The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-11-03 HPC Packet - Part 1 cStillw~te~ --- --- ~ . , ~R ' p ., " ,... . ," (-' q, 1.. " l " I~ .~ A "- " ": ."." , ...., '. r w" ".. <~., _.J v , j Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Monday, November 3, 2008 The meeting will begin at 7 p.m., Monday, November 3, 2008, in the Training Room (1st floor) of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF August 18, 2008 and October 6, 2008 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 Case No. DEMj08-51. A demolition request for a residence located at 615 St Louis Street East in the RB, Two Family Residential District and a Neighborhood Conservation District Design Review. David G Junker, applicant. 4. DESIGN REVIEWS 4.01 Case No. 08-52. Design review of signage located at 2510 Curve Crest Blvd (The Edge Performance Hockey Training Center) in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Matt Doman, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 08-53. Design review of exterior modifications of fa~ade located at 232 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Gartner Studios, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.01 Review and recommendation on Historic Resources and Downtown Chapters for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 5.02 Review and recommendation on Downtown Sidewalk Sign Policy 5.03 Review of Business Park Signage 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 Present: Howard Lieberman, chairperson, Phil Eastwood, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren, and Couneilliaison Robert Gag Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Chair Lieberman apologized for the lack of quorum at the regularly scheduled August meeting, and called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the July 7, 2008, minutes. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/08-37 A demolition request for a single, detached garage at 921 N. Fifth St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark and Kristine Olson, applicants. The applicants were present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine steps required in the demolition ordinance. Mr. Olson stated the existing garage is falling down, and they are unwilling to store their vehicles in the garage. Mr. Olson also stated the foundation is cracked. He said they are hoping to replace the existing structure with a new garage of approximately the same size on the existing site, a little bit farther to the right and a bit higher than the existing structure. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. On a question by Mr. Johnson, the applicant briefly reviewed some of the design details of the proposed new structure. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any setback issues; Mr. Olson stated they are hoping they would be grandfathered in for a variance. Mr. Pogge stated they would have grandfathering rights as long as the structure is 20' from the back curb. Mr. Eastwood asked about materials for the new structure. Mr. Olson stated the foundation would be of more modern design, with vinyl siding. Mr. Lieberman stated in the past when looking at demolition requests, item No.5, reason and supporting data for the demolition, the Commission has usually looked at a written letter or some other analysis from a contractor exhibiting how prohibitive the cost of rehabilitation would be. Mr. Lieberman expressed his concern about setting a precedent, despite the condition of the existing structure, in not requiring information pertinent to item NO.5. Mr. Zahren agreed, saying that if he were an applicant, he would make certain that he had satisfied all of the conditions. Mr. Olson said he had talked with the contractor, who stated rehab would be twice the cost of constructing a new structure, and apologized for not providing a written opinion. Mr. Johnson pointed out that when reading the demolition ordinance, NO.5 includes the verbiage "when applicable" and the ordinance doesn't specify how much supporting data is sufficient, whether it's suffieient that a contractor says it would cost twice as much to rehab as construct new. Mr. Johnson stated if the existing structure was brick and matched the primary residence, he would have more concern but noted the existing structure does not include any architectural features of the main structure. Mr. Lieberman suggested approving the demolition permit contingent upon the contractor at least calling City staff and articulating the cost factors, to be consistent with the process that has been followed in the past. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the demolition permit, with the condition the applicant's contractor call City staff and follow the call up with a written letter documenting the contractor's assessment. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 Case No. DEM/08-38 A demolition request for a garage at 502 W. Laurel St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Robert and Nora Hahn, applicants. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report. The applicants were present. Mr. Hahn explained they would like to invest in a functional garage; the existing garage is very dilapidated, he said, with heaving and breaking of the concrete, aging and caving roofline. Mr. Hahn stated they did check into the cost of having the garage repaired and feel the investment dollars would be better spent on a new garage than keeps with the style and look of the old garage. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Tim Schmolke, 506 W. Laurel, spoke in favor of the request, stating the existing garage is ready to come down and recommending Commission approval. No other comments were heard, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Johnson pointed out the original shed/garage building has different pitch slopes and overhang in the front, with an addition added later; he noted the new proposed structure carries over some of the features of the original structure. Mr. Tomten asked if the proposal was to use cedar siding; Mr. Hahn said they are looking at a matching hardi-board instead of the cedar but would only do that if they feel it looks as good as the cedar siding that is on the house. Mr. Lieberman noted the applicants did a good job in putting together an application packet that addresses the nine required steps. Mr. Eastwood said it appears that the original structure could almost be taken off and moved; Mr. Hahn said a neighbor has looked at doing that, taking just that one section, but has chosen not to do so. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the demolition permit in light of the fact that the permit was completed in its entirety and no one in the community was heard to speak against granting the permit. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DEM/08-39 A demolition request for a garage at 1104 Fifth St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kevin Riley, representing Stephen and Beverly Diemler, applicants. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report. Kevin Riley, contractor, was present representing the applicants. Mr. Riley referred to a letter from historian Don Empson which states the existing garage has no unique historical significance to Stillwater. He stated the owners want to construct a breezeway connecting the new garage to the house which would significantly add to the cost of rehabbing the existing garage. He said the new garage will be the same size as the existing structure, placed 3' farther back to meet building code, and he noted the building variance has already been approved. He briefly addressed building materials that will be consistent with the house. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten asked if elevations had been drawn for the new structure and whether the pitch of the roof would match the house. Mr. Riley said the pitch would match the existing structure as the house pitch is about a 12: 12, while the existing garage is 6: 12. Mr. Riley said the new structure would be basically the same size and no taller than the existing garage. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Riley said they plan about a l' overhang on the new garage, with two single doors. Mr. Johnson said it would be nice to get the roof pitch to 9 or 12: 12 to match the house. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the demolition permit with the suggestion that the 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 garage gable face the same direction as the main gable of the house and that the roof pitch, eaves and overhangs also match the house. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/08-40 Design review for fayade renovation, window replacement, new entry and walkup window at 132 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark S. Balay Architects, applicant. Mr. Balay stated since his initial presentation, the Planning Commission has approved the Special Use Permit and walkup window. He said he was asking for a continuance, saying he would likely return with a request for window replacement. He said there is a lot to take out from the inside first. He said during the Planning Commission consideration of the walkup window there was a lot of discussion about safety and making sure there is some separation between the window and sidewalk to allow for queuing. In response to that, he said they are looking are creating side panels. Mr. Balay reviewed plans for the entry and walkup window. He stated they will be applying for two projecting signs, one on each street. He asked whether an exposed neon tube would be prohibited; Mr. Pogge responded that the design guidelines prohibit such signage. Mr. Balay said they would be starting from the inside out on the exterior fayade, going to the second floor looking for the original size window and looking at the attic to see what the current parapet is on. He said the investigative demolition would begin first and said the exterior fayade renovation will likely be halted by winter and not be completed until next year. He said he would be returning with proposals for the storefront and signage at the HPC's October meeting. Mr. Lieberman said his concern IS not with a franchise, but that the fayade is treated with respect. OTHER BUSINESS Heirloom Home program update and review - Mr. Pogge asked Commission members to review the final drafts of the property write-ups for the first year of the Heirloom Home project and forward any comments to him as soon as possible. He also reminded members that their assigned photos are due by the end of the month. CLG grant consultant - Mr. Pogge stated RFPs were sent out in July, with two proposals received, one from The 106 Group and the other from Donald Empson. Mr. Pogge stated the primary difference in the proposals was that The 106 Group proposal was to do 220 property inventories, while Mr. Empson's proposal was for 300 inventories. The RFP was for 300 inventories, and on that basis staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to Don Empson for the CLG grant to complete the second phase of the Heirloom Home project. Mr. Eastwood moved to recommend that the Couneil award the CLG grant and hire Mr. Empson to do the second phase of the Heirloom Home project. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Demolition Ordinance review - Mr. Pogge reviewed possible reVISions to the Demolition Ordinance. The most recent suggested revisions, he said, retain the 50-year review 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 requirements, as the Commission indicated it wished to retain during the first discussion. Regarding outbuildings, this revision includes guidelines for staff to use in determining whether to administratively grant a demolition or refer the application to the HPC. If there is any question at the staff level, he said the application would be referred to the Commission. Mr. Pogge spoke of the amount of staff time being spent on demolition requests for outbuildings and suggested the time might be better spent on other preservation activities. Mr. Johnson suggested that the outbuildings the Commission/City would want to preserve and have closer review of are those that have the characteristics of the "Stillwater shed" and the carriage houses. Mr. Eastwood said he was uncomfortable with the proposed change and would like the applications to come before the HPC, noting that staff changes could alter the situation and that making such decisions administratively could put staff in difficult situations at times. Don Empson suggested it might be helpful to have some type of preamble to the ordinance explaining to applicants why the City is doing this to make the process a bit more palatable. Mr. Empson also noted that there is a recommendation in the ordinance that an applicant get some kind of history of the building and few applicants follow through on that recommendation; he suggested that that "recommendation" ought to be made a requirement or eliminated. Mr. Empson said he thought requiring a description/history of the structure was a good idea. Mr. Tomten asked if the requirement to obtain a short description/history of a structure could be used in tandem with the proposal for administrative review of certain outbuildings. Mr. Gag said he would be comfortable with giving staff more latitude in decisions related to outbuildings and with Mr. Empson's suggestions, but spoke of the possibility of a future change in the ordinance to provide the City with authority to deny a demolition permit, which would be difficult under the current ordinance; he suggested that any changes to the ordinance ought to be done at the same time. Mr. Lieberman summarized the three main issues: administration review of outbuildings; requiring a history/photos for an historical record of "what was"; and providing the Commission/City with the authority to deny a demolition permit. Mr. Nelson said he didn't think it was worth the Commission's time to review those requests for outbuildings that are clearly of no historical significance. Mr. Johnson said the only advantage would be that it gives the Commission an opportunity to provide direction on the replacement structure. There was discussion regarding the Neighborhood Conservation District and requiring architectural review of all new structures, not just on infill lots as is the current requirement. Ms. Hudak said she would like the Commission to be a bit more proactive in trying to stop the outbuildings from deteriorating. There was discussion of providing financial incentives for rehabilitation/restoration through block grants or low-interest loans. Mr. Johnson said he thought having staff make the first review was a good start; if the Commission finds that some get by that should have been looked it, it can always revisit the ordinance or discuss with staff the ones the Commission would like to review. Mr. Pogge said he would be wiling to provide reports on applications that staff would approve. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the Commission hasn't been overwhelmed with such requests and said he would prefer to take a more conservative approach and look at all of them unless it becomes excessively burdensome. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned and sensitive to the property owners' plight in instances where the garage is obviously not something worthy of saving, yet they have to go through the application fee, pay for the newspapers ad, perhaps an appraisal, 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 etc. Mr. T omten said he would be in favor of administrative review and noted that the requirement for advertising the structure for sale is a "baggage" requirement that hasn't worked as there are no sites for the structures to be moved to. Mr. Lieberman said he would be OK with allowing for administrative review of outbuildings because at the end of the day, there is nothing the Commission can do about it - reject a demolition request. Mr. Lieberman suggested at the very least, the Commission ought to have the right to deny a demolition permit as the applicant has the right to appeal that deeision to the City Council; he moved to recommend the ordinance be so amended. Mr. Johnson suggested adding a subdivision three to the ordinance that includes possible language that if the Commission upon review of an application finds the structure to be historically significant, the Commission can either approve the demolition permit or deny the permit, leaving it up to the Commission to determine the structure's historical significance and its importance in the community. Mr. Pogge noted that would require changing the definition of "historically significant," as currently, the ordinance has a very speeific definition of "historically significant." Mr. Pogge said he would talk with the eities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, SHPO and City Attorney Magnuson and attempt to craft new language. Regarding the suggestion to require a description/history of a structure, Mr. Tomten said he would be in favor of that. Mr. Tomten noted that the City has a contract for service with a forester and suggested it ought to have the same for the services of an historian. It was consensus to recommend that photographic and written history of a building be required of any structure coming before the Commission for demolition and one way to do is for the City to have an historian on retainer. There was discussion of possible fees. Update on munieipal parking ramp - Mr. Pogge provided an update on the parking ramp project. He provided samples of the brick to be used on the front elevation and side and rear elevations and samples of stone elements. There was discussion of the proportions of the brick. On a question by Mr. Eastwood, Mr. Pogge said the final drawings are remarkably similar to what was approved. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern about the type of brick units on the front elevation, saying they don't look correct proportionally. Mr. Johnson noted there are other brick types available with a shallower type brick or those that are poured inside of a snap-lock concrete form that have a brick face. Mr. Tomten said he did not understand the rationale for putting the shorter brick on the front elevation and questioned why long brick isn't used all the way around. Mr. Pogge said there was an issue with structural integrity. Mr. Balay pointed out that the short brick emphasizes the vertical rather than the horizontal. Mr. Pogge noted that the Lowell Inn's addition ultimately will be abutting the ramp, so there will be a change in brick styles. Mr. Johnson spoke in favor of the use of the longer brick units, rather than the short units, as the height to width ratio is very much the same as the common brick. The scale of the building is large, so it can support the use of the larger brick, Mr. Johnson pointed out. Stillwater lift bridge color options - Mr. Lieberman moved to indicate the Commission's support for the green color. Mr. Johnson noted it wasn't indicated whether the railing will be painted and suggested the railing could be painted gray if the bridge is painted green. Several members spoke in favor of gray, noting the bridge hasn't been green since 1942. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 18, 2008 OTHER ITEMS Mr. Pogge stated due to the Labor Day holiday, the September meeting has been scheduled for Sept. 2. Mr. Lieberman stated his would not be able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting and announced he will be resigning from the Commission at the end of the year. Mr. Lieberman spoke of the upcoming Lakeview Hospital project and the concerns of the neighborhood and asked if the Commission had any position on the project. Mr. Pogge briefly reviewed the hospital's plans for a four-phase expansion. Mr. Pogge noted that the hospital does not want to commit to phase one without having some comfort level that it will be allowed to proceed with phase two when that time comes. Mr. Lieberman wondered why the project couldn't come before the HPC for design review; Mr. Pogge responded that the site isn't within the HPC design review district. Members noted that in the past, the HPC has reviewed project outside of the district. Mr. Pogge suggested the hospital could voluntarily appear before the HPC or design review could be a condition of approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lieberman said he would strongly encourage the City to encourage/require the hospital to bring plans before the HPC. Mr. Eastwood suggested the ordinance should be changed to give the HPC review of all commercial projects. Meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 6, 2008 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Gayle Hudak, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Couneil liaison Gag Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson and Larry Nelson Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval of the minutes of Sept. 2, 2008; motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/08-45 A demolition request for the rear entry porch at 1330 Third Ave. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Chris Rustad, applicant. The applicant was present and explained the request. He stated the foundation under the existing porch is failing. When rebuilt, he said the new porch would be of similar style and size as the current structure. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten asked about the size of the new porch. Mr. Rustad said the new porch will extend a bit farther toward the garage. Mr. Tomten asked if the new structure would match the trim and siding of the main structure. Mr. Rustad said the siding would be the same, but noted that the addition off the front has been changed already and is missing some of the details of the main structure. Mr. Lieberman noted that all nine steps required in the demolition ordinance had been sufficiently fulfilled and moved approval of the request. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DEM/08-46 A demolition request for a two-car garage at 1111 Fifth St. St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Nancy Hagstrom, applicant. The applicant was present. She described the condition of the existing structure. She said the plan is to build a new garage immediately to the north of the current structure; the new structure would be of essentially the same style and size as the existing garage, with the addition of some windows, she said. Rebuilding to the north will reduce the amount of driveway and impervious surface, she noted. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman noted Ms. Hagstrom's was a clean application fulfilling all nine required steps and moved for approval. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DEM/08-47 A demolition request for a 14' x 14' garage at 111 Sherburne St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Paul Frenchik, applicant. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 6, 2008 The applicant was present. He explained that he would like to take down the existing garage and reclaim his yard. He stated the structure has not functioned as a garage in eight years. He explained the structure is in a bad location - one has to traverse the entire lot to get to the structure. Also, the concrete is in bad shape, with hollow spaces beneath. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman said he thought the application was a good package fulfilling the required steps and moved approval. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/08-49 Design review of signage at 105 New England Place, Suite 140, located in the VC, Village Commercial District. DeMars Signs, representing Karma Clothing Inc. The applicant was not present. It was noted in the staff report that the proposed signage meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Zahren moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/08-50 Design review of the final phase for Maple Island commereial and office space at 225 Main St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mainstream Development LLC, Vern Stefan, applicant. Mr. Stefan was present. He stated that the cost of construction makes it prohibitive to build a two-story structure; the project is only viable at three floors, he said. He noted that the HPC had previously given concept approval to a three-floor building in requesting final approval of that concept. Mr. Stefan stated the final design of the building removes all vent pipes from the rooftop. He stated the plans also include geo-thermal heating system and high-efficiency lighting. He also stated the plans meet the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization's water runoff requirements. And, he pointed out the plans include a public restroom, as negotiated with the City. He said the first floor would be professional/office use, not retail as initially suggested. Mr. Tomten noted that the three-story design given concept approval was the option for the peaked roof. Mr. Stefan noted that they will need a variance from the 10 percent infill height requirement. He stated the immediately adjoining buildings are two stories, thus requiring the variance to the infill height limit. Mr. Tomten said he thought the City's height limits in the downtown area, especially the infill limit, is a mistake as it limits diversity and character as well as handcuffs economic development in the downtown area. Mr. Tomten asked if the plans still include copper shingles. Mr. Stefan responded that due to cost, it is likely they will use metal clad material. Mr. Gag asked about parking; Mr. Stefan said plans exceed parking requirements. Mr. Tomten asked if an exterior lighting package would be submitted and whether the applicant would provide updates as the project proceeds; Mr. Stefan responded in the affirmative. Mr. Tomten moved approval of the final design as conditioned. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion, noting that approval in no way indicates the HPC's position regarding the requested variance. Mr. Zahren said he thought this was a good project. Ms. Hudak said she liked the 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 6, 2008 plans for professional use, rather than retail on the first floor. Mr. Tomten said he thought this was a good project, one that will help the streetscape. Mr. Lieberman echoed Mr. Tomten's comments. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. DR.OS-4S Design review of exterior alterations at the Ann Bean Mansion, 319 W. Pine St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Jeffrey Drews, applicant. Mr. Balay and Mr. Drews were present. Mr. Balay noted the requested alterations are basically weather related due to spring storms. He said the proposal is to replace the existing aluminum siding with new siding, likely hardi-board siding. He said they would return with the proposed colors. Mr. Balay said the applicant is currently negotiating with his insurance carrier regarding the roof replacement and is hoping to convince the insurance carrier to allow the roof to be replaced using the original slate material. He stated a draft letter had been prepared in support of the position that Department of Interior standards would require the use of the original slate roofing. The draft letter was written under the signature of HPC Chair Lieberman. There was discussion of the legal ramifications of the letter, and Mr. Lieberman stated he would not approve of the use of his signature. Mr. Tomten suggested that the letter indicate City ordinance requires that Department of Interior standards be meet in projects involving structures on the National Register. Mr. Gag suggested, and it was the Commissions' consensus, that staff write a letter citing City ordinance in support of Mr. Drews' position. Regarding a request for renovation of a third-floor dormer to include a door and railing, Mr. Balay stated this proposal would not harm the character of the house and was a sensible addition. Mr. Tomten moved approval of the requested exterior changes -- replacement of the siding; repair/replacement of the roof; and renovation of the third-floor dormer -- with the condition that the applicant bring in final elevations for the new dormer. It was noted the motion does not specify the use of slate for the roof; materials will depend on the outcome of the applicant's negotiations with his insurance carrier. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR.OS-40 Design review for fa9ade renovation, window replacement, new entry and walk-up window at 132 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark S. Balay Architects, applicant. Continued from the Aug. 1S, 200S, meeting. Mr. Balay said plans have been revised based on a 1870s photo of the building storefront. He said Dairy Queen no longer wants a corner entrance at Main and Chestnut, but would like to move the Main Street entrance and reintroduce the use of columns as shown in the 1870s photo. He said the revised plans include a new walk-up window/entrance on Chestnut Street. He noted there is already a window and door opening on Chestnut Street which has been covered up. Mr. Balay said the secondary entrance on Chestnut would provide for 9' of storefront and a "store within a store." Mr. Tomten questioned going to a new storefront bay instead of using the existing door and window. Mr. Balay pointed out the building is a non- contributing building due to its many alterations. Ms. Hudak said she would be happy to see the Main Street elevation go back to its original appearance. Mr. Gag said he thought the revisions .., .) City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission October 6, 2008 result in a better project. Mr. Lieberman suggested that the changes on Main Street represent a fair exchange for the proposal for the secondary entrance on Chestnut Street. Mr. Tomten moved to give concept approval of the new storefront/entrance on Chestnut Street and reintrodueing the columns/revised entrance on Main Street. Ms. Hudak seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Don Empson presented his suggested changes in the format for phase 2 of the Heirloom Homes project. His proposed changes include the use of full-size photos and a more historical/narrative description of the homes. Members were in consensus that they like Mr. Empson's format. Meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4 " , .~. ; n FBI H r H F' ~ /'1 C r 0 ~ f,~ j N ~~ f ~; 0 f A. ') Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: October 30, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-51 APPLICANT: David Junker REQUEST: Demolition Permit for a single family home and a Neighborhood Conservation District infill Design Review for a new single family home. LOCATION: 615 St. Louis St E HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 3,2008 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director Michel Pogge, City Planner h/I"-)P PREPARED BY: BACKGROUND David Junker, property owner of 615 St Louis St E, is requesting a demolition permit for the existing single-family home on his property. Additionally, since the home is in the' Neighborhood Conservation District he is requesting a design review permit for the new structure. In the Hersey, Staples Addition Residential Area context study completed by Don Empson the home is listed as being built in 1955. DISCUSSION Demolition Permit Since the home is over 50 years old, it is considered to have potential historic significance per City ordinances. Consequently, the Heritage Preservation Commission is required to review the demolition request. This site is in the Conservation Design District and is subject to the infill design criteria and review by the HPC. Evaluation Of Request Chapter 34, Section 34-4 of the City Code states that /lif buildings or structures are determined by the community development director to be historic or potentially historic, the application must be sent to tl1e [heritage preservation] commission for review... Buildings or structures determined nonhistoric must be referred to the building official for issuance of a demolition permit." , 615 St Louis St E Junker Demolition and Design Review Permits Page 2 A "nonhistoric structure or building" is defined by Chapter 34, Section 34-2 as a structure or building less than 50 years old. .. The home was built in 1955 making it more than 50 years old which makes it potentially historically significant and requires review by the Heritage Preservation Commission before it can be demolished. Section 34-5 of the City Code lists nine items which must be considered prior to approval of a demolition permit by the Commission. (1) A map showing the location of the building or structure to be demolished on its property and with reference to neighborhood properties; This information is included in the attached application. (2) A legal description of property and owner of record; Lot 1, Block 4 of Hersey Staples And Co's Addition to Stillwater (3) Photographs of all building elevations; This information is included in the attached application. (4) A description of the building or structure or portion of building or sh'ucture to be demolished; The single family home with a total footprint of approximately 1,400 square feet along with a detached garage that is approximately 504 square feet (21x24) and a deck on the east side of the home. The application is to demolish all of the structures on the site. (5) The reason for the proposed demolition and data supporting the reason, including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for demolition; The applicant desires to add a second floor to the home. Due to the condition of the basement it needs to be rebuilt in order to properly support the second story. The applicant has included a letter from their contractor supporting their position. (6) Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure to be demolished is located; The applicant stated in his application that he desires to build a new two story home on the property. The applicant has included elevations and plans for the new home. Since the property is in the Neighborhood Conservation District, it is subject to the NCD in fill design guidelines. The NeD infill design review is discussed later in the report. 615 St Louis St E Junker Demolition and Design Review Permits Page 3 (7) Relation of demolition and fuhlre site use to the comprehensive plan and zoning requirements; The current comprehensive plan land use designation for the property is Single Family Small Lot and is zoned RB, two-family residential. This is a non-conforming lot since it fails to meet the minimum lot size and lot width requirement; however, since it the new structure will follow the existing footprint a variance is not required. The site is in the Conservation Design District and is thus subject to the infill design criteria. (8) A description of alternatives to the demolition; The applicant states that the alternative to demolition is to construct a new basement and add the second story. The applicant does not believe this is a cost effective solution. (9) Evidence that the building or structure has been advertised for sale for restoration or reuse and that sale for restoration or reuse is not economically feasible. The property has been for sale for the past six months. The current asking price of just over $207,000 seen-IS reasonable for a home of this style in the current market. Demolition Permit The applicant has submitted plans for a new home at 615 St Louis St E. The existing lot is a 132' by 50' for a total of 6,600 square feet. The footprint of the proposed home and attached garage is approximately 26' by 81' for a total of 2,106 square feet. This property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Dish'ict (NCD) and is subject to the Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines. Evaluation Of Request All infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines serve as a common reference for all those involved in the process of new construction in the district including property owners, neighbors, residents, architects, designers, builders, city staff, and the commission. The guidelines are intended to serve as a framework to guide the design process, while allowing for individuality and creativity in architectural design. Twenty-seven guidelines make up the NCD design manual. These guidelines cover three (3) general areas including Neighborhood and Streets, Building Site, and Architectural Detail. In reviewing the proposal staff has concerns related to the following guidelines: Guideline #1 - Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures - The existing lot is 6,600 square feet in size. The average lot area of the surrounding homes (left, right, rear and across) is 15,513 square feet and range between 9,654 to 33,157 square feet in size. The proposed home has a footprint of 2,106 square feet. According to Washington County the average living area of the surrounding homes is 1,352 square feet and range between 912 to 2,102 square feet. The living area for the propose home is approximately 3,176 square feet. The massing and scale of the proposed home seems to be incompatible with the surrounding homes. 6T5 St Louis St E Junker Demolition and Design Review Pennits Page 4 Guideline #12 - The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property - At 6/600 square feet in size the height of the sh'ucture would seem to dominate not only the lot but also the prevailing streetscape. Guideline #15 - Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture - Architecture of infill construction should be consistent on all sides. The proposal includes stone/ vertical siding/ shake siding on the front and sides. These elements should be carried throughout the structure including the rear elevation. Guideline #16 - The facade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. - The proposed structure is a craftsman style structure. The existing neighborhood contains wide verity of architectural style; however/ the craftsman style is not one of them. Effort should be taken to add characteristics that are seen in homes immediately adjacent to this site. As noted above the proposal generally fails to meet the intent of the Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines/ specifically guideline numbers 11/ 12/ 15/ and 16. RECOMMENDATION Review and take action on the request. AL TERNA TIVES The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: 1. If the proposed plans are found acceptable to the HPC the demolition and NCD infill design permits should be approved. Staff would recommend that more specific material types (including siding/ window/ doors/ etc.) be specified on the plans. 2. Approve one or both of the request. With a deniat the basis of the action should be given. 3. Deny the requests. 4. Continue the public hearing until the December/ s Commission meeting. attachment: Application Supporting documents from the applicant \ Heritage Preservation Commission Demolition Request Permit Demolition Permit No. Fee $100* Address of Project: (0 \5 ~-\ ~ ' leU\S S~. Parcel No.: 132..- Lot (X) I Block 001 Subdivision f.J -.elt sey .s 4Qf l-e Y 141\/1) (cJ l.5 Applicant: ~Q\/I'd (:=1 3'lLV\~.lLX~ Address: to \ S -L11l\4 C1\ loLLiS ~. Telephone No.: -'l55-~L/ Owner if different than Applicant: Address: Telephone No. Type of Structure: 'l1{)..\'l')bl t-r-. (e. S--l' n\.e~v'rt \'a--( Age of Structure: 53 ~r..s .Condition of Structure: 30Dd Intended Use of Site after Demolition: f\e..tU \r\ Dnt'\L h.u..i l-i- lo/i~/u~ Date Signature of Owner Date * After review and approval of the demolition permit request with the Heritage Preservation Commission, a building permit must be obtained with the City of Stillwater Building Department. The fee for the building permit is based on the valuation of the demolition project. Office Use Only HPC Review Date: o Approved o Denied City Planner/CommunIty Development Director Date October 15, 2008 Application for Legal Property: LOT 1 HERSHEY STAPLES & CO FIRST WARD City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Members of the Heritage Preservation Commission: This letter is to request permission through design review and potential demolition to change the residential home located at 615 East st. Louis Street in Stillwater. Originally built in 1955, this home sits on a corner lot with views of the tree line on the Sf. Croix River. My intent is to improve the residence and further improve a neighborhood that is amongst several renovations, while at the same time building a home that will better match my needs long into the future. This home is a traditional 1950's rambler with a detached two car garage. The footprint of the home is a perfect rectangle and the plans provided for a future residence utilize the exact footprint. I also have maintained the exact location on property as not to change any set backs or impair in views, with no change whatsoever to the impervious surface. I purchased this home from Paul and Esther Noack in 1992, becoming only the second owner of this home. I am familiar of the history of the home and both home owners and can confirm there is no significant historic relevance to this property. My sincere hope is to contract a professional home mover in order provide further use for this structure on another piece of land in which it can be used. While these details are confirmed, I am requesting a demolition and design approval, in order to provide further direction for future plans. Attached you will find all elements required by section 34-5.1 from the city of Stillwater Demolition Code as well as the additional items listed on the application permit. Thank you for your consideration. David G Junker Property Owner Legal Property: LOT 1 HERSHEY STAPLES & CO FIRST WARD Owner of Record: David G Junker Elevation Photos: \ House of Building Movers: My hope is to work with a moving company to move the house as to avoid demolition entirely. Upon unsuccessful efforts to move the home, a demolition permit is requested. Future Residential Elevations: (2 options provided which mimic the style of the neighborhood.) ; I I ~, r I I I t ! ! ! - i t I I 1 I i ; t. i i I _";.:::;}L.:"5C-."';~.:': .:_. .. . ::,~~::c.,_::-": .~-- - _ .:' -;~:.:. :~. :. ~.;...--.~_'~_...__ ... ..: - -. - .. - ::" -. -'.: '"..;."'"'-'~'-"----"- , . .~ ".. -. ... .._.",._-~ "'~'-~--- .. --- ".-"', "'. - ..-.. - ..._._ _;" .... _" -.~'r-' _. . ,.."".~: -,:: ::..=-,0: ~ --., .L _ ._. " . ....'.'''' "', .".,'- ...~':_---,_...~ . . ..,;::-.S" -. . .~.:.._.. . .,n_ "'.. ~_. ~'_ --^::.--"...", - -,. - --'~~--"" --:'i:':.~:-;j. ::\~-":';:';",:-'.::.::-=:,:~:~- .~~_::1~tt~. , 'Fto>>..e;;:\.-.cVtr:\1~_JIt:LThJZ./ll~ - ---- .- -..-_ I\. i' "c-- "I CoN (;~...,.Jf-{ I C.~1~.ny Uf <.::::;jUb b v-' I " . "C.jf<<:t>~\Uir:Sll>t'l'i'-"..r /0#$/"" . j,..c.. @ )/4h~ f-/~ ~t::lr t:,~WJ\.110N. 'Df'7l0~A' ~L~-:Z=-~~~ ~AA\P..\~ ffO.1/~lI "c.ll-Oo \::J<>.... l!Jr2;-11:>\l'1'I0,,4( @c..:t.A-,l'-l(...J9t-l.~ r\ltM.~ Final Rationale: Since May, I have had my home on the market so that I can purchase a new residence in that better meets my needs. However, I have had no movement on the sale after reducing the price over $30,000 from an already low offering price. In working with an Architect, I have plans which combine my desired residential elements, while at the same time maintaining the exact footprint, impervious surface area and maximizing a view of over the beautiful st. Croix Valley. Therefore, it seems to the best option to move ahead with this project. And, in "keeping up with the Jones" I too can reinvest in a beautiful neighborhood as my neighbors have done, while making dramatic improvements to an existing lot and older, more dated 1950's rambler style home. With this structure, no views of the St. Croix Valley will be impaired as one neighbor will continue to back up to the garage and the other, the back of the home. Thank you for your consideration and please contact me at your convenience with any additional questions. David G Junker- 651.755.3644 Washington County Property Information . ,!-asbJngton ~COunty Page 1 of 1 New Search t;~%~~;1:~~"!.*Ji!:i}}';x.:f;~f~ Info for Residents Things to Do Here Property Information Additional Detail Property Characteristics/ Appraisal Data Payment Information Property Tax Statement Valuation Notice GIS Map View Proposed 2008 Taxes "Truth in Taxation" Freq. Asked Questions State Property Tax Refund Information Contact Us Employment Opportun f;<:'/W'~bi". 't"~:':~;~~,~~':_: 'ecC.':;:(',::~'!.:"d~~~I~{f"-, t;}:"':j~:": .;:. ,.~~.!'fl-l~~:~~~~,!!:!:i~~I.a~\...~~.- ~"'2.:@~m~~tf{ft~:;, .: ." ,-. "". ". ,.~ ~"~~"'_"";'::,'...__;":._J:i,....__._""",,',_,,,,,,~:,,~,;,,_',,H' ,-.....,.'. _, '0 ".."','.,,_:"_.' PROPERTY DETAilS PropertyID#:3403020230003 Property and Owner Information Property Owner Owner Mailing Address DAVID G JUNKER 615 ST LOUIS ST E STILLWATER MN 55082 Property Address 615 ST LOUIS ST E STILLWATER MN 55082 Tax Description HERSEY STAPLES AND CO'S ADD TO LOT-001 BLOCK-004 Payable 2008 Taxes 2007 Estimated 2007 Taxable Property Market Value Market Value Status Land: $87,800 land: $87,800 Class: Bldg: $127,900 Bldg: $127,900 RESIDENTIAL Total: $215,700 Total: $215,700 Homestead: FULL HOMESTEAD 2008 Estimated Market Value Payable 2009 Taxes 2008 Taxable Market Value Print Property Inform. Taxing Districts School District ISO 834 STILLWATEf Municipality CITY OF STILLWATEI Watershed last Updated: 10/16/2008 at 01 :14:2 Payable 2008 Taxes Net Taxes: Spec. Asmt: Total Tax & Spec Asmt: $2,76 $2,09 $66 land: Bldg: Total: $89,300 land: $116,400 Bldg: $205,700 Total: $89,300 $116,400 $205,700 Property Status Class: RESIDENTIAL Homestead: FULL HOMESTEAD General Information Call: 651-430-6000 . (TTY: 651-430-6246) Directions to Washington County Government Center 14949 62nd Street North. PO Box 6 . Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 ._----_._------_._-_._._------_._----,--_.~-,----_.------_.-._----_._-~----....----~-_._._--------_._------------------..- Sales Information Date 8/1/1992 Sale Price $90,000 Home I Info for Residents I Info for Business I Things to Do Here I Employment Opportunities I Department & Services Directory A-Z I Your County Government @ 2003, 2004 Washingt~n County. Security/Privacy/Accessiblity Statement. Contact Washington County. 1 " 615 St Louis St E Stillwater I Propertv Specifics I Foundation Size I Finished Square Feet Year Built Taxes Garage Stalls Approximate Dimensions 1200 I 1200 ! i I I ! "-~l 1955 $2,096 2 Living Room Dining Room Family Room Kitchen First Bedroom Second Bedroom Third Bedroom 25x14 14x9 12x20 12x10 10x12 10x12 II"~,:.'" \,,' ~~":'I.:. . oi');. , I ,r !~d .~. I It I , Professionally Marketed By - Dave Middleton 651-430-7793 DBMiddleton@cbburnet.com .. $218,768 3 Bedrooms 2 Bathrooms Great Location, 1 level living wi views of St. Croix River, Fireplace, Deck and screen porch. Many recent updates, move right in. Hardwoodfloors, Natuarl gas in stalled Oil August 15th. .. BURNET @m Information Deemed Reliable But Not Guaranteed Owned and Operated by NRT, Incorporated. I1D " ltU ' Design Review Application and Checklist This Design Review Application and Checklist should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact: Stillwater City Planning Office 651-430-8821 City Hall 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater, MN 55082 www.ci.sti1lwater.nm.us Project Address: {ol5 G- S.L (0,-</5 Sf 5.}/;'lIwale,1.. NN ~~4- Applicant name, address, telephone: () A v i/.) 'Tv Ai 1<: e jJ... cPtS E.. .r!. LOUi~ $f-- .S.V:/lw',rle;t. /VN ~,t)&?.- 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: o Vernacular 0 ltalianate o Queen Anne 0 Gothic o Greek Revival 0 Second Empire o American Foursquare 0 Stick .~ Other: C\ (I 0.( -the... o..ioovJL 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) Average setback on block (est.) Proposed new house setback " 40' ,liD - '-10 . 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1,1-1/2, or2 stories high? (Guidelines #4., #5) Stories 1 1-1/2 2 House on right ~ 0 0 House on left rJ I~ 0 0 0 House to rear 1lr 0 0 Prevailing on block 0 0 II Prevailing opposite block 0 0 }iO Proposed new house 0 0 ltf. 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch None House on right 0 ~ House on left f\I / ADD House to rear 0 "ai3 Prevailing on block 0 ]!j Prevailing opposite block 0 l:( Proposed new house 0 )( Notes: (p I of2) 5. Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right 0 0 )g House on left N/i\ 0 0 0 House to rear 'II 0 0 Prevailing on block 21 0 0 Prevailing opposite block )l 0 0 Proposed new house ~. 0 0 6, Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage Garage ~ 0 0 000 )ZJ 0 0 OED o ~ 0 o :153 0 House on right House on left I\l/-A, House to rear Prevailing on block "Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) iG5 8. If the proposed structure/garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighborhood and streetscape? : .C-\-'<.. ~(o),fQHiv1 j F-\{i {InS, Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines Design Review Application and Checklist 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) ~ Structure sited parallel to slope .. Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) o Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 1'10 (eta;Vl iVl~ u)o.1 \s.. (W C r ",,:,> 6(\,,( u -Fe> (" ~f") () VY\ e. . I 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) -S Types of trees o Heights o Trunk diam. Notes: l3iach Tilee... G9v/;? S-e Li)~f. ALrl1DUfjh ~. 'T/J;/V/( /1-5- /f1./2-7'/11.) j ~"$ -1-. Good Neighbor Considerations 1. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor's access to sunlight in adjacent yards, patios or rooms? (Guideline #21) .. ID House to right: , v ' House to left: House to rear: /\J 0 Notes: How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? )it Locate structure on lot to minimize impact o Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact o Other: 'E!-y:. CA-S-"* so..vY1.Q.... k.coiioVL- Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy?(Guidelines #22, #23) House to right: House to left: House to rear: Notes: ;1ID NJA ;Va How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? )j Offset/locate windows to reduce impact o Use obscure glass in window )Ii Locate balconies to minimize impact. o Use landscaping elements for screening o Other: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors?(GuideIine #25) 1\ Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property )< Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property o Other: To be included with this Application and Checldist: o Site Plan: include location of proposed building(s) on property, lot area; indicate impervious sutface, property lines, street/ sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures. Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features. )ii' Building Plan: dimensions, fIrst floor area square footage. ~ Building Elevations: indicate building height, windows, materials, and color on all elevations. Indicate proposed exterior lighting. 'J:z{ Photographs of site and streetscape. o Regular Planning Department Development Application Form (p 2 of2) . " ':,': n~ .~''"'~111' 'I I 'I i! : 11 01t./\,Jir 1 t:'; : . : ! I I .; ~ . , '! j i :!j, <; I, " i;., [":11 "1 ' , " '1' " II',. . ! i i iii, ',; i:;. J i Ii {,.:.:'I ' i i ;: i . . j ~ , i': I ~_;rli I : !lll ::{ "'~:Ul..L Iii, [I ' i',' I", '-l-l- --0' I." I ' j ',,- :),! ! I !: ':1, f i' I 1,'; .'- ',:1 . 1" ",' 'I r 1, ! }' I '.If :1 I 1 f , i'l I \l , ......., 11' I Jill:;, ~'~. . ~ -. I~! i II ::; ,~~ ~ ~ . ~~I i Iii I. : : I . ,/(1 r i ., I, ", 'I 'Ii l II il .:: . . : j; I : Ii,. ,J,: I I "I \ d h f' I Ui ")li'II;I'I'!!I1\ I' I:: '!. ',,: , ~..I!ii, ;1/:\1--,.",: -.:~. I j 'j'ii - .;--~~ j! I . i ~ 1 i Ii ~ U.l '11 ,j , :: "iV in . ,I I J i:I' 1 '/ 14 :=1-< '\1,;,'1 ;~ I fA: J :-=r-\- ~ iil -J ,l II t' ''',' _ !0L- d . itll 11 I . J .r:. I I.ii! ,. ., r ~~It:1~c ~l.'!i m}. ~ I~\ t-'f4 Ii, !j~I'r .~ ~ '" '<~'I :!: .,~._'; iiii ....~I.f.N, .,1,. I. .........!, _ \ ij!'i ~~ !,i 1- ':'r.. 'il j '.x ~'~iL I-' .... iil. 'r,; ,. :!( ''1:1 'ili ,I, : ;1:' I;:" I;'j~ i:; :-.L ~ ;.1, ",:, ',' " ,i '1; ;.1 L ,. jli' : 1i 'i i"~ 1,/1 ,. l<t~-I i/': : Pi: I,,;, L..c n ,.: I ! !:, ! I' i I, 'J:::'-!:.. 1 i',. :;1 ',. '."!' 'IT ., , ': ! ,. Ii: ': : -f-- :i:: ': I, i 'I! I ! ;.', ., . , , ", " 'j i,: i i :;:t I I, ::c~ I i', . ",\ i: T -ill \1;, ! i' : I' \\;!..,. i~ i-IT' /lIe -, l'r' . i ii ';111;:! tWu~ ,."II!,,'jfi .r! ' :, ," '. ;. \, " ~ JI1'l Ii, :, , , " , O.t~ , . . 'l, J!I, UEtt1r. ~;, " ~ll i l' :;I.':i : ;'11: If ' 'l:'),., , j' I "., Ii, : I 'i. ,1 I '1; J : 1 . It i ,-I j , I I I J . Ii .; : 'I:, : i' j 1!.:"..qi ""'" .'...."..:;1 .::11,11'.."';3,' Ii . "'" _ 'I' + '\i:;: ,i' "1 -liil:11 I '.',' ...... I: ". - -II I' "'~I':I~ J~~ !!!!!!I .~ . I;\\~ ,: r ~ I ~\-, ~ : '. 1\. \, i I! ; ; ; .1 "~ i r'r' I ~;, \.;' f. . I,. I . J ".1\. ~Ll f ..:: ";;:I'i';)\~ . ' ' ; ~; \:! \ ;f!: . . r j. l .~"j '::';'II~ ~if' - ......; -, -' ~ POrn II VI. ..'. ......:. IV I~ 'I mt I .~ J '-'- "'~ -.- '"' J_' I, ~~ -:.I- I " 1dtt:' - " - ...:..l . ..ILl j - - .:.::L. I J \1( -.. I I , j I' I'll f j,p~ -a ~~ -S ~~ j \tl !e~ -.J ~ ~ i ~ cl. "2 'U L. b ,; - t ...... \ ' \ ; i J ~ ;l: i: I ~ i'l 'iI : i i ,ll! :,: !: lii iii' II Ii;::: : l; ,H ::! \\: I~ 1 l:!:l.' :,.1, ;' 1 . I t,' l!l :,'~,i;:: :! t, I 1 . . , ; ~ I" !, ,': ; i ,~, : " ;~II,I .' ; ~ '!~'I!'::: . , ,I:, ;1 ;fj .J! i\, ':J 1 j; j ~ ! : ~ I If I!l '; i: :ii; I \ ': If: 'I , . .\ I ~ I , . I ,. , , .' : I , ,11 ',1 I. :.1 . ;1' li:d iltl, i I . 'j 'j' ..1; ii j ! i~; I I~ i .;j \1" 1,1 vir \.\ .; t 1.; ~ ~; !~I'~; ;,~,! ,j '1 ' J ,. J :. ll; :.I! 'T, ,; :1. , :; i I. ~ I i 1 ; ; 1. I! . ' ; d ! i ~ j ~ . i I 1; ~ ~ i: i it: . q:;'; : , I , , ,'" ~ I'. "'.\ I u! I i: . i . I , ~ . , j j.; Ii j ~ :i : j T 1 : ; . ~; ~l: '. ;, I, ,. ;1"1 '~ i j :;; i ; i ;; 1 ~:; i ' j ~ !:~;: I ,: . .!,! ~ ,i i I .!! ; .! i . ': Ii! !: t : i if; ,:; : ~ '; I. ' :1: i!; j !; ! i ii,i:,: . :;,' ; ,I: i, ; 'il I i\', , ,ill ' ::, . , j Iii "'I ; ; . : '1' , :: ; ; \ .;i:~: ! \ "; ': \\i: . ! ;""'" I I. ~, I j i '1 \ili I . Jl" '1'" V \' \ I. . '. t ,,' \ I.., \ ' I' \ \ ' '. : I .1 Ii I .. il ',\ l v j:' , :.T; :;1 . : i;: j . " , " J ,I i;; , i'; i " ij ~ "! '- .... I~ .I:z l Ii ;K 1I,i;,'~ ~ ~ I; ~ -sr ~:!t~ ~I~-\\J 4)1; ~~ '. {~ l r:c ~ ~ ~ - ...___~___.Jo.-~ --..........---- "' If ~ ~ ~ : ~ 4: ~ ~ I ~ ~~ \\ (0 s~ Ii Al~ . ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~..- m g- ~ w ~ ~ A -.::r "'tJ .... f-J ~ ~ -,. " " .t ~ ) v;j 1 ~ ~ >I~ ~ t ~ 1'. II ~ l 1~~~ <t:' ~;1 . ~ ~~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'X) T- I ..i ! I f I J. '"-- ~ ." " ~i I f II I I I I b~~ .' .[g:.,j1f.......'.....' "';2. .' '. - ~-j t:; .- ~. ,. :Lr~; I , I I I II j u j~t 11 If' , i I i I ~ . - J-.~~ - ' -'---.- ~( :: .// tl--; 9i -J. I} m M- oO -::r- rJ -::r tl ~-9 __~ ~ ..;- -:. I -::;- jj II t: "j' -;; ; $. 11 Jl Z -l ~ ~ tb -:t:.oJ.. ~j "l'~ 4: !J..J -<0..' -:z.~ s:S ;;~ ~ ~ Vl ~1" ~ Ll t a.-!~1: d~ ~ 3 :. ~ g ~ ~ <J: ~~-:r V):t ~ ~ ' ~ J f"I J ~ ~~ - \J ~ s: - 0 ~ V\ :-=' , ~ N ~ () ~ ~ j ! ~ ...1 () .....: o 4!j J A-,;. .1 .fi I.li ~ .,. "': o ~;I 'il ~ Jl i ~ I ~. il I I J I I .:7 -' ~I ....... - I -- --- r)J ~;r 2's \SlID ~~.. KJ GJ -p f)J , 1 ~ r ~ !' '2. :2 l' () 'iii ,I:. ~ A-~ I ~ ~ <) J. f\J ..... " I ~ ~ IJ! ~ ~I~ G 1.'. ~~~~ ~I~ i { J V1 ~ ~ t~: \~-> dl $ ~ ~ ~ , .J ~ .J e '" <. ,0 _ ;:;,. q.... ~ v <:) ~ \) ::f ~ Page 1 of 1 David Junker - FW: r~?;:~;:m'it'-~:.1lt.~I-';"~~~-.;'.t.r~,:?;"~~~;.sz,~~~iL.~~~~~~~~~-.!:~~k.~~~;J~.:S;.1"~....2~:?,d{~~i<:~~..dLW~~~~~4:."":"~'":4J-Z;t:l From: To: Date: Subject: "Libby Crooker" <Libby@anytimefitness.com> "David Junker" <davidj@eaglevalleybank.com> 10/21/2008 10:58 AM FW: ..._-~_._--_._-_._--~-~--_._-_._-_.- ----.-..-----.--------.--.-....,..-,---,-...~~--___~_______._...---- ~___..______~_c__.____.~____~.__ Here you go.. ----.--------.-..--~.-.--~-_.----~~-.-----~-------..~-.-____._...__._..._._....___._._._ _.. ~n___..________'_~_._~..b____~_____,___. From: Mike Hartman [mailto:Mike@hartmanhomesinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21,2008 10:48 AM To: Libby Crooker Subject: Dave and Libby, After looking at your project I have determined that the scope of work needed to remodel to meet your needs would be very inefficient. In order to create the square footage you require we have to exercise both options that we discussed. Here are my thoughts. First we have to finish the basement. The existing basement is not an area that I feel comfortable in finishing at its present state. I recommend that you replace the basement with a poured wall system and modern waterproofing system. This is the only way I could warranty the basement finish. The second option we discussed is adding a second story. We need to get at least 3 bedrooms up and in order to do that we would have to build over the entire structure of the existing foot print of the home. I would like to get the garage attached to the home as well so we can add the bonus room that we discussed. This again is a very expensive approach to square footage and for this reason and all of the other costs associated with remodeling, I feel that the most cost effective approach is to move or demo the existing home and build from scratch. Sincerely, Mike Michael J. Hartman President HARTMAN HOMES INC. 744 Ryan Drive, Suite 102 lIudson, VVI54016 (715) 377-1555 (715) 377-1990 (fax) mike@hartmanhomesinc.com For the latest model homes and developments, please visit ourwebsite: www.hartmanhomesinc.com 1""1 11/""1 \ T"'\. _ 1 n _ JJ- _ _\ __ 1 _ _ \T 1 n JJ. \ r"'("('TTl A^^^1 TTrn"'a Jr Property subject at 615 East st. Louis street .. House directly across East St. Louis Street ~ f...... '.-- "l..~~~:::::-~ J ----~--- Neighboring homes ~."'~'''' ~.;w. ',;. if '\.. N(h~hI:>Ja.S P{Jfhv~;Jl.r Df hi)iJ~ 1{)P.r'/'cfr'\J .~ ~ -... i : NOV 3 2008 I DEPARTMENT ,/ c.u I If, ,.- / :z o -<,/"'/ ---, r! r-..:> g = 6J , ' -'-1 ,-,r ../ ... 'I ---------- \ ,; 1.7~__ 1 . ~ " I ~~'~; .>,~ 1 ~:~ ~ , " :' ,~ \ \ ' \ \ \ ~ . #'"" .... "" .. RECE\VED ~l ') .. .~ ,Jo f- 'r"! " !~ " . ,,- I r=~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . " ,ti I~!er, -.--~.~ --~ "- '''f~R liP :,'r 0' ,",:N"f'O" .) Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: October 30,2008 CASE NO.: 08-52 APPLICANT: Matt Doman REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for The Edge LOCATION: 2510 Curve Crest Blvd W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: BPC - Business Park Commercial ZONING: BP-C Business Park Commercial HPC DATE: November 3,2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner /1t~"\P DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a new wall sign for "The Edge Performance Hockey Training" at 2510 Curve Crest Blvd. This sign would replace the former St. Croix Bike sign. The sign will be comprised of individual red channel letters for IIEdge" and a cabinet style sign with white letter on a black background for IIThe/' and "Performance Hockey Training", The proposed sign is proposed to be 2' 4" tall by 10' wide for a total of 23.3 square feet in size. For retail wall signage the West Business Park design standards provide that the signage shall be consistent with the Sign Ordinance. The zoning ordinance states that for a wall sign, I the gross surface area of a wall sign may not exceed one square foot for each foot of building, parallel to the front lot line'. The applicant's retail space has approximately 85 feet facing Curve Crest Blvd. The total sign area of the proposed sign is 23.3 square feet, which is smaller than the square footage allowed by the ordinance. RECOMMENDA TION Approval as conditioned. Case No: Date Filed: Receipt No.: Fee: $25.00 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required. All following information is required. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 3'5" /0 CLtv'lt'<. Cf'f.-stXtvv Assessor's Parcel No. 3d<) 50') 6) ;}OO 4'-/ Zoning District \3 p- C Description of Project in detail-:-RaGe-~~ 'I\I1@7J,vYt L !Art L1l'tt I J f'++-e {' S fjS1-r:MA 5/$ VI rYltJU0ff'.rl for ~ H~_ P CJ~"V1A tiYncJ.. ~d~ \rCt(\1(~ (/~ IT hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required Property Owner ::f, ~ (<! Rc III Representative rVltrW 1t>[itJ(OA; Mailing Address 1710 C u. /, (I; ref .e. Mailing Address 3<;'/0 CUYV~ (Yt?<+ 8 LU[) City State Zip Ilt.1J.ro'l/ I wI. Slfo/(P City State Zip 5t;'/I/AJiL-Jpr, MM r;S--OfJd- Telephone No. t#/2. -S-?o- 'ISIS- Telephone No. &$'I-d-fpq~ ljCJ'S'tj Signature~ (! /~ SignatureJlJ~;t- f)gj;fr------- H:\mcnamara\sheila\sheila\design review permit.wpd February 5,2003 ~ J ;AI 11 nJ c () "' ro :::s :E (JJ ~ ~ I ~ ::r ~ 3: ~ H 0 :::s c (JJ :::s rt- rt- ~ n ..-.. (j) ::r --" 0 ---- III nJ ~ :::s ~ ~ :::s I I~ ro ~ I n I r x ~ ro I ~ --" q I 0 I ro I "' 0 U1 ro ) rt- ~ I Q 1 I I.Q q I ~ , q l I :::r ;+. '" '" ~ I !;;"" '" .... 1 T1 x ;;0 i ::;. III '" Vi' '" c+ ~ T1 s:: :::r I 'll:: .... (\) III '" I:L X <E' n I IV Vl f :::r '" <E' IV T1 ~~ :;- ~ :::r CO 5' 3:> c+ ;:;: :;- W Vi' (\) :::r ~ ;::0 :::r i III s:: '" > <+ '" (\) '" ~ <+ 3 Vl """ OJ ::s I:L - I:L o _. ~. ~ Sil Vl ;::0 ~ :::r", roO 0 -1 ff '" OJS:: ~ I:L 7' I:L 3: III 3 :::r OJ m ;::0 ~ m ~ ! o ;::0 ;:1-' iil I:L '" (i' I:L cBlll 1.5:> I:L 1.5:> n '" n :::r 1 .... 0 7' '" T1 '" 0 '" r < --l r III --l OJ s:: ~ m .... m 0 .... iil ~.e! C1 ~ 3' C1 '" 3' n Vl Vl Vl 7' ~ I ~ Vl ~ ro < ro' :E C AI .. ID n c III .. o 3 ID .. )0 'tJ 'tJ .. o < e!. .A - -.;1' .~- " ~g~~~~~~g~~ 0 m. " a n !O. ~ ID ! g-"O:o. I 5-~~2'g~J1~~~~ cr\ " "0 a 3 t:r ~ 5" ::I 8..,,, -. I ia~2:l..n~ ("I8R-'3~ 0 ~~g:.o::l1g~.~!!!o;' CO ~2 ;'::J~"B ~~ o~ g:. ~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ g... ~~:: '8 ~ '" S' 0 ~,,"'d. a.g ~ ~ ::J:::i3:;.~g~Vl~3C: "2 ",::r '" ID.! 0 '" ~ ~~. u: '< DJ -... .... ....... }:::;. ::J ::J - _ f1t S" ~f1ttDr~ ~3~("I"'Q e3~u;'::I V"~;=t.g ~~a . 15::riirrtl ~E .E ::I~a~ C AI .. ID IV ~ o n s:: < (\) n .... (\) Vl <+ OJ <" I:L '- o a- lii ;::;.' ID ~;:1 <+ (\) ~ m 3:~ III (\) ~ C1 o 3 III ::s n iii' ::s .. 5' cr .. 3 AI .. o' ::s 0".....-.. n v ~ Xl :J ~\ Sll - ~ rT' 1000\tiN :::tn ~ -I , U"IVlttlO --::IN ~"'CJ ~ :J -' ~ie;~~~ ro ~~~-~ ,....m r ::l~~~f1I ro m 2 ~ g~ ~ ~n M- ~ M-~ ~ '!: -: ~o ~-I ro ro - <n ~ ~'" ...... to 00. a w,p '"'C Vl 8 alE: ro 3 l>' ~~ M- IV ....,......""'I!IP.\ <......~Cl' -w~ -..... .". ""... -- .....--..-.. ......-... ~ . SiB Iwa tel ~-= ~;::::;::.-= ~ '''c- 8;/1'H.','(:, or M'Nljf.S"i' ') Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: October 31,2008 CASE NO.: 08-53 PROPERTY OWNER: Gartner Properties APPLICANT: Mark Balay REQUEST: Design Review of windows and deck LOCATION: 232 Main Street N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: November 3,2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director Michel Pogge, City Planner ~ PREPARED BY: DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval of new window openings and a roof deck on the building at 232 Main Street N which is home of Mara Mi, which is a Gartner Studios company, The building is outside the Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. The building is part of the larger Downtown Stillwater Design Review district and thus why it is before the HPC for review. The building was built in 1977. New windows openings The applicant wished to install eight new windows in the building. The existing windows on the building are casement window. The new windows will be clad casement windows that are a dark sand tone. <Stillwa(e~, ...-- --= ,.,~~ """'" , j "- ','E BiRTHPtA;:, Of MlfPif.\OrA. .) Memo Community Development Department To: From: Heritage Preservation Commission Michel Pogge, City Planner rh1r Thursday, October 30, 2008 Historical Resources and Downtown Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan Date: Re: Message: Attached are the Historical Resources and Downtown Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan update. Staff will present an overview of the two chapters to the Heritage Preservation Commission on November 3rd. During that time staff will also take comments from the Commission and will forward them to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. At this point staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on Nov 19th and the Council will approve the draft for release for jurisdictional review on Dee 1 st, A full color pdf version of the entire comprehensive plan is available on the City's website at http://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us. On the main page you will see a ling to Comprehensive Plan and from there you can download the Council and Commission Review Draft of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions please feel free to contact either Bill (651-430-8821) or 1. Thank you, Mike From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP . City Planner' City of Stillwater' 216 N. 4th Street. Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 . Fax: 651.430-8810 . email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us .~t~ ~ \A!a fer ~() a! v V - .. _ _h___ - -=:; n~~, ----" -; "- . 11 t Big, H D , ft. " ~ [] f M iNN E :~ 0 1 A .,) Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: October 30,2008 ITEM: Proposed Guidelines for Downtown Sidewalk Signs HPC DATE: November 3, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner lfVl<;P DISCUSSION After a request from the Downtown Merchant's Association the Stillwater City Council appointed 8 members to a task force to develop guidelines for sidewalk signage in Downtown Stillwater. This task force included members from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission, the Downtown Merchant's Association, and at-large members. The task force met on August 20 and October 8. The task force looked at several areas including the completion of a visual preference survey; the right-of-way, street, and sidewalk width of historic communities in central Minnesota; and draft sidewalk sign guidelines from the Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce. With a fairly clear and concise set of guidelines the task force elected to use the chamber's suggested guidelines as a base for the sidewalk sign guidelines. The attached guidelines are recommended by the task force to the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration. RECOMMENDATION Review and make a recommendation to. the Planning Commission and City Council on the proposed guidelines. GUIDELINES FOR SIDEWALK SIGNS DOWNTOWN STILLWATER "'.;;DRAFT'~.;; The Stillwater City Council appointed 8 members to a task force to develop guidelines for sidewalk signage in Downtown Stillwater. The task force met on August 20 and October 8. The task force looked at several areas including the completion of a visual preference survey; the right-of-way, street, and sidewalk width of historic communities in central Minnesota; and draft sidewalk sign guidelines from the Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce. With a fairly clear and concise set of guidelines the task force elected to use the chamber's suggested guidelines as a base for the sidewalk sign guidelines. The following guidelines are recommended by the task force to the HPC, Plmming Commission and City Council for their consideration. The purpose of these guidelines are to assist the downtown businesses attract more customers to their businesses. Business owners shall obtain an annual permit from the City of Stillwater for all sidewalk signs. The pennit fee is $50.00 with pemlits valid from January 1 st to December 31 st. Upon application and payment of the permit fee, the City will issue a sicker to the business owner for their sign that must be adhered to the sign. Revenues from the sign pennit will in invested in streetscape improvements in downtown Stillwater. GUIDELINES 1. Generally 1.1. Business owners assume the liability of the signs placed on public property. 2. Type 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Signs shall be an A-frame or single-panel style. Signs must be portable and stable. These guidelines does not allow for portable interchangeable copy signs, typically placed on highways. 3. Size & Shape 3.1. Signs may consist of an overall size of up to 30" wide x 36" high x 24" deep. 3.2. Signs may be silhouette cut into a shape. Protruding sections which could cause a hazard to pedestrian traffic will not be permitted. 4. Colors 4.1. Signs must be within approved Heritage Preservation Commission approved color scheme for building front and signage. Sign cannot mimic traffic sign (including yellow traffic signs or construction zone orange) or contain sign-grade reflective material. 5. Design & Features 5.1. Business owners will be free to design high quality, creative signage with minimum restrictions, encouraging hand painted, carved and unique signage on a flat surface. No interchangeable letters or letter copy on rails is permitted. Sidewalk signs shall not be illuminated, animated, have moving parts, or electrically powered in any way. 4.2. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. Signs shall contain a device (such as: braces, chain, rope, cable, etc.) to prevent sign panels from spreading. 5.5. Signs shall not have more than two (2) sign faces. 5.6. All signs shall be maintained in a high quality state, with no peeling, broken, cracked, or faded paint/vinyl. 6. Materials 6.1. Signs shall be constructed using quality exterior, weatherproof, sign board materials. 6.2. Signs constructed with light materials such as plastic should be weighted, to remain stationary on windy days. 6.3. No loose or lightly attached sign panels. 7. Installation 7.1. Each business shall be allowed to display only one sandwich board-type sign at a time. 7.2. Placement on private landscaped areas in front of business, between front of building and sidewalk (but not on the sidewalk), is permitted. 7.3. Buildings with more than one tenant (such as the Grand Garage and River Exchange Building) will be allowed one sidewalk sign per 20 linear feet of building frontage. 7.4. Signs shall be temporary and displayed during business hours only. Signs must be removed and stored indoors after hours. 7.5. Signs on private property may be placed on any ground surface that does not conflict with pedestrian circulation. . Signs on public sidewalk must be setback 1 foot from the back of curb with the comer ofthe sign placed in the hexagon paver block area. 7.6. Signs must be setback a minimum of 15 feet from any intersection. 7.7. Signs must not interfere with access to business, the passage of pedestrians on the sidewalk, or the opening of the doors of parked vehicles. 7.8. Signs cannot be placed in front of or adjacent to another business, commercial enterprise, or vacant land, unless permission is given by the building or business owner. In addition, placement of SLlch signs is prohibited on all City property, including but not limited to parking lots, streets, or alleys. 7.9. Five feet of clearance must be maintained and unobstructed by signs between the building and street for pedestrian circulation. 7.10. Signs shall not be displayed after a two inch snow event until all snow removal operations are completed. 8. Area in Which these Guidelines Would Affect 8.1. This guideline shall be applicable to the areas within Stillwater's Historic Design Review District. .) " c$HU~~~leL, ~~'\ ; r' t 8 p. 1 H P I {\ ',f ();. ~,l I 14 N f '- [) . I't. J Memo Community Development Department To: From: Heritage Preservation Commission Michel Pogge, City Planner yv1W Thursday, October 30, 2008 Discussion Item: Business Park Signage Date: Re: Message: On July 14 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed this request from Edina Realty for a second sign on the property in the Business Park - Commercial zoning district. At that meeting, the Commission elected to table the item and request that the City Council consider an amendment to allow additional signage in the BP zoning districts. The Council considered the Commission request at their August 12th meeting and authorized the Commission to draft and consider changes to the BP zoning districts to allow multiple signs on a single site. Attached are the proposed changes to the BP signage regulations. The basic change is to allow each site to have a "Total Allowable Sign Area" of 15 percent of the building wall surface. For buildings that face two or more street frontages the average of the building wall surfaces facing a public street are used to calculate the total allowable sign area. Each property is permitted a minimum of 100 square feet and a maximum of 300 square feet of total allowable sign area. This formula is similar to that used in Oak Park Heights and it makes sense to have consistent signage on both sides of the highway 36 corridor. The existing limits of 1 square foot of building signage per linear foot of building frontage would remain. Additionally, each property would still be limited to 1 freestanding sign that is up to 100 square foot in size. The combined square footage of all of these signs is required to remain under the "Total Allowable Sign Area". Related to Edina Realty they have 1050 square feet of wall surface (70' by 15') facing Highway 36. Fifteen percent of the wall surface is 157.5 square feet. Using this proposed ordinance change, Edina Realty existing 100 square foot freestanding sign and 54.58 square foot building sign would be permitted. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP . City Planner . City of Stillwater . 216 N. 4th Street. Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 . Fax: 651.430-8810 . email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us Subd 8. Permitted signs by a sign permit in BP-business park districts. All commercial, office and industrial signs in all BP districts are subject to the following conditions: One 'Nall, f~g, awning or canopy sign pcr-latJ.&+ness is permitted subject to the follo'Ning requirements: (a) Total Allowable Sign Area. The Total Allowable Signage on a property shall be limited to 15 ~cent of the building wall area facing a public street. When a building faces two or more public streets, the '-"Zall area shall be determined by adding the wall area of each building face 1hat faces a public street divided by Jhe number of public streets. Regardless of the bUilding wall area, each property shall be allowed a minimum of 100 square feet of siFSnage and a. maximum of 300 square feet of signage. For freestanding signs and multitenant master signs, only one side of the sign shall be counted toward the Total Allowable Sign Area. illl ['-lumber of signs,-A.P.J.QJ2erty may ha.ve any combination of signage as lon~ the total area does not exceed the Total Allowable Sign Area and the signage meet.s all other provisions of the code. faJlfL.._____Wall signs. Wall signs in the BP district shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The gross surface area of a wall sign may not exceed one square foot for each foot of building} parallel or substantially parallel to the front lot line. (2) Location. A wall sign must be located on the outermost wall of any principal building but may not project more than 16 inches from the wall to which the sign is affixed. The location and arrangement of all wall signs is subject to the review and approval ofthe community development director. (3) Height. A wall sign may not project higher than the parapet line ofthe wall to which the sign is affixed or 20 feet as measured from the base ofthe Quilding wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever is lower. (4) Special conditions. Where a principal building is devoted to two or more uses, the operator of each use may install a wall sign upon each share of the building. A sign plan must be submitted for the entire building that shows the location} sizes} types and elevations of all signs. Upon submittal of a sign permit request for an operator within a multiple-use or multiple-tenant building, proof must also be provided by the applicant that a signylan has been approved for the entire building, If no such sign plan has been approved bv the Heritage Preservation Commission, then a sign plan shall be submitted and approved by the Heritage Preservation before a sign permit may be approved for the single operation or use in question. The signs are subject to the following restrictions: L All signs must be visually consistent in location} design and scale. ii. The total gross sign age for the entire building shall not exceed one square foot for each foot of building face parallel, or substantially parallel} to a street lot line or a minimum of 25 square feet per business, whichever is more. (tttlQL__.__Freestanding signs. Freestanding signs in the BP district shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The gross surface area of a ground sign may not exceed 100 square feet for each exposed face nor exceed an aggregate gross surface area of 200 square feet. (2) Location. A ground sign must be set back 15 feet from the front or side property line. 1 , (3) Height. A ground sign may not project higher than 25 feet, as measured from base of sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever is lower. The height of signs shall also be subject to provisions outlined in Subd 11 (special sign height limits) ofthis section. (4) Number. There may be one freestanding sign per development site. ((:-H.Q.L______Awning, canopy or marquee signs. Awning, canopy or marquee signs in the BP district shall meet the following requirements: (1) Area. The gross surface area of an awning, canopy or marquee sign may not exceed 50 percent of the gross surface area of the awning, canopy or marquee to which the sign is affixed. (2) Location. A sign may be affixed to or located upon any awning, canopy or marquee. (3) Height. An awning, canopy or marquee sign may not project higher than the top of the awning, canopy or marquee to which the sign is affixed. (dHfL______Multitenant master sign--pf-eg-ftrffi. Each multitenant or multi-use bUilding is permitted on_~_J\ building mostcr sign program is (ful'-multitenJnt commercial buildings) besides the m-4iv-ithJil-4e-ffil-n-t-c1-nd occupJnt signs. (I, building master identification sign is p2rmittcd according to the following requirements: (1) Building master identification signs may notcontain the names of any tenants or occupants of the center. (2) If the multitenant commercial building hasa floor area of 40,000 square feet or less, the building may have a freestanding sign with a maximum of one square foot of sign for each five feet of building frontage or 40 square feet maximum with a maximum height of eight feet. (3) If the multitenant commercial building has a floor area greater than 40,000 square feet, but less than the 100,000 square feet, the entry may have a master identification sign with a maximum of 75 square feet on each side and with a maximum height of 20 feet. (4) If the multitenant commercial building has a floor area of greater than 100,000 square feet, the center may have a master identification sign with a maximum area of 120 square feet on each side and a maximum height of 25 feet. Subd 9. Directory signs. Directory signs are used to guide pedestrians to individual businesses within a multitenant commercial area and are permitted in BP business park districts, subject to design review. J::he sign area used in a directory signs shall not be calculated against the Total Allowable Sign Area. (a) Placement. Directory signs must be placed on the site of the development and may be erected only in internal pedestrian access areas and not in vehicle access areas. (b) Area. A directory sign may have maximum area on one square foot for each business listed on the sign and four square feet for the name of the building or complex. (c) Size. Directory signs may be freestanding but may not exceed 6 1/2 feet in height. (d) Use. A directory sign may only be used for directions and identification. Subd 10. Automobile service station signs. Automobile service stations may have one wall sign and one ground sign, subject to the following conditions: (a) Wall signs. There may be no more than one wall sign with a maximum sign area of one square foot for each linear foot of building frontage. \. , (b) Freestanding signs. There may be no more than one freestanding sign for each principal building. A freestanding sign may be set back 15 feet from the front and side property line. A freestanding sign may not project higher than 20 feet as measured from grade or contain more than 65 square feet of signage. {~L_Service bay and island identification signs. Service bay and island identification signs are permitted providing direction or instruction to persons using the facility but containing no advertising material. ftH.s.!J.__..._._Totai AJlowable Sign Area. In no case shall the total signage on the property exceed the Iotal Allowable Sign Area outlined in Section 31-509, Subd. 8 (a) Subd 11. Special sign height limits. Because of the character of the area, including existing and proposed land use, special sign height limits for freestanding signs are required for certain streets as follows: (a) Curve Crest Boulevard from South Greeley to Washington Avenue and Orleans from Washington Avenue to County Road Five, six feet. (b) County Road Five from Highway 36 to Croixwood Boulevard and South Greeley from Orleans to Highway 36, 20 feet. (c) Washington Avenue from Tower to Orleans Street, six feet.