HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-04 HPC PacketT H E B I R T H P L A C E O F MINNESOTA
Agenda
Heritage Preservation Commission
Notice of Meeting
Monday, March 4, 2013
The regular meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission will begin at 7 p.m., Monday, February 4,
2013, in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF February 4, 2013 MINUTES
3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting to address subjects which
are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Heritage Preservation Commission may take action or reply at the time of the
statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in
attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. DESIGN REVIEWS
5.01 Case No. DR/2013 -08. Design review of a roof top vestibule located at 125 Main Street South in the
CBD, Central Business District. Larry Nelson, Mainplace LLC, applicant.
5.02 Case No. DR/2013 -09. Design review of an addition of an exterior bar at the caboose located at 305
Water Street South, The Freight House, in the CBD, Central Business District. Aspire Development, applicant.
5.03 Case No. DR /2013 -10. Design review of signage for Black Letter Books located at 102 Main Street South
in the CBD, Central Business District. Cecilia Loome, applicant.
5.04 Case No. DR/2013 -11. Design review of window replacement and trim located at 222 Chestnut Street
East in the CBD, Central Business District. Thomond O'Brien, applicant.
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
i I \v ate':
THE IIRTHELACE OF MINNESOTA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
February 4, 2013
7:00 P.M.
Chairman Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Lieberman, Commissioners Brach, Goodman, Johnson, Krakowski, Larson, Zahren,
Council Representative Menikheim (Commissioners Goodman and Zahren left the meeting early.)
Absent: None
Staff: City Planner Pogge
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of January 7, 2013 meeting minutes
Motion by Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Zahren, to approve the minutes of the January 7,
2013 meeting. All in favor, 7 -0.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. DEM /2013 -05. A partial demolition of a roof structure and dormers on a single family home and
replacement with a new taller roof structure and dormers located at 1225 4th Street South in the RB, Two
Family Residential District. Daniel Jozefow, Sunrise Construction, representing Bill and Dana Pawlucy,
applicants.
Chairman Lieberman explained that the Pawlucys intend to remove the existing roof and replace it with a
taller roof structure in order to add living space to the third floor.
City Planner Pogge indicated that staff recommends approval.
Chairman Lieberman and Commissioner Johnson requested clarification on whether the Commission needs
to determine whether the demolition involves an historic resource.
City Planner Pogge responded that staff believes the home is an historic resource, but that does not prohibit
a property owner from making an appropriate change to the property. Staff believes that the family's need to
expand living space for their family indicates that there is not a feasible alternative.
Daniel Jozefow, contractor for the project, commented he went into the attic a few times to see if there was
an alternative configuration and there is not. He added that the there would be a slight change in the
appearance of the dormers to lessen the occurrence of ice dams.
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 4, 2013
Commissioner Larson noted he doesn't think the change in slope will have a major impact.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the details of the existing window trim can be maintained.
Mr. Jozefow responded trim will match what is currently on the house.
Motion by Chairman Lieberman, seconded by Commissioner Zahren, to approve the partial demolition request
and the design as presented. Commissioner Larson suggested adding an amendment to the motion requiring that
the dormer roofs shall be configured to have a similar profile with an eyebrow slope as the main building room
and existing dormers, and that window trim, freeze, and fascia shall follow the existing elements, and that the
windows on the dormers and gable ends shall include elements that make them appear to be double hung
windows. Chairman Lieberman accepted the amendment. All in favor, 7 -0.
DESIGN REVIEWS
Case No. 2013 -04. Modification of a previously approved Design Review (Case No. 2012 -08) of the east stairs
for Rafters rooftop dining deck located at 317 Main Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. Brian
Larson, representing Larry Cramer, applicant.
Chairman Lieberman explained that the applicant has determined that he cannot make the rooftop patio
financially feasible in the current configuration. The applicant is seeking to eliminate the main set of stairs
and protective "dog house" and replace it with an external set of stairs that will extend out a window on the
second floor and up to the roof top. The second "dog house" for the emergency exit will remain; however,
with the change to external stairs, the owner will not need to enclose them to the ground floor, thus saving
money and making the project more viable. Staff recommends denial based on concerns listed in the staff
report.
Larry Cramer, applicant, stated while money is important, it is not the whole issue. He disagrees with City
staff's recommendation, and distributed written comments stating why. He has been meeting extensively
with the Building Inspector to develop the revised plans.
City Planner Pogge pointed out the recommended conditions of approval represent reviews done by him, the
Community Development Director, Building Official, Police Chief, Fire Chief and Fire Marshal. The
Building Code is black and white: if there is not three feet for the stair width, it cannot be approved.
Chairman Lieberman noted that from previous negotiations, it appears the neighboring tenant will not grant
an easement.
Mr. Cramer said he doesn't want to spend any more time and money on engineering if he can't get HPC
approval. When previous plans were approved, he got bids and selected a contractor, who had lots of
questions and good ideas. A lot of time was put into options that would satisfy building and safety codes if
they could be constructed within his property. He feels the new plan is far more aesthetically pleasing inside
and out, and it does not cause permanent disuse of some retail space below.
Chairman Lieberman commented that the HPC's only issue is whether the design being presented is
consistent with downtown design guidelines.
Page 2 of 5
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 4, 2013
Commissioner Johnson remarked that on the Water Street side, the building is not original. He would prefer
starting high on the roof and turning the stairs 180 degrees to bring the entry on the second floor more near
the bar, which he feels would clean up the look and address staff concerns about entering through a window.
Brian Larson, architect for the project, added that the problems with turning the stairs 180 degrees are that it
would bisect the bar, which would be an operational and cost issue, and that it would make the landing more
visually prominent. The advantage is that it would clear the window.
Mr. Cramer added that the most important aspects are the roofline and the view from the river and the hill,
both of which are improved by the new plans. He also pointed out that Water Street is a delivery route with
trucks and garbage dumpsters all over. He said he is trying to be cognizant of the look, but this is a 1980s
building facade, not an original look.
Commissioner Krakowski said he is satisfied with the new plans.
Commissioner Brach said he feels it is an improvement over the other design.
Commissioner Goodman noted he thinks it's an improvement over some of the existing facades on Water
Street.
Chairman Lieberman reminded the Commission that buildings have a working side. He believes the new
plan is consistent with the intent of the design guidelines.
Councilmember Menikheim commented he was initially concerned with the proposal for a rooftop patio. It
was then conditioned to the point where he was OK with it. He talked with Mr. Cramer and Mr. Larson and
he believes Mr. Cramer is making a good faith effort to improve Rafters.
Commissioner Johnson added he would like consideration given to reversing the stairs. Keeping details
simple with a fire escape look is good.
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Zahren, to approve the design of the rooftop
deck for Rafters Bar and Grill with all 22 conditions, and the added condition that if a modification to the
building is required in order to create additional space for the stairs, then the reconfigured wall shall look like
the existing brick wall when it is completed, subject to approval of the City Planner. All in favor, 7 -0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update on Local Designation Project and Downtown Podcast Project by Daniel Hoisington.
Daniel Hoisington updated the Commission on the progress of the Local Designation Project. Bob
Claybaugh did a draft of residential Design Guidelines. Mr. Hoisington will provide the Commission a draft
with markups to indicate changes.
City Planner Pogge commented that staff would want to handle almost everything having to do with design
review at the staff level, so it can be a user friendly, quick process. He suggested listing modifications that
will trigger a staff review or appearance before the Commission, versus those that won't.
Chairman Lieberman commented that language should be very clear regarding what triggers a design review
so it doesn't feel like a burden to the average homeowner.
Page 3 of 7
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 4, 2013
Commissioner Johnson added that determination of which projects would go to the HPC for design review
should be consistent with the demolition ordinance; several types of modifications could still be handled by
staff - those items should be clearly stated.
City Planner Pogge stated that currently, homeowners may do major modifications to their homes which
could have dramatic impact on a neighborhood because the Commission has no control over architectural
design of existing buildings.
Councilmember Menikheim expressed concern about giving City administration too much power.
Commissioner Johnson replied that is why there will be criteria for what does and doesn't trigger review.
City Planner Pogge reminded the Commission that any action staff takes may always be appealed to the
Commission.
Mr. Hoisington reviewed photos of structures that he feels are contributing and non contributing to the
District. He was surprised by how few houses have been thoroughly redone.
Chairman Lieberman asked, regarding a non contributing structure, for instance Meister's: at what point
does something become an icon and therefore worthy to be considered contributing? If a property owner
demolished Meister's and built something consistent with infill design guidelines, would the City be
concerned that the building which seems to have anchored the corner for a long time is torn down?
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that if Meister's is not a contributing property, it could be demolished.
He believes there is still enough integrity of the original structure to consider it contributing.
Chairman Lieberman said it feels like homeowners with the nicer houses are more restricted than those who
have less significant, non contributing houses.
City Planner Pogge predicted that as the City runs out of empty lots for new construction, more homeowners
will be demolishing existing homes to build newer ones.
Mr. Hoisington pointed out the principle for homeowners is: you can keep whatever you have and replace it
in kind for as long as you want and nobody will tell you what to do. But if you make a significant change,
then design review will be required.
Chairman Lieberman expressed concern that the Commission is entering a difficult area in terms of
dictating homeowners' choices of building materials. He feels the Commission is too often seen as negative
and condescending toward property owners.
Councilmember Menikheim noted that since he first came on the Council, he has come to recognize the
importance of historic preservation for the City. The Commission will have to sell this to the citizens.
Commissioner Johnson commented the intent should be to encourage changes that embrace historic
preservation, not tell the homeowner what they can't do. There should be an incentive to do the right thing
such as a low interest loan or grant to promote good behavior.
Commissioner Brach noted he too prefers to provide options and positive incentives.
Page 4 of 5
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 4, 2013
Commissioner Larson stated that there are two levels of issues, minor modifications and major
modifications that greatly impact the neighborhood.
City Planner Pogge remarked it's hard to balance a community right versus an individual right. There has to
be neighborhood buy -in. He likes idea of economic incentives for preservation, but many incomes exceed
low income loan guidelines. The City needs to do more PR with homeowners. Ensuring that property values
will remain high is an incentive.
Mr. Hoisington stated he will write a district nomination. The Commission should look over the draft of
design guidelines. Then it will be up to the Commission to determine how to proceed to the next step of
meetings with homeowners in the district to answer questions.
City Planner Pogge summarized there is real concern from the Commission about having discussion with
homeowners about the possibility of limiting their rights.
Commissioner Brach said he feels the City should provide a pamphlet, have informational meetings and let
homeowners ask questions. It would be good to have a couple neighborhood meetings.
Chairman Lieberman noted he would like to see a community discussion about what people want Stillwater
to look like in the future from a business, residential, and educational perspective.
Commissioner Johnson said the Commission needs to keep in mind that its charge is focused on historic
preservation and not necessarily commercial retail revenue or demographics.
City Planner Pogge pointed out that historic preservation was addressed in the comprehensive plan which
indicates the City shall designate those properties worthy of historic preservation.
Commissioner Krakowski asked if the Commission could have a draft sheet it would mail out to
homeowners in the proposed district.
Mr. Hoisington pointed out the importance of having Commission consensus about taking the designation
project to the public.
City Planner Pogge noted if there isn't strong support from the Commission, he wouldn't suggest moving
forward.
Chairman Lieberman suggested sending something to affected homeowners reminding them that in the early
2000s, a series of community meetings were held and a local designation district was discussed, and
informing them that the City would like to designate their neighborhood first and wants to share ideas on all
the ways this can be positive for them.
Commissioner Larson suggested before the first meeting, the Commission should have already contacted
advocates in the neighborhood, so when they come to the public meeting it's not the first time they've heard
about it.
City Planner Pogge offered to re -send the list of homeowners in the district indicating which of them are on
the Heirloom Homes program.
Regarding podcasts, Mr. Hoisington reported he is in the midst of writing the scripts.
Page 5 of 7
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 4, 2013
Commissioner Brach suggested using the City web site to invite residents to add old photos of their home.
NEW BUSINESS
Consider a revision to Chapter 34 related to building demolitions, Case No. 2013 -06.
City Planner Pogge explained that after the recent demolition cases related to St. Paul Lutheran Church, it
has become clear that the City should consider an amendment to the recently adopted demolition ordinance.
Specifically the code provides that the City has 180 days after the HPC denies a demolition permit to
complete a local designation study and if it is not completed in that time then the demolition permit is
automatically approved. At issue is the time required to complete a study and the actual local designation
process. City Staff recommends that the current 180 day time limit be extended to 270 days to provide the
City sufficient time to complete a designation study and have it done at a reasonable cost.
Commissioner Johnson noted the ordinance intent is to give time before the demolition is granted to explore
other alternatives. He asked about having escrow for the study.
City Planner Pogge replied that when the 2013 fee schedule was set, the Council approved a $5,000 escrow
for this process.
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brach, to recommend approval of Ordinance
No. , amending the Stillwater City Code Chapter 34, entitled Building Demolition. All in favor, 5 -0.
Chairman Lieberman commented he believes the Commission made a mistake in denying the demolition of
the St. Paul Lutheran houses. He is usually reluctant to deny demolition and feels before it is denied, it has
to be a clear instance of losing a valuable historic resource. In his opinion, the Commission reacted more to
how it was presented, rather than the merits of the case.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the intended use of the property seemed vague and the church did not
seem to have a compelling reason for demolition. He believes the Commission wanted it to go to the next
step in the process, to have an expert opinion about whether the houses were historically significant.
Unfortunately this was the first project that came before the Commission under the new ordinance. He
expressed concern that Chairman Lieberman may have reflected a difference of opinion to some of the
Council members which may have indicated a lack of confidence in the Commission's decision.
Chairman Lieberman added he spent a lot of time talking to church representatives about their vision for the
property and told them as chair of the Commission, he supports the Commission. But he didn't want the
Council to think the Commission wanted to use this as a test case. He apologized for how he handled this.
Commissioner Larson noted that if the Commission is going to default, it should default to preservation. He
questions how to balance the cost, but would rather err on the side of preservation.
Chairman Lieberman expressed appreciation for Commissioners Johnson's and Larson's comments.
Councilmember Menikheim suggested it might be time for the Council to review its charges for all
Commissions.
City Planner Pogge said the next comprehensive plan update will begin in about two years.
Approval of FY 2013 CLG Grant application and Minnesota Historical and Cultural Grant Application.
Page 6 of 5
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting February 4, 2013
City Planner Pogge said the City is applying for a grant to do podcasts for residential neighborhoods. Total
project costs will be $16,750. The CLG Grant request is for $9,000. Staff also will be applying for a Legacy
Grant for $4,750. The City will provide a cash match of $3,000. If the grant is received, the City will
provide $1,550 of in -kind City staff time to support the project and $450.00 of donated time of HPC
members.
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to recommend forwarding the CLG
Grant application to the Council. All in favor, 5 -0.
City Planner Pogge - Comments
City Planner Pogge noted this is his last meeting and thanked the Commission for its efforts, saying this is
the most enjoyable Commission he has worked with. He appreciates the Commissioners' passion for a sense
of place. There are about 700 homes in the City's historic core and we are losing three to seven of them a
year. So historic preservation is important.
Chairman Lieberman noted that City Planner Pogge has been invaluable to the Commission.
Commissioner Johnson commented that City Planner Pogge has done a very good job of putting the packets
together and presenting information to the Commission.
Councilmember Menikheim added his thanks for City Planner Pogge's help teaching him about City
business since he was elected to the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner , to adjourn the meeting at 10:22
p.m. All in favor, 5 -0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Julie Kink
Recording Secretary
Page 7 of 7
Stillwater
THE B I N T H P L A f: E fl E M! N I E S O I A
Heritage Preservation Commission
DATE: February 28, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -08
APPLICANT: Larry Nelson
PROPERTY OWNER: Larry Nelson
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 125 S Main Street
REQUEST: Design Review for new rooftop access bulkhead
HPC DATE: March 4, 2013
PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND
Larry Kramer owns the building at 125 South Main Street. He currently has an access
from his apartment to his rooftop patio. This was approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission a number of years ago. He would like to add another access
from his office. This would allow for patio access for both units when they are owned
separately.
The new access would be constructed with the same materials as the existing one. But,
the new access would be smaller than the existing with only an 8 by 12 footprint. The
existing and proposed access locations are seen here.
Location of
new access
125 South Main Street
February 28, 2013
Page 2 of 2
SPECIFIC REQUEST
In order to construct the new access, a Design Permit has been requested.
EVALUATION OF REQUEST
Since the project is located in Stillwater's historic downtown district, the Heritage
Preservation Commission is required to review and take action on the permit.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission has several alternatives they could consider:
A. Approval. If the proposed design is found acceptable to the HPC, it should be
approved.
B. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the downtown
design guidelines, it could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the
action should be given.
C. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request
could be tabled until the April 1, 2013 meeting so that additional information
could be submitted. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is April 16,
2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the requested design permit with the following condition:
All minor modifications to the design permit shall be approved in advance by
the Community Development Director. All major modifications shall be
approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between
"major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Administrator.
attachments: Application materials
I. A R R Y N IE I. c. V N
Mr. Michel Pogge
City Planner
City Hall
216 N. 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Michel,
Thank you for meeting with me several weeks ago regarding building a rooftop structure similar to the
one now existing on my roof. My intention with HPC approval is to build a building of approximately 100
sq. ft. to serve as a vestibule for an internal stairway from the second floor office space. Per your
suggestion it would be set back from the Water St. edge of the building several feet. The small vestibule
now existing on my roof is clad in corrugated steel, a material common to downtown Stillwater. It is my
intention to use the same material on this new structure.
As I mentioned to you, Cindy Shilts has approved an internal stairs to the roof. I am including a photo of
the vestibule currently on my roof as example of the one I would like to add.
Thank you Mike for your guidance and help in this matter.
125 SCUTI-1 MAIN ST STI1.LWATIER 1N 5501)2
T I: I.: 6 5 1- 3 5 1- 2 9 5 9 I: AX: 6 5 1- 3 5 1 - 2 7 6 3
'HE 616
flwater
H P E A C E fl F M I N EE E S O 1 A
Heritage Preservation Commission
DATE: February 28, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -09
APPLICANT: JFS Stillwater LLC /Aspire Development
REQUEST: Design Review for modifications to the caboose patio bar at the
Freight House
LOCATION: 305 Water St S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
HPC DATE: March 4, 2013
REVIEWERS: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Melissa Douglas, Interim City Planner
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting design review and approval for an expanded covered
outdoor bar at the Freight House. A Design Review Permit was issued last year for a
similar project with a different design. No expansion in seating capacity is proposed; in
fact, as submitted the plans likely represent a small reduction in seating capacity.
The building is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Additionally, the building is located in the core Stillwater Commercial Historic District
as listed on the National Registry of Historic Districts and is a contributing building to
the District. The building was built in 1883 originally as the Chicago, Milwaukee & St
Paul passenger and freight depot.
DISCUSSION
The proposal calls for adding a new roof and bar area on the south side of the caboose.
Previously approved plans showed an expanded bar with a flat roof over the new bar to
serve as a new deck/ stage with stairs. The previous approval required the stairs and
railing to be removed from the roof because of the need for a conditional use permit for
outdoor music.
The revised design shows a larger L- shaped bar area extending to the south. The new
roof would have a pitch similar to the existing Freight House building. Another small
roof addition is proposed over the food ordering counter. Proposed materials include
305 Water St S
Page 2
metal standing seam roofing, exposed wood beams and corrugated metal skirting
around the bar.
With the increase in the size of the bar and food ordering counters, there is an overall
loss of seating area. Some capacity is gained back with a more efficient seating pattern
but the overall effect is a loss of about 10 seats.
Lighting changes will be included as part of the roof elements over the bar and food
counter with fixtures in the structure projecting down on the bar for direct light, or up
off the ceiling for indirect lighting. General lighting of seating areas will continue to
utilize the lighting in the area and on the existing building.
The sound system configuration currently in place will remain.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval as conditioned.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
1. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Heritage Preservation Commission.
2. Final materials and colors shall be consistent with existing colors and materials used
on the Freight House. Material samples and colors shall be submitted and approved
by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Final lighting plans shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
4. No increase in seating capacity is granted by this permit.
5. No additional signage without HPC approval.
attachments: Applicant's Form and Plans
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM
Received
Community Development Department
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Community Development Department
Stillwater, Mn 55082
Case No: 7-ed 1
Date Filed: ?)14 /3
Receipt: No.: 14$36
Base Fee: $25.00
Technology Fee: $25.00
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and
supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Photos, sketches and
a letter of intent is required. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater.
Only one copy of all supporting materials is required. However, any documents
larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and pdf file format
After Heritage Preservation Commission 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.
All follov.iinq information is required .
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project
�z -1- -. 5,
Zoning District C �I Description of Project in detail `
Assessor's Parcel No. -2,3 Q 3_0_2, 0 4 f t 00 '2 7-
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, inforrnatiorr and evidence
submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true
and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used"
If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required.
Property Owner . �- 5-171) i,t,er•ii! 2 Representative �{ t
Mailing Address tc_ Mailing Address '`
? i- - -- �i-- iLcr t(
City State Zip -3 r_Jt ti Yr
f'%A/ -C)SZ City State Zip 01.044\ , M :cc 3175
Telephone No. 12 - 7 Li_ � - � Lt
Signature_ -_-
Q��� - -.,� Srgnature�/` / ,l 1
Req � Es 54r.11do L-QC (Required)
A
A. &ual
Telephone No. 6 :--1 Li3 GI 7 i
EXISTING FREIGI -IT I -OUSE
PARTIAL SITE PLAN
1/16 " =1' -0"
n r.
rz
•
EXG.
CABOOSE
5AR
EXG.
KITCHEN
NEW ROOF
•
FREIGHT HOUSE PATIO BAR UPDATE
STILLWATER MIN`NESOTA
ARCHNET
LI
5
a
FREIGHT HOUSE PATIO BAR UPDATE
STILLWATER MINNESOTA
ARCHNET
u
a
o O a o
1.
A
4 Q
1
It It 1111111 II IN
um
■
$AR
■
■
At- .01zIr
10' 0"
4' -T3/4"
n
e
3' 0"
FOOD
ORDER
WINDOW
4
EXISTING
C4 OOSE
EXISTING
KITGI-1EN
FREIGHT HOUSE PATIO BAR UPDATE
STILLWATER MINNESOTA
FLOORPLAN
1/4"=F-0"
ARCHNET
u
s
a
METAL STANDING SEAM
ROOF ON ICE WATER
SHIELD ON
PLYWOOD SI-1EATI—IING
ON
2X8 FRAMING 6 24" OC
2X6 FASCIA
cA
ccl
u
3-2X10 'BEAMS
6X6 POST
4X4 'BRACKET
POURED CONCRETE 'BAR TOP
CORRUGATED METAL ON PLYWOOD
SHEATHING ON 2X STUDS 6 24" OC
CONC. SILL 'BLOCK / FOOT REST
8" CONC. LOCK 8ASE
FREIGHT HOUSE PATIO BAR UPDATE
STILLWATER MINNESOTA
SECTION
3/4 " =1' -0"
ARCHNET
5
a
T H E B I R T H P L A C F. Of- M INN E S O T A
Heritage Preservation Commission
DATE: February 28, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -10
APPLICANT: Cecilia Loome, Black Letter Books
REQUEST: Design Review of proposed signage for Black Letter Books
LOCATION: 102 Main St N
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
HPC DATE: March 4, 2013
REVIEWER: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Melissa Douglas, Interim City Planner
4/
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting design review and approval for two wall signs at 102 Main
St N for Black Letter Books. The request includes a smaller wall sign (24.8 square feet)
along Myrtle Street E and a larger sign (43.3 square feet) along Main Street N. The new
wall signs would replace former This Love of Mine walls signs.
The Main Street wall sign would state "Black Letter Books" on the first line and "used,
rare, out of print" on the second line. Lettering would be gold on a dark lilac /gray
background. The sign perimeter would include a red accent border and gold trim. The
sign would be 13 feet, 8 inches wide by 3 feet, 2 inches tall for a total of 43.3 square feet
in area. The sign would be constructed of painted wood with applied lettering. The
sign will be not be illuminated.
The Myrtle Street wall sign would state "Black Letter Books" in gold letters on a dark
lilac/ gray background. The sign perimeter would include a red accent border and gold
trim. The sign would be 7 feet, 10 inches wide by 3 feet, 2 inches tall for a total of 24.8
square feet in area. The sign would be constructed of painted wood with applied
lettering. The sign will be not be illuminated.
102 Main St N
Page 2
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
Street and 85 feet facing Myrtle Street. The proposed sign areas are 24.8 square feet and
43.3 square feet respectively, less than allowed by the zoning ordinance.
The proposed location, material, shape and lettering of the new signs are consistent
with the recommendations in the Downtown Stillwater Commercial Historic District
Design Manual. The proposed background color of dark lilac/ gray varies from the
narrow palette of dark green, dark brown and black discussed in the Design Manual
but is consistent with the intent of the recommendation that sign backgrounds consist of
dark, subdued tones.
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.
attachments: Applicant's Form, Letter and Photos
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM
Community Development Department
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Mn 55082
Case No:
Date Filed: a a-
Receipt No.: 9$ 3.2
Base Fee: $25.00
Technology Fee: $25.00
It
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and
supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Photos, sketches and
a letter of intent is required. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches, etc.)
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater.
Only one copy of all supporting materials is required. However, any documents
larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and pdf file format.
After Heritage Preservation Commission 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.
All following information is required .
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project /02 S. Ma i& Si. Assessor's Parcel No. /03020q/d00-2,
Zoning District C 'V
Description of Project in detail 5ilyttt r fir 6-fore1orif Olt. +he
Sou +hwe,St Carn of Mom, d ohs, Clod sign. 6r0 mot fact, of +k e,
"I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence
submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true
and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used"
If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required.
Property OwnerJ I(NtS neni�✓��1�► IA, 1-6rt c Representative Ock ILei'kt r c ookS iccr1Lit . Ioorn1
Mailing Address-49 EdinODYDUIk .)GG. 0"115 Mailing Address 102 S. Malik S +.
City State Zip Edl(k, 55*'1 5 City State Zip S-iiiitjoef, MF1 55D82,
6 �
Telephone No. 2 -i- ?0 - 9 (110 n Telephone No. Cpl l 430 -980" 4l33' 56
Signature Signature
(Required)
t I 4 /
®
eyc
(Required)
Ctc+ti Ott b Pi1I t.Gan
January 29, 2013
2/18/2013
To the members of the Heritage Preservation committee:
Thank you for considering my request for permission to erect signage on my bookstore on the corner of
Main and Myrtle in downtown. My plan for signage is straightforward. The previous occupant had two
flat signs, which were placed directly above the windows on either side of the building (one on the east
side, facing Main, and the smaller on the north side, facing Myrtle). These signs have since been painted
over (please see attached photo). My new signs will be the same measurements and will be placed in
the same position as the previous tenant's, which are both sympathetic to the architectural features of
the building face as well as in conformity with the city's signage regulations.
Sincerely,
66,z X.,,-‹_
BLACK LETTER
BOOKS.
Bi-f&K LETTER
1300 KC
3
12
Small -;r sit rt faci 0,9 MMrfl.
- f�ok-1.VT� Boy S Larger Sip , -EotGi n.9 M 0,1 i.
mil • rare otktof ��;n ( flex+ rt O
3'
8
BACK LEITER 1300KS
used - rare out of print
liwater
T H E E M I T H P L A C E OF M I N I N F S O T A
Heritage Preservation Commission
DATE: February 28, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -11
APPLICANT: Thomond O'Brien
REQUEST: Design Review of proposed window replacement
LOCATION: 222A Chesnut Street E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: DMU - Downtown Mixed Use
ZONING: CBD - Central Business District
HPC DATE: March 4, 2013
REVIEWER: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Melissa Douglas, Interim City Planner
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting design review and approval of a proposed building
elevation change (window replacement) for 222A Chestnut St E. The applicant is
proposing to replace two existing wood -frame windows with two similar vinyl -clad
windows. The wood frames on the existing windows have rotted. No changes are
proposed to the window opening size. The subject windows face onto the adjacent
alley, not onto Chestnut Street. The subject property is not a contributing property to
the Downtown Stillwater Historic District.
The original application form included a request to repaint the existing stucco. The
applicant withdrew that portion of the request at this time and may resubmit in the
future once a color has been selected.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval as conditioned.
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
1. Any revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission.
attachments: Applicant's Form and Photos
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM
Community Development Department
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Mn 55082
Case No: Jib l3 —11
Date Filed: d-a aoi3
Receipt No.: t : 35
Base Fee: $25.00
Technology Fee: $25.00
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms
supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Photos,
a letter of intent is required. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches,
submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater.
and
sketches and
etc.)
Only one copy of all supporting materials is required. However, any documents
larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and pdf file format.
After Heritage Preservation Commission 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.
Ail following information is required .
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project ) A- l ��Assessor's Parcel No. 100020_,4/
Zoni Di
V /
Description of Project in detail
4 tt )7 /� e,,,-) -Pe (( L
'I he , y state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evi
submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted a
Bence C✓`F
to be true
nd used*"
*"
re4litkift
If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is
Property Owner) 6-12/td UQ OSri
Mailing Address L () � L�
City State Zip___-)-2i/co
Telephone No. .5 l`" �3
Representative
Mailing Address
�-' Oty State Zip
Telephone No.
5 i 'tirr. 'D] "44 . 'N ew
Signature_
(Required)
xy ?9, 2013
QLD