The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-02-16 HPC Packetiliwater THE HIGTHVECCE of MINMESOTA PLEASE NOTE: Heritage Preservation Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall or by logging into https://www.zoomgov.com or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 097 7928 AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING February 16th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of January 19, 2022 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. 2. Case No. 2022-08: Consideration of a Design Permit for facade painting. Property located at 126 (124) Main St S in Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Mark Lazarchic, applicant and LDL Company, property owners. VI. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Case No. 2022-09: Consideration of a Design permit for the design of a new single-family home to be constructed on the property located at 505 Elm St W in the Neighborhood Conservation district. Emily Blaser, of Oevering Homes, applicant. Michael Russ of Archangel Assets 4 LLC, property owner. VII. NEW BUSINESS 4. Case No. 2022-07: Consideration of a Design Permit for courtyard renovations and exterior modifications. Property located at 102 2nd St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Jennifer Noden of 7 Edges Design LLC, applicant and Ross Larson of Nordic LUV LLC, property owner. VIII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS — NO PACKET MATERIALS 5. National Preservation Month and Annual Awards Program 6. HPC "Committee" Work a. Neighborhood Conservation District Best Practices b. Community Group Presentation c. Mural Guidelines d. 2022 Workplan — Local Designation Program IX. FYI — NO PACKET MATERIALS 7. Assistant City Planner Vacancy 8. City Improvement Projects X. ADJOURNMENT i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTIIPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING January 19, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chair Mino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Thueson, Walls Absent: Councilmember Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of December 9, 2021 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to approve the minutes of the December 9, 2021 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2021-39: Consideration of a Design Permit fora Master Sign Plan for the property located at 402 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review District and the Neighborhood Conservation district. ABS Co., property owner. -Tabled from the December Meeting. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting a Design Permit for a master sign plan for a multi -tenant structure. In December, the HPC determined additional information was necessary and since then, a comprehensive sign plan has been developed. The applicant is proposing the following: 1) four, six square foot wall signs to be located on each side of the main entrance; 2) one, 20 square foot wall sign for the southern -most, ground -level tenant space; 3) four, 25 square foot wall signs for the northern -most, ground -level, mill tenant spaces; 4) one, 30 square foot sign wall sign for ground - level tenant space "B" (currently occupied by Victoriano's Pizza); 5) one, 35 square foot wall sign for ground -level tenant space "C" (currently occupied by the Stillwater Art Guild); and 6) one, 30 square foot free standing sign for Staples Mill Antiques. She reported that Commissioner Thueson suggested an additional condition of approval about the building sign "Isaac Staples Sawmill." Staff finds the proposed sign plan conforms to the Downtown Design Manual, City Code, the historic district, and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the multi -tenant sign plan and associated signage with four conditions. Commissioner Finwall noted a scrivener's error, under the lower level signage, the lighting should state "one gooseneck light" rather than "one gooseneck sign." She also said that the sign plan should indicate that the size of the lower level signs, as tenants change over, should be the same size. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 19, 2022 Ms. Wittman answered that some of the tenant spaces are larger and there are some spaces where there are more gooseneck lights to allow for a larger sign. Commissioner Finwall replied if they are larger tenant spaces, a solution might be to require a certain height for all signs but allow varying lengths. Ms. Wittman explained that all the lower level tenant signs are a maximum 2.5 feet. The ones that are 1.5 are for the three upstairs units and the "For Lease" sign. All lower level unit spaces will have the same sign height and the others will be slightly smaller due to their location. Commissioner Finwall suggested including that in the sign plan rather than "refer to the chart." Ms. Wittman replied that staff didn't include that language in the sign plan because the varying proposed lengths correspond with the unit letters. A schedule of some sort is needed to clarify which unit will have which signage in the future. Visual representation is needed. Commissioner Larson agreed that the exhibit shows the intent and its net result is that signs will be no more than 2.5 feet. He recognized the conflict between lighting that is there now and what the proposed guidelines say. That is the only thing he feels needs to be modified.. Commissioner Thueson suggesting language allowing gooseneck lights to remain where they are as depicted on the exhibit. Regarding the larger building sign, he suggested that even if the name of the building changes, the sign should still depict the name by which the building was known historically. Motion by Commissioner Thueson to approve Case No. 2021-39, Design Permit for a Master Sign Plan for the property located at 402 Main St N, with the four staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #5 that the number and location of gooseneck lights remain as shown on the attachment, and adding Condition #6 that the building sign should use only a name by which the building was known historically. Commissioner Finwall seconded the motion and offered an amendment to correct the phrase "gooseneck light" vs "gooseneck sign" and also adding Condition #7 requiring a 2.5' max height for the lower level tenants in the first attachment of the sign plan. Commissioner Thueson stated that would be redundant but doesn't hurt so he agreed to the amendment. City Planner Wittman suggested the motion for approval could include the four recommended conditions and submittal of an amended sign plan that notes changes to 1A, stating "The historic building sign may be used only for a name by which the building was known during the lumber era 1843-1914"; to 2C, stating "Size shall not exceed 2.5' in height as defined per unit on the attached Exhibits A and B"; and to 2E, stating "Gooseneck lighting is to be installed above each sign in locations as depicted on Exhibit B, attached. Lights to be compatible to the building." All in favor. Case No. 2022-05: Consideration of a Design Permit to amend the master sign plan for the property located at 401 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Gina Kazmerski, of Image360- Woodbury, applicant and DCK Enterprises LLC, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting a Design Permit for a multi -tenant sign plan amendment for the addition of a projecting sign, currently for Unpaved Athleisure. Staff finds the proposed sign plan amendment conforms to the Downtown Design Manual, City Code, the historic district, and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the amendment with five conditions. Chair Mino asked if the Stillwater Farm Store sign is still there. Page 2 of 4 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 19, 2022 Ms. Wittman replied yes. A former representative of the building asked if it could be painted over and staff advised that any alteration to that sign should come before the HPC since it has been there for a number of years and may be considered historic. Commissioner Finwall remarked it would be beneficial to have a comprehensive sign plan for all future spaces to identify what each tenant will get. Ms. Wittman pointed out the City cannot make anybody submit for signage they don't intend to have. Commissioner Finwall responded it is the job of staff and the HPC to create the comprehensive sign plan so future signs will comply with what the Commission has approved. Ms. Wittman responded it is not the HPC's job to design signage, but to review it for conformance to the guidelines. Commissioner Finwall replied not necessarily design, but make sure it's comprehensive and consistent for the future. Commissioner Larson noted the applicants have submitted a comprehensive sign plan for the tenants that they have. They do not need to design signs for all the other combinations of tenants that could come before the HPC. If the use or tenants change they could come back. Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve Case No. 2022-05, Design Permit to amend the master sign plan for the property located at 401 Main St S, with the five staff - recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2022-06: Consideration of a Design Permit to replace the roof and gutter system on the Stillwater Public Library located at 223 4th St N in the Downtown Design Review District. City of Stillwater, property owner and applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that on behalf of the Stillwater Public Library, the City of Stillwater has applied for a Design Permit for exterior modifications to the Stillwater Public Library, namely replacing the existing roof and gutter system with like materials. Staff finds the project substantially conforming to the standards and guidelines and therefore, staff recommends approval with three conditions. Chair Minos offered kudos to the City and the Library for choosing to use like materials. Commissioner Finwall asked if the old tiles can be recycled. Mick Greiner, Stillwater Facilities Manager, on Zoom, said they are looking at whether tiles could be recycled to reduce the cost. Chair Mino said sometimes donors will buy those tiles to contribute to the project. Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. 2022-06, Design Permit to replace the roof and gutter system on the Stillwater Public Library located at 223 4th St N, with the three staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no other discussion items. FYI Ms. Wittman shared that Zoning Administrator Tait has resigned to move back east. A vacancy will be advertised soon, but the Department is currently down one staff member. She is inquiring with the Page 3 of 4 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting January 19, 2022 State Historic Preservation Office grant program about potential funding to help hire someone to look at past plans and studies and possibly for local designations in the future. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Amy Mino, Chair Page 4 of 4 iliwater THE B f FIT H P L A C E OF MINNESOIA PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2022-08 MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022 APPLICANT: Mark Lazarchic, representing Blue Sun Soda & Sweet Shop LANDOWNER: M.J. Lynskey Sr., representing LDL Company REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for facade painting LOCATION: 126 Main Street South (parent address: 124 Main Street South) DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST Blue Sun Soda & Sweet Shop has signed a three-year lease to operate at 126 Main Street South, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. They would like to repaint the wooden storefront consistent with their company brand colors. SPECIFIC REQUEST Approval of a Design Permit to repaint the wooden storefront elements Whip Lash red, Upbeat Yellow, and Peaceful River blue. ANALYSIS The City's design guidelines for alterations in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District encourage retention and repair over replacement. The applicant's proposal intends to do just that. The city's adopted guidelines suggest building color should be compatible with historic materials, building type and Street view (Google — November, 2021) Case 2022-08 Page 2 of 3 style, and the surrounding area context. Little is known about the specific colors within the downtown area. In the past the Heritage Preservation Commission has encouraged dark, muted tones though that is not codified nor a part of the adopted guidelines. Peaceful River P500-5 Upbeat P300-5 Whip Lash P150-6 The building is flanked on both sides by storefronts where transom windows have been covered by, or replaced with, wood panels. Thus, this series of storefronts contain significantly more painting than many of the traditional storefronts along Main Street. The current condition does make these storefronts stand out a little more than other buildings within the vicinity. The building's existing color scheme contains two different shades of gray with maroon accents. The applicant is proposing muted variations of its business brand colors. The proposed design will change the darker gray areas to blue, lighter gray areas to yellow, and maroon to red. While this will have an impact to the streetscape, it will have no greater or less of an impact than the current color scheme. ALTERNATIVES A. Approve, whole or in part. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards, and the standards set forth for Design Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2021-36. 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. 2022-08. 2. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. 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. Case 2022-08 Page 3 of 3 C. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to decide, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Generally speaking, the granting of this Design Permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and will not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings (including the Stillwater Commercial Historic District). Therefore, staff recommends approval of Case No. 2022-08 with the conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Narrative Request cc Mark Lazarchic M.J. Lynskey Sr. Soda, 6Sweets. Shop Regarding 126 S Main Street. Blue Sun Soda Shop has signed a 3 year lease to set up their 4th shop in Stillwater at the above address. In doing so we would like to make two changes on the outside of the building. 1- Is to add a sign. I have included the rendering of the sign and pictures showing how it will hang and look. There is also a full description of the materials attached. We believe it fits into the look in Downtown Stillwater. 2- We would like to repaint the wooden facade on the front of the building to match the company brand. I have attached a muted version of our colors to better show this. We would repaint the green sections blue. The beige section yellow. And the maroon section red. We believe these muted colors would look appropriate for the setting while allowing us to still maintain our brand image. Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Mark Lazarchic CEO Blue Sun Soda Shop Street view (Google —November, 2021) iliwater THE BRTHLLE OF MNNFOA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DESIGNATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Heritage Preservation Commission February 16, 2022 Emily Blaser, Oevering Homes Michael Russ, Archangel Assets 4 LLC Consideration of a Design Permit for a new single family residence 505 Elm Street West (subdivided from 819 William Street North) N/A Neighborhood Conservation District Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2022-09 INTRODUCTION Michael Russ of Archangel Assets 4 LLC owns the property of 505 Elm Street West. The property was approved by the City to be split (re -subdivided) from 819 William Street North. The property is under contract with Oevering Homes who intends to build a new single- family residence on the property. Street View — August, 2013 (Google) As the Commission may remember, a request for a Design Permit for the design of a new home on this property was denied in 2021 as that design did not conform to the Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) guidelines for new construction. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has requested Design Permit for approval of the design of a new single-family residence to be located at the subject property in the (Stillwater) Neighborhood Conservation District. CD 2022-09 Page 2 of 5 ANALYSIS The specific request is for the construction of an (approximately) 28' wide, 2.5 story, single family residence and a 22' wide attached garage. It should be noted that the home's footprint and attached garage is oversized for the lot. The property is permitted to have 1,875 square feet of building coverage which needs to include the attached garage and decks. Thus, the applicant will need either need to scale the size of the improvements down or request a variance from the City's Planning Commission prior to construction. The home is proposed to be sided with horizontal, vinyl siding, shakes and trim. A single, oversized garage door will be set in a single story with a front -facing dormer added for architectural detail; no living space will be located above the garage. Architectural shingles are proposed for the 12/10 pitched roof areas. Window styles are mostly consistent on the three sides they are present on the home. All infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines recommend the following: Neighborhood and Streets Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. The home is located on a block where, predominantly single to 1.5-sotry homes are present. Though the structure is larger for this particular street block, it's design is not uncommon for the north hill neighborhood which is (predominantly) a mix of housing stock from the 1880s to the 1940s. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the Houses on each side of the proposed residence are (approximately) 25' from the edge of the right-of-way. This home's front stoop is proposed to be 28.5' from the right -of - way. This is not out of character with the neighborhood. And, given the fact the home is slightly larger than those on this street and adjacent properties. streetscape, recessing it back will help reduce the structure's dominance. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. Gabled roofs with garage additions are common within the vicinity. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. The applicant has chosen to put the two-story portion of the home closer to the 2.5-story structure to the east while keeping the 1.5 story portion closer to the one-story home (situated on the hill) to the west. Building Site Building and site design should respond to natural features. The property slopes and the future owners intend to utilize existing grades to some extent though the elevation of the front of the home will be brought up approximately 4-6' from the CD 2022-09 Page 3 of 5 Respect the site's natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. current ground grade. This is to balance the current dip in the property from the street elevation. No retaining walls are proposed. With that being said, this site is naturally elevated higher than the home to the east. The applicant shall be required direct the roof's water so that it does not flow onto adjacent properties. Preserve significant trees. While the applicant's plans do not specifically call for tree removal, a 16" birch (and possibly a 16" triple maple) will need to be removed to accommodate the driveway. Additionally, a maple cluster near the northwest corner of the home may need to be removed. At the time of building permitting, a tree removal, protection and replacement (if greater than one tree is removed) will be required. Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. A front -facing garage is proposed. While this is consistent with homes on this side of the street, it is not consistent with homes on the other side of the street where only detached garages, located in the rear of the properties, exist. Minimize garage impact on The 22' wide two -car garage width is reduced from modern garage sizes. new structure massing and street front. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. As previously noted, the proposed structure will exceed the 25% maximum structural coverage for the zoning district. While the home is wide, it is a 75' wide lot and the proposal is maintaining greater than minimum side yard setbacks. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. The owners are proposing a 6' concrete porch/stoop at the front of the home. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. No accessory structures are proposed at this time. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. With the exception of placing shakes on the rear gable (and possibly the garage — if gabled), this guideline has been met. Architectural Detail The facade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The horizontal lap siding is the most common siding material on this street frontage and horizontal siding is present along this street scape. The use vertical siding is most consistent with the large amount of lap siding within the vicinity. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and The building's design is consistent with the NCD district and the north hill. Though the structure is 2.5 stories, it is not CD 2022-09 Page 4 of 5 style of the building, and its context. uncommon on the north hill to have varying house heights right next to one another. Use architectural details to The home's design is simple and architectural details have not create visual interest and been used in a way that detracts from the house's simplicity support architectural style. nor the neighborhood has a whole. In new building design, consider appropriate While lap siding is most common in this neighborhood, the use of wood is more traditional. The applicant is proposing to materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other wrap certain features of the structure in LP though utilize vinyl on the lap and shakes. The use of a variety of materials buildings of the neighborhood. is not the most consistent in the NCD/north hill neighborhood. Use masonry and stone authentically. This guideline has been met as no stone is proposed. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approval If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposed application meets standards set forth in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2022-09 with or without the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and found on file with HPC Case No. 2022-09, except as modified by conditions herein or other City of Stillwater Planning Commission and/or City Council approval. 2. All new utilities will be located underground. 3. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall either reduce the building's footprint to less than 25% of the total lot area or obtain a variance from the City Planning Commission. 5. At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall either show how grading and infiltration can accommodate water runoff or a gutter shall be placed on that side of the home with water directed as to not flow onto adjacent properties. 6. Exterior lighting shall be shielded from neighboring properties. 7. The driveway shall be improved in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 8. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Table If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. CD 2022-09 Page 5 of 5 C. Denial If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose for the Neighborhood Conservation District and the review of the design of new residential structures is to help ensure the traditional neighborhood fabric is preserved. The review is intended to ensure new development does not contrast with the existing, historic character of the neighborhood. While staff has proposed some conditions of approval that will help make the structure more conforming to the adopted guidelines, the Commission may want to discuss material mix prior to acting on the Design Permit. After the Commission has discussed the request and if they find it is in conformance to the standards for issuance of a Design Permit, staff would recommend the Commission move to approve the Design Permit for the new home's design with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map NCD Application Form (2 pages) Site Plan Elevations cc: Emily Blaser Michael Russ 2 a 624 a .. �iwater s -14.. �, f, ° z,S to * { 7 4 . ; t a x- + s; .xp. t , �, ^1 ? 4 v"'i. ' �•''.t The Birthplace of Minnesota Uzi'% t 1AN� 1 f M S 3 _ )T4.I � .. P� 4>� .� `' Site Location } 61� 608:�•y:' �r"� s `'; i_�rA9r. - '' i t ar� .eT yam: ELM nii 505 Elm St W SSS 617 '1 iti t , ,✓� . .; 0 65 130 260 Feet • r i tl . v.• n i �` 5: 1� General Site Location } _ '� '' ` �12 . J ri � .� ��o al 'r'�� . Y, 10 fi nioNNI! •e 520 -� 514 I 12 ► ink 11111 1113.. �i . = _ 422 /1 y a .�b✓'kl '� 1' 1 •,f ilk `��:� Alfeles,_ ,,, '� �i,I.l. �. w El— ®®Erd ® • i • .�`!r`"q{ �Yam' ^� �� - illlr�/ ®_ I.�,♦ ®® Em 724 $ 724 _ i' � �Y i�� ®11 _ 723 �✓f�, • `_ = =��i� `1 ... 4, yf m' w .r _ - yr -Si`f d 'a+F+{ t ; I- .• Imo'�r�' /L,111 Stories House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house iliwater Planning Department 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.tnn.us Planning-Dept@ci.stillwater.mn.us Neighborhood Conservation — Neighborhood Characteristics Worksheet Address of Property: 505 Elm St W, Stillwater, MN 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: %0Vernacular %oQueen Anne %oGreek revival %oAmerican Foursquare ther: 1 O's %oltalianate %oGothic %oSecond Empire %oStick 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) 2.�J Average setback on block (est.) 2 Proposed new house setback 5 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) 1-1/2 2 %o %0 %o %o %o 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch House on right %o House on left %o House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house Notes: 00 0 co %o %0 %0 %o %o None House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house 5. Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Garage House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house %0 %0 Rear Side Garage G %o %o 42> %o %o %o %o %a %o 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall Garage Garage %o %o 00 %o %o %o 0 3 stall Garage %o %0 %o %0 %0 %0 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 neighborhood and streetscape? Mamie_ -ko skuilk r6Eda' Updated I /2021 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) %. tructure sited parallel to slope ilding deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized aining walls) i&Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) i&Types of trees &&Heights i&Trunk diam. Notes: `OarAG pm F,.Si1l Good Neighbor Considerations 1. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor's access to sunlight in adjacent yards, patios or rooms? (Guideline #21) House to right: ln.p House to left: Y� o House to rear: y o Notes: -lorv� i� 1.5 eS, t i l l n o{- \ c>L aNu6LA. How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? 6Locate structure on lot to minimize impact ()Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact &Other: 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy? (Guidelines #22, #23) House to right: House to left: House to rear: n Notes: kk k_,Scs\,.921 A n td �xu2 J How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? offset/locate windows to reduce impact i&Use obscure glass in window &&Locate balconies to minimize impact. &Use landscaping elements for screening %Other: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact nimized for neighbors? (Guideline #25) is are located or directed away from neighboring erty &Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property %o Other: • I To be included with this Application and Checklist: Site Plan: Include location of proposed building(s) on property, lot area; indicate impervious surface, property lines, street/ sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures. Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features. Building Plan: dimensions, first floor area square footage. Building Elevations: indicate building height, windows, materials, and color on all elevations. Indicate proposed exterior lighting. Photographs of site and streetscape. Nt Regular Heritage Preservation Application Form PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The easterly 75.00 feet of Lots 2 and 3, Block 12, STAPLES AND MAY'S ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota. NOTE THE LOT LINES FOR THIS PLAN WERE DETERMINED BY: CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. 1970 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MN 55082 PROJECT NO. ZZ20655 ISSUED: 11/18/20 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET 0 20 40 VERTICAL CONTROL DATUM: NAVD 1988 PROPOSED HOUSE ELEVATIONS TOP OF FOUNDATION 906.0 GARAGE FLOOR 905.7 WALKOUT ELEVATION 898.3 WEST ELM STREET X906.4 X 906.4 CAPPED IRON _ RLS NO. 25718 9 9� 15.00' 0 7 N89°45'14"E 75.00' 6 16"" TRIPLE MAPLE (904.0) 8 I\ i N -OVERHEADUTILITY/ / 90s+ EASEMENT 6 Doti 5' o � / X906.4 / 4. X906.5 X906.7 X 906.7 X 906.9 0 0 0 N00°01'08"W 10.7' -1- / Nix90581 / l I I 122.2 I I I 898.3 11 co N 1 GARAGE 1 1 \ 1% 0 34.0 o A 1) c''1 (903.0) x A\ x 899. 7 I V ( 89X8.9 16" 1 99' BIRCH/ 0 / 6' I 894.14--- / / 1 1 V 5 1 k (904.Ob I,',)1 1 N X896.9 �4'4 /60 95, .(.�/X 897.8 27.8 ge'D in CAPPED IRON RLS NO. 25718 X901.2 n, N X 902q �89°45'14"W 75.00' /> / HOUSE 16.0 �j X (898.0 90d$) 40'� DECIDUOUS - - x900.2\ in I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE 01/27/22 TY 11ODGE MI IVSOTA LICENSE NO.45351 5' i 39 X894.4 0 0 0 co 0 p K 896.4 0 0 Vf 7-FOUND IRON PIPE / 0.7' NORTH OF LOT CORNER 9 CAPPED IRON RLS NO. 25718 NORTH PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW LEGEND • FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE 0c z H 0 WOOD HUB SET AT 10' OFFSET OR ON BUILDING LINE EXTENSION T.O.H. TOP OF HUB ELEVATION T.O.P. TOP OF IRON PIPE ELEVATION DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT X894.4 - OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X (900.0) PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ALL EXTERIOR BUILDING CORNERS MARKED WITH PIN FLAGS PROPERTY ADDRESS: 511 WEST ELM STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 PID 28.030.20.21.0089 MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT YARD HOUSE: 20 FEET GARAGE (FRONT FACING): 27 FEET SIDE 10 FEET REAR 25 FEET DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN FROM LOT LINE TO EXTERIOR WALL NOTES: 1. MAINTAIN 2% SLOPE ON ALL GRASS AREAS TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 2. CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FOR VERIFICATION OF UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3. VERIFY SANITARY SERVICE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FOUNDATION. Z 0 PROJECT: OEVERING HOMES 21-78 511 WEST ELM STREET, STILLWATER, MN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA CORPORATE OFFICE BRANCH OFFICE 408 Technology Drive East Suite A Menomonie, AI 54751 Tel 715-232-8490 For 715-232-8492 men®authconsulting.com 2920 Enloe Street Suite 101 Hudson, Al 5401E Tel 715-381-5277 Fax 715-381-5338 hudson®authcemulting.com DRAWN BY: JVF CHECKED BY: TRD DATE: 11/16/21 DWG FILE: 7510-448 REF FILE: HOUSE STAKEOUT PLAN Auth• Consulting/associates S&N Land Surveying JOB NUMBER: 7510-448 REVISED HOUSE PLAN JVF 01/27/22 REVISION DESCRIPTION: NAME: DATE: NOTES 8' GARAGE DOOR ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL SNAKES LP WRAP VINYL SIDING 4" VINYL TRIM LP WRAPPED COLUMNS / // // / / // / / // / / // // // / // / FONT ELEVATION SCALE: I /4" = 1 I-011 12 I0 IF==Tr—r II II u u L==1L—JJ 41 — I 0 12 LE ET ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION 1 SHEET INFORMATION n 111 W = z O U-- H- O V J - u-J J W BASE PLAN: CUSTOM PROJECT #: SCALE: AS SHOWN r PLAN INFORMATION 1 1 r ING HOMES COPYRIGHT NOTICE • J 6 W LU �z0 OI2Z ILI CD Q 0 W z 0 w O w 0 0 uJ zCZ 2 O z (D U z R cL boo 0CD 0 "'Oo w z z N Q = Q m �O ° I SCALE: I /5" = I '-0" SCALE: I /8" = I '-0" SCALE: I /5" = I '-0" —1N — N — 0 POLY VAPOR BARRIER 5/8" SHEET ROCK 20" FLOOR TRUSSES 3/4" T$G DECKING POLY VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" SHEET ROCK 20" FLOOR TRUSSES 3/4" T$G DECKING SHEETROCK CEILING POLY VAPOR BARRIER 3 1/2" CONC. SLAB POLY VAPOR BARRIER FORM -A -DRAIN TYP. BOTH SIDES OF FOOTING CONT. RIDGE VENT. NOT SHOWN 1/2" ROOF SHEATHING 15# BUILDING FELT 240# ASPHALT SHINGLES TYPE "A" ENERGY HEEL TRUSSES TYP. EXTERIOR WALLS 2X6 STUDS 1 6" O.C. R2 1 FIBERGLASS INSULATION 7/ 1 6" OSB WALL SHEATHING TYVEK HOUSE WRAP SIDING TO OWNER'S SPECS. MIN. 3" SPRAY FOAM RIM TYP. EXTERIOR WALLS 2X6 STUDS 1 6" 0.C. R2 1 FIBERGLASS INSULATION 7/ 1 6" OSB WALL SHEATHING TYVEK HOUSE WRAP SIDING TO OWNER'S SPECS. MIN. 3" SPRAY FOAM RIM TYP. EXTERIOR WALLS 2X8 STUDS 1 6" O.C. R2 1 FIBERGLASS INSULATION 7/ 1 6" OSB WALL SHEATHING TYVEK HOUSE WRAP SIDING TO OWNER'S SPECS. TREATED SILL PLATE J-BOLT TO BE WITHIN 18" OF AN OPENING AND NO MORE THAN 72" APART TYP. 8" POURED CONC. FROST WALLS W/ A MIN OF 2" EXTERIOR RIGID INSULATION. WALL MUST MEET THE REQ. R-VALUE OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES. STEPPED AS NOTED CONTINOUS CONCRETE FOOTING 8" X 1'-8" MIN. W/ 2 #5 REBAR STEPPED AS REQ. PER GRADE TO MEET APPLICABLE CODE —IN 5' _-�, ,aoaa0a_ c=1) m mil 2 7�� - dam, ten'- .Nov:I Ewa ii GAS FIREPLACE imillOI R.O. 36- 1 /4" x 36" i 1, ; 5=)( ■- :I J AL J a�aa�B FRAME FOR MOUNT IF ELECTRICAL INSTALLED HERE 8" DEEP WOOD MANTLE / STONE ON RETURN TO WALL G EI REPLACE DETAIL 5 SCALE: 1/2" = 1 '-0" 20" FLOOR TRUSSES 3/4" T$G DECKING R30 INSULATION POLY VAPOR BARRIER 5/8" FIRE CODE SHEET ROCK ON ALL WALLS COMMON WITH LIVING AREA AND ENTIRE CEILING GARAGE MIN. 3" SPRAY FOAM RIM ENTRY LEVEL STRUCTURE • E- 1 ---------J--------- NOTE: BOTTOM OF FIREPLACE R.O. TO BE 1 2" ABOVE TOP OF FLOOR —IN 0 MIN. 3" SPRAY FOAM RIM 2"X6" STUDS @ 16 0.C. WITH K2 1 FIBERGLASS INSULATION POLY VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" SHEET ROCK MAIN LEVEL 20" FLOOR TRUSSES 3/4" T$G DECKING • 4" CONC. SLAB 4,000 PSI MIN. TYP. 8" POURED CONC. FROST WALLS W/ A MIN OF 2" EXTERIOR RIGID INSULATION. WALL MUST MEET THE REQ. R-VALUE OF ALL APPLICABLE CODES. STEPPED AS NOTED CONTINOUS CONCRETE FOOTING 8" X 1'-8" MIN. W/ 2 #5 REBAR STEPPED AS REQ. PER GRADE TO MEET APPLICABLE CODE TREATED SILL PLATE J-BOLT TO BE WITHIN 1 8" OF AN OPENING AND NO MORE THAN 72" APART LOWER LEVEL 3 1/2" CONC. SLAB POLY VAPOR BARRIER 0 FORM -A- RAIN TYP. BOTH SIDES OF FOOTING Flgurr 3ZLZ —A METHOD PF — PORTAL FRAME BRACE CONSTRUCTION EI{TENT OF HEADER WITH DOUBLE PORTAL FRAJV S OWD F•DRT L FAME PaNE INTENT OF TEAOEFL WITH SIMEILE PORTAL FRAME PANEL 2-1r FRMS-EL NrALTH Of WEvrrO FOR 91PcLE ON DOUBLE PORTAL Wk 3'x 1,-1W NET HEADER ,STEEL HEADER PROHI&FTED FASTEN SHEATH LNG TO ilEADER MTH SD rbusr_w OR aALwhmEU BIN; NAILS IN 9'O PATTERN As %IVAN HEADER TO SACK-BTLO STRIP EOTH EE]EB Or [PENMO OPPOSITE 91 PE OF SHEATH I CI, STRAP CAi4CTTV 9WLLL E. JAL Afd L. OR .A431.1.133. %Ilea PONY ,AAL L r3 PRESENT YIN. MIELE STUD FRAARNO =FEAE6 5VTTI5 YIFL NIETFRc1C AV1k76 STRLCTLAIL PANEL SEEA114 7 WITH AO COYLICYI OR , #Lr&Nt2E3} BOX raAIL9 AT 9'UiC. IN ALL FRAYING MODEL BLOCKING, MIFD faiLEJ TYP. YYL r21 hC' IX4YETEt15kI24LTR ONTO 14STALLED PER S. EPS 321.1d{1}LQ, NfTH 2-X 515-PLATE 1W4firEER DVER CONCRETE DR 114E0NRY BLOCK FOEIND.A110f1 0.000 81R LJ.'T1RAL PANEL Ir.41. BOLE PLATE 10 BH EATH ING TO TOP OF WAD ORJOI !OM PER GA R F el AGM JOIST Cri 8Ps &ZS PPPE40k A TENSION 3TR. P OPPOBf1E UDE 0f - 9rEAIHNICF YeRAc�r9P OR c9-P PANEL 1117 1 i. DYER PRISED V3CCO FLOOR - FRAMING A5GHOR OPTTD71 ?ROD 9TRuCI JRf FAlI EL SHEATH—,..C. COMilMJOVB OVER Er.' OR FAY} 2ar9T MNL SOLE PLATE TO J01ETPEFtT1ffE VI CH- SPAS 32S APPEYLI4 A qk DYER RAISED WOOD FLOOR - OVERLAP DPT3DN IRONI ELEvr1FION 20" FLOOR TRUSSES 3/4" T$G DECKING -V 0 IF IJrrrcn PANEL 'SPLICE EOCE& 9WALh. COMA AND EE ATIAr.cn 10 OOYMO4 BLOC KILO VATHY4 24'UF h411i 110- HE ID HT DIE RO'hf OF 5'OJ=. &I1LY4I2 IS .RE CUR EO w EADI PAreEL EWE. TrPIC L PORTAL FR&LE CONSIRLCTC04 03khWOh snip WID 8rE DR dd i E Etc LDER 3TLc9 PERS. SP& 321.1113) 419 AIIOIFR BOLTS PER EPS 9. i2a.19 {1} IEJ Rh RiOYVrRANCHORE. APPLIED ACROSS SFLEATHITCt JONT Ik,TNAI C ANdITr OF &T6J.a3 N THE FORI2ONDL AND VERTICAL EVRECT1DIE WOOD IMUCTURAL PANEL ENEMY -MO OVER APPR NED BIND OR RW JOIST nTTArJ,i EarEi7i a TEI BANE! OR RSA JWST NfTfi ID COWIC14 HA18AT U.C. TCP MC &ITRMA NUCa 9THtE.j RAL PANEL 9HEiATr1IhC IX ER APPROVER END DR RW JOIST SHEETROCK POLY VAPOR BARRIER 3 1/2" CONC. SLAB POLY VAPOR BARRIER 1 1/2" RIGID INSULATION FORM -A -DRAIN TYP. BOTH SIDES OF FOOTING • 4 FASTEN TOP PLATE TO +EIDER VRIH IWO AIMS OF ,Ba SINKER N L3AT 33 O.C. TYR rlrl.72fiir AC•CD SWILCTLAAL PANEL +EATFYAIO YW. 241 STUDS VMIH PONr SArL.L HEYOHTIPTO 2; MAL 2-0E 631J66 WT3r F1NY Y V1 HEEYHF GREATER THIN NAILSULF. PLATE ID JOIST PER T.AS1E IH CIIE•SPS 125 AMEN; TEN A AFPFo:r`M EAND DR RIM JOST h5JL SOLE Ec_4II TTT -I PIA TABU 1N CH, VPS 3� V.PPk E.O.: ARPRWED E*AI DR RN Jtr3T SECTION 5" max. 2" min, Figure 15 LEDGER BOARD FASTENER SPACING AND CLEARANCES See Table 5 ledger ag screw, thru-bolt, or anchor with washer stagger fasteners in 2 rows 5.5" min. for 2x8* 6.5" min. for 2x10 7.5" min. for 2x12 3/4" min. See Figure 11 for band - board fastener spacing. `Distance can be reduced to 4.5" if lag screws are used or bolt spacing is reduced to that of lag screws to attach 2x8 ledgers to 2x8 band joists (1/2" stacked washers not permitted) Figure 11 ATTACHMENT OF LEDGER BOARD TO BAND BOARD OR BAND JOIST exterior sheathing —rkr— existing stud wall existing 2x or 1'' minimu EWP band board floor joist irh-5 � •f= S e foundation wall 5 DECK LEDGER DETAILS 5 SCALE: NTS SPRAY FOAM RIM TYP. EXTERIOR WALLS 2X6 STUDS 1 6" 0.C. R2 I FIBERGLASS INSULATION 7/1 6" OSB WALL SHEATHING TYVEK HOUSE WRAP SIDING TO OWNER'S SPECS. TREATED SILL PLATE TYP. 8" POURED CONC. FROST WALLS, STEPPED AS NOTED CONTINOUS CONCRETE FOOTING 8" X 1'-8" MIN. W/ 2 #5 REBAR STEPPED AS REQ. PER GRADE TO MEET APPLICABLE CODE remove siding at ledger prior to installation continuous flashing with drip edge II joist hanger deck joist 4" diameter lag screws or through -bolts 2x ledger board 6X6 TREATED POST FRAMING LP WRAP I X6 LP WRAF ROUGH CUT CEDAR PLY. I X4 LP WRAP I X6 LP WRAP I EU LL WALL DETAIL AT BASEV ENT 5 SCALE: I /2" = 1 '-0" 2 GARAGE PARTY WALL DETAIL 5 SCALE: I /2" = 1 -0" 3 WALKOUT DETAIL 5 SCALE: I /2" = 1 '-0" 4 DECK POST DETAILS r JOB INFORMATION 1 V CV Ln Lu 0 Q TOTAL 3,932 SQ.FT. W/ GARAGE: I LOWER LEVEL : I , 120 5Q.FT. MAIN LEVEL: I , 120 SQ.FT. UPPER LEVEL: I , 120 SQ.FT. TOTAL: 3,360 SQ.FT. t r PLAN INFORMATION 1 . 1 z a w d oz zz a O � V o u 0 u z I0 w 0 COPYRIGHT NOTICE J z .11-1 �OW O CZ00 =w� Cf] LL z 200 ILI 0 W W H Lu 1 Z z O om0 >-0 O o <zz ozQQt• O • Oo�� Il z _ Q w U)(fl z0 0p 0m0= u_i ILI Z z o(r)Qo zw Q [O w CD CL- o_W• zQ 0r<z 5 SCALE: I /2" = 1 '-0" s NOTES 8' GARAGE DOOR ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL SNAKES LP WRAP VINYL SIDING 4" VINYL TRIM LP WRAPPED COLUMNS / // // / / // / / // / / // // // / // / FONT ELEVATION SCALE: I /4" = 1 I-011 12 10 IF==Tr—r II II u u L==1L—JJ 12 41" 12 10 LE ET ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION 1 SHEET INFORMATION n 111 W = z O U-- H- O V J - u-J J W BASE PLAN: CUSTOM PROJECT #: SCALE: AS SHOWN r PLAN INFORMATION 1 1 r ING HOMES E 0 U 4) E O CS) Q) O O O O cm "sr Lfi COPYRIGHT NOTICE J 6 W LU �z0 OI2Z ILI CD Q 0 (2Z z w O w 0 0 uJ zCZ 2 O Z (D U z R cL boo �mo "Oo w'z z N Q = Q m �O ° I cp W W O u_ O z w z O U z w J UJ o_2 0 O 1- O z CD N w 0 >- z SCALE: 1 /5" = 1 '-0" SCALE: 1 /8" = 1 '-0" SCALE: 1 /5" = 1 '-0" ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DESIGNATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2022-07 February 16, 2022 Jennifer Noden, 7 Edges Design LLC Ross Larson, Nordic LUV LLC Consideration of a Design Permit for structural alterations and exterior improvements 102 2nd Street South Contributing Downtown Design Review District Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Ross Larson of Nordic LUV LLC owns the property at 102 2nd Street South, historically known as the Gazette building. Though neither located in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District nor listed on the National Register, this pre-1900s, red brick structure is of the same general character of buildings within that district. The owner intends to make structural alterations and exterior improvements on the backside of the building, adjacent to Myrtle Street East as shown in the image, right. SPECIFIC REQUEST Street view (Google — November, 2021) The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit to: 1. Remove a rear -access door, currently located approximately 3-4' above ground grade and replace with new, dark -colored metal storefront door and transom window; and 2. Replace an existing, rear -facing window with a new, white -colored metal frame window; and Case 2022-07 Page 2 of 3 3. Remove a wooden, second -story deck and stairway system and replace with a black metal and composite deck board walkway, stairs and overhang system; and 4. Remove and replace existing Northern and Western railing with new, black metal fence; and 5. Remove existing vegetation to construct a new, at -grade, concrete wall and thin -set limestone surrounded and landscape paver patio and walkway at the rear of the building; and 6. Add downward projecting wall sconces and landscaping lighting. ANALYSIS Standards and Guidelines Applicable guidelines indicate: • Property owners should conserve historic materials and, if replacement is necessary, do so with materials used int eh original construction or with materials that resemble the appearance of the original as closely as possible. • Existing openings should be retained and openings should not be filled in with wood, brick or any other material. Additionally, wood doors and windows should be retained or replaced, like for like though, if metal is selected, it should have a baked enamel or other appropriate factory finish. • Lighting fixtures should be of simple, contemporary design and have an even, indirect, and preferably warm level of illumination. Furthermore, the installation of lighting conduit should be concealed and not installed across the building facade. Additionally, City Code indicates the HPC shall make findings that the application meets each of the following criteria in order to approve a design permit: • The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. • Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. Discussion The rear entryway systems to both levels of the backside of this property are both insufficient to the existing and future needs of the property. Furthermore, they are in disrepair and need maintenance or upgrade. For the most part, the applicant is proposing to utilize materials consistent with the design of the building, site and its surroundings. The use of black metal on the walkway, stairs and railing is consistent with period -specific elements in the central core. Additionally, the limestone walls and paving proposed for the patio area are in characteristic of landscape design of the site's period of significance. The proposed lighting fixtures, all in black, are consistent with community guidelines and policy in that they are downward facing and do not exceed 3500K. Case 2022-07 Page 3 of 3 The only items of concern are the replacement of the doorway and window. The applicant has indicated the openings are sufficiently sized and expansion is not needed. Adopted city guidelines indicate original features should be retained. However, this is the rear facade of the building. Removing the wooden doors to accommodate rear -entry access is appropriate and doing so with a metal storefront system is not uncharacteristic in the district. Retaining the historic openings, including the stone sills and arched lintels, should be a requirement. 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 Design Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2022-07. 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. 2022-07 unless modified by the conditions herein. 2. HPC Design Permit approval does not constitute building permit approval. A building permit shall be obtained prior to work commencement 3. Building permit plans shall include retention of the arched lintels on both openings and stone still on the window. 4. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the findings set forth for the granting of a Design Permit, 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 decide, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Generally speaking, the granting of this Design Permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Case No. 2022-07 with the conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Applicant Submission (34 Pages) Cc: Ross Larson Jennifer Noden SEVEN EDGES COMMERCIAL + HOSPITALITY INTERIOR DESIGN HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEST COURTYARD 102 SECOND STREET S STILLWATER, MN February 1 6, 2022 SITE SURVEY / BUILDING LOCATION / PARKING �0,t}RB 0 C6. STRIPING ENCROACHES ONTO ADJOINING PROPERTY (ITEM 4) 30 40' WIDE C}JRB CUT FOR ACCESS TO \PROPERTY EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PLAN BUILDING ELEVATIONS / SCENES 1Pr . 17_ // • - - Wr 749:1 ' I . 1'0'1 !AP, . • '4; 40, , MO OM 1 —1 - 1 k •I 0_11. _ IT -A- 1- Mirlosimm mum on min= omm noliMarmamMilimi main ma r=ri 101=100101011010C1Iman mo 1110111== Moir MI orMIN Mal ro=1111 moillaffrim lam= mo mond =Elm moi Imo UNIMEMIIIIINIMMIN u▪ m nor. isummessornuommm wpm woos•m• mom. mommain nooion— im mrinimmunnum An Emu imams= JumMOMMAILMInsoialMIMI=11111011 !War= muiMI . 11.1rodiniEM11114111M 1. 1 C I- .F.-111 IT K. •Mn RSV " =mall= immi=m ia=m1 om=ri.Lmmi aim immemigar. own= m•I 'TEN• aria:Nal .._____,. ... ......... .. ...., k ...., 11=1 MI on n m rm• om= MOM an 1MM...rind milmoilm MI= IMMIMel 1011111 Emma um mom 1.31o. • mimionmeimr mrinalWAZLem— immdo •100 IMO 11061=11=_Elm no an 1.11=000=12= mu mama ming am oolim= Inimmr mraw • & =I ru: am um imm: am m re arim nia 111=1 ▪ 1=01=1011101111m11111111=1=01 na =MIME 1MO 00111Miallaall Moran =Mr 1MM EN 111010 11M=m 110 o rmfm= id on =ism= uniMizrio mg amolormrAd OM =7.2=11ms mrlimV I imonlaMialanual6womm ma om gleaom=irrei loonwt.wr maw nirm=1,1=1511r. =111.V MBIIIIIMMEM nil an 101 d old Mit: limin I—m=11d =045 m NM =In din lirm MITIIIII 11111==2EMTM NM o nmEdillo m Om dam= m Emz &Maiming Mr mo100101= Mang . inni mrrammmmamomndiarosimmimminin Mimimo IMIIIMILTsre Immo smilmoom Immo =101 inliniNIIIIMIMIldi UM Mi====111=M1=11 1=MIBM -dun mn niWallirmi ....zoninld I= 1010=n1 =NM= =101__. mama == Ind NM indmIXE.1=1.1111MEMOnMCiolaileM gm uodelanmr ara Minn am ini im !rim MR oim nol man lim dm md imim:do Imam am Imo O 111= T IMO EN -117404... 41 -- -141111E51r 7' 111C*•ILii IWO 101111 11111111 Uhl logaigiv.. 111110111111111111111111.111111111 440 ..4"4"46.g" /if ADJACENT BUILDINGS PROPOSED MATERIALS DECK COMPOSITE DECK BOARD MEDIUM SADDLE BROWN RAILING / AWNING BLACK STEEL / ALUMINUM HORIZONTAL RAILING BRICK INFILL AGED RED BRICK AND GROUT TO MATCH EXISTING FENCING BLACK ALUMINUM DRAINAGE PLAN CURRENT TRASH ENCLOSURE EDGE OF BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS PARKING CONCRETE WALK LIGHTING PLAN LANDSCAPE AND PATH LIGHTING LOCATED ON THE LANDSCAPE AND RETAINING WALLS INTEGRATED LED / DOWNLIGHT / 3000K OUTDOOR WALL SCONCES INTEGRATED LED / DOWNLIGHT / 3000K f...vAtekywkikki Aoweitc- CorS 4Ni6rge, Ast*, tAvgc-It.5.5,N.:catelw LANDSCAPE PLAN ir.-4. I.A,JI r I: I • , • uo,P4i,4. ia+1.4a6. -'7' I- - v4.111V__ 1-41;4q0.0cmit. vv. A-*Akit *410,1.1. d'4401/4 PAVERS RETAINING WALL BOBO HYDRANGEA ASHLEAF SPIREA INCREDIBALL HYDRANGEA PUMILLA ASTILBE PLANTINGS MAGIC CARPET SPIREA AUT BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILLY ALPENGLOW GERANIUM iliwater THF B' F T H P L. A- E Q F M i N N F ti O f A MEMO TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and Planning Commission DATE: February 16, 2022 TOPIC: City Council Adopts Resolution Supporting Housing and Local Decision -Making Authority (League of Minnesota Cities Model Resolution) REPORT BY: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The City Council recently adopted a Resolution supporting the protection of Local Decision - Making as it relates to Zoning, Development Fee and Building Permit Fees. This report is for informational purposes. The City Council has adopted the attached model resolution (on February 15, 2022). ANALYSIS Over the past several years, a number of Bills at the Minnesota Legislature have challenged local authority over zoning and development. Some of these Bills are gaining popularity and probability of success. Several advocacy groups representing local Builders and Developers have advocated for various changes to State Statutes. These Bills restricting land use authority for local municipalities are often known as 'Pre-Emption'. Essentially, this means that this Bills would reduce authority for land use decisions currently found in various State Statutes. As it relates to the work of the Heritage Preservation Commission, past legislative bills have included language that would restrict the ability for cities to require certain exterior materials unless already required by State Building Code. This would have a significant effect on our Design Review Districts. As it relates to the work of the Planning Commission, recent bills would reduce existing zoning authority currently found in Minnesota Statutes. Of key note, recent legislation would restrict the use of Planned Unit Developments, a tool commonly used in Stillwater. Additionally, indirectly related to the work of the Planning Commission, recent bills include language would restrict the use of certain development fees, important to fund necessary infrastructure related to new development. February 16, 2022 Page 2 While the City acknowledges that housing affordability is an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of fees, regulations and process, Staff feels that these issues are not solely the responsibility of local municipalities and are decisions are best left at the local level. Several recent Bills, while intended to help with affordability of housing, likely would not have the intended outcome. Attachments: Memo to City Council Model Resolution League of Minnesota Cities Advocacy Toolkit Additional League of Minnesota Cities Resources Metro Cities Housing Paper cc: Abbi Wittman, City Planner iliwater THF B' F T H P L. A - E OF M i N N F S O f A MEMO TO: City Council MEETING DATE: February 15, 2022 TOPIC: Consider Resolution Supporting Housing and Local Decision - Making Authority (League of Minnesota Cities Model Resolution) REPORT BY: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SPECIFIC REQUEST The City Council is asked to consider a Resolutio' -porting tti irotection of Local Decision -Making as it relates to Zoning, DeveJ ment ee and Buiiaing Permit Fees. ANALYSIS Over the past several years, a nu of Bi nnesota Legislature have challenged local authority over zoning and df elopment. e of these Bills are gaining popularity and probability of success. Several ad acy group epresenting local Builders and Developers have advocated for various -' -rig - State S ' utes. These Bills restricting land use authority for local mu palities are u_ - _.own as 'Pre-Emption'. Essentially, this means that this Bills would r ce author' for land use decisions currently found in various State Statutes. While the City acknowledge lousing affordability is an issue that needs to be addressed in terms of fees, regulations and process, Staff feels that these issues are not solely the responsibility of local municipalities and are decisions are best left at the local level. Several recent Bills, while intended to help with affordability of housing, likely would not have the intended outcome. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached model resolution. Attachments: Model Resolution League of Minnesota Cities Advocacy Toolkit Additional League of Minnesota Cities Resources Metro Cities Housing Paper cc: Abbi Wittman, City Planner League of Minnesota Cities TEMPLATE HOUSING & LOCAL AUTHORITY RESOLUTION Please consider personalizing and presenting this resolution to your city council. You can access this draft template at www.lmc.org/HDresolution If your city council passes the resolution, please have a copy sent to advocacy@lmc.org so your city can be added to the League's master list and shared with legislators. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesot RESOLUTION #_ A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HOUSING AND Lu __ '1ECISION-MAKING AUTHOV _ _ WHEREAS, local elected decision - determine the health, safety, an needs of their constituents; a are in the best position to ons that best serve the unique WHEREAS, zoning reg tion is an i' portant planning tool that benefits communities econo nd -tally, it troves health and wellness, and helps conserve the envirr ent; and WHEREAS, al zoning gulation allows communities to plan for the use of land transparently, i in: dents through public engagement; and WHEREAS, cities across the state are keenly aware of the distinct housing challenges facing their communities and they target those local housing challenges with available tools; and WHEREAS, multiple bills restricting local decision -making related to housing have been introduced in the 2021-2022 biennium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Stillwater that this Council supports local decision -making authority and opposes legislation that restricts the ability for local elected officials to respond to the needs of their communities. LET IT ALSO BE RESOLVED that this Council supports housing policy that advances solutions to support full housing spectrum solutions, local innovation, incentives instead of mandates, and community -specific solutions throughout Minnesota. ADOPTED by the Stillwater City Council this 15th day of February, 2022. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk LMC LEAGUE ct MINNESOTA CITIES Advocacy Tool kit: Housing and Development Background The League of Minnesota Cities has a model resolution supporting the authority of local elected officials and city staff to make land use decisions in their community. Housing industry groups have recently attacked city land use to such as zoning and planned use developments. They claim incorrectly that these basic regul- ry functions are prohibiting the building of more affordable housing stock, when market fact such as labor costs, land, and materials are creating the market failures we see toaa This is particularly obvious in Greater Minnesotr .nes . d can also 1, een in metro data indicating that 84% of metro cities have zonir aistricts at allow residential property to be built on a 1/4-acre lot or less. In addition, the League has drafted leg' ' * wo,. ' 'dvance solutions to local housing challenges without imposing one-siz s-all man. on . 'es with diverse housing needs. • Read the League's policies relattto housing iihe 2022 City Policies (pdf) • SD-1 - Local Contr • LE-8 - Foreclos and Neighbr •hood Stabilization (p. 72) • LE-9 - Housing .y (p. 73) • LE-10 - Resources fo1 ale Housing (p. 75) • LE-11 - Greater Minnesota Housing (p. 77) • LE-15 - Inclusionary Housing (p. 81) • LE-33 - Workforce Housing (p. 94) • Find handouts on city housing and development topics including zoning and fees How can the city help? STEP 1: PASS a resolution and send it to your legislators Download the model resolution (doc) Note: Send a copy of the resolution to the League at advocacy@lmc.org so you can be added to the list we're compiling. STEP 2: SHARE your resolution with local media and via social media (use #HousingIsLocal). STEP 3: FOLLOW UP with your legislators and local media with information about: • The specific housing need(s) of your community. • The action your city is taking to address housing challenges. • What support you need from stakeholders instead of state mandates. Please let League staff (advocacy@lmc.org) know when you have done any of the above advocacy efforts (or if we can help you with any of the above). Note: The model resolution referenced here is different from the one created by the League in support of infrastructure development fees. Your LMC Resource Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@lmc.org Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) dlightfoot@lmc.org L Starter Homes Welcome Here LEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES Most metro cities offer lot sizes of a quarter -acre or less, which allow for starter homes to be built. While cities offer higher density zoning for housing, additional state incentives are needed to ensure affordability. Metro zoning data shows ... 84% of cities have zoning districts that allow residential property to be built on a 1/4-acre lot or less. Of the residential land in the metro LW 11 11 11 11 43% allows for a reside str uctur to be built on a 1/4 ac or less. Most cities provide a range of different residential zones that include: Over 60°f cities allow for single- f - hed homes and other identia • ictures to be built on a acre lot Jr less. 31% allows for single-family detached homes built on a 1/4 acre or less. • Single-family detached homes • Smaller lot sizes for various residential structures • Multi -family unit development of varying densities — sometimes within the same zoning district. What works? Full housing spectrum solutions, local innovation support, incentives instead of statewide mandates, and community -specific solutions throughout Minnesota can help local communities address their housing needs most effectively. #HousinglsLocal www.lmc.org/housingdevelopment Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative, (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122, dlightfoot@lmc.org Irene Kao IGR Counsel, (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122, ikao@Imc.org LMCLEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES Housing Needs in Cities: State Policy Solutions That Work Cities across the state are keenly aware of the unique housing challenges that face their communities, which can include shortages, high construction costs, and racial disparities. Cities are targeting these local housing needs with the tools available to them. In fact, housing development in cities is ahead of pace to meet a state goal of building 300,000 homes by 2030. Despite that, we can do better. Legislative action focused on supporting cities must be a part of this solution -oriented approach. What works: Full housing spectrum solutions Each city is sustained by a different mix of housing stock, which may include but is not limited to: affordable housing, market -rate housing, and rental. WHAT CITIES ARE DOING: Housing rehabilitation programs, tax abatement, inclusionary housing policies, and more. LEGISLATIVE NEED: Adequately funded state housing programs and policy changes that support construction and preservation of housing across the housing spectrum. What wor .s: Incentives instead , F mandatE Market forces such as demano, t of la labor shortages, and materials ar private sector market failures. Partnerships and outside resources can bridge the gap for developers and create more affordability. WHAT CITIES ARE DOING: Low or no cost city - supplied lots, tax increment finance districts, free electrical service for construction sites, and more. LEGISLATIVE NEED: Incentives for the private sector to construct less profitable housing statewide, additional flexibility for cities to construct and attract development when the private market won't meet community needs. What works: Local innovation support Cities crea e policy and finance solutions to target to -identified housing needs. WHAT CITI r divers e. ARE DOING: Mixed -use s, monetary and policy incentives ing stock, fee waivers, and L- 'SLATIVE NEED: More flexibility and more uthority to use tools and resources that foster local innovation to address unique, individual mmunity needs. What works: Community -specific solutions throughout Minnesota From Baudette to Bloomington, housing solutions must be responsive to the circumstances and unique characteristics of each city. WHAT CITIES ARE DOING: First-time homebuyer down -payment assistance, local housing trust funds, density bonuses, and more. LEGISLATIVE NEED: Support of city land use decisions that make sense for their communities, infrastructure solutions that protect taxpayers and resident safety. www.lmc.org/housingdevelopment Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative, (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122, diightfoot@Imc.org Irene Kao IGR Counsel, (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122, ikao@lmc.org LMC LEAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES www.Imc.org/ housingdevelopment Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@Imc.org Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122 dlightfoot@lmc.org Zoning: Why It's Important Zoning regulation is an important planning tool that benefits communities economically and socially, improves health and wellness, and helps conserve the environment. Local zoning regulation allows communities to plan for the use of land transparently, involving residents through public meetings. Zoning regulates the kinds of uses a property may be used for — typically residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. This prevents overlapping incompatible uses, like having a home next door to a factory. Why is zoning important for the economy? .... .... ... II II II II Zoning can: • Balance property uses foesidential, industrial, commercial, and agricultural u rs. • Incentivize the types o tures needed in the community, including a ` as housing • Ensure c,, al tr ,sportation options, which drives commerce • romotes community livability. g I ortant for social and civic life? for new residents and innovative mixed -use -L:h as residential and commercial uses in the e area). • F serve historic and culturally significant buildings and sites. Why is zoning important for health and wellness? Zoning can: • Ensure adequate public infrastructure like sewer, water, and stormwater. • Maintain parks and trails. Why is zoning important for the environment? Zoning can: • Preserve unique natural resources like shoreland, wetlands, and other terrain, and protect air and water quality. • Implement local plans to improve energy efficiency and other comprehensive plan goals. • Prevent or mitigate flooding and soil erosion. LMCv LEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES Four Kinds of City Development Fees www.lmc.org/development 1. Safety/Inspection These costs are related to the review and inspection of development in accordance with state and local standards to ensure the safety and well-being of residents. Examples: Engineering, plan review, building permit fees 3. Utilities These fees provide for services like water and sewer for residents in the new development. They cover the costs of the new connection or increased capacity. Examples: Sewer/water connection fees, water availability charges (WAC), sewer availability charges (SAC) 2. Infrastructure Construction of public streets, sidewalks, curbs, and drainage are needed to support new development. These fees are used instead of charging special assessments or increasing property taxes for existing property owners. Examples: Infrastructure, street improvement, stormwater fees 4. Park and Recreatio These fees may be re dedicating private I. d for p purposes. Use to protect th Examples: F, eveloper instead of rk and recreation es reflec ommunity's goals t and improve quality of life. on, tree preservation, trail fees Your LMC Resource Contact Aisia Davis Research Attorney (651) 281-1271 or (800) 925-1122 adavis@lmc.org Contact Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@lmc.org Contact Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122 dlightfoot@lmc.org LMC LEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES Cities and Residential Development Fees This information can help you discuss how development fees and expenses work in your city. Published August 2019; Updated November 2019 The Issue • Development in a community should pay for development. Related public infrastructure necessary for homes both within a new residential development and infrastructure outside of the development that is connected to the development shr !Id be funded by developers, not by existing property taxpayers who already reside in thommunity. • Cities have a responsibility for the health, welfare t f residents, and for providing essential neighborhood infrastructure —safe streets, wa sewer service, and utilities. Cities won't sacrifice home safety, building durab iecessary lstructure so builders can make more money. • The existing funding mechanism for publi ructure development includes city collections of developer fees. T ov e city's costs related to the review, approval, and inspection of the develo ent—cite ar , ese fees on a cost -recovery basis. • Developers are not coerced enter into developgre development. ent with the city. Instead, they negotiate and es that outlines what is paid for to support the • Development f don't alwaayover all of a city's costs related to new development. Therefore, the city has to tat, to the o ther source of funds: local taxpayers. • There isn't a one -size -fits -all approach to how cities plan for residential development. Every Minnesota city is unique, from its size and economics to its infrastructure and geology. The city resources necessary to build a development in Lakeville varies from what it would take to build it in Medford — and the corresponding costs vary, too. There can't be a one -size -fits -all approach across the state. Misleading Housing Affordability Reports • A recent report distributed by a developers' advocacy organization called the Housing Affordability Institute and titled "Priced Out: The True Cost of Minnesota's Broken Housing Market" paints an incomplete and inaccurate picture of the role that development fees play in housing development costs for consumers. 145 University Avenue West PH: (651) 281-1200 FX: (651) 281-1299 St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 TF: (800) 925-1122 www.lmc.org Cities and Residential Development Fees November 2019 Page 2 • The Housing Affordability Institute is an industry organization created by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities — also known as Housing First. They are using misleading industry reports to bully cities to increase builders' profits. • The report examined 10 cities selected by the authors, approximately 1% of all cities in the state. • Though the report focuses on city fees, the largest cost variables for building a home remain labor and materials at 48-55% (dictated by the developer), followed by land costs. City costs are not explicitly listed as significant cost variables in the report. • The report is muddy and misleading when it comes to defir g a fee. In one published example cited by the authors, costs for a pool that a develo r chose to build is inaccurately portrayed as a city fee. • Calculations included in the report failed to a for in -an it monies that were returned to developers as escrows or credits and w• re• - the net to, fees charged to them. • The report makes references to affordaomes, but half of its data is based on construction of 4-bedroom, 3-bathroom, 3 »rage, 2,500 square -foot homes —hardly a typical Minnesota home, part ny st-t, homeowners. • In another report, the Housi ; Affordabilit istitute failed to share that the state requires "Building permit fees shall la, ased on vale :ion." The value of the home varies from community to co • The report the -picked data failing to include available information on development related expenses readil -ported on DLI annual report. With inclusion of these numbers, the data does no ' •ort t dvocacy organization's narrative. For more information, visit www.Imc.org/housingfees. LMC LEAGUE ct MINNESOTA CITIES Housing and Development 25 City Tools for Housing Affordability and Developer Assistance Cities use both well -established and innovati policy and finance tools available to them to support the develop ent and housing needs of their communities. Minnesota cities regularly assist with the constr reservation, id rehabilitation of housing that meets unique, local housing nee ld is ai rdable, safe, and high quality. View assistance for developers and builders View assistance for residents with r While not a complete list, below residents and help builders and d se to address housing affordability for ct or redevelop housing units their communities need acro " ;ect Hof hour' — including senior living, single-family new development, multi-f y workforce , and transitional housing. Additional resources: • In the news: See these houe. g and development tools in action • View this 25 City Tools for Housing Affordability and Developer Assistance table as a PDF Assistance for developers and builders Financial Assistance 1. Tax Increment Financing TIF takes the increases in tax capacity and property taxes from (TIF) development or redevelopment to pay upfront public costs. 2. Local Tax Abatement 3. Planning and Development -Related Fee Waivers Property tax abatement reduces the amount of taxes owed for a specific period, which often translates to lower -cost units. Cities incur costs to build development -related infrastructure. Some cities reduce fees, such as water/sewer fees, for affordable housing. 4. City Fee Reductions Land Use and Zoning 5. Low or No Cost City - Supplied Land 6. Higher Density Zoning 7. Lot Size Reduction 8. Elimination of Minimum Building Size Requirements 9. Elimination of Single - Family Zoning 10. Parking Minimum Modifications 11. Density Bonuses 12. Adjustment of Setb 13. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus Permitting and Review Process 14. Streamlined Review Process 15. Same or Similar Plan Cities often reduce other fees, including park dedication, for housing projects that meet locally identified housing needs. Cities have sold city -owned land at low/no cost for the construction of mixed -income and affordable homes. Higher density zoning allows for more units to be built on a lot, which reduces land costs per unit. Many cities allow for smaller lot sizes in a residential development to encourage building of more affordable homes. Elimination of minimum building requirements allows for the construction of smaller, more affor le homes. Eliminating single-f allowing constr Cities ensure n par oning can i i-family uni se housing capacity by n all residential zones. sidential developments provide off-street 1 vehicles of new residents. Some cities quirements for certain developments. builders to increase the allowed dwelling hange for affordable housing in the s are the space between the house and the front, rear, and roperty lines, and can be adjusted to meet unique project eeds. A FAR bonus allows increased density by increasing the buildable space relative to the area of the land upon which the building is sited. Many cities have increased coordination between departments for permit review and employed "one -stop permit systems." Cities reduce the plan review fee and expedite the review process Review when there are multiple homes with the same/similar building plan. 16. Online Permitting Review Some cities have funded online permitting systems with real-time inspection progress updates and online submission of building plans. Return to top Assistance for residents with housing affordability Land Use and Zoning 17. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 18. Inclusionary Zoning Financial Assistance 19. Local Housing Trust Funds 20. Low Income Rental Classification Program (LIRC) 21. First -Time Hom Assistance 22. Down Payment Assistance Preservation 23. Home Rehabilitation and Preservation Programs 24. Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs) 25. Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing Preservation (NOAH) ADUs are smaller residential units on the same lot as a primary home. ADUs provide additional affordable housing options. City -required minimum percentag f affordable units in new developments that are often paired h city incentives. City -dedicate. enue to r affordable housing, including construction o d. ousing and down payment assistance. LI t .. re. • n in property taxes if the property owner the is affordable. Some cities offer added ent of the state application, free energy ants for energy efficiency upgrades. cities provide grants or deferred loans to help first-time home with closing costs and other costs in the homebuying process. funding to help qualified homebuyers with grants and loans to assist with the cost of a down payment. City -provided deferred loans to help qualifying homeowners for certain maintenance and repairs. HIAs are defined areas where housing improvements in condominium or townhome complexes can be financed with city assistance. Cities provide financial assistance for NOAH preservation and/or have policies to protect low-income tenants from rent increases when affordable rental properties are sold. Return to top Return to Housing and Development Resources Your LMC Resource Aisia Davis Research Attorney (651) 281-1271 or (800) 925-1122 adavis@lmc.org Irene Kao IGR Counsel (651) 281-1260 or (800) 925-1122 ikao@lmc.org Daniel Lightfoot IGR Representative (651) 281-1295 or (800) 925-1122 dlightfoot@lmc.org /../6/iSaV". BUILD IT RIGHT MINNESOTA CITIES FOR SAFE, QUALITY HOMES BATC Papers: Top Five Inaccuracies In 2019, the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (now known as Housing First Minnesota) issued two papers that included incomplete, inaccurate data to promote an agenda resulting in increased profits for developers and higher taxes for local residents. They then made recommendations based on this faulty data. It is important that legislators have accurate information as they make important decisions around housing and city fees for Minnesota. In the Building Permit Fees: Boosting the Bottom Line for Minne ta Cities, BATC claims cities profited $78 million in building permit fees, but this is patently f. -. In the last decade, cities Those expenses related to residential development were not covered by building berm' Leaning cities are left with those costs and thus, subsidize development. BATC cher 'c data anmy provided partial information for how cities account for planning deveJ ment in order to claim cities were making a profit. subsidized development costs to the tune of $244 nflated their numbers by over -iced Out paper, it claims that city fees unt for up to 33% of the cost of bme, but in reality city fees only account %. 3B omits any analysis of r bor a materials, which accounts for over 50% conveys- s to address labor chal on to address affordable housing issues must also include of ost to build a home. cost of building materials. Toe this about affordable housing is wildly off base and a disservice to those who are doing real, tful work in this space. BATC based their data on higher -end market rate homes with four bedrooms, three bathrooms and three -car garages with an average price of $394,726. This is not affordable housing. Not a single home comparison in their reports are based on anything that would be considered affordable housing stock. 1 Cities have over 25 tools for housing affordability and developer assistance. At no point does BATC acknowledge all the work cities do to directly assist builders and developers to address affordable housing in their communities. The state should be bolstering these local efforts, not hindering them. TO LEARN MORE, VISIT LMC.ORG/FEES LMC LEAGUE MINNESOTA CITIES METRO CITIES Association of Metropolitan Municipalities HOUSING ISSUE PAPER INTRODUCTION Metro Cities represents the shared interests of cities in the metropolitan region at the executive, legislative and metropolitan branches of government. Housing proposals have and continue to receive significant legislative debate, some of which impose considerable restrictions on local zoning, regulations, and development/infrastructure fees. Legislation that would set a one -size state zoning policy and restrict cities' ability to set and manage local infrastructure fees for new housing is under consideration. Such proposals are chiefly supported by the building industry that would presumably stand to gain in terms of savings and profits. GOVERNMENT ROLES I Housing is predominantly built b nonprofit sectors. 95 percent of t state is privately owned. Cities an government support housing needs limited but important roles and responsi.i ies. CITIES: Cities ensure the structural integrity 11 of housing through land use planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, building inspections, code enforcement, and rental licensing. Cities consider aging populations, workforce housing, affordability, racial disparities, and the preservation of existing housing. Cities provide long-term public infrastructure to serve new developments. Many cities offer financial incentives to advance housing and apply for resources through state programs. a STATE: The state finances and administers Hoprograms to support affordable, lifecycle, supportive, senior, workforce, and family housing. State funding is a critical component in meeting housing needs and current funding is insufficient. Metro Cities supports local zoning authority and opposes legislation that would impede cities in this function as well as in cities' ability to manage public infrastructure needs and costs. 1 City officials must guide local land uses in a manner that balances existing and future uses jbility as well as physical and fiscal nd local input by residents. Local the best position to make these and comp constraint officials ar ties' policit. cognize private and public roles , the need tL , sufficient resources, and the n of local decision -making that allows cities ss a range of local housing needs. State funding is a critical and significant component in meeting housing needs. Current funding is insufficient, with many programs chronically oversubscribed. FEDERAL: Federal investments maintain and increase affordable and life cycle housing as well as help first time homebuyers, and aid affordability through rental assistance programs. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: The Metropolitan Council determines regional needs for new affordable housing production and in collaboration with local governments sets requirements to ensure land is guided to meet this need and to meet overall forecasted growth. Density requirements vary based on local characteristics and regional infrastructure needs. HOUSING CHALLENGES: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Incomes are Not Keeping Pace with Housing Costs Between 2000 and 2019, the median renter income in Minnesota increased by just 1 percent, while median gross rent for the state increased by 14 percent. Homeowner income went up six percent, while home values increased 24 percent. 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2000 2019 Renter Income Median Rent Homeowner Income Home Value Renter Households Year Income Rent 2000 $39,295 $838 Homeowner Households Year Income Value 2000 2019 $39,637 $977 2019 $81,900 $181,152 $86,805 $223,900 [Source: Minnesota Housing Partnership] State Funds are Oversubscribed 3:1 Projects from across the metropolitan region submit requests for affordable housing projects to Minnesota Housing's Consolidated RFP every year. In the last five years, the following cities did not receive funding awards from MN Housing due to limited state resources: Anoka, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Carver, Chaska, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Cottage Grove, Crystal, Eden Prairie, Edina, Elko New Market, Forest Lake, Fridley, Hopkins, Jordan, Long Lake, Maple Grove, Maplewood, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mounds View, Plymouth, Ramsey, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rogers, Rosemount, Roseville, Saint Anthony Village, Saint Louis Park, Saint Paul, Savage, Shakopee, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, Waconia, and Woodbury. Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Averages Apps Received Apps Selected # of Non - selects of Apps that were Selected of Apps that were Non -select 78 71 55 63 77 81 64 70 23 25 25 25 38 33 22 27 55 46 30 38 39 48 42 43 29% 71% 35% 65% 45% 40% 60% 49% 5 41% 3 [Source: Minnesota Housing Fi Affordable Homes for Sale Affordable homeownership opportunities are available for first-time and lower -income Minneso existing homes sold since 2008 have sold for less than $300,000. For new construction, builde larger, more expensive houses. Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0 - $199,999 % Total Home Sal 7149 35% 9209 47% 7944 45% 7708 48% 10493 46% 13183 43% 13893 43% 13372 39% 16942 34% 14577 29% 10670 24% 8777 19% 2748 15% $200,000 - $299,999 7289 6209 5215 4448 6348 9170 9827 11436 16359 16865 15695 15971 5309 % Total ome Sal 36% 32% 30% 28% 28% 30% 30% 33% 33% 34% 35% 34% 30% $300,000 - $499,999 4083 3169 3121 2811 4201 6093 6391 7301 11818 13278 13925 16112 7111 % Total ome Sales . Over 50 percent o re often choosi 20% 1 16% 1071 18% 1262 17% 1097 19% 1601 20% 2123 20% 2146 21% 2219 24% 4209 27% 5061 31% 4974 34% 6242 40% 2636 000+ 55% build Total ,ne Sales 8% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 9% 10% 11% 13% 15% [Source: Metropolitan Council] ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS: LOCAL TOOLS, REGIONAL POLICY, HOUSING PRODUCTION Regional Density Requirements Regional minimum densities are intended to guide orderly growth while maintaining local land use flexibility. All metropolitan cities guided land at or above minimum required densities in 2018 comprehensive plan updates. OVERALL DENSITY EXPECTATIONS FOR NEW GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT, AND REDEVELOPMENT Metropolitan Urban Service Area: Minimum Average Net Density Urban Center Urban Subu an Edge Suburban Edge enter 20 units/acre 10 units/acre 5 units/acre 3-5 units/acre 3-5 units/acre 3-5 units/acre minimum [Source: Metropolitan Council] Single Family and Multifamily Housing Since 2008, production of single-family housing has doubled, and higher density multifamily construction outpaces single family construction almost two -to -one. Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Single Family - attached, detached, ADU 3251 3219 3475 3410 4925 5911 5262 5289 6238 6793 6808 7353 7251 % Total Homes 63% 72% 59% 53% 45% 48% 49% 44% 45% 43% 39% 35% 36% MultiFamily 2+ units 1880 1227 2409 2972 6018 6505 5461 6864 7508 8988 10535 13363 12796 37% 28% 41% 47% 55% 52% 51% 56% 55% 57% 61% 65% Eh 64% ■ [Source: Metropolitan Council] Tools and Resources Cities Use to Advance Housing Include: • Reduce Lot Size Requirements • Allow planned unit developments to add density or to lower development costs • Down Payment Assistance • HRA, CDA, EDA contributions • Local Fee Waivers • Land Subsidies, Assembly and Donations • Property Tax Reductions, including Abatement and Low -Income Rental Classification • Local Housing Trust Funds • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) • Reduced Parking Minimums • Density Bonuses and Higher Density Zoning • Adjusted Setbacks • Expedited Plan Reviews • Elimination of Minimum Building Size Requirements • Mixed Income Housing Policies • Rental Licensing and Inspections • Tenant Protection Ordinances METRO CITIES' POLICY POSITIONS ON HOUSING Metro Cities Policies Support: • Local zoning authority. • Increased funding for state housing programs. • Affordable housing tax credit. • Programs that help alleviate foreclosures, increase homeownership, and increase homeownership for BIPOC populations. • Preserving tools that enhance local innovation. • Clarification of state laws on infrastructure fees. • Strategic partnerships and financial assistance from the state and federal governments to help address housing needs. • Increased Section 8 funding and federal funding to assist HRAs in facilitating tax exempt bonds for housing. Key State Programs upported by Metro Citi • State Housing Infrastructure and GOW • State Challenge Program • State Match for Local Housing Trust Funds • Pre- and post -purchase education, counseling, and training; mortgages and downpayment/closing- cost assistance loans; home improvement loans • Rental assistance, supportive housing, homelessness prevention resources • Fix up Funds for Rental Homes Metro Cities Opposes: • Preempting local zoning decision -making authority on zoning, planning and land use. • Prohibitions and restrictions on planned unit development (PUD) agreements. • Restrictions on local housing development and financing tools. • Policies that shift costs for infrastructure for new housing to existing taxpayers. • Preempting local voter -approved rent control authority.