Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-15 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North May 15th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of April 3, 2019 regular meeting 2. Possible approval of minutes of April 17th, 2019 regular meeting V. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. VI. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items; listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 3. Case No. 2019-08: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for new business signage for the property located at 229 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Jeff Anderson, property owner and Kelli Kaufer, applicant. VII. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Case No. 2019-09: Consideration of a Demolition Permit for the garage located at 116 Harriet St N in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Daniel and Allison Boblit, property owners and Jim Barton, applicant. 5. Case No. 2019-11: Consideration of a new infill residence for the property located on XXX Williams St N in the RB district. Mulcahy Holdings, property owner and Paul Bruggeman, applicant. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case No. 2019-06: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for a master sign plan and exterior modifications for the property located at 123 2nd St N in the Downtown Design Review district. Judd Sather, property owner and Sara Jespersen, applicant. 2. Case No. 2019-07: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for new siding and railings for the property located at 126 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review District. Murray and Heidi McAllister, property owners. 3. Case No. 2019-10: Consideration of a Design Permit for store front remodel for the property located at 225 2nd St N in the Downtown Design Review District. Ann Engstrum, property owner. IX. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS – NO PACKET MATERIALS 4. HPC Ordinances and Design Guidelines X. FYI 5. Annual Training Program XI. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2019 (rescheduled from March 20, 2019) 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Welty, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Hadrits Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of February 11, 2019 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Welty, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-04: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage. Property located at 224 Chestnut St E, in the CBD district. Tomy O’Brien, property owner and Mike Herman, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 2019-03: Consideration of a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing structure and build a new home. Property located at 615 Broadway Street South, in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. City Planner Wittman reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting approval of the demolition of the residential structure located at 615 Broadway Street South (located within the original Stillwater plat). The property owners would like to construct a new single family residence on the property. Ms. Wittman summarized the history of the property. The 2018 valuation was $508,300 ($335,000 land value and $173,300 dwelling value). There is evidence of deferred maintenance including water intrusion from poorly installed siding, flashing and trim; incomplete roof flashings; rotted deck boards; deteriorated window glazing putty; and minor foundation cracks. All items are considered repairable. The only safety issue is the garage auto reverse sensor not working. The applicants submitted testimony from Todd Anderson, with Lifespace Construction, Inc., indicating that one portion of the home’s construction is typical of agricultural-style buildings. Ms. Wittman stated a site visit in April 2018 found a significant amount of original woodwork on the main floor, the main house is not in a state of disrepair or a hazard and appears to be in fair condition. There are repairable cracks in the limestone foundation. Many of the original floor joists are rotted and have been sistered. Some joist repair or replacement would be required. One public comment was received from Mary Louise Menikheim who asked that if a demolition permit is issued, any new construction should be conditional upon maintaining infill guidelines and be limited to the current Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 3, 2019 Page 2 of 4 footprint. Ms. Wittman continued that another concern brought up today is whether the placement of the garage would negatively impact an existing service line along the property line. As staff has determined the structure is a potentially historic resource, staff recommends the Commission make a positive determination that the front 25’ portion of the structure is a historic resource, deny the demolition application and direct the Community Development Director to initiate a designation study. Jean Rehkamp Larson, architect, explained her background in historic preservation and renovation including serving on boards. She stated that the important factors are how the existing house fits the rhythm of the neighborhood, the front porch, and the small scale of the front façade. It was concluded that there would be so little of the original structure that could remain, and the economic hardship and design challenges would be so great that they don’t balance with what could be done through a new design. The new design is preliminary but there has been a lot of thought put into how it will fit into the neighborhood. The homeowners are committed to making it feel historic. Reid Miller, applicant, stated that they have had structural engineers evaluate the house. The front one-third of the structure was built before 1946, but significant demolitions and/or remodeling since 1946 have impacted the historical validity of the structure. He showed pictures indicating a main support beam and all the main trusses are rotting. The cost of reconstruction would be significant. All the plumbing and wiring is running through sistered joints and would all have to be replaced. There is mold in the walls that would have to be remediated. Julie Miller, applicant, reminded the Commission that she and her husband are not “the enemy,” they are asking for reasonable consideration. Their original intent was to update the home but the inspector documented so much deterioration that they are not comfortable updating the home with such a faulty foundation. Chairman Larson opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Mino stated she has met the applicants and has been in the house. Chairman Larson thanked the applicants for their thorough application. He explained that the HPC only hears cases in the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD), not other districts. The first consideration, prior to considering the design sketches, is the demolition application. Ms. Rehkamp Larson said without knowing what will go there, it may be difficult to determine whether demolition is OK. Councilmember Junker pointed out that demolition requests are from homeowners who want to sell, rather than retain the property. Commissioner Welty suggested that the applicants’ realtor probably showed them pictures and did a walk through, and the sale could have been made contingent on inspection. The fact that now the house is not good enough yet it was good enough to buy it is confusing. Mr. Miller responded they bought it intending to renovate. They did not engage a structural engineer before buying the house. They have had numerous conversations with Ms. Wittman trying to understand what elements of the house are historically significant. It came down to the silhouette of the house and the two windows on the top. The modernization done in the 90s significantly altered the historic character. Chairman Larson explained that the HPC has no review authority for renovation or remodeling in the NCD unless more than 20% of the entire front façade is altered to the extent it is considered a demolition. This is disconcerting in that the HPC has no say in extensive remodeling projects that could do a lot of historic damage. Ms. Wittman stated that early on, she advised the Millers that if they keep the front portion, the project wouldn’t go before the HPC. Ms. Rehkamp Larson responded that one constraint was that they were hoping to create a front facing garage and avoid the tuck-under because most houses on that side of the street have front facing garages. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 3, 2019 Page 3 of 5 However the 20 foot setback would have been too tight for a two car garage. For these owners, rehabilitation is not reasonable and does not make sense. Commissioner Steinwall commented the HPC is not acting on the design permit tonight. She asked about specific costs associated with the rehabilitation elements. The HPC must determine is whether there is a feasible alternative to demolition. Mr. Miller replied they did not obtain exact costs. Spending $120,000-130,000 to reconstruct something that has been so undermined by modernization and has several deteriorating elements does not make sense. Ms. Rehkamp Larson responded there is always a feasible option. The house is livable. However in the context of these homeowners and their goals for their property it is not a feasible choice. It is hard to define feasible. To ask how much it costs to renovate it is asking how to create a foundation that is waterproofed appropriately and how to replace electrical and other systems. There would be extensive work involved and it would be hard to put a number on it. Councilmember Junker remarked there are some homes in the neighborhood from the 1890s and the goal is to maintain that same character. He understands that renovation would cost a lot more and that the structure as it is today is not really the 1890s house. But to demolish an 1890s house is a big step in Stillwater. Chairman Larson said he struggles with how the ordinances are written. He recognized that if the applicants kept the front façade and rebuilt the rest they would not have to come before the HPC. Ms. Rehkamp Larson stated the site warrants high quality, long-lasting construction. Commissioner Welty said the massing, the fenestration and the front porch are all “right” and make it a historic home. Ms. Wittman explained that if denied, the next step is preparation of a designation study and the City Council is the body that decides whether a study is ordered. She acknowledged the process is cumbersome. Commissioner Mino asked what part of the front façade is considered new. Ms. Wittman replied the demolition ordinance states that full removal, removal of 50% of the façade, or removal of 20% of the front façade are all considered to be demolition. The Sanborn map shows a porch on the structure. The building permit history on this structure is very slim. Mr. Miller added it is unknown whether it was flat boards or whether it was sided. Commissioner Mino said it looks like the porch would have been original except for being enclosed. Mr. Miller said the façade of the house was made to look totally different by enclosing the porch. Addressing Ms. Menikheim’s written concern, Chairman Larson noted that a new house would need to follow infill guidelines but the HPC cannot require that it maintain the footprint of the existing house. Mr. Miller said he spent time with the owners of 709 Second Street and the process they went through for their designation study. Commissioner Welty commented that very simple homes can be historic. Vernacular homes tell the story of the town. There are probably plenty of people who would buy this house as it is. Commissioner Steinwall reiterated that the question before the HPC is not whether it’s designated, but whether it’s a historic resource. She recited from code what is considered to be a historic resource. Mr. Miller pointed out that the South Hill inventory says the house is not historically significant. Ms. Wittman responded that the neighborhood report on the South Hill done in 1996, property by property, included a recommendation to explore the creation of a historic district on the South Hill. Even though this is a potential historic district doesn’t mean everything is historically significant. Stillwater has very few designated historically significant residences. The inventory form says it’s not preliminarily eligible for the National Register but indicates it is part of the local historic context of the neighborhood. Staff made the Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 3, 2019 Page 4 of 4 preliminary determination that it is potentially historically significant based on the development of residential neighborhoods in Stillwater. Commissioner Welty stated that historic resource and historically significant are two different terms. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to find that the home at 615 Broadway Street South is a historic resource and that there are feasible alternatives to demolition, and to deny Case No. 2019-03, Demolition Permit to demolish the existing structure and build a new home. Motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 2019 Preservation Awards Ms. Wittman said May is National Historic Preservation month. This year is the 25th anniversary of the City’s annual awards program. She provided a list of 2018 projects for discussion at the next meeting. WCHS Member Seat Ms. Wittman noted the Commission still has a vacant seat for a Washington County Historical Society (WCHS) representative. Commissioner Steinwall said she is a member of the WCHS so her presence on the Commission might be considered as filling that requirement. Ms. Wittman said she will bring this to the City Council for their determination. That still leaves a vacancy for another voting member. Commissioner Welty has indicated she will go off the Commission so staff has advertised for candidates and has one application. Commissioner Hadrits has not indicated whether she wants to continue to serve after her term expires in May. Sidewalk improvement project Commissioner Welty said that her street is up for reconstruction. She thinks the HPC should have input about the proposed sidewalks. The City is putting in 5’ sidewalks but a lot of the historic sidewalks are 3-4’. Additionally, the sidewalk is going beyond the concrete nosing of some of the stair stringers which is hazardous. She thinks 4’ should be the City standard for sidewalks. Chairman Larson remarked the HPC could recommend to the Council that the sidewalks be kept as close to original width as possible. Ms. Wittman said she can discuss that with the engineering department. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Chairman Larson to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 17, 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, Welty, Council Representative Junker Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-05: Consideration of a Design Permit for a Master sign plan for the property located at 124 2nd Street South in the Downtown Design Review district. Derek Nelson, applicant. City Planner Wittman asked this item be moved to New Business because additional materials were submitted. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2019-05: Consideration of a Design Permit for a Master sign plan for the property located at 124 2nd Street South in the Downtown Design Review district. Derek Nelson, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for the structure located at 124 2nd Street South. The following signs are proposed: 1. A 13 square foot wall sign facing 2nd Street South. 2. Two 13 square foot wall signs facing the northern parking lot. All three signs will be 16” tall with black dimensional letters. The letters will be pin mounted into the façade, which will be painted white. 3. A single, 36” X 48” (12 square foot) projecting sign is proposed for the building. It will be a white metal panel with black, vinyl cut black letters. The proposal conforms to the Downtown Design Review District standards. Staff recommends approval of the multi-tenant sign plan and associated signage with 14 conditions. Chairman Larson asked about the long string of lights along the building. City Planner Wittman replied the string lights are decorative elements. The HPC has reviewed downtown lighting as a whole, but did not create any lighting standards. It is up to the HPC to determine the appropriateness of the lighting as proposed. Patrick Giordana, Synergy Architecture Studio, stated the string lighting is something the owner requested, not a make-or-break deal. Other gooseneck lighting will be directed to signage rather than out toward the street. They view the project as maintenance rather than remodeling. The biggest change is to remove the black shingles on the side of the building and finish off the entire building with white siding. Existing mullions will be retained. They also will remove the bump-up in the rear of building over one entry. Chairman Larson asked if there will be trim where siding meets windows. Mr. Giordana replied they will put some type of trim around the edge of the hardy-plank siding. He asked if wall sconces with diffusers could be used in places. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 3 Chairman Larson replied that wall sconces would have a functional purpose more than just decorating the building. If they are down-lamped enough so it is a glowing but not a glaring fixture that would be OK. Gooseneck lighting similar to the lighting above the signage would be another option. Motion by Commissioner Welty, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2019-05, Design Permit for a Master sign plan for the property located at 124 2nd Street South, with the 14 conditions recommended by staff, and the addition of the following conditions: #15, any new tenant storefront entrance shall be similar to the existing; #16, six-inch window and corner board trim shall be installed. The trim shall be black or a similar color to match, and the corner board may be white to match the siding; #17, no linear string lights are permitted; and #18, additional accent lighting shall be approved by staff. All in favor, 6-0. 2019 Preservation Awards Ms. Wittman led discussion of candidates and categories for the 2019 Preservation Awards to be given May 21. Commissioner Steinwall suggested that an award could be given for signage in the future. Chairman Larson suggested a range of award categories, for instance signage, people, infill, new construction. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Welty, to award the following: 402 Main Street South for Adaptive Reuse; 232 Main Street North for Commercial Infill; 310 Main Street South for Reconstruction; 435 Broadway Street South for Porch Addition; 501 Pine Street West for Residential Infill; 114 Linden Street West for Garage Addition; Robert Goodman for Personal Accomplishments. All in favor, 6-0. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Ms. Wittman reported that the City Council upheld the HPC recommendation to order a designation study for 615 Broadway Street South. The study will be done by June 2. The Council expressed a desire to work with the HPC on appropriate amendments to the demolition ordinance. Councilmember Junker elaborated on the Council discussion regarding the inconsistencies of the demolition ordinance. The Council would like to have a joint workshop with the HPC. Chairman Larson noted that all properties do not have the same amount of flexibility toward restoration. The character of certain properties fits in strongly with the streetscape but others do not. There is increasing pressure in some scenic parts of the City to demolish and build new. The ordinance needs to take this into consideration. Commissioner Mino commented she struggles with demolition requests where there are small houses on large, valuable lots. Some of the infill houses are so large and take up nearly every part of the lot. There is something to be said for the smaller houses that fit the rhythm of the street. She recognized that Stillwater needs to retain affordable housing. Commissioner Welty suggested maybe it’s more about maintaining side lot space on such lots. She asked about three infill houses on South Sixth Street. Two seem to fit the character of the neighborhood and one does not. She asked if all three meet the infill standards and if so, something should be done about the standards. Ms. Wittman said they were built quite some time ago, probably predating the standards. MNHS Grants: a) HPC Enabling Ordinance Update; b) Lowell Park Gazebo/Pavilion Partnership City Planner Wittman reported that both grants have been written and she hopes to hear about funding within the next month. She stated that the City was approached by a local Rotary Club wanting to adopt the Gazebo in Lowell Park. Staff determined it would be appropriate to do a historic resource study on the Gazebo, Sam Bloomer Way and the flood wall before determining an appropriate course for maintenance. Application will be made for a possible July grant for this project. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 17, 2019 Page 3 of 3 HPC Membership Update Ms. Wittman noted that two applications were received for the three vacancies. Councilmember Junker and Chairman Larson are scheduling interviews with the candidates. One more candidate is needed. Other Chairman Larson commented that at the T-shirt shop, the lights under the awnings are visible and unattractive. They may be an add-on and not under the original approval. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski to adjourn. All in favor, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary 229 Main Street South Case No. HPC 2019-08 Page 1 of 3 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-08 APPLICANT: Kelli Kaufer representing Smith + Trade Mercantile REQUEST: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for new signage at 229 Main Street South, in the Stillwater Commercial Historic and Downtown Design Review Districts. ZONING: Central Business PLAN DISTRICT: DMU–Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for the property located at 229 Main Street North to: 1. Paint all wood elements on the front façade black; and 2. Install a black metal sign bracket and a 3’ X 2’ projecting sign. The sign would be a black metal, laser cut sign to read the business name. The applicant is proposing a white acrylic core. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES The structure is designated as contributing to the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, a designated Heritage Preservation Site. City Code Section 31-215, Site Alteration Permit, is required for a) Remodel, alter or repair in any manner, including paint color that will change the exterior appearance of a historic building or a site; and b) Signs. Before approving permit applications required, the Commission must make the following findings: In the case of a proposed alteration or addition to an existing building, the alteration or addition will not materially impair the architectural or historic value of the building and considering the existing structures and existing exterior appearance, building, height, 450 Main Street North Case No. HPC 2017-22 March 15, 2017 Page 2 of 3 building width, depth, roof style, type of building materials, ornamentation and paving setback. Furthermore, City Code Section 31-509, Design permit states a Design Permit is required for a Site Alteration Permits. The Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following applicable standards: o Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. o Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The Downtown Design Manual section pertaining to “Sign and Graphics” is attached for Commission review. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Painting wood is appropriate. Use of the color black has been found to be appropriate in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District and the Downtown Design Review District. This projecting sign uses simple, bold and simple type style lettering in colors that keep with the Victorian tradition. The sign has sufficient contrast between the lettering and the background to display the primary name of the business and the service offered. While painted wood is encouraged, laser cut metal panels have consistently been permitted in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District and the Downtown Design Review District as an acceptable material. Neither action will materially impair the architectural or historic value of the building or its surroundings. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has alternatives related to this request: A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Design Permit standards and the downtown design review district guidelines, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2019-08. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and on file with HPC Case No. 2019-08. 2. Disturbance to the exterior wall face shall be done in a fashion as to prevent excess damage and water intrusion. All existing and future holes shall be filled and sealed. 3. The entire building’s sign band shall be painted black. 4. The sign arm shall be painted black. 5. No interior lighting is permitted. 6. Any exterior lighting, including mounting hardware, shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation. 7. The sign shall obtain a Sign Permit prior to the installation of the sign. 450 Main Street North Case No. HPC 2017-22 March 15, 2017 Page 3 of 3 8. All modifications shall be reviewed and approved prior to be implemented. Major modifications shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission; minor modifications shall be reviewed by staff. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Site Alteration/Design Permit standards or the design review district guidelines, 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 recommends conditional approval of HPC Case No. 2019-08. ATTACHMENTS Narrative Request Proposed Sign Arm and Sign Specifications Rendering Downtown Design Review District Guidelines (pages 26-33) D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 23 Color Background The relationship of the colors and tones used on new or improved structures must be compatible with the color and tone patterns already established by adjacent buildings. The tasteful use of color and accent can introduce variety and charm, whereas the indiscriminate use of colors and color combinations can overload the senses and produce visual conflict and chaos. Exercise caution in the use of colors and tone combinations and their patterns. The goal is to achieve an area-wide complementary blend of background colors combined with selected and limited uses of primary and focal colors. Guidelines • The color of buildings should relate to the adjacent buildings colors to create a harmonious effect. • Avoid colors which visually overpower or strongly contrast with adjacent building colors and established downtown color schemes as a whole. • The color of brick or other natural building materials should dictate the color family choice. • Painting new infill buildings is prohibited. Lighting Background Lighting can add special character to the nighttime appearance of the Downtown. It can illuminate building entrances, pedestrian walkways, and advertising or floodlight special buildings. However, if left without consideration of the entire downtown experience, unchecked lighting can produce visual chaos, waste energy and create safety concerns. Guidelines • A coordinated lighting plan should be submitted for review with building plans. Provide information on each individual light fixture proposed, including fixture sections, lamp type and wattage. • Lighting fixtures should be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the project. The light source should be hidden from direct pedestrian or motorist view. • Unshielded wall pack light fixtures are not appropriate. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 24 Awnings Background Historically, awnings were a frequent feature of the commercial buildings downtown. Photographic records show how the use of awnings softened an otherwise hard and rigid streetscape. Their main function was to shade the building and the merchendise; however, they were retractable to allow more daylight in when needed. Secondarily, the awnings provided protection for pedestrians and only on occasion did the awning get used for signage. Lettering on the awnings was seen only on the front valance so it was visiable when the awning was either in the lowered or raised position. Guidelines • Retractable or operable awning are encouraged. Fixed awnings should mimic the profile of operable units (one to one pitch). • The emphasis of the awning should remain one of shelter and protection, rather than signage. In keeping with this, the awning should be loose and flowing, not stretched tight, subtle and subdued in color, not bright, extending well out over the sidewalk, not a mere window dressing. • The width of awnings should fit the geometry of the building façade. They should not extend across multiple storefronts of different buildings, but should reflect the window or door openings below. • The use of water-repellent or vinyl-coated canvas is in keeping with awnings of the time. Plastic or aluminum awnings or canopies are not appropriate. • Fixed, round-headed awnings will be considered only over arched windows or doors, and only if placed below or within the arched lintel. • The awning valance, or skirt, shall be proportioned to the size of the awning But shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in height. • Signing on awnings is permitted (in place of other sign types) on the end panel or front valance only. Use lettering size proportional to the space available. • Back lighting of the awnings is inappropriate, • Use plain or striped fabrics. Large areas of bright colors are inappropriate. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 25 Signs and Graphics Background During the peak of commercial activity in Stillwater, the signs in the historic commercial district had a distinct character that was a part of the overall streetscape. Many of the historic buildings were built to accommodate a storefront sign band in their original design. The efforts of the Design Manual are not meant to turn back the clock, but rather to preserve and enhance that distinct and historic character of Stillwater. All signage is subject to Stillwater building and zoning codes. 1. QUANTITIES, LOCATION AND SIZE Background In the past, streetscapes had a variety of sign types that not only identified the business, but also the name of the buildings, dates of construction, etc. The signs were simple, bold and well Crafted. Lettering was in clear, no-nonsense styles, maximizing the contrast between the background and the lettering. Varying sign types can be found in the historic streetscape including: (1) architectural signs, (2) storefront signs, (3) window signs, (4) awnings, (5) projecting signs, and (6) painted wall signs and murals. Every building should select the most appropriate sign type for its architecture and location. Guidelines • The maintenance and restoration of any existing historic signs is encouraged in lieu of replacement. • Signage for a business not located within the building is not acceptable. • Only one sign that contains the business name or graphic logo is permitted per street facing side. The exception is that a window sign may be used in addition to other sign types. • Signage should be located in such a way as to not obscure any architectural features of the building. A projecting sign with two faces is considered one sign. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 26 Signs and Graphics a. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS Backround Architectural signs are integrated into the building fabric and are constructed of permanent materials such as stone or metal. Names and the dates of construction were common signs included on the façade. They were typically located in the roof parapet detailing or in a cornerstone detail. These add a sense of history and place to the character and fabric of Stillwater. Guidelines • Preserve existing architectural signs. • Promote the use of the original building names in new signage. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 27 Signs and Graphics b. STOREFRONT SIGNS Backround Storefront signs are those which are located on the horizontal band dividing the storefront windows from the upper façade of the building. Guidelines • The storefront sign should be used to display the primarily name of the business only. Use only one line of lettering if possible, leaving out secondary information. • Use simple, bold lettering with sufficient contrast between the lettering and the background. • “Trademark” or “Logo" signs may not be acceptable if the color and character of the sign is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. • The maximum area of the sign is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Graphics in the sign are included in the maximum allowable area. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 28 Signs and Graphics c. WINDOW SIGNS Background Window signs are applied inside the glass of storefront windows, upper floor windows and doorways. Their main focus was on the approaching pedestrian; therefore the signs gave more detailed information about the business. Guidelines • It may often be desirable to keep the display space clear. In these cases, insert the sign at the base or the head of the window, or both. • Keep the lettering small remembering that the reader will be in close proximity to the sign. Use several lines where necessaiy and consider curving the top line at the head of the window. • Lettering formed with neon may be used in the inside of the window, provided the size, light intensity, color and style are consistent with the theme of the buildong. • Total sign area in the window should not exceed one-third of the window area. • Display street numbers on or directly above the door, and business hours on the inside of the door or in an adjacent window. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 29 Signs and Graphics d. PROJECTING SIGNS Background Projecting signs are at right angles to the building face, either fixed to the wall or hanging from a bracket. Their major advantage over storefront or window signs is their ability to be seen by pedestrians and motorists from a distance down the street. If they get too large, however, they can obscure each other, so it is important to keep them small and simple. Guidelines • The maximum area of the sign and the minimum height above the sidewalk is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Use materials consistent with the period, such as wood signboards and metal brackets. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 30 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-09 APPLICANT: Jim Barton of Barton Construction Services representing Dan and Alison Boblit, property owners REQUEST: Demolition request for a pre-1945 garage located at 116 Harriet Street North ZONING: RB-Two Family COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Low/Medium Density Residential PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST AND STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS The applicant is requesting a demolition permit for the garage located at 116 Harriet Street North in order to have a modern three-car garage. Do to the location, the future garage will require a variance from the City’s Planning Commission. The (approximately) 900 square foot garage appears to be in the same configuration as the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Although the interior lumber is dimensional, several boards are stamped with “Gould LBR CO. Seattle, Wash”. There is a sag in the loft floor, a sistered cross beam, and the support poles are starting to rot. The exterior paint, determined to be lead, is peeling from the structure. PROPERTY HISTORY According to the Greeley Addition Historic Preservation Planning Area Report, the property was developed by David Swain, a machinist and builder of stream engines. The report indicates “Swai was one of the most affluent residents of the area. It 1884 his personal property was listed at $4,375.” The study included a Bird’s Eye View of the west north hill in 1879. Swain’s garage appears to be shown on the rendering. Street View (Google Images – August, 2013) 116 Harriet Street North HPC Case No. 2019-06 Page 2 The report further accounts Swain “built stream engines, many of which were used in the steamboats plying the river trade. Swain also constructed the steam engine used to swing the pontoon open on the first (1876) bridge across the St. Croix River at Stillwater”. It can be assumed Swain constructed steam engines in this structure. STAFF REVIEW On a March 18 site inspection by Building Official Cindy Shilts and I, the structure was determined to be in fair to good condition. The existing structure could be repaired. Based on the review of the property and associated records, staff made a determination that the property could potentially be locally designated because of one of the following: a) The character, interest or value as part of the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or county. b) The location as a site of a significant historic event. c) The identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the city's culture and development. d) The embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form or treatment. e) The identification as work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the city's development. 116 Harriet Street North HPC Case No. 2019-06 Page 3 f) The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation. g) The unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city. Thus, as required by the demolition ordinance, the application is being forwarded to the HPC for review and consideration. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS Chapter 34, Building Demolition¸ of the municipal code outlines the community development director shall review the permit, conduct an on-site visit of the property with the applicant, make … determinations, and take the associated action. For a historic resource, the Commission must decide on one of the following: (i) Negative finding. If the commission finds that the property is not a historic resource, then the commission shall notify the building official that a demolition permit may be issued. (ii) Positive finding with no feasible alternative to demolition. If the commission finds that the property is historically significant or a historic resource, but that there is no feasible alternative to demolition, then the commission shall notify the building official that a demolition permit shall be issued. (iii) Positive finding with feasible alternative to demolition. If the commission finds that the property is historically significant or a historic resource, and that there is a feasible alternative to demolition, then the commission shall deny the demolition permit and direct the community development director to prepare a designation study of the property. Before approving the demolition of a building, the commission shall make findings that the demolition is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, or that there are no reasonable alternatives to the demolition. In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the significance of the property, the integrity of the property and the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible alternative uses. The commission may require a mitigation plan as a condition of any approval for demolition of a building. Such plan may include the documentation of the property by measured drawings, photographic recording, historical research or other means appropriate to the significance of the property. With the approval of the city council, the commission may stay the release of the building, wrecking or demolition permit for up to 180 days as a condition of approval for a demolition of a building that has been found to contribute to a potential historic district to allow parties interested in preserving the historic resource a reasonable opportunity to act to protect it. COMMISSION ALTERNATIVES 116 Harriet Street North HPC Case No. 2019-06 Page 4 The Commission must first determine if the structure is a historic resource and, if so, if it is worthy of designation. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Applicant Narrative Certificate of Survey Garage Photos Residence Photos Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations NORTH HARRIET STREETNORTH MARTHA STREETWEST SOUTH SI XTH STREETJEANNIE STREETM Y R T L E S T R E E T 114 215 415 116 516 115 233 216 315 410 105 116 216 418 310 108 121 225 201 424 321 517 320 224 216 1320 112 102 108 104 118 513 426 121 507513 503 226 219 215 212 207 208 122 517 209 108 202201 125 126 122 102 115 112 332 330 µ 0 170 34085Feet General Site Location Site Location 116 Harriet St N ^ Te xt HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-11 APPLICANT: Paul Bruggeman of Bruggeman Builders, representing Mulcahy Holdings LLC, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence to be located in the Neighborhood Conservation District at XXX William Street North, 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 The applicant is requesting approval of a permit to construct a two and a half story, one-family residence at XXX William Street North, a lot in the Neighborhood Conservation. The proposed house will measure approximately 22’ wide by 48’ deep and will contain a 6’ deep front porch and an attached 24X32’ garage. A 12/6 gable will run parallel with the front lot line. It will contain a 10/12 pitch projection that will not rise to the primary gable. The front gable area will contain a 6’ porch with a 4/12 pitch roof. LP lap siding, to extend to the grade level, and aluminum soffit and fascia is proposed on all four sides; LP board and batten will be located on the front of the home, above the porch and on the garage, to add visual interest. Double hung windows are Street View (Google Images, August, 2013) XXX William Street North HPC Case No. 2019-11 Page 2 of 5 proposed the front and sides of the home; the rear of the home will have slightly wider windows. All windows and trim boards will be 1X4” LP Smart Siding. Asphalt shingles are proposed. 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. Structures to the south of this home are single story; structures to the north are two story. However, there is no prevailing housing pattern or type along William Street North. Generally speaking, the massing and scale will be compatible though there will be a contrast between this home and the homes to the south. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. The porch is proposed to be located 25’ from the front property line; the garage is set back an addition 15’ behind the front line of the home. The house to the south is situated at the same distance as the proposed residence. While the house to the north is situated further back from the street, the applicant is proposing the garage to be set back behind the line of that home. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. Traditional gables are proposed. However, the modern, sloping primary gable with a forward-projecting gable is not consistent with traditional home styles. That said, the homes in the vicinity were constructed since the 1950s and have lower pitch roofs. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. Most gable-roof pitched homes have a greater height than hipped roofs. The height is consistent with the form, style and context. Building and site design should respond to natural features. Preserve significant trees. The property slopes from the north to the south, allowing for the two-story lookout to be designed with the topography. Three significant trees are proposed to be removed. The property owner will need to replace these trees. This will be a condition of approval; the grading escrow will be retained until such time as new trees and landscaping have been installed. Respect the site’s natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill One retaining wall may be needed to accommodate for the driveway on the north side of this sloped property. XXX William Street North HPC Case No. 2019-11 Page 3 of 5 and retaining walls. When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The attached garage is proposed to be set back 15’ from the front line of the porch, consistent with the Zoning Code and generally conforming to the intent of the NCD guidelines. An new driveway curb cut is proposed. City Code Section 33-5 requires the driveway to be improved. Minimize garage impact on new structure massing and street front. The garage, as noted as setback 15’ behind the front line of the porch, is single story. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The existing garage and proposed residence will be (approximately) 1,956 s.f. of structural coverage. This is less than 10% of the 24,150 square foot lot. The property may have 25% coverage as per the Zoning Code. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. A front porch, spanning the entire width of the residence, is proposed. The porch is proposed to be a standard 6’ in depth. This depth is consistent with traditional design. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. No new accessory buildings are proposed. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. The entire home will be sided on all four sides with LP lap siding, asphalt shingles, and clad windows. All front and side elevation windows are proposed to be double hung. Rear windows are proposed to be larger. Architectural Detail The façade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The LP siding is a suitable substitute material. 4.5” lap has been found to be consistent traditional materials, though the applicant has not indicate the lap size. LP board and batten is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Fascia and soffit boards are proposed though corner boards are not called out on the plans. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The elements of the building are in proportion to the residence, and are not in conflict with adjacent structures. Use architectural details to create visual interest and The home’s materials, textures, and colors are consistent with traditional patterns found in the neighborhood and on XXX William Street North HPC Case No. 2019-11 Page 4 of 5 support architectural style. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. other buildings. Use masonry and stone authentically. No masonry or stone is proposed. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of memo development, the City had not received any public comments. ALTERNATIVES A. Approval If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposed application meets standards set forth in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2019-11 with or without the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and found on file with HPC Case No. 2019-11, except as modified by conditions. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 3. The applicant shall side the residence on all four sides with the same material and not show exposed foundation above what is customary for building code. 4. Lap siding shall contain a 5” gap or less. 5. Corner boards shall be required on all four sides. 6. All lighting shall be downlit or shielded as to have zero lumens at the lot lines. 7. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 8. A landscaping plan, to include tree replacement for three significant trees, shall be submitted at the time of the building permit. The grading escrow shall not be returned until the landscaping and trees have been installed. 9. The driveway shall be improved with concrete or asphalt, in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 10. 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. Table If the Heritage Preservation finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Heritage Preservation finds the proposal is not consistent with the, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. XXX William Street North HPC Case No. 2019-11 Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that with certain conditions HPC Case No. 2019-11 is in substantial conformance with the guidelines set forth for the Neighborhood Conservation District. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval of the application. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map NCD Application Form (two pages) Narrative Request Site Plan Certificate of Survey Elevations Floor Plans (three pages) Site Photos (three pages) WE ST AS P E N STR EETSTREETSTREETAVENUE W E STNORTHOWENSSTREETWEST S T CR O I X AV E NU E NORTHCARNELIANSTREETNORTHWILLIAMWE ST WE ST W E ST W IL K IN S 1119 1203 1020 1212 1219 1110 1012 631701 523 625703 618 1114 1004 1313 507 508514524 1005 616 1221 509521 503 503 515 504 502 801 624 930 1309 604 518 922 1104 1120 421 424 1007 1314 1001 513 507 510 1106 704 1218 1114 1315 514 712 620 1120 623 511 614 1212 617 1305 1216 1218 1210 1101 1311 1208 1318 1006 608610 1315 1222 1322 927 505 6101309 1322 1326 1310 13081306 1314 1318 µ 0 210 420105Feet General Site Location Site Location XXX Williams St N PID 2103020330121 ^ Te xt To Whom It May Concern: I am proposing to build a single-family home on this in-fill empty lot located approximately at 1200 North William Street in Stillwater. This area has a mixture of homes built in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s though homes built in the 1960’s or 1970’s. There is a mixture of all types of architecture and design with one to four car garages within this block. Our home is a single-family home with a three-car attached garage. The style of this home will fit in with the old traditional feel of the 1900’s style architect of Stillwater with a front porch and the front gable will be lowered to mimic the old bungalow style architect. The siding is a mixture of lap siding and board and batten siding to create a quaint appearance. The garage is set approximately 16 feet back from the front of home. This lot is a transition lot for the grade change along the slope of North Williams Street. The placement of the garage on the right side of the lot will minimize the sunlight impact to the home on the North. The lot naturally drops to the South. In my experience it is best practice to put the garage on the high side of the lot. We feel this home will fit into the traditional feel of Stillwater’s character and charm. Thank you, Paul Bruggeman HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-06 APPLICANT: Sara Jespersen, representing Judd Sather and Frederick Real Estate Group LLC, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for façade improvements and signage to the structure located at 123 2nd Street North ZONING: Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU – Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of façade improvements and signage at 123 2nd Street North, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The request includes: 1. Removal of the existing wooden bi- fold doors and replacement with a painted black wood and glass entry door system with gold accents; 2. Removal of the arches iron over the entrance and installation of it below the existing awning; 3. Installation of iron grates on the first floor windows on the northern façade; 4. Installation of a 30’ diameter wooden sign above the new storefront entry. The sign will read “The Lumberjack Axe Throwing Bar” in burnt circle with corresponding sign plan; 5. Installation of a gas fireplace on the interior of the building, requiring an exterior vent on the east side facade; and 6. Installation of a new mechanical equipment on the south side of the building in the existing patio area, screened to the west with a 10’ rockface wall and an 8’ chainlink fence. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Street View (Google Images – August, 2018) 123 2nd Street South HPC 2019-06 Page 2 of 4 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 must be made to use a property for its originally intended purpose.  The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment must not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible.  All buildings, structures and sites must be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance are discouraged.  Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a building, structure or site must be treated with sensitivity.  Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties is not discouraged when the alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property.  Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures must be done in a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Furthermore, City Code Section 31-209(f) indicates the following applicable standards for review are:  Architectural character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development.  Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. ANALYSIS The use of this portion of the building as a restaurant and commercial recreational business will help fill existing warehousing space in the structure. Therefore, the removal of the existing warehouse door is appropriate. However, all doors on the building, approved by the HPC in 2015, are anodized bronze without the same level of detail as the door proposed. That said, all other doors lead to the building and not a specific business. As these doors will be the primary access to this business and no other business in the building, a wooden storefront door system may be appropriate. 123 2nd Street South HPC 2019-06 Page 3 of 4 Removal of the decorative iron elements and repurposing it as a part of the awning overhang keeps ornamental features of the structure while adapting them into the design of a non-historic element of the structure. This will help visually frame this entrance. Portions of the awning are proposed to be repaired and painted to match the existing. Other decorative installations, specifically the iron grates on the windows, are not consistent with the design of the building, the Downtown Design Review District guidelines, or other architectural elements within the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The 30” round wooden sign with burnet circle, indicating the business name is appropriate. The single mounting tube with ball end in black is consistent in design to brackets within the district. It is also consistent with the proposed sign plan which indicates no exterior signage is permitted unless the sign plan is amended. The use of exterior spot lights to light the sign is appropriate. All elements of the sign meet the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Conversion of historic buildings for uses other than constructed often requires the installation of electrical and mechanical components. The applicant is proposing to locate all exhaust air intake and makeup systems in an enclosed courtyard/ utility space off of the alley, on the southeast side of the building. This is consistent with HPC approvals already granted. However, venting is proposed to be located through an existing window opening, though that is not indicated on the plans. According to Building Official Cindy Shilts, those openings will be required to be blocked in. Furthermore, the installation of the vent on the east façade will need to be rerouted as venting cannot occur on the property line. Minimal alterations have occurred to the historic façade of the building to accommodate the new use(s). The removal of small portions of historic materials or in areas not predominantly visible to the public is most appropriate. FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Removal of the existing wooden warehouse doors and replacement with a new painted black wood and glass entry door system with gold accents is in keeping with the historic character of the building; 2. The installation of wooden signage and iron arches over the doorway is consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines; and 3. The installation of necessary mechanical equipment on the alley or in the courtyard/utility area, so long as the improvements do not materially impair the form and function of the building and are located out of public view, is appropriate. Furthermore, staff finds that: 4. The installation of iron grates on a portion of this building is not consistent with the standards for Site Alterations to a Heritage Preservation Site nor the Downtown Design Review District and, therefore, should not be installed. 123 2nd Street South HPC 2019-06 Page 4 of 4 ALTERNATIVES 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. 2019-06. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department on April 4, 2019. 2. Exterior lighting shall not exceed 3,500K. 3. Any exterior venting shall be painted to match the existing stone or brick. 4. The filling of any opening shall be done in brick to match the exterior façade. The choice of material shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the release of a building permit. 5. Iron grates shall not be installed on the building. 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. 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 most of the proposed alterations are consistent with the guidelines and recommends conditional approval of the wooden storefront, signage, decorative arched ironwork, awning repairs and painting, as well as all mechanical installations associated with HPC Case. No. 2019-06 with the conditions outlined in Alternative A. However, staff would recommend denial of the installation of iron grates on a portion of the building’s windows. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative Multi-tenant Master Sign Plan Design Submission Patio Floor Plan EXISTING BRICK TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAINEXISTING STONE TO REMAINNEW IRON WINDOW GRATES ON NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING; SEE HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONSNEW BUILDING SIGNAGE BY OWNER AT GLASS ON NEW ENTRY DOORSNEW WOOD ENTRY DOOR AND HARDWARE; SEE DOOR AND HARDWARE SCHEDULE FOR SPECIFICATIONSNEW BUILDING SIGNAGE BY OWNER; SIGN TO BE 30" DIAMETER, 2" THICK; WEATHER-TREATED, NATURAL, WHITE PINE WOOD WITH TORCH-HEATED LOGO AND LIVE EDGE; BRACKET TO BE CENTERED ON DOOR; SIGN BRACKET STORE, 30" MODULAR WALL MOUNT SIGN BRACKET KIT, PN: #404B-WM-30-WR-FC, FINISH: BLACK POWDERCOAT STEEL, FLAT ENDCAPSALVAGE EXISTING IRON CORNICE FOR REUSE IN NEW AWNING STRUCTURE AND REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING COLORNEW METAL FRAME AROUND EXISTING AWNING STRUCTURE; PAINT FRAME TO MATCH EXISTING AWNINGEXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SPOTLIGHTS; SEE RCP FOR SPECIFICATIONSPROPERTY LINE @ ALLEYEXISTING STONE TO REMAINEXISTING BRICK TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAINDIA30".H02H014H012H016H01H010H08H06H05H04H011H03H07H013SHEET TITLEApprovedCheckedDrawnJob NumberISSUE CONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALGENERAL CONTRACTORMECHANICALJOSHUA HERZOG, PE, LEED AP530 N 3RD STREET, SUITE 230MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401(612)200-9510JOSH@HERZOGENGINEERING.COMSCOTT UNDERWOOD1615 LIVINGSTONE ROADHUDSON, WI 54016(715)381-5793SRU.HVAC@GMAIL.COMELECTRICALROSS RIVARDWILD RIVER 1167 MULBERRY STTAYLORS FALLS, MN 55084(651)465-3535ROSS@WRE-MN.COMPLUMBINGRON HAUSSNERHAUSSNER PLUMBING, 10520 STONEBRIDGE TRL. N.STILLWATER, MN 55082(651)439-0291RON@HAUSSNERPLUMBING.COMSPRINKLERDAN DELMONICOVIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER 301 YORK AVENUEST. PAUL, MN, 55130(651)558-3300DAN.DELMONICO@VIKINGSPRINKLER.USJUDD SATHERONE23 214 MAIN STREET S,STILLWATER, MN 55082(651)342-1476JUDDSATHER@GMAIL.COMG0-02HPCCheckerAuthorApproverTHE LUMBERJACKCopyright © 2018 BLUE - PENCIL COLLECTIVESTILLWATER, MN 55082123 2ND STREET NISSUED FORCONSTRUCTION04/26/2019MARKISSUE DATENOT TO A1LUMBERJACK NORTH ENTRY @ COMMERCIAL STREET 1/4" = 1'-0"B1PATIOHPC KEYNOTE LEGENDH01 NEW CONCRETE PLATFORM AND STAIRS TO BE LEVEL WITHEXISTING CONCRETE PLATFORM.H02 EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN.H03 ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS WITHIN 10'-0" OF HOOD EXHAUST UNITMUST BE INOPERABLE.H04 NEW RAILING AT CONCRETE PLATFORM AND STAIRS.H05 EXISTING SPLIT SYSTEM TO REMAIN.H06 NEW 7.5 TON, 3000 CFM PACKAGED UNIT WITH (2) 22"X10"RECTANGULAR STACKED EXTERIOR DUCTS AND 16" SPIRALINTERIOR DUCTS. B.O. UNIT TO ALIGN WITH T.O. GENERATORENCLOSURE.H07 NEW MAKE-UP AIR UNIT TO SIT UNDERNEATH PACKAGED UNIT.H08 NEW 8'D X 15'W X 8'H ENCLOSURE AT RELOCATED GENERATOR.H010 EXISTING ELECTRICITY TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN.H011 EXISTING WELL TO REMAIN.H012 NEW 12.5 TON, 5000 CFM PACKAGED UNIT WITH (2) 36"X10"RECTANGULAR STACKED EXTERIOR DUCTS AND 20" SPIRALINTERIOR DUCTS.H013 KITCHEN HOOD EXHAUST UNIT TO SIT ON TOP OF 12.5 TONPACKAGED UNIT.H014 EXISTING STONE TO REMAIN.H016 EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN. AIR IN TAKE --- EXT . SPLIT SYSTE M --- 1 EXHAUST---~E UP AIR UNDERNE ATH PACKA~ED UNIT DOUBLE DOORS ON EAST SIDE --- EXT . ELEC TRANSr ORMER 3'-O" MIN !~---+---+-+--+-EXH AUST 1----+---+-+--+-HOO D EXHA UST ABOV E 12.5 TO N UNIT ------+---+--+---+--AIR IN TAK E '---------+---+--+---+--EXT . WELL UP HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-07 APPLICANT: Heidi and Murray McAllister representing R&G Investments LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for façade improvements to the structure located at 126 Main Street North ZONING: Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU – Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of façade improvements at 126 Main Street North, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The request includes: 1. Replace all north elevation doors with a two-paneled solid door painted dark bronze; 2. Back addition modifications to include repair and painting of stucco or replacement with bronze board and batten steel; 3. Construction of a new rooftop access, sided in bronze colored board and batten steel with French doors; 4. Installation of a black metal and steel cable roof railing system; and 5. Installation of glass block on a rear window. 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 Street View (Google Images – August, 2018) 126 Main Street South HPC 2019-07 Page 2 of 4 (applicable) guidelines (as found in City Code Section 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission) to evaluate applications for site alterations:  Every reasonable effort must be made to use a property for its originally intended purpose.  The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment must not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible.  All buildings, structures and sites must be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance are discouraged.  Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a building, structure or site must be treated with sensitivity.  Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties is not discouraged when the alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property.  Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures must be done in a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Furthermore, City Code Section 31-209(f) indicates the following applicable standards for review are:  Architectural character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. ANALYSIS The existing rear addition appears on the 1884 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. The applicant has indicated they are aware the structure was once constructed of wood. The date of the stucco is unknown. Stucco is not a common material in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District but painting it to match the existing stone is appropriate. If the stucco is in good condition, staff has indicated it would be preferred to maintain what is currently onsite. The application of metal, on the other hand, is not uncommon in the historic core. The existing rooftop access is a ships ladder design. Therefore, the construction of an access room is appropriate for future rooftop use. The location of the rooftop access, on the south side of the roof, should not be visible from the public right-of-way. With the proposed board and batten steel and French door, the design will be inconspicuous and will match the addition – if it is resided. Additionally, the installation of black metal with horizontal cabling railing has been determined to be an appropriate approach for rooftop protection. 126 Main Street South HPC 2019-07 Page 3 of 4 The north elevation doors access residential units. While the existing doors do have windows in them, the applicant has chosen a design that does not include windows for security reasons. The installation of the paneled doors is appropriate for this application. The applicant’s choice of glass block on the rear of the building is directly related to the desire to have light enter the garage space while also maintaining security in the alley. Though glass block is not a material that is indicative of the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, there is glass block on the north elevation of this building. ALTERNATIVES 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. 2019-07. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department on April 18, 2019. 2. 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. 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. FINDINGS Staff finds: 1. Maintenance and painting of the stucco is appropriate; 2. The installation of 10” bronze board and batten steel on the addition to match the existing storefront is a consistent application and compatible with the character of the building and adjacent structures; 3. The installation of 10” bronze board and batten and French doors on the rooftop access room is consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines; 4. The installation of a black metal post and horizontal cabling railing system on the rooftop is appropriate. 126 Main Street South HPC 2019-07 Page 4 of 4 5. The installation of glass block on the rear, alley-side window, though not historically appropriate, would be keeping with the design of elements found on the exterior façade of the building. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the proposed alterations are consistent with the guidelines and recommends conditional approval of HPC Case. No. 2019-07. ATTACHMENTS Applicant Narrative Board and Batten Example (2 pages) Aerial Image Bird’s Eye Image Railing Example Door Example HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2019 CASE NO.: 2019-10 APPLICANT: Ann Engstrum representing E2 Holdings LLC, property owner REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for storefront construction and façade improvements to the structure located at 225 2nd Street North ZONING: Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU – Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of the storefront alteration of the structure located at 225 2nd Street North, and existing painted block building. The specific request includes: 1. Siding below each window with LP Smartside in mahogany lap; and 2. Siding the columns on each side of the door, as well as above all windows and doors, with vertical LP Smartside in onyx; and 3. Siding the corners with Versetta stone with the Mission Point color; and 4. Restaining the building canopy and door to match the mahogany lap; and Street View (Google Images – August, 2018) 225 2nd Street North HPC 2019-10 Page 2 of 3 5. Replacement of flush-mounted under-canopy lights; and 6. Update the existing signage. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES City Code Section Design permit Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following applicable standards: o Architectural Character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. o Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. o Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The Downtown Design Manual section pertaining to Materials, Colors, Lighting and Signs and Graphics is attached for Commission review. ANALYSIS While the applicant’s narrative references the 1882 limestone foundation and is visible on 1946 aerials, the structure has not been surveyed nor has it been determined to be a potential historic resource. The City has little history on the construction and use(s) of the building. The Downtown Design Review District (District) is intended to preserve the historic character of downtown Stillwater and the Commercial Historic District. The District’s guidelines do not encourage exposed or painted concrete masonry units. Given this, façade improvements are welcome. However, dressing up one face of the free-standing structure is generally not encouraged; the City encourages four sided design. The guidelines indicate buildings should not stand out against others; this building is located near several brick-façade buildings; the structure currently stands out near the brick (some faced) to the south. As the applicant is proposed LP siding, a material the HPC has determined appropriate in some applications in the District, the application on this building will slightly stand out but it will not any greater than the existing design. The use of LP lap and horizontal siding is appropriate as a façade treatment for this modern- styled structure. The use of stone on the façade is also appropriate but the proposed application is not an inherently historic design. Traditional application of stone would be on a lower portion of the structure, opposed to the vertical elements. However, stone is a material that is encouraged in the district and has been used for entire structures (i.e. Joseph Wolf Brewery complex). 225 2nd Street North HPC 2019-10 Page 3 of 3 The property owner indicates new signage will replace the existing signage on the property; the new signage is not proposed to be greater in size than the existing. However, no details of the proposed sign changes were included in the applicant submission. As per the Zoning Code, the property is eligible for 45 square feet of signage for all tenants of the building; a master sign plan is required. FINDINGS The vertical and horizontal application of LP Smartside and stone, the staining of the existing wood, and the replacement of existing flush mounted lghts is consistent with the approved guidelines and compatible with the design of adjacent development. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has alternatives related to this request: A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Design Permit standards and the downtown design review district guidelines, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2019-11. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department on April 26, 2019. 2. 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 Site Alteration/Design Permit standards or the design review district guidelines, 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 recommends conditional approval of HPC Case No. 2019-11 with those conditions outlined in Alternative A. ATTACHMENTS Narrative Request Proposed Building Design Mission Point Stone Example Onyx Siding Mahogany Siding Stain Sample Lighting Design Materials Background Buildings within the commercial core were constructed with brick, stone or wood. Many of the original wood buildings have been lost to fire or decay, leaving the masonry buildings as the lone remnants. Compatability with similar exterior construction materials in the immediate area is recommended in order to maintain the distinct character and harmony of the area. Guidelines • An infill building and façade should be composed of materials similar to original adjacent façades (example: local brick or stone). • New buildings should not stand out against the others but be compatable with the general area. • The use of exposed or painted concrete masonry units is not acceptable. • The use of materials that attempt to mimic traditional materials is unacceptable. An example would be fiberglass panels that are molded to look like real brick, or vinyl molded to look like wood horizontal lap siding. AVOID INRODUCING DISSIMILAR MATERIALS D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 22 D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 23 Color Background The relationship of the colors and tones used on new or improved structures must be compatible with the color and tone patterns already established by adjacent buildings. The tasteful use of color and accent can introduce variety and charm, whereas the indiscriminate use of colors and color combinations can overload the senses and produce visual conflict and chaos. Exercise caution in the use of colors and tone combinations and their patterns. The goal is to achieve an area-wide complementary blend of background colors combined with selected and limited uses of primary and focal colors. Guidelines • The color of buildings should relate to the adjacent buildings colors to create a harmonious effect. • Avoid colors which visually overpower or strongly contrast with adjacent building colors and established downtown color schemes as a whole. • The color of brick or other natural building materials should dictate the color family choice. • Painting new infill buildings is prohibited. Lighting Background Lighting can add special character to the nighttime appearance of the Downtown. It can illuminate building entrances, pedestrian walkways, and advertising or floodlight special buildings. However, if left without consideration of the entire downtown experience, unchecked lighting can produce visual chaos, waste energy and create safety concerns. Guidelines • A coordinated lighting plan should be submitted for review with building plans. Provide information on each individual light fixture proposed, including fixture sections, lamp type and wattage. • Lighting fixtures should be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the project. The light source should be hidden from direct pedestrian or motorist view. • Unshielded wall pack light fixtures are not appropriate. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 24 Signs and Graphics Background During the peak of commercial activity in Stillwater, the signs in the historic commercial district had a distinct character that was a part of the overall streetscape. Many of the historic buildings were built to accommodate a storefront sign band in their original design. The efforts of the Design Manual are not meant to turn back the clock, but rather to preserve and enhance that distinct and historic character of Stillwater. All signage is subject to Stillwater building and zoning codes. 1. QUANTITIES, LOCATION AND SIZE Background In the past, streetscapes had a variety of sign types that not only identified the business, but also the name of the buildings, dates of construction, etc. The signs were simple, bold and well Crafted. Lettering was in clear, no-nonsense styles, maximizing the contrast between the background and the lettering. Varying sign types can be found in the historic streetscape including: (1) architectural signs, (2) storefront signs, (3) window signs, (4) awnings, (5) projecting signs, and (6) painted wall signs and murals. Every building should select the most appropriate sign type for its architecture and location. Guidelines • The maintenance and restoration of any existing historic signs is encouraged in lieu of replacement. • Signage for a business not located within the building is not acceptable. • Only one sign that contains the business name or graphic logo is permitted per street facing side. The exception is that a window sign may be used in addition to other sign types. • Signage should be located in such a way as to not obscure any architectural features of the building. A projecting sign with two faces is considered one sign. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 26 Signs and Graphics a. ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS Backround Architectural signs are integrated into the building fabric and are constructed of permanent materials such as stone or metal. Names and the dates of construction were common signs included on the façade. They were typically located in the roof parapet detailing or in a cornerstone detail. These add a sense of history and place to the character and fabric of Stillwater. Guidelines • Preserve existing architectural signs. • Promote the use of the original building names in new signage. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 27 Signs and Graphics b. STOREFRONT SIGNS Backround Storefront signs are those which are located on the horizontal band dividing the storefront windows from the upper façade of the building. Guidelines • The storefront sign should be used to display the primarily name of the business only. Use only one line of lettering if possible, leaving out secondary information. • Use simple, bold lettering with sufficient contrast between the lettering and the background. • “Trademark” or “Logo" signs may not be acceptable if the color and character of the sign is not in keeping with the historic character of the area. • The maximum area of the sign is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Graphics in the sign are included in the maximum allowable area. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 28 Signs and Graphics c. WINDOW SIGNS Background Window signs are applied inside the glass of storefront windows, upper floor windows and doorways. Their main focus was on the approaching pedestrian; therefore the signs gave more detailed information about the business. Guidelines • It may often be desirable to keep the display space clear. In these cases, insert the sign at the base or the head of the window, or both. • Keep the lettering small remembering that the reader will be in close proximity to the sign. Use several lines where necessaiy and consider curving the top line at the head of the window. • Lettering formed with neon may be used in the inside of the window, provided the size, light intensity, color and style are consistent with the theme of the buildong. • Total sign area in the window should not exceed one-third of the window area. • Display street numbers on or directly above the door, and business hours on the inside of the door or in an adjacent window. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 29 Signs and Graphics d. PROJECTING SIGNS Background Projecting signs are at right angles to the building face, either fixed to the wall or hanging from a bracket. Their major advantage over storefront or window signs is their ability to be seen by pedestrians and motorists from a distance down the street. If they get too large, however, they can obscure each other, so it is important to keep them small and simple. Guidelines • The maximum area of the sign and the minimum height above the sidewalk is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Use materials consistent with the period, such as wood signboards and metal brackets. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 30 Signs and Graphics e. PAINTED WALL SIGNS & MURALS Background Painted wall signs occasionally appeared on the side of buildings at comer locations, or where a low adjacent roofline exposed an expanse of plain brick wall above. As these signs were high on the building, the message was simple and the lettering was large and bold. In the time period of the 1920’s – 1950’s, there were occasions of painted advertising in these areas. More recently, there have been murals created on walls of "non-contributing" buildings, or on the bac of “non-contributing" buildings, or on the back walls of “contributing” buildings. These have been addressed on a case-by-case basis. Guidelines • Where existing painted wall signs can still he found, leave them exposed, or restore them to their original colors. • No new wall signs or murals should he introduced on historic "contributing" buildings. • Murals on "non-contributing" buildings have been allowed with individual review, provided they have a historic theme, and do not advertise an existing business or company. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 31 Signs and Graphics 2. COORDINATION OF SIGNS Backround At the time of the commercial boom in StiIlwater (1870’s – 1900’s) most buildings were owned and occupied by single businesses. Merchants thought of their entire façade as potential sign space. For this reason, the signs were all well coordinated. Ownership and business use patterns have changed over the years, and many buildings now contain multiple businesses. It is important that tenants and owners cooperate to design a sign package, which will help to reunify the building façade. Guidelines • Multiple-tenant buildings should submit a Sign Package that includes building elevations (drawn to scale), sign types, locations and sizes. Do not put up signs piecemeal. View the building as a whole and plan a unified design strategy to take advantage of all possible sign locations. • Tenants and owners should use a common lettering style and color scheme on the building • Design the Sign Package to emphasize the whole width and geometry of storefronts and individual buildings. Avoid the use of unified signage across multiple buildings thai are obviously separate and of different and distinct scale or architecture. • Consider giving the entire building an identifiable name, i.e. "Stillwater Mercantile", with individual business signs near the entrances, or on a common directory. BUILDING SIGN PROGRAMTenant A: 14 sq. ft. sign Tenant B: 21 sq. ft. sign Tenant C: 28 sq. ft. sign Tenant D: 28 sq. ft. sign Tenant E: 21 sq. ft. sign D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 32 D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 33 Signs and Graphics 3. MATERIALS Background Apart from architectual signs, the original exterior signs of StiIlwater were constructed of wood and painted. Window signs were painted, etched or gilded. Today a great range of materials are available, including metals and plastics, and their unconditioned use can lead to a confusion of signage, which detracts from the unique character of Stillwater. Modern sign materials are acceptable provided their design is handled with an understanding of the Victorian spirit. An exception is made in the case of internally lit and back-lit signs, their nature is inherently foreign to the solid character of brick and wood Victorian architecture and they are bound to strike a false and distracting note in the streetscape. Guidelines • Use painted wood where practicable. It is the authentic material and will look appropriate against the weathered brick of Stillwater's commercial façades. Modern materials that simulate wood may be acceptable, and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Neon may be used as an interior window sign only. • Backlit and internally lit signs are not appropriate. • Supporting brackets for projecting signs should be metal, painted black. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 34 Signs and Graphics 4. SHAPE OF SIGNS Background The signs of Stillwater were forthright and utilitarian. Simple, framed rectangular boards were constructed to fill the available spaces. A common type was the long narrow sign, which stretched across the top of the storefront windows. Guidelines • Design the sign shape to fit and fill the available space. Consider using long narrow signs spanning the full width of the façade. • If a projecting sign is used, keep it simple in shape, small in size and utilitarian in design. • Window signs should be symmetrical in layout and position. Top lines may be curved. 5. COLOR Background The commercial structures of this time period did not use a wide range of paint colors. The palette was particularly narrow; dark green, dark brown and black were common. Signs were painted for contrast rather than for color-black letters on a white background, gold letters on a black background. Complete ranges of paint colors are available today, ranging from the jarring to the pastel. If they are used indiscriminately, the unique historic character of Stillwater will be destroyed. Guidelines • Choose subdued colors and dark tones in keeping with the Victorian tradition. Properly selected combinations of dark brown and green, black, off-white and gold are all appropriate. • Choose tones with sufficient contrast to be clearly legible: dark on light or light on dark. • Support brackets of projecting signs should be black. 6. LETTERING Background Most of the original signs in Stillwater were strictly practical-the lettering had to be large enough to have an impact at the required viewing distance, and clear enough to be readily legible. Generally the style was a plain bold or classic uppercase arranged symmetrically, and one style was often repeated on various signs applied to one building. Guidelines • Choose a bold and simple type style and use it on all appropriate signs. Signs and Graphics 7. LIGHTING Background In the nineteenth century, Stillwater would have been dimly lit. Today we expect our cities to be bright and lively at night. We must achieve an acceptable standard of lighting without compromising the essential character of the historic setting. Guidelines • Use incandescent indirect lighting and place spotlights discreetly, in such a way as to shield the source from pedestrians and vehicular traffic. • Neon lights are permitted in window signs only. Design them with respect for the historic ambiance of the area. • Do not use flashing, moving or intermittent lights. • Do not use internally or back-lit signs, either projecting, wall mounted, or hung inside the window. • Do not use changeable or movable letters or graphics. 8. INSTALLATION Background With the high turnover of businesses in many of the historic buildings, signage has become temporary in nature. Efforts must be made to make sure that damage to buildings is minimized when signage is installed. Guidelines • The installation of any signage or graphics must have a minimal impact on the building and must allow the building to return to its original condition upon signage removal. • Reuse of existing mounting brackets, studs or holes is desirable. D E S I G N M A N U A L , C O M M E R C I A L H I S T O R I C D I S T R I C T , S T I L L W A T E R , M I N N E S O T A 35   216 4th Street North, Stillwater Minnesota – 651‐430‐8800 – www.ci.stillwater.mn.us        ATTENTION    A new training program has been established  for all Boards and Commissions members    Please attend  Thursday, June 6, 2019  6 PM   Council Chambers in City Hall    Presenter:  Kori Land, City Attorney    Details:  Time: 6 PM – 7 PM 7 PM – 9 PM  Attendees: All Boards & Commissions Heritage Preservation Commission  & Planning Commission  Topics:    Conduct of Meetings Municipal Planning/Zoning   Conflicts of Interest Public Hearings        Data Practices Act/Social Media       Please email regrets to Beth Wolf, City Clerk at bwolf@ci.stillwater.mn.us