Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-09 HPC Packetwater THE EACTIIPL E fl r MINNESO 1 A Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Thursday, September 9, 2010 The regular meeting will begin at 7 p.m., Thursday, September 9, 2010 in 1st Floor Training Room at Stillwater City Hall, 216North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF July 7, 2010 and August 2, 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 less 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.01 Case No. DEM/2010-34. A demolition request for the rear portion of an existing residence located at 1213 Myrtle Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Bruce Earhart, applicant. 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 Case No. 2010-30. Design review of Patriot's Tavern Family Restaurant and Bar located at 145 New England Place in the VC -Village Commercial District. Brian Pilrain, Roman Market, applicant. 5.02 Case No. 2010-31. Design review of signage for Chestnut Street Books located at 223 Chestnut Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. Cecilia Loome, applicant. 5.03 Case No. 2010-32. Design review of signage for $5 Pizza located at 1980 Market Drive the in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Karen Harshman, Signs by RSG, applicant. 5.04 Case No. 2010-35. Design review of signage for Art N Soul located at 202 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Tia Gleason, applicant. 5.05 Case No. 2010-36. Design review of signage for The Fun Sisters located at 216 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Patsy Skeba, applicant. 5.06 Case No. 2010-37. Design review of signage for Revolution Dance located at 105 New England Place in the VC, Village Commercial District. Chauncey Peterson, Demars Signs, applicant. 5. NEW BUSINESS 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 2, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, John Brach, Micky Cook, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Krakowski and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Roger Tomten Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Lieberman moved to table approval of the July 7, 2010, minutes to the September meeting. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/DR/2010-11 Demolition request for the southern portion of a residence at 1117 Broadway St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. George Middleton, applicant. Continued from the June 7 and July 7, 2010, meetings. Mr. Lieberman noted the applicant has requested that this case be tabled and moved to do so. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case. No. 2010-24 Design review of signage for Alesci Gallery located at 116 Main St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Scott Zahren, applicant. Mr. Lieberman noted that Mr. Zahren would not be participating in this discussion. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Zahren reviewed the materials to be used in the sign. Mr. Johnson noted the request meets the conditions of the ordinance and design guidelines and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously, with Mr. Zahren not voting. Case No. 2010-25 Design review of signage for Paiement Law Office located at 221 Myrtle St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Constance Paiement, applicant. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request for signage and awnings. The applicant was present. She provided sketches of the requested sign. Ms. Paiement stated the awnings will be black canvas fabric; she said she would like to replace an existing awning on the Union side of her office space will smaller, permanent awnings. She stated the awnings will be more than 8' above the sidewalk and no lighting is proposed. Mr. Johnson noted that this building has one of the few remaining crank -out style awnings. The applicant and a spokesperson stated that some of the existing awning mechanism is damaged and noted that the recommendation is to leave the crank -out awnings open at all times due to issues with wear and tear, which is why the applicant is requesting a fixed -style awning. Ms. Paiement also explained that the awning space on the Union side is the only place available to place signage on that elevation. Mr. Zahren noted that the fixed awnings will outlast the crank -style and said he thought the proposal looked good. Mr. Goodman said he thought the proposal improved the appearance of the building. Mr. Johnson said his concern with the proposed awnings is that, according to the design guidelines, the goal is to keep architectural elements and features of a building that were original or of the period of a building; he noted that it would not require a lot of repair to leave the existing crank -out 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 2, 2010 awnings in the down position as a fixed awning. Ms. Paiement said according to the awning companies she spoke with, the crank -out style awnings do not weather as well as fixed awnings, meaning they will have to be replaced more often. Mr. Johnson asked whether it would be possible to leave the crank mechanism in place and mount the new awnings on the window casings below. Mr. Zahren suggested that the awnings would have the same appearance whether of the crank or fixed style. Ms. Paiement said it would not be possible to mount the new awnings on the window casings, as the proposal is to mount them on the brick. Mr. Zahren asked whether it would be possible to use the same mountings for a new awning; the spokesperson for the applicant stated the new awnings will be mounted in the same location as the existing awning(s). Ms. Paiement said she thought it would be unattractive to leave the crank mechanism in place, but said she would remove it and save it for the next occupant if that is what the Commission would prefer. Mr. Krakowski agreed that it would be unattractive to leave the mechanism in place, citing the possibility of rusting. Ms. Cook said she liked the idea of preserving the equipment somehow, perhaps placing it in storage. Mr. Johnson noted that the design guidelines call for accentuating the window features, not covering over several window openings with a single awning as is proposed here. It was noted that the existing awnings cover more than one section of windows. Mr. Lieberman agreed with the concern regarding differentiating windows. Mr. Brach said when he first saw the proposal he thought it looked attractive, but said he understood the concern regarding spanning more than one window; he said he was unaware of the issue regarding the crank -style versus fixed awning, but said he wouldn't be overly concerned about preserving that element. Mr. Goodman said he liked the proposal as shown, noting that historically, there was a number of buildings downtown where the awnings covered more than one window; he reiterated that he thought the proposal improved the appearance of the building over its current state. Mr. Zahren moved to approve the request as conditioned. Mr. Krakowski seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson asked that a condition be added that if the crank mechanism is removed that it be stored suitable for a future tenant. Mr. Zahren accepted that as a friendly amendment. Motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Johnson voting no. Case No. 2010-27 Design review of exterior window and door replacement at 413 Nelson St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike McGuire, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. McGuire explained the request for the new windows is to get a stronger connection between the interior space and the deck outside. He said the space was previously used for commercial retail space; he said he has two potential tenants interested in use of the space for a coffee shop or wine/beer spot, so the connection between the interior and exterior is important to those uses. He provided drawings of the proposed changes. He noted that it is important to preserve the identity of the building as a former grain elevator, but yet find a reuse for the building. Mr. Johnson noted the openings on this elevation are not original to the building either. Mr. McGuire noted that very few of the window/openings on the facade are original to the building. In the discussion, it was noted that the windows in question are not very visible to pedestrians. Mr. Johnson noted that the windows in place are not original to the building and the proposed changes do not represent a significant visual change and moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010-28 Design review of a garage with a dwelling unit above at 708 Pine St. W. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Nathan and Lucy Smith, applicants. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the request. Mr. Lieberman noted the HPC's role in this instance is to review the proposal for consistency with the primary dwelling unit in design, detailing and 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 2, 2010 materials. The applicants were present; they provided sketches and photos of the main dwelling unit. Mr. Smith said the proposal for the new carriage house is to maintain the same roofline, type of front gable, siding materials as the primary dwelling unit. He said the windows, while they give the appearance of double -hung windows as in the home, are casement/awning windows. He explained the intent is to have the carriage house look more like a home with a front porch on it. He said the long-term plan for the house is to replace the existing cedar shakes and possible re -side the rest of the home. Mr. Johnson asked about the posts; the applicant stated they will be square posts similar to the main house. Mr. Johnson suggested it might be nice to duplicate the curved returns, perhaps on the fascia board; Mr. Smith said he thought that could be done on the gable end. Mr. Goodman moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman noted the Commission is not offering any other opinions except as related to subsection G. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010-29 Design review of signage for J.G. Hause Construction Inc. at 106 Main St. S. in the CBD Central Business District. Larry Roehrkasse, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge explained the request for a three-dimensional projecting sign, using a dollhouse which the applicant intends to repaint to match the corporate colors with a hanging sign below the dollhouse with the lettering J.J. Hause Construction Inc. He stated the entire sign measure 30" wide, 18" tall by 12" deep, which is just under the ordinance limits. Mr. Johnson noted there are several other 3-dimensional signs in the downtown, which are appropriate to the design guidelines. Mr. Johnson asked if anything else would be done to the building front. Mr. Pogge noted the building was painted with the historic home project and used the approved color. Mr. Zahren moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Goodman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Lieberman noted that an issue with the City Code that arose at the retreat session will be corrected; he read the omitted paragraph related to demolition permits. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the City Council's action related to the Veterans' Memorial Committee's requested new plaque. Mr. Lieberman apologized for his role in the discussion at the HPC related to the plaque. Ms. Cook noted that the Memorial Committee changed the language after hearing concerns at the HPC meeting. Mr. Pogge reviewed changes to the Hersey Bean wall project due to the collapse of the wall; he said the project is now looking at how to preserve some portion of the wall but yet make the site safe. Mr. Johnson spoke of the importance of the two arched openings on the site. Mr. Pogge said the work plan will be brought to the September meeting. He stated he had attended a conference put on by the National Association of Historic Preservation Commissions; he said it was an excellent conference with a number of ideas, including some related to demolition by neglect, that he hopes to bring back to the Commission. Ms. Cook suggested utilizing a student who has volunteered to assist with the HPC efforts. Mr. Zahren asked about a recent issue with the Shirt Factory and whether other businesses were contacted regarding the same. Mr. Pogge reviewed the actions taken regarding a complaint; he reviewed the current policy regarding private use of the public sidewalk. Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 7, 2010 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chair, Micky Cook, John Brach, Robert Goodman, Jeff Johnson and Scott Zahren Staff present: Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Roger Tomten Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Zahren, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval of the June 7, 2010, minutes. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lieberman noted that the HPC held a retreat on Jun 30, 2010, a session open to the public, and said notes of the session are available. OPEN FORUM No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/DR/2010-11 Demolition request for the southern portion of a residence at 1117 Broadway St. N. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. George Middleton, applicant. Continued from the June 7, 2010 meeting. As requested by the applicant, this case was tabled to the Aug. 2, 2010, meeting on a motion by Mr. Johnson, second by Mr. Lieberman. Motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2010-12 Design review of signage for Ultima Bellezza Salon at 105 Third St. S. in the CBD, Central Business District. Mary Coleman, applicant. Continued from the June 7, 2010, meeting. The applicant was present. Ms. Coleman said with limited visibility from the street, use of window space is important. She said she had proposed removable film type images for the windows. Mr. Johnson noted that up to one-third of a window area can be utilized for signage, while what is proposed is larger than the allowable one-third. Ms. Coleman asked if there would be an issue if she just utilized the proposed neon window sign and not the window clings. Mr. Johnson said if the graphics are reduced to no more than one third of the window area, there would not be an issue. Ms. Coleman asked if it would be allowable to have an awning; it was noted any awning would have to be approved by the HPC. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the business sign in the window as presented without the addition of graphics in excess of one-third of the window area. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman suggested allowing staff to approve the awning if staff finds no issues with the proposal. Mr. Johnson accepted that as an amendment to his motion, as did Mr. Zahren. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2010-21 Design review of renovation of an existing manufacturing/office building for Early Childhood Family Center at 1792, 1850, 1862 Greeley St. S. and 1825 and 1845 Industrial Blvd. in the BP-C and BP -I Districts. Steve Erickson, BWBR, applicant. The applicant spoke of the general scope of the project — to renovate the interior of the building from its prior use as a light manufacturing office into the Early Childhood Family Center, which will house classrooms, offices, large muscle exercise spaces, and accommodation for Courage 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 7, 2010 Center and School District 916 programs. He said the District proposes to purchase the entire seven acres including the three buildings that front on Greeley Street and the two lots that front on Industrial Boulevard. He said at this time the proposal deals only with the central, larger of the three buildings at 1850 S. Greeley St. Mr. Erickson Said to accommodate the new uses for the interior, the proposal is to cut new windows into the exterior. He said the original construction was the large bay building in rear, primarily a concrete block building with concrete piers and steel buttress roof. The portion of the building that fronts on Greeley, he stated, is a three story, primarily block and brick building. He said the majority of the windows would be cut into the painted block areas. He said essentially nothing will be done to the Greeley Street side where there are existing windows. On the south elevation which fronts on the parking lot between the two buildings, he said the proposal is to cut windows, 6x6, in each of the classroom spaces and construct a canopy to accommodate drop-offs as folks approach the building. On the west elevation, he said there are some larger openings proposed to be filled in, maintaining some of the smaller openings to give access to a developed playground, with new windows for classrooms and larger spaces. On the north elevation, in addition to the new windows, a small canopy is proposed as well. He provided samples of proposed materials and colors, which he said would not be changed. He said windows will be a clad Andersen window, with any new openings changed to new aluminum entrance pieces to match the window colors — dark, medium bronze color. Complimentary colors to blend with the brick would be used for the canopy, he said. Regarding landscaping, he said several trees would be removed to accommodate an access drive out to Industrial Boulevard. He said the City Forester reviewed the 11 trees proposed to be removed. He said the Forester found that only four of the trees were significant enough to require replacement; one of the trees is large enough that the recommendation is to replace it with multiple trees. He said the proposal is to plant 11 or 14 new maple trees, more than what is recommended by staff. Other than the trees, he said the site would remain undisturbed in terms of plantings. It was noted that the appearance of the building as viewed from Greeley Street will essentially be unchanged. Regarding lighting, Mr. Erickson reviewed the placement of poles for lighting of the parking area, noting that photometric studies indicate there will be no spillover from the site. There also will be some building -mounted lighting, all with sharp cutoff fixtures so the light sources are not visible, he said. He provided cuts of the fixtures. Mr. Johnson noted there are very little changes from the street side and moved to approve the plans as submitted with the addition that the pole -mounted fixtures be a cutoff, down -lighted companion to the wall units. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. On a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Erickson briefly described the proposed uses of the other two buildings, which he said will essentially remain unchanged. Mr. Lieberman asked about rooftops or garbage enclosures. Mr. Erickson said the building has one large rooftop unit. He said plans are to remove most of the rooftop units and install an indoor air -handling system. One rooftop unit will be replaced with a new unit due to space limitations. Regarding handing of refuse, Mr. Erickson said he was not sure at this time how that would be handled; Mr. Lieberman asked that those plans be presented in conjunction with the signage proposal. Mr. Johnson asked that Mr. Pogge include the information regarding the air -handling units as part of the information presented. Case No. DR/2010-23 Design review of signage for Fashion Boutique at 308 Chestnut St. E. in the CBD, Central Business District. Lies' Benson, applicant. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 7, 2010 The applicant was present and described her plans. She said the plan is to utilize the existing wall sign board, with raised metal lettering of a similar font. The proposed projecting sign, which she had at her former store location, will have just the wording fashion boutique, not the business name, she said. There will be no lighting, it was noted. Mr. Brach, seconded by Mr. Goodman, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Stillwater Veterans Memorial plaque — Jon Larson, temporary acting chairman of the Stillwater Memorial Committee, said the Committee didn't not think the proposed verbiage of the plaque would be offensive to anyone and asked HPC members what they might consider offensive. Mr. Goodman pointed out from an historical perspective the use of the term "hallowed ground" usually refers to a battle site or military cemetery. Mr. Goodman also pointed out that the wording on the plaque might not be entirely accurate as the Civil War veterans listed on the Wall of Honor might not have attended Stillwater schools. Mr. Lieberman suggested a possible addition to the wording such as "or resided near Stillwater." A representative of the Veterans Committee spoke of the use of "hallowed ground" in reference to other memorial locations and said the Stillwater site is just as important as those sites. Mr. Johnson said "hallowed ground" is defined as a location of religious or ethnic significance; he suggested several wording options that he thought would better represent the connection between Stillwater schools and veterans in wars. Mr. Lieberman said he had no problem with the proposed wording; Mr. Zahren agreed, referring to the dictionary definition of "hallowed" as including venerated. Mr. Larson read a letter from John Kramer regarding the historical significance/appropriateness of the requested wording. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the proposed plaque with the addition of the wording "living in or near Stillwater." Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Brach questioned what portion of the site is considered hallowed ground - just the spire or the entire site. Mr. Johnson said he had a concern from an historical perspective and definition of the term "hallowed ground," noting there was no battle at this site and no people buried at this site; he said he thought the wording misses the connection between the schools and service to country. Mr. Lieberman called the question. Mr. Johnson voted no; Mr. Brach stated he abstained. Mr. Lieberman noted the motion passed on a split vote, 3 (Lieberman, Zahren, Goodman)-1-1 and will now go to the City Council. Presentation by Amy Sponq, St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission — Ms. Spong gave a Power Point presentation about the St. Paul Commission. The presentation highlighted: federal legislation and the role of the Commission, which is changing with the addition of federal stimulus money, she said; state enabling legislation; local ordinance/processes including the designation of historic districts, design guidelines, demolition review. She spoke of the typical agendas of the two monthly meetings; the duties and powers of the Commission; membership and areas of expertise; number of historic districts, inventoried properties and archeological sites; the design review process, including what can be approved by staff and what must go to the Commission; and areas required for design review. She provided numbers of the various types of reviews, including after -the -fact reviews. She spoke of issues related to demolition and gave examples of buildings lost to demolition; she noted St. Paul has adopted in -fill guidelines. She spoke briefly of education/outreach efforts. She highlighted design guidelines for the various districts. Regarding signage, she noted staff can approve signs of up to 30 square feet. 30-day temporary sign permits — Mr. Pogge said Ms. Cook asked that this be placed on the agenda due to a concern about a sign at the Wolf Brewery. He noted the code currently allows the Community Development Director to issue a 30-day temporary sign permit for special 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 7, 2010 business events; he said there is policy regarding size and number per year, but the policy has been fairly content neutral. He asked for Commission input about continuing to allow the temporary banners. Mr. Johnson said the potential problem comes in putting a different style banner up at the same location after the initial 30 days so the banner becomes something of a permanent billboard. Mr. Pogge said he thought Ms. Cook would like use of the temporary signs limited to a specific business events, such as anniversary sale or grand opening. Mr. Johnson said the ordinance seems reasonable, it's the abuse that is causing the problem. Mr. Lieberman said he thought banning the signage would be unenforceable, but said he would like the use limited to specific events, such as a grand opening. Mr. Johnson suggested the use of stickers with an expiration date to assist in enforcement. Mr. Pogge spoke of staffing limitations for enforcement. Mr. Pogge summed up the discussion as that the Commission is comfortable with special event signs, but in issuing such permits staff should make sure that the signs are related to a special event and make sure that time limits are observed. Commission members added that if there is an obvious abuse or complaint, staff should look at enforcement of the ordinance. Several additional comments were made related to the Memorial discussion. Mr. Johnson stated he raised his issues related to historical correctness as the Commission's action is only a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Pogge suggested Aug. 2 as the time for a boat trip depending on the number of agenda items. He said the meeting would likely start at 6 p.m., with the trip immediately following the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Lieberman, second by Mr. Goodman. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4 Stillwat!r Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 2, 2010 CASE NO.: 10-34 APPLICANT: Bruce Earhart REQUEST: Demolition Permit for a portion of a single-family residential home. LOCATION: 1213 Myrtle St W HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planne0 BACKGROUND Bruce Earhart, property owner of 1213 Myrtle St W, is requesting a demolition permit in order to demolish a portion of an existing single family home. The current structure was built in 1875 according to the Washington County Assessor's office. Since the home is over 50 years old, it is by definition considered to have potential historic significance. Consequently, the Heritage Preservation Commission is required to review the demolition request. This site outside the Conservation Design District. 1213 Myrtle St W Demolition 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 home was built in 1952 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 attached as Exhibit A. (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 they wish to demolish the rear (southern) portion of the home as indicated on the enclosed site plan. (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 indicated in their letter that the reason they propose to demolish this portion of the home is due to deterioration of the structure and shoddy building methods uses when that portion of the building was constructed. A quote from Richard Loesch Contracting set the cost to repair and rehabilitate this section of the home at $69,800. 1213 Myrtle St W Demolition 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 indicates in his letter that he wishes to rebuild the portion of the building being demolished with current code compliant methods and materials. The main siding is proposed to be 3' wood grain vinyl siding. (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 Low Density Residential and is zoned RA, one family residential. This site is not in the Conservation Design District. (8) A description of alternatives to the demolition; The applicant indicates that an alternative would be to attempt to raise the building and replace the foundation and then reconstruct the existing structure. The applicant raises concerns with the existing materials and condition in advising against this approach. (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 advertise the structure for sale on Craig's list. 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 demolition. 3. Continue the public hearing until the October 4, 2010 Commission meeting. The 60- day decision deadline for the request is October 14, 2010; however, staff can extended it for an additional 60 days. RECOMMENDATION Review and take action on the request. attachment: Application and supporting documents from the applicant EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description File No. 10-10681 Lot 3, Block 1, Sinclair's Addition to the City of Stillwater, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Washington County, Minnesota; and all that part of Lot 4, Block 1, Sinclair's Addition to the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4, thence south along the East line of said Lot 4 a distance of 35.00 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence straight west a distance of 6.00 feet; thence South parallel with said East line a distance of 15.00 feet; thence east a distance of 6.00 feet, more or less, to said East line of Lot 4; thence north along said East line 15.00 feet, more or Tess, to the point of beginning. 08/15/2010 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 Fourth Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear members of the Heritage Preservation Commission: This letter is in regard to a request to demolish a portion of the structure located at 1213 Myrtle Street West Stillwater, MN 55082. The original portion of the structure was built in 1875. The portion of the structure that is the subject of the demolition request was added at a later date. The age of the this section cannot accurately be determined because no building permits have ever been issued on the property. The portion of the building that is the subject of the demolition request is a wood frame structure resting on stone, brick, concrete block and wood perimeter supports over uncovered soil. As can be determined, there is no significant historical event or architectural significance related to the property. Please refer to the attached packet of information for information for the required items listed in Section 34.5-1 of the City of Stillwater Building Demolition Code. Sincerely, Bruce Earhart Demolition Package Description: The 22' rear section of the structure is the portion to be demolished. Reason for demolition: Deterioration of the structure, shoddy building methods used when that portion of the building was constructed. Proposed plans: Rebuild that portion of the building with current code compliant methods and materials and utilize as owner's residence. Zoning Use Permit has been issued the Community Development Director. Alternatives to demolition would be to attempt to raise the building and replace the foundation and then reconstruct the existing structure. This would require virtually the same efforts as removing and then rebuilding. The existing materials are not code compliant, the crawlspace depth is not to code and the existing floor joists have deteriorated to a point where they require replacement. There is no sill plate or rim joists and what remains of the floor joists sit directly on concrete block. 1213 Myrtle St W Legal Info PIN: 29.030.20.41.0080 Address: Class: Map Area: Legal: Lot: Owner: 1213 MYRTLE ST W STILLWATER MN 55082 Residential Stillwater SFR SINCLAIR'S ADD Lot-003 Block-001 AND THAT PART OF LOT 4-BLOCK 1- SINCLAIR'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER -WASHINGTON COUNTY- MINN- DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4 THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 A DISTANCE OF 35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL BEING DESCRIBED THENCE STRAIGHT WEST A DISTANCE OF 6 FEET THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 15 FEET THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 6 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 4 THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 15 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING SINCLAIR'S ADDITION STILLWATER CITY 7590 Sq Ft. .17 Acre Bruce Earhart 1213 Myrtle Street West Stillwater, MN 55082 16' Lot Line Lot Line ) N • - A Existing portion of structure to be replaced 28' 113" 1213 Myrtle St W Structure Footprint 50' Garage East Lot Line 100 Sg Ft Rain Garden Myrtle St W 34' 26' Portion of Structure to be Replaced 16' x 28' South Lot Line 1213 Myrtle St W Site Plan West Lot Line ti 1 - • 4 4 T Vicinity Map 0 30 Scale in i eet Original Structure 6' 14 48" Shower 1213 Myrtle St kN New Addition Floor Plan 12' Laundry Bath E-Fold Doors Bedroom 3/4" T&G 068 subfloor 7,16" 068 wall & roof sheathing 2".x6" Engineered rafters 24'0.0 32 32' 6' Patio Door 23' IntArior walls 2"x4- #2 pine studs Exterior walls 27x6- #2 pine studs Scuptured archftectural asphalt shingles grain vinyl sidino Wood corner. soffit. fascia, window trim Al construction to current Puking code SsmVcrawl space access door hard Loesch Contr act Q..�� "Dick-L- • - Do-.9 �t Bruce Earhart 1213 Myrtle St. W Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Bruce, August 20, 2010 This letter is in response to your request for a quote for the repair and remodel of the rear portion of your home at 1213 Myrtle St in Stillwater, MN. The quote is broken down into two parts, with the first being the foundation repair and the second for the remodel and addition to the rear of the structure. As we discussed, It is my opinion that attempting a repair and remodel to the building raises significant chances for collapse. With that in mind, I have added certain conditions at the bottom of this quote to address these issues. Foundation repair: $25,000 Raise the structure, excavate around the existing foundation, repair foundation on front portion of structure, hand excavate new crawlspace, place new foundation footings, lay new foundation to current code. Remodel and addition to rear of building: $44,800 Framing, insulation, electrical, HVAC, roofing, siding, grading and water drainage. Total: $69,800 The following conditions apply: Given the poor condition of the existing part of the building to be remodeled, I cannot be responsible for a collapse of the structure or any damage to the front part of the building that may be caused by such a collapse. If after starting the initial raising of the structure it is determined that the continuation of the project poses a serious risk to workers or equipment, 1 reserve the right to discontinue the project without financial liability. If such is deemed to be the case, the only charge to you will be at an hourly rate of $75 to cover my basic expenses. Richard Loesch Contracting Hopkins, MN 100 year old building addition Page 1 of 1 min neapoli, > washington/WI > for sale / wanted > general for sale email this posting to a friend Beware any deal involving Western Union, Moneygram, wire transfer, cashier check, money order, shipping, escrow, or any promise of transaction protection/certification/guarantee. %lor e info 100 year old building addition - $1 (Stillwater) Date: 2010-08-17, 10:23PM CDT Reply to: sale-cgapm-1904902755 crai slist.org tEmwhenrepi% , please flag with care: iniscategorized prohibited spamhoverpost best of craigslist 16' x 22' building addition for sale ($1.00). 100 year old building addition, full dimension lumber. must be removed for restoration or reuse, cannot be torn down. Call me if interested and I can give you any further info I have and timing concerns. Bruce 952-210-7238 Location Stillwater it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests PostingID: 1904902755 Copyright © 2010 craigslist, inc. tears of use privacy- policy feedback forum http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/wsh/for/1904902755.html 8/19/2010 Cindy Shifts To: Sub'ect: Mike, Michel Pogge 1213 Myrtle St W No Permit - Building Department I IIIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII B 2903020410080 1213 MYRTLE ST W After assessing the condition of the rear portion of the home at 1213 W. Myrtle Street per the owner's request, my professional opinion is that although the structure is poorly constructed and would be costly and difficult to repair, I did not notice any rot/deterioration to the point that would be considered a hazardous structure. It is my opinion that the rear portion of the house should be demolished and rebuilt, however; Mr. Earhart needs to apply to the HPC for demolition and reconstruction. Thanks, ci.vtd y Shats- CCty of Stalwater officic.L 216 N 4th' Street StaLwater, MN 55082 pho e'(651)430-8827 Fc i (651)430-8810 i Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 2, 2010 PROPERTY OWNER: Don Nelson CASE NO.: 10-30 APPLICANTS: Brian Pilrain and Brent Pilrain REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage and equipment enclosure for Patriot's Tavern LOCATION: 145 New England Place COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: NC - Neighborhood Commercial ZONING: VC - Village Commercial HPC DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The property owner and applicants are seeking to develop a restaurant in the former Liberty Cafe site located at 145 New England Place to be known as Patriot's Tavern. This site is within the Liberty commercial area. The applicants are seeking design review approval of new wall signs and an equipment enclosure for various ventilation and outdoor coolers. 145 New England Place Page 2 DISCUSSION Signage Three signs are proposed on the building. Two wall signs replacing the former Liberty Cafe Signs and a new projecting sign along Settlers Way. The signs are proposed to contain the business name "Patriot's Tavern". The wall sign on the front facing New England Place is 8' 8-1/2" wide by 1' 8-5/16" tall for a total of 14.8 square feet. The wall sign facing to the north toward County Highway 12 is 8' 2-1/4" wide by 2' 8" tall for a total of 21.9 square feet. The projecting sign along Settlers Way is proposed to be 3 feet wide by 2 feet tall for a total of 6 square feet. The wall signs are proposed to be lit while the projecting sign is proposed to be unlit. The lettering is proposed to be raised letters painted black. The 0 in Patriot's will be made of thirteen blue stars. The applicant has not included information on the background color for the signs in their application. For retail wall signs the Village Commercial District building signs '...may have an aggregate area not exceeding one square foot for each foot of building face...'. The applicant's retail space is 42 feet long facing New England Place and 40 feet long facing County Road 12. The total sign area of the proposed wall sign meets the zoning ordinance. Projecting signs are permitted up to six square feet in size. The total sign of the sign face is six square feet, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. With three street frontages, the site is permitted three signs. Coolers, ventilation equipment and sidewalk changes A cooler/freezer unit along with ventilation equipment is proposed to be added along the northwest corner of the building. To accommodate the unit and maintain access to the building, the sidewalk will be realigned causing the loss of three parking spaces. The site plans reflect how the sidewalk will be realighted. The applicant submitted two screening proposals with their application, a fence option and lean-to option. With the fence option, a white vinyl fence would be constructed around the units to a height of 9 feet tall with a one -foot open air gap between the ground and the bottom of the fence. The lean-to option would be constructed with material similar to what currently exists on the building with lap siding and a roof. To maintain adequate ventilation for the style of equipment they are propose to use, the applicants are proposing to leave a ventilation opening near the roof line. Since submitting their plans, the applicants have concerns that the lean-to option will not allow sufficient ventilation of the cooler equipment they are using and that the cost of the lean-to option may be prohibitive. They are requesting the ability to use the fence around the equipment as a screening method. 145 New England Place Page 3 RECOMMENDATION The Commission should review and discuss the two screening options and decide on one of the options. In other case within the development, fencing has been used as a screening material. Due to this, staff is recommending the fence option for screening and is recommending 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. 3. No exterior lighting on the projecting sign without HPC approval. 4. Screening the equipment with a fence as shown on Option A1A is approved. FINDINGS The proposal as presented meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Liberty Village design guidelines. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing of the proposed sign Photo of existing building DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No: Date Filed: Receipt No.: Fee: $25.00 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Photos, sketches and a letter ofintent is required. Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required. All following information is required . PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION, Address of Project ly 5 0 ew imo� n� PlAssessor's Parcel No. a O t A 0101- (Required) Zoning District VC_ Description of Project in detail h Ckni;1y f Se -NM t;tYl a C�1 vt �\ 3 �� fiL r ® 530 "lc, W0 c n1 S o1-� S "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit ifitis granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required. Property Owner !' r.J ikiii Representative Mailing Address 14-C IsjGr D 'G; M in Address Su ; iv 0 r.�• g City State Zip _c - 1 i'-L A-7" r, /'7J City State Zip Telephone No. (; S I - i ) Telephone No. Signature 1(....-\-----______- Signature (Required) (Required) H:\mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit.wpd July 13, 2005 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 ., Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* ACTION REQUESTED Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: X, Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application requires City Council review then a total of twenty-eight (28) copies are required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if necessary. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 1q itk } Anlci rL-4 L Assessor's Parcel No. 30.. 030 . . 3J .0 Ion/ (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description* L.o'i Ir QLCC,e / - -/8 (2TY v fLLAt£ 3/20 A-DO,7iall, 15e1rni6,1fak3 Celt t� 4; Op,tiosc+; (*Required — Applications will be rejected without a�legal description. Tax descriptions and property descriptions from the county are not acceptable.) Zoning District VC__ Description of Project ':+M4_1( i°£STAa,2. &j 3E.A.v146, Gud'41 *WD rlrtiii'J . go t'ec.G 4-40 c, 9s AL ogeLit $itsS AA.£ SEALS, "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Required If other than property owner Property Owner 1.38L&T'4' Piaratiacr ivithiA6£in£Aii L« Representative Mailing Address IYi lk(£k) Pi.A( Jco Mailing Address City - State — Zip STf 1..L J ATf,� , M nl` SS"Ci a- City - State — Zip Telephone No. �%SI) 351- Ocieis " Telephone No. Email Dt,.i e/XM(IGIr-i ciAzi6 }t tics-, JET Email Signature Signature (Signature is required) (Signature is required) S:\PLANNING\FORMS\PLANAPP V2.DOCX July 22, 2010 Roman Market Inc. PO Box 625 460 Stillwater Road Willemie, MN 55090 651-653-4733 re: Patriot's Tavern family restaurant & bar zoning text amendment Dear Sir/Maddam, We are requesting a zoning text amendment for Liberty Village to allow a restaurant and the sale of alcoholic beverages. The property at 145 New England Place is currently zoned VC- Village Commercial and currently only allows, "Tea Rooms, Deli, Coffee Shops and Soda Fountains." In April of 2003 the Stillwater City Council reserved a liquor license for use in the Liberty commercial area but the area was unable to attract a restaurant and a license was never issued and the zoning code was never amended to permit a restaurant or on -sale liquor sales. We currently own and operate "Roma Restaurant, Bar & Market at 460 Stillwater Road in Willemie, MN and would like to propose a restaurant/bar in Liberty Village called, "Patriot's Tavern." It is a family restaurant open for lunch and dinner with 80% food sales and 20% beverage sales. We are proposing an English, colonial -style restaurant with burgers, pizzas, seafood, salads, and sandwiches similar to our exisiting Roma restaurant but different in theme. We are not open late for bar business and do not attract a bar crowd. Our proposed name, "Patriot's Tavern" reflects early colonial America in the context of a meeting place to consume food and drink. Traditionally a "tavern" was an upgrade to the local "pub" or public house which primarily served drink and a poor selection of food whereas the "tavern" was a meeting place for trade and commerce, higher -end foods and drink, and often served as the local courtroom and hotel for dignitaries and local politicians. We wish to recreate the environment of this early American treasure in conjunction with the patriotic colonial theme of Liberty Village! Please see the attached business plan for further details on the proposed project. Sincerely, Brian Pilrain Vice President Roman Market Inc. 651-271-3931 PATRIOTS TAVERN 5ami[y 1Pstaurant Brian Pilrain Brent Pilrain Roman Market Inc. 460 Stillwater Road, P.O. Box 625 Willernie, MN 55090 651-472-5615 Contents Executive Summary page 1 The Company page 3 Market Evaluation page 4 Patriot's Tavern Menu page 5 Operating Expenses page 7 Roma Sales Chart page 8 Start-up Estimate page 9 Executive Summary Imagine walking into the year 1779 and seeing the colors of Red, White and Blue as the imperial emblems of a rich colonial empire adorn the walls of a delicious food tavern. Patriot's Tavern family restaurant and bar is the celebration of our nations early history serving the community with premium food products and decorations inspired by our English, Italian, French and German heritage. We purchase food items from local wholesalers and sell it directly to consumers. Consumers in our target area currently have no full -service restaurant. We would remedy this by installing a restaurant and bar selling 80% food, 20% alcoholic beverages with a full -service staff where consumers can communicate their needs directly to our culinary team and waitstaff and be given the correct information and recommendations for their food items. Our Certified Food Managers are trained in all areas of meat procurement and processing, food safety and sanitation, as well as food preparation and culinary technique. Owner Brian Pilrain, a specialist in computers and business administration has a total of fifteen years of experience in the industry and recently, the most current five years have been spent managing Roma Restaurant in Willernie, MN. Owner Brent Pilrain, a Certified Chef, also has a total of fifteen years of experience in the industry with the majority of that time spent in kitchen management. Brent has also been awarded First Place,"Chef Par Excellence" by the Minnesota Pork Association in 2004 after competing against fourteen of Minnesota's most recognized Chefs and is currently the Executive Chef at Roma. Each owner's individual success in the industry combined with the target area's demographics equal the sum for a successful business. Our target customer base is made up of Stillwater people who enjoy dining in a casual environment while being served an upscale menu that is exciting for adults and friendly for kids. Our pricing is on the higher end for food and beverages which discourages troublesome patrons as well as socially disruptive groups and loitering teenagers. We are able to communicate with all of these customers in person, by phone, or through the Internet to have their needs met and any information that they require about our products and services readily available. Products that we would offer include an exciting menu full of East coast fare as well as traditional English and European dishes. We are also a licensed caterer in Minnesota and offer services for business luncheons, family gatherings, company meetings, and holiday parties. Page 1 Patriots Tavern will be located at 145 New England Place, Stillwater, MN. We will purchase most of our food items from U.S. Food Service, and Merrill Foods. Miscellaneous items will be purchased from various vendors. Our hours of operation will be Sunday through Thursday, 11:00am to 9:00pm and Saturday/Sunday, 11:00 am to 10:OOpm. Our staff will consist of two full-time Certified Food Managers/Chefs, nine part-time cooks and kitchen help along with 7 part-time waitstaff including 3 managers. Critical tasks such as training, ordering, bookkeeping, and scheduling will be handled by managers. Advertising will consist of building signs, print advertisements, and a website featuring weekly and seasonal specials. Our nearest competition is a local favorite serving traditional German cuisine and our own Roma restaurant which serves mainly Italian fare. Both are more complimentary rather than competitive since variety for locals is a benefit. We hope to encourage locals to continue to patronize local business as well as draw people from other Stillwater neighborhoods to our community there at Liberty Village. Our customers see our business as a unique and fun idea that promotes creativity and special family time. Customers also see our restaurant as a place where their concerns and questions are welcomed with open minds and their purchases will be guided and well -made. They also see our smaller restaurant size and know that they will be treated as friends. Most importantly, customers will enjoy the decorative flavor of our old-world English colonial empire theme which is very unique and fun. Page 2 The Company Roman Market Inc. is owned and operated by brothers Brent and Brian Pilrain. We were born and raised in Stillwater, MN as well as graduates of Stillwater Area High School and are both current residents of this fine city. We currently own and manage "Roma Restaurant, Bar and Market" just 5 minutes West of Stillwater in Willernie, MN. We offer our community a chance to taste some delightful creations inspired by our theme and presented by 2004 Minnesota State Champion Chef Brent Pilrain. Our family restaurant seats 75 people and is a friendly place for business luncheons, families with children, and people who are looking for a casual environment with an upscale menu. Our strategy is to continue the traditional full -service style restaurant and incorporate a more specific theme based on the desires of the local community. The current goal for Roman Market Inc. is to create a colonial "New England -style" restaurant in Liberty Village called the, "Patriot's Tavern Family Restaurant" to capture a significant amount of the local market share and increase the cash flow of our business as well as employ local staff thus creating jobs. To achieve this goal we have allotted a certain amount of cash reserve for advertising and to maximize repeat business from our customers we have an email club in place where we can communicate with our existing customers regularly through newsletters, e-flyers, and other online promotions. Our business is one of specialty service and we intend to fully implement our skills as listeners as well as salesmen. Customers will be able to submit suggestions and ideas easily with our online form or in person. We look forward to creating personal relationships with our customers and their families so as to mold Patriot's Tavern into a pleasant neighborhood gathering place. Other goals include creating a stronger sense of community through our services offering patrons a place where they can buy food items rich in European heritage, showcase cultural and traditional recipes, and give the beautiful Liberty Village business district a strong partner to increase local commerce. Roman Market Inc. is an S-Corporation and has granted the titles of "C.E.O." and "President" to Owner Brent Pilrain. Titles of "C.F.O." and "Vice President" have been granted to owner Brian Pilrain. Both owners serve as the company's Directors and hold equal shares of company stock. Company meetings are held on Wednesday morning of every week at our corporate headquarters at 460 Stillwater Road. Page 3 Market Evaluation The following market evaluation is based on the 2009 Demographic Detail Comparison Report compiled by Welsh Companies. Total population within a three-mile radius of our proposed site is 22,931 of which the vast majority of our target demographic resides. The average household income of this population is $97,341 with over 65% of households possessing two or more vehicles which is sufficient evidence to suggest a modest amount of surplus income. According to the Forbes.com article on 7/19/06 titled, "How Americans Make and Spend Their Money" 13.3% of household income is spent on food, and 42% of that is spent at restaurants. Using the statistics from the article we can deduct that households in our three mile radius spend approximately $5437 per year at restaurants which suggests a total market value of approximately $50 million dollars considering 9316 households. Our conservative business goal is to capture 2% of the market share at $1,000,000 annually within our first two years and our cap is at approximately 2.5% or $1,250,000 at full volume. In comparison, our other restaurant, "Roma" is in ifs third year of business and is at $1,176,500 in annual revenue with approximately the same amount of seating. Page 4 PATRIOTS TAVERN Bill of Fare Starters — White Cheddar & Onion Dip — served with brioche. — Maryland Crab Cakes — with gunpowder remoulade and frisee. — Patriot Pommes Frites - Belgian fries. Choose from our sauce menu. Glazed Chicken Wings — BBQ, papaya-habenero, rum -buttered, or buffalo. — Oysters Rockefeller — bacon, onion, spinach, gruyere, and hollandaise. — Conch Fritters — choose from our sauce menu. — Spinach & Crab Dip — served with herb flatbread. — Buttermilk Onion Rings — Your choice of sauces. Dipping sauces: - Avacado ranch - Bleu cheese - Balsamic mayo - Peanut satay -Horseraddish sauce -Truffle mayo - Cranberry mustard - Thai chili aioli - Wasabi Mayo - Papaya habenero - Lemon dill mayo - Cheddar cheese - Dijon mustard - Gunpowder aioli - Roasted tomato mayo - Barbecue - Red curry ketchup - Honey mustard - Frite Sauce Soup & Salad — New England Clam Chowder or Tavern Daily Specialty. — Classic Cobb Salad — chicken, bacon, chopped egg, tomato, avacado, and bleu cheese dressing. — Butter Poached Lobster Salad — bibb lettuce, fresh peas, tomatoes, and champange dressing. — Captain's Iceberg Salad — iceberg wedge, tomatoes, cucumber, parmesan -peppercorn dressing. — Strawberry Spinach Salad — with kiwi, candied almonds, chevre, and raspberry vinaigrette. — Green Apple Salad — cheddar, maple glazed hazelnuts, micro greens, and Frangellico dressing. Burgers & Sandwiches — Patriot Burger — applewood smoked bacon, cheddar, greens, tomato, red onion, and mayo. — Haystack Burger — fried onion, peppers, crispy hash, fried egg, and aioli. — Firecracker Burger — cajun season, jalepeno bacon, pepperjack, habenero aioli, rocket greens. — Spanish Burger — southwest seasoning, avacado, tomato, cheve, and cilantro-mayo. — Paris Burger — smoked portobello, creamy brie, greens and aioli. — Fungi Burger — cave aged bleu, carmelized onion, wild shrooms, greens and balsamic mayo. — Ale Potted Beef— on grilled ciabatta with English cheddar and aioli. — Maine Style Lobster Roll — butter grilled roll with scallion, celery, and creamy mayo. — Classic Reuben — corned beef, kraut, swiss, 1000 island dressing, on pumpernickle bun. — Tavern Steak Melt — grilled filet mignon, carmelized onion, smoked shroom,s and provolone. — Colonial Turkey Melt — ovengold turkey, grilled sourdough, basil, brie, and cranberry sauce. — Beer Battered Cod — a gormet bun with lettuce, tomato, cheddar, and lemon -dill mayo. — Oyster Po' Boy — fried oysters, crispy andouille, lettuce, tomato, and gunpowder remoulade. Pizzas — Margherita — virgin olive oil, garlic, fresh tomato, marinara, fresh mozzarella, and basil. — Tartufo — garlic -cream, cheese, fried potatoes, mushrooms, scallions, truffle oil, and balsamic. — Rocket BLT — four cheese, marinara, jalepeno bacon, teardrop tomatoes, garlic, and arugula. — Italian Combo — sausage, pepperoni, onion, green pepper, green olive, and mushroom. — French Quarter — andouille sausage, cajun shrimp, tomato, corn, bell pepper and onion. — White Clam Pie — garlic cream, bacon, four cheese, clams, and fried potatoes. — BBQ Chicken — with tomato, smoked mozzarella, bacon, red onion, and fresh cilantro. — Fig & Bleu — olive oil, and four cheese. Finished with procuitto, balsamic, and fig molasses. — Chicken Florentine — alfredo, four cheese, roasted red pepper, and spinach. — Plain Jane — marinara and four cheese. (add what you like) Entrees — Liberty Ribs — slow cooked and wood -fired. Smothered in our house sauce. — Rum Buttered Chicken — spit roasted over our wood -fired grill. — Ale Potted Beef Skillet — peas, bacon, carrot, pearl onion, rich gravy, and mashed potatoes. — Charbroiled Lobster — served on frisee with fresh herbs, and lemon -sherry butter. — Maple Bourbon Pork Chop — with blackstrap molasses, and mustard jus. — Reveres Ribeye — bone -in ribeye with pearl onion, mushroom, and brandy -peppercorn demi. - Jumbo Shrimp — hand breaded and fried with gunpowder remoulade. — Scallops Newberg — jumbo breaded scallops over linguini with lobster -sherry cream. — Prawns & Polenta — firecracker glazed and grilled. Served over creamy polenta with garlic jus. — Linguini & Clams — served in a white wine -garlic cream. — Filet Oscar — charbroiled with sweet crab, asparagus, and hollandaise. — Grilled Salmon — on lemon scented greens topped with cranberry -mustard and breadcrumbs. Sides — Boston Baked Beans — with Vermont maple and smoked bacon — Colonial Cornbread — served with spiced honey -butter — Fresh Peas — with lardons and pearl onion. — Carolina Slaw — sweet and sour based dressing. — Buttermilk Biscuits — served with soft butter. — Roasted Corn Saute' — honey and cajun spices. — Garlic Mashed Potatoes — finished with cream and butter. Dessert — Boston Cream Pie — topped with whipped cream and chocolate curls. — Decadent Brownie Tower — brownie bites, vanilla ice cream, whipped cream, and cherry. — Pecan Pie — with carmel sauce and bourbon -cinnamon whipped cream. — Strawberry Shortcake — fresh berries, strawberry sauce, shortcake, and whipped cream. — Peach Cobbler — brown sugar -oat crumble, whipped cream, and vermont maple. Patriots Tavem SG & A Rent Payroll Officer Salary MN Unemployment Insurance Fed Unemployment Ins Patriot Investment Loan Health Dept. Food License Trash & Recycling Accounting Service Liquor License Health Ins Premiums Business Liability + Liquor Insurance Rug & Towel Service Dishwashing Machine Rental Water Worker's Comp Electric/Gas Wood Tap Cleaning Shamrock rental Telephones Credit Card Merchant Services Internet/Cable Google Search Marketing Office Supplies/Menus Advertising Campaigner Email Marketing Hood Cleaning Refrigeration Maintenance Fire/Plumbing Maintenance Cost of Goods Sold Total SG & A Estimated Revenue Estimated Profit Operating Expenses Yearly $ 34, 800.00 $ $ 272,160.00 $ $ 70, 000.00 $ $ 1,600.00 $ $ 1,700.00 $ $ 36,000.00 $ $ 600.00 $ $ 3,336.00 $ $ 2,000.00 $ $ 3,900.00 $ $ 6,000.00 $ $ 3,941.00 $ $ 4,800.00 $ $ 1,164.00 $ $ 800.00 $ $ 1,200.00 $ $ 14,400.00 $ $ 3,600.00 $ $ 360.00 $ $ 420.00 $ $ 1,284.00 $ $ 16, 000.00 $ $ 1,571.00 $ $ 85.00 $ $ 3,000.00 $ $ 1,000.00 $ $ 600.00 $ $ 800.00 $ $ 1,000.00 $ $ 600.00 $ $ 423, 360.00 $ $ 912,081.00 $ 1,008,000.00 Monthly 2,900.00 22,680.00 5,833.33 133.33 141.67 3,000.00 50.00 278.00 166.67 325.00 500.00 328.42 400.00 ' 97.00 66.67 100.00 1,200.00 300.00 30.00 35.00 107.00 1,333.33 130.92 7.08 250.00 83.33 50.00 66.67 83.33 50.00 35,280.00 Weekly $ 669.23 Staff Labor $ 5,670.00 27.00% $ 1,458.33 $ 33.33 Annual Payroll $ 35.42 $342,160.00 $ 750.00 $ 12.50 Bi-weekly Payroll $ 64.15 $14,256.67 $ 38.46 $ 75.00 $ 115.38 $ 75.79 $ 92.31 $ 22.38 $ 15.38 $ 23.08 $ 276.92 $ 69.23 $ 6.92 $ 4.00 $ 24.69 $ 307.69 $ 30.21 $ 1.63 $ 57.69 $ 19.23 $ 11.54 $ 15.38 Twice Annually $ 19.23 $ 11.54 $ 8,141.54 $ 76,006.75 $ 17,540.02 $ 84,000.00 $ 19,384.62 Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 120000 110000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 RomanMarket Inc. 2006 $0 $0 $0 $21,316 $37,138 $36,761 $35, 309 $35,207 $30,007 $26,626 $24,566 $35,134 $282,064 2007 $19,665 $21,799 $29, 550 $31,910 $45,372 $38,039 $37,297 $42,034 $34,597 $28,983 $33,057 $37,236 $399,539 29% Growth ROMA Sales 2008 $26, 848 $38,462 $61, 063 $107,391 $93, 831 $92,863 $88,171 $81,023 $87,631 $78,040 $89,006 $933,120 57% Growth Sales Roman Market 2009 2010 $74,491 $85,317 $80,444 $82,493 $90,685 $96,252 $94,956 $98,205 $106,962 $107,652 $94,536 $110,805 $93,350 $97,200 $91, 795 $97, 545 $87,367 $103,334 $1,112,665 16% Growth Page 1 Column B El Column C Column D Column E ® Column F Patriot's Tavern Opening Woodfire Oven Slicer Grill Flat Top/Range/Ovens Fryers Wind Oven Hood/Make up Air Walk-in Cooler/freezer Shelving Keg Cooler Ice bin/cold plate Ice bin/cold plate Booths Fixtures/Decor Awnings Signs Bar Top & labor Back bar/Wine rack Insurance Downpayment Liquor License Sunday on -sale Buyers Card Health Dept Plan Review Wine cooler Beer Bottle cooler Microwave Grill Prep cooler 6' Pizza Prep cooler 6' Hot Line with Heat Lamps Ice Machine Prep table/cooler 8' Triple Sink Hand Sinks Vegetble Prep Sink Dump Sink (Bar) Dining Tables & Chairs Hi Top Tables & Chairs Shutters Blinds Window Boxes Restroom changing table Server station cart Hutch for breezeway Undercounter Dishwasher Ecolab Dishwasher POS System Deposit Suzie Anderson Painting Smallwares and misc. Expense List: $7,000 parts & labor Purchased $3,000 $4,000 $2, 000 Purchased $30,000 parts & install $12,000 parts,Iabor, & compressors $3,000 $1,200 $400 $1,000 $4,000 $2,000 $1,200 $1,000 $3,000 $3,000 $800 work comp, liability, liquor $3,600 $300 $20 $600 $400 $400 $300 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,700 $600 $200 $600 With spray nosel $300 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $200 $500 $200 $1,000 $1,000 $0 Contract lease $1,500 Contract lease $500 $8,000 Security Deposit $4,775 First Month's Rent $2,900 Inventory $10,000 Operating Account $15,000 $141,695 M:\ACTIN!E\Patrpot's\Patriot's.dwg, 7/23/2010 3:39:45 PM 111 u AWED lEIM / BORING 613V3G 7 4 • / 111 [FT11 n RDICED MECHANICAL FENCIED COOLER 23-3 3/4 EX16T14 BUILDING 111 NORM ELEVATION A DED crime Foal uA;oc' FIRED 6TDVE MN Th IH 111 ININE iw 1.6 III III III III III III' PART1041111 3-0 II I iIIII IIII III III III COL'-0TIO •• FENCED COOLER EASING BUILDING OAT ELEVATION A RESIDENCE OF: ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOT'S TAVERN ADDRESS: 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 STILLWATER, MN. 55082 LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY SQUARE FOOTAGE LOWER LEVEL MAIN LEVEL 2315 UPPER LEVEL GARAGE: PORCH: DECK: JOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1/22/2010 DRAWN BY: MG RELEASE DATE: REVISION DATE PAGE 414 SHEET TITLE L.IVA l U* M:\ACTIVE\Patriot's\Patriot's.dwg, 7/23/2010 3:40:06 PM 1 6 I11 3 -r co- 0- 1, 1 EL 8 1/11111111 IILII I1111 11111111 1111II III 111111111 II qJ / u \ l \tY / 4, \ J N' 3 3'51 0' 4 3/4' /r1ELTER IIl II1 11 11111111111 1 SHEET TITLE asvarla�6 �j� JIB/ z DRAWN BY: MG RELEASE DATE: IJOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1/22/2010 PORCH: DECK: V � m p ILOWER LEVEL: MAIN LEVEL 2315 D RESIDENCE OF: ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOT'S TAVERN '-4DDRESS: -„ A 0 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 STILLWATER MN 55084 m illn m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY M:IACTIVE\Patriot's\Patriot's.dwg, 7/23/2010 3:40:29 PM ®000®000®0®®®0®00000000000000000000000000 EQUIPMENT SCHEI7,4 it lAii! i tl bl t i illri 0 it 00000000 7 s m i ii Jllf I o IDRAWN BY: MG RELEASE DATE: IJOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1/22/2010 IUP LEVEL: GARAGE: ILOWER LEVEL MEN LEVEL 2315 RESIDENCE OF: > ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOTS TAVERN m m ADDRESS: 0 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 > STILLWATER, N. 55052 m o m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY M:\ACTIYE\Patriot's\Patriot's.dwg, 7/23/2010 3:40:50 PM gsQ 22 0 P �EET TITLE MAIN LtNFlR L .00PLAN I I'I m REVISION DATE IDRAWN BY: MGRELEASE DATE: IJOB NUMBER: DATE DRAWN: 1R2/2010 PORCH: I DECK: IUPPER LEVEL: GARAGE: LOWER LEVEL: MAIN LEVEL: 2315 o RESIDENCE OF: > ROMA MARKETS' PATRIOTS TAVERN '1 ADDRESS: 0 145 NEW ENGLAND PLACE. SUITE 100 > STILLWATER, MN. 55082 m LOT: BLOCK: NEIGHBORHOOD: LIBERTY Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 2, 2010 APPLICANT: Cecilia Loome, Chestnut Street Books REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for Chestnut Street Books LOCATION: 223 Chestnut St E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner ow CASE NO.: 10-31 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a sign at 223 Chestnut St E for Chestnut Street Books. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Used & Rare Books" in Gold letters on a black background with a gold border. The sign is 5 feet wide by 2 feet tall for a total of 10 square feet in area. The sign will be non -illuminated. 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 states building signs in the CBD '...may have an aggregate area not exceeding one square foot for each foot of building face...'. The applicant's retail space is 28 feet long facing Chestnut St E. The total sign area of the proposed sign is 10 square feet, which is smaller than allowed under the zoning ordinance. 223 Chestnut St E Page 2 PREVIOUS HPC SIGN APPROVALS A projecting sign was approved by the Commission for this store on April 7, 2008. The sign was installed but was later removed. The applicant has verbally indicated to staff that the wall sign is indented to replace the projecting sign and they have no intent of reinstalling the projecting sign in the future. RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. The projecting sign approved in HPC Case 2008-16 shall not be reinstalled while the wall sign is in place. 3. No additional signage without HPC approval. 4. No exterior lighting on the sign without HPC approval. FINDINGS The proposed signs meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and meet the intent of the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic District Design Manual. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing of the proposed sign Photo of existing building Sli 1 1w!,te!: ✓707 Application for Sion Permit Fee: $50.00 Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8820 Location of Sign Address 223 Ch t�S/7tj t,fi City _ Stillwater State MN Zip 55082 _ Applicant (�,, ,,1 /',, Name i� W 11 to &�1 r e 13t akS Ca ti a- 0 /�'l'.. (� Phone # u•3 O - l � _ T Address 2z3 Chestnl,11 S Cit�. Si-i/(wain State N►ij Tp 557)02 Owner (►f different fromApplicant) Name C,LV Pat /�- 7Brd t ung t a t'_ Prare er1 [ eS p, Phone* Address City S lttt.l 1 State Zip Contractor's Name Name % 6 bo 5 iq 1n- /11/1Uld'k- 1-C420 Phone #7/6' 386 - 722 (? Address// 3/ 1 Mils �` a: Cdy t /zvt ct State` Zip6-4D J ched are the fn owing documents (Required to be submitted with application) o Attach a plan showing the sign size, location and type of material used. If the sign is to be mounted on the building, show an elevation of the building and sign. Additionally, if the building is historic the sign mounting shall limit damage to the exterior of the building. ❑ Design Review application (if required). All signs in the Downtown Area and in the West Stillwater Business Park require design review by HPC Sign Details Sign Size: Dimensions: x2..- = Square Feet lQ Sign Height (If freestanding) Setbacks: From Property Line From Bldg ,_ / f- h t_u From Driveway/Parking Lot Colors: Neck 14 raid -CI 9 v I(( I dfor-i ft4 Mate If Yes, als: :7l boil" Q.�c���:ul2zivt,LGti2� Type: ," (�U7- �, tc�4 Illumination: ❑ Yes i rNo eciare tton I hereby certify that the information provided in this application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereb r the City of Stillwater and any agent or employee of it, to inspect the pro site ny reasonable time before and after any permit is issued relat i request. , Applicant Signature 6644_ Review (For office use only Date Date71/,3/1© ❑ Approved 0 Denied Permit # Date By Conditions forroval: * Contractor must be licensed with the City of Stillwater. Contractor's license application form is available at Stillwater City Hall. Remember to call Gopher State One call at 651-454-0002 before you dig to identify any underground utility locations. This is a FREE service. S:\Planning\FormslAppiication for Sign Pennit.doc Updated: September 23, 2006 Ce s To whom it may concern: I am seeking permission to place a sign above my bookshop in downtown Stillwater. The store is located at 223 Chestnut Street, one half block west of Main Street across the street from the old Hallmark, in between Lost Treasures and Asalonna hair salon. The design for the sign is simple and tasteful, in keeping with the character of downtown. The sign is to be constructed and installed by Mark Lebo of Lebo Signs in Hudson. Thank you for your consideration. Cecilia Loome Chestnut Street Books 223 Chestnut St. E. Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-9805 Book Store jpg - Gmail Page 1 of 1 https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=c6a8144452&view=att&th=12a3aefl 3b53a206&att... 8/4/2010 USED RARE BOOKS Simple black background with raised three-dimensional gilt architectural style lettering; measuring 2 by 5 feet; i.e. total of 10 square feet, which is the maximum allowed based on the total square footage of the storefront. "USED & RARE" lettering is 4 inches tall; "BOOKS" is 12 inches tall. The sign will be placed flat against the building front, directly above the window. Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 2, 2010 APPLICANT: Signs by RSG CASE NO.: 10-32 REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for $5 Pizza LOCATION: 1980 Market Drive COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: BPC - Business Park Commercial ZONING: BP-C Business Park Commercial HPC DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWED BY: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plannerp� DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a new wall sign for "$5 Pizza" at 1980 Market Drive. The sign will be comprised of circular sign with a $5 in white letter on a red background. "Pizza" will be spelled out with individual red channel letters. The sign is proposed to be 46" tall by 144" wide for a total of 46 square feet in size. The sign is proposed to be internally lit. 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 26 feet facing Market Drive, which allows a 26 square foot wall sign on both the front of the building facing Market Drive. The proposed sign will need to be reduced or a variance would need to be obtained from the Planning Commission. 1980 Market Drive Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. The wall sign shall be reduced to 26 square feet or less in size or a variance will need to be obtained from the Planning Commission to allow the signs to exceed the allowable square footage. If the signs are reduced in size, the new sign plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 2. The signs shall be horizontally centered between the signs immediately to the left and right of the proposed sign. 3. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 4. No additional signage without HPC approval. 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 CHANNEL LETTERS FACE WHITE / RED ACRYLIC BLACK TRIM CAP -SIGNS BY RSG LED SYSTEM RED / WHITE SIGN SPECIFIC LED RSG BRIGHTNESS SYSTEM FOR EXTRA BRIGHTNESS RETURNS 5.25" BLACK TYPICAL FLUSH MOUNT CHANNEL LETTER CHANNEL LETTER TRIM CAP LED LED FASTENER ACRriK FACE .040 ALUM RETURN ,050 ALUM BACK EMT FLEX CONNECTOR FASTENERW; SILICONE /TRANSFORMER SOX TRANSFORMER BOX COVER \ \ TRANSFORMER 120 VOLT SERVICE Ph: 763.753.7571 Fx: 763.753.0102 www.signsbyrsg.com 6080 Hwy 10 Ramsey, MN 55303 12 ft 92.47 In FIVE DOLLAR 1980 market drive, mn existing built in through way which we must have our electric attached through Not to scale. This is a computerized representation. Actual product may vary in clarity, color, quality and placement PLEASE CHECK CAREFULLY THIS IS A FINAL PROOF! Please check this proof carefully. your signature below means that you have accepted this job. ❑OK TO PRODUCE No Corrections ❑ OK With Corrections as noted ❑ NOT OK- New Proof Required X DATE This Is an original unpublished drawing, created by Signs by RSG. It is submitted for your exclusive use, in connection with a project being planned by Signs by RSG. It is not to be shown to anyone outside your organization, nor is it to be used, reproduced, copied or exhibited in any fashion. This drawing is the property of Signs by RSG. five dollar stillwater 50010 SALES: seb DATE: 7-22-10 REV1 REV2 Application for Sign Permit Fee: $50.00 Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8820 Location of Sign Address 91E /t/1<*&& T' Sri City Stillwater State MN Zip 55082 Applicant Name s(c�i3 2,1 Address ` Offo f-r,. /, I 0 City e/�>�p�.� Phone* 76 3/2 State Zip 3 757 Owner fit different from Appiican Name �'�9fir2 lift cP Phone* Address - ZSb=as Sc,9�,erPMQ City State <,f Zip 'ez'y'/ 2 z Contractor's Name Name city /2 Attached are the followieig documents (Required to be submitted with application) Phone # S Nt?ye Address 0 ft 10 State ✓u Zip 3 .S Attach a plan showing the sign size, location and type of material used. If the sign is to be mounted on the building, show an elevation of the building and sign. Additionally, if the building is historic the sign mounting shall limit damage to the exterior of the building. ❑ Design Review application (if required). All signs in the Downtown Area and in the West Stillwater Business Park require design review by HPC. Sign Details Sign Size: Dimensions: x 11(1 - = Square Feet Sign Height: (If freestanding) Setbacks: From Property Line From Bldg /114_ From Drivewtay/Parking Lot Colors: A s r-t Illumination: des ❑ No Matenals: C If Yes, Type: 9 { n Declaration I hereby certify that the information provided in this application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereby authorize the City of Stillwater and any agent or employee of it, to inspect the proposed site at any reasonable time before and after any permit is issued related to this request. «-rg,� Owner Signature (requi Applicant Signatu e Review (For office use .:......................................: ................................... . Approved Permit # Date Date * Contractor must be licensed with the City of Stillwater. Contractor's license application form is available at Stillwater City Hall. Remember to call Gopher State One call at 651-454-0002 before you dig to identify any underground utility locations. This is a FREE service. S:\Planning\Forms'Application for Sign Permit.doc Updated: September 23, 2006 2 ce 7,; 753 Dl042 �a Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 1, 2010 APPLICANT: Tai Gleason, Art and Soul REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for Art N Sole LOCATION: 202 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City PlannerOc CASE NO.: 2010-35 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install two projecting signs (one along Main St and one along Chestnut St) for Art N Soul at 202 Main St S. The proposed sign face is 24-inches tall by 36-inches wide for a total of 6 square feet. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Art n Soul" and "Stillwater Beads". The lettering is proposed to be ivory, on a burgundy background with a black and ivory boarder. 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 total sign of the sign face is 6 square feet, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Additionally the code allows one sign per street frontage. Being on a corner, the store is permitted two signs. 202 Main St S Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approval 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 projection sign must be a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk. 3. No additional signage without HPC approval. 4. No exterior lighting on the sign without HPC approval. FINDINGS The proposed sign meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal meets the intent of the Commercial Historic District Design Manual. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing/ photo of the proposed sign N.ivarci 11b'fbbJbbi P • e Case No: Date Filed: Receipt No.: Fee: $25.0O DESIGN REVIEW J PMICA N FORM COMMUN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CTIY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET S7ILLWATER, MN 55082 The applicant is responsible for the a©mpieteness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required. All supporting material (Le. photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with apption becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials is required. After Heritage Preservation approval, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a design review permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. Al following information is recalled rn� CPROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project�l% Mafri SbAssessor's Parcel No.A0 3O ? % // 00 Zoning district a1517 Descriptbn of Project in detail. Siqvittaiz "'hereby state the foregoing statements and all► data information and evidence submitted herewith in aI ems, to the best of my knowledge and beffef, to be true and toured. I further certify I will comply will; the permit if rt is granted and used" If representative is not property; owner, Property Owner Mailing Address i Y '( Goak City State Zi) -Sr R p- . S yt a o Telephone No. 2f.5 I ? _? - 6 SAPlaamnp\eeslpn review permltwpd property owner's nature is rr- Representative 4 ry ria V Matng Address /-02- S- M 6 I v 5 -}" City State 20 Sh I I w G1-e y M 4I s$o kL. Telephone No. (p 51- Z53 - 3 13 Ce l I April 12, 2002 One inch thick MDO wood, black and chestnut painted to match samples. Lettering in black and papyrus vinyl. Chestnut Papyrus 15207 N 63rd St. Stillwater, MN 55082 651.206.8025 Todd@stcroixsign.com Estimate is good for 30 days. Project will start with 50% down, balance due on delivery or before installation. Drawings are the property of St Croix Sign until paid in full or rights for design is paid for. 15207 N 63rd St. Stillwater, MN 55082 651.206.8025 Todd@stcroixsign.com Estimate is good for 30 days. Project will start with 50% down, balance due on delivery or before installation. Drawings are the property of St Croix Sign until paid in full or rights for design is paid for. Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 1, 2010 APPLICANT: Todd Follis, St Croix Signs REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for Fun Sisters LOCATION: 216 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner CASE NO.: 2010-36 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install a projecting sign for Fun Sisters at 216 Main St S. The proposed sign face is 27-inches tall by 33-inches wide for a total of 6 square feet with the sign in the shape of a handbag. The sign is proposed to contain the words "The Fun Sisters". The lettering is proposed to be multicolor and includes green, purple, red, yellow, and blue lettering. The background is proposed to be pink with a yellow boarder. The support for the sign is proposed to be shaped as a arm with the handbag style sign hanging below it. 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 total sign of the sign face is 6 square feet, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 216 Main St S Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approval 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 projection sign must be a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk. 3. No additional signage without HPC approval. 4. No exterior lighting on the sign without HPC approval. FINDINGS The proposed sign meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal meets the intent of the Commercial Historic District Design Manual. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing/photo of the proposed sign DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No: ri1 Date Filed: Receipt No.: Fee: $25.00 ✓s7 V e/)33 dip aoto The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (Le. photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required. Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required. All following information is required . PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project2(4 (q;.•5 Sv Assessor's Parcel No. a?ge&G20-C%%0 (Required) Zoning District cip Description of Project in detail ffap5;.i "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required. Property Owner r 14- Ld t A' z Mailing Address 0 • .bd K (� City State Zip cakil koa+e r 1 il) 41 Telephone No. (p S J-- 43 q-1q / Signat14te (Required) ve H:\mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit.wpd July 13, 2005 Representative`?e;,,T,W t 1► s Mailing Address / r2. N G3-✓ s r City State Zip Sr: t►wc.mre,„ 5-soaZ Telephone No. 6s t- 2e. c - 8cs Z r Signatur (Required) Th e r- rm Me 15207 N 63rd St. Stillwater, MN 55082 651.206.8025 Todd@stcroixsign.com t 33" SLct cr X 0 1" Wood Core with Aluminum face. Double Sided w w N Estimate is good for 30 days. Project will start with 50% down, balance due on delivery or before installation. Drawings are the property of St Croix Sign until paid in full or rights for design is paid for. Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: September 2, 2010 CASE NO.: 10-37 APPLICANT: Chauncey Peterson of Demars Signs REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for Revolution Dance LOCATION: 105 New England Place #130 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: NC - Neighborhood Commercial ZONING: VC - Village Commercial HPC DATE: September 9, 2010 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a sign at 105 New England Place, Suite 130. This site is within the multi -tenant building in the Liberty commercial area. The sign is proposed to contain the business name "Revolution Dance". The lettering is proposed to be aluminum raised letters with "Revolution" painted black and "Dance" comprised of yellow, orange, purple, blue and red letters. The background is proposed to painted to have an industrial look. The proposed sign is 16 feet wide and 2 feet tall for a total area of 32 square feet. For retail storefront signs the Village Commercial District building signs '...may have an aggregate area not exceeding one square foot for each foot of building face...'. The applicant's retail space is 32 feet long facing Manning Ave. The total sign area of the proposed sign meets the zoning ordinance. 105 New England Place #130 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION 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. FINDINGS The proposed sign meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. attachments: Applicant's Form Drawing of the proposed sign Photo of existing building r7 Case No: Date Filed: - Receipt No,: Fee: $25.00 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all farms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials is required. After Heritage Preservation approval, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 14-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a design review permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. Ali following information is required . G'c:? PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Pr ect etf04 is Parcel No. r tti�f'� S� Description of Pro.ec iri de ail k (c r Wit _ -C- liCIA Mailing Addre$sX. W 4'1 'J t cr - Lt €> City State ,Zip fL1 >11 7 �tLe%f .y Telephone No. ( f1C4 �.0 4 J :. S:'.Planning'•.deslcn •et'ewpe'mlt•r.:tl Zoning DistnCt`r U 'L i)77(2k) � '1 j� /,17 ( �'G`Gr L.1 c . "I hereby state the foregoingstateme'hts and all data inforrrration and evidence v GG submitted herewith in affrespects, to the best of my knowledge and beget; to be true and correct. I further certify I wff/ cvnrpfy with the permit if it granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is reunited. n Property Over Representatiue.,�l!'�att ,=/ P 1,if� L ) �, g jttrl Mailing Address City State Zip f0 % 4p, ;VW Telephone No, �' i f/l4/ � Ac- I :i, 2?,4 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM Iu 7 WI` 0 Z - S,'C'' .-: '..•i-,:', -4„:-,-„,-, 44 .r4 e A' § ''''''4 ':•:). 44 3 7e: iN-7. 41 -,111:111,1'4,,;:, : : ;1,,,`„``,•,.111'i ..71-.,,,,. 414 ..r. ,v ,,,, -..., •( t 13 ‘' '7,7). ,. .'1;;?- l',‘:,,_. ,0 -,i;"4:;i ta• „r„ ft 1 e i': -,--- g c .c 0 ...., ...- 4., 'III 11 , 41 . ,,,,,,, i rg . sr, z..:7,. ';-- ,•,,, ,,,,„,„ zi'i t W Ex ,,,,,,,, --,,,, ' • z 2.0 • " 0- RI -c • cp 03: Lr • 7 cJ 2 k 2 x 16ft. Unlit signage...Liberty Village, 105 New England Stillwater, MN. W a y # 1 3 0 z" MDO plywood construction... .040mm aluminum detailing, faux painted... *" acrylic cut-out letters, raised on standoffs... real bolt head details, rusted... flat vinyl red and black drop -shadow detailing sign area...32sf 41093n'Ave." Coon Rapids, MN 55432 763.786.5545 DATE: k/19/'lQ SALESMAN: Chauncey Peterson LOCATION: Liberty Village Stillwater, MN NOTES: These plans are the exdusive property of DeMars Signs Inc. and are the result of the original work of its employees. They are submitted to your firm for the sole purpose of your approval, assuming the signage will be manufactured by DeMars Signs inc. Artwork and design may not be distributed outside your firm without written consent from DeMars Signs Inc.Use of thls artwork and/or design without written consent is prohibited; DeMars Signs inc. reserves the right to pursue legal action in violation of this agreement.ThIs may Include, but is not limited to:a} Reimbursement for creating above drawing. b) Any associated legal fees. CUSTOMER APPROVAL X REVOLUTIOML1.t.tyd 1 immult mot tam TOP...front door, west elev. facing Manning Ave. BOTTOM...rear door, east elev. facing New England Way SIGN...192x24", area 32sf, 1/2 MDO plywood w/.040mm painted aluminum faux detail, real bolt heads, letters are raised 1/4" acrylic cut-out plastic mounted on standoffs, vinyl drop -shadow detailing Cultural Resources PARTNERSHIP NOTES CULTURAL RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP NOTES HERITAGE PRESERVATION SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Series editor: Susan L. Henry Renaud, Coordinator, Historic Preservation Planning Program U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Room NC330, Washington, DC 20240 HPS Heritage Preservation Services U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources Technical assistance in historic preservation planning, related planning/land use topics, and preservation strategies for Federal agencies, Indian tribes, States, and local governments Issues Paper: CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ALTHOUGH THE TERM HAS SEVERAL MEANINGS, conservation areas or districts suggest to many in preservation a method of achieving preservation ends at a neighborhood scale without some of the perceived burdens of the traditional historic district approach. The two articles included here broach a number of important issues, among them: definition of conservation districts, consequences of designation as a con- servation district (especially with regard to the regulation of alterations and new construction), relationship to existing historic districts, and the administration of conservation districts by local governments. The article by Robert E. Stipe entitled "Conservation Areas: A New Approach to An Old Problem" presents a somewhat idealized concept of the conservation area as a neighborhood, by virtue of its special qualities, slated to receive coordinated and enhanced attention and ser- vice from local government. Mr. Stipe makes the case against including regulatory controls in the conservation area designation by arguing that to do so would deprive preservation of an important "carrot" to be used when the "stick" of the traditional historic district may not be appropriate. Carole Zellie's article, "A Consideration of Conservation Districts and Preservation Planning: Notes from St. Paul, Minnesota," presents the results of her study of 20 conservation districts in place around the country. The analysis was conducted at the behest of the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office and the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Ms. Zellie finds that the conservation dis- trict approach, as it is currently implemented, can be characterized in two ways: those having a neighborhood planning focus and those with architectural or historic preservation aims. The author concludes that, in certain circumstances, conservation districts can be a useful comple- ment to traditional historic districts. However, she warns against dis- missing the design review component entirely by making the case that A SERVICE OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 2 CULTURAL RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP NOTES CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 15 design review is critical in neigh- borhoods in which the housing stock has suffered from unsym- pathetic alteration. The articles in this Issues Paper reflect the still evolving nature of the conservation dis- trict concept and its place in the preservation tool kit. This publi- cation aims to assist preserva- tionists in evaluating the useful- ness of conservation districts by highlighting multiple perspec- tives on the issue. CONSERVATION AREAS: A NEW APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM by Robert E. Stipe, Emeritus Professor of Design, School of Design, North Carolina State University Ever since the first Old and Historic District was estab- lished in Charleston, South Carolina in 1931, American com- munities have relied heavily on local historic district regulations for the protection of neighbor- hoods of distinguished architec- tural and historic character. Presently there are approximately 2,000 such districts in the United States, and their number has roughly doubled each decade since the 1930s. That this approach has proved its worth time and time again is beyond dispute, notwithstanding occasional difficulties encountered in the processes of administration and enforcement. But times have changed. Good planning and modern preservation philosophy, as well as an increasingly conserv- ative public mood that is increas- ingly anti -regulation, suggest that it is time to supplement this tra- ditional regulatory stick with a pro -active carrot. For descriptive purposes, this might be called the "conservation area" technique. Discussion of the overall con- cept of conservation areas, which is the subject of this essay, is complicated somewhat by the fact that several dozen cities across the county have already designated areas called conserva- tion areas or districts, each slight- ly different from the others. Whatever called, and for reasons discussed later, these are for the most part more closely related to the traditional historic district than to the concept of a conser- vation area as defined here. The need for a supplemental approach springs partly from new thinking about the inherent value of neighborhoods and their asso- ciative values to both residents and the larger community, and partly from strategic necessity. Preserving neighborhoods, his- toric and near -historic, takes on special significance in today's changed political climate. The designation of a local historic dis- trict, whether through zoning or some other source of authority, is a vexing issue for elected officials in many cities and towns. His- toric district ordinances require all property owners within a pro- posed district to comply with a police power regulation that car- ries with it both criminal and civil penalties for violation. They are also seen as regulating "taste" through the review of proposed additions or new construction. Mistakenly or not, the process is Sources of information Kelly, Deborah Marquis and Jennifer Goodman, "Conser- vation Areas as an Alternative to Historic Districts," Forum, 7 (September/October 1993), pp. 6-14. Available from the Forum editor, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 588-6000. Morris, Marya, Innovative Tools for Historic Preservation, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 438, American Plan- ning Association, September 1992. Available from the Planner's Bookstore, American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603-6107, (312) 431-9100. White, Bradford J. and Richard J. Roddewig, Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 450, American Planning Association, March 1994. Available from the Planner's Bookstore, American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603-6107, (312) 431-9100. EINE June 1998 The essays presented in this publica- tion appeared earlier in the former Local Preservation series. Stephen A. Morris, former Certified Local Government Coordinator, edited the original publication, which was issued in July 1993. 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP NOTES CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 3 Study follow-up Heritage Preservation commis- sion members, St. Paul Planning and Economic Development staff, and State Historic Preservation Office staff were among reviewers of drafts of this study. Although the useful appli- cations of the model proposed for St. Paul were recognized, sev- eral reviewers commented on the possibility for confusion between Heritage Conservation and Heritage Preservation Districts. Although it has been emphasized that the districts would be pre- sented as of equal status, as has been done in Nashville, a num- ber of reviewers reiterated that the existing guidelines were already flexible enough to desig- nate a broad range of areas as historic districts. This does not, however, provide for special intervention in the buffer zones which usually lie at the edges of districts. The Heritage Preservation Commission follows the Sec- retary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning in its evaluation and designation process. However, the Commis- sion takes a broad view of the existing integrity of properties in evaluating their significance. Integrity is not specifically men- tioned in the designation criteria. This contributes to the opinion that the existing Heritage Pres- ervation District ordinance is suf- ficiently broad to protect many types of areas. The study recommended new opportunities be created to work with the District Councils on strengthening the relationship between historic preservation and neighborhood planning. A good deal of effort has been put into creating legislation and administering historic districts for specific areas. However, while many people recognize the value of a designated historic building, appropriate conservation of older housing stock everywhere in the city is desirable. Much could be accomplished if public education programs encouraged homeown- ers to use care in planning exteri- or alterations, and if city -funded rehabilitation programs took a leading role in setting a high standard for affordable mainte- nance and rehabilitation work, particularly for siding and win- dow replacement and porch repairs. The entire city, with the great bulk of its traditional hous- ing built before 1930, might be regarded —if not designated —as a conservation area. Here, public education and housing improve- ment programs rather than design regulations could be lead- ing tools in the effort to main- tain building condition and integrity. General conclusions Evidence from around the coun- try indicates that architectural and historic preservation -orient- ed conservation districts with limited design review can be a useful supplement to the tradi- tional historic district. They function best in this role when they are applied to areas with a history of good maintenance and little exterior change and/or where residents are strongly opposed to full-fledged design review. In areas where there is a pattern of low maintenance and unsympathetic exterior alter- ations, conservation districts with limited design review are less effective at preserving neigh- borhood character. Footnote: In August, 1992 the St. Paul City Council approved the Dayton's Bluff Historic District which contains over 500 properties. A design guidelines handbook has been prepared for distribution to all property owners in the area. El CI El Photography credits. Page one top to bottom: pho- tos 1,2,5 © Marcia Axtmann Smith Design/ Communication, Alexandria,Va., 1998; photo 3, Paul Giblin; photo 4, National Park Service; photo 6, Elizabeth Anderson. often perceived as government interference with individual rights of free speech and the unfettered use of private proper- ty. Thus, the local political sieve through which additional regula- tions must be filtered is an increasingly difficult one. The conservation area approach —and the term "area" is used here throughout to make clear that ideally it is not a spe- cial kind of zoning district — offers a number of distinct advantages. It fits well with con- temporary thinking about what is worth preserving. It is more susceptible to local definition, more flexible in interpretation, and less threatening or restrictive to the average property owner. The conservation area approach melds easily with contemporary local planning processes and administrative structures; and, most important, admits to the evaluation process additional associative values, including human ones, without demeaning history or architecture. What is a conservation area? In the best use of the term, the ideal conservation area is one that is crisply, if broadly, defined and easily distinguished from the tra- ditional historic district. A work- ing definition which originated in North Carolina more than a decade ago, defines a conservation area as one that "possesses form, character, and visual qualities derived from arrangements or combinations of topography, vege- tation, space, scenic vistas, archi- tecture, appurtenant features, or places of natural or cultural signif- icance, that create an image of stability, comfort, local identity, and livable atmosphere." This definition goes consider- ably beyond the defining element of a traditional historic district. The customary associative val- ues, which focus on history and architecture and which stress the stylistic and material integrity of the place and its component parts, have broadened consider- ably. While architecture and its appurtenant features remain as explicitly enumerated values, his- tory as such is expanded to take in the generically broader con- cept of culture. The form, char- acter, and visual quality of the streetscape and landscape, as the staging area for architectural ele- ments, predominates. Natural areas and landscapes are added to emphasize a special concern for a broader range of environ- mental considerations. Vernacular elements, now widely fashionable among preservationists, are also implicitly recognized as respect- able associative values, as are aes- thetics and spatial structure. Age, as such, is not a major considera- tion. Because the definition tends overall to place relatively greater importance on the preser- vation of a natural larger land- scape, the word "conservation" seems a more apt descriptor than does "preservation." Most important, it is the pres- ence of any one of these values or several of them in combina- tion leading to "an image of sta- bility, comfort, local identity and livable atmosphere" that takes center stage. Thus, integrity is replaced by imagery, and the val- ues and perceptions of local citi- zens are weighted equally with the academic and scholarly cre- dentials of experts. It is also useful to define this ideal conservation area in terms of what it is not. Unlike zoning historic districts, exemplary con- servation areas are not regulatory in nature. While there are crite- ria by which they might be defined, they do not establish or even attempt to establish addi- tional regulations above and beyond those that already exist. And the burden imposed by con- servation area designation lies most heavily on the local govern- ment itself —the mayor, manager, council, planning staff, and sever- al line and staff agencies of the city government —rather than upon individual property owners. In other words, the ideal conser- vation area becomes a device by which a city or county imposes 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP NOTES CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 13 upon itself a special responsibili- ty to undertake ambitious, specifically defined planning and design tasks targeted to the maintenance and improvement of the area so designated. From the standpoint of the property owner, conservation area designa- tion thus becomes a carrot, rather than a stick. What kinds of areas might be designated? In theory, there are three kinds of areas or neighborhoods to which the designation might appropriately be attached: First, the designation would be appropriate for those areas sur- rounding or bordering on an exist- ing local historic district. In this sense, conservation areas might be regarded in customary planning parlance as "buffers," or transi- tional areas designed to protect the edges of an existing district. Second, the conservation area approach would be highly appro- priate as a tool to protect what might be called "pre -natal" his- toric districts that don't yet meet the usual 50-year rule or which have not yet acquired the patina of age or character associated with the traditional district, but which skilled observers feel cer- tain will qualify in perhaps 5 or 10 years. Conservation area des- ignation would thus provide incentives to the private sector to protect and maintain a maturing but not -yet -ripe historic district of the traditional kind. Third, the designation would be appropriate for areas or neigh- borhoods that while they might never qualify for "historic" status, are important to preserve and maintain solely for their social and economic value, or for their utility as affordable housing. It is important to stress that regardless of motivation, the limits on the utility of the concept are local imagination and creativity. How is a conservation area established? Like a zoning historic district, the model conservation area is defined by precise boundaries shown on a map. Here the simi- larity to the traditional historic districts ends. Since the designa- tion of conservation areas does not impose on property owners any regulatory burdens other than those already in effect, the map- ping and designation of conserva- tion areas would best be accom- plished by a resolution of the gov- erning board as a policy directive, rather than by an ordinance. Designation might, of course, be accomplished through an execu- tive order of the mayor or city manager, but this would not nor- mally carry the political clout of a mandate from an elected board. What would be the consequences of designation? For the property owner, conser- vation area designation would have little impact insofar as restrictions or costly mainte- nance obligations are concerned. Although existing land use regu- lations would remain in effect, as would private deed restrictions of one kind and another, there would be no architectural review of additions or new construction, and there would be no restric- tions on demolition. The impact of conservation area designation would fall primarily on public agencies and upon the city itself. The designation resolution or order would simply state, as a finding of fact that the area was one of special interest deemed desirable and necessary to con- serve for present and future own- ers, and to that end it would direct various local government agencies to undertake a number of activities: • To prepare or update, as appropriate, land use, trans- portation, public utilities, public facilities, housing, open space, historic preser- vation, urban design, and other comprehensive plan elements for the area being designated. ■ As part of such planning, to have special regard for and recommendations for treatment. However, the District Council plans do not follow a standard format with regard to compo- nents of historic and/or neighbor- hood character. A Heritage Conservation District might encourage recognition and protec- tion of historic neighborhood character in areas where the Commission or area residents do not feel existing Heritage Preservation District controls are appropriate. In particular, a Heritage Conservation District with limited design review, per- haps only of new construction and demolition, might be created in stable "newer" areas of twenti- eth-century residences where existing historical research does not fully support designation as a Heritage Preservation District. Here, historic architecture might contribute to neighborhood char- acter, but if houses are not poorly maintained or subject to unsym- pathetic alteration, design review might not be critical but recogni- tion of the area's special qualities would assist in focusing public interest and planning assistance. A Heritage Conservation District might also be created as a buffer around new or existing Heritage Preservation Districts. Review of demolition permits and new con- struction would be of great use in older areas undergoing selec- tive building clearance and rede- velopment. The study recommended that a Heritage Conservation District for future study should be based on models where: • The district was adminis- tered by the existing Heri- tage Preservation Commis- sion and planning staff and was well coordinated with historic district planning. ■ The district was perceived by residents as having equal status and recognition with other local historic districts. ■ The objectives of the Heri- tage Conservation District were clear and the review process efficient. ■ Public information and edu- cation were used to further the goals of the district and planning program. It was also recommended that criteria for eligibility should be the existing Heritage Preserva- tion Commission Guidelines. In their current form, these guide- lines provide for broad interpre- tation of historical significance and would accommodate many types of areas. Activity regulated within the St. Paul Heritage Con- servation District would include demolition, exterior design of new buildings, additions which increase habitable areas, and relo- cation. Activities not regulated within the Heritage Conservation District would include exterior design of alterations to existing buildings and alterations to exist- ing property (including fences, sidewalks, lighting, and signs). The designation process should include an inventory of buildings and features, initiated by the Heritage Preservation Commission or the District Council; the development of pre- liminary boundaries and guide- lines; and provisions for presen- tation for approval by residents through a public hearing and informal meetings. Design guidelines which address the exterior design of new buildings and the design of additions should be developed for each Heritage Conservation District. Additionally, this infor- mation should be made available to property owners in the form of a brochure or handbook. Finally, the permit review pro- cedure should follow that speci- fied in the current Heritage Pres- ervation Ordinance. (It should be noted that unless the Heritage Conservation District met National Register eligibility crite- ria, Federal rehabilitation tax cer- tification could not be extended to the area.)