Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-01 HPC PacketThe regular meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission will begin at 7 p.m., Monday, August 1, 2011, in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF July 6, 2011 MINUTES Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Monday August 1, 2011 AGENDA 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 /2011 -40. A demolition request for a residence located at 823 Anderson Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay Architects, representing Brad and Gwendolyn Glynn, applicant. 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 Case No. DR /2011 -41. Design review of signage for "Indigo Creek" located at 317 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Cindy Mickelson, applicant. 5.02 Case No. DR/2011 -42. Design review of two exterior signs for "This Love of Mine" located at 201 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Serigraphics Sign Systems, applicant. 5.03 Case No. 2011 -39. Design review of the Downtown Stillwater Pedestrian Walkway located in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURN jjl�vater. THE III PLACE OF MINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2011 7:00 PM Present: Commissioners Lieberman, Johnson, Brach, Tomten and Councilmember Cook Staff Present: Planner Pogge, Assistant Public Works Superintendent Moore Absent: Commissioners Goodman, Krakowski, Zahren Chair Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Tomten, moved to approve the minutes of June 6, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM No one was present who wished to speak. Open forum was closed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM /2011 -34. A demolition request of a residence located at 911 Churchill Street West in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Lakeview Hospital, Curt Geissler, Applicant. The purchase of the property by the Hospital has fallen through and thus the demolition application was withdrawn. Chair Lieberman opened and closed the public hearing without further action. Case No. DR/2011 -35. Design review of new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District located at 502 5tn Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jennifer Cates Peterson, Cates Fine Homes, representing KC Kidder, applicant. HPC reviewed and approved the demolition permit for the exiting home on the property subject to approval of the new home plan. The applicant is requesting approval of an infill design review fora replacement single- family home. lnfti1 _ es ill e NCD are required to for ol w the NCD design guidelines as specified in the staff report. This property, which is technically considered a corner lot, is unique due to the steep slope in the rear yard. The required setbacks and the steep slope constrain the overall buildable area for a City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 garage. Without some type of variance staff does not believe a garage is possible on this property. Options for a garage are first, it could be located behind the home and encroach into the required setback to the steep slope or second, it could be built as proposed within the required setback from an exterior side yard property line. Since Cherry Street adjacent to this site is a dead end at the ravine, Staff believes it is more beneficial to protect the steep slope of the ravine rather than the side setback from Cherry Street. Therefore, staff supports the garage location as proposed. A variance will be needed before the applicant can proceed with the plan as presented. Ms. Cates Peterson was present and stated that Cates Fine Homes has put together a detailed plan for the proposed new home. Per the staff report, the level of detail shown on the plans overall reflects appropriate choices in trim and detail and is appropriate for the neighborhood. Ms. Cates provided a list of materials chosen: • Windows with wood grids, primarily double -hung windows except in the bathroom • GAF 30 year architectural shingle • 6" exposure Hardi board lap siding • Option - corrugated or standing seam metal roof on porch, or asphalt shingle to match house • Wood / cedar decking & railing system • Colors to be historic in nature • Flush masonite garage door When asked about the three- quarter porch shown in the drawing, Ms. Cates replied that it was scaled back so that the roof line fits better with the garage and house. Commissioner Lieberman opened the floor to public comment. Kathy Gragert of 510 North 5 Street asked if there were any plans for a fence, expressing that she would like to see a privacy fence there if possible. Ms. Cates replied that a fence was not in the plans at this point, but could certainly be added. Lee A. Lehner of 222 West Cherry Street asked if the applicant was looking to sell or rent this home. Ms. Cates replied that she is representing the owner, but does not know if the owner ultimately plans to sell or rent. Gil Gragert of 510 North 5 Street wondered if not having a back door in the design was an oversight that could present a safety issue. He inquired if there was a City ordinance that covers this. Ms. Cates responded that there is a front door and an entrance through the garage. The plan doesn't include a back door at present, but the double hung window on the north side could be changed to a patio door. Commissioner Johnson stated that HPC is looking at architecture; a building official will look at egress issues before approval. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 There being no further comment, Commissioner Lieberman closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Brach asked about a site plan, and Ms. Cates responded that she has submitted a site plan for the variance that is needed. Mr. Pogge explained that one of the issues revolving around the garage is that City code specifies that it be set back 10 feet from a front or exterior side yard. Cherry Street is an exterior side yard. If the garage is set in the back it is too close to the ravine, and the preference is not to impact the ravine. Therefore, a variance for the garage is necessary. Ms. Cates variance request will go the Planning Commission in August. Commissioner Brach asked about adding a sidewalk for pedestrian access to the home. Ms. Cates said that a sidewalk from the front steps out to 5 Street will be added. Commissioner Johnson asked about the standing metal on the porch. Ms. Cates replied that it could easily be shingles or a cedar look instead if that was preferable. Commissioner Brach said he thought a wood look would be better. Staff recommends approval of the demolition request and Neighborhood Conservation District design review as conditioned. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Tomten, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -35, with the conditions that modifications be submitted in advance, that siding be cement board lap siding similar to Hardie Plank with 6" reveal, windows be double -hung (manufacturer unspecified), final fixtures be down -lit, design to be approved in advance, and the applicant obtain a variance from the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition, roofing on the porch should match the shingles on the house, a back door be added, preferably a sliding door, as well as a sidewalk constructed from the front door to 5th Street. Fencing is recommended but is not a condition of approval. Motion passed unanimously. Landscaping has not been considered yet. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/2011 -32. Concept Design review for a new restroom buildings in south Lowell Park. City of Stillwater, applicant. At the June 6, 2011 HPC Meeting staff presented a plan for improvements to the Lowell Park Bathroom Facilities. The conceptual plan included expanding the bathrooms to 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. Suggestions from the Commission at the June 6 meeting included incorporating more features from the Gazebo and the new bathroom proposed on the pe - estian praza long with — a lower sloped roof. Mr. Moore presented two new preliminary plans incorporating some features of the gazebo, a more modern look and a lower slope roof. The new proposal raises the floor elevation to match the existing lift station, parking lot elevation and to protect the bathrooms during high 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 water. The higher roof will help eliminate the vandalism problem that has occurred in the past with people climbing on the roof. Mr. Moore related that in a conversation earlier today with Mr. McGuire, he was informed that they had modified and simplified the roof as requested, and that are looking at steel or tin for the roofing material. The bathroom configuration stays the same. Commissioner Lieberman expressed that he likes the new roof design. When asked if the height of the building met the city's height ordinance, Mr. Pogge replied that it does. Councilmember Cook asked about the two bathrooms (Lowell Park and the one farther north) being similar in design, and Mr. Pogge responded that the City Council previously directed that they be two distinct buildings. Two options were presented, the first one a simple bathroom with hip roof, and the second one being the same bathroom with added pergolas on the north side, tying it to the gazebo design. The Commission liked the pergola design that helped bring the overall height down. Commissioner Johnson suggested extending the lift station parapet color to the new restroom, thus bringing the upper windows down a little to provide more continuity. He also recommended using a slightly different color brick. Commissioner Tomten supported the idea of different color brick. He suggested that if pergolas are not included then adding double columns like the existing gazebo should be considered to "try to speak a common language between the two buildings." Case No. DR/2011 -08. Design review for signage on an existing pole located at 14130 60thStreet North, Advanced Dermatology Care, in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Northern Sign Solutions, applicant. Continued from the March 7, 2011, April 4, 2011, and May 2, 2011 meetings. The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a new freestanding sign for Advanced Dermatology at 14130 60th Street North to replace the former Baker's Square sign. The main portion of the sign is a new metal panel with the words "Advanced Dermatology Care" "ADCderm.com 651- 430 - 2724" and "Advanced Esthetics" in black letters all on a tan background. The metal panel will be lit with an external linear light fixture. The metal sign panel is 9' by 8'6 ". Below the metal sign panel the applicant is requesting a color electronic message board measuring 2'5" by 8'3 ". The total proposed sign area is 97.125 square feet, which meets the sign ordinance requirements. The applicant, Dr. Ruth Rustad, owner of Advanced Dermatology, and Brian Larson who did work on the building and is helping out with the sign, presented an updated plan. Their understanding from the staff report is that the sign proper is generally acceptable and that the LED signage is more of an issue. The size of the sign and lighting fit within the design guide. Mr. Larson described that the signage is similar to their office in White Bear Lake, and that they are looking for a consistent 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 look, matching the paint color on the building and moving away from the look of Baker's Square which was what this building previously housed. Mr. Pogge explained that the applicant was here several months ago and asked if the city would consider allowing LED signs. The City's current zoning code prohibits reader boards except for time and temperature. There are four reader boards in the community that were granted use variances over time. He stated that the City would need to amend the code in order to permit new reader boards and that prohibiting reader boards is not uncommon in other communities. Banks have time and temp; gas stations have changing price signs. What the applicant is offering is a high quality video display board with graphics. Research has shown that the main concern is driver distraction, primarily when the message changes. If the City decides to allow these, it would be advisable to place restrictions on how often the message changes, once every 20 minutes for example, and that they have no flashing motion, just a static message that changes every once in a while. There are settings where flashing signs are appropriate such as pedestrian- oriented areas such as Times Square or Vegas. The question before the Commission is whether or not a change should be made to the City Code to permit electronic reader boards in the Community. The staff report explores some of the issues surrounding electronic reader boards. Existing references to electronic changeable message and image signs in the City Code are minimal, but include the following: Section 31 -509 Subd 5 titled "Prohibited Signs. The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts." (d) "any sign that moves or rotates including electronic reader board signs, except approved time and temperature information signs and barber poles." As stated in the staff report, while electronic reader boards create mood, interest, and energy especially within pedestrian- oriented entertainment districts, studies conducted reveal that driver distraction continues to be a significant underlying cause of traffic accidents. Because there are many different technologies that can be used to create the image that is seen on a large video display sign, it is not feasible to develop technology based sign regulations, rather the regulations must address operational characteristics, capabilities and functions. Mr. Pogge pointed out that there are several types of electronic reader boards including: 1. Changeable Copy Sign, Electronic - Text -only electronic displays, typically used to advertise gas prices at service stations. 2. Electronic Graphic Display Sign - Electronic sign displaying both text and pictorial images. These signs have the technical capability to display high - quality, photo -like images in addition to text information. Due to the potential for greater distraction with _this- type of sign, eneralLy ommunities will require aninimumamount oftime a sign is required to display a message (i.e. twenty minutes) and that no portion of the message may flash, scroll, or in any manner imitate movement. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 3. Video Display Sign - Electronic sign whose display is characterized by motion and pictorial imagery. These signs may possess the ability to display television -like images and programs. 4. Time and Temperature Sign - Electronic sign displaying only time and temperature information. The applicant asked if color plays a role in the distraction factor. Mr. Pogge responded that it can play into it, especially at night. LED can judge light conditions and turn down its intensity at night. Dr. Rustad assured the Commission that she does not want an animated or showy Vegas look. Their sign would be for informational or advertising purposes (e.g., skin cancer awareness month, special treatments, etc.) The message would change once a day, if that. Staff recommends that the Heritage Preservation Commission approve the requested design permit without the LED Message Reader Board subject to the following conditions from Alternative 2 in the staff report: a. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission b. No additional signage without HPC approval c. The height of the sign shall not exceed 25 feet d. No electronic message board shall be used on the sign Commissioner Lieberman stated that he does not like electronic signs, even time and temperature ones. Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the intensity of the sign's light, how it would be measured and kept in check, and that this type of sign could set a precedence for new sign types for restaurants and retail businesses, making them difficult to regulate in the future. Dr. Rustad explained that the sign will still have light but that it would not add more light or brightness. She asked that the Commission consider a lighted sign rather than one with light shining on it. Commissioner Lieberman said he favors directional light versus direct light, down lit rather than up lit. The applicant suggested that the City could regulate sign messages and set regulations on lighting with wattage. Commissioner Brach wondered if there was a sign type like a Kindle where it is not backlit but needs external lighting instead. Mr. Larson responded that there may be such technology out there, and that a lighting fixture could be directed. Commissioner Tomten expressed his view that technology is changing and HPC needs to be more open. He also feels that it is easier to control lighting being directed up rather than down. Commissioner Brach agreed that the technology is coming and HPC should be proactive. Commissioner Johnson felt that there needs to be more changes rather than with just one application and that the situation calls for more review. He likes the sign the applicants have designed to identify the business using the square footage available. - om issioner J= ohnson, - seconded by Commissioner Tomtorr, moved se ND. DR/2011 -08 as submitted with the conditions in Alternative 2, that all revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, no additional signage be added without HPC approval, the height of the sign shall not exceed 25 feet, and no City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 electronic message board shall be used on the sign. In addition, the light fixture shall be placed at the top of the sign to angle down rather than up. Motion passed unanimously. Further discussion followed with Commissioner Lieberman stating that pursuit of an electronic message board should remain open to further discussion depending on future ordinance changes, but cannot be approved by HPC at this time. If changes are made by City Council via ordinance, the applicant could come back and re -apply at that time. 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. Continued from June 6, 2011 meeting. Last month, the Commission reviewed plans related to the exterior remodel of the old National Tea building located at 216 Myrtle St W for the USPS and additional multi - tenant space. At that time, the Commission requested that the applicant consider a building style from the time period the building was originally constructed and avoid a style that mimicked a Victorian commercial style. Since the meeting the architect has completed additional structure reviews on the building and has determined that it is not possible to extend the existing parapet walls. The attached plans seek to address the concerns of the Commission and reflect a lower parapet wall. On behalf of Trinity Lutheran Church, Mr. Hoefler is requesting the Heritage Preservation Commission to approve a design permit for proposed exterior work to the building and parking lot located at 216 Myrtle Street West. Mr. Hoefler agrees that it makes sense to celebrate the originality of the existing building as shown on the five drawings submitted. The plan is to remove the big parapet box with the 8" overhang, which will provide the opportunity to recreate the interior space of the old National Tea Grocery Store, and removal of the acoustical ceilings so you can look up into the exposed joints. The building was originally constructed of concrete block, which is clearly visible on three of the four exterior faces of the building. Face brick exists primarily below the large metal - trimmed plate glass windows on the front of the building, and a small amount also exists on the extreme eastern portion of the Myrtle Street facade. The remainder of the Myrtle Street facade is concrete block. No windows exist along Myrtle. The new plan will have simple rectangular windows for additional vision and painted masonry. Standard concrete block is left exposed and will be painted rather than covered. Visual interest will be created on the northeast and southeast corners by providing the post office with a raised parapet skinned with an IPE type of mahogany siding with channel lock, not a lap but a flush, and picking it up on the southeast side also. Both end caps will have a recessed entry. The plan will also lower the big sail that is there, getting it more in scale with the building and providing a wire mesh where the wind can blow through. This creates a nice visual bookend at both ends. Site improvements include adding a rain garden in the southeast corner, plazas that approach the building, and fixing the sidewalk that slopes. 7 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 The renovated building exterior calls for removing the existing storefront and wall system and replacing it with a new aluminum storefronts, additional windows along Myrtle, IPE Horizontal Ship Lap Siding with small reveals, and re- facing the former National Tea roof sign. The sign will just have the address on it, with no tenant signage added. The flag at the post office will identify that building. Commissioner Tomten inquired about the aluminum storefront. Mr. Hoefler replied that it will go to the bottom of the deck, fogged in white. The steel channel at the bottom of the deck will encase the insulation and roofing. The face brick on the south elevation will be covered, with trim where the brick meets the MCB. He stated that they looked at removing the brick, but with all of the columns and the way the brick wraps on the interior space and floor adjustments, it made more sense to keep it. Mr. Hoefler said that they removed the living wall to simplify the look along Myrtle. Commissioner Tomten stated that he would like to see the living wall back, that it was a nice way to break up the wall, adding more mesh that blends into the design, and also that he would like window openings to be flush. Mr. Hoefler agreed to add the wall back in to the design. When asked about the paint coloring for the masonry wall on Myrtle in order to tie it in with the ivy coming around, Mr. Hoefler responded that it would be charcoal — not black or silver — to be carried around to part of the back of the building. The return would be wood. The metal awning on the southeast is more of a sunshade and will have a silver look to it. The actual storefronts will be a bronze /black look. Lighting will be LED down- shining lights on the piers so whenever the plan shows a wood pier or sign, there will be lighting. The parking lot will be redeveloped with 111 spaces. The main new features of the lot are a rain garden at the southeast corner of the lot, a mail drop lane for the Post Office, vegetated islands, an exit -only curb cut on Myrtle Street with left and right turn lanes, a loading dock to the north side of the building, and replacement of some of the parking spaces directly in front of the building with sidewalk plaza areas. The light poles in the lot will remain or be relocated. Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Johnson moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -30 with the three conditions listed in Alternative 1: all revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, signage shall be approved as a separate design permit which must be approved by the HPC, and the City Planner shall review the architectural plans prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition, the living wall will be added back in, with metal frame and mesh. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lieberman expressed that he is very pleased with design and location, and that the architects had done a very good job. Case 1V =3 - 6: Design review for signage, in age reen, located at ain ree South in the CBD, Central Business District. Barbara Bergwall, applicant. 8 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install a projecting sign for Vintage Green at 106 Main Street South. The proposed sign face is 36 inches wide by 24 inches tall for a total of 6 square feet. The sign, which will be mounted on an existing bracket, is to contain the words "Vintage Green" and "Consigner of New and Used Items." The lettering is proposed to be black, with green accents, and a black boarder all on a cream background. For retail storefront signs the Commercial Historic District Design Manual provides the size of signs shall be consistent with the Sign Ordinance The total area of the sign face is 6 square feet, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Johnson suggested that with the lighter background and color of lettering, a little heavier line work should be used so as not to appear washed out. Ms. Bergwall agreed and will convey these revisions to the artist who designed the sign. Staff recommended the following 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 projecting 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. Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brach, moved to approve Case No. DR/2011 -36 as submitted and with the recommended conditions. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/2011 -37. Design review of a signage for Health East Stillwater Clinic located at 2900 Curve Crest Blvd in the CRD, Campus Research and Development District. Cheryl Long O'Donnell, Visual Communications, applicant. The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a wall (building) and monument signage at 2900 Curve Crest Blvd for HealthEast. Dan Regan with Air Lake Development was present also. Ms. O'Donnell stated that they are asking for approval for three different signs. The first sign is proposed to contain the words "HealthEast Stillwater Clinic." The letters are individual aluminum channel letters painted white and mounted on the stone wall surface. The letters will be reverse halo lit with LED lighting on the back of the letters. The sign is 178" wide by 411" tall for a total of 91.12 square feet in area. The second sign is proposed window signage. Per the zoning code, window signage does not require a permit from the City if it covers no more than one -third of the glass area. Staff has reviewed the window signage and finds that it meets all code requirements. The window sign identifies HealthEast Clinic on the glass, covering 16 square feet. The white aluminum letters are designed so that they have depth to them, and will be attached to the glass, with vinyl - backmg on the inside, so the letters 1o& like they go - through the glass. The only ylighti g will be inside the vestibule, or backlit. 9 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 For the third sign the applicant is seeking approval to construct a masonry monument sign to be used by both this building and a future building on the east side of the site. The sign includes brick and stone that match the new building. The dimensions of the overall monument are 9 feet tall by 16 feet wide. HealthEast would occupy an aluminum panel on half of the sign, covering a total of 22.2 square feet, with " HealthEast Stillwater Clinic" in raised black letters on a white background. There are panels for future tenants of the building on the other half of the sign. Commissioner Tomten asked about lighting. Ms. O'Donnell responded that the sign will be ground lit and raised about one foot above ground, and that this area will be kept clear of snow. The proposed signs have all been approved by the architectural review committee for the Bradshaw Addition development. Staff 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. Commissioner Tomten, seconded by Commissioner Brach, moved to approve Case No. Dr /2011- 37 as conditioned, with the wall sign halo lit only. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Stillwater Cultural Landscape District Report Mike Pogge presented the report. Jackie Sluss from MnDOT was unable to attend tonight due to the government shut -down. Per the packet, after the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued their Record of Decision (ROD) for the St. Croix River Crossing project on November 13, 2006, MnDOT began completing mitigation work as outlined in the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). One of the required mitigation items for the new bridge was to complete a study on the Stillwater Cultural Landscape District (SCLD). This report was started in the spring of 2010 before the courts ruled on the Sierra Club's challenge to the project. Since the project was under contract, MnDOT has decided to complete the project. Jackie Sluss from MnDOT and Carole Zellie from Landscape Research LLC discussed the project scope with the Commission last spring. During the meeting the Commission made requests to add specific photo views to the study which was done. The attached report represents the final draft. The HPC now has the opportunity to provide MnDOT with comments on the plan before it is finalized. Overall staff finds the report to be well written and well documented, and believes it will be a great asset for the Commission and public for years to come. The League of Minnesota Cities has advised all cities that if the state shuts down, cities need to continue to send reports and other required filings. Therefore, even though representatives from MnDOT were unable to attend this meeting the City still needs to file its comments with MnDOT by July 14. 10 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 Mr. Pogge stated that this report documents the landscape and setting of Stillwater and development that has occurred in the valley, using old historic photos along with those from current times to show development patterns. HPC's charge is to review this final draft and make comments. Mr. Pogge will gather comments and draft a letter to MnDOT. It is expected that in either August or September MnDOT will come and formally present the final product to the commissioners. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that on page 7 the report talks about Lake McKusick being 800 feet above Lake St. Croix. That implies an elevation and it's really only 200 feet in elevation above Lake St. Croix. The incorrect figure implies mountainous topography which is not correct. He suggested changing the wording to "200 feet in elevation above Lake St. Croix." He noted also that there is not much emphasis on Lake St. Croix itself being part of the St. Croix River, extending above Stillwater and how that has changed the landscape. Since before 1930 or thereabouts when the dam was built it was a mud flat, a very different landscape than what it is now as created by the dam at Prairie Island. The other item that is part of our landscape is the wooded area on the Wisconsin side. Kolliner Park and the East Side Lumber mill are mentioned but are not put into perspective as being part of the landscape of the bowl or back drop looking out across the river. The green background is very much a part of Stillwater, and contributes to keeping the focus on the lake. Mr. Pogge stated that the report does extend to the Wisconsin side, so it should include landmarks in Wisconsin. Boundaries should be defined right at the beginning as to what defines Stillwater. Preservation Conference The packet includes a brochure for Preserve Minnesota - The 3F' Annual Statewide Historic Preservation Conferenc. Mr. Pogge asked that commissioners let him know by the end of next week if they want to attend. Other Business Mr. Pogge asked that the Commission consider having staff give a brief summary presentation on each case right after it is introduced at meetings. He likes the way HPC operates as an informal group that interacts with applicants, but feels that such a presentation would help the audience to follow what is happening and help educate them on the ordinances that apply to each case. For example, the sign design could be up on the overhead, with staff pointing out features that are being discussed. Another example is seeing a drawing of the new post office would clarify changes proposed to the building. Commissioner Lieberman responded that he reads the introduction to each case from the packet so that those in attendance know what is being discussed. Other commissioners responded that adding a s a -'n _ _duction could - be - good for public informality design reviews. Commissioner Lieberman stressed that HPC is an advisory commission, they don't grant variances, and they are careful about being aware of the audience and inviting them to speak. Cases are not decided by personal taste; HPC follows guidelines put forth by the Council, yet they try to be flexible. The commissioners like having a dialogue with those 11 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 6, 2011 coming before the commission and don't feel that they need more formality except with regard to public hearings. The general consensus is that the public needs to be better informed about what HPC does and what changes to a home require a hearing before HPC. HPC doesn't regulate paint color, or adding a porch for example. People think HPC controls what can or can't be torn down, and that is not the case. Mr. Pogge wondered how to get the message out. He plans to talk to realtor's group about what is needed for residential review (which is nothing), so that they are better able to inform potential buyers. Discussion of the City's Demolition Ordinance Update Mr. Pogge wrote a report about this but unfortunately it didn't get into the packet. At their last work session City Council said to proceed on working on revisions. There will be a public hearing in August with HPC and Planning, and one in September with City Council. From the work session came comments about the 50 -year rule. The 50 -year rule was set by following the park service and what is eligible to be on the National Register. That period of significance for Stillwater is pre -1921, when the last lumber mill closed. Mr. Pogge feels that 1945 would be a good starting year, as it signifies the end of World War II and many construction changes. His view it that setting a date is better than saying 50 years, but this would require an ordinance change. For example, in 20 years they could consider protecting Croixwood. Mr. Pogge will e -mail his report to the Commissioners. The original demolition ordinance was passed in 1995, so setting the date at 1945 was 50 years. Commissioner Lieberman stated that there may have been houses built in the 50s and 60s that were paradigms of a particular time and place. He is more comfortable with keeping the 50 -year timeline and having staff review cases. History is continually evolving. Houses built in the 50s and 60s may be worth saving, as well as the ones built before 1945. He suggested keeping 50 years as an age but still letting City staff determine historical significance. Other commissioners agreed that a definition is needed of Stillwater's historic period and that the ordinance should not only protect one style or time period. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Lieberman, seconded by Commissioner Brach, moved to adjourn at 9:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol Danielson Interim Recording Secretary 12 DATE: July 28, 2011 Heritage Preservation Commission PROPERTY OWNER: Brad and Gwendolyn Glynn APPLICANT: Mark S Balay REQUEST: Demolition Permit for a single family home LOCATION: 823 Anderson St W HPC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 1, 2011 REVIEWED BY: Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planne Subject House CASE NO.: 11 -40 BACKGROUND Brad & Gwendolyn Glynn, property owners of 823 Anderson St W, are requesting a demolition permit for the existing single family home and all other structures on the property. The applicant's letter to the Commission notes that "It is our [the current owners] intent to sell our land to the hospital after the house is removed, and we have reached a preliminary agreement with them [hospital] which includes removal of the house from the property." The property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District. In the future, any new structure would require a NCD design review permit. The current structure was built in 1900 according to the Washington County Assessor's office. The intent of the property owner is to sell the property to the hospital for a yet to be determined use. 823 Anderson St W Demolition Permit Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a demolition permit for the single family home on the site. EVALUATION 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... This structure was built in 1900 according to the Washington County Assessor's office making it more than 50 years old, which makes it potentially historically significant and requires review by the Heritage Preservation Commission before it can be demolished. Section 34 -5 of the City Code lists nine items that must be considered prior to approval of a demolition permit by the Commission. (1) A map showing the location of the building or structure to be demolished on its property and with reference to neighborhood properties; This information is included in the attached application. (2) A legal description of property and owner of record; The application simply notes the legal description as Lot 6, Block 14 of Holcombe's Addition to Stillwater. This is not the complete legal description for the property. (3) Photographs of all building elevations; This information is included in the attached application. (4) A description of the building or structure or portion of building or structure to be demolished; The entire home and all of the other structures on the site are proposed to be demolished. (5) The reason for the proposed demolition and data supporting the reason, including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for demolition; The applicants stated in their letter that "it is not economically feasible to relocate or renovate the structure in the current market." They included three proposed budget to renovate and relocate the current home. 823 Anderson St W Demolition Permit Page 3 (6) Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure to be demolished is located; The applicant stated in their application the following: "The future re -use plan will be under the control of the hospital." No other information or plans for the property's reuse was submitted with the application. (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 /Medium Density Residential and is zoned RB, two-family residential. A single-family home conforms with the comprehensive plan and zoning requirements. A hospital use is a specially permitted use in the RB zoning district. This site is in the Neighborhood Conservation Design District. Any new structure in the future would be subject to the infill design criteria. (8) A description of alternatives to the demolition; The applicant notes alternatives include relocating the structure to a different property . (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 notes that "the property has been advertised on Craig's List, local Ebay, and in the Stillwater Gazette for removal. Over a period of three years." The applicant has failed to submit any proof of these attempts. Additionally, staff feels that in this case it may be appropriate to list the home and property for sale by a local realtor as opposed to simply sell it directly to the hospital without any attempt to find a potential homeowner that would preserve the home as is. In the end the most prudent option for the current owner maybe to sell it to the hospital; however, an attempt to find an alternative buyer seems reasonable. The applicant has included some history on the house in their application prepared by Mark S. Balay. No historical or architectural significance was noted. Staff Discussion with the Hospital City Staff met with representatives from Lakeview Hospital on July 28th to discuss this request and other plans at the hospital. During the discussion, staff explored various reuse options with the hospital. The hospital is considering an option that would permit the home to remain on the site long term. Additional time is needed for the Hospital to consider these options. Staff feels it is prudent to table this application until September 5th to permit the hospital time to find an alternative to demolition. 823 Anderson St W Demolition Permit Page 4 Demolition Findings Section 34 -5 Subdivision 1 outlines what is required to be submitted with a demolition application. Is the applicant complete? In reviewing the application material, staff finds that the applicant lacks a complete legal for the property, a reuse plan for the property, and proof of a reasonable effort to sell or preserve the structure. The Commission has the option to reject the application as not being complete without the need to take any further action on the application. By state statue, if the Commission is going to reject the application as incomplete it must be done by August 4, 2011. Section 34 -5 Subdivision 2 outlines the criteria for approval or denial of a demolition permit. There are criteria the Commission must consider in either approving or denying a permit. 1. Is the building or structure historically significant? The code defines historically significant as "any building or structure or portion of a building or structure on the National Historic Register, a designated local landmark or a contributing structure or building in a designated national register historic district." This building is not a historically significant building per City Code requirements. 2. The owner has made a reasonable effort to sell or preserve the structure and there is no alternative to demolition. The applicant notes that "the property has been advertised on Craig's List, local Ebay, and in the Stillwater Gazette for removal. Over a period of three years." The applicant has not submitted any proof of these attempts. Additionally, staff feels that in this case it may be appropriate to list the home and property for sale by a local realtor as opposed to simply sell it directly to the hospital without any attempt to find a potential homeowner that would preserve the home as is. In the end the most prudent option for the current owner maybe to sell it to the hospital; however, an attempt to find an alternative buyer seems reasonable. Without a reasonable effort to sell or preserve the structure staff recommends denial of the permit as requested. 823 Anderson St W Demolition Permit Page 5 ALTERNATIVES The HPC has several alternatives related to this request: A. Reject the application as incomplete. If the HPC finds that the application is not complete they could reject the application. With a rejection, the Commission must list the specific items that are deficient in the application. B. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the demolition rules then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. C. Approve. If the proposed demolition request is found acceptable to the HPC, they should be approved. Staff would recommend the following minimum condition for approval. a. The demolition permit shall be effective only after a reuse plan on the property has been reviewed and approved by the HPC. D. Table. If the HPC wished to give more time to consider alternatives to demolition or if the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until your September 5th meeting. The 60 -day decision deadline for the request is September 11, 2011. RECOMMENDATION Table the application to September 5, 2011 to allow additional time to consider alternative to demolition. attachment Application and supporting documents from the applicant Address of Project: 822 1A t5 6 1 , 171/ Parcel No.: Lot & Block 14 Subdivision 1-1 o \fri}i" . -bt j 1 &L Applicant: 1 ` k i C r S Address: 110E , tI St Telephone No.: (' 1 _ X) .Si ( Owner if different than Applicant: e S GC( )P; CO LYN (\) Telephone No. Address: 5 1N .c�t3a, Type of Structure: f IIIIta C Age of Structure: Hr)Q Condition of Structure: CL 21EIb C 0 Intended Use of Site after Demolition: J) ` . -0 1.. -t� 7/#/1 Signature of Applicant / Date 7//41 i Signature of Owner Date Heritage Preservation Commission Demolition Permit No. Demolition Request Permit * After Heritage Preservation approval, there is a 10 -day appeal period. Once the 10 -day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a design review permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. A building permit must be obtained with the City of Stillwater Building Department. The fee for the building permit is based on the valuation of the demolition project. Office Use Only HPC Review Date: City Planner /Community Development Director ❑ Approved ❑ Denied Fee $150* Receipt No. Date 7/14//11 City of Stillwater Attn: Michel Pogge 216 N. Fourth St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Brad and Gwendolyn Glynn 823 Anderson St. W Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Pogge and Heritage Preservation Commission Members: Attached are your requested application materials for demolition of the residence at 823 Anderson St. West, which was constructed , according to the tax assessors records, in 1900. We intend to remove all structures from the property. The house at 823 Anderson St. West has been our home since 2002. In that time period we have been very intimidated by the continued expansion and development of the Lakeview Hospital facility which is an imprtnat and growing part of our community. It is our intent to sell our land to the hospital after the house is removed, and we have reached a preliminary agreement with them which includes the removal of the house from the property. We are somewhat disappointed that our efforts to find a reuse for the existing house on another property met with failure, but the existing condition of the house, potential cost of renovation, and moving costs have not been desirable enough, in this current economy, to attract a buyer or find a place to relocate the house. We have complied fully with the requirements to obtain a demolition permit per section 34 -5.1 from the City of Stillwater Building Demolition Section of the City Code as follows: 1) please see attached maps 2) see attached Legal description on our application form 3) see photos attached 4) The entire house and foundation will be removed 5) It is not economically feasible to relocate or renovate the structure in the current market. Please refer to our attached Budgets we prepared with contractors for the hospital negotiations over the last three years. 6) The future re -use plan will be under the control of the hospital. 7) Our neighborhood block is already not entirely residential and shall remain so with this project. This demolition supports the current comprehensive plan and zoning requirements being put forth in conjunction with the hospital's future development. 8) We examined the possibilities of re- locating this house to a vacant lot northwest of Washington Park. We also looked for any individual willing to remove the house from our property to another lot for free. Based upon current economic conditions neither turned out to be desirable. 9) The property has been advertised on Craig's List , local Ebay, and in the Stillwater Gazette for removal. Over a period of three years. In addition, as your application packet suggests, we have had our architect examine and research all historical aspects for the house to determine any architectural significance in regards to architectural style, occupancy, or occurrence and have found very little. A report of his research efforts are attached for your review. We request that you review these materials, and issue our permit. Please do not hesitate contacting us prior to your meeting if you have any questions, You are welcome to come and observe the existing conditions of our property. Sincerely, Brad Glynn Enc. page 2 Mark S. Balay, RA t 110 East Myrtle Street, Suite 100 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 430 -3312 Architectural Analysis Michael E. Balay, RA f it ;{ 1 2 '1 -, .i t ,s C ;3 1 d 8878 South Street Fishers, Indiana 46038 (317) 845 -9402 7/14/10 Research and Report on the Cultural and Architectuctural Significance of 823 Anderson St. West, Stillwater Sources 1) Stillwater Library St. Croix Collection materials and files 2) "A History of the Holcombe's Addition Residential Area" 3) Stillwater City Directories 4) various biographical references This house is balloon framed in circular saw cut wood, with square nails and a local limestone foundation. This supports the approximate 1900 date from the tax record for date of construction. The historical Sanborne maps in the St. Croix collection do not include this property. The Holcombe's addition residential survey, pages attached describes this as the third house on the site. It may have been moved from another site in my observation of the building. The general three dimensional shape of the house indicates it was middle of the road in quality for the time it was built. The original ornamentation and detail remaining in and outside the house further a design style description stick style. Much of the existing detailing including the porches are modern in construction replicating old style designs. The National Register requires that a property be a distinct and stand out existing example of a historical architectural style to be considered under this category. Unfortunately, the surviving original architectural signature of this house will not even be of interest for the recently established, local designation of "Landmark Home" Cultural Significance Analysis There are three main ways to look for the cultural significance of this home based upon occurrence or occupant, deed records, city directories, and historical archives. We have examined two of the three. MAP OF SURVEY AREA Ace n r► Og PP: '01110: t Q Q•Ila 0 w h M o c se 9Ly 'BACom IttiO 0 Z ! w ha sr Was t1211 w EINE WEI COP 3E111 ECM LEMII • 1S O a• :n w tQj * $ '1051 al % a N N . j I ' WEN Niko t MEM MIN W v Z31,5 ram BIEN • : r• a . •/ WIT 3E11 C.Z..11111 EEL; Ea' o a - - 0 - E 09 r I" let • F H s OS ..L 3Y,,7A.? $ S 0 10 Ma LEWIN Ell= It = OM; C�, :ll tut 77/ ghf n � h r ' Z o 0 0 .44 n �' 1+ , • 1 O 1 � I'i1�1N�0�IPI��d1fR�'dl'I I , �o��,a3zs� , 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Mn R 977.659 EMP Lily Lake A History of the Holcombe's Additions Residential Area Stillwater, Minnesota by Donald Empson Funded in part by a grant from the National Park Service Administered by the Minnesota Historical Society And The Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Stillwater S. Holcombe Street (Stiliwater Public Library) ST. CROIX COLLECTION Block by Block History James Cronin paid William Holcombe $100 for Lot 6 in October of 1856, and he soon built a house on the lot. The original house was a small one -story home, valued at $200, which can be seen broadside to the street in the 1869 Bird's Eye View Map. In 1874, the value of the lot and structure dramatically increased to $900, denoting that a larger house had been built on the lot. In the later, 1879 Bird's Eye View Map, we see a two -story hip - roofed house with a rear addition sitting on the corner lot. The English -born Cronin, and his wife, Mary, born in New Brunswick, lived in the home with their five children: Elizabeth, Ellie, Charles, Agnes, Franklin, and M. J. Collius, a 32 year old boarder. James' occupation was generally listed as a laborer. Apparently this Italianate house was burned or demolished, for the home there today, 823 W. Anderson, gives every appearance of having been built in the 1890's. Unfortunately there are no building records extant. It does not appear that Lot 7 was built upon before the present house at 1015 S. Everett Street was constructed in 1963. 19 so 31 j\m -'iV ' `-r ' ( LL ) 1 4 O 1 E e 911 CA 4 tioi a /c© L� 1 air H sT, `1 7 L Lc..J, , _. 94b osT Lis 1:- bsO 210 1880 U.S. Census Washington County: Stillwater: Page 263, #287. 100 Item Description Contractor Budget ($) Duration (days) Pack & Move out pack up everything and move into a storage spot. ) 14 Electrical Prep disconnect from pole, and disconnect all wires from panel • _ . 1 0 0 0 (V EA EA EA EA EA • U, N Mechanical Prep Disconnect boiler, HWH, Water and Sewer Garage Demo disconnect garage in prep for move Semple Porch Demo disconnect porch in prep for move Semple House move underpinning, and move Semple Excel work Drop lines at 4 locations for move Excel Energy $ 2,500 1 Comcast Work Drop lines at 4 locations for move Comcast $ 2,500 1 Lanscape Demo pull out blocks and antique bricks, plants, hops, etc... self $ 2,000 2 Demo concrete demo and recycle concrete (garage pad, shed pad, porches pads) Semple $ 2,500 2 Budget Rough grade City Utility Unknowns Other 823 Site Work Land Acquisition Excel work Comcast Work Excavation Foundation Concrete Civil Architect Remodel Garage Electrical Work Mechanical Work Finish Carpentry Other Improvements Landscaping Home Rental Storage Unit Move -in fill in hole with dirt from new site, rough grade tot cut and cap water & sewer, paperwork closeout Unknown Contingency foundation excavation, cut in driveway and rock it Semple City of Stillwater self All self Excel Energy Comcast Semple Jim Weber Jim Weber City of Stillwate, Belais J -Mar J -Mar J -Mar J -Mar $ $ 1,500 $ 10,000 $ 57,000 $ 99,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 1 7 0 All Work Summary purchase lot move power pole, bury lines bury lines 42 10 2 1 14 ICF Foundation, leave pockets, leave floor out for footin • • lacement All other concrete (garage pad, shed pad, walways, steps, driveway, basement floor, etc...) sewer and water connections, SAC and WAC char. es drawings for new home, city approval process, coordination with all trades in renovation all general trades (sheetrock repair, paint, exterior, etc...) garage construction All electrical reconnection / code compliance Mechanical installations / code compliance trim installation / repair Improvements over and above repair from moving process and code compliance grading, planting, sod, etc... Rental of Home for family for 4 months through process $ 40,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,000 $ 185,000 $ $ 14 21 5 21 90 21 21 21 Rental of small storage unit for furniture, etc... moving into home Unknowns New Site Unknown Contingency All Work Summary Total Budget 823 & New Site J -Mar J -Mar self self self self self Ail $ 50,000 $ 8,000 $ 10,000 $ 600 2,000 25,000 438,100 $ 495,100 21 21 14 120 120 5 0 542 Other removal fuel oil tank, boiler, HWH, piping, bushes, etc... Semple $ 2,000 2 Budget Rough grade worst case scenario Item Pack & Move out Electrical Prep Mechanical Prep Description pack up everything and move into a storage spot. Contractor self disconnect from pole, and disconnect all wires from panel Disconnect boiler, HWH, Water and Sewer Garage Demo Porch Demo House move Excel work Comcast Work Lanscape Demo Demo concrete Other removal disconnect garage in prep for move disconnect_porch in prep for move underpinning, and move Drop lines at 4 locations for move Drop lines at 4 locations for move pull out blocks and antique bricks, plants, hops, etc... demo and recycle concrete (garage pad, shed pad, porches pads) fuel oil tank, boiler, HWH, piping, bushes, etc... J -Mar J -Mar Semple Semple Semple Excel Energy Comcast self Semple Semple Budget ($) 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 35,000 3,000 3,000 $ 2,000 2,500 $ 5,000 Duration (days) 14 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 fill in hole with dirt from new site, rough grade Semple $ 1 City Utility cut and cap water & sewer, paperwork closeout City of Stillwate $ 2,500 7 Unknowns Unknown Contin • enc self $ 10,000 0 Other 823 Site Work All Work Summary All $ 69,000 42 Land A • uisition Excel work Comcast Work • urchase lot move sower sole, bu lines bu lines self $ 99 # 000 •, • ] $ 3,000 Comcast $ 2,000 10 2 1 Excavation foundation excavation, cut in driveway and rock it Semple $ 1,500 14 Foundation ICF Foundation, leave pockets, leave floor out for footin • • lacement Jim Weber $ 40,000 14 Concrete All other concrete (garage pad, shed pad, walways, steps, driveway, basement floor, etc... Jim Weber $ - 21 Civil sewer and water connections, SAC and WAC charges City of Stillwate $ 5,000 5 Architect drawings for new home, city approval process, coordination with all trades in renovation Betels $ 10,000 21 Remodel all general trades (sheetrock repair, paint, exterior, etc...) J -Mar $ 240,000 90 Gara • e Electrical Work • ara • e construction All electrical reconnection / code compliance J -Mar $ - J -Mar $ - 21 21 Mechanical Work Mechanical installations / code compliance J -Mar $ - 21 Finish Ca sent Other Im • rovements Landsca • in • Home Rental trim installation / repair Improvements over and above repair from movin • • rocess and code corn • fiance • radin • , • lantin • , sod, etc... Rental of Home for family for 4 months through process J -Mar $ - J -Mar $ 50,000 self $ 8 000 self $ 10,000 21 21 14 120 Storage Unit Rental of small storage unit for fumiture, etc... self $ 600 120 Move -in movin• into home self $ 2,000 5 Unknowns Unknown Contin•enc self $ 25,000 0 Other New Site All Work Summa All $ 496 100 542 Total Budget 823 & New Site $ 565,100 Budget Rough grade worst case scenario Item Pack & Move out Electrical Prep Mechanical Prep Description pack up everything and move into a storage spot. Contractor self disconnect from pole, and disconnect all wires from panel Disconnect boiler, HWH, Water and Sewer Garage Demo Porch Demo House move Excel work Comcast Work Lanscape Demo Demo concrete Other removal disconnect garage in prep for move disconnect_porch in prep for move underpinning, and move Drop lines at 4 locations for move Drop lines at 4 locations for move pull out blocks and antique bricks, plants, hops, etc... demo and recycle concrete (garage pad, shed pad, porches pads) fuel oil tank, boiler, HWH, piping, bushes, etc... J -Mar J -Mar Semple Semple Semple Excel Energy Comcast self Semple Semple Budget ($) 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 35,000 3,000 3,000 $ 2,000 2,500 $ 5,000 Duration (days) 14 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 fill in hole with dirt from new site, rough grade Semple $ 1 Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: July 28, 2011 CASE NO.: 2011 -41 APPLICANT: Cindy Mickelson, Indigo Creek REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for Indigo Creek LOCATION: 317 Main St S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: August 1, 2011 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director A q 2 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planne DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval to install a projecting sign for Indigo Creek at 317 Main St S. The proposed sign face is 24 - inches by 36 - inches for a total of 6 square feet. The sign is proposed to contain the words "Indigo Creek" and "Gallery and Custom Framing ". The lettering is proposed to be white, on a rock picture background with a tan boarder. The sign is proposed to be installed on existing bracket facing Water Street. 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 sign frame is not counted towards the total area. The total sign of the sign face is 6 square feet, which meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 317 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 projecting 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 opatton of Sign Address 3I 6 - q2//7 614 Appl Name City Stillwater State MN Zip 55082 Address City ii/e✓ -/4 " 3 4 State 9 Zip - frt PP /Pa a Name Address City 7 Zip ,,- ) Phone # State Zip Attached are the following documents (Required to be submitted with application) ❑ 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. b etai l Sign Size: Dimensions: Setbacks: From Property Line From Bldg e/a,)At / Illumination: ❑ Yes p�Pd "O = Square Feet z✓ Sign Height: (If freestanding) From Driveway /Parking Lot 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. Review (For office ❑ Approved Permit # 0l Denied Conditions for pproval: Date By Application for Sign Permit Fee: $50.00 Community Development Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651 -430 -8820 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' pplication for Sign Permit.doc * Contractor must be licensed with the City of Stillwater. Contractor's license application form is available at Stillwater City Hall. Updated: September 23, 2006 APPLICATION FOR A SIGN PERMIT All new signs in the City of Stillwater require a sign permit. Signs are regulated in Stillwater according to the Stillwater City Code, Chapter 31.01, Subd. 27. The Purpose of Regulating Signs. Signs have an impact on the character and quality of the environment. They attract or repel the viewing public and affect the safety of vehicular traffic. As a historic community, Stillwater is quite unique. The proper control of signs is of particular importance because of its historical quality and uniqueness. Signs should be kept within reasonable boundaries consistent with the objectives and goals of the community to retain its special character and economic advantages which rest in part on the quality of its appearance. Submission Requirements: 1. Fill out sign permit review form. 2. The following information shall be submitted with the application form: a. A drawing of the proposed sign or signs showing dimensions and describing materials, lettering colors, illumination and support systems. b. Photographs of the building face and the building faces of both adjacent buildings. c. A drawing of the building face and site plan showing the location of the proposed sign(s) as necessary. d. A cross- section of the building face showing how the sign will be attached and how far it will extend from the building. c. Any pictorial proof or other information that the sign is of historical significant or is a reproduction of an historic sign as appropriate. e. A building sign plan for a building with more than one use or business showing signs shall he required for new buildings. 3. A $50 filing fee shall he submitted with the application n; form. The Community Development Department shall review your application. If it meets the requirements of the sign regulations, a permit shall be granted. All signage in the Downtown Commercial District and West Stillwater Business Park is reviewed by the Design Review Committee. If a proposed sign does not meet the requirements of the sign regulations, a variance must be obtained- Contact the Community Development Department for procedures. Variances to the sign regulations require, in addition to design review, a public hearing before the Stillwater Planning Commission. S: \Planning \Forms\Application for Sign Permit.doc Updated: September 23, 2006 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. 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. AD following information is required . PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 9/7 rj • A '24/, Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District Description of Project in detail % /ems)/ tz)L1i /4 b kk 1)4/? 'S '1 k° 31 // / /Im,r «rr-A -V he eb a f ore g oing st menrs and a ll da / orma io a nd evi• en ri , submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be -d/ true and correct. I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is granted and, A v t used" ' //- 7. � used" , ,6,1.5.. If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required. Property Owner ("4.9 thi' g- d-3 L ne tative 6/74 /77, ° c.� ' A'e 1) Mailing Address 1`9 ' S f & I A/,Mailing Address /4 T7Tj 4e/ vle°4 ,– City State Zip t A Z z 1 Pity State Zip 2✓" .r, s /�� 7 1 ? Telephone No. 4 -. -- Telephone No. 6 Signature .far: wired H: \mcnamara \sheila \2005 \design review permit.wpd July 13, 2005 Signature Case No Date Filed: Receipt No.: Fee: $25.00 (Required) /),43/)p1r' (Required) sr x,22 /� Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: July 28, 2011 APPLICANT: Steve Reeser and Cheris Murphy, This Love of Mine REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for This Love of Mine LOCATION: 102 Main St N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: August 1, 2011 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director 4 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner CASE NO.: 11 -42 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting design review and approval for a sign at 102 Main St N for This Love of Mine. The proposal contains three sets of signs. The proposal calls for identical wall signs along Main St and Myrtle St. Additionally, generic identification signs are proposed on the rear of the building along the alley facing toward the west. Main St and Myrtle St Wall Signs Along Main St and Myrtle St identical wall signs are proposed to replace the existing Pulp Fashion walls signs and awnings. The new signs are proposed to contain the words "This Love of Mine" in black letters on a white background. The signs will contain accent pieces that are green, yellow, and orange with black boarders. The signs are both 8 feet wide by 4 feet 6 - inches tall for a total of 36.2 square feet in area. The sign will be illuminated with the existing goose neck style lights on the building. 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 has 48 feet facing Main St N and 85 feet facing Myrtle St E. The total sign area of each proposed sign is 36.2 square feet, which is smaller than allowed under the zoning ordinance. 102 Main St N Page 2 Union Alley generic identification signs Wall Signs Along the rear of the building facing Union Alley the applicant is proposing to install 5 individual panels measuring 3 feet wide by 1 foot tall. Each panel is 3 square feet in size for a total of 15 square feet. Each sign is proposed to have black lettering on a white background with a small flower accent. The proposed signs will contain: 1. " one -of -a -kind items" 2. "handmade jewelry" 3. "re- fashioned jewelry" 4. "hand- selected clothing" 5. "photography" By policy, the Commission has allowed generic identification signs on awnings and signs and not counted them against the allowable sign area. In cases of buildings with a single wall sign they have allowed the addition of a single projecting sign that contains generic verbiage. Staff is concerned that the proposal with multiple sign panels could result in similar future requests. Additionally, adding multiple sign panels would necessitate the need for additional building penetrations which is also concerning. Staff recommends against the proposal and recommends that if a generic identification sign is used that it be limited to a single sign face. 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. 3. No exterior lighting on the sign without HPC approval. 4. That a single sign face for the generic identification sign be used facing Union Alley. Final sign design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to installation of the sign. FINDINGS As conditioned, 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 A s 3 /g' ,L- - tD p sa c-c._ i1t ir Qrz, f1Atc..s �\ti 1-4v \CA Lev6 1 12 13L, AC-K, PLfkt w fft This Love of Mine - Retail Signage 102 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (2) Signs - One each on the East and South Entrance Faces Loelo rnc. �� 3 /6 '' 13LiK - 1L-£x w Zlti °�,1 Ks cn i.e .n o D;'1 ?f I o n D a bac 1 - k.--.d 1 1) INA:, Y T - Ace_ Y' Mom g - A , S,1, c v\ e . Sco-Q This Love of Mine - Retail Signage 102 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (2) Signs - One each on the East and South Entrance Faces 9 „tr/ l 9 - ,i• This Love of Mine Retail Signage 102 Main Street Stillwater, MN This Love of Mine Retail Signage 102 Main Street Stillwater, MN ; .) Oa f. . .- * _ -- P l rb-fF) D Se--1. (Y V • cLC r, G \ b ca` 1�? -S S cs m,f, c - ce s �. uka Ar 0 i HE B ? R Pt. A C E QF MYkkF S O F A Heritage Preservation Commission DATE: July 28, 2011 CASE NO.: 11 -28 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Design Review of proposed Pedestrian Walkway LOCATION: A corridor between North Main Street and Lowell Park at the Commercial Street intersection COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use ZONING: CBD - Central Business District HPC DATE: August 1, 2011 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plannek' INTRODUCTION The City of Stillwater is requesting design review approval on the Pedestrian Walkway project. The project is located on corridor between North Main Street and Lowell Park at the Commercial Street intersection. Some of the elements included in the project are: 1. Sidewalk between Main Street and Lowell Park that connects the retail areas, parking, and Lowell Park together. 2. A new restroom facility that serves visitors of the adjoining retail and park areas. 3. A new wood pergola. 4. Improved crosswalk at Main Street and Water Street. 5. New pedestrian oriented benches, tables, trash, and lighting. 6. Brick columns that will also provide an opportunity to introduce historic markers and historic images of Stillwater. Bill Sanders and Bill Hickey from the design team will be at the meeting on Monday to review the plans with the Commission. Pedestrian Walkway Project Page 2 DISCUSSION The concept of the Pedestrian Walkway first appeared in the 1992 Lowell Park Plan and was detailed in the January 2004 North Main/ Lowell Park Plan update. Later the City included and funded a portion of the project in the 2006 CIP. The idea was further refined in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mike Diem and Roger Tomten of ArchNet in Stillwater, provided pro bono services to the city in the summer of 2010 that developed a more detailed concept plan to help guide the City in the development of the Pedestrian Walkway. The City went out with and RFP for design services in the fall of 2010 and selected a design team led by Sanders Wacker Bergly for the project. The design team held an open house on March 28, 2011 to review various concepts with the public. Over 65 individuals from the community attended the March open house where the plans were well received and comments that helped shaped the final plans. Since the first open house, the design team has been refining the plans and has reviewed the plans with the Council, HPC, and Parks commission a total of 12 times. Input from these meetings helped develop the plans to the final designs that are now before the commission. Bathroom The restroom is approximately 735 square feet in size. It includes a women's, men's and family restrooms. The women's and men's restrooms both contain 3 restroom stalls while the family restroom is a single stall restroom. Location During the planning process, three locations for the restroom building were considered. All of the sites are located along the extension of Commercial Street. Site #1 is located approximately 75 feet east of Water Street. This site was eliminated since it would be the only building located east of Water Street in this area. Additionally, the site has a greater potential for flooding due to the lower ground elevation at this site compared to other sites. Site #2 is located immediately east of and adjacent to Main Street. While the site sits above the regulatory flood protection elevation, it was eliminated due to potential impacts to the Stillwater Commercial Historic District as listed on the National Register of Historic Places and since the restroom would block critical views between Main Street and the St. Croix River. Site #3, the preferred location, is located in the S.W. corner of the new Pedestrian Walkway and immediately west of and adjacent to Water Street. Site #3 was ultimately selected as the preferred option over the two other site options. Pedestrian Walkway Project Page 3 Design Considerable time and effort was spent reviewing the design of the bathroom. Two styles of buildings were leading contenders including a Victorian Commercial style building and a "park style" building. Ultimately, the City Council directed the design team to pursue a park style building. The building is primarily brick with cast stone accent and board & batten freeze board. The brick is a red iron spot color that fits will the traditional Stillwater brick colors. The building will have a gable roof with transom windows. The main roof surface will be a gray tile made of cement with metal over the transom windows. The front of the restroom will have a large overhang that will serve as a shelter for bus riders. The vent stacks will be disguised as a chimney. Pergola Planned for just west of the restroom a pergola feature. This space is viewed as a flexible space that will contain benches for daily use but can also can serve small performances and other gatherings. The main structure will be wood with brick pillars similar to the pillars that will be used throughout the walkway and on the restroom. The wood will be painted white. Tables and Umbrellas Between Water Street and Lowell Park and area of table and chairs are planned. Included are metal umbrellas that will be install over each table to provide shade. The color has not yet been finalized; however, the design team believes a dark green or black would be appropriate. Lighting Pedestrian scale lighting will be incorporated throughout the walkway. The design team is recommending that the "acorn" style light fixtures, similar to what is seen in Lowell Park today be extended into the walkway. Downcast recessed lighting will be incorporated into the restroom building and the pergola. RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned. CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. attachments: Letter Plan Set July 28, 2011 SandersWackerBergly, Inc. A rren ti r v Serr rce Landscape Architects and Planners & Creative Solutions 365 Kellogg Boulevard East • Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1411 • (651) 221-0401 Heritage Preservation Commission Stillwater, MN RE: Main Street Pedestrian Walkway The proposed Main Street Pedestrian Walkway project in Stillwater will provide an attractive, multiuse pedestrian corridor between North Main Street and Lowell Park at the Commercial Street intersection. Starting with Main Street, the project will include bump -out curbs on both sides of Main trimmed with the typical hexagonal paver band to match the existing sidewalks along Main Street. New colored and stamped concrete crosswalks will be installed across Main Street and Commercial Street. On the west side of Main Street, the walkway will begin with an entrance area which includes brick and stone columns, ornamental fencing, natural stone seating, and a kiosk / information signage panel. The entrance area, along with the entire walkway, will be colored and stamped concrete in a brick - colored 1'x1' square pattern with 2' wide border panels to divide the walkway into smaller sections. The walkway between Main Street and Water Street will include a multi -use pergola structure, a 735 square foot restroom building, benches, litter receptacles, and bicycle racks. One existing drive apron along Main Street will be removed and the existing parking areas to the north and south of the walkway will be framed with concrete curb. A planting island will be installed on the south edge to screen the existing gas station. The concrete walks along Main Street will be edged with the hexagonal paver band, brick columns, ornamental fencing, and tree and shrub plantings. The walkway will continue towards Lowell Park, crossing Water Street with similar design elements as the Main Street intersection, curb bump -outs and a colored and stamped concrete crosswalk. East of Water Street, the walkway continues and will eventually connect to the regional bicycle trail and the proposed Lowell Park trails. There will also be a seating area in this section of the project which will include matching brick columns, a natural stone seating wall, benches, and tables with shade umbrellas. Along the entire walkway, ornamental light standards matching the existing Lowell Park fixtures, will be installed. There will be a pair of brick and stone columns flanking the walkway on each entrance — Main Street, both sides of Water Street, and at the Lowell Park connection. All non -paved areas will be planted with trees, shrubs and perennials. Two small lawn areas are included east of Water Street. Sincerely, Greg John , RiA Parking NORTH MAIN STREET Relocated Curb WATER STREET Parking J Trail 1 IBJodie Radks 1 Bus Sto- COMMERCIAL STRE Bituminous Walk I I iG Curb ensions Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota Parking July 2011 Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota July 2011 „ wow Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota July 2011 Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota July 2011 Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota July 2011 O ROOF A ` ROOF ABOVE ` Floor Plan FD 0 UTILITY 104 104 © FD FAMILY 103 103 8' V-0 1'_8" / // / 7/ 28•-4• 10' -0' FD 0 FD° MEN'S 101 LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 101 WOMEN'S 102 102 \ Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota El Site Plan C COLLABORATIVE I)rsitgnGru1113, Architecture Engineering Historic Interiors Planning Preservation July 2011 View Looking Southwest Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota C COLLABORATIVE Design( :rot ip.: Architecture Engineering Historic Interiors Planning Preservotion July 2011 East Elevation Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota C COLLABORATIVE I)esignG Architecture Engineering Historic Interiors Planning Preservation July 2011 Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. View Looking Northwest MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota COLLABORATIVE V)esil nGroul).n,. Architecture Engineering Historic Interiors Planning Preservation July 2011 Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. North Elevation MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota C COLLABORATIVE l)e>ignc.rriu .i.. Architechae Engineering Historic Interiors Planning Preservotlon July 2011 Sanders Wacker Berg ly Inc. Site Views MAINSTREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota IR COLLABORATIVE lssi4I Architecture Engineering Historic Interiors Planning Preservation July 2011 Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. V � 5 -i Ai,- j= 1 5 �� '.. i a y � r . ` + Se . .iN its 4 MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota July 2011 PERGOLA ELEVATIONS Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. Landscap Architects and Planners MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota 0 P 2' July 2011 MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN PLAZA MAIN STREET SIDEWALK Sanders Wacker Bergly Inc. WALKWAY TO PARKING MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY Stillwater, Minnesota r r COLUMN DETAIL July 2011