidly deteriorating. When she questioned the cost of $5,000 for the study, she was told by the City Attorney that the property owners cannot be charged for it because that would be counter-intuitive. This conflicts with what is in the HPC information. She feels the process was a ridiculous waste of time and money. Chairman Larson acknowledged it’s a flawed process but the Commission is trying to not make it easy for houses to be torn down. Commissioner Mino said she doesn’t completely agree that this is a bad process. There’s a purpose to the review, although there may be some challenges with the process. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall to reject and deny the designation study and initiate the process of gathering input from the Planning Commission, State Historic Preservation Office, the City Council, and public hearings, and to direct staff to start the local historic district designation process. Motion failed for lack of a second. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to defer the rejection or acceptance of the study to the City Council on the basis that: 1. the HPC has already determined the structure is a local historic resource, potentially eligible for local listing, and already identified it as a contributing building in an eligible local district; and 2. there may not be protections in place for even those considered contributing in a local district; and 3. demolition is contrary to the purposes of the HPC, the Neighborhood Conservation District and the Comprehensive Plan; and 4. the concern for demolition is not exclusive to historic preservation purposes but that demolition prevention aids the City in meeting other community goals, such as affordable housing. The Commission further requests a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the flaws and deficiencies of the current demolition ordinance and request; and requests that the City Council work with the HPC to update the demolition ordinance to better reflect all community policies. Commissioner Steinwall reiterated that she would like to see the City Attorney prepare an opinion about flaws identified in the ordinance in regard to HPC review of a demolition/designation study which is counter intuitive to the purpose of the HPC, Conservation District guidelines and possibly to the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed additional concern about setting a precedent for demolition of rental properties and the belief that the Planning Commission and others charged with implementing City goals should be involved because rental properties serve a niche. Commissioner Mino agreed that affordable housing should be a consideration in looking at a property. Ms. Wittman commented that a former staff member prepared the demolition guide to walk property owners through the process and she realizes that it needs to be revised. Motion passed 5-0. FYI STAFF UPDATES Case No. 2018-29 Appeal City Planner Wittman stated the Crosby Hotel’s design permit amendment appeal for full-depth balconies will go before the City Council on February 5. 2019 Grant Application Ms. Wittman said she is working on pre-applications for grants for the following: the 2020 State Historic Preservation Conference; a historic structure report for the Lowell Park gazebo; scanning about 8,000 Rivertown Restoration files; and a business plan for the Bergstein building. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Chairman Larson, to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary