HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 260-14 • 260-14 E2 & 3
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Nicholas, LLC, applied for two demolition permits under the State Building
Code for 718 West Center Street (718" or "Kutzky House") and 810 West Center Street ("810"
or "Conley House"). The application for 718 stated, "relocated structure to new property demo
foundation." The application for 810 stated, "demo full structure at address including out
buildings;" and,
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota Building Code ("State Building Code") addresses the
topic of demolition permits. Minn. R. 1300.0120. According to the State Building Code, the
City's Building Official is responsible for the review and decision on a demolition permit
application. (For Rochester, the Building Official is the Director of Building Safety.) The State
Building Code states that the City's Building Official must review the demolition permit
application. If the application does not "conform to the requirements of pertinent laws, the
building official shall reject the application and notify the applicant of the reasons." Minn. R.
1300.0120, subp. 8; and,
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. §471.193, subd. 3(2) also provides for the City's ability to "review
building permits ... for the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of designated properties
and areas;" and,
• WHEREAS, among the "pertinent laws" that the Rochester Building Official must
consider is chapter 19B of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. Chapter 19B establishes the
Heritage Preservation Commission and directs the Commission to prepare a list of sites which
it will recommend for designation as historic sites; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission has not yet submitted its list to the Council. Until that act
occurs and the Council responds, the ordinance states that a "demolition permit involving a
site which may be potentially designated as historic ... must be submitted to the Commission
for its recommendation and then submitted to the Council for its review and action." R.C.O.
§19B.06, subd. 2. In making its recommendation, the Commission must consider the criteria
found at R.C.O. §19B.04; and,
WHEREAS, R.C.O. §19B.04, subd. 1 provides the relevant criteria to be followed in
determining whether a site is potentially historic. That ordinance states as follows:
19B.04. Criteria for Recommended Designation of Heritage
Preservation Sites. Subdivision 1. The Commission shall make its
recommendations reflecting the following criteria:
A. Its character, interest, or value as part of the
development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the
City, the State or the United States;
•
• B. Its location as a site of a significant historic event;
C. Its location within and contribution as an element of an
historic district;
D. Its identification with a person who significantly
contributed to the culture and development of the City;
E. Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an
architectural style period, form, or treatment;
F. Its identification as the work of an architect or master
builder whose individual efforts have influenced the
development of the City or have contributed to the
development of a nationally or internationally-
recognized style or movement;
G. Its embodiment of elements of architectural design,
detail, material, or craftsmanship that represent a
significant architectural innovation; or
H. Its location, scale, or other physical characteristics
representing an established and familiar visual feature
or a neighborhood, a district, the community, or the
• City; and,
WHEREAS, In addition to the criteria listed at subdivision 1, R.C.O. §19B.04, subd. 2
requires one to consider the structure's condition and the economic feasibility of the structure's
current or future use. Specifically, subdivision 2 states as follows:
Subd. 2. The state of repair, condition, and quality of
construction of a structure recommended for designation as a
Heritage Preservation Site must be such that maintaining its current
use or establishing an adaptive reuse of the structure is economically
feasible; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Heritage Preservation Commission at its May
27, 2014, and June 11, 2014, meetings; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission received testimony from residents who stated that the
Kutzky and Conley Houses were named after individuals who contributed much to the City of
Rochester and to this particular neighborhood. Indeed, a park and a residential subdivision bear
Kutzky's name. As such, the Commission concluded both the Kutzky and Conley Houses were
potentially historic sites as they are identified with a person who significantly contributed to the
culture and development of the City (R.C.O. §19B.04, subd. 1(D)). Furthermore, the
Commission concluded that, in light of the fact that a buyer has expressed interest in purchasing
and moving both Houses, it is economically feasible to maintain both Houses in their current or
2
• adaptive reuse (R.C.O. §19B.04, subd. 2); and,
WHEREAS, the Commission also considered the City's consultant's (106 Group) report
on the Kutzky and Conley Houses. That report concluded neither House was a potentially
historic site. The Commission concluded the 106 Group report should not be followed as it was
prepared in haste, was only a preliminary evaluation, and did not consider the Houses'
connection with the local culture and development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Common Council at its June 16, 2014, meeting;
and,
WHEREAS, at its June 16th public meeting, the Council considered the information that is
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein; and,
WHEREAS, at its June 16th public meeting, the Council received limited testimony. The
applicant's representative stated that the 106 Group's conclusion that the Kutzky House was not
potentially historic was wrong, but the 106 Group's conclusion that the Conley House was not
potentially historic was right. A resident of the Kutzky Park Neighborhood stated that the Conley
House was a potentially historic site for the reasons stated by the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
• Rochester that, based upon a substantive amount of the evidence presented in this matter, the
City declare 718 as a potentially historic site pursuant to R.C.O. §19B.04, subd. 1 (D), (H) based
upon the unconverted evidence, testimony, and statements from the applicant's representative
as well as those who sought to preserve the Kutzky House that the Kutzky House is identified
with August Kutzky who is a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development
of Rochester.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City further declare to the Building Official that
relocation of 718 will maintain the historic nature of the structure.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that,
based upon a substantive amount of the evidence presented in this matter, the City declare the
Conley House not to be potentially historic pursuant to R.C.O. §1913.04, subd. 1 based upon the
findings of the 106 Group report as that report is found in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City further declare to the Building Official that the
application for the Building Code permit for the demolition of Conley House may be approved
assuming the application satisfies all other Building Code requirements.
• 3
•
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS 16th DAY OF JUNE 2014.
PRESIDEN� SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST: r
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS 17th DAY OF DUNE , 2014.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
Zone 101De m o Perm itKutzky
• 4