Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-06 HPC MINTOE IIIITO►LACE OF MIMMEEOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2011 WORKSHOP MEETING 6:00 PM Present: Commissioners Johnson, Brach, Goodman, Lieberman, Krakowski, Tomten, Zahren, Councilmember Cook Staff Present: Absent: Planner Mike Pogge, Asst. Public Works Superintendent Tim Moore None Commissioners Johnson presented an update on the Stillwater Lift Bridge, preparing plans and specifications for stabilization, ongoing repair, detailed inspection, and putting specs together. He noted that the state has put together a list of 25 bridges in Minnesota that are on the historic must -save list, of which the Stillwater Lift Bridge is one. Planner Pogge stated that topics for this workshop include the City's demolition process and a discussion of the Landmark Sites Program with Carmen Tsehofen. He drew the Commission's attention to the memo that went to City Council for the June 7 Joint Council /HPC meeting, and stated that the purpose of this workshop is to review and discuss HPC items to be included in that meeting. He asked that Commissioners limit the introduction of their topic to five minutes in order to allow time for discussion at the Council meeting. • Commissioner Lieberman: Introduction and Why have an HPC • Commissioner Brach: State of Housing • Commissioner Johnson: Demolition Ordinance • Commissioner Tomten: Design Review on Residential Homes Reviewing the memo, HPC believes the City is at a critical junction. Stillwater's biggest asset is its rich architecture. To that end, preservation of its rich historic culture has been a long held value of the community. Through the foresight of the Council, the HPC was established in 1996 and charged with overseeing the "preservation, protection, perpetuation and use of area, places, building, structures and other objects having a special historical, community or aesthetic interest of value is a public necessity." To answer the question of "Why have an HPC ", preserving our past gives residents a sense of community and visitors a tie to our past. Historic preservation protects property values and adds economic benefits to a community. Historic districts attract private investment. Mr. Pogge stated that the Stillwatet Heritage Preservation Commission believes the City needs to take steps to protect our resources before they are lost forever. Issues to be addressed include Demolition Review, Design Review and State of Housing in City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Stillwater. Addressing Demolition Review, Mr. Pogge's memo states that currently, before a structure over 50 years of age is demolished, a public hearing before the Heritage Preservation Commission is required unless the structure is an immediate life safety hazard. Applicants are required to complete nine steps before a permit is approved. Once those steps are completed, the HPC is required to approve the demolition permit unless the structure proposed to be demolished is on the National Register of Historic Places. The memo points out that due to rather relaxed requirements of the current ordinance, important structures could be demolished and are not protected. The memo goes on suggest possible solutions to this issue. Commissioner Johnson noted that HPC knows of instances where a demolition permit was granted based on a plan, the demolition took place and then the plan didn't go through. He asked if there is a way to withhold the permit until the owner has submitted a complete set of construction documents for what is going in its place. An example is the old Junker place on Orleans where there's a hole in the ground surrounded by a snow fence. Mr. Pogge suggested that gaining a building permit could be a condition put on the case. Commissioner Tomten commented that an applicant can get his plans approved, and if financing falls through or the tenant goes belly up, this would not resolve the situation. Discussion followed that in all the years the City has been doing business, this has not been a big issue. The City can issue demolition permits when the intent is to have lawn space, not add a structure. Buildings have come down without the intent of building a new structure, but a condition of approval could be added on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Pogge did not think it would need to be added to the code. A condition could be put in proactively, then lined out if not appropriate. Planner Pogge was asked what the Council wants from HPC. He responded that the Council wants to know the members of HPC. He expressed the need to reach out to the Council to educate them on what HPC does and why it is important to the City, that it's not just about aesthetics, it's also about giving value to where someone lives, to the setting and neighborhood. It's about ordinances, Design Review District, getting downtown Stillwater on the National Register, and preserving our icons. Mr. Pogge stated that four priorities for the coming year include a focus on why HPC was created, what HPC does, who created the guidelines, and where they come from. He stressed that HPC's role is not to tell the council what to do but to be an advisory to them. HPC serves by their pleasure and abides by the ordinances they established. Mr. Pogge stated that HPC merged with Design Review Committee many years ago. There are HPCs all over the country, with about 45 in Minnesota. The question was asked, how do we move forward without some way of remembering the past, using historical preservation as a way of allowing things to evolve in a manner that doesn't destroy our community. Commissioner Lieberman wondered if the Depot would have been torn down if HPC had been involved. He felt that demolition wouldn't have been permitted, that there would have been strong community support for saving the structure, and that this is one reason for HPC to exist. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Other examples mentioned were the courthouse and the school that almost were allowed to come down, with these events giving impetus to Rivertown Restoration. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a specific direction the other Commissioners thought he should take on the Demolition Ordinance. He stated that HPC's mission is to preserve what makes Stillwater unique and that the value is not just to look nice, but to offer economic benefits and education as well. Commissioner Brach introduced State of Housing in Stillwater. The percentage of vacancies can be due to many factors including the economy, worker style houses, who lives there such as elderly people or those on a fixed income, limited resources, landlords that extract rent without putting anything into the homes, and houses that need a significant amount of work. He plans to present to the council information on economic changes and that people who bought older or historic houses in the last 10 -15 years are going under and walking away from them. He will address positives as well, such as homes that are being purchased for less than the price of the lot, and are being renovated at considerable expense. Mr. Pogge threw out numbers from the packet showing that Stillwater has a vacancy rate of 2.2% as compared to the national vacancy rate of 9.0 %. These numbers tell us people value historic neighborhoods and are willing to put money into them. Further discussion brought out that especially at risk are rental units, problem tenants, and poorly maintained homes that affect surrounding neighborhoods. When neighbors have a chance to buy those homes and bulldoze them, they are jumping at it. Some demolitions happen because people want to buy a house and tear it down rather than put the money into repair and remodeling. People want to build a nicer house even if it doesn't fit someone's definition of what is historic. The concern is whether or not this is better for the economy. Commissioner Brach said he feels that many houses that get torn down leave a hole in the fabric of the historic neighborhood, and over time, that affects values of surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Goodman wondered if some newer construction increases a neighborhood's value. Mr. Pogge responded that many see value in historic fabric and that people will pay a premium to live in Stillwater, where both grand homes and middle class homes provide continuity for people moving into the community. The City's demolition ordinance that has been in effect for more than 10 years was set up as a waiting period or a delay ordinance for items brought before the commission. Unless the home is actually on the national or local register, it allows a delay to give owners an opportunity to decide what they are using the property for. HPC is looking to preserve the larger, more historic homes and the historic community and to strengthen the ordinance, give it more teeth, taking studies from the past that were paid for by the council, to establish conservation districts and apply more stringent criteria. It was noted that other communities have a longer waiting period — up to 180 days, so demolition doesn't just become a procedural event. Based on discussion among the HPC commissioners, Council members will be presented with a first draft of revisions to the demolition ordinance. 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 The question was raised that if, for example, a resident has lived in his home for 21 years and he wants to tear it down, does he have that right. Mr. Pogge responded that yes, he does, but a demolition permit is required. Commissioner Tomten presented the City's four sets of Design Review Guidelines. 1. Downtown 2. Neighborhood Conservation Design (NCD) Guidelines 3. West Business District 4. Liberty Village Commercial Area. He stated that these, however, apply mostly to commercial properties. One problem is that homes can be completely renovated without any review, thus affecting the integrity of the neighborhood and ultimately property values surrounding the renovated home. Possible solutions are that not all renovations need to be subjected to review (paint colors, roof material, minor changes). HPC suggests that in the interest of time, only major renovations or changes that are not in the spirit of the guideline should be subject to HPC review. Mr. Pogge introduced Carmen Tschofen who has been working diligently to complete the property write -ups for this year's Landmark Homes Project, commending her on the outstanding job that will benefit the citizens of Stillwater for years to come. Ms. Tschofen provided a synopsis and overview of her project, stating that basic research on a diversity of properties led to those selected (see packet). Thirty -two property owners agreed to have their homes officially listed on the website (City ! of Stillwater HPC, HHLS Website, Property Information), bringing the total number of listed properties to 151. She stated that research files are available on disk and online. As homeowner cards came in, choices were narrowed down, with special attention focused on exterior features (architecture) and the home's history. Ms. Tschofen noted that she found a high level of interest from residents. Existing homes on the site go through 1960. Postings not on the site', yet will be added by the end of June. Commissioner Johnson called HPC's attention to one person, Dick Kielty's house who called that he was interested in having his house on the register but did not receive a return call. Someone from HPC will contact him about this. Johnson stated that he thought it was a good idea to add cemeteries. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 7:00 PM Chair Lieberman called the regular meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Zahren, moved to approve the minutes of April 4, 2011 and May 2, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No one was present who wished to speak. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DR/2011 -29. Design review of a new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District located at 1808 4 Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Tim Steigauf, applicant. Tim Steigauf, property owner of 1808 4th St N, is requesting an infill design review permit for a new single - family home on a vacant lot. The property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District and as such needs an infill design review permit for the new home. Mr. Steigauf stated that he has submitted plans for architecture that he thinks will fit nicely into that neighborhood. Pictures were presented showing that the adjacent houses are predominantly two-story or story and a half. Because of the lay of the land and the roof structure, Mr. Steigauf II I, D' Y Y � g feels that his house will fit in naturally with those surrounding it. As presented in the packet, all infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines which serve as a framework to guide the design process, while allowing for individuality and creativity in architectural design. Twenty -seven guidelines make up the NCD design manual. These guidelines cover three (3) general areas including Neighborhood and Streets, Building and Site, and Architectural Detail. Based on setback information in the packet for this neighborhood, Mr. Steigauf's home is proposed to be 30.5 feet from the front property line which meets the required setback of 30 feet in the RA zoning district and follows the rhythm currently established on the block. Currently homes on 4th St N range between 2,016 to 3,439 sf, with an average size of 2,535 sf. The proposed home is 3,094 s£ The home will have a hipped roof with a gable over the garage. The garage is set 10 feet forward the main home structure, which unlike the RB zoning district is permitted in the RA zoning district. Staff discussed with the applicant ways to limit the effects of having a front loaded garage. Due to the need to have all of the living space on a single floor and due to slopes on the property the applicant was not able to push the garage further back onto the property. The applicant did add a front porch on the home that extends out six feet that will help the situation. Commissioner Lieberman noted that the home proposes to have cement board or vinyl lap siding with 6 -inch corner boards. On the peak of the garage a shake style siding is proposed. Staff recommends that 4 -inch reveals be used on the lap siding. The windows are double hung with decorative moldings in a style that is more modern then what is typically seen in the historic areas of Stillwater; however, it he feels that they do fit in with the homes that surround the site. He felt that the proposed home does a very good job of containing consistent and highly detailed architecture on all four sides of the building. Commissioner Tomten expressed concern that this home is more of a rambler style than the others in the neighborhood, with a different roof line. Mr. Steigauf stated that the flow of the neighborhood is what he likes about the area. Addressing the issue of height, he plans to raise City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 the foundation and have a peaked roof. Staff feels that overall the plans are appropriate for the site and neighborhood. Mr. Pogge stated that two houses across the street are a rambler style, so there is already a mix between single and two -story homes. Commissioner Tomten was asked if he saw anything inconsistent with the guidelines. Mr. Tomten replied that the owner should perhaps look at a more rectangular footprint, suggesting that a narrower width and longer length versus a square footprint would perhaps tie in better. This could also provide an opportunity to preserve the willow tree on site. Commissioner Lieberman stated that Staff would recommend approval with four conditions. 1. The project shall be consistent with the plans date stamped May 17, 2011 and on file with the City of Stillwater Community Development Department. 2. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator. 3. The siding shall be cement board lap siding, similar to Hardie Plank, with the lap siding having a 4" reveal. 4. Exterior lighting shall be consistent to what is shown on the plans. Mr. Steigauf stated that he is comfortable with all the conditions. Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Brach, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -29, with the four recommended conditions. Motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -32. Concept Design review for a new restroom buildings in south Lowell Park. City of Stillwater, applicant. Commissioner Lieberman introduced Case No. DR/2011 -32. Mr. Moore discussed the bathroom with the Commission. As part of the Lowell Park improvement plan staff has been working with Balay Architects to research and develop a conceptual plan to improve the bathroom facilities in Lowell Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission approved the concept at their February 28, 2011 meeting. The conceptual plan includes expanding the bathroom 500 square feet and installing a roof for the bathroom portion of the building that imitates the cupola on the train depot that existed on the north end of town. Preliminary plans and a historic photo of the train depot are attached with the packet. Staff has been working with a local contractor to develop a preliminary budget, with estimates coming in at less than $150,000 for the improvement. Commissioner Brach stated that he likes the look of this plan, better than other drawings they have seen. Commissioner Johnson asked about exterior materials. Mr. Moore answered that it is still in the preliminary stages, but that it would be something to match the depot's design. Commissioner Tomten said that with the high water they had to sandbag the area this year and would need to take that into consideration. Mr. Moore clarified that fixtures will drain down and be heated in the winter, and that a separation will be kept so that the two buildings are distinct. 6 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Commissioner Johnson asked if the old bullet shape tower of the depot would be carried through or if they would go with the lower profile of the helmet - shaped one in the drawing. The height will have an effect on the appearance. Commissioner Lieberman suggested that someone might' want to have a discussion with Mike McGuire, before the old building was torn down, that would be better. Commissioner Johnson said Mike was aware of the plans since it was close to the building he had, and that he had offered to provide design input. Regarding the demolition permit to tear down the restaurant building, it was built in late 70s and was not yet 50 years old. Various commissioners stated that they liked the idea of a square building, and liked the softening of the north side of the building that has no window openings. It was suggested that fountains or bubblers could go on that side as well between the benches to compliment the appearance. Commissioner Lieberman expressed that in his opinion something about the structure doesn't fit in well with what exists at that end of the park. He also wondered about the building materials fitting in well. Commissioner Tomten questioned whether with buildings being redone (restrooms, the gazebo), we either need to build something around others in that area that speak the same language, or go with something so different or completely opposite that they don't really relate to one or the other. It can be risky to have a mish mash of different design ideas or styles. This goes the other way, more like a study of how to tie the buildings together. Commissioner Johnson stated that the railroad station isn't there anymore. People remember it through pictures, but it is gone from the area. He pictures a square brick building with columns, to pull it together with the gazebo, with a low pitched center peak roof. He advises being sensitive to the view of the river, hence a low structure. He stated that he did not like the helmet type roof, that it was too Moorish. He expressed concern that with the detail of the windows and dormers, a high quality of material and workmanship will be needed so it doesn't look cartoonish, and if that could be accomplished with the current budget. Commissioner Lieberman said that he found the lack of consistency between the surrounding buildings -- Chuck's hotel, Mike's building, the Freighthouse -- a bit jarring. Mr. Pogge responded it will be hard to have a uniform design between this restroom and the restroom in Lowell Park, because one has a lift station that is already there. Whatever we do, it will be difficult to have them match when there is a 20 x 20 foot building attached to one of the restrooms. The City Council indicated to staff that they wanted different designs for different bathrooms, each with its own identity. He acknowledged that the commissioners are all making good points, but that he has to look at what the Council has charged him to do. Commissioner Tomten asked if there could be some common language, so the two building are not identical but are consistent with what is in the neighborhood. Mr. Pogge responded that the Council had two different work sessions on the pedestrian plaza, and that they were pretty clear 7 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 after their first meeting that they didn't want the industrial Stillwater Victorian design that you see in that area; they wanted more of a parks design oriented to the gazebo, and this is the design direction staff were given. Mike then asked for direction from HPC. Commissioner Lieberman said he thought it looked like a church, which doesn't fit down in that area. He suggested talking to Mike to see what he would envision for that restroom. Mr. Moore responded that he could certainly do that. It was the staffs idea to introduce the railroad depot look for this end of town. He is comfortable looking at other roof options. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Zahren, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -32, with the qualifications that the footprint and concept are fitting, but staff should look at other roof shapes, seek other input, and pick up elements of a park building. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pogge informed HPC that the next six applicants are all part of the Facade Improvement Program, so how he envisions tonight going is that the commission would hold design reviews on each case and then under new business have the formal ranking and recommendation to the City Council. Case No. DR/2011 -23. Design review for the facade improvement of the building located at 308 Chestnut Street East in the CBD, Central Business District. Scott Zahren, applicant. Commissioner Zahren stated that he is removing himself from the discussion as he is the applicant. The applicant is requesting design review and approval of window and awning replacement to 308 Chestnut St. The project includes: 1. Total replacement of 7 windows with all wood Marvin windows. The exterior of the windows are proposed to be painted black. 2. Replacement of the existing awning with a new lateral arm frame, reusing the existing fabric. The building is located in the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. The building itself is a contributing building to the Historic District that was built sometime between 1910 and 1914. The applicant is requesting a Facade Improvement Program loan totaling $19,275.00. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on window replacement, as at one point it says all Marvin windows, but later it says clad exteriors. Mr. Zahren responded that the windows will be wood, painted black on the exterior. He went on to say there are two awnings to be replaced; one mechanism has already been replaced, but now the other one needs to be replaced as well, as the awning droops in the middle. The old mechanism can be stored on the property should anyone wish to use it at a future date. The canvas will be reused as it is only five years old and fits with the historic nature of the building. 8 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Before going further, Commissioner Lieberman asked that the criteria for evaluating and ranking these cases be read into the record. Mr. Pogge drew the commissioners' attention to the information for the Facade Improvement Program that is included in the staff report towards the end of the packet. The program has the following selection criteria: The City's Heritage Preservation Commission may utilize ranking systems or other determining factors to assist in the selection process depending on availability of funds and the number of applicants. A ranking system may include, but may not be limited to: historic significance and integrity of the property, demonstrated need, and the project's scope of work and compliance with historic standards. Such ranking systems may be modified at any time to meet the goals of the City. Approvals will be based on available funding, and the applicant's ability to complete the proposed project in a timely manner Final awards will be made by the Stillwater City Council based on the recommendation of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Pogge stated that based on the number of applicants and the availability of funds, we could fund each one of the applicants. Staff reviewed a suggested scoring criteria for each project with the commission. Based on 20 possible points, staff recommends that a project receive a majority of the available points (or a minimum of 11 points) to be eligible for funding. Staff scoring recommendations for these applicants can be found under New Business. Mr. Pogge reminded HPC that this program is a great opportunity to fund facade and maintenance improvements so that the buildings can remain in the community for a long time. Commissioner Lieberman asked that HPC make a recommendation that all these proposals meet the intent of the facade program and let the council make the final decision. Returning to Case No. DR/2011 -2, staff recommends approval of the requested building storefront facade and signage as conditioned. 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. The new windows shall have an exterior wood finish painted black. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -23. It is stated that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the facade improvement program, with conditions listed above, and that the original awning mechanism be stored on the property should anyone want to use that in the future. Motion passed 6 -0 -1 (Mr. Zahren abstained). Case No. DR/2011 -24. Design review for the facade improvement of the building located at 241 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Mark Hansen, applicant. Mr. Hansen requested design review to renovate the front facade of Marx Wine Bar and Grill located at 241 Main St S. The project includes: 9 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 1. Replacement of the middle four double hung windows and the addition of awnings above them. 2. The installation of fixed casement style windows that will replace four of the existing double hung windows with the addition of a window box with iron support brackets that will extend out approximately one foot that will mimic balconies. 3. New storm door to the 2nd floor entry with a round awning over the entry. In discussions with the applicant, he has agreed to go to a square style awning over the entry. 4. Work on cleaning up the Marx sign. 5. Miscellaneous work. The building is located in the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. The building itself is a non - contributing building to the Historic District and was built between 1951 and 1952. Mr. Hansen, stated that he had originally thought about awnings above all four windows on the second level. Mark Latham helped him with the design of having awnings only on the middle ones so as not to look too linear. He added that the term "window box" is not exactly accurate — the idea is more of a fake balcony, a Spanish or New Orleans look, to match the black metal gate in the patio built in the back. This would bring an attractive look to what is unattractive now. The balcony is appearance only — there would not be room to go out on the balcony. New windows will fit in the existing openings. The applicant is requesting a Facade Improvement Program loan totaling $33,490.00. Overall staff supports many of the requests made in the application; however, the proposed fixed windows along with the window boxes that mimic balconies concerns staff and are not in keeping in with the design guidelines. If the windows were changed to double hung to match what is there and the window boxes were removed staff would support the project. Commissioner Johnson said that he is concerned about changing opening size for windows. Mr. Hansen said he is more concerned about appearance from the outside and that he has no problem about changing or not changing window size. The balcony would go over the brick below the windows; window size would not be changed. The second level is apartments over the wine bar. The proposal was just to replace existing windows with double hung that are all the same size. Commissioner Brach said he felt that in order to preserve the original fabric of the building, the design works better if window opening size is not changed. Commissioner Tomten questioned the shape of the new awnings. Mr. Hansen replied that they would match the one on the first floor. Commissioner Zahren asked if staff would recommend fotr awnings, one over all four windows. Mr. Hansen replied that he likes the idea of awnings only an the two middle ones. Balconies and awnings make the windows look like they are different sizes when they are actually all the same. 10 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Commissioner Lieberman felt the design gives the building a more interesting look, bringing some whimsy to Main Street. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: a. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. b. Prior to the start of construction, the specifications on the mortar to be used for the tuck pointing shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval. c. Grids shall not be used in the windows. d. Only double hung windows shall be used in the windows. e. The window boxes shall not be used on the project. f. A square awning shall be used above the entry to the second floor. g. An awning shall be installed over each pair of the double hung windows. Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Goodman moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -24. It is stated that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the Facade Improvement Program, and that it is approved as conditioned, that all eight sash windows are the same size, are wood, and have no grids. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -25. Design review for the facade improvement of the building located at 126 2 " Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Setac Properties, Jennifer Cates, applicant. The applicant is requesting design review to renovate two buildings located at 126 2' St S. The first building (building A) is a two -story building with brick on the upper level and stucco on the first level. The second building (building B) is a one -story building that houses Kinsel's Liquor and a clothing store. Building B is currently a mix of stucco, wood and brick. The applicant, Ms. Cates, stated that she had these plans drawn up 2 -3 years ago in the hopes of this being a chance to clean this up a building in poor shape and make it better. Commissioner asked if it was known what material was behind the stucco. Ms. Cates responded that she didn't know, but that if they discovered "something great ", they would utilize it. She thought it could be brick or stone. Where stucco is coming off, it looks like stone underneath. Depending on what they find, the following options remain, On Building A the plan is to: 1. Remove stucco to reveal stone. Some areas of stucco will need to remain and will be painted to match the stone. During removal, if they ifind that the stone below the stucco is in poor shape they will keep the stucco and simply paint it brown. 2. On the second floor the plan is to remove metal roping and metal brackets on the building. In looking at these items, staff believes they were part of a cable system to hang a banner across Chestnut; however, since the building across from it has long since been removed there is no use for it today. Due to the condition and appearance of the brick on the east wall of the second floor the applicant indicated their desire to stucco it. In talking with them they have agreed to leave the surface open and simply clean it and 11 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 complete some tuck pointing on the surface. Applicant will also fix the decorative metal on the parapet and paint as necessary. On Building B the plan is to: 1. Reface the entire building surface on both 2nd St and Chestnut St. The plans call for a wood storefront with windows and awnings. The upper portion of the structure will have a brick facing. The building is located outside but just across from the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. Both buildings were built sometime between 1910 and 1924. Commissioner Johnson asked if the intent is to use wood. Ms. Cates responded that all of the exterior would be wood. She has proposed using Marvin dark brown metal clad for windows, with clear glazing glass. She has looked at matching brick but found it may not be possible. In that case she would not try to match the brick but would go with something contrasting but tasteful, something that brings out the dark brown as shown in the picture. Commissioner asked if the awnings would be plain, to which Ms. Cates responded in the affirmative. The applicant is requesting a Facade Improvement Program loan with their request totaling $66,650.00. Staff recommends approval of the requested building storefront facade as conditioned. 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. Prior to the start of construction, the specifications on the mortar to be used for the tuck pointing shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval. 3. Any new signage shall be approved as a separate design permit, which must be approved by the HPC. 4. Stucco shall not be applied to the east elevation of the two story building. Commissioner Zahren, seconded by Commissioner Brach, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011- 25. It is stated that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the facade improvement program, approved as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -26. Design review for the facade improvement of the building located at 223 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Robin Patch, Mn Winegrowers Cooperative, applicant. The applicant is requesting design review and approval of brick tuck pointing, water infiltration correction, selective brick replacement, door replacement, and other updates to 223 Main St S. The project includes: 1. Tuck pointing the front portion of the building. 12 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 2. Selective brick replacement on the front facade with brick that was salvaged when the building underwent the major renovations in the 1990's. 3. Replace a side door and two sets of French doors on the rear elevation where water is infiltrating into the building. 4. Extend a metal cap along the front elevation where the brick and metal sidewalls meet to prevent water infiltration. 5. Replace the wood trim around the side and bacchas plaster sculptures with a new bronze color aluminum boarder and back. The building is located outside the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. The building was in 1934. The applicant is requesting a Facade Improvement Program loan with their request totaling $9,879.00. Staff recommends approval of the requested building storefront facade and signage updates as conditioned: 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. Prior to the start of construction, the specifications on the mortar to be used for the tuck pointing shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval. Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Tomten, moved to approve Case No. Dr /2011- 26. It is stated that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the facade improvement program, and is approved as conditioned. Motion passed 5 -0. Case No. DR/2011 -27. Design review of the facade improvement of the building located at 101 Water Street South in the CDB, Central Business District. St. Croix Preservation, applicant. The applicant, Chuck Dougherty, explained that he is requesting design review and approval of awning replacement for the Water St Inn at 101 Water St. The project includes: 1. Installation of new awnings on the first, second, and third floors on the south elevation. The awnings will be green in color to match the Water Street Inn logo color. Mr. Dougherty has agreed to make all the awnings retractable, similar to what originally existed on the building. 2. In the original design review application, the applicant also requested approval to complete repairs to the parapet of the building. Due to questions about the scope and scale of the work, the applicant has withdrawn that part of their application and may resubmit their application at a later date. The building is located in the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. The building itself is a contributing building to the Historic District and was built in 1890. Commissioner Johnson suggested that since the number of awnings will change the appearance of the building, it might be wise to have one shown to the applicant before committing to the 13 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 entire thing, to see how the awnings fit, with tight stretch of the fabric. He wondered if this could be more rigid than what is desired. He further suggested just having awnings over the windows with the balconies. The applicant is requesting a Facade Improvement Program loan with their request totaling $21,805.00. Staff recommends approval of the requested building storefront facade and signage as conditioned: 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be revewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. No additional signage without HPC approval. The awnings shall be green in color. The awning frames shall be a retractable style. Final color samples and mechanical arm mechanisms shall be approved by the City Planner prior to installation. Commissioner Tomten questioned the color of the awning. Mr. Dougherty responded that it would be solid green, with perhaps tan trim along the valance. Samples can be submitted for approval. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Tomten, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -27. It is stated that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the Facade Improvement Program, with conditions as stated, with submittal of a sample for color, appearance and shape of awning. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -28. Design review of the facade improvement of the building located at 120 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. ',K.B. Francis, applicant. The applicant is requesting design review and approval of elevation modifications to a portion of the Excelsior Block Building located at 120 Main St N. The Excelsior Block Building has been divided and is currently owned by four separate individuals. The portion of the building that is part of this design review application is the southern part of the middle portion of the building. Ms. Francis plans to make a lot of repairs to the facade of the building, and replace windows that are falling apart, as follows. 1. Repairs to the pediment 2. Tuck point and repair the masonry 3. Replace three existing windows on the second floor with Marvin double hung windows with metal cladding that will match windows that were previously installed in the Excelsior Block Building. Since the Marvin metal clad windows currently exist on the building staff recommends that the owner be allowed to use these same windows to match what currently exist elsewhere on the building. 4. Replace the single pane storefront and glass in one of the exiting doors with double pane glass. This is an original door and will be kept to maintain the integrity of the building. 5. Total replacement of one of the doors with a commercial grade wood door. 14 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 6. Miscellaneous repairs and modifications. Ms. Francis stated that she hopes to paint the pediment across the building to tie the four buildings together visually, but since the buildings have four different owners, that is a factor to consider. Ms. Francis has contacted the other owners, and if they feel they cannot do it, she will take care of it herself. The building on the south side is in the worst condition. The building is located in the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts. The building itself is a contributing building to the Historic District and the building was built in 1882. Commissioner Johnson cautioned the applicant that there is a cleaning and tuck pointing factor, and to be sure to use cleaning and mortar that is appropriate for the hardness of the brick. Ms. Cates responded that they have a top notch firm to do that work. Trim will be burgundy and green on the lower level. Staff recommendation is to approve the requested building storefront facade as conditioned. 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. The new commercial door shall be wood. 3. The new windows on the second floor shall match the windows existing on the building to the north, with the specification of clear glass versus low E to cut down on reflectivity and make it much more energy efficient. 4. Prior to the start of construction, the specifications on the mortar to be used for the tuck pointing shall be submitted to the City Planner for approval. 5. No brick surfaces shall be painted. Commissioner Zahren, seconded by Commissioner Brach moved to approve Case No. DR/2011- 28. It is stated that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the facade improvement program, as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lieberman asked if we had discussed Jeff and Jennifer Anderson's case, 45 Degrees. Mr. Pogge responded that the material is included right after the facade improvement memo in the packet. The Anderson's did their design review last month, which was approved, and then applied for the facade improvement program. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tomten that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the Facade Improvement Program, with conditions that were specified at the last meeting, moving the 45 Degrees sign up. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -30. Design review of facade improvement of the building located at 216 Myrtle Street West located in the PA, Public Administration District. HAF Architects, applicant. 15 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Commissioner Lieberman stated that Trinity Lutheran Church owns the property upon which the US Post Office is situated. The church's master facilities plans include expanding onto the property now occupied by the Post Office. Before that can occur the Post Office must be relocated. He further stated that plans have been approved for a new office building on Myrtle and 3rd Street that could house the Post Office. However, that project has been cancelled because all of the space in the building could not be sold in a timely manner Consequently, Trinity Lutheran Church proposes to remodel the building', they own on Myrtle and 4th Street to house the Post Office that would include interior remodeling, renovation of the building's exterior, and revisions to the parking lot. Mike Hoefler, speaking on behalf of Trinity Lutheran Church, requested the Heritage Preservation Commission approve a design permit for proposed exterior work to the building and parking lot located at 216 Myrtle St W. His proposal calls for removing the existing storefront and wall system and replacing it with face brick, varied parapet heights, new wood storefronts including kick panels, transom windows, display windows at a 19th Century scale, and suspended metal awnings. A living screen system would be added on the Myrtle side for vines to grow, bringing considerably more interest and aesthetic appeal to the building. Brick will be inset application, as there no brick ledge. The parking lot will be redeveloped as specified in the application. Staff found that as proposed, the storefront design meets the guidelines found in the Downtown Design Manual. Commissioner Johnson stated that in his view the design is a tremendous improvement for this building, with lots of parking available, and since usage times for the Post Office are not the same time as Trinity's, it makes for good for multiple use for the building and parking. Commissioner Johnson asked about the brick. Mr. Hoefler responded that the brick in inset as there is no brick ledge. He presented several options of brick and color samples which were passed around. Commissioner Tomten asked about the detailing. The approach was to introduce a Victorian storefront look on the building, but he felt that some detailing seems incomplete in some of the brick areas. Mr. Hoefler was asked what the canopy is conveying, to which he responded that it really wouldn't be a canopy but more of a lentle, solid metal with suspension rods to support the span. The cornices shown will have a painted wood crown with returns. Commissioner Tomten suggested that since this is a 1950s vintage building a more "modern" look (from the 50s era) could be a better approach than Victorian. The windows fit the 1950s era, but simpler columns rather than fluted might look better. Commissioner Lieberman expressed agreement, that to Victorianize the building feels wrong. He suggested celebrating what it is — a building from the 1950s. He then asked about lighting and trash enclosure. Mr. Hoefler responded that lighting, for the south side, as shown in the drawing, is downcast LED fixtures. Internal storage is what they are thinking for trash, but he is open to doing an enclosure in the back lot, most likely more to the north next to the loading zone 16 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 so it is out of the way. Trinity has asked that the playground area be preserved, so that is a consideration when looking at placement of a trash enclosure. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the aging sign on the front corner. Mr. Hoefler responded that they have discussed sign work and do plan to update it but do not yet have a design. Commissioner. Tomten stated that he would like to see a 1950s appearance to the facade, with the same window openings but introducing a parapet. He asked that a new drawing with these changed to be brought before the commission. The general consensus was for submittal of a revised drawing within the next two weeks. Staff recommends approval of the requested design permit as conditioned. 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. Signage shall be approved as a separate design permit, which must be approved by the HPC. 3. The City Planner shall review the architectural plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Zahren, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 /31 in concept, stating that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the Facade Improvement Program, with the condition of looking at more of a 1950s concept and bringing revisions back to the next meeting of the HPC. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lieberman turned the chair over to Commissioner Johnson for the remainder of the meeting as he was in considerable pain from recent knee surgery. Case No. DR/2011 -31. Design review of signage for "Rafters" located at 317 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Randall Raduenz, applicant Mr. Raduenz is requesting design review and approval for a sign at 317 Main St S for Rafters. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Rafter Food & Spirits / Scenic River View" in white letters on a burgundy and blue background, with a black border. The sign is 16 feet wide by 17 inches tall for a total of 22.6 square feet in area. The sign will be non - illuminated. The color of the sign will tie in with the existing awning. Mr. Raduenz stated that he is representing Larry Kramer, the building owner. The goal of a new sign is to get more visibility. As shown in the drawing included in the application, the sign will go below the shelf on the building (above the awning), across the eight windows, and be 17" high. In addition, a vertical (blade) sign (2 ft x 3 ft) is proposed that says Food & Spirits / Music that would go above the Rafters sign on a frame, with background color and lettering to match. Since the name of the business is not on the vertical sign, it is his understanding that this is permitted as an additional sign in the City's Sign Ordinance. The existing awning is only about two years old; the shape is good and works with the building. 17 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 The existing light fixture would be moved a little to light up the sign. The vertical sign could go between the first four and the last four windows. Commissioner Tomten felt it would look better closer to the door. Mr. Hoefler said he agreed, and that a matching light could be added if necessary. Mr. Pogge stated that the building is 50 feet wide, and the sign would use about 23 feet, so it would not go the entire width of the building, The sign would be attached to the mortar between the bricks and not into the brick itself. j The sign will be made and installed professionally. Commissioner Tomten asked if a sign would be put on the back of Rafters as well. Mr. Hoefler responded that they took over the building in January, and the sign in the back was already there, so he assumed that it was approved. Commissioner Johnson said he wasn't sure if those signs were brought in for approval. He suggested that in order to improve the look on the Water Street side, new signage is needed. Mr. Hoefler said he could tie in a new sign similar to the blade sign there. The Cherry Bowl sign that is painted on the awning will be removed; the Rafters sign is an overlay over that at present. Mr. Pogge was asked about the Rafters signs on the two columns by the door. Mr. Hoefler responded that those are there for the walkers who can't see above the awning. The concern is more for visibility of the new and bigger sign above the awning. The signs on the column could be removed if necessary. Staff determined that the proposed signs meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and meet the intent of the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic District Design Manual, and recommends approval as conditioned. 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 sign without HPC approval. Commissioner Tomten, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -31, stating that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the Facade Improvement Program, and is approved as conditioned, with the wall sign centered in the dark brown storefront width of the building, that attachments will be through the mortar bed and not in the brick itself, that the two goose -neck lights will remain, and the blade sign will be positioned between the 3 and 4 windows on the Main Street side. The Water Street side will be dealt with separately. It is further conditioned that the two smaller signs on the masonry by the front door be removed, and that the Cherry Bowl sign will be painted over. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -33. Design review of signage for ` Bronze" located at 229 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Happy Bridge, LLC, applicant. 1 The applicant was not present. Commissioner Johnson, presented the request for the design review and approval for a sign at 229 Main St S for Bronze. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Bronze" in brown letters on a black background.. The sign is 100 inches wide by 25 inches tall for a total of 17.4 square feet in area. The sign; permit application notes that the sign 18 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 will be illuminated; however, no information on the type of lighting fixtures was submitted. Staff is assuming that the existing goose neck style fixtures will be used. The applicant's retail space is 26 feet long facing Main St S. The total sign area of the proposed sign is 17.4 square feet, which is smaller than allowed under the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Johnson noted that the sign is already up and done. Mr. Pogge stated that applicant went ahead without prior approval but that the sign does look nice and that staff has determined that the size and lighting are appropriate. Staff recommendation is for approval as conditioned. 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. Only the existing gooseneck style light fixtures shall be used to light the sign. The light bulbs in the fixtures shall not extend beyond the body of the gooseneck fixture. The light bulbs shall be limited to 100 watt incandescent light bulbs, 20 watt compact fluorescent light bulbs, or 4.8 watt LED light bulbs. Any new Or additional lighting fixtures shall not be used without HPC approval. The proposed signs meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and meet the intent of the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic District Design Manual. Commissioner Tomten, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -33 stating that HPC finds this proposal is consistent with the intention of the Facade Improvement Program, and is approved as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson noted that Case No. 2011 -26 for the building located at 223 Main Street South, applicant Robin Patch, was passed by earlier and needs to be discussed. Mr. Pogge said he met with Mr. Patch earlier in the week to go over in detail the plans for the front facade. Mr. Patch plans to replace damaged bricks with those salvaged from the original renovation, and redo the tuck pointing which was originally done with the wrong mortar. Issues with deterioration of the sign will be fixed. He noted that the building has metal on the top and brick on the lower half, but doesn't have a good seam so water is getting in between the two and behind the walls. Mr. Patch plans to increase the drip to fix this problem. Other renovations include replacing the door on the side as well as the French doors in back. Replacements will match what is already out there so there is no change in materials. He is requesting $9,879 for the Facade Improvement Program. Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Zahren moved to approve Case No. 2011 -26. Motion passed unanimously. At this point it was intended that the cases be ranked for approval, but Planner Pogge suggested that since funding is available for all the applicants discussed at this meeting and all been approved, ranking is unnecessary for these cases. The criteria (as listed in the packet) is available for use in future rounds as needed. 19 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 Planner Pogge presented a review and drawings of the ; designs for the pedestrian walkway bathroom. He reminded HPC that the council discussed various bathroom designs at their May 3 and May 17 council meetings. Based on those discussions, the Council has directed staff to proceed with the bathroom design in the attached drawings. During the City Council's June 6 workshop the council will discuss various finish options. Handouts and drawings on the various finish options will be handed out at the meeting on June 7. The Council liked a park -like style architecture that they felt fits well into Lowell Park and the gazebo that is there, so this is the direction council is giving staff. Drawings showing four '. different perspectives of the building were shown. Mr. Pogge stated that they are now at the stage of looking at finishes on the exterior. Several commissioners had comments and concerns. Commissioner Brach said he likes the drawing with the water. Commissioner Tomten felt that the building should fit in with the plaza. Mr. Pogge responded that they are in the design stage now and that by the next meeting he will have the elements to present to pull it all together, with a visual of the whole thing Commissioner Tomten expressed the need to think of light poles, benches, and trees, not just the building. The building sits within a context. He is also concerned about the budget and what all of this will cost. Mr. Pogge responded that the building) architect and the landscape architect have been meeting every few weeks to coordinate the project and that elements are coming together. Commissioner Tomten said he feels that it is important to give people places to sit (benches, tables and chairs) or it won't be used. It's a plaza — you want people to be able to sit there, not just walk through. Others agreed, and suggested including 14 permanent concrete tables and 4 chairs for each table in the budget. Chairs could be cabled to remain in place. Commissioner asked what the council is looking for from HPC. Mr. Pogge responded that they are looking for comments on the various options, trying to coordinate it all. As this was for an FYI for discussion only, no action taken. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Johnson wanted to bring to HPC's attention the little house north of Mark Blaise's, across from 5 where the owners moved the windows around and nothing matches, overpowering the house and looking very unattractive. The case did not come before HPC for design review or demolition and yet more than half the house is gone. During renovation the porch and part of the house collapsed due to lack of support. He suggested the need for Cindy to meet with HPC, as the owners didn't put all that they were planning to do in the building permit plan that was approved. It came in later that they were going to change the roof framing, but what was done doesn't match what was submitted. Mr. Pogge stated that the owners are running out of money, so will most likely finish the inside so they can live in it without finishing the outside. The whole plan is inconsistent with what was actually built. 20 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 6, 2011 This is a case that falls between the demolition ordinance and infill. It should have had a demolition permit, and it has code violations. Mr. Pogge said that he cannot speak for the builder, whether it was an accident part of the house caved in or if it was purposeful and negligent. Staff feels that demolition was not intended that the owners had planned to keep that portion of the home but didn't understand basic geometry, and did not have the skills or knowledge to do it right. An infill design wasn't required because part of the house was still there; it wasn't a vacant lot. This case points to the need for design plan being required for approval of a major remodeling project and the importance of guidelines for planning staff to review a case like this. One suggestion is to require a design review if square footage on a house will increase by more than 50 %. The concern is that we see this happening more and more in this economy — poor workmanship and unable to finish. There was no further discussion on this issue. Motion by Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Zahren to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol Danielson Interim Recording Secretary 21