Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-18 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North September 18, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 21st, 2019 regular meeting IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. VI. NEW BUSINESS 2. Case No. 2019-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for the property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Rd W in the BPC district. Valley Ridge Holdings, LLC, property owner and Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant. VII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS – NO PACKET MATERIALS 3. HPC/CC Workshop Feedback and Enabling Ordinance Discussion VIII. FYI – NO PACKET MATERIALS 4. 2019 Preserve MN Conference Updates 5. 2020 Preserve MN Conference Planning Efforts IX. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 2019 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Chairman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Krakowski, Steinwall, Thueson, Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Larson Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 17, 2019 Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2019 meeting. All in favor, 6-0. OPEN FORUM Don Empson, 1206 North Second Street, showed samples of old growth white pine boards used in historic homes. He suggested the City develop a program to encourage salvaging such materials when a building is demolished, for City storage and future public or private use. Julie Miller, 615 Broadway Street South, said they plan to salvage materials to the extent possible when demolishing their home. Anne Anderson, 603 Broadway Street South, spoke in support of Case No. 2019-03/19/17. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-20: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for 610 Main Street North and approval of a 1.75’ tall by 11.5’ 20 square foot wall-mounted sign. Allyssa Aguilera, applicant and Mike Bergum, property owner. City Planner Wittman said it was brought to her attention that there might be a sign violation involving two exterior tenant signs on this property. Staff will work to bring the business in compliance. Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor, 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2019-03/19: Consideration of the designation of 615 Broadway Street South as a heritage preservation site. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. Ms. Wittman explained the request. On March 2, 2019 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) denied a request from Reid and Julie Miller for the demolition of their residential structure located at 615 Broadway Street South on the basis that there was a feasible alternative to demolition of this historic resource. On April 16, 2019 the City Council upheld the HPC’s decision and ordered the preparation of a Designation Study. The Study notes the house is not eligible to be listed under any of the City’s applicable historic criteria and does not recommend the property for individual designation as a heritage preservation site. Now the HPC must hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the designation of the structure as a heritage preservation site. The process for review of the demolition and Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 2 of 6 the subsequent designation proceedings is in line with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s identified historic preservation objectives, policies, and programs. However, the demolition of the structure is in conflict with the housing policies to maintain existing housing, including the preservation of homes in good condition. The preservation regulations pertaining to designation criteria have not been updated to reflect changing local values, therefore designation of this structure would be in conflict with adopted City Code regulations, ordinances and community policies. Staff recommends denial of the designation of the house at 615 Broadway Street South. Peter Frank, attorney for Reid and Julie Miller, applicants, emphasized that the designation study found none of the City’s seven criteria for historic designation are met at this site. He added that the Planning Commission voted 4-0 that this should not be designated as a historic site and the State Historic Preservation Office also recommended against local designation. Chairwoman Mino opened the public hearing. Don Empson, 1206 North Second Street, pointed out one of the unintended consequences of demolition is an increase in property value resulting in surrounding property taxes going up by around $2,000. He urged the Commission to rewrite the ordinance so that every house over 100 years old is designated as historic. The rules of the National Register do not work well with local designation. Todd Anderson, 603 Broadway Street South, said he is a contractor who has worked on many of the homes in the neighborhood including this home. Restoration and repair to today’s standards is often almost impossible. He supports salvaging of materials for reuse. Ron Nelson, 509 Broadway Street, said he moved into his house in 1947. He feels improvements enhance a neighborhood. He understands taxes will go up but they will go up anyway. As long as a new house meets the criteria, he feels they should be able to build it. Chairwoman Mino closed the public hearing. Commissioner Finwall noted that the applicants’ attorney mentioned that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended against designation, but that office actually did not comment. City Planner Wittman said the SHPO found the home does not appear worth of local designation per the City’s criteria. The State Historical Society did not comment. City ordinance asks the historical society to comment but she believes that is because the SHPO used to be a division of the State Historical Society but now they are part of the office of administration. She thinks the State Historical Society did not comment because they no longer have the historic preservation division. Reid Miller said the State agreed with the designation study. Beyond the front 25 feet of the house, every surface has been changed - window openings, porch, expansion on south side, octagon windows, alterations on the north side. The whole house has been sided with aluminum siding. Significant testing indicates the foundation and support structure would need to be replaced. They started with a design that kept the front of the house but found that it would not be worth the additional investment. The 106 Group evaluated the house according to the City’s form and criteria. Councilmember Junker said as a lifelong resident of Stillwater, he has been adamantly against the demolition of this house because of its age and character. However he doesn’t think existing ordinances are strong enough to deny the demolition. The City needs to strengthen local criteria and create better policies to preserve historic resources. Chairwoman Mino agreed that the criteria in the ordinance needs to be reviewed to ensure it matches what is stated in the Comprehensive Plan. This house is a historic resource even if it does not meet national criteria for designation. Commissioner Walls agreed that the case is complex. He referred to the many changes that altered the structure of the house over the years, many of which predated the HPC. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Steinwall noted this case illustrates the need to look at the demolition and historic preservation ordinances. She was glad the Council ordered the designation study because that information was needed to make a decision. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to recommend denial of Case No. 2019-03/19, designation of 615 Broadway Street South as a local heritage preservation site, making a determination that the structure should not be designated as a local heritage preservation site, based on the designation study and materials presented by the applicant and their attorney and on the letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office. All in favor, 6-0. Case No. 2019-17: Consideration of a Design Permit for an infill home to be located at 615 Broadway St S in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Reid and Julie Miller, property owners. City Planner Wittman explained that Reid and Julie Miller have requested Design Permit approval for the construction of a single family residence to be located at 615 Broadway Street South, to replace the existing residence. The request is for a four story single family residence with three-car, side loaded attached garage and street-facing, single car drive-through carport. The house is representative of Italianate design, with a full depth, approximately 2,900 square foot, stone clad foundation; window sills and heads are proposed to be brick to match the exterior of the home. All windows, doors, trim, soffits, dentil blocks, brackets and mouldings, column surrounds, and open and enclosed porches will be wood or composite construction. Parapet wall caps, gutters and downspouts will be metal. With certain modifications, the design can conform to City Code and Conversation District guidelines. Due to the State of Minnesota’s 60/120-day timeframe, the HPC does not have sufficient time to table the request for additional information. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission discuss the proposed design and determine appropriate conditions of approval. Staff has concerns about the massing and scale compared with the neighborhood, the amount of garage space proposed (variance required), the brick material in the traditionally lap neighborhood, and the living space above the carport. Two written letters of support were received. Commissioner Steinwall asked if variances would be required. City Planner Wittman replied the only variance needed would be for garage coverage, 1,600 proposed, 1,000 allowed. She has discussed some options with the applicants that could alleviate the need for the variance. A recommended condition of approval is that either a variance would be applied for, or the garage portion would be redesigned. Mr. Miller said they are willing to work on design options that would eliminate the need for the variance. Jean Rehkamp Larson, architect, explained that part of the garage is tucked under the house, minimizing the appearance of the garage space. Mr. Miller said they redesigned the house to be sensitive to neighbors’ comments. They moved the garage from the side to the basement, narrowed the house significantly, and moved the entire front of the house to be perfectly in line with the existing structure. The current house is four stories, three stories above ground, and the appraisable square footage of the new house is approximately 4,230. It would be the fourth biggest house on Broadway Street. Ms. Rehkamp Larson stated the front portion of the house will be the same width as what is there now. It will be stepped back to a wider volume. She feels it fits the rhythm of the streetscape. The highest portion is set the furthest back. The lot coverage has decreased from 38.7% to 35%. Chairwoman Mino opened the public hearing. Myron Reubendale, 609 Broadway Street South, stated he likes the design but is unsure about the piece going over the driveway as it is a little imposing to his house. The rest of the house looks beautiful. Chairwoman Mino closed the public hearing. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Chairwoman Mino said she received a voice message from a neighbor who said the mass of the building is completely out of character for the block and should be pared down. She acknowledged that the square footage initially stated to be 8,000 was in error. The foundation is 2,900 square feet. Commissioner Krakowski asked if changes would need to be brought back to the Commission or approvable by staff. Ms. Wittman replied if the design is in substantial agreement with the materials submitted, staff can approve minor items such as shape of brackets and so on. Commissioner Finwall said the building is attractive and she appreciates the design being scaled back. She questioned whether the Italianate style is appropriate for a vernacular style neighborhood. Mrs. Miller remarked that Stillwater’s neighborhoods are very mixed in terms of architectural design. There is an Italianate house two doors down. Commissioner Thueson asked about other brick buildings that use the sand color brick. Ms. Wittman stated there used to be more yellow brick in Stillwater. Chairman Mino asked about the design of the top story hipped roof. Ms. Rehkamp Larson replied that the hipped roof on top finishes the design. Commissioner Finwall asked if there is a way to reduce the height to not tower over neighboring structures. Mr. Miller responded that compared to the existing structure, it is within one foot of the highest height. It may feel larger because of the additional square footage. It is an important feature of the house. They considered lowering the overall height of the house but it would preclude keeping the driveway where it is. Chairwoman Mino asked if the applicants are open to building just the carport and not the room above it. Mrs. Miller responded that would be a significant concession. As the fourth bedroom, it is needed and is within the guidelines. Commissioner Finwall said it may be the only brick house in the neighborhood except for one a partial brick two doors down. She asked, was there consideration of using other materials in addition to brick? Mr. Miller replied there is a brick house at the top of the stairs and brick houses a couple of streets over. Ms. Rehkamp Larson pointed out brick is one of the materials listed in the City’s approved materials. Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve Case No. 2019-17, Design Permit for an infill home to be located at 615 Broadway Street South, with the seven staff-recommended conditions. Commissioner Finwall commented that having to approve the demolition of a historic house and then approve a giant house that she considers not to match the scale of the neighborhood is difficult, but she appreciates the effort the applicants put into meeting the guidelines. Chairwoman Mino said she too appreciates the care taken to connect the new design with the streetscape. Commissioner Steinwall said she appreciated Ms. Miller’s comments that they will recycle the original building materials to the extent possible. She wondered if this should be incorporated into another condition. Mrs. Miller said if it were a requirement, it would be tricky. Professionals have said that it could open them to liability. Commissioner Walls commented that sounds like it contradicts what Mrs. Miller stated in the open forum. All in favor, 6-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Case No. 2019-18: Consideration of a Design Permit for the Stillwater Riverbank Restoration and Riverwalk Project. City of Stillwater, property owner and applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that the riverbank restoration project will be constructed between Nelson Street East and the southern city limit extending along the St. Croix River shoreline for nearly three-quarters of a mile. The purpose of the project is to stabilize the shoreline while separating users to provide pedestrian safety. The most significant work of the project will be the installation of rip rap and vegetation along the shoreline. Additional work includes the installation of a quarter-mile 10’ wide concrete pedestrian riverwalk. Overlook platforms will be constructed adjacent to the river, accessed from the existing Lower Loop Trail. Approximately one-third of the project, the Riverwalk, as well as one overlook that will attach to the St. Croix Boat and Packet gangways, is located in the Downtown Design Review District. Per City Code, this is the cause for HPC review. Shoreline restoration work and the installation of two overlooks will occur on the eastern boundary of the eligible South Main Archaeological District and the Stillwater Cultural Landscape District. These eligible districts are not designated as local heritage preservation sites; the City Code is silent on the HPC’s review of the work in this area. However, the State Historic Preservation Office has indicated they would like to have the local HPC review the project. In July, the HPC requested additional information, specifically: landscape plans, details of the proposed retaining wall, detailed grades on high and low water elevations in the wall areas, and an accurate representation of platform sizes. Since then, City staff has met with representatives from the MN Department of Natural Resources and the National Park Service’s St. Croix National Scenic Riverway to determine platform designs that will not only conform to City, State and Federal standards and guidelines but also provide for minimal long-term maintenance while not becoming a public nuisance. The plans have been updated to reflect changes desired by the Commission. She discussed the changes in detail. The site is well documented and has been significantly surveyed over the last several decades. The proposed project will be in conformance with previously approved plans and existing site conditions. The installation will not negatively impact historical, cultural and archaeological resources. Therefore, staff recommends approval with six conditions. Commissioner Thueson said the middle overlook looks like it will stand out, however the reasons for having a solid structure make sense. He asked if there is flexibility in the design finish. Ms. Wittman said part of the challenge is that the design of the overlook needs to match the wall that is extending from the levee wall. An alternative face was not discussed. A cantilevered design sitting lightly on the land, as previously discussed by the Commission, is not possible due to concerns about safety and the possibility for garbage, plant growth and debris collecting underneath. Councilmember Junker pointed out the City is designing it with the DNR, not a third party. It will not look pathetic. The City has already lost a significant amount of land to erosion which is the reason for the project. Commissioner Finwall said she is still interested in exploring an alternative facing for the overlooks that would be more reflective of the City’s lumbering history, for instance limestone. She would not propose to have it brought back for another review, just some consideration of materials to be used. Ms. Wittman asked if something like a stamped wood look would be more appealing than concrete. Councilmember Junker commented that stamped wood would not blend well with the rip rap and shoreline. Commissioner Steinwall said she would be concerned that it could a graffiti target. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve Case No. 2019-18, Design Permit for the Stillwater Riverbank Restoration and Riverwalk Project, with the six conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Finwall asked if Commission would be amenable to a motion to have City staff review options for alternative materials on the exterior of the two visible overlooks that are more of an expression of the City’s past as a lumber town. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Steinwall commented that at this point in the design process, it is more important to keep the project moving than have staff do more research and bring it back for further review. City Planner Wittman said she can continue working with the engineering department and architects to figure out if there is an aggregate that could be put in the concrete that would blend better. Anything else would have to go back to the National Park Service and the Department of Natural Resources. All in favor, 6-0. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 2019 Workplan Update and 2020 Workplan Outline Ms. Wittman reviewed the 2019 Workplan Update. Staff is working on ordinance amendments and interpretation, also looking at the South Main cultural landscape district area. Chairman Mino asked that staff also look at how the City handles historic resources that don’t rise to the criteria of national registry. She would like to acknowledge that average homes are a big part of Stillwater’s history and that affordable housing also is important to the City. Ms. Wittman reported that a joint City Council and HPC meeting is set for September 10 to begin discussion of ordinance development. 2019 Preserve MN Conference September 11-13 Ms. Wittman asked Commissioners to let her know if they are interested in attending the State Historic Preservation Conference being held in St. Cloud. FYI 2019-2022 Grant Updates and Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites Website Ms. Wittman said staff is working on grants targeting a historic structure report for the Lowell Park gazebo, and an update of the Heirloom Homes web site. Washington County Historical Society future Heritage Center Ms. Wittman shared information on a planned Washington County Historical Society Heritage Center. Other items Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission of the Boards & Commissions Picnic August 22. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Thueson to adjourn. All in favor, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-21 REPORT DATE: September 12, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 18, 2019 APPLICANT: Gordon Skamser Jr. LANDOWNER: Valley Ridge Holdings LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan amendments LOCATION: 1570 Frontage Road West ZONING: Central Business District (CBD) DISTRICT: West Stillwater Business Park REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In 1987 the City of Stillwater granted a variance (Case No. 1987-017) to the property at 1570 Frontage Road West; the variance allowed the property to have greater than one business sign. Conditions of the approval were made and are attached for your review. In 2013 South Metro Centers V LLC, then property owner, requested approval of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan and free-standing signage on the property. The property owner incorporated all Case No. 1987-017 conditions of approval into the sign plan; the multi- tenant sign plan was approved by the Stillwater HPC. Subsequently, the City Council rescinded the variance approval, clearing the title to the property for it to be subdivided to allow for the construction of the Dairy Queen building on a future outlot. A copy of the approved sign plan and Design Permit is attached for your review. SPECIFIC REQUEST Gordon Skamser Jr. has requested a Design Permit for the alteration of the existing multi-tenant sign plan to accommodate the installation of a new sign for Norman Quacks. The sign plan modifications1 include: 1 Underlined and Italics is proposed to be removed Case no. Page 2  Neon must be double-row for even illumination  All signs must have equal margin on each side of their allotted sign band relative to the size of the overall size.  “All letters must be constructed to U. L. standards and must be U. L. approved” is proposed to read: “All letters must be constructed to modern safety standards”.  The following is not permitted and is expressly prohibited: o Signs with exposed neon, fluorescent tubing or exposed o Exposed sign illumination or illuminated sign cabinets or modules.  Sections 13 through 25, clarifying the sign plan, are proposed to be removed in their entirety. They are proposed to be replaced with “total square footage of each sign must fit within the total square footage of the Elevation and Zone of the sign placement”. The applicant is proposing a single “total square footage of allowed sign” column for each elevation/zone.  For the pylon banner sign program, the applicant is proposing to change the sign’s maximum size, of 4’x6’ to include sizes “otherwise mutually agreed upon by the owner”; this phrase is also used as a caveat to the total time period allowed for each banner.  The proposed plan allows for the placement of a sign on the South elevation, on the corner’s architectural feature. ANALYSIS The intent of the design review procedure is to secure the general purposes of the comprehensive plan, West Stillwater Business Park Plan and downtown plan, to maintain the character and integrity of neighborhoods and commercial districts by promoting excellence of design and development, preventing traffic hazards, providing adequate services and encouraging development in harmony with its neighborhood or planning area. City Code Section 31-209, Design Permits, require the HPC to review multi-tenant sign plans for conformance with adopted standards and guidelines. However, neither the City Code nor the West Stillwater Business Park Plan have standards and guidelines for the review of multi-tenant sign plans. The following standards have been developed for 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”. This sign plan is utilized as an example for other property owners seeking to develop comprehensive, multi-tenant sign plans as it is not only well thought and fairly distributes signage allotments between all businesses in the mall, it is relatively easy for the City to approve sign permits for this property. Staff has the following concerns:  Changing the sign plan to have less clarity for how much individual signage is permitted for each elevation and zone will make the plan difficult for the City to administer. The difficulties include understanding total elevation/zone signage permitted at any given point as well as the risk one tenant space will consume portions of signage for other tenants. Furthermore, the plan gives no reference to how many signs any one business may have; this is in direct conflict with the City Code. If approved, the applicant would Case no. Page 3 have three signs on the building; the total square footage (as per City Code) may be exceeded.  The plan additionally proposes the removal of regulations pertaining to exposed bulbs, including neon. While this is not in conflict with City code, there is concern this could set a precedence for the property, allowing for signage that has not traditionally been permitted on the property.  The plan further proposes allowing for modifications to the tenant banner program, designed to accommodate for onsite temporary signage as temporary signage has tended to become long-term building and ground clutter on the property. This program was created to allow for flexible, rotating temporary signage to reduce visual clutter. Modifying this existing program could have negative implications.  Lastly, the plan allows for an additional sign to be located on an existing architectural feature where signage is currently not permitted. All signs on the property are located in one of two places: on the traditional sign band area or in an area where the surface is flat and designed to accommodate the installation of signage. Installation of signage in this area obscures the architectural features. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with or without conditions. B. Deny the requested Design Permit. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Upon a finding by the design review committee that the application, subject to any conditions imposed, will meet the standards of design review, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application. The lack of detail regarding the allowance of specific maximum number of signs is not consistent with the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Additionally, the proposed location, size and height of the new corner sign location does not keep with the appearance of the building and is not in harmony with the overall placement of signs on the property. Staff recommends the HPC discuss the proposed multi-tenant sign plan with the applicant and take action on the request. Case no. Page 4 Attachments: Applicant Narrative Existing Sign Plan (8 pages) Design Permit 2013-42 Amended Sign Plan Proposal (4 pages) Variance 1987-17 (4 pages) cc: Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant Francis Skamser Lewis Alon Ventura, Valley Ridge Mall EXHIBIT E SIGNAGE CRITERIA 1. Valley Ridge exterior signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy shall be restricted to the Tenant's proper names and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems shields and similar identifying devices shall be permitted provided they are confined within the signage panel. 2. All signs shall be located in the designated sign band area assigned by the Landlord. 3. All signage is to consist of individual illuminated letters or illuminated by direct light source. Fixture(s) is subject to owner's review and approval. Minimum letter height to be 10 ". 4. Neon must be double -row for even illumination. 5. All neon must have 30 M.A. transformers. Argon gas (white, blues, and greens) must have 60 M.A. transformers. 6. All signs must have an equal margin on each side of their allotted sign band relative to the size of the overall size. 7. All letters must be constructed of aluminum. Sides may be painted to match the letter face. 8. Letters faces shall consist of 3/16" Plexiglass, Lexan or equivalent material. Color and font choices by Tenant. 9. All letters must be constructed to U.L. standards and must be U.L. approved. 10. All Signs for each Tenant will be properly maintained. 11. In lieu of backlit lights referenced above, Tenant may utilize similar signs which are not backlit but externally lighted with acceptable gooseneck or similar exterior lights. 12. The following is not permitted and is expressly prohibited: a. Signs with exposed neon, fluorescent tubing or exposed lamps. b. Signs with flashing, blinking, moving, flickering, animated, audible effects or types. c. Printed signs on storefronts or windows. Exceptions are professionally manufactured temporary signs, subject to owner review and approval. Owner to determine temporary time period. d. Paper signs, stickers, banners or flags. Exceptions are professionally manufactured temporary signs, subject to owner review and approval. Owner to determine temporary time period. Exhibit E -1 e. Exposed sign illumination or illuminated sign cabinets or modules. f. Painted signs on the exterior surface of any building. g. Signs located at or on the side or rear of any building except where the premises contains a customer service entrance opening directly onto parking areas and except for small identifying signs to facilitate deliveries. Exception to this for a tenant, who has an alternate entrance on the rear of building, this signage shall be in accordance with Landlord's standard sign format for rear. 13. West Elevation - 1: Exterior signs in Zone B shall be limited to either (a) three individual signs of 2' x 30' with a maximum area of 60 SF per bay but in no event more than 150 SF in total area or (b) in the event a tenant combines bays, one sign may be increased to 3' x 40' with a maximum of 120 SF but in no event more than 150 SF in aggregate area or (c) in the event a tenant takes all bays, one sign increase to 4' x 50' but in no event no more than 150 SF in area in aggregate. 14. South Elevation - 1: Exterior signs in Zone B (west of main entrance) shall be limited to either (a) two individual signs of 3' x 25' with a maximum area of 75 SF per bay but in no event more than 110 SF in total area or (b) in the event a tenant combines bays, one sign may be increased to 3'6" x 40' with a maximum of 110 SF in area. 15. South Elevation - 1: Exterior signs in Zone B (east of main entrance) shall be limited to either (a) three individual signs of 3' x 25' with a maximum area of 75 SF per bay but in no event more than 150 SF in total area or (b) in the event a tenant combines bays, one sign may be increased to 3'.5' x 40' with a maximum of total of 150 SF in area in aggregate. 16. South Elevation - 1: Exterior signs in Zone E (interior tenants) shall be limited to designated sign boxes. Sign boxes to be 3.5' x 4.5'. Maximum area of sign box will be 15.75 SF. Interior tenants will be limited to exterior signage located in Zone E. Tenants are allowed their store name only - no logos will be permitted. Each interior tenant will be given an equal amount of area, and text font is to be consistent between tenants. 17. South Elevation - 1: Exterior signs in Zone E (main entrance) shall be limited to the designated sign area of 4' X 20' with a maximum area of 80 SF 18. East Elevation: Exterior signs in Zone B shall be limited to one individual sign of 3' x 25' with a maximum area of 64 SF. 19. East Elevation: Exterior sign in Zone D (secondary entrance) shall be limited to the designated sign area of 2' x 25' with a maximum area of 50 SF. 20. South Elevation — 2: Exterior signs in Zone A Upper shall be limited to either (a) nine individual signs of 2' x 20' with a maximum area of 40 SF per bay but in no event more than 240 SF in aggregate area or (b) in the event a tenant combines bays, a fewer number of signs but a multiple of the width and area by the number of bays combined but in no event more than 240 SF in aggregate area. The letter height shall be limited to 24" regardless of the number of bays combined. Exterior signs in Zone A Lower will Exhibit E -2 be limited to designated blade sign area of 1.5' x 3' maximum area. Maximum letter height 18 ". Maximum area 4.5 SF. 21. South Elevation — 2: Exterior signs in Zone D east shall be limited to one sign within the sign band of 5.5' x 12.75' with a maximum area of 70 SF. 22. West Elevation — 2: Exterior signs in Zone shall be limited to one sign within the sign band of 5.5' x 12.75' with a maximum area of 70 SF 23. West Elevation — 2: Exterior signs in Zone A Upper shall be limited to either (a) three individual signs of 2' x 20' with a maximum area of 40 SF per bay but in no event more than 99 SF in aggregate or (b) in the event a tenant combines bays, a fewer number of signs but a multiple of the width and area by the number of bays combined but in no event more than 99 SF in aggregate. The letter height shall be limited to 24" regardless of the number of bays combined. Exterior signs in Zone A Lower will be limited to designated blade sign area of 1.5' x 3' maximum area. Maximum letter height 18 ". Maximum area 4.5 SF. 24. West Elevation — 2: Exterior signs in Zone C shall be limited to either (a) two individual signs of 3' x 20' with a maximum area of 60 SF per bay but in no event more than 95 SF in aggregate or (b) in the event a tenant combines bays one sign of 4' x 30' but in no event more than 95 SF in aggregate. 25. West Elevation — 2: Exterior signs in Zone C facing Highway 36 shall be limited to one sign of 4' x 30' but in no event more than 95 SF in aggregate. 26. Tenants or their representative must submit three drawings for all proposed sign work to the Landlord for review and approval. Drawings should clearly detail the proposed sign and specify the color selected. The Landlord will return one signed set upon approval. Is the sign is not approved the Landlord shall provide a written explanation. 27. See accompanying Tenant Signage Maximum and Zones. 28. Pylon Banner Program Any of the tenants of Valley Ridge will be allowed to advertise their business with temporary banners attached beneath the center's pylon sign. The temporary banners will be in the form of a 4' x 6', two -sided banner. No tenant shall be allowed to hang their banner more than three times per year and more than one week per occurrence. Each tenant shall submit for a temporary banner /advertisement permit with the City per appropriate methods. In Lieu of this program which has existed for five years, Valley Ridge would like to explore converting the lower "tenant box" on the new pylon to an electronic reader board" that would take the place and serve at the banner program for advertising tenant's businesses. Exhibit E -3 West Elevation 1 (Zone -B) South Elevation 1(Zone -B) West of main entrance South Elevation 1 (Zone -B) East of main entrance EXHIBIT E -2 TENANT SIGNAGE (MAXIMUM1 Sign Count 3 2 1 Maximum Sign Area Aggregate (SF) 2' x 30' (height x width); or 150 3' x 40'; or 4'x50'. 2 3' x 25'; or 1 3.5' x 40' 3 3' x 25'; or 2 3.5' x 40' South Elevation 1 (Zone -E) 1 Main Entrance South Elevation 1 (Zone -E) 2 Interior Tenants East Elevation (Zone -B) 1 3' x 25' 3.5' x 4.5' Sign Cabinets 3' x 25' East Elevation (Zone -D) 1 1.5' x 20' Secondary Mall entrance South Elevation 2 (Zone -B) Upper Signs If tenant combines bays — fewer signs and larger lengths 9* 2' x 20' *; or South Elevation 2 (Zone -B) 10 1.5' x 3' Lower Blade Signs South Elevation 2 (Zone -D) 1 5.5' x 12.75; West Elevation 2 (Zone -D) 1 5.5' x 12.75; West Elevation 2 (Zone -A) 3* 2' x 20' *; or If tenant combines bays — fewer signs and larger lengths West Elevation 2 (Zone -A) 4 1.5' x 3' Lower Blade Signs West Elevation 2 (Zone -C) 2 3' x 20' *; or 1 4'X30' West Elevation 2 (Zone -C) 1 4' x 30' Frontage Road Elevation Exhibit E2 -1 110 150 75 40 64 30 240 70 70 99 95 95 IVEleilf EOM- I 1 Sr f4IF KleE r. Ir AAINEC Si.LACE *EA Ai if' ft, ELAVRE 1,1•EF tMl" cfi 'WM AUi" ecoirlittry4To.%- I I IA ITIC AEC V37' I 0 EAST EIEVNION 7 C2W5 el ARNE1041111 (re memo) Wt. Aft I MI • 11Prrril • ""1111"7".1 1111=1'' 5 I I —III 1111111110/ENINE MI NI Celor Guild Morning Moon 7271W CCLA1112 coons Scotch Yellow (Lew Hide) Serengeti Si n (Low Hilo) 274D AC1033Y Wee 14225 UELPd zota - A 11111171MMI 2 II 1) NM 1111111.1111. I gad sonaroumriillni0111M11 II it F.ArftliTidger e I I ErSI LEVAIION A ZCOIE -C 3,4 -a 1 ORIGINAL DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT Case No.: DR/2013 -42 HPC Meeting: 8/5/2013 Heritage Preservation Meeting Date: 8/5/2013 ActionNote: Approved 7 -0 Description of Project: Design review of store front and signage Applicant(s): Jesse Hamer, Applicant Kriss Novak South Metro Centers V LLC, Owner Project Address: 1250 Frontage Rd, Stillwater, MN 55082 Property ID No.: 3203020440016 Zoning District: BP -C Conditions of Approval: A. Facade Improvement. 1. The design permit shall be valid for all exterior facades of the structure. In the event the Community Development Director determine substantial alterations are proposed for future phases of facade renovation, staff shall bring the proposed modifications before the HPC for design review. 2. The multitenant master sign shall not exceed 120 square feet. 3. Overall lighting shall be directed down and shielded from adjacent properties or roadways. B. Master Sign Plan- Wall Signage: 1. The Master Sign Plan shall be amended to include the signage allotted on the Free - standing sign. The Plan shall outline tenants eligible to place temporary banners on the sign. 2. All signs are required to receive review and approval by the City prior to installation. 3. Changes to the Master Sign Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. C. Freestanding Signage: 1. A landscaped area equal to twice the sign area, comprised of bushes or flowers, shall be provided around the base of free standing sign. This landscaped area shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. Sign permit applications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City for the two sign cabinets in the freestanding sign. 3. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC. D. Office Max Signage: 1. The West Elevation signs shall not exceed the maximum allowable signage permitted in the Master Sign Plan. 2. The cabinet sign shall be similar in nature to the wall- mounted signage. Substantial alterations to the design shall require design review by the HPC. 3. No additional signage may be permitted for this business. We accept the conditions of this permit. We understand that any changes from these plans must be resubmitted ford.. proval. Owner or epresentative ity Planner Date Date A design review permit is granted pursuant to the zoning ordinance and is not a substitute for a building permit. The City Building Official issues a building permit after approval of the plans and payment of the building permit fee and state surcharge. This design review permit will be null and void if the project that is permitted by this permit is not completed within two years from the date the permit is granted. 5488"72 STATE OF. MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER In the Matter of the Planning Case No. V/R7 -17 REQUEST BY: RIVER HFIGHTS PIA7A Owner CITY COUNCIL VARIANCE PROCEEDINGS ORDER GRANTING VARIANCE The above entitled matter came on to be heard before the City Council for the City of Stillwater on the 5th day of May , 19j, on a request for a variance pursuant to the City Code for the following described property: Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2 - Block 4 lying Wly of line par to and 100 ft. Ely of W line of Lot 2. Stillwater Industrial Park. Purposes Variance for more than one nameplate sign and one. business sign per lot frontage at 1570 West Frontage Road. Upon motion made and duly approved by the requisite majority of the City Council, it is ordered that a variance be granted upon the following conditions: (If no conditions, state "None ").. SEE ATTACHED LIST OF CONDITIONS. Dated this g O day of 191• STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) CITY OF STILLWATER) OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I, Mary Lou Johnson,.,City..Clerk, for the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order Granting Variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whjle thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I_have: hereunto subscribed my hand and the seal of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, in the County of Washington, on thvi6Cday of ,t PL , 192D. DRAFTED BY: David T. Magnuson City Attorney Suite 203, The Grand Garage 324 South Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 t L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. V/87 -17 1. River Heights Plaza exterior signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy shall be restricted to the Tenant's proper names and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, shields and similar identifying devices shall be permitted provided they are confined within the signage panel. 2. All signs shall be located in the designated sign band area assigned by the Landlord. 3. All signage is to consist of individual illuminated letters with a maximum height of 24" and a minimum height of 10". Descenders shall not exceed 5 ". 4. Neon must be double -row for even illumination. 5. All neon must have 30 M.A. transformers. Argon gas (white, blues and greens) must have 60 M.A. transformers. 6. All signs must have an 18" margin on each side of their allotted sign band in Phase I with Phase II having 12" margins on both sides. 7. All letters must be constructed of aluminum. Sides may be painted to match the letter face. 8. Letter faces shall consist of 3/16" plexiglas. Color choices by Tenant. 9. All letters must be constructed to U.L. standards and must be U.L. approved. 10. All signs for each Tenant, will be furnished, paid for and properly maintained by said Tenant. 11. Tenants or their representative must submit three drawings for all proposed sign work to the Landlord for approval clearly detailing the proposed sign and specifying the color selected. The Landlord will return one signed set upon approval. If a sign should be disapproved, the Landlord shall provide a written explanation. 12. The following is not permitted and is expressly prohibited: a. Signs with exposed neon, fluorescent tubing or exposed lamps. b. Signs with flashing, blinking, moving, flickering, animated, audible effects or types. c. Printed signs on storefronts or windows. d. Paper signs, stickers, banners or flags. CONDITIONS - CONTINUED CASE NO. V/87 -17 e. Exposed raceways, ballast boxes or electrical transformers., f. Exposed sign illumination or illuminated sign cabinets or modules. g. Painted signs on the exterior surface of any building. h. Signs located at or on the side or rear of any building except where the premises contains a customer service entrance opening directly onto parking areas and except for small identifying signs to facilitate deliveries, in accordance with Landlord's standard sign format for rear and service corridor doors. No other signs will be permitted. i. Roof top signs. j. Sign boxes except for the West end of the mall building. k. Exterior illumination of signs from mall ceilings. 13. Exterior signs on the strip portion of the mall from Grid 10 to Grid 20 shall be limited to 2' x 20' maximum. Maximum area 40 square feet. See Exhibit 1. 14. Interior signs shall be limited to 2' x 50' maximum. Maximum area 100 square feet. See Exhibit 2. 15. Exterior signs on the enclosed mall, Phase 1 and Spaces-H, 1, 2, 3 and G, shall be limited to 2' x 30' maximum. Length to be determined by Owner or Owner's represen tative. See Exhibit 1. 16. Exterior signage may not be available to all tenants in Phase I or Spaces H, 1, 2, 3 or G. This will be determined by the Owner or the Owner's representative. 17. Any variations to the above reference standards shall be approved by the owners prior to any action by the tenant. 18. All signage must meet City codes and approved sign program for the River Heights Plaza Center. Any exceptions shall require a variance from the City. 19. Exterior signs on the enclosed Mall Phase 1 will have 18" margins maintained on both sides of the signage. Exterior signs on Phase II will have 12" margins maintained on both sides of the signage. RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -127 CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION RESCINDING ORDER GRANTING VARIANCES FOR VALLEY RIDGE MALL AT 1570 WEST FRONTAGE ROAD CASE NO. V/87 -17 WHEREAS, on May 5, 1987 the City Council approved Planning Case No. V/87 -17 (hereinafter called "V/87 -17 ") granting variances to River Heights Mall, commonly referred to as Valley Ridge Mall hereinafter called "Mall ") and located at 1570 West Frontage Road, legally described as Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2 -- Block 4 — lying Westerly of a line parallel to and 100 ft. Easterly of West line of Lot 2, Stillwater Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, an Order granting variances in Case No. V/87 -17 was recorded with Washington County as Document No. 548872, authorizing more than one nameplate sign and one business sign per tenant at the Mall; and WHEREAS, The Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter called "HPC ") reviewed and approved multi- tenant sign plan proposals submitted by the Mall on July 7, 2003 and August 5, 2013; and WHEREAS, the HPC's approved sign plans conflict with and are more restrictive than the provisions set forth in the Order granting variances in Case No. V/87 -17; and WHEREAS, the owner of the legally described property agrees with the HPC approvals of July 7, 2003 and August 5, 2013 and further agrees that the Order granting variances in Case No. V/87 -17 should be rescinded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby rescinds the City of Stillwater Planning Case No. V/87 -17, recorded as Document No. 548872 with Washington County. Enacted by the City County of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 20th day of August, 2013. CITY OF STILLWATER Michael Polehna, Vice Mayor ATTEST: Diane F. Ward, City Clerk