Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-02-11 HPC Packet
AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North February 11th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of January 16th, 2019 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. 2019-01: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new home in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Property located at 401 Wilkins St W. Ann Thompson, property owner and Scott McCormack, applicant. VII. NEW BUSINESS 2. Case No. 2019-02: Consideration of a Design Permit to remodel the existing store front on the property located at 214-216 Main St S in the CBD district. Michael Lynskey Sr, property. VIII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES – VERBAL UPDATE ONLY 3. Case No. 2018-29 Appeal 4. 2019 Grant Applications IX. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING January 16, 2019 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 December 19, 2018 meeting minutes Commissioner Steinwall requested that on page 3, paragraph 7, “Mr. Diebold led discussion about the balconies” be changed to “The applicant spoke about the balconies.” Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2018 meeting as amended. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM Matthew Wolf, one of the owners of the historic armory property, informed the Commission that substantial rehabilitation projects are being considered, including HVAC changes, brick repair and possibly redoing historic windows and entrances. Building uses will be office, residential units, and/or a brewery/distillery. He will submit application materials next month. CONSENT AGENDA There was no business on the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2018-32: Consideration of a Design Permit to allow a small wireless facility on the property located at 227 Main Street South in the CBD district. Neon, LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting approval of the installation of a small wireless facility 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 of: 1) a new, non-penetrating sled mount; 2) two mounting pipes; 3) a KMW antenna located on the southerly antennae mounting pipe; and 4) necessary mechanical equipment. The footprint of the facility will be approximately 9’ by 9’. It will be situated 5’ off the front property line and 3’ off the south property line. The mounting pipes are proposed to extend 5’ above the parapet line and the antenna will be located approximately 3’ above the parapet line. Staff finds that the design is not in conformance with the Downtown Design Review District guideline that Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 2 of 6 “all rooftop equipment shall be screened from public view” or with the Zoning Code and therefore recommends denial. Joe Goldshlack, SAC Wireless (Site Acquisition contractor for AT&T), explained how small cells are designed to fill coverage gaps. The intent is to make them as small and unobtrusive as possible. The company understands the need for preservation of the City’s historic character and is willing to modify the plans to create a design that works for Stillwater. AT&T would have preferred a pole in the right-of-way but there were no available poles. He addressed the newly passed ordinance prohibiting small cell facilities on private property and referred to Section 35-512 Subd. 5b stating antennae are allowed if they pass through design review. His company feels it is splitting hairs whether it is a small cell or an antenna; the function is the same. He pointed out the City’s ordinance was adopted on January 8, 2019 and the application was filed on December 13, 2018. On September 26, 2018 the FCC issued a declaratory order and guidelines stating that cities should avoid regulations that effectively prohibit cellular installations and upgrades. City Planner Wittman pointed out that the City ordinance addresses use. The HPC doesn’t look at use, it looks at design. She added that City Attorney Land believes because the application was submitted prior to adoption of the ordinance, the HPC needs to act on it and determine whether the design is appropriate. Councilmember Junker asked Mr. Goldshlack to further explain why this location was chosen. Mr. Goldshlack replied that engineers develop radio frequency maps to identify coverage gaps, and the facilities are then located to fill those gaps. Moving it 10’ one way or another would make a difference. The first choice was an Xcel Energy pole but Xcel denied it. Councilmember Junker remarked that with such a small radius of coverage, the City could see lots of applications for these antennae to be installed downtown in the future. Mr. Goldshlack remarked that the macro antennas that already sit on towers and buildings cover a large area. It’s where there’s a building or hill blocking it that creates these small pockets of coverage gaps. Chairman Larson asked if Mr. Goldshlack worked with City staff on this location. Mr. Goldshlack replied yes, but staff didn’t want to jump into helping figure out a design because they felt the use wasn’t going to work, so he filed an application as a way to open that door. Ms. Wittman stated that she worked with Andrew from SAC about a year ago. Since then the City had a change of legal counsel and a significant ordinance change. Chairman Larson asked if this would be the only antenna that SAC would have to put in the historic district. Mr. Goldshlack said he believes so as of today, but there’s always a chance the need will increase. However by then the antennas will be so small they won’t even be seen. In next 5-10 years he doesn’t foresee a need for a number of additional antennas. Commissioner Steinwall asked if tabling the application to give the company a chance to reconsider the design would be acceptable. Mr. Goldshlack replied yes, however they want to avoid going through the design process over and over. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Wittman noted the 60 day deadline is February 24. The next HPC meeting is February 20, within that 60 days. Staff would want materials no later than February 1. The Commission could deny the application without prejudice meaning the applicant would have a year to resubmit. Chairman Larson encouraged Mr. Goldshlack to work with staff to find a solution. He noted that the HPC prefers that mechanical equipment be screened and is especially sensitive to how buildings appear on historic Main Street. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to deny without prejudice Case No. 2018-32, Design Permit to allow a small wireless facility on the property located at 227 Main Street South due to its inconsistency with Downtown Design Review standards, and to recommend the applicant work with staff to devise an acceptable solution. Motion passed 3-2 with Commissioners Steinwall and Krakowski voting nay. Commissioner Krakowski stated he would rather table the application. Consideration of approval of a Demolition Designation Study for 709 2nd Street South. Scott and Rebecca Johnson, property owners. Ms. Wittman reviewed a Demolition Designation Study that was completed for 709 2nd Street South. The study finds the structure is not a historic resource and not eligible for local listing as a Historically Significant Structure. However, the structure is eligible to be considered a contributing structure in the City’s eligible East Half, Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter’s Addition Local Historic District. Ms. Wittman explained the Commission’s options to accept and approve the study, reject and deny the study, table the case, or move to designate the district as historic, although that probably is not possible within the 180 day window for this request. She added that someone has reached out to her regarding a possibility of purchasing the property and rehabilitating the house. Rebecca Johnson, applicant, stated the intention is to either sell the property or build a new home on it. A potential buyer is interested in buying the property if the house is demolished. Although there are several people interested in buying the house for rehab, they are not open to selling it for this purpose, because they do not want it used as rental property. They have lived next door for 22 years and seen the rental properties around them keep declining. They don’t want to live next to it if it becomes a rental. Neighbors are all in favor of tearing it down. The house is free if anyone wants to move it. Chairman Larson noted there have been instances where people have successfully renovated really worn down houses. Also in the past, people have torn down houses to have a larger yard leaving a gap where there had been a historic pattern of houses. If a demolition permit goes forward there is no assurance there will be a house built there. Ms. Wittman stated that if the HPC votes to approve and accept the Designation Study, then it really does authorize the demolition. The district is eligible for historic designation already but the ordinance does not prohibit a contributing building in a local historic district from being demolished. She doesn’t think there has been enough legwork done that the district would be able to be designated prior to April 15 - that process would take at least 6 months to a year. She reminded the Commission that this is the first time the ordinance adopted in 2012 has gone this far and it may need to be tweaked. Councilmember Junker noted if the house is moved off the property leaving an empty lot, there is no guarantee that a new house will have the same character. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Commission Mino referred to language in the staff report stating if the Commission accepts/approves the study, it acknowledges that the structure is not an historic resource. She disagrees with staff wording on this point. Ms. Wittman said that the HPC believes it is a historic resource and the consultant does not. Staff and the Commission believed it was a historic resource based on its association with events or periods of history. The consultant’s report provides the opinion that it is not eligible to be listed as a historically significant site. If the study is rejected, the Commission could direct staff to start the process for designation of this house which would involve consulting with the State Historical Society and scheduling public hearings before the HPC, the Planning Commission and the City Council. All this would have to be done no later than April 15, or demolition would be automatically approved. Chairman Larson referred to the statement in the study that the house is not recommended for individual designation. Though not individually outstanding, the house contributes as a part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Mino agreed with Chairman Larson that the house probably is not eligible for individual designation but it is part of a framework of old Stillwater. City Planner Wittman stated the ordinance reads that if the Council does not approve the preparation of a study within 30 days or the completed study is not approved within 180 days of the Commission determination, or if the Council denies implementation after the study has been done, the building official can issue the demolition permit. Commissioner Steinwall asked if it would make sense to reject the study and kick off the process of designating the district as historic, so the Planning Commission and Council can weigh in on the issues and hear from State Historic Preservation Office. Commissioner Hadrits expressed the concern that allowing the house to be demolished may set a precedent. Ms. Wittman reiterated that the Commission could deny/reject the study and send the case directly to the Council, or move to start proceedings for hearings knowing the demolition may still be allowed by the Council on the basis of the consultant’s recommendation. The existing demolition ordinance and designation ordinance are very tied to the aspect of historic architecture, the quality of craftsmanship and the history of people who lived here. It doesn’t have a lot of flexibility. Ms. Johnson pointed out that there are six rentals in the neighborhood already that are rapidly deteriorating. When she questioned the cost of $5,000 for the study, she was told by the City Attorney that the property owners cannot be charged for it because that would be counter-intuitive. This conflicts with what is in the HPC information. She feels the process was a ridiculous waste of time and money. Chairman Larson acknowledged it’s a flawed process but the Commission is trying to not make it easy for houses to be torn down. Commissioner Mino said she doesn’t completely agree that this is a bad process. There’s a purpose to the review, although there may be some challenges with the process. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall to reject and deny the designation study and initiate the process of gathering input from the Planning Commission, State Historic Preservation Office, the City Council, and public hearings, and to direct staff to start the local historic district designation process. Motion failed for lack of a second. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 16, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Hadrits, to defer the rejection or acceptance of the study to the City Council on the basis that: 1. the HPC has already determined the structure is a local historic resource, potentially eligible for local listing, and already identified it as a contributing building in an eligible local district; and 2. there may not be protections in place for even those considered contributing in a local district; and 3. demolition is contrary to the purposes of the HPC, the Neighborhood Conservation District and the Comprehensive Plan; and 4. the concern for demolition is not exclusive to historic preservation purposes but that demolition prevention aids the City in meeting other community goals, such as affordable housing. The Commission further requests a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the flaws and deficiencies of the current demolition ordinance and request; and requests that the City Council work with the HPC to update the demolition ordinance to better reflect all community policies. Commissioner Steinwall reiterated that she would like to see the City Attorney prepare an opinion about flaws identified in the ordinance in regard to HPC review of a demolition/designation study which is counter intuitive to the purpose of the HPC, Conservation District guidelines and possibly to the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed additional concern about setting a precedent for demolition of rental properties and the belief that the Planning Commission and others charged with implementing City goals should be involved because rental properties serve a niche. Commissioner Mino agreed that affordable housing should be a consideration in looking at a property. Ms. Wittman commented that a former staff member prepared the demolition guide to walk property owners through the process and she realizes that it needs to be revised. Motion passed 5-0. FYI STAFF UPDATES Case No. 2018-29 Appeal City Planner Wittman stated the Crosby Hotel’s design permit amendment appeal for full-depth balconies will go before the City Council on February 5. 2019 Grant Application Ms. Wittman said she is working on pre-applications for grants for the following: the 2020 State Historic Preservation Conference; a historic structure report for the Lowell Park gazebo; scanning about 8,000 Rivertown Restoration files; and a business plan for the Bergstein building. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Chairman Larson, to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 11, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-01 APPLICANT: Scott McCormack of McCormack Classic Construction, representing Ann Thompson, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence to be located in the Neighborhood Conservation District at 401 Wilkins Street West, a (soon to be) vacant lot in the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD). ZONING: RB-Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: LMDR-Low/Medium Density PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST On October 21, 2018 the property at 401 Wilkins Street West, constructed in 1946 and outside of the City’s periods of significance, suffered a house fire. Upon inspection by Building Official Cindy Shilts and Deputy Fire Chief Tom Ballis, it was determined the structure would not be able to be salvaged. City Code Section 22-7 Subd. 5(7) indicates “The [Heritage Preservation] commission must also assume responsibility for the design review of any dwelling house hereafter proposed for construction on now existing vacant lots or on lots that become vacant due to demolition or destruction of existing structures within the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD).” While the HPC does review new construction for conformance with the NCD guidelines, City Code Section 31-216(b) indicates “Any nonconforming use destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within one year of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property.” Given this, the property at 111 Greeley Street North is allowed to rehabilitate and repair the structure exactly as it sat prior to the fire – regardless of nonconformance with the City Code. Photo Credit: Google – August, 2013 401 Wilkins Street West HPC Case No. 2019-01 Page 2 of 5 REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a permit the reconstruction of the single family home on a new foundation. While the previous residence was two stories, the property owner is proposing to construct a one story, 8/12 pitch, gable roof home. Three sides of the home will have exposed foundation; the owner is proposing to stamp the foundation with a brick pattern. The structure will be clad in vinyl lap siding with shakes on the gabled edge of the porch. Soffit, fascia, frieze and corner boards are proposed. Marvin Integrity (fiberglass) window, in a variety of sizes, will be on three of the four sides. The new residence will have a front porch that will run across half of the front of the home; the porch will be constructed of cedar and will have two stone columns at the stairway. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS GUIDELINES AND ANALYSIS All infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines recommend the following: Neighborhood and Streets Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. While the existing home is two story, the home is proposed to be single story. Most of the homes on the 400 block are single to 1.5 stories. Therefore, the massing and scale of the new building is compatible. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. The new structure is proposed to be located in the exact location as the existing home. The front of the existing foundation is in line with properties to the west on this block. Staples Field is located directly across Martha Street, to the east. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. The proposed 8/12 pitch gable roof is not traditional for 1800s Stillwater. However, it is consistent with the neighboring houses on the south side of West Wilkins Street. A 4/12 shed roof porch is proposed; this is a common pitch for this type of porch design. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. The height of the building is consistent with the zoning code regulations, as well as the design standards for the district and adjacent properties. Building and site design should respond to natural features. Preserve significant trees. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the home in the same location as the existing home. While the home is proposed to be single story, the design does include three window wells: two on the east and one on the west. The design shows the home’s foundation as exposed on these two sides and the rear of the home; this would require significant alteration of the land. However, when scaled, it only appears that two to three feet of the foundation will be exposed. No tree loss will occur. 401 Wilkins Street West HPC Case No. 2019-01 Page 3 of 5 When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. Respect the site’s natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. No retaining walls are proposed. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The existing driveway and rear-yard garage, accessed off of Martha Street, will be retained. Minimize garage impact on new structure massing and street front. While the garage is visible from the street, it is set back on the property. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The new structure will retain the same footprint, regardless of whether or not it was nonconforming. While the structural coverage of the property will slightly increase, the structural coverage conforms to the City’s maximum 25% coverage limit. The one story mass is consistent with adjacent properties. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. An open front stoop is proposed on half of the front of the home. The front porch will be six feet in depth. While a full front porch is encouraged, no single-story residences on this block have a front porch. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. The existing accessory structure is proposed to remain as is. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. The applicant is carrying the architectural design on all four sides. However, the design materials are not consistent on all four sides. Specifically, the applicant is proposing using one trim material on the front but not on the remaining sides of the home. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the front windows have divided lites and with but not carrying these features through on all sides of the home. Architectural Detail The façade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The proposed façade is compatible with surrounding properties. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The context of this property is unique in that while the neighborhood was predominantly constructed prior to 1940, the south side of the 400 block of Wilkins was constructed later. The proposed design is similar in scale and style as the neighboring residences on this 401 Wilkins Street West HPC Case No. 2019-01 Page 4 of 5 city block, constructed 1941-1950. Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. The design is consistent with the architectural style. With the exception of the east wall face, the applicant’s use a variety of materials and window styles to help break up the facades of the structure. All material choices are modern. The applicant is proposing vinyl siding, which is consistent with siding materials of the homes constructed of this era on this block. Trim, frieze, soffit and fascia boards are proposed to be LP Smart Side on the front but not on the other three sides. No Use masonry and stone authentically. The applicant is proposing to wrap the porch columns in stone. This is not a traditional application of stone. Furthermore, the exposed foundation is proposed to be stamped with a brick pattern. If stamped foundation is desired, it should be in a similar pattern, color and texture as the porch columns. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comments have been received to date. RECOMMENDATION The HPC has alternatives to the proposal: A. Approve. If the proposed infill design review meets the Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2019-01, with or without conditions. Staff would recommend the following minimum conditions of approval. 1. With the exception of the conditions outlined herein, plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 3. The project shall utilize lap siding with a 4-6” maximum reveal. 4. Window trim, with the same level of detail and with the same materials, will be installed on all window and door openings on all four sides of the structure. 5. Siding and corner, soffit, fascia, frieze boards shall utilize the same material on all four sides. 6. Divided window lites shall be either be installed or removed on all windows. If divided window lites are preferred, grilles shall be placed on the exterior of the window panes. 7. The use of composite siding and trim on all four sides is encouraged. 8. Exterior lighting shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. 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. 401 Wilkins Street West HPC Case No. 2019-01 Page 5 of 5 B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the approved Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines, then the Commission could deny the request. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. Furthermore, the denial would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled to the next meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As noted in the Stillwater Conservation District Design Guideline Manual, the guidelines are intended to serve as a framework to guide the design process, while allowing for individuality and creativity in architectural design. While the proposed home fits with other homes on the south side of the 400 block of this street, the home lacks four-sided design the use of nontraditional materials is generally not encouraged. However, with certain conditions imposed, the project can substantially conform to the adopted guidelines and, therefore, staff recommends approval of HPC Case No. 2019-01 with conditions. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Certificate of Survey Design Review Checklist Elevations (2 pages) Site & Neighbor Photographs (3 pages) Housing Construction by Era Map STREE T AV ENUE WEST ELM STREET WEST ASPEN STREET STREETEVERETTSTREETSTI LLWAT ERWEST NORTHMARTHAWI LKI NS WEST ELM STREETSTREET µ 0 180 36090Feet General Site Location Site Location 401 Wilkins St W ^ REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" A281 3080 DR w/ SIDELIGHTS ITDH3864 A281 3080 DR w/ SIDELIGHTS 1'-0" 4/12 ROOF PITCH GULL-WING 8/12 ROOF PITCH VINYL SIDING THROUGHOUT COVERED FRONT PORCH MARVIN INTGERITY WINDOWS 8/12 ROOF PITCH CERTAINTEED SHINGLES SHAKES STONE COLUMNS (2) STEPS NEEDED TBD BY GRADING GABLE ENDS 1' ROOF OVERHANG 4 0 1 ROOF VENTILATION TO CODE A281 3080 DR w/ SIDELIGHTS ITDH3864 A281 3080 DR w/ SIDELIGHTS CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELL 1'-6" COVERED BACK DECK VINYL SIDING THROUGHOUT COVERED FRONT PORCH LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS TO HAVE WELLS (3) 8/12 ROOF PITCH 4/12 ROOF PITCH 6/12 ROOF PITCH FULL FOUNDATION LOWER LEVEL ALL NON-GABLE ROOF OVERHANG 18" FOOTING POST TBD BY GRADING CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELL 2668 2832 ITDH3060ITDHP5060ITDH3060 2668 ITDH3860ITDH3860 8/12 ROOF PITCH VINYL SIDING THROUGHOUT MARVIN INTEGRITY WINDOWS FULL FOUNDATION LOWER LEVEL COVERED BACK DECK FOOTINGS TBD BY GRADING 2668 2832 ITDH3060ITDHP5060ITDH3060 2668 ITDH3860ITDH3860 CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLSCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLS CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELL VINYL SIDING THROUGHOUT FULL FOUNDATION LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS TO HAVE WELLS (3) COVERED BACK DECK COVERED FRONT PORCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH 6/12 ROOF PITCH 4/12 ROOF PITCH CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLSCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLS CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELL 401 Wilkins St WStillwater, MN 55082SHEET:THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT ANDPROPERTY OF McCORMACK CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPEDFOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF McCORMACK CLASSICCONSTRUCTION. USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTSCONTAINED THEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OFMcCORMACK CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED AND MAYSUBJECT YOU TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. COPYRIGHT ©DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:DESCRIPTION572 128th AveHudson, WI 54016(715) 760-2211 -DATE:BYDATENO.PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Thompson HouseA-1 LEFT ELEVATION McCormack ClassicConstructionSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/17/2019 6/12 ROOF PITCH 4/12 ROOF PITCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH 6/12 ROOF PITCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH DN D/ W ITDH3860 ITDH3860 ITDH3060 ITDHP5060 ITDH3060 2668 2832 A281 28682868 2668 286826682068 40682068 26682868A2813080 DR w/ SIDELIGHTS ITDH3864 DN W P 3DM 3DM T V S D R R R R S D R SD SD SD SD SD30'-0"9'-8"3'-5 3/8"2'-4"3'-5" 3'-6" 12'-6 3/4"13'-10"13'-7 1/4" 40'-0" 2'-4"5'-2"3'-2" 3'-0"14'-10 1/4"5'-5"3'-0 3/4"6'-8"30'-0"20'-0" 7'-0"6'-0"7'-0"6'-7 1/4"3'-7 5/8"6'-11"3'-3 3/8"5'-6 3/4"7'-0" 13'-7 1/4"13'-10"12'-6 3/4" 40'-0"7'-8"2'-4"20'-0"5'-0"7'-6 3/4" 0'-0" 4'-0"3'-2"3'-2"3'-6"5'-0"3'-4 1/2"5'-2 3/4" 8'-0"10'-0"4'-2"6'-4"2'-4"4'-6"2'-0"2'-0"12'-11" X 14'-2" 1200 SQ FT 12'-11" X 6'-0" 12'-1" X 19'-4" 11'-10" X 7'-0" 20'-1" X 5'-9" 7'-1" X 5'-8" 4'-11" X 5'-0" 6'-2" X 6'-7" 13'-8" X 19'-4" 9'-6" X 8'-1" LIVING AREA GREAT ROOM ENTRY BATH LAUNDRY MASTER BATH MASTER BDRM CLOSET KITCHEN PORCH 1/2 WALL SHEETROCK RAILING 4/12 VAULTED CEILING FLAT CEILING FLAT CEILING FLAT CEILING FLAT CEILING LUXURY VINYL FLOORING LUXURY VINYL FLOORING WOOD LAMINATE FLOORING WOOD LAMINATE FLOORING WOOD LAMINATE FLOORING CLOSET LINEN CLOSET CLOSET LAMINATE COUNTERS THROUGHOUT 4/12 ROOF PITCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH 8/12 ROOF PITCH LUXURY VINYL FLOORING BENCH COVERED PORCH ATTIC ACCESS STAIR HEIGHT TBD BY GRADING 401 Wilkins St WStillwater, MN 55082SHEET:THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT ANDPROPERTY OF McCORMACK CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPEDFOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF McCORMACK CLASSICCONSTRUCTION. USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTSCONTAINED THEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OFMcCORMACK CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED AND MAYSUBJECT YOU TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. COPYRIGHT ©DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:DESCRIPTION572 128th AveHudson, WI 54016(715) 760-2211 -DATE:BYDATENO.PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Thompson HouseA-2McCormack ClassicConstructionMAIN FLOOR & ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1/17/2019 4068CW24 W/ WINDOW WELL2068 5068CW24 W/ WINDOW WELLCW24 W/ WINDOW WELLS2868286826682868 2668 UP 10'-4 15/16"12'-4"21'-8 13/16"8'-3 3/16"40'-0"10'-11"5'-4 3/4"13'-8 1/4"36'-0"20'-0"20'-0"1'-0"4'-0" 40'-0" 26'-2 1/4"2'-4"11'-5 3/4"12'-4 3/4"7'-6"5'-4"0'-10 1/4"9'-3"19'-10 3/4"35'-4"6'-0"5'-7 7/8"10'-7 7/8"3'-2 1/4"10'-6"30'-0"6'-0"7'-8"3'-1 7/8"25'-4" X 19'-1" 9'-7" X 5'-5" 1147 SQ FT 2'-0" X 7'-7" 10'-8" X 10'-0" 10'-0" X 12'-0" 18'-3" X 8'-11" FAMILY LIVING AREA MECHANICAL & STORAGE BATH CL. LINEN CARPET CARPET CARPET BEDROOM BEDROOM FULL FOUNDATION LOWER LEVEL 8' FLAT CEILING THROUGHOUT LOWER LEVEL CARPET VINYL TILE FLOORING ALL LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS TO HAVE WINDOW WELLS FOOTINGS AS NEEDED FOR PORCH ABOVE 401 Wilkins St WStillwater, MN 55082SHEET:FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPRIETARY WORK PRODUCT ANDPROPERTY OF McCORMACK CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPEDFOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF McCORMACK CLASSICCONSTRUCTION. USE OF THESE DRAWINGS AND CONCEPTSCONTAINED THEREIN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OFMcCORMACK CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION IS PROHIBITED AND MAYSUBJECT YOU TO A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. COPYRIGHT ©DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:DESCRIPTION572 128th AveHudson, WI 54016(715) 760-2211 -DATE:BYDATENO.PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Thompson HouseA-3McCormack ClassicConstruction1/17/2019 921 318618 404 306502 819 820 508 416424 411 514524 522 1004 1005 919 501 915 512 509 310 521 419 220 503 313515 301 406 314 304 422 412 511 401409415421 312 300 418 913 3111105 324 305403 1001 1204 1214 333 920 924 302 623 214 321 614 413 1114 617 909 1006 1016 215 224 402608610 216 213 505 1207 1203 1219 923 1003 814 1015 1011 211 507 309315 816 323 319 µ 0 200 400100Feet ^ General Site Location Housing Construction by E ra 0 1 - 1940 1941 - 1950 1951 - 1960 1961 - 1970 1971 - 1980 1981 - 1990 1991 - 2000 2001 - 2010 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 11, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-02 APPLICANT: Brad Smith, Traditional Construction Services, representing Michael Lynskey, Sr., property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for storefront construction and façade improvements to the structure located at 214 Main Street South 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 storefront reconstruction and other façade improvements at 214 Main Street South, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The request is three-fold: 1. Restore a wood and glass storefront on the southerly bay, commonly referred to as 216 Main Street South, occupied by Downtown Divas; and 2. Construct a northerly three-bay, two- unit storefront of painted wood and insulated glass; and 3. Paint all historic wood and decorative metal features. PROPERTY HISTORY According to the National Register Inventory listing, this structure was built circa 1884-18887 and is merely known as “Commercial Building”. “This is a two story red brick building with a flat roof. The metal cornice area has decorative brick corbelling and metal bracketed cornice. Second story windows are covered in shutters and storefront is entirely new”. Though this structure appears to have build as a single structure with the building at 224 Main Street South (the Mad Capper Saloon) or, at least, in unison with that structure, the corbelling and parapet design are different enough to where it is assumed the construction was not intended as a single building or block. Photo Credit: Google Images – August, 2018 214 Main Street South HPC 2019-02 (2/11/2019) Page 2 of 6 When referencing that area owned by the Map Capper Saloon and Eatery, the inventory record indicates “This is a two story red brick building with a flat roof. The second story windows are replacements with stone window headers painted black. The storefront had been altered with stained glass and new display windows between case iron columns. The metal cornice area has decorative brick corbelling and brackets”. It is clear the entire first floor of these four commercial spaces has been covered up. Whether or not theses were constructed as one single building or two, in unison of one another, the buildings each have a similar enough level of detail that that could either be treated as a whole or else the design could be split in two. 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: Site Alteration Guideline Staff Analysis in conjunction with Downtown Design Review District Guidelines The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible. Any new design should respect the proportions as well as the detailing of the original design and should use materials, which are consistent with those used in the original buildings. Recessed entries should be retained in existing buildings and required in new storefront construction. This storefront has been altered in the past. There are no original materials exposed on the first floor. The applicant has submitted a photograph depicting a transom window, composed of 4” glass tiles or block, and cast iron or wood columns. The applicant is proposing retaining and repairing these features. All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged; and Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, The applicant is certain the 4” glass block/tile transom window is in place behind the southerly tenant space. However, it has not been determined these features exist behind three northerly bays. The applicant has indicated it would be a desire to construct 4” glass/tile transom windows. However, without sufficient evidence these existed, replication is not encouraged. 214 Main Street South HPC 2019-02 (2/11/2019) Page 3 of 6 structure or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right and this significance shall be recognized and respected. Staff has obtained several Runk photos of the building. While these windows appear to be present as early as 1917, 1912-1913 photographs do not depict these features as clearly. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure or site shall be treated with sensitivity. The existing and historic brick, metal, stone and wood features should be preserved. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. If replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features must be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred. Aluminum doors and doorframes, aluminum windows and their accessories with a clear aluminum finish are not acceptable, although colored anodized aluminum is acceptable. The installation of a three-bay, recessed wooden storefront shall be consistent with the period of significance for the structure as well as the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken by the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage historic building materials shall not be undertaken. The existing structure has shown signs of wear. The metalwork has rusted, causing discoloration of historic features. All existing metal and wood features will be cleaned and painted, where appropriate. 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. The kick plate, or bulkhead, functions to protect the display window by raising the glass area to a safer and more easily viewed height. Historically, materials have included wood panels, stone, brick and ceramic tile. The original kick plate materials should always be retained, maintained, or uncovered when possible. The use of materials that attempt to mimic traditional materials is unacceptable. The wood kickplate is proposed to be constructed to the top of the stone foundation and water table band. Traditionally, kickplates were constructed at a greater distance from the sidewalk to the bottom edge of the storefront window. 214 Main Street South HPC 2019-02 (2/11/2019) Page 4 of 6 ANALYSIS When determining whether proposed modifications are appropriate for the structure, the HPC must determine the historical record. Three building permits1 may be relevant to the structure’s current condition but still do not provide guidance as to what the original character of the structure. In review of the historic Runk photographs, five photographs were determined to have a portion of this building in it: 1912 (#337): the structure is located on the far left-hand side of the frame. The most visible element of the first floor of the structure is a white band in the (traditional) sign band area. A recessed doorway appears to be located on the center of the northerly half of the building (i.e. that portion further away from the viewer). 1913 (#345): signs, pedestrians and flags obscure the first floor, on the right side of the frame. However, tall storefront windows appear to be located on the northern portion (i.e. that portion closest to the viewer). 1917 (#362): With its prominent Edelmans Bazar sign, the first depiction of an uncluttered storefront, sidewalk, etc. While the façade is flat in the transom area on the portion to the north, it is hard to determine if this area contains signage or is a reflection. The southerly portion of the building, however, does not have these features. 1922 (#373A): This is the first occasion where the transom windows have a greater sense of being the 4” composite design. 1942 (417A): The 4” glass tile/block composite design is clearly visible on the southerly portion of the property (224 Main Street South – the Mad Capper). When determining the (re)construction of a portion of a structure, the HPC must consider what the owner would be allowed to do if no record exists. The Commission must determine if what is being proposed is sympathetic to the character of the structure and site or if what is being proposed creates a false sense of history. The National Park Service’s Preservation Brief #11 indicates: “Where an original or significant storefront no longer exists and no evidence exists to document its early appearance, it is generally preferable to undertake a contemporary design that retains the commercial "flavor" of the building. The new storefront design should not draw attention away from the historic building with its detailing but rather should respect the existing historic character of the overall building… a new front should be designed which is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the building”. ALTERNATIVES HPC has alternatives related to this request. 1 1922: Minor Alterations in Front but “the general plan of the building” will not be changed; 1966: “new front”; and 1978: brick veneer front and add two doors 214 Main Street South HPC 2019-02 (2/11/2019) Page 5 of 6 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. 2019-02. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department on January 25, 2019. 2. Any historic wood or iron detailing removed for the storefront reconstruction shall be replaced to its current configuration as shown on the photographs submitted. 3. A new kickplate shall be designed to rise above a traditionally stone water table band/base. 4. The 4” glass block/tile transom on Downtown Divas shall be restored. No new glass block/tile shall be installed on the structure unless repair is required. In transom window areas, a single insulated window pane shall be utilized. 5. All new wood shall be painted to match the existing façade. 6. HPC Design Permit approval does not constitute building permit approval. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. The building permit shall be in compliance with accessibility codes. 7. 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. 8. In the event photographic evidence depicting the storefront is determined, the applicant may alter the design based on the photograph record. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds: 1. Restoration of a wood storefront with and 4” glass tile/block transom window on the southerly bay, commonly referred to as 216 Main Street South and occupied by Downtown Divas; and 2. Construction of a northerly three-bay, two-unit storefront of painted wood and insulated glass; and 3. Painting of all historic wood and decorative metal features are consistent with the Site Alterations to a Heritage Preservation Site and the Downtown Design Review District. Furthermore, staff finds that: 4. If the northerly three bays do not contain 4” glass tile/block transom windows, recreation of them is not consistent with the Site Alterations to a Heritage Preservation 214 Main Street South HPC 2019-02 (2/11/2019) Page 6 of 6 Site and the Downtown Design Review District and, therefore, should not be recreated. This would allow for the Downtown Divas (and potentially the Mad Capper) to be restored to the original condition of this southerly building while allowing for the northern building to be constructed with its own unique and uniform design. Staff finds the proposed structure alterations are consistent with the guidelines and recommends conditional approval of HPC Case. No. 2019-02. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative Applicant Submitted Design 214 Main Street Façade Photo Runk Photos by Year (5 Pages)