Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-04 HPC Packetiliwater T H E BIRTHPLACE O F M t N N E S O TA Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Wednesday, September 4, 2013 The regular meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission will begin at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 4, 2013, in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.01 August 5, 2013 3.02 August 12, 2013 Special Meeting AGENDA 4. 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. 5. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL). All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Heritage Preservation Commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the item(s) will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 5.01 DP/2013 -47. Design permit for signage for HS Chiropractic (Valley Ridge Shopping Center) located at 1290 Frontage Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Dick Walsh, applicant. 5.02 DP/2013 -48. Design permit for signage for Greeley Offices located at 1940 Greeley Street South in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. Clark Nyberg, applicant. 5.03 DP/2013 -50. Design review of siding for Americas Best Value Inn located at 1750 Frontage Rd W in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Tom Parent, JG Hause Construction,applicant. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.01 DEM/2013 -49. A demolition request for a detached garage located at 408 Greeley Street North in the RB, Two Family Residential District. April Rust, applicant. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. OTHER BUSINESS 8.01 Discussion of 2013 -2014 Podcast Project 8.02 Discussion of HPC Vacancy 9. ADJOURNMENT TOE IINTMf IACE Of MIONE IOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING August 5, 2013 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Johnson, Welty, Brach, Goodman, Krakowski, Council Representative Menikheim Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of July 1, 2013 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brach, to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2013 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. DP/2013 -39. Design permit for signage for The Hairdressers located at 1060 Curve Crest Boulevard in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Brynn Baillargeon, applicant. Case No. DP/2013 -40. Design permit for signage for Still H2O Homebrewing, Hydroponic Organic Gardening located at 1266 Frontage Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Jesse Hamer, applicant. Case No. DP/2013 -41. Design permit for replacement signage for First State Bank & Trust located at 125 New England Place in the VC, Village Commercial District. St. Claire Design Studio, applicant. Case No. DP/2013 -43. Design permit for signage for Smart Start Childcare and Learning Center located at 14480 60th Street North in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Gina Anderson, applicant. Case No. DP/2013 -44. Design permit for signage for High Pointe Realty located at 105 New England Place in the VC, Village Commercial District. Tracy Boo, applicant. Case No. DP/2013 -45. Design permit for signage for VistaTek located at 1850 Greeley Street South in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. John Hollenbeck, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the Consent Agenda. Ayes: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Brach, Goodman, Johnson, Krakowski, Welty. Nays: None Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. DESIGN REVIEWS August 5, 2013 Case No. DP/2013 -17. Design review of proposed signage and facade repair for Osaka Express located at 108 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Sean Flynn, Northstar Sign, applicant. Continued from the April, May and June meetings. City Planner Wittman stated the applicant is asking to suspend a 60 -day timeline for review for signage and facade repair. Staff recommends denial without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to resubmit the request within a one year time period. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to deny without prejudice the proposed design for signage and facade repair for Osaka Express, Case No. DR/2013 -17 and to credit the application fees previously paid to a future submittal if resubmitted within one year. All in favor. Case No. DP/2013 -21. Design review of a mural located at 212 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Brandon Lamb, Candyland, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting permission to paint a mural on the north stairwell at Candyland. Staff has discussed the Design Manual standards with the applicant, which state that murals may be allowed on non - contributing buildings provided they have an historic theme and do not advertise an existing business or company. Because the proposed mural included the business name and may or may not have an historic theme, and because the 60 -day review deadline is in mid- August, staff recommends denial without prejudice, which would allow the applicant to resubmit the request within a one year time period. Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to deny without prejudice the request for a mural at 212 Main Street North, Case No. DR/2013 -21. All in favor. Case No. DP/2013 -38. Design review of trash enclosure for the Water Street Inn located at 127 Water Street South in the CBD, Central Business District. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the July 1, 2013 meeting. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. The applicant is proposing to build a 96 square foot trash enclosure located in the southwest corner of the parking lot upon completion of parking lot improvements. The request was tabled from the July 1, 2013 meeting. Staff recommends denial because the location does not conform with conditions of the original special use permit and development agreement. Commissioner Johnson reiterated his concern that the requirement in the original SUP was to have trash contained within the building premises. Chuck Dougherty, Water Street Inn, stated that the trash enclosure's original location was where the pedestrian walkway is now located. About three years ago he discussed a new design with then City Planner Pogge who said to hold off because of the pedestrian walkway. After meeting with the City, arrangements were made to exchange land so that the pedestrian walkway could be built, along with a new dumpster enclosure. The costs to redo the parking lot have skyrocketed due to new requirements for curb and gutter. Page 2 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 5, 2013 The City was to pay for half of the costs of the dumpster enclosure up to $10,000. The total cost will be $22,000. Mr. Dougherty stated his preference would have been to put the dumpster on the northeast corner near where it was located before, but the City did not want to have it near the pedestrian walkway. It has to be accessible by large trash trucks, so the proposed location is the only other location possible. Commissioner Johnson responded that the SUP required trash to be inside the building. He said the City tried several times to enforce containment of the trash. Putting it in plain view of the intersection is an unacceptable location and is not consistent with the SUP or action of the City Council in August and March 2011. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to deny the trash enclosure for the Water Street Inn, Case No. DR/2013 -38, based on nonconformance with SUP 94 -34. All in favor. Mr. Dougherty commented that the City never indicated to him that the dumpster needed to be moved and there is no documentation that the City tried to enforce the original SUP or development agreement. He added that the City approached him to ask if they could take 44 feet of the north end of his parking lot in exchange for paying some minimal costs of repaving his parking area. There is no other location that would work for the trash enclosure. Case No. DP/2013 -42. Design review for: A. storefront renovation for Valley Ridge Mall; B. master signage plan for Valley Ridge Mall; and C. signage for Office Max at Valley Ridge Mall located at 1250 Frontage Road in the BP -C, Business Park Commercial District. Jesse Hamer, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of design permits for: facade improvements to be carried out over the next few years working from the west side of the structure to the east; amendments to the existing master sign plan for the multi -tenant structure; a renovated freestanding master sign that will allow for three anchor businesses to have permanent signage at the entrance to the mall; and signage for Office Max that will include two wall- mounted signs and a cabinet in the freestanding master sign. Staff recommends approval of the facade improvements, the master sign plan, the freestanding sign and the three signs for Office Max with conditions. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brach, to approve A, facade improvements for Valley Ridge Mall, Case No. DR/2013 -42, as conditioned. All in favor. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve B, master sign plan for Valley Ridge Mall, Case No. DR/2013 -42, as conditioned. All in favor. Motion by Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to approve a freestanding sign for Valley Ridge Mall, Case No. DR/2013 -42, as conditioned. All in favor. Motion by Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve C, signage for Office Max at Valley Ridge Mall, Case No. DR/2013 -42, as conditioned. All in favor. Case No. DR/2013 -46. Design review of exterior facade for the Joseph Wolf Brewery Building located at 402 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Corey Burstad, applicant. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. The applicant is requesting approval of a design permit for facade improvements to include building expansion for development of a boutique hotel. Signage, lighting and site plan improvements will need to be submitted at a later date. Staff recommends approval with one condition. Page 3 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 5, 2013 Mark Finnemann, Finn Daniels Architects, explained the proposal. Charlene Roise, historical consultant, stated that the reviewer from the State Historic Preservation Office will be coming on Wednesday to perform an informal walk - through of the project to help determine eligibility for tax credits. Chairman Larson commended the applicant on weaving the historic context into the design. Commissioner Brach stated he appreciated stepping the infill building back so as to not overpower the existing structures. Commissioner Johnson said he agreed with keeping the fire escape on the west side as minimal as possible. Chairman Larson suggested making the rear window openings more consistent with the existing windows. Mr. Finnemann stated there could be four smaller windows, but considering the inside environment, this is a stronger design. The goal is to take advantage of the views of downtown and the river. Commissioner Welty stated she would like to see the window openings more tall and narrow to make the rear consistent with the front. Mr. Finnemann responded he would like to save as much of the old stone as possible. He will come back to discuss specific details. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to grant preliminary approval of the exterior facade plan for the Joseph Wolf Brewery Building, Case No. DR/2013 -46, as conditioned. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Review of Residential Podcast Proposals Community Development Director Turnblad informed the Commission that two proposals have been received for residential video podcasts, from Don Empson and Dan Hoisington. Eleven of the 13 downtown podcasts for the self guided walking tour are completed and about to be uploaded to the City's Youtube channel. Both proposals for the residential self guided tour are very strong. He suggested appointing a committee to review the two proposals, hear oral presentations from the two consultants, and make a recommendation to the Council. Commissioners Johnson, Brach and Welty indicated they would serve on the committee. Representative Menikheim also would like to sit in on the presentations. City Planner Wittman will schedule the presentations. Don Empson stated that the project should warrant review of the presentations by the entire HPC. A special HPC meeting was tentatively set for 5 p.rn. Monday August 12 to review the two proposals. Housing Resource Center City Planner Wittman reviewed a notice that the City received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office which was also sent to the Housing Resource Center indicating that proposed Page 4 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 5, 2013 rehabilitation at 604 Myrtle Street does not currently appear to be eligible for funding based on National Register criteria. 114 East Chestnut Street City Planner Wittman provided a resolution drafted by staff emphasizing the importance of preserving the structure due to its being one of the oldest known wood structures in the City of Stillwater. There is a potential buyer who is interested in keeping the structure as it is, for a residence with a small in -home office. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to recommend that the Council approve Resolution 2013 -131, declaring that due to the structure being one of the oldest known wood structures in the City of Stillwater, and its ties to the early lumbering history, the structure's preservation is important to the heritage of the area and the State of Minnesota. All in favor. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Johnson asked if the Armory project design is still going forward. Community Development Director Turnblad responded that the construction drawings for the Armory have been approved at the federal level. The fire station has been halted at 35% until it is known whether funds will be appropriated to actually build the Armory, because the fire station relies upon shared space. The City is waiting for Congress to approve the 2014 Defense Department budget. Commissioner Johnson asked about plaza lights. Community Development Director Tumblad replied that Tim Moore said the manufacturer has a shield in mind that will mute the lights. Chairman Larson reported on a camp that he, Community Development Director Turnblad and City Planner Wittman attended which included a course on preservation. Council Representative Menikheim commented that he would like to be part of conversations about the transformation of City involvement of the commissions. Chairman Larson asked about an infill home on the north hill where he believes the design of the front porch was not built as approved. City Planner Wittman agreed to follow up to see if there are inconsistencies between the approved plans and the structure that was built. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Brach, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5 J1hvater TOE IIRTNILACE Of MINNEI /TA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Special August 12, 2013 Meeting Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Goodman, Johnson and Welty. Council Representative Menikheim (arrived at 5:25 p.m.) Staff: City Planner Wittman Chairman Larson noted the purpose of the meeting was for the Heritage Preservation Commission to hear professional services proposal presentations for the Walking Tour of Historic Homes Public Education Program. Presentations were heard in the order the proposal was submitted; Empson Archives presented first, followed by Hoisington Preservation Consultants. Each presenter was be limited to 15 minutes. The Commission had 15 minutes to ask any questions. PRESENTATIONS Mr. Don Empson, representing Empson Archives, presented a video he prepared depicting a rough draft of a sample video. Upon completion of his video, the Commission inquired of the housing selection, the process for finalizing the videos and potential interviews and interior photographs. Mr. Empson indicated this tour would represent the largest variety of architectural styles in Stillwater. He further noted his approach would be tailored to those who have an interest in old houses and architectural styles. He continued by stating that he would work with those with video editing abilities, if needed. Lastly he noted interior features would not be hard to include in the podcasts. Mr. Dan Hoisington, representing Hoisington Preservation Consultants, presented two videos of commercial structures located in the City of Stillwater. Upon completion of his video, the Commission inquired of the intent of the tour, the selection of houses and precious work conducted. Mr. Hoisington indicated the intention and over - arching theme to the tour would be developed by him with the discussions of goals and desires with the HPC. He further noted the houses selected would be more specifically based on the over - arching theme that was developed by the HPC and himself. Lastly, Mr. Hoisington noted has done several residential tours for the City of St. Cloud. DISCUSSION After presentations, Chairman Larson thanked the presenters and turned the matter to the Commission for discussion. The Commission discussed the merits of each proposal, noting the proposals were not similar in nature. The Commission then utilized a scoring system, weighting the following on a 1 to 5 scale: Recent consulting experiences with similar types of projects; Work experience and educational background of assigned staff members and their direct knowledge /experience specific to Stillwater; Demonstrated understanding of the scope of the work to be completed; Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for history and architectural historic as published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1983; and The product proposed meets my expectations of a historic homes walking tour public education program. The results were a tie. Discussion ensued regarding how each of the programs proposed were different from one another. Mr. Hoisington's approach is geared toward a broader public and tourism: highlighting stories of the homes and owners, but including architectural style and details as part of a structure's story. Mr. Empson's proposal, however, is geared toward the "old house lover ": site selection of 14 residences representing a wide range of architectural styles, identification of architectural details of the highlighted residence and how they fit with the period of construction. The commission's consensus was that since this would be Mr. Empson's first video podcast production project, the Commission further discussed their desire to place additional "work in progress" measurements into the contract. Those include: o By September 27, 2013 two sample scripts shall be submitted by the consultant to the HPC for review and content editing. o At the December 3, 2013 two complete, or near complete, podcast samples shall be presented to the HPC. These samples shall be representational of all finished podcast productions. o By February 27, 2014 scripts of all fourteen podcast productions shall be submitted by the consultant to the HPC for review and content editing. The HPC further noted they would not commit to recommending a partial release of funds (as requested in the proposal submitted) but would consider this as work progressed towards the end of 2013. Commissioner Johnson motioned to accept the proposal of Mr. Empson, with contact changes as discussed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Welty. The motion passed with Chairman Larson's vote dissenting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to adjourn at 6:50 p.m. All in favor. Respectfully submitted Abbi Wittman City Planner Stillwater tit BIB r to G I / ^ „ HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DATE: September 4, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -47 APPLICANT: Mr. Dick Walsh, HS Chiropractic REQUEST: Design permit approval of proposed signage at 1290 Frontage Road West (Valley Ridge Mall) ZONING: BPC - Business Park Commercial COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Commercial PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a design permit for a sign to be located at 1290 Frontage Road West. The (approximately) 32 square foot (10 feet wide by 3.5 feet tall), channel letter, internally LED lit sign is proposed to read "HS Chiropractic" in red and white lettering. The sign will be mounted to the face of the structure. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31 -509, Subd. 8(b), Sign regulations states: • For wall signs in the BP Districts, "Upon submittal of a sign permit request for an operator within a multiple -use or multiple tenant building, proof must also be provided by the applicant that a sign plan has been a[proved for the entire building...The signs are subject to the following restrictions: o All signs must be visually consistent in location, design and scale. o The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed one square foot for each foot of building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line or a minimum of 25 square feet per business, whichever is more ". Municipal Code Section 31 -209, Design permit states: • The Standards for Review , Sec. 31- 509(2) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following standards: o Architectural character: • The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. • The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. • The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. 1290 Frontage Road West Page 2 of 2 o Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. o Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources. o Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. • This Code Section further notes "the Heritage Preservation Commission may include conditions the committee deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section ". • Findings and decisions (Section 31 -209h) further states: Upon...finding...that the application, subject to any condition imposed, will [meet] the standards of design review, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application ". The West Business Park design standards indicate: • "Signs and related building graphics shall be a part of the overall building and site design...size, height, location and material shall relate to the building scale and design ". The sign is proposed to be located on a structure with an existing master sign plan. The sign would be located in the south elevation Zone A which permits no greater than 40 square feet per tenant. FINDINGS Staff finds the application is consistent with the with the purpose of the zoning code, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance. Additionally, the size, height, location and materials of the HS Chiropractic sign relates to the scale and design of the existing building. RECOMMENDATION As per Review of the application by the design review committee (Section 31- 209e): "The design review committee must make a final decision on the granting or denial of a sign permit after seeking the recommendation of the community development director ". Staff recommends approval of the HS Chiropractic sign. ATTACHMENTS Design Review Application Form, sketch of sign, color rendering of sign on structure Aug. 12. 23 3 11;39AM FROM FHA iU, ( 6 7 5 2 ) ¥7 —6/4, DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM esetiAlN AUG 1 3 MI Community Development Department City of Stillwater Common Devebpment Department 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Mn 55082 No.1943 P. 1/3 Jun. 15 1999 09:07PM P2 Case No: eFile Fee: $50.00 Fee 525.00 t to ee $25.00) Rom . o.: ci s I 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 Fetter of intent is required. All supporting material photos, sketches, etc,) submi ted 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 .1 e FP97471 ssessor's Parcel No, 52- 030 —7/0 - - —00110 Zoning District 6P-C. Descrptlon of Project in detail_ "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith In ell 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 ze rgQ', Property Owner / Representative u4 Mailing Addres &YVttk Ce t f r L,(, Mailing Address City State Zip, 410 f S n& c., 42-i° State zip 35 ?/ Telephone No O 5 Z_ 4,571-t—. - 73 Teie� hone Nv. _ �` Print Contact Name; Vt1t%S t'J Vhi - Print Contact Name: ,/ ress' w ig Email; ftN6'AtL .t Iii D R IINM.,174 -) ht14Email: 9Y-'Y Signature" 1/ Signature (Required) (Required) S :\FianninsltreSIgn ravIew permlcwpcj April 30, Ma g5 Li'fc,Z "1 4 <1:1:)6164 %GI" i4. ,-©�.y '7/b. P.41' 4‘, 2. 1111 IS-71 1;11 41 t qA, , /p 1 / K BOX HEIGHT 21 "" T ©}LL 0 _t"" _t-1.1 A ©7._ © CHIRO letters 18 "" BOX WIDTH 33 "" "i' Remove Garage Sale sign $115.00 . , .� 1:4 �� ,.:.,,,:;1 ,,. * oirili . I4�."�i.. Ia.. ref �tiA � - Arbi w, ;.;� s Dick Walsh '"-- , Equity Construction Office:952 -474 -6943 Cell: 612- 222 -7054 T. � Y zw Sill I M HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DATE: September 4, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -48 APPLICANT: Clark Nyberg representing Colonial Apartments Partnership (otherwise known as Greeley Offices) REQUEST: Design permit for a freestanding sign plan at 1940 Greeley Street South ZONING: BPI - Business Park Industrial COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Industrial PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a design permit for a 25' tall, 128 square foot, free- standing sign for a preexisting sign to be located at 1940 South Greely Street. The current sign is in disrepair. The owner proposes recovering the exposed areas with metal framed plastic panels that will be lit from the inside of the sign. The sign is proposed to contain eighteen panels. Two of the 2'X8' panels will be reserved for the Greeley Offices name and leasing information. The other three 2'X8' panels will contain individual tenant information including the proposed panel for Farmers Insurance, as depicted on the color rendering. The other three 1'X8' and ten 1'X4' panels are existing. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS Municipal Code Section 31 -509, Subd. 8, Permitted signs by a sign permit in BP- business park districts states: • A property may have one freestanding sign, one wall sign per building face, and as many awning, canopy, marquee, or multitenant master signs as permitted in this Subdivision 8. This is the only freestanding sign for the structure. • Freestanding signs in the BP district shall meet the following requirements: 1. The gross surface area may not exceed 100 square feet. 2. A freestanding sign must be set back 15 feet from the front or side property line. 3. Along...South Greeley...signs may not project higher than 20 feet. 4. There may be one freestanding sign per development site. 1940 South Greeley Street Page 2 of 3 While the surface area of one sign of the preexisting sign exceeds 100 square feet, the total square footage does not exceed one square foot per one linear foot of building frontage (approximately 130'). While the preexisting sign is situated only 8 -10' from the property line, the sign is located approximately 20' from the edge of asphalt. The sign is situated greater than 15' from the side property lines. The preexisting sign exceeds the maximum height regulation by 5'. Municipal Code Section 31 -209, Design permit states: • The Standards for Review , Sec. 31- 509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following standards: o Architectural character: • The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. • The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. • The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. o Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. o Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources. o Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the citij council. • This Code Section further notes "the Heritage Preservation Commission may include conditions the committee deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section ". • Findings and decisions (Section 31 -209h) further states: "Upon...finding...that the application, subject to any condition imposed, will [meet] the standards of design review, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application ". The West Business Park design standards indicate: • "Signs and related building graphics shall be a part of the overall building and site design...size, height, location and material shall relate to the building scale and design ". FINDINGS The materials of the signs for the property are consistent with the design guidelines of the West Stillwater Business. Additionally, the signs meet the purpose of the sign regulations and the comprehensive plan. The ways in which the sign does not conform to community regulations (size, height and location) are due to its preexisting nature. 1940 South Greeley Street Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION As per Review of the application by the design revieiv committee (Section 31- 209e): "The design review committee must make a final decision on the granting or denial of a sign permit after seeking the recommendation of the community development director ". Staff recommends approval of the Greeley Office freestanding sign with the following conditions: 1. White panels shall be in place during periods of tenant vacancy. 2. The approval shall be valid for thirteen existing panels, three proposed panels (two for Greely Offices and one for Farmers Insurance) and two blank 2'X8' panels. 3. The Community Development Director may authorize the replacement of the two blank 2'X8' panels with individual tenant panels if the proposed panels are substantially similar to the panels approved. 4. The Community Development Director may authorize changes to individual tenant sign panels if the proposed change is substantially similar to the panels approved. ATTACHMENTS Design Review Application Form Photos: Existing Conditions, Black and White Proposed (with dimensions) and Color Rendering DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Mn 55082 Case No: IP 12b34 Date Filed: ((p(2 -61 Fee: $50.00 (Base Fee $25.00 & Technology Fee $25.00) Receipt No.: Gil The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required. All supporting material (i.e. photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Only one copy of all supporting materials is required. However, any documents larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and pdf file format. After Heritage Preservation Commission approval, there is a 10 -day appeal period. Once the 10 -day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a design review permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. All following information is required . PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 19'-1 0 So Gwa.e.let, Assessor's Parcel No. Zoning District 1 .- Description of Project in detail S lq h 3 3 , c ) 3 , . 0 , 3 0 ©o► t'e fo,r— ext's4-1,"n "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required. Property Owner Representative Mailing Address r 0 Bp k a1-t"..5 Mailing Address Po tiz-ic. Q41 City State Zip S4\kwa eX, m n SSO% City State Zip 'k1Ou.e�.tn i ittiv k S r &$ Telephone No. L- t '� 14 " 14 -7 0 Telephone No. l's 1 -2t4 -14.'1 b Print Contact Name: ei4 -v-k t\h( Print Contact Name: C o.. rl. 7\i/13,e Email: CK gibe. @.. Cgg,t iy d . C45rv1 Email: Signature Signature NO-J- (Requi ed (Required s: \Planning \design review permit.wpd April 30, 2013 MOLL, ATOLL, ROSENRUSH .& CLARK TAX SERVICES 11 E'S, TOUCH, INC. • MASSAGE "TTHERAPY-, ASSOCIATES • _ .. .. .. OROPEF1TY IVIGM7. . 6.� ,r ., Tenants Company • Name Office Space For liease 051002-1640.14711 POWELL, R SENBUSH & CLARK TAX SERVICES KIM MARIE'S TC11.1C*1, INC. • MASSAGE THERAPY-AMTA IVIJF & ASSOCIATES PROPERTY MGMT.. 612.819,0133 DAVE S. McCORD, CPA OTY ASSOCIATES ,11,41$1123 4411ELEV OTTIM 011,41.1k FARMERS INSURANCE Nor, Tenants Company Name Tenants Company Name Tenants Company Name Office Space ForLeasi 65-12114-114711. 111111112•11•11111111M- Tenants Company Name Tenants Company Name Tenants Company Name Tenants Company Name Tenants Company Name HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DATE: September 4, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -50 APPLICANT: Tommy Parent, JG Hause Construction, representing America's Best Value Inn REQUEST: Design permit approval for exterior facade improvements ZONING: BPC - Business Park Commercial COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Commercial PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Plann \ REQUEST The applicant is requesting a design permit for a proposed upgrade to the exterior facade. The proposed improvements will include the installation of neutral colored vinyl siding with red cement plank siding. Additionally, the existing chimneys will be stone faced. The improvements proposed will be carried out in phases, with west and south elevations being completed at this time. The work has been started as neither the property owner nor the applicant were aware of Design Review requirements. The applicant is aware of the risks associated with continuing work prior to HPC design permit approval, but has opted to install the new materials to protect the exposed portions of the facade. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS The intent of the design review procedure is to secure the general purposes of the comprehensive plan, West Stillwater Business Park Plan and downtown plan, to maintain the character and integrity of neighborhoods and commercial districts by promoting excellence of design and development, preventing traffic hazards, providing adequate services and encouraging development in harmony with its neighborhood or planning area. The applicable standards of the design review are as follows: (1) Architectural character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. 1750 Frontage Road Page 2 (2) Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. (3) Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources. (4) Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. Design guidelines have been developed for the West Stillwater Business District to ensure consistent quality design. The following guidelines will be used: 1) Applicable Architectural Standards include: i) Unadorned pre - stressed concrete panels, standard concrete block or metal siding shall not be used as exterior materials for new buildings. Architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels may be acceptable. ii) Architectural consistency on all sides of the building is required in terms of colors, materials and details. 2) Site Plan Standards include: Overall lighting shall be directed down and shielded from adjacent properties or roadways. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Upon a finding by the design review committee that the application, subject to any conditions imposed, will [meet] the standards of design review, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application. Due to the architecturally enhanced block and concrete panels and the consistency in colors and details, staff finds this application meets the purpose of the standards for design review set forth in the zoning code, comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: 1. The design permit shall be valid for all exterior facades of the structure. In the event the Community Development Director determine substantial alterations are proposed for future phases of facade renovation, staff shall bring the proposed modifications before the HPC for design review. 2. The installation of new lighting shall be directed down and shielded from adjacent properties or roadways. ATTACHMENTS Design Review Application Form, Specifications and Scope of Work (2 pages) Current Conditions Photos Proposed Facade Improvements DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Mn 55082 Case No: 2.01&P'FY O Date Filed: S15/21.413 Fee: $50.00 (Base Fee $25.00 & Technology Fee $25.00) Receipt No.: Received AUG 2 6 2013 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and figpplf41410•141WODIMPOSPONVEIBAn 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 ProjectV't F2OI∎51- .* Assessor's Parcel No. - 03b - y3 -C67 (p Zoning District 214? -C. Description of Project in detail 1-10-T L "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required. Property Owner Mailing Address )150 kJ �wh r� a d City State Zip <<lit.aieir1 M S ll5SZ Telephone No. (05 ) -'-tom - i 5 co Print Contact Name: Email: Signature Representative Mailing Address 'PO fSbX 20 Lp City State Zip 61A`1 POE; %l I� , SSW Telephone No. 1.j) - t-31 -(1 Q) ` . Print Contact Name:TO% (pPr\Zzl..) j Email: -TON-tM'( @- Ubt- 11=ALL . i-1 Signature (Required) S: \Planning \design review permit.wpd April 30, 2013 J G Hause Construction, Inc PO Box 206. 193 North Third Street Bayport, MN 55003 Office 651 - 439 -0189 Fax 651- 439 -5085 www.jghause.com Minn. License #BC005350 SPECIFICATIONS Proposal submitted to: Al Patel "Americas Best Value Inn" Mailing /site address: 1750 W. Frontage Road • Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 651- 336 -3061, 651 -430 -1300 Email: Specifications of work to be performed: Date: July 19, 2013 Scope of Work: General Conditions 1. Contractor shall obtain building permit. 2. Place dumpsters on boards in parking lot unless otherwise specified. 3. Furnish and stage all material. Standard colors included for all materials. 4. Ensure jobsite is clean daily. 5. All work inspected for quality assurance by Contractor. 6. 10 Year Workmanship Warranty provided by Contractor. Scope of Work: Manufactured Stone: 1. Install 2 layers of Grade D building paper. 2. Install drainage mat and high- backed galvanized steel weep screeds. 3. Install self- furring diamond mesh metal lath. 4. Install scratch coat to metal lath; Type -N mortar typical. 5. Install Customer selected manufactured stone to main field with corner stones at 90 degree corners. 6. Install Customer selected sills at the top of all stone. 7. Grout joints between stone, tuck point, and brush. Scope of Work: Siding 1. Remove existing wood lap siding, trim, corner boards. 2. Inspect wall sheathing. Secure any loose sheathing. Rotting or deficient sheathing shall be replaced by change order basis. 3. Install factory bent aluminum drip cap over all windows and doors. Windows will be inspected to make sure they were installed and tapped correctly. If they are not, windows will be tapped on a change order basis. 4. Install Tyvek House wrap moisture barrier. 5. Install 8" primed LP Strandtrim boards at the following locations. a. All corners on entire building. In bandboard locations in between the lap siding and shakes. 6. Install 4" primed LP Standtrim boards at the following locations. a. Around all windows b. in between window to break lap siding and shakes. 7. Install CertainTeed Market Square Double 4" vinyl Clapboard siding (0.044 thickness) with all accessories (J- channel, sill trim, steel starter, etc.) for a complete installation. Color: Mountain Cedar 8. Install LP SmartSide Cedar Shakes in the following locations: a. Gables on side of building facing Hwy 36. (South Elevation) b. In- between windows to the right of hotel front door. (West Elevation) c. Under all windows in the two large bodies of siding of parking lot side of hotel. (West Elevation) 9. Caulk and seal all penetrations with OSI Quad color- matched polyurethane sealant. Back -caulk J- channel and penetrations with silicone sealant. Page 1 of 3 Owners' Approval of the Above Specifications scope of Work: North and East Elevations. 1. Paint entire exterior including: a. Siding. b. Window Trim. c. Soffit. d. Fascia. 2. Address where ground meets siding. a. Remove lowest siding board. b. Install ice /water shield up the wall and install grade board with drip cap. ►dditional Notes: andscaping, shrubbery, and bushes near the hotel should be trimm'Ird back away from the building and trimmed own to grade prior to commencing with construction. Vail hanging items inside should be removed or secured prior to construction; work can cause walls to vibrate nd wall hanging items to fall. CURRENT CONDITIONS PROPOSED FACADE IMPROVEMENTS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DATE: September 4, 2013 CASE NO.: 2013 -49 APPLICANT: April Rust, property owner REQUEST: Demolition request for a pre -1945 garage ZONING: RB -Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low /Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planne)J REQUEST AND STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS The applicant is requesting a demolition permit for the garage located at 408 Greeley Street South in order to have a modern, functional two -car garage. The (approximately) 400 square foot garage (20'X20' as indicated in the County Assessment records) has been left relatively intact to its original construction. Although the interior lumber is dimensional, several boards appear to be original. Additionally, the north and west facades contain wooden siding whereas the other facades have been replaced with cement plank siding. While new shingles were placed on the hipped -roof structure in 2009, the roof supports were not reinforced. This has created a bow in all edges of the roof. STAFF REVIEW Prior to the submittal of the demolition request, staff was able to determine the structure was constructed prior to 1945 as it appears in 1945 aerial photography. Furthermore, the private garage appears on the 1924 Sanborn maps, as depicted to the right. On an August 20 site inspection by Building Official Shilts and me, the structure was determined to be in fair to good condition. The existing structure could be raised to have a new foundation poured, the roof could be reinforced, and a garage door could be placed on the structure. However, due to the hip roof /3 8 rr Li /2 a,,,, sue 9 i // 10 W. LINDEN /0 50#10(10 p N. • Lc it L 408 Greeley Street North Page 2 construction, the garage could not be added onto without demolition of greater than 50% of the structure. Based on the review of the property and associated records, staff made a determination that the property could potentially be locally designated since the property "embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or engineering type or style, or method of construction." Thus, as required by the demolition ordinance, the application is being forwarded to the HPC for review and consideration. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS Chapter 34, Building Demolition, of the municipal code outlines the community development director shall review the permit, conduct an on -site visit of the property with the applicant, make ... determinations, and take the associated action. For a historic resource, the Commission must decide on one of the following: (i) Negative finding. If the commission finds that the property is not a historic resource, then the commission shall notify the building official that a demolition permit may be issued. (ii)Positive finding with no feasible alternative to demolition. If the commission finds that the property is historically significant or a historic resource, but that there is no feasible alternative to demolition, then the commission shall notify the building official that a demolition permit shall be issued. (iii) Positive finding zoith feasible alternative to demolition. If the commission finds that the property is historically significant or a historic resource, and that there is a feasible alternative to demolition, then the commission shall deny the demolition permit and direct the community development director to prepare a designation study of the property. Before approving the demolition of a building, the commission shall make findings that the demolition is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, or that there are no reasonable alternatives to the demolition. In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the significance of the property, the integrity of the property and the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible alternative uses. The commission may require a mitigation plan as a condition of any approval for demolition of a building. Such plan may include the documentation of the property by measured drawings, photographic recording, historical research or other means appropriate to the significance of the property. With the approval of the city council, the commission may stay the release of the building, wrecking or demolition permit for up to 180 days as a condition of approval for a demolition of a building that has been found to contribute to a potential historic district to allow parties interested in preserving the historic resource a reasonable opportunity to act to protect it. 408 Greeley Street North Page 3 DEMOLITION FINDINGS Due to the fact the City has no record of the significance of the property, the garage style is not similar to the primary structure, and that the fair to good integrity assessment would be significantly compromised upon structural alterations to make a useful two -car garage, staff finds the structure is not a historic resource and there is no feasible alternative to demolition. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC open the public hearing to take public comment, including testimony from the applicant. Once all comments have been made, the HPC should close the public hearing and take action on the request. If the Commission agrees with the demolition findings, above, the Commission must notify the Building Official that the permit may be issued. ATTACHMENTS Application and Attached Narrative, Maps (2), Photos submitted by applicant (3) Community Development Demolition Determination Photos Municipal Code Chapter 34: Building Demolition Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Demolition Request Application Application Number Subject Property Address:408 Greeley St N Applicant (Please Print): April Rust & Roger Williams Fee Technology Fee Escrow Receipt Number S76-63— Parcel No.:28.030.20.23.0071 Address:408 Greeley Street North Telephone No. :651- 283 -1129 Property Owner (if different than Applicant): Address: Telephone No.: Type of Structure: Detached garage Age of Structure: Unknown Condition of Structure: Poor - see attachments for detailed description Intended e of Site after Demolition: Garage Signature f Property Owner g/110 / Date Snip Date A preapplication site visit by the City Planner or Community Development Director is required PRIOR to submitting the application for a demolition permit. Contact the City Planner at 651 - 430 -8822 to schedule a preapplication site visit. This application must be signed by the City Planner or Community Development Director or it will be considered incomplete and the application will be rejected. The preapplication site visit was completed on /20/ 1 . Community ev. Director /City Planner Subject Property Address: Type of Structure: The above listed building /structure was built on or after January 1, 1946 or is not a historic resource as defined by the Stillwater City Code; is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and is not a locally designated property. Therefore, the building is approved for demolition. Community Dev. Director /City Planner Date *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 Citoo ain the required building permits. A building permit must be obtained from the Stillwater Building Dep'�r'�meefi prior to demolishing the structure. The fee for the building permit is based on the valuation of the demolition project. l�G 1g Form Updated March 26, 2012 Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Demolition Request Application Attachments 408 Greeley St. North, Stillwater, MN 55082 1. A map showing the location of the building or structure to be demolished on its property and with reference to neighborhood properties; • See attached county zoning and Google maps for location of garage 2. A legal description of property and owner of record (from deed); • Lots 9 and 10 in block number 12 of Sabin's Addition to the City of Stillwater. 3. Photographs of all building elevations; • See attached photos 4. A description of the building or structure or portion of building or structure to be demolished; • Current garage is 24'x24' 2 -car garage with dirt floor, cracked foundation and 2 -3 layers of asphalt shingles (condition of roof under shingles is unknown but expected to be fair to poor). Garage door broke and fell this summer so it is currently only covered by a tarp. 5. The reason for the proposed demolition and data supporting the reason including, where applicable, data sufficient to establish any economic justification for demolition to determine why restoration or reuse is not economically feasible; (Note: Please include quotes from a licensed contractor that estimates the cost to restore the home and the cost of the proposed new structure.) • Previous owners had two garage doors facing the lawn on the east side but remodeled that before selling the property to switch the door to face the driveway on the south side and put a wall on the east side. However, they installed a single garage door, not wide enough to allow two cars to fit into the 2 -car garage. The home inspector we hired when purchasing the house in 2009 told us that current city zoning for the dimensions of the and style of roof only allowed the size of garage door that was installed, in order to stay up to code. In order to have a modern, functional 2 -car garage, we need to change the roof, fix the foundation and enlarge the size of the garage to allow a 2 -car sized door. • See attached quote from Plum Tree Construction with a rough estimate for building a new garage. 6. Proposed plans and schedule for reuse of the property on which the building or structure is located; (Note: If the property is in the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD), and a new home is proposed, the application will need to include a completed NCD design review request.) • The plan is to demolish the current garage and build a new one in its place. The new garage will have to shift slightly on the property to following current city setbacks. 7. Relation of demolition and future site use to the comprehensive plan and zoning requirements; • The demolition and future use are consistent with the low to medium density residential zoning in the RB -2 Family District. 8. A description of alternatives to the demolition. • Raise the garage to fix the foundation. Re -do the roof. Install new 1 -car garage door. %fa \ \ \z c CD \ \ \\ E o _c c § \ /\ \ /\ /\ ('.raatari rnn R/1 c/9(111 East side of garage North side of garage West side of garage Crack in foundation on west side w' a; F=3 co 1 H AMOUNT 1 1 PA ICE ..., .ip I DESCRIPTION OF,ARTS OR MATERIALS I ;ice 1 NI 14,11. 0„4,25/-- Ate.._ Au'Ab,F 6-?tekg r747)ie cc . , • ill i >: ,.._ d i i