The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-03-06 HPC Packet• THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, March 6, 2006, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA Approval of the February 6, 2006 minutes Public Hearings 1 Case No DR/06-12 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) located at 1208 North William Street Tom Mulcahy, applicant 2 Case No DR/06-13 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) located south of 303 West Olive Street Mark Willis and Greg Stokes, applicants Design Review 3 Case No DR/06-11 Design review of new signage located at 317 South Main Street (St Croix Merchant's Building) in the CBD, Central Business District Randall Raduenz, representing Larry Cramer, applicant 4 Case No DR/06-14 Design review of signage located at 1401 Stillwater Blvd in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District Mark Winey, applicant Case No DR/06-15 Design review of signage change located at 106 E Chestnut -Street in the CBD, Central Business District Patricia Page, applicant 6 Case No DR/06-16 Design review of exterior modifications of a building (Stone's Restaurant) located at 324 South Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District Mike Stone, applicant Other Items CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 • WEBSITE www ci stillwatermn us 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6 2006 Present Howard Lieberman Chairman Phil Eastwood Jeff Johnson Larry Nelson Brent Peterson Roger Tomten Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear Mr Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Johnson seconded by Mr Peterson moved approval of the minutes of Jan 4 2006 as presented Motion passed unanimously Case No DEM/06-01 Consideration of a request from Ascension Episcopal Church for demolition of a residence at 209 N Third St in the PA Public Administration District Vicki Cross representing Ascension Episcopal Church Mr Lieberman briefly reviewed the City ordinance s nine requirements for a demolition to be approved Ms Cross said several of the nine steps have not been completed because the church does not own the building and it has been difficult to get people into the structure which is filled with debris She said the church s intent is to purchase the house tear down the structure and leave the property vacant until a future use is determined She said the church has not closed on the purchase because it does not want to repair/restore the structure Don Empson 1206 N Second St said no old house is beyond redemption He noted that Ascension Church has done a great job at preservation in the past and noted the house in question looks fairly square and sound He urged the Commission to table the request until the house has been carefully inspected inside and out and the church looks at other ways of dealing with the house Mr Empson said he would be happy to work with the church to explore options for saving the structure Mr Lieberman noted the ordinance is clear in the conditions that need to be met and several of those conditions — evaluating the cost of remodeling the structure advertising the structure for s ale and plan for reuse — have not been met in this application Ms Cross again pointed out the church has not been able to meet the conditions because it does not own the property and has been unable to gain full access to the house Mr Johnson suggested that if the church purchased the house/property and removed the debris it would be better able to determine potential uses/alternatives Mr Peterson noted it would be difficult to approve a variance to demolish someone else s house Mr Lieberman moved to deny the request without prejudice on the grounds that three of the nine ordinance conditions have not been met and that procedurally the church does not own the property He pointed out that denying the request without prejudice allows the church to reapply for the demolition permit at some point in the future if the church owns the property and meets all of the requirements Mr Tomten noted the HPC's duty is to encourage preservation and asked the church to take a second look at its mission as an urban church Mr Peterson seconded the motion motion passed unanimously 1 I City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6 2006 Case No DR/06-04 Design review of a proposed 32-unit condominium project with hotel lobby relocation and underground parking at 101 Water St in the CBD Central Business District Michael Diem Archnet representing Chuck Dougherty Present were Mr Dougherty and Mr Diem Mr Lieberman opened the discussion by reading the staff recommendation which expressed a concern that it is premature to review the site plan as there are too many unknowns that may affect any design direction Mr Dougerty noted there have been past problems related to the open staircase the provision of a brick dumpster and other issues He said ownership has changed — he is now the sole owner — and said he hoped it would be possible to work through past difficulties Mr Diem assured the Commission that they would not show something in design drawings and then strip down the final project He briefly reviewed drawings which he said give a 'hint at possible colors and materials — green slate roof with reddish\brown exterior Plans also include a tower which replicates the former depot tower Mr Diem said the plan is to recreate a landmark and incorporate it in the project as a kiosk/public open space, the new tower would be built using the same foundation as the old depot tower he said Mr Diem said the proposal calls for brick exterior with stone at the base that will match the existing stone Mr Johnson pointed out that the HPC views the downtown historic district as a whole Part of the uniqueness of the downtown district are the vistas of the river gazebo lift bridge which are bigger than just a building itself He said one of his initial concerns is the height and location of the proposed project which blocks a lot of the viewshed He also said he is unsure if the proposed tower has any relationship to the project Further he noted there are issues related to property ownership and utility locations He suggested it premature to consider the project until those issues have been resolved Mr Lieberman agreed that it would be premature to consider the project at this time noting recent staff leavings the Corps of Engineers floodwall plans proposed infill design guidelines and pending height regulations for the downtown district He questioned how the Commission could allow the project to move forward with so many issues that are still open and subject to change Mr Dougherty responded that they have been in discussion with staff since September have had meetings with the DNR and Corps of Engineers and had a workshop scheduled with the City Council later in the week of the HPC meeting He also pointed out that the City s plan for the property called for a two-story parking lot which also would have impacted the viewshed Councilmember Harycki pointed out the City s agenda includes revising/updating the Downtown Plan in addition to all the other changes/unknowns that are pending Mr Johnson asked Mr Lockyear what actions were available to the HPC Mr Lockyear cautioned against holding action in abeyance for too long as the 60-day rule might come into play Mr Tomten pointed out that all large projects go through a concept phase and said he would hate to have the 60-day rule come into play for this project He suggested that it was up to the HPC to give comments/direction and up to the staff to determine any possible property exchange agreements Mr Tomten also pointed out that there are downtown design guidelines in place at this time and the applicant has a right to use his property according to those guidelines Mr Tomten noted that one of the guidelines is the encouragement of pedestrian - oriented design and offered some suggestions for improving that aspect of the project 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6 2006 Mr Lieberman moved to deny the application without prejudice noting that the design as presented is outside the allowable height restrictions and the Commission is not allowed to grant variances Mr Eastwood seconded the motion Mr Tomten said he would not like to deny the proposal noting that the height limitation is a Planning Commission issue and also noting that for many projects towers are exempt from height limitations Mr Peterson suggested that the Commission should review the design plans Members then took a field trip and viewed a model of the proposed project When members returned to the table Mr Johnson pointed out that the project's location in the flood plain makes it difficult to comply with the height restrictions for the occupiable space Mr Johnson noted that when the Corps floodwall project is completed the project would be out of the flood plain and there would be more usable space Mr Lieberman again pointed out that there are still unresolved ownership issues and it is unclear whether the applicant has a right to build the project as proposed The motion to deny without prejudice passed 5-2 with Mr Tomten and Mr Peterson voting against denial Mr Lieberman told the applicant the Commission would be open to scheduling a workshop to further discuss the project Case No DR/06-05 Design review of a proposed sign Wisteria Gifts and More at 223 S Main St in the CBD Central Business District Kim Vangsgard applicant The applicant was present She said the request is for a replacement sign of the same size and location as the previous signage The sign will not be lighted Mr Johnson seconded by Mr Peterson moved to approve as submitted Mr Tomten asked about color The motion was amended to include the condition that paint chips be submitted to staff for approval Amended motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-06 Design review of extension of awning replacement of existing store front and placement of sign at 241 S Main St in the CBD Central Business District Kevin Grube representing Mark Hanson Marx applicant The applicant was not present Mr Tomten noted the existing awning is extremely shallow He suggested moving the sign to allow the awning to be moved up to the second -story windows which will provide more of the 1 1 pitch and project more over the sidewalk Mr Johnson added a suggestion regarding sign placement Michael Stone in the audience for another case asked that Mr Tomten and Mr Johnson s comments be viewed as suggestions rather than conditions of approval Mr Eastwood, seconded by Mr Peterson moved approval as submitted with the suggestion that the plans be modified as suggested and sketched by Mr Tomten and Mr Johnson Motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-07 Design review of a proposed new residence at 217 W St Croix Ave E (formerly 203 St Croix Ave E) in the RB, Two Family Residential District Jeff Swanson applicant Present were property owners Jeff and Heather Swanson and architect Dale Mulfinger Mr Johnson asked about siding and windows Mr Mulfinger said the majority of the windows would 3 f City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6 2006 be double -hung windows the siding will be vaned he said a combination of vertical and horizontal lap siding Mr Johnson also asked about the roof Mr Swanson said they would like to utilize standing metal seam roofing but that will depend on the cost Mr Peterson asked about the height of the new house Mr Mulfinger said the new structure will be two stories but pointed out that the front gable of the new house has been stepped in order to match the scale of the adjacent 1 and one-half story house Mr Swanson said that in previous conversations with former Community Development Director Steve Russell Mr Russell had recommended the use of a permeable surface driveway in order to meet the 30-percent lot coverage requirement if the new infill guidelines are adopted an impervious driveway surface could be used Mr Peterson asked about an existing garage on the site The applicant responded that the garage will be removed Mr Lieberman pointed out that if the existing garage is 50 years old or more a demolition permit is required Members complimented the applicants and architect for looking at the adjacent sites and attempting to meet the proposed new infill design guidelines Mr Johnson moved approval with the condition that the 30 percent lot coverage guideline be met through the use of a pervious surface driveway with the understanding the applicant may request the use of impervious surface if the infill design guidelines are approved before building permits are obtained Mr Eastwood seconded the motion but asked whether the motion should include a condition about the existing garage Mr Johnson amended the motion to approve the proposed materials and design with the condition that the 30 percent lot coverage requirement be met and that a demolition permit be obtained for the existing garage should the age of the structure require that permit Amended motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-08 Design review of exterior patio and parking for an expansion of a restaurant Stone s Restaurant at 324 S Main St Grand Garage in the CBD Central Business District Michael Stone applicant Michael Stone was present He explained plans for an upscale restaurant offering a traditional American menu He said looking at the surrounding area including the Teddy Bear Park he felt the best use for the existing parking area in the rear of the restaurant (6 parking spaces) is to provide for an expanded outdoor dining space The proposal is to utilize the outdoor dining space May through September with drive -up and valet parking offered during the winter months The area would be done in concrete pavers, he said Mr Tomten asked about plans for the existing poured concrete wall Mr Stone said plans are to paint the concrete and cap the wall with iron railing Mr Johnson asked about the proposal to place uplights in the trees along the hill saying he was concerned about the possible intensity of the lighting Mr Stone said he was not sure about the lighting but said his vision is to have dim lighting to provide for a more upscale atmosphere Mr Lieberman moved approval as originally conditioned when previous plans were submitted and approved in 2003 Mr Nelson seconded the motion motion passed unanimously 4 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission February 6 2006 Case No DR/06-09 This case was withdrawn Case No DR/06-10 Design review of proposed construction of two residences south of 303 W Olive St S in the RB Two Family Residential District Jeff Hayes applicant Present were Mark Willis Greg Stokes and Jeff Hayes The applicants provided photos of several surrounding properties and explained site plans including setbacks for the two proposed structures In order to control the amount of impervious surface coverage a single driveway is proposed for access The architect said the two buildings will complement each other The design of the proposed new houses utilizes urban/residential forms the architect explained Mr Harycki asked whether the applicants had looked at the City s proposed infill design guidelines the response was yes ' Mr Johnson asked whether the applicants were working with a potential buyer or were building the houses as spec homes suggesting that buyers looking to purchase homes in a traditional neighborhood such as this are looking for traditional design rather than the modern design as proposed Mr Harycki pointed out that the design guidelines call for new infill construction to fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood Mr Johnson said he thought the proposed design was an insult to the traditional architecture in the neighborhood it is so out of character Mr Lieberman and Mr Tomten argued that the guidelines are not meant to legislate a certain design style that is why they are guidelines A philosophical discussion ensued with the applicants and Commission members exchanging points of view about the proposed design and the infill design guidelines The architect said the applicants had been hoping for some input as they did not want to design houses that will be rejected by the Commission Mr Lieberman concluded the discussion by suggesting there are clearly disparate points of view among Commission members and noted that the infill design guidelines are a new concept It was suggested that when the applicants return with working drawings they include colors and materials as well as incorporate other houses in the neighborhood in a site plan Mr Lieberman seconded by Mr Tomten moved to adjourn at 10 p m Motion passed unanimously Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 5 4 Memorandum To Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission From Bob Lockyear, Interim Community Development Director Date February 28, 2006 Re Case No DR/06-12 Infill Design Review of 1208 North William Street Background The current home is located on a parcel consisting of three 50' by 150' lots with an additional '/2 of a vacated street of 30' attached There is also a lot to the west of the most southerly lot that is 50 by 150' and it also has `/2 of a vacated street of 30' attached This total area is 39,000 square feet The proposal is to resubdivide these lots and create three new lots of 50' 60' feet and 70' in width The smallest would be on the north end of the subject property with the next being the 60' lot leaving the southerly lot at 70' The applicant will move the garage to a location behind the existing house and will construct a new home on the north lot and a twin -home on the south lot The proposal meets all of the zoning requirements of the RB distnct as amended except for the lot coverage item which requires no more than 35% coverage The north and middle lots are allowed 2,625 square feet of impervious surface and staff calculates that the coverage is actually 3,353 square feet on the north lot and 2851 on the middle lot The south lot would meet the 35% impervious surface requirement Recommendation Staff is of the opinion that this design would fit into the neighborhood and would be an appropnate application of the new milli regulation The request could be granted if the applicant agrees to use a pervious dnveway matenal on the north and middle lots or reduces the dnveways and garage approaches to the required square footage Alternatively the applicant could adjust the lot widths to gain more square footage in order to meet the requirements of the code If approved the following conditions are suggested 1 A re -subdivision of the property into three parcels, as shown, will be required pnor to issuing a building permit 2 Any construction will adhere specifically to the information submitted 3 Any changes will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No 40)6 �; Date Filed <P//7/O( Receipt No Fee: $25.00 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required All following information is required PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project /20 f -)'//a'" Assessor's Parcel No oV1 =2-01S30D� ,/ Zoning District Description of Project in detail 42144-a_ LAe/Pe-td—' 4 (Required) '7 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required Property Owner � Tir7 11U(e4,9Representative Mailing Address 5/7 7 ?ii f c2 Fir 14E Mailing Address City State Zip 5), //,47L1 SSo(S'z City State Zip Telephone No 657 - - /5 7 3 Telephone No Signature .9477 (Requir H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 Signature (Required) 1 Design Review Application and Checklist This Design Review Application and Checklist should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact Stillwater City Planning Office 651-430 8821 City Hall 216 N 4'h St Stillwater, MN 55082 www ci stillwater mn us Project Address and Neighborhood: 00261i 41 (J' //,asp ' / //wi ,e 1 o o o o o Neighborhood Architectural Styles Vernacular Queen Anne Greek Revival American Foursquare Italianate Gothic Second Empire Stick 2 Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est) 3O Average setback on block (est) 30 Proposed new house setback 30 3 Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high' (Guidelines #4, #5) Stones House on right House on left 1 o House to rear AdvtiM6vt-FP Prevailing on block 0 Prevailing opposite block X. Proposed new house ❑ House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house lit Notes 1-1/2 0 0 0 0 )Q)1(o 0 o)aN 4 Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood (Guideline #13) Front Porch 0 0 0 0 None X Air A 0 5 Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right ,f ❑ 0 House on left ❑ g ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ Ar ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ ❑ Proposed new house ❑ X ❑ 6 Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall Garage House on right X House on left ❑ House to rear 0 Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block 0 Proposed new house 0 2 stall Garage 0 Jilt 0 Al 3 stall Garage 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) la 8 If the proposed structure/garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighbor oo and stye cape?ditz /� A , ,4 xR,C Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines Design Review Application and Checklist 9 Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) Structure sited parallel to slope ❑ Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) )( Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes 10 Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) ❑ Types of trees 7/7 ❑ Heights ❑ Trunk diam Notes Good Neighbor Con +'" on 1 Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor' ti;cess to sunlight in k,v adjacent yards, p os (Guideline #21) House to right House to left Nam' House to rear if/ Notes :' ins? How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? Locate structure on lot to minimize impact ❑ Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact ❑ Other Stillwater Conservation District 2 Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy?(Guidelines #22, #23) House to right ,t10 House to left 52�� House to rear xr/ii Notes How will you ` �" tigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? ❑ Offset/locate windows to reduce impact ❑ Use obscure glass in window Locate balconies to minimize impact Use landscaping elements for screening er 3 How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors?(Guideline #25) Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property ❑ Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property ❑ Other To be included with this Application and Checklist ❑ Site Plan mclude location of proposed buildmg(s) on property, property lines, street/sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features ❑ Building Plan ❑ Building Elevations indicate building height, wmdows, materials and color on all elevations Indicate proposed exterior lighting ❑ Regular Planning Department Development Application Form Design Guidelines (p2of2) - r FT W E R EASEMENT ER 9 OEEDS F 12 so 1 6 a so 4VACATED WEST SYCAMOR STREET DO 34122 OPP 1 1 R W cc U z R so VACATES WEST SYCAMORE STRE —MF6Bi-WtBE00MouB Su iR G..Eu .1 DOC T 060918 t DOG 93412 5o R 1 5 03. WEST ST CRX AVENUE u D so VACATED ST1LLWAT PER BK 5 MISC P z 0 so R 1 so VACATED STIL PER BK 15M so w- 1 WEST C PG 733 3 aR � Location Map SI A A 230 200 A A" 200 35 200 05 R m � m 30 8 WEST SYCAMC • ® 0 WES ST CROI z r..r MAIM' . 30 30 W W 1- EA 35a WEST STILLWATI er WILKINS R T 1a SO 1 .,.. R.... m R R yro 4 . R 3 4 0- 50 5 4 so 6 - so 0SO 7 8 WEST ASPEN W Go 2 o STREE 2 A 3 6 R 7 R_ W R_IW R_IW Vicinity Map 0 212 Scale in Feet romp 11.0 no. - - ry areepion County Oka orrefOM a M' W qm Count O Smca wasnop wJ Sum, Pima 655 arc ona on rrne curr. O. voter 200 PRELIM FRONT ELEVATION 31 0 14 0 14-0 T-4 3/8 6 7 5/8 1 KITCHEN Oo 00 L FAMILY ROOM 30 II 4 II •-•, 11 1 1 1 1 MUD ROOM c5 24 `4 0 i L--J 3-0 DEN 1 FOYER Q 0 0 2 16-0 31 0 12 01/2 MAIN FLOOR F SF = 1117 31-0 28 0 30 10 103/4 1T 11/4 \II UI If 1 WIC 1 2-6 MASTER BEDROOM 14 2 I L_J MASTER BATH 4-0 L nen L J 0 co) BEDROOM #2 DESK 6'-0 BEDROOM #3 2'-6 J_ 28 BEDROOM #2 12 2 1 N 2-0 16-0 12 0 1 0" 31-0 SECOND FLOOR 1 /4"=1'-0" FSF = 1071 PRELIM FRONT ELEVATION 25 9 3/4 47 0 14 10 3/4 5 11 5-0 12 6 P71/4 x443/8 8 8 1/4 3 3-0 5-0 441/4 S43/8 11 MI d f Hl14iNNI 4 O 441/4 5-03/ 14 10 3/4 25 9 3/4 5 11 4-6 5-0 /1 Il 11 11 C o oOI_� t 71/4 443/8 12-6 U 4 221 24' 8 8 1/4 o, 0 47 0 • r 10 3 99 99 6-0 1/4 T-0 3/8' 64)1/4 z T-0 yr 10 3 9 Fon Gn 0 b i BEDROOM #3 IfiIlllm II I I IFI11IIIIII BEDROOM #4 Eo 3-0' rc 9 et - MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #2 Ili 11 1,11 ' I L1J Qo 9 rc a a 9-01/4 4-01fir 14 6 III II iI r rc BEDROOM #3 T4T 7-6 BEDROOM #4 9 MASTER BEDROOM 3-0' c'n 5-6 56 0-0 1/4 a 4'-0 14 6 6 IM x r 3/8 9 4 Memorandum To Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission From Bob Lockyear, Interim Community Development Director Date February 28, 2006 Re Case No DR/06-13 Infill Design Review of lots #3 & #4 Wilson's addition located on South Fifth Street south of 303 W Olive Background The proposed home is to be located on a lot that is 50' by 150' The footprint of the house on lot #3 is 1,553 square feet with a detached garage that is 589 square feet The dnveway is planned to be shared by the lot to the south and has an impervious surface of 1,127 square feet The lot is allowed 2625 square feet of impervious surface so this proposal exceeds the maximum coverage by 644 square feet Lot #4 is to yet to be designed with details but the applicant wishes to have the HPC review the massing and location of the house so that they can proceed with the first phase of the project They plan to return for approval on the second home when the design is complete Recommendation Staff is of the opinion that this design as it relates to massing and location on the lot would fit into the neighborhood and would be an appropriate application of the new infill regulation The request could be granted for lot number three if the applicant agrees to use a pervious dnveway material or reduces the driveways and garage approaches to the required square footage Lot number four will need to be reviewed by the HPC pnor to construction If approved the following conditions are suggested 1 Any construction will adhere specifically to the information submitted 2 Any changes will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director 02/17/2006 09 06 651 '1Q810 C+Ty' OF STILL,* TFP PAGE 03 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM Case No. Date Filed: Receipt No : Fee: $25.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (Le photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Photos, sketches and a letter of intent /s 'squired. Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required. All following information Is to wine PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Prot 8��4.� �`�� q� Assessor's Parcel No 3.w //Air' / H Zoning Istrict tf escription of Pro(Re�nlr�d) jecrt in detail nI P zdJ4 •l hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, Information and evidence submitted herewith rn ail respects to the best of my knowledge end b Ile,, to be true and correct I further certify I es granted a used" will comply with the permit if it nd If representative is not property owner, then . p pert) owner's s signature is refligig Property Owner epresentative Mailing Address Mailing Address City State Zip City State Zip Telephone No 4/ Telephone No Signature (Requi _. Signature_ H Imrnamaralshotle\2005\design rev ewr permit vwpd July 13, 2005 (Required) celithviv 65 I- 3 0 312a0 f 0h,1f/2hus 09 0h 651430881n CITY OF STILLWATER PAGE 02 Design Review Application and Checklist 9 Does the proposed structure stork with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) 30. Structure sited parallel to slope to. Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (mm(mizod retaining walls) 0\ Landscaping in(or'porated Into grading changes Notes 10 Are there significant trees on the property' Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction' (Guideline #9) Types of trees CO fire/ !ri otw ei Heights Trunk diatn Notes OR t5f�,i v Good Neighbor Con; House to rear Notes 1 Well the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor' cessto sunlight in adjacent yards, p„ ``; o '; ,ins? (Guideline #21) House to right House to left 1,./ How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? t7 Locate structure on lot to minimize Impact o Adjust building height or portions of building, to minimize impact o Other 5hliwarer Conservation District Design Guidelines (p2of2) 2 Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' prlvacy9(Guidellnes 422, #23) House to nght �D House to left NQ Noun toner Notes --- — How wlliyou `' tigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? Offset/locate windows to reduce impact h., Use obscure glass in window Locate balconies to ininuntze impact oUse landscap)rig elements for scrLening ther 3 Hon is outdoor lighting impact mrninriaed for neighbors?(Guideline #25) 41 Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property y Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring propert4 D Other To be included with this Application and Checklist Jan include location of proposed budding(s) on property lot area, indicate impervious surface, property Jibes street' sidewalk location and approximate bcation of adjacent structures indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features Cl &twain. dimensions, first floor area square footage O ainldi E ev i s_ indicate building height, windows, materials and color on all elevations Indicate purposed exterior lighting ❑ Photographs elute and streetscape O Regular Planning Department Development Application ,Form 02/17/2006 09 06 6514308810 CITY OF STILLWATER PAGE 01 House on right House on left House to rear 1, Vernacular ❑ Queen Anne O Greek Revival o American Foursquare c7 ❑ Other Design Review A lication and Checklist This Deign Review Application and ChecWlat should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact Stillwater City Planning Office 651 4304021 City Hail 216 N 4" St Stillwater, MN SS0S2 Eww,c Wlluter mn•us Project Address Applicant name, address, telephone 1 Neighborhood Architectural Styles O Ttaltanate ❑ Gothic o Second Empire Stick 2 Prevailing neighborhood streetfront Setback (Guidelines #1, #2, 03) Prevailing setback on block (est) pJ Average setback on block (est) _ Proposed new house setback 3 O r 3 Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, 05) Stories 1 1-1/2 House on right ❑ ❑ House on left ❑ House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block q Proposed new house 4 Prevailing Front Porch pattern in our neighborhood (Guideline #13) t Porch Prevailing on block ,! Prevailing opposite block O Proposed newpuleNotes (plof2) None O A 0 Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood (Guidelines #10, till) Front Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right O Cd ❑ House on left House to rear ❑ ❑ , Ae p*t irrrA-( WOO Prevailing on block ❑ O o r/ o P f A r vSr Prevailing opposite block o ❑ ❑ Propose ew house ❑ ❑ 6 Pr neigh use on t ght ou on left Garage Size in your uidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage Garage I U ❑ NJ 0 tflr e to rear 0tor❑ iling on block ?ler Prev =ri; ng opposite block l8- ❑ ❑ Proposed new house 0 ❑ Is the proposed garage compatible to orm and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) 8 If the proposed structure/garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighborhood and streetscape? Stillwater Conservation DistrictDesign Oni clines 1 Location Map R_IW ILIW RI9W P N T3 IN PON T9N T'8N T'7N IZ W R_IW FLAW Vicinity Map Scale in Feet raving ha neon comoll now. as . No ate. srelosna ooron os ma Won noton Cool not rowan ON or on blown* Sown Won Co. &yor Phone I SS Pon. anod on MOOD a . r� 1 1 ! IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 w1LL4-ior-1h - rl_ --i--- � IG r- `A1 — vF1 2 I Ca a O v t tJ re r-1 o, tL . / I 1 5 U E ea, �] T r I , ‘,.\ 1 \ 1. .. 'v h . .1..-or,...., x "_ :l ' ram% �Yt-' ,s.r.-./ 1rl r.r I < -- r r - . "- s iLL' - 7j "'� s - zt:. a , v2X.—rt cla.._aM=wy }.,Rii iir`. t s r.s 1 ` fe-tlig"---rVt ''`ram t..-� t - - o'a1,af 7.,- ` ! E%-rriC , Y� 1: ti� .3sn1, r ^ o7+ I /t(o,rvi'm c. kile1JWVS ,j ce s l it I ICJ Gs k J4 st I h Lr. �p b aanswerst ME- remoutumiimmilmouisil anninsmomm LJ Q0 0 0i L-- r-77-1 EFZ 0 43741 lJ r(- —i'Et.r t !__ 0 r—i 00 00 rt 4' 0 r-111---1/I�Ir—��r�l� pri L.— ' - --- Fi- l.—o wfr-- L-- e—L 132L1 L s0 Lookin5 Soiktin down St' forret Olive Street Looking NOM') fvon an+er oF properhi Lookin5 West from (wilier of prbper•iy 1' J/f9M+b19S 2Q+i 44-1105 11+7 tii•9 441,103 1ia?,641S wad +m* +WAkS S dr 4�aen/ Looking EAsi- from Ceniler of properahj T Looking SOLt+ti Myr) GerIf-er of Frbeer+S ls Memorandum To Stillwater Hentage Preservation Commission From Bob Lockyear, Interim Community Development Director Date March 1, 2006 Re Case No DR/06-11 Design Review of new Signage located at 317 S Main Street Background The applicant is improving the signage for the tenets inside this building Recommendation Staff would recommend approval of the proposed signs Any changes to the submitted design should be reviewed and approved pnor to installation Re Case No DR/06-14 Design Review of new Signage located at 1401 Stillwater Blvd Background The applicant is placing signage as a new tenet in this strip commercial building Recommendation Staff would recommend approval of the proposed sign Any changes to the submitted design should be reviewed and approved pnor to installation Re Case No DR/06-15 Design Review of Replacement Signage located at 106 E Chestnut Street Background The applicant is replacing signage on this building in the historic distract of the CBD Recommendation The design appears to be compatible with the sign regulation however, staff would withhold recommendation until the applicant clarifies the base color of the sign DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No /9/2 Date Filed 71/51M, Receipt No / Fee: $25.00 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required All following information is required PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 50 9, 4'?A-'AJ 577 As essor Parcel No (Required) Zoning District Description of Project in detail z"ivs—A'�16/ 5/6/�/J-G<- �/✓ fib! 711, �` fi/GGC� f vf/=��1==Z.z.- 72) s /,OF E9v L'i'7.�VN /-2-�i S D, / ?c J Jzt trNfT 13 ul L/»,✓e "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, thein property owner's signature is required Property Owner ArA Eork'.p- ' Representative Mailing Add ress/? ' ' tJg 9I Mailing Address /2,2 7? ti • h ?» SQ� City State Zip 7-, ,4)--t) Telephone No City State Zip-v`7Gz_-/.4/fir/ Telephone flo.q Signature �- Signatur H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 i'si 7 L e,/ ice tz_L X R' / L X"0 I /?i= 57"�W ,Oft_ — cum Vvu- c v' 7 �� £ , Y 6 6 ,P / L Y " G�:(7_ %b9-,:- / /v7`72 1[1� ' 1 7` -ue /C-4/5 e)/(i 'f f :/1/ vic 7-/e4 /2/1 /Z- /7 / ifs' ,t> ems C- ,'p (_,/-45 /(7 5-) // 7_7/ /3 q G t__„07NL , 1 77Q 1 /--Ae--4-7`1 9A' d% 0� ) 77V-- 5(6tvS Gfi/GL / f QY2/ 77'fi /7/ei-vW- 0 5 o w770z-- 07- 72 ,f2��~t- 9/ - — /4/ J /A__/,/,..sefk- / (2/ ?b /14el - Z7/A/6 ee5 774E ii'�-ti S z 7 Gc•-/(iS GvcGL . - 7-7/ 7 /'X Sz ' 77'7o (21z_z- , /7 /,✓ 5z f2 S >Z� ief ,AL /, Je� t,/ ;:? - A, /icez4///5 -r �� !4_ } �/r "w 4- 5/5 P- ( /;� rC (4c,,,fikA River Exchan e g Merchants els) • ST.CROIX CRAB HOUSE • B4RBRA ANNS .GRAND GAMES . DAILY GRIND • ART GUILD GALLERY e eWELC OME• • adutdA AAA 0 Lt' Dk MUM 0 lo0lfu ± 141 WV: ,60), S1 Posr Toy STORE Y{llHA0N5 cANDy STORE SToRE FRONT HE, 9NT la'S"t FRONT' AooR Vl 0 STE p 02/22/2006 14 32 6514260441 02/22/2006 11 29 651c 311d MAGNEPAN PAGE 01/01 CITY OF STILLk 2 PAGE 02 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM Case No; / Date Filed: Receipt No , Fee: $25.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN SS082 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (s e, photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Photos, sketches and a fetter of intent is required, Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required. All following information is mulled PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project I46 i Ilt-xcl-erl -cj Assessor's Parcel No ZoningDistrict 6� (Required) , Description of Project in detail Esx�er�r L7514e,d s?sri °l hereby state the foregoing state/nen& and all data, information and evidence submitxed herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief to be true and correct, I further certify wilt comply with the ,permit if it is granted and used If representative Is not property owner, then property owner's signature is Rewired Property Owner 1"e\ (IA ;per Representative Mailing Address S `72Z ICJ Lc,.ke l Mailing Address^ City State Zip Nugo , m N S ��3 3 City State Zap Telephone No 6 S/- +24, , /43 GS x 2-4- Telephone No Signature Q.A--19,- Signature (Required) (Required) H \mcrimmara\shelle\2005\des,gn review permit wpd July 13, 2005 Logo edgetrim - Hack Logo face - white Vinyl overlay - 3M Cardinal Red and 3M Medium Grey Return - white 24 5" 73" Cabinet edgetrim - black Cabinet face - white Vinyl overlay - 3M Cardinal Red and 3M Medium Grey Cabinet return - white Letter edgetrim - red Letter Faces- 3M Cardinal Red Returns - red Cross Section 15" 7 25" "Neon will be 15mm - 6500 white "All UL listed components 13" 5nap's neon Ietters--- SIDE VIEW Mounting bracket and hardware (Lag bolts) 8" x 8" raceways (Painted to match wood fascia color) Building 40; Signs & Graphics 763 786 3825 Gaul! ,s_a PROJECT Neon ht alununum and plexi channel letter and cabinet signage for the new Snap Fitness in Stillwater MN DATE 2/13/06 APPROVED SCALE NONE Approval "Snap Fitness Building Layout" .See. Ap%rov-sI py, hex-i- fc 5e Date I approve the position of the sign on the building Note The colors shown in this picture may not be a true representation of the actual colors FEB 16'2006 10 32 763 591 5015 BARATZ STERLING TRI STAR #0138 P 001/001 900Z/91/Z 0171 1=lunoo4'001/V00000mwn swasoqul.iapjo3L8nrauugann/1au oaazlau gjruigann// dug g Q 1 ;o 1 aged 1471 Stillwater Blvd. - Picture of building face and neighboring tenants DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM Case No Lig Date Filed No Receipt 25 g �� Fee: $QQc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required All following information is required PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 10 (� Ch u Assessor's Parcel Now Z2 O7?/0� Sk Ilt der, mN SSo&� (Required) Description of Project in detail C narj l r t( orb (15i color 544 ✓j 5 I Zoning District "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required Property OwnerN.rreJ I `� rnoc € Mailing Addres1 O x 1014 City State Zip 51-4 l [ er, m N 55d&a, Telephone No (95-1/.0-ai7 Signature H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 Representatives I C �� Mailing Address Pn -FOX �4 City State Zip$ I(�a1 r yiry 556$ Telephone No b514130-a-1-� Signature FEE-23-2006 01 05P FROM ASP 'IF ST PAUL 6516365774 TO 6514300201 P 1'1 gs0 ,--aa0 / ,,,, urdas PROFESSIONAL BuILDIN 106 EAST CHESTNUT 6.4A:0 CoLag t f Memorandum To Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission From Bob Lockyear, Interim Community Development Director Date March 1, 2006 Re Case No DR/06-16 Design Review of Exterior Modifications for 324 S Main Street (Stone's Restaurant) Background The applicant was in for a review of signage for this restaurant and now is seeking approval to upgrade the facade Recommendation The design appears to be compatible with the area and the use of stone as accent to the facade would seem to work well with the intended outdoor dining design Staff would recommend approval If approved the following conditions are suggested 1 Any construction will adhere specifically to the information submitted 2 Any changes will be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director 71444,,scA-)r- DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No UOIVOg‘ Date Filed Receipt No 19 %�_3 Fee: $25.00 The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Photos, sketches and a letter of intent is required Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required All following information is required PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 1/� Assessor's Parcel No 2-Koodio Lit OO c Zoning District MD Description of Project in detail (Required) "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my know/edge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required ileA.A1AProperty Owner 1. L4.Cce.Ssr Representative Y ik-e S f_ Mailing Address .32-'-(5 MaUM S-1— Mailing Address 3?-4 S )At t 1 0- ) v Sat a- fro City State Zip s4.111.4 µ.i-c,i, 144 vt Mgr& State Zip Si I Wu. #-ci 1 ►M vA S SU ff Z Telephone No 6 " -A 1 111(C-cr" Telephone No r / a6 y - O(o / 2 Signature ( Signature uired) (Re s,� red) H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 iv WulldL 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1494962ndStreet North PO Box6 &Arany Afmnesota 55082-0006 (651) 430-6875 surve/mgco washugtoamn.us www CO washugton mn us DNR PROTECTED WATERS ONR PROTECTED WETL ND — DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY NORTH SCALE 1 inch = 50 feet SECT 4-TOWN511P-RANGE INDEX II17030I 160�20I15IX10 0 12003020121 3020122030201 T L 2903020 2803020 2 1 70302200 Niw Lslw+ sit PROPERTY OYENTHCATION HAMER FORMAT (GEODOOF) NUS SPECFC AmA OM'AMER a° PARCEL $1000 THIS DRAWING IS THE RESULT OF A COMPILATION AND REPRODUCTION OF LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES PRO ERTY LINES AS SHONN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL LOCATIONS MAP LAST UPDATED September30 2005 NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY Apd 2000 i 0 Ln LC) 0 LC) LC) 0 Ln 0 Ln 2 3 4 5 6 150 (0042) T- 1 T 1 ---12-- 11 10 9 8 7 150 0 to LC) 0 Ln 0 Ln Ln 0 L) 1 Io r 1 VACATED STILLWATER AVE PER BK 15 MISC, PG 113 150 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY AND LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1494962ndSireN Ner1h, P 0 Box 6 Wawa& Afinesote 5508.0006 (651)430-6875 warhi gwn-nn rs mnrcarashingtotunnus LEGEND ONR PROTECTED WATERS DNR PROTECTED WETLAND — DNR PROTECTED WATERCOURSE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY �..�"�. PARK BOUNDARY 150 12 A A 0 Ln DOC 820332 PR COOPER'S 0 Ln 0 Ln 1 (0061) 2 12 �Q (0066) 11' 11 (0065) 0 Ln Ln 0 3 �.j71 0 Ln 4 (0062) 10 0 Ln 1 4 9 Ln 5 0 Ln 6 (00631 150 VACA r 8 (0064) 7 150 0 Ln Ln PER 3K 15 M 150 1 (0051) SC, PG 733 (0060) 150 12 P NORTH SCALE 1 eICf1= 50 feet COUNTY VICINITY MAP Li:CANON OF 11ESWP SECTION MCVQTY HAP 11 PROPERTY OMR:C,ATCH N IRER WRIYIT(GE 000 zoom TOMO., MEE awry SPECFC 11.11,31 Nran N'WEEROMER P- ura 0$ Ifl I/ II F111 (0001) n.RrM1.NRNEFR.= mrr� 0 Z 2- 15 I 1 16 Ln ro N L THIS DRAWING IS THE RESULT OF A COMMATON AND REPRODUCTION OF LAND RECORDS AS THEY APPEAR IN VARIOUS WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICES. WASHINGTON COLWTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INACCURACIES PROPERTY LINES AS SHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES AM) MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL LOCATIONS MAP LAST UPDATED' Septarnbet30 2005 NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY Apra 2000