HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-15 HPC Packet
PLEASE NOTE: Heritage Preservation Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available
to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into zoom.us/join or by calling 1-312-626-6799 and
enter the meeting ID number: 503 594 024
AGENDA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
April 15th, 2020
CONFERENCE PLANNING WORKSHOP - CANCELLED 6:00 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of March 18th, 2020 regular meeting
IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects
which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the
statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out
of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are
considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or
citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered separately.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
2. Case No. 2020-12: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop improvements for the
property located at 125 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Ross Larson,
representing Nordic LUV LLC, property owner.
3. Case No. 2020-13: Consideration of a Design Permit for façade changes and new signage at
the property located at 103 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review District. PAC
Holdings LLC, property owner and Hamilton LLC, applicant.
VII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
4. HPC Ordinance Update & Guideline/Standards Discussion
5. 2020 Preservation Awards
VIII. FYI – VERBAL UPDATE ONLY
1. South Main Street Retaining Wall
2. 2020 Preserve MN Conference
IX. ADJOURNMENT
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
March 18, 2020
7:00 P.M.
Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Krakowski, Larson, Steinwall, Thueson, Council
Representative Junker
Absent: Commissioners Finwall and Walls
Staff: City Planner Wittman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of February 19, 2020 Meeting
Chairwoman Mino commented that the minutes seem to be quite long and should be more in summary form
because they get onerous for the public to read and the video is available should there be any dispute about
comments made.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to approve the minutes of the
February 19, 2020 meeting. Motion passed, 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
Resolution HPC 2020-01, Adopting Findings of Fact for HPC Case No. 2020-03
Case No. 2020-08, Consideration of a Design Permit for window repair at the Historic County
Courthouse located at 101 Pine St W in the Downtown Design Review district. Morgan
Abbott, PE (MN), representing Washington County, property owner.
Case No. 2020-09, Consideration of a Design permit for a Seasonal Outdoor Sales food truck to be
located at 127 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review district. Buettner Real Estate,
LLC, property owner and Flattop, LLC- Leo’s On Wheels, applicants.
Case No. 2020-11, Consideration of a Design Permit for Laurel Street stairway improvement
located adjacent to 602 Main Street North. City of Stillwater, applicant and property owner.
Commissioner Steinwall requested that Resolution HPC 2020-01, Adopting Findings of Fact for HPC
Case No. 2020-03, and Case No. 2020-11, Consideration of a Design Permit for Laurel Street stairway
improvement, be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adopt the Consent Agenda as
amended. Motion passed, 5-0.
Resolution HPC 2020-01, Adopting Findings of Fact for HPC Case No. 2020-03
Commissioner Steinwall pointed out two typographical errors on the Resolution. She suggested
alternate language for bullet point iv to read: “A stone wall that is in character with the stone on
either side would be acceptable” striking the introductory words “What would be acceptable would
be.”
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 18, 2020
Page 2 of 6
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to adopt Resolution HPC 2020-
01, Adopting Findings of Fact for HPC Case No. 2020-03, as amended. Motion passed, 5-0.
Ms. Wittman asked that Case 2020-11, Consideration of a Design Permit for Laurel Street stairway
improvement, be moved to New Business.
PUBLIC HEARING
There were no public hearings.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 2020-06: Consideration of a Design Permit for renovations and business signage for the
property located at 204 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review district. Pat Wolf, representing 204 N
Main St, LLC, property owner.
Ms. Wittman explained that in 2019 the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Use Permit
for the operation of a brewery, tap room, and associated outdoor service area to include seasonal
vending at 204 Main Street North. A condition of approval requires the applicant to obtain HPC
approval for any exterior improvements. The applicant is now requesting consideration of a Design
Permit for exterior renovations and site signage as follows. 1. The installation of: a. An aluminum
entryway door on the south elevation to be finished in a dark color to match the existing entryway
system on the east facade; b. a dark-colored, aluminum-skinned refrigerator on the west elevation; c.
an 8’ overhead door on the west elevation, painted tan match the existing wall; d. a cedar slat trash
enclosure area; e. rooftop mechanicals screened with a dark brown, vertical metal panel; and f. a new
black awing with signage. Signage on the skirt is proposed to read ‘Beans & Brew.” The business logo
is proposed for the east face of the awning. 2. The conversion of: a. an existing, non-conforming 80-
square foot wall sign to read “Joseph Wolf Brewing Company” in white letters on a black background;
and b. an existing, non-conforming freestanding sign to read “Wolf” in white lettering on a black
background. 3. The extension of a metal fence around the perimeter of the outdoor service area. Staff
finds that, with certain conditions, the project substantially conforms to the Downtown Design
Review District guidelines and recommends approval with seven conditions.
Pat Wolf, applicant, speaking by phone, added that they reduced the signage that had been in place for
18-19 years to conform to the 52 square feet but they feel it is important to have their logo on the
signage. They prefer not to do dimensional lettering because it will not work for the look they desire.
They are using the historic logo, script and font. Regarding the clock tower they really worked with
the graphic design person on options. The Wolf name in the space at the top of the clock tower
seemed to be the best option. They would like the Commission to allow the use of the Wolf name at
the top of the clock tower and to approve the type of lettering and signage they are proposing without
using the dimensional lettering suggested.
Commissioner Larson asked about the color of the refrigerator panels.
Ms. Wittman shared that the refrigerator will be the dark colored aluminum as shown in the
rendering.
Michael Nelson, architect for the applicant, speaking via phone said they are willing to modify it to
approximate the color of the existing siding if the Commission desires.
Commissioner Larson asked about the garage door design and color.
Mr. Nelson said the garage door will be recessed as needed to install, but will be a flush panel, and will
be the same color as the siding to blend in.
Commissioner Steinwall asked for clarification of the issue of dimensional lettering.
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 18, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Ms. Wolf said they do not wish to have dimensional lettering because historically their logo has not
been dimensional. The lettering will be printed right onto the sign, not vinyl stick-on lettering.
Ms. Wittman added that dimensional lettering means lettering that is raised off the panel, not
necessarily a change in the type. The Commission has allowed flat panel signs when the lettering has
been proposed to be painted. This may be an alternative to the vinyl cut sticker letters.
Chairwoman Mino asked for clarification of guidelines in terms of putting logos on signs.
Ms. Wittman said there is no restriction against using logos. The logo is counted toward the square
footage and is generally used once. Staff questioned the use of the name Wolf in both the freestanding
sign and the vertical sign, however one sign faces east and the other one faces in the opposite
direction. Sometimes the Commission has found it acceptable to use the duplicated design when it is
not facing the same way.
Commissioner Larson asked if the clock is internally lit.
Ms. Wittman replied yes, it is an existing non conforming sign.
Ms. Wolf stated per the current owner, the existing large sign on the east face of the building and the
awning were installed at the same time. The clock has probably been there for 15-18 years. They
don’t anticipate using the logo on the south-facing awning but they might incorporate some type of
historic ad or signage on that side. They would conform to the 24 square feet. As proposed, Beans &
Brew lettering on the valance runs the entire length of the skirt all the way around. They would like
consideration in allowing them to run the Beans & Brew along that whole skirt. This would mimic
what is there currently.
Commissioner Larson commented that he understands the desire to get as much as possible on the
sign or valance and he appreciates the applicant making the signs smaller. Some signage may be
placed in windows.
Ms. Wittman added that City code allows for up to 1/3 of each window area to have window signage
without coming before the Commission. The requirement that lettering may not encompass more
than 50% of an awning skirt area is in City code, so the Commission may not allow that without a
variance. The applicant will need to reduce Beans & Brew to 50% of the skirt area but could use the
Beans & Brew in the windows.
Commissioner Steinwall asked if a condition is needed to address the grandfathered freestanding
clock sign?
Commissioner Larson remarked the name Wolf should be somewhat subdued so it is not very bright,
and the material should be matt and not shiny plastic. He suggested adding a condition to address
those concerns.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. 2020-06,
Design Permit for renovations and business signage for the property located at 204 Main Street North,
removing staff-recommended Conditions #2 and 3, modifying Condition #5 to state: “awning is permitted
to have graphics and/or text on the valance/skirt. No graphics or text are permitted for any other portion
of the awning. Awning lettering shall not encompass greater than 50% of the skirt/valance area” and
adding Condition #8 stating: “the free-standing sign panel shall have a matt or non-glossy finish and a
subdued, non-distracting interior light, 3500K or less.” Motion passed, 5-0.
Ms. Wolf thanked the Commission and recognized the hundredth anniversary of the closure of Wolf
Brewery in 1920 due to prohibition. She and her sister are delighted to say 100 years later they are
back in business brewing beer on Main Street in downtown Stillwater.
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 18, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Case No. 2020-07: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new rooftop AC unit and other exterior finishes
for the property located at 126 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review district. R & G Investments,
property owners.
Ms. Wittman explained the case. In 2019 Heidi and Murray McAllister received a Design Permit for
exterior improvements associated with the conversion of a portion of the building from commercial
to residential use. Since that time, the property owners have identified additional improvements
needed to complete the residential unit. They are requesting approval of a Design Permit for exterior
finishes and rooftop improvements to include: 1. Install a. a 23.5” square, 25.5” tall air conditioner
unit on the rooftop, to the west of the permitted rooftop access room; b. installation of one light above
the service door of the garage. 2. Change: a. the west façade’s window (visible from the alley) from
glass block to a window film of a historic, Stillwater-appropriate image; and b. the approved black,
cable rooftop rail system to a post and glass system. 3. Convert the existing (barely operable) green
garage door with windows to an automatic multiple-panel, dark bronze/black garage door without
windows. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the project substantially conforms to the
Downtown Design Review District guidelines and recommends approval with four conditions.
Heidi McAllister, applicant, speaking by phone, said she wants to make sure that the railing system
will be approved by the building department. She would like permission for the vertical rail system to
put on the west end over the garage portion of the rooftop patio rather than glass, but they would like
to use glass on the front on the east elevation if approved because they feel it will have less visual
impact on Main Street.
Commissioner Larson said he supports a dark garage door and film on the windows as proposed. The
single light above the garage service door must be higher than 6’8” to comply with ADA requirements.
A dark picket type guardrail is fine as long as the posts are dark so they recede. He asked if the
guardrail will be all the way around the perimeter.
Ms. McAllister replied the code will require them to have it on the west end above the stucco portion,
meeting the parapet of the historic brick area and across the entire east edge returning on the north
edge about 5’ until the parapet meets the legal height for railing. She would like it to connect as close
to the end of the parapet as possible to look more consistent. It will be whatever the required height is
once the decking is installed. The parapet is high enough along the north side to meet code without
requiring any railing system on that north wall.
Commissioner Thueson asked if the color temperature of the light above the service door should be
considered.
Ms. Wittman answered if it is truly shielded and down-lit it will probably not be a problem. It would
be reasonable for the Commission to ask for a warmer yellow light if possible.
Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve Case No. 2020-
07, Design Permit for a new rooftop AC unit and other exterior finishes for the property located at 126
Main Street North, with the four conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #5 that “the rooftop
rail shall be a dark bronze or black color” and adding Condition #6 stating: “a warmer yellow light should
be installed if possible.” Motion passed, 5-0.
Case No. 2020-10: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop improvements for the property located
at 227 Main Street North. Brad Smith, applicant. Neon LLC, property owner.
Ms. Wittman explained the case. In May, 2017, the HPC approved a Design Permit for the Site
Alteration of the structure located at 227 Main Street South. The storefront reconstruction has been
completed and the property owner has moved on to interior finishes. In October of the same year the
applicant received Design Permit approval for an HVAC unit to be located on the rooftop. The
applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for rooftop improvements on the two-story
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 18, 2020
Page 5 of 6
portion of this building to include: 1. Installation of two new rooftop units (RTU) to be used for the
office and bar. The units are proposed to be nearly 42” in height on top of a standard rooftop curb. If
approved, there would be a total of three units on the rooftop; and 2. Installation of one 42” long by
30” tall makeup air unit (MUA) to be set on a standard rooftop curb; and 3. Installation of an exhaust
vent for the distillery; and 4. Installation of a skylight for the second story space. With certain
conditions, the project substantially conforms to the intent of the City Code standards and the
Downtown Design Review District guidelines. However, the eastern-most mechanical equipment will
be visible in at-grade areas of the downtown, particularly from the east. The Commission should
discuss whether or not rooftop screening should be provided along the eastern side of the rooftop in
the area where no parapet exists. Staff recommends approval with six conditions.
Applicant Brad Smith and property owner Mark Miller of Neon LLC, speaking by phone, said they
would be comfortable with some sort of rooftop screening if needed. They asked about the height of
the screening.
Commissioner Larson responded it probably could be no higher than the units sitting on the curb,
about 4’8”. The intent is to shield it from Lowell Park.
Councilmember Junker asked if a raised platform will be needed.
Mr. Smith replied structurally, this building is able to handle the units so they will be standard height
and will not need additional framing to raise them up.
Commissioner Larson asked about the color of the screening.
Mr. Smith said they will try to do a fence in a similar color to make it blend into the brick right below
it.
Motion by Chairwoman Mino, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2020-10,
Design Permit for rooftop improvements for the property located at 227 Main Street North, with the six
conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #7 stating, “mechanicals shall be screened from
Lowell Park with a fence material color to be similar to the brick.” Motion passed, 5-0.
Case No. 2020-11, Consideration of a Design Permit for Laurel Street stairway improvement located adjacent
to 602 Main Street North. City of Stillwater, applicant and property owner
Commissioner Steinwall asked if the Commission is approving a new city-wide rail standard by approving
these specifications.
Ms. Wittman replied if the Commission is favorable to the flat design on the top and the bottom, staff would
start using that design whenever a rail on the stairway system is replaced. The only exception is when a
guardrail is required, for instance the Main Street Stairs, when there is a fall hazard. Staff is proposing a
simple railing design that doesn’t stand out from the stairs.
Councilmember Junker voiced support for the simple railing, saying guardrails from top to bottom
make stairs nearly impossible to shovel.
Commissioner Thueson asked, if a simple design is selected, will stairway projects still come to the
Commission for other reasons?
Ms. Wittman replied yes, stairs that are in the downtown design review district will come back before
the Commission. If the application is for maintenance only, the Commission may not see it but when
layout or railings are changed, it would be brought to the Commission. She added that the Public
Works Department has been told that all projects in the downtown design review district require
design approval prior to installation.
Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2020-11,
Design Permit for Laurel Street stairway improvements. Motion passed, 5-0.
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 18, 2020
Page 6 of 6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
HPC Ordinance Update & Guideline/Standards Discussion
Ms. Wittman stated that as part of the HPC Ordinance update process, staff and the consultant have
developed a survey to gather anonymous feedback from the public. She provided homework for the
Commissioners to consider. She would like the Commission to get an understanding of the difference
between guidelines and standards, and to help determine what “shoulds” need to be “shalls.” She asked the
Commissioners to review the materials and provide feedback by April 3. After the ordinance is updated, the
guidelines will be updated.
FYI
2020 Preservation Awards
Ms. Wittman provided a list of all last year’s applications and asked the Commissioners to start thinking
about 2020 awards to be issued in May.
Project Updates
Ms. Wittman updated the Commission on several projects. A request has been submitted for microfilm
acquisition and there will be a 4-6 week processing time. Kudos to Commissioner Thueson for pulling this
project together. The Lowell Park Pavilion project may be on hold. She will try to get an update next week.
The City’s web development firm is working on the Heirloom Home and Landmark Sites Website.
Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that City Hall is closed to the public and for the foreseeable future,
it is unlikely all of them will come back to a public meeting at City Hall. This is the last meeting where the
City is bringing people in to City Hall. Administration and IT staff are working on how best to continue to
serve the public for normal business. Some meetings can be cancelled easily but the HPC and Planning
Commission have to meet a 60 day review deadline for applications. There is discussion of petitioning the
legislature to change this in times of emergencies. City staff are exploring how to handle public hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Chairwoman Mino, to adjourn. Motion passed, 5-0. The meeting
was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
Amy Mino, Chairwoman
ATTEST:
Abbi Wittman, City Planner
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-12
REPORT DATE: April 8, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2020
APPLICANT: Ross Larson
LANDOWNER: Nordic LUV LLC
REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop improvements
LOCATION: 125 Main Street South
DESIGNATION: Contributing
DISTRICT: Stillwater Commercial Historic District
Downtown Design Review District
REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
City records indicate
that, in 2003, the former
owner of 125 Main
Street South received
approval for “deckage”.
However, the City has
no approval
documentation from the
Heritage Preservation
Commission nor the
City’s Building
Inspection division.
Regardless, an
(approximately) 24’
wide by 40’ long deck
is located on the
rooftop. The deck is
screened, from Water
Street, with a 6’ wood privacy fence situated on the building’s roof decking; the fencing rises
(approximately) 4’-5 above the patio decking.
Street View – May, 2019 (Courtesy: Google Street View)
125 Main Street South
HPC 2020-12
Page 2 of 4
REQUEST
Ross Larson of Nordic LUC LLC is requesting approval of a Design Permit for a new rooftop
patio to include:
1. Replace the existing deck with a 25’ long by 22.5’ wide Ipe (also called Brazilian walnut)
wood deck. The deck would contain:
a. Two raised planter boxes; and
b. A stepped hot tub surround with bench seating
2. Install new fall protection and screening, situated on top of the framed patio deck, to
include:
a. A 3’6” tall black metal and Ipe wood railing. This railing would have vertical
rails in black. The railing would be located on the north and south sides of the
new deck; and
b. An 8’9” tall hardwood privacy screen. The screen would be located on the
eastern side of the building.
3. Install new lighting to include:
a. Exterior undermount LED strips under built-in seating and on stair treads; and
b. Down-lit lights on the interior of the privacy screen.
ANALYSIS
As the property has been designated as a Heritage Preservation Site due to its significance within
the Commercial Historic District, the commission’s decisions must use the following
(applicable) guidelines (as found in City Code Section 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission)
to evaluate applications for site alterations:
Every reasonable effort must be made to use a property for its originally intended
purpose.
The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its
environment must not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material
or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible.
All buildings, structures and sites must be recognized as products of their own time.
Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance
are discouraged.
Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship that characterize a
building, structure or site must be treated with sensitivity.
Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties is not
discouraged when the alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical,
architectural or cultural material and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color,
material and character of the property.
Whenever possible, new additions or alterations to structures must be done in a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure
would be unimpaired.
125 Main Street South
HPC 2020-12
Page 3 of 4
Furthermore, City Code Section 31-209(f) indicates the following applicable standards for
review are:
Architectural character:
i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose.
ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines.
iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.
Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources.
Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city
council.
The Downtown Design Review District guidelines are silent on rooftop improvements such as
residential decks. However they do indicate the following:
HEIGHT
Proposals should strive to maintain
compatibility with adjacent cornice
lines, floor to floor heights where
these are strongly expressed, sign
bands, and any other elements which
serve to unify the street element.
The platform deck will not be greater in height than
the existing deck and the railing does not exceed
building code requirement. However, with the
potential installation of a hot tub, the desired privacy
screen rises much taller than the deck or parapet
grade.
LIGHTING
Lighting fixtures should be
concealed or integrated into the
overall design of the project. The
light source should be hidden from
direct pedestrian or motorist view.
Unshielded wall pack light fixtures
are not appropriate.
While the HPC has determined LEDs are appropriate
in the downtown core, restricting the temperature to
3,500K max has been traditional practice.
Additionally, light fixtures shall have no exposed
bulbs. Therefore, the privacy screen panel lights
should not contain clear glass.
ALTERNATIVES
HPC has alternatives related to this request.
A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District
standards, and the standards set forth for Site Alteration Permits, the HPC should move to
approve Case No. 2020-07. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval:
1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development
Department and are on file with HPC Case No. 2020-07 unless modified by the
conditions herein.
2. Light fixtures shall be downlit and shielded. If the bulbs cannot be shielded, glazed
or frosted glass shall be required. LED lights shall not exceed 3500K.
3. The privacy screen shall not be greater than 6’ in height.
4. HPC Design Permit approval does not constitute building permit approval. A building
permit shall be obtained prior to construction. The building permit shall be in
compliance with accessibility codes.
5. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City
Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC.
125 Main Street South
HPC 2020-12
Page 4 of 4
Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the
Zoning Ordinance.
B. Approve in part.
C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design
Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the
basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would
prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year.
D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be
tabled to the following hearing.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The rooftop improvement would allow for the new property owner to reuse this second story
space for outdoor living area. While the deck and railing are typical rooftop improvements
visible from the street, the City has generally determined these to be conforming to the standards
and guidelines in place as, if removed in the future, the alteration would not substantially alter
the original structure. However, the installation of the hot tub, and its associated screening, raise
some alarms as to whether or not the “design is compatible with the size, scale…character of the
property”.
It is recognized that in order for a hot tub to be on the roof, it is desired to be screened from view
of the public (including those directly across Water Street, at the Water Street Inn. However, the
8’9” tall screen does not keep with the size, scale nor the character of the building nor its
surroundings. Staff finds reducing the screen to a maximum of 6’ from the roof deck (not patio
deck) would be more in conformance to the standards in place. Therefore, staff would
recommend conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above.
ATTACHMENTS
Applicant Narrative (2 pages)
Rooftop Photos (3 pages)
Site Plan
Deck Designs (3 pages)
Materials & Lighting (3 pages)
Street Photographs (2 pages)
To:
Heritage Preservation Commission
From:
Ross Larson / Nordic LUV LLC
C/O 125 Main St S, Stillwater MN 55082
Hi,
I would like to introduce myself as the new owner of 125 Main St S, and like to ask permission to
restore/replace the 25 year-old rooftop deck that has deteriorated overtime. I would like the railing and
any portion viewable from the street or other vantage point to be much more aesthetically appealing to
everybody. This rooftop deck would include a hot tub if it is determined to be structurally sound for that
amount of weight and otherwise basically replace the current rooftop deck with an updated more useful
deck covering the same structural area as currently in place. This deck is only for personal use.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ross Larson
Nordic LUV LLC
612-384-4334
Current Deck Structure
Building Materials
Decking – Ipe Wood
Railing – Metal Wire with Ipe Rail
Privacy Screens – OUTDECO brand modular panels made of sustainable hardwood composite –
Style - Monsoon
Lighting
Deck currently has wall wash uplights on the north side – these will remain
Exterior Undermount LED strips – Under seating and stair treads
Decorative Down Lights on Interior of Privacy Screens
Surrounding Buildings
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-13
REPORT DATE: April 8, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2020
APPLICANT: James Hamilton, Hamilton Signs
LANDOWNER: PAC Holdings LLC
REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for façade changes and new signage
LOCATION: 103 Main Street North
DESIGNATION: N/A
DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District
REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
INTRODUCTION
In the 1980s the City
approved the
construction of a gas
station at 103 Main
Street North. The
original approval
included a free-
standing sign that,
since the time of Use
Permit approvals, has
become
nonconforming in
height and sign size. In 1998 the HPC granted a Design Permit for exterior alterations which
included changing the freestanding sign. At the time, the HPC permitted a 20’, 50 square foot
sign to be erected onsite.
In 2005 and again in 2010 the HPC approved Design Permits for exterior alterations and signage
for the existing Lucky’s gas station. The business has recently been sold and the new owner
would like to make changes to the building’s façade and signage.
Two noteworthy conditions of those approvals included:
Street View – May, 2019 (Courtesy Google, 2020)
103 Main Street North
HPC 2020-13
Page 2 of 4
• Cut off lighting shield to be installed at pylon lighting;
• Only one…logo shall be applied to the building along Water Street and Main Street; and
• Any pylon sign shall be submitted for review and approved by the HPC prior to
installation.
The City does not have any record of HPC review/approval nor City issuance of an approved
sign permit for the free-standing sign that exists today.
SPECIFIC REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for the property located at 103 Main
Street North to:
1. Paint all existing brick, on the building and on the canopy columns, white;
2. Paint the building’s black sign band area to white, adding a red decal stripe at the bottom;
3. Change the existing “Lucky’s Station” wall signs with new, 52” interior-lit signs to read “to
go” in white lettering on red;
4. Change the gas pump canopies to either white or red with an orange stripe, white and blue
with black channel letters to read ‘AMOCO’ where the “Gulf” logo currently is; and
5. Change the existing, free-standing “Lucky’s Station” sign to an (approximately) 64 square
foot unlit sign to read “AMOCO”.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 31-509, Design Permit Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the
HPC shall utilize the following applicable standards:
o Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping
of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards
and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development.
o Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources.
o Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city
council.
The Downtown Design Review District guidelines indicate the following:
COLOR
The color of buildings should relate
to the adjacent building’s colors to
create a harmonious effect.
Avoid colors while visually
overpower or strongly contrast with
adjacent building colors and
established downtown color schemes
as a whole.
The color of brick of other natural
building materials should dictate the
The applicant is proposing to paint the entire
building, including all brick, white. This is not
consistent with the guidelines, which discourages
painting infill buildings. While white has been used
for traditional wooden storefronts, the white building
with white sign band and canopy will stand out in the
downtown area.
103 Main Street North
HPC 2020-13
Page 3 of 4
color family color.
Painting new infill buildings is
prohibited.
SIGNS: QUANTITIES, LOCATION AND SIZE
Only one sign that contains the
business name or graphic logo is
permitted per street facing side.
While the applicant is proposing to use “AMOCO”
on the canopies and on the free-standing sign, these
signs will face opposite streets.
SIGNS: STOREFRONTS, MATERIALS, SHAPE, COLOR, LETTING & LIGHTING
The storefront sign should be used to
display the primary name of the
business only. Use only one line of
lettering if possible, leaving out
secondary information.
Trademark or logo signs may not be
acceptable if the color and character
of the sign is not in keeping with the
historic character of the area.
Use painted wood where practicable.
Backlit and internally lit signs are
not appropriate.
Design the sign shape to fit and fill
the space available. Consider using
long narrow signs spanning the full
width of the façade.
Choose subdued colors and dark
tones in keeping with the Victorian
tradition.
Choose tones with sufficient
contrasts to be clearly legible.
Choose a bold and simple type style
and use it on all appropriate signs.
The storefront sign is proposed to be changed from
the long, linear sign band to a sign that is (somewhat)
an oval with flat ends, located directly above the
entrance doors. This is not the most consistent with
the guidelines however, the sign size is being
dramatically reduced from what is permissible on this
site. Additionally, these signs are set back behind the
pumps in an area with lower visibility from the street.
To gain greater visibility, the applicant is proposing
internally lit signs though these are not permitted in
the Central Business District.
The existing structure does not contain painted
wooden signs. A combination of plastic and vinyl
has been determined to be acceptable by the HPC on
this modern building. The use of red signs with
white lettering as well as black lettering on either
multi-colored or white backgrounds provides
sufficient contrast.
In addition to the design standards and guidelines cited above, the City must look at conformance
with the Zoning Code and any prior approvals granted. The existing free-standing sign does not
conform to the Zoning Code which requires it to be no greater than six feet (6’) in height and
may not exceed 30 square feet in area. That said, the HPC has approved a 20’ tall and 50 square
foot wide sign to be on this site in the past.
ALTERNATIVES
The HPC has alternatives related to this request:
A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Design Permit standards and the
downtown design review district guidelines, the HPC should move to approve Case No.
2020-13. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval:
1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development
Department and on file with HPC Case No. 2020-13.
2. The building shall not be painted.
103 Main Street North
HPC 2020-13
Page 4 of 4
3. The pump canopies shall be white, as proposed. Multi-colored canopies shall not
be installed unless reviewed and approved by the HPC.
4. No signs may be internally illuminated.
5. A cut off lighting shield shall be installed on the pylon sign.
6. The pylon sign shall not exceed 20’ in height.
7. The pylon sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area.
8. All modifications shall be reviewed and approved prior to be implemented.
Major modifications shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission;
minor modifications shall be reviewed by staff.
B. Approve in part.
C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Design Permit
standards or the design review district guidelines, then the Commission may deny the
request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial
with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for
one year.
D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be
tabled to the following hearing.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant’s proposal substantially conforms when the following are applied:
• Refraining from painting brick to conform to the guideline prohibiting painting infill
buildings;
• Use of white canopies (opposed to a multi-colored canopies) with black lettering to
conform to the guideline requiring contrasting signs; and
• The use of white lettering on a red background, with no internal illumination, to conform
to the guideline requiring contrasting signs.
Additionally, as long as the free-standing sign did not exceed 20’ in height, was not greater than
30-50 square feet in area, and externally illuminated with a cut-off shield, the free-standing sign
would substantially conform to prior approvals granted by the HPC.
Therefore, staff finds that with certain conditions the proposed project substantially conforms to
the standards and guidelines and would recommend conditional approval with those conditions
outlined in Alternative A, above.
ATTACHMENTS
Building Modifications
White Canopy Sign (3 pages)
Multi-colored Canopy Sign (3 pages)
Freestanding Sign
Color Palette
BUILDINGJobber: Dooley Petro Inc Address: 103 Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 Date: 02.26.20 Site Level: CSVB: 1992247 Designer: Connor Daniels REVISION: JR2
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
Back Elevation
Right Elevion
Left Elevation
Front Elevation
See Site Notes page for specific paint codes and contact info.
*REMOVE ALL UNAPPROVED SIGNAGE FROM DISPENSERS*
YES, this location is receiving a Amoco “Togo” *image (Qty. 2 ). Install:
52" Illuminated Togo Sign
77" Illuminated Togo Sign
112" Illuminated Togo Sign
*Note: ToGo sign to be centered over entry door and centered on the fascia above the gradient stripe.
YES, this location is receiving a Amoco “Service” image. (Qty. 0 ). Install:
5' Service Decal 5' Service on ACM 5' Illuminated Service Sign
8' Service Decal 8' Service on ACM 8' Illuminated Service Sign
12' Illuminated Service Sign
Exterior Building Walls
to be painted Amoco Retail White (c.01) to be kept natural
Building Fascia to be Amoco Retail White (C.01). See Note Below
Paint Fascia Install new ACM Install Vinyl
Is this location is receiving a Red Stripe?
Yes, Install RED Awning Decal No
Fascia Detail
Notes
A
B
C
D
E
30'
48"
aa dd
ee
cc
8"52"48"30'
cc
75'
aa
ddee
75'20 5/8"
No Image Available
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
AERIAL
Back Elevation
CANOPY 1 OF 2
MAP
Notes
Approved By
Date
- Any Additional Fascia Should Be Removed. ACM Is Meant To Fit Over First
Layer Of Fascia Only.
- If Fascia Height Is Less Than 30” It Will Need To Be
Built Up To At Least 30” Inches
Right Elevion
Left Elevation
Front Elevation
Jobber: Dooley Petro Inc Address: 103 Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 Date: 02.26.20 Site Level: CSVB: 1992247
Install bull nose fascia with light bar
Install bull nose fascia with no light bar
Install flat ACM with 3D decal applied
Light bar No light bar
Install BGB Flat ACM (Jobber supplied ACM), decal only through Amoco Parts. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Light bar No light bar
Paint existing flat ACM white and install bullnose decal. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Install Amoco T&0 (Qty. 0 )
60" 36" 34" (approval needed) 30" (approval needed)
Install Amoco channel letters (Qty. 1 )
22" 15" (approval needed)
Paint canopy columns Amoco White & Amoco Dk. Blue(Amoco Dk Bue to be painted 10' from the ground and above, per visual)
Apply Amoco Light Blue stripe decal 10' from ground
Install flag signs 10'6" from the ground
Canopy deck to be White
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
Designer: Connor Daniels
I
K
48”
50'
Canopy clearance sign,
approximate location
(should not be installed
under the canopy helios)
Place valance and skirt graphics
so that they form a circle
22” AMOCO letter logo signG
48'
10'-6”sign 10'-0”stripeIJ
1’-3”
13’-3”
1’-3”
50'H611 512 611 512
48'611512611512Revision: R1
No Image Available
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
AERIAL
Back Elevation
CANOPY 2 OF 2
MAP
Notes
Approved By
Date
- Any Additional Fascia Should Be Removed. ACM Is Meant To Fit Over First
Layer Of Fascia Only.
- If Fascia Height Is Less Than 30” It Will Need To Be
Built Up To At Least 30” Inches
Right Elevion
Left Elevation
Front Elevation
Install bull nose fascia with light bar
Install bull nose fascia with no light bar
Install flat ACM with 3D decal applied
Light bar No light bar
Install BGB Flat ACM (Jobber supplied ACM), decal only through Amoco Parts. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Light bar No light bar
Paint existing flat ACM white and install bullnose decal. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Install Amoco T&0 (Qty. 0 )
60" 36" 34" (approval needed) 30" (approval needed)
Install Amoco channel letters (Qty. 1 )
22" 15" (approval needed)
Paint canopy columns Amoco White & Amoco Dk. Blue(Amoco Dk Bue to be painted 10' from the ground and above, per visual)
Apply Amoco Light Blue stripe decal 10' from ground
Install flag signs 10'6" from the ground
Canopy deck to be White
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
I
K
48”
50'
Canopy clearance sign,
approximate location
(should not be installed
under the canopy helios)
Place valance and skirt graphics
so that they form a circle
22” AMOCO letter logo signG
48'
10'-6”sign 10'-0”stripeIJ
1’-3”
13’-3”
1’-3”
50'H611 512 611 512
48'611512611512Jobber: Dooley Petro Inc Address: 103 Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 Date: 02.26.20 Site Level: CSVB: 1992247 Designer: Connor Daniels REVISION: JR2
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
CANOPY DETAIL
Approved By
Date
G
clearance16'-0"1'3" radius
5/8"
1/4"
6"
2 5/8"
1 3/8"
1"
2'-0"
26"bnose
5"
5"
48"fascia
13’- 3"
22”
equal
equal
No Image Available
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
AERIAL
Back Elevation
CANOPY 1 OF 2
MAP
Notes
Approved By
Date
- Any Additional Fascia Should Be Removed. ACM Is Meant To Fit Over First
Layer Of Fascia Only.
- If Fascia Height Is Less Than 30” It Will Need To Be
Built Up To At Least 30” Inches
Right Elevion
Left Elevation
Front Elevation
Jobber: Dooley Petro Inc Address: 103 Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 Date: 02.26.20 Site Level: CSVB: 1992247
Install bull nose fascia with light bar
Install bull nose fascia with no light bar
Install flat ACM with 3D decal applied
Light bar No light bar
Install BGB Flat ACM (Jobber supplied ACM), decal only through Amoco Parts. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Light bar No light bar
Paint existing flat ACM white and install bullnose decal. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Install Amoco T&0 (Qty. 0 )
60" 36" 34" (approval needed) 30" (approval needed)
Install Amoco channel letters (Qty. 1 )
22" 15" (approval needed)
Paint canopy columns Amoco White & Amoco Dk. Blue(Amoco Dk Bue to be painted 10' from the ground and above, per visual)
Apply Amoco Light Blue stripe decal 10' from ground
Install flag signs 10'6" from the ground
Canopy deck to be White
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
Designer: Connor Daniels
I
K
48”
50'
Canopy clearance sign,
approximate location
(should not be installed
under the canopy helios)
Place valance and skirt graphics
so that they form a circle
22” AMOCO letter logo signG
48'
10'-6”sign 10'-0”stripeIJ
1’-3”
13’-3”
1’-3”
C
50'H611 512 611 512
48'611512611512C
C
C
Revision: R1
No Image Available
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
AERIAL
Back Elevation
CANOPY 2 OF 2
MAP
Notes
Approved By
Date
- Any Additional Fascia Should Be Removed. ACM Is Meant To Fit Over First
Layer Of Fascia Only.
- If Fascia Height Is Less Than 30” It Will Need To Be
Built Up To At Least 30” Inches
Right Elevion
Left Elevation
Front Elevation
Install bull nose fascia with light bar
Install bull nose fascia with no light bar
Install flat ACM with 3D decal applied
Light bar No light bar
Install BGB Flat ACM (Jobber supplied ACM), decal only through Amoco Parts. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Light bar No light bar
Paint existing flat ACM white and install bullnose decal. Must have approval from Amoco Jobber Engineer.
Install Amoco T&0 (Qty. 0 )
60" 36" 34" (approval needed) 30" (approval needed)
Install Amoco channel letters (Qty. 1 )
22" 15" (approval needed)
Paint canopy columns Amoco White & Amoco Dk. Blue(Amoco Dk Bue to be painted 10' from the ground and above, per visual)
Apply Amoco Light Blue stripe decal 10' from ground
Install flag signs 10'6" from the ground
Canopy deck to be White
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
I
K
48”
50'
Canopy clearance sign,
approximate location
(should not be installed
under the canopy helios)
Place valance and skirt graphics
so that they form a circle
22” AMOCO letter logo signG
48'
10'-6”sign 10'-0”stripeIJ
1’-3”
13’-3”
1’-3”
C
50'H611 512 611 512
48'611512611512C
C
Jobber: Dooley Petro Inc Address: 103 Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 Date: 02.26.20 Site Level: CSVB: 1992247 Designer: Connor Daniels Revision: Original
C
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093
CANOPY DETAIL
Approved By
Date
G
clearance16'-0"1'3" radius
5/8"
1/4"
6"
2 5/8"
1 3/8"
1"
2'-0"
26"bnose
5"
5"
48"fascia
13’- 3"
22”
equal
equal
15"15"
Amoco OrangeLens Amoco Lt BlueLens
FORECOURT NOTES 2 OF 2
This is an original concept drawing created by Big Red Rooster Flow, LLC. It is submitted for use in connection with the project being planned for you by BRRFlow. All or any part of this design (except registered trademarks) remains the property of BRRFlow.
This drawing is not to scale. For all questions regarding the scope of the project, please contact Jolene Clarke 847.549.2223 or The Brand Image Adviser, Ronda Campbell 630.251.3520.BIG RED ROOSTER FLOW
2 Northfield Plaza, Ste 211 Northfield, IL 60093EXTERIOR PAINT SPECIFICATIONSAmoco Red
- Sherwin Williams, SW6869, "Stop"
- Glidden Professional, PPG Amoco Red (Custom Mix)
C 2
BP Warm Gray - Pump Islands
- Sherwin Williams, SW7053, "Adaptive Shade"
- Glidden Professional, Order #A1860, Spec #40YY 25/074, "Gray Mountain"
- Benjamin Moore, 2137-40, "Desert Twilight" - P28 DTM (Gallon)
- Anchor Paint, BP Warm Gray - CC3068 (Acrylic), CC3115 (Oil)
C 3
Amoco Gray - Store Wainscot
- Sherwin Williams, SW7065, "Argos"
- Glidden Professional, PPG1009-4 Gray Stone
C 4
Amoco Light Blue
Pantone Process BlueC (C100 M13 Y0 K0)
C 5
Amoco Dark Blue
- Sherwin Williams - SW6965, "Hyper Blue"
- Glidden Professional, PPG Amoco Blue (Custom Mix)
C 6
Amoco Silver
Match PMS 877C
C 7
10
ADA BLUEADA/Handicap Blue~
- Glidden Professional, "Handicap Blue",
25524 trac paint
- Sherwin W illiams, TM2133, "Setfast Blue",
Setfast marking latex
- Benjamin Moore, P58-30, "Handicap Blue",
Safety/Zone marking latex
- Anchor Paint, BP ADA Blue - CC3074
~Handicap Bl u e pai nt
is us ed for pavement
s tri ping and marking
on s ite (as r equired).INTERIOR PAINTP1 WALL PAINT - Eggshell finish
- Glidden Professional, Order #A0090, Spec #40YY 79/168, "Candle W ax"
- Sherwin Williams, SW6379, "Jersey Cream"
- Benjamin Moore, OC-112, "Goldtone" - P28 DTM (Gallon)
- Anchor Paint, Candlewax Interior - CC3072 (Eggshell Latex)
P4 PAINT FOR COFFEE BACKWALL - Eggshell finish
- Sherwin Williams, SW6866, "Heartthrob"
P5 PAINT FOR METAL CABINETRY - Eggshell finish
- Glidden Professional, Order #A0731, "Dakota Land"
P2 PAINT FOR DROP CEILING & DOORS - Eggshell finish
- Glidden Professional, Order #A1807, Spec #30YY 62/127, "W ater Chestnut"
- Sherwin Williams, SW6141, "Softer Tan"
- Benjamin Moore, OC-11, "Clay Beige" - P28 DTM (Gallon)
- Anchor Paint, W ater Chestnut Interior - CC3073 (Eggshell Latex)
P3 PAINT FOR to go BACKWALL - Eggshell finish
- Glidden Professional, Order #A0717, Spec #20YY 65/285, "Indian Corn"
- Sherwin Williams, SW6380, "Humble Gold"
- Benjamin Moore, 2160-50, "Oklahoma Wheat" - P28 DTM (Gallon)
- Anchor Paint, Dark Pearl Interior - CC3070 (Eggshell Latex)
White (Canopy Deck, Canopy Columns, Store Exterior)
- Glidden Professional, Order #A 0128 , Spec #50GY 83/010, "White Wing"
- Sherwin Williams, SW7006, "Extra White"
- Benjamin Moore, OC-67, "Ice Mist" - P28 DTM (Gallon)
- Anchor Paint, BP White - 4900 (Acrylic), 900 (Oil)
C 1
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2020
REGARDING: HPC Ordinance Update and Guidelines/Standards Discussion
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
Ordinance Update
Enclosed is a portion of an evaluation report of the City’s preservation ordinances, submitted by
the City’s consulting firm HKGi and Landscape Research. The intent of this evaluation report
section is to provide a description of the high-level ordinance improvement recommendations.
The second section of the report, which will be used to guide new ordinance development,
focuses on a detailed evaluation of all applicable current HPC/design review ordinances.
This is being provided to the Commission as an FYI. It will serve as reference as staff works
with the consultant on ordinance amendments. Staff has also provided the report to the City
Council and may bring this document back to both bodies if staff needs direction on policy-
related questions.
Guideline/Standards Discussion
As previously noted, a function of this ordinance update is to determine if there are appropriate
City Council adopted guidelines that should be incorporated into the City Code as standards. In
other words, what “should” need to be “shalls.” Staff has provided all commissioners with all of
the City’s drafted and adopted design guidelines. The intent of distribution of these materials
was to familiarize the HPC with all of the different documents out there (that will later be
combined into a single reference document) and for Commissioners to assess which of the
guidelines should be codified into City Code.
At the last regularly-scheduled meeting staff advised the Commission we would be discussing
these in April; the distribution packet, however, indicated we would discuss this in May. So, it is
staff’s intent to walk through the guidelines at the meeting, to see if there is Commission
discussion at this time. The consultants have also determined that, based on industry standards
and the Commission’s April discussion, they are willing to make some proposals to the
Commission for review at the May meeting.
Stillwater HPC Ordinances
Evaluation Report
Stillwater, MN | April 2020
Introduction
In December 2019, the HKGi and Landscape Research consultant team was contracted by the City of
Stillwater for the project to update the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) enabling
ordinance and associated sections of the Code of Ordinances that pertain to HPC activities. This project
is an implementation of the City’s recently updated and adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan, specifically
relating to the Historic Resources chapter. The City’s current HPC/design review ordinances are spread
across four chapters of the Code of Ordinances, including:
• City Administration (Chapter 22), Heritage Preservation Commission (Sec. 22-7)
• Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 31)
• Building Demolition (Chapter 34)
• Licenses, Permits and Prohibitions (Chapter 41), Seasonal Outdoor Sales (Sec. 41-7)
As an initial project task, the consultant team completed an evaluation of the City’s HPC Ordinance [Sec.
22-7] and the other associated HPC/design review sections of the Code of Ordinances. As part of this
effort, the consultant team also evaluated relevant plans, studies, design guidelines, and maps related
to heritage preservation and/or design review, such as individual sets of district design guidelines
(Commercial Historic District, Neighborhood Conservation District, West Stillwater Business Park,
Residential Design Guidelines), the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, 1993 Stillwater Historic Contexts Study,
and 2006 Designating Historic Homes and Districts Study.
High Level Recommendations for
Ordinance Improvements
The project consultant team identified the following high level recommendations for improving the HPC
Ordinance and associated sections of the Code of Ordinances related to HPC/design review regulations:
1. Implement the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives,
and policies.
Three out of the seven objectives, and their supporting policies, in the Historic Resources
chapter (Objectives 2, 3 and 4) address the City’s HPC and zoning ordinances. These objectives
and policies provide high-level guidance for the roles of the HPC, heritage preservation/design
review ordinances, and design guidelines in achieving heritage preservation. A primary goal of
this project is to use these objectives and policies to improve the HPC related ordinances.
Objective 2: Continue to identify, examine, and evaluate historic resources with historic contexts
and historic designation.
Objective 2’s policies focus on the HPC’s roles in the local designation and review of historic
resources. The City’s HPC ordinance is primarily intended for preservation of designated historic
buildings, sites, and districts. However, the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, which is listed
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is the City’s only locally designated historic
district. None of the City’s other 14 NRHP-listed properties have been locally designated. In
order to better achieve the community’s heritage preservation goals, objectives and policies,
the City should increase its efforts to locally designate historic resources.
Objective 3: Continue to preserve and maintain historic resources, and encourage adaptive
reuse.
Objective 3’s policies are focused on needed improvements to the City’s HPC ordinance, zoning
ordinances, and design guidelines to eliminate inconsistencies between these regulations, clarify
roles and responsibilities, simplify design review standards and procedures, refine existing
design guidelines, and bolster demolition and interim protection regulations. In addition, Policy
5 identifies the need to evaluate the current Commercial Historic District for potential expansion
of its boundary. The City should improve all of its HPC related ordinances to better organize,
clarify, and simplify them.
Objective 4: Incorporate Stillwater’s cultural and heritage preservation goals in all city
department initiatives, policies and practices.
Objective 4’s policies identify the needs for integrating and strengthening the HPC and zoning
ordinances within the City’s departments, including provision of adequate staff capacity for
implementing the ordinances. The City’s update of HPC/design review ordinances should
consider and clarify roles/responsibilities between the HPC, staff, other elected/appointed
bodies, including the potential need for outside professional services for larger efforts such as
local designation studies.
2. Update the ordinances to support a balance between the
HPC’s roles as a preservation-based policy setting body and
a design review body.
The HPC ordinance identifies important HPC responsibilities, such as local designation of
heritage preservation sites, establishment of “preservation programs” for heritage preservation
sites, and design review procedures. Preservation programs are defined as ordinance standards
or design guidelines for individual historic buildings/sites that are used to evaluate alteration
proposals/applications, however no specific preservation programs have ever been established
in Stillwater. These HPC responsibilities are about policy setting, whereby the HPC provides clear
direction on site designations, standards, and procedures that are necessary for preserving the
community’s historic resources.
Today, the HPC functions primarily as a design review body for site alteration and design review
permits. The types of development projects reviewed by the HPC have broadened over time,
particularly as a result of the HPC’s role as the City’s design review committee, to include
designated historic properties (Commercial Historic District), other historic areas, and non-
historic areas. The HPC’s involvement in reviewing projects that are not related to historic
preservation is not typical for HPCs and has resulted in less attention to preservation-based
policy setting efforts in Stillwater (e.g. locally designated buildings/districts). The City should
consider improving the HPC related ordinances to strengthen the HPC’s focus on preservation-
based policy setting and design review, including lessening HPC involvement in design review in
non-historic areas.
3. Clarify and reorganize HPC/design review related
regulations between the HPC Ordinance (Section 22-7) and
other sections of the Code of Ordinances.
Currently HPC related responsibilities, standards, and procedures are scattered across many
different sections of the City Code, which results in conflicting, inconsistent, redundant, and
confusing heritage preservation regulations. The HPC’s role as the City’s design review
committee for proposals and applications not related to heritage preservation has also resulted
in a complex and disconnected system of HPC related ordinances. The City should update these
ordinances to improve their delineation, organization, cross-references, and ease of use for all
(elected/appointed official, staff, property owners, developers, the general public).
4. Clean up “design review” language and references across all
ordinance sections, clearly identifying HPC vs.
administrative review actions.
Design review is addressed in numerous ways in both the HPC Ordinance and other sections of
the Code of Ordinances. The design review term is overused, resulting in language and
references that are confusing, e.g. design review vs. design review permit vs. design permit vs.
site alteration permit vs. permits. The City’s current practice is for the HPC to function as the
design review committee for any proposal/application involving design review, including those
not related to heritage preservation. In some cases, it is unclear when a design review
proposal/application requires HPC approval vs. administrative (staff) review. The City should
clarify historic design review from non-historic design review requirements, applicable design
standards/guidelines, and HPC vs. administrative review needs.
5. Convert applicable design guidelines to codified zoning
standards to simplify review procedures.
The City has several sets of design guidelines in place for specific design review districts, which
were developed individually over the past thirty years. While four sets of design guidelines have
been formally adopted, only three are currently in frequent use. Residential design guidelines
were developed but have not been considered for adoption by the City. In addition, design
standards/guidelines are scattered across various zoning districts and specific uses in the Zoning
Ordinance. These design standards/guidelines generally have not been updated over time.
Quality, in terms of clarity, consistency, format and overall usability, varies across the guidelines.
A broad evaluation of all of the design guidelines is needed to identify and address these issues
and will be the focus of a subsequent project. The City should consider whether some design
guidelines could be converted to clear standards in the HPC and/or Zoning Ordinances.
6. Clarify and update the Preservation Program regulations in
the HPC Ordinance.
The HPC Ordinance’s Preservation Program sub-section states that an approved preservation
program shall be in place for each heritage preservation site to provide guidance for
rehabilitation of designated sites. However, the ordinance does not describe what a
preservation program consists of and the City currently does not have any preservation
programs in place. The Preservation Program sub-section also includes a set of general
guidelines/standards for evaluating site alteration permits that are similar to the Secretary of
the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Refer to Sec. 22-7, Subd. 6 in the Detailed Evaluation of
Current Ordinances section. The City should recognize that establishing individual preservation
programs for individual buildings/districts is a significant effort and the City’s current resources
are inadequate for developing them. The City should therefore determine how to update the
Preservation Program regulation to ensure that it is not a barrier to pursuing additional local
designations of historic buildings/districts.
7. Evaluate the potential for establishing zoning overlay
districts vs. historic districts.
The City’s established local historic and conservation districts are different from zoning districts.
While a zoning district contains required standards, which are typically measurable and
objective, historic and conservation districts are typically regulated by advisory standards or
design guidelines. Design review in the currently designated Commercial Historic District is
guided by general standards in the HPC Ordinance and as specified in the Design Manual for the
Commercial Historic District (2006). The City should consider the potential for some potential
local historic districts to become zoning districts, which could provide a tool for establishing
more specific standards. This approach could provide more clarity, predictability, and objectivity
within the design review process.
8. Clarify the connection between the HPC Ordinance and the
Building Demolition Ordinance, including potential interim
protection regulations.
The City’s HPC Ordinance currently does not contain any references to the Building Demolition
Ordinance. However, the Building Demolition Ordinance contains substantial heritage
preservation language and references to the HPC Ordinance. In September 2019, the City
Council adopted a moratorium on issuance of building demolition permits for buildings or
structures that are historically significant or potentially historic buildings or structures
determined to be historic resources. The City has up to one year to amend its Building
Demolition Ordinance, an effort led by City staff. The City should incorporate the final Building
Demolition Ordinance amendment into the final amendments to the HPC Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. As recommended in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City should also consider
stronger interim protection regulations as part of its HPC Ordinance and Building Demolition
Ordinance amendments. Interim protection provides protection from destruction or alteration
for properties not yet designated, but where the commission recommends a designation study.
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: April 15, 2020
REGARDING: 2019 Preservation Awards Discussion
PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner
May is National Historic Preservation month. Traditionally the HPC chair presents HPC-
preservation awards at a regularly-scheduled City Council meeting in May. Attached are reports
of projects that have occurred in the last two years for which the Commission may want grant an
award. Staff will have some examples of projects, including ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos at the
meeting.
Staff will continue to monitor the extended Stay At Home order and will schedule the awards
presentation for a Council date after the order has been lifted. This could occur after May; staff
will update the Commission in May.
HPC Case Report for 1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019
Case #
Request
HPC Date Action Vote ZoningDesignation
Consideration of a Design Permit to allow a small wireless facility to added to a downtown buisness rooftop.
1/16/2019 Denied 3-2 CBD2018-32 True
Case People
Neon LLC, Owner
SAC Wireless, Applicant
Lauren Miller, Applicant
Address
227 Main St S227 Main St S
Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence to be located in the Neighborhood Conservation District.
2/11/2019 Approved 4-1 RB2019-1 False
Case People
Ann Thompson, Owner
Scott McCormack, Applicant
Address
401 Wilkins St W401 Wilkins St W
Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for storefront construction and façade improvements
2/20/2019 Approved 5-0 CBD2019-2 False
Case People
Brad Smith, Applicant
Michael Lynskey Sr., Owner
Address
214 Main St S214 Main St S
216 Main St S216 Main St S
Consideration of the demolition of the residential structure located at 615 Broadway Street South
4/3/2019 Denied 5-0 RB2019-3 True
Case People
Reid and Julie Miller, Owner
Sarah Nymo Rehkamp Larson Architects, Applicant
Address
615 Broadway St S615 Broadway St S
Request for a Design Permit to paint the exterior of, and to install a projecting sign for Mike’s Electric Bikes on, the structure
located at 224 Chestnut Street East
4/3/2019 Approved 5-0 CBD2019-4 True
Case People
Michael Herman, Applicant
Tomy O'Brien, Owner
Address
224 Chesut St E224 Chesut St E
Request for a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan, and associated signage, for the structure located at 124 2nd Street
South
4/17/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-5 False
Case People
Derek Nelson, Applicant
Patrick Giordana,
Address
124 2nd Street South124 2nd Street South
Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for façade improvements and signage to the structure located at 123 2nd Street North
5/15/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-6 False
Case People
Judd Sather, Owner
Sara Jespersen, Applicant
Address
123 2nd St N123 2nd St N
Thursday, March 12, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Case #
Request
HPC Date Action Vote ZoningDesignation
Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for façade improvements to the structure located at 126 Main Street North
5/15/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-7 False
Case People
Heidi McAllister, Owner
Murray McAllister, Owner
R & G Investments LLC,
Address
231 Commercial231 Commercial
126 Main St N126 Main St N
Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for new signage at 229 Main Street South, in the Stillwater Commercial Historic and
Downtown Design Review Districts.
5/15/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-8 True
Case People
Jeff Anderson, Owner
Kelli Kaufer, Applicant
Address
229 Main St S229 Main St S
Demolition request for a pre-1945 garage located at 116 Harriet Street North
5/15/2019 Denied 6-0 RB2019-9 False
Case People
Daniel and Allison Boblit, Owner
James Barton, Applicant
Address
116 Harriet St N116 Harriet St N
Consideration of a Design Permit for storefront construction and façade improvements to the structure located at 225 2nd
Street North
5/15/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-10 True
Case People
Ann Engstrum, Owner
Address
225 2nd St N225 2nd St N
Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence to be located in the Neighborhood Conservation District at XXX William
Street North in the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD)
5/15/2019 Approved 6-0 RB2019-11 False
Case People
Paul Bruggeman, Applicant
Mulcahy Holdings, LLC, Owner
Address
1204 William St N1204
Consideration of a Design Permit for a 5,812 square foot addition faced in EIFS to match the existing painted
rock face block building.
6/19/2019 Approved 6-0 BP-I2019-12 False
Case People
Packard Properties, LLC, Owner
Stiglich Construction, Inc., Applicant
Address
1435 Curve Crest BLVD1435 Curve Crest BLVD
1435 Curve Crest BLVD1435 Curve Crest BLVD
Consideration of a design permit amendment for the installation of four (4), eight-foot (8’), 6000K LED lights installed under the
existing awning.
6/19/2019 Denied 6-02019-13 False
Case People
Yaniv Abutbol, Owner
Address
232 Main St S232 Main St S
Thursday, March 12, 2020 Page 2 of 5
Case #
Request
HPC Date Action Vote ZoningDesignation
Consideration of a Variance for a front porch addition, side alteration, and façade improvements to the residence and the
installation of a garage.
6/19/2019 Approved 6-0 RB2019-14 True
Case People
ELIN Marco Group, Owner
Patrick Schmeichel, Applicant
Address
515 3rd St S515 3rd St S
Consideration of a Design permit for new business signage; a 27 square foot, wall-mounted, wood framed, metal sign to read
Magnolias; and a 5 square foot, hanging, metal sign to read Magnolias with four lines of the products and services offered.
6/19/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-15 True
Case People
Monty Brine ABS Co., Owner
Paulette Wentzlaff, Applicant
Address
402 Main St N402 Main St N
Consideration of a Design Permit for window replacement, window installation and solar panel installation on
the historic armory.
6/19/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-16 True
Case People
Matt Wolf, Applicant
CVII Holdings, LLC, Owner
Address
107 Chestnut St E107 Chestnut St E
Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence located at 615 Broadway St S
8/21/2019 Approved 6-0 RB2019-17 True
Case People
Reid and Julie Miller, Owner
Address
615 Broadway St S615 Broadway St S
Design Permit approval for the Stillwater Riverbank Restoration and Riverwalk Project
8/21/2019 Approved 6-02019-18 False
Case People
City of Stillwater,
Consideration of a Designation Study for the home located at 615 Broadway St S
8/21/2019 Denied 4-0 RA2019-19 False
Case People
Julie and Reid Miller, Owner
Address
615 Broadway St S615 Broadway St S
Approval of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for 610 Main Street North and Approval of a 1.75’ tall by 11.5’, 20
square foot, wallmounted sign.
8/21/2019 Approved 6-0 CBD2019-20 True
Case People
Mike Bergum, Owner
Alyssa Aguilera, Applicant
Address
610 Main St N610 Main St N
Thursday, March 12, 2020 Page 3 of 5
Case #
Request
HPC Date Action Vote ZoningDesignation
Consideration of a Design Permit for buisness signage
11/20/2019 Denied BP-C2019-21 False
Case People
Alon Ventura, Owner
Valley Ridge Holdings, LLC, Owner
Gordon Skamser, Jr., Applicant
Address
1400 Frontage Rd W1400 Frontage Rd W
1570 Frontage Rd W1570 Frontage Rd W
Boblit Designation Study
10/16/20192019-22 False
Case People
Allison and Daniel Boblit, Owner
Address
116 Harriet St N116 Harriet St N
Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence.
10/16/2019 Approved 7-0 RA2019-24 False
Case People
Zach and Meghan Hennessey, Owner
Address
1606 1st St N1606 1st St N
Approval of a Design Permit for a 570 finished square foot entrance and exhibit area, reconfiguration of front façade openings,
signage, and rooftop mechanical screening associated with a new Washington County Heritage Center
10/16/2019 Approved 6-0-1 BP-I2019-25 False
Case People
Washington County Historical Society,
Address
1862 Greeley St S1862 Greeley St S
Approval of a Design Permit for a 4.5 square foot projecting sign
10/16/2019 Approved 7-0 RCM2019-26 True
Case People
Dan Stoudt, Owner
Image360, Applicant
Gina Kazmerski,
Address
204 3rd St S204 3rd St S
Approval of a Design Permit to paint the tenant space.
10/16/2019 Approved 7-0 CBD2019-27 True
Case People
Tomy O'Brien, Owner
Kathleen Schubert, Applicant
Address
220 Chestnut St E220 Chestnut St E
Consideration of a Design permit to remodel the existing store front at 218 Main St N.
11/20/2019 Approved 7-0 CBD2019-28 True
Case People
Michael Lynskey Sr., Owner
Lee Bjerk, Owner
Dariush and Sarah Moslemi, Applicant
Address
218 Main St N218 Main St N
Thursday, March 12, 2020 Page 4 of 5
Case #
Request
HPC Date Action Vote ZoningDesignation
Consideration of a Design Permit for the redesign of the main entrance; the installation of a new metal and glass storefront on
the rear of the building; and the installation of a 20.7’ by 30’ raised back patio.
12/18/2019 Approved 7-0 CBD2019-29 True
Case People
Midnight Real Estate, LLC, Owner
Address
217 2nd ST N217 2nd ST N
Thursday, March 12, 2020 Page 5 of 5