Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-05 HPC MIN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Commissioner Lieberman call the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Present: Commissioners Lieberman, Eastwood, Peterson, Kraske, Johnson and Tomten Absent: Commissioner Hark Others: Sue Fitzgerald, City Planner Approval of Minutes: Approval of the December 1, 2003 and January 5, 2004 minutes. Public Hearings. Case No. DEM/04-00. Demolition Permit for a structure located at 220 Mulberry Street. Michael Hoefler, representing the applicant. The applicant is requesting a Demolition Permit to raze the building at 220 East Mulberry Street. It is the charge of the Commission to determine if the structure at the address above is historically significant tw~f:l~ally significant. Commissioner Johnson stated for clarification that the 1st building request for demolition is the old lighting store on the corner of Second Street and Mulberry and the 2nd building is the building that has the frontage along Main Street from Mulberry towards the Staples Mills building. The building requested for demolition is not deemed historically significant by the National Historic Registry. To be deemed historically significant, it has to be listed on the national registry. Commissioner Lieberman read subdivision 5 of the demolition ordinance for the procedures to be followed for demolition. The applicant submitted the requested information. Commissioner Lieberman went through the submitted application and opened the application for discussion. Commission Johnson stated that the applicant addresses all of the nine items for the Page 1 of 22 demolition permit at this time. Commissioner Peterson stated that the applicant, did not however, indicate the cost of rehab versus demolition and also has there been advertisement since for sale since 2001. Steve Haglind, 549 7ih Street, Egan MN, Four Star Land Development, addressed the Commission as to the cost of rehab versus demolition and the advertisement. Mr. Haglind stated that when he first learned about the building was when he saw the for sale sign on it and that was when he inquired about the building back in August or September 2003. Mr. Hoefler, 12445 55th Street, Lake Elmo, Architectural Network, stated that an actual costs analysis has not been done, but as it relates to the proposed development, the building does have to be moved to accommodate the retaining wall systems and accessibility so as it relates to the site improvements for the proposal it wouldn't be cost effective to utilize the building. Commissioner Lieberman stated that 100 percent of demolition permits that have come before the Commission have had a cost as to what it would cost to have a building reused. There is concern as not having this information available. 10/10/2005 Commissioner Peterson asked Mr. Hoefler what the value of the building is as it sits and the cost to bring it up to meet code requirements. Mr. Hoefler responded by saying to go in and fix the building they would go from the foundation up. Commissioner Lieberman stated that independent economic analysis is required. Melissa Fonninstein, Architectural Network, Inc., stated that there are comments from a structural engineering in the application. Commissioner Johnson stated that it is important to get the economic information to a certain extent and to also put things in perspective. The purpose of the ordinance does pertain to preserving buildings or structures which constitute or reflect distinct features of architecture or historic resources of the city. Commissioner Tomten stated that one of the things that can be used as a tool to help decide what is important and what isn't important is our historical surveys. Since this Page 2 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 was a district that was surveyed in the past is at least one way to try to achieve what buildings are important and which ones aren't. The surveyors go through and delineate contributing buildings versus non-contributing buildings and granted it is one person's subjective criteria. Mulberry Street is not in the historic district so the building is not on the survey and is not a contributing building in terms of a Victorian era architecture. There is still some of that fabric that could be lost with the loss of the building. It has been a utilitarian building. We should look at what will be replacing it. Ms. Fitzgerald, City Planner, stated that she pointed out where the designated historic district is but not to say the surrounding area could not be a contributing source to the downtown. Commissioner Johnson stated the historic district stops at Commercial Avenue on the north. When the study was done, all the downtown was looked at for what properties were contributing to establish that district and the density of historic properties north of that line gets much more sparse. This particular property as well as the whole block has seen a lot of alterations over the years and modifications which distract from the historical purity of the buildings unlike some of them south of Chestnut in particular a lot of them are in their original conditiofO/10/2005 Commissioner Lieberman invited the public to speak on this issue. Martin Hanson, 402 North 2nd Street, asked if 220 Mulberry is on the corner of 2nd and Mulberry Streets and stated that they have an underground water flow that comes down through that area and this summer there was a cave in on the street. Mr. Hanson asked the commission to take in consideration of this underground water stream and that this demolition may deflect the water to other places. The water comes down from McKusick Lake. The same flow comes out behind Johnny's TV. Commissioner Kraske stated that the commission needs the economic information. Commissioner Johnson moved to table this demolition until the next demolition case is heard as they tie into each other and the economic justification will be clear. Commissioner Lieberman concurred. Motion by Commissioner Lieberman to table this case until later Page 3 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 in the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Lieberman ruled this from the chair. Case No. DEM/04-01. Demolition Permit for buildings located at 310 - 370 North Main Street. Michael Hoefler, representing the applicant. The applicant is requesting a Demolition Permit to raze the buildings at 310 - 370 North Main Street. It is the charge of the Commission to determine if the structure at the address above is historically significant or potentially significant. Commissioner Lieberman stated these are the buildings that front Main Street. The applicant letter stated that two of the structures located on the site are considered buildings or structures of potential historic significance based on the original construction date neither are specifically historically significant or appear to be. Commissioner Johnson stated for clarification that Building A1 starting with the lowest designation is on the most northerly end it includes Art Andy's building and also Inhouse is behind it. Building A2 is the building that immediately abuts it to the south were there is a driveway opening in beOO.€lEemocBuilding B1 is the most southerly buildings and has housed More Antiques in the past. Building B2 is tucked in with it just to the north and adjacent to the loading dock area. Building C is the all metal building with the rounded dome top that runs north to south in the back end of the lot. One item for clarification is Building A1 which was described as 1926 construction but in review of the Sanborn Maps the rear portion of that which houses Inhouse was probably built prior to 1884. The building front originally lined up with the Staples Mill building to the north. Commissioner Lieberman referred to the application in regard to the conditions of the buildings. They will be discussed one building at a time for clarification. Building A1 has the greatest historical architectural detail at least in the interior of the buildings. Commissioner Peterson gave the historical background of Building Al. The Comprehensive Plan, Special Site #5, has been designated by the city with the potential to provide a mixed use development with on-site parking and the development being considered would be consistent with this. Page 4 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 The applicant has stated that the minimum cost of bring this 68,492 square foot building up to date would cost over an estimated $11 million making it cost prohibitive. Commissioner Johnson stated that this is a difficult site. There are a couple of things that give it historic significance. Building A1 is one of the last few milling sites in Stillwater and the purity of the structure from an architectural standpoint. The rest of the buildings have been interconnected and separated and has Commissioner Peterson has pointed out some fires have changed things as well. A lot of different mixed ages and architectural styles so what was originally the Stillwater Manufacturing has been altered and changed over the years where there really isn't a lot of resemblance of some of the earlier structures that were once there. So it does have some historic significance to the community as being the last milling operation but then it doesn't represent itself very well of a unique architectural style or anything that has been preserved in its original form due to the alterations of the continued use. Michael Hoefler stated the key issue with any of these buildings is its our responsibility as Commission members, as architects, as builders and as the general public is to put people in buildings that comply with life safety. For instance, upon review of this building we looked at this structure anddt1ie/200'~rely tilted to the north. It is based on post and beam. The building is not safe. The remodeling of putting this building up to current code without any grandfather laws would severely impact the look of the building. You would see very little of what was left of the building. The Commission asked for clarification on the water damage stated in the report. Melissa Fonninstein, Architectural Network, Inc., responded saying that when they went through Building A2 to get access to the foundation under Building A1 and when they were in there in December there was still water being present down there. Water is still coming in and there are still freeze thaw cycles going on. If Building A1 is torn down, Building A2 will come down with it because of a connection point. Commissioner Johnson didn't feel the $11 million was out of line considering all of the code and safety issues that would have to brought up to standard. Commission Tomten concurred. Page 5 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Commissioner Lieberman asked the commission if there was any interior in Building A1 that adds particular value that we might want to think about being saved in someway and be incorporated in a new building being built. Commissioner Lieberman opened discussion to the public. Brad Castle, resident, asked a question about code. Is it possible to bring a certain structure up to half code. Does the code have imply occupation of the building or could you restore a building to a half hearted code that no one would be allowed in and would be done for viewing. That would be a big factor in establishing what to do this building. Commissioner Peterson stated that the code requirements are for persons to occupy a building. Commissioner Lieberman stated the restoration would require being brought up to full, current codes. Mr. Castle stated that one should save tbese2looodings just because they are old. That should be the paramount consideration. Martin Hanson, 402 North 2nd Street, asked if each of these permits are a separate permit. Commissioner Lieberman responded saying yes. They are two separate permits, one for 220 Mulberry and the other for the Main Street complex. Mr. Hanson continued saying the underground water flow still comes through this complex on Main Street so we would still have the water coming through there as they get into tearing down the foundation. lit may alter the course of the water and may come up to the surface or may divert some place else. As a taxpayer, he would not like to see the City of Stillwater be stuck with any expense of water coming up and overflowing on the streets or get into adjacent property owners so he would like to see that the water problems get taken care of. The developer's civil engineer has been working with Klayton Eckles, City Engineer, and staff regarding some of the water issues. They are aware that they are there. Page 6 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Craig Toopee, 2119 Cliff Drive, wanted to share some thoughts. First of which, none of us would be here if it wasn't proposed to the current owners that the City of Stillwater who really wanted this in their Comprehensive Guide Plan and they picked this particular block out and there were numerous Council meetings in the past that encouraged this type of development. The other thought is that he wants to empathize with the current owner. These buildings have been altered so many times through out the years. We have a responsibility to the public for safety issues. Melanie Ebertz, 368 North Main Street, stated the unsolicited response on the building about the history and the feel of the building. It's building like this that I love about Stillwater. Ms. Ebertz feels responsible about the history of Stillwater. She spoke on behalf of the community. Norman Steer, 17060 116th Street North, a member of the Historic District Committee of The Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce, in looking at the buildings if you could retain the old Sammy's were it is and so called A building the 1884 portion of the Stillwater Manufacturing. He encourages an independent evaluation for the cost of bringing these buildings into some sort of compliance. There ought to be some grandfather clauses. Mr. Steer strongly believes that retaining these two buildings it will enhance the value of the condomin1IOnnS/2mD; the retail space as well as generate acceptance in the community of the modern condominiums. Dick Kedrowski, 9340 Mendel Road, one of the owners of the building, along with his partner Roger walked the streets of Stillwater around the building and talked with many business owners and business tenants and never heard one person ask them to save the building they all loved the new project and the prospect of hundreds of people living there to patronize their businesses. They both like the building, but they can't afford it. This has no disregard for the community. Randall Radunz, owner of the Stillwater Gallery, stated they like it on the north end. They are established and there is a lot of parking available. They are looking forward to a new building. They appreciate the work involved and are excited about getting into the new space. Commissioner Lieberman asked for clarification on if Mr. Radunz was for or against the demolition. Mr. Radunz responded saying he was for the demolition. Page 7 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Patricia Ebertz, 108 S 3rd Street, stated that if $1 million was into the building it can't be in a state of such disrepair as stated. Carl Erickson, 1861 Oak Glen Drive, his business is at 402 North Main Street, his concern is that this type of building is one of the last opportunities for small business owners to get a place to start up a business in the downtown area of this nature. There are no other places with reasonable rent on the north end of town they are all dependent on walk through retail type business. This is a place where artists, small manufacturing type people can set up their spaces big open spaces with reasonable rent. The other concern is that the building is going to be torn down but if there is any way to incorporate elements of this building into the new building it would be helpful and to change the name to be something more in character to Stillwater. Commissioner Lieberman stated that this is a difficult project. There are buildings that are old with an interior that has apparently some redeeming qualities, we have a downtown plan that calls for mixed use, residential/commercial, development in that space. The Commission is charged with enforcing the ordinances and following the ordinances to the best of our ability. 10/10/2005 Commissioner Lieberman would like to, at this point take, a look at the design that will be the replacement for 220 Mulberry and the block of buildings on Main Street. Commissioner Johnson stated that it is a real fitting, Item 6 of the Demolition Plan Review, is to look at proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure to be demolished is located. It is fitting here. It is how well this is done plays into a lot of what we can do with this site to carry the feeling of Stillwater at this end of town and keep the items that are significant and those items are of concern. If it just means just demolishing the building and leaving a vacant lot I think a lot of us would object to it. If we can do something there that is appropriate that betters the site we need to have that full picture. This is consistent with what is in the ordinance. The applicants presented the redesign of the project. Landscaping has been created along Main Street, numerous entrance facades into the retail portions of the building, corner monuments on both north and south ends of the site, a service drive back to the north end of the building and in between the plaza areas there are a knob of units. The refinement from the past design that Planning Commission and City Council have Page 8 of 22 reviewed is taking the public parking as well as the access off of Mulberry Street and City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 separating it from the private parking of the condominiums as mentioned in one of the traffic reports and also revised the access point from the lower level parking ramp. The additional refinements are proposing to take the Sammy's building and relocate it on a new stone foundation in the southwest corner of the site with its own parking just off of Mulberry Street. This building would be updated. We are incorporating as well the plaza retaining wall system for the most part that stays as is. The street level of the retail and main level parking facility for the project is 14,000 square feet of retail area with a large public lobby that is roughly 40 feet across with public restrooms that serves off the public lobby. The parking ramp is for public, private and employee parking and meets ADA standards. The refinement on the exterior elevations was done on old historic buildings and it relates to proportions, textures, materials and have created a new design. The proposal is a brick building with a stone foundation similar to the stone on the Victorio's building south of town. A bookend has been created near the south plaza of building which has an octagonal shape with a face brick cap to it. The building facades are broken into five different pieces. On the foundation area, the first three feet, numerous detailed infilled windows, also some brick coining and detailing on all of the parapet have been proposed which is again similar to other Stillwater buildings. The ornamental ironwork is on all of the railings. All the windows are simulated divided light, they will be a metlllodoo6 The crowns along all of the stucco areas will be detailed similar to the brick coining. More emphasis was placed on the corner of Mulberry. The overall height is 50 feet. Samples of the bricks were presented. Discussion on the balconies and canopies followed. The canopies start and stop and suspended by cable off of the brick facades. Commissioner Johnson stated the elevations are projected. On the north end that portion of the building steps back quite a bit as well as the corner. He is concerned about the size of the building as it basically runs one city block as one building and to try to minimize that mass to make it look like different infill buildings that are similar to the 1880s construction south of Chestnut where there is a very distinct difference in the buildings parapet heights vary and even the brick material. There is some symmetry about this building on the center and then to either side which kind of makes the building look like one big building. Commissioner Tomten concurred with Commissioner Johnson on looking from the canopies up seeing a lot of variation in how the massing and the materials start to Page 9 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 break the block down and the proportions and the shapes that reflects a lot of old Stillwater. There is a bit of a disconnect at the canopy line down to the street. The Commission would like to see more ways to help separate the buildings visually both at the entry level as well as what is up above. Commissioner Lieberman stated that they need to see more elevations. The design of the building is moving in the right direction. Commissioner Lieberman invited comment from the public. Rick Miller, 304 2nd Street North, directly behind the building, had some elevation questions. Martin Hanson, 402 N 2nd Street, stated it seems like a rather busy design and is not pleased with its appearance. Norman Steer, 17060 116th Street North, stated concerns regarding the steps. 10/10/2005 Carl Erickson, 1861 Oak Glen Drive, stated concerns about signs and the sidewalk. Mr. Erickson also asked if there would be restaurant facilities available. The applicant stated that they are not designing the building for grill type but for possibly a deli or oven. Mr. Erickson asked if there will be any dining on the sidewalk. The applicant did not anticipate that. Commissioner Lieberman stated that it is the fluctuation of the market. Commissioner Lieberman encouraged to attract a diverse commercial mix. Mr. Erickson stated that Sammy's is looking forward to moving back into that corner spot. Jill Greenhaugh, 410 North 4th Street, asked about traffic controls and were the cars come in and out of the ramp. Ms. Greenhall takes Mulberry and is familiar with that Page 10 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 and with 200 parking spaces so its seems an awful lot of cars are going to be turning right to go up Mulberry. The applicant stated that the traffic report outlined the traffic issues. Melanie Ebertz, 368 North Main Street, gave a final thought about the design is seems that the Commission is willing to accept something that is compliant like what is the standard, why wouldn't the Commission consider asking for something extraordinary on Main Street. The downtown is small, 6 blocks, and this is 1/6 of downtown, this is going to dictate the character of our precious downtown Stillwater. There is a reason why people travel from far away to come here and you are taking out a reason, you are taking out a block. Why can't we add something extraordinary. Commissioner Johnson asked Ms. Ebertz if she had some ideas that she had that might make this an extraordinary building. Ms. Ebertz responded no, not with this design. She sees individual buildings that reflect the rest of downtown so it would look like an extension of our small downtown. We all love the heart of downtown, the individuB~ dD'raodings, the character and we have asked for different heights and the staggering of the facade. It doesn't seem that it would be that hard to extend the downtown instead of cutting it off. Norman Steer, 17060 116th Street North, was asking if it was possible for any part of the back half of the building that is essentially on the 2nd Street side to be higher than 50 feet. The applicant stated that this building will be 37 feet below 2nd Street on the northwest corner. Rick Knoller, 304 2nd Street North, wanted to address that if we have a 50 foot limit and we go above that, there will be a lot of issues more than what is being discussed now. Maybe a 30 foot, 40, foot, 50 foot that would be in line, but to go higher would be criminal. Martin Hanson, 102 No 2nd Street, asked the Commission if it was its intent to give a demolition permit before final plans are reviewed and final approval of facades. Page 11 of 22 Commissioner Lieberman closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Commissioner Lieberman stated that this design phase as being part of the demolition permit phase and one of the conditions of granting a demolition permit is what is going to be there in its place and is it something that says to permitting authority that will feel good. In regard to 220 Mulberry contributes less to overall downtown. In regarding to the Main Street buildings, more design is needed. Motion by Commissioner Lieberman to move to grant the permits for demolition of 220 Mulberry and the block of buildings on Main Street and conceptually approve the direction in which the development is moving but will withhold final design approval until such time more complete drawings and more complete building materials are presented to the Commission. Motion failed for a seconded. Commissioner Johnson felt that they should be acted on individually even though they are intertwined. 10/10/2005 Commissioner Johnson felt that the Commission is headed in the right direction with this. The appearance and what can be done with structure to make it a unique looking building is in its infancy. Commissioner Tomten said demolition wouldn't take place until construction was ready to begin and until final design is approved and developer has 100 percent financing. Commissioner Kraske stated that the project is a good project, if the design is a better design, and if the Commission can still have input into the design. Commissioner Johnson said it is the prerogative of this Commission to look at the economic viability of that individual structure, but it is a bigger picture than that, it is the entire block and its what can be done with the rest of it and is it viable to rehab the block as a whole or is it maybe something that is better served by a different proposal for the site. If we look at it as an individual building maybe that building is more useable than some of the other space and can maybe rehabed as an individual building but then that greatly restricts the opportunities for the rest of the site. To leave that Page 12 of 22 one building on the corner and do the rest of the block would not look good as far as City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 the design guidelines are concerns and we are trying accomplish with this site. I think a better use of the site is to move the Sammy's building back to that corner. Commissioner Johnson would rather preserve that building than to preserve the existing building at 220 Mulberry. Commissioner Lieberman stated that overall they could get a better designed building, a better designed product. Commissioner Johnson said reviews in the past have been for a single site. Motion by Commissioner Johnson to approve the demolition permit for Case No. DEM/04-00, 220 East Mulberry Street, seconded by Commissioner Lieberman. Motion carried 4-1, Commissioner Peterson opposing. Commissioner Johnson stated that an economic comparison was made and the condition of the building. The applicant met the requirements. Motion by Commissioner Jo~III05CIpprove the demolition permit for Case No. DEM/04-01, for the buildings at 310-370 North Main Street, seconded by Commissioner Tomten. All in favor. Commissioner Peterson stated most of the buildings are falling down and pieced together but if you look at it more in a historical context that A1 Building doesn't belong there it belongs to the mill building. Commissioner Peterson would like more historic documentation. Can that building be somehow incorporated with the mill complex north of it can it be included on the national registry. If this building does belong with the northern most mill complex, it should stay. Commissioner Peterson recommended denial or continue this until more history can be discovered on the A1 Building. The applicant stated that the purchase agreement has been written, therefore, we need to act on things. Commissioner Eastwood stated that the applicant has met all the guidelines of the ordinance. However, he would like to have a historical body have access to the building while it is existing to possibly photograph or document. Page 13 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if there was more that can be done as far as some additional research to the site, more documentation about what has transpired there as part of the last bit of our lumbering heritage for the community and the use of this building, have some of the elements be incorporated into the design. The applicant said that it would extremely difficult to keep the building with the foundation that it has. He would look at incorporating the middle entrance that would be called the hall of history with paintings, photographs and documentation of the history of the site. Commissioner Johnson wants the developers to put some effort into looking at the historical context of the site and identification. Ms. Fonninstein, stated that the historical review process has begun with the Minnesota Historical Society and documentation has begun. Motion amended by Commissioner Johnson to approve the demolition permit for Case No. DEM/04-01 and that a condition of approval be added as foIlQWs~/Imd: historical interpretation of the site be made with research that is adequate to the Commission's level of review and that a interpretative facility be made in the lobby and to use as much of the building elements of Building Al as part of it and that will be reviewed with the building project design review, seconded by Commissioner Eastwood. Commissioner Peterson, opposing, Commissioner Lieberman, abstaining. Case No. DR/04-03. Design review of The Arbors on North Main located at corner of Mulberry Street and Main Street. Michael Hoefler, representing applicant. This planning request was first heard by the HPC at the October 6, 2003 HPC meeting (DRj03-63, minutes attached). Recommendations were given by the HPC and the case went to the Planning Commission for a Special Use Permit and a Variance to the height of the building. All requests were denied. On October 21, 2003, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial and submitted a revised plan on November 13, 2003 for Council consideration with the appeal (the original plan considered by the Planning Commission 10/13/03, and the new revised plan attached). The applicant had Page 14 of 22 eliminated two levels from the original proposal. The proposed project is within the City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 City's zoning four stories, 50-foot height limit. 98 units are proposed instead of the original 112 units. The plan was also modified adding a residential finger in the rear court. This adds 14 units to help compensate for the loss of the top residential level of the structure. The building that housed Sammies Clothing Shop was still on the corner of Main Street and Mulberry. The City Council approved request from The Architectural Network, Inc., Michael Hoefler, for a Special Use Permit for a 98 unit condominium development with main level retail and underground parking and a Variance to the Flood Plain Regulations located between North Main Street and North 2nd Street north of Mulberry Street (south of Staples Mill) subject to the conditions as recommended and with the following additional conditions: HPC design review and approval; HPC approval of demolition permits: Parks Board review of park dedication land; and no demolition until financing is secured and just before construction. Project Description: The proposed project is in front of HPC again for design review as per Council's (11/18/03) condition of approval. There are a number of revision's to the plan since Council approved the project. To name a few, the front fa<;;ade has change, in design and in appearance. The building that houses Sammies Clothing Shop has been moved to the corner of 2nd Street and Mulberry Street. The shapes of the fingers of the building have also changedl1lOl/SlbeJi)e. The number of condominium units remains at 98; with retail on the first floor and underground parking remaining as first proposed. The fa<;;ade of the building would be brick and stucco. A number of areas have ornamental iron guardrails at what the plan calls "terraces". It is staff's suggestion that these "terraces" become "patios" with the walls moved back to accommodate some relief in the flat fa<;;ade, and give it a look that contributes to the historic district. Conditions of Approval: 1. The structure shall be flood proofed to the regulatory flood protection elevation as required by the City's Flood Plain Ordinance. The flood proofing design shall be prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed by the City's engineering department or flood map amended. 2. A demolition permit shall be obtained before this project is approved. 3. Detailed design plans for the retaining wall and dewatering of the site shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer before final plan approval. 4. A stormwater drainage plan shall be presented for City Engineer approval. 5. All conditions of approval from the HPC (Conditions 1-21) are incorporated into Page 15 of 22 this condition by reference (DRj03-63, attached). City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 6. Fire Department standards for access and water supply and sprinklers shall be met. 7. Access between parking levels as described in the parking study shall be considered for redesign. 8. Trash storage shall be enclosed within the proposed building. 9. All heating and air conditioning equipment shall be enclosed within the building to control noise and views. 10. Recommendation contained in traffic review shall be incorporated in the final project plans. 11. Design impacts of flood proofing on the Main Street commercial facade shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 12. The Parks Board shall review the proposed park design to determine if it meets the City's park dedication requirement. 13. The applicant shall obtain a MnDOT access permit as required. Motion by Commissioner Tomten that design review of DR/04-03 be continued with conditions for a more complete elevations of the building, for the architect to incorporate suggestion made at this meeting and that the CommiSSOml/5!bmlld be presented with plans in there entirety with also the elevations of the adjacent buildings and the reuse of materials incorporated into this development, seconded by Commissioner Lieberman. All in favor. The applicant stated that they are looking for concept design approval. Commission Johnson stated that the application is not complete enough to give conceptually design approval. Commissioner Peterson commended the applicants on being willing to work with them. Commissioner Johnson stated that there wasn't any objection on the plan view, as far as the foot print goes, most of the concerns were with the elevation views. At this point, there are to many unfinished items. Commissioner Lieberman said that community input is very much valued. Case No. DR/03-S1a. Revised design review for a special events permit and a Page 16 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 guestroom of a bed and breakfast to be moved to carriage house at the Rivertown Inn located at 306 West Olive Street. Ed Hawksford, representing the applicant. Modification of the Special Use Permit. Design review for a guestroom of a bed and breakfast to be moved to the carriage house at the Rivertown Inn and approval of a Special Events Permit for the bed and breakfast. The Commission previously approved the exterior modifications and moving of one of the nine permitted guestrooms from the main structure to the carriage house at the September 3, 2003 meeting. There had been one guestroom in the carriage house since 1989. As it turns out the previous owner of the Rivertown Inn had not received permission to use the carriage house for guests. The previous owner did get approval to construct his private residence in the carriage house. The Inn is licensed for nine rooms; and there are currently seven in the main building. They are requesting approval to add two of the guestrooms in the carriage house. Mr. Anderson was present and stated that the intention was to use the carriage house as a guest room. 10/10/2005 The Rivertown Inn was set up originally with nine rooms and at that time there was no ordinance to follow. Motion by Commissioner Eastwood to approved the addition of two guestrooms in the carriage house, seconded by Commissioner Peterson. All in favor. The second request is for a Special Events Permit. They wish to offer dinners to current guests and invited friends who've stayed at the Inn before and/or friends, not to exceed 40 guests per event. The events would be concluded by 9:00 p.m. The events would be based on reservation only basis, not to exceed four per month. Typically, Special Events Permits allow the following: 1. A maximum of six special events (large functions defined as business meetings, bus tours, bridal and wedding showers, anniversaries, weddings and wedding receptions, and church functions) over twenty persons allowed per month. 2. All special event visitors shall park on site or at a controlled remote location. Page 17 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 3. Limit of groups: 40 capacity as approved unless special approval is obtained from the City Council. 4. Food must be served by a licensed caterer. 5. All special events shall be over by 9:00pm. 6. No open bar on premises for special events. Champagne is allowed on a two- person/one bottle limit. 7. No outside entertainment or lighting for special events. 8. This permit shall be reviewed upon complaint. 9. The manager or owners of the property shall be on site during all special events. This use is not transferable. Mr. Anderson also applied to add special events to the bed and breakfast permit. It is a request for a modification for a maximum of six special events per month and would like to change the request to four special events per month and not exceed 40 per event and wouldn't go later than 9 p.m. and would like to serve dinners and have special occassion events centered around that. Ms. Fitzgerald, City Planner, stated that the applicants went before the City Council last month for approval of New Year's eventCBm~e5 granted approval for the New Year's and Christmas. No complaints were received. This is an effort to expand for guests of guests and people that hear about us. This is not open to the public but for special events for people who want to come. Mr. Anderson said concerns have been expressed about guests staying in the carriage house. The two guest rooms are not visible to them. Under construction now is a barrier, historically consistent with the building, between the main building and the carriage house so that the neighbors cannot see guests. We feel that concerns addressed and have been taken care off. Motion by Commissioner Peterson to approve as conditioned with four events per month seconded by Commissioner Lieberman. Motion carried 4-1with Commissioner Johnson abstaining. Case No. DR/04-00. Design review of signage for ReMax located at 1180 Frontage Road. Russ Field, representing the applicant. Page 18 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 The applicant is requesting design review and approval for an exterior sign. The existing pylon sign would be used. The applicant will use the same cabinet with interior modifications and a new sign face. The cabinet will be wrapped in metallic silver with corrugated metal back panels. The lighting source for the main part of the sign will be exposed neon letters for the word "ReMax" and for the logo. The two lower panels will be silver faced Lexan backlit panels with each company's logo. The existing pole will be wrapped in corrugated metal (metallic silver). There will be no height or dimension changes to the existing sign. Commissioner asked for clarification on the lighting. Mr. Russ Field, applicant, explained the lighting to the commission. Thad Rich, ReMax, was present and explained what he would like for the building. Ms. Fitzgerald stated that there was a choice of either a building sign or a pylon sign. Signage can be in the window filling up 1/3 of the window. Motion by Commissioner JohnsoO'.r(JlJ)pproval of the monument sign, the letters will be internally neon lit, the lower portion of the sign will have back lit letters, the sign background is opaque, this will be the only sign indicating the business name, seconded by Commissioner Eastwood. All in favor. Conditions of Approval: 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Case No. DR/04-02. Design review of ReMax building located at 1180 Frontage Road. Luke Panek- Midwest Bldg and Supply, representing the applicant. The applicant is requesting design review for the ReMax building. The existing building (formerly Hardees) will under go extensive remodeling and include an addition; with phased additions pending. Materials used for the facade will consist of board and bat wood siding. The base of the building will be stone and the roof will be galvanized standing metal seam. There will be an electric transformer located on the ground at the northeast side of the building. All other mechanical equipment will be inside the Page 19 of 22 building, including the trash receptacle. Lighting of the side will remain the same. All City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 building security lighting will be downlit. Parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance for offices is: 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area, 22 spaces is required, the attached site plan shows 43 spaces. Twelve (12) of the shown parking spaces will be eliminated due to the required 20 foot wide landscaped front yard setback and 10 feet on the side yard. Parking shall be screened from the street by berming, bushes, low walls or changes in the grade of parking areas. Jim Rinks, the contractor, said the facade of the building will remain essentially the same. The contractor will work with staff on the berming. The lighting will be downlit and present the final lighting plan to staff for approval. Motion by Commissioner Tomten to approve with conditions and add another condition that material colors being use and landscaping plan be submitted to staff for approval and work with staff regarding parking setback and screening issues and clarification of exterior materials would consist of ston~r~~g~5 trash enclosure on north side of building and lighting is down lit, seconded by Commissioner Peterson. All in favor. Conditions of Approval: 1. All utilities shall be completely screened from public view. 2. A lighting plan showing the fixture type, height, location and exterior lighting intensity shall be submitted with building permit plans for Planning Director approval. All lighting shall be directed away from the street and adjacent properties. Light sources shall be shielded from direct view and protected form damage by vehicles. 3. All trees required to remain on site, as indicated on the plans, shall be protected by fencing or other necessary measures shall be taken to prevent damage during construction activity. 4. All landscaping shall be installed before utility release or final project inspection. No project shall be phased unless approval is granted by the Planning Commission. 5. There shall be a 20 foot buffer with screening on all property that boarders any street. 6. Continuous concrete curbing shall be installed to separate parking areas from landscape areas. Page 20 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 7. Handicapped parking spaces and signage, in compliance with State requirements, shall be shown on building permit plans and installed before final inspection of the project. 8. The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from the public street. 9. The trash enclosure (if outside) shall be made of a sturdy opaque masonry material, with trash receptacles screened from view and compatible with the color and materials of the project. 10. No roof equipment shall be visible to the general public. 11. All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent surface. 12. Construction projects shall conform to the City's Noise ordinance. Construction during the dry season shall mitigate excess dust problems. 13. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City Engineer before building permits are issued. 14. Sign package to be approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission, including directional signs. 15. A sign permit shall be required for all project signs 16. Exteri~r I~ghting plan to be reviewTgtfID208~proved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 17. All security lights on building shall be downlit. 18. All exterior modifications to the approved plan are to be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Case No. DR/04-01. Design review of exterior signage for flower shop located at 1481 Stillwater Blvd. Jean Olesen, applicant. The applicant is requesting design review and approval for the floral shop at 1481 Stillwater Blvd (within the strip center). The sign would read "Florist" in red block channel lettering, internally lit. Motion by Commissioner Eastwood, to approve the request that the sign is consistent with the other signage and to submit back to staff the layout for approval, seconded by Peterson. All in favor. Conditions of Approval: 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Page 21 of 22 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 5, 2004 Case No. DR/04-04. Design review of exterior signage for Quizno's Sub located at 1754 Market Drive. Chad Moffenbier, representing applicant. The applicant is requesting design review for individually lit channel letter signs for Quizno's Sub. On the front of the building (Market Drive) a 17.4 square foot sign would be placed on the building at the same level as the other signs in the strip center. The backside of the building (Stillwater Blvd) would have a 7.73 square sign. Colors of the sign are green and red. The word "Quizno's" will be green; and the word "Sub" will be red. Motion by Commissioner Lieberman to approved as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Peterson. All in favor. Conditions of Approval: 1. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. No additional signage. Motion made Commissioner Li~018n, seconded by Commissioner Eastwood to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. All in favor. Respectfully submitted Sheila McNamara Planning and Building Department Page 22 of 22