Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-16 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North January 16th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of December 19th, 2018 regular meeting minutes IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items; listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case No. 2018-32: Consideration of a Design permit to allow a small wireless facility on the property located at 227 Main St S. Property located in the CBD district. Neon, LLC, property owner. 2. Consideration of approval of a Demolition Designation Study for 709 2nd Street South. Scott and Rebecca Johnson, property owners. VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – VERBAL UPDATE ONLY 3. Case No. 2018-29 Appeal 4. 2019 Grant Applications VIII. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING December 19, 2018 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Hadrits, Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Welty Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of November 7, 2018 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2018 meeting. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2018-31: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage at the property located at 310 Main Street South in the Downtown Commercial Historic District. Jill and Justin Kaufenberg, property owners. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. CONTINUED BUSINESS There was no continued business. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2018-30: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage and exterior paint. Property located at 120 Main Street North in the Downtown Commercial Historic District. Katherine Francis, property owner and Kristy Wilson, applicant. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 19, 2018 Page 2 of 4 City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting approval of exterior painting of the existing black wooden façade elements to gray and light blue-green; and the installation of one 36” by 24” projecting painted foam sign to be hung from the existing umbrella bracket. The sign would be white with light blue-green lettering, reading “Uptown Curl.” Staff recommends approval with six conditions. Commissioner Mino asked for clarification about the material for the hanging sign. Todd, St. Croix Signs, stated the foam is a high density urethane which is often used as a wood substitute. The letters will project from the background. The background will be a semi-gloss smooth finish. It will be indistinguishable from a wood sign. Chairman Larson pointed out one of the staff-recommended conditions is that the sign will have a matte finish. He asked if eggshell would be acceptable. Todd replied yes, eggshell would be OK. Council Representative Junker and Commissioner Hadrits said they were surprised that the umbrella bracket from the previous tenant will remain. Commissioner Hadrits suggested a standard black metal bracket. City Planner Wittman stated that brackets need to be installed above head height. Because of the windows, this is likely a metal band so a new bracket might need to be affixed into the brick. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2018-30, Design Permit for new business signage and exterior paint for the property located at 120 Main Street North, with the six conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #2 to state that the sign shall have a matte or eggshell finish. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-29: Consideration of a Design Permit Amendment for the Crosby Hotel to allow for landscape screening of at-grade mechanical equipment and the installation of four Main Street balconies at the property located at 232 Main Street North in the CBD District. Property owner, Anne Loff. Ms. Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of four 4-5 foot deep balconies on the east elevation’s second and third stories, and a modified screening plan to allow for only landscaping as screening around all mechanical units. Staff finds that the proportion of the proposed Main Street balconies is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood and are not in harmony with the design of adjacent development; and that the landscaping alone does not conform to City code for screening nor Downtown Design Review District guidelines regarding utility and mechanical areas. Staff also finds that while the installation of a wooden gate visible from Main Street introduces a new material to the site, wood fences around mechanical equipment are not uncommon downtown. Staff has no recommendation because the HPC has already acted on these requests in the past. Chris Diebo, Hotel Crosby, acknowledged that the balconies were requested a year ago. He went back to the City Council about six months ago to see if he could come before the HPC sooner and the Council denied that opportunity, so he had to wait the full year. He invited the HPC members to view the property. Regarding the screening, City Planner Wittman reminded the Commission that they originally approved dark metal screening panels to match the metal on the building. Mr. Diebo said the reason for eliminating the black vinyl/metal siding is that it didn’t look nice from Main Street. He pointed out locations where landscaping would look better. He said he is completely open to the HPC’s direction. Another idea was a black chain link fence with fabric woven in the middle with a small door, which he feels would look just as nice as wood, possibly with some big potted trees. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 19, 2018 Page 3 of 4 For consistency, Commissioner Hadrits said she would like to see the metal around the cooler. She loves the idea of potted greenery along the walkway. Chairman Larson asked if access to the units is the main concern of the screens and if the screen could be used as originally shown. Mr. Diebo replied that would require cutting access panels and rescreening the screen because the louvers don’t let in enough air. Chairman Larson said the screening on the Johnny’s TV side and the two areas in the back don’t concern him as much as the front alley. He prefers the screen as originally proposed it if it’s doable, or a heavy timber material similar to the inside of the hotel. The Commission currently has no example of the wood that would be used. He is inclined to trust the applicant on the landscaping. Mr. Diebo offered to send in some pictures of the timber examples. Chairman Larson reminded him to include information on the width, full or partial, and what the materials would look like. Regarding the screening, the Commission consensus was to favor the tall grass plantings, not to press for the metal as originally approved. Mr. Diebo then led discussion of the balconies, acknowledging that the architect had a lot of issues. The reason Mr. Diebo respectfully disagrees with the staff findings is that there are many balconies visible from Main Street. The balconies are meant to go along with the awning on the front of the building. The little railings that are up now don’t look right. He would like the Commission to reconsider what they denied a year ago with the justification that they approved the steel awning. He offered to cap the balconies with an awning to make them appear embedded into the building. They are an important piece aesthetically. He used the example of Mills on Main balconies where their residents can watch the sights and sounds of downtown. Chairman Larson pointed out there are no balconies hanging out anywhere on Main Street. The building has turned out very well. The Juliette balconies seem to fit the neighborhood better. Mr. Diebo reiterated that there are other balconies downtown. He asked why is it not appropriate for Main Street. Chairman Larson replied it’s a matter of degree. The façade on Main Street is special. Mr. Diebo said he respects that, but disagrees. It is not only Main Street but also the alleys and side streets that make Stillwater what it is. The awning and the balconies were meant to all flow together in the front. Councilmember Junker noted the same architect that did Mills on Main, with its recessed balconies, designed the Crosby. Chairman Larson added that Mills has emerged as a standard partly because it keeps the balcony from the street. The activities on the balcony are much more visible from the side than they are from Main Street. Mr. Diebo said it seems unfair and inconsistent to deny balconies just because they are on Main Street. He pointed to the Water Street Inn and other buildings as examples. Commissioner Mino acknowledged the Commission is not opposed to balconies but doesn’t want to see them on Main Street. If the design had initially called for them being recessed, the Commission may have have approved it. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 19, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Steinwall said the Commission must follow the guidelines as noted in the staff report. Architecture needs to reflect the surrounding buildings. There is an emphasis on similarity to adjacent façades. New buildings are not to stand out against the others but to be compatible. A protruding deck is a very modern feature that is not consistent with the façades along Main Street. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve the screening as proposed for Case No. 2018-29, Design Permit Amendment for the Crosby Hotel to allow for landscape screening of at-grade mechanical equipment at 232 Main Street North, with the four conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #3 to state, “the wood screening shall be installed as to eliminate view of the external cooler and mechanical equipment while not blocking exiting onto a public way. The heavy timber screening, designed to match the interior wood timbers, shall be stained, sealed and maintained by the property owner,” and to deny the four Main Street balconies as requested. Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Krakowski voting nay. Ms. Wittman pointed out all decisions by the HPC are appealable to the Council. FYI STAFF UPDATES 2019 Work Plan City Planner Wittman provided the 2019 work plan and noted the Zoning Administrator position is vacant. 2019 Meeting Schedule Ms. Wittman provided the 2019 meeting schedule. HPC Vacancy (Washington County Historical Society Representative) Ms. Wittman stated that Bob Goodman has resigned from the Commission leaving an open seat. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to thank Mr. Goodman for his service on the HPC. Motion passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-32 APPLICANT: Lauren Miller, SAC Wireless, representing Neon LLC, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for a rooftop addition to the structure located at 227 Main Street South, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District ZONING: Central Business District COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU – Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of the installation of a small wireless facility to be located on the rooftop of the structure located at 227 Main Street South, a contributing building in the Commercial Historic District. The facility will be comprised:  A new, non-penetrating sled mount for the entire facility; and  Two mounting pipes; and  A KMW antenna located on the southerly antennae mounting pipe; and  Necessary mechanical equipment. The entire footprint of the facility will be (approximately) 9’ by 9’ and be situated 5’ off the front property line and 3’ off the southerly property line. The mounting pipe are proposed to extend 5’ above the parapet line whereas the antenna will be located (approximately) 3’ about the parapet line. HPC Case No. 2018-32 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES As the property has been designated as a Heritage Preservation Site due to its significance within the Commercial Historic District, the commission’s decisions must use the following (applicable) guidelines (as found in City Code Section 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission) to evaluate applications for site alterations:  Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment or to use a property for its originally intended purposes.  All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. Site Alteration Guideline Staff Analysis in conjunction with Downtown Design Review District Guidelines Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment or to use a property for its originally intended purposes. The property owner gained Planning Commission approval for a distillery and bar to be located on the lower level. With the City Council’s January 8th adoption of Ordinance No. 1121, small wireless facility uses are not permitted on private lands. Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. Screen exterior…transformers and air conditioning units from view of nearby streets and adjacent structures. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from public view. While the installation will not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, the installation is not proposed to be screened from view. Whenever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in a manner that if the additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The applicant’s specifications and details indicate the wireless facility will be installed on a non-penetrating CommScope sled mount. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS While the applicant is proposing minimal alteration to the site, the design is not in conformance with the Downtown Design Review District guideline that “all rooftop equipment shall be screened from public view”. HPC Case No. 2018-32 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 3 ALTERNATIVES The HPC has alternatives related to this request. A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards and the standards set forth for Site Alteration Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2018-32. Staff recommends, at a minimum, the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department dated November 30, 2018 2. The installation shall conform to City Code Chapter 24. 3. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed alteration is not consistent with the guidelines nor conforms to the Zoning Code and would therefore recommend denial of HPC Case. No. 2018-32. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative Plans and Specifications (3 pages) HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: January 16, 2019 CASE NO.: 2018-25 APPLICANT: Rebecca and Scott Johnson, property owners REGARDING: Consideration of the acceptance of the Demolition Designation Study for the residential structure located at 709 2nd Street South ZONING: RB – Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR – Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND On October 17, 2018, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered a request from Scott and Rebecca Johnson for the demolition of their residential structure located at 709 2nd Street South. The HPC denied the demolition permit on the basis there was a feasible alternative to demolition of this historic resource. On November 13, 2018, the City Council upheld the HPC’s decision and ordered the preparation of a Demolition Designation Study (Study). The Study was prepared by Streamline Associates, LLC, and submitted to the City on December 21, 2018. DEMOLITION DESIGNATION STUDY FINDINGS The Study finds the structure is not a historic resource and not eligible for local listing as a Historically Significant Structure. However, as previously indicated by staff, the structure HPC Case 2018-25 709 2nd Street South January 16, 2019 is eligible to be considered as a designating structure in the City’s eligible East Half, Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter’s Addition Local Historic District. DISCUSSION City Code Section 34-4, Subd. 2(2)(b)(iii)1 indicates “if the city council does not approve the preparation of the designation study within 30 days of the commission determination”, then the building official shall issue the demolition permit. The City Council authorized the preparation of the Study within 30 days. The Code further states “if the completed designation study is not approved within 180 days of the commission determination”, then the demolition, again, must be approved. However, the Code does not specify who must approve or deny the Study. The 180 day shot clock for the Study approval is Monday, April 15, 2019. The Code lastly states “if the city council denies implementation of the designation after completion of the designation study, then the building official shall issue the demolition permit”. The code does not specifically state what happens when findings, such as this, are made. As the structure has been determined to not be a historic resource but a part of an eligible Historically Significant Site, it appears the Commission has the following options: 1. Accept/approve the Study. If the Commission accepts (approves) the study, it acknowledges the structure is not a historic resource, eligible for individual listing, but is a contributing building in an eligible (but not listed) historic district. If the HPC approves the study, his would mean the HPC may: a. Move to authorize the demolition of the structure. b. Move to table consideration of the demolition of the structure for determination to be made no later than April 15, 2019. c. Move to begin designation of the eligible East Half, Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter’s Addition Local Historic District. However, it is unlikely designation of this district could occur within the three months’ time period. Additionally, even if the district is listed, the City Code does not specifically state a contributing building in a local district cannot be demolished. Therefore, on April 15, 2019, the demolition permit could be issued. 2. Reject/deny the Study. If the Commission rejects (denies) the study, it does not accept the findings and would like to continue to pursue individual listing of the structure. Under this scenario, the HPC would need to hold a public hearing (with 30 days advanced legal notice), consult with the State Historic Preservation Office, and solicit input from the Planning Commission prior to making a recommendation for designation to the City Council. The City Council, too, would need to hold a public hearing prior to their consideration. If the City Council denies the implementation of the designation, then the demolition permit may be issued. HPC Case 2018-25 709 2nd Street South January 16, 2019 ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Streamline Associates, LLC Demolition Designation Study HISTORIC DESIGNATION STUDY FOR 709 SECOND STREET SOUTH STILLWATER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA Prepared for: City of Stillwater Prepared by: Streamline Associates, LLC 400 S. 4th Street, Suite 401-207 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Principal Investigator: Andrew J. Schmidt December 2018 Designation Study i 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The owners of 709 Second Street South in Stillwater have applied for a City of Stillwater (City) permit to demolish the house on that property. Because the house was built prior to 1946, the City is reviewing whether the property is eligible for listing as a local Heritage Preservation Site, a contributing building in an eligible draft or listed historic district, or a National Register listed structure or site. Pursuant to this review, the City has contracted with Streamline Associates, LLC (Streamline) to complete a historical designation study. To complete the evaluation, Streamline applied the criteria for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site (City Code 22-7 Subd. 4(2)) and assessed the historic integrity of the building. The subject property comprises the north 80 feet of Lot 27 and all of Lot 28, Block 2 of Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter’s Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. The property consists of 0.22 acres in the NE-NE ¼, Sec. 33, T30N, R20W. Andrew Schmidt was the Principal Investigator. The investigation included both a literature search and field survey component. Based on this study, Streamline recommends that 709 Second Street South is not individually eligible for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site, but that the property does contribute to the eligible historic district: Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Addition, East Half, Historic District. Designation Study ii 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 DESIGNATION STUDY ............................................................................................................... 4 3.0 EVALUATION RESULTS .................................................................................................. 5 3.1 DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 HISTORICAL B ACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 6 3.4 EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 13 5.0 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................... 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Property Location ............................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Property Parcel................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Historic District Boundaries ........................................................................... 12 Designation Study 1 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 1.0 INTRODUCTION The owners of 709 Second Street South in Stillwater have applied for a City of Stillwater (City) permit to demolish the house on that property (Figure 1). Because the house was built prior to 1946, the City is reviewing whether the property is eligible for listing as a local Heritage Preservation Site, a contributing building in an eligible draft or listed historic district, or a National Register listed structure or site. Pursuant to this review, the City has contracted with Streamline Associates, LLC (Streamline) to complete a historical designation study. To complete the evaluation, Streamline applied the criteria for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site (City Code 22-7 Subd. 4(2)) and assessed the historic integrity of the building. The subject property comprises the north 80 feet of Lot 27 and all of Lot 28, Block 2 of Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter’s Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota (Figure 2). The property consists of 0.22 acres in the NE-NE ¼, Sec. 33, T30N R20W. Andrew Schmidt was the Principal Investigator. The investigation included both a literature search and field survey component. ^_ MN WI IA SD ND MI g02,0001,000 Scale in Feet Map Reference: USGS 7.5" Quadrangles,Stillwater, Minnesota STREAMLINE ASSOCIATES 709 Second Street SouthStillwater, Minnesota Figure 1Property Location File: 7092ndSt_F1_PL.mxd Legend ^_Property Location S 1st StS 2nd StE Willard St S Br o a d wa y Hill St S 2nd St g010050 Scale in Feet Map Reference: Metropolitan Counciland Surdex CorporationTwin Cities, Minnesota, Spring 2016 STREAMLINE ASSOCIATES 709 Second Street SouthStillwater, Minnesota Figure 2Property Parcel File: 7092ndSt_F2_PP.mxd Legend Property Parcel Parcel Boundaries Designation Study 4 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 2.0 METHODS 2.1 OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to evaluate the property at 709 Second Street South for eligibility for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site by the City. The evaluation consisted of application of the criteria for designation (City Code 22-7 Subd. 4(c)), as well as the aspects of historic integrity. Streamline’s investigation was also guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716). Fieldwork and preparation of the final report with recommendations were completed by an architectural historian who meets the standards set forth in 36 CFR 61. Andrew Schmidt was the Principal Investigator. 2.2 DESIGNATION STUDY To gather historical information on the property, Streamline completed background research at the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the City of Stillwater, the Stillwater Public Library, and the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) library. The historic contexts developed for Stillwater and reports of previous historical surveys were reviewed. The history of the property had been researched as part of the previous neighborhood survey, and Streamline conducted additional research in city directories, census records, and newspaper articles. As part of the evaluation, Streamline conducted an intensive-level survey of the property to assess its current conditions and historic integrity. Field documentation consisted of a detailed written description and digital photographs. Using information gathered through the research and fieldwork, Streamline evaluated the propert y for local designation eligibility by applying the seven local criteria of significance. In addition, the property’s historic integrity was assessed using the aspects of integrity of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The evaluation of eligibility includes a description and historical background for the property, and analysis of its significance and integrity. Designation Study 5 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 3.0 EVALUATION RESULTS 3.1 DESCRIPTION The house at 709 Second Street South is located on an over-sized lot south of the intersection of Second and Willard Streets (see Appendix A for photographs). The house is on the front of the lot and a detached garage, accessed via a driveway, is at the back of the lot. The neighborhood primarily consists of single-family houses built during the late- nineteenth century, with some institutional buildings, such as St. Michael’s Church and School north of Willard Street and a limited amount of later infill construction. Many of the houses on Second Street South were built on one-and-a-half or two lots, providing them with spacious yards. The house is a story-and-a-half, front-gable vernacular building with a limestone foundation, asbestos-shingle siding, and an asphalt-shingle roof. The primary (west) façade is arranged with a large, multiple-light, fixed sash picture window and the main entrance on the first story, and two windows in the upper half story. The entrance is accessed via stone steps and is covered by a gabled wood canopy with decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails. The window openings have wide wood surrounds and wood-sash storms, and the upper windows are four-over-four wood sash. The north façade is broken only by two four-over-four wood-sash windows. A one-story gable-roofed addition extends from the east façade and a shed-roofed entry porch wraps around the rear portion of the south façade. The addition rests on a poured concrete foundation and has masonite-type hardboard siding. The windows are casement sash, and door is located on the east façade. The entry porch has a concrete-slab foundation, and square wood posts support the shed roof, which covers an entrance and a pair of one-over-one wood-sash windows. The two-car garage, which was built in 1971, has a concrete foundation, Masonite-type hardboard siding, and a cross gabled roof. Two garage doors are located on the west façade, flanking a center entrance. 3.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES From the 1980s to the 2000s, a series of historic preservation studies was completed for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). In the late-1980s, two surveys were completed, including a National Register survey of downtown (Larson 1989; Roberts 1989). These efforts were greatly bolstered in the early 1990s by the development of citywide historic contexts (Vogel 1993). This study developed the contextual framework for evaluating the historic significance of the city’s built environment by identifying significant events, patterns, and persons in Stillwater’s history. Relevant historic contexts identified in this study include: • Stillwater and St. Croix Triangle Lumbering (1843-1914) • Stillwater Town Planning and Development (1844-1945) • Development of Residential Neighborhoods in Stillwater (1850s-1940s) Designation Study 6 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater • Stillwater City, Washington County and State Government (1840s-1940s) In addition, the historic context study divided the city into Historic Preservation Planning Areas for future neighborhood surveys. From the late-1990s to the late-2000s, 10 neighborhood surveys were completed, including the east half of Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter’s Addition (Empson 2003). In these surveys, properties and historic districts were recommended for National Register listing or Heritage Preservation Site designation. In the survey of the Second Street South neighborhood, no properties were recommended as eligible for National Register listing (Empson 2003). In a 2006 capstone study, 61 properties citywide were recommended eligible for “Stillwater Landmark” designation, and an additional 370 properties were recommended as “Heirloom Houses,” described as houses that, “had a strong sense of their original integrity.” The house at 709 Second Street South was not listed among these properties (Empson 2006). The 2006 study recommended that the east half of Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter’s Addition was eligible for local designation as a historic district, bounded by Fourth, Orleans, First, and Willard Streets (Empson 2006). In 2013, this area was further studied for historic district potential, and it was recommended that a smaller area, bounded by Fourth, Hancock, First, and Willard Streets, was eligible for designation as the Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Addition, East Half, Historic District (Hoisington 2013). It was recommended that the historic district meets designation criterion 1, due to the high concentration of nineteenth century houses (86 of 101). The historic district retained a high-degree of historic integrity, and only 16 of the 101 properties were recommended as non-contributing. 709 Second Street South was recommended as contributing to the historic district. 3.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Stillwater was established in 1843, and with a seemingly unlimited supply of timber upstream on the St. Croix River, the townsite soon became a lumber milling center. As Euro-American settlement moved up the Mississippi River Valley and west onto the prairies during the 1850s, Stillwater mills supplied the new cities and farmsteads with lumber, doors, sash, and other millwork. In addition, as an early population center, Stillwater was awarded the territorial (later state) prison in 1849. As Stillwater grew, reaching nearly 2,400 in population by 1860, the city outgrew the lower river terrace and began to expand up the bluffs. Although development in the area south and southwest of downtown, known as South Hill, was limited by the steps and winding trails that provided access, the city continued growing and in 1870 reached a population of 4,124 (information in this paragraph is taken from various sections in Vogel 1993 and U.S. Census Bureau). One solution to the geographic limits imposed by the bluffs was to provide better street access. One such project was the 3rd Street re-grade, which was undertaken during 1869- 1870 to provide better access to the new Washington County Courthouse recently built at 3rd and Walnut Streets. The project accomplished this through a combination of filling and grading of a ravine to extend 3rd Street up the bluff. This project had the additional benefit Designation Study 7 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater of promoting residential development in the South Hill neighborhood, thereby providing housing for the city’s burgeoning population, which had nearly doubled during the 1860s. Socrates Nelson, a partner in Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter’s Addition subdivision in the South Hill neighborhood, promoted the extension of 3rd Street and donated the land for the courthouse in order to spur sales of lots (Empson 2003). In addition to the courthouse, the Central School and St. Michael’s Church were built at the intersection of 3rd and Walnut Streets. With these institutions and street access, the lots began to sell and new neighborhoods sprouted in the South Hill area. With these new neighborhoods, as well as the North Hill and Dutchtown areas, by 1880, Stillwater’s population had reached 9,055, and by 1900, it was 12,818 (U.S. Census Bureau 1880, 1900). The 2003 survey report for the east half of Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter’s Addition provided historical background for 709 Second Street South: Seymour, Sabin & Company purchased Lot 28, Block 2, in 1872. Seymour, Sabin was primarily a manufacturing company using the prison labor on a contract basis, but they also built houses on speculation. This medium sized house, which today has the number, 709 S. Second Street, was one of those. Within three years, the house had been sold to John F. Conklin, for many years, the Street Commissioner (somewhat equivalent to the head of Public Works) for the City of Stillwater (Empson 2003: 42). [Note: Empson drew from Washington County deed records, Stillwater Assessor’s records, and city directories.] Although no building permit was issued at the time the house at 709 Second Street South was built, Empson’s sources indicate a build date between 1872 and 1875. The 1888 Sanborn map is the earliest coverage for the 700 block of Second Street South, and it indicates a story-and-a-half dwelling with a full-width front porch and a one-story wing on the rear. In addition, by 1888 a story-and-a-half building, numbered 709 ½, was located at the back of the lot and may have been used to house boarders. These back-lot buildings appear to have been common in the neighborhood and likely were a result of Stillwater’s rapid population growth in a confined geographic area. The back-lot building numbered 709 ½ was removed between 1904 and 1910 (Sanborn Map Company 1888, 1904, 1910). Recent building permits indicate that the garage was built in 1971, and the current one- story addition was built in 1983 (City of Stillwater 1971, 1983). John F. Conklin was born in Ireland about 1820, and little is known of his life prior to coming to Stillwater. He and his wife Beatrice both emigrated from Ireland, living in New York and Wisconsin before coming to Minnesota by 1864. They had three children, George F. (born 1854), Cornelius M. (1856), and Adeline (1864). Sometime between 1870 and 1875, John Conklin was appointed as the Stillwater Street Commissioner, a position he held until 1881. In 1880, both sons lived with John and Beatrice and worked as railroad conductors; daughter Adeline and a boarder, Gustave Steve, also lived there. By 1882, George Walters was the Street Commissioner, and John Conklin was no longer listed in the city directory. Cornelius Conklin continued living at 709 Second Street South through 1885. By 1887, no Conklins are listed in the Stillwater city directory (Barrett 1887; Bunn & Phillippi 1884; Davison and Moore 1881, 1882; Minnesota State Census 1875, 1885; Designation Study 8 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater Pryor & Co. 1876; St. Paul Daily Globe 1879; Stillwater Gazette 1870; Stillwater Messenger 1875b; United States Census Bureau 1880). Stillwater city directories indicate that, over the three decades after 1890, the residents at 709 Second Street South changed every few years, as listed below. • 1894 Ida Erickson, domestic • 1898 Bartlett Smith, driver at US Express Co, boarder John Darrah • 1900 Henry P. and Cora M. Pfleger, butcher Ferdinand Kirchoff • 1902 Cora M. Pfleger, widow of Henry P. • 1906 Frank Mehlhorn, cashier Northern Express Co., and Edith Mehlhorn, nurse • 1914-1917 Elliott Prince, laborer at Minnesota Mercantile Co. Arleigh Prince, boarder • 1912 Edward Dodge, engineer Then, from the late-1910s to the early-1930s, James S. Montgomery, a guard at the state prison, lived at 709 Second Street South with his wife, Frances C. By 1940, George and Theresa McHugh lived at the property; George was a guard at the state prison, and the couple had been renting the house less than five years (United States Census Bureau 1940). From ca. 1945-1955, Warren E. and Esther M. Carlson owned the property. Warren worked as a maintenance mechanic and welder prior to moving to West Olive Street in 1956 and starting Warren Carlson Refrigeration and Heating (Polk 1945-1956). During the late-1950s, John O. Bjugan, a teacher at the Junior High School, and his wife Gloria owned the property. Through the 1960s, Eugene W. Holger, a machine operator at Northwest Refining, and his wife Margaret, owned the property (Polk 1958-1968). The house at 709 Second Street South was built by Seymour, Sabin & Company, which during the 1870s, was one of Stillwater’s largest businesses. The 2001 Carli and Schulenburg Addition survey report provides historical background for Seymour, Sabin & Company (Empson 2001: 23-26). The company was formed between 1868 by George Seymour and Dwight Sabin. Seymour had come to Stillwater in 1859 and, working as a carpenter, was awarded a contract in 1861 to construct several buildings at the state prison. Sabin came to Stillwater in 1867 and, having experience managing his late father’s company, joined with Seymour to form Seymour, Sabin & Company. In 1870, the company built a hospital building within the prison and the Deputy Warden’s residence adjacent to the prison. The company was awarded a contract for use of prison labor and several shop buildings and, combined with its lumber mill outside the prison walls, manufactured wood products, including sash, doors, blinds, and barrels. In 1874, the company began manufacturing threshers, including the popular Minnesota Chief thresher. By this time, the company employed nearly 1,000 men, including 360 convicts, and had begun diversifying outside of manufacturing. By 1881, Seymour, Sabin no longer had a contract with the state prison, and without the low-cost convict labor, had been losing money and turned to large-scale residential development. The City of Stillwater paid Seymour, Sabin $100,000 in bond funds to built Designation Study 9 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 100 houses within the city. Most of these houses were built in Dutchtown and in Sabin’s Addition. Despite this capital, plus another $100,000 from the City, $3 million raised from a public stock offering, and a reorganization that formed the Northwestern Manufacturing & Car Company, the new company filed for bankruptcy in 1884. By this time George Seymour had little involvement with the company, and Dwight Sabin, though officially President of the company, was serving as a U.S. senator. 3.4 EVALUATION The Stillwater City Code, in Section 22-7, Subd. 4, empowers the Stillwater HPC to recommend to the City Council properies for consideration to be designated heritage preservation sites. In considering properties for designation, the HPC is directed to apply seven criteria. 1. The character, interest or value as part of the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or county When the house at 709 Second Street South was built circa 1875, it was part of the newly developing South Hill neighborhood, which was opened to residential development through the extension of Third Street South in 1869-1870. Prior to this, access was limited to steps and winding paths up the bluff. This association, however, is general, and the property does not have any significant associations with the development of the neighborhood. For example, it is not an early example in the neighborhood or even in the 700 block of Second Street South, where several houses pre-date it. Furthermore, it is not a large or ornate house or otherwise distinctive. The house is part of the fabric of the neighborhood, however, which as been identified as an eligible historic district (see below). It should be noted that the house at 709 Second Street South was built on speculation by Seymour, Sabin & Company, which was a significant business enterprise in Stillwater during the 1870s and early 1880s. However, the house did not play a significant role in the operations of the company, nor is it associated with Dwight Sabin, president of the company and a U.S. senator. Furthermore, the house is one of many built on speculation by the company. 2. The location as a site of a significant historic event A review of previous studies and the current research have identified no significant historic events at 709 Second Street South. 3. The identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the city’s culture and development Generally, the residents at 709 Second Street South during the late-nineteenth and early- twentieth centuries lived there for short durations and did not distinguished themselves as historically significant. The first owner, John F. Conklin, served as Stillwater’s Street Commissioner from the early 1870s to 1881. Although there was potential significance for that reason, Conklin does not seem to have led major initiatives or otherwise distinguished himself during his tenure. For example, the extension of Third Street South up the bluff was a major public works initiative, opening the South Hill neighborhood for residential Designation Study 10 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater development. The Third Street project, however, was completed by 1870, prior to Conklin’s appointment as Street Commissioner. 4. The embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form or treatment The house at 709 Second Street South is an example of a builder-designed house from the late-nineteenth century. As such it is not an example of a particular architectural style or treatment, but it is representative of the Gable-Front vernacular form identified by Vogel (1993: 64). This house, however, is one of many examples of this period and building form in Stillwater, and it is not distinctive from other examples, such as being an early use of the form. 5. The identification as work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the city’s development The house at 709 Second Street South is not known to be the work of a master architect or builder. 6. The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation As a simple vernacular house, 709 Second Street South does not embody significant architectural design qualities or details, and its front-gable form and wood framing do not represent architectural innovation. Its historic materials and craftsmanship have been partially compromised by the later asbestos shingle siding and removal of the full-width front porch, and the modest remaining materials do not represent significant craftsmanship. 7. The unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city. As a common residential building type dating from the 1870s, the house at 709 Second Street South could be considered an established and familiar visual feature within its neighborhood. However, its location is not unique, and its common physical characteristics do not represent a singularly distinctive visual feature in the neighborhood or city. Because 709 Second Street South does not meet any of the criteria as an individual property, it is not recommended for individual designation as a heritage preservation site. As noted in 3.2 Previous Studies, however, 709 Second Street South is within an area that was previously recommended for designation as the Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Addition, East Half, Historic District (Figure 3). A windshield survey completed as part of the current study confirmed that this area is a good candidate for designation as a historic district by the City. There is a high concentration of historic-period houses, and they generally retain fair to good integrity. It is recommended that the house at 709 Second Street South would contribute to this residential historic district because it was built during the main period of development of the neighborhood (1870s-1880s). The historic integrity of the house at 709 Second Street South is sufficient to contribute to the historic district. Although the asbestos siding and removal of the original porch and Designation Study 11 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater rear wing partially compromise the historic materials and workmanship, the house remains in its historic location and the gable-front form conveys its overall design qualities. Despite being currently vacant, the house has remained in residential use and retains its feeling and association. Finally, the setting of the property is good; Second Street South largely retains is historic appearance of late-nineteenth century houses on large lots. S 4th StS 3rd StS 1st StS 6th StS 5th StS 2nd St6th Ave SE Burlingto n St W Hancock St W Churchill St E Marsh St E Willard St W Marsh St E Hanc ock S t E Chu rchill St E Dubuque St W L o c u s t S tg0300150 Scale in Feet Map Reference: Metropolitan Counciland Surdex CorporationTwin Cities, Minnesota, Spring 2016 STREAMLINE ASSOCIATES 709 Second Street SouthStillwater, Minnesota Figure 3Potential Historic District Boundaries File: 7092ndSt_F3_PHD.mxd Legend Property Parcel Parcel Boundaries Potential Historic District Designation Study 13 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 4.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS The property at 709 Second Street South was evaluated for eligibility to be designated as a heritage preservation site by the City. Through application of the designation criteria, Streamline recommends that the property is not eligible for designation individually. However, the property is within the boundaries of the Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Addition, East Half, Historic District, which has been previously recommended eligible for historic designation. Although it is not individually eligible for designation, 709 Second Street South is recommended as eligible for designation as a contributing property to the eligible historic district. Designation Study 14 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 5.0 REFERENCES CITED Barrett, E. F. 1887 Stillwater City Directory. Democrat Print, Stillwater. Bunn & Phillippi 1884 Stillwater City Directory. Sun Publishing Company, Stillwater. City of Stillwater 1971 “Building Permit No. 2227.” Document on file at the City of Stillwater. 1983 “Building Permit No. 5980.” Document on file at the City of Stillwater. Davison, C. Wright and Anson Moore 1881, 1882 Stillwater City Directory. Johnson, Smith & Harrison Publishers, Minneapolis. Empson, Donald 2001 “South Half of the Carli and Schulenburg Addition Residential Area, Stillwater.” Unpublished manuscript prepared by Empson Archives for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission. 2003 “East Half of the Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter Addition Residential Area, Stillwater.” Unpublished manuscript prepared by Empson Archives for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission. 2006 “Designating Historic Homes and Historic Districts.” Unpublished manuscript prepared by Empson Archives for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission. Hoisington, Daniel J. 2013 “Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Addition, East Half, Historic District.” Draft Historic Site Designation Registration Form, Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commision. Larson, Paul Clifford 1989 “Stillwater’s Lumber Boom Architecture: An Annotated Photographic Essay.” Unpublished manuscript prepared for Rivertown Restorations, Inc., Stillwater. Minneapolis Tribune 1881 “The Prison Contract.” February 26. Minnesota State Census 1875, 1885 “Population Schedule, Stillwater, Washington, Minnesota.” Available online at www.ancestry.com. Pryor & Co. 1876 Stillwater City Directory. Pryor & Co. Publishers, Stillwater. Designation Study 15 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater R. L. Polk & Co. 1890-1962 Stillwater City Directory. R. S. Polk & Co., St. Paul. Roberts, Norene 1989 “Intensive National Register Survey of Downtown Stillwater, Minnesota.” Prepared by Historical Research, Inc. for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission. St. Paul Daily Globe 1879a “The State Prison.” January 18 1879b “Stillwater News.” April 4. Sanborn Map & Publishing Company 1884, 1888, 1891,1898,1904, 1910, 1924 “Fire Insurance Maps for Stillwater, Minnesota.” Sanborn Map & Publishing Company, New York. Stillwater Gazette 1870 “Policeman Wm. Casey Appointed Street Commissioner.” October 1. Stillwater Messenger 1875a “Log and Lumber Notes.” June 4. 1875b “City Government.” June 11. United States Census Bureau 1880 “Population Schedule, Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota.” Enumeration District: 033, Page: 250B. Available online at www.ancestry.com. 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900 Statistics of the Census of the United States. Available online at: https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html. Vogel, Robert C. 1993 “Stillwater Historic Contexts: A Comprehensive Planning Approach.” Unpublished manuscript prepared by Robert C. Vogel & Associates for the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission.” Appendix A PHOTOGRAPHS Designation Study A-1 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 709 Second Street South, looking east 709 Second Stree South, looking southeast Designation Study A-2 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 709 Second Street South, looking northeast 709 Second Street South, looking east Designation Study A-3 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater 709 Second Street South, looking northwest 709 Second Street South, garage, looking east Designation Study A-4 709 Second Street South Streamline Associates, LLC City of Stillwater Second Street South, east side, looking southeast Second Street South, west side, looking southwest