Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-19 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North September 19th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 15th, 2018 regular meeting minutes V. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of 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. VI. 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 commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 1. Case No. 2018-23: Consideration of a Design Permit for a monument sign to be constructed at 115 4th St N in the CBD district. Robert Eislet, property owner representative. 2. Case No. 2018-20: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage for the property located at 423 Main St S in the CBD district. Tim Keenan, property owner and Adam Lee Randall, applicant. VII. NEW BUISNESS 3. Case No. 2018-22: Consideration of a Design Permit to remodel the rooftop deck located at 114 Main St N, in the CDB district. Croixview Partners, LLC, property owner. VIII. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 4. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Historic Resources Chapter Draft 5. 2018-2019 Work Plan and Certified Local Government (CLG) Grants IX. FYI – UPDATES 6. Annual Statewide Preservation Conference X. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING August 15, 2018 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Goodman, Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Welty, Chairman Larson, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Hadrits Staff: City Planner Wittman ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to elect Larson as Chair. Motion passed 6-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of June 20, 2018 meeting minutes Chairman Larson said he recalls Commissioner Hadrits was elected as Vice Chair at the May meeting. City Planner Wittman confirmed and stated this should be corrected in the June meeting minutes. Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the June 20, 2018 meeting as amended. Motion passed 6-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2018-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage for the property located at 102 2nd Street South in the CBD district. Greg LaMere, property owner and Monica Veil, applicant. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion passed 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2018-18: Consideration of a Design Permit for storefront reconstruction and other façade improvements related to operation of a bar and grill, distillery and retail store at the property located at 227 Main Street South in the CBD district. Mark Miller, property owner. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 7 City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a storefront reconstruction and other façade improvements on the rear of the structure located at 227 Main Street South, a contributing building in the Commercial Historic District. The request includes the construction of a five-bay, accordion storefront of painted wood and insulated glass including transom windows, to replace the existing vertical, wood sided façade. A single door with sidelight will be installed on the south end of the façade. The design will be similar to the front façade. Retail uses are proposed for this storefront area. Staff finds the proposed structural alterations are consistent with the guidelines and recommends approval with five conditions. Chairman Larson asked what materials will be used. Brad Smith, representing the applicant, explained that a cornice or window separation will be created, reflecting an old fashioned storefront detail. This is a cinder block addition to the original building. Until they open up the block wall and see what is there, they cannot decide on the size of the window. Commissioner Mino asked about colors to be used. Mr. Smith stated that the main color will be cream; materials will be all wood. The door on the front is natural fir and they may do the same for this façade. There will be a dark red accent. They plan on using the same color scheme on the back as currently on the front. Commissioner Welty suggested centering what is labeled “sign panel” on the drawing. The applicant said that is a window. Chairman Larson asked if the applicant considered aligning the top of the door and sidelight with the top of the accordion doors to maintain a consistent appearance. The applicants agreed they would want to make sure the openings line up. Chairman Larson pointed out that the accordion door is drawn as a sliding door that stacks. He asked if it will be a sliding door or accordion door, noting that a sliding door requires depth, as it is a series of panels that are stepping back. He provided photos showing the difference between accordion and sliding doors. The applicants responded that a sliding door would be more functional. When viewed straight on from the street, it will definitely look like a storefront. They will all slide to one side. Commissioner Welty suggested using a style of french door. The applicants responded that a french door would limit the open store space. Chairman Larson said he would like more detail on what the cornice will look like. He would like to make sure City Planner Wittman reviews it. Mr. Smith asked if the Commission could approve the application with a condition that once he tears into it, he will bring back a detailed sketch, so the process does not take another month. Chairman Larson replied Ms. Wittman would need to determine whether she can administratively approve it, or it has to come back to the Commission. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 3 of 7 Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to approve Case No. 2018-18, Design Permit for the construction of a wood and insulated glass storefront at the property located at 227 Main Street South, with the five conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #6, “The sign panel/window above the doorway shall be in line, vertically and horizontally, with the proposed window and door openings”; Condition #7, “The façade will be painted with the same level of detail and of the same colors as the front façade”; and Condition #8, “The façade shall contain a level of detail similar to the front façade with the cornice detailing reviewed and approved by staff.” Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2018-20: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage for the property located at 423 Main Street South in the CBD district. Tim Keenan, property owner and Adam Lee Randall, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting approval of three signs to be added to the structure located at 423 Main Street South: 1) one 3’ tall by 8’ long digital print, custom shape router-cut sign to read “Caribbean Smokehouse”, the business name. The flat, metal sign is proposed to be flush with the wall face, underneath the existing “Brick Alley” sign; 2) one 25” tall by 32” wide projecting metal and laminate sign to be hung from an existing bracket, underneath existing exterior lights. The sign will include the business name and tagline “putting family back into food” as well as graphics; and 3) one 57.5” wide by 12” tall single sided, brushed metal sized with a digital laminate print to read “Caribbean Smokehouse.” Staff finds that the use of flat metal with digital, laminate graphics is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Additionally, the trademark logo color and character is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. Lastly, only one sign is permitted on the side of the building facing Main Street; both the projecting sign and the free-standing (monument), multi-tenant sign are not in conformance with the Zoning Code nor the guidelines. On the basis HPC Case No. 2018-30 does not conform to the Downtown Design Review District standards, staff recommends either denial or tabling the Design Permit to ask the applicant to consider amending the request. Chairman Larson pointed out that signage is a big deal downtown. Every business watches what is allowed for other businesses so the HPC must be consistent. The applicant asked if the overall design is acceptable if they tone down the color scheme. Commissioner Goodman noted that against a red brick building, red will blend in and not be eye-catching. City Planner Wittman reviewed how the materials are inconsistent with the Design Review District standards in terms of material, lettering style, and colors. The applicant said he told the designer he would like the signage to be very similar to the existing Smalley’s sign but more consistent with the Brick Alley lettering. Chairman Larson said when the Commission talks about wood, it doesn’t have to be actual wood - most wood-look signs are routed out of synthetic resin that looks like wood. They appear three dimensional as opposed to the flat plate that the Commission is objecting to. Commissioner Mino commented that a serif font looks more old fashioned whereas a sans serif font looks more modern. The applicant said he has been going back and forth with the designer about whether or not the proposed signs fit the guidelines. Ms. Wittman added that signs are for identification purposes only - tag lines are not generally allowed. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 4 of 7 Chairman Larson suggested adding a black edge on the hanging sign. The subtext and logos are not in keeping with the historic character of the area. Ms. Wittman added that she didn’t check the size of the hanging sign; it might be a little too large. Also, generally, only two signs are allowed per building face and one per street-facing side. She suggested the Commission may want to table consideration of the permanent signage. In the meantime the applicant could still put in window signage. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2018-20, Design Permit for new business signage for the property located at 423 Main Street South. Motion passed 6-0. Case No. 2018-19: Consideration of a Design Permit for a 9 unit condominium structure to be located at 107 3rd Street North in the Downtown Design Review District and the Commercial Historic District. Jon Whitcomb, representing Browns Creek West LLC, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that on June 19, 2018, the City Council approved a Special Use Permit and Variances for a 9-unit condominium building to be located at 107 3rd Street North. The applicant is now requesting a design permit for the structure. He proposes a three-story building with partial mansard roof elements to screen stairwells and elevator components which will rise above the roofline. The foundation will be limestone face. All three floors will be faced with red brick. The mansard roof will be standing seam metal in dark gray. Dark gray, flat metal panels will be located on some of the vertical elements of the structure. The north, south and west façades will have black metal balconies; the east façade will have red metal and glass balconies. White trim elements, including metal and composite dentils on the cornice, will be featured. There will be additional limestone elements for window sills and lintels. Over half of the rooftop will be green but will also have a roof deck patio. At-grade landscaping will include a variety of deciduous over- story trees and coniferous trees and shrubs. The applicant’s submission does not include mechanical or lighting plans nor is any signage proposed for the structure. Staff finds that the 35’ tall building with a partial mansard roof, designed to screen mechanical components, will help visually frame the intersection of Myrtle Street West and Third Street. It will help provide for greater definition on this street corner. The use of historic and modern materials will allow for the building to be complementary to the existing, built environment. The vertical design elements, set back from the public sidewalk and landscaping, help break up the vertical elements of the building. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Architect Roger Tomten, representing the applicant, said having gone through the history of the proposals for this site, the most important thing to note is that the site is not conducive for a commercial site or a full office setting. Mixed use was initially considered but it was determined it would be all residential. The massing echoes massing of existing buildings and helps anchor the corner. The design reflects the Stillwater vernacular. It’s not meant to be a modern building. Chairman Larson acknowledged the difficulty of new construction on an empty lot near an historic district. He referred to the Minnesota Heritage Commission Statewide Training Manual’s chapter on new construction in historic districts acknowledging this struggle. It states buildings don’t need to literally mimic historic styles. They should reflect their time and be distinguishable from their historic neighbors. Councilman Junker asked about the material on the south side. Mr. Tomten said it is a metal panel. The purpose is to break up the mass of the building and provide vertical proportioned elements. Chairman Larson recognized that the openness of the east side with a view of the river lends itself to different materials. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Mino commented that the design looks like two different buildings - the east side looks like a modern building and the west side looks like a couple of different styles. Mr. Tomten responded it’s not uncommon for a building in the CBD to look different on another side. Commissioner Mino replied that is for commercial buildings and this is a residential building. Commissioner Welty asked if a more contemporary front porch was considered. Chairman Larson offered the following comments. The stone base appears as a big red brick box with stone trim, in between traditional and contemporary - a transitional style, not completely historical nor completely contemporary. He sees the mansard roof as a contemporary element. At least they are not over the top reproductions of historical elements but are interpretations of historical elements. However, the cornice as shown strikes him as being very literal in its historicism, so it stands out from the rest of the design somewhat jarringly. With the exception of the iron balconies, the cornice is the only other very literal historical element so it seems slightly out of place. If the balconies were just vertical black pickets, that would be better than the curvy balconies. A more contemporary look might fit the building better. The balconies with the glass railings on the east seem to be of a different world than the rest of the building. He asked if the east and west could be more like each other and if the balconies be consistent around the building to match. The front palladium window seems odd. He asked if brick rather than metal panels was considered for the front, and if the elements on the ends that are dark could be brick instead, perhaps with a color variation. The whole building would hold together better with a similar railing system and a similar deck and post system on each side to make it feel as unified as possible. He recognized that some of the details haven’t been developed yet, and pointed out that the Commission is used to seeing a more developed design stage. Commissioner Welty said she likes the contrasting volumes and colors and feels that having traditional and contemporary elements intermixed serves to break up the building. However, she agrees that there may be a better material to use than vertical metal panels. She also feels that the Juliette balconies are too fussy. Chairman Larson summarized that he would prefer a more unified design with similar elements on all four sides. Commissioner Steinwall emphasized that four sided design is important. She does not necessarily feel that the building needs to be simplified. She still wants to see architectural details. Some of the elements discussed add considerable interest to the building and help break up the massing. Chairman Larson agreed that the massing should not change. He is talking more about the surface and the detailing - the cornice, the curvy balconies and possibly the palladium window up the middle. The east side is dominated by the big contemporary gray blocks. If the balcony forms could become less of the big block contemporary version and something that would better fit with the west side, it would lessen the difference between the sides. Commissioner Mino noted that the windows on one side are quite different from the other side - very modern versus very traditional. In looking at pulling the entire building together, she would like the windows to be part of that too. Chairman Larson acknowledged the project has not yet been taken to a level of detail where many of the design elements discussed would be addressed. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 15, 2018 Page 6 of 7 City Planner Wittman said the Commission could approve a preliminary design tonight with the expectation that they will see more detail in the future. The 60-day deadline to act on the application is September 22. Commissioner Steinwall suggested the application be tabled to give the applicant a chance to digest the ideas. Chairman Larson said he would like to be clear what the Commission would or would not be approving. He is uncomfortable with semi-approving it to see a more refined version later. Jon Whitcomb, applicant, acknowledged there are many challenges, one of which is not knowing what he is trying to price and build. He doesn’t know whether this project can be built affordably in the market today. No one knows what the price per foot is to know whether it can even be built to a market level and people would still be interested in purchasing. So the closer the project can get to an approval allows him to lock in more pricing. He would prefer some level of approval be granted now because it moves the project further along and narrows the scope of additional work. Ms. Wittman encouraged the Commission to table the application. She doesn’t think the concepts discussed will require a significant amount of changes. Tabling it would give the applicant an opportunity to make a couple of non-significant design changes so that they may be able to bring it back next month. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to table Case No. 2018-19, Design Permit for a 9 unit condominium structure to be located at 107 3rd Street North based on the recommended changes discussed in the review. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION There were no other items of discussion. STAFF UPDATES Final 2040 Comprehensive Plan Historic Resources Chapter Update Ms. Wittman provided the final draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Historic Resources chapter. She informed the Commission that the chapter will be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office and to the Minnesota Historical Society as part of grant finalization. The chapter will be incorporated into the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, to be released for final public input this winter. She also reminded the Commission of the annual Boards and Commissions Picnic August 23, and of the State Conference which is in Winona. She informed the Commission that the new City Attorney is Kori Land. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adjourn. All in favor, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 19, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018=23 APPLICANT: Bob Eiselt, representing Trinity Lutheran Church REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new freestanding, monument sign for Trinity Lutheran Church, located at 115 4th Street North, in the Downtown Design Review District. PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for a new freestanding, monument sign to be located near the intersection of Myrtle Street West and Third Street North. The sign is proposed to be located a minimum of 15’ from each of the eastern and southern property lines. The monument sign is proposed to replace the existing Trinity Lutheran Church sign located in front of the building’s Third Street North entrance. APPLICATION DETAILS The 32 square foot monument sign is proposed to read “Trinity Lutheran Church” in black, dimensional letters on a gray sign box. There will be two flat, interchangeable, black metal panels which will display service information as well as be used for special church events. The monument sign will sit on a 2’ tall red brick base with an architectural, precast sill in a neutral, stone color. The applicant has indicated there is a desire to have a precast vertical element on one side of the sign. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES Regarding signage, the Downtown Design Review Manual indicates: HPC Case No. 2018-23 September 19, 2018 Page 2 of 2 • Materials: Modern sign materials are acceptable provided their design is handled with an understanding of the Victorian spirit. • Color: Choose tones with sufficient contrast to be clearly legible: dark on light or light on dark. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has several alternatives related to these request: A. Approve. If the proposed design review request is found to be consistent with the adopted design guidelines, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2018-23. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and on file with HPC Case No. 2018-23. 2. If lighting is proposed, it must be external. While down-lit lighting is encouraged, up-lighting shall be permissible if the light is directed to the sign and shielded to prevent glare. 3. The new monument sign shall obtain a sign permit prior to the installation of the sign. 4. Upon installation of the new monument sign, the property owner shall remove the existing monument sign. 5. All minor modifications to the plan shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Downtown Design Review District guidelines then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, the denial would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until October, 2018 meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed monument sign conforms to the Zoning Ordinance and the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of Case No. 2018-23 with the following aforementioned conditions listed in alternative “A”. ATTACHMENTS Site Plan Sign Alternatives (2 pages) 15'-0" PROPERTY LINE ASSUMED AT SIDEWALK EDGE ALIGNED +/- WITH SE BUILDING CORNER SETBACK FROM THIRD MONUMENT SIGN CRABAPPLES (6) MAPLES (4 OR 5) 08.22.18 dimensional metal or resin letters each side interchangable message panels each side HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 15, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-20 APPLICANT: Adam Lee Randall, representing Caribbean Smokehouse REQUEST: Request for a Design Permit to install signage for Caribbean Smokehouse on the structure located at 423 Main Street North ZONING: Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of three signs to be added to the structure located at 423 Main Street South:  The installation of one, 3’ tall by 8’ long digital print, custom shape router cut sign to read “Caribbean Smokehouse”, the business name. The flat, metal sign is proposed to be flush with the wall face, underneath the existing ‘Brick Alley’ sign. Case No. 2018-20 HPC: August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 3  The installation of one, 25” tall by 32” wide projecting metal and laminate sign to be hung from an existing bracket, underneath existing exterior lights. The sign will include the business name and tagline of “putting family back into food” as well as graphics.  The installation of one, 57.5” wide by 12” tall single sided, brushed metal sized with a digital laminate print to read “Caribbean Smokehouse”. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS Municipal Code Section 31-509, Design permit states:  The Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following standards: 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 Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The Downtown Design Manual section pertaining to “Sign and Graphics” is attached for Commission review. The following are applicable to this request: • Only one sign that contains the business name or graphic logo is permitted per street facing side. The exception is that a window sign may be used in addition to other sign types. • “Trademark” or “Logo” signs may not be acceptable if the color and character of the sign is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. • Use materials consistent with the period, such as wood signboards and metal brackets. • Multiple-tenant buildings should submit a Sign Package that includes building elevations (drawn to scale), sign types, locations and sizes. Do not put up signs piecemeal. View the building as a whole and plan for a unified strategy to take advantage of all possible sign locations. • Use painted wood were practicable. It is the authentic material and will look appropriate against the weathered brick of Stillwater’s commercial facades. Modern materials that stimulate wood may be acceptable, and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Choose subdued colors and dark tones in keeping with the Victorian tradition. • Choose tones with sufficient contrast to be clearly legible: dark on light or light on dark. • Choose a bond and simple type style on all appropriate signs. FINDINGS The use of flat metal with digital, laminate graphics is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Additionally, the trademark logo color and character is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. Lastly, only one sign is permitted on the side of the building facing Main Street; both the projecting sign and the free-standing (monument), multi-tenant sign are not in conformance with the Zoning Code nor the guidelines. Case No. 2018-20 HPC: August 15, 2018 Page 3 of 3 ALTERNATIVES A. Approve, whole or in part. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards, and the standards set forth for Design Permits, the HPC should move to approve, with or without conditions, Case No. 2018-20. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. RECOMMENDATION On the basis HPC Case No. 2018-30 does not conforms to the Downtown Design Review District standards, staff recommends either denial or tabling the Design Permit for the Caribbean Smokehouse signs proposed to be located at 423 Main Street South. ATTACHMENTS Applicant submission (5 pages) Downtown Design Review District Guidelines (pages 26-33) Signs and Graphics Background During the peak of commercial activity in Stillwater, the signs in the historic commercial district had a distinct character that was a part of the overall streetscape. Many of the historic buildings were built to accommodate a storefront sign band in their original design. The efforts of the Design Manual are not meant to turn back the clock, but rather to preserve and enhance that distinct and historic character of Stillwater. All signage is subject to Stillwater building and zoning codes. 1. QUANTITIES, LOCATION AND SIZE Background In the past, streetscapes had a variety of sign types that not only identified the business, but also the name of the buildings, dates of construction, etc. The signs were simple, bold and well Crafted. Lettering was in clear, no-nonsense styles, maximizing the contrast between the background and the lettering. Varying sign types can be found in the historic streetscape including: (1) architectural signs, (2) storefront signs, (3) window signs, (4) awnings, (5) projecting signs, and (6) painted wall signs and murals. Every building should select the most appropriate sign type for its architecture and location. Guidelines • The maintenance and restoration of any existing historic signs is encouraged in lieu of replacement. • Signage for a business not located within the building is not acceptable. • Only one sign that contains the business name or graphic logo is permitted per street facing side. The exception is that a window sign may be used in addition to other sign types. • Signage should be located in such a way as to not obscure any architectural features of the building. A projecting sign with two faces is considered one sign. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 26 Signs and Graphics a. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS Backround Architectural signs are integrated into the building fabric and are constructed of permanent materials such as stone or metal. Names and the dates of construction were common signs included on the façade. They were typically located in the roof parapet detailing or in a cornerstone detail. These add a sense of history and place to the character and fabric of Stillwater. Guidelines • Preserve existing architectural signs. • Promote the use of the original building names in new signage. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 27 Signs and Graphics b. STOREFRONT SIGNS Backround Storefront signs are those which are located on the horizontal band dividing the storefront windows from the upper façade of the building. Guidelines • The storefront sign should be used to display the primarily name of the business only. Use only one line of lettering if possible, leaving out secondary information. • Use simple, bold lettering with sufficient contrast between the lettering and the background. • “Trademark” or “Logo" signs may not be acceptable if the color and character of the sign is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. • The maximum area of the sign is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Graphics in the sign are included in the maximum allowable area. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 28 Signs and Graphics c. WINDOW SIGNS Background Window signs are applied inside the glass of storefront windows, upper floor windows and doorways. Their main focus was on the approaching pedestrian; therefore the signs gave more detailed information about the business. Guidelines • It may often be desirable to keep the display space clear. In these cases, insert the sign at the base or the head of the window, or both. • Keep the lettering small remembering that the reader will be in close proximity to the sign. Use several lines where necessaiy and consider curving the top line at the head of the window. • Lettering formed with neon may be used in the inside of the window, provided the size, light intensity, color and style are consistent with the theme of the buildong. • Total sign area in the window should not exceed one-third of the window area. • Display street numbers on or directly above the door, and business hours on the inside of the door or in an adjacent window. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 29 Signs and Graphics d. PROJECTING SIGNS Background Projecting signs are at right angles to the building face, either fixed to the wall or hanging from a bracket. Their major advantage over storefront or window signs is their ability to be seen by pedestrians and motorists from a distance down the street. If they get too large, however, they can obscure each other, so it is important to keep them small and simple. Guidelines • The maximum area of the sign and the minimum height above the sidewalk is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Use materials consistent with the period, such as wood signboards and metal brackets. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 30 Signs and Graphics e. PAINTED WALL SIGNS & MURALS Background Painted wall signs occasionally appeared on the side of buildings at comer locations, or where a low adjacent roofline exposed an expanse of plain brick wall above. As these signs were high on the building, the message was simple and the lettering was large and bold. In the time period of the 1920’s – 1950’s, there were occasions of painted advertising in these areas. More recently, there have been murals created on walls of "non-contributing" buildings, or on the bac of “non-contributing" buildings, or on the back walls of “contributing” buildings. These have been addressed on a case-by-case basis. Guidelines • Where existing painted wall signs can still he found, leave them exposed, or restore them to their original colors. • No new wall signs or murals should he introduced on historic "contributing" buildings. • Murals on "non-contributing" buildings have been allowed with individual review, provided they have a historic theme, and do not advertise an existing business or company. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 31 Signs and Graphics 2. COORDINATION OF SIGNS Backround At the time of the commercial boom in StiIlwater (1870’s – 1900’s) most buildings were owned and occupied by single businesses. Merchants thought of their entire façade as potential sign space. For this reason, the signs were all well coordinated. Ownership and business use patterns have changed over the years, and many buildings now contain multiple businesses. It is important that tenants and owners cooperate to design a sign package, which will help to reunify the building façade. Guidelines • Multiple-tenant buildings should submit a Sign Package that includes building elevations (drawn to scale), sign types, locations and sizes. Do not put up signs piecemeal. View the building as a whole and plan a unified design strategy to take advantage of all possible sign locations. • Tenants and owners should use a common lettering style and color scheme on the building • Design the Sign Package to emphasize the whole width and geometry of storefronts and individual buildings. Avoid the use of unified signage across multiple buildings thai are obviously separate and of different and distinct scale or architecture. • Consider giving the entire building an identifiable name, i.e. "Stillwater Mercantile", with individual business signs near the entrances, or on a common directory. BUILDING SIGN PROGRAMTenant A: 14 sq. ft. sign Tenant B: 21 sq. ft. sign Tenant C: 28 sq. ft. sign Tenant D: 28 sq. ft. sign Tenant E: 21 sq. ft. sign D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 32 D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 33 Signs and Graphics 3. MATERIALS Background Apart from architectual signs, the original exterior signs of StiIlwater were constructed of wood and painted. Window signs were painted, etched or gilded. Today a great range of materials are available, including metals and plastics, and their unconditioned use can lead to a confusion of signage, which detracts from the unique character of Stillwater. Modern sign materials are acceptable provided their design is handled with an understanding of the Victorian spirit. An exception is made in the case of internally lit and back-lit signs, their nature is inherently foreign to the solid character of brick and wood Victorian architecture and they are bound to strike a false and distracting note in the streetscape. Guidelines • Use painted wood where practicable. It is the authentic material and will look appropriate against the weathered brick of Stillwater's commercial façades. Modern materials that simulate wood may be acceptable, and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Neon may be used as an interior window sign only. • Backlit and internally lit signs are not appropriate. • Supporting brackets for projecting signs should be metal, painted black. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 34 Signs and Graphics 4. SHAPE OF SIGNS Background The signs of Stillwater were forthright and utilitarian. Simple, framed rectangular boards were constructed to fill the available spaces. A common type was the long narrow sign, which stretched across the top of the storefront windows. Guidelines • Design the sign shape to fit and fill the available space. Consider using long narrow signs spanning the full width of the façade. • If a projecting sign is used, keep it simple in shape, small in size and utilitarian in design. • Window signs should be symmetrical in layout and position. Top lines may be curved. 5. COLOR Background The commercial structures of this time period did not use a wide range of paint colors. The palette was particularly narrow; dark green, dark brown and black were common. Signs were painted for contrast rather than for color-black letters on a white background, gold letters on a black background. Complete ranges of paint colors are available today, ranging from the jarring to the pastel. If they are used indiscriminately, the unique historic character of Stillwater will be destroyed. Guidelines • Choose subdued colors and dark tones in keeping with the Victorian tradition. Properly selected combinations of dark brown and green, black, off-white and gold are all appropriate. • Choose tones with sufficient contrast to be clearly legible: dark on light or light on dark. • Support brackets of projecting signs should be black. 6. LETTERING Background Most of the original signs in Stillwater were strictly practical-the lettering had to be large enough to have an impact at the required viewing distance, and clear enough to be readily legible. Generally the style was a plain bold or classic uppercase arranged symmetrically, and one style was often repeated on various signs applied to one building. Guidelines • Choose a bold and simple type style and use it on all appropriate signs. Signs and Graphics 7. LIGHTING Background In the nineteenth century, Stillwater would have been dimly lit. Today we expect our cities to be bright and lively at night. We must achieve an acceptable standard of lighting without compromising the essential character of the historic setting. Guidelines • Use incandescent indirect lighting and place spotlights discreetly, in such a way as to shield the source from pedestrians and vehicular traffic. • Neon lights are permitted in window signs only. Design them with respect for the historic ambiance of the area. • Do not use flashing, moving or intermittent lights. • Do not use internally or back-lit signs, either projecting, wall mounted, or hung inside the window. • Do not use changeable or movable letters or graphics. 8. INSTALLATION Background With the high turnover of businesses in many of the historic buildings, signage has become temporary in nature. Efforts must be made to make sure that damage to buildings is minimized when signage is installed. Guidelines • The installation of any signage or graphics must have a minimal impact on the building and must allow the building to return to its original condition upon signage removal. • Reuse of existing mounting brackets, studs or holes is desirable. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 35 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 19, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-22 APPLICANT: Croixview Partners LLC, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for the construction of rooftop patio guardrail on the structure located at 114 Main Street North, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District ZONING: Central Business District COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Croixview Partners LLC has requested a Site Alteration Permit for the installation of certain rooftop improvements on the structure located at 114 Main Street North. The improvements includes the installation of a 36” tall wood and metal wire guardrail to be located on the perimeter of the east half of the building. The guardrail is proposed to be offset from the eastern parapet by 1.5’. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES AND FINDINGS As the property has been designated as a Heritage Preservation Site due to its significance within the Commercial Historic District, the commission’s decisions must use the following (applicable) guidelines (as found in City Code Section 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission) to evaluate applications for site alterations: Site Alteration Guideline Staff Analysis in conjunction with Downtown Design Review District Guidelines The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be Any new design should respect the proportions as well as the detailing of the original design and should use materials, which are consistent with Case No. 2018-22 HPC: September 19, 2018 Page 2 of 3 destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible. those used in the original buildings. Recessed entries should be retained in existing buildings and required in new storefront construction. No removal of historic materials is proposed. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged; and Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right and this significance shall be recognized and respected. The Design Manual guidelines do not specifically reference rooftop improvements. However, in general, the use of brick, stone, wood and metal is encouraged as these materials are historically appropriate. That said, while rooftop patios are a product of their own time, their installation should not detract from the existing structure. Often times rooftop additions that can be seen from the street can have a negative impact on the structure itself. While wood and metal are encouraged, the design should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. This type of contemporary addition should be respectful of the building’s style and form. The proposed fence has detailing and design elements that, if potentially seen from the street, could detract from the building. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION As the building has a flat parapet, it is not appropriate to have a highly ornate guardrail in this location. While the wood and metal wire design is simple, additional design detail of fence post knobs is not necessary. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has alternatives related to this request. A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards, and the standards set forth for Site Alteration Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2018-22. Staff recommends the following Case No. 2018-22 HPC: September 19, 2018 Page 3 of 3 conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department as part of CPC Case No. 2018-22. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. 3. The fence shall have a flat top rail. Post knobs shall not be utilized. 4. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION On the basis the proposal is consistent with the standards set forth for Site Alteration Permits, staff would recommend conditional approval of HPC Case No. 2018-22. ATTACHMENTS Existing Roof Top Floor Plan Proposed Roof Top Floor Plan