Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-04 HPC PacketHeritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Monday, February 4, 2008 The regular meeting will begin at 7 p.m., Monday, February 4, 2008, in the Fire Department Training Room of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF January 7, 2008 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 Case No. DEM 08-02. Demolition request for a single family residence located at 1905 North Second Street in the RA, Single Family Residence. Boyd Knudsen, applicant. Continued from the January 7, 2008 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01. Case No. DR/08-05. Design review of the installation of a new exhaust fan in support of an expanded cook line located at 305 South Water Street in the Central Business District. Larry McGough and Bob Sabes, applicants. 5.02. Case No. DR/08-06. Design review of exterior modifications for an accessory dwelling unit located at 522 West Oak Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Karl Diekman, applicant. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Downtown Parking Ramp. Discussion of parking ramp facade concepts 6.02 2008 CLG Grant Application to SHOPO 7. ADJOURN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 7, 2008 Present: Jeff Johnson, Vice Chairperson, Phil Eastwood, Robert Gag, Gayle Hudak, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of November 5, 2007. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/08-02 Demolition request for a single-family residence at 1905 N. Second St. in the RA, Single Family Residence District. Boyd Knudsen, applicant. Mr. Knudsen was present. He said he was aware of the City's demolition permit requirements before he purchased the property. He stated he would like to reuse as much as possible of the original structure. If he does demolish the house, he said he would like to build a new structure that maintains the historic look. He pointed out that the front portion of the house is what he believes to be the original structure. He said the back portions were done later. He noted there is nothing of structural use in the back portions, and there is no head space upstairs in the front portion of the house, leaving no bedrooms and no bathroom. He pointed out that if he gutted the house, raised the foundation (to deal with runoff issues), reinforced floor joists, and put new siding on the residence, he would essentially be building a new house around the old house. He concluded that it would be easier and more cost-effective to tear the structure down and rebuild. During discussion, Mr. Johnson pointed out that it is the front portion of the house that is the original and most historically significant. He suggested leaving the front portion, removing the two rear portions, and building a connecting link between the front and new back portions of the house. Mr. Tomten pointed out the front massing would benefit from being raised, with a new foundation. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Eastwood pointed out that should Mr. Knudson demolish the structure, he would have to meet current setbacks, while the existing house is grandfathered in regarding setbacks. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Pogge pointed out that this case involves four buildings, the main dwelling, barn and two outhouses. Mr. Pogge stated the barn is a safety hazard and in danger of collapse. He said all four buildings should be considered. Mr. Knutson said he did not include the two outhouses, as he might reuse those. Mr. Eastwood pointed out that the HPC holds all demolition permit applicants to the same standards and said he felt this application was lacking in detail regarding cost and alternatives to demolition and showing proof that the structure was advertised for sale. Mr. Knudsen said the 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 7, 2008 property had been advertised for sale on and off for some time, but he had not personally advertised the structure for sale. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Knudsen if he had any alternatives to demolition. Mr. Knudsen stated he would like to use the front portion as a new garage and turn the structure 90 degrees. Mr. Johnson suggested the HPC would be most favorable if he would leave the front portion in its present location and link the original portion to newer structure in the back. Mr. Zahren asked Mr. Knudson if he would be satisfied with doing that. Mr. Knudsen responded that he personally would not like that arrangement, with a new home looming behind the original front portion, noting that the upstairs in structurally unusable. He said he could do as suggested, but offered his opinion that then it would not be an historic home any more. Mr. Johnson encouraged Mr. Knudsen to look at some ideas for incorporating the front portion of the existing structure into plans. Ms. Hudak applauded Mr. Knudsen for being open to options, noting that this property is unique to the City of Stillwater. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Nelson moved to continue this case pending more detail regarding permit requirement No. 5, as well as proof of publication for advertisement for sale. It was suggested that if time is of concern to Mr. Knudsen that he come back with detailed plans for the infill design review. Motion to continue passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. 07-52 Design review of multi -use commercial development for the final phase of the Maple Island redevelopment. Mainstream Development Partnership LLC, applicant. Vern Stefan, Mainstream Development, was present. He stated that the only thing that has changed from the preliminary plans is that the Corps of Engineers will not allow mechanicals to be placed on the ground, so they are now proposing that the mechanicals be screened and placed on the rooftop. He stated they would work with Community Development Director Turnblad regarding that issue. And, he asked that the HPC defer to Mr. Turnblad on that issue, rather than requiring them to reappear at another meeting. Mr. Johnson noted that the first floor of the building will be at or above the 100-year flood level and there is a deck across the back of the building where the mechanicals could be placed. However, he agreed that placement there would be more obtrusive, and placement on the roof is likely a better option. Mr. Johnson suggested that the mechanicals be placed on the east side of the elevator tower. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Tomten both spoke against a screening wall for the vents or mechanicals. It also was noted that as a general statement, vents or mechanicals should be grouped as much as possible and not be visible from adjacent streets. Mr. Pogge pointed out that with the exception of the placement of the mechanicals, the applicant meets all other conditions of approval, including the submission of a lighting plan and sign plan. It was noted that the lighting plan provides for recessed, soffit lighting over the entries; there will be canopies over the rear entries. Mr. Tomten moved to approve final plans as conditioned amending condition No. 1 to indicate that the final building permit plans shall show the location of the vents with colors to blend with the roofing material and to be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 7, 2008 Director prior to issuance of a building permit; and changing condition No. 2 to indicate that mechanical equipment shall be placed on the roof, with the preferred location to the east side of the elevator tower and painted to match the other rooftop colors. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-01 Design review of signage for Tuesday Morning at 1266 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Spectrum Sign Systems, Mary Ferraro, applicant. Randy Burns, Spectrum Sign Systems, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Johnson noted this was a straightforward request, with the sign to be of similar size and location as adjacent signage. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-03 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 522 W. Oak St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Karl Diekman, applicant. Mr. Diekman and Mr. Balay were present. Mr. Diekman explained that the proposal is to use the house on the property at 518 W. Oak, property that he has purchased, as a greenhouse and guest house. Mr. Balay pointed out the proposal utilizes and maintains an existing historic structure. Mr. Balay said the plan is to remove the aluminum siding on the house and change windows, but not alter the envelope of the structure. He explained that the applicant to going to the Planning Commission requesting a special use permit to utilize the house as an accessory dwelling unit; if the Planning Commission grants the special use permit, Mr. Balay said they would return to the HPC with more details about siding, windows, etc. Mr. Balay indicated that contrary to what was listed in the agenda packet, they will be requesting a variance to the maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit so as to utilize an existing three -season porch on the structure; utilizing the three -season porch would result in an accessory unit of 950 square feet, he noted. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the second structure is historic in its own right and it doesn't appear there will be a lot of visual alteration to the building, noting that the Commission will see final details when the applicant returns. He moved to approve the use of the building as an accessory unit of 950 square feet, including the three -season porch, with the condition that the applicant submit elevations and exterior modifications to the building for final approval by the HPC. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten suggested prefacing action by indicating that while the HPC realizes this is an unusual request, unique in that it is a request for an accessory dwelling unit in a structure other than a carriage house, the Commission believes the proposal is a good way to preserve an historic structure and therefore supports the request for use as an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Johnson's motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites website project — Mr. Pogge demonstrated the beta version of the website. He noted that the 106 Group is working with eight initial properties and is under contract to do 70 properties in the first phase of the project. He said an open house will take place in February or March to encourage owners of Heirloom Homes to participate in the project. He demonstrated the various ways to search properties, and asked members to contact 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 7, 2008 staff if they want any other ways to search. The site includes narrative and mapping features. It was noted that infill design guidelines will be part of the regular HPC site. Sandwich board signaqe — Mr. Zahren brought up the issue of sandwich board signage in the downtown and asked about the status of the issue. Mr. Gag indicated that the Council is discussing the issue at this time, and appears to be split on the issue. There was a general discussion about the signage. Mr. Pogge indicated that the thought the Council would support the Chamber developing a policy and self-regulating the use of the signage. Reappointment — Mr. Pogge told the Commission that the Council has adopted a policy that in future, reappointments will involve an interview process. Comprehensive Plan status — Mr. Tomten asked about the status of the revision to the goals/policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pogge explained that task has been assigned to sub -committees of the two primary committees. The sub -committees have been meeting on a weekly basis, and the process is expected to continue through the end of January, he said. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Ms. Hudak. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4 g r K !11,'I A C_ Of td i N N E S 0 7 tt Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: January 31, 2008 CASE NO.: DEM/08-02 APPLICANT: Boyd Knudsen REQUEST: Demolition Permit for a single family home and existing out buildings LOCATION: 1905 2nd St N HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 4, 2008 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner JANUARY 7, 2008 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING The HPC Commission held a public hearing and reviewed this request at its January 8, 2008 meeting. At that meeting the Commission elected to table the item since the applicant did not personally advertise the building for sale. Additionally, the Commission requested a more detailed cost estimate for rehabilitating the home. Finally, the Commission asked that the applicant consider saving and utilizing the front portion of the home as part of any Single -Family home on the property. BACKGROUND Boyd Knudsen, property owner of 1905 2nd St N, is requesting a demolition permit for all or part of the single-family home on his property. The home is a typical traditional Dutchtown style home. This property is listed in the SHPO inventory as being constructed in 1870.1 The property was identified in July of 2006 as a "potential landmark property" for its architectural integrity and its strong connection to the history of Stillwater and the Dutchtown area. The entry for this site included the following information: 44.) 1905 North Second Street. Mill Workers House. This is the second old house —with its barn —remaining in Dutchtown. Wonderfully intact, the house has been neglected and could be demolished in the near future. Additional general information on the Dutchtown style homes and their importance to the Doutchtown area is included in the applicant's Exhibit A from Mr. Donald Empson's Dutchtown Residential Area survey. SHPO Property Inventory Number: WA-SWC-8 19 1905 2nd St N Knudsen Demolition Permit Page 3 (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; The property is Lot 4, Block 48 of Carli and Schulenberg's Addition. (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 structure to be demolished; The existing single family home has a total footprint of approximately 1,000 square feet along with a detached barn and several other outbuildings, including an old out house. Staff is in a position to authorize an emergency demolition permit for the barn due to the hazard it poses to the neighboring property; however, contrary to the reference made in the applicant's letter, this would be limited to the barn and would not include any of the other outbuildings. Since the other outbuildings do not pose an immediate life and safety hazard the applicant will need the HPC authorization before they are demolished. The proposal that the applicant has submitted would appear to save the existing barn; however, the site plan does not show the existing two outbuildings nor does the information he submitted address these outbuildings. (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 stated the home is in poor condition and not economically feasible to restore. The applicant has included information related to the cost to renovate the home from Sunrise Design and Construction. Sunrise Design and Construction estimates that it would cost in the range of $250,000 to $300,000 and suggests that rehabilitation is not a viable option. Staff is uncertain of this contractors' expertise in restoring a historic home and would note that their past w in the City has been limited to small remodels, additions, and decks. It may be worth obtaining an opinion from a contractor that specializes in historic home restorations before authorizing demolition of this home. This home fails to meet modern building code requirements and standards in a number of areas; however, simply because a home fails to meet these requirements and standards should not be the sole reason to authorize a demolition as this is true for many of Stillwater's older homes. The Building Official and myself visited the site on October 16, 2007 and attached is a report from the building official on her findings on the home. It is evident the home has experienced advanced deterioration and continues to rapidly deteriorate in its current unprotected condition. Protective measures should have been taken years ago if this home were to be saved. At this point it would take a special individual willing to make an investment in the home that likely would not yield a positive long-term payback. The applicant has not submitted any additional information on the economic justification as requested by members of the Commission. ' 1905 2nd St N Knudsen Demolition Permit Page 5 ALTERNATIVES The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the demolition permit as presented allowing the rear two sections of the home to be demolished and saving the front portion to be saved with an addition added to it. 2. Deny the demolition permit if the applicant has not proved the necessity for demolishing the structure or if the Commission believes there are alternates to demolishing the structures. 3. Deny the demolition permit if the level of detail submitted by the applicant is not sufficient for the Commission to make a decision. 4. Continue the public hearing until the March 3, 2008 Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Review and take action on the request. attachment: Application Supporting documents from the applicant i P ,4 • 0 N O N 0 Salesperson: CINDY LEHMANN STILLWATER GAZETTE AD INSERTION ORDER Printed at 01/08/08 13:52 Acct#: 305754 SABRINA KNUTSON 1830 STILLWATER ST WHITE BEAR LAKE MN 55110 Contact: SABRINA Phone: (651)470-3676 Fax#: Email: Agency: Ad#: 803523 Start: 01/10/08 Times Ord: 3 STD 1.00 X Rate: COP1 Status: N Stop: 01/16/08 Times Run: **** 5.00 Words: 13 Class: 1060 NOTICES & INFORMATION Descript: 1878 RESIDENTIAL STRUCTUR Given by: ****************************- Created: clehm 01/08/08 13:49 Last Changed: clehm 01/08/08 13:52 PUB ZONE ED TP START INS STOP S2 SV 97 S 01/10,11,14 INET A 97 S 01/16 SMTWTFS 1878 Residential Structure for sale. Buyer responsible for removal. Questions Call Boyd 651-587-9071 TO: MEMORANDUM Michel Pogge, Planner Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Dave Magnuson, City Attorney Larry Hansen, City Administrator FROM: Cindy Shilts, Building Official L DATE: October 18, 2007 SUBJECT: 1905 N. 2' Street A visual inspection of the structures on the property was performed on October 16, 2007 to determine whether hazardous conditions exist. The exterior of the house is in poor condition. The foundation consists of stacked limestone and has numerous areas where deterioration and failure is obvious. There are too many holes in the foundation to count, the sill beam is rotted to the point that the bottom of the walls are kicking out from the foundation. The rear porch is near total collapse. The porch roof has fallen into the porch and the north wall is now tipped outward by approximately 18" to 24". The roof shingles are so deteriorated that the entire roof is leaking into the house, causing interior damage. There are broken windows on the south side of the main floor, east side on the second floor, and the majority of the basement windows are broken or entirely missing. There is a high probability that the siding on the house may contain asbestos. The MPCA has specific regulations/procedures that must be followed when handling asbestos containing materials and can be very costly. The property owner has admitted that this property has been the target of vandalism on more than one occasion. The interior of the house is also showing signs of neglect and deterioration. With the leaking roof, the water has migrated to the inside of the house. The wall paper is peeling off of the plaster walls in sheets, which gives a good indication that the plaster has been saturated for some time. The plaster throughout the house is wet to touch and cracking in various areas and will eventually begin to fall off of the lath. The ceiling in the southeast room is deteriorated and falling down due to the roof leakage. The basement access is through a floor hatch in a closet. It appeared that the foundation is in less than adequate condition and the basement is certainly not "useable" space. The stairs are missing treads and the stringers are rotted to the point that the stairs are unsafe to use. The odor of decaying animals was extremely strong, to the point that it was difficult to breathe standing on the bottom step. I did not investigate further into the basement since there was debris scattered around on the dirt floor and a dead rabbit underneath the rotted stairs. I did not feel that the rest of the basement would be in any better condition than what was visible from the stairs. The outbuildings are also in a state of disrepair. I wrote a memo on April 25, 2007 after receiving numerous complaints regarding the condition of the garage. That memo basically stated the following: "I visited the above mentioned address a couple of weeks' ago and I have made the determination that the garage needs to be classified as a hazardous building according to Minnesota State Statute 463 (see attached). The entire garage is rotting and collapsing. The structural members have been exposed to the exterior elements for so many years that repairs would be near impossible. This structure is considered a hazardous building and needs to abated as such. " It is my opinion that all of the buildings on the property are beyond the point of repair and need to be demolished. Portions of the house are hazardous, and it is only a matter of time before the entire house is in this condition. Not only would it be cost prohibitive to "repair" these buildings, I believe it would virtually impossible to save any portion of the structures due to the condition of the structural building components that are visible. Heritage Preservation Commission Demolition Request Permit A71 -5(44 Demolition Per Fee $100* it N/— ;T/ Address of Project: /ys 2-4 S Parcel Lot / Block yD Subdivision r//' 04-1(: w/ 47- Al/ 341 ) Applicant: 47/ %�n u �sN ✓] Address: /83U S-,/A4,4i S, I4/%/!elidejelephone No.: 6.-11 % ) Owner if different than Applicant: Address: Telephone No. Type of Structure: q00 511'e- � Xo/vie. r See Age of Structure: /8 7g Condition of Structure: to, r� fC �, GXfi jh i7 e. Intended Use of Site after Demolition: L i /d( /I Y,/ Lme_ / Se _ j d *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 City Planner/Community Development Director ❑ Denied Date December 21, 2007 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, Mn 55082 Dear Members of the Heritage Preservation Commission: The Demolition Application Packet that I am submitting is not for the purpose of tearing down historic buildings in order to build something that would return the highest dollar. My wife and I purchased this place with the idea in mind that we may choose to live there. We both come from rural South Dakota and have grown to love the simple farm houses we were raised in, with front porches, special rooms and nooks, and practical styles. It is our intent to build a home at 1905 2nd St. N. that will preserve the Stillwater/Dutchtown classic style, such that it would take a keen observer to note that the home is new. I do not believe that it is a good idea to try to update the existing home to modern living standards. At a maximum, the original home is 688 livable square feet. An addition of 700 square feet in order to have even a modest home, would result in an awkward edifice. This application is being submitted without a concise set of plans because its demolition status will greatly affect those plans. Rather I have included some ideas of what I feel would be a good fit in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Boyd Knudsen Ql K_° cn CO Exhibit B: Legal description and owner of record The property is in lot 4 block 48 of the Carli and Schulemburgs addition 3rd Ward. Boyd and Sabrina Knudsen are the current owners as of 12-11-2007. Exhibit D: House description The structure being discussed is a residential home built in 1878. It is a 1 %2 story, 900 square feet house. It is hard to ascertain as to what the original structure consisted of, but it is obvious that it has been added on to since originally built. The house framing consists of 2"x4" wood studs, with 2"x8" floor joists throughout the upper and lower levels. The front of the house has two rooms separated by a wall and chimney Beyond that is the kitchen followed by the summer kitchen and entryway. There is a small stairway in the kitchen that leads to the upstairs over the front and kitchen. The upstairs consists of short walls and rafters, resulting in little usable space, none of which would qualify as a modern bedroom. The basement is a pit cellar type with footings on the perimeter of the house. Auxiliary buildings (garage, outhouses) have been authorized to be demolished due to structural and safety deficiencies. (Reference Mike Poge) Exhibit E: Reasons for demolition 1. Building Placement The current position of the house in relationship to the street, property line, and neighboring homes is not visually congruent due to its skewed placement. It is currently 4' 8" from the south property line at the southwest corner and 5' 8" from the south property line at the southeast corner. In relationship to 2' Street the house sits eighteen feet from the curb and 2' from the property line to the entryway. New building codes maintain a minimum setback of 20'. Ideally the new home would meet current building codes, or at least parallel the neighboring home to the south, which would move it 6' 6" feet further east from its current position. Due to its proximity to 2nd Street and the elevation in relationship to the street, the front of the house would be susceptible to drainage and excessive weathering issues from snow and rain runoff. The salt/snow mix from the snowplow windrow will cause accelerated deterioration of any new foundation. (Ref. Stoneman Masonry) 2. Current condition of the house The exterior siding fails to keep out rain and weather due to deteriorated caulking and poor condition of the siding. The wood soffit and facia are rotted due to improper paint maintenance and leaky roof conditions. The windows are either broken or rotted to the point that water has infiltrated the walls for some time causing damage to the structure around and beneath the window all the way to the foundation. The roof is of asphalt shingle composition that has exceeded its lifespan for some time causing the shingles to curl, crack, and function poorly causing additional water damages to the structure. In addition to being undersized for their structural purposes, the rafters, studs, and floor joists have exceeded the typical structural wood lifespan of 100 years. The plaster and lath are cracked and have sustained water damages in places due to roof and exterior leaks. There is no type of insulation in the house. The electrical wiring of the house consists of ungrounded 2 wire romex. This wiring configuration is outdated and unsafe due to the unknown nature of the wiring and the age of the home. Plumbing in the home is nonexistent, there are no sinks, showers, toilets, or running water in the original structure. The current foundation consisting of slip form mortar and stone has deteriorated to the point of compromising the structural integrity of the building. The majority of the mortar has turned to sand and dust. Many of the stones have fractured and/or split and calcimine buildup is covering a majority of the interior surfaces. All of this is due to the stones absorbing moisture and the seasonal freezing and thawing processes. Some of the larger stones have fallen out of the foundation leaving large voids in the basement walls. Due to the extensive structural and cosmetic water damage, outdated materials, poor placement, and lack of essential heat and plumbing amenities, if remodeled, none of the existing building materials are of relative use for structural purposes. 3. Originality This property is little mentioned in Don Empson's survey "A History of the Dutchtown Residential Area." His recommendations for homes to be placed on the national Register of Historic Places do not include this property. Page 25 of the survey (see next page) does talk about the early style of home in Dutchtown. At the end of the first paragraph it mentions that in every case the front of the house is symmetrical, reference to the elevations provided (Exhibit C) shows that the front door is not symmetrically placed in the center, it is skewed to the left approximately 1'. This possibly indicates an original design different from the one depicted in the survey. It also complicates efforts of trying to ascertain the original configuration of the home. 4. Financial Feasibility See Exhibit E. 1. Exhibit F: Proposed plans and schedule The demolition application is being submitted contingent on the approval of future building plans. This is done because in order to have a plan it is necessary to know the status of demolition. Once that is known, I will be able to submit a building plan for a design review by the HPC. I have included three different plans for building a new home. I believe that all three would "fit" in the Dutchtown neighborhood. All of them are based on a rather simple design starting from rectangular structure with embellishments such as front/back porches, dormers, or side entryways. Exhibit G: Relation of plans to comprehensive plan and zoning requirements A new structure would be constructed starting 12' from the west property line. This would line it up with the residence to the south, which is also a historic home. In accordance with the design guidelines and the proposed plans (Exhibit F), the new home will be sized so as not to dwarf the surrounding buildings. It would be positioned to allow a driveway to pass to the north with a garage set back much like the current positioning. Details of a new home will be congruent with the surrounding historic community and the design guidelines set forth by the HPC. Exhibit H: Demolition alternatives Based on the arguments set forth in Exhibit E, I feel that the only alternative to demolishing the current home would be to reuse and move the front 16' x 24' section in order to use it as a garage located approximately where the current garage is. This would enable the preservation of what I believe to be the original structure, while allowing for a suitably sized and properly shaped home to be built. Materials such as interior trim, wood floors, and built-in furniture will be salvaged and reused where possible. The items will be cosmetically incorporated into the interior of the new home. Exhibit I: Evidence of sale for restoration or reuse 1905 2"d St. N. had been advertised for sale for a year and a half before being purchased by Boyd and Sabrina Knudsen. Refer to Exhibit E for fiscal restoration feasibility. Refer to Exhibit H for reuse intentions. Exhibit J: Cultural/Historical significance The Donald Empson survey "A History of the Dutchtown Residential Area" mentions the 1905 2"d St. N property three times in the manuscript in reference to the names of its inhabitants at different time periods. I have included page 25 of the survey (Exhibit E) because of its reference to the style of the original homes of early Dutchtown and its mention of 1905 2"d St. N. ���i��-�C., Et1iviVi-4-C_ Ia f. t f t I r i i i Charlottenburg, 1853-1880 The Dutchtown House This is a drawing of the typical Dutchtown house, many of which must have been constructed by the Mill to house its workers. Sifting broadside to the road, these houses had two rooms downstairs, divided by a center wall which contained the chimney and stove. One room would have been used for cooking and eating; the other for living and sleeping. Upstairs there was a loft used for sleeping and, when necessary, as a guest room. The earliest houses probably had walls with rough sheathing and clay chinked into the cracks. In every, case, the front of the house is exactly symmetrical, with the door in the center, and a window an equal distance on both sides of the door. Today many of these houses are gone, but there are still enough left to discern the basic pattern, although many of the remaining houses have been greatly altered. The best extant example of this original house is at 2007 Schulenburg Alley to which a back addition has been added. As the purest example of this unique Dutchtown house, I would recommend the home be added to the National Register of Historic Places. Other houses in Dutchtown that fit this original pattern —although most of them have been altered considerably —are at 2011 Schulenburg Alley, 2021 Schulenburg Alley, 2016 N. Broadway, 1924 N. First, 101 E. Hazel, 1901 N. Second, 1905 N. Second, 2012 N. Second, 2009 N. Third, 307 Willow, and 309 Willow. A few others like 301 E. Willow, probably began with this pattern, but they have been too altered to determine their original configuration. The illustration is of the Joseph Gesse house that used to be at 1911 North Second Street; this is a copy of a watercolor painting by Jo Lutz Rollins reproduced in the book, Jo published by Croixside Press in 1976. aAbid�. 25 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION December 21, 2007 re: Boyd Knudsen 2°a st. Rehab of home. Dear Mr. Knudsen, After careful review and inspection of the property in question, it is my conclusion that rehabilitation of the present building is NOT a viable recommendation. It is our judgement that complete demolition is the better option. However that is your decision and issue to deal with. The reasons for our opinion against attempting to reconstruct the existing building are as follows: Foundation: The existing foundation is only partially under the house. It is stone and mortar. Although it is a good representation of the stone foundations of the era of the original build, it is not a foundation that can realistically be used. It is only 18' wide of the total 24' width of the front of the house. The rest of the foundation is a brick/stone/cement combination with no frost footing at all and the mortar and stone no longer has a solid integrity. The height of the existing basement is just over 6.5' feet and the staircase access is completely non- compliant and would require a completely new access point and thus take away from what floor space of what is an existing kitchen or dining area. (This areais not able to be redressed without compromising the usability of the space as a kitchen or dining area.) Our conclusion is that the foundation is unsuitable to any use or remediation attempts. Main Level: The main level is comprised of a dilapidated front entry that cannot be saved. This abruptly leads into what appears to have been the main living room. An additional area was added to this area at a later date and has no foundation below (as mentioned above). This adjoining room is less than 8' in width and probably served as a bedroom, or dining room originally. It has no functional size usage today other than perhaps a small office, which would not serve the purposes needed for a main level floor plan. The kitchen/dining area to the rear middle of the house (as mentioned above) is in very poor condition and would need to be redesigned to allow for the access to the basement and the upper level of the structure. This redesign would be very intrusive to the space itself and problematic to the overall floor plan as well. There is a rear "summer kitchen" attached to the main level at a later date which is completely rotten and has no foundation below as well. This space would have to be demolished and thus is unusable. Our conclusion is that the main level as it exists is not suitable to rehabilitation or any viable usage as it exists presently and precludes the thought of realistic rehabilitation. 9776 Mendel Road • Stillwater, MN 55082 • Office: (651) 439-0785 • Fax: (651) 351-0788 Second Story: This level was originally used for sleeping quarters. This is obvious, but unfortunately, in utilitarian terms, they do not pass today's standards for habitable space as the head room in all areas is less than 7' height in over 80% of the area. There are no closets, (not that it would help), and the floor space and room to room traffic flow requires going through spaces to get to the next space which is not acceptable. All of the rooms have sloped walls as the roof lines descend towards the main level making the side -walls largely unusable. The staircase to the second level does not comply to code requirements and to access from a new area would reduce the main level floor space as it exists. Our conclusion is that there are no rooms in this second level that can be considered as bedroom space by current code requirements and thus is unfit for use. Our conclusion is that the rehabilitation of this level is also completely unrealistic. Exterior: The exterior elements of the house are in very poor condition. The windows are rotted and unusable. The exterior doors are in the same state of disrepair. The siding is old cement/masonry shakes and these are broken or missing in many areas. The roof was not readily viewable due to snow, but showed several layers of various shingles and must be assumed as worn out as leakage is apparent within the structure. The soffit and fascia is wood with crown moulding and is no longer is good condition as the painting has long been unkempt. The chimneys show need of tuckpointing and are unlined. Our conclusion is that the exterior facade and structures are unusable and must be completely redone in any rehabilitation process. Utilities: There are no existing electric, plumbing, or heating structures that have any use. In fact, most are not there. Conclusion, all these systems are outside of any consideration to the future use of the home, and must be updated even if some were intact. Costs associated with any rehabilitation attempt, despite our conclusions to the wisdom and viability of this, are summed up below. The costs are lump sum and part of the overall view of what rehabilitation to any existing structural parts would take to integrate them into the structure to make it habitable and realistically functional. The house can not be rehabilitated to functional use and still maintain the roof lines, sidewall heights, or floor plan of the existing structure. The cost to work with the structure that is there, to bring it to some condition and shape of habitation is estimated to be $250,000 to $300,000. Thank you for considering our company for your needs. We look forward to hearing from you as to the action you will take on the property. Best r gards, Qi'`-( Dan Jozefow owner Sunrise Design & Construction F 2 4-O" main br 1 3x 1 5 O in MEMEL •Weu■• ■yaw■■ EOM SWUM ■� !na! Floor 1 plan Floor 2 plan Rick Thompson Architect www.thompsonplans.com P O Box 160 Lake Junaluska , NG 28745 828-627- 1 479 plan # 1611A Size fl 1 1058 Size fl 2 560 Size Total 1 6 1 8 Width 24'-O" Depth 56' Porch 8'-0" FI 1 ceiling Fl 2 ceiling Roof pitch Height Prints 5 sets Prints 8 sets Vellums Material list GAD 9' 10/12 2 "-S" Please see web site for current pricing thank you Please specify foundation type (crawl standard) Available types - Grawl, Slab or Basement 2 4'-0" brkfst 8x 1 1 /61 IL kitchen 14x15/6 dining 14/6x11/6 0 0 0 V• L�j O ip Floor 1 plan Floor 2 plan Rick Thompson Architect www.thompsonplans.com P O Box 160 Lake Junaluska , NG 28145 82S-627- 1 4-19 plan # 2102A 3/20/2006 Size fl 1 1 104 Size fl 2 1 061 Size Total 2 113 Yvidth 46'-0" Depth 24'-0" Porch 8'—on Fl 1 ceiling 10' Fl 2 ceiling G' Roof pitch i/ 1 2 Height 2 c 10" Prints 5 sets Please see Prints 8 sets web site for Vellums current Material list pricing GAD thank you Please specify foundation type (crawl standard) Available types - crawl, Slab or Basement Plan: DD-1392 Charming Symmetry Twin dormers and shuttered windows add stylish symmetry to the columned facade of this charming cottage. The covered entry opens to the large living room with its handsome tiled fireplace. Built-in cabinets on either side of the fireplace serve as an entertainment center or a storage area for books or personal treasures. A quaint dining area adjoins the kitchen at the rear of the home and opens to the backyard. The well -organized kitchen features a windowed sink and a neat laundry closet. The master bedroom unfolds to a full bath and a large walk-in closet. All main -floor rooms are expanded by 9-ft. ceilings. 30° Upstairs are two more bedrooms and another full bath. Each bedroom has a unique dormer and generous closet space. The space between the bedrooms serves as a nice play area. Bedrooms: 3 Baths: 2 Full Living Area: Floors 2 Main floor 840 sq. ft. Other floors 552 sq. ft. Total Living Area 1392 sq. ft. Standard basement 840 sq. ft. Footprint: Width 30 ft. Depth 32 ft. Exterior Wall Framing: 2x4 Foundation Options: Crawlspace Full Basement Slab Plan Category: Traditional Plan Style: Cape Cod/Saltbox Colonial/Federal/Georgian Special Features: Fireplace Main Floor Master Bedroom Designer: Danze and Davis Architects (All plans can be built with your choice of foundation and framing. A generic conversion diagram is available.) BLUEPRINT PRICE CODE: A First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan CALL NOW TO ORDER YOUR DREAM HOME! 1-800-547-5570 ©HomeStyles Publishing and Marketing 1996. Any use of this plan for construction purposes is a violation of the United States Federal Copyright Act. To obtain a license to use the plan, please call HomeStyles at 1-800-547-5570. To modify or customize this or any home plan, contact LifeStyle at 1 3'- 6" Floor 3 plan �I cc bonus room Br #3 11/6x12 Floor 1 plan Main br 14/bx13/b Floor 2 plan Br #2 11/bx10 Rick Thompson Architect www.thompsonplans.com P O Box 160 Lake Junaluska , NG 28745 828-627- 1 479 plan # 161SA 8/31/2001 Size fl 1 864 Size fl 2 803 Size Total 1 667 511 Width 24'-0" Depth 36'-o" Porch 8'-0" Fl 1 ceiling 9' Fl 2 ceiling S' Roof pitch 1 2/ 12 Height 51'-4" Prints 5 sets Please see Prints 8 sets web site for vellums current Material list pricing GAD thank you Please specify foundation type (crawl standard) Available types - Grawl, Slab or Basement Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: January 31, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-05 APPLICANT: Jason Rich REQUEST: Design Review of new vents and air handlers for the Freight House Restaurant LOCATION: 305 Water Street S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: February 4, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval of new vents and air handlers at 305 Water Street S for the Freight House Restaurant. Neither the vents nor the air handlers are viewable from Main Street or the River. Exhaust Vents The Freight House is in the process of installing a new pizza oven and hood system. To support this unit they need to install a new roof top vent. They propose to install the vent adjacent (north) to the exiting vents. This vent will be similar to the north vent that is there today. Air Handlers In the fall of 2006 the previous air handlers were replaced with a single unit. Due to timing issues City Staff, after discussing the issue with the HPC via e-mail, allowed them to proceed with installing the new units subject to HPC review of the equipment to determine if painting or screening of the units would be required. Attached are before and after pictures of the units. The HPC review was never completed. If the Commission believes that some treatment needs to be done to the units staff would suggest that they be painted. If a screening wall is installed around the units this :00Z `1,C enuel •OOZ `ZI• -0 - tOOZ ‘l•E enue1 Case No: Date Fiiled: 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. Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required. 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 is required. After Heritage Preservation approval, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the i0-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a design review permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. All following information is required . PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project S, 044-Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning Distric %4 ,: *' Description of Project in detail % t%V rf= / 6iMt .T ij /Ai ScIPPa i OF— rkon/100) rja,10/1&'.' "I 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. oitz- Property Owner M/1/v' {tc�-ou�I /®( %� tepresentative Mailing Address 5. orEL si Mailing Address City State Zip iU,� ,A) ' Z)5Zi City State Zip Telephone No. 6Sf—7 S 7/' Telephone No. S:\Planning\design review permitwpd April 12, 2002 RICH BROS. CONSTRLJC TION True to Form. MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD DATE: JANUARY 21ST 2008 SUBJECT: Executive Summary outlining HVAC work at the Freighthouse Restaurant in Stillwater (Address: 305 S Water St., Stillwater, MN 55082) To Whom It May Concern: Rich Brothers Construction is proposing to install a new exhaust fan in support of an expanded cookline at the Freight House restaurant. The new fan will be located between the two existing kitchen exhaust fans, and the water heater flues and package rooftop unit at the west side of the building, adjacent to the alleyway. The fan will match the existing two fans in size and shape and will be installed 2 feet to the north of the existing pair. To aid in the service and maintenance of the fan, the existing guardrail will be extended as shown in the attached exhibit. If there are any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jason Rich -Director of Business Development Rich Brothers Construction www.rich2bros.com 212 Second Street SE - Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (o) 612-331-2113 (m) 612-267-6607 (f) 612-331-2116 www.rich2bros.com 212 Second St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414 612.331.2113 . RICH BROS. CONSTRUCTION True to Form. Diagram A Elevation of Freighthouse Restaurant Roof Top before proposed HVAC work www.rich2bros.com 212 Second St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414 612.331.2113 RICH BROS. CONSTRUCTON True to Form. Diagram B Elevation of Freighthouse Roof Top after proposed HVAC work www.rich2bros.com 212 Second St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414 612.331.2113 DATE: January 31, 2008 APPLICANT: Mark Balay OWNER: Karl Diekman REQUEST: Design Review of an accessory dwelling unit LOCATION: 518/522 Oak Street W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL -Single Family Small Lot CASE NO.: DRO 0� ZONING: RB - Two Family HPC DATE: June 4, 2007 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director OaPREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION In January the Commission approved the initial design review for the 518 Oak Street W structure designating it as an accessory dwelling unit. Subsequently, the Planning Commission approved the special use permit and necessary variances to designate the structure an accessory dwelling unit to 522 Oak Street W. Mr. Diekman is now requesting design review for changes he would like to make to the accessory dwelling unit. These changes include: adding new doors on the west elevation facing the main house, replacing the existing garage doors, restoring or possibly replacing the porch windows when restoration is not possible, adding new skylight windows to make a greenhouse area, reroof the structure, and painting the structure. 518/522 Oak Street W Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is specifically charged with design review of accessory, dwelling units for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and iaterials. The intent of this performance standard is to require any new buildings that serve as accessory dwelling units to be consistent with the primary residence. In this instance the accessory dwelling unit has been in existence for well over 50 years. Additionally, the existing accessory dwelling unit was built as a single family home separate from the primary residence in both character and ownership. Consequently the two buildings, which could hardly be more different in style and materials, do not have a consistent design, detailing or materials. As such it is difficult to make direct comparisons that there is any consistency between the two structures. However, since the proposal is to reuse the potentially historical structure, staff does not believe consistency is an applicable performance standard in this case. The proposed changes are minimal and the choices in materials are in keeping with the overall style of the original structure. Therefore staff believes these changes are appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Approval the design review as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. All revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. Final exterior paint colors shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner before applying it to the accessory dwelling unit. Attachments: Applicant's Form, Letter, Site Plan, and materials specification sheets. Mark S. Balay, RA 110 East Myrtle Street, Suite 100 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 4.30-3312 1/17/08 City of Stillwater Attn: Michel Pogge 216 N. Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Pogge: A L ARCHITECTS Michael E. Balay, RA 13166 Hamilton Commons Blvd Fishers, Indiana 46037 (317) 845-9402 Attached are all submittal materials requested to apply for a further Design Review at 522 W. Oak St. The owner has purchased the existing property 518 w. Oak and the Planning Commission has approved the SUP for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. As a result we are applying for a follow-up design review which complies with the terms of the SUP and exemplifies the proposed alterations to the exterior of the Accessory Dwelling Unit. A) The Site Plan drawing attached describes the long term plan proposals for alterations to the site to unify the architectural concept of a single residential property. B) The Floor Plan drawing attached explains the renovated function of the ADU and locates proposed exterior alterations as follows: #1 and #2 are new door openings facing the main house. They will match the existing rear door out the studio of the house and an illustration of this type of door is attached. The size will be 6'-0"X 6`-8" for both. #3 will be a replacement of the existing garage door with a Clopay Carriage house door Model C l2/ Rec 13 as per an attached cut sheet. #4 We intend to try and reuse the existing porch windows, but they may not provide enough insulative potential. In that event we will utilize Marvin Gliding windows in the same basic dimensions to replace them. A technical elevation sheet is attached. Window sizes will as closely match the existing openings as possible. The existing porch door will be removed and replaced with a widow the same ht. as the others with wood siding below. SKYLIGHTS% We are proposing the use of Kalwall, materials attached, to accomplish Four skylights above the greenhouse spaces, Which are 4x6 and 4x4 in dimension. ROOFING/ As roof construction work is done the existing roof will be replaced to match the main house roof on all buildings on the 518 lot. The roof on the main house is a 3 tab asphalt Black shingle. SIDING AND !RIM AND COLOR' Initially, the aluminum siding will be removed for discovery and analysis of the original siding beneath for purposes of maximizing repair and restoration of historic fabric. We anticipate utilizing the man house as a proportional go-by for any features which must be replicated because they were completely removed, like the skirt and corner trim boards. We anticipate eventually painting a three color , color scheme which shall be complimentary in character and colors to the main house, with final approval by city staff of final paint colors. We request your review and approval of our renovation design plan so that we may apply for and receive a building plan based upon these descriptions. Please do not hesitate calling if you require additional information or have questions. Sincerely, -= Mark S:` Balay Mark S. Balay Archite , Inc. 2 A L A Y ARCHITECTS ISV3 01 3SF1OH i_N23v1-dv tn IN / Li , • 3 CL tL < -) Li0- Li \ Z 0 < 0 < 'N tY (A .."- ,77-3-Ld 1-- <E _J -$ :: I-- ___II. Ll LLI < LJ Li /2o, , ( / 71- c+J „.„ (/1 GARAGE KITCHEN/DINING GREENHOUSE GREENHOUSE A J DECK LIVING/SLEEP GREENHOUSE 'tiINDEvn/ _=T #4 nttp://www.marvm.com/photoPopup.aspx711)=162&Gallery=&acti... Ultimate Outswing French Door with divided lites. 1 of 1 1/17/2008 12:40 PM Model C12 SQ23 8' 9 wide Model C12 SQ23 10', 12' wide Series One fl.in the Coachman Collection proves that in simplicity, there is sophistication. Architectural styles such as mission, Shaker, country and prairie -style homes look beautiful with the -'understated elegance of this classic look. Your choice of rectangular, square, or arched windows provides that finishing touch. co O 2 LI d O 2 Ch C-3 C) OI 2 Arch1 Arch3 Arch4 SQ23 SQ24 Rec13 Solid (Solid) Window Window Window Window Window =MM M.. -M_ IN MI NM NIMINI —� MWI. IN .■ ..-- 7:■■ .u■ .. MMINN MINN ... ...: OMEN ■INN.. Model Shown: C13, SQ23 Rec14 Window ■■■ ■■■, 1111 1111 MUM MINN. MIME M.EN... nu ill 1111 1111. MINE MINA MINE ■N■ MIME ■MINE MINIM MINIM 9' wide x 7' high doors shown. Refer to your Clopay dealer for additional size illustrations. - - — ■EN■ Urn ■ME■ ME ■■■ ■■■ 1111 1111 P I E CIS20- 4032- 20 rT. A #0. LJ „ 7r: j www.kalwall.com High Performance - RAPID DELIVERY STANDARD SKYLIGHTS T31 tr-"'N P Segmented domes to Z8(8534mm) 4'x4' to 20'x20' (1219mm x 1219mm to 6096mm x 6096mm) 1-1 171 4'x4' to 5'x20' (1219mm x 1219mm to 1524mm x 6096mm) Now Available with ,uper-histilaiiiiii, aerogeli with Standard Sze Flat Curb -Typo, .Standard S-Line is ; is " 6s-4ID 3A 5 1 -3A S- 20 -SA Listed below are the Outside Curb Dimensions (O.C.D.) required to accommodate the Standard Series.* Unit Number For Standard Sizes O.C.D. Curb Type Frame Unit Number For Standard Sizes O.C.D. Curb Type Frame 4'-0" x 8'-0" 5'-0" x 8'-0" S-48-3A 1220mm x 2440mm S-58-3A 1525mm x 2440mm 4'-0" x 10'-0" 5'-0" x 10'-0" S-410-3A 1220mm x 3050mm S-510-3A 1525mm x 3050mm 4'-0" x 12'-0" 5'-0" x 12'-0" S-412-3A 1220mm x 3660mm S-512-3A 1525mm x 3660mm 5-416-3A 4' 0„ x 16 _0" 1220mm x 4880mm S316 3A 5' 0" x 16-0" 1525mm x 4880mm 4'-0„ x 20'-0" 5'-0" x 20,-0" 5-420-3A 1220mm x 6095mm S-520-3A 1525mm x 6095mm Instal with minimum pitch of W' in 12" (1:32). *NFRC tests and calculations. Now available in f' length increments from 4'x4' and r5'x5' to 4'x2O' and 5 x2Q . General Specifications Standard Series Features • Thickness 2'/." (70 mm) • Grid pattern size 12" x 24" for 4' Series; 12" x 20" for 5' Series • Insulation "U" _ .29* (1.6 W/m'K) standard and .23* (1.3 W/m'K) optional with Thermal Break core • Curb -type aluminum perimeter pre -sealed at factory installation on curb • Translucent shatter- proof fiberglass faces for 15%, 20%, or 30% light trans- mission standards • Designed for 40 lbs./sq. ft. (1915 Pa) live load • 50% light transmis- sion optional for north light or solar applications • Withstand Class A Fire Brand or Standards < Wu Outside Curb Dimension :NSULAT!ON: "U" = .29 standard. Options .53, .22 and .18 or Thermally Broken .23, .14, .10 and .05. PANEL THICKNESS: 2 Y" only. GNT TRANSMISSION: Any interior/exterior combination of exclusive super weathering translucent faces with erosion barrier resulting in light transmission range of 14% to 60%. Options from 3% to 74% in other colors. See Kalwall brochure, 08 45 23/KAL, for full explanation. GRID PATTERN: Geo-grid standard for Geo-Roof. Shoji pattern Pyramids and custom grids optional. EXPOSED ALUMINUM FI SH: Standard is mill finish. Optional Kalwall corrosion - resistant finish in a variety of colors. COLOR INSERTS: Color inserts are optional and available in a wide range of colors. DESIGN LOAD: All standard Geo-Roofs and Pyramids designed for 40 lbs./sq.ft. live load, except as noted. Higher loads may require a different design. FACTORY PRE -ASSEMBLY: Units up to 8' nominal pre -assembled into one piece. Geo-Roofs over 8' to 16' overall outside dimensions shipped in halves. Larger roofs shipped in segments. Pyramids shipped knock -down in 4 sections for 9' to 12' and 8 sections for 13' to 20'. 1Calwall www.kalwaII.com CORPORATION or Castor 5er�tCL' 1111 Candia Road, P.O. Box 237, Manchester, NH 03105 Phone 603-627-3861 or 800-258-9777 (N. America) Fax 603-627-7905 3 3 EAE STAR FAFTMIT- r!•ser S�ef Kalwall Corporation is engaged to continued research to improve its products.11, n L e, the right is reserved to modify or change material in this brochure without notice, All data in this brochure is correct to the best of our knowledge. However, no warranty is expressed or implied. mnn� V .- r TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director DATE: January 31, 2008 RE: Facade concepts for parking ramp project in downtown Stillwater BACKGROUND The City has been exploring the possible construction of a downtown parking ramp since early 2003. The most feasible site has been identified as property located north of the Lowell Inn between 2nd Street and 3`d Street. On May 2, 2006 the City Council authorized staff to proceed with the possible construction of a ramp at that site. The following chronology of completed tasks is offered to bring the Heritage Preservation Commission up to date: 1. A preliminary geotechnical investigation, which determined that the site's hydrology and bedrock configuration would permit ramp construction; 2. The City Council approved a modification to TIF District 10 on October 17, 2006 — this would generate revenue to pay for the project's cost; 3. The City Council established a Parking Ramp Steering Committee of the following members on June 19, 2006; Name Representing Kevin LaCasse Chair of the Parking Commission Bob Eiselt Stake holder — Trinity Lutheran Church Mark Balay Stake holder — Balay Architects Jim Christopherson Stake holder — Ascension Church Scott Zahren Heritage Preservation Commission Phil Eastwood Heritage Preservation Commission Dave Middleton Chair of the Planning Commission Adam Nyberg Council member 4. The Parking Ramp Steering Committee reviewed eight design services proposals on August 29, 2007. They recommended three finalists to the City Council. 5. On October 2, 2007 the City Council selected a team of consultants lead by LSA Architects and including the Carl Walker parking ramp group. 6. The contract for LSA services was approved by the City Council late in 2007. A key feature of the contract gives the City the option to stop the project after a firm estimate of Parking Ramp January 31, 2008 Page 2 construction costs is developed. If the total project costs exceed the available TIF revenue, the project will not proceed. 7. City staff and the consultant team are now in the process of developing a firm estimate of construction costs. a. A preferred preliminary option is emerging. The footprint can be seen in the air photo entitled Option 1. It shows surface parking on 3rd Street, a ramp facility on 2nd Street between the Lowell Inn and Rivertown Commons, and a parking deck bridging the bluff between 2nd and 3rd Streets. b. The attached stall layout plan for the preferred option shows 348 stalls. However, to bring the costs in line with budget, that number may have to be reduced. c. The first look at ramp cross sections in relationship to surrounding buildings and physical features are attached. The height of the preferred ramp option would be 36 feet. The height overlay district on 2nd Street would allow a 37 foot height. d. Two facade concepts have been created by LSA Architects. They are both attached. NEXT STEPS The next steps of the project are: 1. Heritage Preservation Commission gives direction on a preferred facade option. 2. LSA Architects designs the facade in consultation with the Parking Ramp Steering Committee. 3. LSA Architects submits an application for Design Review with the Heritage Preservation Commission. REQUEST LSA Architects, on behalf of the City, is requesting the Heritage Preservation Commission to discuss the two facade concepts. The purpose of the discussion is to receive comments and direction from the Commission in order to prepare an application for formal Design Review. Specifically, does the Commission prefer one option over the other? And if so, are there any architectural or historical elements that the Commission would like to see revised, added or delete? attachments: Preferred option footprint Conceptual facades Preferred option stall layout Layout three options Cross sections of preferred option Parking Ramp January 31, 2008 Page 3 Preferred site footprint Preliminary Preferred Option P4+� exmx 41M'C'r PRELIMINAY SITE STUDY sale/'.sy OT 24 4„y� Tekylvie 8123248724 77, "Afn0Np41 ""71433 Stillwater Parking Structure G41.1 C1111Q111.11,4404441413 5518+ 444414.6444,11144441 OPTION 1 fatty 14 Stillwater, Minnesota Parking Ramp January 31, 2008 Page 4 1.111.10 PARK'IC THOU TY Facade concepts ION S, REoAREA.%«XX T,.3. 2ND STREET EXIT PEER ORIENTED E-W XXX SPACES OPTION 3 � I 32 19 0E2T 133.25 36 3, 3 EL." 641.3L - 11E1.5.51 I 13 31611, 6Ie lm, ��e s 3Traciuf�o Ap£A �I3A3o 3F. 2ND STREET EXIT ORIENTED N-5 roiAf BP E�3 EVEl9 u3T,s 3F. - A LErEL3 tTmvE� OPTION 2 w nRE, varowno 9i5 m 6s. 3RD STREET CURB 69 10 11 12 LOT LEVEL • 1.1 SPACES' 5TRUCTURED PRE, 4,150 OF sl IsE3454c.,1.g4aI,4tI43!I4, I"d39 6 I64 �q> ]6 M3''yti F.,dssll ISI I5 L3.6. l 4d33 4.5 SLOPS 5L155 3- E� 3 55 a61:6i 46 e — te,o1 1011.3127321122131411S 60 I6�6�6e hi t3 �I3,6 L.v 33 A ELF 64. `-61 30 I SIT 13•`i g�I EXIT evree bL ARCr23m3F. 2ND STREET `ARV bn nP " TOTAL TOTAL AREA . 'to.... OPTION I ORIENTED N-5 tlf" 5F EV4 LEVELS RE, LEVELS SCALE LSO Suite 600 Telephone 612.339.8729 250 third Avenue North Facsimile 612.339.7433 fit 1 I G II Minneapolis. MN 55401 www.lsadesigninc.com „ IV113a4 I4v<3 42 0 IEI34, '3' L II3.I I`de 3,3 l ` 33W 37 1.141 45.MOPE� H2h2 I= '1'16,16�5�11 w 'Sr: i "LTur�o<rin.nta sr 3120 STREET OURS s 11111 �I a. ...: 3LaFE-b uo3 I91431 p 5 Q 13 �e o HI I43'4 t 4 e4i46I<31.4!A I411443/rJ3e3, ELAIA Preferred option Stillwater Parking Structure Stillwater, Minnesota PLAN & STALL COUNT STUDY - OPTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 ( SECTION at BRIDGE lflFDSCO2f flRCBI_ifC URf December 20, 2007 1 MDSCflDf flRCflIifCI I [ • - SECTION at LOWELL INN W Col December 20, 2007 O m I SECTION at PARK December 20, 2007 December 20, 2007 0 iwatcr e i R T N R i A c E OF MINNESOIA Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: January 31, 2008 REQUEST: MNHS FY 2008 GLC Grant Application HPC MEETING DATE: February 4, 2008 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND We are now approximately half way through the first phase of the Heirloom and Landmark Sites project and it is time again to apply for a CLG Grant for the second phase of the project. Staff has prepared the attached grant application which represents the second phase of what is anticipated as a four phase program to detail the 776 potential "Heirloom Homes" and the 61 potential "Landmark Sites" identified in the Designating Historic Homes and Historic Districts report by Mr. Donald Empson dated July 2006. The second phase of the project would include the following work elements: • Complete detailed inventories for a minimum of 350 Heirloom Homes. The inventories will be completed by a qualified consultant meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. Data from the completed inventories will be delivered to Minnesota Historical Society in an electronic database format. Inventories will also be available on the City's website. • Members of the HPC will collect digital photos of the remaining 350 "Heirloom Homes" that they did not collect with the first phase of the project. Members will also catalog the photos in a database by filename, date, property address, and description of the photo. This cataloging will allow the photos to easily be displayed on the City's website with information on each Heirloom Home and Landmark Site. FY 2008 MNHS CLG Grant Application Page 2 Future Phases In year three the City anticipates completing the remaining 350 Heirloom Homes inventories in order to complete all 776 and in a final phase of the project will review and complete detailed inventories on the 61 identified Landmark Sites. Once all four phases of the project are completed the City anticipates that a local designation program for individual properties and neighborhoods will be established by the City. RECOMMENDATION Review and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the FY 2008 GLC Grant Application to the Minnesota Historical Society. attachment: FY 2008 GLC Grant Application Appendix I Minnesota Historical Society Certified Local Government Grant Application Applicant 1. Applicant: Name of City - City of Stillwater Mailing Address 216 North Fourth Street Date Received MHS Number City/State/Zip Stillwater MN, 55082 CLG Certification Date 1/1988 Contact Information 2. Authorized Official: 3. Fiscal Officer: Larry Hansen Signature Ken Harycki, Mayor Print Name 651-430-8800 Telephone Number 4. Project Director: Michel Pogge Name 216 N 4th Street Street Address Stillwater MN 55082 216 N 4th Street Street Address Stillwater MN 55082 5. Heritage Preservation Commission Chair Howard Lieberman 216 N 4th Street Street Address Stillwater MN 55082 City/State/Zip 651-430-8822 651-430-8822 Telephone Number Project Information 6. Project Description: Second phase of the City's Heirloom and Landmark Sites designation program. Telephone Number 7. Budget Summary Grant funds $ 9,500.00 Applicant Match $ 9,952.40 Total Project Budget $ 19,452.40 8. Project Duration 7/1/08 thru 7/31/09 9. Project Area (please check) ❑ A. Comprehensive Planning ❑ B. Survey ❑ C. Evaluation ❑ D. Local Designation Forms ❑ E. National Register Nomination Farm • F. Public Education (please specify) 10. Detailed Project Description (use additional sheets as needed) Applications must include ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED for the project area checked above as outlined in Part III pages 2-5 of the Certified Local Government Grants Manual. Include a discussion of how this project reflects the goals and strategies outlined in the 2006-2010 statewide preservation plan. The city is requesting funds to continue with the second phase of the local designation program based on recommendations contained in the final report from the 2005-06 CLG grant project. The program will serve to both protect the city historic resources and educate the residents about these resources. The first phase of the program, which is currently underway with a FY 2007 CLG grant, is developing the initial web -site infrastructure, database, program tools, and detailed inventories for the initial 70 properties. This grant request covers the second phase of a four phase project. This second phase will focus on the completion of detailed inventories for a minimum of 350 Heirloom Homes. Description of the activities which have resulted in the identification of the properties to be evaluated: As its first CLG project in 1992, the City of Stillwater hired a consultant to prepare a historic context document entitled Stillwater Historic Contexts: A Comprehensive Planning Approach. The document was funded with local funds and a CLG Grant. One of the recommendations in the context study was to divide the city into 17 manageable neighborhoods, called Historic Preservation Planning areas, for survey and evaluation purposes. Ten of the seventeen neighborhoods have been surveyed to date. In each of the surveys, local significance was identified and a preliminary determination for local designation was done for each property within the surveyed area. The ten neighborhoods that have already been surveyed are: North Hill Original Town South Hill Original Town. Sabin/Greeley Addition Dutchtown Neighborhood Holcombe District Hersey Staples & Co. Carli & Schulenburg's Addition Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter's Addition -West Half Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter's Addition -East Half Staples Mays Addition These surveys have been funded with local funds, in -kind match and CLG Grants. With its 2005 CLG Grant, the City hired a consultant to prepare a plan for identifying potentially significant historic structures and sites in the community and to develop a plan to implement a local historic designation program. The work resulted in identifying 776 potential "Heirloom Homes" and 61 potential "Landmark Sites" in the City that could be included in a local designation program. This four phased grant project seeks to implement this program and will focus on these 837 properties. Heirloom Houses are a cross-section of homes that are representative of nineteenth century Stillwater. The homes contain a fair amount of their original design elements. These homes are generally not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; however, due to the local value they should be recognized. Landmark Houses and Sites are the finest old homes and most remarkable sites in Stillwater. They have architectural integrity and they have a strong connection to the history of Stillwater. They sites may be eligible or are already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Project products, steps and responsible party: This is the second of a four phase overall project. The first phase is being completed with the FY 2007 CLG grant. The second phase of this project seeks to focus on completing detailed inventories on approximately 350 Heirloom Homes. PROJECT STEPS: Complete detailed inventories. July 1, 2008 — June 30, 2009. The consultant will complete detailed inventories for a minimum of 350 Heirloom Homes. The final inventories will be reviewed and approved by the HPC and SHPO. ADDITIONAL WORK ELEMENTS: Collection of digital photos. July 1, 2008 — June 30, 2009. During the first phase of the grant members of the HPC will collect digital photos on half of the "Heirloom Homes" and all of the "Landmark Sites". During this phase of the grant the HPC will collect digital photos on the remaining "Heirloom Homes". Members will also catalog each photo in a database by filename, date, property address, and description of the photo in order that they may be used on the City's new Heirloom and Landmark homes website. Standards to be followed: A qualified consultant (meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards outlined on page 44738 in the Federal Register of September 29, 1983) will be hired to evaluate properties that have been identified as potential local designation candidates in the previous surveys. The project will conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Survey and Evaluation (outlined in the Federal Register of 9-29-83) and the MN SHPO's Guidelines for Architecture/History Projects (July 2005). The consultant will use the city's historic contexts to evaluate each of the properties. In addition, the consultant will use the following criteria established by city ordinance: (a) Its character interest or value as part of the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the City of Stillwater, State of Minnesota or United States; (b) Its location as a site of a significant historical event; (c) Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of Stillwater; (d) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form or treatment Its identification as work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of Stillwater; (e) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation; and (f) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City of Stillwater. Relationship to statewide plan: This project relates to Goal #1, "Create statewide awareness of and appreciation for the value of Minnesota's historic and archaeological resources" and Goal #5, "Expand and enhance efforts to identify, evaluate and designate historic and archaeological resources" of the MNSHPO's statewide preservation plan issued in 2006-2010. This proposed project is the second phase of the local designation process. The infoiiiiation developed through the project will be web -based and will inform citizens of the state and beyond about the historic assets in Stillwater. This project also specifically establishes a local designation program for properties to increase recognition and protection of these resources. Cost to the Public: The City of Stillwater does not intent to charge the public for any of the work developed as part of this grant. Additionally the public will be able to view, without charge, the website developed as part of this project. 11. Project Products This project is the second phase of what is anticipated as a four phase program to recognize the 776 "Heirloom Homes" and the 61 "Landmark Sites" in the City identified in the Designating Historic Homes and Historic Districts report by Mr. Donald Empson dated July 2006. Copies of all of the work products will be forwarded to SHPO. The second phase of the project would include the following: • Complete detailed inventories for a minimum of 350 Heirloom Homes. The inventories will be completed by a qualified consultant meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. Data from the completed inventories will be delivered to Minnesota Historical Society in an electronic database format. Inventories will also be available on the City's website. • Members of the HPC will collect digital photos of the remaining 350 "Heirloom Homes" that they did not collect with the first phase of the project. Members will also catalog the photos in a database by filename, date, property address, and description of the photo. This cataloging will allow the photos to easily be displayed on the City's website with information on each Heirloom Home and Landmark Site. Future Phases As discussed earlier, this is the second phase of an anticipated four phase project. In year three the City anticipates completing the remaining 350 Heirloom Homes inventories in order to complete all 776 and in a final phase of the project will review and complete detailed inventories on the 61 identified Landmark Sites. Once all four phases of the project are completed the City anticipates that a local designation program for individual properties and neighborhoods will be established by the City. 12. Community Support The Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission, Planning Commission and the Stillwater City Council have been monitoring the surveys and strongly support the program. Cash and match in -kind services amounting to $9,952.40 will be contributed to the 2008/2009 project. 13. Project Impact It will provide a basis for future local historic designations of sites, buildings and districts. Local designations will ultimately increase recognition and protection for the city's resources. 14. Project Personnel The City of Stillwater will retain the services of a qualified consultant to assist with the research and evaluation and report writing. This consultant will meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (as published in the Federal Register of February 29, 1983) as stipulated in the project description. To assist the consultant, the Heritage Preservation Commission and Stillwater Planning staff will solicit the participation of local historians and the Washington Historical Society to help gather information and photos on these sites. The City Planning Department will be responsible for the management of the grant and serves as staff to the Heritage Preservation Commission. The City has budgeted 60 hours to the management of the grant. 15. Detailed Project Budget Applicant Match Budget Item Grant Cash In -Kind Donated Total Consultant - 566 hours @ $30/hour $ 9,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $17,000.00 Project Director -- 60 Hours @ $28.29 $ 1,697.40 $ 1,697.40 Survey Photos (Digital photos by HPC members) $ 250.00 $ 250.00 HPC Meeting $ 280.00 $ 280.00 Photo Copies/Stamps $ 225.00 $ 225.00 TOTAL A. $9,500.00 B. $ 7,500.00 C. $ 1,697.40 D. $755.00 E. $19,452.40 of exceed the total of Columns B + C +