Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-03 HPC PacketHeritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Monday, May 3, 2010 The meeting will begin at 7 p.m., Monday, May 3, 2010, in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF April 5, 2010 MINUTES 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/DR/2010-09. Demolition request for a 1-1/2 story duplex and to consider a request for review of a new residence that will be moved onto the property in compliance with the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) requirements located at 415 Sherburne St S in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Stephen Schaffer, applicant. 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 Case No. DR/2010-08. Design review of proposed renovation of building exterior located at 201 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. Continued from April 5, 2010 Meeting 5.02 Case No. DR/2010-10. Design review of signage for Dollar Tree located at 2070 Market Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Anchor Sign, LLC, applicant. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.01 Extension request for Design Review Permit No. 2008-35, located at 1221 Broadway St N. new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, John Bracht, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Minutes of March 1, 2010, were approved as submitted. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/10-03 Design review of signage for the City parking ramp at 200 Second St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the March 1, 2010 meeting. Mr. Pogge reviewed the latest proposal, which eliminates the projecting sign at this time. The proposal is for wall signage, with the verbiage Public Parking in white letters along with the circular P logo. The letters, 1.5' tall, would be aluminum, with the logo a high density foam material raised off the surface of the sign itself to provide some relief. He noted this follows the zoning requirements. Mr. Johnson confirmed that there would be no channel letters or lighting. Mr. Pogge said the existing sign brackets will remain in place, for some future use. Mr. Johnson moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/10-06 Design review of signage for Lost Treasures at 221 E. Chestnut St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Shannon Conners-Shaleen, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report which found that the requested sign meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be lighted; Ms. Conners-Shaleen said the sign would not be lighted. Mr. Johnson noted the Commission wants to make sure signage is as effective as possible and suggested that consideration be given to a larger sign; the applicant stated her husband made the sign and the sign is finished. She said the sign would be hanging on chains so it won't be so high on the building that it won't be visible; she said the sign will be visible from Main Street. The applicant briefly explained the nature of her business. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the sign as submitted, with the additional condition that there be no exterior lighting of the sign. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/10-07 Design review of new tenant logo in existing sign at 200 E. Chestnut in the CBD, Central Business District. Stacie Berg, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff findings, which noted the number, locations and sizes of the requested signs are preexisting and can continue to be used. The applicant was present. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve as presented and conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 Case No. DR/10-08 Design review of proposed renovation of building exterior at 201 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request and staff report, which noted that while the building is in the Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Districts, it is a non- contributing building to the District. Brian Larson was present, Greg Gartner, building owner, and the contractor were also present. Mr. Larson explained there are three main components to the project from a design standpoint: window openings; a cornice element; and awnings. He stated a decision has not been made regarding signage at this time. He said due to time constraints and the desire to move the project along, they would like to focus on the proposal as it relates to the window openings, with the understanding they may have to come back to the Commission to further discuss the details related to awnings, cornice, and how the awnings relate to signage. Mr. Larson said they looked at several options for the windows, noting that the building currently doesn't do a good job of relating to Main Street and creating a pedestrian - friendly streetscape, with several blank walls and with the windows primarily on the second floor of the west elevation. The proposal includes office and studio space on the second level, with retail and small cafe area on the main level. He said the plan is to open up the building and bring a lot of daylight to the second level. He stated the existing brick is very monolithic with not a lot of color variation and the current windows are formed by a pattern of brick detailing. The proposal calls for two bays to be combined into a single window; the existing two-story, triple window would be left as is, he said. He also described the proposal for new storefront windows on Main Street. He said he thought the proposed windows openings are reasonable, and he noted the two bay windows would be divided with mullions as shown in the design submittal. He suggested that adding a steel lintel at the top of the windows openings, as proposed, adds an element of color and accent that the monolithic brick is missing. He referred to one change in the original submittal for windows — the original plan showed openings next to the triple windows blanked off with brick backing, now the request is to keep those openings as is. There was a question about materials. Mr. Larson said the storefront window proposed would be a 1 3/4" dark anodized aluminum window with clear glass; Mr. Tomten asked is the existing windows are clear glass; Mr. Larson said he believed there is a dark tint to the windows, and said the intent is to replace all of the existing windows with the same glazing. Mr. Johnson said he felt that the additional windows on either side of the columns in the new submittal are somewhat distracting to the over-under pattern of the primary windows. Mr. Gartner noted the windows are existing and if they are covered as initially submitted, it would appear as a patched -in window. Mr. Johnson suggested those windows are on a different plane and would fill in fairly well, using salvaged brick. Mr. Johnson asked if the intent is to set back these windows into the face of the building, as the existing windows are, or to bring the windows out. Mr. Larson noted there are a variety of conditions, with the north elevation a 12" deep block wall, with the west side not as deep. Mr. Larson said they looked at trying to come up with the best balance of where to put the new window frames; he said, as proposed, the new windows sit 8" back from the front, basically one brick return, while the existing windows that will be re - glazed will sit back where they are now. Mr. Goodman said he thought the plans were an amazing improvement to one of the most important locations in the downtown. Mr. Larson said currently, the east elevation would be left as is, but there may be plans for that elevation in the future. Mr. Lieberman said he could live with either the original submission or the revised submission presented at the meeting. Mr. Johnson said he felt that filling in the two windows in 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 question (on the side of the columns) gives a stronger accent to the building and strength to the corners of the building. Mr. Zahren said he liked the second version, as did Mr. Tomten. Mr. Tomten spoke in favor of adding vibrancy to the accent color. Mr. Johnson noted this is a non -conforming building, that doesn't have a precedence for a certain style or appearance; he noted, as Mr. Larson brought out, that the building doesn't lend itself to the pedestrian streetscape and suggested the first floor elevation will be the most noticeable of all the elements of the building. Mr. Tomten asked if there was a possibility of adding a storefront element to the Chestnut Street elevation; Mr. Larson said structurally, that would be much more difficult. Ms. Cook said she liked the first submission better and said she thought that plan complements the historic character better and, as Mr. Johnson suggested, makes the building appear taller. Mr. Johnson suggested that plans/colors for the cornice may make the building appear taller and might change the opinion regarding the new submission. Mr. Larson said plans continue the gray, subdued color and keep the cornices the same, with the awning changed to a different type of awning — a lightweight steel, sunscreen. He said the awning will tie into whatever they decide to do with signage. The cornice, he said, is the same proportions and same design, but a bit more subdued in color. He said the cornice is intended to create a visual termination at the top of the building and add an accent of color. He said the cornice does not project a great deal outward; it would be a smooth, metal panel with tight seams. He said it would be a contemporary cornice and in no way a reproduction of an historic cornice. Regarding the awning, Mr. Larson said the red version is a simple, lightweight metal frame that instead of having fabric stretched over it has a metal canopy, either tight grid or tight standing seam. Mr. Larson briefly addressed possible signage, saying they have thought of a projecting sign on the corners; he said the design group would like to see a potential for some type of banner, not signage, but to add some color on the facade, and could perhaps even change with the seasons. He stated the "red awning" plans are somewhat limiting for signage area. Mr. Johnson said the metal awning in red reflects what is being done in the corner, with the bevel and parapet; he said it provides an opportunity to break up the brick surface. In discussion, it was noted that Reed's Drug had a projecting canopy that was frequently damaged by trucks; Mr. Larson said they may have to get some type of approval from MnDOT as well. Mr. Johnson said with either awning, he favored the infill of the existing windows in question. Mr. Johnson asked whether the cornice would go all the way around the building, even though there are no plans for the east elevation at this time; Mr. Larson responded in the affirmative. Mr. Larson said he thought the awning was tied to signage and said he would like to present those plans together. Regarding the plans for windows, Mr. Johnson restated his preference to have the existing window openings in question bricked in, saying he thought that would work with either awning configuration. Mr. Tomten and Mr. Goodman said they would be comfortable with either options for the windows. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the window layout as submitted in the original packet, with the windows in question bricked up; Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Larson asked whether there was any latitude regarding the windows, whether this motion represented a direction from the Commission with some latitude. Mr. Lieberman said he thought the motion should stand as what the Commission is directing, and if the applicant wants to change it, that 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 request could be made to the Commission in the future. After additional discussion, motion passed unanimously. Regarding the awnings, Mr. Zahren moved to approve the metal sunscreen, along with the banner idea, as shown in the plans dated April 5, 2010. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the cornice for the metal sunscreen plans dated April 5, 2010. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion; Mr. Johnson clarified that the cornice is for all three elevations. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pogge noted there are six additional conditions recommended by staff. Those conditions were adopted unanimously on a motion by Mr. Lieberman. Mr. Zahren stated he would like a requirement for enclosing the dumpster as a condition; Mr. Larson referred to the condition that trash dumpsters be kept inside the building or if outside an enclosure built according to design guidelines, along with the requirement to obtain a parking space lease if the enclosure is located on City property. DR/09-19 Design review of new construction of U.S. Post Office at 107 Third St. N. in the CBD, Central Business District, and PA, Public Administration District. Mike Monn, HAF Architects. Mike Hoefler of HAF Architects was present representing the applicant. Mr. Lieberman noted plans have been changed since the original submission due to the Post Office's desire for more space, nearly double what was originally proposed. To accommodate the Post Office's space requirement, Mr. Lieberman noted the applicant is requesting to increase the third -floor space from 1,000 square feet in the original plans to 2,405 square feet, along with an elevator and additional set of stairs. Mr. Lieberman referred to other modifications in the plan as outlined in the staff report/agenda packet. Mr. Hoefler said some of the impact for the changes occurred with the Post Office's internal layout and access to the PO boxes and desire to eliminate any hidden corners in the box area; he said a good portion of the boxes occur straight east of the entrance tower. In doing the modification to reflect more of an open area from the tower, the glass size in the tower was increased by incorporating a glass elevator and creating a two-story open stairwell. Mr. Hoefler said that impacted both the interior and exterior, with the tower increased by several feet, 14 to 17.4, to allow for the elevator and additional glazing to provide openness/visibility into the box space. He noted the Post Office also indicated it did not want windows for security reasons, so plans were changed on the west elevation going from 5 windows to 4 windows, as well as the same change on the east elevation. Mr. Hoefler said providing the additional space in the loft exceeded the square foot allotment for two exits so the previously proposed steel exit stair from the rooftop deck has been relocated to an interior stair in the southwest corner. Mr. Johnson suggested that one of the bigger changes is the size and width of the tower and the dormers across the east side. Mr. Hoefler provide a video depiction of the impact of the dormers and tower, which is much more visible from a vehicle standpoint. Mr. Tomten expressed a concern about the height of the wall by the patio space. On a question by Mr. Zahren, Mr. Hoefler said the building footprint stayed the same, they took the roof trusses and added a bonus room and on the east side incorporated dormers to get more head space. Mr. Johnson pointed out that mechanical units are shown on the roof in the southeast corner; Mr. Hoefler said those are air conditioning units for the loft area and would be located below the parapet. Mr. Johnson asked if there was a walkway to Third Street through the site to provide a more direct route to the parking facility; Mr. Hoefler said they would be willing to do that and had 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 discussed that with the City's building official. There was a question about the wall that connects to the parking facility; Mr. Hoefler said that is now all poured concrete and continuation of the parking facility wall. Mr. Lieberman invited comments from Mark Balay, the closest neighbor; Mr. Balay said he was confident any issues can be worked out. Mr. Lieberman said his biggest concern has always been with the size of the building, a prominent building, and said he wants it to represent the fabric of the community. Mr. Krakowski said he thought the architecture was a bit reminiscent of the an old train station structure, so that ties in the architecture a bit. Mr. Hoefler said their inspiration for the building was to take the hints of the old water department building, Steeple Town and the tower at City Hall and engage those features together using an antique brick and old windows; Mr. Lieberman agreed those influences are apparent. Mr. Tomten wondered with the expansion of the Post Office area whether the Post Office had given an indication of an inclination for additional signage for itself on the Third Street elevation. Mr. Hoefler said the Post Office does not want to encourage traffic from the Third Street side; the Post Office is OK with the 24-hour lobby concept, he said, but wants to be able to bring people in from the north, from the parking lot, and into the main lobby, which is on the north side. Mr. Tomten pointed out that Myrtle Street is the second busiest street in the City and someone could drive by and never know the Post Office was located nearby. Mr. Johnson noted the wall at Myrtle and Third with the 107 Third address provides a prominent locator for the building, and suggested some type of Post Office identification on that wall might help identify the building more. Ms. Cook asked Mr. Pogge whether, given the prominence of this building, there is any opportunity for public input; Mr. Pogge responded that typically approval is through the design review process. Mr. Hoefler reviewed the building materials and colors. Mr. Tomten asked about the rain screen material and the treatment of the edges; Mr. Hoefler said they want a crisp outside corner so the edges will be mitered. Mr. Johnson asked about the sign package submittal, saying he thought the two sign panel areas at the corner of the west elevation had been eliminated; he said he thought that was an awkward location, up high on the building and not by any door entrance. Mr. Johnson said he thought the south side location on either side of the door would be more appropriate for that signage. Mr. Hoefler said he didn't think that issue had been resolved earlier and said the indication of the signage panel is just to indicate sign space for future tenants. Mr. Tomten suggested delaying approval of the sign package until there are tenants. It was consensus to require some Post Office identification incorporated with the 107 Third Street address. Ms. Cook expressed a concern about the overall size of the building, noting that design guidelines state that new infill buildings should fit into the "fabric of existing buildings and overall streetscape and not present a jarring contrast." Mr. Hoefler noted this is not an overly large building. Mr. Goodman moved to accept the changes as proposed, with the final sign package to be presented when there are tenants. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion if Mr. Goodman would agree to include the conditions that the U.S. Postal Service identification be added below the 107 Third Street at the right hand side of the main stairs and that the two places identified for sign area (identified in the sign package as No. 38) be removed from the west elevation. Mr. Pogge asked whether the motion included the 14 conditions as recommended by staff and included in the agenda packet. Mr. Lieberman noted that condition No. 12 addresses signage. 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 5, 2010 Mr. Lieberman summarized the motion as approval of the designs as presented and conditioned, except for changing condition No. 12 to include the addition of the U.S. Postal Service identification with the 107 signage. Mr. Hoefler asked why signage couldn't be placed at the location in question on the west elevation (No. 38) if that meets the requirement of the code. Mr. Johnson pointed out the sign guidelines look at placing signage near the point of entry. Mr. Lieberman said he didn't feel comfortable imposing a condition regarding the Postal Service signage without knowing whether there are certain government regulations regarding signage; Mr. Johnson noted this has been an issue in several previous discussions. After discussion, it was decided to eliminate the sign package from the approval. Mr. Lieberman restated the motion to accept the revised plan as conditioned, with the sign package to be submitted and considered by the Commission at a later date. Mr. Lieberman advised the applicant to contact the Postal Service regarding any regulations that may impact the signage and to keep Mr. Pogge informed of any communication with the Postal Service. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson suggested identifying the plans as those submitted 3/19/2010, specifically excluding the sign package (package 8) from the approval. Mr. Johnson's suggestion was incorporated into the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Stillwater Veterans site — Mr. Pogge reviewed the request from the Veterans Memorial group to place a plaque near the memorial spire. He said the request is for a separate, free-standing plaque that addresses the historical significance of the site itself. He said the proposal is to place the plaque along Third Street. Mr. Tomten suggested asking the group to submit a proposal with additional details, location, size, etc. Mr. Pogge said the group would also like to put a storage shed for rakes, etc at the site. He said staff would work with the group and place the shed in the lower level Cub parking area where it will not be visible. Mr. Tomten said he was a bit troubled by the proposed verbiage in the site plaque suggesting it may further complicate relations between the Veterans Memorial people and the farmers' market use. Mr. Pogge said the original intent, as he understood it from discussions, was to recognize the site as the former Stillwater High School site. No action was taken regarding the plaque pending more information about the details. Heritage Preservation Awards — Mr. Pogge spoke in favor of the Dairy Queen building. Mr. Tomten suggested the Dairy Queen building for building restoration and what is now the Olive Oil Company for new facade. Mr. Bracht suggested restoration of the private home at 519 Laurel St. W.; Mr. Johnson agreed that would be a good recipient as this was a foreclosure property likely headed for demolition. Other items Mr. Pogge noted while the South Main Street Archaeological District has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, objection from a private property owner has prevented such inclusion at this time. However, Mr. Pogge said that may occur sometime in the future. Mr. Pogge also told the Commission the City has received $8,000 in a CLG grant. He also noted that the Commission's annual report to the Historical Society was included in the packet. Mr. Pogge reminded members their retreat session has been scheduled for June 30. 6 Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: April 28, 2010 APPLICANT: Stephen F Schaffer CASE NO.: 10-09 REQUEST: Demolition Permit for a residential duplex and an Infill Design Review Permit for a single-family home proposed to be moved onto the lot LOCATION: 415 Sherburne St S HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 3, 2010 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plannet BACKGROUND Stephen F Schaffer, property owner of 415 Sherburne St S, is requesting a demolition permit for the existing residential duplex on the property. The property is in the western edge of the Neighborhood Conservation Design District and as such needs an infill design review permit for the new home. The current structure was built in 1875 according to the Washington County Assessor's office. The intent of the property owner is to replace the existing structure with a 1000 square foot single family home that would be moved onto the lot. Subject House 415 Sherburne St S Demolition and NCD Permit Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS The applicant is requesting consideration of the following items: 1. A demolition permit for the existing single-family home and garage. 2. Infill design review for a replacement single-family home and garage. This report will review the two requests starting first with the demolition request then the infill design review request. Evaluation of Demolition 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... The structure was built in 1875 according to the Washington County Assessor's office making it more than 50 years old, which makes it potentially historically significant and requires review by the Heritage Preservation Commission before it can be demolished. Section 34-5 of the City Code lists nine items that 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; This legal description for the property is Lots 8 and 10, Block 3, Gary and Slaughter's Addition to Stillwater. The property owner of record is Stephen F Schaffer (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 entire structure is proposed to be demolished. 415 Sherburne St S Demolition and NCD Permit Page 3 (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 has included a number of items in support of their request. 1. A letter from Andy Struck, a Licenses Professional Engineer, was submitted listing a number of the defects within the current structure. 2. A letter was submitted from SECURA Insurance Companies noting the rotting siding needed to be repaired or replaced, the concrete on the front porch need to be repaired and the roof needs to be repaired or replaced. 3. STW Construction Services LLC provided three cost quotes on the project. The first was to repair the existing house at a cost of $197,100, the second was to demolish the existing home and construct a new stick built home at a cost of $150,000 and the third was to demolish the home and move in an existing 1960's home from an off -site location at a cost of $95,747.30. (6) Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure to be demolished is located; The applicant stated in their application that they plan to move in a 1,000 square foot single- family home. Photos of the home are included in the applicant's packet. (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. The plans as submitted would meet all zoning requirements. This site is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District and since the main structure is being removed the new home is subject to the infill design criteria. (8) A description of alternatives to the demolition; The applicant includes a number of alternatives to demolition; however, they generally notes that none of the alternatives are financially feasible within his means. (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 structure was listed for sale in the Stillwater Gazette on April 21, 23, and 24. A copy of the ad has been included for the Commission's reference. Evaluation of Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines All infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines serve as a common reference for all those involved in the process of new construction in the district including property owners, neighbors, residents, architects, designers, builders, city staff, and the commission. The guidelines are intended to serve as a framework to guide the design process, while allowing for individuality and creativity in architectural design. Twenty-seven guidelines make up 415 Sherburne St S Demolition and NCD Permit Page 4 the NCD design manual. These guidelines cover three (3) general areas including Neighborhood and Streets, Building Site, and Architectural Detail. The homes immediately adjacent to this home are a mix homes mostly built post WWII between 1947-1986. The exception is a duplex to the north that was built in 1885 according to the Washington County Assessor's office. The style of the homes are mainly a mix of post WW II single story homes. As such it meet the guidelines for building heights and architectural style. As a replacement home that is being moved onto the site, there is limited opportunity to change exterior elements related to architectural details to make the replacement home more compactable with the surrounding homes. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has several alternatives related to these two requests: A. Approve. If the proposed demolition and infill design review requests are found acceptable to the HPC, they should be approved. Staff would recommend the following minimum condition for approval. 1. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the demolition rules and the approved design guidelines, then the Commission could deny the requests. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until your June 7, 2010 meeting so that additional information could be submitted. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is June 10, 2010. RECOMMENDATION Review and take action on the request. attachment Application 415 Sherburne St S Demolition and NCD Permit Page 5 Supporting documents from the applicant Heritage Preservation Commission Demolition Permit No. Demolition Request Permit Fee $150* Receipt No. Address Lot 8 of Project: 4 i 5 S eiZ-sui ' ' ST S . Parcel No.: 410 Block 3 Subdivision 6RAY Awo SLAvbdil2i S OD IT) OIJ TO friLwfi Applicant: Address: Owner Address: Type Age of STL"IPHCN F Scl-1i(N-c 6-rk 415 SNn is ustvE St. S- STILi.Telephone4 �51> A39 - (O02�P wq-n MN No.: i if different than Applicant: Telephone No. 1 l2. S i OZ,Y —C----)v PLE of Structure: 1 Structure:/@ 7c Condition of Structure: L"x rg&finl6t If lam- o 011 Comp MI 0►✓ Intended 5) Use of Site after Demolition: Wet.ti rovric,Pino►'✓ goz pc iv6uvL iZ kJ &LLB i-A1M 1 LY 4 0 f L To 1 &3 11 o VeD ON'CO i146 S I12< 4 .1,149- s--/s-,10 IicaaDate ignature oi4k ✓re Signature of Owner Date *After Heritage Preservation approval, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-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. 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: ❑ Approved City Planner/Community Development Director ❑ Denied Date April 16 2010 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Members of the Heritage Preservation Commission, This application is for demolition permit for an existing duplex house located at 415 South Sherburne Street, Stillwater, MN. The house was built in approximately 1875, according to the Washington County Assessor. The existing house is a 1-1/2 story, 1500 sf duplex with living units on the upper floor and main floor. The current owner, Steven Schaffer, currently lives on the main floor unit and has lived there for over 20 years. The house is deteriorating and in extremely poor condition, as will be described below. The intent is to remove the existing duplex house, and construct a new foundation for a newer single family house to be moved onto the site. The existing driveway and garage are intended to remain. The property is a double- wide lot, measuring 100' x 126'. The following information and attached supporting documents are provided in accordance with requirements of the City of Stillwater Building Demolition Code: A.1 Site Map showing the property location in relationship to its immediate neighborhood (see attached). A.2 Site Plan showing the location of the existing house on the property, with property lines, sidewalk, drive and garage indicated (see attached). A.3 Site Plan showing the proposed new house location, including a new front porch (see attached). B. Legal Description: Gray's and Slaughter Addition L8 B3 ; PIN 2803020330075 C.1 Photographs of all existing building elevations. (see attached). D.1 Description of Building to be demolished: The existing house will be demolished; the existing garage will remain. Part of the existing house was built in 1875, with several additions constructed since. The house design is a simple worker's vernacular style, without notable interior or exterior detailing. The original portion of the 1-1/2 story structure was likely the 16'-0" wide East-West gable; a similar crossing gable was built in the North -South direction, and other shed roofed one story additions added to these. The house has a stone foundation and partial basement under the original house with an assortment of stone crawl space foundations under the additions. It has asphalt shingles, painted wood trim and siding, aluminum storm/screens and single glazed wood doublehung windows. The house is in very poor physical condition. The foundation is crumbling stone, with water infiltrating from the exterior and pooling and running across the central basement floor. Crawl spaces under other parts of the house are poorly ventilated; years of high humidity and water have contributed to extensive rotting of floor structure, rimjoist and interior framing. According to the attached structural engineer's report (see D.3) , the majority of the 2 x wood floor joists have decayed, in perimeter and midspan locations. Portions of the house are not plumb or level, have significant settling and listing due to structural and foundation deterioration and movement. The house has little or no insulation. The roof needs replacing, has sagging rafters and ridges, likely has areas of significant rot, and has much of its eaves and fascia rotting or fallen off (see D.2). D.2 Photographs of existing building deterioration. (see attached). D.3 Structural Engineer's Report (see attached) E.1 Reasons for proposed demolition: The owner of the existing house wishes to remain at this location, and would like to change the house to single family occupancy from its current duplex configuration. .However, the deteriorated state of the existing house and foundation make the renovation of the house infeasible for economic reasons: 1. If the Owner does not make significant changes and repairs, he believes that he is in danger of losing insurance to the property, and in turn his current financing. (See E.2, letter from insurance company). 2. According to the City Building Official, any renovation will require bringing the building up to current code. Attached is a bid from STW Construction Services (see E.3 Renovation Bid - raising the existing structure, excavating and constructing a new foundation/basement, replacing known structural and framing deficiencies, and updating to code) shows the costs to be $197,100, well beyond the ability of the owner to finance or pay. 3. In lieu of renovation, the house could be demolished and new house constructed in its place. Attached is a bid from STW Construction Services (see E.4 Demolition/New Construction Bid )for building a new 1000 sf single level house. This bid shows the costs to be $150,000, well beyond the ability of the owner to finance or pay. 4. instead of remodeling or new construction, The Owner wants to demolish the old existing house and move an existing newer house onto the site. Attached is a bid from STW Construction Services (see E.5 Demolition/ move newer house onto site for $95,747) E.2 Insurance Company letter E.3 Renovation Bid from STW Construction Services E.4 Demolition/New Construction Bid from STW Construction Services E.5 Demolition/ move newer house onto site Bid from STW Construction Services F.1 Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of property: The owner intends to immediately construct a new basement and foundation and move a newer (1960's) single level, 24' x 40' 1000 sf three bedroom home onto the site (see attached photos F.2). The new house's footprint will be in virtually the same location as the existing house's footprint (see attached Site Plan A.3). A new front porch will also be constructed (see attached sketch F.3 over photo of new house). The garage and drive will remain essentially unchanged. The proposed newer structure will be a single family residence, a change from the current duplex that is welcomed by neighbors. Attached (see F.4) are letters from six neighbors, supporting the project F.2 Photos new house to be moved on site F.3 Sketch of porch addition to front of new house F.4 Letters supporting project G.1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The proposed demolition and new house appear to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The property is located on the western edge of the Residential Conservation District, in a transitional area that fmds a greater concentration of older homes to the east, and many midcentury rambler houses to the west. In the immediate street and neighborhood, there are more modern rambler type houses than two story older houses. (see G.2 attached photos of similar modern houses in the surrounding blocks). The placement of the proposed new house relative to the street and adjacent houses, the massing of the house, and the general appearance of the house appear to meet the criteria described in the Residential Conservation District Design Guidelines. The result is a house that fits within a prevailing pattern and will not look out of place on the street or in the neighborhood, and will not result in a hardship for adjacent neighbors. G.2 Photos of similar modern houses in the surrounding blocks H.1 Alternatives to demolition:. 1. The owner could sell and move. However, as stated above, the owner wishes to remain at this location. 2. The owner could renovate the existing house, or demolish and build an all new house, if cost were not an object. However, the cost of renovation and bringing the entire house and structure up to code is not feasible for the owner, nor is all new construction, as demonstrated above in Paragraph E. 3. The owner could sell and move the existing house, if it were feasible. A moving company has stated the likelihood that the house is beyond repair and could not be moved without significant damage (see H.2 attached letter). H.2 Letter from house moving company I.1 Offered for sale:. The building was offered for sale in the Stillwater Gazettte. I.2 Receipt (see attached) J. Historic report: due to the deteriorated state of the building, a contract historian was not retained. Thank you for your consideration on this matter; I would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this project. Sincerely, Sc+tt Wille representing Steven Schaffer ►l )+Myrtle St Ramsay Grove Park SI co ti) arnsey St Oak 5t _E hut Pine St SATE MAP Wiemat__. httn://www.bina. com/mans/nrint.asbx?mkt=en-us&z=16&s=r&ep=45.051670,-92.820876&poi=415%20Sherburne%20St%20S... 4/14/2010 OSPANito tTS. RAN - ‘1\A 1 5 bog's' e, SAaktill STRUCK Engineering, LLC March 10, 2010 STW Construction Services, LLC Attn: Scott Willie 1202 Pine Street West Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Steve Schaffer 415 Sherburne St. Stillwater, MN Struck Eng. # 10017 Dear Scott, 5620 Memorial Ave. N, Suite E Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 P: 651.439.1139 F: 651.439.2603 This letter is in regards to the recent walk-thru you and I had at the address referenced above on March 9, 2010. The purpose of the walk-thru was to determine the overall structural integrity of the house. The house is estimated to be at least 50 years old minimum. You informed me that the original intention was to lift the house and provide a new basement foundation. After a more thorough investigation you found that most of the supporting floor structure and walls had significant decay and deterioration and would make more economical sense to demolish the existing structure and provide a new basement foundation wall and move in a pre-existing single family home. During the inspection there were significant signs of decay and deterioration. The rim board encompassing the entire house was decay extensively and in some places it was gone. Decay has occurred around windows and at the roof. The stone foundation wall had numerous cracks and broken pieces. From inside the basement I could see significant water along the walls and on the floor. I could also see that a majority of the 2x wood floor joists had decayed. Most of the decay had taken place where the floor joists rest on the stone foundation wall. Some areas the decay even occurred at mid span leaving only about % of the member. The floor had numerous temporary floor supports to help support the floor. The floor is structurally not acceptable and should be replaced. The main level of the house also has a significant slope to it. I would suggest this is caused by the combination of settlement and the decay of wood structure. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, �, s .* e 1 ezH,�-; s O � v * o i'R ."FE g w+�".':OAL yNqa • F . *SEC Insurance Companies P.O. Box 819, Appleton, WI 54912-0819 (920) 739-3161 STEVE SCHAFFER 415 SHERBURNE ST S STILLWATER MN 55082-3612 RE: Policy Number: HP 2657422 Property Location: 483649 SECOND REQUEST December 21, 2009 --- Dear Policyholder: At SECURA, we care about your safety and want to work with you to reduce your chances of incurring losses. We especially want to help you ensure that your property is safe for you, your family, and your visitors. We recently received information and/or photos from your SECURA agent which indicate a potential cause of loss. Attached is a safety recommendation designed to help you reduce your chances of incurring losses. It is important that you address the situation described on the attached recommendation page. As your insurance company, we would appreciate your letting us know within 45 days what steps you plan to take and when you think this situation will be resolved. You may reply on the duplicate copy of this letter. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call me or your SECURA agent. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely, NANCY PINTER, UNDERWRITER, EXT. 4723 Enclosures pc: BIG RIVERS INSURANCE Since these comments are based on our relatively brief inspection of your property, wen nor irrly that other unsafe conditions do not exist; nor can we guarantee that by following the recommendarrons al! - . _ ' -- , arxl municipal ordinances and regulations will be met. We also strongly encourage you to pericclicaNy i your as pars of your own ongoing safety enhancement program. 483649 PAGE TWO Policy Number HP 2657422 Recommendations To prevent further deterioration, and to maintain the insurable value of the dwelling, it is recommended that the rotting siding be repaired or replaced, the concrete on the front porch needs to be repaired and the roof needs to be repaired or replaced. Status: Signature_ FINAL REQUEST! If recommendations are not complied with by 09/08/2010, we will be nonrenewing this account on 11/22/2010. Nonrenewal notice will be mailed in September. INSURED COPY STW CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC 1202 Pine Street West Stillwater, MN. 55082 (651) 491-7675 Estimate for Steve Schaffer at 415 South Sherburne St., Stillwater, MN. This estimate includes: • Jack up and level house • Dig out old basement • Install new basement • Lower house onto new basement • Backfill new basement • Install new sidewalks • Fix all bad floor, wall, and roof framing • Install new roof • Install new windows • Install new siding • Install new soffit and fascia • Install new gutter and downs • Bring electrical up to code and install a new 200 amp overhead service • Bring H.V.A.C. up to code • Bring plumbing up to code • Install new insulation • Install new cabinets in kitchen • Fix any bad drywall inside house This is an estimate only. Total cost for the above work $197,100.00 Thank you, Scott Wille STW CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC 1202 Pine Street West Stillwater, MN. 55082 (651) 491-7675 Estimate for Steve Schaffer at 415 South Sherburne St., Stillwater, MN. This estimate includes: All labor and material to: • Remove old house and foundation • Install new foundation • Install a new single level, single family 1,000 square foot home • Install new sidewalks This is an estimate only. Total cost to do the above work $150,000.00 Thank you, Scott Wille STW CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC 1202 Pine Street West Stillwater, MN. 55082 (651) 491-7675 Estimate for Steve Schaffer at 415 South Sherburne St., Stillwater, MN. This estimate includes: • Remove and hall out old house and foundation • Dig new foundation • Install new foundation • Set 1960's existing single family home • Backfill new foundation • Install new sewer and water to street • Install new sidewalks • Install new 200 amp service and bring electrical up to code • Install new furnace and duct work • Hook up plumbing • Install three windows • Install new soffit and fascia • Install new front door canopy • Fix any bad siding • Install new kitchen cabinets • Install new carpet • Fix any bad drywall This is an estimate only. Total cost to do the above work $95,747.30 Thank you, Scott Wille 1 April, 2010 RE: House of Steve Schaffer located at: 415 S. Sherburne St. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 To Whom It May Concern, Some of the finest old homes in Stillwater are located on Third and Fourth streets of the South and North Hill, Pine Street and Olive. Those houses reflect what Stillwater once was and it's proud heritage. Looking at those houses reminds me of classic cars. Well maintained over the years with an eye to keeping them as original as possible. Steve's house doesn't quite fit that description. Over the years it has had poorly constructed additions added, not well maintained (through no fault of Steve) and generally has been modified beyond its original appearance. As to historical value, it rates right up there with a 1956 Chevy. Not the shiny 2 door hardtop BelAir with a 283 and Turbo Glide transmission that you can see your reflection in its finish, but the rusted out 4 door with the 3 speed on the column, a 6 popper that uses more oil than gas and more poorly done modifications than can be counted. I'm totally in agreement that Steve should be able to demolish the current structure on his property and move a newer and more fitting house into the neighborhood. Thank you, Gregory WTu rr e �"- 1203 W. Oak St. (Comer of Oak and S erburne) Stillwater, Mn. 55082 March 17th, 2010 To Whom it May Concern: I, Jennifer George, am the owner of the property at 425 Sherburne Street South, directly adjacent to 415 Sherburne Street South. I have owned this residence for four and a half years: As a longtime neighbor of Stephen Schaffer, I support his decision to demolish his current residence and replace with a new residence. The upgraded residence will bring value to the neighborhood and improve the visual environment. Sincerely, Jennifer George 425 S Sherburne St Stillwater, MN 55082 612-804-7921 March 28, 2010 Historic Preservation Commission Stillwater, Minnesota Dear Commission Members: I own a home at 414 S. Owens Street, near Steve Schaffer's property at 415 S. Sherburne. I support his decision to replace his old home with a newer home on the same property. His current residence requires repairs that are cost - prohibitive, and a newer home would increase property values for the entire neighborhood. I am in favor of his plans and ask that you approve this project. Thank you. Regards, 511iAsix-vA okkvkc-07vi 7er can Spree 1116 Pine S Stillwater, March 29, 2010 Historic Preservation Commission Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Commission Members: My name is Jean Spreeman, and I own the property at 1116 West Pine Street in Stillwater. From my yard, I can look directly across the back yards of my neighbors and to the house owned by Stephen Schaffer at 415 South Sherburne Street. I understand that Stephen would like to tear down his older home and replace it with a newer one on the same lot. I think this is a good idea, because his current home needs repairs that would be too costly, and putting a house in better condition there would improve the entire neighborhood. So I approve of his plans and ask you to approve this project. Thank you for consi. k .; his request. 4 'tt&e> \w t West 55082 April 11, 2010 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Glenn Schleusner and I currently reside at1206 West Olive Street. I have lived there for the past 12 years but prior to that I lived at 425 Sherburne Street, directly next door to Steve Schaffer. I was his neighbor for 20+ years. I would like to provide some additional input into the "historical value" of his home. Mr. Schaffer's home is in an extreme state of disrepair. It is an old house, and although he has tried to maintain it, the condition of the home has continued to deteriorate, to the point of virtual disintegration. It is an eyesore, and the likelihood of it collapsing seems quite imminent. To the point, the structure just is not worth salvaging, and it is bringing down the surrounding property values as well. It is a blighted property. Steve also maintains his upper level as an apartment and rents out this space. Because of the poor condition of the home, he is able to command only a minimal amount of rent, and the only tenants he is able to attract are of questionable character. This is evidenced by several police and ambulance calls to this address for various issues. I would like to strongly support Steve's petition to demolish this structure and replace it with a more suitable single family structure. Steve's new home will fit nicely into the fabric of the area, while removing the rental element, along with the police calls, from our neighborhood. It will be a more suitable structure for Steve as well, allowing him to have a property that is much easier to maintain. Thank you for considering my thoughts on this issue. Sincerely, Glenn Schleusner 1! — 1� March 28, 2010 Historic Preservation Commission Stillwater, Minnesota Dear Commission Members: I own a home at 408 S Owens Street, which is directly behind the home owned by Stephen Schaffer at 415 S. Sherburne Street. I understand that Steve plans to demolish his older home and replace it with a newer home, and I am in favor of his doing so It will improve the neighborhood and increase property values for all. My family has known Steve for more than forty years, and he is a long-time friend of my son, Don. I hope you allow this project to proceed, because it will be a much better arrangement for Steve and the whole neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lorraine Bouma 408 S Owens Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 04/13/2010 09:45 FAX 6512223831 Semple Excavating INC gum. 13-Apr-10 SEMPLE BUILDING MOVERS, INC. 1045 Jessie Street Office Phone: 651-774-7421 St. Paul, MN 55101 Office Fax: 651-222-3831 55 j 30 Home Fax: 651-776-2028 MG Exterior, !LC 452 E. 5th Street New Richmond, WI 54017 Attention Melroy Gess RE: 415 Sherburne St. When looking at the house located at 415 Sherburne St. in Stillwater, Minnesota in January of 2010, Terry Semple from Semple Building Movers, Inc. found that the timber sill was completely rotted away and the joyce are rotted back 2 feet it is Terry's opinion that the structure it's self is beyond repair. Thank You Semple Building Movers, Inc. Houses and Garages Bought And Sold Salesperson: CINDY LEHMANN STILLWATER GAZETTE AD AUTHORIZATION Printed at 04/15/10 15:52 by $LOGIN Acct#: 283562 STEPHEN SCHAFFER 415 S. SHERBURNE STILLWATER MN 55082 KARI BEYER (651)439-6026 Contact: Phone: Fax#: Email: Agency: Ad#: 983276 Status: N Start: 04/21/10 Stop: 04/24/10 Times Ord: 3 Times Run: **** STD 1.00 X 3.00 Words: 8 Rate: COP1 Cost: 21.20 Class: 8400 HOUSES FOR SALE Descript: HOUSE FOR SALE HOUSE MUST Given by: ***************************** Created: mberr 04/15/10 15:46 Last Changed: mberr 04/15/10 15:52 PUB ZONE ED TP START INS STOP S2 SV 97 S 04/21,23,24 INET A 94 S 04/21 SMTWTFS PAYMENT INFORMATION Pay Date 04/15/2010 $21.20 CC ************5856 01583BZ AUTHORIZATION Under this agreement rates are subject to change with 30 days notice. In the event of a cancellation before schedule completion, I understand that the rate charged will be based upon the rate for the number of insertions used. Payment of the amount shown above is due and payable in full upon receipt of invoice. Name (print or type) Name (signature) House For Sale House must be moved. 651-439-6026 Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: April 29, 2010 APPLICANT: Gartner Properties CASE NO.: 10-08 REQUEST: Design Review of proposed building elevation modifications LOCATION: 201 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: CC - Community Commercial ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: May 3, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The applicant is making a follow up to their requests last month specifically on building signage and color for the building at 201 Main St S. DISCUSSION The building at 201 Main St S is part of the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Districts. The building was built in 1965 for Reed Pharmacy and is a noncontributing building to the district. Projecting Signage The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install two projecting signs for Mara mi at 201 Main St S. The proposed sign face is listed to be under 6 square feet in size. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Mara Mi, Store, Studio, Cafe" in white on a blue background. 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. The proposed sign meets this requirement. 201 Main Street S Page 2 Colors The applicant is proposing to paint all new building surfaces a gray color as shown on the attached drawings. ALTERNATIVES The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requests in whole or in part. 2. Deny the request. 3. Continue the request for more information to the June HPC meeting. The 60- day decision deadline for the request is June 12, 2010 and the next Heritage Preservation Commission meeting is scheduled for June 7, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and take an action. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. All revisions to the approved plan (dated April 15, 2010 as on file with the City of Stillwater) 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 without HPC approval. 4. The design review permit 2010-08 issued April 15, 2010 is unaffected and remains in effect with this approval. attachments: Applicant's Form and packet LARSON BRENNER 04.16.2010 ARCHITECTS' 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Telephone: 651 - 430 - 0056 Facsimile: 651 - 439 - 1179 www.larsonbrenner.com City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Additional information/ Design Review Application 201 Main Street Members of the Commission: This letter is on behalf of Gartner Properties, owners of the property located at 201 South Main Street in Stillwater, Minnesota, as a follow-up to the previous submission HPC review meeting 04.05.10. The clarifications proposed for the signage and color renovation are shown on the attached graphic documents. We intend to bring color samples, light fixture details and a sign mock-up to the HPC meeting Building Signage: The exterior building signage will be located at the NW corner of the building as indicated. The signs will be each be less than 6 sq. ft. in area. The will be externally illuminated with either a gooseneck type fixture or a linear fixture; both options are shown in the attached drawings and will be discussed. Colors: the color for the new design elements of the building (steel lintels, sunscreens and cornice) will be substantially similar to the Gray color shown in the previous application and is shown on the attached drawings as well. Actual color samples will be submitted also. I'd be pleased to provide additional information as required to assist the Historic Preservation Commission with its review of the Design Review Permit Application. Please contact me if I may be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Brian Larson, AIA Larson Brenner Architects AWNING AERIAL VIEW AWNING FROM STREET AWNING FROM STREET STREET VIEW LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN 4-15.2010 A8 AWNING AERIAL VIEW AWNING FROM STREET AWNING FROM STREET STREET VIEW LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 201 Main Street Building Remodel 201 Main St Stillwater, MN .4-15 20111 A8 Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: April 29, 2010 APPLICANT: Maureen Swint, Anchor Sign REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage change for Dollar Tree LOCATION: 2070 Market Drive COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: BPO - Business Park Office ZONING: BP-0 Business Park Office HPC DATE: May 3, 2010 REVIEWED BY: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner CASE NO.: 10-10 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a new wall sign for "Dollar Tree" at 2070 Market Drive. The sign will be comprised of individual green channel letters. The sign is proposed to be 3.5' tall by 37'6" wide for a total of 122.28 square feet in size. For retail wall signage the West Business Park design standards provide that the signage shall be consistent with the Sign Ordinance. The zoning ordinance states that for a wall sign, 'the gross surface area of a wall sign may not exceed one square foot for each foot of building, parallel to the front lot line'. The applicant's retail space has approximately 122'10" facing Market Drive. The proposed sign is smaller than the square footage allowed by the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION'1 Approval as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. No additional signage without HPC approval. 2225 Curve Crest Blvd Page 2 FINDINGS The proposed signs meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and meet the intent of the West Business Park Design Manual. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing/photo of the proposed sign Sign A (1) set of 42" DOLLAR TREE internally illuminated channel letters mounted on a raceway painted to match the facade = 122.28 square feet Total signage this elevation = 122.28 square feet All signs are UL listed • 24'-0" a) J a) f0 a) J Front (East) Elevation Scale 1/16" = 1'-0" DOLLAR TREE 122'-10" Dollar Tree # 4375 42" 21'-7" 313/4" 13'-41/" 37'-6" top of sign to grade= 15'-6" bottom of sign to grade= 12'-0" 03/30/10 2070 Market Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 Drawing by: Darin Houston Revised by: Bascom Judy AnchorSign. 1.800.213.3331 • 42" • 21'-7" 13'-41/<" 37'-6" Weep hole at bottom of letter can Attachment Detail Sign A DOLLAR TREL Dollar Tree # 4375 Y2" Sleeve Anchors Elec TETRA MAX LED (5) PS-12 @ .85 each Total Amps: 4.25 1) Grounded and bonded per NEC 250 2) Primary wiring in NEC compliant conduit 3) UL listed Secondary wiring per NEC 600-24 3) All signs to be UL listed 4) Signs to be connected to time clock or photo cell 5) Branch Circuits in compliance with NEC 600-5 6) Existing Junction box mounted behind facade or nearby This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign. All signs are U.L. listed 1. Existing Facade: Brick 2. .040 Aluminum bronze letter returns 3. TETRA MAX GREEN LED 4. 3mm Signabond backs (interior of sign can painted white for maximum illumination) 5..125" x 1" dark bronze trim cap 6. 3/16" white acrylic faces with first surface applied vinyl to be Dollar Tree green 7. Waterproof disconnect switch 8. Primary electrical feed 9. Transformers 03/30/10 2070 Market Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 Drawing by: Darin Houston Revised by: Bascom Judy AnchorSig n. 1.800.213.3331 Conceptual Site Plan DOLLAR TREE Sign A Dollar Tree # 4375 03/30/10 2070 Market Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 Drawing by: Darin Houston Revised by: Bascom Judy Air^ AnchorS i g n. 1.800.213.3331 INOIH] IOIS 9NIISIX3 A0 SOIOHd Memo Community Development Department To: Heritage Preservation Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner Date: April 29, 2010 Re: Extension of Infill Design Review Permit 2008-35 at 1221 Broadway St N Message: Property owner Steven Meletiou has requested a one-year extension to the approved infill design review permit 2008-35 at 1221 Broadway St N. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the permit on July 7, 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 approve an extension of permit 2008- 35 to July 7, 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 April 14, 2010 Re: Case No.: DR/2008-35 To Whom It May Concern: We received a design review permit from the HPC on 7/7/2008 for our proposed home at 1221 Broadway St N. At the time we intended to begin construction later that year or in 2009. Due to the lengthy delay in selling our current home, we have been unable to proceed until recently. Our permit expires 7/7/2010 and I am writing to request an extension. It is our intention to begin construction in late 2010 or early 2011. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, 7/ Steven Meletiou ORIGINAL CITY OF STILLWATER Case No.: DR/2008-35 HPC Meeting: 7/7/2008 DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT Heritage Preservation Meeting Date: 7/7/2008 ActionNote: Approved 5-0 Description of Project: Design review for new construction in the Conservation District at 1221 Broadway St N Applicant(s) : SALA Architects, Applicant Steven and Jessica Meletiou, Owner Kelly Davis, Applicant Project Address: 1221 Broadway St N, Stillwater, MN 55082 Property ID No.: 2103020440003 Zoning District: RB Conditions of Approval: 1 All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor' shall rest with the City Administrator. 2 A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the removal of any trees. No tree, bush, or other plants shall be cut, trimmed, or removed on the site east of the existing drive without approval of the Community Development Director. 3 Final materials and color pallet must be submitted for staff approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. We accept the conditions of this permit. We understand that any changes from these plans must be resubmitted for approval. Owner or Representative 1 h-'f' Page 1 of 1 • City P anner . t7.0 e Date Date