The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-10-05 HPC Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN 2. APPROVAL OF September 9, 2009 MINUTES . water 10". •: 11 d l 1immm 111 -- - -_ H F 8 1 9 T H P i . A f , F O F N N E S O I A AGENDA Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Monday, October 5, 2009 The meeting will begin at 7 p.m., Monday, October 5, 2009, in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Heritage Preservation Commission may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or Tess 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.01 Case No. DEM /09 -39. A demolition request for a three - season porch, shed and lean -to located at 437 Broadway Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Dave and Kathleen Newman, applicants. 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 Case No. DR /09 -40. Design review of signage for Purefex Salon located at 114 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Laura Hoefler, applicant. 5.02 Case No. DR/09 -37. Design review of previously approved accessory dwelling unit for relocation on lot located at 315 Olive Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Jeff Anderson and Greg Stokes, applicant. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.01 Case No. DEM /2007 -50. Extension of approval of demolition (initial approval expires November 5, 2009) of a single family residence located at 1509 Pine Street West. Bob Stanislaw, applicant. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 9, 2009 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Micky Cook, Gayle Hudak, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Ms. Hudak, moved approval of the minutes of August 3, 2009. Motion called unanimously. OPEN FORUM Cynthia Kniesel, 1010 S. Sixth St., referred to a recent e -mail she had sent to members regarding a neighbor's garage. She said there is an ordinance that prohibits constructing a garage that is taller than the house. She said the garage in question is taller than her house and the neighbor's house. She questioned why the neighbors were allowed to build a garage that doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance. She also wondered if there are any requirements that the old garage be torn down. Mr. Pogge said plans for the structure in question were reviewed about a year ago and he would have to look at comments /conditions made at that time. Mr. Pogge said an escrow was established for removal of the old garage; he noted that if the owner does not remove the structure, the City would have to initiate a civil action to remove the structure. Mr. Lieberman asked about the City's right of redress if the new garage has been built without a variance allowing the structure to be taller than the house; Mr. Pogge said the City would have to work with the property owner and potentially take civil action. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM /09 -30 A demolition request for a residence at 223 Pine St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Richard Van Horne, applicant. (Continued from August 3, 2009) Mr. Johnson said when the request was heard at the August meeting, the Commission's only concern was that the structure had not been advertised for sale, which has now been done. Mr. Johnson said questioned when the advertisement was published, noting that is not indicated on the copy of the advertisement. Mr. Pogge said he had made a copy of the ad when it was published in the paper. Mr. Lieberman moved approval of the demolition permit as all conditions of the ordinance have now been met. After Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing and no comments were received, Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/09 -38 Infill design review of a residence at 706 Holcombe St. S. in the NCD, Neighborhood Conservation District. Richard Beberg, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and the staff report. The applicant was present. He explained that after the home was destroyed by a fire earlier this year, plans were submitted to the insurance company using the same footprint as the original structure. The only change, he said, is that an enclosed porch on the left side of the original structure is proposed to be replaced with an open, exterior porch on the right hand side of the house. He said the new plans utilize the same foundation and basically they just want to rebuild the same house as before. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 9, 2009 Mr. Lieberman noted that several of the infill design guidelines were referred to staff in discussing the proposed plans, specifically design guidlinesl3 and 16 as those guidelines relate to the front porch and fagade. He read the staff comments which suggest that if the second floor is moved forward and flush with the first floor, it would eliminate the need for multiple gables on the front elevation and an appropriate shed roof could be placed over the porch. Mr. Zahren said looking at the plans, he did not find the porch plans "offensive." Mr. Johnson noted the plans as presented force the second floor windows off to the corner, noting the windows would be more balanced for the width of the building if the second floor is brought out; however, he noted the porch that wraps around the house on the north side makes that change difficult. Mr. Beberg stated that bringing the second floor out would be more costly and the insurance company may have some reservations about that. The applicant's contractor pointed out that funding is limited due to the insurance proceeds; he also pointed out that they would like to get the project going as the applicant is currently living in temporary housing. The applicant's representative also referred to the various styles of houses in the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Lieberman agreed there is a mix of architectural styles in the neighborhood, which would suggest there is nothing inherently incompatible with the proposed plans. Mr. Tomten provided some suggestions /sketches utilizing more of a four - square style architecture with a hipped roof over the main massing of the house and lowering the pitch of the roof on the front gable, which would allow the windows to be moved off the corner a bit more and give the front elevation a bit more balance. Mr. Johnson noted utilizing those suggestions would not change the footprint of the house at all nor change the setback of where the two story portion of the house begins. Mrs. Beberg explained some of her intentions for design elements that would make the home fit better into the neighborhood and the City as a whole. There was discussion of the craftsman style of architecture. Mr. Beberg and his contractor agreed that the suggestions provided by Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson would be workable and likely the most economic solution to the concerns. In discussion, Mr. Johnson suggested that a portion of the porch across the front of the house could be enclosed as long as the windows are treated the same. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. David Simonet, 600 S. Holcombe St., asked whether the new structure would be built on the existing foundation or a new foundation. The contractor explained the house would be built on the existing foundation that is in the back of the house, where the addition was constructed; the portion of the foundation under the original house is deteriorating and will have to be removed and replaced. Mr. Simonet asked about the height of the new house; the contractor said the house would be a full two stories. Mr. Simonet said he had no concerns about the height but said several neighbors with swimming pools had expressed some concern. No other comments were received, and the hearing closed. Mr. Johnson suggested that the hip on the detached garage be brought to the front to be consistent with the house as viewed from the street and moved to approve plans, as sketched by Mr. Tomten, for both for the house and the garage. Mr. Beberg noted there has been a lot of ice flow on the driveway which is why the garage was shown as proposed, but said he would made the change if that is an issue. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/09 -35 Design review of an awning, Compass Center for Healing, at 116 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Althea Ennen, applicant. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 9, 2009 The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Johnson affirmed that there would be no other signage other than on the awning. The applicant stated no other signage is proposed but said she would like to change the color of the stucco from the existing white. Ms. Ennen said she was unaware there was an issue with changing the color of the awning to the gold, noting the intent was to utilize a copper color similar to the copper patina seen elsewhere in the downtown area. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve as presented. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten spoke to the intent of the design guidelines related to awnings, noting that traditionally verbiage was not placed on awnings as the intent of an awning was to provide protection from the sign and awnings were often rolled up at night and during the winter, not serve as signage; thus the guidelines suggest that any verbiage be placed on the side panels or the valance. However, Mr. Tomten said in this case, he is OK with placing the verbiage on the awning as requested as the next building occupant will most likely take the awning down as it has outlived its useful life. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that generally other requests for signage on awnings have been part of a request for multiple signs. Ms. Cook also noted that the applicant inherited an awning with signage; Ms. Cook spoke to the intent of the design guidelines in the historic district and said she had some concern with moving away from the historic feel. Ms. Cook said she thought the color is too bright and said she did not like the fact that the awning was simply painted. Ms. Hudak spoke in favor of having some color in town, not necessarily shocking pink but something to provide some vitality. Mr. Johnson said his concern was not necessarily with the color but with the signage on the awning when there is space up above for the placement of a sign. The applicant stated she would not be opposed to doing that and in fact liked that idea. Mr. Lieberman moved to amend the motion on the table. Mr. Johnson suggested that the amendment be that the awning be approved as submitted and with the color proposed but the sign, of the same size presented, be placed on the stucco band above the awning rather than on the awning itself. Mr. Lieberman accepted that amendment to the motion. Mr. Zahren seconded the amended motion; motion carried unanimously. Case No. DR/09 -36 Design review of a projecting sign, This Love of Mine, at 412 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Signcrafters, Mike Lawrence, applicant. The applicant was not present. There was discussion as to where the proposed sign would be placed. Mr. Pogge said he believed the sign would be placed to the right of the planter shown in the photo in the packet. Mr. Lieberman asked whether the sign would exceed the allowable size if the frame is included; it was noted the frame is not included when calculating the allowable size. Mr. Zahren moved to approve the sign as conditioned. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman suggested adding a condition that the location be submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Zahren and Mr. Krakowski accepted that suggestion as an amendment to the motion. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/09 -37 Design review for an accessory dwelling unit at 315 Olive St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Jeff Anderson and Greg Stokes, applicant. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 9, 2009 Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff findings. Mr. Balay noted the unit is not intended to match the main house but be complimentary to the house. Mr. Balay explained plans regarding connections to sewer and water; Mr. Pogge said the requirement now is that connections, specifically water, be made to a public main, not off other connections on the property. Mr. Balay questioned having to connect to the main in the street which would require tearing up a street that has just been improved; Mr. Lieberman pointed out that is an issue not under the purview of the HPC. There was discussion as to the logic behind the requirement regarding the connection issue. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve Case No. DR/09 -37 as proposed with conditions a and b as listed in the staff report, with no opinion offered on condition c (requirement to connect directly to public sanitary sewer and water service mains) as listed in the report. Mr. Johnson about the elevation for the right side, suggesting that the window placement appears awkward; Mr. Balay explained the proposed window placement but said changing that would not be a problem. Mr. Johnson suggested adding a condition that the window on the right side (north elevation) be over -under with the position of the second -story window. Mr. Johnson asked about the siding; Mr. Balay said it would have the same profile as the house. Mr. Johnson asked about lighting; Mr. Balay said it would likely be placed up high with a goose -neck fixture. Mr. Johnson spoke in favor of soffit lighting, rather than wall sconces. Mr. Johnson asked that the motion include conditions regarding the over -under position of the windows, that the drop siding be of similar looking material as the house and that the lighting be either recessed or soffit style lighting at the doors and porches. Mr. Lieberman accepted those as friendly amendments to the motion. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Ms. Cook asked about the required off - street parking; Mr. Pogge stated the required four spaces is the minimum. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS South Main Street Archaeological District — Mr. Pogge noted this study was done in part because of the new bridge project and also as part of the cultural landscape district discussions. He noted this affects three property owners, the Department of Transportation, the City of Stillwater, and one private property owner. There was some discussion as to potential impacts of the formation of the district on future projects, including the relocation of the Shoddy Mill buildings. Mr. Lieberman asked if anyone would be in attendance at the State Review Board meeting on Oct. 20; Mr. Pogge said he planned to attend. Mr. Lieberman suggested that the Review Board be told that the HPC has read the report and is totally supportive of the project views expressed. Mr. Lieberman made that in the form of a motion; Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Post Office oroiect — Mr. Pogge stated the City had received the building permit plans and there have been a number of changes. The biggest change, he said, is due to the decision by the Postal Service that it needs more space and will essentially take up the entire first floor. Mr. Johnson pointed out that will mean there will be a front entry into the Post Office as the HPC had wanted. Mr. Pogge stated the plan now call for almost a complete third floor, rather than just a mezzanine area as in the original plans. On a question by Ms. Cook, Mr. Pogge said the addition to the third floor does not dramatically change the scale of the building, noting that the roof, pitch and tower height all stay the same. Mr. Pogge said the new plans call for an exterior set of stairs on the east elevation, a box out; he said according to code, the second set of stairs 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 9, 2009 does not have to be enclosed. Mr. Pogge also referred to a change in the style of windows, with plans now providing for a modified colonial style of windows. Mr. Lieberman suggested these changes are significant and he would like to see the plans come back before the HPC. Mr. Johnson said the change to accommodate headroom for the third floor takes away from the shape of the roof, especially from the south and front elevation. It was consensus to have the applicant come back for discussion at the next HPC meeting. It was suggested that the applicant be reminded to provide complete sets of elevations, as well as remind the applicant that the HPC would like the Post Office identification placed on the front elevation, especially since the Post Office will now occupy the entire first floor. New River crossing — Mr. Pogge gave a Power Point presentation on the work of the St. Croix River Crossing Project Visual Quality Advisory Committee, preferred designs, and the project timetable. There was discussion as to whether the cables are structurally required or whether they are "window dressing." Mr. Pogge spoke of changes in plans for a proposed trail connection /pedestrian walkway. Mr. Johnson spoke of the possibility of making the pedestrian way lower than the rest of the bridge such as is utilized on Highway 61 at Gooseberry Falls; Mr. Tomten said that was suggested during the earlier design review discussions. Ms. Hudak raised the issue of wind velocity and possible impact on pedestrian traffic. Mr. Pogge reviewed lighting options, minimum lighting options, as well as pedestrian lighting and aesthetic lighting features. It was consensus that the Commission favored some design lighting; there was discussion as to possible lighting sources for the cables /tower. Water Street Inn — Mr. Johnson brought up several issues with the Water Street Inn, including draped lighting that comes off the top of the building that can be seen from Pioneer Park, canopies with brand name advertising, temporary advertising banners that have been on the railing for more than 30 days, the plywood structure used as the outdoor bar, the fire escape that should have been enclosed many years ago. Mr. Zahren pointed out there are many establishments that have the umbrellas with the brand name advertising. It was noted that is just one of many violations at this establishment. Mr. Johnson said the Council must direct staff to enforce violations, but suggested that the HPC could ask staff to forward that request to the Council. Mr. Pogge stated the issue with the trash enclosure is being addressed. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Pogge to ask the Council, on the HPC's behalf, to enforce at this particular property violations of the sign ordinance, the life and safety building code for the fire escape violations, outdoor liquor sales in the plywood fish house, banner and lighting, and trash enclosure. Mr. Zahren asked whether the issue with advertising on umbrellas should be included, suggesting that the Council should direct staff to address all signage violations. Mr. Pogge talked about political reality regarding signage issues. Mr. Tomten suggested rather than singling out one business, do it across the board. Mr. Pogge stated he could look into the issue of the fire escape at the Water Street Inn since that is a code matter. There was continued discussion. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Cook if she thought the Council might be supportive of a request to begin the process of getting signage into compliance as the summer season is winding down. Ms. Cook said, while she could not speak for the Council, she would support that and said she thought doing that would be consistent with the Council's efforts to address the issue with garbage enclosures. Ms. Cook said she thought it would be important not to single out any specific business. She suggested it might be good to get an inventory of signs and other items that need to be cleaned up; Mr. Pogge said that has been done and well over 100 different 5 Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 30, 2009 CASE NO.: 09 -39 APPLICANT: David and Kathleen Newman REQUEST: Demolition Permit for a portion of a primary dwelling unit LOCATION: 437 Broadway St S HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 5, 2009 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plann -sco BACKGROUND David and Kathleen Newman, Portion to be property owner of 437 Broadway St demolished S, are requesting a demolition permit portions of the existing primary dwelling unit. First is a rear addition that comprises of a three- season porch over a shed area. The addition is approximately 14.1' by 14.1'. Second is a 12.5' by 4.5' lean -to along the north side of the home that will be removed. The exact age of the addition and lean -to could not be determined and a building permit for the structure was not on file at the City office. After reviewing the structure, style, and staff to conclude that the addition and lean -to are more than 50 years old. Since they appear to be over 50 years old, they are by definition considered to have potential historic significance. Consequently, the Heritage Preservation Commission is required to review the demolition request. condition of the structures, it leads This site is in the Conservation Design District; however, since the main structure is not being TOTALLY removed a new addition is not subject to the infill design criteria. 437 Broadway St S Newman Demolition Permit Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant requests approval of a permit to demolish a portion of the primary dwelling unit. EVALUATION OF REQUEST Chapter 34, Section 34 -4 of the City Code states that "if buildings or structures are determined by the community development director to be historic or potentially historic, the application must be sent to the [heritage preservation] commission for review... Buildings or structures determined nonhistoric must be referred to the building official for issuance of a demolition permit." A "nonhistoric structure or building" is defined by Chapter 34, Section 34 -2 as a structure or building less than 50 years old... Since the age of the addition could not be determined they are assumed to be over 50 years old; therefore, it is of potential historic significance and requires review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 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; The legal description of the property is the West 148 feet of Lot 28, Block 42 of the Original Town of Stillwater. (3) Photographs of all building elevations; Photos from various angles are included in the packet. (4) A description of the building or structure or portion of building or structure to be demolished; The applicant has indicated in the cover letter that the 14.1 foot by 14.1 foot rear addition that is a shed area with a three season porch over it and a 12.5 by 4.5 foot lean -to addition are proposed to be demolished. (5) The reason for the proposed demolition and data supporting the reason, including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for demolition; As noted in the application, the original addition was constructed poorly and lacks any architectural connection to the main structure. Additionally, the new addition that will replace this addition is larger than the existing addition and it is simply impractical to attempt to incorporate it into the design. Finally, in a letter front a contractor they noted their belief that remodeling the three - season porch is not economically justified. 437 Broadway St S Newman Demolition Permit Page 3 (6) Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure to be demolished is located; The applicant has indicated that they wish to build a new 13.5' by 24' garage addition. Plans for the home addition are included. (7) Relation of demolition and future 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 site is in the Conservation Design District; however, since the main structure is not totally being removed a new garage would not be subject to the infill design criteria. (8) A description of alternatives to the demolition; Restoration of a structure is an alternative to demolition; however, in this case it does not seem to be a reasonable alternative. (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 applicant did not advertised the structure for sale since it involves an addition that cannot be reasonable relocated. ALTERNATIVES The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the demolition permit as presented. 2. Deny the demolition permit if the applicant has not proved the necessity for demolishing the garage or if the Commission believes, there are alternates to demolishing the garage. 3. Continue the public hearing until the November 2, 2009, 2009 Commission meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is November 15, 2009. RECOMMENDATION Review and take action on the request. attachment: Application and supporting documents from the applicant City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 9, 2009 violations were discovered downtown. Mr. Lieberman suggested asking the Council to look at categories of violations — umbrella violations, signage violations, etc. so one business is not singled out. Mr. Lieberman acknowledged Phil Eastwood's contributions to the Commission. There was discussion of a recommendation from the Washington County Historical Society regarding a person to fill the vacancy created by Mr. Eastwood's death. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 Thy Bhncor Group, Inc. 1 521 94th Lane N.E. 41in �eapolis, ,tinn sota 554z 9 phone 763 792-3974 lax :63 792- 8' -)76 September 18, 2009 Heritage Preservation Commission City of Stillwater 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: 437 South Broadway 04, Bancor Dear Members: This letter accompanies an application to demolish a shed and three season room which is on top of the shed, both of which have dimensions of approximately 14 ft x 14 ft and are affixed to the rear of the home as well as to remove a 12.5 ft x 4.5 ft leanto along the north side of the house. (see attached) We believe that the original home was constructed in approximately 1858. At a subsequent date it appears there was an addition on the main floor that added a kitchen and a large room. It appears that subsequently the shed with the three season porch were added. We are uncertain of when this was, but believe it was at least fifty years ago. It is clear that the structures we are requesting to remove were "add ons" and are not part of the historical significance of the home. This application is part of a larger remodeling of the home. The three season porch is functionally obsolete as noted in the attached letter from Norgaard Homes. Currently the home does not have a garage. We believe that to preserve the investment we want to make in the home, we need to add a one car garage. The best place to do this is where the stone shed is located, with a side loaded entry to the north. However to modify the shed into a one car garage would require cutting a garage door opening, filling in the existing opening, raising the walls so there would be sufficient headroom and moving a wall. Again the cost of doing this is prohibitive. We have been advised the best thing to do is to demolish this shed and to build a new garage. Constructing the garage will require the removal of tree #3, a Colorado Blue Spruce. We expended considerable effort to see if the tree could be saved. In the end we determined that the only way to do so would be to have the new garage constructed considerably closer to the river, which is an option that our neighbors asked us not to pursue. Before making this decision we consulted with Chris Muehleck of St. Croix Tree Service. In summary what he advised was: • Even if the tree was preserved, the north side of the tree would need to be considerably cut back to keep it from rubbing against the house and the deck, which cutting would stress the tree. • The tree is not native to Minnesota and in fact its native environment is at an elevation of 9,000 ft. • Because it is not in its native environment it is more susceptible to disease and insects as it gets older. • It is not a tree that he would put much effort into saving. Because the amount of tree we wish to remove is less than 20% of the diameter inches on the lot, my understanding is that we are not required by ordinance to do any tree replacement. In fact we do intend to do replacement but the method we wish to follow is to work with out adjoining neighbor once the addition is done, to jointly select a replacement buffer that meets both of our needs. r I understand that under your normal process, if our request is granted, before we could actually demolish these structures we need to first advertise them for sale for restoration or reuse. It would be nonsensical to offer the three season porch for sale for restoration or nonuse since it cannot function on its own, is in a deteriorated condition and by itself has no historical significance. However we intend to keep the stone from the shed. We will either at a later time incorporate the stone in our landscaping design or in the alternative advertise its availability to the general public. I have been asked to comment on how the exterior of the home will look when we are done. 1. Included in this packet are elevations of the three sides that will be impacted by our remodeling In essence we will continue the exterior treatment of the current area where the kitchen is located, including the soffits. See the attached photos. 2. The exterior siding will replicate current siding. The current siding is in too bad of shape to retain as depicted in the attached photos. We are undecided if we will use cedar or a HardiPlank type of product, but regardless from the curb it will look like the current siding and trim. 3. The windows in the addition as well as the east side of the home will be new. All of the windows in the home need to be upgraded. Again due to rotting and leakage. Currently we are in discussions with Restoration Window Systems about restoring all existing windows on the north, west and south sides of the home instead of replacing them. By the time the Committee meets I will be able to advise you if we are able to follow the replacement route. In addition to the attached photos you will also find: • A lot survey showing the location of the proposed building and it's relation to adjoining structures, as well as the legal description. • Demolition plan containing the Three Season Porch, Shed and Leanto to be demolished. • The remodeling plan containing two pages. • As previously noted, elevations of the three effected sides of the home. • Letter from our contractor. • A copy of the lot survey showing approximate location of trees along with a tree inventory. If you should need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. If any of the members wish to tour the home they should also contact me. Sincerely, A,u, David P and Kathleen M. Newman Three Season Porch Above Shed — View from East Three Season Porch Above Shed — View from East (Shows Roof Sag) Leanto — View from Northeast Three Season Porch Above Shed — View from North View of Entry from the Porch to the House Colorado Blue Spruce West Side of Home — View from Street North Side of Home Example of Rotten Siding South Side of Home Example of Rotten Siding South Side of Home — Note Soffit Treatment (Kitchen is the one story portion on the right) T , W!.L OHU 33 11 1111111 1 1 11111111 II 9 on g8 YA wZO'' z O II .1,1, 4 3 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 60 1 inch = 20 feet 11101111 11 ,■ k111111111I,III 111 1..11 I rx T L_ \/ 1 / / S�� 1 0 OHU 0 0 r � PIP - IOON O N0 ) \3 �T A MARK ` LEGEND IRON SET • IRON FOUND • MAGNETIC NAIL FOUND POWER POLE GAS METER ELECTRIC METER CURB STOP ASPHALT SURFACE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVID NEWMAN LOT 28, BLOCK 42, STILLWATER OPE 0°1 Pr P7 - r L_ PID NUMBER = 2803020440069 III 111'111161 11117 II 41,11 11 111111111101111111111 1,1,1111111 11 YII111110 11115 Hall 111,11111 IN4IYIIIJII111111IIY11111! AgillaiSIMIVININIMININI Y 1,11111111111 11 11 Y 111.1111, 1111111111111111 1 II, I111Y 1II11111 .E 11111111 111 11111111111,11 11111 1 11 \2_ CONCRETE SURFACE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE SANITARY SEWER WATER MAIN Illll ll 1111111 III IIJIY III U!,I III11,I 1111111111111) 111111111111 111,1111111111111 II VIII IIJI 11,11111 11111 111511 111 I I I I III 1 1 11111111 VIII II 1 1111 61111 V111111(III 1111,1 1111 1111 (III 11 111 111111 11 11 1 11 1 111 1 11 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY CLIENT Westerly 148.00 feet of Lot 28, Block 42, CITY 09 STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof Washington County, Minnesota. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct survey of the above described property and that it was performed by me or wider my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all improvements, easements or encroachments to the property except as shown thereon. day of May, 2008 /o James R. Hill, Inc. By _ Ilarold C. Peterson, Land Sinv ' Yr I License No. 12294 NOTES ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON 771E WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 28, BLACK 42, STILLWATER TO HAVE AN ASSUMED HEARING OF S 15 °59'08" E TIES SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT OR TITLE OPINION. A TITLE SEARCH FOR RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BENEFIT OR ENCUMBER THIS PROPERTY HAS NO BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SURVEYOR 771E LOCATION AND INFORMATION SHOWN REGARDING UTILITIES, SERVING THIS PROPERTY OR EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY AS SHOWN AS A PART OF THIS SURVEY, HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY ON -SITE OBSERVATION OR TAKEN FROM PLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE UTILITIES PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND /OR GOPHER STATE ONE CALL. (GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TICKET NO 90115131) OVERALL GROSS AREA = 7,400 SQUARE FEET OR 0.170 ACRES ADDRESS OF THIS PROPERTY IS 437 BROADWAY STREET SOUTH, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 II III III II James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 2500 W. M. 128 42, 511118 120. 01061111E. 111 55337 PHONE (952)890 -6044 FAX (952)890 -6244 111 1,11 II 1 111 1 II 11111 1 11 IIII 1 1 111 RADIATOR. A :1 rI QINOOW II •, I L /////7/7//// / iii i - — — PIPE i� RA.PATOR MAINTA CORNER CABINET MAINTAIN BOOKCASES AND MANTLE AT FIREPLACE WALL rr EXISTING FAMILY ROOM TO DICTATE FOOTPRINT TO DICTATE I WON OF GARAGE REMOVE NEW DOOR WINDOW CHANGE EXISTING OPENING TO A PAIR OF 3' -0 FRENCH DOORS MANTAIN RADIATORS UNLESS NOTED RADATOR NEW DECK WITH SINGLE CAR GARAGE BELOW As 5 1 NEW DOOR AND WINDOW L MOVEEMOVE RA018RETO8 1 , RA MIATOR V n L____ IREMOV 2ADIATO m � � CLOSET AND 0 00R r II III REMOVE I 11 WINDOW III REMO E ti I I RADIA7 • ( UP RADA PIPE EXACT LOCATION OF STAIRS T8D CONSTRUCTION NA CONSTRUCTION PLAN LEGEND EASTNO WALLS TO REMAIN C - ERISTNO WALLS TO REMOVE NEW WALLS ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE SITE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. CO O A < • I LL! O W CO • CU Z �z C Q G W < • Q CC UJ Z a; SHEET #: D1 W REMOVE WINDOW .1/1//)• .,,J 11 / / / REMOVE WINDOW ADD DOOR NOTE: PLAN ILLUSTRATES AREA OF DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ONLY. AREAS NOT IMPACTED BY THE REMODEL (LE. — EXISTING BEDROOMS. HALL, CLOSETS, AND BATH) ARE NOT SHOWN. NEW WINDOWS TO LINE UP WITH MAIN LEVEL EXISTING WINDOWS. DFMDLITIDN AND CONSTRUCTION PI AN I F(:FND EXISTWO WALLS TO REUNN EXISTING OATS 10 REMOVE NON %NUS ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE SITE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. W U J a Z v o i Q z ce C9 w 0 ~ w J - 3 N W 0 0T N < W O W S) Q 2 Q 2 O W W Z a in SHEET #: 4 r o s °. W 00 D2 • RAC ATOR 1111.."-IN BUIL -IN CORN HUTCH TOM, LOSET 40 ATOR MANTLE EPLACE HEARTH 1 FAMILY ROOM // BEDROOM / OFFICE LIVING ROOM RADIATOR DECK WITH / ATTACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGE BELOW KITCHEN 00 30Z 00 L_ GO 10 DEIE.Aue Fl 00R 0010 REOuPED H J'-orr PRE o SITTING AREA 0-0 FOYER CLOSET MVO VI/ PA I ITRY BEI BIN FOYER RADAT )R 7EXACT LOCATION OF STAIRS TBD GC 10 0E0ER001 CEILING TONSITION 1.043011 Twarnow OETERYME (01514 AT 501106 0110000 ANO Fmk, ROO* ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE SITE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. co In GO < 1— 1— Lu 0 LU Z t— (/) Z z < 2 2 Lil 4 C1 ai n - I 010) SHEET #: Al - oz ocn> t - 1 2 rt1 O o on m<0 m O C T [n OOftz • O -imO zoo() O }7N C 00 0 om z m NEWMAN 437 BROADWAY STREET S. STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 SHEET NAME: UPPER LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL PLAN DRAWN BY: JB CHECKED BY: LPJ SCALE: 3 10" = 1' -0" PROJECT #: DATE: 08 -12 -09 LEAH PALMER JOHNSON INTERIOR DESIGN, LLC 13 Z 0 CO > C001P 2 Zm - t) 'n co < 0 ( OOzm N 0 0 T Z 2000 - I ? per 1 A i W z D om NEWMAN + 437 BROADWAY STREET S. ^ # STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 t'1 SCALE: 3 /6" = 1 -0" 0 SHEET NAME: GARAGE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN PROJECT #: DATE: 08 -12 -09 DRAWN BY: JB CHECKED BY: LPJ fi D fl ° mz m0 mm 0 D LEAH PALMER JOHNSON INTERIOR DESIGN, LLC PPP, PLANNING & vest* Lit -• •--- - • -• 9100 BALTIMORE ST NE BLAINE PAN 55449 SUITE ION Anent 793.790.9004 Fax 763-750-5015 NEWMAN RESIDENCE REVISIONS 11 imn 9-17-09 I I 01/0010 97 I CD COM 100011211 1 209229 3 9!P, PL NING & Ve5124, IIC l tn E BALTIMORE ST NE BLAINE. MN 55419 Phone 753.799 -5004 Fox 76 3- TAO- 19015 NEWMAN RESIDENCE REVISIONS 2 Pf P. PLANNING & LI,C 9100 8■1. TRIORE ST NE BLAINE MN 55449 SUITE 109 Phan* 793-750•5004 Fox 763.780-1015 IIIIHIIIIIIIJIH1H 11111;111111 NEWMAN RESIDENCE 1111111111LIclas REVISIONS OA: 1 ORRNIEN NV 11 SWF 00 1 September 17, 2009 Heritage Preservation Commission City of Stillwater 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: 437 South Broadway Dear Members: Norgaard H O M E S, I N C. I am the contractor for the remodeling of the above home. I have been employed for over 25 years as a remodeler and new home custom builder. I am writing this letter in support of the Newman's application for a demolition permit. I am of the opinion that it is economically unfeasible to retain the current three season porch and the shed under it for the following reasons. 1. The roof on the porch sags. To repair this would require removing and rebuilding the roof as well as installing a truss above the windows on the east wall which essentially would require rebuilding most, if not all, of this wall. 2. The roof needs to be raised a minimum of six inches. Where the roof now meets the east wall is uncomfortably low and the roof overhang obstructs the view of the river. 3. This room does not have heat, so because it is the main view of the river it needs to be useable year round, which would require it to be fully insulated and involve the installation of heat ducts. 4. In order for the home to be marketable after remodeling it will at the minimum require a one car garage. The proposed design will have the least impact on the exterior of the home as well as the neighbor's views of the river valley. However if an attempt were made to use the existing walls of the shed, this would require moving one wall, filling in the current door opening along the east wall and then cutting in a opening along the north wall. In addition for there to be sufficient clearance for a car, the three season porch above this shed would need to be lifted up and the shed wall raised a minimum of six inches. 5. In essence to do the work described in items 1 thru 4 above requires the complete rebuilding of the three season porch. 6. In my opinion, the cost of completing items 1 thru 4 above is greatly in excess of the increase in market value that they would create for the home. 7. In addition a major factor which justifies the amount of investment that the Newmans intend to make in this home is its commanding view. Even if the Newmans were somehow able to justify the cost of completing the above work, the view of the river would for the most part be obstructed from the rest of the home without the Newmans undertaking other structural changes to the home that are not required by the proposed plan. 1521 94th Lane NE • Blaine, MN 55449 763.354.7886 • Fax 763.783.7144 Contractor License No. 20427393 In summary I am of the opinion that it is not economically feasible to renovate and reuse the existing three season porch and shed. One final note since the application by the Newmans also includes the leanto along the north side of the house. This leanto is an add -on, is in serious disrepair and detracts from the value of the home. If the Newmans were not allowed to demolish this leanto it would require completely destroying it, rebuilding it from scratch and in the end would add no value to the home. Again I am of the opinion that it is not economically feasible to renovate and reuse the leanto. • 33 SCALE IN FEET 0 20 40 60 �II VIIiIhIIiIHAWN JlVllll;III1� 1 inch = 20 feet 11111., III II 1 1,d 111 1I 111, III 11111111:1111111111 3 E y,15T 1 5E / N OU / , 0 / / A5� 3 A OHU fl T uFO�ND ,70. �3� MPRK _ 3 IMOD IRON SET IRON FOUND MAGNETIC NAIL FOUND POWER POLE GAS METER ELECTRIC METER CURB STOP ASPHALT SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE SANITARY SEWER WATER MAIN CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVID NEWMAN - 2 PE F p UN R ON 7 Pt 7E 111 111 111111 11111 1 1 VI, 11014112111111i111111111111r' 115111JI 11111:11Y321 111111111111111111111112111111111111111 ,1111 II 11111 1111, 11111111111111111111111IIIJ 111111111 )1111111111111111111111 11 1111111, 11 11. .1111 11111111111111111111111111 111111 111111111111111.111Y111111111111111,11111 111 .11111111 11 1111 1 u1 1 11 Y 1111 LOT 28, BLOCK 42. STILLWATER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11u 1:111111111111111111111111 R1111111. 1111111 11 11111 111111111111LJ111111111 1. 1 1,111 111111111 2.211 2 1 11 11111111.11111111 111111 1 1 1111 1 1111111111111115111 111.111 1 11 11111 11111 11 1111,11, 11111111111 111 11 1 1 11 1111 .1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY CLIENT Westerly 148.00 feet of Lot 28, Block 42, CITY OF STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County, Minnesota We hereby certify that this is a true and correct survey of the above described property and that it was performed by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all improvements, easements or encroachments to the property except as shown thereon. Si ,��p..t day of May, 2008 ,o James R. Hill, Inc. By. Harold C. Peterson, Land SurvZ 6r, NOTES 11 1 111 111 License No. 12294 ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 28, BLOCK 42 STILLWATER TO HAVE AN ASSUMED BEARING OF S 15 °593)8" E THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT OR TITLE OPINION A TITLE SEARCH FOR RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BENEFIT OR ENCUMBER THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SURVEYOR THE LOCATION AND INFORMATION SHOWN REGARDING UTILITIES, SERVING THIS PROPERTY OR EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY AS SHOWN AS A PART OF TIES SURVEY, HAVE BEEN LOCATED BY ON -SITE OBSERVATION 012 TAKEN FROM PLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE UTILITIES PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND/OR GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TICKET NO 90115131) OVERALL GROSS AREA = 7 400 SQUARE FEET OR 0 170 ACRES ADDRESS OF THIS PROPERTY IS 437 BROADWAY STREET SOUTH, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PID NUMBER = 2803020440069 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 111 I i101 II VIII JL 1 I I. I James R. Hill, Inc. PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 2500 W. Ctx Ro. 42, Sate 120, anew, IAN 55337 PHONE: (952)890 -6044 FAX (952)890 -6244 1 111 111 1, 11 11 1 0111111 11 1 11 1 1 111 111 Tree Inventory — 437 Broadway #1 Silver Maple — Diameter is approximately 25 inches #2 Silver Maple — Diameter is approximately 5 inches #3 Colorado Blue Spruce — Diameter is approximately 18 inches #4 Silver Maple — Diameter is approximately 29 inches #5 Colorado Blue Spruce — Diameter is approximately 12 inches #6 Sugar Maple — Diameter is approximately 14 inches Total Approximate Diameter Inches = 103 inches DATE: September 29, 2009 APPLICANT: Laura Hoefler Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 09 -40 REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage and paint colors for Purefex Salon LOCATION: 114 Main St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: October 5, 2009 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install a projecting sign and update the building colors for Purefex Salon located at 114 Main St N. Projecting Sign The proposed sign face is 20- inches by 12- inches for a total of 1.45 square feet. The sign will attach to the wall with brackets on the top of the sign. Sign will be comprised of three carbon steel panels. The words "Purefex Salon" and "Natural elements - natural style" cut out of the outside two panels with the middle panel uncut. The letters will be outlined in black. Green leafs will be applied on the lower left corner. For retail storefront signs the Commercial Historic District Design Manual provides the size of signs shall be consistent with the Sign Ordinance. The zoning ordinance allows projecting signs of up to six square feet in size. Staff did not count the sign frame toward to the total area. The total sign of the sign face is 1.45 square feet meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 114 Main St N Page 2 Building Colors The request is also to repaint wood surfaces and the previously painted brick area Emerald Village which is a dark green color. No unpainted brick surfaces will be painted. RECOMMENDATION Approve as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. The bottom of the project must be a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk. 3. No additional signage. 4. The sign shall be non - illuminated. 5. No unpainted brick surfaces are to be painted. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing /photo of the proposed sign '1; BUSINESS/ 7llsos PROPERTY WWW.011314WCOM - ti a A 31 -9/16" 18" 1 13 -9/16" 1 -1/2" 3-1/2' TACK WELD SHEETS TOGETHER. LEAVE CARBON STEEL SHEETS BARE. r 4 '9 7116" HOLES (QTY.-4) 4 ' SIDE VIEW I" R1 /2 " --� /2" 01/2" 'Th 7 1 1" RI FB 1" W X 1/4" THICK- 13 -5 /16" 30" 20" FRONT VIEW LIRA - RINGS FB I" W X 1/4" THICK 4" —+- INSET SHEET - 12GA (QTY.1) W/O CUTOUTS. TO BE PAINTED BLACK AROUND LETTERS TO ILLUSTRATE SIGNAGE SHEETS ON EITHER SIDE. RETAINMENT RINGS 0 2" X 1/4" W X 1/4" THICK (QTY.4) SEE DETAIL A SIGNAGE (FRONT) SIGNAGE SHEETS - 1 2GA (QTY.2) W/ CUTOUT LETTERS 81/2" 836" —. >mgatanirml enema= _ ®aitann° it z11-7lle 10 -1/2" A 1 0 THIS DRAWING AND ALL CONTENTS ARE THE PROPERLY OF HAF EQUIPMENT. INC AND ARE NOT TO BE COPIED OR RE- PRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF HAF EQUIPMENT, INC. ASSEMBLY / PART NO. X DRAWING REFERENCES X GENERAL .SPECIFICATIONS SIGN PLATE MATERIAL : CARBON STEEL - 12GA (088 2) INSET MATERIAL ) CARBON STEEL - 12GA (PAINTED BLACK AROUND LETTERS) CONTACT FINISH 1 X NON :CONT. FINISH 9 FINISH X 20" DETAIL A SIGNAGE (FRONT) DESCRIPTION TITLE: ASSEMBLY - PUREFEX SIGNAGE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SCALE PJU X 1:3 JOB NO. APPROVED BY DATE X X 9/9/09 3 2 REVISIONS � \ I ( I (�"�� I (' 1' � /' (- / � I �I ^ �'�. L_IJ )UVIJ�U` V A SIZE D 0 DRAWING NO. I DATE I DRAWN BY Signage 1 0 Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 29, 2009 CASE NO.: 09 -37 APPLICANT: Jeff Anderson and Greg Stokes REQUESTS: Design Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit LOCATION: 315 Olive St W HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: October 5, 2009 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plann BACKGROUND Last month the HPC approved a design review permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 315 Olive St W for Jeff Anderson and Greg Stokes. Since that lime, the applicant has decided to reorient the garage on the property. Therefore, since this is a major modification it requires review by the HPC. The accessory dwelling unit will be moved from the SW to the SE corner of the lot. The garage doors are rotated from the west elevation and becomes the south elevation. The plans take into the account the HPC conditions from September 9th. Subject Property The building would contain just less than 676 square feet on the first floor of usable space for a garage with an additional 676 square feet of habitable space on the second floor that will be used as an accessory dwelling unit. The lot size is 10,500 sq. ft., and 10,000 sq. ft. is the minimum lot size permitted by the ordinance for an accessory dwelling unit. EVALUATION OF REQUESTS The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is specifically charged to review item g of the accessory dwelling unit conditions as listed in the RB zoning district requirements. Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted special uses in the RB district subject to the following conditions: 315 Olive St W Anderson /Stokes Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Page 2 a. Lot size must be at least 10,000 square feet. The subject lot is 10,500 square feet. b. The accessory dwelling unit may be located on second floor above the garage. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is located on the second floor above the garage. c. The accessory dwelling unit must abide by the primary structure setbacks for side and rear setbacks. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is proposed to have a 25 foot rear yard setback and a 10 foot side yard setback. The proposed setbacks meet the requirements of the RB district. d. The accessory dwelling unit must be located in the rear yard of the primary residence or be set back from the front of the lot beyond the midpoint of the primary residence. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is behind the main home and meets the requirements of the code. e. Off - street parking requirements for an apartment and single - family residence (four spaces) must be provided. The proposed accessory dwelling unit will provide the required four off - street parking spaces with two spaces in the garage and a minimum of three in the driveway. f. Maximum size of the accessory dwelling unit is 800 square feet. The proposed area of the living space in the accessory dwelling unit is 676 square feet. g. The application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. The applicant has provided plans for the proposed accessory dwelling unit. The garage is proposed to have a gable roof with asphalt shingles. It includes a dormer on the east elevation and a saltbox style roof pitch on the with west elevation. The pitch of the proposed structure does not match the current structure. Finally, the renderings does not indicate the siding that will be used on the structure. Since these details are not clearly noted on the plans staff recommends this be made a condition of the approval. h. The height may not exceed that of the primary residence. The existing primary residence is a two story home. The proposed accessory dwelling unit is also proposed to be two stories. The height of the accessory dwelling unit is shorter than the primary residence. .4 315 Olive St W Anderson /Stokes Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Page 3 i. Both the primary and accessory dwelling unit must be connected to municipal sewer and water services and be located on an improved public street. Today, the primary dwelling unit is connected to municipal sewer and water services. Since it is not clearly noted on the plans staff recommends that this be made a condition of the approval. Maximum size of garage is 800 square feet. The proposed area of the garage in the accessory dwelling unit is 676 square feet. ALTERNATIVES The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the demolition permit for the garage and design review for the new accessory dwelling unit as presented with the following conditions: a. All revisions to the approved plan must be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. b. The accessory dwelling unit must be similar style, materials and color as the primary dwelling unit. Windows on the north elevation must be aligned vertically between the first and second floors. If exterior lighting is used it must be soffit style lighting units. The siding shall be a lap style similar to that existing principal structure. The City Planner shall review final plans for the Accessory Dwelling Unit prior to issuance of the building permit. c. The accessory dwelling unit shall connect to public sanitary sewer and water service. d. The applicant must meet the drainage requirements of the Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization. e. Encourage that the porch be construction and completed simultaneously as the accessory dwelling unit. 2. Deny the demolition permit for the garage and design review for the new accessory dwelling unit. If the Commission decides to deny the requests, findings of fact substantiating the denial must be provided. 3. Continue the public hearing until the November 2, 2009 Commission meeting. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is November 20, 2009. RECOMMENDATION Review and take action on the request. FINDINGS The proposal, as conditioned, meets the intent of the City's zoning ordinance. attachment: Application and supporting documents from the applicant r 1 4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: GREG STOKES NORTH 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET • DENOTES FOUND 1 /2" IRON PIPE DENOTES 1/2" X 18" IRON PIPE SET AND MARKED BY 25718 C CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my d irect supervision and that t am a duly ttcensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the te of Minnesota. DANIEL L.MES E E License. No. 2 5 718 CATCH BASIN HYDRANT SIGN WATER VALVE UTILITY POLE LIGHT POLE TELE /ELEC BOX GAS VALVE OVERHEAD WIRES WELL MANHOLE CULVERT GAS METER FENCE CONCRETE )ate 5 -18 -05 s 0 F - 860 - -'- S\ 0140 05 ' 0 '0 N FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE 0.3' WESTERLY AND 0.5' SOUTHERLY OF LOT CORNER) CiS m CP -'o 0•o` Go J'. ‘.3' 0 � `'' 70. N 72 ° 2 85 -6;1 TZ O NEW 1.01' Pilo u F S \ \ AREA: TOTAL AREA OF LOT = 10,528 SQ.FT. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION (as provided by the owner) The east 70.00 feet of Lot 9, Block 2, WILSONS ADDITION TO STILLWATER, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. NOTES: PROJECT LOCATION: 315 OLIVE STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT LOCATED OR SHOWN EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED. THE EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH OR SURVEY THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR GAPS AND OVERLAPS. Suite #B100 200 East Chestnut Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dlt -csls@ mcieoausa .net CORNERSTONE LANE) SURVEYING, INC I O Z ' m �- r z z 0 1 0) O r rn • o 0 m r O z J DATA r • • ••• mum o....... I DATA pm moms= WAlt DOE NE EH 22' -6 7/16" I 1•p MOB AM MAIM p. �S l l l l• a t• r Y i t • B L AiY Bldg as.>s,IA m • n #zz 0 o r- r 0 0 z N ' Q m 0 m O rn r L 1 Nam COMFY TUT TYI KAN. >FEC1ICMI 11 OR REPORT WAS IWQA1® BY 11E OR WIWI W D•ILDT WFOtNRCM NC THAT 1 AM A DULY ISID1E101D MOf1ECT UlW 11E WAS OF 111E STATER 111ifSTA. DAIL RES. RD I. d I 26' -0" r Ti GARAGE /STUDIO 315 W.OLIVE STREET STILLWATER 4 Memo Community Development Department Message: To: Heritage Preservation Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner '. Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 Re: Extension of Demolition Permit 2007 -50 related to Home at 1509 Pine St W Property owner Bob Stanislaw has requested a one year extension to the approved demolition permit for his home at 1509 Pine St W. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the permit to demolish the building on November 5, 2007. City Code Section 31 -204, Sub 6(a) and (b) states that all permits are void after 24 months after approval. This section allows the original approving body to extend the life of the permit for up to one additional year. The City has not made a change to any ordinance that would affect this request and staff sees no reason that would affect the approval of a similar request today. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission made a motion to approve an extension of demolition permit 2007 -50 to November 5, 2010. 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 4 9/10/2009 City Planning Department Attention: Mike Pogge Re: Demolition Extension 2007 -50 of 1509 Pine Street West, Stillwater I have received demolition authorization # 2007 -50 for my home on 1509 Pine Street West in Stillwater, MN. 2 years ago, and this authorization expires November 5 of 2009. We are working on moving forward with this project, but because of some economic and financial hurdles I am requesting a year extension on this demolition authorization. Please let me know if you need more information or have any questions Regards - a/6/ Bob Stanislaw 1509 Pine Street West Stillwater, MN. 55082 Home: 651- 351 -1653 Cell: 6412 - 968 -1376 .RE CEIVED SEP 1 02008 COMMUNITY DEVaOPM� NE T DEPARflgFNT • September 23, 2009 Cynthia Kneisl 1010 4 St S Stillwater, MN 55082 iwater I ∎ti. rig THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Re: Accessory Dwelling Unit at 1004 6 St S Dear Ms. Kneisl: I am writing in regards to the inquiry you made at the Wednesday, September 9, 2009 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. Specifically, you requested that the Ci review the height of the accessory dwelling unit that is under construction at 1004 6 Street S to insure that it conforms to City Code. City code 31 -501 Subd 3. (a)(8) states "The height may not exceed that of the primary residence ". City Code 31 -101 (78) defines height as "Height, building means the vertical dimension, measured from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the front of the building to the highest point of ceiling of the top story, in the case of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof and to the average height between the plate and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof". Since both the primary residence and the accessory dwelling unit are gable roofs the building height is the midpoint of the roofs and not to the top of the roofs. Using this standard, City Staff field measured the home and accessory dwelling unit and has determined that the accessory dwelling unit as constructed meets city code requirements regarding the height of the structure. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me directly at 651- 430 -8822. Sincerely, Michel . Po ge, City Planner cc: Heritage Preservation Commission CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651 - 430 -8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us F YI