Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-03 HPC Packetiliwater THEBIRTHPLACEOFMINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Notice of Meeting The City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission will meet on Monday, April 3, 2006, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA Approval of the March 6, 2006 minutes Design Review 1 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 Continued from March 6, 2006 meeting 2 Case No DR/06-12 Continued Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District (RB, Two Family Residential District) located at 1208 North William Street Tom Mulcahy, applicant 3 Case No DR/06-17 Design review of parking lot and a 25' x 50' deck located at 101 3rd Street South ( American Legion Post #48) in the CBD, Central Business District David Swanson, representing the American Legion Post #48 4 Case No DR/06-18 Design review to replace an existing entry door located at 102 South 2nd Street (Gazette Building) located in the CBD, Central Business District John Harvey , Harvey Woodruff, LLC, applicant Other Items -Mills on Main CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 Present Howard Lieberman Chairman, Phil Eastwood Larry Nelson Brent Peterson Roger Tomten Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear Absent Jeff Johnson Mr Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Tomten seconded by Mr Peterson moved to adopt the minutes of Feb 6 2006 as submitted Motion passed unanimously Design Review Case No DR/06-11 Design review of new signage at 317 S Main St St Croix Merchant s Building in the CBD Central Business District Randall Raduenz representing Larry Cramer applicant Randall Raduenz explained the request for signage and reviewed the proposed layout He provided a swatch book of colors, colors would be a medium green deep burgundy and dark brown with gold lettering He said currently it is difficult for people to know what tenants are inside the building Mr Eastwood seconded by Mr Peterson, moved approval as submitted Mr Tomten suggested adding a condition that the existing sign be removed if the applicant wishes to move the existing sign to the back that would be a separate application Mr Eastwood agreed to amend his motion to include that condition Amended motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-14 Design review of signage at 14012 Stillwater Blvd in the BP-C Business Park Commercial District Mark Winey applicant The applicant was not present Mr Tomten moved to approve as conditioned Mr Peterson seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-15 Design review of signage change at 106 E Chestnut St in the CBD Central Business District Patricia Page applicant The applicant was not present It was noted the drawing of the proposed sign in the packet had an incorrect spelling of the building name — should be Bourdaghs not Burdash Mr Lockyear said the applicant had indicated the new sign would be the same size as the existing sign Mr Tomten suggesting asking the applicant to consider white lettering with the background in burgundy thus reducing the appearance of being internally lit which is not allowed There was discussion as to whether the new sign would still be grandfathered in Mr Lockyear said under his interpretation the change in signage would mean the sign would not longer be grandfathered and could no longer be internally lighted Due to the unanswered questions Mr Lieberman moved to table this case and invite the applicant to appear at next month s meeting Mr Eastwood seconded the motion motion passed unanimously City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 Case No DR/06-16 Design review of exterior modifications of a building at 324 S Main St (Stone s Restaurant) in the CBD Central Business District Mike Stone applicant Mr Stone was present He provided full-scale drawings of the proposed design and photos of the existing structure The intent, he said was to have a design that is not overbearing and fits with the building The proposal is to utilize stucco river stone and limestone veneer Initially the plan is to utilize the existing aluminum -clad windows there is a possibility the windows might be changed to a wood -clad trim There was a question about the proposal to illuminate the river stone facade and how much of the lighting would go over the building Mr Stone responded that none of the lighting would go over the building the lighting is low wattage recessed lighting that will illuminate about 3-6 feet up on the stone There was a question about the sign over the door Mr Stone said the sign would be a mesh screen with the name Stone s in raised metal lettering there will be no river stone behind the mesh and no direct lighting behind the sign Mr Tomten moved approval as condition with the clarification that the low -voltage up -lighting at the screens be projecting on the walls only and that there be no direct lighting on the sign Mr Eastwood seconded the motion Mr Eastwood suggested amending the motion to include the condition that the final sign graphics be submitted to and approved by staff before installation Amended motion passed unanimously Public Hearings Case No DR/06-12 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District RB Two Family Residential District at 1208 N William St Tom Mulcahy applicant Mr Mulcahy was present He said he would like to build a home with an historical look and said he thought it would fit into the area very nicely He said the plans are preliminary drawings and said the amount of impervious surface could be scaled back Mr Lieberman said he thought the plans worked well with the new infill design guidelines and fit well in the neighborhood Jeff Benson 1120 N William expressed concerns about water runoff He said it appears the majority of the runoff from the twin home would run across his property Mr Eastwood asked if the proposal had been before the Planning Commission noting that drainage is addressed by the Planning Commission Mr Mulcahy responded that he believes the present fill behind the house is too low and suggested this would be an opportunity to correct problems Mr Benson also said he had a question about the driveway Mr Mulcahy said he had no intention of infringing on Mr Benson s driveway The plans show the driveway in question six and one-half feet from the property line, it was noted Margaret Schneider, 1212 William St questioned whether 50 x 150 is considered a buildable lot and also questioned the minimum square footage of the home that could be put on that lot She stated that Mr Mulcahy had said he is neither a licensed building contractor nor licensed by the City both of which are required in order to construct a home according to City Code She also questioned whether the new home would be built according to City standards relating to square footage and setbacks Mr Lieberman asked Mr Mulcahy whether he would be hiring a licensed builder Mr Mulcahy responded that he could hire a contractor or he could get licensed himself noting that he has been in the construction business all his life Mr Lockyear pointed out that Mr Mulcahy would have to obtain a building permit and provide complete 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 working drawings that would be reviewed by the City building official When the building official approves a plan the official inspects the project at various stages and the project will have to meet code Regarding the question about the size of a buildable lot Mr Lockyear said minimum square footage for a buildable lot is 7 500 square feet Ms Schneider also expressed a concern about drainage Mr Harycki asked whether submission of a drainage plan is required as part of the permit process Mr Lockyear pointed out this proposal will require a resubdivision and suggested that drainage issues will addressed in that process Ms Schneider said her biggest issue was with the privacy of current residents Joanne Loer 1114 N William also expressed a concern about drainage and said there was a big problem when Good Samaritan was constructed She said consideration should be given to the existing drainage problems Mr Lieberman responded that the HPC could request that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the drainage issues when it passes the Case along Mr Lieberman read Mr Johnson s comments into the record Mr Johnson commented that the single unit looked good although the belt line trim appears high from the information submitted He stated that the twin unit appears wide for the scale of the house, he suggested ways to add vertical elements to the structure to narrow the appearance Mr Johnson also commented on the light fixtures suggesting the fixtures be downlit Mr Tomten noted that one of the requirements is review of all four sides of a structure and asked whether all four elevations were complete at this time Mr Tomten wondered if the applicant would be open to returning to the HPC next month with finished plans for all elevations of the proposed structures Mr Tomten moved to approve the application at concept level with the applicant to return with final plans for all four elevations color schemes lighting plans Mr Tomten noted in the interim the applicant would have time to address preliminary grading issues raised by neighbors and also rework impervious surface coverage to meet ordinance requirements Mr Eastwood seconded the motion motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-13 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District RB Two Family Residential District at 303 W Olive St Mark Willis and Greg Stokes applicants The applicants explained that following comments received at the February meeting, they had gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan While more conservative in direction the architect said he felt the design was still strong in terms of the abstract beauty they are trying to achieve The changes are very substantial to the street -side and south elevation, he said The architect said the applicant will be coming back with actual design of the south house but would like to proceed on the premise that the HPC has reviewed the site plan and approves in concept an attached -garage structure repressed to the rear of the lot for the second house There was a question about soils The applicants responded that most of the soils issues pertain to the north house which is why they will be starting with that structure first Mark Belay 416 S Fifth St said he thought the applicants had done a good job in responding to some changes in proportion such as the eave overhang and had done a lot to start complying with the infill guidelines 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 Leo Lohmer 303 W Olive spoke of the history of the property and the ravine He said he would like to see something nice on the property and said he liked the proposed plans Mr Lieberman said a question had been raised about the design guideline related to four-sided architecture He said it could be argued that as proposed the north and south faces are different from each other The applicants explained that the elements that separate the massing of the two components are recessed so the two major masses will read throughout in terms of the overall massing of the building The architect explained the details of the window massing and said looking at the whole configuration eliminating the three in the middle vertical strip the end result is a six component symmetrical layout Mr Lieberman questioned the meaning of `consistent in the four-sided architecture guideline noting that this is the Commission s first experience with the guidelines Mr Tomten said he thought the applicants had approached all four sides of the house the same and said the vocabulary is consistent with the style of the house a contemporary style Mr Tomten said how the applicant had addressed the stairwell in the strip windows is not unlike Victorians a unique piece to the house Mr Tomten asked about the eave condition on the gable end, the applicant explained that detailing Mr Harycki suggested the corner board detailing evident in other houses in the neighborhood is missing in this design The applicants argued the lack of the corner boards will make the quality of the building very clear because it will show wood Mr Harycki pointed out that the guidelines refer to compatibility with adjacent structures in design detailing such as columns frieze board fascia boards etc with adjacent structures pictures of the adjacent houses provided by the applicants show such details and those details are absent in the proposed plans Mr Eastwood agreed that the north elevation is lacking details and does not fit in with the other elevations Mr Tomten argued it is the style of the house that determines detailing and in this case all four sides are compatible with the style which is contemporary The applicants noted that the revised plans make serious gestures toward the traditional while still in keeping with the contemporary style Mr Lieberman agreed with Mr Tomten that the architectural details of the proposed house are consistent with a contemporary house Mr Lieberman suggested the issues comes down to compatible with adjacent structures and said compatible, in his view does not mean to replicate or be identical to the adjacent structure but to include elements on some level that pay homage to the adjacent houses Mr Lieberman said some of the details in the massing and small sizes are compatible The applicants noted that it would be much easier to present plans that replicate an old house but suggested that would not be good for the future of Stillwater to keep building structures that try to look old Mr Eastwood said his only issue is that the north side does not have the elements that the other elevations do and does not conform with the guideline related to four-sided architecture Mr Lieberman moved to approve the design as submitted Mr Eastwood seconded the motion The applicant asked if it would be appropriate to include approval of the concept of an attached garage for the second house as that is a requirement for building the first house Mr Lieberman noted that if approved the action would not mean that there will not be strict scrutiny of everything that comes before the Commission under the infill guidelines — each proposal will be judged on its merits Mr Eastwood asked that it be clarified the motion is for approval as conditioned Mr Tomten pointed out the applicants have met the vast majority of the guidelines to the fullest extent the discussion centered on those two guidelines the most subject to interpretation Mr Tomten thanked the applicants for bringing together a high quality project Mr Lieberman also noted that the applicants had substantially met the infill guidelines, City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 the more broadly worded guidelines brought the Commission to discussion Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously Other items • Dave May Stillwater Mills appeared regarding the use of skylights Mr Mills said he thought the Commission had previously approved the use Mr Lockyear said originally the skylights was supposed to have a four -inch reveal on the roof, now the proposal is to use 16-inch domed skylight which is a considerable change from what was originally proposed Also the skylights will now be slanted rather than flat due to problems with roof pitch Mr May explained that water retention will be on the roof to manage water coming off the site necessitating the skylight changes There was a question about visibility from the street It was noted the skylights will be visible from Second Street The discussion turned to the visibility of pipes on the roof several members said they had received calls regarding the pipes Mr Lieberman said he thought these were significant design issues that need to be addressed Mr May said the developers had originally proposed screening roof elements but were told the only roof penetrations allowed are those that are absolutely necessary — vent stacks bathroom venting fireplace/furnace vents Mr May said the problem is now the roof is in place so it is no longer possible to screen the rooftop mechanicals Mr Eastwood said the vents were not shown in the plans the HPC reviewed Mr Lieberman said the HPC needs to see some design element to compensate for what has become a community eyesore Mr Harycki suggested this is what is driving the move to height restrictions Mr Lieberman encouraged Mr May to look at some creative way to screen the vents and return to the HPC Mr Lockyear suggested there might be ways to utilize rooftop screening such as latticework Mr Lieberman said the skylights were not included in the plans approved by the HPC and those design plans should come back for review as well as the screening issue Mr May said he didn t understand why skylights would be controversial or of concern Mr Lieberman noted there is a lot of sensitivity to height and visibility at this point Mr May was invited to come back to the HPC at its April meeting with plans to address the concerns • There was discussion as to whether there should be an official HPC position regarding the proposed height restrictions in the historic downtown district Mr Eastwood suggested that the proposed guidelines are higher than existing buildings in every zone, which he said is defeating the purpose of maintaining the viewshed Mr Eastwood suggested keeping heights consistent with the current buildings Mr Tomten questioned how property owners would be reimbursed for the Toss of value in going from 50 feet allowable height to 30 feet as proposed Mr Harycki said Mr Magnuson has reviewed the legal issues and said the City has a right to restrict heights as buildings get closer to the river Mr Lockyear said if the City is going to impose height restrictions it will have to implement three different district since property owners in a district must be treated equally Mr Lockyear also noted that the proposal does not change allowable heights anywhere in the downtown district except east of Water Street The only impacted parcels he said are the Dock Cafe Water Street Inn and the marinas Mr Lockyear said the proposal includes the caveat that an infill structure cannot exceed the adjacent structures by 10 percent, which in essence maintains the 35- foot height in the historic district There was discussion as to the definition of 'adjacent Mr Lockyear said eliminating the adjacent language and setting a specific height limitation would solve that issue J City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 The meeting was adjourned at 9 15 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 4 Memorandum City of Stillwater Community Development Department To Heritage Preservation Commission From Bob Lockyear, Planner Date March 30, 2006 Re Re Case No DR/06-15 — Laid over from March 6, 2006 Design Review of Replacement Signage located at 106 E Chestnut Street Background This request was laid over from the March meeting as the applicant did not appear and the commission indicated that there was insufficient information upon which to make a decision The applicant is requesting replacement of the exiting signage on the pylon pole and wants to continue to use the backlighting as he considers this to be a nght that is grandfathered to this property This sign is located m the historic distnct of the CBD Design information is attached Recommendation Staff would recommend that the sign as proposed be approved provided the backlighting is eliminated This is a total redesign of the sign and staff is of the opinion that the nght to continue the back lighting is negated 4 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No Date Filed No Receipt 25 L g �v Fee: $QQ 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 IC) (7E- Chest)t+ Assessor's Parcel No.a(-z 07,7•7/0,72 S14 rI wa1er, ,Y, N ssoga_ (Required Zoning District Description of Project in detail C i 1 n �,_,orc ��l I color b-e- (1 5 "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 Property Ownerjrre.( R (nice Mailing AddressO 1,X' City State Zip 5}- l (c,\a--er, M N 550ga, Telephone No 175/--q.50-ai7b Signature H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 Representative 7'1 C Mailing Address 'rOX (p City State Zip -SA I(1A)�-(5t ; ()IN 55ag Telephone No 651-43 D- ai t Signature I R2W PROPE1.TIES, LLC. March 2, 2006 To Bob Lockyear, Intenm Community Development Director RE Case No DR/06-15 Design Review of Replacement Signage located at 106 E Chestnut Street Attached is the color copy of our replacement signage request As I noted on the attached, we onginally had the incorrect spelling (Burdash) and the correct spelling will be Bourdaghs Thank you, Patti Page for Darrell Rhodes R2W Properties, LLC 106 E Chestnut Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-2776 A I3oura69h s Corr s-a,� PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 106 EAST CHESTNUT PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 106 EAST CHESTNUT PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 106 EAST CHESTNUT 0.2-ef\'')%c ( -75 h 4tt. C°\ "\d `J Review carefully, this reflects the finished product! Please approve, sign and fax back. If approval is missing or is not received, the pr.clucti•n schedule for y•ur order may change. T Memorandum To Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission From Bob Lockyear, Planner Date March 23, 2006 Re Case No DR/06-12 — Land over from March 6, 2006 Infill Design Review of 1208 North William Street Background This request was laid over in order for the applicant to refine the duplex design and to develop a grading and drainage plan They were also asked to alter the plan to meet the City of Stillwater impervious surface requirement The previous staff report included the following The current home is located on a parcel consisting of three 50' by 150' lots with an additional % 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 'V2 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 continues to be of the opinion that this design would fit into the neighborhood and would be an appropnate application of the new infill regulation The request could be granted if the applicant has fulfilled the recommendations of the commission and meets the impervious surface square footage requirement 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 Memorandum To Stillwater Hentage 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 ''A 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 % 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 district 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 infill regulation The request could be granted if the applicant agrees to use a pervious driveway material 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 HPC Action on 3/6/06 Approved in concept +5-0 Applicant to come back for the April 3, 2006 meeting with four sides designed and with grading plan DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No AC G'1 Date Filed /7 0 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) i//ari Assessor's Parcel No oeVa07-d300,y l (Required) Zoning District Description of Project in detail/6(.�.C(//etti----' "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 Owner i')/ / //7 role/. Representative Mailing Address 5/f/7 ?/�t e2 F1 Mailing Address City State Zip 5I, // w,i rr 4, 7),() SSon City State Zip Telephone No 6 5 i - .2 / V - /57 3 Telephone No Signature 27,;77ea Signature (Required)' (Required) H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 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'" St Stillwater, MN 55082 www ci stillwatermn us Project Address and Neighborhood: 0020j' /(% 41.//fa�� //i'i1 ,(> 1 Neighborhood Architectural Styles 0 ❑ ❑ 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) 30 Average setback on block (est) 30 Proposed new house setback 3J 3 Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories 1 1-1/2 House on right ❑ 0 House on left 0 24- House to rear AkA-101647�P 0 Prevailing on block ❑ ❑ Prevailing opposite block %� 0 Proposed new house ❑ ❑ 2 4 Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood (Guideline #13) Front Porch None House on right ❑ )1( House on left ❑ House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ ,>g( Prevailing opposite block 0 Proposed new house ❑ Notes 5 Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right :14 ❑ House on left ❑ xt ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑/14.❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ o Proposed new house o ❑ 6 Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall Garage House on right House on left House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage 0 0 % ❑ ,6e ❑ ❑ ❑ .� ❑ /4 ❑ 7 Is the proposed garage compatible in form 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 neighbor oo and streetscape? 644, 12‘r-“, 24' Zet,1,5-/ Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines )0 Z z a 0 0_ p w o a 0 a 0 FT WE 0 EE ER B OEE so VACATED WEST SYCAMORE STREET DO 34122 x 1 1 Rs 1— w w IY (n rn Z U Z so R VACATE WEST SYCAMORE STREE 2afoeywroE9RnMGEr DOC T1060919 DOC 934122 f 12, CA A WEST STCRX AVENUE VACATED STLLWA AVE PERBK15MISC P 13 A R 1 VACATED STIL PER BK 5 • PG 733 no so so ❑ A W w x 1- 0 Z W W 1n 30 30 WEST SYCAMC 4 WES ST CROI R WEST STILLWATI 7 m^- R A e,r.m A ° A 4] &,.oR A 3 4 on 5 4 6 6 ro ` ro ro u�m WEST ASPEN 22 ro STREE xt 9 so 2 1 3 R 7 12_1A R_ W RI) T N T1 N I IN T IN TP N T N r N 1,7N IL 1) FLIW R_1W Vicinity Map 0 212 Scale in Feet op you w on Ow ae ha raw, ncol Co rn 5 W noonw MCant nano an nen acoe Ca Sawyer en ASACO nna ion 300 Tua ?OM f=� PRELIM LEFT ELEVATION 111 I r 1 'I ' I, I- 1 .1' r r. PRELIM FRONT ELEVATION PRELIM RIGHT ELEVATION PRELIM BACK ELEVATION 14-0 14 0 3-0 8-6 5-6 KITCHEN FAMILY ROOM 7 9 MUD ROOM 2-0 3-0 4 O� IVlllll Ill/ I I 1 FOYER DEN 2-0 16-0 12-012 31-0 L MAIN FLOOR FSF =1117 31-0 21i'-0 3-0 10'103/4 1711/4 \ I 1--J0- li I 1 \JJIII WIC MASTER r� � BATH MASTER 11 lanai BEDROOM BEDROOM #2 1 II 14 2 J —+— 12 2 r-6 ), Ie BEDROOM v #2 T-6 L 78' �IIIIIIIII,U II 111111lId1111I1111111I Io I !I I 1 AESK a w �,, o °m 6-0 BEDROOM #3 2 -0 16-0' 12 -0 1-0" 31-0 SECOND FLOOR 1 /4"= l'-0" FSF =1071 9 9 en 9 a O O r 0 0 PRELIM RIGHT ELEVATION 1 • MI • PRELIM FRONT ELEVATION DO PRELIM LEFT ELEVATION F O a 00 O 00 00 PRELIM BACK ELEVATION 47 0 25 9 3/4 12 6 8 8 1/4 14 10 3/4 511 5-0 4 -4 1/4 5-03/8' 3-0 4-0' L O 46 r 71/4 4 8 3/8 00 ®00 • ® O 2.6 111 III 2.6 4 3 -0' 50 14 10 3/4 5 11 50 II I II III l!ItflI IIIIIIWIIIIIII 2-0 O 25 9 3/4 8' 7 1/4 4 8 3/8 12-6 8 8 1/4 H 6 47 0 • f 10 3 i 99 6-0 1/4 x 3'-0 3/8' 1 99 6-01/4 x5'-03/8 1 10 3 136 707/8 351/8 100 26 106 n a v. 4 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM 4 so " Zt 4 ° #3 #2 #2 JNZV\ #3 Z 4 26 26' 2'6' '=` s I II 16111 'II \III I I\ B \ I\ Il\l\ ,_ �lll II H�III I111I 26 r _ SSG g BEDROOM O ]C) BEDROOM o k o0 #4 ® ® #4 r '� Ea r0 0 cn 26 r 26 0 , ,. 0110) H Y6 1CIY 26 3-0 3-0 MASTER N MASTER VD BEDROOM - BEDROOM III III i 6-0 1/4 4-018' 14-6 5-6 i 5-6 6-01/4 x4-0 I/O 14-6 1 Memorandum City of Stillwater Community Development Department To Hentage Preservation Commission From Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Date March 28, 2006 Re American Legion Post No 48 Deck and Parking Lot Improvements Case DR/06-1 BACKGROUND David Swanson has submitted a Design Review application on behalf of the American Legion Post No 48, which is located at 103 South 3rd Street The Amencan Legion recently purchased the parking lot abutting their building on the east and would like to construct either a deck or patio there They would also like to provide off-street parking for their members and guests ANALYSIS Depending upon costs and available funds either a patio or a deck is planned to be constructed on the rear of the Amencan Legion building The dimensions of the deck or patio would be 25 feet by 50 feet If the improvement is a deck, it would be attached to the building along the yellow line shown on the attached photographs In addition, the remainder of the property would be surfaced for parking A Design Manual Guidelines The property is located within the City's histonc downtown commercial distnct Consequently, the design standards found in the "Design Manual, Commercial Histonc District, Stillwater, Minnesota" apply to the property The portions of the manual that seem to apply to the proposal are reviewed below 1 Parking a Parking areas should be screened from the street and the sidewalk either by walls of plantings or both If walls are used their material should be compatible with the walls of existing adjacent buildings Walls should be at least 18 high i No plans have been submitted for this feature The Heritage Preservation Commission should discuss this with the applicant 2 Rear Entrances Page 2 American Legion a The rear facade entrance should be clean and well maintained and present a welcome appearance A small sign awnings display windows and planter boxes can improve appearance i The rear door is likely not intended as a public entrance It would serve as an exit from the building to the deck or patio None the less, the rear facade is currently very utilitarian without architectural articulation Some type of treatment would add be appropriate 3 Color a The color palette standards found in the manual are specifically related to buildings new or renovated They are not specifically intended for accessory structures None the less the guidelines should be applied if practical i Whether a deckior patio is chosen as an improvement, a color scheme has not been submitted yet This is an item that should be discussed by the Hentage Preservation Commission 4 Lighting a A coordinated lighting plan should be submitted Lighting fixtures should be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the project The light source should be hidden from direct pedestrian or motorist view i Currently a parking lot light exists along the edge of the legion property This can be seen in the attached photograph ii No lighting plans have been submitted for the proposed project This is an item the Hentage Preservation Commission should discuss with the applicant B Miscellaneous Standards or Comments 1 A window air conditioning umt exists directly above the proposed deck door It would be good to move the umt, or provide an awning above the door 2 A detailed site plan will need to be submitted together with the building permit application It will have to show at least the surveyed lot lines, existing building location, proposed improvement location (including stairways), curb cut and dnve aisle for the parking lot ALTERNATIVES The Hentage Preservation Commission has several options 1 Approve the design review application 2 Approve the design review application with modifications or conditions 3 Deny the design review application 4 Continue discussion of the proposal to the May 1st Hentage Preservation Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is May 16, 2006 Page 3 American Legion RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend Alternative 2 if details of the proposed project can be addressed satisfactorily before the Heritage Preservation Commission Staff would also recommend at least the following conditions 1 A parking lot screening plan is to be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director if authonzed by the Hentage Preservation Commission 2 A lighting plan for any extenor lighting is to be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director if authonzed by the Hentage Preservation Commission 3 A proposed color palate for the improvements is to be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director if authonzed by the Hentage Preservation Commission 4 A detailed site plan is to be submitted together with the building permit application It will have to show at least the surveyed lot lines, existing building location, proposed improvement location (including stairways), curb cut and dnve aisle for the parking lot cc David Swanson Attachments Picture of existing rear elevation Letter from applicant Application packet Page 4 American Legion AMERICAN LEGION POST NO 48 103 South Third Street March 17, 2006 Hentage Preservation City of Stillwater AND Phone 439 1435 LEGION CLUB Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Amencan Legion Post 48 recently purchased the dirt parkmg lot to the east of our present building with the intent to provide some off street parking and to prevent a high-nse type building being built alongside of our building The parking lot is to be paved in early May of 2006 We would like to build a 25'X50' deck or patio along side of our building on the SW corner of our lot and abutting our building on the SE If we build a deck we would have the coloring closely match our bnck On the other hand if we build a concrete patio we would have the concrete stained to closely match the brick If we decide to go with a concrete patio we would probably have decorative wrought iron railings We are investigating the cost of both options and time is of the essence if we are to have the project completed for our summer season Z47-4-ty A.) 0:04 c L DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No Date Filed 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 t °/ f;.z 3 0�U tt2 o(06 5c-(17 Address of Project /D 1 3 r4 55f S Assessor's Parcel No k pc.62 o30,z0 rya 01 0 i k'^f (Required) Zoning District Description of Project in detail Pc v e Pa wk r vt y 4-Jc, V-S' so ' Pe cK "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 Ownerim paccr, Cegrek/9P X # ii,? Mailing Address 1o) `3` 5( 5 City State Zip S ((wd.ai. Lin-) S3-08.) Telephon o 6S1) '(3 - /113 5"--- Signature , cr..4,4 (Required) H \mcnamara\sheila\2005\design review permit wpd July 13, 2005 Telephon Representative Bawl 5 Lu a# S a Mailing Address 103 3 / 54, S City State Zip 5)411 c vQ?1 , /z1,c_, 5 s og 66 1) 11'3- ( 5 s Signature g cw (Required) ArcIMS Viewer Page 1 of 1 http //www datafinder org/website/DF_WashingtonCounty/Parcels/MapFrame htm 3/13/2006 i� 1 A j � t 0 n by c � L ) 0 a_ k•-•' fl - .03 vJ 7 A i T't 00t,e4 r i N � i / rl i111lijuitiw.a'Wyl dWill \\A 1 4 41t a y ' Zvi 40, �4' f Memorandum City of Stillwater Community Development Department To Heritage Preservation Commission From Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directo Date March 28, 2006 Re Replace Existing Entryway Door Gazette Building Case DR/06-18 Background Mr John Harvey of Harvey Woodruff, LLC would like to replace the front door of the Gazette Building at 102 South Second Street The existing door has several deficiencies 1) opens inward instead of outward as required by fire code, 2) lacks proper closing pressure, 3) does not lock well, and 4) is heavy enough to cause problems opening Therefore, Mr Harvey would like to replace the entryway door Analysis The property is located within the City's histonc downtown commercial distnct Consequently, the design standards found in the "Design Manual, Commercial Histonc District" apply to the property Page 19 of the design manual includes review standards for entnes The applicable door crrtenon states "Painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred Aluminum doors and door frames, aluminum windows and their accessones with a clear aluminum finish are not acceptable, although colored anodized aluminum is acceptable " As seen in the attached photos of the existing and proposed replacement door, the existing wooden door with large windows would be replaced with an anodized aluminum door with a bronze color This is acceptable according to the design manual But, it is not preferred Alternatives The Heritage Preservation Commission has several options 1 Approve the proposed entryway door replacement 2 Deny the proposed entryway door replacement 3 Continue discussion of the proposal to the May 1st Heritage Preservation Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is May 16, 2006 6 9 Page 2 Gazette Building Entryway Recommendation Since the entryway door is a prominent front facade feature of the historic Gazette Building, staff would prefer to see a wooden door and wooden frame that would complement the historic building better than anodized aluminum and glass cc John Harvey Attachments Picture of existing door Picture of proposed door • MAR 17 2006 4 03PM 6510PTIMUM MORTGAGE CITY OF STILLWATER NO 105 PP 1 e2 O A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FORM -(a_rt op3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No: Date Filed. Receipt No.: Fee: $25.00 Tire 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 be+onmes the property of the City of Stillwater. Photos, aketehhev and a letter ofintent is required Fourteen (14) copies of all supporting materials are required. All following information Is rationed , y 9 ,c! PROPERTY IDENTIFICA (80, Address of Project J D S a rJ Assessor's Parcel No oV O3,0020 'Y07- 04 (Required) Zoning District t! p Description of Project in detail "I hereby state the forming statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respect to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1' further cerfr!Y wlll comply with the permit ifitirgrentedand used" If representative is not property owner, then property owner's signature is required Property Owner_ t o e ct(f Representative J04,-) Mailing Address o a— s`' at' Mailing Address Sra— City State .Tap 'VI aw xi) /macity State Zip Telephone No / _ ' oc Jcrr Telephone No Signature cR H \mcnamarAshelle\2005\deslgn revew peim t.wpd July 13, 2005 Signature Page 3 Gazette Building Entryway MAR 17 2006 4 03PM OPTIMUM MORTGAGE NO 105 P 2 reP' ©ems om-PA-- pt-jC.1rizi-`'-pm- C.-°w.rtoLam' S Cx efr-PP N C t4ry -44'werAl ,.-401-irelAt) •DTP7Vg — srnvro- pf St ,..f&I * Its ‘-arj-do $ )os 1 cserwpefrer��i 4,4t5-,eed 4 E d SOL ON 3DVDI OW WNWIldD WdE0 w ti 9001 Ll ddW Memorandum City of Stillwater Community Development Department To Hentage Preservation Commission From Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Date March 28, 2006 Re Mills on Main Rooftop Venting, Skylights BACKGROUND Mr Dave May, developer of Stillwater Mills on Main, attended the March 6, 2006 Hentage Preservation Commission (HPC) to discuss the issues of roof venting and skylights for his project The Commission invited Mr May to the April 3 meeting to present plans to minimize the visual impact of venting and skylights SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Subsequent to the March 6 HPC meeting, Mr May has had several meetings with City officials and staff Based in part upon those meetings he has developed a plan to address the issues The plan includes • Landscaping along Second Street that will soften the views of Stillwater Mills on Main The landscaping will including a line of maple trees that at maturity will very nearly stretch crown to crown along the eastern boulevard The line of trees becomes a double line at the northern end of the property where the view of the roof is the most dramatic In addition to the trees, peashrub is planned along with other understory plantings in the boulevard area A steel picket fence would also provide visual vanety between the rear of the project site and Second Street • The PVC plumbing stacks can be reduced in height from their current three to four foot height down to a foot or less This will improve the look of 200 stacks • The 300 dryer and bath vents have two possible visual mitigation approaches 1) paint them a color that would match the river rock that will cover the roof membrane, or 2) wrap a colored product around them Mr May has not yet been able to venfy which method would be satisfactory to the roof manufacturer for warranty purposes • The fireplace stacks can be painted • The furnace vents are PVC and can be painted cc David May Attachments Letter from David May Roof plan Floor plan Minutes from 3/6/06 HPC meeting City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 Present Howard Lieberman Chairman Phil Eastwood Larry Nelson Brent Peterson Roger Tomten Scott Zahren and Council Representative Ken Harycki Others Interim Community Development Director Robert Lockyear Absent Jeff Johnson Mr Lieberman called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Tomten seconded by Mr Peterson moved to adopt the minutes of Feb 6 2006 as submitted Motion passed unanimously Design Review Case No DR/06-11 Design review of new signage at 317 S Main St , St Croix Merchant s Building in the CBD Central Business District Randall Raduenz representing Larry Cramer applicant Randall Raduenz explained the request for signage and reviewed the proposed layout He provided a swatch book of colors colors would be a medium green deep burgundy and dark brown with gold Iettenng He said currently it is difficult for people to know what tenants are inside the building Mr Eastwood seconded by Mr Peterson moved approval as submitted Mr Tomten suggested adding a condition that the existing sign be removed, if the applicant wishes to move the existing sign to the back that would be a separate application Mr Eastwood agreed to amend his motion to include that condition Amended motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-14 Design review of signage at 14012 Stillwater Blvd in the BP-C Business Park Commercial District Mark Winey applicant The applicant was not present Mr Tomten moved to approve as conditioned Mr Peterson seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-15 Design review of signage change at 106 E Chestnut St in the CBD Central Business District Patricia Page applicant The applicant was not present It was noted the drawing of the proposed sign in the packet had an incorrect spelling of the building name — should be Bourdaghs not Burdash Mr Lockyear said the applicant had indicated the new sign would be the same size as the existing sign Mr Tomten suggesting asking the applicant to consider white lettering with the background in burgundy thus reducing the appearance of being internally lit which is not allowed There was discussion as to whether the new sign would still be grandfathered in Mr Lockyear said under his interpretation the change in signage would mean the sign would not longer be grandfathered and could no longer be internally lighted Due to the unanswered questions Mr Lieberman moved to table this case and invite the applicant to appear at next month s meeting Mr Eastwood seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously 1 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 Case No DR/06-16 Design review of exterior modifications of a building at 324 S Main St (Stone's Restaurant) in the CBD Central Business District Mike Stone applicant Mr Stone was present He provided full-scale drawings of the proposed design and photos of the existing structure The intent he said was to have a design that is not overbearing and fits with the building The proposal is to utilize stucco, river stone and limestone veneer Initially the plan is to utilize the existing aluminum -clad windows there is a possibility the windows might be changed to a wood -clad trim There was a question about the proposal to illuminate the river stone facade and how much of the lighting would go over the building Mr Stone responded that none of the lighting would go over the building, the lighting is low wattage recessed lighting that will illuminate about 3-6 feet up on the stone There was a question about the sign over the door Mr Stone said the sign would be a mesh screen with the name Stone s in raised metal lettering there will be no river stone behind the mesh and no direct lighting behind the sign Mr Tomten moved approval as condition with the clarification that the low -voltage up -lighting at the screens be projecting on the walls only and that there be no direct lighting on the sign Mr Eastwood seconded the motion Mr Eastwood suggested amending the motion to include the condition that the final sign graphics be submitted to and approved by staff before installation Amended motion passed unanimously Public Hearings Case No DR/06-12 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District RB Two Family Residential District at 1208 N William St Tom Mulcahy applicant Mr Mulcahy was present He said he would like to build a home with an historical look and said he thought it would fit into the area very nicely He said the plans are preliminary drawings and said the amount of impervious surface could be scaled back Mr Lieberman said he thought the plans worked well with the new infill design guidelines and fit well in the neighborhood Jeff Benson 1120 N William expressed concerns about water runoff He said it appears the majority of the runoff from the twin home would run across his property Mr Eastwood asked if the proposal had been before the Planning Commission noting that drainage is addressed by the Planning Commission Mr Mulcahy responded that he believes the present fill behind the house is too low and suggested this would be an opportunity to correct problems Mr Benson also said he had a question about the driveway Mr Mulcahy said he had no intention of infringing on Mr Benson s driveway The plans show the driveway in question six and one-half feet from the property line it was noted Margaret Schneider, 1212 William St questioned whether 50 x 150 is considered a buildable lot and also questioned the minimum square footage of the home that could be put on that lot She stated that Mr Mulcahy had said he is neither a licensed building contractor nor licensed by the City both of which are required in order to construct a home according to City Code She also questioned whether the new home would be built according to City standards relating to square footage and setbacks Mr Lieberman asked Mr Mulcahy whether he would be hiring a licensed builder Mr Mulcahy responded that he could hire a contractor, or he could get licensed himself noting that he has been in the construction business all his life Mr Lockyear pointed out that Mr Mulcahy would have to obtain a building permit and provide complete 2 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6, 2006 working drawings that would be reviewed by the City building official When the building official approves a plan, the official inspects the project at various stages and the project will have to meet code Regarding the question about the size of a buildable lot Mr Lockyear said minimum square footage for a buildable lot is 7,500 square feet Ms Schneider also expressed a concern about drainage Mr Harycki asked whether submission of a drainage plan is required as part of the permit process Mr Lockyear pointed out this proposal will require a resubdivision and suggested that drainage issues will addressed in that process Ms Schneider said her biggest issue was with the privacy of current residents Joanne Loer 1114 N William also expressed a concern about drainage and said there was a big problem when Good Samaritan was constructed She said consideration should be given to the existing drainage problems Mr Lieberman responded that the HPC could request that the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the drainage issues when it passes the Case along Mr Lieberman read Mr Johnson s comments into the record Mr Johnson commented that the single unit looked good although the belt line trim appears high from the information submitted He stated that the twin unit appears wide for the scale of the house, he suggested ways to add vertical elements to the structure to narrow the appearance Mr Johnson also commented on the light fixtures suggesting the fixtures be downlit Mr Tomten noted that one of the requirements is review of all four sides of a structure and asked whether all four elevations were complete at this time Mr Tomten wondered if the applicant would be open to returning to the HPC next month with finished plans for all elevations of the proposed structures Mr Tomten moved to approve the application at concept level with the applicant to return with final plans for all four elevations, color schemes lighting plans Mr Tomten noted in the interim, the applicant would have time to address preliminary grading issues raised by neighbors and also rework impervious surface coverage to meet ordinance requirements Mr Eastwood seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Case No DR/06-13 Public hearing on Infill Design Review in the Neighborhood Conservation District RB Two Family Residential District at 303 W Olive St Mark Willis and Greg Stokes applicants The applicants explained that following comments received at the February meeting they had gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan While more conservative in direction the architect said he felt the design was still strong in terms of the abstract beauty they are trying to achieve The changes are very substantial to the street -side and south elevation he said The architect said the applicant will be coming back with actual design of the south house, but would like to proceed on the premise that the HPC has reviewed the site plan and approves in concept an attached -garage structure repressed to the rear of the lot for the second house There was a question about soils The applicants responded that most of the soils issues pertain to the north house which is why they will be starting with that structure first Mark Balay 416 S Fifth St said he thought the applicants had done a good job in responding to some changes in proportion such as the eave overhang and had done a lot to start complying with the infill guidelines 3 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 Leo Lohmer 303 W Olive, spoke of the history of the property and the ravine He said he would like to see something nice on the property and said he liked the proposed plans Mr Lieberman said a question had been raised about the design guideline related to four-sided architecture He said it could be argued that as proposed, the north and south faces are different from each other The applicants explained that the elements that separate the massing of the two components are recessed, so the two major masses will read throughout in terms of the overall massing of the building The architect explained the details of the window massing and said looking at the whole configuration eliminating the three in the middle vertical strip, the end result is a six component symmetrical layout Mr Lieberman questioned the meaning of consistent' in the four-sided architecture guideline noting that this is the Commission s first experience with the guidelines Mr Tomten said he thought the applicants had approached all four sides of the house the same and said the vocabulary is consistent with the style of the house, a contemporary style Mr Tomten said how the applicant had addressed the stairwell in the strip windows is not unlike Victorians a unique piece to the house Mr Tomten asked about the eave condition on the gable end, the applicant explained that detailing Mr Harycki suggested the corner board detailing evident in other houses in the neighborhood is missing in this design The applicants argued the lack of the corner boards will make the quality of the building very clear because it will show wood Mr Harycki pointed out that the guidelines refer to compatibility with adjacent structures in design detailing such as columns frieze board fascia boards etc with adjacent structures, pictures of the adjacent houses provided by the applicants show such details and those details are absent in the proposed plans Mr Eastwood agreed that the north elevation is lacking details and does not fit in with the other elevations Mr Tomten argued it is the style of the house that determines detailing and in this case all four sides are compatible with the style which is contemporary The applicants noted that the revised plans make serious gestures toward the traditional while still in keeping with the contemporary style Mr Lieberman agreed with Mr Tomten that the architectural details of the proposed house are consistent with a contemporary house Mr Lieberman suggested the issues comes down to ' compatible with adjacent structures and said compatible, in his view, does not mean to replicate or be identical to the adjacent structure but to include elements on some level that pay homage to the adjacent houses Mr Lieberman said some of the details in the massing and small sizes are compatible The applicants noted that it would be much easier to present plans that replicate an old house but suggested that would not be good for the future of Stillwater to keep building structures that try to look old Mr Eastwood said his only issue is that the north side does not have the elements that the other elevations do and does not conform with the guideline related to four-sided architecture Mr Lieberman moved to approve the design as submitted Mr Eastwood seconded the motion The applicant asked if it would be appropriate to include approval of the concept of an attached garage for the second house as that is a requirement for building the first house Mr Lieberman noted that if approved the action would not mean that there will not be strict scrutiny of everything that comes before the Commission under the infill guidelines — each proposal will be judged on its merits Mr Eastwood asked that it be clarified the motion is for approval as conditioned Mr Tomten pointed out the applicants have met the vast majority of the guidelines to the fullest extent the discussion centered on those two guidelines the most subject to interpretation Mr Tomten thanked the applicants for bringing together a high quality project Mr Lieberman also noted that the applicants had substantially met the infill guidelines, 4 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 the more broadly worded guidelines brought the Commission to discussion Motion to approve as conditioned passed unanimously Other items • Dave May, Stillwater Mills, appeared regarding the use of skylights Mr Mills said he thought the Commission had previously approved the use Mr Lockyear said originally the skylights was supposed to have a four -inch reveal on the roof now the proposal is to use 16-inch domed skylight which is a considerable change from what was originally proposed Also the skylights will now be slanted rather than flat due to problems with roof pitch Mr May explained that water retention will be on the roof to manage water coming off the site necessitating the skylight changes There was a question about visibility from the street It was noted the skylights will be visible from Second Street The discussion turned to the visibility of pipes on the roof, several members said they had received calls regarding the pipes Mr Lieberman said he thought these were significant design issues that need to be addressed Mr May said the developers had originally proposed screening roof elements but were told the only roof penetrations allowed are those that are absolutely necessary — vent stacks, bathroom venting, fireplace/furnace vents Mr May said the problem is now the roof is in place so it is no longer possible to screen the rooftop mechanicals Mr Eastwood said the vents were not shown in the plans the HPC reviewed Mr Lieberman said the HPC needs to see some design element to compensate for what has become a community eyesore Mr Harycki suggested this is what is driving the move to height restrictions Mr Lieberman encouraged Mr May to look at some creative way to screen the vents and return to the HPC Mr Lockyear suggested there might be ways to utilize rooftop screening such as latticework Mr Lieberman said the skylights were not included in the plans approved by the HPC and those design plans should come back for review as well as the screening issue Mr May said he didn't understand why skylights would be controversial or of concern Mr Lieberman noted there is a lot of sensitivity to height and visibility at this point Mr May was invited to come back to the HPC at its April meeting with plans to address the concerns • There was discussion as to whether there should be an official HPC position regarding the proposed height restrictions in the historic downtown district Mr Eastwood suggested that the proposed guidelines are higher than existing buildings in every zone which he said is defeating the purpose of maintaining the viewshed Mr Eastwood suggested keeping heights consistent with the current buildings Mr Tomten questioned how property owners would be reimbursed for the loss of value in going from 50 feet allowable height to 30 feet as proposed Mr Harycki said Mr Magnuson has reviewed the legal issues and said the City has a right to restrict heights as buildings get closer to the river Mr Lockyear said if the City is going to impose height restrictions it will have to implement three different district since property owners in a district must be treated equally Mr Lockyear also noted that the proposal does not change allowable heights anywhere in the downtown district except east of Water Street The only impacted parcels he said are the Dock Cafe Water Street Inn and the marinas Mr Lockyear said the proposal includes the caveat that an infill structure cannot exceed the adjacent structures by 10 percent which in essence maintains the 35- foot height in the historic district There was discussion as to the definition of adjacent Mr Lockyear said eliminating the adjacent language and setting a specific height limitation would solve that issue 5 City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission March 6 2006 The meeting was adjourned at 9 15 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 6 IMO DEI'ELOPMEAIT March 30, 2006 Heritage Preservation Committee, Four Star Land Development of Stillwater is very proud of the Stillwater Mills on Main development under construction in your great city at this time We believe we all will be very pleased with the addition of this fine development to the city upon its completion Four Star has had the opportunity to share our building with many of our future homeowners over the last couple of months as well show it to prospective customers and citizens of Stillwater We have been very pleased with their reaction Recently it has come to our attention that a number of Stillwater residents have expressed concern about the appearance of the roof from the Second St area We recognize there are a large number of ventilation stacks which are necessary for the occupancy of the building, some of which are completed in installation, and many that will be completed as the building reaches completion Four Star has held several meetings with our subcontractors with the objective of minimizing the visual impact Listed below are potential choices available which we feel will reduce the visual impact of our roof penetrations 1 We have a complete landscaping plan submitted and approved by the city which over time will grow and provide an attractive natural screening along Second St Additional trees and hedge material would add to the appearance and screening and add to the natural feel of the area 2 The plumber has indicated that the codes allow reducing the height of the plumbing stacks to a minimum of 10-12 inches above the roof surface There are approximately 200 of these and the plumbing contractor has agreed to do this as the project moves toward completion 3 There are about three hundred dryer and bath vents that by code have to be 48 inches above the roof and a minimum of 36 inches from any other fresh air intake which may necessitate raising them to as much as about 54 inches We believe there are two possible treatments we could use to minimize their appearance One would be to paint them a color that will blend into the roof color The other possibility is installing a product called Armaflex that is wrapped around the stacks We have yet to explore any warranty issues and there are only two color choices- white or black Four Star Land Development, LLC 4660 Slater Road Suite 203 • Eagan, MN 55122 651 287 1461 office • 651 287 1465 fax 4 The fireplace stacks can be painted according to the manufacturer We are exploring the paint type necessary to adhere to the surface because of the heat being generated when they are operated These also have to be a minimum of 48 inches above the roof surface and a minimum of 36 inches from any fresh air intake 5 The furnace vents are a pvc product and include both the fresh air intake and the exhaust They are installed at their finished height of 16 inches As we understand, these can be painted to minimize their appearance 6 We have consulted with our structural engineer to determine what may be done to screen any of these ventilation stacks Preliminary conversations have indicated several issues that would have to be overcome before anything could be added to the roof structure The problem comes from the load of whatever structure is added along with the concentration of point loads of that structure Any additional snow load added because of accumulating snow due to drifting could add to the problem Wind shear with any structure added to the roof would have to be factored into the calculation as well Lastly, the roof installed is a membrane type roof and should not be compromised with new penetrations or additional point loads because of warranty issues 7 We have installed about fifty skylights in the roof, some of which are 2'x2' and the balance are 2'x4' in size They are the bubble type and sit on about a twelve -inch curb, the total height is about twenty-four inches above the roof surface We have spent considerable time and effort searching for a way to mitigate your concerns There are a number of things listed above which we feel address the Heritage Preservation committees concerns We look forward to a discussion with you to reach a well thought out approach that makes economic sense and meets our objectives Included with this are several pieces of information which will help us reach a reasonable resolution Regards, David May Four Star Land Development of Stillwater Four Star Land Development, LLC 4660 Slater Road Suite 203 • Eagan, MN 55122 651 287 1461 office • 651 287 1465 fax Q Q 4 Q 4 Q Q Q QQ 0 0 o- 0 0 - 0 0- 0- 0 CD- ,1 -_- Y 1 � 0 Il 1 to 1 ° m 0 0 0 —0 STILLWATER MILLS ON MAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION 350 NORTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER MINNESOTA ROOF PLAN ssF� Hit Z o Lina "8 lVI1N3GIS3k1>jOO1dH.L flO� ��� a 70 a 3 g� a Mee ,+ S 5NOI10fH1SNOO 21 :: "z� ViOS3NNIW N31VM1111S 133HIS WWI H1tlON OSf M3N NIVIN NO S111W d31VM1111S 2111 tI 6 11 '' Q E : a � F @ 3 E 4 ; 1 i 21'-11" P 111 5'-0" t WAR • • 34'-0" 1 1 1 1 I, •I" I 'd`..1 31'-0 5' 3a'-0" w,-0„ 50,0 LOT 6 4