Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-20 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, 216 4th St N, or by logging into https://stillwater-mn.zoomgov.com/j/1600977928 or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 097 7928 AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 20th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of March 16th, 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. 2022-18: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop solar panels. Property located at 102 2nd St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Ross Larson of Nordic Luv LLC, property owner and Colin Buechel of All Energy Solar, applicant. 3. Case No. 2022-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for exterior sign lighting on storefront. Property located at 102 (106) Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Grandma Vincenza Pinzadot LLC, property owner and Cecilia Loome of Black Letter Books LLC, applicant. 4. Case No. 2022-23: Consideration of a Design Permit for window replacement. Property located at 101 Pine St W in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Alex McKinney representing Washington County, property owner. 5. Case No. 2020-32: Consideration of a Design Permit modification for the property at 220 Chestnut St E. Joel Hauck, applicant, and 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC, property owners. VI. PUBLIC HEARING 6. Case No. 2022-22: Consideration of a Demolition Permit to remove the home on the property located at 1008 5th St S in the Neighborhood Conversation District. Spencer Middleton and Sofie Cohen, property owners. VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS — NO PACKET MATERIALS 7. National Alliance of Preservation Commission's Forum Conference 8. Discussion of Election of Officers IX. FYI X. ADJOURNMENT i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTIIPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING March 16, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Thueson, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Walls Staff: City Planner Wittman OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of February 16.2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the minutes of the February 16, 2022 meeting. All in favor. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no Public Hearings. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2022-14: Consideration of a Design Permit for patio enclosure and exterior modifications. Property located at 102 2nd Street South in the Downtown Design Review District. Jennifer Noden of 7 Edges Design LLC, applicant and Ross Larson of Nordic LUV LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant intends to make structural alterations and exterior improvements on side of the building, adjacent the parking lot and facing 2nd Street South. Since the writing of the staff report it was learned that the building is a contributing property within the downtown Stillwater historic district. The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit to: 1. Remove and replace exterior siding material on the single -story building addition; 2. Remove the above -grade patio and reconstruct with enclosure options; 3. Add an enclosed entryway; 4. Create additional outside seating space; 5. Add a new entrance near the rear of the building; 6. Add downward -facing lighting on front and side elevations; 7. Replace fabric canopy on front elevation. The building owner plans to do tuck -pointing and make other needed repairs as part of this project. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the City offers financial assistance for facade improvements. Ms. Wittman replied no, but the City recently formed an Economic Development Authority, one of whose goals is to look at such financing. Commissioner Thueson asked how the property being a contributing property affects the proposed awning. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 16, 2022 Ms. Wittman replied the Commission needs to balance the total building aesthetic with what could be the effect of removal of the awning, how it is attached to the mortar etc. Jen Noden, architect, stated the photo of the building with the metal awning is undated. The design intent of the awning is to make the building front, back and sides cohesive without damaging any historic significance, and to mirror the two awnings at the back. They will try to attach it without damaging the building. Ross Larson, property owner, reiterated that part of the project is to do building repairs including the Gazette sign. Commissioner Finwall asked if the proposed awning is necessary for function. Mr. Larson stated the awning is aesthetic but also provides sun protection for tables inside. Chairwoman Mino remarked that because the building is adaptively reused and the metal awning holds the design together with the addition, she would be comfortable with the metal awning. Commissioner Holmes stated he would prefer the Gazette building remain more pure without an awning and let the new addition stand on its own as a separate design assemblage. Commissioner Larson noted that the front facade is the one that should remain most in tact. He agreed with Commissioner Holmes that the front awning should not be approved. Commissioners Thueson, Heimdahl and Finwall agreed. Motion by Commissioner Heimdahl, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2022-14, Design Permit for patio enclosure and exterior modifications at 102 2nd Street South, with the three staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #4 stating "The east -facing awning proposed as part of the future work shall not be approved." Commissioner Holmes asked if the Commission wishes to see the design again sans awning. Ms. Noden remarked the design is 95% done and they don't wish to delay the project if possible. Commissioner Thueson suggested adding a condition about repairing masonry when the existing awning is removed, if needed. Commissioners Heimdahl and Finwall agreed to amend the motion adding Condition #5 stating, "If the existing metal bracket and cloth awning is removed, the property owner will make necessary repairs to the brick and mortar where the awning was located." All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Neighborhood Conservation District Best Practices Ms. Wittman said she sent Commissioners Larson and Holmes a list of all the conservation district permits that have been issued. Community Group Presentation Ms. Wittman said she and Commissioner Thueson will present to the Stillwater Women's Reading Club on April 4. Mural Guidelines Commissioner Finwall stated she photographed all 13 existing murals, most of which are on the Grand, and researched Stillwater City Code regarding placement of murals. Page 2 of 4 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting March 16, 2022 Commissioner Heimdahl said he has been researching what other cities have done with murals. He will compile the data for Commission review. 2022 Workplan - Local Designation Program Ms. Wittman said she will try to set up a meeting this month with Chair Mino and Commissioner Thueson. FYI City Administrator Ms. Wittman shared that Joe Kohlmann was hired as City Administrator. Wild Hare Update Ms. Wittman said the Wild Hare with the "silver snake" coming out of the side of their building (hood vent system) was approved, but the Commission approved it to be wrapped in material that matched the color of the building. That is anticipated to be done this spring. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Amy Mino, Chair Page 3 of 3 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: April 15, 2022 TO: Chair Amy Mino and HPC Commissioners FROM: Abbi Wittman, City Planner SUBJECT: 102 2nd Street South Rooftop Solar Panel Design Permit (Case No. 2022- 18) Applicant: Colin Buechel, All Districts: Stillwater Commercial Energy Solar Historic District Landowner: Nordic LUV LLC represented by Ross Larson BACKGROUND Downtown Design Review District Designation: Contributing Ross Larson would like to install a solar photovoltaic system on the roof of his building at 102 2nd Street South, historically known as the Gazette building. Designed in four different arrays, the 85 panels will cover nearly all of the roof but will be setback 4' from the north and south parapet walls and 7' from the east and west parapet walls. Set in a ballast bay, each panel will be tilted to maximize individual module's efficacy. With module tilt, the maximum height of the entire system will be less than 1.25' off of the flat roof surface. There will be no intrusions into the roof system; each ballast bay will be held down by a cinder block. While the building has a parapet, it is less tall than several of the other flat -roof structures in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The City has no documentation of the parapet height though a 2021 re -roof permit (administratively approved by HPC staff) suggests the parapet is less than 3' in height. It is possible the panel height could rise above the parapet. The Stillwater design guidelines for rooftop equipment in the Downtown Design Review District indicate "units that project above the roofline should be set back from the parapet and primary building elevation." The guidelines further indicate "equipment should be screened from street -level views with appropriate materials." This said, when viewing the property from street level, the panels will not be seen. The only location in which they will be seen is heading eastbound (downhill) on Myrtle Street. It is common to see rooftop improvements in the central core when at a higher elevation. Given there will be no impact to the roof and the panels will not be seen from street level view, the improvement substantially conforms to the intent of the adopted guidelines. The architectural or historic integrity of the structure will not be altered so, therefore, the project conforms to the standards set forth for the issuance of a Design Permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested Design Permit (Case No. 2022-18) with the following conditions: 1. The improvement shall be in conformance to the plans submitted as part of Case No. 2022-23. 2. The ballast bays shall not be secured to the roof in a manner that penetrates the roofing membrane. 3. Any changes shall be approved in advance. Minor changes, as defined by City Code, shall be approved by the City Planning Department; major changes shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC prior to project commencement. ACTION REQUESTED If the Commission concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving Case No. 2022-18 with the staff -recommended conditions outlined above. Attachments: Narrative request Roof Plan Ballast Bay and Module Details Roof Mount Specifications Cc: Ross Larson Colin Buechel Case No. 2022-18 Page 2 of 2 i/ ALL ?1 ENERGY 1264 Energy Lane St. Paul, MN 55108 www. alleneraysolar. com March 10, 2022 Dear City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission, Ross Larson owns the building at 102 2nd St S in Stillwater. He is seeking to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system on the roof of this building. All Energy Solar has designed a flat roof ballasted solar PV system to go on the roof of this building. There are a proposed four arrays of solar panels in this system, with all solar panels being setback from the edges of the roof by four feet. The solar will be interconnected to a meter that is located at the building. The max height the solar panels will project off of the flat roof is 1'13/4» Our design meets the 2020 State of Minnesota Building code, as well as Stillwater's Zoning Ordinance. A Minnesota licensed structural engineer has also analyzed the building to ensure the existing roof can withstand the additional Toad on the roof. This proposed system will not impact the character of the neighborhood and will not affect the welfare, safety or health of the community. In fact, as a Green Steps city, the promotion of renewable energy in the community aligns well with the City's values. The proposed system will help Ross Larson offset his electricity use and contribute to both the City and the State of Minnesota's clean energy goals. Sincerely, All Energy Solar 5 7 8 D E \1, ALL ENERGY SOLAR COMPANY INFORMATION ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM CLIENT INFORMATION NORDIC LUV LLC - ROSS LARSON 102 2ND ST S, STILLWATER, MN 55082 PO 49963 SYSTEM DETAILS TOTAL: (87) LG 370 BOB LG- 370N1K-A6 370W MODULES = 32.19kW ARRAY 1: • (24) LG 370 BOB LG-370N 1 K-A6 370W MODULES = 8.88kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH ARRAY 2: • (24) LG 370 BOB LG-370N 1 K-A6 370W MODULES = 8.88kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH ARRAY 3: • (20) LG 370 BOB LG-370N 1 K-A6 370W MODULES = 7.4kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH ARRAY 4: • (19) LG 370 BOB LG-370N1K-A6 370W MODULES = 7.03kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH REVISIONS LAST: 02/22/2022 DM SHEET TITLE COVER PAGE SHEET NUMBER G-901 2 A 8 D 2 5 2 7 8 A c BALLAST BAY ROOF SURFACE I 71- ▪ 1 N ,--I MODULE 4 3/4" 00 '0 BALLAST BAY MODULE LENGTH + 1/2" H H H MODULE SOUTH ELEVATION 108' 9" 53' 5" 45' 11" 124' 9" 57' 5" I 40' 2" 1=1-I 0-'-1 1--1 11 7 7-1 M 1'_9" WEST ELEVATION 24' 1 22' 10" 14' 10" 1• 0 if) ALL ENERGY SOLAR COMPANY INFORMATION ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM CLIENT INFORMATION NORDIC LUV LLC - ROSS LARSON 102 2ND ST S, STILLWATER, MN 55082 PO 49963 SYSTEM DETAILS NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON GROUND ELEVATION BUT ARE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. ARRAY 1: • (24) LG 370 BOB LG-370N 1 K-A6 370W MODULES = 8.88kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH ARRAY 2: • (24) LG 370 BOB LG-370N 1 K-A6 370W MODULES = 8.88kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH ARRAY 3: • (20) LG 370 BOB LG-370N 1 K-A6 370W MODULES = 7.4kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH ARRAY 4: • (19) LG 370 BOB LG-370N1K-A6 370W MODULES = 7.03kW • 10° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH REVISIONS LAST: 02/22/2022 DM SHEET TITLE RACKING SECTIONS SHEET NUMBER S-301 3 A 6 c D 5 6 RMROOF MOUNT THE POWER OF SIMPLICITY ROOF MOUNT introduces the Power of Simplicityto the ballasted flat roof solar industry. The system consists of only two major components, minimizing preparation work and installation time. Seamlessly design around roof obstacles, support most framed modules and bond the system with just the turn of a wrench. www.unirac.com :e:UNIRAC Copyright © 2013-2014 / Unirac Inc. All rights reserved Pub140425 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Allowable Roof Slope: Unevenness: Max Building Height: Wind Speed: Wind Exposure: PSF on Roof: Surfaces: Min. Local Contact Area: Module Orientation: Nominal Module Tilt Angle: Row Spacing: COMPONENTS MATERIALS Ballast Bay Module Clamp Locking 3/8" Hex Bolt Roof Pad BALLAST BAY GEOMETRY Width: Length: Height: Weight: Roof Pad: MODULE COMPATIBILITY SPECIFICATIONS 3 Degrees +/- 3.5 Degrees 100 ft Up to 120 mph Categories B and C. (D Upon Request) As low as 3.5 PSF EPDM, PVC & TPO Membranes, Bitumen & Concrete 38 in' per Module (57 in' with Roof Pad) Landscape 10 Degrees (Nominal) 19 in (Nominal) Aluminum 6063-T5 Aluminum 6005A-T61 Stainless Steel 300 Series TPE 70 Shore A 21 in 17 in 13 in 3.5 lbs 3 in x 10 in Standard 60 and 72 Cell Framed Modules Module Clamp w/ Integrated Bonding to UL2703 Cable Management Compatible w/ Strut Accessories WARRANTY & CERTIFICATIONS 20 Year Manufacturing UL 2703 Certification 1 Self configurable up to 60'. Greater than 60' upon request. 2 ASCE 7-05 Wind Maps 3 Criteria used: ASCE 7-10 wind (110 mph), Snow=0, Building height= 30 ft, Exposure Category B 4 Varies by module DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA April 13, 2022 Chair Amy Mino and HPC Commissioners Abbi Wittman, City Planner 102 Main Street South Design Permit (Case No. 2022-21) Applicant: Cecilia Loome Districts: Landowner: Grandma Vincenza Designation: Pinzadots LLC BACKGROUND Stillwater Commercial Historic District Contributing Cecilia Loome of Black Letter Books would like to install three, black gooseneck lights on the exterior of 102 Main Street South. The intent of the lighting is to highlight the business's storefront sign. Detailed plans for the improvements are enclosed for Commission review. As the application submission notes, there is no external lighting on the Main Street facade of this building, historically known as the Joseph Wolf Company building, constructed in 1911. The electrical supply for the lights as well as the electrical mounting boxes will be run through the brick facade so that no exterior electrical conduit will be needed. The three light fixtures will have a reflector share to direct light downward. They each will contain one Edison -style, 2700k color temperature bulb. The request conforms to the intent of the Stillwater design guidelines for lighting on historic buildings and in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Additionally, the applicant's proposal is consistent with City Code standards pertaining to the issuance of Design Permits in the historic district. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested Design Permit (Case No. 2022-21) with the following conditions: 1. The improvement shall be in conformance to the plans submitted as part of Case No. 2022-21. 2. The brick penetrations shall be protected as to prevent water intrusion. 3. No exterior conduit or junction box shall be permitted. 4. The lighting color and intensity shall not exceed 3500K. 5. Any changes shall be approved in advance. Minor changes, as defined by City Code, shall be approved by the City Planning Department; major changes shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC prior to project commencement. ACTION REQUESTED If the Commission concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving Case No. 2022-21 with the staff -recommended conditions outlined above. Attachments: Narrative Request with Guidelines reference (2 pages) Exterior Specifications Light Locations Fixture Photograph Light Specifications Cc: Cecilia Loome, application Grandma Vincenza Pinzadots LLC, property owner Case No. 2022-21 Page2of2 Dear City staff and members of the Heritage Preservation Committee, Thank you for your consideration of my request to install lighting above the sign on my storefront, Black Letter Books, located at 102 Main Street South. The proposed lighting is in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the city's design manual and shares an aesthetic with fixtures installed on other historic buildings in the area. I am keenly appreciative of the HPC's mission and am amenable to any suggestions or modifications as the committee sees fit. Many thanks again for your consideration, Cecilia Loome Black Letter Books, LLC 1023 Main Street South Stillwater, MN 55082 From STILLWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES MANUAL (p. 56) General Summary of Lighting Standards a. Historic lighting should be repaired and retained wherever possible. N/A. No lighting; historical or otherwise, is currently present on the east facing (Main Street) side of the building. The proposed lighting is similar to the fixtures currently installed on the north facing side of the building (No Neck Tony's). b. Lighting should highlight building elements, signs, or other features rather than attract attention to itself. The lighting will be affixed directly above the main storefront sign, for the sole purpose of illuminating the sign. c. Lighting should have an even, indirect, and preferably warm level of illumination. The proposed lighting confirms to these recommendations. Please see attached manufacturer's specifications for both the fixtures and bulbs. d. New light fixtures should be of simple contemporary design. The design of the proposed light fixtures are nearly identical to the examples suggested on page 56ofthe Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual. Similar fixtures may be found throughout douvtorvn Stillwater, including Forget Me Not, No Neck Tony's, Pinch n Rub Spice Shop, Stillwater Olive Oil, Buck & Bourbon, Tremblays, Al Fresco, LOLO, Cooks of Crocus Hill, et al. e. No part of the historic facade should be irreversibly damaged or altered in the installation of lighting. Wherever possible, electrical conduit and other hardware should be concealed and not installed across the building facade. Installation does not require the addition of an exterior box or associated hardware. Fixtures will be installed by O'Neill Electric LLC, who will obtain permits prior to installation. 3/24/22. 6:57 PM IMG_0408.jpg https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGmvfSIxRLQIRIhDIMWLnDwtmJB?projector=l &messagePartld=0.3 1/1 3/24/22, 6:53 PM IMG_0407.jpg https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGmvfSIxRLQIRIhDIM WLnDwtmJ$?projector=1 &messagePartid=0.3 1/1 3/24/22, 7:32 PM IMG_0409.jpg https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/#inbox/FMfcgzGmvfSmHbNspmsLFVGDrthRdWJL?projector=1 &messagePartld=0.1 1/1 I ANKIIN IRON WORKS Neffrart 18" High Rustic Black RLM Outdoor Wall Light • 18" high x 10 1/2" wide. Extends 17 1/2" from the wall. Backplate is 4 1/2" wide. Weighs 2 lbs. • Shade is 10 1/2" wide at widest point. Mounting point to top of fixture is 7". • Inspired by classic RLM (reflector luminaire manufacturer) lighting, which uses a reflector shade to direct light downward. • Black finish. Aluminum construction. Curving gooseneck arm and open shade. • LED Edison filament bulb. 4 3/4" high x 2 1/2" wide. Standard E26 base. A21 bulb shape. Clear glass. 120V. • Uses 8 watts, but has a light output comparable to a 75 watt incandescent bulb. 1,000 lumens. 2700K color temperature. 90 CRI. 360 degree beam spread. • Suitable for enclosed fixtures and damp locations. Enclosed fixture and damp rated. T20 and T24 compliant. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA April 13, 2022 Chair Amy Mino and HPC Commissioners Abbi Wittman, City Planner 101 Pine Street West Storm Window Design Permit (Case No. 2022-23) Applicant: Alex McKinney, Parks Manager Landowner: Washington County BACKGROUND Districts: Downtown Design Review District Designation: National Register of Historic Places Washington County owns this historic courthouse located at 101 Pine Street West. Managed by the Parks Department, the County is seeking to construct and install custom aluminum storm windows on the property. With the exception of windows associated with the old jail as they have security bars on them, all of the first and second floor windows, as well as one original window located in the basement, are proposed to have storm windows added to them. It is unknown as to whether or not the Courthouse windows were ever protected by storm windows. Manufactured by Mon -Ray, Inc., the 7/8" deep, black, aluminum Mon -Ray Series 500 windows will be independently designed to meet individual window dimensions. Vertical and horizontal mullions will be added to the exterior of all windows in a pattern to match the original window. At all points where the storm windows meet original window framing and trim, the windows will have a continuous bead of approved sealant; two'/4" weep holes will remain at the sill to prevent moisture buildup. Protection of the historic features of the courthouse is vital to the long-term preservation of the structure. The Stillwater design guidelines for non-residential alterations in the Downtown Design Review District indicate "historic wood and metal sash should be repaired and conserved wherever possible." The actions request as well as the application of the storm windows conforms to the adopted guidelines as well as the requirements set forth for the issuance of a Design Permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested Design Permit (Case No. 2022-23) with the following conditions: 1. The improvement shall be in conformance to the plans submitted as part of Case No. 2022-23. 2. Any changes shall be approved in advance. Minor changes, as defined by City Code, shall be approved by the City Planning Department; major changes shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC prior to project commencement. ACTION REQUESTED If the Commission concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving Case No. 2022-23 with the staff -recommended conditions outlined above. Attachments: Window Location Plans Storm Window Drawings Storm Window Specifications Cc: Alex McKinney Case No. 2022-23 Page2of2 Basement Floorplan -RAMP UP B08 C7 First Floor Floorplan UP 109 u 1106* tit 2 u�� 111 102 DWN 11 *est Portico DWN 1 112 11. x a DWN— East Por?ICC 120 Second Floor Floorplan 208 l, 209 p 210 211 212 J u �nnN� HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOW & DOOR PRODUCTS MON-RAY, INC. 7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD, SUITE 140 HOPKINS, MN 55343 763-544-3646 FAX: 763-546-8977 www.monray.com OS VIEWED FROM TA EXTON (TYPE 1) A TOTAL OF FOURTEEN (14) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "A" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 1 10, 1 1 I, 1 1 2, 113, 114, 116*117 RO = 48" V.I.F. 0 AS VIEWED FROM iNE E.111011 (TYPE 3) RO = 43" V.I.F. v ; c� ti II 0 PS VIEWED ROM THE UTRIOR TYPE 1 A TOTAL OF TWO (2) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK 15" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 1064118 > NN II 0 RO = 42" V.I.F. I VIEWER FRDM,NE EXTERIOR (TYPE 3) A TOTAL OF TWELVE (12) A TOTAL OF FOUR (4) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "11" MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "J" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 201, 202, 203, 206, 204, 205, 2 15 4 216 207, 208, 209, 21012, 211,212,2134214 00 I I CC AS VIEWED FROM THE MERIOR RO = 58" V.I.F. (TYPE 1 A TOTAL OF ONE (I) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "C" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 115 RO = 24" V.I.F. v v v f� v I I O n %7 v AMMO EO FROM THE ERFERIOR RO = 124" V.I.F. RO = 70" V.I.F. v 0 ED- ED- ED- AS VIEWED MOM iNf .11100. TYPE 2 AS VIEWED MIME EXTEgpR (TYPE 1) A TOTAL OF ONE (1) A TOTAL OF FOUR (4) MON-RAY 503-PL 4-LITE MARK "D" MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "E" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 119 120, 121 , 122 4 123 RO = 34" AS VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR AS VIEWED FROM (TYPE3) TYPE A TOTAL OF TWO (2) A TOTAL OF TWO (2) A TOTAL OF FIVE (5) A TOTAL OF TWO (2) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "K" MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "L" MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "M' MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "N" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 2I0a4210c 2174218 219, 220, 221, 222 4 223 2244225 TYPE 1 A TOTAL OF TWO (2) MON-RAY 503-FL 2-LITE MARK "F" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 1244125 11114 AS VIEWED FROM THE MEM. (TYPE 3) (TYPE 3) (TYPE 1) CC RO = 43" V.I.F. 0 AS VIEWED FROM RIE EXTERIOR (TYPE 1) A TOTAL OF TWO (2) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "G" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 101 4 126 AS VIEWED FROM -ME EXTERIOR (TYPE 1) A TOTAL OF THREE (3) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "P" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 134, 135 4 136 MR503xx01 PROJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRODUCTION WINDOW ELEVATIONS JEB 101 PINE ST W, STILLWATER, MN 55082 DETAIL 08/09/21 k7/1 HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOW & DOOR PRODUCTS MON-RAY, INC. 7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD, SUITE 140 HOPKINS, MN 55343 763-544-3646 FAX: 763-546-8977 www.monray.com (TYPE 3) A TOTAL OF THREE (3) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK 'TV FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 233, 234 * 235 (TYPE 1) UNITS FOR JAIL RO = 48" V.I.F. RO = 70" V.I.F AS VIEWED FROM THE EMAIOR TYPE 4) A TOTAL OF SIX (6) A TOTAL OF SIX (6) MON-RAY 503-PL I -LITE MARK "12" MON-RAY 503-PL I -LITE MARK "Q" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 22G, 227, 228, 230, 231 * 232 127, 128, 129, 131 , 132 * 132 0 AS VIEWED FROM TA EXTERIOR (TYPE 2 A TOTAL OF ONE (I ) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK "S" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 229 RO = 62" V.I.F RO = 48" V.I.F. AS VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR (TYPE 5) A TOTAL OF ONE ( I ) MON-RAY 503-PL 2-LITE MARK'7" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 130 (TYPE 6) UNITS FOR BASEMENT & TRANSOMS 0 0> RO = 40" V.I. F AS VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR (TYPE 6) A TOTAL OF ONE (I) A TOTAL OF TEN (1 0) MON-RAY P 170-PL I -LITE MARK "V" MON-RAY P 170-PL I -LITE MARK 'YM' FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 301 1502, 503, 504, 1505, 606, 508, 509, 51 2, 522 * 524 VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOP (TYPE 6) A TOTAL OF ONE (1) MON-RAY P 170-PL I -LITE MARK "X" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: 311 v �0 PSVIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR (TYPE 6) A TOTAL OF ONE ( I ) MON-RAY P 170-PL I -LITE MARK "Y' FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: DO AS VIEWED FROM THE EXTERIOR (TYPE 6) A TOTAL OF ONE ( I ) MON-RAY P 170-PL I -LITE MARK "Z" FOR INSTALLATION IN OPNGS NO: D02 142-21xx02 PROJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRODUCTION WINDOW ELEVATIONS JEB 101 PINE ST W, STILLWATER, MN 55082 DETAIL 08/09/21 HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOW & DOOR PRODUCTS MON-RAY, INC. 7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD, SUITE 140 HOPKINS, MN 55343 763-544-3646 FAX: 763-546-8977 www.monray.com ROUGH OPENING (RO) HEIGHT CENTER OF MEETING RAIL (CMR) OVER-ALL FRAME (OAF) HEIGHT 3 O HEAD DETAIL MON-RAY 503-PL HALF SCALE #6069 - #8 x 1-1/2" PHIL PAN HD SS SMS WITH HEADS PAINTED TO MATCH FURNISHED BY THE WINDOW MANUFACTURER FOR INSTALLATION IN FACTORY PRE -PUNCHED INSTALLATION MOUNTING HOLES. A CONTINUOUS BEAD OF APPROVED SEALANT AT FULL PERIMETER FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR 142-21xx03 PROJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRODUCTION INSTALLATION DETAILS - HEAD JEB 101 PINE ST W, STILLWATER, MN 55082 DETAIL 08/09/21 An i\\ HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOW & DOOR PRODUCTS MON-RAY, INC. 7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD, SUITE 140 HOPKINS, MN 55343 763-544-3646 FAX: 763-546-8977 www.monray.com 0 HORIZONTAL MULL MON-RAY 503-PL #6043 - #6 x 3/8" PHIL PAN HD SS SMS WITH HEADS PAINTED TO MATCH FURNISHED BY THE WINDOW MANUFACTURER. THIS SET SCREW SECURES THE #1850 H-MULL AT BOTH ENDS TO THE MASTER FRAME. (2 PLACES) C)422 HORIZONTAL MULL MON-RAY 503-PL 142-21xx04 PROJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRODUCTION INSTALLATION DETAILS - HORIZONTAL MULLS JEB 101 PINE ST W, STILLWATER, MN 55082 DETAIL 08/09/21 'A/1 A I� HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOW & DOOR PRODUCTS MON-RAY, INC. 7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD, SUITE 140 HOPKINS, MN 55343 763-544-3646 FAX: 763-546-8977 www.monray.com ROUGH OPENING (RO) HEIGHT OVER-ALL FRAME (OAF) HEIGHT #6043 - #6 x 3/8" PHIL PAN HD SS SMS WITH HEADS PAINTED TO MATCH FURNISHED BY THE WINDOW MANUFACTURER. THIS SET SCREW SECURES THE #2404 SILL EXPANDER AT BOTH ENDS TO THE MASTER FRAME. A CONTINUOUS BEAD OF APPROVED SEALANT AT FULL PERIMETER FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR LEAVING TWO (2) - 1/4" WEEP HOLES OPEN. 5 O SILL DETAIL MON-RAY 5O3-PL 142-21xx05 PROJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRODUCTION INSTALLATION DETAILS - SILL JEB 101 PINE ST W, STILLWATER, MN 55082 DETAIL 08/09/21 rA/1 0 `/E�V'J �J O HIGH PERFORMANC D W & DOOR PRODUCTS OJAMB DETAIL MON-RAY 503-PL 74 A CONTINUOUS BEAD OF APPROVED SEALANT AT FULL PERIMETER FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR #6069 - #8 x 1-1/2" PHIL PAN HD SS SMS WITH HEADS PAINTED TO MATCH FURNISHED BY THE WINDOW MANUFACTURER FOR INSTALLATION IN FACTORY PRE -PUNCHED INSTALLATION MOUNTING HOLES 9/16"± OVER-ALL FRAME (OAF) WIDTH s 2 MON-RAY, INC. 7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD, SUITE 140 HOPKINS, MN 55343 763-544-3646 FAX: 763-546-8977 www.monray.com 0 VERTICAL MULLION MON-RAY 503-PL 1/16" 9/16"± OVER-ALL FRAME (OAF) WIDTH 6 O JAMB DETAIL ROUGH OPENING (RO) WIDTH MON-RAY 503-PL 142-21xx06 PROJECT: WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE PRODUCTION INSTALLATION DETAILS - JAMBS JEB 101 PINE ST W, STILLWATER, MN 55082 DETAIL 08/09/21 ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATIONS Section 08 51 69 High Performance Aluminum Storm Windows PART 1 GENERAL 1.0 SCOPE A. This is a historically significant Project and strict accordance to the details will be required. Provide custom sized, true radius formed storm windows installed at the exterior of the existing openings with historic wood prime windows. B. This Specification provides the Bidders with rigid standards for product materials, workmanship and performance that must be complied with in every respect. It is the intent of this Specification to provide the Owner with proper product materials, workmanship, design, application, performance, installation and warranty coverage. The Specification describes specific test requirements, system performance, quality assurance tests, and product material and fabrication requirements required to meet the Owner's desired performance level. 1.01 WORK INCLUDED A. Furnish and install high performance aluminum storm windows, complete with hardware, and related components as shown in drawings and specified in this Section. B. All storm windows are to be Mon -Ray Series 500 as manufactured by Mon -Ray, Inc. Other manufacturers requesting approval to bid their product will be viewed as alternate bids and must submit a request for approval 10 days prior to bid for consideration. 1.02 REFERENCES A. ANSI/AAMA 1002.10-93 "Voluntary Specifications for Insulating Storm Products for Windows and Sliding Glass Doors B. ASTM E 283 "Rate of Air Leakage Through Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Doors" C. ASTM E 330 "Structural Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference" D. ASTM E 331 "Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors by Uniform Air Pressure Difference" E. AAMA 502 "Voluntary Specification for Field Testing of Windows and Sliding Glass Doors" F. ASTM E 90 "Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission of Building Partitions" G. ASTM E 413 "Determination of Sound Transmission Class (STC)" Section 08 51 69 High Performance Storm Window Specifications 1 1.03 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE A. Test Unit Size: Test units shall be the sizes listed below. Sill of the test buck shall have a 13 degree slope to the exterior. (See Appendix "A" for test buck details) Fixed panel and removable panel storm windows: 4"0" wide x 4"0" high B. Air Leakage Test: The storm window shall be subjected to an air leakage test in accordance with ASTM-E 283. Window units tested by an Independent Laboratory shall be glazed with clear annealed glass. Air leakage shall meet the following performance requirements. C. Air leakage for fixed panel storm windows shall not exceed 0.15 CFM per square foot of window area at both a positive (infiltration) and negative (exfiltration) static pressure of 1.56 PSF at 25 mph wind. Weep holes shall not be sealed during the air leakage test. D. Uniform Structural Load Test: With storm sash closed position, the window shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E 330. Apply a minimum exterior positive and negative load of: 52.5 PSF at 143 mph wind = Class 35. Each load shall be maintained for 10 seconds. At the conclusion of the test, there shall be no glass breakage, damage to fasteners, hardware or any other damage causing the storm window to be inoperable. E. Water Resistance Test: With storm sash in the closed position, the window shall be subjected to a water resistance test in accordance with ASTM E 331. When a positive static pressure of 3.5 PSF=to a 37 mph wind pressure has been stabilized, 5 gallons of water per hour per square foot of window area shall be applied to the exterior face of the window, for a continuous period of 3 minutes. No water shall run over the interior edge of the sloped test buck sill. F. Concentrated Load and Glass Adherence Tests: A concentrated load equal to the weight of the sash, but not less than 15 pounds, acting parallel to the plane of the glass in a direction tending to pull the sash rails off the glass and applied alternately for three minutes at the center of all sash rails of the glazed sash shall not cause the sash rails to deflect more than 1/8" each. G. Glass Insert Squareness Test: Take a measurement of the distance between diagonally opposite pairs of corners of an insert with a steel rule. The difference between these measurements shall not be more than 1/4". H. Acoustical Performance: An acoustical test report shall state that the secondary glazing window to be furnished with the specified glass has been tested by itself in accordance with ASTM E90- 90 with a minimum STC rating 31. 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Shop Drawings: Submit drawings under provisions of Section 01300. Include dimensions, relationships to construction of adjacent work, component anchorage, type of caulking, window locations, installation methods and installation materials. Dimensions of all windows and components will be the responsibility of the successful Bidder. B. Samples: Submit appropriate color Samples for Architects review and approval. Section 08 51 69 High Performance Storm Window Specifications 2 C. Test Reports: Submit Independent Laboratory Test Reports verifying windows meet the specified requirements for sound transmission, air leakage, water resistance, uniform structural load, and deglazing. D. Certificates: Furnish an affidavit in triplicate from the Window Manufacturer, certifying that materials used on this Project conform to these Specifications and are identical in all appropriate respects to the storm windows identified in the Independent Laboratory Test Reports. 1.05 QUALITY ASSURANCE A. Qualifications: Fabrication shall be by a Window Manufacturer who can furnish evidence to the Owner that it is, and has been for not less than Ten (10) consecutive years, regularly engaged in the manufacturing of aluminum window units similar in design and performance to those specified for this Project. B. Mock -Up Window and Pre -award Installation Testing: 1. Provide a complete installation of one (1) Mock -Up window as specified and selected by the Owner. This window and installation shall be for the review of the product and installation. The Owner at his discretion may have the window tested by an Independent Test laboratory or by the window manufacture using certified calibrated testing equipment in accordance with the specified test procedures and methods to verify compliance of the product with these Specifications. The cost for pre -award testing, by the Independent Laboratory or the Manufacturer shall be paid by the Owner. Any deficiencies discovered on the window by the testing will be corrected by the the Bidder at no cost to the Owner and the Bidder will correct deficiencies in any similar models used in the project. The Owner or Owners Representative has the right to deem the bidder as "non -responsible" or "non -qualified", for failure to comply with the testing and other performance requirements, and the overall product materials and fabrication methods provided in the mock up. C. Reference List: 1. The Bidder shall furnish with its bid a Reference List from the Window Manufacturer containing not less than ten (10) completed projects with window units of similar to the window units specified for this Project. At least five (5) of the referenced projects shall be at least three (3) years old. As part of the bid evaluation to determine life cycle cost and best value for the Owner, consideration will be given as to age, longevity, performance and extended product life of these installations. The Reference List shall include the name, address and phone number of the project, and the date the project was completed. 2. If an installation sub -contractor is used, the subcontractor must furnish a list of at least five (5) projects similar in scope to this project with the base bid. 3. The Owner or Owners Representative has the right to deem the bidder as "non - responsible" or "non -qualified", based upon inspection of any projects performed by the bidder as a contractor, sub -contractor or manufacturer, if the products or workmanship is determined to be unacceptable by the Owner or Owners Representative. Section 08 51 69 High Performance Storm Window Specifications 3 1.06 WARRANTY A. Product Warranty: The successful Bidder shall furnish a positively written, non -prorated and fully transferable warranty from the Window Manufacturer against defects in materials and workmanship of the storm window units, under normal use, for a period of ten (10) years from the date of acceptance of the installed storm window units by the Owner. The warranty shall state that the Window Manufacturer shall provide all materials required to repair or replace defective materials or workmanship. The warranty shall further state that parts used to manufacture the storm window units, or suitable replacements, shall be available throughout the warranty period. B. Installation Warranty: The Successful Bidder shall furnish a written warranty against defects in the installation workmanship and materials for a period of three (3) years from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Installation warranty work will be performed at no cost to the Owner. PART 2 PRODUCTS 2.01 ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS A. Mon -Ray, Inc. (Manufacturer of Mon -Ray 500 Storm Windows) Basis of Design Mon -Ray Model 503 Removable Panel. 7900 Excelsior Blvd., Suite 140 Hopkins, MN 55343-3454 Phone: (800) 544-3646 Fax: (763)-546-8977 Website: www.monray.com B. Alternates: Other manufacturers requesting approval to bid their product will be viewed as alternate bids and must submit a request for approval 10 days prior to bid for consideration. 2.02 MATERIALS A. Aluminum. All frame, members shall be accurately extruded aluminum prime alloy 6063-T6. The minimum nominal wall thickness of all frame, sash, expanders and panning members shall not be less than 0.050". B. Glazing: shall be 3/16" clear annealed glass. Safety glazing shall be used as required by code and correctly labeled on glass. The glass shall be glazed into the sash with a one-piece wrap- around, flexible vinyl glazing channel All corners shall be secured and neatly tucked. All glass shall be factory washed. C. Weather -Strip: All sash shall have a vinyl weather strip bulb at the full perimeter that shall slide into extruded ports on the interior face of and that are part of the in the aluminum storm sash. 2.03 WINDOW TYPE AND OPERATION A. Type: All windows shall be exterior removable panel storm windows with a frame depth of 7/8" and nominal 1" depth with the full perimeter "U" channel frame expanders. The expanders will allow for adjustment at the exterior perimeter of the opening to square and plumb and cleanly fit into the existing opening against the existing wood frame and allowable tolerance at masonry. Section 08 51 69 High Performance Storm Window Specifications 4 B. Where noted on drawings and as required provide extruded H-mulls to allow two or more storm window frames to be installed either horizontally or vertically in a single opening. C. All removable panels shall be held in place with extruded aluminum sash retainer slips securely fastened with stainless steel screws. Finish of this hardware to match finish of windows. 2.04 HARDWARE A. All assembly and installation fasteners and screws incorporated in the storm window units and exterior panning shall be non-magnetic, stainless steel. All hardware parts shall be of aluminum, stainless steel, nylon, or other non -corrosive materials compatible with aluminum. NOTE: Wrought metal or plastic parts will not be acceptable. 2.05 FABRICATION A. Frame and Sash Construction: 1. Frame: All aluminum head, jamb and sill members for the master frame and all frame expanders shall have a minimum wall thickness of 0.050 ". All members to be extruded 6063-T6 aluminum assembled in a secure and workman like manner to assure lasting weather resistant construction. Frame joints shall be butt -type, neatly joined and secured by means of non-magnetic stainless steel screws anchored into integral screw ports. Vinyl weather-stripping shall be shaded from direct sunlight by the frame and sash members. The storm window shall be mounted by using four adjustable expanders, which securely slide over the master frame. 2. Sash: All sash members shall be extruded 6063-T6 aluminum with a minimum wall thickness of 0.055 ". Mitered corners shall be joined by non-magnetic stainless steel screws. All sharp corners of the sash shall be deburred and smoothed. All removable panels shall have a full-length extruded lift handle as part of the sash rail. The lift handle shall project 7/16" to the interior to allow adequate area to maintain a sure finger grip. 3. Special shapes and radius bending. Where radius shapes are required the windows will be fabricated to match templates of the existing openings. All frame and sash members shall be roll formed for true bending of the extrusions. Kerf cutting or other methods to achieve the custom radius shapes will not be accepted. This is a historically significant Project and strict accordance to the details will be required. B. Weep System: 1. The sill expander shall have a minimum of two weep holes, uniformly positioned to allow for water to weep to the exterior of the storm window unit. Note weep holes to remain open for all testing. 2.06 FINISHES A. Organic (Black Painted Finish) Finish all exposed areas of aluminum storm windows, hardware and components with a factory applied spray coating in accordance with the following Aluminum Association Designation: Section 08 51 69 High Performance Storm Window Specifications 5 *Description AA Designation AAMA Guide Specification Siliconized polyester baked enamel AA-M12-C41-RX1 AAMA 2603 PART 3 EXECUTION 3.01 EXAMINATION A. Bidders are expected to visit the job -site and make a complete survey of the Project prior to bid. All storm window openings will be measured by the Bidder for proper sizing of the new storm windows. Failure to do so will not relieve the Successful Bidder from the need to furnish any and all materials, which may be required, in accordance with the Specifications, without any additional cost to the Owner. 3.02 PREPARATION A. Remove new storm window units from crating and packaging material. Verify that all parts and accessories are included. All storm window units and accessories shall be securely stored, upright and protected from the weather. B. Remove any old storm windows and accessories from the window opening. Scrape and remove existing sealant and other materials from the opening, that may interfere with the installation of new storm windows. 3.03 INSTALLATION A. Storm windows shall be installed in strict accordance with the Manufacturer's instructions and Shop Drawings. B. Plumb and align storm window faces in a single plane with the existing window. Erect storm windows and accessories square and true, using anchors to maintain a permanent position. C. Anchors should be not less than #8 non-magnetic, stainless steel screws. The length of the installation screws shall be sufficient for proper attachment to surrounding construction that is sufficient and sound to anchor windows too. Anchors must be adequate to handle thermal and building movement, and specified uniform load requirements. D. Provide single -component or multi -component, low -modulus, non -sag sealant; comply with ASTM C920, Type S or M, Grade NS, Class 25 3.04 ADJUST AND CLEAN A. Operate installed storm windows to assure a proper installation has occurred. Make any appropriate adjustments. B. Remove excess sealant, dirt, window labels and wipe dust off frame and glass. End of Section Section 08 51 69 High Performance Storm Window Specifications 6 jlJwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: April 19, 2022 TO: Chair Mino and Heritage Preservation Commissioners FROM: Abbi Wittman, City Planner SUBJECT: 200 Chestnut Street Design Permit Modification BACKGROUND In 2021 the City approved a Design Permit for the construction of a new apartment building to be located at 200 Chestnut Street East. During the Heritage Preservation Commission's review of the design of the new building, the HPC expressed concern for a 5'8" retaining wall proposed to be located along the Union Alley sidewalk. After redesigning the wall plan to a combination of 2-4' retaining wall with fencing and landscaping, the HPC noted the plan more conformed to the Downtown Design Review District standards and added to an enhanced pedestrian experience. Since the time of HPC approval, the property owner had to modify the design plan to accommodate the underground parking. This necessitated raising the basement elevation which increased the height of the terrace (and subsequently) wall along Union Alley. Additionally, the terrace area was repurposed to accommodate stormwater drainage (through a green roof system) on the site. The building permit plans submitted now show a 4'6" wall with horizontal railing above. The wall will be stamped in a vertical, woodgrain pattern. Above the wall (at chest height) there will be a mixture of plantings specific designed specifically to accommodate the rain water on the site; they will set in a 12" deep planter. The area is described as a lush meadow full of plants, herbs and flowers. Below the wall at sidewalk grade, there will be six (6), 8" wide planters planted with vining plants designed to grow up the textured wall. Upon review of the permit, staff determined the wall to be substantially compliant with the intent of the HPC's approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission review the enclosed materials, including the original and modified design permit approval. Staff further recommends the HPC determine the proposed 4'6" wall is substantially compliant with the original approved Design Permit. ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve the Consent Agenda, concurring with staff the modified wall design is substantially compliant with the original Design Permit approval. esc April 19th, 2022 200 Chestnut Street East Apartments — Alley Design Memo Stillwater Planning Staff, Per your request we've outlined how the current design along Union Alley meets the design intent approved by the city council on 5/4/20. While the design of the building area along the Union Alley way was altered, we believe the design intent has remained consistent and ultimately enhanced by this change. Two primary factors played a role in the revision of this expression along Union Alley: Groundwater and Stormwater Management. Additional analysis of the site's groundwater was conducted by Braun Engineering to better understand concerns over a high-water table on the site. Based on that analysis the design team elected out of caution to raise the basement elevation higher than initially designed to mitigate the risk of groundwater infiltrating the basement. Raising the basement elevation resulted in the terrace area along Union Alley also raising in elevation to maintain adequate parking garage clearances below. This elevation difference is most visible at the concrete planter/retaining wall along Union Alley. The design presented to the HPC on 1/20/20 depicted 4' tall concrete planters along the ROW with intermediate picket railings for transparency into the private terrace above the garage. Raising the terrace elevation limited our ability to vary the concrete retaining/planter elevation along the ROW. The current design depicts a consistent planter height of 4'-6". The updated planter walls are cast in board form concrete to provide added texture and visual interest, as well as on grade plantings that will grow along the concrete planter walls. The design team also elected to replace the private terrace adjacent to Union Alley with a lush meadow full of plants, herbs and flowers. This meadow plays a key role in our stormwater management plan approved by the Middle St. Croix Watershed on 1/25/21. In addition to its function as a stormwater management system, this meadow will provide visual interest for residents, pedestrians, and neighboring properties along the alley. ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 1080 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p 612.339.5508 www.esgarchitects.com DESIGN UPDATE 4/13/22 200 CHESTNUT ST S STILLWATER,MN MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 2'-5" TO P.L. 3'-03/8" TO P.L. 1,307 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,262 SF 22 GARAGE ACCESS RAM P DOWN PARKING 1,716$F 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF SCREENED TRANSFORMER 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF TERRACE 2,938 SF 1 BED 856 SF CIRCULATION 2,586 SF UNION ALLEY 1 BED 856 SF 1 BED 986 SF 2ND STREET SOUTH 1 BED 986 SF 1,249 SF 1 BED 887 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF ALCOVE 602 SF 1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. LOBBY/LEASING 1,642 SF FITNESS 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,252 SF 1' - 0" TO P.L. L Scale: 1" = 20'-0" TO DOWNTOWN CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST PLAN NORTH eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 - CITY COUNCIL I Al 3 MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 1 1 ALCOVE 539 SF ALCOVE 537 SF 2 BED 1,208 SF - 111 ��p v�v—O���•corizoe relli"Olitetreivise GARAGE ACCESS r 1 1 BED + DEN 1,031 SF — SCREENED TRANSFORMER 7 1 BED 880 SF UNION ALLEY 1 BED 918 SF 1 BED 977 SF 1 BED 977 SF 1 BED 880 SF -` 7 1 1 ALCOVE 537'SF 2 BED 1,203 SF 2ND STREET SOUTH 7 / CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 - PERMIT SET 4 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - HPC 5 esc REUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - CITY COUNCIL 6 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET ALLEY VIEW - CURRENT DESIGN Stillwater, MN 7 AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL METAL PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN ALUMINUM AND GLASS GUARDRAIL CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS EXTERIOR MATERIALS e � mint MIL rim Am., r •s` fr BRICK VENEER METAL PANEL MECHANICAL LOUVER SCREENED TRANSFORMER AREA CAST STONE SILLS METAL PANEL METAL PARAPET COPING OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING METAL PARAPET COPING CAST STO N E SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EAST ELEVATION - CITY COUNCIL ( UNION ALLEY) 8 GROW WALL CROSS-SECTION D1 THE ROOF CROP -BL 0 0.15 0.39 0.78 1.56 SCALE3/16" = 1'-0" *NOTE: RENDERED MATERIALS ONLY SHOWN TO DIFFERENTIATE MATERIAL. SEE PREVIOUS ELEVATION FOR MATE- RIAL DESIGN INTENT Scale: 1/16" = 11-0" eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EAST ELEVATION - CURRENT ( UNION ALLEY) 9 PLANT SCHEDULE SHRUBS 0 0 0 CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME HS DIERVILLA X SPLENDENS 'EL MADRIGAL' TM / FIREFLY NIGHTGLOW BUSH HONEYSUCKLE SS SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA 'SEM' / SEM ASH LEAF SPIREA TG THUJA OCCIDENTAL IS 'GONGABE' TM / FIRE CHIEF ARBORVITAE ANNUALS/PERENNIALS CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME O AS ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 'STRAWBERRY SEDUCTION' / STRAWBERRY SEDUCTION COMMON YARROW a AF ASTILBE X ARENDSII 'FANAL' / FANAL ASTILBE a GL GOREOPSIS LANCEOLATA / LANGELEAF TICKSEED a EC EGHINAGEA X 'GHEYENNE SPIRIT' / GHEYENNE SPIRIT GONEFLOWER O GE GERANIUM MAGULATUM 'ESPRESSO' / SPOTTED GERANIUM O GM GERANIUM SANGUINEUM 'MAX FREI' / MAX FREI BLOODRED GERANIUM a HG HOSTA X 'CURLY FRIES' / CURLY FRIES HOSTA O H52 HOSTA X'SUM AND SUBSTANCE'/SUM AND SUBSTANCE HOSTA a RS RUDBEGKIA FULGIDA SULLIVANTII 'LITTLE GOLDSTAR' / LITTLE GOLDSTAR CONEFLOWER VH VERBENA HASTATA / BLUE VERVAIN GRASSES 0 CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME PS PANICUM VIRGATUM 'SHENANDOAH' / SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASS V I NE/ESPAL I ER CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME LS LONIGERA PERICLYMENUM 'SCENTSATION' / SCENTSATION HONEYSUCKLE SCENTSATION HONEYSUCKLE- VINE SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASS SCENTSATION HONEYSUCKLE -FLOWER ,—_/ — `\, — --\\, --`\/_, ``\ „ RAILING, SEE ELEVATIONS r `,I t\DESIGN TO MEET IBC 1015.4 WHERE NO t\t ' OPENINGS WILL BE LARGE ENOUGH FOR 1 jx, A 42N DI?, SPHERE TO PASS TVROUGH r \\> n—' \\ n—' \\ n \` VREEN R0/3P�� COORDINATE WITH SUPPLIER EASED CORNERS, TYP. DRAINAGE PANEL W/ FILTER FABRIC. - BED WITH FILTER FABRIC OVER WATERPROOFING ON INSIDE FACE OF WALLS FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE SHEET METAL ANGLE FOR WATERPROOFING SUBSTRATE( I v - 2" RIGID INSULATION BOARD FORM FINISH ON EXTERIOR FACE, SEE ELEVATIONS 4" RIGID INSULATION SLOPED PT SLAB, SEE STRUCTURAL RIGID INSULATION - _FOIL FACED i� LANDSCAPE BED FOR < GROW WALL, SEE ROOF I CROP DRAWINGS ,‘J I p —SIDEWALK VARIES, �l1 1 —SEE CIVIL -COLD JOINT 2" RIGID INSULATION FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE DRAINAGE PANEL w co K `. i DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: i11watr THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA April 15, 2022 Chair Amy Mino and HPC Commissioners Abbi Wittman, City Planner 1008 5th Street South Building Demolition/Design Permit for 1008 5th Street South (Case No. 2022-22) Applicant: Landowner: BACKGROUND Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton Sofie Cohen Districts: Designation: Neighborhood Conservation District N/A In April, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a Building Demolition/Design Permit request from Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton for the partial demolition, renovation and addition of the structure at 1008 5th Street South. At that time the applicants were proposing to remove greater than 30% of the circa 1906 constructed, single -story residence with little known property history. As noted in the original staff report, the reason for the proposed demolition was due to improper grading which had resulted in portions of the structure to be located below grade; sill and floor joist ground contact; rotted ceiling joists; cracked girder beam; and basement utility flooding. The staff report noted that removing a portion of the home and rebuilding it would remedy these issues and provide for more structural stability. Since the time of HPC review and approval of the 2021 request, the property owner obtained a building permit, removed portions of the home, and began framing a new roof for the structure. However, due to a combination of factors suggesting greater foundation issues that originally anticipated, the property owners have determined that requesting full demolition and reconstruction is necessary. Building Demolition Permit Review City Code Section 31-215, Building Demolition Permit, indicates the HPC will consider the following review criteria when making its decision: • The structural integrity of the building, site or structure proposed for demolition and evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain it • The ability of the building, site or structure to be reused onsite in a reasonably economical way • The cost and economic feasibility of restoring the building, site or structure • The ability of the building, site or structure to be practically moved to another site in the town • The site development proposal's conformance to the established district adopted guidelines o Any impact(s) that will occur to the visual character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur o Any impact(s) that will occur to the historic importance of the buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent properties o Any impact that will occur to the architectural integrity of the buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent properties. Prior to the approval of a demolition permit, the city must find: • Demolition of the resource has been evaluated against and, on balance, has been found supportive of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans, taking into account factors such as: the merits of proposed new development on the site, the merits of preserving the resource, and the area's desired character; and • For non -income producing properties consistent of an owner -occupied single- or two-family dwelling and/or institutional use not solely operating for profit, the owner's inability to convert the property to a compatible and conforming use in its present condition or, if rehabilitated. • There is situation substantially inadequate to meet the applicant's needs because of specific health and/or safety issues. Building Permit Demolition Analysis It is clear the applicants intended to rehabilitated the oldest portion of this home and add on to it in a way that would not compromise the integrity of the original structure. However, as work progressed it was determined the foundation was not capable of supporting the new roof system and addition without compromising the original portion of the home. When City Building Inspections' staff visited the site earlier this spring, it was determined many of the structure's remaining components were compromised. While not specifically stated in the application materials, the applicants have determined the existing foundation is subpar and possibly settling as a result of the work that has occurred. This, as well as the combination of half the home having basement and the other half having a crawl space, has resulted in several defects in floor system and walls of the home. While it was initially thought the foundation infractions were minor, additional issues were raised when they placed the new roof trusses on the structure. The foundation is not as stable as original determined. Because of this, and to protect their investment in this property, they have determined a new foundation is vital to ensure their future home will be stable. Case No. 2022-22 Page 2 of 4 There are significant challenges with the construction of a new foundation. Given only half of the existing home has a full basement underneath it, it will be difficult to adequately place a new foundation under the home. In order to 'do it right' the home would most likely need to be raised or moved. Staff questions whether or not the wood framed structure would be able to sustain a move. Additionally, jacking the structure to get necessary equipment in to address the issues with the crawl space would place added stress onto the already compromised structural components. New Application Submittal While the narrative request indicates the new proposal is the exact same as last year, the design schematic has changed. With a similar footprint as the existing home, the new design is still for a single -story home with attached but recessed garage. The home proposed contains a north -south directed gable roof with two dormer additions. The design has a "modern craftsman" feel. Overall, the massing of the new design is minimally greater than the existing structure that has been altered. The exterior elevation drawings of the home do not include final detailing (i.e. openings, materials, etc.). This is because the property owners are first seeking the HPC's determination on whether or not the full demolition would be approved. If the HPC concurs the demolition is necessary, the applicants will finalize the exterior elevations for formal consideration of the home with respect to the Neighborhood Conservation District's guidelines. Staff Conclusions In its current configuration, the home is a public nuisance and a hazard. While it was not the intention of the applicants to create this situation, a combination of factors has resulted in a stalled project. Modifications to an existing home with a failing foundation represents a significant safety issue and, in its current configuration, the applicant is unable to convert the property to a reasonable use. While this is not suitable grounds for the approval of the demolition, staff offers the Commission these conclusions: • There is merit in the applicant's initiative to preserve the site and appropriately add onto the structure in a manner that protects the resource while accommodating for modern needs; • The combination of the crawlspace with unsupported floor system and failing foundation not only presents a safety issue but has compromised the integrity of the remaining wood elements; • In its current condition, the property owner is not able to use the property as a single-family residence. Replacement of the foundation and crawl space removal is necessary for the long-term protection of the future home; • Significant alteration or replacement of the foundation places significant risk to the already -compromised wood elements. Case No. 2022-22 Page 3 of 4 While staff is generally unsupportive of demolition given the City Code generally prohibits demolition of any pre-1946 structure, staff believes the demolition is necessary for not only the long-term use of the site but also the integrity of the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC discuss the matter before them. If the Commission seems favorable to the issuance of a building demolition permit, staff recommends the HPC table formal consideration and direct the applicant to finalize exterior elevations and renderings to include all openings, details, finishes, materials, etc. It would only after it has been determined the new home's design conforms to the guidelines set forth for new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District would staff recommend approval of the Building Demolition Permit. ACTION REQUESTED If the Commission concurs with the recommendation, the Commission should direct the applicant and/or staff accordingly. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Exterior Photographs (4) Cost Comparison — demo vs. rebuild Foundation Wall Depth Photograph Crawl Space Elevations Neighborhood Characteristics Worksheet April 21, 2021 HPC Minutes Case No. 2021-17 Staff Report and Attachments Cc: Sofie Cohen Spencer Middleton Case No. 2022-22 Page 4 of 4 Subject: Application for partial demolition and redevelopment of 1008 Fifth St S Applicants: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 3/26/2021 Re: 1008 5th St. S. Dear Heritage Preservation Commission, We came before this commission in April 2021 to request approval for a partial demolition at 1008 5th St. S. The request was approved, and we applied for a building permit that was approved on August 26, 2022. After coming to terms with the reality of our 22" foundation and the additional complexity of working around existing problems, we are now requesting a full demolition of the remaining structure. We began lining up subcontractors; not an easy task in late Spring 2021. Through a building contractor contact, we were able to secure a bid from a concrete contractor for $34,000. He was not available to mobilize until mid - September. We checked back with our concrete contractor in August to verify dates to coordinate with our excavator. He informed us that he was "backed up" and wouldn't be able to start until mid -October. We settled on a start date of October 12. Our concrete contractor informed us that there had been some price changes and sent a revised bid for $42,000. We completed the partial demolition in early October and prepared to begin construction on October 12. Ten days before our start date, our excavator informed us that he was "backed up" and would not be able to dig until Spring 2022. We contacted 9 other excavating contractors, 2 responded that they were booked through the end of the year, and the other 7 never responded to multiple calls, emails, and texts. We were obviously not going to begin our "new" construction until 2022. However, we could work on the existing portion through the Winter. (Side note: after fully digesting our new circumstance, we contacted our concrete contractor to get on the schedule for Spring. He sent a revised bid for $59,000.) As we began checking elevations on the existing structure, it became evident that we had a severe out of level situation at the top plates. All four corners had different elevations, with the worst being 2'A". In addition, the center span of the South wall sagged 2". This circumstance certainly translated to the existing floor structure as well, combined with a "wonky" center span crawl space beam supported with no footings. It became apparent that we had foundation issues that needed to be dealt with before we could begin to rebuild the existing structure. After many hours of "tinkering" with existing conditions, and collectively looking at possible remedies, we decided to take this road. Beyond the unfortunate elements of inflation, residential building boom, and the Great Resignation, our costs have risen dramatically. Add to this the unknown costs of "messing" with a century old building, sitting on a 22" foundation, and the project seems untenable. We do not offer the lengthy narrative above as a "woe is me" pity plea for approval. We offer it as evidence that this demolition request was a last resort for us, and to illuminate the real world set of current circumstances that powerfully impact a young couple's attempt to make a home in Stillwater. We will build a home that looks exactly like what was approved last year. The only difference is that, if our application for demolition is approved, the redeveloped house will last for another 100 years, perform remarkably better, and, ideally, get us in our new home sooner. Respectfully submitted, Sofie Cohen & Spencer Middleton n - m/ m . . . m ❑ o o I .. • South Elevation West Elevation North Elevation No Scale No Scale No Scale n East Elevation Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 Sheet # 8 0 Gim Middleton 0 SOfle Cohen 8c Spencer Micc Elevations v Buzz Chickley, Inc. eton Of: g 1117 Broadway St N 0 1008 5th St S Drawn: 7/28/2021 pp Stillwater, MN , buzzchickley©gmail.com v, Stillwater, V\ A - 7 Jenn Sundberg From: Abbi Jo Wittman <ajwittman@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:17 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Cohen [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. IMADE10101114Minfri 1 * , :,"1;:1,Ir ' u '0 '. _ -. -- 2 3 4 5 6 7 • ,- . •••'; 14is A • v�K'jY��y, G-• ,�• • I '} • V G Subject: Application for partial demolition and redevelopment of 1008 Fifth St S Applicants: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 3/26/2021 Cost comparison of keeping old foundation vs. rebuilding Item Dumpsters Demolition Subs Excavation/Backfill Footings Foundation Drainage Shoring/Underpinning Foundation Walls Level Existing Floor System Foundation Waterproofing Crawl Space Floor Framing Lumber Framing Labor Sheathing Fasteners Crawl Space Encapsulation Crawl Space Insulation Totals Keep New $ 1,000 2,200 $ 3,000 2,000 $ 2,500 900 $ 1,480 2,600 5,700 $ 3,920 $ 1,000 $ 4,300 $ 2,000 $ 300 $ 2,100 $ 3,825 $ 26,925 $ 600 $ 1,800 $ 1,600 $ 2,800 $ 2,000 $ 300 $ 400 $ 825 $ 22,225 Not Included in Cost numbers: Waterproofing existing crawl space. Labor costs and best practice process to remedy out of plumb, out of square and out of level conditions Labor costs involved with differing dimensions of existing framing members Finding a concrete contractor willing to perform remedial work Energy performance of the enclosure _ • .. a- • - • . • ' ' r'`;':..2 • • • • `17 • . • . •,' „ ;-• ) • ," At & . - • • ••• - ' • '•'" .77w:4" • • L . • ' • 7.7 • 982' 1" 981'-6" v East Elevation North Elevation South Elevation West Elevation Design Review Application and Checklist This Design Review Application and Checklist should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact: Stillwater City Planning Office 651-430-8821 City Hall 216 N. 46 St. Stillwater, MN 55082 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us Project Address: 1008 5th St S Stillwater, MN 55082 Applicant name, address, telephone: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 1117 Broadway St N Stillwater, MN 55082 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: • Vernacular ❑ Italianate ❑ Queen Anne ❑ Gothic ❑ Greek Revival ❑ Second Empire ❑ American Foursquare ❑ Stick ❑ Other: 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) 20' Average setback on block (est.) 25' Proposed new house setback 34' 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories 1 1-1/2 2 House on right ❑ ❑ SI House on left ❑ ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ ❑ Proposed new house ® ❑ ❑ 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch None House on right ® ❑ House on left ® ❑ House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ® ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ Notes: 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 Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right ❑ House on left House to rear Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage Garage ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) Garage will be compatible with main house. 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? : N/A Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines Design Review Application and Checklist 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) i Structure sited parallel to slope ❑ Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) • Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) ❑ Types of trees Silver Maple ❑ Heights 50' ❑ Trunk diam. 18" Notes: No plans to remove any signifcant trees. 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: Not affected House to left: Not affected House to rear: Not affected Notes: How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? • Locate structure on lot to minimize impact ❑ Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact ❑ Other: 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy?(Guidelines #22,#23) House to right: Not affected House to left: Not affected House to rear: Not affected Notes: How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? • Offset/locate windows to reduce impact ❑ Use obscure glass in window ❑ Locate balconies to minimize impact. • Use landscaping elements for screening ❑ Other: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors?(Guideline #25) ❑ Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property • Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property ❑ Other: To be included with this Application and Checklist: ❑ Site Plan: 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. ❑ Regular Planning Department Development Application Form Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines (p2of2) illwater 'YF 1INTPPLA LE LIE •INNESOil HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 21, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Krakowski, Larson, Thueson, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Walls Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 17, 2021 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the minutes of the March 17, 2021 meeting. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Krakowski abstaining. Possible approval of minutes of April 6. 2021 Special Meeting Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2021 special meeting. Motion passed 4-0-2 with Commissioners Krakowski and Larson abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2021-12: Consideration ofa Design Permit for window reconstruction, new business signage and building painting. Property located at 210 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Central Business District Historic. Jenn Hovland, applicant and St. Croix Investors, LLC, property owner. Case No. 2021-15: Consideration ofa Design Permit for a mural. Property located at 125 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Central Business District Historic. Ross Larson of Nordic LUV, LLC, property owner. Case No, 2021-16: Consideration ofa Design Permit for a stationary Seasonal Food Vendor for the property located at 127/131 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Central Business District Historic. Buettner Real Estate, property owner. Motion by Chair Mino, seconded by Councilmember Krakowski, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2021-10: Consideration of a partial Demolition Permit for renovations to the home at 304 Hazel St in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Jason Ous, property owner. City Planner Wittman stated the home was constructed in the 1870s. While the structure was associated with state and local historic contexts, it was not determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register and was listed in fair condition. The current owner took possession of the home in October 2019 at which time permits for new windows, new siding, and water/sewer hookup were issued by the City. The City inspected the water/sewer connections in September 2020, but no Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 21, 2021 additional inspections have occurred. On November 30, 2020 the property owner submitted a building permit application to seek approval of full interior and exterior rehabilitation. Upon review of the property, it was determined unpermitted exterior alterations including demolition, addition and facade alterations occurred without appropriate planning, zoning, and building inspection office review and approval. On December 30 and, again, on January 28, 2021 Zoning Administrator Tait sent notice to the property owner the unpermitted work would require review and approval by both the HPC and Planning Commission prior to the review of the building permit application. On March 10 the City received an HPC application for the unpermitted work. The property owner states the work occurred because the second story of the structure collapsed. The applicant is seeking approval of a Demolition Permit for the removal of the front porch improvements and portions of the front -facing roof, renovation and second story addition. While the property owner has utilized an array of building materials on all four sides, the structure lacks four-sided design. The flat roof is out of character for the residence and the neighborhood. A letter was received from Kevin Tilka, 1921 1st St. N voicing concern about the design of the house. Staff encourages the HPC to discuss potential design alterations with the applicant to see if reasonable conditions could be added. If the applicant is not favorable to the conditions of approval, staff recommends that the Commission recommend the City Council deny the Demolition Permit. Councilmember Junker asked if the two story addition has a full basement under it. Ms. Wittman said that is unclear. Commissioner Larson asked if the Commission is being asked to consider the Design and the Demolition Permit simultaneously. Ms. Wittman replied that City code standards obligate the Commission to consider the design of what would be going back in its place. If the Commission recommends denial of the Demolition Permit, it would not necessarily be considering the design. If Council upheld a recommendation for denial, the Council could order the removal of those portions of the structure that were unpermitted and obligate the owner to get a building permit in a certain number of days. Chair Mina opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Mina closed the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Finwall to recommend that the Council deny the Demolition Permit. Commissioner Larson suggested that instead of recommending denial, the Commission could work with the owner on compliance; however, considering non participation by the owner to date and tonight, that path may not yield the desired results either. Chair Mino voiced concern that despite part of the structure having collapsed, the images appear to show no foundation work has been done. Councilmember Junker noted there is no indication of the owner's willingness to work with the City after -the -fact. He is very concerned about the foundation, given the difference between the foundation needed for a porch versus a two story addition. There could be major complications. Commissioner Larson said he was inclined to second the motion for denial after hearing other Commissioners' comments. Commissioner Finwall pointed out this situation puts the HPC in a position of code enforcement which goes beyond guiding the City on design elements. The applicant seems unwilling to work with the City on alternatives. Her motion is still on the table. The motion to recommend denial of the demolition was seconded by Commissioner Larson. All in favor. Page 2 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 21, 2021 Case No. 2021-17: Consideration of a partial Demolition Permit for the structure located at 1008 5th St S in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton, property owners. Ms. Wittman said the home at 1008 5th Street South was reportedly constructed in 1906 and little history of the property is known. The structure is not eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, its construction era falls within local and state contexts. The applicant is proposing to: 1) remove an existing one-story addition from the back of the home; 2) remove the existing roof; and 3) add an approximately 1,800 square foot single -story addition with two car garage. The existing home and its addition will be clad in horizontal lap siding. Corner, trim, soffit and fascia boards will be utilized on all four sides. Windows in similar sizes and with similar details are proposed on all four sides. Overall staff finds the proposed project fits with Stillwater's traditional neighborhood design and substantially conforms to the Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends approval with six conditions. Chair Mina opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Chair Mino asked what lead to the demolition request. Applicant Spencer Middleton explained that they expected only to add a bathroom but they discovered that some of the floor joists were sitting in dirt and the wood was rotting. Commissioner Larson asked about the materials being used. Gim Middleton, 1117 Broadway St N, representing the applicants, said they plan to replace the existing lap siding with a 4" LP siding and add a two-piece frieze board, skirt board and drip edge. Commissioner Larson said he has no issue with the demolition or the addition. There are other places in Stillwater where ramblers sit beside Victorian houses. Now that it will no longer be the front door, he asked if they considered putting a hip roof on the porch as well, integrating it more into the house. Gim Middleton said they considered a hip roof but felt it adds nothing to the house. They will add new windows and siding and soften the streetfront with landscaping. They will put a hip roof on the back to reduce the mass. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the applicants considered recycling or salvaging materials. Commissioner Finwall asked if a front porch could be added near the front door. Putting some thought into the design of the garage door could make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Gim Middleton said offsetting the garage would put them over the allowable square footage. There will be some sort of porch at the front door but its rooflines have not been determined yet. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to approve Case No. 2021-17, partial Demolition Permit for the structure located at 1008 5th St 5, with the six staff -recommended conditions, noting that minor modifications would need to be approved in advance by the City Planner, and adding Condition #7, the applicants should explore reuse/recycle/salvage options; Condition #8, the applicants are encouraged to explore enhanced garage door design; and Condition #9, the applicants are encouraged to explore front porch options at the entrance to the home. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Page 3 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 21, 2021 Case No. 2021-11: Consideration of a Design Permit for an exterior Canopy. Property located at 218 Main St N in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Central Business District Historic. Dariush Moslemi, applicant and Mike Lynskey, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated that in 2020, the HPC approved a patio to be added to the front of the building which is currently being renovated for restaurant use. Applicant Dar Moslemi has requested a Design Permit to construct a 45.5' wide by 12' deep metal roof over that portion of the future front patio. Though the structure is not located in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, the proposed alteration impacts the character and nature of the historic core and is not compatible with the site and its surroundings. Therefore, staff recommends denial. Staff recognizes there are some covered patios in the Central Business District as pointed out by the applicant, however there are none on Main Street. Dar Moslemi, applicant, explained that he is open to design alterations such as a flat roof or a suspended overhang. Ms. Wittman noted a portion of the patio and overhang is over the property line because the building sits on the north property line. Councilmember Junker asked if the patio will be enclosed. Mr. Moslemi replied there will not be any walls but it will have electric heaters designed for outdoors. Commissioner Thueson asked if the patio could be built on the parking lot on the south side instead. Ms. Wittman replied that would eliminate all the parking. Accessibility from sidewalk to parking area must be maintained per building code. Commissioner Heimdahl said he feels there is precedent set by surrounding buildings. This structure is unadorned already so he sees the addition as a potential benefit. He suggested a flat roof instead of a hip roof. Chair Mina asked, what is material of the roof? Mr. Moslemi replied the roof will be corrugated steel like the brewery across the street, or a similar black material. He prefers a flat roof. It was the architect who suggested a hip roof. Commissioner Finwall asked the date of the building. Ms. Wittman said it may have been built in the 1940s. Commissioner Finwall commented that with the front stoop and stairway being original, having a porch is not out of character for the building. A zero lot line encourages a walkable community. Commissioner Larson noted that many commercial buildings sit on the property line. He agreed with the staff finding that the project would have a big impact on the downtown character. He understands this is an unadorned building but the proposal feels like something foreign to the building. Extending past the building out to the parking lot is jarring and contrary to Design Guidelines. Mr. Moslemi said the deck sticks out from the side of building on one side due to accessibility and fire code. Corrugated steel is everywhere in Stillwater. It will look like it has always been there. Commissioner Larson said if this were a more shallow metal canopy without the posts, perhaps 8 feet out, it would feel more like it belongs to the building. Mr. Moslemi responded that he initially looked into a less deep patio but if he doesn't keep the present size, umbrellas for the tables will not fit and it would be a waste of time. Page 4 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 21, 2021 Commissioner Larson suggested shortening the roof at least to the length of building and pushing the columns back slightly from the edge of the overhang to de-emphasize the roof and columns. Water from the roof dumping onto Main Street sidewalk must also be considered. Mr. Moslemi answered he has already talked with the Building Inspector about a gutter system needed for a flat vs. hipped roof. Commissioner Larson noted the discussion has touched on a lot of things that aren't on the drawings, like colors and final materials. He is open to the idea of a flat roof if he can see what it looks like. Mr. Moslemi said he could ask the architect to make a new drawing but it would cost a significant amount of money. He would rather have conditions built into the Design Permit. He would like to build it soon. Commissioner Larson remarked at some point there are too many modifications to feel comfortable without knowing what it would look like. Commissioner Thueson agreed. He cannot support the design as proposed. Chair Mino agreed there is not enough detail to approve it tonight. She would prefer a flat roof and finished metal. The Commission can either table it or ask the applicant to bring back an updated design. Councilmember Junker pointed out that when the Crosby was originally proposed, their steel outdoor patios were not patios, but just bars, and the Council approved the extended steel patios on the front. He would suggest moving in the direction of a flat porch roof going from the north end of the building to the south end of building, keeping it similar with the Crosby. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to table Case No. 2021-11, Design Permit for an exterior canopy located at 218 Main St N, requesting an updated design showing a flat roof with overhang extensions removed from the north and south building edges, that materials and colors be shown, and that the railing and edge of the roof be set back. All in favor. Case No. 2021-13: Consideration of a Design Permit for home remodel. Property located at 516 2nd St N in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the neighborhood Conservation District. Ron Brenner of Ron Brenner Architects. applicant and Brad and Tiffany Vick, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated that the applicant is seeking Design Permit approval for a front porch alteration and second story side/rear addition to this single family residence. There are some existing add -on elements that are not necessarily in keeping with the structure. The Vicks would like to remove the existing deck and covered portico and build a new two-story front porch filling in some of the two- story area. Overall, staff finds that with certain conditions, the project substantially conforms to the standards set forth in City Code as well as the applicable guidelines and therefore recommends approval with seven conditions. Commissioner Thueson asked if Sanborn maps showing the home are available. Ron Brenner, applicant, replied they tried to research the history of the house without success. They have tried to make the alterations look historic. The design will remove the awkward deck that is not historic to the home and make the second story more balanced and set back from Laurel Street proportional to the house. Ms. Wittman reviewed the Sanborn maps from 1888, 1891 and 1924 showing various additions made to the house over the years resulting in an awkward configuration in the front. Chair Mina commented that the design seems to fit the Design Permit guidelines and the mass and alterations seem to fit the street rhythm. Page 5 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 21, 2021 Commissioner Larson noted that the second story railing is eye-catching. It will look like it has always been there. The back of the house is well designed and will look more complete with the renovations. Motion by Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve Case No. 2021-13, Design Permit for home remodel at 516 2nd St N, with the seven staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. Case No. 2021-14: Consideration of a Design Permit for exterior modifications to the business located at 225 Main St N in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Central Business District Historic. Sara Imhoff of Imprint Architecture and Design. LLC, applicant and Brian Carlson. property owner. Ms. Wittman explained the application. Sara Imhoff of Imprint Architecture and Design has submitted a Design Permit application on behalf of Brian Carlson who intends to convert Maple Island Brewing into River Siren Brewing Company. As part of the conversion, a patio remodel and expansion, new entryway door, and other facade improvements, including painting, are proposed. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit for exterior facade improvements, including patio expansion, awning replacement, and installation of planter boxes on Main Street. The proposed modifications will not alter the character of the building and its surroundings. The addition of patio space in the downtown area helps increase the pedestrian scale of the site. While the patio expansion will result in a loss of onsite parking consistent with the design of adjacent buildings, staff finds the project substantially conforms to the adopted standards and guidelines and recommends approval with four conditions. Sara Imhoff, Imprint Architecture, said they are trying to enhance the pedestrian experience without incurring too many costs for the property owner. Interior configuration is limited by existing stills and sinks. The front door will still be accessible but the changes will guide customers into a larger side entrance that leads into the taproom. Jeremy Imhoff added that they will add onto the east and west ends of the canopy on the north side of the building to allow better connection to the streets. Councilmember Junker asked, what is the new decking material? Ms. Imhoff said it will be grey trex low maintenance decking. Commissioner Finwall asked if the patio will require a setback variance from the Planning Commission. Ms. Wittman answered yes. Commissioner Larson said this is a huge improvement, increasing the pedestrian feel. Councilmember Junker commended the applicants on the design of the east and north sides. Chair Mino pointed out a pedestrian friendly approach to Water Street will enhance the area. Commissioner Thueson asked if a trash enclosure is proposed. Ms. Imhoff replied there is currently a trash enclosure on Water Street shared with Forge & Foundry. Ms. Wittman suggested the Commission may want to add a fifth condition to enclose the trash. Scott Kragness, realtor, said the trash enclosure is part of an easement on Forge & Foundry property. Commissioner Thueson suggested another condition of approval requiring standard warm color temperature of lighting. Motion by Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. 2021-14, Design Permit for exterior modifications to the business located at 225 Main St N, with the four conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #5 stating exterior lighting shall not exceed 3,500 K; Condition Page 6 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 21, 2021 #6 stating all exterior lighting shall be submitted to staff for review and approval; and Condition #7 stating the property owner shall explore trash enclosure options with the adjacent neighbor. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Design Guideline Consolidation and Update Ms. Wittman provided the first draft of the updated Design Guidelines, preliminarily titled Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual. She asked that Commissioners forward their comments. Statewide Historic Preservation Conference Ms. Wittman stated that there are no updates from the State. Election of Officers Discussion Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission that elections of Chair and Vice Chair will he held in May. Commissioner Krakowski's term is expiring in May and he is not applying for reappointment. Awards Discussion The consensus of the Commission was to postpone the presentation of Historic Preservation Awards for this year again because in -person awards are not possible at this time due to COVID. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner A y Mi , Chair Page 7 of 7 ti 1 1water ' i. E BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2021-17 REPORT DATE: April 15, 2021 MEETING DATE: April 21, 2021 APPLICANT: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton LANDOWNER: Sofie Cohen REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for partial demolition, renovation and addition LOCATION: 1008 5th Street South DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Sofie Cohen owns the property at 1008 5th Street South, reportedly constructed in 1906. Located Churchill, Nelson & Slaughter's Addition (West 1/2) Heritage Preservation Planning Area (surveyed in 2002), little history of the property is known. A one story hip roof with front porch melded on, the structure is not eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, its construction era does fall within local and state contexts. Google Street View (August, 2013) HPC Case 2021-17 Page 2 of 5 The property owner would like to remove greater than 30% of the exterior of the existing structure, renovate the interior and exterior of the existing structure, and add new additions on to the single family home. The home will continue to be a single family residence. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is proposing to: 1. Remove an existing 400 s.f. (+/) one-story addition on the back of the home; 2. Removal of the existing roof system; and 3. Add (approximately) 1,800 s.f. of single -story addition with two car garage. The existing home and its addition will be clad in horizontal lap siding. Corner, trim, soffit and fascia boards will be utilized on all four sides. Windows in similar sizes and with similar details are proposed on all four sides. ANALYSIS Because greater than 30% of the exterior of this pre-1946 Neighborhood Conservation (overlay) District (NCD) structure of potential historic significance is proposed to be removed, the Demolition Permit application must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. As part of the review, City Code indicates the HPC will consider several review criteria prior to making its decision. A few relevant review criteria include: 1. The structural integrity of the building, site or structure proposed for demolition and evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain it; 2. The ability of the building, site or structure to be reused onsite in a reasonably economical way; 3. The site development proposal's conformance to the established district adopted guidelines and: 4. Any impact(s) that will occur to the visual character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. The applicant has provided details of the structure's current conditions. Reasons for the removal of the back 1/3 of the residence include: improper grading which had resulted in portions of the structure to be located below grade; sill and floor joist ground contact; rotted ceiling joists; cracked girder beam; and basement utility flooding. By removing this portion of the home and rebuilding it, the property owner will be able to remedy these issues, providing for more structural stability. Upon reviewing reports and review criteria, the HPC will make a determination whether the demolition permit should be approved based on demolition permit approval findings. If the HPC denies the permit application, it will forward a recommendation of denial to the city council. The Commission's review must then surround around whether or not the structure, as altered, impacts the visual character of the neighborhood and whether or not it conforms to the established district adopted guidelines. Utilizing the NCD guidelines, staff outlines the following assessment. Neighborhood and Streets HPC Case 2021-17 Page 3 of 5 Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. The existing structure is single story in a neighborhood predominantly comprised of 1.5-2 stories. The front of the home will be retained. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. The existing hip roof design home will be retained through it will be reconstructed. The ridge will be carried to the back of the addition where it will end in a gable. Approximately halfway down the roof's ridge the entryway and garage addition's roof will be located; this, too, will be a hipped design. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. A hipped roof on a single story structure, though not inherently common on Stillwater's South Hill, is appropriate for this one - story structure. Building and site design should respond to natural features. Respect the site's natural slope in new building design• minimize cut, fill The property has grade changes from the front to the rear which are retained in the back of the property. The property owner is proposing to install a new retaining wall in the back of the property to help provide for a better building site as well as improved property drainage. and retaining walls. When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. Preserve significant trees. No significant trees are proposed to be removed as part of this project. Any significant tree loss will require replacement. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The garage is proposed to be set back behind the main line of the home. Though it is proposed to be attached to the residence, it location on the lot is consistent with adjacent properties. Minimize garage impact on In addition to being located behind the front line of the residence, it will be located behind the front of the adjacent property to the south. new structure massing and street front. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The mass and scale of the new home is compatible with the property's size. HPC Case 2021-17 Page 4 of 5 Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. The existing front porch has been enclosed for some time. The owners are proposing to remove the entrance at the existing porch and relocate it further away from the road. While this is not necessarily encouraged, it is consistent with the design of the home. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. The attached garage meets this guideline. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. 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 tricky part with this design is it is a single story residence is located on a street full of 1.5- to 2-story structures. While the applicant initially discussed a two-story garage addition, that addition looked out of character/scale of the historic portion of the home. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The building's form and its additions are proportional to the scale of the residence and its context. Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. The proposed design is simple which supports the historic design of the home. The materials, textures, and colors are compatible with the surrounding properties and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood. Use masonry and stone authentically. No masonry or stone is proposed. The house is situated on rusticated concrete block. This will remain exposed in the front of the home. 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 for the issuance of a Demolition Permit, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2021-17 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. 2020-33, except as modified HPC Case 2021-17 Page 5 of 5 by conditions herein or other City of Stillwater Planning Commission and/or City Council approval. 2. All new utilities will be located underground. 3. Exterior lighting shall be shielded from neighboring properties. 4. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 5. The driveway shall be improved in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 6. 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. 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 of the Demolition Permit review process is to help achieve goals of community sustainability, protection of affordable housing, and the preservation of the community character. In determining whether a Demolition Permit should be granted, the HPC must find: (1) Demolition of the resource has been evaluated against and, on balance, has been found supportive of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and relevant area plans, taking into account factors such as: the merits of proposed new development on the site, the merits of preserving the resource, and the area's desired character; and (2) Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the site. Overall staff finds the proposed project has been designed to fit with Stillwater's traditional neighborhood design and substantially conforms to the Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request NCD Application Block Detail Existing Site Plan Exterior Photos Proposed Demolition Plan Existing Conditions (7 pages) Proposed Site Plans Exterior Elevations (4 pages) cc: Sofie Cohen Spencer Middleton Subject: Application for partial demolition and redevelopment of 1008 Fifth St S Applicants: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 3/26/2021 Dear Heritage Preservation Commission, We are writing you to request approval to demolish and redevelop a portion of our recently purchased house at 1008 Fifth St S. Since beginning interior demo last month, we have discovered a slew of structural and safety issues, primarily in the Western portion of the house, including the following: 1. Due to the existing grade on the North side of the house, the skirt board at the NW corner is 6" underground. 2. Inadequate digging of the crawlspace, resulting in an excess of dirt piled up next to the Northern foundation. The dirt is, in some places, higher than the stone foundation, meaning the timber sill and floor joists have been sitting and rotting in the dirt for an unknown number of years. 3. Black mold visible on the inside sheathing of the Western wall. 4. Rotting ceiling joists due to years of water infiltration from roof leaks. 5. The 6x6 girder beam supporting the floor joists has several cracks spanning multiple feet, compromising its structural integrity. 6. Existing furnace, water heater, and electrical panel are located in a cellar, accessible only via a trap door. The "basement" area, roughly 9' X 6', is seasonally flooded. Former owner had equipment installed on pallets. Following these discoveries and conversations with several contractors, we have devised a plan that, we think, will solve the above issues as well as improve the structural integrity and visual appeal of the house, all while matching the original, Eastern portion of the structure in order to maintain the historical charm of the property. The changes we are proposing are as follows: • Demolish and rebuild the Western portion of the house • Install a code compliant footing, foundation, and basement under the new West section • Remove existing garage, and build a 2-car attached garage We are excited to put in the time and effort required to improve this property and make it a delightful addition to Stillwater's Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Neighborhood housing stock. We hope our application reflects the amount of careful consideration that has gone into our proposed project and its impact on the surrounding area. Thank you for considering our application, and we look forward to meeting with you to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Sofie Cohen & Spencer Middleton 1117 Broadway St N Design Review Application and Checklist This Design Review Application and Checklist should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact: Stillwater City Planning Office 651-430-8821 City Hall 216 N. 46 St. Stillwater, MN 55082 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us Project Address: 1008 5th St S Stillwater, MN 55082 Applicant name, address, telephone: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 1117 Broadway St N Stillwater, MN 55082 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: • Vernacular ❑ Italianate ❑ Queen Anne ❑ Gothic ❑ Greek Revival ❑ Second Empire ❑ American Foursquare ❑ Stick ❑ Other: 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) 20' Average setback on block (est.) 25' Proposed new house setback 34' 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories 1 1-1/2 2 House on right ❑ ❑ SI House on left ❑ ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ ❑ Proposed new house ® ❑ ❑ 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch None House on right ® ❑ House on left ® ❑ House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ® ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ Notes: 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 Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right ❑ House on left House to rear Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage Garage ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) Garage will be compatible with main house. 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? : N/A Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines Design Review Application and Checklist 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) i Structure sited parallel to slope ❑ Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) • Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) ❑ Types of trees Silver Maple ❑ Heights 50' ❑ Trunk diam. 18" Notes: No plans to remove any signifcant trees. 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: Not affected House to left: Not affected House to rear: Not affected Notes: How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? • Locate structure on lot to minimize impact ❑ Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact ❑ Other: 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy?(Guidelines #22,#23) House to right: Not affected House to left: Not affected House to rear: Not affected Notes: How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? • Offset/locate windows to reduce impact ❑ Use obscure glass in window ❑ Locate balconies to minimize impact. • Use landscaping elements for screening ❑ Other: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors?(Guideline #25) ❑ Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property • Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property ❑ Other: To be included with this Application and Checklist: ❑ Site Plan: 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. ❑ Regular Planning Department Development Application Form Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines (p2of2) z n n 1008 5TH STS Scale: No,S�ale Sheet # A 0 O k< Gim fV 3uzz 1 1 1 7 Stillwater, buzzchickley@cmail.com iddleton Chickley, 3roadwa N\ Inc. y St \ Sof aa 1 -� Stl 008 I C lWCtCr C Co ��ft h 9 c n / St \ S Block Detail Of: _ Drawn. 80' 65'-9" She 243 Sq. d Ft. Existing Retaining Wall 30'-7" Garage 600 Sq. Ft. 10'-8" Exists Hous 12 Sq. Ft. 49-8" 7'-11" 20' i Z75 Scale: No Scale O N Sheet # A 0 E, Gim fV 3uzz 1 1 17 Stillwater, iddleton Chickley, roadway N\ Inc. St \ o Sof � � 1 Stl 008 i C WCtCr C Co FIft h 9 c n \� St S Existing Site Plan Drawn. ft • - v-_� ;..== ;� , x>ct� yr. �.- -� `;TY_-•,z'- .a • � i .�y:+�}., r�Y {" q`-u • r3`-- } 7✓r T„y:=�1.� J':Ti/r's""i.=."�°i. .ii]�YVC.-i_itT�l Remove Shed Existing Retaining Wall Remove Retaining Wall Garage Remove Garage Remove This Section Sheet # A 0 E, * k< Gim Viccleton fuzz 1 1 1 7 Stillwater, Chickley, 3roadwa V\ Inc. y St \ S � � 1 Sti of 008 i C I watcr, C Co- ��ft C ,. n V\ St S Proposed Demo Plan Of: Drawn. - 4 k. 80' New Retaining Wall 50' Existing Retaining Wall 58'-8" Patio 285 Sq. Ft. Proposed House With Attached Garage 2783 Sq. Ft. 14'-11" 9'-7" 1 co rn VJ (75 - LL 49 -8" Bituminous Drive 859 Sq. Ft. Scale: No Scale O N Sheet # A 0 E, * Gim fV 3uzz 1 1 17 Stillwater, iddleton Chickley, 3roadwa N\ Inc. Y St \ o SOfIC m 1 - Stl 0 0 8 H Actor COhcn C I I f t 9 V\ St Proposed Site Plan Of . Lot Size: 10,800 Sq. Ft. Drawn: a I Scale: No Scale 0 N Sheet # 0 Gim Midleton 0 Sofie Cohen East Elevation v Buzz Chickley, Inc. Of: 1117 Broadway St N * o m 1008 5th St S CO Stillwater, MN 7 Stillwater, MN Drawn: I I Scale: No Scale •N Sheet # 2 0 Gim Midleton 0 Sofie Cohen North Elevation v Buzz Chickley, Inc. Of: * 1117 Broadway St N 0 0 D 1008 5th St S Drawn: co Stillwater, MN m Stillwater, MN r � r 0 Scale: No Scale •N Sheet # 2 0 Gim Midleton 0 Sofie Cohen West Elevation v Buzz Chickley, Inc. Of: * 1117 Broadway St N 0 o 0 1008 5th St S Drawn: Stillwater, MN ,< buzzchickley@gmail.com CD � Stillwater V MN J I � Scale: No Scale •N Sheet # 2 0 Gim Midleton 0 Sofie Cohen South Elevation v Buzz Chickley, Inc. Of: * 1117 Broadway St N 0 o 0 1008 5th St S Drawn: 00 Stillwater, MN v, Stillwater, MN