The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 HPC Agendaswater :{ 1- R I R '1 11 P l A iJ I M P§ i1 is 7.: A Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Monday, October 2, 2006 The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, October 2, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF September 6, 2006 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 CURVE CREST PROFESSIONAL BUILDING — CASE NO. DR. 06-38. Design review of a 234' 4" x 6' 6" monument sign located at 2850 Curve Crest Blvd. Kike Kuehn, Welsh Construction Inc., applicant. Continued from September 6, 2006. 5.02 STILLWATER ART GUILD GALLARY — CASE NO. DR/06-43. Design review of signage for Stillwater Art Guild Gallery located at 402 Main St So. Randall Raduenz, applicant. 5.03 MYRON REUBENDALE - CASE NO. DR/06-44. Design review of an accessory dwelling unit located at 609 Broadway Street South — Myron Reubendale, applicant. 5.04 CARETAKER'S HOUSE — CASE NO. DR/06-45. Design review of exterior color located at 220 E Mulberry Street. Dave Speedling. 5.05 CURVE CREST PROFESSIONAL BUILDING — CASE NO. DR. 06-46. Design review of exterior channel letter sign located at 2850 Curve Crest Blvd. Nordquist Sign Co., applicant. 5.06 HUNTINGTON LEARNING CENTER — CASE NO. DR 06-47. Design review of signage for Huntington Learning Center located at 1250 Frontage Road. Signart, applicant. 5.07 ANYTIME FITNESS — CASE NO. DR/06-48. Design review of signage for Anytime Fitness located at 1270 Frontage Road. Attracta Signs, applicant. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 7. ADJOURN wafer 'l E F, i P. 3 H P( T 1 Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting Wednesday, September 6, 2006 The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 7, 2006 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 Case No. DEM/06-06. Demolition request for a garage located at 521 South 5th Street. Barbara Greeder, applicant. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 GRUMPY STEVE'S — CASE NO. DR/06-34. Design review of signage for Grumpy Steve's located at 410 Main St So. 402 Main Street, LLC, applicant. Continued from the August 7, 2006 meeting- 5.02 MARK WEYER INSURANCE AGENCY INC. — CASE NO. DR/06-37 Design review of signage located at 901 South 3rd St. Mark Weyer, applicant. 5.03 CURVE CREST PROFESSIONAL BUILDING — CASE NO. DR. 06-38. Design review of a 234' 4" x 6' 6" monument sign located at 2850 Curve Crest Blvd. Kike Kuehn, Welsh Construction Inc., applicant. 5.04 EDINA REALTY — CASE NO. DR/06-39. Design review of a 100 square foot monument sign located at 14430 N 60t' Street. Schad Tracy Signs, Rick Ballantyne, applicant. 5.05 RESIDENCE — CASE NO. DR/06-40. Design review to replace the re_ ar porch on an existing foundation and add an 8 foot deck on V a residence located at 209 N Street. Tom Hunninghake, applicant. 5.06 CESARE'S WINE BAR — CASE NO. DR/06-41. Design review of exterior siding located at 102 So 2nd Street. Richard Lay, applicant. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Water Street Inn patio 6.02 Heirloom Housing Program Funding 6.03 12th Annual Heritage Preservation Awards 7. ADJOURN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Brent Peterson Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of Aug. 7, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Greeder Demolition (Case No. DEM/06-06) Demolition request for a garage at 521 S. Fifth St. Barbara Greeder, applicant. The applicant was present. There was a brief review of the request. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Ed Simonet, co-owner of the property to the east of Ms. Greeder's garage, spoke in favor of the demolition request. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., told the Commission he had a statement from a mason that the garage can't be repaired. Mr. Empson also provided a written report, included as part of Ms. Greeder's supporting documentation, on the history and significance of the garage. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman reviewed the nine steps required by City Ordinance. Mr. Lieberman noted the one step not addressed in Ms. Greeder's application was evidence that the structure had been offered for sale for possible reuse elsewhere. However, he suggested that considering the condition of the structure, the Commission should be guided by common sense. Mr. Johnson pointed out that while some of the masonry of the garage is original and unique, the roof and doors are not original. The only part that is original is the masonry portion of the structure and that is in poor condition. Mr. Johnson noted that good documentation had been provided and the condition of the structure is such that it cannot be restored. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the demolition permit, DEM/06-06. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. DESIGN REVIEWS Grumpy Steve's Sign Review {Case No. DR/06-34 Design review of signage for Grumpy Steve's at 410 S. Main St. 402 Main Street, LLC, applicant. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten noted the applicant had done as requested by the Commission at the last meeting and moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Weyer Sign Review Case No. ❑R/06-37 Design review of signage at 901 S. Third St. Mark Weyer, applicant. Mr. Weyer was present. He explained that since the original variance was granted by the Planning Commission in 2004, the building plans have changed somewhat so three office suites now have no access to windows or signage. The proposal, he said, is to place signage, of the same size, where signs were previously located on the building. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the building use is primarily professional office use where recognition is based on the address of the building. He noted that the windows by the entrance doors could be used to list tenants. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the proposed plaque -type signage proposed would not be highly visible. Mr. Eastwood noted there has always been signage on this building and said he would be inclined to approve the request. Mr. Nelson agreed with the need for signage, especially for those businesses off Main Street. Mr. Eastwood noted that the requested signage meets the allowable square footage of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the requested signage is not consistent with the RB District, in which it is located. Mr. Johnson suggested that a projecting sign at the corner of the building could be used to identify the building by name or address, with tenants listed in the side windows. It was noted the Planning Commission would have to approve a variance for a projecting sign. Mr. Lieberman summarized discussion by suggesting that if the Planning Commission approves a variance, the HPC would allow one sign, basically identifying the building by name or address, with tenants listed elsewhere. Mr. Johnson moved to deny, without prejudice, Case No. DR/06-37 as not meeting the design requirements of the RB District. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Kuehn Sign Review (Case No. DR106-38j Design review of a monument sign at 2850 Curve Crest Blvd. Mike Kuehn, Welsh Construction Inc., applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten asked if information had been provided regarding lettering, style and color. Mr. Lieberman moved to table this case given the substantive questions about the request. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Ballantyne Sign Review (Case No. ❑R/06-39) Design review of a pylon sign at 14430 N. 60th St. Schad Tracy Signs, Rick Ballantyne, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Eastwood pointed out that the Commission had approved the requested sign previously, but the applicant had never followed through on the issue. Mr. Eastwood also pointed out that every business in the area, from Osgood to Greeley, has two 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 signs. There was discussion of the HPC's previous action. Mr. Johnson said he recalled that the HPC approved either the monument or wall signage, not both. Mr. Eastwood moved to approve Case No. DR/06-39. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that the HPC would be approving something that is in violation of the City's ordinance. Mr. Eastwood's motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the design of the pylon sign as conditioned with the additional condition that the existing wall sign be removed, allowing one sign and as conditioned. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-1, with Mr. Eastwood voting no. Hunninghake Design Review (Case No. DR/06-40) Design review to replace the rear porch on an existing foundation and add an 8-foot deck at 209 N. Third St. Tom Hunninghake, applicant. The applicant was present. Noting that this proposal would be an expansion of a non- conforming use and require a variance from the Planning Commission, Mr. Lieberman questioned whether this was a chicken -or -the -egg situation. Mr. Turnblad responded that he believes the variance will be granted as this is an existing non -conforming house and the expansion placed over an existing foundation. Mr. Johnson stated this house demonstrates the success of the City's demolition ordinance and is a fine example of what the ordinance is intended to accomplish. He stated the request is not an exorbitant expansion, but he noted, the HPC can't grant a variance. Mr. Johnson asked the applicant whether it would be acceptable to shorten the addition by two feet in order to be within the footprint of the existing structure. Mr. Hunninghake said he would like design approval of the larger and smaller addition should he decide to pursue obtaining a variance. During the design review, Mr. Tomten asked if the siding on the south elevation would be kept, noting that the transition from the existing structure to the addition is important. Mr. Hunninghake said the siding would be kept; he also stated the roof pitch of the addition would be the same. Mr. Johnson asked if corner boards, frieze board and window trim would be carried through. Mr. Johnson also spoke of utilizing the corner boards to separate the addition. The applicant explained his plans in more details. Windows will be double -hung, sash windows, Mr. Johnson moved approval as submitted, which will require a variance, and approval if shortened by two feet, as conditioned, with the additional condition that window trim, corner board and frieze board be carried through to the addition and that the addition be separated by the corner board. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman noted the motion represents HPC approval of design for the extended or shortened version of the plans and offers no opinion regarding the variance. Mr. Lieberman also stated this is an excellent project and example of why the demolition ordinance is in place. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Cesare Design Review Case No. DR/06-41 Design review of exterior siding at 102 S. Second St. Richard Lay, applicant. The applicant was present. Mr. Lay explained the existing siding is in need of replacement and the request is to utilize a metal siding to provide a different look for the business, a look that is not overly industrial. Mr. Lay also noted that at 350 square feet, the impact of the new siding will City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 be minimal. Mr. Nelson said he liked the proposed metal siding, saying it was more fashionable and appropriate to the use as a wine bar. Mr. Johnson expressed a concern that metal is more reminiscent of a shed versus a building of permanence. Mr. Eastwood said he does not like steel siding in the Downtown District. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Zahren both spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Tomten suggested the new material will clean up that elevation of the building. Mr. Tomten noted this structure was always an add -on, not a Victorian building and never part of the Gazette building. Mr. Johnson asked about the color of the siding. Mr. Lay said the proposal is to use galvanized metal. Mr. Johnson asked about light fixtures; Mr. Lay said the fixtures will remain the same. Mr. Tomten moved approval as submitted and conditioned, with the additional conditions that the trellis be unpainted cedar and that the metal be unpainted galvanized metal. Mr. Lay stated he was hoping it might be possible to use a clear Plexiglas over the trellis to provide some weather protection, as the umbrellas will be removed from the deck. Mr. Eastwood questioned whether Plexiglas would be acceptable. Mr. Pogge stated that if the HPC finds the use of Plexiglas to be acceptable, it will have to meet building codes. Mr. Lay wondered if a retractable canopy might be acceptable if the Plexiglass won't work. Mr. Johnson pointed out that louvered boards offer some weather protection and there is no problem with snow load. Mr. Johnson verified that there will be no change in signage. Mr. Zahren seconded Mr. Tomten's motion. Motion passed 4-2, with Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Johnson voting no. OTHER BUSINESS Water Street Innpatio: There was a brief review of previous actions on the matter. Mr. Johnson asked about the 60-day rule when action is tabled. Mr. Turnblad stated that the 60-day rule does not apply to design review. Mr. Lieberman noted that none of the conditions of approval have ever been completed or complied with and moved to deny the request that was originally tabled. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Heirloom Housing Program funding: Mr. Turnblad said he has not yet heard from SHPO regarding grant money for an intern to begin implementation of the program and the item will be brought back to the HPC next month. Mr. Eastwood suggested soliciting volunteers. Mr. Turnblad said he would pursue that avenue should grant money not be available. Heritage Preservation Awards: Members submitted a number of suggestions for consideration. After discussion, it was agreed this year's awards should be presented for the renovation/restoration of the carriage house at the Teddy Bear Park and the garage on the Bremer property on Nelson Alley; a "rescue -rehabilitation" award for the Hunninghake project, 209 N. Third Street; a Neighborhood Conservation District award for the project at 515 N. Everett; and an award for signage to Aprille Shower's Tea Room. St. Michael's Church Sian: Mr. Pogge told the Commission that St. Michael's Church has requested that lighting on all four sides of their new sign be allowed as lighting the top and bottom only, as approved by the HPC, has resulted in the creation of shadows. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to approve the use of four-sided halo lighting on the new City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission September 6, 2006 sign with the condition that the fixtures/light source cannot be seen from the sidewalks or street. Motion passed unanimously. Lay Request: Richard Lay told the Commission the Terra Springs Homeowners' Association has asked that the air conditioning units for the wine shop located in Terra Springs building 1 be relocated to the roof top. Mr. Lay said such a move likely would require larger units, and there might not be enough space on the roof. Mr. Lieberman said he would not be in favor of moving any mechanicals to the rooftop. Mr. Johnson noted rooftop units would create more noise and also stated the units were placed in their existing location by design so as not to be visible from the street or any common spaces. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to not allow the wine shop's mechanical units to be moved to the roof. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 1water -1 11 [ I R H P I R ;: _ 0 f- M PI N F S El Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting August 7, 2006 The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, August 7, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF JULY 5, 2006 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 Case No. DEM/06-05. Demolition request for a shed located at 307 E Willow Street. Jeanne Anderson, applicant. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 VALLEY RIDGE SHOPPING CENTER — CASE NO. DR/06-26. Design review of a proposed expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center by approximately 9,000 square feet. Property located at 1250 Frontage Road West. Continued from July 5, 2006 Meeting 5.02 STONE'S RESTAURANT — CASE NO. DR/06-30. Design review of proposed signage for Stone's Restaurant located at 324 South Main Street. Continued from July 5, 2006 Meeting. 5.03 UBS — CASE NO. DR/06-31. Design review of proposed signage for UBS located at 270 North Main Street. Leroy Signs, applicant. 5.04 ULTIMA BELLEZA SALON — CASE NO. DR/06-32. Design review of proposed signage for Ultima Belleza Salon at 150 3rd St So. Mary Coleman, applicant. 5.05 WALTER WDOWYCHYN — CASE NO. DR/06-33. Design review of an accessory dwelling unit located at 519 P St So. Walter Wdowychyn, applicant. 5.06 GRUMPY STEVE'S — CASE NO. DR/06-34. Design review of signage for Grumpy Steve's located at 410 Main St So. 402 Main Street, LLC, applicant. 5.07 ST. CROIX PREPARATORY ACADEMY — CASE NO. DR/06-36. Design review of signage for St. Croix Preparatory Academy located at 201 N 2n1 St. St. Croix Preparatory Academy, applicant. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 HEIRLOOM AND LANDMARK HOMES PROGRAM 7. ADJOURN City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Present: Jeff Johnson, Vice Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Ken Harycki, Brent Peterson and Roger Tomten Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman, Larry Nelson and Scott Zahren Mr. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten said the language in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the material related to Case No. DR/06-27 was confusing. He suggested that the wording to changed to indicate that pedestrian traffic will not be affected as the "adjacent wall to the south extends out an additional 2'." There also was discussion as to the type of lighting recommended for Case No. DR/06-30. Rather than channel lit lettering, as indicated in the minutes, it was directed that the minutes reflect the Commission recommended "channel lit lettering that will provide a halo effect." Also, it was noted the vote on Case No. DEM/06-04 was unanimous, but not 6-0 was indicated. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of July 5, 2006, as corrected; motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/06-05. Mr. Johnson opened the hearing and announced that this case had been withdrawn. The hearing was closed. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/06-26 Design review of a proposed expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center at 1250 Frontage Road West. Representing the applicant were Jesse Hamer of Tushie Montgomery Architects and Kriss Novak of Valley Ridge management. Mr. Johnson referred to the changes that had been made subsequent to the discussion at the July meeting, specifically that the proposed expansion has been reduced and now meets required setback from Northwestern Avenue and the design provides for a continuous band and roof parapet over a proposed drive-thru space. It was noted that the purpose of the drive-thru is tenant -driven. Mr. Tomten asked about the materials transition at the corners and whether the materials would wrap around the north and west elevations and the drive-thru elevation. Mr. Tomten also questioned the height of the parapet. Mr. Pogge noted that there is a condition of approval related to the parapet. There was a question about the trash enclosure gated, structure with masonry on both sides. mechanicals. It was noted that the mechanical The applicant stated the enclosure would be a There was a question about the location of units had not been selected at the time of the meeting, but the units would be placed on the roof and screened if necessary. It was noted that the units would be smaller units to serve each wing/bay. Mr. Johnson also pointed out the mechanicals would not be visible from many viewing points. Regarding the required lighting City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 2of5 plan, the applicant provided two cut sheets and site lighting plan at the meeting. Regarding the required landscape plan, Mr. Johnson pointed out the applicant will be submitting that and currently is working with Washington County Soil and Water Conservation to incorporate a rain garden as part of the landscape plan. Mr. Tomten asked about the proposed fabric canopies and whether signage was proposed for the canopies, noting that a tenant is limited to one sign. Mr. Hamer explained a sign package for the mall was submitted in 2003 but never formally adopted. He said the signage package would be going to the Planning Commission for a requested variance and will be coming back to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Mr. Tomten moved approval as conditioned, with conditions No. 3, 4, 6 and 7 to be reviewed and found acceptable by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit, eliminating the language that these items be brought back for review and approval by the HPC, with an additional condition, No. 11, that the materials at the corner of the north elevation wrap around the east and west elevations. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson asked that the applicant's handouts submitted at the Aug. 7 meeting be included as part of the official record. Mr. Tomten and Mr. Eastwood were agreeable to Mr. Johnson's suggestion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-30 Design review of proposed signage for Stone's Restaurant at 324 S. Main St. The applicant was not present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the revised request and design of the proposed signage. Mr. Pogge noted that in addition to the requested sign on Main Street and the already approved signage on Second Street, the applicant now is requesting a projecting sign and canopy sign on Nelson Street. Mr. Johnson said he was unaware that signage was permitted on multiple sides of a canopy, noting the request amounts to three signs. Mr. Johnson also suggested that the requested projecting sign on Nelson Street would be prone to damage and could be a hazard due to the narrowness of the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson suggested that the request regarding canopy signage be limited to either the front or two sides of the awning, not all three elevations. Mr. Harycki relayed Mr. Nelson's thoughts regarding the proposal. Mr. Nelson urged the Commission to consider how the City treats businesses located off Main Street. Mr. Nelson indicated he thought the request was a good package and reiterated the difficulty presented by the location. There was discussion about the proposed lighting of the Main Street sign. It was clarified that there is no translucent lighting, all lighting is halo effect lighting and LED lighting. Mr. Tomten asked if the LED lights would be visible; it was noted that a condition of approval could be added that LED lights not be visible. During discussion, Mr. Eastwood suggested that the applicant had done what the Commission requested regarding the use of halo lighting. Mr. Tomten said while not "excited" about the proposed shape and style of the sign, he agreed that the applicant had attempted to utilize lighting that is compatible with what the City is trying to do in the downtown area. Mr. Johnson also noted that the applicant had eliminated the starburst portion of the sign, as requested by the Commission. Mr. Tomten suggested that if the Main Street signage is the focus, the applicant be limited to using the Stone's panel only on the City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 3 of 5 projecting signage on Nelson Street, eliminating the "Restaurant & Lounge" and "Cocktails, Seafood, Chops" panels. Mr. Johnson moved approval as conditioned, adding language to Condition No. 5 (canopy sign for Nelson Street) allowing verbiage on either the south face or each end of the canopy, limiting the verbiage to 6 square feet per end, and adding language to Condition No. 9 that if a variance is granted, the projecting sign is limited to the upper panel (Stone's) only, eliminating the two other panels due to concerns about overhead clearance. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-31 Design review of proposed signage for UBS at 270 N. Main St. Leroy Signs, applicant. The applicant was not present. It was noted that the request is to replace two existing Piper Jaffray signs with new UBS signs. Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-32 Design review of proposed signage for Ultima Belleza Salon at 150 Third St. S. Mary Coleman, applicant. Ms. Coleman was present. The requested sign will be black background with gold letters. The sign will not be lighted and meets the allowable square footage. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-33 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 519 Third St. S. Walter Wdowychyn, applicant. The applicant was present. He explained that his two lots have been incorporated into one parcel. The proposed structure will be located on the northeast corner of the parcel; the front faces west and access is off Third Street, it was noted. He said he would be OK with adding an additional dormer as suggested in the staff report. Mr. Johnson asked around lighting. Mr. Wdowychyn said lighting would be limited to two carriage -style fixtures located on both sides of the doorways. Mr. Johnson suggested that rather than carriage -style lighting, the applicant consider gooseneck fixtures and place the fixtures under the eaves so as to not spray lighting onto neighboring properties. Mr. Johnson asked about the style of windows. The applicant said windows would likely be casement style; Mr. Johnson suggested that sash windows might be more fitting. The applicant said he was comfortable with that suggestion. Mr. Eastwood moved approval as conditioned, with the applicant to consider the additional dormer, sash windows and downlit fixtures, rather than carriage fixtures. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson asked that the additional dormer be a requirement of approval; the applicant said he was OK with making that a requirement. Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Peterson City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 4 of 5 agreed to amend the motion to require the additional dormer as a condition of approval. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-34 Design review of signage for Grumpy Steve's at 410 Main St. S., LLC applicant. Steve Bremer was present representing Grumpy Steve's. He explained that the coffee shop struggles to compete with Starbucks. He said since installing a banner advertising the offering of Belgian waffles, gross sales have more than doubled, prompting the request for the additional sign. During discussion, it was noted that the existing Grumpy Steve's sign is a bit shy of the allowable square footage. Mr. Eastwood suggested placing the verbiage advertising the Belgian waffles underneath the existing sign, utilizing a different font perhaps, to get close to the allowable square footage, rather than uses two separate signs. It also was suggested that the canopy could be utilized for a graphic that would promote the waffles. Mr. Johnson also noted that technically the business has two frontages, so a projecting sign on the Broadway elevation would be allowable. Mr. Johnson noted that the Commission could approve the modification of the existing sign up to the allowable 27 square feet or approve a projecting sign of up to 6 square feet on the Broadway Street elevation or deny the second sign unless a variance is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bremer said he would like to continue the request and revise plans. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to continue Case No. CR/06-34. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-36 Design review of signage for St. Croix Preparatory Academy at 201 N. Second St. St. Croix Preparatory Academy, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted the proposed signage mimics that of the existing signage at the Myrtle Street facility. Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Heirloom Houses Program — There was discussion of Mr. Turnblad's proposal to implement an Heirloom Houses Program as recommended by Mr. Empson in his report to the Commission. Mr. Eastwood expressed a concern that funding for implementing this new program not interfere with funding to finish up the neighborhood studies. Mr. Turnblad noted that would be up to the Commission to determine its funding priorities; Mr. Johnson said he thought the Heirloom Home Program should be a priority. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the Landmark Homes should automatically be added to the list of the 370 properties Mr. Empson has identified as Heirloom Houses. It was the consensus that Mr. Turnblad's proposal was a good approach to implementing the program. It was suggested that Mr. Turnblad contact SHPO regarding possible grants. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission August 7, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Demolition Permit — Mr. Turnblad noted that the Demolition Permit application packet, discussed at the last HPC meeting, had been revised to include a bid from a residential/commercial restoration contractor as part of the reason and supporting data for a proposed demolition. He also noted that he had retained item J — recommendation that the applicant retain one of the contract historians to complete a report on the age and cultural/historical significance of the property --as part of the application packet. Mr. Turnblad noted that the packet has been used and distributed to potential applicants. There was a brief discussion of "demolition by neglect." Mr. Turnblad noted that the City currently has no housing code that would provide a mechanism for dealing with such situations; Mr. Harycki suggested that might be something the HPC should look at. • It was noted that Mr. Tomten would be attending the annual HPC conference. • Mr. Johnson asked about the signage regarding the City's selection for the Preserve America program. It was noted that signage has been installed on Main Street. • Mr. Johnson asked about the issues related to the Water Street Inn. Mr. Pogge said he is trying to set up a meeting with the Inn owner. • Mr. Turnblad noted that a property across from Schulenberg Park is listed as a "tear down." He told the Commission a letter had been sent to the listing realtor. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary water i s f H P 1 n 1.. 0 e M�- Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting July 5, 2006 The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Wednesday, July 5, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF JUNE 5, 2006 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01 MAINSTREAM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP — CASE NO. DEM/06-04. (continued from June 5, 2006) Consideration of a request for a demolition permit for the Maple Island Hardware building located at 225 North Main Street. 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.01 DONALD EMPSON Report to the Commission on the Final Phase of Architectural Study. 5. DESIGN REVIEWS 5.01 VALLEY RIDGE SHOPPING CENTER — CASE NO. DR/06-26. Design review of a proposed expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center by approximately 9,000 square feet. Property located at 1250 Frontage Road West. 5.02 CHURCH OF ST. MICHAEL'S — CASE NO. DR/06-27. Design review of proposed replacement signage for Church of St. Michael's located at 611 South 3rd Street. 5.03 STELLA'S — CASE NO. DR/06-28. Design review of proposed signage for Stella's located at 216 South Main Street. 5.04 ACCENTS PAOLA — CASE NO. DR/06-29. Design review of proposed signage for Accents Paola located at 1400 Frontage Road. Page 2 of 2 HPC Agenda 5.05 STONE'S RESTAURANT — CASE NO. DR/06-30. Design review of proposed signage for Stone's Restaurant located at 324 South Main Street. 5.06 MAINSTREAM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP — CASE NO. DR/06-19. Design review of revised proposal for 227 North Main Street. 6. OTHER BUSINESS 6.01 Status report on Northern Vineyards 6.02 Demolition application form 7. ADJOURN Sr water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA Notice of Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting Change from Monday, July 3, 2006 at 7 p.m. to Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 7 p.m. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will conduct their regular meeting on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 7 p.m. rather than Monday, July 3, 2006 at 7 p.m. at Stillwater City Hall, 216 N 4th Street. Do not hesitate to contact the Community Development Department (651-430-8820) if you have any questions or further information. PUBLISH: June 30, 2006 CITY HALL: 216.NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.d.stillwater.mn.us AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Stillwater Gazette 7/18/06 1931 Curve Crest Blvd, Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-3130 Fax: (651) 439-4713 State of Minnesota} ss. County of Washington) The undersigned, being duly sworn, on oath, says that s/he is the Publisher or authorized agent and employee of the Publisher known as the S[illvratcx Gazette, and has frill knowltx1ge of the facts which are stated (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota State Statute 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable laws as amended. Printed below is a copy of the lowercase Alphabet, from A to G, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind type used in composition and publication of the of notice. NblislierlAutitoriied Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed to me *''•. MOLLY MEKR ]2ooe on this day of)U-/k ,2006. $` NOTARY MINNEy Commission Exp No ibl City of Stillwater Invoice #: 00005602 216 4th St N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Terms: Net 30 Inches _ Description Price Total 3 1 Day Notice of Hearing Heritage $7.90 $23.70 Preservation Commission Meeting $23.70 Sub Total $23.70 Payment $0.00 Maximum rate per column inch under Balance Due $23.70 Minnesota Law: $16.90 per 12-pica column City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 Present: Jeff Johnson, Vice -Chairperson, Phil Eastwood, Ken Harycki, Larry Nelson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent: Howard Lieberman and Brent Peterson Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval of the minutes of June 5, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. DEM/06-04 Consideration of a request for demolition permit for the Maple Island Hardware building located at 225 N. Main St. Vern Stefan was present representing the applicant, Mainstream Development, LLC. Mr. Stefan noted they had responded with additional information regarding the three items in the demolition permit application the HPC felt were not adequately covered in the last discussion of the request. Mr. Eastwood asked if the expenses listed in the data supporting economic justification for the demolition were expenses that would be incurred in removing the building. Mr. Stefan said those expenses are over and above the cost of demolition. Mr. Eastwood noted that variances will still be required for a new structure and questioned whether a demolition permit should be granted based on a design plan that has not yet been approved. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the HPC has granted other demolition permits contingent on the applicant obtaining a building permit. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Tomten said he thought the applicant had done a good job providing the requested information regarding economic justification and options of alternatives to demolition and moved to approve the demolition permit contingent on final approval of plans for the replacement building. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously (6-0). NEW BUSINESS Don Empson'sreport on the final_ phaseof the architectural study — Mr. Empson reviewed the main points of his report to the Commission and his recommendation to create an Heirloom House and Landmark House program. As proposed, Heirloom Houses, those representative of 19th century Stillwater that have a fair amount of their original design elements in tact, would be listed on the City's web page along with a photo, address and history of the house; homeowners would have to grant permission to participate in the program. The web page also would include various educational pamphlets and other resource links to home preservation sites/materials. Mr. Empson provided a list of 370 homes that he considers to be Heirloom Houses. Mr. Empson also made recommendations regarding a program recognizing Landmark Houses and Sites, the "finest" old house and most "remarkable sites" in Stillwater, as well as designating three historic districts. In addition to his proposals for implementing the three programs — Heirloom Houses, Landmark Sites and Historic Districts — Mr. Empson made 13 recommendations ranging from changing the name of Olive Street to St. Paul Road to requiring that a "real" historian research City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 demolitions. Mr. Empson briefly addressed what is termed "demolition by neglect" and urged stricter enforcement of building codes on old houses that are being neglected and advertised as "tear downs." He also suggested that the HPC think about instituting remodeling guidelines in the infill district. He concluded by urging the HPC to take the initiative and implement two or three new programs a year, rather than responding to situations. DESIGN REVIEWS Case No. DR/06-26 Design review of a proposed 9,1200 square foot expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center located at 1250 Frontage Road W. Present were Jesse Hamer of Tushie Montgomery Architects and Kriss Novak, Valley Ridge management. Mr. Johnson asked about plans for an outside dumpster, whether it would be shared or separate. Mr. Tomten asked about plans for a public walkway or corridor connecting the addition and existing center and whether a restroom would be included. The applicant said that has yet to be determined. Mr. Tomten referred to staff comments about the requirement for four- sided architecture. Mr. Hamer said EFIS would wrap around the back and piers would be added to the rear elevation. However, Mr. Hamer said they don't particularly like the design of the existing towers and believe they can accommodate the requirement four four-sided architecture without that design element. Mr. Johnson said he didn't see the bell tower as a significant design element that had to be incorporated. Regarding the setback requirement, Mr. Hamer said that issue was something of a surprise and it is still being discussed as to whether to request a variance or eliminate one bay of the addition. Mr. Tomten noted there are a number of unknowns and moved to table action until the August meeting so the applicant can incorporate staff comments. It was suggested for the August meeting, the applicant show more design details for the north elevation and include the west elevation of the existing building. Mr. Johnson also suggested the applicant submit a lighting plan, information regarding the dumpster location and materials, landscaping plan and locations/screening of mechanicals. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion to table; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-27 Design review of proposed replacement sign for the Church of St. Michael at 611 S. Third St. Present were Kris Rumpsa, Kriss Design Company LLC, and Chris Makowske, St. Michael's director of administration. Ms. Rumpsa and Mr. Makowske reviewed plans and location of the requested signage. The sign would have steel framing and be lighted from the top or bottom; the framing would be painted to match the church building. Mr. Johnson asked if the existing monument sign would remain. Mr. Makowske said both the monument sign and the existing school sign would remain. Mr. Eastwood asked if the applicant was aware of the staff recommendation that the electrical conduit be hidden from direct view. Mr. Makowske explained several possibilities for meeting that condition. Mr. Harycki asked if the signage might impact pedestrian traffic. Mr. Makowske said pedestrians would not be affected as the wall overhang and stairway at the location extend out an additional 2' beyond where the sign will be mounted. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval as conditioned, with lighting for the sign to be from the top or bottom and staff to approve the location of the conduit. Mr. Tomten suggested the possibility of eliminating the graphic and perhaps even the church name to enable larger/more readable text denoting service times. Mr. Johnson also made a suggestion to improve readability. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-28 Design review of proposed signage for Stella's at 216 S. Main St. Cheri Benson, owner, was present. Mr. Johnson pointed out that only one sign per business is allowed, either the wall sign as being requested or the existing projecting sign. Mr. Johnson pointed out that generic verbiage or symbols would be allowed, but not the business name. It was confirmed the proposed signage will not be lighted. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that the business name Stella be permitted in the top sign band contingent on the removal of the business name from the projecting sign. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-29. This case was withdrawn. Case No. DR/06-30 Design review of proposed signage for Stone's Restaurant at 324 S. Main St. Present were owner Michael Stone and Dan Kaufman, Kaufman Signs. Mr. Kaufman reviewed the proposed signage which features 3" aluminum channel lettering with exposed neon. The signage cabinet would be about 18" deep. The proposed signage is basically the same square footage as the existing Grand Garage sign, which would be removed if the new signage is allowed, he said. Members were sympathetic tp the difficulty presented by the location of the restaurant off Main Street. However, Mr. Johnson suggested if this proposed signage was on the Second Street elevation, the situation might be different and said if it difficult to allow the proposed signage in view of the design guidelines in place for Main Street. Mr. Zahren suggested the key to the restaurant's success is Main Street signage and said he liked the proposed design. Mr. Nelson also said he thought the proposed signage was within reasonable taste and spoke of the importance of calling people to a place of business. Mr. Tomten noted that internally illuminated signage is not recommended in the Historic Downtown District and said his first impression of the sign was that of an early '60s Holiday Inn sign; Mr. Tomten also suggested that the applicant provide a more accurate representation of the scale of the sign. Mr. Kaufman stated he thought the use of neon was vital to the Stone's location. Mr. Zahren asked what would happen to the signage without the neon. Mr. Kaufman asked if it would be possible to internally illuminate the sign; Mr. Johnson stated that is not allowed, but halo reverse channel lettering would be allowed. Mr. Johnson noted that while projecting signage is limited to 6 square feet according to ordinance, the existing Grand Garage sign is 40 square feet and he pointed out that the Coupe de Grille had signage in that space. He suggested that the applicant work within the square footage of the existing sign and consider the use of channel lit lettering. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the proposed starburst on top of the sign, as proposed, is three-dimensional and therefore not allowed. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 Mr. Eastwood pointed out the signage will require a variance and that the HPC can't grant variances, that is a function of the Planning Commission/Council. Mr. Stone asked about the length of time involved in the variance process. Mr. Stone was advised that it might be mid - August before a variance could be granted; it was noted that in the interim, temporary signage is permitted for a period of at least 30 days. Mr. Johnson asked about signage on the other elevations. It was noted that the signage over the main entrance has already been approved. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to table the request, with the applicant advised to work within the existing 40 square feet and return to the HPC with more complete drawings, more accurate representation of colors and scale. Motion to table passed unanimously. Case No. DR106-19 Design review of revised proposal for 227 N. Main St. Vern Stefan was present representing Mainstream Development. It was noted the revised proposal reduces the height so the building is within the height regulations and no variance is required. Mr. Johnson said he felt the project was headed in the right direction and spoke to the architectural elements that have been carried through. Mr. Tomten asked if the HVAC units would be placed on the Water Street elevation and asked if it might be possible to place the units behind the stairs. Mr. Stefan said that would be considered as long as the units can be serviced adequately. Mr. Turnblad noted the applicant had been asked to provide a view of the project from Pioneer Park and Mulberry Street. Mr. Stefan noted that is costly and said those will be provided if concept approval is granted. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to grant concept approval of the design as conditioned, eliminating condition No. 7 (demolition permit as that was granted earlier in the meeting) and changing the wording of condition No. 5 to state no mechanical equipment shall be allowed on the rooftop unless screened. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Demolition applicant form — Mr. Turnblad referred to the proposed demolition permit application included in the packet. The packet, he said, is an attempt to make the process more transparent and understandable. There was a brief discussion about the proposed sample letter with Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson expressing a concern that future applicants may just parrot the sample verbiage, including the language regarding the economic justification for a demolition. Mr. Turnblad suggested the requirement for economic justification could be expanded to include the requirement that a quote be obtained from someone in the restoration business. Members said they liked the inclusion of the list of historians that might be used in researching a demolition application. Status report on Northern Vineyards — Mr. Turnblad reviewed the report and recommendations relating to the Northern Vineyards Winery. He noted that the only way Northern Vineyards can address the dumpster issue is through a building -wide effort and asked that staff be directed to work with River Market and Northern Vineyards to resolve the matter. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to amend the condition of approval with Northern Vineyards to allow the two pieces of stainless steel equipment to remain outside and to require enclosure of the 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission July 5, 2006 dumpster when the River Market dumpsters are addressed or within one year, whichever is sooner. Motion passed unanimously. Water Street Inn — Mr. Johnson asked about the status of issues with the Water Street Inn — advertising on umbrellas and the portable bar facility. Mr. Pogge said he had not yet talked with Mr. Dougherty. Mr. Zahren questioned getting into the issue of umbrella logos/verbiage noting that most businesses in town utilize the vendor -provided umbrellas. Mr. Empson's recommendations — Mr. Johnson asked about the possibility of the City designating an historic preservation officer. Mr. Harycki said he would like the Council to take up the issue of "demolition by neglect." Mr. Eastwood said he thought walls should be included in the historic site program and asked about the possibility of pursuing grants to accomplish some of the recommendations. Mr. Johnson moved to direct staff to pursue implementing the Heirloom and Landmark House designations and getting the information on the City's web page. Mr. Turnblad suggested that staff develop a proposal for implementing the programs and bring that proposal back to the HPC prior to making an official presentation/request for approval to proceed to the City Council. Members agreed with that plan of action. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Zahren, moved to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 1 so ter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, June 5, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA Approval of the May 1, 2006 minutes. Public Hearings 1. Case No. DEM/06-04. Consideration of a request from Mainstream Development Partnership LLC, for the demolition of the Maple Island Hardware building located at 225 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Design Reviews 2. Case No. DR/06-19. Design review of a planned unit development for a mixed use retail, office and residential use with underground parking complex in the Central Business District located at 227 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Continued from the May 1, 2006 meeting. 3. Case No. DR/06-22. Design review of proposed signage change at 1960 Market Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. All-Brite Signs, Kevin Gillette, applicant. 4. Case No. DR/06-23. Design review of proposed signage located at 1421 Stillwater Blvd in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Max, Pittman, Wilderness Wireless, Inc., applicant. 5. Case No. DR/06-24. Design review of proposed fuel center for Cub Foods located at 1801 Market Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Linda Fisher, Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, representing applicant. 6. Case No. DR/06-25. Design review of an accessory dwelling unit located at 420 West Linden Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kurt and Nancie Sesemann-Klitzki, applicants. Other Items 7. Mills on Main continued discussion. 8. Kimberly Anez request for monument at the Atwood Sawmill CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.d.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 5, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Ken Harycki, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson (7:25 p.m.), Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved approval of the minutes of May 1, 2006, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings Case No. DEM/06-04 Consideration of a request from Mainstream Development Partnership LLC for the demolition of the Maple Island Hardware building at 225 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District, Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Representing the applicant were Vern Stefan and Tim Stefan. Mr. Lieberman noted the question is whether the structure in question qualifies as being of "historically or potentially historical significance." He noted that any building over 50 years old or on the National Register meets that definition. The applicant had submitted affidavits from two former Maple Island plant managers and Sanborn maps from 1956 and 1961 in arguing that the building is less than 50 years old and would not require a demolition permit. Tim Stefan said he had been unable to determine an exact date the structure, which enclosed the three outside milk delivery lanes, was completed. Mr. Stefan said the best piece of information relates to the date of the installation of the weigh station in 1961. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the 1956 Sanborn map indicates the footprint of a structure that matches exactly what is there now. Mr. Johnson also suggested that the affidavits provided were not of much help as neither person provided information as to when the structure was built. Mr. Lieberman opened the public hearing. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St.. noted that the 1956 Sanborn map indicates the structure was built. He said he had talked with Bob Thompson and Anita Buck, both of whom remember that the building in question was in existence as early as 1952. He stated he had located a building permit for Maple Island Farm to construct an addition in 1944, which would be the building in question. Mr. Empson also produced a copy of an Oct. 1, 1944, newspaper article about Maple Island's plans to build a new receiving unit. Richard Kilty, 118 W. Oak St., questioned the historical significance of a former milk receiving drive-thru. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Lieberman noted that if a structure is older than 50 years, the Commission is obligated to follow the nine steps in the City's demolition permit process. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Empson's material indicates that the structure is over 50 years old and thus needs to be looked at under the demolition permit process. Tim Stefan agreed to stipulate that the exterior facade of the building is more than 50 years old; however, he noted that the east and southern portions, as well as the roof have been significantly altered from the original. Mr. Stefan asked for a clarification of the 9 steps required for a demolition permit. It was suggested that data supporting the economic justification for the City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 5, 2006 demolition request, the alternatives to demolition, and the advertisements of the structure for sale/reuse were the steps most in need of additional information. Mr. Eastwood moved to table consideration of the demolition request until the applicant provides additional information regarding the economic justification, alternatives to demolition, and proof of advertisement for sale. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Harycki noted that in the past two demolition requests, there has been difficulty establishing the age of a structure and asked whether the Commission should have a qualified historian to assist in the process. Mr. Tomten questioned going through all the steps in the process when in the end, it requires a "leap" to find a milk receiving drive -though and truck garage as historically significant and incorporating the existing facade would "look horrible." Mr. Johnson said the fact that the structure is over 50 years old obligates the Commission to look at the request according to the ordinance. Mr. Johnson agreed that it may not be desirable to incorporate the fagade into the new development — when the Commission has that information, it can make that decision, he said. Mr. Lieberman agreed that the Commission needed to go through the steps to preserve the integrity of the process. Mr. Stefan asked if someone from the Commission would be willing to work with him so he can submit all the desired information; Mr. Johnson agreed to work with Mr. Stefan. Motion to table the request passed unanimously. Design Reviews Case No. ❑R/06-19 Design review of a planned unit development for a mixed use retail, office and residential use with underground parking in the Central Business District located at 227 N. Main St. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Continued from the May 1, 2006, meeting. Present were Tim Stefan and Vern Stefan. Tim Stefan said that in response to the discussion at the May meeting, their proposal had been altered and one floor removed. He provided various models of the building with various roof styles. He also provided some samples of the proposed building materials. The first floor of the building would house retail uses, with a recessed entry from Main Street. The second floor would house office use. The second floor would feature 12' ceilings and clad windows. The third floor would be utilized for four living units. A gabled roof would allow mechanicals to be hidden, unlike a flat roof where mechanicals would have to be on the roof. Mr. Stefan stated he preferred the gabled roof and Commission members agreed. Mr. Stefan also noted that they are requesting a variance to the 10 percent infill height regulation. According to the infill regulations, the height would be limited to 10 percent of the adjacent building or 32'3"'; they are proposing a building 3TY in height. Mr. Johnson spoke to some of the revisions made by the applicant in response to the Commission's comments at the May meeting. Mr. Lieberman agreed that many of the issues raised at the previous meeting had been addressed and addressed well, but he noted that given the need for a variance, the Commission can't approve the plans until that issue is resolved. Mr. Lieberman moved to give concept approval to the revised plans and materials as being consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines with final resolution pending the outcome of the demolition permit and height variance; it also was stated that in giving concept approval, the Commission offers no opinion as to whether a demolition permit will be issued or height variance granted. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 5, 2006 Case No. DR/06-22 Design review of proposed signage change at 1960 Market Drive in the BP- C, Business Park Commercial District. All-Brite Signs, Kevin Gillette, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Johnson clarified that the size of the signage has been reduced to 30 square feet to be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-23 Design review of proposed signage at 1421 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Max Pittman, Wilderness Wireless Inc., applicant. The applicant was present. He stated the signage will not be illuminated. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Nelson, moved approval as conditioned with the additional condition that the signage not be internally lighted. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-24 Design review of proposed fuel center for Cub Foods at 1801 Market Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Linda Fisher, Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, representing the applicant. Present were Ms. Fisher, three representatives of SuperValu, and staff from Westwood Professional Services. Mr. Lieberman expressed his concern that the applicant was represented by counsel and noted for the record that the Commission was not privy to representation by counsel. Ms. Fisher explained that her expertise is in land use planning, not litigation. It was agreed that Ms. Fisher should do the presentation on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Fisher explained what when the fuel center plan was first presented in January there was a lack of coordination in design and building materials with the primary structure and the plans went back to the drawing board to address the concerns heard at that time. She presented the revised design plans and new site plan. The new plans reduce the number of fueling positions from six to five. The plans include a new landscaped island to separate the fueling center from the parking lot, which represents a 37 percent increase in parking lot green space. The columns of the fuel center are now masonry and of the same dusty rose color as the primary structure. No new monument or pylon signage is proposed, she noted. Ms. Fisher also explained the lighting proposal. The lighting under the canopy will be flat, recessed lenses. The signage on the canopy will be lighted with "clam shell" type fixtures; the Cub Fuel Express canopy signs will be red, yellow and white to coordinate with the Cub Foods signage; there also will be two LED - pricing signs, as proposed. Ms. Fisher said no additional lighting is proposed, other than minor changes, relocation, of several parking lot light standards. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lieberman both complimented the applicant on changes made to address the Commission's previous concerns. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved approval as conditioned, with the additional conditions that the canopy lighting be recessed, flat lenses, that the signage on the canopy be externally lighted, and there be no additional signage. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Harycki asked if the City ordinances had any restrictions on additional signage such as product signage; Mr. Turnblad said he wasn't sure, but said he would check. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 5, 2006 Case No. DR/06-25 Design review of an accessory dwelling unit at 420 W. Linden St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Kurt and Nancie Sesemann-Klitzke, applicants. Mr. Lieberman introduced new planner, Mike Pogge, who briefly reviewed the ordinance regulations related to design review of accessory dwelling units in the RB zoning district. Mr. Johnson said he thought the proposed roof pitch of the new structure worked well with the existing home. He verified that the siding on the accessory unit would match that of the house. Mr. Tomten asked if it would be possible to use double -hung sash rather than casement windows; the applicants responded that would not be an issue. Mr. Johnson asked about plans for lighting the exterior of the accessory unit. The applicants said if there is any lighting, it would be one outside light under the eave. Mr. Johnson noted that from an engineering standpoint, the foundation will have to be designed as a retaining wall in the front. Mr. Johnson moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that double -hung sash windows, single or paired, be utilized rather than casement windows and that there be no exterior lighting on the accessory unit. Mr. Tomten asked that the motion clarify that exposed rafter tails be utilized to match the primary residence. Mr. Johnson accepted that as an amendment to his motion. Mr. Tomten seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Other items: Request for monument at Atwood Sawmill — Kimberly Anez and several other Anez family members were present. Ms. Anez asked that consideration be given to placing a plaque or historical marker at the Atwood Sawmill site and recognize the two men who were killed when a cyclone hit the sawmill site in July 1893. During the discussion, Mr. Peterson noted the site is historic not because of the cyclone, but because of the sawmill operations. Mr. Peterson noted that there are many other sites that perhaps ought to have historical markers of some sort. Mr. Peterson suggested instituting an historic marker program and having the Park Board and Chamber of Commerce Historic District Committee review the proposal and make recommendations as to what sites should be included. Ms. Anez was advised to take her request to the City Council the following evenings. Members agreed this request might be the impetus to start some type of historic marker program. Mills on Main — Present were Dave May and architect Scott England. Mr. England asked for the Commission's direction on the stain colors for the large retaining wall along Second Street. Three colors were given as options; the Commission was unanimous in favoring the limestone color shown. Regarding the rooftop penetrations, members agreed that painting the pipes the brown color has helped the situation some. Mr. Johnson also noted the parapet flashing helps divert attention from the pipes. Mr. England said landscaping along Second Street will likely be installed by mid -July. He provided renditions of what the plantings will look like to five and 10 years. Mr. England reviewed a number of options looked at to mask the rooftop penetrations; none of the options improved the situation — some, it was felt, drew more attention to the penetrations. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission June 5, 2006 Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to direct the developers to complete the treatment applied to a portion of the rooftop — cutting and painting the pipes the brown color. Mr. Johnson asked if the elevator penthouse would be painted; that will be done, Mr. May and Mr. England responded. It was noted that the painting and installation of flashing distracts the eye from the rooftop openings. While not the best solution, it does improve the situation. It also was noted that prior to the development, those in the adjacent neighborhood had no view of the river. Motion to direct the developer to complete the cutting and painting of the penetrations passed unanimously. Mr. Harycki noted there likely will be continued discussion of the issue at the Council level. ❑emolitionpert-nit: Mr. Harycki raised the issue of the steps required to obtain a demolition permit, noting that in the last two requests, there has been difficulty in determining the age of a structure. Mr. Lieberman suggested preparing a list of approved historians to assist in that aspect of the process. Mr. Eastwood like he would like clarification of the requirements for providing financial information. Mr. Turnblad suggested that staff draft a policy for consideration by the Commission and Council. Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant for the demolition permit for the structure on Manning Avenue had submitted the requested additional information regarding steps 5 and 9 of the permit; that information has not yet been received, it was noted. Preservation Alliance Award: Mr. Johnson suggested that the Commission nominate the Lift Bridge as a candidate for the Preservation Alliance's Minnesota Preservation Award. Mr. Johnson noted the bridge had been on the Alliance's 10 most endangered structures for a number of years, and it has been a joint effort to preserve the bridge. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Lieberman, moved to submit a nomination for the lift bridge as a candidate for the Minnesota Preservation Award. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary water THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, July5, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA Approval of the June 5, 2006 minutes. Public Hearings (continued from June 5, 2006) 1. Case No. DEM/06-04. Consideration of a request from Mainstream Development Partnership LLC, for the demolition of the Maple Island Hardware building located at 225 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Design Reviews 2. Case No. DR/06-26. Design review of the proposed expansion of Valley Ridge Shopping Center by approximately 9,000 square feet located at 1250 Frontage Road West in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Tushie Montgomery and Jesse Hamer, representing South Metro Centers, Kriss Novak. 3. Case No. DR/06-27. Design review of replacement signage for Church of St. Michael's located at 611 South V Street in the PA, Public Administration District. Kriss Design Company LLC, applicant. 4. Case No. DR/06-28. Design review of signage located at 216 South Main Street (Stella's) in the CBD, Central Business District. Brad Benson, applicant. 5. Case No. DR/06-29. Design review for signage for Accents Paola located at 1400 Frontage Road in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Attracta Signs, applicant. 6. Case No. DR/06-30. Design review for signage for Stone's Restaurant located at 324 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Stone, applicant. Other Items 7. Demolition application package. 8. Status report on Northern Vineyards CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, May 1, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA Approval of the March 6, 2006 minutes. Public Hearings 1. Case No. DEM/06-02. Consideration of a request from Croix Capital Group for the demolition of a residence located at 7143 Manning Avenue North in the PA, Public Administration District. Croix Capital Group, applicant. Design Reviews 2. Case No. DR/06-17. Design review of parking lot and a 25' x 50' deck located at 101 3rd Street South (American Legion Post #48) in the CBD, Central Business District. David Swanson, representing the American Legion Post #48. Continued from the April meeting. 3. Case No. DR/06-19. Design review of a planned unit development for a 45,000 square foot mixed use retail, office and residential use with underground parking complex in the Central Business District located at 227 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. 4. Case No. DR/06-20. Design review of proposed construction for a free-standing grape arbor on second floor deck of Northern Vineyards Winery located at 223 North Main street in the CBD, Central Business District. Robin Partch, applicant. 5. Case No. DR/06-21. Design review of proposed signage for Stillwater Medical Clinic located at 1500 Curve Crest Blvd in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. Dan Ginkel, applicant. Other Items 6. Mills on Main continued discussion. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Council Representative Ken Harycki, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten and Scott Zahren Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad Absent: Larry Nelson Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval of the minutes of April 3, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings Case No. DEM/06-02 Consideration of a request for demolition of a residence at 7143 Manning Ave N. Croix Capital Group, applicant. Mr. Tomten recused himself from the Commission's discussion/action and represented Chris Aamodt, Croix Capital Group, Liberty West developers, in this matter. Mr. Tomten stated that in the early design/planning stages of the Liberty West Development; they looked at the reuse of the northerly existing structure. However, reuse would not work well in the replatting of the property. He noted that preservation of trees and working with the topography were priorities in determining the layout of the development and location of interior roads. Mr. Tomten said they also looked at relocating the structure on site. However, the cost of moving the building and the potential loss of trees precluded that option. Mr. Tomten said they do not have an accurate age of the structure. He said the applicant had gone through the required nine steps for a demolition permit. Mr. Aamodt explained that he had not advertised the building for sale as required because he had spoken with agents and movers who were not interested in purchasing the structure because of the difficulty/cost presented by the trees. Mr. Aamodt said he did intend to reuse whatever materials he could, materials such as the beams. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., said this situation reinforces his recommendation that a survey be conducted of the recently annexation areas because of the presence of historic homes in the annexation areas. Although, he said he had not looked at this particular structure. Mr. Peterson agreed that it would be good to do surveys in conjunction with annexations and suggested that is an issue the Council should look at. There was discussion as to what constitutes "heritage trees." Mr. Harycki noted the trees on this property are 100-150-year-old oaks. Even several residents in the Liberty development offered to give up portions of their yards to preserve these trees, he pointed out. There also was discussion as to whether the changes/modifications to the structure in question affected its historical significance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that from the perspective of the National Park Service criteria for historic listings, the continuity of this farmstead is already gone and its impact lost. He noted the foundation and some framing dates back to the original farmstead, but the rest is gone or modified. Mr. Zahren agreed that with the changes and modifications, little of the home is of historical significance. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 Mr. Lieberman said he was a bit troubled by the adequacy of the response to the demolition requirements No. 5 and 9, saying that "word of mouth" is not adequate. There was discussion as to whether to continue the request pending additional information on items 5 and 9. Mr. Aamodt noted that he was dealing with the City mandate to save the trees. Demolition is an integral part of the initiation of work on the project and is required due to the pressure to preserve the heritage trees, he said. Mr. Lieberman moved to grant conditional approval of the demolition permit contingent on the applicant submitting to City staff additional information regarding items 5 and 9; if staff deems the information sufficient, demolition can proceed, according to the motion. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Peterson asked if would be possible to determine the age of the structure before demolition takes place. Mr. Tomten said that would be possible and information could be incorporated into an historic plaque that will be featured in one of the development's open space areas. Design Reviews Case No. DR/06-17 Design review of parking lot and 25'x50' deck at 101 Third St. S. (American Legion Post 48) in the CBD, Central Business District. David Swanson, representing American Legion Post 48. Dave Swanson and Jeff Olsen, contractor, were present. Mr. Olsen explained the plan is to construct a wood frame deck and 36" retaining wall. Lattice work and cedar will cover the exposed area. Mr. Johnson asked about the style of the lighting fixtures. Mr. Swanson stated there would be decorative lanterns on each side of the door; he noted the door is not a public entrance and is 100' from the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson asked about the style/color of the masonry units. Mr. Olsen said the units will be red and black, variegated color, to match/blend with the rear of the main building. The deck railing will be cedar. Mr. Johnson moved approval with the two conditions recommended by staff and the additional conditions that the applicant submit additional lantern fixture styles and colors/samples of the masonry units be to staff for approval. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Mr. Johnson noted the light fixtures should be shielded and more in keeping with the architecture of the main building. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-19 Design review of a planned unit development for a 45,000-square-foot mixed use retail, office and residential use with underground parking in the Central Business District at 227 N. Main St. Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant. Representing Mainstream Development were Vern and Tim Stefan. Tim Stefan provided a model of the building and described proposed materials and provided color samples of brick and copper shingles. The building would house retail use on the first floor, office space on the second level and seven condominium units on the third level and loft area. The main points of discussion centered on the height and potential requirement for a demolition permit. As proposed, the new structure would be 42' to the roof parapet. Mr. Eastwood asked about the newly -adopted height overlay district and whether the maximum allowable height is 3 stories or 35'. Mr. Turnblad said the intent of the ordinance is a maximum or 3 stories. Mr. Harycki asked about the infill height restriction, limiting a new structure to a maximum of 10 percent higher than adjacent properties. Mr. Harycki said he would like clarification regarding City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 the height restrictions and said he was unwilling to abandon the new ordinance on the first test case. It was noted that the height issue and parking issues require variances and are issues the Planning Commission will have to deal with. Regarding the requirement for a demolition permit, Tim Stefan said he had been unable to determine the age of the structure. Mr. Johnson noted that Maple Island provided diary products during WW II and the structure likely dates back to that time. Mr. Peterson suggested that building permits and property abstracts would be helpful in determining the age of the structure and noted it was the applicant's charge to determine that. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Johnson suggested it would be premature to consider the application until it is determined whether a demolition permit is required. Mr. Turnblad said it is the City Attorney's opinion that the demolition issue can be considered separate from the design review process. It was agreed to provide design comments, with the understanding that the HPC does not approve or disapprove of the application until the demolition issue is resolved. Mr. Tomten said he thought the proposed setbacks enhance the streetscape. He noted that is was not uncommon historically for buildings on corners to get precedence, be larger and more prominent and said he thought the applicant had a good job in scaling the building in relation to the adjacent buildings. He also spoke in favor of the use of glazing/fenestrations on the Main Street elevation that differentiate the office use from the residential use. There was a question about roof penetrations. Tim Stefan said the proposal is to have an active rooftop, with pool and deck. Tim Stefan said the only rooftop mechanicals not screened would be two 3x3 air conditioning units, which could be housed inside the building if preferred. Mr. Zahren asked if there would be any greenery on the roof. Mr. Stefan replied that there likely would be some planters. Mr. Johnson asked about the use of the towers on the corners. Tim Stefan said the towers are used to signify entries; Mr. Johnson suggested the towers do not serve that purpose on the Water Street elevation Mr. Stefan asked for input regarding the Water Street elevation and the proposed loading dock and access to the underground parking area. Mr. Johnson said he thought the loading dock works well as it carries through the industrial look of that elevation and picks up the details of the other buildings. Mr. Lieberman said he liked the differentiation in setbacks, the idea of an active rooftop and said he was not uncomfortable with the direction of the design if the other hurdles are met. Mr. Eastwood said he thought the biggest issue was the massing of the building; he also said building setbacks are not part of the downtown design guidelines. Mr. Lieberman moved to invite the applicant back to the June HPC meeting for a closer design review or to hold a public hearing on a demolition permit if that is needed and issued and then move to a more detailed design review. In the interim, Mr. Lieberman said he hoped the Planning Commission and Council would deal with the non-HPC issues. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, clarifying this was conceptual consideration of the design only. The applicant was advised to work with Mr. Turnblad in an effort to determine whether a demolition permit is needed before the next HPC meeting. Motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 Case No. DR/06-20 Design review of proposed construction of a free-standing grape arbor on second floor deck of Northern Vineyards Winery at 223 N. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Robin Partch, applicant. The applicant was present. There was a question about the height. Mr. Partch said the arbor will be a bit below the roofline. Mr. Johnson said he was surprised that the applicant would introduce the public to the rear of the buildings due to dumpsters and other items being located outside. Mr. Johnson said he thought the dumpster was supposed to be screened and suggested this was an opportunity to clean up the rear elevation and make it more customer - friendly. Mr. Johnson moved approval, with the condition that the dumpster(s) be stored inside the building or located in a screened enclosure. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-21 Design review of proposed signage for Stillwater Medical Clinic at 1500 Curve Crest Blvd. in the BP -I, Business Park Industrial District. Dan Ginkel, applicant. Mr. Ginkel explained the intent is to replace the existing freestanding sign. The new sign will be somewhat larger but of similar construction to the existing signage; the new sign will be constructed using the same materials as the main building. It was noted that the proposed directional signs cannot include the name of the clinic. There was a question about landscaping around the sign. Mr. Ginkel noted that landscaping is not part of the signage package; a landscaping plan was submitted. Mr. Ginkel also noted there is no landscaping around the existing freestanding sign. Mr. Tomten moved approval with the condition that the name of the clinic be removed from the directional signs. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Other items: Mills on Main discussion: Representing the developers were Dave May and Scott England, architect. Mr. Lieberman began the discussion by noting this was not a public hearing and was not noticed as such. Mr. May provided photos of the northwest corner of the site, which showed where pipes had been painted and some had been cut down since the last discussion. Four different colors were used in painting the pipes -- black, two different shades of gray and a brown tone. The heating and air conditioning vents have been lowed, and all bathroom and dryer vents taken done to code 18" above the roof. He said plumbing stacks can be lowered when testing is complete. He said the horizontal pipes could be relocated and the one on the southeast corner may be shortened by about 4'. Mr. Harycki asked if there were any other alternatives. Mr. England said engineers have flatly denied any tent structure. Utilizing screening walls would be just as unappealing, he said, because so much screening would be required. Members questioned whether the developers/architects knew there would be this much "litter" on the roof and suggested that it was the developers/architects responsibility to anticipate that one of the most prominent features of the building would be the rooftop. Mr. England responded that with a flat roof, they knew penetrations would be needed but also knew they were not allowed to have rooftop equipment. Mr. England also noted that fireplace flues could be vented through the side walls, but that was not allowed by the City. Mr. Johnson suggested that if the HPC knew there would City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 be this amount of roof penetrations, there would have been some give and take in the design review process. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that piping can be consolidated — not every plumbing fixture needs to be vented through the roof. Mr. England responded that they did take measures to consolidate the piping where possible and noted that a roof plan, showing "hundreds of dots" indicating pipe locations, was submitted to the City. Mr. Johnson noted that one doesn't see roof penetrations at the old prison site development. Mr. Harycki said he was not ready to accept looking at pipes for 100 years. Mr. England said the developer had consolidated what venting it can and will cut the pipes to the lowest level allowable by code; beyond that, he said, the only thing that can be done is to camouflage the pipes. Mr. Lieberman opened the discussion to public comments. Del Blocher, 308 N. Second St., referred to the City Attorney's opinion that any pipes are a violation of the developers' agreement. He said painting is not the solution, but said a solution still needs to be practical. Deborah Asch, 320 N. Second, said she thought things could be done to landscape the building on Second Street and suggested that a professional landscaper be consulted for ideas. Ms. Asch said she would like to see the landscape plan at the next meeting. Mr. England said they did have a professional landscape architect and trees will be planted on Second and the boulevard in July or August. Mr. England also noted that the roof will be covered in snow half of the year. Barb LeTourine suggested utilizing a sculpture garden, using the rooftop as a canvas. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., suggested allocating $20,000-$30,000 for a design contest to mitigate the appearance and said he suspected a lot of creative solutions might be offered. In the absence of any solution, he suggested denying an occupancy permit. Sonja Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, said she was "sad" about the view. She said no amount of paint can hide the piping; paint will just make it look like a mistake. She called for doing something creative to mitigate the situation. Gayle Roettger, Main Street, called on the developers to accept responsibility for their actions, Mr. Peterson asked if there was an overhead photo available to provide a better idea of what might be done. Mr. Harycki said he liked the idea of a design competition, something more than painting. Mr. Zahren pointed out that the project has actually improved the view from Second Street — before, the view consisted of buildings and scrub trees. Mr. Zahren also noted that when he went to look at the painting and cutting that had been done on a portion of the roof, he only noticed three colors — he didn't see the browns. Mr. Lieberman suggested tabling any action until the completion of the cutting and painting. Mr. Johnson moved to take no action until all the pipes are cut and painted whatever color the developer feels is best, while at the same time encouraging the developer to look at other creative solutions. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. HPC members will meet at the site prior to the June meeting if the cutting/painting is complete by that time. R, City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission May 1, 2006 There was discussion of the color of the siding/trim and garage doors. Mr. England provided samples of the preferred colors and how the colors would appear when they abut. Mr. Johnson asked about the suggested use of sage green. Mr. England said there was a concern about the psychological effects of the use of green and said herring gray was the preferred color. Mr. Johnson asked how the colors relate to the masonry and said the colors should represent the architecture of the building, rather than bringing in yellow/bright white, which are more contemporary colors. Mr. Tomten asked if it would be possible to get photo renditions of the different colors. Mr. Tomten also asked if color variations had been considered to break up the back of the building. Mr. England pointed out that photo renditions are not entirely accurate; Mr. Tomten said it was understood that the color elevations would not be totally accurate. Mr. England said approval of the colors is critical at this point. He asked if it would be possible to get approval within the week if he provided color elevations to members. Mr. Johnson moved to have Mr. England circulate PDFs of color elevations to members, with members to respond with their comments to Mr. Turnblad within four days. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary a ter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, April 3, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA Approval of the March 6, 2006 minutes. Design Review 1. Case No. DR/06-15. Design review of signage change located at 106 E Chestnut Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Patricia Page, applicant. Continued from March 6, 2006 meeting. 2. Case No. DR/06-12. Continued Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) located at 1208 North William Street. Tom Mulcahy, applicant. 3. Case No. DR/06-17. Design review of parking lot and a 25' x 50' deck located at 101 3rd Street South ( American Legion Post #48) in the CBD, Central Business District. David Swanson, representing the American Legion Post #48. 4. Case No. DR/06-18. Design review to replace an existing entry door located at 102 South 2"1 Street (Gazette Building) located in the CBD, Central Business District. John Harvey , Harvey Woodruff, LLC, applicant. Other Items -Mills on Main CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, chairman, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others: Community Development Director Bill Turnblad Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 6:58 p.m. and welcomed new Community Development Director Bill Turnblad. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson asked about his written comments regarding Case No. DR/06-13. While not read into the record, Mr. Lieberman said the points raised by Mr. Johnson were covered in the discussion. The minutes of March 6, 2006, were approved as submitted. Design Review Case No. DR/06-15. Design review of signage change at 106 E. Chestnut St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Patricia Page, applicant. Present was Darrell Rhodes, owner of the building. Mr. Rhodes said the spelling of the building name will be corrected. The lettering will be burgundy with gold trim. The sign background will be white. Mr. Rhodes also requested that he be allowed to continue the use of a backlit sign, saying he bought the building with the sign the way it is — backlighted. Mr. Lieberman said he would strongly request that the applicant use lighting other than backlighting and also suggested that the use of backlighting is not a grandfathered use since the building ownership has changed. Mr. Rhodes asked about other backlit signs in the downtown area. Mr. Johnson agreed that with the change in building ownership, the use of backlighting is not a gramdfathered use. Mr. Johnson also suggested that the use of the building — professional office space — does not provide the rational for allowing backlighted signage. Mr. Rhodes argued that the residential appearance of the building makes it difficult to determine the use of the building; the sign contractor also pointed out that it will be costly to change the signage. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the layout of the proposed sign as submitted, with the condition that the signage not be internally lighted and that if the applicant wishes to have the sign externally lighted, a lighting plan be submitted to the HPC for approval. Mr. Zahren seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten pointed out that backlighting is not conducive to the Victorian theme of the building and surface lighting is a better approach. Mr. Lieberman also noted the downtown design guidelines were in place when Mr. Rhodes assumed ownership of the building and also pointed out that the HPC cannot grant variances. Mr. Johnson's motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-12 Continued Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) at 1208 N. William St. Tom Mulcahy, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Johnson reiterated his written comments submitted for the March meeting: the belt line for the single unit is higher than normal and is most apparent from the side elevation; more vertical elements, such as more height to the first floor windows, should be added to the twin home; and the proposed coach lights on the front of the units should be replaced with shielded or downlit fixtures. Mr. Johnson also pointed out that the window shown in the plans for the duplex unit City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2006 does not fit with the floor plan as shown. Mr. Johnson suggested that the window not be eliminated, but replaced with a pair of windows. Mr. Harycki said during the March public hearing, many neighbors expressed concern about drainage issues and wondered whether the Infill guidelines call for drainage issues to be addressed. Mr. Turnblad pointed out drainage issues will be addressed as part of the resubdivision permit process. Two neighbors were present: Joann Loer, 1114 N. William, and Jeff Benson, 1120 N. William. Both reiterated a concern about drainage issues. Mr. Benson also reiterated a concern about the proximity of the driveway to existing utility meters. There was a question as to whether to table the case again due to the applicant's absence. Due to the 60-day review rule, it was decided to act on the case. Mr. Johnson moved to approve plans for both structures as conditioned, with the additional conditions that: the belt line for the single unit be lowered to match the floor elevation or eave line; that the second -story window in the duplex unit that conflicts with the floor plan be replaced with two separate sash windows; that the 5x5 picture window be replaced with a double sash window; that the coach lights be replaced with shielded/recessed fixtures; that vertical elements be added to the duplex unit; and that the engineer review the drainage plan and proximity of the driveway to existing utility meters. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-17 Design review of parking lot and 25' x 50' deck at 101 Third St. S. (American Legion Post 48) in the CBD, Central Business District. David Swanson, representing American Legion Post 48. Present were Dave Swanson, Curt Newcomb and Post 48 Commander Robert Hart. Mr. Newcomb explained that rather than a deck as initially proposed, plans now call for an elevated patio with block retaining wall. Mr. Newcomb noted the Legion had purchased the parking lot behind their building which they plan to surface with pavers. Mr. Newcomb addressed some of the staff comments. He said there are plans to screen the access along Myrtle Street. Regarding the comments about color palette, he said they are looking at different tones with the paver blocks and believe the patio and paver colors can be brought together. Lighting will not be intrusive, he said. Ambient lighting is all that is proposed; the existing street light will be the primary light source, he said. The patio, he said, would provide space for a few tables with umbrellas; there will be no outside bar. Mr. Johnson asked is there would be a walkway from the patio to the front of the main structure. Mr. Newcomb said the only access to the patio would be from the inside of the main building or the parking lot. Mr. Johnson also asked about plans for the patio railing and how it would be attached. Mr. Newcomb noted that the railing will have to meet code and will likely be painted treated lumber or perhaps wrought iron. Mr. Newcomb said they plan to do some screening of the railing, such as with flower planters. The railing, Mr. Newcomb said, will be attached to the concrete slab patio. Mr. Newcomb also stated the Legion would like to complete the patio this summer in asking for concept approval of the plans. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the plans for the modular block retaining wall and concrete slab patio, with details regarding the railing, lighting, landscaping and paver/block materials to be submitted for final review. Mr. Turnblad asked that a condition be added to provide a site plan City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2006 for access points, which Mr. Johnson added to his motion. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-18 Design review to replace an existing entry door at 102 S. Second St. (Gazette Building) in the CBD, Central Business District. John Harvey, Harvey Woodruff, LLC, applicant. John Harvey was present. Mr. Harvey explained his request to replace the existing door with an anodized aluminum door. In addition to safety issues, he said the existing door is very heavy and does not close properly. The transom would stay, he said. He said he is requesting to use metal because of the cost involved; also, he said metal weathers better. Mr. Tomten asked Mr. Harvey if he had looked at maintaining the profile of a wood -width door. Mr. Harvey said that, too, would require a custom-made door, and he suggested the door is not that visible to passers-by. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Nelson spoke in favor of the use of wood as being more historically correct. Mr. Johnson suggested that the existing door might be rehinged to address the safety issue. Mr. Harvey reiterated that it would cost $3,000 to install a new metal door versus $10,000 for a new wooden door. Mr. Eastwood asked if Mr. Harvey would consider using a wooden door if it is determined it is economically feasible. Mr. Harvey responded that he would not consider that option. Mr. Harvey, former owner of the Bourdaghs Building, also stated he took exception to several comments made during the discussion of Case No. DR/06-15; Mr. Harvey's position was duly noted for the record. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that the use of colored anodized aluminum is acceptable according to the downtown design guidelines. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to approve the plans to replace the building door with a bronze anodized aluminum door as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Other items: Stillwater Mills on Main — Dave May, Four Star Land Development, was present. Mr. May acknowledged the concern regarding the roof vents, as discussed at the last meeting. He said the plumbing stacks can all be cut off 10-12" above the roof membrane when completed. He noted the rubber boot of the roof extends 9-10" to accommodate major rain events, so the plumbing vents, when cut, will extend only 2-Y above the boot. He said all the skylights, furnace vents and other roof vents were identified in the original drawings submitted to the City and said the developer is not asking for more then identified in those drawings. Mr. May also noted the developer was not given the opportunity to ventilate out the sides of the building, with the exception of the air conditioning units. And, he said the HPC's directive was to have no mechanicals on the roof. Mr. Harycki noted that the vents are visible not just from Second Street but can be seen from areas of the South Hill as well. Mr. Harycki said Council Members have been receiving many calls of concern about this issue, and he said screening/shrubbery, as proposed in a letter from Mr. May, is not enough to mitigate the concerns. Mr. May reiterated his statement that plumbing vents will not be the issue as they can be cut off. The problem, Mr. May said, is with the exhaust vents for fireplaces, dryers and bathrooms which must be 48" above the roof deck and 36" from City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2006 fresh air returns. Mr. May said they are looking at a process of painting almost all of the vents to match the roof surface. Mr. Lieberman said he could not recall what the HPC originally approved and asked if it would make sense to hold a workshop on just this issue and at that workshop have all past records available so the Commission knows, if fact, what was approved. Mr. Harycki said the public wants to know what is going to be done about this issue. Mr. Johnson suggested that to quell some of the concern, the developer cut the plumbing vents short and paint them as soon as possible and see what comments are received — change the situation and show what might work, he suggested. Mr. Zahren asked about installing some type of screening over the entire roof. Mr. May said that creates a problem with roof point loads and ventilation issues. Mr. May said he would like to do as Mr. Johnson suggested, cut the public vents and paint, and see what input is received. Brian Larson, 2008 Hazel Court, offered comments. He said given the geography of the area, the roof should have been the design starting point, the primary design element. He suggested that either the developer knew what the roof would look like and felt it would be acceptable or had no idea of what it would look like. Mr. Larson also stated that the City should ask for more than landscaping and paint, and he noted that the more time that goes by, the more expensive any solution will be for the developer. Mr. Larson called for the developer to offer a real significant compromise and reduce the number of stacks, by consolidating the stacks or some venting through the sides of units. Mr. May pointed out that 2/3 of the building is dry walled and said he wasn't sure if the vents can be consolidated at this point. Mr. Larson asked that the developer investigate the possibility of consolidating/reducing vents to determine if it is feasible. Mr. Harycki noted this issue will be a Council Request Item at the April 4 Council meeting to let the public know what's going on. The public needs input, he said. Mr. Eastwood wondered if this issue had moved past the HPC and become more of a Council issue. Mr. Lieberman said the HPC has an obligation to push forward. If an impasse is reached, then the matter goes to the Council, he said. And Mr. Lieberman again said the HPC needs to see the record pertaining to the issue. Mr. Lieberman suggested holding a joint workshop with the Council and have the developer present three different concrete alternatives, with cost options, for mitigating the venting; Mr. Turnblad was asked to provide a record of the past actions for the Commission. Mr. May said he was not sure if he could get definitive costs should the workshop be scheduled within two weeks as was mentioned. It was agreed that the developer could proceed with cutting/painting/removing bags from a portion of the roof. Mr. Tomten pointed out that the Commission and others should not forget the height allowance. If the developer had been allowed to step the building up along Second Street, the structure could have been 35' higher than the existing building. Maybe the Commission paid too much attention to the view of the structure from Main Street, he said, but he pointed out that folks still have a view of the River from Pioneer Park, which is better than no view at all. 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission April 3, 2006 Regarding scheduling a joint workshop, it was decided that if the Council is amenable to such a joint meeting, the HPC will be available. Mr. Lieberman moved to refer the decision regarding the workshop to the Council and await its recommendation, with the issue to be on the HPC's May agenda for further discussion. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Johnson, moved to adjourn at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 1 ter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, March 6, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA Approval of the February 6, 2006 minutes. Public Hearings 1. Case No. DR/06-12. Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) located at 1208 North William Street. Tom Mulcahy, applicant. 2. Case No. DR/06-13. Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) located south of 303 West Olive Street. Mark Willis and Greg Stokes, applicants. Design Review 3. Case No. DR/06-11. Design review of new signage located at 317 South Main Street (St Croix Merchant's Building) in the CBD, Central Business District. Randall Raduenz, representing Larry Cramer, applicant. 4. Case No. DR/06-14. Design review of signage located at 1401 Stillwater Blvd in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Mark Winey, applicant. 5. Case No. DR/06-15. Design review of signage change located at 106 E Chestnut Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Patricia Page, applicant. 6. Case No. DR/06-16. Design review of exterior modifications of a building (Stone's Restaurant) located at 324 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Stone, applicant. Other Items CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman, Phil Eastwood, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others: Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear Absent: Jeff Johnson Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Tomten, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to adopt the minutes of Feb. 6, 2006, as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Design Review Case No. ❑R/06-11 Design review of new signage at 317 S. Main St., St. Croix Merchant's Building, in the CBD, Central Business District. Randall Raduenz, representing Larry Cramer, applicant. Randall Raduenz explained the request for signage and reviewed the proposed layout. He provided a swatch book of colors; colors would be a medium green, deep burgundy and dark brown with gold lettering. He said currently it is difficult for people to know what tenants are inside the building. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as submitted. Mr. Tomten suggested adding a condition that the existing sign be removed; if the applicant wishes to move the existing sign to the back, that would be a separate application. Mr. Eastwood agreed to amend his motion to include that condition. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR106-14 Design review of signage at 14012 Stillwater Blvd. in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District. Mark Winey, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten moved to approve as conditioned. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-15 Design review of signage change at 106 E. Chestnut St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Patricia Page, applicant. The applicant was not present. It was noted the drawing of the proposed sign in the packet had an incorrect spelling of the building name — should be Bourdaghs, not Burdash. Mr. Lockyear said the applicant had indicated the new sign would be the same size as the existing sign. Mr. Tomten suggesting asking the applicant to consider white lettering, with the background in burgundy, thus reducing the appearance of being internally lit, which is not allowed. There was discussion as to whether the new sign would still be grandfathered in. Mr. Lockyear said under his interpretation, the change in signage would mean the sign would not longer be grandfathered and could no longer be internally lighted. Due to the unanswered questions, Mr. Lieberman moved to table this case and invite the applicant to appear at next month's meeting. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 Case No. DR/06-16 Design review of exterior modifications of a building at 324 S. Main St. (Stone's Restaurant) in the CBD, Central Business District. Mike Stone, applicant. Mr. Stone was present. He provided full-scale drawings of the proposed design and photos of the existing structure. The intent, he said, was to have a design that is not overbearing and fits with the building. The proposal is to utilize stucco, river stone and limestone veneer. Initially, the plan is to utilize the existing aluminum -clad windows; there is a possibility the windows might be changed to a wood -clad trim. There was a question about the proposal to illuminate the river stone fagade and how much of the lighting would go over the building. Mr. Stone responded that none of the lighting would go over the building; the lighting is low wattage, recessed lighting that will illuminate about 3-6 feet up on the stone. There was a question about the sign over the door. Mr. Stone said the sign would be a mesh screen with the name Stone's in raised metal lettering; there will be no river stone behind the mesh and no direct lighting behind the sign. Mr. Tomten moved approval as condition, with the clarification that the low -voltage up -lighting at the screens be projecting on the walls only and that there be no direct lighting on the sign. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Eastwood suggested amending the motion to include the condition that the final sign graphics be submitted to and approved by staff before installation. Amended motion passed unanimously. Public Hearings Case No. DR/06-12 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District, RB, Two Family Residential District, at 1208 N. William St. Tom Mulcahy, applicant. Mr. Mulcahy was present. He said he would like to build a home with an historical look and said he thought it would fit into the area very nicely. He said the plans are preliminary drawings and said the amount of impervious surface could be scaled back. Mr. Lieberman said he thought the plans worked well with the new infill design guidelines and fit well in the neighborhood. Jeff Benson, 1120 N. William, expressed concerns about water runoff. He said it appears the majority of the runoff from the twin home would run across his property. Mr. Eastwood asked if the proposal had been before the Planning Commission, noting that drainage is addressed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mulcahy responded that he believes the present fill behind the house is too low and suggested this would be an opportunity to correct problems. Mr. Benson also said he had a question about the driveway. Mr. Mulcahy said he had no intention of infringing on Mr. Benson's driveway. The plans show the driveway in question six and one-half feet from the property line, it was noted. Margaret Schneider, 1212 William St., questioned whether 50 x 150 is considered a buildable lot and also questioned the minimum square footage of the home that could be put on that lot. She stated that Mr. Mulcahy had said he is neither a licensed building contractor nor licensed by the City, both of which are required in order to construct a home according to City Code. She also questioned whether the new home would be built according to City standards relating to square footage and setbacks. Mr. Lieberman asked Mr. Mulcahy whether he would be hiring a licensed builder. Mr. Mulcahy responded that he could hire a contractor, or he could get licensed himself, noting that he has been in the construction business all his life. Mr. Lockyear pointed out that Mr. Mulcahy would have to obtain a building permit and provide complete 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 working drawings that would be reviewed by the City building official. When the building official approves a plan, the official inspects the project at various stages and the project will have to meet code. Regarding the question about the size of a buildable lot, Mr. Lockyear said minimum square footage for a buildable lot is 7,500 square feet. Ms. Schneider also expressed a concern about drainage. Mr. Harycki asked whether submission of a drainage plan is required as part of the permit process. Mr. Lockyear pointed out this proposal will require a resubdivision and suggested that drainage issues will addressed in that process. Ms. Schneider said her biggest issue was with the privacy of current residents. Joanne Loer, 1114 N. William, also expressed a concern about drainage and said there was a big problem when Good Samaritan was constructed. She said consideration should be given to the existing drainage problems. Mr. Lieberman responded that the HPC could request that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the drainage issues when it passes the Case along. Mr. Lieberman read Mr. Johnson's comments into the record. Mr. Johnson commented that the single unit looked good, although the belt line trim appears high from the information submitted. He stated that the twin unit appears wide for the scale of the house; he suggested ways to add vertical elements to the structure to narrow the appearance. Mr. Johnson also commented on the light fixtures, suggesting the fixtures be downlit. Mr. Tomten noted that one of the requirements is review of all four sides of a structure and asked whether all four elevations were complete at this time. Mr. Tomten wondered if the applicant would be open to returning to the HPC next month with finished plans for all elevations of the proposed structures. Mr. Tomten moved to approve the application at concept level, with the applicant to return with final plans for all four elevations, color schemes, lighting plans. Mr. Tomten noted in the interim, the applicant would have time to address preliminary grading issues raised by neighbors and also rework impervious surface coverage to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-13 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District, RIB, Two Family Residential District, at 303 W. Olive St. Mark Willis and Greg Stokes, applicants. The applicants explained that following comments received at the February meeting, they had gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan. While more conservative in direction, the architect said he felt the design was still strong in terms of the abstract beauty they are trying to achieve. The changes are very substantial to the street -side and south elevation, he said. The architect said the applicant will be coming back with actual design of the south house, but would like to proceed on the premise that the HPC has reviewed the site plan and approves in concept an attached -garage structure repressed to the rear of the lot for the second house. There was a question about soils. The applicants responded that most of the soils issues pertain to the north house, which is why they will be starting with that structure first. Mark Balay, 416 S. Fifth St., said he thought the applicants had done a good job in responding to some changes in proportion, such as the eave overhang, and had done a lot to start complying with the infill guidelines. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 Leo Lohmer, 303 W. Olive, spoke of the history of the property and the ravine. He said he would like to see something nice on the property, and said he liked the proposed plans. Mr. Lieberman said a question had been raised about the design guideline related to four-sided architecture. He said it could be argued that as proposed, the north and south faces are different from each other. The applicants explained that the elements that separate the massing of the two components are recessed, so the two major masses will read throughout in terms of the overall massing of the building. The architect explained the details of the window massing and said looking at the whole configuration, eliminating the three in the middle vertical strip, the end result is a six component symmetrical layout. Mr. Lieberman questioned the meaning of "consistent" in the four-sided architecture guideline, noting that this is the Commission's first experience with the guidelines. Mr. Tomten said he thought the applicants had approached all four sides of the house the same and said the vocabulary is consistent with the style of the house, a contemporary style. Mr. Tomten said how the applicant had addressed the stairwell in the strip windows is not unlike Victorians, a unique piece to the house. Mr. Tomten asked about the eave condition on the gable end; the applicant explained that detailing. Mr. Harycki suggested the corner board detailing evident in other houses in the neighborhood is missing in this design. The applicants argued the lack of the corner boards will make the quality of the building very clear because it will show wood. Mr. Harycki pointed out that the guidelines refer to compatibility with adjacent structures in design detailing such as columns, frieze board, fascia boards etc. with adjacent structures; pictures of the adjacent houses provided by the applicants show such details, and those details are absent in the proposed plans. Mr. Eastwood agreed that the north elevation is lacking details and does not fit in with the other elevations. Mr. Tomten argued it is the style of the house that determines detailing, and in this case, all four sides are compatible with the style, which is contemporary. The applicants noted that the revised plans make serious gestures toward the traditional while still in keeping with the contemporary style. Mr. Lieberman agreed with Mr. Tomten that the architectural details of the proposed house are consistent with a contemporary house. Mr. Lieberman suggested the issues comes down to "compatible" with adjacent structures and said "compatible," in his view, does not mean to replicate or be identical to the adjacent structure but to include elements on some level that pay homage to the adjacent houses. Mr. Lieberman said some of the details in the massing and small sizes are compatible. The applicants noted that it would be much easier to present plans that replicate an old house, but suggested that would not be good for the future of Stillwater to keep building structures that try to look old. Mr. Eastwood said his only issue is that the north side does not have the elements that the other elevations do and does not conform with the guideline related to four-sided architecture. Mr. Lieberman moved to approve the design as submitted. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. The applicant asked if it would be appropriate to include approval of the concept of an attached garage for the second house, as that is a requirement for building the first house. Mr. Lieberman noted that if approved, the action would not mean that there will not be strict scrutiny of everything that comes before the Commission under the infill guidelines — each proposal will be judged on its merits. Mr. Eastwood asked that it be clarified the motion is for approval as conditioned. Mr. Tomten pointed out the applicants have met the vast majority of the guidelines to the fullest extent, the discussion centered on those two guidelines the most subject to interpretation. Mr. Tomten thanked the applicants for bringing together a high quality project. Mr. Lieberman also noted that the applicants had substantially met the infill guidelines; City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 the more broadly worded guidelines brought the Commission to discussion. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Other items: Dave May, Stillwater Mills, appeared regarding the use of skylights. Mr. Mills said he thought the Commission had previously approved the use. Mr. Lockyear said originally the skylights was supposed to have a four -inch reveal on the roof; now the proposal is to use 16-inch domed skylight, which is a considerable change from what was originally proposed. Also the skylights will now be slanted, rather than flat due to problems with roof pitch. Mr. May explained that water retention will be on the roof to manage water coming off the site, necessitating the skylight changes. There was a question about visibility from the street. It was noted the skylights will be visible from Second Street. The discussion turned to the visibility of pipes on the roof; several members said they had received calls regarding the pipes. Mr. Lieberman said he thought these were significant design issues that need to be addressed. Mr. May said the developers had originally proposed screening roof elements but were told the only roof penetrations allowed are those that are absolutely necessary — vent stacks, bathroom venting, fireplace/furnace vents. Mr. May said the problem is now the roof is in place, so it is no longer possible to screen the rooftop mechanicals. Mr. Eastwood said the vents were not shown in the plans the HPC reviewed. Mr. Lieberman said the HPC needs to see some design element to compensate for what has become a community eyesore. Mr. Harycki suggested this is what is driving the move to height restrictions. Mr. Lieberman encouraged Mr. May to look at some creative way to screen the vents and return to the HPC. Mr. Lockyear suggested there might be ways to,utilize rooftop screening such as latticework. Mr. Lieberman said the skylights were not included in the plans approved by the HPC and those design plans should come back for review as well as the screening issue. Mr. May said he didn't understand why skylights would be controversial or of concern. Mr. Lieberman noted there is a lot of sensitivity to height and visibility at this point. Mr. May was invited to come back to the HPC at its April meeting with plans to address the concerns. There was discussion as to whether there should be an official HPC position regarding the proposed height restrictions in the historic downtown district. Mr. Eastwood suggested that the proposed guidelines are higher than existing buildings in every zone, which he said is defeating the purpose of maintaining the viewshed. Mr. Eastwood suggested keeping heights consistent with the current buildings. Mr. Tomten questioned how property owners would be reimbursed for the loss of value in going from 50 feet allowable height to 30 feet as proposed. Mr. Harycki said Mr. Magnuson has reviewed the legal issues and said the City has a right to restrict heights as buildings get closer to the river. Mr. Lockyear said if the City is going to impose height restrictions, it will have to implement three different district, since property owners in a district must be treated equally. Mr. Lockyear also noted that the proposal does not change allowable heights anywhere in the downtown district except east of Water Street. The only impacted parcels, he said, are the Dock Cafe, Water Street Inn and the marinas. Mr. Lockyear said the proposal includes the caveat that an infill structure cannot exceed the adjacent structures by 10 percent, which in essence maintains the 35- foot height in the historic district. There was discussion as to the definition of "adjacent." Mr. Lockyear said eliminating the "adjacent" language and setting a specific height limitation would solve that issue. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary I wwa- ter ,al ji THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, February 6, 2006, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA Approval of the January 4, 2006 minutes. Public Hearing 1. Case No. DEM/06-01. Consideration of a request from Ascension Episcopal Church for the demolition of a residence located at 209 North Third Street in the PA, Public Administration District. Vicki Cross, representing Ascension Episcopal Church. Design Review 2. Case No. DR/06-04. Design review of a proposed 32 unit condominium project with hotel lobby relocation and underground parking located at 101 Water Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Michael Diem, Archnet, representing Chuck Dougherty. 3. Case No. DR/06-05. Design review of a proposed sign, Wisteria Gifts and More, located at 223 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Kim Vangsgard, applicant. 4. Case No. DR/06-06. Design review of extension of awning, replacement of existing store front and placement of sign located at 241 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Kevin Grube, representing Mark Hanson, Marx, applicant. S. Case No. DR/06-07. Design review of proposed construction of a new residence located at 217 W St Croix Ave East (formerly 203 St Croix Avenue E) in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jeff Swanson, applicant. 6. Case No. DR/06-08. Design review of exterior patio and parking for an expansion of a restaurant (Stone's Restaurant) located at 324 South Main Street (Grand Garage) located in the CBD, Central Business District. Michael Stone, applicant. 7. Case No. DR/06-09. Design review of BT Doyle's Ribs exterior gas line placement located at 423 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District. Tim Doyle, applicant. 8. Case No. DR/06-10. Design review of proposed construction of two residences located south of 303 West Olive Street South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jeff Hayes, applicant. Other Items CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 • WEBSITE: wwwxi.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, Chairman Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others: Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval of the minutes of Jan. 4, 2006, as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DEM/06-01 Consideration of a request from Ascension Episcopal Church for demolition of a residence at 209 N. Third St. in the PA, Public Administration District. Vicki Cross, representing Ascension Episcopal Church. Mr. Lieberman briefly reviewed the City ordinance's nine requirements for a demolition to be approved. Ms. Cross said several of the nine steps have not been completed because the church does not own the building, and it has been difficult to get people into the structure, which is filled with debris. She said the church's intent is to purchase the house, tear down the structure and leave the property vacant until a future use is determined. She said the church has not closed on the purchase because it does not want to repair/restore the structure. Don Empson, 1206 N. Second St., said no old house is beyond redemption. He noted that Ascension Church has done a great job at preservation in the past and noted the house in question looks fairly square and sound. He urged the Commission to table the request until the house has been carefully inspected inside and out and the church looks at other ways of dealing with the house. Mr. Empson said he would be happy to work with the church to explore options for saving the structure. Mr. Lieberman noted the ordinance is clear in the conditions that need to be met, and several of those conditions — evaluating the cost of remodeling the structure, advertising the structure for s ale, and plan for reuse — have not been met in this application. Ms. Cross again pointed out the church has not been able to meet the conditions because it does not own the property and has been unable to gain full access to the house. Mr. Johnson suggested that if the church purchased the house/property and removed the debris, it would be better able to determine potential uses/alternatives. Mr. Peterson noted it would be difficult to approve a variance to demolish someone else's house. Mr. Lieberman moved to deny the request without prejudice on the grounds that three of the nine ordinance conditions have not been met and that procedurally the church does not own the property. He pointed out that denying the request without prejudice allows the church to reapply for the demolition permit at some point in the future if the church owns the property and meets all of the requirements. Mr. Tomten noted the HPC's duty is to encourage preservation and asked the church to take a second look at its mission as an urban church. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6, 2006 Case No. DR/06-04 Design review of a proposed 32-unit condominium project with hotel lobby relocation and underground parking at 101 Water St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Michael Diem, Archnet, representing Chuck Dougherty. Present were Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Diem. Mr. Lieberman opened the discussion by reading the staff recommendation, which expressed a concern that it is premature to review the site plan, as there are too many unknowns that may affect any design direction. Mr. Dougerty noted there have been past problems related to the open staircase, the provision of a brick dumpster and other issues. He said ownership has changed — he is now the sole owner — and said he hoped it would be possible to work through past difficulties. Mr. Diem assured the Commission that they would not show something in design drawings and then strip down the final project. He briefly reviewed drawings which he said give a "hint" at possible colors and materials — green slate roof with reddish\brown exterior. Plans also include a tower which replicates the former depot tower. Mr. Diem said the plan is to recreate a landmark and incorporate it in the project as a kiosk/public open space; the new tower would be built using the same foundation as the old depot tower, he said. Mr. Diem said the proposal calls for brick exterior, with stone at the base that will match the existing stone. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the HPC views the downtown historic district as a whole. Part of the uniqueness of the downtown district are the vistas of the river, gazebo, lift bridge, which are bigger than just a building itself. He said one of his initial concerns is the height and location of the proposed project which blocks a lot of the viewshed. He also said he is unsure if the proposed tower has any relationship to the project. Further, he noted there are issues related to property ownership and utility locations. He suggested it premature to consider the project until those issues have been resolved. Mr. Lieberman agreed that it would be premature to consider the project at this time noting recent staff leavings, the Corps of Engineers' floodwall plans, proposed infill design guidelines and pending height regulations for the downtown district. He questioned how the Commission could allow the project to move forward with so many issues that are still open and subject to change. Mr. Dougherty responded that they have been in discussion with staff since September, have had meetings with the DNR and Corps of Engineers and had a workshop scheduled with the City Council later in the week of the HPC meeting. He also pointed out that the City's plan for the property called for a two-story parking lot, which also would have impacted the viewshed. Councilmember Harycki pointed out the City's agenda includes revising/updating the Downtown Plan, in addition to all the other changes/unknowns that are pending. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Lockyear what actions were available to the HPC. Mr. Lockyear cautioned against holding action in abeyance for too long as the 60-day rule might come into play. Mr. Tomten pointed out that all large projects go through a concept phase and said he would hate to have the 60-day rule come into play for this project. He suggested that it was up to the HPC to give comments/direction and up to the staff to determine any possible property exchange agreements. Mr. Tomten also pointed out that there are downtown design guidelines in place at this time and the applicant has a right to use his property according to those guidelines. Mr. Tomten noted that one of the guidelines is the encouragement of pedestrian - oriented design and offered some suggestions for improving that aspect of the project. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6, 2006 Mr. Lieberman moved to deny the application without prejudice, noting that the design as presented is outside the allowable height restrictions and the Commission is not allowed to grant variances. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Mr. Tomten said he would not like to deny the proposal, noting that the height limitation is a Planning Commission issue and also noting that for many projects, towers are exempt from height limitations. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Commission should review the design plans. Members then took a "field trip" and viewed a model of the proposed project. When members returned to the table, Mr. Johnson pointed out that the project's location in the flood plain makes it difficult to comply with the height restrictions for the occupiable space. Mr. Johnson noted that when the Corps' floodwall project is completed, the project would be out of the flood plain and there would be more usable space. Mr. Lieberman again pointed out that there are still unresolved ownership issues and it is unclear whether the applicant has a right to build the project as proposed. The motion to deny without prejudice passed 5-2, with Mr. Tomten and Mr. Peterson voting against denial. Mr. Lieberman told the applicant the Commission would be open to scheduling a workshop to further discuss the project. Case No. DR106-05 Design review of a proposed sign, Wisteria Gifts and More, at 223 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Kim Vangsgard, applicant. The applicant was present. She said the request is for a replacement sign, of the same size and location as the previous signage. The sign will not be lighted. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved to approve as submitted. Mr. Tomten asked about color. The motion was amended to include the condition that paint chips be submitted to staff for approval. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. ❑R106-06 Design review of extension of awning, replacement of existing store front and placement of sign at 241 S. Main St. in the CBD, Central Business District. Kevin Grube, representing Mark Hanson, Marx, applicant. The applicant was not present. Mr. Tomten noted the existing awning is extremely shallow. He suggested moving the sign to allow the awning to be moved up to the second -story windows which will provide more of the 1:1 pitch and project more over the sidewalk. Mr. Johnson added a suggestion regarding sign placement. Michael Stone, in the audience for another case, asked that Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson's comments be viewed as suggestions rather than conditions of approval. Mr. Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as submitted with the suggestion that the plans be modified as suggested and sketched by Mr. Tomten and Mr. Johnson. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-07 Design review of a proposed new residence at 217 W. St. Croix Ave. E. (formerly 203 St. Croix Ave. E.) in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jeff Swanson, applicant. Present were property owners, Jeff and Heather Swanson, and architect, Dale Mulfinger. Mr. Johnson asked about siding and windows. Mr. Mulfinger said the majority of the windows would City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6, 2006 be double -hung windows; the siding will be varied, he said, a combination of vertical and horizontal lap siding. Mr. Johnson also asked about the roof; Mr. Swanson said they would like to utilize standing metal seam roofing, but that will depend on the cost. Mr. Peterson asked about the height of the new house. Mr. Mulfinger said the new structure will be two stories but pointed out that the front gable of the new house has been stepped in order to match the scale of the adjacent 1 and one-half story house. Mr. Swanson said that in previous conversations with former Community Development Director Steve Russell, Mr. Russell had recommended the use of a permeable surface driveway in order to meet the 30-percent lot coverage requirement; if the new infill guidelines are adopted, an impervious driveway surface could be used. Mr. Peterson asked about an existing garage on the site. The applicant responded that the garage will be removed. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that if the existing garage is 50 years old or more, a demolition permit is required. Members complimented the applicants and architect for looking at the adjacent sites and attempting to meet the proposed new infill design guidelines. Mr. Johnson moved approval with the condition that the 30 percent lot coverage guideline be met through the use of a pervious surface driveway, with the understanding the applicant may request the use of impervious surface if the infill design guidelines are approved before building permits are obtained. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion, but asked whether the motion should include a condition about the existing garage. Mr. Johnson amended the motion to approve the proposed materials and design, with the condition that the 30 percent lot coverage requirement be met and that a demolition permit be obtained for the existing garage should the age of the structure require that permit. Amended motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-08 Design review of exterior patio and parking for an expansion of a restaurant, Stone's Restaurant, at 324 S. Main St., Grand Garage, in the CBD, Central Business District. Michael Stone, applicant. Michael Stone was present. He explained plans for an upscale restaurant offering a traditional American menu. He said looking at the surrounding area, including the Teddy Bear Park, he felt the best use for the existing parking area in the rear of the restaurant (6 parking spaces) is to provide for an expanded outdoor dining space. The proposal is to utilize the outdoor dining space May through September, with drive -up and valet parking offered during the winter months. The area would be done in concrete pavers, he said. Mr. Tomten asked about plans for the existing poured concrete wall. Mr. Stone said plans are to paint the concrete and cap the wall with iron railing. Mr. Johnson asked about the proposal to place uplights in the trees along the hill, saying he was concerned about the possible intensity of the lighting. Mr. Stone said he was not sure about the lighting, but said his vision is to have dim lighting to provide for a more upscale atmosphere. Mr. Lieberman moved approval as originally conditioned, when previous plans were submitted and approved in 2003. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6, 2006 Case No. DR/06-09 This case was withdrawn. Case No. DR/06-10 Design review of proposed construction of two residences south of 303 W. Olive St. S. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Jeff Hayes, applicant. Present were Mark Willis, Greg Stokes and Jeff Hayes. The applicants provided photos of several surrounding properties and explained site plans, including setbacks for the two proposed structures. In order to control the amount of impervious surface coverage, a single driveway is proposed for access. The architect said the two buildings will complement each other. The design of the proposed new houses utilizes urban/residential forms, the architect explained. Mr. Harycki asked whether the applicants had looked at the City's proposed infill design guidelines; the response was "yes." Mr. Johnson asked whether the applicants were working with a potential buyer or were building the houses as spec homes, suggesting that buyers looking to purchase homes in a traditional neighborhood such as this are looking for traditional design, rather than the modern design as proposed. Mr. Harycki pointed out that the design guidelines call for new infill construction to fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said he thought the proposed design was an "insult" to the traditional architecture in the neighborhood it is so out of character. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Tomten argued that the guidelines are not meant to legislate a certain design style, that is why they are guidelines. A philosophical discussion ensued with the applicants and Commission members exchanging points of view about the proposed design and the infill design guidelines. The architect said the applicants had been hoping for some input as they did not want to design houses that will be rejected by the Commission. Mr. Lieberman concluded the discussion by suggesting there are clearly disparate points of view among Commission members and noted that the infill design guidelines are a new concept. It was suggested that when the applicants return with working drawings they include colors and materials, as well as incorporate other houses in the neighborhood in a site plan. Mr. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Tomten, moved to adjourn at 10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary (S.i.0,)ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Wednesday, January 4, 2006 City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Stillwater City Hall 216 North Fourth Street Revised 1 /4/06 AGENDA Approval of the December 5, 2005 minutes. Case No. DR/05-56. Continued from December 5, 2005 HPC meeting. Design review of sign package for Liberty West located at 105 New England Place. 2. Case No. DR/06-01. Design review of an exterior sign for Expressions Hair Designs located at 406 South Third Street. Amy Kroening, applicant. 3. Case No. DR/06-02. Design review of a pylon sign with reader board for Lake Elmo Bank located at 1903 South Greeley Street. Mike Johnson, representing the applicant. 4. Case No. DR/06-03. Design review of an addition of a fuel center and a drive- thru pharmacy for Cub Foods located at 1801 Market Drive. Craig Mevissen representing Cub Foods. Other items: a. Design Guideline feedback from the Downtown Chamber. b. 1St draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Stillwater Gazette 1/5/06 1931 Curve Crest Blvd. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-3130 Fax: (651) 439-4713 State of Minnesota} ss. County of Washington) The undersigned, being duly sworn, on oath, says that s/he is the Publisher or authorized agent and employee of the Publisher known as the Stillwater Gazette, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated. (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota State Statute 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable laws as amended. Printed below is a copy of the lowercase Alphabet, from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind type used in composition and publication of the of notice. 6lisherlAuthorized Agem ' Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed to me on this (I day of ) , 2006. Am Notary14b1i MOLLY M. KRESS NOTARY PUBLIC 14 MINNESOTA •', +,", y Commission Explres Jan. 31, 2008 City of Stillwater Invoice #: 00005041 216 4th St N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Terms: Net 30 Inches Description Price Total 4 1 Day Notice of Heritage $7.90 $31.60 Preservation Commission Meeting Published on 12/30 Maximum rate per column inch under Minnesota Law: $16.90 per 12-pica column $31.60 Sub Total $31.60 Payment $0.00 Balance Due $31.60 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 4, 2006 Present: Howard Lieberman, chair, Phil Eastwood, Jeff Johnson, Larry Nelson, Brent Peterson, Roger Tomten, Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others: Planner Sue Fitzgerald and Interim Community Development Director/Planner Bob Lockyear Mr. Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. He noted the upcoming retirement of Ms. Fitzgerald and expressed the Commission's thanks for her outstanding work with the City and the HPC. He also introduced and welcomed Council Representative Harycki and Interim Community Development Director/Planner Lockyear. Approval of minutes: Mr. Nelson noted his name was spelled incorrectly. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved approval of the minutes of Dec. 5, 2005, with the correction to the spelling of Mr. Nelson's name. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/05-56 Design review of sign package for Liberty West at 105 New England Place. Continued from the Dec. 5, 2005, HPC meeting. Ms. Fitzgerald noted that the building had been sold just a few days prior to the meeting and the representative of the sign company was ill and unable to attend the meeting. On a motion from the chair, it was agreed to have Mr. Tomten, who had worked with the applicants following the Dec. 5 discussion, present the revised proposal, with the understanding that Mr. Tomten would not participate in the Commission discussion/action. Mr. Tomten said he had met at the site with the owner, sign people and two tenants to discuss the HPC's recommendations/possible changes. He said it was agreed to make the focus of the signage Liberty Village/Office Lofts as suggested, and to use the same font as used on the gas station/bank signage. Office Loft entrances would be more clearly identified with projecting signage or sign above the door(s). The style/theme for the second -floor tenant signage will be considered individually and on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Tomten clarified that the rectangular spaces indicated on plans for future tenants did not mean future tenants would be limited to such spaces, rather just to indicate the amount of space available for future signage. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be additional lights. Mr. Tomten said if there was a request for additional lighting it would have to come back before the HPC. Responding to a question by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tomten said he thought the revised plans were OK and a step in the right direction. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the request as revised, with the condition that there be no changes in the lighting on the building. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0; Mr. Tomten did not cast a vote. Case No. DR/06-01 Design review of an exterior sign for Expressions Hair Design at 406 S. Third St. Amy Kroening, applicant. Ms. Kroening said her proposed signage is similar to the existing sign and will be placed in basically the same location, but will be perpendicularly oriented. Color samples were shown. Mr. City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 4, 2006 Eastwood, seconded by Mr. Peterson, moved approval as conditioned. Mr. Johnson clarified that the signage will not be lit. Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-02 Design review of a pylon sign with reader board for Lake Elmo Bank at 1903 S. Greeley St. Mike Johnson, representing the applicant. Mike Johnson was present. Mr. Lieberman stated the HPC was not in favor of reader boards and expressed his opinion that the community is becoming cluttered with commercial language. Ms. Fitzgerald said the request would go before the Planning Commission on Jan. 9 for consideration of a variance. Ms. Fitzgerald noted that reader boards, such as the one requested, are not allowed by ordinance; reader board signage is limited to time and temperature. Mike Johnson spoke of other reader boards in the community; it was noted that, with the exception of one, those were grandfathered-in. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that according to the City's ordinance, the HPC can't approve anything other than signage indicating time and temperature. Commission Member Johnson said the Commission takes the ordinance as written and can't deviate from the ordinance; the only action the HPC can take, he said, is to deny the request. Jeff Johnson, seconded by Mr. Lieberman, moved to deny the request based on City ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. DR/06-03 Design review of an addition of a fuel center and drive-thru pharmacy for Cub Foods at 1801 Market Drive. Craig Mevissen, representing Cub Foods. Most of the discussion centered on plans for the fuel center. Members expressed a concern that the proposed fuel center does not reflect any of the details of the primary structure. Mr. Tomten noted that one of the guidelines for the Business Park and the Cub/Target PUD is that buildings be consistent in materials, style and detailing and suggested that the design of the fuel center doesn't meet that guideline. Mr. Tomten provided some suggestions, such as the use of some masonry material, which would help make the connection between the structures. Mr. Johnson pointed to the Quik Trip station in the Liberty development as a good example of what the Commission was suggesting for design details. Mr. Johnson suggested that the proposal was not consistent with what should be the image of SuperValu's "flag ship" store; he said the design should provide a look of permanence rather than something on the outskirts of the parking lot. There also were questions raised about lighting. Mr. Mevissen said the sign itself will not be lit. Mr. Tomten noted that canopy lighting must be recessed. Mr. Johnson asked about parking; Mr. Mevissen said even with the proposed fuel center, the amount of parking is over the required number of spaces. Regarding the drive-thru pharmacy, Mr. Mevissen explained the proposal is for a small drive -up window with sign above and canopy, the same as the front canopy. The sign will be internally lit; Mr. Mevissen said he thought there would also be some lighting under the canopy. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the pharmacy drive-thru with the condition that lighting be limited to a downlit fixture for the canopy only, with a clip of the lighting to be provided to staff, and to deny the fuel center request. Mr. Lieberman suggested continuing the fuel center pending design revisions. Mr. Johnson agreed to change the motion to approve the pharmacy drive-thru as conditioned and continue the fuel center request pending revisions to be more consistent with the PUD. Mr. Eastwood seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission January 4, 2006 Case No. DR/05-55 Design review of signage for Hoffman Heating and Cooling, 1709 S. Greeley St. Dennis Doerr, applicant. Present representing the applicant was Corey Halverson. Mr. Johnson stated the Commission's previous concern -was with the starkness of the white background. Mr. Halverson said that concern could be addressed by dropping the wattage or placing some type of luminescent paneling behind the lettering. Mr. Johnson suggested perhaps some shade of blue might be appropriate. Mr. Johnson moved to approve the signage with the condition that the signage is centered on the building and some type of blue colored translucent panel is placed behind the signage, with the additional condition that the final plan be reviewed by staff before installation. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Other items: At Mr. Zahren's request, there was a general discussion about reader boards and how a particular reader board was installed if such signage is against the ordinance. Mr. Lieberman noted that all applicants have the right to appeal Commissions' decisions to the Council, and he spoke to procedures of enforcement. There was a question about a mechanism for follow-up to determine if plans approved by the HPC are actually what is finally constructed. Mr. Johnson noted that the HPC is not an enforcement tool, that is a staff function. Ms. Fitzgerald said staff now signs off on all plans, according to how the plans were approved by the HPC. Mr. Eastwood suggested the HPC should have design review of all commercial projects in the City; Mr. Johnson suggested it would be wise to get the infill design guidelines approved before taking on review of all commercial projects. A copy of the Chamber's Historic District Committee's response to the recently approved revised Design Manual for the Historic Downtown District was included in the agenda packet. Two concerns were highlighted in the response. Ms. Fitzgerald said a color pallet appropriate to the Victorian tradition was being prepared to address the concern related to color guidelines. The concern regarding height and proportion of new buildings she said is currently being addressed by the Planning Commission, which is considering a revision to the height guidelines. Mr. Zahren said the Historic District Committee would like an HPC member to attend one of its meetings to discuss the guidelines and said he thought that would be a good move on the HPC's part. Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Tomten agreed to attend the Historic District Committee's Jan. 12 meeting. Ms. Fitzgerald distributed a draft copy of a proposed outdoor lighting ordinance and asked members to review the draft for discussion at the February meeting. Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Eastwood, moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary